Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Rockets Target Another Iraqi Base Housing U.S. Troops; Growing Unrest In Iran; Pelosi Defends Delay. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired January 12, 2020 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: And they could say that there have been racism and sexism in the household.

And I think that if that was to be the case, they want to put a lid on it. So I don't know. But at the moment, it seems they're unhappy and they want something different for their future.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Wow. Okay. Well, Kate, you get all the Intel so you keep us posted. When you learn of stuff, because, man, this is gripping the world, is it not? Thank you so much.

All right. Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We've got some breaking news from Iraq where another Iraqi Air Base which houses U.S. troops is hit with rocket fire just four days after the attacks on two other bases.

Today's attack hit Balad Air Base, which is about 70 miles away from our Al-Asad Air Base, the site of Wednesday's rocket attack, which was launched in retaliation for the deadly U.S. drone strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

CNN's Arwa Damon is in Baghdad. So Arwa, no Americans that we know of or coalition forces present at Balad Base when this happened? We do know it was retaliation, the strike at Al-Asad. Are we hearing anything of the like here at this strike at Balade Air Base in Iraq?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first, just to clarify a little bit about the nature of how these attacks occur here. This kind of a rocket attack at Balad Air Base, the rockets attack that happened on a fairly regular basis in the Green Zone.

This is the tragic norm of what happens in Iraq and in this particular case, when it comes to what happens in Balad, eight Katyushas were fired, four Iraqis were wounded. As you were saying there, no coalition or U.S. forces were at the base at the time of the attack.

Now, that's the norm here, compare that to what happened at Al-Asad Airbase. What hit Al-Asad airbase, those were no rockets. Those were ballistic missiles fired from Iran.

Now we were the first journalists to actually get access to the base, to the sites of these strikes, to all of the troops that were impacted. And it really is striking when you get up there and you gain an appreciation for just how dangerous of a situation it was, and just how lucky to a certain degree, those who were based there were to not have had any casualties among them.

And that happened, Fredricka, for a number of reasons. The commanders there were telling us that they began putting together a picture of what was going to be happening that evening, the evening before the attack.

By 11:00 pm, they had a pretty solid idea that it was going to be ballistic missiles. They had people take cover inside bunkers that were already there. Incidentally, Saddam Hussein era bunkers.

But while these missiles were flying in, they still had forces that were in guard towers that were holding positions that they could not flee from. They stood there while these missiles were flying in.

And this is the first time that any of those people, troops or contractors had been under this kind of an attack. The force of these missiles is such that the Americans are not used to being on the receiving end of this, Fredricka, they're used to being the ones who deliver them.

Experiencing war like this was really quite traumatic for many of those who we spoke to, although they are all saying that they are staying in the fight. This doesn't sway them when it comes to their overall mission, but has changed their perspective on life.

WHITFIELD: Arwa Damon, thank you so much. Joining us from Baghdad.

All right, also today, growing unrest in Iran. Protesters are taking to the streets following Iran's confession that it accidentally shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet. Some Iranians are even calling on the country's Supreme Leader to step down.

Meantime, President Trump is sending a strong message to Iran today tweeting, "A warning to Iranian leaders not to kill the protesters," saying, 'The world and the U.S. is watching."

That comes as the White House is still trying to explain why it decided to kill Iranian Commander Qasem Soleimani without congressional approval.

Today, Pentagon Chief, the Defense Secretary, Mark Esper stood by the administration's latest reason for the attack that Soleimani was targeting four U.S. Embassies he believes, but Esper failed to offer any proof.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Was there specific Intelligence the Iranians were plotting to target four U.S. Embassies?

MARK ESPER, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: There was Intelligence that they had -- that there was an attempt to target the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. What the President said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well. And he said he believed that they probably -- that they could have been targeting the embassies in the region. I believe that as well as the other National Security team members.

[15:05:16]

TAPPER: Was there specific Intelligence that he was plotting to attack four U.S. Embassies? Did you see any Intelligence like that?

ESPER: I'm not going to discuss Intelligence matters here on the show. Let me just say this --

TAPPER: The President did though.

ESPER: The President never said there was specific Intelligence to four different embassies.

TAPPER: He said he believed it.

ESPER: And I believe it to.

TAPPER: Four embassies? You believe that?

ESPER: I believe there were threats to more -- to multiple embassies. That's why we reinforced embassies with additional troops.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Probably and could have been. That is -- that sounds more like an assessment than a specific tangible threat with a decisive piece of intelligence.

ESPER: Well, the President didn't say there was a tangible -- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said is he probably -- he believed --

QUESTION: Are you saying there wasn't one?

ESPER: I didn't see one with regard to four embassies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, let's turn now to CNN's Jeremy Diamond at the White House. So Jeremy, Esper isn't the only one who isn't giving specifics. No administration official has been giving any information to support, you know, the existence of this Intelligence, warning of any imminent threat to U.S. embassies and have -- is there any record that any of these embassies were actually notified? Because by law, don't they have to be notified?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER Right, it does not appear to be the case. And frankly, the reason that we're hearing those explanations is most likely because there was no Intelligence warning of specific imminent threats to four U.S. embassies.

You heard the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, say in that mash up there that he did not see any evidence, any Intelligence that specifically warns of imminent threats to four embassies, and that is likely because it does not exist, because if he did not see it, then the President of the United States also likely did not see it.

But again, this all starts with the President and the comments that he made late this week when he said that suggested very strongly in response to a question about the Intelligence that led to his decision to strike the Iranian General, Qasem Soleimani, that there were threats -- imminent threats, he said, to four U.S. embassies and the result is now, we're seeing the President's top national security advisers, the Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, as well as the National Security adviser, Robert O'Brien really contorting themselves to try and stick with what the Intelligence actually says without actually disagreeing with the President.

Here's how Robert O'Brien, the National Security adviser handled that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST: Would you agree with what the President said that there were specific imminent threats to four U.S. embassies?

ROBERT O'BRIEN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I look, it's always difficult even with the exquisite Intelligence that we have to know exactly what the targets are. But it's certainly consistent with the Intelligence to assume that they would have hit embassies in at least four countries.

But again, we knew there were threats to American facilities, now whether they were bases or embassies, you know, it's always hard until the attack happens. But we had very strong Intelligence they were looking to kill and maim Americans at U.S. facilities in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And you hear Ambassador O'Brien there, using that word assume and that is essentially what O'Brien and Esper were hinging this on, is that the President of the United States, when asked specifically about these threats was simply drawing an assumption, his own belief based on other Intelligence that he had seen. Again, no evidence to back up this claim of four U.S. embassies that were under imminent threat of attack.

And of course, this is a legal question, because that is the legal justification that this administration has used. And frankly, after seeing O'Brien and Esper today, it appears that Members of Congress, particularly Democrats have only more questions to ask of this administration after these shifting explanations -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jeremy Diamond, thank you so much, at the White House. I want to bring in now Brett Bruen. He is a former White House Director of Global Engagement under President Obama and a former U.S. diplomat in the Middle East.

Thank you so much, Brett, for being with me. So what are your thoughts? What's your reaction to hearing the President using the word believe? He believed that these four U.S. embassies, were, you know, targets that the Defense Secretary would reiterate that same kind of belief.

BRETT BRUEN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes, we're not at the Trump casino. This isn't about beliefs and bets. It's about a very hard Intelligence and very real threats.

The problem with the President making this up as he goes along, is we're almost in one of those boy who cries wolf scenarios where we just don't know what to believe, and I think a lot of our commanders, a lot of our ambassadors are in a very difficult position because when the President of the United States plays so fast and loose with the facts, especially when it comes to national security, it endangers our people.

WHITFIELD: So as a former diplomat, is it your experience, that the embassies would have been informed over any imminent threat?

[15:10:01]

BRUEN: Yes, and Fredricka, you made this point earlier. There's something called the no double standard rule and this dates back to the bombing of the Pan Am Flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. If the U.S. government had specific intelligence, and it took steps to protect our embassies, it had to inform the American public in those countries. That never happened.

So if the President, if others in the administration had Intelligence that there were threats, then they had a legal obligation to go out and to tell American citizens in those countries about it.

WHITFIELD: So given that, what is your understanding of what the consequences likely will be for this administration to have not informed the public or directly these embassies, if indeed they were in the crosshairs and they were facing an imminent threat?

BRUEN: I think Congress has to ask questions and has to understand, not just the basis for the attack against General Soleimani but what are we doing in response to the threats that both -- went up to this incident as well as afterwards, because our diplomats, our embassies are at greater risk because of the strike against Soleimani.

We have to, going forward, ensure that we're treating this information properly and that it's not just being used by the President to try to justify some of the actions they've taken.

WHITFIELD: Okay. We've heard a litany of language coming from the administration, you know, in the last few days as it pertains to all that has been transpiring especially involving Iran. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Soleimani was plotting, imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: If you're looking for imminence, you need to look no further than the days that led up to the strike.

TRUMP: We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy.

He was looking very seriously at our embassies and not just the embassy in Baghdad.

POMPEO: We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where. But it was real.

We had specific information on an imminent threat, and that was threat stream included attacks on U.S. embassies.

TRUMP: I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.

ESPER: The President never said there was specific Intelligence to four different embassies.

TAPPER: He said he believed it.

ESPER: And I believe it to. What --

TAPPER: Four embassies? You believe that?

ESPER: I believe there were threat to more -- to multiple embassies. That's why we reinforced embassies with additional troops.

O'BRIEN: I think imminent generally means soon, quickly, in process.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.

O'BRIEN: So, you know, I think those thoughts were imminent, and I don't want to get into the definition further than that. But we took the measures necessary to protect American diplomats.

QUESTION: Probably and could have been. That is -- that sounds more like an assessment than a specific tangible threat with a decisive piece of Intelligence?

ESPER: Well, the President didn't say that there was a tangible -- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said is he probably, he believed --

QUESTION: Are you saying there wasn't one?

ESPER: I didn't see one with regard to four embassies.

O'BRIEN: Everything that President has said is consistent with and his interpretation is very consistent what the Intelligence would show that Soleimani was plotting to kill Americans, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and our diplomats.

And so, you know, we feel -- we feel very good about it. We feel good about the explanations given to Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP) WHITFIELD: So, Brett, what is this doing to or adding to the

credibility, you know, of this administration?

BRUEN: Well, my concern is what happens the next time that the administration uses the word imminent? Are we really going to take them as seriously as we should?

The challenge with diplomacy with national security is that words matter. And I know that this administration has had a very different kind of relationship with definitions.

But when it comes to security, when it comes to the safety of our people overseas, we've got to be much more careful.

WHITFIELD: All right, Brett Bruen, good to see you. Thank you so much.

BRUEN: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, a showdown in the U.S. Senate. President Trump's impeachment trial could kick off as early as this week or at least Articles of Impeachment could make its way to the Senate as early as this week. But there's a stark division among Iowa voters as the House Speaker explains her point of view.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): They will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:37]

WHITFIELD: All right, welcome back. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now says Democrats will decide on Tuesday when to send the Articles of Impeachment to the U.S. Senate. That will set the stage for the impeachment trial of President Trump, only the third such trial in U.S. history.

Pelosi has held on to the Articles for three weeks. Now, as Democrats have pushed for witnesses and new evidence to be introduced at the Senate trial, despite getting no assurances from the Senate Republicans that they will allow witness testimony. Today, Pelosi defended her delay tactic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: We feel that it was very -- it has reached a very positive result in terms of addition of e-mails and unredacted information that has come forward that Bolton has said that he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate, other information that has come forward.

And more importantly, raising the profile of the fact that we need to have witnesses and documentation, and if we don't, that is a cover up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: CNN's Marshall Cohen is covering these developments for us. So Marshall, you know, it doesn't appear Pelosi's delay tactic will have any impact on the possibility of witness testimony.

[15:20:00]

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: Yes, it's not very clear that she got any tangible benefits from it, although it doesn't seem like she weakened her hand over these past couple of weeks. But you heard it there from the Speaker.

You know, she is touting a few developments over the holiday break that she thinks will put the pressure on these Republican senators to allow witnesses, and that was a series of public records lawsuits that unearthed new information about the scramble inside the Trump administration to put the freeze on that money for Ukraine.

And also, the big development last week that John Bolton, the President's former National Security adviser said he will comply with a subpoena from the Senate and testify that is if they call him to do it.

WHITFIELD: And Marshall, you know, with the Senate trial moving closer, you know, to reality, what are polls saying about voter support for this process?

COHEN: Well, CNN just yesterday released a new poll of Iowa voters in that critical state where the caucuses will be held in three weeks. And honestly Fred, it's pretty split, 43 percent disapprove that -- excuse me 45 percent disapprove, 43 are approving of the process, margin of error is about two points. So it's really down the middle.

If you dig a little bit deeper, Independents actually are breaking against impeaching the President. And keep in mind Iowa, that's a state that Trump won by 10 points back in 2016.

WHITFIELD: And then, you know, Pelosi says they'll be meeting. She, you know, and members of the caucus will be meeting on Tuesday. What do we understand the schedule for a trial to look like?

COHEN: Well, so Tuesday is the big day. She is going to meet behind closed doors with the other members of the Democratic caucus in the House. And if they decide that day to go ahead and transmit the Articles and name the members who will then go over to the Senate and make the case, we've been hearing that the senators could be sworn in as soon as the next day, Wednesday, but that doesn't mean that opening arguments will necessarily kick off on Wednesday.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is coming up, so there is a bit of a day off, a Federal holiday coming up. But as we all know, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader has said he has made no bones about it. He is ready to do this quickly and move on.

WHITFIELD: Marshall Cohen, thanks so much.

COHEN: You bet.

WHITFIELD: All right, with me now to discuss further about the upcoming impeachment trial, Shan Wu, former Federal prosecutor and a CNN legal analyst. Good to see you, Shan.

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to see you, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, so House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will meet with members this week and then they will vote on sending these Articles to the U.S. Senate.

She said in the three weeks since the House voted to impeach, developments have occurred. Former National Security adviser, John Bolton expressing a willingness to testify and all of this adds pressure to the Senate to call witnesses. Do you agree?

WU: I agree with her. I think that she has had some tangible benefits because the delay allowed some of these legal processes to move forward, some of the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits unearthing more evidence.

It obviously allowed Bolton to have some cover to say he wanted to testify because there had been a lawsuit where his former aide, Kupperman had asked the judge to make a decision, is it okay to testify or not? That suit got thrown out.

So if there's only one thing that she gained, which is that Bolton comes forward and says he wants to testify, I count that as a win for her.

WHITFIELD: And then House Speaker Pelosi is really challenging, you know, whether this trial can be fair and impartial. Listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: I'm telling you that he signed on Thursday to a resolution to dismiss the case -- to dismiss -- dismissing is a cover up. Dismissing is a cover up.

If they want to go that route again, the senators who were thinking now about voting for witnesses or not, they will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: And she is talking about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. So what are the potential dangers or perhaps even a penalty if the Majority Leader McConnell does not carry out a role of impartiality?

WU: I think it's primarily going to be a political fallout. His position doesn't really affect the outcome. Everyone knows they don't have the votes to convict President Trump. But she is really forcing him to have to surface his bias through A,

not allowing any witnesses or any documents, and the democrats can force them to actually vote on that.

They'll make motions -- legal motions or petitions to Chief Justice Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, and Roberts is going to punt on that. He is going to deflect right back to the Senate. So McConnell and his folks are going to have to go on record voting against wanting what most Americans think is a normal trial.

So I think ultimately, it's going to end up hurting them and that's the price you pay for having a trial in a political forum is you're going to have political consequences.

WHITFIELD: And then how long, you know, could this Senate trial be? I mean, the President's State of the Union address is scheduled for February 4th. Do you see that there could be, you know, a real conflict here?

[15:25:13]

WU: Yes, it's sort of a masterful marketing stroke on Pelosi's part also because you'll have the President giving his speech, you know, while he is under impeachment. This will be a short trial.

If McConnell has his way, it's not going to be as long as the Clinton impeachment trial, which took about a month but in that one, they had some briefings and most importantly, they took time out to do some videotaped depositions of witnesses. That won't be going on here. So I'm guessing only a few weeks probably.

WHITFIELD: All right, Shan Wu. Good to see you. Thanks so much.

WU: Good to see you, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Still ahead. Families overcome with grief after that deadly shoot down of a Ukrainian passenger jet by Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I lost three people, three of my best people and is not replaceable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: What we're learning about the victims, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:30]

WHITFIELD: Vigils, prayers and grief across Canada as the country mourns the 57 Canadians killed in the plane that was shot down as it left Tehran. In about two hours from now, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will attend a vigil. Trudeau saying families of the victims want answers and justice. CNN's Paula Newton is in Toronto for us. So Paula, some of these

families are speaking out and they're talking to you.

PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they are and it is absolutely heartbreaking, Fred, as you can imagine. What's going on behind me is a memorial, but it is also a protest. And this is now going on right across the country coast to coast from those Iranian- Canadians who believe it is time that this regime calls it quits.

Through all of the grief though, and the people we've been speaking to, there are certain stories that are just incomprehensible. And one of those is Amir Arsalani, who told us about his sister's family.

He is the uncle of the youngest victim of this tragedy, one-year-old Kurdia, and he just doesn't even know how to go on without them. Fred, for days, he hasn't even been able to speak.

I mean, he told me quite frankly, that people have been calling him. He has not even been able to pick up the phone. He says now, he is speaking out because he believes this must be the tipping point, and he is watching those protests in Iran very closely as well.

Fred, I want you to listen to this uncle, this brother now and all of the sorrow asking for change in Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMIR ARSALANI, SISTER, BROTHER-IN-LAW AND NIECE KILLED ON FLIGHT PS 752: We say eye for an eye, I know it is not a possible way. But get them down.

NEWTON: Bring down --

ARSALANI: The regime has to come down. Enough of people killing. Enough of blood. Enough of young people die for no reason. I lost three people, three of my best people. And it is no replaceable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: You know what's key here, Fred, is that he is saying, despite what the Iranian government have said, this was no accident. He calls this a terrorist attack and he says nothing will bring back his niece and his sister and his brother-in-law. What he wants? He wants change in Iran, and he believes this could be a pivotal point -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: And Paula, as if Canadians weren't rattled enough, there was a warning about a nuclear plant near Toronto that went out -- like a notice that went out to thousands of people and what exactly was said?

NEWTON: I mean, Fred, it's an alert. You got it on your TV or your phone. We all heard it. It was impossible to miss, and that is the point. This is supposed to be the most severe alert that you can get in the morning to tell you there is something going on and you need to be aware because you might have to evacuate. It went out to literally a couple of million people seeing this alert.

It was a mistake, Fred. There are no incidents that had happened there.

I spoke to a couple people on the phone who were literally stammering on the phone to me, Fred, to try and explain why this alert went out.

Why is this significant? Look, this power plant is just about 20 miles from where I'm standing right now. There are about 1.5 million people in the radius there, including people in the United States. These alerts are supposed to work properly for a reason, right? They're supposed to be credible.

And this has done immense damage to the alert system here which is already having a lot of struggles, because the next time, Fred, when this happens, and thankfully there was no incident which CNN has confirmed at that nuclear plant.

The problem is now that this alert system has been compromised, it was a mistake. Everyone here will worry that the next time around, people will not evacuate if they have to.

WHITFIELD: All right. They're not -- they're not going to be as trustworthy perhaps. They will be a little bit more cautious about what to believe. All right. Paula Newton in Toronto, thank you so much.

All right. New fallout from a naval base shooting in Florida, more than a dozen Saudi service members expelled. But investigators say they didn't help the gunman.

Plus Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden battling it out over African- American voters before this week's Democratic debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:38:33]

WHITFIELD: All right, billionaire and 2020 Democrat Tom Steyer is campaigning in North Carolina today after qualifying for Tuesday night's upcoming debate.

The former Starbucks CEO was the last candidate to make the cut after a pair of polls showed him gaining traction in Nevada and South Carolina. Steyer has spent more than $116 million on television ads, more than any other candidate so far.

However, the businessman says he credits his recent success to his message, not his millions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that the thing that has put me on this stage and it is the same for every single person who is running for President, is message.

I've been to South Carolina multiple times. We have 82 organizers on the ground in South Carolina. I'm actually a grassroots person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, joining me right now to discuss is Terry McAuliffe. He is a former Virginia Governor and D.N.C. Chairman. Good to see you, Governor.

TERRY MCAULIFFE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Fredricka, great to be with you.

WHITFIELD: Thank you. So Senator Cory Booker did not make the cut. And he says you know that the rules are systematically paving the way for a billionaire to buy his way into becoming the nominee.

Here are the six who are qualified for the debate. That being said, do you think it is fair that Steyer will be on the debate stage this week?

MCAULIFFE: Listen, I think it's fair that Tom will be on the on the debate stage. I've known Tom for a long time. I agree with the statement that he is a big grassroots person. He was very helpful to me when I ran for Governor to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

[15:40:01]

MCAULIFFE: It is unfortunate that we will not have any representation from the communities of color on the upcoming stage.

You know, it's a hard situation. You had 20-plus candidates running for office, the D.N.C. was in a very tough place because you couldn't continue to have 20-plus candidates in the debate stage. So they came out with the rules early and everybody knew what the rules were.

But I do think, as we go into 24 and 28, we've got to relook at this process. Because when Democrats win 95 percent of the African-American vote and 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, we need to make sure that there is continued presence, and those views are shared, and everybody is included.

So I think as we go forward, for the next couple of years, we've got to figure out how we include different communities of color in these debates.

WHITFIELD: So let's talk about some of the other candidates then. According to a recent "Washington Post" poll, former Vice President Joe Biden holds a wide lead among African-American support at 48 percent. Senator Sanders is quite a bit behind in second place at 20 percent.

However, today, the senator's campaign co-chair penned an op-ed for a local newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina titled -- and it was Nina Turner -- and it is it's titled, "While Bernie Sanders has always stood up for African-Americans, Joe Biden has repeatedly let us down."

So how important is it, in your view for Sanders to make his case particularly to African-American voters when he hits that debate stage? Do you see him also targeting Biden and perhaps his track record?

MCAULIFFE: I can tell you, the Tuesday night debate, it is going to be a heavyweight brawl. I mean, the fisticuffs are going to be out. I mean, this is it, Fredricka. This is your last big shot.

You've got a lot of the candidates, four of them bunched very closely together. So those four have got to go after each other. Then you've got the other candidates. You've got Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar, who have got to make a move.

So this debate is going to be very aggressive, very vigorous, definition, differences of opinions, but it's important to the African-American community and that's why we're going to go through Iowa and New Hampshire, then we hit Nevada, but South Carolina is going to be a real determining factor with the majority of the vote being African-American, I think Biden obviously is a huge lead there because of his strong support.

But my point, as a former Chairman of the National Party, we need a nominee who can appeal a message that works to the African-American community because they are such a loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, we need to make sure that the African-American community is mobilized and energized as we head into the 2020 election.

So it's very important as we go forward, and I think Bernie Sanders has to show in the South Carolina primary that he has strong support in the African-American community, because for our general nominee, you have to be able to show that you can win all over the country, all different constituencies, but very importantly, you've got to be able to win African-American votes.

WHITFIELD: So clearly, that's some of the criteria that has to be met for your choice. You have yet to make public who you would want that Democratic nominee to be. You want to do that now? Do you like anybody in particular?

MCAULIFFE: Well, since I am part of your CNN now, you won't allow me to do that as long as I'm coming through and spell my wisdom to you on television. But, you know, it's going to move very fast.

I mean, we're now three weeks from tomorrow, Fredricka is when we're going to kick this off with the Iowa caucus. Again, Iowa and New Hampshire, all the candidates at the top are very closely aligned.

And then the interesting part will be if we come out of the first four contests, and there's no clear front runner, it is a little bit muddled, then we head into March 3rd, and we've got about 38 percent of the delegates being chosen that day.

And then the interesting part will be Mayor Bloomberg, who is committed to spend. He has all the resources he needs as well as Tom Steyer, then it will be interesting on March 3rd.

So the goal will be for the candidates now, they've got to come out strong in these first four contests heading into March 3rd, as we move forward; otherwise, you could see a very protracted long process. I'm hoping we don't have that. I'm hoping we can get together and figure out our nominee and then everybody unifies.

Because the goal is to beat Donald Trump, and that is the big issue out there for Democrats. Who is it that has the best shot of beating Donald Trump in the election?

WHITFIELD: And back to that whole endorsement thing, you know, of a potential nominee. You mentioned, you know, there has -- that person has to appeal to a lot of people. So -- and I know you don't want to name any names -- is there a candidate right now still running who you think does at least come closest to appealing to the masses, just as you described?

MCAULIFFE: Well, as you can see, it's very closely bunched up right now. But for me, what is very important is who the Democrats, who can appeal to an African-American community because as I say, they are so important a constituency for Democrats, as well as the Hispanic community.

WHITFIELD: A critical electorate.

MCAULIFFE: So right now, you see, I mean, obviously, Joe Biden has --

WHITFIELD: So if you cannot appeal to the African-American voter and there isn't a monolithic you know, African-American voter, but African-Americans, and if you cannot appeal to them, you think your chances are pretty slim to be the best Democratic nominee?

[15:45:07]

MCAULIFFE: Yes, first of all, you will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party. As I say, if you go to March 3rd and look at those southern states, and you look at the large percent of the African- American community vote there, as well as South Carolina, that's why to me, South Carolina is very important.

Obviously, Vice President Biden has the lead there because of the strong support, the other candidates have to show that they can take and get some of that African-American vote and they can show straight there because you have to be able to put that coalition together as we head forward.

So it's going to move very fast for us, money will become very important. If you don't do well in the first couple of contests, then your resources will dry up and then people will begin to see.

WHITFIELD: Yes. A long way to go yet.

MCAULIFFE: We have to coalesce around a nominee.

WHITFIELD: Okay. Hey, last question, before I let you go, I want to ask you about Iran, the escalation in the region, of tensions. Thousands of U.S. troops in the Middle East and you have a son who serves in the Marines. What concerns do you have right now about the rise in tensions there?

MCAULIFFE: Well, I can tell you for every parent who has a son or daughter that's in the military or has served in the military, number one, very proud. I'm very proud that my son decided and wanted to serve in our military. We're in the cloth of our country.

But I can tell you this, when your son or daughter is deployed in a war zone, I can tell you there is a lot of tremendous amount of angst, nervousness. And I can tell you the other night when those missiles went into that base, and the parents who knew that their son or daughter was at that base, and when the Iranians originally came out and said that 16 Americans have been killed. I've got to tell you, it's gut wrenching for a parent.

So I'm hoping that we can get together. We cannot just make, you know, put our troops over there. We have to understand the consequences of putting our troops over in a dangerous path.

Our sons and daughters are proud they're serving in the military, they will do what the military request of them, but I'm just hoping that smart decisions are made. I'm very nervous about what is happening in Iran. The stories today about more missiles.

We're not clear exactly about the imminent threat that President Trump keeps talking about. He says there were four embassies. There's no corroboration at all on that. So we have a very volatile, dangerous situation today, and our young men and women who are wearing that cloth of the country, protecting our nation, doing what they need to do for the greatest democracy in the world, we need to make sure that our leaders are making those right decisions before we actually commit.

And I think this is a big discussion for our Democratic candidates for President who has the experience right now, in a very volatile world, lot of tensions today, who are going to make those right decisions about committing our young men and women today and putting them in harm's way.

And I think that's going to be a big issue, who has experience to be able to do that and deal with this very difficult situation that we have.

WHITFIELD: Yes, and we understand it to be rocket fire at that Balad Airbase in Iraq.

MCAULIFFE: Yes.

WHITFIELD: All right, Governor Terry McAuliffe, thank you so much.

MCAULIFFE: Thanks, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Appreciate it.

MCAULIFFE: You bet. Thank you.

WHITFIELD: And don't forget, you can watch the last debate before the Iowa caucuses right here. Watch the CNN presidential debate in partnership with the Des Moines Register, Tuesday, nine, only on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:52:56]

WHITFIELD: Multiple sources are telling CNN that more than a dozen Saudi service members training at U.S. military installations will be expelled from the U.S. following last month's deadly shooting rampage at an airbase in Pensacola, Florida.

Three U.S. sailors were killed in the attack. CNN crime and justice producer, David Shortell is with me.

So David, what's the explanation for their expulsion?

DAVID SHORTELL, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE PRODUCER: Hi, Fred. That's right. At least 12 military trainees from Saudi Arabia are expected to be expelled following the investigation into last month's deadly shooting at the Pensacola Naval Air Base down in Florida.

You'll remember it was a 21-year-old Second Lieutenant from the Saudi Air Force who was accused by authorities of carrying out that deadly shooting in which three U.S. sailors were killed.

Now these Saudi military trainees that are expected to be expelled are not accused of aiding the 21-year-old who carried out the attack, but there are some pretty troubling allegations that have come up about them. Some are accused of having connections to online extremist movements and some are said to even have possessed child pornography.

Now, Fred, you'll remember the F.B.I. was investigating this incident as a potential terror act. Well, CNN can now report that the Justice Department is expected to conclude that indeed, this was an act of terrorism.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has increased the vetting of foreign military trainees as they come into the United States.

WHITFIELD: David Shortell, thanks so much.

SHORTELL: Thanks, Fred.

WHITFIELD: We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:59:04]

WHITFIELD: All right, the Department of Defense has just identified the two soldiers killed in a roadside bombing in Afghanistan this weekend, an attack the Taliban has claimed responsibility for. CNN's Dianne Gallagher joins me now from Washington.

Diane, what do we know?

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Fred according to the 82nd Airborne Division, this was the first deployment for both of these soldiers. The Pentagon has identified 29-year-old Ian McLaughlin of Newport

News, Virginia. He joined the Army back in 2012 and leaves behind a wife and four children.

Also killed was 21-year-old Private First Class, Miguel Villalon. He joined the military in 2018. He leaves behind his mother and father.

Now, the Pentagon says this is still under investigation, Fred, even though the Taliban has claimed responsibility for it. They did not identify the two service members who were also injured in this attack.

WHITFIELD: Dianne Gallagher, thank you so much. Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

[16:00:10]