Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Chuck Schumer Wants Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton as Impeachment Trial Witnesses; Differing Approaches on Impeaching Clinton and Trump; Key Questions on Impeachment Answered; NY Post: Harvey Weinstein Says He Feels Like The Forgotten Man; Hallmark Apologizes For Pulling Ads Featuring Lesbian Brides; Hacker Torments Family After Breaching Ring Security Camera. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 15, 2019 - 20:00   ET

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

[20:00:02]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. We have this breaking news right now.

Details of what Democratic senators want President Trump's impeachment trial to look like including the names of people they want to call as witnesses. And these are names you've definitely heard before. The acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and the former National Security adviser John Bolton.

On head straight to the White House and CNN's Jeremy Diamond.

Jeremy, what more do we know?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Ana, Senate Republicans and the White House had only just begun to start getting on the same page as far as the Senate impeachment trial and what they've been looking for is a short impeachment trial and one that likely would not include any witnesses. But now we are hearing from the top Democrat in the Senate, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, with his request for a Senate impeachment trial and he is asking for witnesses.

He is asking for four key witnesses in particular who all have knowledge of this Ukraine scandal. The White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, his senior adviser, Robert Blair, the former National Security adviser, John Bolton, as well as Michael Duffey who is the associate director for National Security Programs. One of those officials actually who signed off on several of the documents authorizing that hold on nearly $400 million of aid to Ukraine.

Chuck Schumer is also asking for the Senate to subpoena key documents that House investigators were not able to obtain from the White House, from the Office of Management and Budget and from the State Department. Now earlier today the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer had a press conference and here's what he said. Let me read you a quote of his remarks. He said, "So far McConnell has not come to me and I'm worried that we

won't get a fair trial where all the facts and all the truth comes out. I'm going to work very hard to get that done." So he's explaining there the impetus for this letter couching this in terms of demanding a fair trial in the Senate.

Now we have received a response to this letter from the Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell spokesman David Popp, who writes, "Leader McConnell has made it clear he plans to meet with Leader Schumer to discuss the contours of a trial soon. That timeline has not changed."

And of course this is the opening volley that we are seeing here from the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer. Ultimately he will need Republicans to agree to all of these requests if he does, indeed, want this Senate trial to play out this way. So this is likely the opening volley of what's expected to be ongoing discussions and of course Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, has made it very clear that anything involving the processes and procedures of a Senate trial, well, he's going to run all of that by the White House.

And of course the White House very unlikely to agree to bring forward several of these witnesses.

CABRERA: Right.

DIAMOND: Namely of course the White House chief of staff.

CABRERA: Well, we also have some breaking news involving anti- impeachment Democrat Jeff Van Drew. A congressman who is now saying he may switch parties to become a Republican. His staff is now quitting, Jeremy?

DIAMOND: That's right. And this is likely to be expected given the fact that you have a congressman switching parties. Many of his staff members probably want a future in Democratic politics and working for a Republican congressman is not exactly the way to do that. But we do have this letter now from five staff members in Congressman Van Drew's office who are resigning in the wake of Van Drew, as they say, quote, "joining the ranks of the Republican Party led by Donald Trump."

So they are saying that that move does not align with their values. And of course, this is just the latest twist since we learned yesterday that Van Drew is expected to switch parties and become a Republican amid disagreements over this impeachment process -- Ana.

CABRERA: Jeremy Diamond at the White House. Thanks.

Earlier tonight I talked to two lawmakers, one on each side of the aisle, about impeachment. With Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee, I asked about the lack of bipartisanship on something as significant as impeachment, as well as the fact that a Democrat, Congressman Jeff Van Drew, planned to flip parties and become a Republican.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: If no Republicans break with their party and at least a couple of Democrats do, are you prepared for a scenario where the only show of bipartisanship on this issue is a vote against impeaching the president?

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): Well, the first person to try to be bipartisan was Justin Amash. You saw what happened to Justin. He was a Republican and he said he was going to be for impeaching Trump. They kicked him out of the caucus and they stripped him of his committee positions. So that scared I think some of the Republicans. Even the ones not running for reelection because they've got another year to remain in that caucus. And that would hurt their potential to help their districts in the next year.

I think Jeff Van Drew is making a serious mistake. I understand that if he feels if he votes against impeachment, he'll lose in a Democratic primary, he could. But, you know, he got elected with Democratic votes under Democratic banner which he ran under for 30 years or so. I think he was a senator and a mayor and a representative and all.

[20:05:01]

And he got Democratic money including Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee money. And to turn and go to be a Republican is kind of strange. It's kind of -- you know, I've heard rats jumping off a sinking ship but very few of them jump on to a sinking ship.

CABRERA: Beyond Van Drew and putting him aside, I mean, he may not be the only person who votes no

He may not be the only person who votes no on impeachment. As you know there were two Democrats previously who voted against even during the impeachment inquiry. So again, same question, if the only bipartisan vote on impeachment is against impeachment, are you prepared for that?

COHEN: I'm prepared for it. But I think what that says is how bad the Republicans have become that they can't recognize what are simple facts that the president admitted to that he asked a foreign power to get involved in our elections. That is simply (INAUDIBLE). It's wrong. He sacrificed our national security for his personal interest and he's jeopardized our elections. He betrayed his oath. That's a fact. And they continue to deny it but that's a fact and the public knows it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: So why isn't there bipartisanship? Are Republicans just not concerned about the president asking a foreign power to investigate a political rival? Here's part of my conversation with Republican Congressman Mike Johnson of Louisiana.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Do you have any concerns with the president urging investigations into the Bidens in exchange for a White House visit and while withholding military aid that the Congress had appropriated?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Look, I think that is a misstatement of what happened here. What the evidence shows and what the record is clear of is four important facts. Number one, President Zelensky and President Trump said that there was no pressure exerted. Ukraine didn't even know that the funds were being delayed. And they didn't find it out until it was reported in the media later on.

CABRERA: Actually --

JOHNSON: With no conditionality.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Actually congressional -- hold on. Let me stop you there. Congressional testimony shows otherwise, that they were asking and concerned about the aid.

JOHNSON: No. No.

CABRERA: On the day of the phone call, on July 25th.

JOHNSON: Actually it doesn't. And if you look at all those -- the witnesses, no one had direct knowledge. It's based on hearsay, conjecture and speculation about those things. There's only three witnesses, of all the 17 that were brought into the basement under oath who actually heard the call, and they interpreted it three different ways. What matters is what the Ukrainians thought.

You can't have bribery, extortion or any of this other thing if they didn't know what was happening. And of course the military aid was released. It did go to them. They did get a meeting in the White House and there's never been an investigation of the Bidens.

CABRERA: Well, they didn't. Actually Zelensky has not had a meeting at the White House and the aid was only released after the whistleblower had, you know, come forward and the president knew about that after, you know, that all happened. There was this search for justification for the aid and why it was being withheld. We also know, you know, President Trump asked for a favor though, after Zelensky on the phone call mentioned the Ukrainian aid, the Javelin specifically, right?

JOHNSON: He said do us a favor, not do me a favor. They twisted that fact a number of times in the hearings. Everyone saw. And he was talking about our country. What's very clear from the record and what every American knows is that President Trump has always been concerned about the misuse of American taxpayers' treasure overseas. He was deeply concerned about Ukraine because everyone knows that it was listed as the third most corrupt country in the world.

CABRERA: So next time a Democrat is in office, and they ask a foreign power to investigate a Republican rival that might help them in the next election, you will have no problem with that?

JOHNSON: No. I'll tell you what we should be concerned about. The next time there's a Democrat in the White House and there's a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, there may be a real problem because there's going to be a base on the other side that wants an impeachment just because they disagree with his decision or his tweets or his political activities. That's not how our system is set up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I also asked Congressman Johnson about the president tweeting a personal attack against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tonight in which he claims the speaker's teeth were, quote, "falling out of her mouth," during a press conference last week. Here's Johnson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Do you condone the president of the United States speaking about a woman, much less the speaker of the House this way?

JOHNSON: The president has a very unorthodox style of messaging. It's not the way that I talk or that I would tweet. But the president's very frustrated about how he's been treated. He lashes out sometimes and I think a lot of the American people understand that. It was mentioned just a moment ago in your discussion that he really hadn't gotten due process. He didn't get a fair trial in the House. And that's very bothersome to him because there's going to be an asterisk by his presidency in the history books that he was the third president to be impeached by the House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Let's talk more about the history books. Coming up, how House Republicans used the Clinton impeachment as an argument against Democrats. But are both impeachments really that different? Find out next.

[20:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: December 12th, 1998, a front page for the history books. As the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against another president, Bill Clinton. Nearly 21 years later to the day the House Judiciary Committee approved articles against President Trump. And as CNN's Tom Foreman explains from the timeline to the charges, Trump's impeachment is going down a bit differently than President Clinton's.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Start with the evidence.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: This is something very, very serious.

FOREMAN: The impeachment of Bill Clinton began with the investigation of the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas. It turned into a wide- ranging four-year probe by independent counsel Ken Starr. KENNETH STARR, FORMER SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: The president, in the

course of those efforts, misused his authority and his power as president.

FOREMAN: Starr's massive report laid out the complete allegations against Clinton for Congress to consider.

With Donald Trump, the Ukraine scandal has been unfolding in real time with new witnesses and testimony day by day. Compared to the Clinton case, it is moving at lightning speed.

Next, the charges. When asked about his relationship with a White House intern, Bill Clinton under oath misled investigators just as he had the public.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (R-WI): The important thing is, is that Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury. That is a crime.

FOREMAN: But Trump?

[20:15:01]

REP. STEVE CHABOT (R-OH): This president isn't even accused of committing a crime.

FOREMAN: Still, Democrats say Clinton lied about a personal matter, while Trump used taxpayer dollars to strong-arm a foreign ally to investigate a rival to help his own political ambitions.

REP. DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL (D-FL): There is no higher crime than for the president to use the power of his office to corrupt our elections.

FOREMAN: And then there is Congress. Clinton and Trump each faced a House of Representatives controlled by the opposition party, both arguing the investigations were partisan hit jobs, both resisting participation. Clinton by insisting on specific terms for his testimony, Trump by going much further, instructing his team to ignore subpoenas, claiming absolute immunity.

REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR (D-TX): This president has achieved a new low.

FOREMAN: And belittling his accusers.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These people are stone- cold crooked.

FOREMAN: And as for the likely next step, a Senate trial. Even though Republicans held a solid majority during Clinton's impeachment, several GOP senators crossed over to help Democrats defeat the charges.

For Trump, the Republicans are in charge again, but this time while Democratic leaders say their members should vote as they wish, Republicans?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): My hope is that there won't be a single Republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment.

FOREMAN (voice-over): And here is one more stark difference. At the height of impeachment, 60 percent of Americans thought Bill Clinton was doing a good job as president and they wanted him to stay. Donald Trump has never been enjoyed that kind of approval. And about half of the American public wants him to go.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: And joining us now, CNN presidential historian and former director of the Nixon Presidential Library, Tim Naftali.

So, Tim, when you have something so rare like impeachment, people try to say, OK, well, what can we expect based on past impeachments. I guess the intensity of the media coverage may be the same but what about everything else?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, there's always a partisan environment. Whenever there is an impeachment there's a partisan environment. So that part isn't new. It's the intensity of the partisanship, and it's also something else that's really important. And I think dismaying. Americans do not trust their government at all. Now Americans, you know, one of the legacies of our revolution is that we should be skeptical of centralized power. That's a good thing.

But historically, until the latter part of the 20th century, Americans believed that their government -- they believed generally that their government was not necessarily good but was trustworthy. We are now at the lowest point and recent surveys show only 17 percent of Americans believe that their government, and when I say government, it includes Congress and the courts as well as the White House, is trustworthy.

That's very, very disturbing. Why? Because it means that members of the president's party do not feel that they have to respect the structure of impeachment. In 1998 leader -- then Leader Trent Lott understood that the American people expected a bipartisan effort to conduct a fair trial for Bill Clinton, even though most Americans did not want Bill Clinton removed. In 1974 though it never got to the Senate.

CABRERA: Right.

NAFTALI: There was an understanding on the part of Republicans that they had to expect the president to comply with request from the Judiciary Committee. But now, no. Leader McConnell believes that he can talk about having already made up his mind when under the Constitution he's required to be an impartial juror and in fact will be taking an oath to that effect. CABRERA: Well, it sounds like I'm hearing you say it seems like

there's a different standard almost this time in terms of how politicians and lawmakers conduct themselves and how they, you know, work through this process. Something else that seems to be different, though, is also the leader, the person being impeached. We know when Clinton was impeached or going through this, he seemed contrite. President Trump has been anything but remorseful. What do you make of these different strategies?

NAFTALI: Well, Richard Nixon withdrew into the White House and many of his supporters wanted more of a fight from him. Bill Clinton went on the offensive as a president, tried to be as presidential as possible to show that he was focused on the real job even though we know behind the scenes he was very concerned about impeachment.

Donald Trump has decided to de-legitimize the entire process and to say that it's unfair and for that reason he's not complying at all with any of their requests. So he's basically attacking that part of our Constitution. It's a very different strategy.

And by the way, this is a very worrisome strategy and should be for everyone. Regardless of whether you're a supporter of President Trump or not, do you want the president of the United States to basically say part of the Constitution doesn't apply to him anymore?

[20:20:03]

Do you want -- if you are supportive of President Trump, do you want a Democrat in the future to make that argument? That's a really big moment for us. And one of the things that is so sad, I think, is that there aren't Republicans who were saying to the White House in a very effective way, do something to show that you care about the process.

CABRERA: Yes. Right. And the other thing that I wanted to ask you about is, you know, Clinton was in his second term. Nixon obviously, he resigned so there wasn't ever the prospect of a president being impeached and then running for re-election. I mean, how extraordinary is this?

NAFTALI: Well, I mean, Andrew Johnson could have run again but he ultimately wasn't chosen as the nominee by the Democrat in 1868. This is -- in many ways, in the modern era it's unprecedented. And it's also very -- again, it all depends on whether you care about the Constitution. If you take it seriously, you expect your president to take it seriously. Just as you expect Congress to.

If the president doesn't show any respect for the Constitution, runs for re-election and is re-elected, maybe he will think he can do other things that are subversive of the Constitution. Maybe he thinks the American people don't care and when a president thinks that the public doesn't care anymore about the Constitution, watch out.

CABRERA: Tim Naftali, thank you for being such a wiseman and offering it to us, your wisdom.

NAFTALI: Thank you, Ana. CABRERA: All right. The Senate is gearing up for a battle over

witnesses now in the impeachment trial. Could we see big names like John Bolton and Hunter Biden testify? Elie Honig is answering more of your impeachment questions, next.

And just a quick programming note. The final Democratic presidential debate of the year is coming to CNN. The PBS News Hour-Politico Democratic presidential debate live from Los Angeles. You can watch is on CNN and your local PBS station. Our coverage starts at 8:00 Eastern, Thursday night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:25:51]

CABRERA: At the top of the hour we brought you the news that Senate Democrats want to see four witnesses at Trump's impeachment trial. Among them, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former National Security adviser John Bolton.

And CNN legal analyst Elie Honig is back with us to break down what that trial could look like and answer your questions on impeachment.

So, Elie, it's perfect to set up the first question we have, you were asking about witnesses specifically in the Senate trial, asking who determines whether specific witnesses like former National Security adviser like John Bolton or Hunter Biden can be compelled to testify?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a great question. And this is going to be a key fight in the Senate. So the Senate has a set of rules governing how the trial will run. But they're largely ceremonial. They do not address the question of witnesses and evidence. So realistically speaking, there's two ways this is going to play out. One, either there's going to be a political deal struck between Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer as the leaders of their parties, or, two, it will be majority rule. And of course the Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate right now but if four flip over, then things could change.

Now I think what we saw Chuck Schumer doing just now is he's laying down a marker. He's saying, I want fact witnesses. And especially if you Republicans are going to insist on Hunter Biden, the whistleblower, Adam Schiff, then it's going to be very hard for them to say you can't have these actual fact witnesses. So there's a really interesting strategic dance going on right now.

CABRERA: There's not a lot in the Constitution about a Senate trial, right? But it does mention chief justice of the Supreme Court. One viewer wants to know what role Chief Justice Roberts will play in this Senate impeachment trial?

HONIG: Yes. So the Constitution does tell us that the chief justice presides over an impeachment trial of the president, not necessarily other officers but yes, of the president. Now there is precedent here. Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999 and he had a famous line when it was over, he said, I did nothing in particular and I did it very well. Meaning he wanted to be as little involved as he could.

And I expect Chief Justice Roberts here to go down that same path. I think he's going to try to play traffic cop. Keep everyone in line. Keep things moving along. I would not expect Chief Justice Roberts to step in and reverse the majority or take drastic steps along those lines.

CABRERA: This seems unlikely but one viewer asked if Trump is impeached and removed from office, can he run again in 2020?

HONIG: A lot of people want to know that. The short answer is probably not. The Constitution tells us that if someone is convicted they will be removed from office and disqualified. Now there are some question about whether there needs to be a separate vote for disqualified from holding future office. Our precedent again is fairly mixed. Three different times in our history, the Senate has had separate votes. One to remove from office and two to disqualify. So it's unclear how that would come out. But in all likelihood, in -- if he was by some chance convicted he would likely be disqualified and not able to run again in 2020 as well.

CABRERA: We've had so many great viewer questions tonight. What are your top questions for the week ahead?

HONIG: So a couple. Yes, the viewers really came through with so many good questions. First of all, will any House Republicans flip over and vote to impeach? Of course Justin Amash will be voting to impeach. He was essentially thrown out of the Republican Party. And how many Democrats will flip over and vote. No, they have about a 14- member cushion right now. So they have some room to play here but not much.

Second of all, what strategy will Trump pursue? Will they go for the sort of streamlined trial or would they want to turn it into a big spectacle with witnesses and all sorts of distractions and drama. And then finally, what would Bill Barr do now about the inspector general's report. He did not like the conclusion that there was no political bias. We'll see if he takes any official steps to come back and try to undercut that.

CABRERA: Elie Honig, thank you so much for doing all of this for us this past four hours.

HONIG: Thank you.

CABRERA: Good to have you here.

HONIG: It's my pleasure. Thanks.

CABRERA: And if you have question about impeachment, you can still submit them. We do this every week at CNN.com/opinion. Elie Honig's "Cross Exam" column is there.

Coming up, she helped launch the Me Too Movement by going up against FOX News and Roger Ailes. Now Gretchen Carlson is talking about her new initiative to help end the silencing of women in media, plus her feeling on the movie "Bombshell."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLE KIDMAN, ACTRESS: You're a man hater. Learn to get along with the boys. You're sexy but you're too much work. I have a whole list.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will any of the women come forward?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:30:00]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a whole list.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will other women come forward?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Weeks before his sex crimes trial is set to begin, disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is speaking out in an exclusive interview with The New York Post where he says he feels like the forgotten man and he says he feels like his work has been forgotten.

More than 80 women have accused Weinstein of sexual abuse ranging from harassment to rape. Members of his inner circle tell CNN that his impending criminal trial which is set to begin January 6th has depleted him. CNN Chief Media Correspondent Brian Stelter joins us now.

Brian, it sounds like Weinstein is playing the victim here. Why do you think he is speaking out now after almost a year of silence?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes. He's putting the whine in Weinstein. He is saying that he is suffering from back pain. He had to have surgery. He's trying to prove to people this was real surgery, that it really is in need of this. He's in a walker. You know, he was recently a photographed going into court using a walker and then folks knows afterwards he didn't have it anymore. He's been going in and out of Target and stores acting like he's totally healthy and fine.

So I think at one level he's trying to prove that actually is suffering, that he is ailing. I don't think he's going to get a lot of sympathy for that though, even if it is true. And then he may also be starting to think about the court of public opinion because there will soon be a jury pool selected for this criminal case. He might be thinking about what he wants the potential jurors to know.

But it is extraordinary and kind of sick to see someone saying, I feel like I'm the forgotten man. I doubt his victims feel that way. [20:35:37]

CABRERA: No doubt about it. You sat down today with former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson. In 2016, she sued Roger Ailes --

STELTER: And there's some similarities where these men sometimes say, I did so much for women, but that doesn't negate the abuse.

CABRERA: I want to play a portion of your interview with her where she talks about the non-disclosure agreement that she had assigned at Fox.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETCHEN CARLSON, FORMER HOST, FOX NEWS: If I had it to do all over again, I would have fought harder to not sign the NDA. But how could I have known that we would be in this position? How could I have known we would have these mini-series and movie projects being made about the story. There was no way for me to know what was happening in the next hour.

And so I see this as the next phase of the revolution, that women want their voices back. It's time that as the majority of the population in the United States of America that enough is enough. We want to be able to say what happened to us as a way of moving this forward for our next generation.

I think it's very important, though, for people to know that I couldn't partake in any of these projects.

STELTER: Right, that you weren't able to participate. I mean, is it strange to see Nicole Kidman on screen?

CARLSON: Yes, listen, that's surreal. I mean, if you would have told me three and a half years ago that Naomi Watts and Nicole Kidman would be playing my character, I mean, that's amazing that these, you know, very skilled actresses have agreed to do those roles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Carlson's story is just one plotline in the new movie Bombshell. What else did she tell you?

STELTER: Yes. And this is going to be a big movie. And as it rolls out nationwide in the next few days, it's going to be a big Oscar contender. So even though she's not a part of it, she's not able to participate or talk to the director about it, it is her story that's being dramatized on screen.

And she's saying that Fox should let not just her but others out of these non-disclosure agreements that keep people quiet. And this is not just at Fox, it's not just in the television business, millions of people are subject to these kinds of non-disclosure deals when they sign contracts, when they go to work, or when they leave their jobs.

So she's trying to start a movement that's bigger than just about Fox or T.V. and say, these NDAs, they probably never should have been around, but they shouldn't be around today. People need to be freed from them. It'll be interesting to see if she's able to get corporations to agree with that.

CABRERA: Speaking of Fox News, I want you to listen to a claim Fox News host Jesse Watters made about an upcoming Clint Eastwood film, Richard Jewell.

STELTER: It's the craziest thing I heard all week, OK.

CABRERA: This is -- you know, the film itself is getting a lot of flak for how it portrays journalists as if that journalist you know, was trading sex for stories, which was not the case at all. But here's the clip from Jesse Watters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSE WATTERS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FOX NEWS: It happens a lot. And it happens a lot in movies and T.V. shows. Just a list right here, Fletch, Thank You for Smoking, Top Five, How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days. I mean, it's all over Hollywood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STELTER: What's your reaction to that?

STELTER: It just shows how little Jesse Watters actually knows about journalism. If somebody is trying to get information that way, it's unethical, it very, very rarely ever happens. And the fact that it shows up so often in Hollywood movies is a problem. It's an old, outdated, ridiculous trope that needs to be put to bed. And that's why this movie Richard Jewell is getting so much flak.

It's a really interesting movie for other reasons to explore why there's a rush of judgment sometimes in cases. That's important. That's why I think the movie is interesting. But this issue involving this reporter who no longer is alive and can't even defend herself, it's troubling. And I think Jesse Watters needs to go to journalism school.

CABRERA: OK, Brian Stelter, thanks for setting the record straight for us.

STELTER: Thanks. Thank you.

CABRERA: Good to have you here. And of course, Brian's show every Sunday "RELIABLE SOURCES" at 11:00 a.m. Eastern. Coming up here in the NEWSROOM, we have some breaking news about this Hallmark ad. Hallmark is now apologizing doing an about-face after facing extreme backlash for pulling the ad that featured a lesbian couple kissing. What the company is saying now? Stay with us.

[20:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CABRERA: Breaking News tonight. The Hallmark Channel is reversing course after it had pulled an ad featuring same-sex couple kissing at the altar. The CEO of Hallmark is now apologizing and saying in a statement in part, "Hallmark is and always has been committed to diversity and inclusion, both in our workplace as well as the products and experiences we created. It is never Hallmark's intention to be divisive or generate controversy. We are an inclusive company and have a track record to prove it. The Hallmark Channel will be reaching out to Zola to reestablish our partnership and reinstate the commercials."

Now, this reversal comes after a swift backlash when the channel pulled this ad last week. That original decision came after the conservative group One Million Moms campaign to have that ad removed. And here with me now is Sarah Kate Ellis. She is the President and CEO of GLAAD, which is an LGBTQ advocacy group. Sarah Kate, thanks for being here. First, your reaction to this reversal?

SARAH KATE ELLIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GLAAD: Well, I'm thrilled. I think it was off-brand for Hallmark Channel to begin with. So we were surprised by it when it came out of nowhere. And I think it was surprising also that they listened to One Million Moms. They're a known fringe hate group of the LGBTQ community, so we were surprised by that too.

But we're working with Hallmark. We're talking to them. We've been talking to them all weekend because they want to do the right thing. And I think that the quick reversal is the right thing. And now we have to walk to make sure and see what they do in the future.

CABRERA: So do you believe your conversations then contributed to this new decision?

ELLIS: I'm hopeful. I think yes. I think the -- I don't think that they were expecting this kind of backlash. And we organized quickly as a community. The LGBTQ community always has. That's how we've advanced equality and acceptance through the years. And we did it around this too because this doesn't reflect the holidays and this doesn't reflect our world today and who families are. And I think, you know, for my wife and I, to try to explain this to our ten-year- old twins is mortifying,

[20:45:15]

CABRERA: What were those discussions like as you were expressing those sentiments to Hallmark?

ELLIS: They were personal, honestly, because it does it is my family that they're telling it shouldn't be on television, should be censored, shouldn't exist, and that were considered controversial. And so -- but I -- they have a track record of doing good by and for the LGBTQ community. So I think this was a hasty decision on their part that they quickly as just as quickly backtracked on.

CABRERA: Do you have any idea when those ads will be airing again? ELLIS: I don't know. I mean, I don't know if Zola is going to come back to the network. And that could be some of the collateral damage from this. You know, people spoke out really strongly against the channel and really felt offended by this. And I don't know how quickly people are going to about-face on this one.

CABRERA: I mean, there were some famous names to who were speaking out against, Ellen DeGeneres, Pete Buttigieg, just to name a couple. Do you think that had an impact?

ELLIS: Absolutely. I think that when people stand up for something -- for something that they see that is wrong, and then a company response to that quickly, that's the greatest democracy there is, isn't it? And so I think that they had a big influence and impact on that and those heavy names do. And I'm glad that Hallmark Channel did this and I think that this is a great way to launch into the holidays now.

CABRERA: But a lot of people were calling for a boycott on Hallmark after they initially pulled those ads saying they, you know, they didn't want to stir controversy, it only created more when they decided to pull those ads. What do you think the response should be now? Should people still boycott Hallmark?

ELLIS: Well, I think we need to watch them closely. I hope people don't boycott Hallmark because I think they want to do the right thing and the good thing. And we're going to work with them very closely to make sure that they are truly inclusive and diverse.

And I think, you know, this is a very big season for them. The Holiday Season is their biggest time for most eyeballs and ads. And so this was not a good controversy to be happening. And I think that's why they keep using the word controversy, right? Like, at first, it felt like a controversy.

They didn't do their homework on One Million Moms and realize that it's less than 5,000 people on Twitter, to find that out before they pull the air ad. And now on the reverse side, I think that, you know, I hope people will come back and support them.

CABRERA: All right, thank you very much, Sarah Kay Ellis, for bringing us your thoughts on all of this as we get this breaking news here on this Sunday night.

ELLIS: Thank you.

CABRERA: Good to have you here. Tonight, we have another frightening case of hackers breaching a Ring security camera to tell you about. This one involves that Kansas family. They were relaxing at home they say when suddenly, a stranger's voice began commenting on every single move they made.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Taking pictures of the baby. Oh sweet. That tree is looking really, really good guys. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello? We're having some communication issues.

Sit the (BLEEP) back down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: And once they realize this was happening, they quickly moved to disconnect the cameras. And here's what else happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, put me down. Put me down. I have feelings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our daughter is creeped out. She couldn't fall asleep that night and I slept with her every night since because she's so scared.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I mean, seriously, how creepy is that? They said the hacker even sent them a pizza to prove to them he knew where they lived. Now, Ring has responded issuing this statement saying in part, "Customer trust is important to us and we take the security of our devices seriously. Our security team has investigated this incident and we have no evidence of an unauthorized intrusion or compromise of Ring systems or network."

Ring says weak account security could be to blame here. It recommends users enable a two-factor authentication on their accounts and make sure they don't recycle their passwords. Still ahead here in the NEWSROOM, a story you might have missed this week. How a shopping bag stole the show at the impeachment hearings and made reusable bags the new briefcase.

[20:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Another busy week in Washington means ample material for Saturday Night Live.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If Obama did half the stuff Trump did, he would be in jail already.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact is, Obama did way worse stuff than Trump ever did, even -- and they didn't impeach him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you believe they didn't kill Obama? I doubt they're going to kill him for show.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't like all the Democratic candidates but I take any of them over four more years of Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't agree with everything Trump is doing but he's way better than any of those Democrats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know what I'm starting to like a lot, that Pete Buttigieg.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dear gender-neutral spirits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dear original American Jesus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dear, historically correct Black Jesus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for no more kneeling in the NFL. That was very hard for me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Lord, for the not one, not two, but three black quarterbacks who have beat Tom Brady this season.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for the Super Bowl halftime show in that set.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amen.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amen.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A woman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Now, this week's impeachment hearings were serious business but there was one not so serious moment that stole the show. Here is Jeanne Moos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You may use them to carry groceries but Council for the Republicans used one to carry impeachment documents. You think he committed a high crime or misdemeanor from every action? Hey, you're bringing your briefcase today for your nationally televised impeachment hearing right? No, now, I'll be fine with this.

Steve Castor was pulling out documents from his recycled grocery bag as if he were yanking out sandwiches and milk. Well, least we know what he needs for Christmas. Instead of a monogrammed briefcase, his bag read, live, eat, shop, reuse. Maybe it should have said --

[20:55:11]

STEVE CASTOR, COUNSEL, REPUBLICAN HOUSE: Hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

MOOS: Or --

CASTOR: Bribery, extortion, or whatever.

MOOS: Someone tweeted it should read recycled wacky conspiracy theories. The bags maker, The Fresh Market is now calling itself the official briefcase maker of Steve Castor and offering free bags for a limited time to anyone who mentions Castor's bag. Someone even made a Ukrainian joke. My Ukrainian husband would call this his Ukrainian suitcase.

But amid all the mockery, some came to the defense of the bag. Don't shame reusable bags. Maybe caster should have used one of the best bags Melania Trump was handing out that same afternoon. Castor could have worn his impeachment documents backpack style. His reusable tote was compared to the big reusable water bottle from which a previous witness drank. Castor sip from a less eco-friendly plastic bottle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's badgering the witness.

MOOS: Make that badgering the bag literally on the floor of the House Judiciary Committee. This impeachment brought to you by The Fresh Market. Jeanne Moos, CNN New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: No one can do it like Jeanne. That does it for me tonight. Thank you for being here. I'm Ana Cabrera. Up next, it's the CNN Original Series, The Movies. Good night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[21:00:00]