Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Set For Historic Floor Vote On Impeachment Next Week; GOP Senator Graham On Impeachment: I Will Do Everything I Can To Make It Die Quickly; Rudy Giuliani Visits White House After Ukraine Trip; Supreme Court To Hear Cases Seeking Trump Tax Records; South Carolina Voters Sound Off On Impeachment; Family Says Hacker Accessed Camera, Harassed Eight-Year-Old; 13-Year-Old Boy Arrested in Fatal Stabbing of College Student. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired December 14, 2019 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST: Hello thanks for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge, in for Fredricka Whitfield. President Trump on the brink of impeachment one day after the House Judiciary Committee voted to advance two articles of impeachment along party lines.

All eyes now turn to the full House which expects to vote on impeachment as soon as Wednesday. Now if passed, President Trump will become just the third President in U.S. history to be impeached and with a Senate trial likely to begin in January, the President is already plotting his defense, setting up the campaign Christmas rally and hoping for a longer Senate trial with witnesses.

CNN's Lauren Fox joins us now and Lauren, the President says he may prefer a longer Senate trial but I'm wondering what do his fellow Republicans in the Senate think.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it very clear, Martin that he would prefer a shorter trial, perhaps with no witnesses. Essentially, the House managers would present their case. White House counsel would have an opportunity to have a rebuttal and then they could basically vote on the articles of impeachment as a way to end it.

So that's what Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants and a lot of rank and file members are starting to come around. Here's Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President Trump just a few moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I think impeachment is going to end quickly in the Senate. I would prefer it to end as quickly as possible. Use the record that was assembled in the House to pass impeachment articles as your trial record. I don't want to call anybody. I don't need to hear from Hunter Biden, I don't need to hear from Joe Biden. We can deal with that outside of impeachment. I don't want to Pompeo, I don't want to talk to Pence. I want to hear the House make their case based on the record they established in the House and I want to vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: So that's exactly where a close ally of President Donald Trump's is and now I will tell you that I talked to a top Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin. He said he can't really have a trial without witnesses so there could be some push back from Democrats but again Republicans control the Senate.

They're going to have a lot to say about how this trial is run, Martin.

SAVIDGE: All right, Lauren Fox, thanks very much for getting this started. With me now two prominent Washington legal experts to discuss the merits of the impeachment articles against President Trump. Michael Zeldin's the former federal prosecutor and the CNN legal analyst.

Robert Ray is a former Whitewater independent counsel and a former federal prosecutor as well. Thank you both for being with me.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR & CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Nice to be with you.

SAVIDGE: Michael, I'll start with you and what we just heard. That development with Senator Lindsey Graham, saying that he doesn't want to hear from any witnesses in the Senate trial and let the House evidence speak for itself.

Is that the proper way to handle a Senate impeachment trial?

ZELDIN: Well, it was that way pretty much during the Clinton impeachment trial. They essentially took the deposition testimony and the other testimony that was presented in the House, replayed it in the Senate.

They didn't really call live witnesses and so there's precedent for doing a truncated presentation in the Senate as long as it is fully vetted the evidence that gave rise to the impeachment articles and that it's not really just a rubber stamp of a motion to dismiss and no real trial.

SAVIDGE: And let me get your legal opinion on the possibility that Republicans don't call anybody. Is it a legal tactic or maybe a political strategy?

RAY: Michael's right that this was you know, that's the - been the practice as a result of our most recent impeachment although that I will say the difference here is that the President's party controls the United States Senate. So they ultimately decide what processes do relative to this

impeachment and I think the - you know, the message that we seem now to be getting is that I believe that both for reasons that I think it's in the Republican party's best interest but also I think more importantly, the country's best interests since we already know what the outcome is and since this is a partisan impeachment effort which will not garner in all likelihood any Republican votes for impeachment.

And since two-thirds is required, I don't know why anybody really would want to prolong the agony. I mean, I understand Michael to say that there's some process due here and I think what Lindsey Graham seems to be saying is that he'll hear from the House impeachment managers but not much more and then they'll be a presentation presumably from the President's lawyers which I imagine will be the White House counsel himself.

[12:05:00]

And I also imagine though that there will be a motion to dismiss filed and whether or not a majority is prepared to vote for that and have an early termination of this proceeding or whether it will ultimately go on you know, beyond that I don't know.

SAVIDGE: Yes, that's an interesting potential there. Michael, if the Senate is going to rely on evidence presented by Democrats during the House inquiry, what do you make at the end of their case against the President in the two articles of impeachment. Do you see it as a strong case?

ZELDIN: Yes, so Robert and I have written about this in - on CNN.com so there's a full exchange for the readers of CNN.com and my point of view is that we do not need a statutory crime to be an impeachable offense and that the articles set forth and abuse of the powers of the office, that is the solicitation of the President of Ukraine to investigate a United States citizen, in and of itself is a strong article for me, for impeachable abuse of authority conduct.

And then the obstruction of Congress which is debatable a little bit more but I think that the President's response that they will not comply with anything, without really an articulated basis for privilege assertions on a witness by witness or document by document basis, speaks to the sort of blanket obstructive behavior of the President.

And therefore I think it's worthy of an article as well.

SAVIDGE: Robert, the Republicans, some at least have suggested that these are not real crimes that the President's being charged with here, would you agree.

ROY: I think the historical record is clear that - that's based not just on the text of the constitution but the debates that led to ratification of the constitution as well as the constitutional convention as well as now, this will be the fourth time we've been through impeachment proceedings with regard to a President, that a well-founded article of impeachment alleges a crime, neither of which with regard to these two articles is the case here.

And articles that don't allege crimes have not been successful. If you go back and you look, what was successful about the Nixon impeachment for example, is that the House Judiciary Committee reported out an article, 27 votes to 11.

If you do the math that's in excess of two-thirds, over 70 percent in fact and the article that related to obstruction of Congress never made its way out of committee so that you know that's one example one and then the Clinton impeachment is another, where there was an allegation or an impeachment article that went to the question of abuse of power and also that was along - entirely along party lines and that never survived the full House of Representatives.

So you know you can talk about the fact that you can have an impeachment article pretty much whatever the House decides is appropriate.

SAVIDGE: Right.

ROY: But history and the text of the constitution suggest strongly that a well-founded, well placed article of impeachment alleges a crime and that's not the case here and that is significant. It's also significant, I suggest to you with regard to the second article about obstruction of Congress that the Supreme Court just yesterday granted certiorari meaning review of cases involving whether or not Presidential immunity is well asserted in connection with subpoenas issued to the President.

And it's not likely to be the last of the review by the Supreme Court during this term. There are other matters that are making their way through the federal courts that I suggest will in all likelihood be handled by the Supreme Court and because of that, I think that it is - it vindicates the President's position that it was appropriate to litigate those matters, which makes it very hard to at the same time also contend that that constitutes obstruction of justice.

SAVIDGE: Let me.

ZELDIN: Can I just add?

SAVIDGE: Yes Michael, go ahead.

Z: Mind I'll just jump in on in response to two things Robert said. First as of the last point, Robert would be more correct if the President asserted with respect to the House impeachment enquiring, basis for his refusal to cooperate.

His refusal to cooperate with the impeachment enquiring was more broad based. It was we're not going to comply with this because we don't agree with it. That's not the assertion of privilege. That's not the type of case, the supreme court is being asked to hear.

Further, with respect to the first article of the impeachment, the abuse of power, I don't think that it is ever been the case that the President of United States has reached out to a foreign government to ask for interference in our U.S. election.

[12:10:00]

That is much more in line with what the founders were worried about at the time of the articles of impeachment. So Roy, the impeachment provision in the constitution, Robert is right that historically that has not been as well received in other impeachments but we've never had request for interference by a foreign government and that I think is what is distinguishing of this case from the precedent that Robert just cited.

SAVIDGE: Michael Zeldin, Robert Ray, we could talk for hours about this and we do appreciate your very intelligent insights. Thank you. Thank you.

ROY: Thanks very much. Go army.

SAVIDGE: I think I'll get the game. Coming up, Rudy Giuliani on the mission President Trump's personal attorney visits the White House's as impeachment charges head to the full House for a vote.

Plus a chilling intrusion into a child's bedroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who is that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm your best friend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: That's a hacker talking to a little girl through a ring security camera. The simple steps to secure your family and your privacy, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: President Trump is putting Democrats in battleground districts notice. Just days before the historic full House vote on impeachment, the President warning 31 Democrats who represent districts he won in 2016 against voting to impeach him in a series of tweets this morning.

President Trump declaring that the lawmakers will have to answer to voters come 2020. That works both ways by the way.

[12:15:00]

Joining me now is Seung Min Kim, a CNN political analyst and a White House reporter for The Washington Post and Sabrina Siddiqui is CNN political analyst and national politics reporter for the Wall Street Journal. Thank you both ladies.

Seung Min, let me start with you. What do you expect that if this or will this intimidation tactic work with moderate Democrats. We know that two of them actually just announced their support for impeachment.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think that moderate Democrats, those 31 House Democrats that represent districts that the President warned in 2016 are cognizant of those political warning certainly and they have been - they have been carefully approaching this from day one and it's really instructed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has actually taken her cues a lot from what these moderate Democrats are saying.

She hasn't really been driven by her progressive flank. She's been really driven by the recommendations, the concerns from these moderate House Democrats but I think you've seen them lay out for most of them, you've seen them lay out all along, they frame this in terms of a constitutional concerns.

They frame, a lot of them a particularly with those at national security and foreign policy credentials as a national security concern and I would imagine that would be the case that they continue to make once they vote, this coming Wednesday.

And I think that, that is certainly going to be a question that their constituents will have to - will have for them but also what these Democrats are going to say, we kept the President in check. That is what a Democratic House is for but we are also getting things done. Case in point.

The final vote that House Democrats will most likely take at the end of this coming week is a massive trade deal. It is a major compromise with the Trump administration which is kind of a good in caps, which is an encapsulation of that message that we can keep the President in check but also advance our priorities together.

SAVIDGE: Yes, they're going to look like Congress was still able to get things done. Sabrina, do you think that the Democratic leadership's decision to limit the articles of impeachment will pay off as we look ahead to 2020?

SABRINA SIDDIQUI, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL & CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think that when you talk about some of those moderate Democrats, you maybe a little less inclined to vote in favor of impeaching the President. Part of why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders made the calculus to narrow the scope of the articles of impeachment was to give them some cover.

To really make this as simple as possible about abuse of power by the President and obstruction of Congress. It is true having said that, that Republican outside groups are targeting those Democrats who represent districts that were carried by President Trump in 2016.

They've been pouring millions of dollars into advertising to try and amplify pressure on some of those Democrats but if you look at the polling, there is I think enough surveys that show majority of Americans, even if it's a slim majority in favor of impeachment and that's a trend that we've seen in recent months that suggests that this doesn't fall entirely on partisan lines, that there had been at least some sway among independents. And even in those districts that are represented by some of moderate

Democrats, opposition to impeach or support for impeachment is about 45 percent so there's still enough I think of American public that does see the argument Democrats are making here but I do think that you will see some defections as they take this vote next week.

But House Democratic leaders even very clear, that they are confident they have the votes impeach President Trump and then of course it will had to the Senate where you will probably see the opposite dynamic play out where there'll be a number of vulnerable Republican incumbents who are going to be put on the defensive in the coming weeks.

SAVIDGE: Seung Min, let me ask you about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and he's raised a lot of questions about whether he will be impartial in a Senate trial bowing to coordinate with the White House counsel, that office with every step of the way and he doubled down on that. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: I think last night you were coordinating with White House. Why is that inappropriate?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Oh, it was done in the Clinton impeachment as well, not surprisingly. President Clinton and Democrats and the Senate were coordinated on strategy. We're on the same side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: In a theory he is a juror here and yet he seems to already you know say that the client here is innocent. How are Democrats responding?

MIN KIM: Well, Democrats are incredibly serious about these remarks. You've been - you've seen McConnell counterpart New York Democrat Chuck Schumer be very critical of what - how closely McConnell has been coordinating with the White House.

You've had even some House Democrats, particularly those who may even be impeachment managers during a Senate trial call for his recusal. That is not going to happen but what McConnell's had to do here this in the face of the Democratic criticism is also to kind of temper the White House's expectation, particularly President Trump's expectation of what a Senate trial could bring.

[12:20:00]

Because you know, several weeks ago we started hearing pronouncements from White House officials but mostly President Trump that he wanted kind of this big spectacle of a Senate trial bring in a bunch of very high profile there, particularly very controversial witnesses such as Hunter Biden, the former Vice President's son.

And once we started talking to Republican Senators and try and gauge the kind of the temperature and the appetite level for such a trial in the Senate, among Senate Republicans that appetite was not high.

So what McConnell's had to do, I mean he's talking about coordination with the White House but he's also had to tell the White House that this is not what my guys want. There aren't going to be votes for and support for what you want and you have to listen to me on that.

SAVIDGE: Sabrina, we only got a limited amount of time but I want to go back to sort of what you were talking about in the last response which is that this impeachment inquiry or as it was forwarded because more than that, the impeachment, is it designed to try to sway votes in the Senate, Republican votes which we see is unlikely or is it more designed to swing moderate Republicans come the fall?

SIDDIQUI: Well, I think that Democrats were very clear when they were running in 2018 that part of the platform had to do with restoring checks and balances to the oversight body that is Congress and so, they really reached a point where they felt that they had no other choice but to go down the path of impeachment when it became clear that the President was trying to solicit foreign interference, to try in terms of his political rival Joe Biden dig up dirt on him and his son and then try to obstruct the investigation into that conduct.

So I think that if they have probably known from the outset that they weren't going to sway Republicans in Congress or certainly not Republicans in the Senate but when you look at the President's support, he has a base but he doesn't have a coalition and so some of those independents or those suburban voters who swung toward the President and were instrumental to his path to victory in 2016, you've seen them trend back toward Democrats, that was one of the outcomes of the 2018 midterms.

And so perhaps, there's some room to make the case there on an anti- corruption platform and not the kind of messaging that they're going to coalesce around, come next year but I also think that part of why Democrats want to get this done as quickly as possible was because they don't want this to loom over in election year.

They would still probably like the election to be about the kitchen table issues like healthcare, like jobs and the economy and so I think that you'll see them try and thread the needle in the coming months and they don't necessarily expect the election to be about impeachment but they do still think that there's a case to be made that it's a referendum on President Trump.

SAVIDGE: Sabrina Siddiqi and Seung Min Kim, thank you both for joining me today.

MIN KIM: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Up next, money, politics and the presidency. The Supreme Court digging into a case centered around President Trump's taxes with a decision that's expected at a very critical time.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: President Trump's personal attorney that's Rudy Giuliani just can't seem to stay out of the spotlight and now we may know why Giuliani was spotted at the White House after returning from a recent trip to Ukraine.

Here you can see Giuliani on his way to visit President Trump, on the very same day the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach the President over a scandal in which Giuliani has played a major role.

CNN International correspondent Kristen Holmes is at the White House and Kristen, what can you tell us about Giuliani's Ukraine trip and what was he doing at the White House?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martin, even just the fact that you're putting those words all in one sentence is really quite extraordinary. Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine and then coming to the White House. At the center of this entire impeachment is Rudy Giuliani.

This is an idea that he, in coordination with President Trump essentially ran a pressure campaign on Ukraine to try and get information on the Bidens and now, you have him back in Ukraine a couple weeks ago and then back here at the White House.

All this really extraordinary turn of events. Now here's what we do know. We do know he was here yesterday and he was meeting with President Trump. Now according to New York Times, that was to brief the President on that trip to Ukraine. They are reporting that Giuliani actually told associates that he had permission, he had the thumbs up from President from to go to Ukraine for this essentially anti-impeachment documentary.

He spoke to multiple former Ukrainian prosecutors and these were the prosecutors who are really responsible for pushing that narrative against the Bidens, against Maria Yovanovitch, against essentially everyone but President Trump and this has all been part of a concerted effort of the President's personal attorney to really shift the focus away from President Trump and away from this impeachment.

And last night in an interview, he sat down and did it again. He blamed what he called the Deep State for trying to bring down President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC BOLLING, FOX NEWS REPORTER: Is it the deep state. Is there a concerted effort within the organization, within the Intel department--

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONAL ATTORNEY: No.

BOLLING: - and or the FBI--

GIULIANI: No. BOLLING: to take down President Trump?

GIULIANI: Oh yes, this fake department is filled with them. I mean they want to take - isn't it - it isn't that they disagree with his policies and even they try to undermine his policies a bit, that's been going on for years. They're do this in the State department.

State department's got a big problem. They want to get him out of office anyway they can. How you can miss that this is a coup attempt is beyond being intelligence.

BOLLING: Who's leading the coup?

GIULIANI: The Democrats are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And I have to say this because I think this is a very important and it came from one of our political analysts earlier today. He said on air, it seems that President Trump is the only person who wants to hear from Rudy Giuliani right now and that does actually seem to be the case.

We have heard from numerous Republicans, allies of President Trump who said they have no idea why he went to Ukraine, they don't know what he's doing. Even one Senator who is very, very close to the President saying that Giuliani was a ticking time bomb and he wished that he would just stop talking. So this is what we're seeing on that side.

[12:30:00]

However, President Trump, again, clearly, according to "The New York Times" wanted to hear this briefing, wanted to hear what Giuliani found on his trip.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST: Very interesting. Kristen Holmes, thank you very much.

In a monumental decision, a non-slate Friday, the Supreme Court says, it's going to hear cases concerning President Trump's financial records. The President is asking the justices to overturn lower court rulings that require him to hand over those documents. It's showdown over the separation of powers outlining the constitution. And it sets the stage for an election-year ruling.

So I want to bring in our CNN Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic. And Joan, let me ask you this, your new piece for CNN.com in that piece, you called their decision to hear this case momentous, how so?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, it's interesting, Martin, I will use one of the words you just threw at me, showdown. Because now the Supreme Court is intervening in this showdown between the House and President over these document that he has tried to withhold frankly from public view since he was running for president.

But it's more than that, more than just a struggle between two powers of our government. It's also a question that arises from one of the cases from a New York grand jury's action where Trump's lawyers are asserting that a sitting president should be absolutely immune from any kind of criminal proceeding while he or she is in office.

And if the Supreme Court buys that argument, it would be reversing long standing precedent from the Nixon years from the Clinton years when the Supreme Court ruled that a president can be sued and can be subpoenaed.

SAVIDGE: So this could very much define the Supreme Court and the Trump era when they render decisions?

BISKUPIC: That is so true. What I've been saying is that, more than the President's fate is at stake here. It is the reputation and integrity of the Robert's court. This is a court that's very narrowly divided, five conservatives, four liberals. They hate that we point that out saying, you know, we're just neutral decision-makers here. But face it. And many of the most contentious cases, the court splits with the conservative majority taking control.

And that conservative majority was solidified even deeper with the appointment of two Trump justices, Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. And the Supreme Court was already a flash point in this election cycle because of those deep divisions.

SAVIDGE: I've got to ask you the timing on this.

BISKUPIC: Sure.

SAVIDGE: When will the Court, I believe a decision is expected in June and that's of course in the thick of the 2020 election season.

BISKUPIC: OK. So Martin we'll hear -- they'll hear oral arguments in March. We'll start getting the briefing in the weeks before that. And, you know, just to point of how what a big time this is for the Supreme Court and those individual justices who I'm glad you're showing them on the screen now.

Next year, three of the nine justices will be in their 70s or late 80s just before this hearing in March. Ruth Bader Ginsburg will turn 87. And then they'll just have two months to pull together rulings in these three cases. And if the tradition holds, they will announce these rulings by the end of June which will be one month before the Democratic Convention and two months before the Republican National Convention.

SAVIDGE: Right in the middle of it.

BISKUPIC: Right.

SAVIDGE: Joan Biskupic, great to hear from you. Thank you so much.

BISKUPIC: Thanks Martin. Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Coming up, South Carolina voters, they sounded off to me about the issue of impeachment. But will they stick by a congressman that supports it?

[12:35:04]

And don't forget, two best friends and one epic night. We're talking about ringing in the New Year with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen. New Year's Eve Live begins at 8:00 p.m. on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: As the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee advances, articles of impeachment against President Trump. Republicans are trying to turn the move back against Democrats heading in to an election year. And nowhere is that more evident than I found in South Carolina.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Stretching from Charleston to Hilton has South Carolina's first district is home Representative Joe Cunningham, a first term Democrat in a long time Republican stronghold.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you very much. We love you, folks.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Trump won the district by 14 points, Mitt Romney by 18. In 2018 --

REP. JOE CUNNINGHAM (D-SC): Let's go, baby.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Cunningham became the first Democrat to represent the area in nearly four decades.

MICHAEL RILEY, VOTED FOR REP. JOE CUNNINGHAM: He ran really good ads, good campaign. It was a clean campaign too, you know. He didn't throw all the trash.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Instead of attacking Trump and Republicans, Cunningham's message dealt with more local concerns like the environment and the opposition to offshore oil drilling. It's what drew Donna and Andrew Lehman to Cunningham.

SAVIDGE (on camera): You're the Republican here.

DONNA LEHMAN, CHARLESTON RESIDENT: I know, I know. What can I say? He cares about us. He cares about our city.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): But now, national Republicans are wagering local Republicans will care about something even more, the impeachment proceedings.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump has been fighting for us. Now, it's time to fight for him.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Attack ads, targeting Cunningham have begun airing locally, aimed at peeling away his critical moderate Republican support in 2020. D. LEHMAN: I've seen the commercials.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell Congressman Joe Cunningham to stop impeachment now.

SAVIDGE (on camera): Does that, in any way, affect you, register with you?

D. LEHMAN: No.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Donna and Andrew both oppose impeachment but that hasn't impacted their support for Cunningham.

[12:40:04]

ANDREW LEHMAN, CHARLESTON RESIDENT: No, no, because he's real. We need real. We have to get away from all this where there's influences from everywhere else that are guiding our politicians in making decisions.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): For now, Moderates and Independents we talked to are sticking with Cunningham, especially as long as he keeps his focus and his message close to home.

HEATHER SPRINGS, GRAD STUDENT: I don't think he's harmed, especially not at this point.

SAVIDGE (on camera): You think he'll be reelected?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

SAVIDGE (on camera): You say that with --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: And we reached out to Congressman Joe Cunningham. He says that he hasn't decided yet on how he would vote on articles of impeachment against the President.

Still ahead, a college student murdered in Manhattan and a 13-year-old boy under arrest, the motive of the shocking crime and why the investigation is a long way from being done.

Plus, a creepy voice in a child's bedroom posing as Santa and harassing a little girl through a surveillance camera. How it happened and how you can prevent it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:11]

SAVIDGE: Series of alarming privacy invasions is raising concerns about the safety of Ring Home security cameras. Hackers somehow accessing the cameras to harassed families across the country. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who is that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm your best friend. I'm Santa Claus.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Joining me now is Jonathan Wackrow, he's a former Secret Service agent under President Obama and a CNN law enforcement analyst. Jonathan, thanks for being with us.

These incidents are frightening, they're disturbing, they're many, many things, and they're increasing in frequency. So help us understand the risks and how they happen, these kinds of breaches.

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Absolutely, Martin.

So, this is really unique. This is a cyber breach that actually manifested itself physically. It violated the sanctity of our home. Cyber breaches and, you know, data exfiltration has become commonplace. We hear about it on the news all the time from institutions. Everything from Home Depot to Target to the Equifax breach.

What's different in this case is that the attackers actually interacted with their victims. And that makes the seriousness of this crime something that everyone needs to focus on.

Traditionally, you know, what we've seen from a security practitioner's standpoint is that the physical security and cyber security, when they blend it's a term called convergence. And that's an important term for the viewer to understand, and here's why. Out there, there are over 20 billion interconnected devices worldwide that it's commonly referred to as the internet of things.

This entire network increases the surface area that a hostile actor can attack. And it just makes these devices much more vulnerable for intrusion on a go-forward basis. So, as we go buy -- we go out and buy these devices that we become dependent upon in our everyday life, we need to be mindful of the security concerns that are around them.

I want to point out that Ring say that the cameras have not been breached. In other words -- well, what they say is it's really not their fault, it's the fault of the user. Well, what do they mean? Why?

WACKROW: Well, it's not blaming the victim in this one. Let me bring a little bit of context into it. What Ring had said is that their systems were not infiltrated, their -- they did not have user information or passwords exfiltrated from their service. That is true.

However, if you go back and you look at what hackers have done for years and years and years is that they compiled massive amounts of data from previous breaches and they put it into a database that's contained in the deep and dark web. And just to put some numbers around it, it's over eight billion user name and passwords are available online. So, someone with nefarious intent can go into the deep and dark web, purchase those user name and passwords and then use things -- use technology to then go and try to infiltrate different devices and systems.

So, while Ring is correct, the user has to understand that they need to protect themselves better. You can't --

SAVIDGE: OK, so what is that, because we're going to run out of time. What should someone do?

WACKROW: So, basic blocking and tackling. First of all, if you buy these devices, change the product password right away. You shouldn't -- should not never use a default password. You should consider using a passphrase as opposed to a password. Make it more robust.

Set up two-factor authentication. That is simple, that is something that everyone can do and should do as a basic element of protection, and keep the device's firmware up to date. That's an area of vulnerability that most people overlook. And as we take these devices again and use them in our daily life, these are the things that we should do to mitigate the vulnerability.

SAVIDGE: Yes, they are sort of a smack up inside of the head that can be both good and bad.

Jonathan Wackrow, thanks very much. Thanks for the advice.

WACKROW: Thanks a lot. Appreciate it.

SAVIDGE: In the season of giving, we want to show you how you can help our 2019 top 10 CNN heroes continue the important work they do and have your donations matched dollar for dollar. Here is Anderson Cooper.

ANDERSON COOPER, ANCHOR: I'm Anderson Cooper. Each of this year's top 10 CNN heroes proves that one person really can make a difference. And again, this year, we're making it easy for you to support our great work. Just go to CNNheroes.com and click "donate" beneath any 2019 CNN top 10 heroes to make your direct contribution to that hero's fundraiser. You will receive an e-mail 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 matched dollar for dollar up to a total of $50,000 for each of this year's honorees.

[12:50:08]

CNN is proud to offer you this simple way to support each cause and celebrate all of 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.

SAVIDGE: If you know someone great who deserves to be a CNN hero, tell us about them. Nominations for 2020 are open. We're waiting to hear from you. Go to CNNheroes.com to nominate right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: A 13-year-old youth is under arrest in New York City in connection with the stabbing death of the Barnard College freshman. Police have questioned a second team in the brutal -- teen that is, in the brutal murder of Tessa Rane Majors. She was a talented musician, songwriter, and aspiring journalist.

The 18-year-old was walking in New York City's Morningside Park, Wednesday evening, just blocks from the Barnard campus when she was attacked and stabbed. CNN's Polo Sandoval is following developments for us. And Polo, what are you learning about the 13-year-old suspect and any other possible suspects?

[12:55:05]

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Martin, here's what we know. Police say that the teen was found with a knife and has admitted to being involved in Wednesday's attempted robbery and deadly stabbing but the question here for prosecutors, Martin, becomes to what extent. Because that's -- according to the New York Times, a 13-year-old faces a felony murder charge and that basically means that he is not accused of stabbing Tessa Majors but taking part in the actual robbery. Now, the Times also reports that NYPD detectives testified during the 13- year-old's suspect hearing yesterday.

He reportedly told the court that the teen and two other teenage accomplices actually walked into that park in Manhattan on Wednesday specifically to rob people. The boy also telling detectives that he watched his two friends grab the 18-year-old Barnard College freshman then put her into a chokehold. So, more chilling details that surfaced at court yesterday.

The boy also claims that he watched his friends remove items from her pocket and then eventually slashed her repeatedly with a knife. A source saying that a second person is in custody this afternoon but has not been charged. The boy's attorney telling the New York Times that was no allegations so far against her client claiming that he actually touched the victim. According to this attorney he was merely present when this attack took place according to what she told the newspaper.

We reached out to the attorney for the 13-year-old, also to prosecutors who ultimately decide if he will be charged as an adult, we're waiting to hear back. But in the meantime, as you can imagine, Majors' murder shocking this close knit community at Barnard College, it's a Manhattan campus that was shared with Columbia University. In a statement yesterday, her family writing, we lost a very special, very talented, a very well loved young woman. Tessa shone brightly in this world and our hearts will never be the same. Martin?

SAVIDGE: Such a sad case. Please keep us updated on it, Polo Sandoval. Thank you.

SANDOVAL: Thanks, Martin.

SAVIDGE: Coming up, Senator Lindsey Graham standing up for President Trump even though he is considered a juror in the upcoming Senate trial. We'll ask him if that's appropriate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END