Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
White House: Iran's Retaliation Could Happen Within Weeks; State Department Urges All Americans To Leave Iraq Immediately; Iran Vows Harsh Revenge After U.S. Kills Top General; NYT: White House Withholding E-mails On Ukraine Aid; Democrats Want Mulvaney & Duffy To Testify In Senate Trial; Democratic Candidates Disclose Fundraising Dollars; Top Five Democratic Candidates With Best Chance Of Winning; New Propaganda And New Threats From North Korea; Searing Heat & Strong Winds Fueling Australia's Wildfires. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired January 04, 2020 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:02]
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN NEWSROOM: The big question, what happens now?
Officials and experts believe that Iranian retaliation is not a question of if but when, the Trump administration telling members of Congress that retaliation likely to happen soon. We're hearing from sources that White House officials are warning members of Congress that some sort of response could come from Iran, quote, within weeks.
Also, and this is from military sources, high level discussions at the Pentagon are working out whether that Iranian retaliation could happen even sooner, perhaps within days. National security officials saying they want lawmakers to be clear-eyed and have nothing sugar-coated when it comes to how strongly and against whom Iran's response is likely to be.
Now, diplomatically, things are not going well right now. Iran's foreign minister tweeting just a short time ago, quote, 24 hours ago, an arrogant clown masquerading as a diplomat claimed that people were dancing in the cities of Iraq. Now, he's referring to the American secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, who, after that strike, tweeted a video that he said showed Iraqi people celebrating the death of Qasem Soleimani.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice, no peace, U.S. out of the the Middle East. No justice, no peace, U.S. out of the Middle East.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARQUARDT: protesters have also gathered in a number of American cities today. What you're looking at there is Washington near the White House. Other marches also happening in New York, Chicago and Portland, more than 70 anti-war demonstrations are planned for today in cities across the country. CNN reporters and teams are positioned everywhere that this breaking news is happening today. Fred Pleitgen is in Iran's capital, Tehran, Arwa Day in Iraq's capital, Baghdad, Jeremy Diamond is near the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Southern Florida, and CNN's Dianne Gallagher is with me right here in Washington.
Everyone standby. Dianne, I want to start with you. There is brand new information on this mission that was launched to target and kill Qasem Soleimani. We are learning that the Trump administration is warning members of Congress that this response could come within weeks.
But what we're also hearing from some of those members of Congress who got that briefing from the Trump administration, they are questioning, and these are primarily Democrats, this notion that there was an imminent strike.
DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There is. And I think to sort of explain that, you have to understand what we're learning about what happened in the moments leading up to this order.
We're told that this is something that's sort of unraveled over the course of a couple days here at Mar-a-Lago. There were serious discussion within the administration after, we're told, they received information and intelligence that showed that there was multiple threats against Americans in that region from Iran.
Now, look, according to sources who have spoken with congressional Democrats, that evidence that has been presented to them is not enough. They say that, basically, it has not been enough to sort of tell them that this was an imminent threat. It has not been enough to let them know that was this anything different than something that they had been seeing going on in the region as recently as in May of 2019, the movement of certain vehicles, movement of certain equipment and that they're just not convinced right now.
To counter that though, look, the joint chiefs chairman, General Mark Milley, has said that he found the evidence to be overwhelmingly compelling and that it was clear they needed to act.
Now, he was asked if the threat was imminent. And he said that it could have been anything within the next days, weeks or months. So, Alex, a lot of this looks like we are sort of squabbling over the idea of what the word, imminent, means here and whether or not this risky move that undoubtedly will proctor retaliation should have been taken. And that's where Democrats seem to be taking some cumbrance (ph) with this decision here.
Also they weren't briefed beforehand. So they're all finding out about it after the strike was already ordered and have just simply said right now some of them don't find the evidence to be compelling.
MARQUARDT: Yes. Milley also asked whether there was risk to taking out Soleimani. He's responded, damn right there is risk, but the risk of action outweighs the risk of inaction.
GALLAGHER: Yes.
MARQUARDT: Dianne, stay with me.
In Baghdad today, there are reports that at least one rocket has hit inside the green zone, and that, of course, is the area in Baghdad which houses international embassies, including the U.S. embassy, where we saw a protest and attack against it earlier this week.
Now, this comes as thousands poured on to the streets of Baghdad, and elsewhere in Iraq, to mourn the death of that Iran general, Qasem Soleimani.
Senior International Correspondent Arwa Damon is in Baghdad. Arwa, the death of Soleimani on Thursday putting a big strain on the U.S.- Iraqi relationship.
[15:05:02]
What are Iraqi officials saying about that and what is the status, do you think, of U.S. forces in Iraq?
ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Iraqi government has made its position very clear. I mean, we heard it straight from the prime minister who was down at those funeral processions in Baghdad. But caretaker, Prime Minister, aid Arab (ph) admitted, he said that this attack, this targeted killing wasn't just a violation of Iraq's sovereignty, it was also viewed as being aggression against Iraq itself. And that anger is being echoed, especially among the many who were at that funeral procession earlier today.
They too are vowing revenge, and not just revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani, but perhaps to a certain degree of revenge for the killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was also in that convoy. He is the leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah. This is the group who, remember, was the target of the U.S. strikes on Sunday. And he is and his group is a part of the Popular Mobilization Force, which is a paramilitary force that ostensibly does fall under the control of the Iraqi Security Forces.
We did have reports of that mortar attack landing inside the green zone. It landed in what is sort of a parade ground, not causing any casualties. But also another mortar, rocket landing in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood and then three or four landing outside of the southern gate of the Balad Air Base that houses both U.S. and Iraqi troops.
And, Alex, we're also just getting this report in right now. Kata'ib Hezbollah, remember, again, the group that was targeted on Sunday, whose leader was also killed alongside Qasem Soleimani, they have announced via the special operations head on an Iraqi T.V. stations that is affiliated with them, something of a warning. They are telling the Iraqi Security Forces to maintain a distance of at least a thousand meters from the bases of the, quote, American enemy, and they are saying that the Iraqi Security Forces should not become human shields for invading crusaders. Another militant group that is also backed by Iran is saying that they support this announcement by Kata'ib Hezbollah and are also issuing a similar warning to Iraqis not to travel alongside U.S. security companies. So we most certainly have rhetoric ratcheting up at this stage, Alex, as this country really braces itself to bear the brunt of the fallout between what is unfolding between Washington and Tehran.
MARQUARDT: Yes. And a number of U.S. officials, Arwa, as you know well, have warned that in the wake of this killing that those U.S. forces could become a target in the coming days and weeks. Arwa Damon, we will be checking in with you throughout the course of the afternoon. Thanks very much.
Let's head on over to Tehran, the Iranian capital where people have burned American, British and Israeli flags, gathering angry crowds, shouting death to America in the hours after Soleimani's death. Our Senior International Correspondent, Fred Pleitgen, is on the ground in Tehran.
Fred, we have heard a lot of heated rhetoric, angry words, from Iran's leaders. What are they telegraphing in terms of what a potential response could look like?
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're certainly saying that there is going to be some sort of retaliation. It was quite interesting because one of the big moments that played out in Iranian media today was when the president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, he visited the family of Qasem Soleimani.
He spoke to Qasem Soleimani's daughter and he said, look, he believes that the U.S. doesn't even understand how big a mistake it has actually made. Then, Qasem Soleimani's daughter asked who is going to take revenge for the killing of my father. And he then answered, quote, everybody is going to take revenge.
So, obviously, the Iranians very much saying that there is going to be some form of revenge, there is going to be some form of retaliation. And that's actually also very similar to what Iran's ambassador to the United Nations told our own Erin Burnett last night. Let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJID TAKHT RAVANCHI, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: They started a military war by assassinating by an act of terror against one of our top generals. So what else can we expect of Iran to do? It cannot just remain silent. We have to act and we will act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: Now, when that's going to take place and what form that retaliation is going to happen, the Iranians obviously aren't saying at this point in time. However, we are maybe getting clues from the military leadership. The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps coming out and saying that there would be a very broad response by the Iranians. He called it a strategic retaliation that he says would spell the end
of America's military presence in the region, so quite a threat there coming from the Iranians. He said it would be geographically wide and would happen over a period of time.
Now, of course, we do know that the Iranians control or at least have friendly militias in a lot of the neighboring countries here in the Middle East.
[15:10:04]
In fact, one of the things, Alex, that Iranian commanders have told me in the past is that the U.S. needs to understand next to every base that America has in the Middle East region, there is some form of -- or some sort of group that is loyal to Iran. So the Iranians are saying those U.S. forces definitely are vulnerable.
And over a period of time, the Iranians also have been saying that they believe that they're not in a rush in any way, shape or form, to take this revenge. They say that is something that can happen on their own time, Alex.
MARQUARDT: Yes, the Iranians declaring three days of national mourning in the wake of Soleimani's death as well. Fred Pleitgen on the ground in Tehran, thanks very much.
Now, we are learning more details about how President Donald Trump reached the decision to strike and then kill Iran's top military leader. The president hosted top advisers and some members of Congress who are allies of his at his Mar-a-Lago resort to discuss the possibilities.
CNN is being told in the 48 hours before the strike, President Trump got updates on the intelligence that showed threats from Iran.
Jeremy Diamond is in West Palm Beach, Florida. Jeremy, what more can you tell us about this timeline, about the decision-making process for what is truly a monumental decision in terms of President Trump's foreign policy to date?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: This was certainly a monumental decision, Alex, and it was an inflection point in the longstanding, long simmering tensions between the United States and Iran. Of course, President Trump had repeatedly escalated tensions and we saw Iran also escalate tensions over time. But this was certainly one of the more momentous decisions that the president took and one that could perhaps take the United States and Iran to the brink of war.
There was indeed serious debate, Alex, inside the administration, we're told, particularly because of the concern about how this action, this killing of Qasem Soleimani, one of Iran's top generals, one of its most powerful individuals, what that could mean in terms of the prospectors of escalation of a broader conflict here. And, of course, we now know that U.S. officials are indeed on the watch for any kind of potentially Iranian retaliation. We know that all of this happened, really, while the president was here at his Mar-a-Lago estate in South Florida. The president was with his national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, on Thursday before those strikes took place. We saw the president exiting a secure briefing according to sources at 6:00 P.M. And the president was monitoring both the strikes and the reaction to that targeted killing over that night and the next morning.
In fact, Alex, the next morning, the president skipped his usual round of golf that he's been having during his holiday break here, instead monitoring the reaction, asking some of his advisers, some of his allies and including some of his friends down here in Palm Beach for their reaction to this.
And the president, we're told, was defending the strikes that he was taking, defensive at times about some of the criticism that he has faced since taking out Soleimani, about whether or not it was indeed a wise decision. Alex?
MARQUARDT: All right. Jeremy Diamond down there near Mar-a-Lago, thanks very much.
Now, we've got much more on this story. Coming up, the death of Soleimani has major implications for the security of Americans both at home and abroad. We'll be discussing that with two of our smartest experts. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:15:00]
MARQUARDT: Now, the killing of the senior most Iranian General, Qasem Soleimani, really did strike at the heart of Iran's military operations in countries all around the region, in the Middle East and around the world. Now, many considered him the country's second most powerful figure, even perhaps more influential than President Hassan Rouhani. He was answerable only to the supreme leader, the grand ayatollah, as the head of the Revolutionary Guard's elite and shadowy Quds Force.
Now, Soleimani's importance in Iran and beyond was immeasurable and cannot be understated. Now, world leaders are bracing for the retaliation that we've been talking about.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: The car carrying Iran's most powerful military commander destroyed beyond recognition by the military strike from the American military drone flying overhead, confirmation coming quickly that the ruthless and cunning Quds Force commander, Qasem Soleimani, targeted and killed.
Top U.S. officials tell CNN that attacks against U.S. targets planned by Soleimani were imminent, though the Trump administration has yet to provide any evidence. There was compelling intelligence that Soleimani was planning a significant campaign of violence in the coming days, weeks and months. General Mark Milley, adding damn right, there is risk to U.S. safety in the region and we would be culpably negligent if we didn't take action.
MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: He was actively plotting in the region to take actions, a big action, as he described it that would have put dozens, if not, hundreds of American lives at risk. We know it was imminent. This was an intelligence-based assessment that drove our decision-making process.
MARQUARDT: ahead of a possible Iranian response, the Pentagon sending around 3,000 more troops to the region adding to the beefed up presence that followed violent protests at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Hundreds of U.S. service members have been killed by Soleimani's actions, according to U.S. officials, thousands more maimed mainly by improvised explosive devices that Iran sent to insurgents in Iraq.
U.S. officials tell CNN that Soleimani was planning more attacks against U.S. targets in multiple countries across the region. Intelligence reports, they say, highlighted threats that were more significant than usual.
POMPEO: We watched the intelligence flow in that talked about Soleimani's travels in the region and the work that he was doing to put Americans further at risk.
MARQUARDT: 62-year-old Soleimani joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after the Iranian revolution in 1979. For over 20 years, he had been at the head of its shadowy Quds Force orchestrating military action and terrorist attacks in the Middle East and around the world. He supported and directed efforts to proxy forces, like Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel and militias in Iraq against ISIS, which also committed war crimes against Sunni Muslim civilians.
The Trump administration says that Soleimani approved those attacks this week on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, but the killing of Soleimani has left the U.S. presence in Iraq in doubt with powerful forces demanding the eviction of the Americans, the Iraqi prime minister calling the attack a flagrant violation of the U.S./Iraq security agreement.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: So let's dig into this a little bit more. I want to bring in Peter Bergen. He is a CNN National Security Analyst as well as the author of Trump and his Generals, the Cost of Chaos. I also want to bring Max Boot, our Global Affairs Analyst. Gentlemen, thank you both for joining me on this incredibly important story.
Peter, I want to start with you. There's no indication from the administration, no explanation or description, what the threats that were imminent were. What are the gaps in the administration's story for you?
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I mean, yes, where were these attacks supposed to happen? I mean, plausibly in the region and Lebanon or Syria or Iraq itself. Obviously, we've had attacks in Iraq against American targets.
What's interesting to me, Alex, is the president only has a red line, which is the death or the wounding of Americans. You know, he didn't respond to the unmanned drone being taken down. He didn't respond to the attack on the Saudi oil facilities. So we now know that this is his red line.
I presume that we will know more about the nature of this intelligence going forward if indeed this was suppose to make it safer.
[15:20:03]
It seems kind of interesting that the State Department said every American should leave Iraq right now. That doesn't seem like things are safer.
MARQUARDT: Max, same question to you. What more do you need to hear to be convinced that the killing of Qasem Soleimani was worthwhile at this moment when, of course, America and others have had the chance to do this in the past?
MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, I'd love to hear about the process that went into this. And what we've heard so far is not very reassuring. It seemed like this was another kind of slapdash ad hoc decision that Trump loves to make without a lot of weighing of the pros and cons.
And I would love to know that there was actually deep consideration of the consequences of killing Soleimani. Nobody is denying that killing Qasem Soleimani is a good thing in theory. It's morally justifiable. He was an evil person.
But what we've learned in the Middle East over the last few decades is that you can get rid of horrible people and the consequences can actually be pretty pride bad. And I say that as somebody who was a very much adjacent (ph) supporter of the war in Iraq, a war I know regret supporting, but because Saddam Hussein was a horrible person but getting rid of Saddam Hussein did not make the region a better place. And, likewise, getting rid of Qasem Soleimani will not necessarily make the region a better place.
In fact, you hear Pompeo and Trump saying that this will save American lives. Well, in the short-term, it's likely to endanger American lives. As Peter mentioned, there is an evacuation of Americans going on in Iraq right now. And Americans all over the region are really having to honker down and anticipate retaliation from the Iranians.
So perhaps the Iranians will be deterred but perhaps they won't be. And I wish I knew that -- and I wish I thought that President Trump had given careful consideration to this. But based on his track record, I doubt that's the case.
MARQUARDT: And that is an important point. I mean, when we talk about the response to the death of Qasem Soleimani, one thing that everyone agrees on is that this was an evil man who left -- whose impact was the deaths of hundreds of Americans, maiming thousands of American service members.
But what Democrats primarily have been looking at is -- or focusing on is, what is going to be that response. And, Peter, this is something that we've been talking about in the previous block with some of our correspondents. There's all this question about the drumbeat of war. Are we going to war?
Now, of course, war with Iran, experts have said, is not like there's not a frontline, there's not a battlefield. It's going to be asymmetric. What does that mean?
BERGEN: Well, I mean, it could take the form of cyber warfare. It could take the form of plausibly deniable attacks by Iranian proxies in places like Lebanon or Yemen. I mean, the Iranians face a dilemma. I mean, they want to respond but they don't want to have a war with the United States. And so whatever they do is going to be plausibly deniable enough so it doesn't look like them but they can sort of say, yes, it is us.
I mean, this is in a way like what the Russians do, which is they do things that -- attempt to poison Russian spies in Britain. Everybody knows it's the Russians but it's plausibly deniable. So I think that we'll see is something along those lines, in places that they have capacity, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
MARQUARDT: Max, how much do you believe this is a setback for the Iranians? This is a guy who has led the Quds Force for 20 years. He's been in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps since he was in his 20, a monumental figure, not to overuse that word, in Iran.
So when you take out a guy like Soleimani, what kind of impact is that going to have on Iran's malicious intents around the world?
BOOT: Well, there's no question that Soleimani was the most feared and respected Iranian military commander with tremendous influence in the region. And so taking him out is going to lead to some setback of Iranian influence.
But we should not anticipate that this will somehow cripple the Iranian government because, again, this is a government. This is not a small, stateless terrorist organization. This is an institution with a deep bench (ph). And, already, Soleimani's longtime deputy has been elevated to fill his shoes.
You hear the talk from Pompeo, the claims that this was somehow going to preempt imminent Iranian attacks. But Iran has the capability to keep going and carrying out those attacks whether General Soleimani is commanding them or not. He is not somebody who would have been a suicide bomber. He wouldn't have been carrying a Kalashnikov. He was somebody who was giving orders. And there are other people who can give orders.
The infrastructure that he commanded remains very much intact. So the notion that this was a decisive blow that will cripple Iran, something that you hear from some of the administration cheerleaders, I just don't see much factual support for that expectation.
MARQUARDT: We do know from the national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, that Soleimani had arrived in Baghdad. And remember, he was killed near the airport from the Syrian capital of Damascus.
[15:25:00]
Of course, U.S. intelligence agencies carefully track where Soleimani was, as well as some of our allies.
Peter, the fact airport of Damascus and knew that he was coming, how much of that is a failure on the Iranian intelligence service's part and a success by the Americans?
BERGEN: I think it is a great success by the Americans. But this was not somebody like Osama Bin Laden, who went out of his way for a decade to evade any kind of detection by the United States. I mean, Soleimani was traveling around the Middle East. Some of the video we're showing on (INAUDIBLE) see him walking around with various soldiers, taking selfies with him. I mean, he was a public figure in many of these countries.
So this is not like some tremendous intelligence breakthrough. One the other hand, I mean, there was a date certain that we knew where he was that a missile could take him out. That does imply that somebody within his circle, maybe an American spy or somebody within the Iraqi security services, which I think is probably where this information may have come from.
MARQUARDT: And to your point, he has been out there, he's been on the battlefield, and so, of course, that does beg the question even more so, why take him out now.
We have to leave it there. Peter Bergen, Max Boot, thank you very much for joining me.
BOOT: Thank you.
BERGEN: Thank you.
MARQUARDT: Now, we have a major programming note. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the center of this story will be joining our Jake Tapper tomorrow along with former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren and the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Adam Schiff all on State of the Union, a big edition airing tomorrow morning at 9:00 A.M. Eastern Time right here on CNN.
Now, still ahead, the White House is stonewalling the investigation into Ukraine, defying subpoenas for crucial emails. That's coming up. You are live in the CNN Newsroom.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:30:00]
MARQUARDT: The White House now defying a court order and refusing to turn over certain administration e-mails that discuss the freeze on that $400 million of aid for Ukraine.
According to "The "New York Times," which requested this through the Freedom of Information Act, the process called FOIA, there are 20 e- mails in all, totaling more than 40 pages.
And they are specifically between an aide to the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and Michael Duffy, who is a White House official at the Office of Management and Budget, who is in charge of the process to release that military aid to Ukraine.
Now, you'll remember that Mulvaney admitted that the quid pro quo with Ukraine. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICK MULVANEY, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF: That's it. That's why we held up the money.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You just described a quid pro quo. Its funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well?
MULVANEY: We do -- we do that all the time with foreign policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARQUARDT: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. Deal with it." He did later walk that back, we should note.
You might also remember that Michael Duffy, who is the official on the other end of those e-mails, is the person who requested that the Pentagon withhold aid to Ukraine just 90 minutes after that infamous call on July 25th between President Trump and the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.
To discuss, we have White House correspondent and associate editor of "Politico," Anita Kumar, and White House Reporter for "The Washington Post," Toluse Olorunnipa.
We have seen some of Michael Duffy's e-mails, the other e-mails, already. We know that in e-mails obtained by Just Security, a Web site, he did e-mail an official at the Defense Department back in August.
And in it he wrote, quote, "Clear direction from POTUS" -- that's president of the United States -- "to continue to hold."
Now we can understand why the "New York Times" and others would want to see those other e-mails that they have asked for.
Anita, when you see that line, "clear direction from POTUS to hold," that is a direct line to the president, is it not?
ANITA KUMAR, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT & ASSOCIATE EDITOR, "POLITICO,": That's right. That's the one thing we've been missing in the House investigation, which is a lot of people were talking about the president, but we didn't really have that direct connection. That's really important.
It's not really surprising, though, that the White House is withholding. They've been doing that all year on every investigation. What is surprising is they're not even releasing redacted e-mails, which is the normal practice, right, backing out certain pieces but releasing something.
MARQUARDT: Toluse, to that point, is there any other explanation for why the White House would be withholding these e-mails and what they might possibly be hiding there?
TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: They have taken a blanket approach to not allowing officials and e-mails to be put forward as part of this process. They've called this impeachment illegitimate. This would be par for the course.
But they have released some information. They did comply with a previous FOIA request from the Senate Republicans integrity and released heavily redacted e-mails so, yes, released e-mails.
The fact that they're taking a much more staunch position and saying we're not going to release anything does make you wonder whether or not there's more damaging information.
The White House has said this entire impeachment process has not included firsthand witnesses, has not included firsthand information.
But some of the people who have that firsthand information, including in this e-mail we saw about a clear direction from the president, are being restricted in having their e-mails completely restricted from being put forward.
It does raise the question about whether or not there's damaging information that could hurt the president's cases.
MARQUARDT: Speaking of those witnesses, Mick Mulvaney is one of the main witnesses that Democrats have said that they want to hear from in the impeachment trial that is coming up. Chuck Schumer, among others, has said that it's also important for Michael Duffy to testify. Those are two of the key figures.
Anita, Congress is coming back this week. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has not handed over the articles of impeachment to the Senate yet. Are we any closer to seeing witnesses actually being allowed to testify in this trial?
KUMAR: Not really. All this information, these e-mails and other information we've seen over the last week or two, does give the Democrats more leverage when they are pushing the Republicans.
But let's remember, Mitch McConnell hasn't budged. This is the Senate majority leader. He hasn't budged.
He needs four Republicans to go with the Democrats. A couple, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, have indicated they might want witnesses but haven't been bold, haven't insisted. You would need two others. We haven't seen Mitt Romney say anything. He's another one.
[15:35:03]
But other than that, we haven't heard from anyone else. So it doesn't sound like the numbers are there for the Democrats.
MARQUARDT: It's an interesting play by Nancy Pelosi. The expectation was, once the House impeached, she would send the articles of impeachment to the Senate and, by next week, the Senate trial would be underway.
Toluse, what do you make of that play? She was clearly looking for some sort of leverage in order for Democrats to have a bit more of a say into what the shape of the trial would look like. Do you think there was a bit of a miscalculation there?
OLORUNNIPA: Well, the original plan was definitely to send the articles of impeachment over and, for the trial in January, they wanted to get it off the House's plate in December. They did that.
Once Mitch McConnell started going on television and saying, I'm coordinating with the White House, I'm taking my cues from the White House counsel, we're going to be lockstep with the White House, it did change the calculus for Speaker Pelosi and she had to reconsider. Time will tell if she thinks that was a miscalculation.
But I think those comments from Mitch McConnell were so jarring to House Democrats that they felt they needed to do something rather than give this over to a process they felt was not justified, not legally something that could withstand legal scrutiny. I think that's part of the reason they decided to do this.
The truth is, as Anita said, they have limited amount of leverage. Mitch McConnell does have the numbers on his side, at least so far. There's not too much that House Speaker Pelosi can do to determine how things will play out in the Senate because she runs the House and Mitch McConnell and the Republicans run the Senate.
MARQUARDT: It's going to be a big week ahead on Capitol Hill. Lots of questions to be answered, whether Nancy Pelosi hands over these articles of impeachment, what this trial is going to be looking like. I know both of you will be all over it.
Anita Kumar, Toluse Olorunnipa, thanks very much for joining me.
OLORUNNIPA: Thank you.
MARQUARDT: Still ahead, the numbers are out. Fundraising dollars to who is ahead in the race, we'll have it all. That's next in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARQUARDT: T-minus-30 days until the Iowa caucuses. That's under a month. Fourth quarter fundraising numbers are showing that Bernie Sanders is killing it with the donations. He's raised $34.5 million last quarter. That's followed by Pete Buttigieg at $12.7 million, Joe Biden at $22.7 million, and Elizabeth Warren at $21.2 million.
After some urgent appeals, now Andrew Yang, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard are rounding out the top eight when it comes to raising that campaign cash.
But what other criteria, what other factors are important right now in the 2020 campaign? To answer that we have CNN Political Writer and Analyst, Harry Enten.
[15:40:11]
Harry, aside from those eight, we still have 14 Democrats in the race. You've been boiling that field down to the five candidates with the best chance of winning the nomination.
Let's start with who they are?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICAL WRITER & ANALYST: Sure. Right now, at number five, we have Amy Klobuchar, the Senator from Minnesota. At number four, we have Elizabeth Warren, who is a Senator from Massachusetts. At number three, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. Number two, Senator Bernie Sanders, from Vermont. Number one, the former vice president of the United States, Joe Biden.
That ranking has stayed consistent over the last few times that Chris Cillizza and I have done those rankings.
MARQUARDT: That doesn't reflect the top-five fundraisers. What factors you looking at to make that list?
ENTEN: Sure. We're basically looking at three factors. Number one, the polling. If you take a look at the national polling, or back since September, you see that Joe Biden is clearly out ahead. Since an average, in our CNN polls since September is at 28 percent. Bernie Sanders is at 18 percent. Warren at 17 percent. Buttigieg is at 8 percent. That correlates pretty well with what we're seeing.
But it's beyond just the polling. We're looking at endorsements. Those have been highly correlated with who goes on to win primaries.
What do we see in the endorsements? We see that Joe Biden is well out ahead. He has 33 endorsements from members of Congress or governors. No one else is close. Cory Booker is at 13. Most of those in his home state. Elizabeth Warren is at 12, Klobuchar at six, Bernie Sanders at six.
The one other factor we're looking at is that fundraising you mentioned. Bernie Sanders is well on top not just in the fourth quarter but overall this past year, where he's raised close to $100 million. No one is really close to him.
Pete Buttigieg is around $75 billion this year. In the last quarter, he's near $25 million
When you put all of those together, we see Joe Biden is one, Bernie Sanders is two. Below that it gets more dicey. But we have Buttigieg at three, Warren at four and Klobuchar at five.
MARQUARDT: Those polling numbers that you showed, those were national numbers. Iowa, New Hampshire go first. They can really set the tone of the polls that follow.
As we mentioned, less than a month out. Yesterday, was a month away from the Iowa caucuses. If we're just looking at Iowa, where Pete Buttigieg has been giving Joe Biden a run for his money, where do things stand there?
ENTEN: If we look at the average, we see basically, very close to the top. We see Buttigieg at 21, Biden at 19, Sanders at 19, Warren at 15. And Klobuchar, even though nationally she isn't doing so well, she in the top five. Iowa is part of the reason she's in the top five in our ranking.
But the one thing I should point out to you, Alex, is that we really haven't had any Iowa polls in a while. When you combine the fact that the polling is so close and the fact we haven't had so many polls, it gives you an understanding that it's messy in Iowa right now.
MARQUARDT: Is there anyone else, Harry, are there dark horses we should be paying attention to? Anyone who could come from behind and surprise us?
ENTEN: The only one I really think of, if you look at the national polling, which gives you somewhat of an indication, that's the former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. That's, in part because he's spending all that money, running a national campaign, not running an Iowa/New Hampshire and early state campaign.
If the first couple of states are really messy and Bloomberg is spending all that money, it wouldn't be shocking to me if he was able to come out now and enter into that top five.
But at this point, those top five look pretty set. But Bloomberg, we'll see. Politics is a funny thing. Sometimes strange things happen.
MARQUARDT: Yes, they do. All right, 20 days to Iowa.
Harry Enten, I know you're getting excited. Thanks very much for joining us today.
ENTEN: I'm very excited.
Let me say one last thing, go Buffalo Bills. We're on in it less than an hour. I'm so hopeful.
MARQUARDT: Good luck to your Bills.
ENTEN: Thank you.
[15:44:13]
MARQUARDT: All right, do well. Coming up, a new video of North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un is coinciding with new threats from the North Korean dictator.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARQUARDT: So much attention on Iran and the Middle East right now, it's really important to not lose site of the fact that the president is also facing another crisis with North Korea.
CNN's Brian Todd reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The New Year brings bold strokes of bravado from North Korea's supreme leader.
UNIDENTIFIED KOREAN NEWS ANCHOR: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
TODD: As his propaganda arm releases new video of a recent visit Kim Jong-Un made to the revered Mount Paektu on a white stallion, complete with sound effects of the horse's gallop --
(MUSIC)
TODD: -- the dictator brashly declared that his country will no longer be bound by his self-declared halt to the testing of his nuclear bombs and long-range missiles.
As the world sees fresh video of Kim's officers standing in the water, then Kim posing with his wife in a snow-banked stream, we also get an ominous new warning from the despot: "The world will witness a new strategic weapon on to be possessed by the DPRK in the near future."
What kind of weapon could that be?
BRUCE KLINGNER, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Many of us are expecting some kind of ICBM launch, whether it's an existing missile that they have or perhaps a new ICBM, like solid fuel. They could do additional submarine launches, land-based medium- and intermediate-range missiles.
They could, with an ICBM, finally demonstrate they have a reentry capability that would protect a warhead as it comes into the earth's atmosphere.
TODD: Despite the cheerful propaganda of Kim emerging from a photo-op on Mount Paektu with soldiers frantically applauding, analysts say the young leader is likely frustrated that his nuclear diplomacy with President Trump has not paid off for him.
JESSICA LEE, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, THE QUINCY INSTITUTE: There has been no lifting of sanctions. There has been no progress on ending the Korean War. And there's been no progress in having regular diplomatic negotiations without it being cut short. Frankly, Kim Jong-Un doesn't have much to show for right now. TODD: Venting that frustration, Kim's regime imposed a deadline for
more progress toward a nuclear weapons deal with the U.S. to be made by the end of 2019 or else.
The regime threatened a so-called Christmas gift to America, which many experts believed would be the testing of a long-range missile.
That hasn't come yet.
And even with his latest New Year's threats, analyst point out Kim did not say he's walking away from diplomacy with President Trump.
LEE: What he's done by signaling assertiveness and aggressiveness but also leaving the door to diplomacy to say, look, we want to negotiate as much as you guys do.
TODD: And the president, even as Kim's latest threats were trickling in from Pyongyang, said he's still banking on his personal relationship with Kim.
[15:50:05]
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He likes me. I like him. We get along. I think he's a man of his word. We're going to find out. I think he's a man of his word.
TODD: But some believe if Kim tests long-range missile soon, Trump and his team should no longer be so accommodating.
KLINGNER: The U.S. should stop our own self-imposed constraints on military exercises. We canceled at least 13 exercises. That's degraded U.S. deterrence and defense capabilities.
TODD (on camera): Analysts say, if Kim Jong-Un does test a long-range missile sometime soon, a big challenge for the Trump team is going to be to get tough with Kim without overreacting. One way to thread that needle, they say, the Trump team could target Kim with specific sanctions, like going after the Chinese banks that launder his money for him.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MARQUARDT: Our thanks to Brian Todd for that.
Coming up, thick smoke, red skies and deadly flames that have forced tens of thousands of people from their homes. Wildfires in Australia are showing no signs of stopping. And the record-setting heat is making it an extremely risky job for firefighters and it's making it even more dangerous for them. We'll have that next.
You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MARQUARDT: Brave firefighters in Australia are preparing for yet another day battling catastrophic historic wildfires as record- breaking temperatures and strong winds have created extremely dangerous conditions there.
[15:55:09]
Now we're going to show you some satellite images and they show just how much the situation has deteriorated, particularly along the southeastern coats where residents say the day looks more like night as thick smoke clouds are in the sky. One official comparing the destruction to an atomic bomb.
Overnight, in the state of Victoria, three separate fires merged to form one massive blaze. A state of disaster has been declared there.
The death toll from the fires has risen from 18 to 23 people across the country.
Our Andrew Stevens is in New South Wales.
Andrew, is there any hope in sight?
ANDREW STEVENS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's some relief, which is expected over the next 24 hours or so, Alex, but this is by no means over.
As you point out, in looking at the pictures, it's been an absolutely terrifying past 24 hours for thousands and thousands of Australians in the southeast of the country, who are trapped in mainly small towns, told by the local fire services it was too late to leave.
And they spent a terrifying evening just waiting for the fires to either engulf them or to go around them. And quite miraculously, there have not been any deaths in that area from these fires, despite the fact there were incredibly strong, hot dry winds driving temperatures to unbelievably high levels almost.
Just outside Sydney, on the outskirts of Sydney, a suburb called Penrif (ph) hit 120 degrees. And there were fires not far from Penrif (ph).
But today, the temperatures have dropped somewhat. It's a move by the wind. The wind is now coming in from the south, which means they're pushing fires back inland. They're still certainly raging but not nearly as many as yesterday at this stage.
Yesterday, there were something like 25 fires, which had been labeled extreme, which is the highest rating for these bushfires, in Victoria and New South Wales. Today, that number has shrunk below 10 but there are thousands of firefighters out there doing their bit.
You have to put this in context as far as the drought in Australia, Alex. It is bone dry, tinder dry in Australia. It doesn't take much for a strong wind, a hot day to spark a fire. What happens in the some of the bigger fires, and that one you spoke
about three fires merged into one, they're so big they create their own weather pattern. That usually includes thunderstorms, which leads to dry lightning strikes. And that's where you get new spot fires breaking out, which, again, become major, major complications.
It's a very precarious situation at the moment. Right now, the worst of this week, this weekend, is behind us. But certainly a respite but no end in sight.
MARQUARDT: Precarious to say the least. You are just left with no words when you look at the pictures.
Andrew Stevens, in New South Wales, thank you very much for your reporting. We know you'll stay on the story.
For more information how you can help those victims of Australia's devastating bushfires, head on over to CNN.com/impact.
We'll be right back with more news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
