Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Trump Threatens To Hit Iran Very Fast And Very Hard; Trump Administration Warns Congress Iran Could Retaliate Against U.S. Within Weeks; Trump Administration Withholding E-mails On Ukraine Aid; 2020 Dems Question Timing Of Strike On Iranian General; Biden Spars With Sanders On Foreign Policy Record; Iranian-Americans React To Killing Of Iranian General In U.S. Strike; Apocalyptic Scenes In Australia As Devastating Bushfires Turn The Sky Blood. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired January 04, 2020 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:22]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Good evening, everyone. And you are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Bianna Golodryga in for Ana Cabrera.
And we have breaking developments tonight in the aftermath of the American airstrike that killed one of the most powerful men in Iran.
President Trump warning that Iran, what will happen what if that government chooses to retaliate against American people or property, and he's actually revealing what looks to be a part of a war plan on Twitter, directly threatening Iran with the words that Iran will be hit very fast and very hard. The president talking about all-out war despite saying that killing Qasem Soleimani was meant to prevent a war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He was plotting attacks against American, but now we've ensured that his atrocities have been stopped for good. They are stopped for good. I don't know if you know what was happening, but he was planning a very major attack and we got him.
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Also tonight, people close to President Trump's national security briefing say some officials were taken aback that the airstrike target in Baghdad Thursday was General Qasem Soleimani. One official says some of the president's aides expected the target would be a less riskier one.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond is near the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in south Florida, and CNN's Dianne Gallagher is in Washington.
Jeremy, let's begin with you. These new tweets from the president, needless to say, an unmistakable and strong message to Iran tonight.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: It certainly is, Bianna. And these are striking words particularly when you contrast them with the rhetoric that we've heard from the president when he's reading from the teleprompter and the words from some of his top advisers who have insisted that the United States is not marching on the path to war. Just this morning the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was insisting that the U.S. remains committed to de-escalation and now we have these bellicose words from the president.
Let me read them to you, Bianna. "Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a warning that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago, some at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture, and those targets and Iran itself will be hit very fast and very hard. The USA wants no more threats."
And that is an unmistakable threat from the president of the United States there who is not only issuing that threat, but also telegraphing what the American response would be if indeed Iran does retaliate in some form that attacks and that harms Americans, and not only is the president here issuing this red line in terms of American lives being lost in response to an Iranian retaliation, but also talking about American assets here.
So this is quite a bar that the president is setting and a red line particularly for a president who so far has avoided and in fact criticized past presidents for issuing these kinds of red lines.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Yes. He's really heightened the threat level there, Jeremy. Meantime, we know the Trump administration has now formally notified Congress of that strike. What can you tell us about that information?
DIAMOND: That's right. Well, this is a proforma notification that the Trump administration is required to do under the War Powers Act. They are required to issue this notification to Congress within 48 hours of U.S. forces entering into hostilities abroad and we are told now, according to a senior Democratic aide and a senior White House official, that that notification has now occurred.
Now, we were hoping that this would perhaps shed more light on the legal justification that this administration has used to issue to carrying out those strikes, but we're told that at this hour that notification remains classified. There is still a question of whether or not at some point they will also issue a declassified version, but for now, just a classified version and no legal rationale laid out for the public to see -- Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And still so many questions about what took place behind and leading up to that strike Thursday.
Dianne, what are sources saying and telling you about how imminent that threat that the administration says was coming from Iran before the strike was carried out? DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, it
depends on what your definition of imminent is in this case. Look, our colleague Barbara Starr spoke with the U.S. Defense official who said that the U.S. military is comfortable with calling this threat imminent saying that Soleimani was in the final stages of plotting this attack or something against U.S. interests when he visited Damascus in the days before he was killed in Baghdad.
[19:05:17]
Now, there has been a lot of discussion on exactly what that may have meant including the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Mark Milley, who said that he does categorize this as an imminent threat, but when pressed on what that meant said it could have meant that this attack could have taken place within the next days, weeks or even months.
Now there has been some skepticism coming from Democrats who have been briefed or who have been told about what this evidence may contain on whether or not this was categorized as imminent, and both Congressman Udall and Congressman Van Hollen have said that what they've been told, this doesn't seem like an imminent, something that they needed to take advantage of here.
Now, we are told by officials that they had been keeping watch over Soleimani with a pretty frequent effect, and that they knew where he was. So this wasn't necessarily an opportunity here, this golden opportunity, say, like there was in the case of al-Baghdadi or in the case of bin Laden. Instead, they say that this rested surely on that threat.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And going back to what our sources are telling us and what CNN is reporting is that there was some confusion about why the president ultimately chose to go this route as well. It wasn't the first option that was laid out for him so that is something that we're going to look further into as well, but of course, the response from Iran is what everyone is focusing on.
What are U.S. officials saying about how Iran may retaliate? Of course they did call this an act of war.
GALLAGHER: They did call this an act of war and at this point there are discussions as to exactly when that retaliation will happen. It's no longer a question as of will it happen. This is a -- this is going to happen they believe. Will it happen in the next few days as some officials believe or could this be Iran playing the long game as well?
Now the Trump administration did tell members of Congress that they expected some form of retaliation in the coming weeks. There have been moves made already to be prepared for this. There are roughly 3500 U.S. service members that have been deployed to the Middle East just this week alone. They are standing ready and prepared in case there is some form of retaliation there.
Of course, the Department of Homeland Security sending out a bulletin saying that Americans need to be aware of potential cyberattacks in the wake of this attack. GOLODRYGA: And Americans have also been advised to leave Iraq
altogether there. So a lot of heightened tension throughout the world this weekend.
Jeremy Diamond and Dianne Gallagher, thank you so much.
And joining me now for more on this, CNN political commentator and contributing editor for the Atlantic, Peter Beinart, and CNN intelligence and security analyst and former CIA operative, Bob Baer.
Peter, let's get to you. And I want to get your reaction to the president's tweet just a few moments ago, really sort of taking this to another level. We are just hearing that the Congress is about to be briefed on the strike. The administration's talking points the past few days has been that this was intended to de-escalate tensions and this was to sort of bring peace talks back together. What is your interpretation of the president's tweet mean for all of that?
PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think the president likes to seem like a tough guy. I mean, this is a guy who evaded war himself and I think the prospect of now being in control of this powerful military where he can kill people on command makes him feel and kind of gives him a sense of bravado, virility, but in reality he is totally unprepared for the series of things that might happen next and in fact he knows that his own political base does not want a third Middle Eastern war.
The American people do not want a third Middle Eastern war. It couldn't get congressional support for an actual war with Iran. So to me, this is a kind of a bluff, a kind of bravado. In reality, when Iran next escalates and we go closer to that, I think that Trump will look for ways to de-escalate because he's not actually ready for this.
GOLODRYGA: So why send a tweet like that? Why not just remain quiet?
BEINART: Donald Trump? I mean, again, I think, I don't -- do we -- look at what we know about Donald Trump these years. Do you really think he thinks this through carefully about what the consequences are likely to be? The steps -- three or four steps ahead? No. I think Donald Trump likes the way that this makes him feel, likes portraying himself as this super tough guy, and I don't think it goes beyond that.
Remember, he threatened nuclear war with North Korea and then completely backed down the next day. This is the way he operates, unfortunately.
GOLODRYGA: And Bob, let me get your take on this, too, because the administration has said there was intelligence suggesting that an imminent attack was being planned. There seems to be some question, however, as to how concrete that information actually was. What do you make of the decision and the justification given by the White House to go after Soleimani?
[19:10:02] ROBERT BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: Well, first of all, we'd have to see the intelligence. Was it intercepts? How detailed was it? Soleimani does not go on the telephone and organize these things, and rarely do you get an insight into what he's up to. They're just too secure. I've chased these guys for years and there's no diplomatic communications. There's nothing. And this reminds me of Gulf of Tonkin where the intelligence in Vietnam was cooked in order to start up the war in Vietnam and get into it, you know, with both feet.
GOLODRYGA: Your dogs are weighing in, as well.
(LAUGHTER)
BEINART: They agree.
BAER: The dogs -- they object to everything I say.
(LAUGHTER)
BAER: So, you know, anyhow, I don't -- we'd have to see it. And is there really truly a smoking gun? And until we see that, and Congress has to see it, the full text. Sometimes this intelligence is so ambiguous that you could interpret any way you want, but I have to say that Soleimani is a bad guy and the Quds Force has been at war with the United States for a long time and we've chosen to overlook it.
Trump got us into this by pulling out of the nuclear agreement, going to war with Iran economically and put them in a corner. So we are not entirely innocent in this. I do not think that the Iranians will let this go. They have been in the revenge game for a long time going back to the '80s and their involvement and attempt to blow up an American airplane which resulted eventually in Pan Am 103. So I think we're going to see a proportional response is on the way.
GOLODRYGA: So given that and given what the administration has said in some of the talking points including from the secretary of State that the U.S. and that American interests are better off and safer without Soleimani, is it fair to say you disagree with that assessment?
BAER: Oh, I totally disagree. I mean, the Iranians understand violence. They understand how to use it. They undoubtedly were involved in the attack on Abqaiq, the Saudi oil facilities, which did cross a red line. They can hit those facilities over and over again. They can hit them from Iraq, they can hit them from Iran, and they could do us major damage. There is in fact an Iranian empire that goes across the Levant. And its ability -- Iran's ability to take hostages extends to South America, to Africa, and conducting violence.
In this country they do have networks. They're very difficult to find. And in Europe. So they are a major asymmetrical threat against us which, you know, let's just hope they don't unleash this.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. They have tentacles and proxies around the world and they are very good at kidnappings. They're very good at car bombings, as well.
Peter, I want to bring you in because we're talking about physical attacks and obviously there is another threat level and that is a cyberattack. DHS has issued a warning just this week on that and Iran has really increased their cyber capabilities over the past few weeks. Is the U.S. prepared for a major cyberattack if in fact Iran does go down that road?
BEINART: I'm not an expert on cybersecurity but my strong hint would be that if you had an expert on cybersecurity on, they would say that no, the United States is not prepared for this kind of things. The nature of cybersecurity itself is very difficult to protect us from. And I just want to go back to something that Robert said because I think it's so important. Yes, does Soleimani have American blood on his hands? Absolutely he does. There's no question --
GOLODRYGA: Hundreds of Americans.
BEINART: There's no question. America invaded Iraq. We put our soldiers there. We said Iran was next and they retaliated in a very vicious and bloody way by killing a lot of our soldiers. But this escalation that we're now in the midst of began with America's pullout of the Iran nuclear deal and the tightening of sanctions. It was not going on before then. So you don't have to think that Soleimani was in any way a good guy. Obviously he was not.
To recognize that this cycle that we're now in that's taking us closer and closer to war was begun by the Trump administration.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm curious, and to go down that road, you know, General David Petraeus talked about Soleimani and he said that taking him out was more instrumental and more crucial than even taking out Osama bin Laden, a bigger headline than taking out the head of ISIS as well, al-Baghdadi. You tweeted, though, that you thought that this was a careless, reckless mistake. Why?
BEINART: Because the question is what happens the next day? I mean, goodness sakes. After the Iraq war you would think that we -- it would now be the norm for when we have these conversations for us not just to delight in the fact that we can -- to kill a man or overthrow a regime, but we would think about, does our government have a plan for what happens next? All the evidence is we do not. You know, Iran is a state. A powerful state.
[19:10:02]
It is not a non-state actor like ISIS or al-Qaeda. It has much greater capacity to retaliate against the United States, and when you are a government you have to try to keep your people safe. Can anyone reasonably say that an American in the embassy in Baghdad today or an American soldier anywhere in the Middle East, or any of us is safer --
GOLODRYGA: Or Americans that are held in Iran as we speak.
BEINART: Absolutely. Is safer today than they were before Soleimani's death? I don't think so at all. GOLODRYGA: Peter Beinart, we'll have to three of there. Bob Baer,
thank you and your dogs. We appreciate it. Have a good weekend.
(LAUGHTER)
BAER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And a major programming note, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Senator Elizabeth Warren and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff will all join Jake Tapper tomorrow, a powerhouse show. It's a big edition of "STATE OF THE UNION." It's airing tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. right here on CNN.
And coming up, signs of stonewalling. New reporting about a batch of e-mails the Trump administration doesn't want you to see in the impeachment battle.
Plus jaw-dropping images from Australia. Red skies, giant flames and a fire the size of Manhattan.
And new propaganda and new threats from North Korea. What analysts are saying about images of Kim Jong-un riding a white horse.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Let me clarify Senate rules and Senate history for those who may be confused. First, about this fantasy that the speaker of the House will get to hand design the trial proceedings in the Senate, that's obviously a non-starter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: That was Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell slamming any idea that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would play any role in determining upcoming impeachment trial proceedings.
And as the stalemate over when Pelosi will transfer the articles to the Senate continues, we're getting new details about a batch of Ukraine-related e-mails the White House is reportedly refusing to turn over. According to the "New York Times," the Trump administration is withholding 20 e-mails exchanged between an official at the main office of Management and Budget and a top aide to acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
So what's the possible significance of that? Well, CNN legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig is here to answer your questions in our weekly "Cross Exam" segment.
I was told this is the most popular segment on the show, Elie.
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to know.
GOLODRYGA: So I'm excited to do this with you. And we have a lot of questions from viewers. Let's get to the first one. As more new evidence emerges publicly, can that evidence be used at the trial even though the House has already voted on articles of impeachment?
HONIG: Absolutely yes, Bianna. There is no time limit, whenever they find this evidence, they can use it. When I was prosecuting cases, we would investigate up to trial, during trial, right up until the moment that the jury came back.
[19:20:05]
There is time limit in the Constitution or in the laws. The same applies here. And this week, as you said, we saw all sorts of important new evidence that the Trump administration has tried to withhold. The e-mails that you talked about. There's a batch they are refusing to turn over. We've learned about an Oval Office meeting between three top advisers and Trump, and the advisers were trying to talk Trump out of holding the aid and he refused.
That is such critical evidence. We have only found out about it because of the efforts of journalists. This is a cover-up and this week we started to get our full first sense of just how prevalent the cover-up is. And what all of this really does is strengthen the call to have a real trial with real witnesses, and real evidence. But there's still so much that we don't know because of the White House obstructionism and we can only ever have a real trial if we find that out.
So if the goal here is to get the truth then we will have a real trial with real evidence and real witnesses, whenever that evidence may come out.
GOLODRYGA: And a lot of the information that came out we can thank FOIA for. The Freedom of Information Act.
HONIG: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: And great journalism as you mentioned. Exactly.
HONIG: That's the law that the journalists used to get these documents.
GOLODRYGA: Let's go to the second question. Another viewer asks, can Chief Justice Roberts compel witnesses to testify at the impeachment trial even if McConnell does not agree?
HONIG: So probably not. So here's the not part. The Constitution says that the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside at the Senate impeachment trial of the president. Now the Senate has its own rules and those rules say the chief justice can decide all questions of evidence. Witnesses, of course, are one type of evidence, but the Senate's rules say the Senate itself can overrule the chief justice with a majority vote.
So that's the not part, but here's the probably part. There's an X factor. There's -- it's possible that Chief Justice Roberts says OK, Senate. You have your rules, but I have the Constitution that says I shall preside and the Constitution trumps -- no pun intended -- trumps your rules. So if that happens, it's unlikely, but Chief Justice Roberts could take the position that I get to decide here, Senate, with all due respect, not you.
GOLODRYGA: But he doesn't play the lead judge in cases that you're familiar with, right?
HONIG: Right.
GOLODRYGA: This is where politics comes into play versus the law.
HONIG: It's different from a normal trial. Yes. And look, Chief Justice Roberts has never presided over a trial. He's always been an appellate judge. So this is a different ballgame for him.
GOLODRYGA: That's true. Good one. Well, here's another question from a viewer. How quickly can the Supreme Court rule on the Trump tax returns case or on any important case relating to impeachment?
HONIG: So the answer is really as quickly as they want to. The Supreme Court controls its own docket. If four of the nine justices vote to take a case, they'll take it. If not, they don't. They also control their own timing. The Supreme Court has the ability to move cases up and down its priority as needs dictate. As one example, 2000, Bush versus Gore. About as urgent as you could get.
GOLODRYGA: Do you remember that one?
HONIG: It took -- yes, right. It took less than a week for them to decide this case. Less than a week. That's how quickly they can act if they feel the need. Now the Supreme Court has already announced that they are taking the Trump tax returns case that's on the docket for this term. They will decide at some point before June 2020. There's no indication they intend to super speed that up.
They do not have any cases at the moment on impeachment. If they did get a case brought to them on impeachment the big question would be, would they call it what the court sometimes call a political question which the courts try to stay out of? It's really a way that the court sometimes punts on tricky, political questions. I think they might do that if an impeachment case comes to that.
GOLODRYGA: A very busy spring for the Supreme Court.
HONIG: It is.
GOLODRYGA: Last, but not least, most important, your three case questions for the week.
HONIG: So are we going to continue to see more evidence come out? I think we will. We saw a steady flow of it last week. I think we're going to see more evidence, and as that evidence comes out, will it up the pressure to have a real trial? I think it will. Second of all, how long can Speaker Pelosi realistically hold on those articles of impeachment. Mitch McConnell said you can hold them as long as you want. What do I care?
But ultimately politically, I think she'll have to turn them over at some point. And finally will McConnell and Chuck Schumer get together and reach some sort of negotiated deal on how this trial is going to work. Right now they're at an impasse but they've also said they've left the door open to potentially getting together and at least coming up with some basic ground rules. We got to get this trial going at some point soon.
GOLODRYGA: Eli, as promised, I've learned a lot from you including that my Houston Texans are winning now, right?
HONIG: They've jumped back into the League.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you for that.
HONIG: It's not over yet.
GOLODRYGA: It makes me happy tonight. Elie Honig, great to see you. Thank you.
HONIG: Thanks, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Well, tomorrow night CNN's Wolf Blitzer will take a look back at the suspense and drama from President Clinton's impeachment trial. CNN's Special Report, "THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON" airs tomorrow night at 9:00 right here on CNN.
And coming up, how the attack on Iran is reverberating on the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Did he think about the repercussions of what this is going to mean?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:28:12]
GOLODRYGA: President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox. Those are the words of presidential candidate Joe Biden who, along with other Democratic candidates didn't stop there as they slammed Trump's decision to take out one of Iran's most powerful leaders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Are we prepared to counter the possibility of multiple Iranian attacks? Have they thought it through?
KLOBUCHAR: Did he think about the repercussions of what this is going to mean?
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG (D-IN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Taking out a bad guy is not a good idea unless you are ready for what comes next. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Trump promised to
end endless wars. Tragically, his actions now put us on the path to another war.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald Trump gave an order to assassinate a top military leader of the government of Iran, and that means he moved our nation close to war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: CNN's Arlette Saenz joins us now from Des Moines where Joe Biden is about to hold a campaign event.
And, Alette, we're now 30 days out from the caucuses and all of the sudden it's really interesting, the focus has gone from domestic issues like health care and the economy to foreign policy specifically Iran now. Does this help Biden given that this is really an area where he has a lot of experience?
ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, Bianna, foreign policy is really something that Biden has stressed and drilled in on throughout his entire campaign pointing to his decades of experience both in the Senate and in the White House saying that he, of all the candidates, would be best prepared on day one to deal with international matters and over the past day you've heard him be quite critical of President Trump when it comes to the strike and his overall Iran strategy.
Take a listen to what he had to tell voters earlier today in Waterloo, Iowa.
[19:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We can in fact, turn four years of Donald Trump into a historical aberration if we're lucky. Assuming he doesn't get us into another major war.
Now, I've been saying that for a while now, I'm worried about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAENZ: Now Biden has also specifically questioned whether the Trump administration had a strategy, if they had thought through the next steps that could happen after the strike. This is something that he has talked about on the campaign trail, and we could see foreign policy really continue to be a focus, as we're 30 days out from the caucuses -- Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: A delicate balance attacking the President for not necessarily having a strategy while not attacking at the taking out of a terrorist like Soleimani.
But in the meantime, you have Bernie Sanders who really is seizing on this Iran strike and criticizing Biden over his vote for the Iraq war. So how is Biden responding?
SAENZ: Well Bianna, Biden really has stayed away from responding directly to Bernie Sanders, who has been quite critical really since the start of the campaign about Biden's vote back in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
And we caught up with Biden after an event over the weekend. Take a listen when he was asked about comments from Bernie Sanders criticizing him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: ... his moment to question your judgment about Bernie Sanders, among them today talking about how he was right you were wrong. What's your response to that?
BIDEN: I don't respond to Bernie's ridiculous comments.
QUESTION: Do you have any questions about Bernie Sanders' judgment on foreign policy?
BIDEN: You're not going to get me in a fight with Bernie. Bernie has got enough baggage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAENZ: Now Biden didn't elaborate on what exactly he thought that baggage was. But when it comes to that vote on the Iraq War, Biden has expressed a little bit of regret over the years.
But one thing -- you know, I talked to some voters at an earlier event and I asked them if they thought that this was a concern, if this vote from back in 2002 affects their views of Biden's ability to lead on foreign policy, and the voters I spoke with said that it didn't. That they thought that was back in 2002, and we are now in 2020.
Certainly, there could be voters in Iowa who feel a bit differently, but we'll see if going forward, if Bernie Sanders and other candidates, Pete Buttigieg, has also been critical of this Iraq War vote, whether they're going to try to bring this as a main focus heading into the caucuses -- Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it is interesting their thought process behind there and whether or not this will actually work to bring up that that vote for the war in Iraq.
Very fascinating. Arlette Saenz. Thank you. And joining me now, former D.N.C. Chairman and former Governor of Vermont and one time presidential candidate, Howard Dean. Governor, thank you so much for joining us on a Saturday night.
Let me ask you, what do you think of Democrats now taking this strike from President and using it to question other Democrats about their foreign policy records?
HOWARD DEAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: Well, I think the big problem here is that nobody believes Trump. There's no risk in criticizing Trump because of his inability to tell the truth about anything.
We don't really know what the hell's going on because you can't believe a word he says. All we know for a fact is Soleimani is dead and we know he was not a terrorist, I mean, he certainly did things that were very bad, but he was a senior general in the Iraqi Armed Forces. Although technically, that's not true. Technically, he worked for the IRGC.
But this this would be like assassinating Eisenhower during World War II, that's the equivalency of this. You may not like Soleimani who is a bad guy. He definitely hurt Americans.
GOLODGRYGA: I mean, he did more than hurt Americans. You know, hundreds of Americans whose deaths are directly to be blamed on Soleimani. I mean, do Democrats need to be careful here about criticizing the President for taking someone -- I mean, you say he is not a terrorist, I think a lot of people in America would disagree with you.
DEAN: Well, yes, of course. Ayatollah Khomeini has taken many more American lives if you want to go up the chain. I mean, when you're in a war, that's what happens. And you know, he is our enemy, for sure. He is a bad guy, for sure.
But there's not much long term thing that's gone into this. It's much more likely that rather than get into a big war with Iraq and send lots of troops, that they're going to kill American someplace. And that's going to be very hard. They are too smart to take us on directly on the battlefield.
What they're going to do is asymmetric warfare, and that means citizens, ordinary citizens who are traveling in other countries are at risk and you know, I question whether Trump thought about it.
The other problem is that, you know, he has so very few reputable people around him and the ones that are, are not sticking up for Trump's view that this was something that had to be done and there were American lives at risk because of Soleimani.
The truth is, which nobody talks about on television is that we are working with Soleimani in some instances, to attack ISIS. So this is a much more complicated situation than you hear on the political hustings or even analysis on the television and the papers.
[19:35:14]
GOLODGRYGA: Yes, and it has been reported that both President Obama and President Bush and even the Israelis, at one point had the opportunity to take out Soleimani and was not to.
Let me ask you this, though, because now you have a President who is going into an election year with a very good economy, to top terrorists, whether you want to call them that are not, al Baghdadi, and of course Soleimani taken out. Does that make him tougher to beat?
DEAN: In the short term, it will, but let's not forget that George H.W. Bush had a 91 percent favorability rating, after we went into Iraq the first time and he lost his reelection as an incumbent President.
So, yes, the short term, I believe that Trump will get a little bump. But he can't get much of a bump because most people in this country don't like Donald Trump. Period. And so I think it gives probably a small advantage, and my guess is that advantage dissipates quite quickly.
And it's going to unfortunately dissipate very quickly if Americans start losing their lives, and particularly civilians who are most likely to be the targets of Iranian revenge.
GOLODGRYGA: And let's hope that that doesn't happen. But you talk about getting a bump. You look at the fundraising that the President has gotten, specifically following the impeachment in the House and you look at the numbers relative to the fundraising on the Democratic side.
Take a look at this. You've got Bernie Sanders at $34.5 million dollars, Buttigieg at nearly $25 million, Tulsi Gabbard at $3.4 milion, Elizabeth Warren at $21.2, but that's small relative to what the President has been able to raise, some $45 million. Is that worrying?
DEAN: Not at all. Because if you add up all the money that the Democrats are raising against Trump, we're raising a hell lot more money than he is. We've just got -- look, I'm very comfortable where we are.
GOLODGRYGA: But we still have 14 candidates. Is that a deficit at some point for Democrats that you've got 14 candidates still in the running?
DEAN: We don't exactly have 14 candidates still in the running. We probably have about six.
GOLODGRYGA: Technically. Right.
DEAN: Yes, technically. You know, at this stage in Trump's election, we probably had 14 candidates, too. I mean, remember he started out at two percent.
So I'm not the least bit worried about our capacity to raise the money, not at all. The only thing -- I care about two things. I would like a real change in this country, I really would.
I've spoken publicly about having a younger generation, but you know, a lot of younger generation people are supporting some of the front runners who are not younger generation, so that doesn't worry me much.
I want somebody who can beat Donald Trump. That's the most important thing of all. GOLODGRYGA: Well, speaking of younger generation, there is a younger
generation candidate, a 37-year-old Pete Buttigieg who is leading in the Iowa polls and President Trump attacked him last night when he was speaking at an evangelical coalition gathering. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I see Alfred E. Neuman comes out, he is trying to pretend he is very religious. Alfred E. Neuman, you know who that is, right?
Buttigieg. You say boot and you go, edge, edge. Because nobody can pronounce his name, so they call him Mayor Pete.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODGRYGA: And now the President questioning Mayor Pete's religion and dedication to his religion. It seems that the President is sensitive about losing that evangelical vote and keeping them tight to him.
DEAN: Well, look, the President is a twerp, really? I mean, who does this? Any other candidate that question somebody else's commitment to their religion would be laughed off the stage and he is being laughed off the stage by about 55 percent of Americans who thinks he is an idiot.
So, you know, the President is going to be the President. He's going to say these things. It's not presidential.
Look, this guy has got a great economy going, which he has primed by tax cuts for billionaires, and he is at less than 50 percent. In fact, I think he is at less than 40 percent. So that speaks for itself.
And if you want to attack somebody's religion, you're welcome to do that. I don't think most Americans thinks that's a very smart thing to do.
GOLODGRYGA: Yet, he is at 95 percent as he tweeted today among Republicans and we'll have to leave it there. Always colorful. Great to hear from you, former Governor Howard Dean.
DEAN: Thank you.
GOLODGRYGA: Have a great weekend. Thank you. And coming up, growing fears of all-out war, how Iranian-Americans are reacting to scenes of the U.S. flag being burned overseas.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:42:08]
GOLODGRYGA: We have seen some dramatic images out of Iran since the U.S. airstrike that took out their top general that includes crowds burning American flags and chanting "Death to America."
But what impact is all of this having on Iranian-Americans? CNN Nick Watt traveled to Southern California, home to the second largest Iranian population in the world to find out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay. Citizenship fill out this form.
NICK WATT, CNN REPORTER (voice over): At a citizenship seminar for Iranian immigrants here in LA, no one would talk to us on camera. No one wanted their face shown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PEYMAN MALAZ, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARS EQUALITY CENTER: Lots of Iran and still have families over there. Their relatives lives over there. The chances of their security to be in danger is high.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): Many emigres we spoke to say they watched on TV the brutal repression of anti-government protests that swept Iran back in November. Human Rights Organizations say at least 400 protesters were killed.
Here in LA, Qasem Soleimani is not mourned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WATT: What's your first reaction?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): We're in Westwood, aka Tehrangeles, there is some jubilation among the older generations who fled here after Iran's Islamic revolution of 1979. Again, they declined to speak on camera even in death, even thousands of miles away, Soleimani's shadow still haunts.
Eeman, born and raised here preferred we not use his last name.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EEMAN, LOS ANGELES RESIDENT: There is definitely a huge shock just because of the magnitude of who Qasem Soleimani is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): For those who long for regime change back home, there is now more hope.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD KHODADAI, LOS ANGELES RESIDENT: I'm sure this is the first step for freedom probably. We are just looking for hope.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): But despite the U.S. President's words --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We did not take action to start a war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): Now, a real fear of war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MALAZ: So many Iranian have a -- have memory from war and the memory from the war is still alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): In the 1980s, Iran and Iraq fought a brutal protracted conflict that killed more than half a million.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EEMAN: I think a lot of us know what Iran is capable of and we don't want Iran to have a chance to show the world what that is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WATT (voice over): Nick Watt, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODGRYGA: Now thanks to Nick for offering that perspective and introducing us to a new word -- Tehrangeles.
Well, the apocalyptic scenes in Australia as devastating bushfires turn the sky blood red, putting tens of thousands of people and animals at risk. We'll get a live report, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:47:43]
GOLODGRYGA: Thick smoke, red skies and deadly flames are forcing thousands from their homes as catastrophic wildfires rage across much of Southern Australia.
And the combination of record high temperatures and strong winds are making dangerous conditions even worse, if that's even possible.
On Saturday, three separate fires merged into one giant blaze, bigger than the borough of Manhattan. CNN's Anna Coren is live in Eden and New South Wales, Australia where state of emergency is in effect. Anna, I can't tell you, the image behind you, it looks like there's no
sky. It's just all red. I can only imagine what it's like to be there in person and my question to you, is there any hopes of things getting better anytime soon?
ANNA COREN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT Well, Bianna, just to give you an idea of what is going on, it is almost midday, and as you say, look at the sky. It is incredibly eerie. It is orange, red. The smoke. We are completely shrouded and residents walking their dog with gas masks and with goggles on. It is just truly surreal.
We have driven down the coast in the last two and a half hours in the car and the images that we have seen along the way of burnt out townships, houses destroyed, paddocks just burnt out. Nothing remaining. It was incredibly, incredibly eerie.
And we are now here in Eden, which was considered an evacuation point for residents in surrounding villages. We are almost on the Victorian border, we're in New South Wales, but on the Victorian border. It's a population of 3,000 people.
Well, the areas surrounding, if they haven't already evacuated, they've been told to come here to Eden. We spoke to a woman who believes that her home has been demolished in the fires overnight. The fires are virtually all around us here.
So people as you can see, there are caravans, there are cars. They have brought whatever possessions, their lives obviously. We're just seeing lot of dogs, people bringing the possessions here. This is where police had told them to come.
But there was a meeting, Bianna, just a short time ago by police telling residents they now need to move on. That this is no longer safe. Well, residents are furious and I want you to have a listen to Joy Robin.
[19:50:09]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOY ROBIN, RESIDENT: Where's the -- where's the bloody war? You know what they'll do? When the Prime Ministers from some other country come here, they'll show up. They will put on the best show for them.
We are down here. This is a war. This fire is a strike in this war. It's been right down the Great Dividing Range. And now, it's going right to the coast.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COREN: People are furious, Bianna. They feel abandoned. There are not enough resources. They need help and they need it now.
GOLODGRYGA: You can see the anger that resident calling it a war and as you said earlier, that is midday in Eden, Australia behind you and I hope that you relay to those who citizens who you're talking to that we on the other side of the world are covering this extensively.
We know what these fires are like and the damage that they can do to lives and communities. So, thank you so much for all the work that you're doing and please stay safe. We appreciate it, Anna.
And for information on how you can help the victims of the Australia bushfires, just head to cnn.com/impact. Something you're definitely going to want to do. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:55:04]
GOLODRYGA: With proxy militias strewn throughout the Middle East, Iran has many options for retaliation after that deadly U.S. strike that took out their top general.
CNN's Tom Foreman takes a look at possible scenarios.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Iran has a robust military so security analysts say they very well could use cruise missiles and mines and other means to attack the Strait of Hormuz here, a great flow point for the world's oil, going after tankers there, may be going after Saudi Arabian oil fields.
In either case, these are things which the United States government says Iran has done in the past year already, and even on a limited scale, they have disrupted world trade in that commodity.
But what about more asymmetrical guerrilla tactics? Those could emerge, too. For example, Iran could call on Shia militias that it backs in Iraq and tell them to press their attack against the 5,000 or so U.S. troops remaining there.
They could count on Iran for logistics and for Intelligence, weapons and maybe more.
Same thing over in Syria. There, there would be Shia militia and Hezbollah also backed by Iran urged to go harder at the remaining say thousand U.S. troops there, may be fewer.
And then over here in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Yes, Iran has allies at a moment's notice, could start firing rockets over into another U.S. ally, Israel.
And then what about down here? The Houthi rebels in Yemen have already been at war with Saudi Arabia, another U.S. ally. They could be urged to step that up even more and at the same time, go after more U.S. targets wherever they could find them.
On top of which, for all of this, they can be exporting terrorism from any of these places to anywhere around the world. That's why Iran may never have to actually engage with all the U.S. forces highlighted in red here, but they could simply say, look, let's have a lot of repeated attacks at many different targets that even give us a degree of deniability, and that is how Iran could get what they want. By simply stirring up this hornet's nest and seeing what happens.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODGRYGA: And important to point out that Soleimani had a role in all of those proxies. Such an interesting thing that we just heard from Tom Foreman. Thank you so much.
Well, coming up, wag the dog, Twitter digs up Trump tweets predicting Obama would attack Iran to get reelected.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODGRYGA: And good evening, you are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Bianna Golodryga in for Ana Cabrera.
President Trump tonight threatening all-out war with Iran laying out in no uncertain terms what will happen if Iran attacks American people or assets. The President taking to Twitter with the words, "Iran will be hit very fast and very hard," even mentioning the number of places that he is prepared to target.
[20:00:10]
