Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Full House to Hold Vote on Impeachment Articles against President Trump; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Says He Will Be Coordinating Senate Impeachment Trial with White House Counsel; North Korea Claims to Have Conducted Recent Missile Tests to Pressure U.S. in Negotiations; Supreme Court will Hear Cases regarding President Trump's Financial Records; President Trump Claims Tentative Trade Deal with China; Former Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin Criticized for Pardons and Sentence Commutations of Hundreds of Convicted Criminals; Army to Play Navy in Annual Football Game; Company Produces Solar Panel Glass Windows. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired December 14, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:16]

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Happy Saturday and good morning to you. I'm Christi Paul.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Victor Blackwell. You are in the CNN Newsroom.

President Trump should know his fate when it comes to the impeachment inquiry by Wednesday. That's when the full House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

PAUL: Now, if passed, President Trump would become the third president in U.S. history to be impeached by the House, but the president has a lot to say about this. He is in a political fight here. We have learned that he would prefer a long Senate trial, and he wants witnesses.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'll do whatever they want to do, it doesn't matter. I wouldn't mind a long process because I'd like to see the whistle-blower, who's a fraud. The whistle-blower wrote a false report. And I really blew it up when I released the transcript of the call. And then Schiff gets up and he -- and I blew him up, too, because he went up in front of Congress and he made a statement about what I said that was totally false.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: CNN's Kristen Holmes is at this White House. So we know the president is already tweeting about impeachment today. What's he saying, Kristen? And good morning. KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Christi.

Yes, and it's no surprise. On Thursday we actually saw President Trump have one of the most if not the most prolific day on Twitter that he's had yet. And of course, that was the day that the Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote. So he is back on Twitter this morning.

And here's what he had to say. He said "After watching the disgraceful way that a wonderful man, Brett Kavanaugh, was treated by the Democrats, and now seeing firsthand how these same radical left, Do Nothing Dems, are treating the whole impeachment hoax, I understand why so many Dems are voting Republican."

Again, it's no surprise that President Trump is taking to Twitter. Expect this to be a large part of his offensive over the next couple of weeks. He believes this is the best way to get his message across to his supporters.

And I want to talk a little bit about that trial that you mentioned there. We know President Trump has expressed interest in a longer trial of having some of those bigger names, Adam Schiff, the whistle- blower there. But Senate Republicans, they are the ones who are actually going to decide what this trial actually looks like. And they are warning the president that that might not be a good thing. A lengthier trial with more witnesses might mean more witnesses that come from the Democratic side, which could be a problem for President Trump.

So it will be interesting to see how these two sides come together here. We know, of course, that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is working with White House counsel, that they have agreed to basically work hand in hand throughout this process, but they have not quite agreed to what exactly the impeachment trial strategy will look like.

BLACKWELL: Kristen, Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, he was at the White House yesterday, actually as the committee was voting. Do we know why he was there?

HOLMES: Well, Victor, that's an interesting question. So according to "The New York Times," he was there because he was briefing President Trump on his recent trip to Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani, personal lawyer of President Trump's, was in Ukraine doing this documentary, which he said was going to expose the other side of the story and validate, vindicate President Trump and himself. We do know that President Trump was aware of this trip. He did mention last weekend that Rudy Giuliani had come back with a lot of information and that he wanted to share it with Congress. So President Trump has been in the know on this.

But I want to make something very clear here. This is an act of defiance by President Trump. The day that the Judiciary Committee is voting, Rudy Giuliani, the man who is at the center of this impeachment inquiry, is showing up to the White House. Remember this, the entire impeachment is based around this idea that President Trump, working in tandem with Rudy Giuliani, were setting up a pressure campaign on Ukraine to get information on President Trump's political rivals. So essentially President Trump saying, OK, you're having this vote, but look, he's here. I'm not distancing myself from him. He is still my personal attorney, and I don't really care what you think. So this is very clear here, President Trump on the offensive, and really kind of sticking it to Democrats.

PAUL: All righty, Kristen Holmes, appreciate it so much, thank you.

BLACKWELL: We've just learned that two, described as moderate, Democratic congresspersons will vote to impeach Trump on Wednesday. Colin Allred of Texas and Max Rose of New York, freshman in the House, representatives, now say they will support impeachment. CNN congressional reporter Lauren Fox is on Capitol Hill this morning. Lauren, what do we know about these two Democrats?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Essentially we know that this is a very tough decision for moderates going into next week, because, remember, there are more than 30 individuals who won in districts that President Trump won in 2016 so this becomes a tough decision between trying to decide how to thread this needle and also making sure that you're consistent. Many of them voted, of course, to open the impeachment inquiry.

[10:05:08]

So while we do expect some defections, we expect that they will be limited. But part of the problem here is that there was a hope and expectation that public opinion might shift as you get into this Intelligence Committee investigation. The hope was that perhaps people back home might start to see the impeachment inquiry differently. That really didn't happen. And a lot of these Democrats are hearing a lot of pressure both on television and from constituents not to vote for impeachment. Here is one GOP ad being run against one representative in Michigan, Elissa Slotkin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Elissa Slotkin said she didn't get elected to spend months on impeachment but voted to launch the investigation anyway, letting the politicians decide who's president, not the voters. And now we're paying the price for their political charade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: Now, we should still say that we expect that there will be a limited number of defections here in the Democratic caucus, that perhaps upwards of six Democrats might vote against the impeachment articles going forward. But that number is still unclear as members are back home in their districts this weekend getting a sense of where their constituents are.

BLACKWELL: Is there any pressure from House leadership? Are they whipping the vote on impeachment?

FOX: What leadership has said, essentially, is that this has to be a vote of conscience, that these members need to decide what is best for their districts, what do they believe. I will tell you that once this gets to the floor of the House there are going to be individual votes on the two articles. So perhaps you would vote yes on obstruction of Congress but no on abuse of power. That may be one way for these Democrats to find a middle ground so that they can go back home and say, look, I voted on this one count but I didn't vote on this other in part because I'm trying to show independence from the Democratic Party and from Democratic leadership. But leadership has been very clear, they are not going to be whipping this.

BLACKWELL: Vote is scheduled for Wednesday. Lauren Fox for us there in Washington. I see the capital there behind you. I see you at the capital, but you're there are the Washington Bureau. All right, thanks, Lauren.

FOX: Thank you.

PAUL: Let's talk to Michael Gerhardt, law professor at the University of North Carolina with us now. Michael, good to have you here. So we just heard what she was saying about what's happening on that end, but I want to talk about Senate Majority Leader McConnell, something that he said about his plans for this Senate trial. Let's listen to what he told the FOX News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House counsel. We'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with the White House Counsel's Office and the people who are representing the president in the Senate. I'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers, so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Total coordination. So, Michael, does that essentially mean that White House lawyers are running this show?

MICHAEL GERHARDT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: That's exactly what it means. It also means that Senator McConnell, the majority leader, expects to be running this entire show himself. And even beyond that perhaps the saddest thing, at least for me, is this is the first time in American history, certainly in impeachment, for a Senate majority leader or any senator to say I'm just going to do whatever the White House tells me to do. That's really damaging to the institution of the Senate.

The Senate is supposed to be independent here, have its own independent voice. And senators will take an oath and affirmation, the Constitution requires this, to take an oath and affirmation to be impartial and to make a decision on their own, not according to their party and not according to the president.

PAUL: Michael, back in the 90s during the Clinton impeachment, Tom Daschle had said that he was coordinating with the White House. How is this different? GERHARDT: Tom Daschle may have done that. It's not any better when

it's done by, of course, a Democrat or Tom Daschle. But this is a systematic coordination. At the same time in the Clinton impeachment trial, virtually every Democrat came out and denounced the president's misconduct. And so one big difference here is the senators, presumably on the Republican side, will simply put forward the talking points the White House gives them.

PAUL: We know that Justice Roberts is going to be presiding over this. And earlier this morning Paul Callan was on the air with us, and he said he believes that Justice Roberts is going to be the wild card because he's going to be making decisions about, say, the admissibility of evidence. How do you see the power balance going on, then, between McConnell and Justice Roberts?

GERHARDT: McConnell will have the better part of that balance of power because as long as he can put together 51 votes in the Senate to back him up on any ruling -- to oppose any ruling that Chief Justice Roberts makes, then the 51 senators wins. So Chief Justice Roberts understands going in that whatever rulings he makes may be appealed to the body as a whole, and he only can have that ruling go into effect if 51 senators agree. So this brings us back to Senator McConnell. He's really going to be in charge of this from beginning to end.

PAUL: There's one route that President Trump and Leader McConnell do not necessarily agree to take, and that's on witnesses. The president has publicly said he wants to call witnesses. McConnell privately, we understand, has said he thinks that's dangerous. He doesn't want to do that. Where do you think that's going to land?

GERHARDT: It sounds like it's going land where Senator McConnell wants it to land. There will be coordination. They have already admitted to that. They're also talking about this, and their discussions seem to be -- at least there are leaks about their discussions. And so the president's desire here may actually backfire. To have a longer trial may actually hurt him. That's what Senator McConnell is telling him. And so again, what are we're seeing is Senator McConnell is going to be calling the final shots, but he's calling them after running them by the White House and making sure they're OK with the White House, and the White House may have other input as well.

PAUL: Michael Gerhardt, appreciate your insight. Thank you for taking time to be with us this morning.

GERHARDT: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: North Korea claims it's conducted a second crucial test of its nuclear defense system. But there is so much mystery around this announcement. Did it really happen? What does it mean for nuclear negotiations with the U.S.? We'll get into that.

PAUL: Also, a family claims hackers accessed their home security cameras and watched their daughter in her bedroom. We have that ahead.

Also, it's America's most special sporting event, and it is happening today, Army/Navy. Coy?

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, home of Independence Hall where Thomas Jefferson first signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The city is also home to one of our nation's greatest sporting events, the Army-Navy game, America's game.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:41]

BLACKWELL: North Korea claims for the second time in a little more than a week that it has conducted a crucial test at a missile launch site. The state-run media claims the test happened Friday at a facility northwest of Pyongyang.

PAUL: They say it was part of a nuclear deterrence system, but North Korea won't say exactly what it tested. South Korean officials say they're not able, at this point, to confirm any specifics. So what does this mean, this latest test, for nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea? Samantha Vinograd is with us now. She is a CNN national security analyst and former senior adviser to President Obama's national security advisers.

So I wanted to ask you what your take is on the fact that we're nearing the ending of the year when Kim Jong-un has said you have until the end of the year to essentially make things right between the U.S. and North Korea, and we see more tests happening. Your take?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: This is a preview of Kim's threatened New Year's Eve show. He's kind of giving us a trailer of what to expect after the first of the year if President Trump doesn't bend to his demands. Those demands really include lifting sanctions on North Korea in exchange for some step-by-step steps from the North Koreans.

But these tests have the added benefit, Christi, and I will note that Kim Jong-un loves hyperbole almost as much as Donald Trump, so the description of these tests from the North Koreans do need to be taken with a grain of salt. That said, these tests do allow the North Koreans to a certain extent, to improve their capabilities, whether it be technology or the reliability or maneuverability of various weapons, so that's an added benefit for Kim.

Finally, what this could be leading up to is a more advanced weapons test, perhaps a satellite which was last launched by the North Koreans, I believe in 2012, or a longer-range missile or a nuclear weapon. So as time ticks down to the first of the year, we should expect to see more verbose rhetoric from the North Koreans and more tests.

PAUL: What does it -- do we know what it means at the end of the day once that self-imposed deadline that Kim Jong-un has put out there, what it means if nothing is reconciled between now and the end of the year with the U.S. and North Korea? What's at stake? What's the threat? VINOGRAD: Well, it means that the North Korean nuclear threat and

missile threat has been improving over the course of the so-called talks between the United States and North Korea. That directly impacts the United States as well as our allies and Americans in the region. But what it also means is that President Trump needs to directly engage with leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and other members of the security council on how to hold North Korea accountable and how to really close things like sanctions loopholes that the Chinese have been helping the North Koreans manipulate throughout the course of these negotiations.

And finally, President Trump needs to sit down with his National Security Council and decide how he can try to pressure North Korea to stop this provocative behavior. We do have other options than just talking to the North Koreans, like, for example, offensive cyber capabilities. There are a lot of tools in the tool kit that President Trump has been reticent to employ because he has been so thirsty to say that these talks are leading somewhere.

PAUL: OK, I want to ask you about the White House, CNN reporting now that the White House is limiting how many administration officials are allowed now to listen in on President Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders. This, of course, since the July 25th call with Ukraine's President Zelensky. Also, that transcripts of the calls are being decimated to a much smaller circle within the White House. Is there -- what is the long-term risk of this?

VINOGRAD: We have two separate lists here. We have the list of people that listen to calls and then the list of people that get the call readouts or the so-called transcript or mem-con. The first list, the call participants, is always smaller, Christi. It's limited to someone in the situation room who monitors the call and takes notes, often the national security advisor, a lead NSC staffer, and a few others.

The less people that are on that call means that there are less firsthand accounts of what transpired. We used to have very small call participant lists for very sensitive calls. President Trump seemingly is limiting call participants because he wants less witnesses to a crime. Remember, the whistle-blower account was not the result of a leak. It was the result of authorized participants on a call expressing concern.

[10:20:05]

So limiting the call listeners could allow the president to have, again, fewer witnesses to a crime. Limiting the readout list means that fewer U.S. officials know what transpired. That limits their ability to incorporate what happened into policymaking, and means that foreign government officials know more than the U.S. government. That gives foreign governments a leg up and directly hamstrings our home team.

PAUL: Very interesting. Samantha Vinograd, appreciate your expertise, thank you.

VINOGRAD: Thanks, Christi.

BLACKWELL: A battle over who gets a ballot in 2020 could have drastic consequences in next year's presidential election. Coming up, why nearly a quarter million voters may soon be removed from the voter rolls in one state.

PAUL: And a big move by the Supreme Court. Justices say they will hear cases regarding President Trump's tax returns and other financial records. Many this morning saying, is this a win for the president?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAUL: It's 24 minutes past the hour right now. Welcome back. The Supreme Court says it will hear cases regarding President Trump's financial records.

[10:20:02]

BLACKWELL: The president is asking the justices to overturn three lower court rulings requiring him to hand over those documents. Let's bring in Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic. Joan, good morning to you. What's the chance that the court will stand with the president, considering what we saw during the Clinton administration, the Nixon administration?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, that's a good question. First of all, there is a good chance that this court could side with President Trump. But if it does, it would be countering those precedents from the Clinton and Nixon administrations, I should tell you that.

But here is what's significant here already, Victor. It's that President Trump has two new appointees to this court who have cemented the conservative inclination, and they're both very strong supporters of executive power. So President Trump goes into the cases this way even though the three lower court rulings at issue here were very much grounded in past precedent against sitting presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But I'm just telling you that we have a different kind of court now.

The other thing I want to mention is that President Trump, going to Christi's question and the lead-in, has already won a bit here. He's been able to persuade the Supreme Court to be the first court to block all these subpoenas. Lower courts had said that they should be able to go through. So he's bought time in investigations by the House and by this New York grand jury. And we won't see a ruling likely until the end of June.

And then that gets me to another significant point here, Victor. These cases are going to be decided right as the 2020 presidential election is heating up. And this court was already a flashpoint in the upcoming election, because the president gets lifetime appointees to this court. And they're going to be deciding significant issues of separation of powers, the president's ability to protect his private documents from investigations in both the house and any criminal proceeding. So no matter how you -- how this thing comes out, it's going to be a

very big deal both to define this Roberts court and as it plays into the 2020 election.

BLACKWELL: In the context of defining the court, Joan, is siding with the president a de facto, I guess, verdict on the independence of the court or, I guess depending on the decisions and the rulings, at least the explanations of them, that they can make a case that would not rob them of the independence?

BISKUPIC: Well, you know, these things are often in the eye of the beholder, of course. But it's Chief Justice John Roberts who said there's no such thing as Obama judges or Trump judges. But if this court reverses the lower court rulings that have been against the president already, that have been narrowly decided, and, as I said, grounded in long standing precedent, that will be a statement that goes beyond the law. And I do think that this court would be open for a lot of criticism about how it's injecting itself into the political process. But we just have to see. But it would renew certainly charges of who's court is this anyway. President Donald Trump certainly thinks he's going to get a better shot now that he's at the Supreme Court.

BLACKWELL: Joan Biskupic always watching the court for us. Joan, thanks so much.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: The U.S. Naval Academy will take a moment to honor three recent graduates who died in a shooting in Florida. We'll have more on that. And the Army-Navy game, that's coming up next.

PAUL: Also, former Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin defending himself after issuing pardons to hundreds of people, some of them convicted rapists, murderers, drug offenders. We're going to take a look at the fallout.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:33:02]

BLACKWELL: It's 32 minutes after the hour. President Trump is touting a tentative trade deal with China. CNN business and politics correspondent Cristina Alesci calls the deal essentially a band-aid because it doesn't address the underlying issues. It just prevents the crisis of the president's own making. We were facing a situation this weekend where we'd have additional tariffs. This deal cancels those new tariffs. It also reduces the rate on tariffs for some Chinese goods. Critics of the deal say that's a concession to China. In exchange, the U.S. might get some more purchases from China for U.S. farm goods.

But had the tariffs taken effect, American consumers would have been hit. Farmers would not have gotten relief, and the markets would have taken a big hit, all right in the middle of the impeachment hearing. And what is one of the president's main arguments about why he should not be impeached? The strength of the economy, which these tariffs would have jeopardized.

Let's bring in Democratic strategist and CNN political commentator Maria Cardona, Brian Robinson with us as well, a Republican strategist and president of Robinson Republican PR. Welcome to you both.

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good morning, Victor.

BRIAN ROBINSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Thank you.

BLACKWELL: So Brian, let me get to this. This deal really only addresses the weapons of the trade war and not the reason the president started the war in the beginning. Why is this a win?

ROBINSON: Well, for one thing, not implementing a new round of tariffs is a win for American consumers, and particularly going into the Christmas season where we could have seen a price increase almost immediately. So that's a win in and of itself.

But in the bigger picture, Victor, I think the win for Trump is he has totally changed the conversation on trade with China in America. We have taken a much more confrontational role with them. We are hopefully going to get some maybe $40 billion, $50 billion in new agricultural sales to China. Our farmers need that. The tariffs and the trade war have hit them the hardest. That is part of Trump's base.

So if they can begin to see some relief -- and look, there's no faking it, Victor. Farmers will know if this is real because they are on the razor's edge here. So Trump has got to carry through on that.

[10:35:05]

And look, we also know that if China doesn't fulfill its promises, that Trump won't roll over. He will put those tariffs in. He will fight back.

BLACKWELL: Yes, but Brian, China has not fulfilled their responsibility or their claims before. We can go back to right after the G20 when the president announced that China will buy more agricultural products, and then a couple of months later he said, well, Xi is not keeping his promise and he's not buying those agricultural products.

Let me come to you, Maria, because in making the case to the farmers, making the case to the manufacturers who have been hit by these tariffs, there isn't a single voice in the Democratic Party. Let's go to the top Democrat in the Senate. Chuck Schumer back in May tweeted hang tough on China, President Trump, don't back down. He's backed these tariffs. How do you take the case to the rust belt, take it to some of those manufacturers, take it to rural Americans who are not happy with the tariffs' impact when the party is not speaking with one voice?

CARDONA: Well, I think that it all depends on who the messenger is, right? What we foresee is that the voice of the party is going to eventually be the nominee of the Democratic Party. But look, I think overall Democrats are united in that we do have to be tough on China. And some did back President Trump's efforts to do that. But the problem with this specific deal, Victor, is that right now it is only just a political talking point for President Trump, and one that comes at a very convenient moment during his impeachment trial. And so that is going to be the big if, that is going to be the big question mark, because, as you said, the last thing we can do with China is trust them on following through on everything that they said they were going to do.

So at the front end, China gets everything that they want, which are the cancellation of the tariffs and no follow-through in the next -- in the coming months. That will be bad for Trump because, like Brian said, farmers are going to know whether this is real or not, and they're going to know in the midst of a presidential election. This is very risky right now for Trump.

BLACKWELL: Before we get to phase two of this deal, they have got to get some signatures on paper for phase one. Brian, let me come back to you and the deal that was made at least in Congress to avert a government shutdown. It would have been the third in as many years. It's in part because both sides agreed to keep the status quo on border wall funding, which the president wanted an increase. The president lost another court case about moving military funds to pay for the wall. Has he softened on the wall?

ROBINSON: No. I think what you're seeing here is some of his top allies in the U.S. Senate who are in an election cycle in 2020 are coming to him, saying, hey, let's just keep the deal done, keep the government open. A government shutdown will be blamed on Senate Republicans, and we're the ones on the ballot. So I think there's a political consideration there.

This is still a top priority for him. And look, it's not as much as he wants, but we still have over $1 billion in this new agreement for the border wall construction. So it is still moving forward, just not at the rate that he wants. But hey, that's what politics is, right, a little give and take.

BLACKWELL: Let's move quickly through this. Maria, I don't want to keep it too short, but I know you want to weigh in on this, and I want to get to other topics. Does the wall still move Democrats?

CARDONA: For sure it does, Victor, and it will be an issue in 2020 because I don't think we've heard the last of it from President Trump. No matter what happens, what we know about this president is he will use this as a divisive talking point come 2020. And then the flipside of that is Democrats can use that to make sure that our base and independents who hate the wall, and, frankly, most Republicans believe the wall is just a completely stupid waste of taxpayer money, which is why they have not sided with the president on this. In all of that, Democrats will make sure that that will come to the fore in 2020.

BLACKWELL: Former Governor of Kentucky Matt Bevin pardoned more than 100, commuted the sentences of more than 400, including convicted murderers, sex offenders, including a child rapist sentenced to 23 years. He served fewer than 18 months. Brian, if Democrats had done this, would Republicans have been calling soft on crime, rolling out versions of the Willie Horton ad? How does the party defend this?

ROBINSON: There's been a movement over the last 10 years, Victor, on criminal justice amongst Republicans, a move toward more mercy and grace. And I think the criminal justice reforms that have taken root in red states all over the country are sort of demonstrated here. That ethos is demonstrated here.

Look, it's really hard to have a criminal justice reform when you're talking about murder and sex offenses. People are obviously going to recoil from those type of convictions. But we have 25 percent of the world's prisoners. We are an overincarcerated population, and you are seeing a reaction throughout this country to the 1990s three strikes and you're out laws that have filled our prisons to the breaking point.

[10:40:12]

BLACKWELL: So this goes back to Biden? This is a decision that Governor Bevin made, including a child rapist who had been in --

ROBINSON: I didn't say Biden.

BLACKWELL: When you go back to the 1990s and talking about the bill that Biden supported.

ROBINSON: But those laws were passed in states all around the country, and you're seeing a reaction from those on the state level.

BLACKWELL: OK, Maria, your thoughts?

CARDONA: So here's the problem with what Brian just said. Yes, a lot of this is based on real criminal justice reform and on the issues of grace and mercy. But many of the commutations that Bevin just handed out are absolutely the opposite of that. To excuse a rapist of a nine-year-old girl, to excuse a child molester of a young boy that was caught on tape and did not serve more than one or two years in prison, that is not grace and mercy. That is blatant politics. And there are accusations that the family of one of those people who was pardoned, their family gave Bevin hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions. So there are huge issues here that Bevin is going to have to answer for.

BLACKWELL: Maria Cardona.

ROBINSON: That's not true. It was not hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'm not defending it. And look, the sex offender issue is the trickiest and stickiest --

CARDONA: Tens of thousands of dollars, sorry. Doesn't make it better.

ROBINSON: Not hundreds of thousands.

CARDONA: It doesn't make it better.

BLACKWELL: We've got to wrap it there. Maria Cardona, Brian Robinson, thank you both.

ROBINSON: Just tell the truth. Just tell the truth.

CARDONA: Thank you.

PAUL: All righty, it is Army-Navy day in case you had forgotten, the one afternoon where brotherhood takes a back seat to bragging rights.

BLACKWELL: Coy Wire is live in Philadelphia. Hey, Coy.

WIRE: We have a conundrum, Victor and Christi. What do you do when you're the 78th commandant of the United States Military Academy training future Army officers, and your daughters go to the U.S. Naval Academy? Oh, boy, talk about house divided. That's coming up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go Army!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Go Navy!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:16:20]

WIRE: Welcome back. We are here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the 120th edition of the Army-Navy game, one of our nation's greatest rivalries in all of sports. And we have quite the conundrum today because joining us, some very special guests. We have the 78th Commandant of the United States Military Academy training future Army officers. We have Brigadier General Buzzard. And his daughters here, Caroline and Anna are Mids at the U.S. Naval Academy. So talk about something being askew here. What kind of trash talk goes on within the household?

CAROLINE BUZZARD, ATTENDS NAVAL ACADEMY: So the joke is we have this sign at our house, and in their house it says "Go Army, Beat Navy." When Anna and I are home, we switch it around so it say "Go Navy, Beat Army."

(LAUGHTER)

WIRE: And how about you, Anna, is there anything that you do to get at dad a bit?

ANNA BUZZARD, ATTENDS NAVAL ACADEMY: I really like to photoshop "Proud Navy Dad" hats on him.

(LAUGHTER)

WIRE: So using technology to go ahead and rebel, as you say. But how do you and your wife handle all this? Was this your idea to let them go to the Naval Academy?

BRIGADIER GENERAL CURTIS A. BUZZARD, COMMANDANT OF THE CORPS OF CADETS, WEST POINT: No, I happened to have been deployed to Iraq at the time Caroline went for their summer program and just became interested in it. And I'm really proud both of them are choosing to serve, but I do tell people that I've placed them in deep cover collecting intelligence for the Army down there at the Navy Academy. That's not true.

WIRE: So you have planted them there, and that's why you have won three in a row at Army.

CURTIS BUZZARD: That's right.

WIRE: Tell me something. This is your job to help prepare these future defenders of our nation. What makes these football players especially equipped to serve our nation?

CURTIS BUZZARD: First off, our mission is to educate, train, and inspire the corps of cadets to be leaders of character, and all our cadets are athletes. So we have 1,300 division one athletes, but these football players in particular are special. And they epitomize what we want of our junior officers. They're fit, they're disciplined, they've mastered the fundamentals, they are great deem teammates, and they're going to get things done today.

BLACKWELL: There we go. There's the trash talk starting. You guys go ahead. We'll try to keep them apart. It's the 120th Army-Navy game, 3:00 p.m. eastern today from Philly.

CURTIS BUZZARD: Go Army!

CAROLINE BUZZARD: Go Navy!

ANNA BUZZARD: Go Navy!

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:19]

BLACKWELL: So what if your windows could power your home office or your building where you work? In this week's Mission Ahead, we shine a light on a company which has created new technology that turns windows into solar panels.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Solar panels are a popular method for capturing renewable energy, but they have some limitations. They need lots of space, special installation, and have some aesthetic drawbacks. But what if they looked like this, and every window around you doubled as a solar panel?

MILES BARR, FOUNDER AND CEO, UBIQUITOUS ENERGY: We've developed a way of making solar cells transparent by only capturing the invisible light. This is the only technology that allows you to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ubiquitous Energy isn't the first to develop solar glass. Others have combined glass with solar cells that are thinner and smaller, but they can have drawbacks like lower power efficiency and less transparency. Ubiquitous took a different approach and developed a solar coating from organic dyes designed to match the transparency of standard windows.

BARR: Light-absorbing dyes are found all around us. What we've done is we've engineered those dyes to selectively absorb infrared light and also convert that light into electricity.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that's key because infrared light is invisible to the human eye. The result, the team says, is solar glass that delivers the best combination of energy efficiency and transparency.

BARR: The installation here is one of the first installations of this glass.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For now, solar glass is still less efficient than traditional solar panels are, but its potential for wider use can make up for that.

BARR: For example, the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco has 70 times as much vertical surface to its rooftop, and that would mean over 20 times more energy production from transparent solar than opaque solar on the roof. We really see the future of this technology as being applied everywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:54:00]

PAUL: I want to tell you about some of these recent hacking incidents that have really left some families a little bit flustered. A Florida couple claims a hacker accessed their home security camera and made racist comments about their family. Look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait, wait, so did your child come out black or light-skinned? I don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing. Wait, does your child look like an Oreo?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Ring, which makes these devices, says its services have not been compromised. The company encourages its users to use different passwords for each account and to set up two-factor authentication.

PAUL: It's so frightening any way you look at that.

OK, in this season of giving, we want to show you how you can help our 2019 top ten CNN Hero continue, well, all of their work, all of our heroes. Here's Anderson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Anderson Cooper. Each of this year's top ten CNN Heroes proves that one person really can make a difference. And again, this year we're making it easy for you to support their great work.

[10:55:05]

Just go to CNNHeroes.com and click donate beneath any 2019 top ten CNN hero to make a direct contribution to that hero's fundraiser. You'll receive an email confirming your donation, which is tax deductible in the United States. No matter the amount, you can make a big difference in helping our heroes continue their life-changing work.

And right now through January 2nd, your donations will be met dollar for dollar up to a total of $50,000 for each of this year's honorees. CNN is proud to offer you this simple way to support each cause and celebrate all these everyday people changing the world. You can donate from your laptop, your tablet, or your phone. Just go to CNNHeroes.com. Your donation in any amount will help them help others. Thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Thanks for spending time for us, and go make good memories today.

BLACKWELL: Martin Savidge is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)