Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

James Comey On FISA Mistakes: "I Was Wrong, There Was Real Sloppiness"; Freshman Democrats Push For Justin Amash As Impeachment Manager; Source: Anti-Impeachment Democrat Expected To Switch Parties; Voters Divide Over Historic Trump Impeachment Vote; Taliban Calls Expected Drawdown Of U.S. Troops "A Good Step". Aired 2-3p ET

Aired December 15, 2019 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSROOM: Thank you for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge in for Fredricka Whitfield. It is great to be with you. We're going to begin with a high profile Mayor - in the wake of the IG report of the Russia investigation.

Former FBI Director James Comey claiming today in an interview on Fox News that he got it wrong when it came to the multitude of mistakes made by the FBI's use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which has been an known as FISA.

Comey's admissions come just days after the Inspector General Michael Horowitz stated in his report that there were significant errors and omissions by the FBI's investigation team when it applied for a FISA warrant monitoring Trump's Former Campaign Adviser Carter Page.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: He was right, I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I'm responsible for that and that's why I'm telling you I was wrong. I was overconfident as Director in our procedures, and it's important that a leader be accountable and transparent.

If I were still Director, I would be saying exactly the same thing that Chris Wray is saying which is we are going to get to the bottom of this, because the most important question is, is it systemic? Are there problems in other cases?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Okay, that was Comey today when Comey appeared on CNN the very day the IG Report was released. He sounded a lot more to find about the conclusions it made, listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Do you think this is vindication? COMEY: It is. I mean, the FBI had to wait two years while the President and his followers lied about the institution. Finally the truth gets told. I hope it's not too late, but on all the important things, it tells the truth. They don't want to talk about what we just talked about, that the report is a complete vindication of the FBI against charges of treason, of spying, of planting informants in the camp of all the criminal conspiracy that was supposed to land all of us in jail turns out to be nonsense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: You can see it's quite a difference. Joining me now to talk about this is CNN's Presidential Historian Tim Naftali along with Former FBI's Special Agent Jeff Lanza. And Jeff, let me start with you. Welcome to both of you, I'm sorry. How can Comey claim complete vindication from the IG Report yet also admit misconduct?

JEFF LANZA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: I think Martin, what he is - when he says vindication, I think he's talking about vindication in that the FBI was not using malicious attempts to overthrow the President to commit treason you think a wire tap. I think he's talking about vindication in that context. He's not talking about vindication in terms of the mistakes that were made and omissions that were made in the FISA application.

SAVIDGE: Nonetheless, what do you think this does, Jeff, as far as Comey's credibility?

LANZA: I think it definitely hurts his credibility as Former Director of the FBI. He's ultimately responsible, at that time he was, of the FISA warrants that are sent to the court. Now, he has said, and it's very clear to anyone, that you can't oversee in explicit detail every single investigation that's going on.

The FBI has thousands of those at any given time. But investigation of this magnitude, of this importance, there has got to be more of a hands-on approach, if not from a Director then from people directly under him, and I've been involved in numerous investigations of much less importance and significance as this one.

There has been so much scrutiny, an extreme amount of scrutiny before anything makes its way into a wire tap situation or a FISA situation. So it surprises me that this happened given the level of importance in this case and the level of management at the FBI and the Department of Justice going all the way down to the agents who were involved in writing that FISA.

SAVIDGE: But it also gives fuel to the critics here. Tim, there is no question that Comey has been one of the most polarizing figures in politics to date. I'm wondering are you surprised that Comey wasn't as hands on with this as he was with the Hillary Clinton email server investigation. How do you think history is going to remember him?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, I am surprised - I was actually surprised. In his memoir, Mr. Comey does not talk very much about the investigation of associates of the Trump Campaign. He mentions it, but October 2016 was very important for Mr. Comey and the nation. That's when he restarts the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server, and that is also the time when people seven layers down, as he explains, were writing the FISA application regarding Mr. Page.

I'm surprised that Mr. Comey wasn't more involved in monitoring the investigation of associates of a campaign. The last time we know of when the FBI investigated the associates of a campaign was 1968.

[14:05:00]

NAFTALI: And the leadership of the FBI as well as the President of the United States was very much involved in the decision to investigate an associate of Richard Nixon's Campaign. They certainly had probable cause for doing it, but it was considered so sensitive that it went right up to the top.

I'm surprised in October of 2016 when Mr. Comey knew he was under enormous pressure from Democrats with regard to his investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails that he wasn't equally concerned about enormous pressure from Republicans. So I would like to know more about what he was doing.

It doesn't, by the way, undermine my sense that he was not being political. I think Mr. Comey's challenge, which history will judge, his challenge was to try to be apolitical at the most political time in modern American history.

SAVIDGE: One of the problems of the IG Report, I suppose, is that those who are critical of this administration or critical of the FBI are all going to find something in it that they can point to and say, aha. And I'm wondering, Tim, more broadly, what does this report mean for the country?

NAFTALI: Oh, boy. It's a nightmare. The Horowitz report plus the future Durham report, this is only going to further undermine American respect for institutions. The most recent Pugh poll, I think it was Pugh, put that respect at 17 percent. That's the lowest it's ever been. We as a people don't respect our institutions. We don't believe that our institutions can be apolitical or nonpartisan.

And we have a Presidential team that is convinced of it. As we move into an impeachment and trial process, Americans need to be respectful of their and have respect for the institutions. This FISA report, this, and the Durham report will further undermine people's belief that they can trust almost anything from the federal government of the United States.

And they need to trust - not believe that the federal government has the right to do everything, no. We as Americans ought to be skeptical of federal power. But we ought to believe that there are nonpartisans that work for our government, and at the moment I would say most Americans by far don't believe that.

SAVIDGE: And Jeff, before we go real quickly your thoughts on what the impact is on the FBI and the institution you were obviously involved with? LANZA: I think it's up to Christopher Wray, the current Director of the FBI, to fix the problems that were associated with this report and understand the nature of those problems if they were systemic, and regardless, make sure that they're fixed and to help prove to the American people that the FBI is not a political organization and we're not prone to make such mistakes in such an investigation or any investigation to gain back our credibility.

SAVIDGE: All right. Jeff Lanza and Tim Naftali, thank you both for joining me today.

NAFTALI: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Okay, with me is now is Congressman Brad Sherman. He's a Democrat from California and a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committee. And Congressman, thanks very much for being with me today.

REP. BRAD SHERMAN, (D-CA): Good to be here Martin.

SAVIDGE: Let me start by getting your reaction to this admission by Comey as far as the FBI did mishandled the FISA warrant process in the Russia investigation, how concerning is it for you?

SHERMAN: Well first, it was a process that shouldn't have taken place. But second, our process of what lawyers would call an ex parte hearing where one side goes before the FISA judge and the other side isn't represented, virtually guarantees that there will be some exaggeration or some omission.

Lawyers and prosecutors and the investigatory team are on a side. They want that FISA investigation and if - thank God we don't put people in jail after an ex parte hearing. Before we do that, we let the other side speak and gather information and present it to an impartial jury.

SAVIDGE: So you see the system here is kind of at fault, not so much the individual?

SHERMAN: I think the system is designed to provide only minimal checks to whether the government investigates you and maximum checks on whether the government imprisons you. I'd like to see a little bit more on all of the ex parte presentations to any court.

SAVIDGE: All right. Let's move on to the subject of the moment, and that's impeachment. There is a group of Freshman Democrats and they're pushing for a Republican defector and now a Libertarian Congress, Justin Amish, rather, to be an impeachment Manager in a Senate trial to appeal to the voters with a more diverse in conservative voice. Do you support their efforts and if so what makes him a good selection?

SHERMAN: Well, what I would comment him is that he represents a Republican district, represents a Trump district and has been a Republican member of Congress for most of his tour in Congress. I have not seen the list of all the people who want to be managers. I don't know how to compare him to others who would be on the team. But I think he would be a very interesting addition. [14:10:00]

SAVIDGE: Okay. One of your colleagues says that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should recues himself for coordinating with the White House on the impeachment strategy. We talked about this yesterday. Do you agree, and even though this was apparently a similar coordination or a similar tactic during the Clinton impeachment?

SHERMAN: Well, I don't think Mitch McConnell is going to listen honestly and impartially to the evidence, but this is a political process. You know, it's not like a courtroom. Jurors don't check the polling in their home state before casting a vote. This is a political process. I think Mitch McConnell was surprisingly honest in admitting that he is coordinating on procedures with the White House, and a number of Republican Senators have indicated they are already a no vote, and frankly, I know a few Democratic Senators who are already yes votes.

SAVIDGE: How many would you say?

SHERMAN: I wouldn't be at all surprised if the vote outcome in the Senate is very close to the 53-47 breakdown in the U.S. Senate.

SAVIDGE: I'm - sorry I didn't mean to interrupt.

SHERMAN: Okay, go ahead.

SAVIDGE: I'm just wondering if you're concerned about how we know that there are a number of Senators it seems to have - they are supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to be jurors here in the way the process works. Yet they're already sort of expressing they know the outcome and seem quite firm on which way they want to go. Does that worry you or trouble you?

SHERMAN: It might trouble me a little bit, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. These are politicians elected to represent their states and their districts that retain their positions by representing their states and their districts, and I can't say that I'm shocked that their approach to this reflects the politics of their states and their districts.

I will keep in mind that much of the world has a parliamentary system where you do not get this discordant difference between the legislative and executive branches where whoever is in control is more accountable for the outcome. But that's a different system. This is our system, and I think the founders would not have been surprised to think that politics would enter into the process of impeaching a President.

SAVIDGE: Let me ask you this about the Democratic Congressman Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey. There are reports that he is planning not only to vote against impeachment but that he's also planning to switch and become a Republican, your thoughts?

SHERMAN: I hope very much he stays in the Democratic Party. We worked hard to elect him. As a party, many of us have supported his efforts to seek reelection as a Democrat. That is a hard district for either side to retain, and it would be a shame for Jeff to leave our party, especially when we've done so much to support him but he will do what he'll do, and he certainly would not have been removed from our Caucus had he voted one way or the other on the impeachment matter that comes before us.

SAVIDGE: Congressman Brad Sherman, thank you very much for coming in and talking with us today.

SHERMAN: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Still ahead, as one Democrat plans to abandon his party over impeaching President Trump, some lawmakers in battleground districts are still undecided on the issue. Coming up, what voters are telling Michigan Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin?

Plus, President Trump is on the verge of withdrawing about 4,000 troops from Afghanistan. Why the Taliban think that's a good step. And a new report says suspected Chinese spies got secretly booted from the United States after a Virginia military base was breached the potential threat that they pose to national security, just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:00]

SAVIDGE: A New Jersey Democrat who has been outspoken in his position to impeaching the President is expected to leave his party. Sources say that Congressman Jeff Van Drew will soon join the GOP as he struggles with Democratic voters in his district and just days before the historic full House vote on impeachment.

This as President Trump warns the 31 House Democrats from districts he won in 2016 that their votes could get them voted out of office in the next election. Michigan Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin is one of those who are considered to be a vulnerable lawmaker facing a tough decision. She says that she is still undecided but won't be swayed by the possibility of losing her seat in 2020.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN, (D-MI): This is going to be one of the most serious things I probably ever vote on so I'm going to take it seriously. Sometimes you have to make calls that aren't based on a poll or on some political consultant. And if this is the end of my political career, at least I'm doing what is right and I'm basing my decisions on integrity. That's the most I can do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: CNN's Jason Carroll joins me now from Rochester, Michigan where Slotkin will hold a town hall tomorrow. Jason, good to see you how are voters in her district feeling about all this?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know Martin, much like the rest of the country, no shortage of opinions here. A lot of folks that we talked to pretty much entrenched when it comes to whether or not the President should be impeached or not, and you can imagine this puts Congresswoman Slotkin in quite the position here in the eighth district with so many people have such strong opinions.

This is a district that was red for some time, and then as you know, flipped in went blue for Slotkin and so now a lot of folks are wondering, what is she going to do? How exactly is she going to vote? Well, there are a lot of folks out here that are eager to advise her on what she should do?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a conservative. I'm not a Republican but I'm a conservative. For her to make a decision to impeach the President would be a big mistake at this point in time. I don't think the evidence is there. I think the whole system is flawed.

CARROLL: Where do you stand?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where do I stand?

CARROLL: Yes.

[12:20:00]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think everybody has to be held accountable. That's where I stand. I'm not going to say one way or another, but I do think people know what's right and wrong. Everybody does.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everybody has their opinion.

CARROLL: What would your advice to her be?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To give it a lot of thought and look everything over and do what she believes and what the people would want.

CARROLL: And what you believe is what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To impeach.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're making a big deal out of something that wasn't right, but it wasn't as bad as they're saying it is, and they're planning to impeach him since he got into office.

CARROLL: They meaning, you mean the Democrats?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Democrats.

CARROLL: What would your advice to her be?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Vote no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARROLL: There you heard it, Martin. We actually spoke to a Representative from Slotkin's office, and she says that basically the Congresswoman is using the final hours of this weekend to mull things over. She is going to be having that town hall tomorrow. Of course, that's going to be the very topic of discussion, impeachment, whether or not the President should be impeached.

Also in talking to a lot of folks out here, there is one point on where they all do agree. No matter what decision the Congresswoman ends up making, it's going to be a decision that is going to upset a lot of people here. Martin?

SAVIDGE: No question about that. Jason Carroll, thanks I appreciate it very much. Well, the Trump Administration is expected to announce a drawdown of some 4,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban are calling it a good first step. What this means for U.S. National Security interests? Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:00]

SAVIDGE: A senior administration official is confirming to CNN the Trump Administration is preparing to announce a long-anticipated drawdown of about 4,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The announcement could come as early as this week, and it would bring the number of U.S. troops down to between eight and nine thousand in country.

A drawdown would also come as the Trump Administration restarts peace talks with the Taliban. CNN's Pentagon Reporter Ryan Browne is with me now. Ryan, the Taliban leader said today that this drawdown would be a good step. They obviously see it as a concession to them. What happens next?

RYAN BROWNE, CNN PENTAGON REPORTER: It's interesting, Martin, for some time the Trump Administration, Trump himself, has been talking about bringing the number of U.S. troops down. In fact, in August he told Fox News that he wanted to bring the number down to 8600 U.S. troops there. There are about 12 to 13,000 troops there now.

Again, hard to say what is motivating the timing of this announcement. You know, the President has long complained about the U.S. presence in Afghanistan but he said it's necessary to maintain a counterterrorism presence. We're being told by U.S. officials that if this drawdown actually does take place that the bulk of the remaining U.S. forces will be focused on counterterrorism operations, targeting groups like Al-Qaeda and the local ISIS affiliate. Where the mission will kind of have a setback a little bit will be training the local Afghan forces.

They'll be reducing the number of U.S. advisers to the local Afghan troops. So, again, a very complex scenario there in Afghanistan as they're trying to start peace talks. Actually on Wednesday, the Taliban conducted an attack near a major U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, and that led for a brief pause in peace talks with the Taliban to leave U.S. negotiator saying that the Taliban had to show greater - you had to show that they were more motivated to bring about an actual peaceful solution. So the timing of this announcement very confusing given that the peace talks have had a bit of an up and down trajectory in the last few days. SAVIDGE: And there is the timing of the announcement and the timing of the actual withdrawal. Do we know anything about that?

BROWNE: well, as you know, it's a major military logistical challenge to bring out thousands of U.S. troops. Of course, as we said, the Trump Administration has been weighing this for some time, so obviously the U.S. military has plans in place about taking out equipment, rotating troops out, maybe not backfilling troops that come back home. So again the military had a lot of time to plan this because as Trump as early as August said that this is what he wanted to do, but again always a challenge to execute that kind of mission.

SAVIDGE: It is. All right, Ryan Browne, we'll wait to hear the formal announcement. Thank you very much.

BROWNE: Good bye.

SAVIDGE: Next, Democrats leading the impeachment against President Trump is now blasting Senator Mitch McConnell for working with the White House and its defense team. Is a fair and impartial trial at risk?

[14:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: The Full House is expected to vote to impeach President Trump this week if Congress passes the historic two articles of impeachment. The Senate trial would take place in January. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is already calling for a quick trial to acquit the President with no witnesses being called.

Democrats are now raising concerns about a possible rush to judgment by some Republican senators. Today, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff urge the Senate to not only call witnesses, but also introduced documents which the White House blocked during the impeachment inquiry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I think there are any number of witnesses that should be called in Senate trial and many witnesses the American people like to hear from that the administration has refused to make available. And perhaps of equal, if not greater importance, are the thousands and thousands of documents that the administration refuses to turn over.

I would hope that every Senator of both parties would like to see the documentary evidence. They'd like to hear from these witnesses that haven't testified. And I would urge Mitch McConnell to start negotiating with Chuck Schumer to make sure that those Senators have a full record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: With me now is Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in a CNN Legal Analyst, and Karoun Demirjian is a Congressional Reporter for "The Washington Post" and a CNN Political Analyst. Good to see you both. Thank you for being here.

KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to see you.

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Renato, let me start with you, can Republicans in the Senate decide to call no witnesses and introduce no new documents in the impeachment trial? Is that their legal and I guess their political prerogative here?

MARIOTTI: Well, certainly the Constitution has nothing to say about the procedures that a Senate trial would look like in an impeachment and really the Senators can make those rules. So if the majority of the Senate wants to go that route they can.

You know, I think what, it appears, Chairman Schiff is appealing to is a sense of fairness and of going through the formalities of the processes. Lawyers, we often think that going through a certain sort of process is what makes something fair and gives everyone confidence that they're making the right decision.

[14:35:00]

But ultimately if Republicans decide that they don't want to have anything to do with this and they just want to put it to the side - they have the legal right to do so.

SAVIDGE: It's interesting that the President here, Karoun, has said that he actually prefers a longer trial. He'd like to have a lot of witnesses testify. If the Republicans, though, decide to call no witnesses, do you think it's fair that they can continue to claim that the impeachment inquiry was unfair to the President, because they didn't get to call all the witnesses and experts they said they wanted to in the House?

DEMIRJIAN: Well, it's going to be a - there's discussions right now going on between Mitch McConnell and the White House lawyers' team. I think there's probably tensions within the White House as well about what's prudent here.

The President himself has taken to Twitter to say he wants any number of people to testify that Hunter Biden, the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, even - and the President is - he's got to - he's reality TV trained. He's got a mind for putting on a show. And I think some of his advisors want to avoid any sort of spectacle that maybe could backfire.

And so you have that tension to resolve. I think that probably if it doesn't go well for the President either way, he will feel at liberty to make accusations about what was fair and what was not fair.

But I think right now the GOP leaders in the Senate are trying to do what they think makes the most sense in terms of trying to protect the President and leave him - not open any flanks to any sort of backlash that might come with pursuing a roster of witnesses.

Because, remember, as much as Mitch McConnell wants to do this, he has to keep at least 51 of the 53 Republican Senators in line to actually execute any of the plans he wants to do. And if the Mitt Romneys and Susan Collins and others of this world, who may number more than, you know, the two senators, he has to lose, feel like it's not being conducted fairly.

Feel like things have been - that the witness list has been swung to favor the President without actually allowing, let's say, that the prosecution what House Democrats want to present the Pompeos, Mulvaneys, John Boltons of this world. If they think that that's not balanced, they might not go for it, and that's a concern for McConnell.

SAVIDGE: Renato, the Democrats are raising concerns of their own, with Senators such as Lindsey Graham saying that he's already made up his mind on impeachment and Majority Leader McConnell saying that he's, of course, working closely with the White House coordinating this trial. Here's what Jerry Nadler had to say earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): The Constitution prescribes a special oath for the Senators when they sit as a trial in impeachment. They have to pledge to do impartial justice. And here you have the majority leader of the Senate, in effect the foreman of the jury, saying he's going to work hand in glove with a defense attorney. Now, that's a violation of the oath that they're about to take and it's a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: And what do you make of that Renato? Is he right there saying that it's a violation of the oath here that they're supposed to be sort of undecided, they're jurors here, and that's the way they're supposed to go forward with these proceedings.

MARIOTTI: Yes, I mean, I think it's fair to say that this is not consistent with the role that the Senators are supposed to have. I mean, their role here is to consider the evidence as a weigh the historic moment.

The Senators are supposed to be taking that seriously They're supposed to be listening to the evidence. They're supposed to be concerned about the gravity of the situation and these - and what they're weighing here, I think it's a fair criticism.

That said, as a legal matter, I don't think that there's any way that they can legally force out Lindsey Graham or Senator McConnell from consideration. In other words, try to get them to recuse themselves. In a court of law you would. You would have certainly the foreperson would out or so on. But that's - there's no mechanism for that here.

SAVIDGE: Karoun, freshman Democrats are pushing to have Justin Amash, the former Republican, now independent Congressman from Michigan serve as House Manager for the impeachment trial in the Senate. What is the thinking behind this kind of move by some Democrats here?

DEMIRJIAN: Well, look Amash is by his voting record, one of the more conservative members of the House, but of course he's also become an independent and separated himself from the GOP and been very, very critical of President Trump, especially when it comes to the fact pattern that different democrats are trying to impeach him on.

So he is likely going to be a vote for impeachment, and they can say that they've got a much more bipartisan showing if they have him as one of their ranks as they are managing that process through the Senate.

And to do so and to be able to have not just the more liberal members of Congress, but some people somebody that would then represent a different ends of the political spectrum, as well as a former Republican be they're doing that would help them bolster their case. Because, remember, early on, Democratic leaders have said they didn't want to do impeachment unless it could be a bipartisan effort.

But that they changed their mind because of how egregious the facts were about what Trump was doing with the Ukraine. They're still getting hit on that from the GOP, who's saying, look, the only thing bipartisan about this is the opposition to impeachment. So having Amash in the mix would give them some sort of a buffer to that charge,

SAVIDGE: I follow it. All right. Karoun Demirjian and Renato Mariotti, thank you both for being with me today.

[14:40:00]

DEMIRJIAN: Thank you.

MARIOTTI: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Now this, tensions rise between the U.S. and China after two suspected Chinese spies were accused of infiltrating a U.S. military base. What it could mean for U.S. national security, that's just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAVIDGE: "The New York Times" is reporting the two Chinese officials were secretly expelled by the U.S. earlier this year after making their way onto a sensitive military base near Norfolk, Virginia.

"The Times" also cites a half dozen people with knowledge of the incident, who said, at least, one of the Chinese officials was an intelligence officer operating under diplomatic cover. The incident took place in September and ended with a car chase that also involved fire trucks blocking their escape.

With me now is Juliette Kayyem. She's a former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security and a CNN National Security Analyst. Juliette, good to see you. Official say that they suspect that this was, I guess, a kind of test of the security of the facility. And I'm wondering, does that make sense to you - that scenario? [14:45:00]

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Absolutely. So what we know at least from "The New York Times" reporting is that - sort of Chinese delegation approaches the gate they are not authorized, of course, to enter this military facility.

They're told to go through the gate, turn around and leave and they continued to go on. Eventually have to stop after a car chase that involves fire engines to stop them. The Chinese excuse is that they didn't understand the English, which seems, suspect at best, given that they were diplomats unlikely to understand English.

But I think that there's a larger issue here, which is the testing of the system by the Chinese, that's likely what this was. You had people under diplomatic cover. One of them may have been intelligence officer. And you just see a boldness by the Chinese now. We tend to talk about our China-U.S. relations as economic.

They are still military and geopolitical, whether it's the building of military installations in the reef or whether it's the sort of tension between China and the U.S. in terms of spheres of influence. And so their entrance into a military facility was likely a test of how bold they could be and how quick our responses were.

SAVIDGE: And then my next question is, why were - why would you expel these officials in secret, which is the way that it's supposed to happen?

KAYYEM: So there might be a couple of reasons. So, generally, you would expel publicly to sort of make a point as we did with the Russians right after the election. In this case, there may actually be some factual dispute surrounding what in fact happened.

And the second is, we don't know who one or both of these diplomats were, and whether they were intelligence officers. If they were able to breach our facility that doesn't look so good for us, and so we therefore would probably have wanted to keep it quiet as well. I'm surprised September is a long time ago in news time, and that this was kept secret for that long,

SAVIDGE: Right. And it comes up at a time, of course, when the announcement of at least Phase 1 of the new trade deal is coming forward between the U.S. and China, Juliette Kayyem, always great to talk to you. Thank you.

KAYYEM: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Still ahead, a backlash after the Hallmark Channel removes a commercial showing this married couple kissing, Hallmark explains next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:50:00]

SAVIDGE: Newly released surveillance video captures the chilling moment that a police officer was ambushed earlier this month in Arkansas. The shooter is spotted walking down the street before turning the corner and opening fire. In the next video you see him shooting the officer.

I have to warn you this may be hard watch. The suspect walks behind the police car in a station house parking lot and fire several shots inside the car. The officer died at the scene after he was shot in the head 10 times. The suspect who would expressed anti-police sentiments online was killed in a shootout with responding officers.

Officer Stephen Carr was just 27 years old and a two year veteran of the force. Loved ones describe him as being kind, loyal and intelligent. At least 38 police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty this year, that according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

And this next video also contains troubling images it shows a Resource Officer at a North Carolina Middle School violently slamming a student to the floor not once, but twice. The Resource Officer who is a Sheriff's deputy has been suspended. He's unpaid leave. While that incidence is under investigation, police say the students is under the age of 12, and according to his mother, had a bump on his head but was not hospitalized.

The Hallmark Channel under fire for pulling TV commercials from a wedding planning company that feature a newly married lesbian couple kissing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think Zola could have made planning your perfect wedding easier?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've helped a million couples plan their wedding--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: Hallmark pulled that ad after a conservative group complained the to the online community or I should say cue the online community here because of the outrage and now other groups are calling for a boycott of the channel under the #BoycottHallmark and it's trending on Twitter.

CNN's Polo Sandoval ball is following all of this for us and he's here to explain what's going on Polo?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Martin, before we get to the backlash, let me get you the background here. All these tensions between both - between the Hallmark Channel and Zola, it started last week when a conservative group of 1 million moms posted complaints on its website it claimed that were coming from viewers - from Hallmark viewers about certain Zola ads that were running on Hallmark. Well, they claimed that the commercial is showing a lesbian wedding ceremony, complete with that kiss that you just showed, was not quote "family friendly." So the group started circulating a petition to remove the ad saying that such same sex content goes against their Christian conservative values that they said were very important to the channel's audience.

Well, Zola is an online registry and wedding planning website tells CNN that it was told that four of their six ads were pulled from the channel. The four that were flagged also happened to be the only one showing that same sex couple on your screen right now. The rest of them actually show heterosexual ceremonies.

Zola says that they were told by a Hallmark representative that the channel was not allowed to accept, quote, "controversial content." So Zola responding, and that includes some of the backlash, they are saying that "all kisses, couples and marriages are equal celebrations of love and we will no longer be advertising on Hallmark."

Now the big question here, obviously, that will cost them some financial dollars, some advertiser dollars that Hallmark was likely expecting from Zola. But the question is, will we see other advertisers that can tell you that the organization GLAAD releasing a statement a short while ago saying that they will be calling on various advertisers to also reconsider their purchases with Hallmark here.

The complete statement reading, because of Hallmarks' decision to remove LGBTQ families in such a blatant way," they call that discriminatory and especially hypocritical coming from a network that claims to present family programming, and also recently stated that they are open to LGBTQ holiday movies, as so many other TV and cable networks showcase LGBTQ families are part of family programming.

Advertisers on the Hallmark Channel should see this news and in question whether they want to be associated with a network that chooses to bow to anti-LGBTQ activist groups. Of course, does statement discontinues.

[14:55:00]

So, really, that's going to become the question here now, Martin, what will we see come out of this? Will we potentially see more advertisers pulling some of their ads from the Hallmark Channel as this pressure continues to mount on the Hallmark Channel and its parent company to respond.

SAVIDGE: Yes, this is one definitely to watch. Polo Sandoval, thanks very much for bringing it to us.

SANDOVAL: You bet.

SAVIDGE: Next, victory out of tragedy. The Newtown Football Team wins the state championship on the anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SAVIDGE: On this day of all days, a football championship like no

other.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROWD CHEERING)

SAVIDGE: On a foggy field in Connecticut, Saturday night, the Newtown Nighthawks won the state championship on the 7th anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. On this December 14th, Newtown had something to cheer about. Congratulations to the Nighthawks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[15:00:00]