Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

12 Killed Dozens Injured In Kazakhstan Plane Crash; Democrats, GOP At An Impasse Over Rules For Senate Trial. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 27, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

RYAN NOBLES, CNN NEWSROOM: Good morning. I'm Ryan Nobles. Thank you so much for joining us. Poppy and Jim are off.

We begin this morning with breaking news. A tour helicopter in Hawaii carrying seven people has gone missing. And the U.S. Coast Guard is searching off Hawaii's Napali Coast. Officials say the chopper failed to return Thursday night.

Let's get to CNN's Dan Simon. He is following the latest. Dan, what do we know?

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, hi, Ryan. I can tell you the owner of the helicopter tour company called the Coast Guard when the chopper did not return back to its base. That was about 5:20 P.M. Thursday night in Hawaii. And at this point, we know that search and rescue crews are out there but they are hampered by the weather at this point. They have not seen any remnants of that helicopter. Seven people were on board, one pilot, six passengers. Two passengers are believed to be minors.

Now, as far as the helicopter is concerned, it did have an electronic locator on it. But at this point no signals have been detected, this, of course, being a very busy time for touring companies with families traveling there over the holidays. At this point, we don't know who may have been on board that aircraft, just that there were a total of seven, and that two of them are minors. Ryan?

NOBLES: All right. Dan Simon, thank you for that update. We appreciate it.

Also breaking overnight, at least 12 people dead, several others injured after a plane with nearly 100 people on board crashed shortly after takeoff in Kazakhstan. The country's president just announced that all of Kazakhstan's airports and airlines will now be, quote, thoroughly checked.

Let's get more now from CNN's Nathan Hodge. Nathan, what are we learning about this accident?

NATHAN HODGE, CNN MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF: Ryan, well, just a few hours ago, the deputy prime minister of Kazakhstan told reporters that a preliminary investigation had concluded that there would be two possible explanations, two likely explanations for this crash. One, pilot error, the other, a technical issue, very broad, of course. But he also noted that the plane -- the tail of the plane hit the run way twice on takeoff.

And as we all know, the plane was only airborne for a short time before it crashed in a nearby village, careening into a concrete wall and hitting a two-story building.

Rescuers were on the scene a good part of the day. 12 -- Kazakhstan officials said that 12 people were dead. That figure was lower than originally feared. And officials were quick to note the plane did not catch fire after landing even though the fuselage was broken apart.

So official have said that Saturday will be an official day of mourning in Kazakhstan, and, as well, authorities in Kazakhstan have suspended the operations of Bek Air, the airway that was operating this Fokker 100 aircraft. Ryan?

NOBLES: All right. Nathan Hodge live from Moscow, Nathan, thank you for that update.

Meanwhile, back here in the United States, impeachment talks are at a deadlock, showing no signs of breaking as we move into the New Year. But we could see some movement at the start of 2020.

Let's look at the calendar. On January 3rd, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments for cases linked to the House's request for access to Mueller grand jury materials, as well as the testimony of former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

On January 7th, the House is back in session. And if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sends the impeachment articles to the Senate that day, the earliest the Senate trial could start is January 8th.

Let's discuss all of this now. I'm joined by Reuters' White House Correspondent Jeff Mason, Washington Post White House Reporter Toluse Olorunnipa, and former federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers. Jeff -- thank you, guys, all for being here.

Let's start with you. Actually, I'm going to start with you, Toluse. Sorry, I messed up my notes here. I will start with you.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, you wrote, that she is living rent-free inside Trump's head, I want to make sure I give you credit for this, as long as she is holding onto the articles of impeachment. Does that suggest to you that you think that this stalemate where perhaps the articles don't make it to the Senate could drag on for some time?

TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it certainly could. If you look at the president's Twitter account, it's clear that he is obsessed with this process. He is obsessed with the fact that Nancy Pelosi has the cards on her side, at least, at this point, in which she controls the calendar. She controls when this impeachment process goes over from the House to the Senate.

[10:05:01]

The president has been very upset with the House process. He's upset at the fact that he was impeached. And even though he is on vacation and spending time with his family and friends at Mar-a-Lago, he's been tweeting up a storm, watching Fox News, tweeting out quotes about how frustrated he is with this impeachment process.

So Nancy Pelosi knows the little amount of leverage that she has now that the impeachment has already gone through the House is in determining the calendar and determining how quickly it moves over to the Senate. And the fact that President Trump is so be on assessed and is tweeting about it constantly makes it more likely, I believe, that the Democrats will try to use that leverage to get what they believe would be a fairer trial from the Senate.

They're in no hurry to do this. They know that as long as they dangle this, the president will continue to sort twist in the wind and be upset at the fact that he cannot get a clear resolution or a very firm acquittal by the Senate until these articles move over to the Senate. So at this point, they're just sort of hanging over him and hanging over his legacy. And I think that the Democrats are going to try to use that as leverage to try to get at least something from the Republicans in the Senate in terms of how the trial will play out.

NOBLES: All right. So, Jennifer, you think that Pelosi does have some leeway here. What exactly does that look like?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's unclear because it all kind of depends on the pressure that comes from the public, I think. I mean, people are wrangled, I think, that they are used to seeing the criminal justice system where everyone, both sides, get a fair trial and we hear evidence and so on. And that's not what this process is shaping up to be, at least if Mitch McConnell gets his way.

So people want to see the evidence. People don't want this to be just a show trial with a predetermined ending. So she does have some time in which to maneuver and try to make that happen for people. The question is how long does it go and when will people lose patience with this if it's a pre-determined ending and the Senate isn't going to budge no matter what happens. Then we're probably all looking at an acquittal, regardless.

But I think she does have some time to see if she can get four Republican senators to join the Democrats and try to force them of these witnesses so that we actually hear a bit more about what happened in Ukraine.

NOBLES: So, Jeff, this is a trial, and we'll even have a judge presiding over all of it, Justice John Roberts, the chief justice, the Supreme Court will be there, but it's not a traditional trial in a sense that we are familiar with. I mean, what role could you see Justice Roberts playing in all of this and couldn't Mitch McConnell just essentially make up the rules as he goes along, as long as he has 51 votes?

JEFF MASCON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, that's a good question. He has to follow the Constitution. And the Constitution weighs it out that it's a trial. And that's why Chief Justice Roberts will be there and he will have to oversee that as a judge would. But you're right to say that it's not a court trial. And those comparisons, I think, have been tricky in some ways, because it's very much a political process. And that's something you've seen by the fact that Mitch McConnell has said he's coordinated with the White House to the chagrin, clearly, of the Democrats but also some Republicans.

But at the end of the day, it is largely a political process, even though we call it a trial because that's what the Constitution requires.

NOBLES: So, Toluse, obviously, there is a situation here where Mitch McConnell could end this very quickly, right? And Brad Blakeman, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, he was on Fox News this week. He said the Senate doesn't even need to do the trial. If he's got the votes, Mitch McConnell could just bring the Senate in, file a motion to dismiss, get those 51 votes, a simple majority, and that's the end of all of this. Is that an option that you think is on the table?

OLORUNNIPA: Well, I think it's on the table to the extent that Mitch McConnell is really looking out for his majority in the Senate, even more so than he is looking out for President Trump. He has some vulnerable senators who are up for re-election in 2020, and he wants to do what's going to protect them.

So if it looks like having a quick trial would make it harder for them to go back to their constituents and say that they did impartial justice, as they were supposed to, according to their oath, then I think he would give a couple more days or maybe even a couple of extra weeks to this trial so that he could allow his vulnerable senators to go to their constituents and say that they actually looked at the evidence.

But he felt that a quick trial is something that would not harm his majority and would help President Trump, I think, it is on the table and it is something that he would look at. But he does -- as Jeff said, he does have to consider what actually has a majority within his caucus, what he is able to pass with 51votes.

And there are some moderate senators, including Senator Murkowski of Alaska, who have already voiced their displeasure with the fact that he's saying that he's coordinating with the White House. And if he loses just a handful of those senators, then it's a whole new ball game. So I think he has to think about what he can actually pass with his majority and what will protect his majority in the upcoming elections in 2020.

NOBLES: I mean, Republicans have been pretty steadfast in their support of President Trump, right? I mean, so this is a viable option. I mean, the possibility that he could muster 51 votes, when push comes to shove, when most of these Republicans are backed into a corner, they have generally have stood with President Trump, correct? Toluse? OLORUNNIPA: Yes, that's exactly right. And it's actually not clear if President Trump wants a quick dismissal or if he wants sort of a full trial on television with, you know, all these witnesses. He said he wanted to call Adam Schiff and the whistleblower.

[10:10:02]

And it's not clear if President Trump has fully moved off that position. But if he does, if the Republicans were able to convince him that a shorter trial makes more sense, then I would I imagine that he would want a quick trial, not necessarily bringing in some witnesses that could be detrimental to his case, some of the people who know more about what happened with Ukraine.

So it does really depend on what the president ultimately wants. I don't know that he's been convinced yet that a quick is in his best political interest. I think he wants a full acquittal, he wants the full trial, he wants it televised. He wants all of his Republicans on T.V. really voicing their support for him and for his position in saying that what he did with Ukraine was perfect. And I'm not sure he's going to get that.

NOBLES: Right. And, Jennifer, we've talked about how this is a trial to a certain extent but it's not like a traditional trial, and that you normally don't have jurors going on television giving their opinion about a specific case. And that's what we've had happen with this. We have senators on both sides of the aisle talking about their impression of impeachment, whether they support it or don't support it.

How is it possible that we could have kind of an objective look at this when we know what so many of these senators already think about the impeachment process?

RODGERS: Well, it's going to be very hard. I mean, as you point out, they know a lot of the evidence already, which is already not how trials usually work. But there is a lot of evidence still to come. I do think that if we see witnesses like Bolton and Mulvaney and Pompeo, we'll learn a lot more about what President Trump did directly in connection with the bribery and extortion scheme.

So if we get some of that evidence and the direct evidence that we haven't seen yet, it's possible that the senators are being objective, as their oath says that they should be, that they may change their minds. But, as we've said before, it's a political process in the end so no one should hold their breath. But if we get some of that evidence, then it's game on, and we'll see what happens.

NOBLES: And, Jeff, you know, the president does have a lot of things on his mind right now. But he is particularly interested in one controversy, I guess you could call it, and you should weigh in on this because you've covered President Trump for a long time. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation editing him out of Home Alone 2, Lost in New York. I mean, is this the perfect example of things that concern President Trump we don't normally expect from presidents of the United States? MASON: The answer to that, Ryan, is yes. But he is also, to such an unusual president, I mean, the fact that this is somebody who used to be a reality T.V. star, which we see sort of manifested in the way he handles himself as a president, also means it's somebody who has appeared in movies like Home Alone, and he's upset about it. And so he's weighing in. And, no, I don't think that's a surprise at all.

But it's sort of a great classic example of how many different things are running through President Trump's head. Certainly, he is as, I think Toluse said earlier, obsessed with the fact that he's been impeached and obsessed with this process. But he also is obsessed or certainly concentrating at anything else that he sees as a slight. And this is something that he clearly sees like a slight.

NOBLES: Right. It was a seven-cameo. The CBC edited it out in 2014, long before he was even a candidate for president in 2014. But, regardless, this is what we're talking about right now.

MASON: And he's weighing in now.

NOBLES: That's right, exactly.

Jeff Mason, Toluse Olorunnipa and Jennifer Rodgers, thank you all for being here. We appreciate it.

And still to come, as Democrats and some former former diplomats sound the alarm on Russia trying to interfere with our elections again, a new report details a new U.S. military operation that could combat Russian hackers.

And Latino voters will be essential to winning some swing states in next year's elections. How are candidates courting these key voters?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

NOBLES: A stunning new report is revealing a new military campaign that could be used to combat Russian interference in the 2020 election. The Washington Post says military cyber officials are developing tactics that could target senior Russian officials and oligarchs if Russia tries to hack voting systems of sow discord.

CNN National Security Analyst Juliette Kayyem joins me now. She's a former Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security.

This is an interesting story, Juliette. I mean, from your perspective, how exactly would an information warfare campaign like this work and how effective could it be?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So let's begin with sort of just what we know the threat is right now. So everyone anticipates in the Intelligence Community that Russia will do what it did in 2016 and what it certainly tried to do in 2018.

So there're two ways to approach. One is defensively, which is essentially how do we protect our election systems, our critical infrastructure, that belongs to the Department of Homeland Security. What's new and then the incredible reporting by The Washington Post is, of course, that the Department of Defense is now thinking about the offensive measures that we can use against Russia that would go after individuals, systems, sow sort of discontent amongst different Russian apparatus, name and shame, sort of making it clear that we know what's going on, all of those offensive tactics that were not utilized in 2016 now seem to be on the table.

NOBLES: And what are the options that The Post is reporting will be actually considering targeting senior leadership in Russian elites, maybe not Vladimir Putin himself but maybe some of close allies. Do you think that they should target Putin? Should he be on the list of people that should be a part of this operation?

KAYYEM: I do. I think absolutely. I mean, the reason why is, look, there is a lot of corruption, there is a lot of potentially secrets that these men, mostly men, hold. But if the United States were able to access, what that information is, even if it's personal information, say, about marriages or about finances, that's the kind of thing that nations do to essentially blackmail other nations to not disrupt our election.

[10:20:05]

And the oligarchs and Putin and his team feel sort of free to do what they want to do, mostly because no one has stopped them yet and also because the president continues to question whether they are doing this. And so I think the threat of doing this that we're seeing out of the reporting by the Department of Defense is something that might get some officials within the Russian government nervous enough. I think Putin is fair game. I think there's no question about it in terms of the offensive measures that DOD must do.

I should say though, The Washington Post was clear that while Cyber Command which is in charge of offensive cyber attacks, it's a very sort of discreet lane in cyber security, is contempLating these options. It is not at all clear whether they have been authorized to do these options by the White House. So you may see a conflict between a White House that has sort of questioned whether Russia is infiltrating our elections and DODO and Cyber Command, which clearly know what the threat is against our American elections.

NOBLES: Yes. I would like to explore that a little bit more, because it's one thing for the Department of Defense to come up with this plan. And you mentioned even the threat of this perhaps offering up a deterrent to Russian officials. But if you have the president continuing to deny that Russia even was involved in the 2016 election, he even goes out of his way to compliment Vladimir Putin, I mean, how can the military leaders who have this or planning this carry it out successfully?

KAYYEM: This is the challenge here. And one might speculate that one of the reasons why The Washington Post knows this story is because people within the Department of Defense want this information to get out, that DODO is prepared to do these offensive attacks, while DHS is protecting our states and localities so that at least they may get support for moving forward with some of these offensive attacks.

There is no question that Russia -- why would Russia stop what it's doing? It hasn't failed them yet, right? So part of this is getting some of this information out there into the public space, into the political space to put pressure on the White House that they have to take this seriously because Russia will do it again.

NOBLES: Okay. Juliette Kayyem, terrific information. This is an interesting move by the Department of Defense. We'll see how it's going to all play out. We appreciate you being here.

And with the impeachment standoff showing no signs of ending any time soon, I will ask a Democratic congressman if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's strategy is working. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

NOBLES: We know lawmakers will return to Washington in January, but what we don't know is when the impeachment trial will start, and that's because of the standoff between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

I'm joined now by Democratic Congressman Mark Pocan. He's on the House Appropriations Committee. He's the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Congressman, thank you for being here. We have a lot to discuss.

I want to start with President Trump. He seems very bothered about the hold on the articles of impeachment. He's been tweeting about it all week. Tell me what you think of Speaker Pelosi's strategy on this. Do you think it's working and is part of this a plan to actually get under President Trump's skin? Does she want to do that?

REP. MARK POCAN (D-WI)L Well, I think what she's been doing is she is relentless in trying to get to the bottom of -- let's get the truth out about this. And every time Donald Trump refused to have witnesses come before the House, we still were able to find all of this information so that we could get to the point of having the impeachment happen in the House.

But all the people that Donald Trump has said that can profess his innocence, he hasn't let come before Congress. And she's trying to make sure that they're going to be able to testify before the Senate.

I think what's interesting, Ryan, as we've seen back home, as I am back in Wisconsin for the last week, what people are talking about is things that pass the smell test. If you proclaim your innocence and you have all these people who can proclaim your innocence but you're not going to let any of them actually go ahead and say that, it just doesn't pass the smell test, I think, that we really look for. And because of that, I think what you're seeing is a poll that was released yesterday showed the highest ever, at 55 percent think the Senate should both try and remove from office Donald Trump. So I think this period of time, people are really talking about it, seeing that Donald Trump has not been truthful. And Nancy Pelosi is doing her very best to get the truth out in the Senate.

NOBLES: But the way this works, Congressman, I mean, the Democrats have control of the House, they get to control the process as it relates to impeachment. Now, it is in the hands of the Senate and that is controlled by Republicans. Shouldn't they be the ones that get the rules at this stage of the game according to the Constitution?

POCAN: Well, hopefully, the rules would set the rules, right? Donald Trump has decided to, like in many things, break precedent. He's not following subpoenas. That is illegal. And, again, real people, if you did something, drove away and you didn't pay for your gas, you're going to get arrested. Donald Trump is not having people fill out the subpoenas, not show up to verify those subpoenas. And because of that, we haven't had people be able to come and talk about things from the very inner core of the Trump administration. Well, why not? Because they can't lie. If they do, then they will get in trouble.

So it's pretty obvious what's happening. If we can help use this as leverage to make the Senate do the right thing, Mitch McConnell already said that he is working hand in hand with the White House on this, he's not an impartial juror, that's, again, breaking the rules that exist.

[10:30:08]

She is simply trying to get the Senate to follow the rules so that the American people can really see the truth front and center, and that means allowing some of those key people from the administration to be able to testify.