Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Articles Going To Judiciary Committee For Debate; Democrats Unveil Two Impeachment Articles Against Trump; Trump Host Foreign Minister Lavrov At White House; Volcanic Conditions Hinder Recovery Efforts; Final Campaign Push Ahead Of Thursday's Vote; Bloomberg says, Trump Is Getting Stronger; The Afghanistan Papers; Aung San Suu Kyi to Address U.N. High Court. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired December 11, 2019 - 01:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[01:00:00]

JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: -- in the Oval Office. And her name was once mentioned alongside Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, but now Aung San Suu Kyi will speak out defending Myanmar's military against charges of genocide.

U.S. House Democrats have decided to narrowly focus on impeachment case on the President's decision to ask Ukraine for help in his 2020 reelection campaign, the U.S. military aid for political investigation scandal. The House Judiciary Committee will debate two articles of impeachment on Wednesday, the end result of a two-month-long investigation which heard from dozens of witnesses, 17 testifying publicly.

The articles are both related to the President's request for Ukraine to help with that 2020 reelection. That's article one, abuse of power. Article two, obstructing Congress, was based on the White House's refusal to provide documents and allow witnesses to testify.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The framers of the Constitution prescribed a clear remedy for presidents who so violate their oath of office. That is the power of impeachment. Today, in service to our duty to the constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment, charging the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, with committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): We stand here today because the President's continuing abuse of his power has left us no choice. To do nothing would make ourselves complicit in the President's abuse of his high office, the public trust, and our national security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: President Trump though downplaying all of this calling it impeachment lies and weak.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Republicans have stuck together. It's a witch hunt. It's a terrible thing. But even the Democrats, they couldn't find very much because they put up two articles that, frankly a very weak. They're very weak.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: So what's next in the impeachment process? CNN's Phil Mattingly has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You have the articles of impeachment. Now we know there are two of them, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. And that's obviously a huge step for basically laying the groundwork for an almost certain vote to impeach President Trump.

But here's what's going to happen going forward. Right now you've got members of the Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans meeting behind closed doors to kind of plan the process of actually considering those articles of impeachment and that's where they will initially start in the committee process where they will what's called mark up those articles to see if Republicans can get any changes, to see if Democrats want any changes. The assumption right now is no but it will be the legislative process in the committee.

It will be lengthy. It will start Wednesday night and continue into Thursday. Don't expect many changes, if any changes at all to be made, but there will be certainly a lot of back and forth. And what this all tees up is a final House vote. We've been talking now for several weeks that House Democratic leaders have been targeting next week as the week that they vote to impeach President Trump. They are very much on target for that vote to happen at that timeline.

Now, we don't know the exact day yet. We don't know the exact process of how it's going to be structured and played out. But we do know those two articles of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, abuse of power will get house four votes next week. Those votes to impeach President Trump only the third president in the United States history to be impeached. And then sending those articles of impeachment over to the United States Senate for a trial. A trial that likely won't start until sometime the first or second week in January.

But we know for sure the House is moving, the House is moving quickly, legislative action in the committee this week, House floor vote next week.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: CNN Presidential Historian and the former Director of the Nixon Presidential Library, Tim Naftali is with us now from Washington. So, Tim, we've got the Democrats now filing just two articles of impeachment narrowly focused on Ukraine, no specific mention of the Mueller report or the Russia investigation on election meddling, nothing to do with the Emoluments Clause, for example. It seems you know, even the White House was expecting, you know, a bigger scope here with the articles. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANIE GRISHAM, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We were anticipating certainly that they would come forth with articles of impeachment, but we thought actually that it was going to be four or five. I think that perhaps Speaker Pelosi had to make a deal with her Dems.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Do you think this is part of a deal that Pelosi stuck with the moderate Democrats and those Trump leaning states make it easier for them, or is this just the KISS theory at work, keep it -- keep it simple, stupid.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, I'm not surprised that the White House didn't quite understand the Constitution in this instance. Under the Constitution, the House has the sole prerogative of impeachment. And the members of the -- of the committee that the house chooses to look this over, they are to act like jurors. So they have to study information, evidence.

You would have had to provided them with evidence from the Mueller investigation so that they could then pass judgment on whether there were any reasons for impeachment within that collection of data. All the data they received was the -- that I understand that they received was from the House Intelligence Committee.

So they weren't going to have articles of impeachment regarding potential misconduct that other investigations had looked at but for which they received no information. It made -- it would make no sense at all. So the pool of information from which they decided to seek two articles of impeachment was that pool of information generated through the investigation of the House impeachment -- the House Intelligence Committee.

[01:05:52]

VAUSE: I want to ask you about the language you used at the very end of the articles of impeachment because this clearly this language was not included in the articles that were up against Nixon or Bill Clinton. After describing Trump as a threat to national security, it goes on to add, "President Trump does warrant impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

Was that language included because of the speculation that had been out there for a while that, you know, if Donald Trump in the unlikely event he was removed by the Senate from offers, he could actually run again in 2020 and win?

NAFTALI: Well, I believe that the language is there because Donald Trump is the first president in the 20th -- the first in the 20th century, 21st and 20th century, the modern era, who is being impeached at the end of his first term.

Andrew Johnson, in the 19th century, actually had dreams of being a reelected -- of running again and being reelected. He was ultimately not nominated by the Democratic Party in 1868. But he actually could have run again in 1868. But after the change in the law, after the changes in the constitution following FDR, no American president can serve more than two terms.

And so Donald Trump is the first president who faces the possibility of being impeached in his first term, and therefore, by the terms of the Constitution, he is eligible for reelection. If he were removed under the circumstances, this impeachment would prevent him from running again.

VAUSE: OK, very quickly. You know, one of the choices the Democrats had to make here was you know, impeach him now or just let voters decide on the President's fate in November next year. The Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff explained why they decided to impeach. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHIFF: The argument, why don't you just wait amounts to this. Why don't you just let him cheat in one more election? Why not let him cheat just one more time? Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: It always seemed an odd argument to me. You know, allow an election to the side the faith of the guy who's been trying to rig that election?

NAFTALI: Yes. Well, and I think there's another argument to be made. I understand why Congressman Schiff made the argument he made, but there's another argument, which is it if Congress allowed the behavior it learned about from the whistleblower to go unchecked, then I believe, was laying the foundation for future presidents to suborn and subvert U.S. foreign relations for their domestic political needs, and that's very dangerous.

Regardless of the President, whether Republican or Democrat, you do not want presidents to use the Trump approach to foreign policy. So I think this impeachment, regardless of its short term political consequences, is letting -- or set down a marker for a future president. Your administration will be tainted if you attempt to imitate Donald Trump's approach to the Ukrainians.

VAUSE: We're out of time, but very quickly. So just with the argument though, is the obstruction of Congress charge here, the one which is I guess, in the overall scheme of things, the one which sort of has the greatest ramifications if that is not defended, if Congress is right to oversight is not defended?

NAFTALI: Well, I think both are very important. I believe that an abuse of power is one of the most dangerous source of misconduct by a president. Presidents have enormous power, and so much happens under the radar. If they see -- if they feel they have license to use the instruments of government to promote their own personal agendas and to go after their personal enemies, This country would be a very different place.

Richard Nixon tried to do it and he got caught. It seems Donald Trump tried to do it and at the very least, he is going to bear forever a political stain because of it. The other is important too, but there's a long history of constitutional debate between the executive branch and the legislative branch as to how much compliance there should be.

One of the things that never been -- that has never been tested by the Supreme Court or in the Supreme Court is the extent to which an executive -- the executive has to help Congress impeach it. That's never been tested. And so the second article, while very important, it's part of the long term struggle between the two of the branches of the U.S. government.

[01:10:33]

VAUSE: Yes. I guess my argument was that if you don't have that oversight, then essentially the executive can do essentially whatever they want. But your point, I take as well. Tim, thank you so much. Good to see you. I appreciate it.

NAFTALI: My pleasure. Thank you.

VAUSE: Just like the impeachment investigation which we found no political motivation behind the FBI's Russia investigation, President Trump still claims his campaign was spied on by the Bureau and he was the target of a deep state conspiracy.

An Inspector General's report found both claims were baseless and the FBI was justified in opening investigation in ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. FBI Director Christopher Wray also shut down another Trump conspiracy theory saying there's no evidence of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election. It was all Russia. And Wray who was appointed by Trump stood by the I.G. report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FBI: The Inspector General did not find that political bias or improper motivations impacted the decision to open the Russia interference investigation or the decisions to use certain investigative tools in the investigation. But that doesn't end the inquiry for me. What's important to me is I make sure and we make sure that we're doing everything by the book, bias or no bias.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: The I.G. did find 17 examples of mistakes, in particular, how surveillance applications were handled with regards to the Trump campaign and the aide Carter Page. The President and his backers have lashed onto that one element saying it proves spying and the conspiracy. Here's the Attorney General William Barr. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES: -- clearly spied upon. I mean, that's what electronic surveillance is. I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying. I think going through people's e-mails, which they did as a result of the FISA warrant. They went through everything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: President Trump now suggesting that because Wray spoke out and told the truth and use facts, his time at the FBI may be short. He tweeted, "I don't know why what current report director -- sorry, what report current director of the FBI Cristopher Wray was, but sure it wasn't the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken, despite having some of the greatest men and women working."

Tuesday offered a 2017 flashback at the White House. President Trump was attacking the Russia probe and slamming the FBI director. He was also meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. CNN's Matthew Chance reports now from Moscow.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the fact neither U.S nor Russian media were allowed to even take a photograph of the meeting between President Trump or the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, underlines just how sensitive this encounter was particularly at a time when President Trump is facing an impeachment process but withholding military aid from Ukraine, a country which Russia has impart invaded.

In a news conference after the meeting, Foreign Minister Lavrov spoke of a range of issues that him and the U.S. President have discussed, arms control, the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, the situation with the Iranian nuclear deal, and economic cooperation between the United States and Russia.

He did not give a clear answer, however, when asked repeatedly, President Trump had warned Russia not to interfere in U.S. elections. The White House insists that President Trump did issue such a warning. When pressed on the issue, Lavrov acknowledged that the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke on the matter, but made no reference to President Trump.

Well, this was the first official meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and Lavrov since May 2017 when Trump is alleged to have discussed highly classified intelligence with the Russian Foreign Minister and the then-Russian ambassador.

Lavrov also confirms an invitation for Trump to attend Victory Day celebrations in Moscow next year, but said that the American president was yet to decide whether or not he would come. Matthew Chance CNN, Moscow. (END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: Volcanic conditions on New Zealand's White Island are hindering recovery efforts. Two days after an eruption killed at least six people, it's still too dangerous to deploy teams to the island. Eight people remain missing, sad to say another eruption is likely within 24 hours.

[01:15:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM LEONARD, VOLCANIC GEOLOGIST, GNS SCIENCE: In summary, yesterday there was a -- there was a high risk of an eruption. Today there was an even higher risk of interruption. And the parameters are worsening at the moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Many survivors suffered excessive burns to their bodies as well as their lungs. 25 people remain in hospital in critical condition. Coming up on CNN NEWSROOM, we're on the eve of the Brexit election in the U.K. and totally uphill for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Also ahead, a wakeup call for the newest billionaire Democrat running for the White House. Michael Bloomberg says his opponents would get eaten alive by Donald Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEDRAM JAVAHERI, CNN INTERNATIONAL METEOROLOGIST: I'm meteorologist Pedram Javaheri, CNN whether watch and weather pattern across. The America is watching another front pushing across portions of the Great Lakes and with it of course, getting the cold air is moving directly over the relatively warm Great Lakes of the United States. And within some of that energy transfer equals some snow showers possible on the eastern more favorable areas of the Great Lakes over the next couple of days.

But the initial system does push off towards the east and the bigger story here becomes the colder air that a cell then across portions of the northeastern United States. In fact, easily the coldest air of the year depending on who you talk to. But in New York City the afternoon high on Wednesday about three degrees after the morning starts out some snow showers could drop down to about, say, one degree for an afternoon high by Thursday afternoon but we do get a climb up into the trends of about 13 degrees by Saturday there.

So a warming trend at least possible here as we going towards this weekend. In Winnipeg, 18 below for your high, San Francisco comes in at 16, Dallas, Texas, sunny skies. It's about a 10 to 12 degrees in that region. Well, the tropics remain quiet generally going to be in the upper 20s and lower 30s. Mexico City, a comfortable 21-degree afternoon and the tropics remaining quiet. There's our departing front pushing off shore.

And then maybe with what's happening across the southern hemisphere (INAUDIBLE) about 30 degrees (INAUDIBLE) comes in with a few thunderstorms. Highs there should be right around 30 degrees.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Much to the relief of exhausted nation, there's just one more day left before voting begins in Britain's third election in five years. Prime Minister Boris, I'm really subtle, Johnson is driving home. His message that he'll get Brexit done by bulldozing through a wall of Styrofoam bricks in case you missed the symbolism the word gridlock was actually painted onto the brick set. His considered parties on track to win a majority in Parliament.

[01:20:07]

VAUSE: That's based on the latest YouGov projections, and the conservatives will take home 339 seats but that's less than last month's forecast. Labour Party set to win 231 seats, the Scottish National Party, 41 seats and 15 seats will go to the ones powerful Liberal Democrats who are now pretty much minority party. Labeling and Jeremy Corbyn has exceeded expectations in previous elections, but this time around to call back the conservative lead. CNN Phil Black has a report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PHIL BLACK, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Round two for Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour leader, who in 2017 defy his unelectable reputation by losing. Just by a smaller margin than most predicted.

This hugely passionate supporters hope he can do better this time. But he's shedding fans too in places like this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Labour is only a (INAUDIBLE)

BLACK: The so-called Red Wall, Labour's traditional working-class heartlands, parts of the country that overwhelmingly voted for Brexit. Here, the verdict from lifelong Labour voters can be scathing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not so much Labour, it's -- what's the vote name, that's Corbyn, as you? The idiot.

BLACK: You didn't like him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I like him too.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Labour will got a chance unless they get rid that Corbyn.

BLACK: Not just the man, it's also his Brexit policy. Like most of Britain, the party, and its voters had divided on the country's defining political issue. So, Corbyn has decided not to take sides. He's offering a second referendum where he as prime minister would stay neutral.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't need a coward. There's too many cowards. And Jeremy Corbyn is a coward. Big sea. BLACK: That strength of feeling means other parties now sense opportunity. The Conservatives are fighting to win places they've been locked out of for decades.

NIGEL FARAGE, LEADER, BREXIT PARTY: We're going to go on fighting until we get there.

BLACK: And the Brexit Party is feeling cocky about taking Labour seats too. This represents your cushion to essentially Labour territory -- a labor fortress. What can you realistically expect to achieve in these sorts of regions?

FARAGE: With seats around here, where 70 percent of people voted to leave in the referendum 3-1/2 years ago, they now represented by Labour M.P.'s and were standing on a ticket saying you must have a second referendum because you got it wrong the first time.

And I think, into a space like that something remarkable can easily happen.

BLACK: Jeremy Corbyn likes to say his Brexit policy is sensible, the adult thing to do.

JEREMY CORBYN, LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY: Let's take this out of the hands of politicians and give the British people the final say. It's time to bring our divided country together.

BLACK: But he knows spent sitting on Brexit won't be enough to win power. So, he's taken all the popular ideas from his 2017 campaign and turned them up to 11.

CORBYN: This manifesto is, and I'm proud of it, the most radical and ambitious plan to transform our country for decades.

BLACK: Labour's plan, tax businesses in high incomes. Borrow, spend, and invest on an extraordinary scale.

CORBYN: We'll rebuild our schools, our hospitals, care homes, and the housing so desperately need.

BLACK: Corbyn's other key tactic is designed to scare.

CORBYN: His toxic deal with Donald Trump --

BLACK: Weaponizing Donald Trump.

CORBYN: We will never let Donald Trump get his hands on our NHS.

BLACK: Corbyn likes to remind voters, Trump is tight with Conservative leader Boris Johnson. And he claims they're plotting to give U.S. companies greater access to Britain's most beloved institution, the National Health Service.

Both Trump and Johnson have denied this repeatedly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why are you doing that, why do you believe it's politically advantageous?

CORBYN: I think we're absolutely right to analyze this and point it out in this election campaign. You vote for Boris Johnson, you've got a trade deal with the USA and all the implications that go with it.

BLACK: Since taking over Labour more than four years ago, Corbyn has successfully worked to remake the party in his image. So, to realign it with his acutely left-wing worldview.

CORBYN: It's time for real change.

BLACK: This election is almost certainly his last chance to convince voters he should be allowed to do the same to the whole country.

Phil Black, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: Well, the U.S. Democrat running for the White House has worn President Donald Trump is getting stronger is and he's on course to win this coming up election. In an exclusive interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Michael Bloomberg, the former New York Mayor explained why he's worried. The current Democrat frontrunner says don't have what it takes to beat the Donald.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[01:25:04]

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, FOUNDER AND CEO, BLOOMBERG: I think is very sad for this country that I can say the following. But unfortunately, the evidence seems to be serious enough that I would if I was in the Senate, or in the House, I would vote for impeachment. But I don't think we should do this lightly. I think it's a great danger, you influence the political process. Fundamentally, I think the electorate should decide who they lead by. And if they have an opportunity to throw them out every four years.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: So your campaign manager said and he said to me, and he said to others that it looks like it's impeach, acquit reelect, talking about Donald Trump in the House -

(CROSSTALK)

BLOOMBERG: The first two, you can be pretty sure that both of those is going to happen, getting impeached and not getting convicted, getting reelected. That's what an election is all about. It's not until -

AMANPOUR: That's one of the reasons why you've jumped in because you think right now Trump is winning.

BLOOMBERG: I think Trump is getting stronger. And I think he would just eat alive the candidates that because they don't have plans that I think are practical that can be implemented. They don't have management experience on the President's drugs and management drugs, four million people to manage. And if you don't have a lot of management experience, this is not a job where you take training wheels.

This is the future of the world, the free world, maybe the whole world, and you need people with experience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Bloomberg is using unconventional campaign strategies keeping the early states like Iowa and New Hampshire, spending millions on T.V. ads in the largest states. Unlike Rudy Giuliani back in 2008 figures on Florida. Next on CNN NEWSROOM, history repeating itself. Decades after the Pentagon Papers expose U.S. mislead - U.S. leaders, but misleading the public on Vietnam. It seems the same thing happening again this time in Afghanistan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[01:30:21]

VAUSE: Nearly 60 years ago, the world saw the Pentagon papers, a massive leak of top secret documents revealing the truth about America's role in the Vietnam War, and efforts by the most senior government officials to mislead the public about the scope of the conflicts, America's success or lack thereof.

The man responsible for that leak was Daniel Eisenberg, a former U.S. Marine turned anti-war activist who now says a new investigation by the "Washington Post" on the war in Afghanistan is eerily similar leading him to declare Afghanistan is Vietnam.

Here's CNN's Jim Sciutto.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: A massive new trove of confidential documents obtained by the "Washington Post" revealed U.S. officials systematically lied to the American public about the Afghan war, virtually since the beginning, 18 years ago.

The objective, to conceal widespread fears that America was losing. The "Post" says it has obtained more than 2,000 pages of documents. Some part of a lengthy government report called "Lessons Learned". And it quote, "Several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained effort by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public."

They said it was common in the military headquarters in Kabul and at the White House to distort statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case.

The report includes interviews with more than 600 people with firsthand war experience. It includes memos from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who once wrote in April 2002, six months after the war began, "I know I'm a bit impatient but the fact that Iran and Russia have plans for Afghanistan and we don't concerns me." He ends the notes with, "Help (EXCLAMATION POINT).

General Douglas Luke (ph) who served as the White House's Afghan war czar for President Bush and security advisor to Obama is quoted in the report saying "In 2015 we were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan. We didn't know what we were doing."

COLONEL CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: What we are looking at here is something that calls into question not only our military operations, but also is the dishonor to the sacrifices that have been made by the servicemen and women in Afghanistan over these years. This is an inexcusable way to run things.

SCIUTTO: The revelations are reminiscent of the Pentagon Papers, a top secret Defense Department study of the Vietnam war, which were first made public in 1971 when they were published by the "New York Times".

LEIGHTON: It's very similar to what happened with the Pentagon Papers ecause, again, a strategy is being called into question. The rosy picture that has been painted by our political and military leadership is not the real picture on the ground.

SCIUTTO: To date the U.S. has not carried out a comprehensive accounting of how much it has spent on the war in Afghanistan. Since 2001, the government has spent or appropriated between $934 billion and $978 billion according to an inflation adjusted estimates cited in the "Post".

In the report one unnamed executive with USAID estimated that 90 percent of what U.S. spent was overkill. The "Post" says it obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act after a three- year quest.

In response to the piece, Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Campbell said Monday, quote, "There has been no intent by the DOD to mislead Congress or the public. Most of the individuals interviewed spoke with the benefit of hindsight."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: Jim Sciutto there with that report.

Short break -- when we come back, a one-time human rights icon is set to argue against genocide charges. Aung San Suu Kyi, ready to come to the defense of the military, the one that kept her under house arrest for more than a decade.

[01:34:09]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: In a few hours, the once respected and admired Nobel Peace Prize winner whose name was often mentioned alongside the likes of Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi will stand before the International Court of Justice, defend her government, her generals and her military against charges of genocide.

The case began on Tuesday with graphic accounts of rape and murder carried out by Myanmar's military against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State. And through it all Aung San Suu Kyi seemed impassive.

There's been international condemnation of Suu Kyi's decision to defend Myanmar's generals, but it has put boosted her popularity at home. Thousands of her supporters rallied in Yangon on Tuesday.

Yanghee Lee is the U.N. special rapporteur on Myanmar. And she is with us live from Seoul in South Korea. Thank you, ma'am, for being with us.

Back in December of 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest. Her two sons, her husband accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf. Here's part of the reason why the committee chose her.

In the good fight for peace and reconciliation, we are dependent on persons who set examples, persons who can symbolize what we are seeking and mobilize the best in us. Aung San Suu Kyi is just such a person

That was 1991. In a few hours, she coming to defend her military against genocide. Defend them against well-documented accounts of systematic rape, mass murder and terror directed at the Rohingya Muslim for no other reason than the fact they were Rohingya.

I mean I guess, you know, you can't fool all the people all the time but she came pretty close.

YANGHEE LEE, U.N. SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON MYANMAR: Absolutely. Absolutely.

We have to be aware that there are effectively Aung San Suu Kyis in Myanmar. One Aung San Suu Kyi prior to 2015 elections and another Aung San Suu Kyi post-2015 elections. The one we are seeing in the Hague is the Aung San Suu Kyi post-2015.

VAUSE: Yes. I mean the main line of defense coming from Myanmar and Suu Kyi is this claim the military was just responding to a threat of domestic terrorism. And even if that is true, even if that's the case, there's still no legal or moral or ethical justification to the response by Myanmar's military. And not just in that instance with the Rohingya. It continues to carry out, you know, genocide as a tactic.

LEE: Absolutely. And I had conveyed that to her when I met her for the last time in the 2017. And she was not very eager to listen to what I had to say, or for that matter for whatever other people had to say.

But today is a historic moment -- the past day and the next day. The neck (ph) of the following three days will be a historic moment for the Rohingya, for any possibility of accountability or justice for the atrocities that were committed in Myanmar. VAUSE: I want to get to that in the moment, but when you interact

with Aung San Suu Kyi, I'm just interested in how she deals with bad news because, you know, there is some belief that she genuinely believes the military has done nothing wrong.

There is a report in the "Washington Post" which says she is taken to regarding factual reports about the 2016, 2017 ethnic cleansing campaign, directed at the Rohingya Muslims as a militant conspiracy theory targeting to undermine her and the country and perhaps so closely I should say.

When confronted with critical challenge, she flies into a fit of anger saying these are all fabricated allegations.

So you know, if she doesn't believe her military has carried out these atrocities, that has to be a conscious choice, right because the facts (INAUDIBLE).

[01:39:53]

LEE: Yes. And I think it is a conscious choice made by her. And I remember reading her before the elections, when she was just a parliamentarian, and hoping to become the leader of Myanmar.

After her election she has been singing a different song from a different song sheet. And at the very end, she was telling me, when I was pushing her for the truth about Rakhine and how she needs to go to Rakhine to see what's really happened on the ground. She repeated the phrase that she's repeated to others, whereby she would say if you continue this U.N. narrative, you may not get any access to the country.

That is when I was really appalled, so I really do feel that she feels that the military, that her dear late father had formed can do no wrong. But this is so different from what she had said in her -- that you can see in her video tapes about how the military has used rape as a tool in conflict.

And so this is so different where she denies the fact that the technical or the security forces would ever rape or torture women and men and children.

VAUSE: She's making this appearance before the International Court of Justice with the full blessing of the military, which is notable in a number of ways, but it also seems that I think they're setting her up as a patsy, as the fall guy for genocide.

LEE: You know, I'm really saddened to see her leading this delegation. Normally an attorney general or a minister of defense would be in a perfect position to do this.

You know, I've had enormous respect for Aung San Suu Kyi and this way she cannot erase the truth that she has been complicit with the genocide. And she is also responsible for genocide. Now she has no opportunity of turning around and slapping the military. VAUSE: Very quickly. There seems to be two reasons why this matters,

because genocide is still taking place as a tactic in Myanmar. And then there's the issue of international investment and foreign aid.

Aung San Suu Kyi she is the face of Myanmar. That she is why investors put their money there. Why the international community helps out with financial aid. They need to be aware of what they are getting.

LEE: Absolutely. And I have repeatedly asked for the international community to reconsider investing in all the activities that the military has done and their businesses related associates and friends of the military, whereby the conflict is escalating and where they have really abused and violated human rights of, not just the Rohingya, but the Rakhine, the Kachin, the Chin and the Mon and the Cayenne (ph) and Karen Community. All of the ethnic minorities states that the military has been heavily involved in extractive industries and power industries.

VAUSE: Yanghee Lee, the U.N. special rapporteur on Myanmar -- thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm john Vause.

"WORLD SPORT" is next.

[01:43:17]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)