Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sanders Campaign Pens Scathing Op-Ed Criticizing Biden's Record On Racial Justice; Five Candidates Will Be Stuck In Washington For Impeachment Trial; Polls: Steyer Has Strong Showing In South Carolina, Nevada; Steyer Credits "Grassroots Organizing" For Recent Surge In Polls; Warren "Disappointed" In Sanders Over Reported Attacks; Warren Responds To Report On Sanders' Volunteers Trashing Her; Sanders Gaining Momentum In Final Weeks Before Iowa Caucuses; Queen Seeking Solution For Harry & Meghan Stepping Back; Royal Family To Meet Monday To Discuss Harry & Meghan's Future; Prince Harry Defies The Queen By Announcing He And Meghan Will Step Back From Royal Duties; Republicans Falsely Accuse Democrats Of Mourning Soleimani; Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 12, 2020 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Thank you so much.

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

All right, the Trump administration is still trying to explain why it decided to kill Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani without U.S. congressional approval. Today the Defense Department Secretary Mark Esper stood by the administration's latest reason for the attack that Soleimani was targeting four U.S. embassies but Esper failed to offer any proof of that belief.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ESPER, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I'm not going to discuss intelligence. What the president said was he believed it probably could have been. He didn't cite intelligence.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: You said it was his belief but I mean, I guess the important matter here is, look, no one is disputing that Soleimani posed an existential threat to innocent people, but the president came out and said that there was -- that he believed there was a threat to four embassies. Were those four embassies alerted that there was a threat to them?

ESPER: All the embassies were alerted. That's why we deployed additional troops to the region. Let me say this much, Jake, I'm glad we're having this discussion today because I'd rather be here discussing this topic with you than going up to Dover Air Force Base and standing there while flagged-draped coffins come home and I have to explain to husbands and wives, sons and daughters why their service member died when I had information that could have prevented that from happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: CNN's Jeremy Diamond is at the White House.

So, Jeremy, Esper, you know, isn't the only one who is not giving specifics. No administration official gave any information today to support this existence of U.S. intelligence warning of an imminent threat to embassies. Why is that?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Most likely because there was no intelligence warning of imminent threats to four specific U.S. embassies. You heard the secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, there. He was saying that he did not see any intelligence warning of a specific attack on four U.S. embassies. Esper, of course, would have seen any of that intelligence had it gone to the president. So that raises that question, of course.

But this all starts with the president, who is saying, I believe that it would have been four embassies when he was asked specifically about the intelligence that actually led to his decision to order that targeted killing of the Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The president's advisers now are forced to contort themselves, to try and both stick with the intelligence and what it actually says but also to try and avoid contradicting the president of the United States. And you saw National Security adviser Robert O'Brien dealing with that delicate dance this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

ROBERT O'BRIEN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Look, it's always difficult, even with the exquisite intelligence that we have to know exactly what the targets are, but it certainly is consistent with the intelligence to assume 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, embassies, you know, it's always hard until the attack happens but we had very strong intelligence that they were looking to kill or maim Americans at U.S. facilities in the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: And you hear O'Brien there as did Esper this morning focusing on this notion of the president's assumptions based on the intelligence but not the intelligence itself.

And, Fredricka, this is only raising more questions, frankly, about the administration's rationale for carrying out this strike, that question, of course, of an imminent threat at the heart of all this -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: Right. All right. Thank you so much, Jeremy Diamond.

All right, let's talk more about this as the White House messaging has shifted in the last few days to take a listen to how the reasoning has unfolded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

MIKE POMPEO, 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 those threats 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 believed it, too. What --

TAPPER: Four embassies? You believed that?

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

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

CHUCK TODD, NBC HOST: OK.

O'BRIEN: So, you know, I think those threats 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.

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

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

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying there wasn't one?

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

[16:05:02]

O'BRIEN: Everything the president has said is consistent with -- his interpretation is very consistent with the intelligence which showed that Soleimani was plotting to kill soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines and our diplomats. And so, you know, we feel good about it. We feel good about the explanation that's been given to Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, let's talk further. Joining me right now, former CIA operative Bob Baer and Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Good to have you both. Bob, you first, we just heard the shifting narrative from the White House and this administration. First, it was an imminent threat. Now there is some debate about that. How many embassies. One embassy. The president says that it was plural. That may have been targeted. And there are laws or at least protections in place that any embassy, you know, that is being threatened would be informed. We don't understand that to have happened at all.

So what do you see is the real strategy here for this administration to not just be frank, you know, tell it like it is? Why are they avoiding a real continuous threat about this imminent danger?

ROBERT BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I'm sure that the intelligence, Fred, was very vague. And by the way, you should see these threat matrixes that come by every day through the government. There are hundreds of threats. They chose to pick up a piece of intelligence, (INAUDIBLE), tried to justify it. But I can tell you, if there was truly a threat, you know, actionable threat, we would have seen some leaking of this, either through Congress or the intelligence agencies.

So I think they're pretty much got their backs against the wall on this because the president pulled the gun too soon on Soleimani. He was a bad guy, no doubt about it. But whether he was preparing to attack a U.S. embassy or multiple embassies, you know, the fact that they cannot produce this intelligence tells me it's weak.

WHITFIELD: To Karim, you know that, you know, Soleimani, bad guy, that part isn't being necessarily disputed at all. But Mark Esper went on the air again today and he says, you know, we, meaning the nation, the United States, is safer today. He said we are safer today as a result of taking out Soleimani. Are you in agreement with that?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Fredricka, this is really going to take years to play out the impact of Qasem Soleimani's assassination on Iran, on the Middle East, on U.S. national security. What happened after he was killed when Iran inadvertently shot down a Ukrainian Airlines flight with 176 civilians, mostly Iranians, really shifted the national mood in Iran.

Instead of people rallying around the flag, they've now poured out into the streets against the government. And I think it constrains the Iranian regime's ability to retaliate against the United States for Soleimani's assassination, because there's no longer popular support for that. WHITFIELD: And so now that the Trump administration is also, you know,

facing increasing criticism over how it carried out the killing of Soleimani. White House officials defending that strike using very specific language repeated many times today. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: We were very concerned about the situation. We had exquisite intelligence. I think when we tell the American people that there was exquisite intelligence and there was going to be an attack on Americans, we had to stop that.

ESPER: We briefed Congress, the Gang of Eight, who are the legitimate representatives of the broader Congress in affairs like this when you have exquisite intelligence. You know, there was a reference in this exquisite intelligence to an attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad.

POMPEO: Rely on the capable men and women who are delivering exquisite information to the executive branch.

ESPER: The exquisite intelligence that we're talking about that led to the decision that was to -- I should say one of the factors that led to the decision to strike at Soleimani.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Bob, is that a -- you know, how do you decipher this exquisite intelligence? Is that some sort of, you know, intel lingo that is very specific to, you know, what kind of intel they found?

BAER: I would imagine it's intercepts. That's the best intelligence when it comes to Iran. Two people in the know, on the phone, talking to Tehran, diplomatic correspondents, their intelligence correspondents. You know, unless we actually see that, we just have to take their word for it.

You know, I have seen this before where Iran has attacked the United States and the signals intelligence proved it. It may have happened this time. But until we actually see it, we can't know for sure, especially with the president changing the message every day.

[16:10:03]

WHITFIELD: And, Karim, you know, you were touching on the fact that in Iran with protesters now in the streets, they really are contesting now the admission from Iran that it took down a passenger plane. Customarily, you know, people might be killed protesting against the government in Iran. Why do you suppose this instance will be handled differently from the leadership in Iran? And is it a potential turning point as well?

SADJADPOUR: Well, it's a very good point, Fredricka. When you see pro- government protesters in Iran, those are folks who, you know, they don't face any danger. They're mobilized by the government. Anti- government protesters in Iran risk their lives. So the fact that there's tens of thousands of them is significant. And I think for many people, when you see the faces and the stories of those that were lost in this airplane crash, they can identify with those people much more than they could with the life of Qasem Soleimani.

So I think the regime has to be careful about how they manage these protesters. If they go out and start killing them, as they did just last month, they killed 1500 people in Iran, it could provoke an even stronger backlash. So it's a delicate situation now for the Iranian regime.

WHITFIELD: And then, Bob, do you see an opening now being created as a result of, you know, the back and forth, you know, the tensions between the U.S. and Iran, what's transpired in the last two weeks? Do you see that in a strange way this has created an opening for negotiations in the short term?

BAER: I do. I see a detente, there's a possibility. The fact that the Iranians did not kill Americans after the murder of Soleimani, the fact that war was stepped back from, there was an off ramp, I see a lot of opportunity. We see a regime that wants to hold on and is worried about these demonstrations and knows it may have made a mistake about the Ukrainian airplane. I see a big opportunity because we came so close to war and stepped back, and this president doesn't want to go to war and neither does Khamenei. Now is the time to open up diplomatic negotiations.

WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it there for now. Gentlemen, thank you so much, Bob Baer, Karim Sadjadpour.

All right, anger and unrest is growing, however, in Iran. Protesters marching in the streets of Tehran, frustrated following the confession by that country that it did accidentally shoot down a Ukrainian passenger plane. Some Iranians are even calling on the country's supreme leader to step down.

Arwa Damon is following developments from Baghdad.

So, Arwa, how significant is it that Iranians are taking to the streets in this manner?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, fairly significant in that Iran does have a tendency to clamp down very hard on protesters to impose and turn blackouts to round up an unknown number, frankly, because it is so hard to get information out of that country. It's not the first time that protesters have taken to the streets, obviously, for many different reasons. This time, it would seem sparked by anger at that accidental shooting down, that admission by the Iranian authorities that they had shot down that Ukrainian airliner.

But the concern, of course, is how is Tehran, how is the government, the security apparatus going to handle these individuals going out into the streets, who are making what is by all accounts a very significant call, as you mentioned there. And you did hear President Trump tweeting, telling Iran to stop killing its protesters. Sufficed to say that it's not exactly as if the Iranians are going to be listening to the U.S. administration at this stage, given the current state of things that are happening in the region.

And at this point it is arguable as to whether or not that kind of rhetoric actually helps the situation or potentially makes it even worse.

WHITFIELD: All right. Arwa Damon in Baghdad, thanks so much.

All right, straight ahead, defending the delay. Speaker Pelosi speaks out, saying her decision to keep the articles of impeachment from the Senate is putting pressure on Republicans.

[16:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now says Democrats will decide on Tuesday when to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. 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. Today Pelosi defended her delay tactic and blasted Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I'm telling you, that he signed on, on Thursday, to a resolution to dismiss the case. The dismissing is a cover-up. Dismissing is a cover-up. If they want to go that route again, the senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not, they will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Ross Garber teaches impeachment law at Tulane University and is a CNN legal analyst.

Ross, good to see you.

ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to see you.

WHITFIELD: So is Pelosi -- is she making a legal or a political argument when she accuses Senate Republicans, particularly the Senate majority leader, you know, of not holding a fair trial if they vote for dismissal of the articles of impeachment and don't call witnesses at all?

GARBER: You know, I mean, once you're talking about fair, you're largely talking about politics. And the Supreme Court has said that, you know, the Senate is actually free to try an impeachment case any way they want to try it.

[16:20:03]

It's completely up to the Senate. And so that is what's going to happen. If 51 senators want to try this case in a way that permits dismissal, you know, has opening arguments before witnesses are considered, then that's how it's going to be done. WHITFIELD: So Chief Justice Roberts would.

Chief justice Roberts would be present, you know, during a Senate trial. Would you see that he, in any way, would chime in on how things are being played out, if there's impartiality, fairness, all of that?

GARBER: Yes. It's interesting. So the Constitution says that the chief justice presides. It doesn't say anything more about what the chief justice actually does by presiding. But we now have lots of impeachment trials not with the chief justice presiding. We've only had two of those, but with other presiding officers, sort of the standard approach. And, you know, it will be interesting to see what kind of role Chief Justice Roberts plays.

I think most of us assume he's not going to take a very active role. The two previous chief justices who tried impeachment trial, presided over impeachment trials took a pretty passive role. What is potentially going to matter role is if there's a tie vote. If there's a tie vote, then the question is going to be, will the chief justice decide to --

WHITFIELD: Break the tie?

GARBER: To break the tie. The other place it's going to matter is under the Senate rules, the chief justice gets to decide whether to decide issues, decide objections that come to him in the first instance. It may be overruled by the Senate or he can just give it to the Senate in the first place and let them decide. That's going to be the things to look for.

WHITFIELD: Wow, this could be riveting. All right. Ross Garber, thank you so much.

GARBER: Absolutely.

WHITFIELD: All right. Still ahead, trouble in progressive paradise? Senator Elizabeth Warren blasting the Bernie Sanders camp for, quote, "trashing her." Now Sanders is responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:26:22]

WHITFIELD: All right. Just two days out from the next presidential debate and only 22 days away from the first Democratic contest, it looks like candidates are starting to feel the pressure. And now the Bernie Sanders campaign is on the attack, according to Politico. The Sanders' campaign has begun attacking Elizabeth Warren with a memo containing a script that tells volunteers to explain that Warren is only able to attract the elite and cannot beat President Trump in a general election.

The Sanders' campaign is also going after former vice president Biden, releasing a scathing op-ed attacking him over his record on racial justice.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is in Iowa ahead of the Tuesday night Democratic debate.

So, Jeff, this is ugly and about to get even uglier. What's going on?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fredricka, good afternoon. No question. And this is because the clock is running out. As you said, there are 22 days before those Iowa caucuses, before the first all-important vote of this primary campaign. And we've seen, you know, actually a lot of congeniality really over the last year or so, particularly between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

That is changing at least on the volunteer level, on the staff level. And this all started when some volunteers or staff members for Bernie Sanders' campaign, for the people who go outdoor-to-door to try and get voters to come along, the script was to essentially do some negative talking about Elizabeth Warren and other candidates, say, look, that she is only appealing to affluent voters. She's not able to build the kind of grassroots supports that Bernie Sanders can.

And usually this kind of scripts become public. Usually this sort of bubbles up into the surface. That's exactly what is happening now. But both candidates address this report. Take a listen to what Elizabeth Warren said followed by Senator Sanders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've never said a negative word about Elizabeth Warren, who is a friend of mine. We have differences on issues. That's what campaigning is about. But no one is going to be attacking Elizabeth.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me. Bernie knows me and has known me for a long time. He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for. I hope Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: Now, Fredricka, negative campaigning, of course, has its drawbacks. Voters simply don't like it. But it also works. It injects disinformation into the bloodstream here. So my question is, will these senators actually confront one another when they are on the same stage Tuesday night here in Des Moines, or are they going to leave this to their respective supporters to do it? But certainly a sign of increasing tensions, largely because they're going after some of the same supporters and voters here before the Iowa caucuses.

WHITFIELD: OK. So now, Jeff, there's this. You know, a pretty scathing op-ed that was published in the South Carolina paper. The Sanders' campaign is going after Joe Biden, his standing and track record as it pertains to African-Americans. It was written by Nina Turner, who's working for the Sanders campaign. Will this have traction?

ZELENY: It's an open question if it will or not. We have seen one consistency throughout the last six months or so. Democrats who try and go after Joe Biden by pointing out long, you know, things of his record usually aren't successful. We have seen one after another try it and then pull back from that.

[16:30:00]

So, Nina Turner clearly is, you know, is unleashing a lot of these same criticisms about Joe Biden's long civil rights record, other things, his war vote. It's unlikely that that will chip away a significant amount of the voting bloc here that Joe Biden is enjoying.

A new poll this morning, "The Washington Post", really showed why Joe Biden is at the head of this national field at least because of his support among African-American voters. He overwhelmingly leads voters in that field, more than twice as much support of Bernie Sanders. That's what they're trying to chip away. I think it's hard pressed to see if that will work. The biggest thing, Fred, the Iraq war vote and the foreign policy here, that is the confrontation, the collision course that Sanders and Biden are on. Again, we'll hear them both litigate it Tuesday night at the debate.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: All right. Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much. I also want to bring in now, Kyung Lah.

OK. So, senators who are on the campaign trail, Kyung, they're hoping to maintain, you know, their momentum against Biden, expressing concern, you know, that President Trump's impeachment trial, you know, is about to get under way. But those senators are going to have to be entailed in the trial. So, how do they maintain that momentum?

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Anyone who has that momentum, they're about to hit the brick wall called the senate impeachment trial.

These senators, remember, are going to have to be jurors in this trial. They're going to be spending their time in Washington, pulled off the campaign trail. The calendar may say 22 days to the Iowa caucuses. But for those senators, it is far fewer.

Take a listen to what we heard from Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As a United States senator, I'm often on the floor of the senate and it looks like next week I'm going to be spending a lot of time on the floor of the senate. Between you and me, I'd rather be here in Iowa. But I have a constitutional responsibility, which I accept as United States senator to be a juror in Trump's impeachment trial. So, I'll be there.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: But as a woman running for president, I never thought I was going to have a fair playing ground. You always know you have a higher standard to meet. And this is just one more obstacle to overcome.

The fact that I may be in Washington at a critical time where we should be campaigning, I'm just going to believe that the people of the four early states get that you've got job to do. And that I will find a way to reach people whether it is by Skyping or by phone or by having my surrogate speakers out there for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAH: Senator Klobuchar there referring to her surrogates. She's also planning to Skype into town hall. Senator Warren has said she will have her surrogates out as well. But it is just a fact of life, Fredricka, if they are in Washington they are not here in Iowa. That is something that Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden simply do not have to face that. Fred?

WHITFIELD: All right. Kyung Lah, love it dressing for the weather. But guess what, it's going to get hot there in Iowa for that Tuesday debate. Thank you so much, Kyung, appreciate it.

Meantime, two recent polls have landed billionaire, Tom Steyer, a spot on that debate stage Tuesday. The former Starbucks CEO was the last candidate to make the cut. Steyer has spent more than $116 million on television ads more than any other candidates 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's 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 now to discuss, Barbara Rodriguez, politics reporter for "The Des Moines Register" and Brittany Shepherd, national politics reporter for "Yahoo News". Good to see you both.

All right, Brittany, you first, your reaction to hearing Steyer say that, you know, his millions has very little to do with it. It's all about his message.

BRITTANY SHEPHERD, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, YAHOO NEWS: Well, certainly the democrats who are left off stage this week might very much disagree. I think as we've been saying in the last hour that the heat is on and especially for someone like Tom Steyer who has purchased, you know, billion-dollars' worth of ads in these crucial early states have essentially ticked off campaigns, you know, folks.

You know, Cory Booker camp have been tweeting, look, you know, this is an increasingly diverse democratic electorate, which it is. And this debate will feature essentially all white candidates. And so, they see folks like Steyer and Bloomberg's money as a bit of a wall, either an advertising wall or even just a wall in order to gain the system to get into the DNC threshold.

So, I definitely think that Steyer will take the heat either from his fellow rivals on stage or the folks he's knocked down on line on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

[16:35:01]

WHITFIELD: Yes. And Barbara, you know, Senator Cory Booker, he's not going to be that stage. But he's certainly, you know, getting some attention because he is saying, you know, the glaring absence of anyone of diversity in terms of color, you know, ethnicity is being represented on that stage.

And, you know, he says it's a systematic problem. The DNC is also getting some blame in his view. You think that's fair? And will there be some change or DNC find its way of addressing this at all?

BARBARA RODRIGUEZ, POLITICS REPORTER, DES MOINES REGISTER: I can only share what I'm hearing on the ground here in Iowa in terms of what Iowans are looking for with this debate. And the thing that I hear the most on the trail is that they want someone who can defeat President Donald Trump. And then, that turns into a conversation about electability.

And so, when you have this conversation about race or you're having this conversation about what are African-Americans going to support the eventual nominee, this is where that conversation kind of gets intertwined with electability. So, I think it's an important conversation to have, just based off of what I'm hearing from Iowans. But they're looking at it from the perspective of electability.

WHITFIELD: And Brittany, the progressive candidates of Senator Sanders and Senator Warren, I mean, gloves are off. She has, you know, said, wait a minute. You're trashing me? And we used to be friends. What's happening? And he, apparently, you know, is trying to discredit her track record. So, is this setting the stage for this upcoming debate that friends no mas?

SHEPHERD: I would definitely say that even the Sanders campaign would maintain that they're still friends; however, you know, still presidential election. And right after the debate, we are probably going to see Nancy Pelosi hand over articles of impeachment to the senate, which brings Elizabeth and Bernie off the trail for at least six days, maybe 12, maybe even more. That's going past not only Iowa but also New Hampshire and maybe even Nevada.

So, they have to squeeze in a lot of campaigning in a very little amount of time, which is probably why we're seeing this pressure cooker event happening right before the candidates hit the stage on Tuesday.

WHITFIELD: All right. And Barbara, Senator, you know, Sanders, I mean, he really in, I guess, a favorable position in that his polling in Iowa, you know, has him, you know, reason to kind of beat his chest. He's polling well.

RODRIGUEZ: That's right. This Iowa poll that was just released on Friday by the -- by CNN and "The Des Moines Register" shows that Bernie Sanders has a slight edge over some of the other candidates with 20% of likely democratic caucus goers saying that he's their first choice for president.

You have to remember with all of these candidates, these top-polling candidates, they're all within the margin of error. And so, it's a tight race and a lot could happen in the next couple of weeks.

But, you know, when you talk to the supporters of Sanders, I'll tell you, they're the most -- some of the most enthusiastic. They're the ones who are saying, my mind is made up. I'm not going to go elsewhere. And so, that's where his strength is coming. That's where you're seeing a little bit of that edge among all the other candidates. The question for Sanders, of course, is whether he can get them to turn out on caucus night.

WHITFIELD: All right. We shall see. Barbara Rodriguez, Brittany Shepherd, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it ladies.

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, 9:00 only on CNN.

Next, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle expected to talk with the royal family after the couple unexpectedly announced plans to leave their royal duties behind. How will the queen respond? What will that discussion be like?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:58]

WHITFIELD: All right. Might there soon be some clarity about the future of Harry and Meghan. Prince Charles, William, and Harry are set to meet tomorrow in person for the first time since Harry and Meghan's shocking decision rocked the House of Windsor.

However, CNN has learned that the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan, will be joining them by phone because she remains in Canada. They, of course, will be in England.

Well, we're also learning that Meghan reportedly signed a voice-over deal with Disney before the couple disclosed plans to step back from their royal duties to pursue private interests.

Royal commentator, Richard Fitzwilliams, is joining me right now to discuss from London. So, Richard, do you expect that the meeting tomorrow involving, you know, Prince Charles, Harry, and William, and then by phone, Meghan, is really just a precursor to a meeting with the queen? Or is that it? You know, hash it all out tomorrow, Monday?

RICHARD FITZWILLIAMS, ROYAL COMMENTATOR: The queen will be presiding at this meeting. And what this means, I mean, it's absolutely pivotal that what we work out at this meeting, the future steps that Harry and Meghan are going to take, and advice will be given on issues from security to tax and also, of course, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the issues of remaining a member of the royal family entitles, there's no question that there will be a lot of discussion about, for example, if Harry and Meghan wanting to be financially independent, may well want to endorse products of some sort or another. That must be finalized into --

WHITFIELD: So, it's sorry about that. There was someone in my ear, so I thought you had stopped talking. I'm sorry. So, real quick then, does everything that you're spelling out right now to me says, you do believe that this couple is going to get the independence that they want, but there are conditions and that really will be, I mean, earth shattering for the monarchy because, you know, this is unprecedented, isn't it?

[16:45:10]

FITZWILLIAMS: Well, it's totally unprecedented. And I would also add that there is no reason, I fear, to believe that there will be an easy agreement. I hope there is an agreement. I mean, I'm about monarchy. And I most certainly believe that Harry and Meghan could play a very significant role.

I've always felt this is charitable activists. And that they want to remain a member of the institution. But they see themselves, so to speak, as half in, half out because they want financial independence. They want to spend their time between Britain and North America. But that does mean complexities such as the royal dowries if they want to go on royal trips.

They've got positions with the queen's commonwealth trust. But again, how will that work? Will they consider Canada, for example, another home there? And the security, would the Canadian government pay? All of those must be worked out.

And what we've got in today's papers are some worrying briefings. I mean, for example, William has been saying how he is no longer able, so to speak, to support Harry as he used to.

WHITFIELD: Oh my gosh. That is so heartbreaking too. Can I read a little quote that I pulled from that, you know, from the U.K.'s "Sunday Times", that, you know, Prince William says, the royal family is no longer a team. I mean, he's quoted as telling a friend that I'm quoting now, "I've put my arm around my brother all of our lives. I can't do it anymore." That's crushing.

FITZWILLIAMS: That is so sad. And remember that in the memory of so many people who watched Diana's funeral, the two brothers walking behind the cattle folk (ph), it's been part, so to speak, of how national life, the tragedies that they've been through. And the fact that --

WHITFIELD: They would seem inseparable.

FITZWILLIAMS: -- we always felt they'd always be there for each other.

WHITFIELD: Right.

FITZWILLIAMS: This is truly tragic.

WHITFIELD: Yes. FITZWILLIAMS: But the trouble with this is, the bitterness between the brothers, I mean, there were rumors of a feud for a long time. This confirms it. And the other thing is that Tom Bradby, who is the maker of the ITV documentary last year, their trip to Southern Africa, where Harry and Meghan said how unhappy they were. He has hinted that there might be a kiss-and-tell interview if they don't get what they want.

WHITFIELD: Oh boy.

FITZWILLIAMS: So, a lot to play for and real problems perhaps.

WHITFIELD: Wow. All right. Well, yet, tragic to your point, indeed, to see that these brothers seemed inseparable, that maybe that has changed. But we shall see because it looks like this is just yet another chapter, right, that is going to be written tomorrow.

Richard Fitzwilliams, thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And we'll be right back.

FITZWILLIAMS: Thanks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:23]

WHITFIELD: How do Americans feel about how President Trump is handling the current situation with Iran? My colleague, Jake Tapper, shared his thoughts today on "State of the Union."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, ANCHOR, STATE OF THE UNION: Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, headed up a group the U.S. considered to be terrorists. He was ruthlessly effective. He had the blood of innocents of his hands. These are not matters serious people are debating.

The question is whether it's wiser to kill him and risk an escalating response merunner (ph) or not. According to "The New York Times", CIA Director Gina Haspel quoted, advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran's response if he was killed. This is what the debate is about.

This and the intelligence, what the allegedly imminent threat to the U.S. was, whether that intelligence is being accurately represented or twisted and shaded to justify a desired strike, as has happened before in the U.S., and also we're also discussing the role of congress in all of this. That's the debate that's been raging for decades.

But if you listen to the president and his defenders, you don't hear much discussion about these serious matters. The two main arguments we've heard this week are, one, trust us, such as Senator Lindsey Graham tweeting, "Do you believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA Director are incompetent? Lying? I'm beyond disgusted by the suggestion the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA Director got it wrong when it comes to the actions of General Soleimani." It's almost as if Senator Graham is unaware that previous administrations from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Nixon to Regan to Bush to Obama have gotten it wrong when it comes to matters to intelligence in war and peace, not to mention, of course, this president's long record of prevarication plus the way the government -- he pushes the government of the United States to use its power and credibility to justify his lies about crowd sizes or hurricane paths or fake crimes by his political opponents.

Then, there's the other approach, the other response we're hearing, attacking those who have questions or who disagree with the decision, defaming them as terrorist lovers.

REP. DOUG COLLINS, (R) GEORGIA CONGRESSMAN: They're in love with terrorists. We see that. They mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.

NIKKI HALEY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our democrat leadership and democrat presidential candidates.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: They also support terrorists, apparently, because so many of them think that killing Soleimani was a terrible idea.

[16:55:01]

TAPPER: Of those three, only the first, Congressman Doug Collins, has apologized for his comments. Those are not arguments. They're smears. They would get you disqualified from a junior high school debate contest. Blind faith in our leaders and matters of life and death for our service members, for the American people, that's false patriotism.

And as Samuel Johnson wrote, such a false patriotism is, quote, "the last refuge of a scoundrel". Let's try to keep this debate at a level worth of the dignity of the service members who are in harm's way.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right. Thank you, Jake Tapper, for that commentary. And thank you for joining me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. Much more straight ahead in the "Newsroom" after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)