Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Iran Admits Downing Civilian Airliner, Blames United States; Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Is Interviewed About National Security After Strike On Soleimani; Source: Royals To Meet Monday To Discuss Harry & Meghan; Sen. Collins Working With "Small Group" Of GOP Senators To Call Impeachment Witnesses; Triple-Threat Storm Threatens Southern States. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 11, 2020 - 16:00   ET

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

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: And now, it said it's going to halt production for a while, and nobody knows how long that will be.

[16:00:02]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Again, safety first.

Now, the government also released its jobs market and the latest unemployment numbers and jobs added. I mean, there are some good signs there. It's still strong, right?

ALESCI: Right. Despite the manufacturing slump which is a small part of the economy, broadly speaking, the economy added 145,000 jobs last month. That is a pretty strong showing. That is a small showing than the average of the last three months. So, we have good employment numbers but the job growth is slowing.

And, look, these headline numbers are not the whole story of the U.S. economy. There are certain sectors and certain populations. Take millennials, for example. Millennials will be the first generation that are going to be worse off than their parents. You know, about half of them socioeconomically are in a worse position than their parents were at their age.

So, there are real structural issues in its economy and it's unclear that President Trump's policies are really addressing those really big problems in our economy.

CABRERA: Well, thank you for breaking it down. It's good to peel back the curtain. Get beyond the headlines. Cristina Alesci, thanks for being here.

ALESCI: Thank you.

(MUSIC)

CABRERA: Thanks for staying with me. You're live with in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

New developments right now in that horrific crash of a civilian airliner in Iran and the deaths of 176 people. The government of Iran completely changing its story today and now admitting that the Iranian military shot down that plane. They blame two things: human error and the United States.

It happened Wednesday. The official line from Iran was, from the beginning, we didn't do it. We'll talk about what's going on at this point of the investigation and why Iran is admitting to this, but blaming the U.S. for this enormous tragedy and loss of innocent life, even though they shot down that plane. That's in just a moment.

But, first, this is only something you will only see here on CNN. An up-close look at the air base in Iraq where U.S. troops rode out two hours of missile strikes and explosions this past week. It was Iran's retaliation for the U.S.-ordered killing of their top general.

And CNN's Arwa Damon is the only journalist from anywhere allowed access to the wreckage left by those missile strikes.

She's at Al-Asad Airbase right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: These were living quarters, sleeping quarters. The troops that lived here lost everything.

There was very little, if anything, that was salvageable because there's also a fire that ended up raging here for a few hours after the missile impacted in this particular area. The reason why no one was killed, not here, not in any of the other locations of impact is because there was advanced warning.

We don't know what. We don't know how. That is very sensitive information. But we are told that hours before the attack even began, they knew something was happening. They just did not know specifically what it was going to be.

So, precautions were taken. By 11:00 p.m., troops who could hunker down were hunkered down in bunkers, some of them in Saddam era bunkers. Other who had to man their posts because of the security situation, they were still out there.

And then the strikes began at about 1:34 in morning. This is the crater left behind by one of them. There are so many stories that we're hearing of heroics. So many stories that we're hearing of really extraordinary close calls. Those who lived through this say that it's clear that Iran wasn't that concerned with trying to save U.S. lives. A lot of these impacts did happen in places where they could potentially have caused significant U.S. casualties.

And this is Lieutenant Colonel Staci Coleman.

We've been speaking all day. I mean, you were telling us what was that night like? How do you begin to describe it?

LT. COL. STACI COLEMAN, U.S. AIR FORCE: It's very hard to describe. It was extremely scary. Some of my team and myself were hunkered down in one of those bunkers and when the first wave started hitting, you could feel the shock wave and even inside the bunker, the pressure was so strong that we watched our bunker doors sink in towards the inside of the bunker and then escape back out.

About seven of the impacts were in very close proximity to where we were hunkered down, and like I said, you could feel every last one of the shockwaves. It was extremely scary.

DAMON: And very lucky or was it the training, the precautions that were taken that there were no U.S. casualties?

COLEMAN: I'd say it was all of that. I'd say it was a combination of God looking out for us. It was a combination of, you know, the little bit of intel and advance warning that we got.

[16:05:03]

And then it was the smart commanders on the ground making on spot decisions to get people out of harm's way.

DAMON: And how do you begin to describe, I mean, what this was like and then, of course, what kind of security precautions you're having to take now given this situation?

COLEMAN: This was, like I said, we knew something was happening but we didn't know exactly what. As the time grew closer, we kind of felt we had an indication of what it might be but we still weren't certain. So, we had advanced warning there may be some rockets followed by a base incursion and so, we had to keep our security forces out to make sure that we were safe from that.

So, there were a good number of folks out along the perimeter and within the airfields keeping it secure.

DAMON: Out there on the perimeter keeping it secure while the missiles were coming in?

COLEMAN: Yes. They were outside during every last one of the missile strikes.

DAMON: Well, it would seem it was very fortunate and also as we've been saying because of this advance warning that exist, because of these precautions that were taken, there is the sense that while this phase of what is unfolding has concluded. Everyone here is still very much on high alert.

Arwa Damon, Al Asad Airbase, Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Our thanks to Arwa Damon and her team.

Now for the specifics of Iran's admission that its military shot down a Ukrainian airliner traveling from Tehran to Kiev, Ukraine. And a warning, this video of the impact that you're about to see is disturbing. A security camera apparently caught the moment when the Iranian missile hit the jet killing all 176 people on board.

Iran says the military operator thought the plane was a cruise missile. He sought confirmation from his central command but couldn't get through. The operator, according to an Iranian commander, had just 10 seconds to make a decision. And after realizing he hit the Boeing 737, the operator thought, quote, I wish I was dead.

I want to get David Soucie in here. He's a former air accident investigator and safety inspector at the FAA. Also, retired U.S. Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.

And, David, it is now the fourth day since that plane was brought down, with so many people abroad. Witnesses right after the crash told CNN they saw people carrying away big parts of the debris, taking debris away from the scene.

Does that make sense now especially knowing the Iranian government was not telling the truth at first about what happened?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: I think the fact they are telling it now, some of that plays into it. The evidence was there. Whether there was nefarious activity of people taking parts away, I don't know. But I do know that things were taken away from the site, which I was concerned about first, with having to be able to prove that it was a missile, like we had to do in MH17 because all that information, all that data was necessary.

At this point with the admission that that's what happened, it carries less weight but it sure shouldn't be handled that way, I wouldn't have thought.

CABRERA: But would the investigation be tainted in any way in terms of getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

SOUCIE: Well, it can. At this point, it's details. The reason for accident investigations, the only reason that we do such a detailed job of the accident investigation is to make sure that it doesn't happen again, in the honor of the people and the victims in the aircraft accident, you want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

So, in these types of accidents, the evidence and the mitigating actions going forward are not located on the scene, where they're located at the launch site of the missile and the communications and what happened leading up to it.

So, at this point, I don't think it would hamper any new information. But it would have had they not admitted that this is what happened.

CABRERA: And I want to come back to the investigation and where that may be headed in just a moment.

But let me bring the colonel in here. There's no more question of what caused this crash. A missile took down this plane. Iran admits to it now.

But how does this happen? CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Ana, I think the basic

answer is to how it happens is a lot of mistakes were made. You know, when you heard the reporting here, talking about how the operator of the missile battery felt that he had a cruise missile coming toward him, clearly misidentifying the object that was flying in that area. They should have known that a commercial airliner was taking off after that particular moment in time, Ana.

And the fact they didn't know that and the fact that they engaged the target in this way thinking it was a hostile flying object either a plane or a cruise missile, that clearly points to not only possibly a faulty training but also just not being able to react properly to the situation at hand.

[16:10:14]

CABRERA: David, all the countries involved are calling still for a full and transparent investigation. What specifics do you hope to learn from that?

SOUCIE: Some of the things that we can learn from that is, was the aircraft -- what I would be looking for is, was the aircraft on a typical flight pattern? As we mentioned just a moment ago, it looked like a cruise missile coming for him. But there were ten other aircraft that took off just in a short period before and after it. So, why was this one particularly different?

CABRERA: Right.

SOUCIE: So, one of the investigation items would be, was -- had it veered off flight? Was it somewhere it shouldn't have been?

From -- looking at Flight Radar 24, it doesn't look like that. But those are some of the things you'd look for in the accident site, as to where it hit, where it landed.

The other thing that might be available at the site is information about how it was reacted to. How the pilots reacted to it. There was no distress call. They may not have had that opportunity.

But it'd -- it would be crucial to look at the black boxes, listen to the flight data recorder and see exactly how those processes were followed and see if those could be improved. So, there are ways to learn from the accident site but not in an investigative or discovery type mode. It would be more of a learning lessons mode.

CABRERA: Sure.

Colonel, Iran vehemently denied a missile took down this plane, calling it a big lie. Why do you think they decided to come clean?

LEIGHTON: Well, I think they were kind of caught between a rock and a hard place here, Ana. The whole issue that they were dealing with was whether they could even possibly conceal what actually had happened and given the reports that the United States, the U.K., Canada and other countries released, it was pretty clear that we had enough intelligence information to call into question the Iranian assertions.

And pretty soon, the Iranians realized that they couldn't sustain the story that they were telling at this point in time, and that's I think one of the main reasons why they decided to, in essence, come clean.

CABRERA: And so, now, Iran seems to be trying to share responsibility for this with the U.S.

Let me read part of a statement today from an Iranian official saying, quote: Following the threats made by the U.S. president and military leaders to attack a large number of targets in the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic's armed forces were on high alert. They were on edge.

But shouldn't Iranian armed forces know the difference between a civilian airliner and a military aircraft, Colonel?

LEIGHTON: Absolutely. And there's no question that not only are there different profiles and radar tracks that aircraft of military type versus civilian type have, but it's also pretty clear that the training should have been intense enough for the operators of this SA- 15 missile battery that they should have known the difference and they should have been able to actually act on that difference.

And in this case, it would have meant not engaging the target and they failed to do that.

CABRERA: It's still hard to believe that airplanes were flying in what could have been the beginning of war zone, David. The fact that commercial airlines were allowed to fly amid an escalation of violence between the U.S. and Iran, I mean, what do you make of that?

SOUCIE: It's -- since MH17, people have been fighting to come up to a solution to this but basically there is information, there was information out there that said it was safe to fly in the area, but it didn't come from Iran, which is required by the United Nations. United Nations and ICAO, say, if you're going to -- if you're going to have these weapons available and armed and ready to fire, it needs to be noted.

You need to be able to say that and tell people so that commercial airplanes -- you know, Ana, we go through an incredible painstaking effort to make sure these airplanes are safe and that bombs don't get on the airplane, that people that are on the airplane go through grueling, disrobing sometimes, to try to make sure that they are safe. We put them on the safest airplanes in the world and then to fly them directly into what could be considered war zone with this types of equipment is -- is completely outrageous and something needs to be done about it. And we've been working on it for five years, there's still nothing on it.

CABRERA: David Soucie and Colonel Cedric Leighton, really appreciate your expertise. Thanks so much for sharing with us.

LEIGHTON: You bet, Ana. Absolutely.

SOUCIE: Thank you.

CABRERA: More grim news overseas today. Two American service members were killed and two others wounded in Afghanistan. It happened in Kandahar province, south of the capital, Kabul. A military spokesperson says a U.S. armored vehicle hit a roadside bomb. The names of those killed and wounded not yet released. Twenty-three American service members died in Afghanistan in 2019.

Ahead, I'll speak to former Obama homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson.

[16:15:03]

Does he think America is safer after everything that has happened since the killing of Soleimani?

Plus, could Democrats get the witnesses when President Trump's impeachment trial begins in the Senate? A group of Republicans might make that happen.

You're live in a CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: The Trump administration story of what led to the killing of Iran's top general continues to evolve. Yet, more than a week later, the White House is still not sharing any proof.

Last night, the president's explanation changed again after he claimed earlier this week that a single U.S. embassy, the one in Baghdad, had been targeted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies. And I think that probably -- Baghdad already started.

[16:20:01]

They were really amazed that we came in with that kind of a force. We came in with very powerful force and drove them out. You know, that ended almost immediately.

But Baghdad certainly would have been the lead. But I think it would have been four embassies. Could have been military bases. Could have been a lot of other things too. But it was imminent, and then all of a sudden, he was gone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Joining us now, the former homeland security secretary under President Obama, Jeh Johnson. He's also a former general counsel to the Department of Defense and is a currently a director with defense contractor, Lockheed Martin.

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being here with us.

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Despite all those titles, I'm here as a private citizen speaking in my personal capacity.

CABRERA: With lots of experience. And I know this all touches close to home based on everything you've been through working in the Obama administration.

At this point, do you believe America is safer today after everything that's transpired since the killing of Soleimani?

JOHNSON: Well, the answer is not two or three words. I have to say based on the statements put out by my old department, the Department of Homeland Security, the national threat advisory put out last weekend that in the immediate aftermath of that strike, we were in a heightened level of tension.

That statement was pretty straightforward, talking about Hezbollah's demonstrated capability and intent to attack the U.S. and how an attack could come at any moment. I certainly had not written a statement like that when I was secretary. So, one has to conclude that in the immediate aftermath, we were less safe.

The Iranians have, of course, responded. We saw the messaging behind that. And if the messaging is to be believed, one hopes that this escalated period of tension is now behind us.

CABRERA: What are you most concerned about, though? That the cyber threat that may be out there. And we've already heard from cities flagging possible attacks by Iran already in that capacity, and yet we also have this ongoing military threat, right?

JOHNSON: We have to regard in this era, cyber warfare as part and parcel of traditional warfare.

CABRERA: What is Iran capable of?

JOHNSON: Iran is, in terms of its level of sophistication and capability, it's up there. It's probably among the top 10 or 15 nations in terms of their level of sophistication. I would not say they are as sophisticated as the United States, Russia or China, but they have had -- they've demonstrated a capability in this space that has to be respected and defended against.

CABRERA: So, I have to ask you because of your experience in the Obama administration, after the president went after Obama's foreign policy this week, not just on Iran. It's no happening in a vacuum. He attacked many different aspects of his foreign policy.

Let's take a quick listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think the Obama administration was just letting them get away with murder, in the true sense, murder. President Obama wanted to meet and Chairman Kim would not meet him.

Al-Baghdadi created a caliphate bigger than the state of Ohio, and with Obama, you did nothing. You did nothing, but get your ass kicked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Do you think there's an Obama obsession there?

JOHNSON: Well, first, in the current environment where the American public is concerned about whether we're going to war, in matters of national security, one would hope that this president or any president would put aside the partisan attacks. That's number one.

Number two, President Trump and his administration keep saying we gave them all this money as part of the JCPOA. No, we didn't. It was their money that had been frozen for years. And as part of the JCPOA, that money was unfrozen. It didn't go to pay for missiles. A lot of it was owed by the government Iran to others.

And the basic question that we should ask is, which is what was asked at the time, are we better off with the JCPOA or without it? And JCPOA was not perfect. No negotiated agreement is perfect for everybody, but for a time, the level of hostilities, their efforts to build a nuclear weapon had slowed, if not ceased entirely.

Now we have nothing. And we see what nothing looks like. We've seen ever since the Trump administration withdrew, an escalating level of tension and now violence.

And so, I think the question that was asked originally has answered itself. Are we better off with or without this agreement?

And without it, we are where we are right now. We came to the brink of full scale war with Iran over the last week.

CABRERA: As you know, the Department of Homeland Security has not had a confirmed secretary since Kirsten Nielsen left last April.

[16:25:06]

When asked in the past about the acting people who were serving him, this is what the president said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: But I sort of like acting. It gives me more flexibility. Do you understand that? I like acting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I know you believe that that is the wrong attitude to have. Explain that.

JOHNSON: I couldn't disagree more because an acting has no job security. When you're appointed, confirmed by the Senate you serve at the pleasure of the president, but still, there's a level of job security that you're there for the duration of the president's term. And I think the president has virtually said this, when you're acting, you're perpetually trying out for the job on a permanent basis, which means that the president is not getting the best advice.

So often, a cabinet officer, in addition to running his or her agency, has to tell the president what he needs to hear but doesn't necessarily want to hear. And when you're in an acting role, hoping to get the real job, that's not a good environment in which to provide that very, very important advice.

CABRERA: All the developments with Iran this week really put war and peace at the center of the 2020 race. Is there one who you would trust most to be the commander-in-chief?

JOHNSON: Well, I'm for now staying neutral in the Democratic primary. I'm sure I will support whoever the nominee is.

Obviously, the one I know best is the one I worked alongside of, and that's Vice President Biden. And he's in a position from his years in the Senate and his eight years as vice president to understand national security, to understand the world situation. There are other very fine candidates in the race.

Not (ph) right now, but I believe that national security should loom large in the current discussion because of where we are in the world scene.

CABRERA: I know you're staying neutral in the 2020 race, but you and I have talked about possible future ambitions for you. I know you're happy where you are right now, but if somebody asked you to be the number two person on their ticket after the primaries are all done, would you accept?

JOHNSON: Well, it's not part of the life plan. I -- I am retired from public office but if someone were to come to me, I'd have to obviously seriously consider it.

CABRERA: Is there any candidate out there that you -- even if you can't say who they are right now -- that you've been in discussions with?

JOHNSON: No.

CABRERA: Not yet.

JOHNSON: No. No, I have not. No. That's no, I can't say. No, I have not.

CABRERA: OK. Secretary Johnson, great to have you with us.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

CABRERA: Look forward to continuing our conversation as the days and weeks and developments continue to happen.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

CABRERA: Breaking news on the royal family. CNN has learned the queen and Prince Charles, William and Harry, also, will meet face-to-face for the first time since Harry and Meghan's shocking announcement that they will step back from royal duties.

We've got the scoop live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:30]

CABRERA: Some breaking news out of London and how the British royal family is coping with the crisis brought on by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan's decision to step back from royal duties. A palace source tells CNN, after a series of emergency session, the royal family will gather again Monday in an effort to work things out.

CNN Anna Stewart joins us.

Anna, what do you know about Monday's meeting? Isn't Meghan in Canada?

ANNA STEWART, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. We know who isn't attending. This is a meeting set for Monday in the queen's estate where she is. It will be attended by Her Majesty, Prince Harry and Prince William.

She went back to Canada after the shock announcement earlier in the week. She is expected to be dialing into the meeting.

They will discuss a range of possibilities they have come up with that could fit the duke and duchess given on their Web site and their statement.

While the talks have happened fast, she wanted them to happen at pace implementing any of these plans will take time because it is complicated.

What's so interesting about whatever is decided is this could be a future format for other royals that choose to step down from senior roles or for those that aren't directly in the line of succession. Think of the Prince Andrew in terms of younger siblings, Princess Charlotte.

We never had a member of the royal family step down when it wasn't due to divorce or scandal. This is unchartered territory that the crown is determined to navigate it and move on -- Ana?

CABRERA: We hear so much about the tabloids in the U.K. and how vicious they can be. What has the reaction been?

STEWART: Well, let me show you because it's fairly negative. Here we have "The Sun," "The poor queen grim face over Harry and Meghan." We have "The Daily Mail, another well-read tabloid. They are saying a survey shows there's been anger at the shoddy treatment of the queen. Strip couple of their titles and public money. There are critics that say they should be stripped of royal titles and

pay rent on their home and pay for security if they choose to live between the U.K. and North America.

[16:35:06]

But there's plenty of people that think they should live how they want and where they like. It's highly divisive. It's interesting it's hashtag Megit, given there's many similarities with Brexit. Very, very divisive. Has everybody talking -- Ana?

CABRERA: Ana, Stewart, such an interesting story. A lot of us are curious about these developments.

Thank you for bringing us the latest from there.

John Bolton says he will testify to Congress if he is subpoenaed. And now President Trump suggests he would stop his former national security adviser from doing that. Could a small group of GOP Senators help bring Bolton to the witness stand?

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:39:56]

CABRERA: Now to latest in the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. Republican Senator Susan Collins revealing she's working with small group of fellow Republican lawmakers to ensure witnesses testify at the Senate trial.

All it would take to make this happen is for four Senators to vote with Democrats to allow testimony. For Republican Senators, that is.

This comes just days after President Trump's former national security adviser, John Bolton, said he would be willing to testify if he is subpoenaed. Bolton could be a crucial witness since he has firsthand knowledge on efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

It appears the president is acutely aware of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Why not call Bolton, allow him to testify. This thing is bogus --

(CROSSTALK)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE: I have no problem other than one thing. You can't be in the White House as president in the future -- I'm talking future, many future presidents -- and have a security adviser, anything to do with security and legal and other things.

(CROSSTALK) INGRAHAM: You're going to invoke executive privilege?

TRUMP: Well, I think you have to, for the sake of the office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I want to bring in A.B. Stoddard, associate editor and columnist at "Real Clear Politics, and Gene Rossi, the former principal federal prosecutor and former U.S. assistant attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Guys, good to have you here.

Gene, what are the chances the president can successfully argue executive privilege here?

GENE ROSSI, FORMER PRINCIPAL FEDERAL PROSECUTOR & FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: I think there are very good. Here is why. I think it's -- we were talking about basketball. Donald Trump has done a hand check on all the witnesses, including Bolton, and he's scared to live in day lights out of everybody.

He did the tweet when she was testifying. I think that hand check has scared a lot of people, including Bolton that, if they try to testify, Trump is going to go into court and try to get a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent Bolton from testifying.

I got to say this, as working for the DOJ for almost 30 years, the president has no legal basis for preventing John Bolton from testifying. Period.

CABRERA: I think about John Bolton's role in all of this.

A.B, I'll come to you in just a second.

But back to Gene, John Bolton had conversations with other people beyond the president that we already learned about from Fiona Hill. Who knows if he talked to Rudy Giuliani? Are those privileged?

ROSSI: Ana, privilege does not protect a crime fraud. There's an exception from that, whether there's attorney-client, priest, spousal or executive.

Number two, executive privilege, as you hit the nail on the head, if you're talking to third parties who aren't in this sphere of the Trump administration. For example, meetings with Ukrainian officials, who Bolton may have said or heard in those meetings is not privileged.

That's basic privileged law that you learn in evidence as a second- year law student. So, you're right. The privilege doesn't even apply.

CABRERA: A.B., help us understand the content that Bolton could offer. Why he could be such a critical witness.

A.B. STODDARD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's interesting that he's done this in fits and starts. His lawyers told us last year that he had information that had not yet been uncovered in the House intelligence investigation or the House committee hearings on impeachment, so something new. It's relevant or his lawyer couldn't be telling us this.

Another person, Mr. Kupperman. The case has been tossed out of court and Mr. Kupperman can testify. John Bolton drops this bombshell saying he wants to do it.

I've heard different accounts of how he plays a very strong inside game. He knows all these people. He's very tight with Senator Ted Cruz, with Senator Romney, McConnell. There's a lot that he probably did before he wrote that tweet about the idea of him testifying.

I just don't know how successful McConnell can be at stopping him. If he called this a drug deal and he ordered Fiona Hill to go to John Eisenberg, we know his testimony will not help the president.

Plus, I'm not the lawyer here, but I do know that privilege is not a shield against corruption. If he said to the president, look, what you're doing is wrong and I may have to quit over it, that's not advise. It's not a conversation about policy.

That's not going to stand up to executive privilege that the president is trying to extend to Bolton.

CABRERA: Gene, according to "The Washington Post," the Senate has conducted 15 impeachment trials in its 231-year history and it's heard witnesses in every single one. Is there any legal argument to not call witnesses?

[16:45:09]

ROSSI: There's no strong legal -- you can always make a legal argument. But in the President Johnson impeachment trial in the 1860s, they had 41 witnesses, 41.

I got to tell you this, Ana, if they don't have any witnesses in this impeachment trial, when the history books are written, it will be the biggest sham, the biggest con imposed on the American people in the history of our country.

My goodness graces, can you have maybe five witnesses? There's probably 40 they could call, but at least give them five.

CABRERA: OK. You're saying five witnesses. Maybe we'll see that.

A.B., who do you think could be in this group of lawmakers that Susan Collins, a Republican, is working with and what would be their motive for going against the rest of their caucus and voting with Democrats?

STODDARD: Right. I wrote about 12 Republicans a few months ago that could break with the president. They are not necessarily vote to remove but on these procedural votes where it might cause some problems for the president in the defense of his case. They include Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, who are the rebels. Then

includes the people up for re-election. Senators Gardener, Tilley, Senator Collins Senator Ernest, Senator McSally, and Senator Cornyn of Texas, where the Democrats will make a big play like they did in 2018. He has to work very hard for his re-election.

And you have three retiring Senator, who is are facing the pages of history and not MAGA world and a loyalty to President Trump. Those are Senator Alexander, Roberts and Inslee.

I feel there are a lot of people who could make up the four, feeling, when they face the long view of history, they will want to be on the side of witnesses for various political pressures. When you came to the institution when it was the most important thing, the institutional integrity and not partisan loyalty.

Again, the pressure from Mitch McConnell is intense. These people like Mitt Romney are not loyal to President Trump. They are loyal to Mitch McConnell.

CABRERA: OK. That is interesting because right now Mitch McConnell and President Trump are saying largely, the same thing.

STODDARD: Right.

CABRERA: A.B. Stoddard and Gene Rossi, got to leave it there. Thank you both for being here. Happy New Year since we haven't spoken.

ROSSI: Happy New Year.

STODDARD: Happy New Year to you, too.

CABRERA: All right. Powerful wind, heavy rains, flooding. Dangerous storms are hitting large swaths of the U.S. right now halting flights at one of the world's busiest airports as well. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. We'll talk about the hardest-hit places and what to expect, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:53:37]

CABRERA: Eight people all across the south have been killed by the extreme weather ripping through the country this weekend. We're talking the triple-threat storm threatening 80 million Americans with tornadoes, heavy snow and torrential rains.

CNN Meteorologist, Karen Maginnis is joining us.

Karen, this sounds like a big deal. Walk us through that risk.

KAREN MAGINNIS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: We are seeing such ferocious weather. It's impacted over the last several days all the way from the central United States marching towards the east.

Right now, we are look at storms beginning to encroach across Atlanta. We're looking at line of storms that extends from Ohio and Kentucky to Tennessee down across the panhandle of Florida.

Let's go live to give you a closer look at these are severe thunderstorm warnings. That means the danger is imminent. We have those warnings out all the way from Kentucky through Tennessee all the way down towards the panhandle. This encompasses millions of people who are looking at the potential for severe storms. Maybe some hail. High winds.

You don't have to have a tornado to have damage. We have damage reports out of Memphis, Tennessee, and they were not tornado related reports coming through. Those were wind damage reports. Some of the winds have been gusting up around 70, 80 miles an hour.

If you have a weather radio or an app on your phone, please listen to it because this is going to go on through the afternoon and into the evening hours.

On the back side of this system, yes, we have ice and snow running right across Grand Rapids and into Lansing, Michigan. This is where we're looking at ice. This will be problematic if you're seeing an inch coating of ice on the power lines. Kansas City, St. Louis, started out at rainfall. Temperatures fairly mild. And now you'll see the temperatures drop and the snow moves in.

Nine reports of tornadoes. One as close as Pickens, Alabama, where there were three fatalities. What can we look forward to, the main threat? Damaging winds, tornadoes and isolated hail.

CABRERA: And hundreds of flights have been canceled. That's not because of tornadoes but other wintery type weather. What can you tell us about how it will affect the people traveling this week?

[16:55:07]

MAGINNIS: Yes. I checked that right before I went on the air. The delays and ground delays are running about six hours for Atlanta. We're looking at ground delays.

What does that mean? It means if you are going on airplane, you're trying to get to some place, they are going to hold your airplane because the weather is encroaching or has impacted that area.

If you are flying out, you're going to sit on the ground for a while before that plane can take off as soon as the air clears or if the weather situation clears up for that area.

CABRERA: All right. Karen Maginnis, we know you're staying on top of it for us. Thank you.

We wish safety to all those in that winter and other kind of weather ways as well.

President Trump and his administration, without offering any evidence or intelligence to the public nor even the United States Congress, are now changing the story when it comes to the U.S. strike that killed a top Iranian military commander. We have the very latest from the White House and Baghdad when we come back.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)