Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Protests in Tehran After Iran Admits Shooting Down Ukrainian Plane; Secretary Esper Saw No Evidence of Threat to Four U.S. Embassies; Trump Sends Message in Farsi to Iran; Two Service Members Killed In Afghanistan has Been Identified; Speaker Nancy Pelosi Speaks About Withholding Articles of Impeachment; Taal Volcano in the Philippine Erupts and Spews Ash. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired January 12, 2020 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You're live in the "CNN Newsroom." Thank you so much for spending part of your Sunday with me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. And happening right now, the country that fired missiles at American troops in Iraq and blames the United States for the mistakes it made, shooting down a commercial airliner, is now looking at another day of massive, angry protests.

Citizens demanding that the leaders of Iran step down.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)

CABRERA: These are the streets of Tehran. Protesters blocking traffic and raising their voices shouting shame at Iran's supreme leader and "leave the country."

Witnesses tell CNN some police officers fired weapons into the air to try and disperse the mob. The protesters are reacting to the shocking admission this weekend that Iranian forces did indeed fire on a civilian airliner, killing 176 innocent people.

Iranians, Europeans, Canadians, entire families, many children. Iranian officials say its America's fault for creating what they call a turbulent situation.

President Trump today, again, sending a direct message to Iran via twitter. He writes, "To the leaders of Iran, do not kill your protesters. Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you and the world is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching."

And again, like on Saturday, he added a translation of that message in Farsi, the language spoken there in Iran. Iran's missile attack on U.S. bases Wednesday took no casualties, but they were in retaliation for the U.S. targeted killing of Iran's top general.

A drastic action that President Trump and other officials insist was necessary because an attack he had planned was, "imminent." But still, nobody in the administration will say exactly what that imminent threat was.

CNN's Jake Tapper asked the Secretary of Defense today three separate times to define the specific threat that Iranian General Soleimani posed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Was there specific intelligence Iranians were plotting to target four U.S. embassies?

MARK ESPER, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There was intelligence that they -- 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 did other national security team members.

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 were specific intelligence to four different U.S. embassies.

TAPPER: He said he believed it.

ESPER: And I believed it too. What --

TAPPER: Four embassies? You believe that?

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

MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS HOST: 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 says, he probably, he believed it could have been --

BRENNAN: Are you saying there wasn't one?

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Let's begin our coverage live in Baghdad with CNN senior international correspondent Arwa Damon. ARwa, you are just back from that base that Iran targeted in that retaliation missile strike. You were the first journalist allowed to be there. What did people there tell you?

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, it was quite extraordinary that there were no casualties at all, not among U.S. forces, coalition forces or the civilian contractors there. There were about 2,500 people on base when these ballistic missile strikes took place.

And the main reason why there were no casualties, that's because the U.S. was building a picture using intelligence that led them to believe that they were going to be coming under a ballistic missile strike.

The base itself is capable of defending itself against rockets, against mortars, against a ground assault, but it is not built to defend itself against ballistic missiles.

However, there did happen to be Saddam Hussein era bunkers that the people there were able to take shelter in, and they did that. By 11:00 p.m., they were in those shelters. These strikes began at 1:34 in the morning so, about 2 1/2 hours after they began to hunker down.

[17:05:01]

And those who were there described the shock wave from the blast, moving the doors on the shelter, reverberating through their bodies. But at the same time, Ana, there were people who weren't inside these shelters because they were manning positions, guard towers that were basically the main defense should any ground assault take place.

They had to stay and hold those positions. There were others who were, at the time of the attack, still operating drones in the sky. They were still out in the open.

They had to dart into these bunkers that were built by the U.S. to withstand mortar and rocket attacks, but not something like a ballistic missile. U.S. commanders there themselves say that they were amazed at the fact that there were no casualties as for everyone who went through this.

So, the U.S. has not been under this kind of a strike in a very long time. American troops, even those who have seen combat, they are used to being -- they're not used to being on the receiving end of something like this.

And for many of them, they say that that sense of helplessness was really very difficult to cope with, because all they could do is protect themselves as best they could, but they had no way of fighting back against this kind of an attack.

Seeing the aftermath of it, the areas that were targeted among them a housing area for those drone operating teams completely burnt down to the ground. A number of other strategic targeted as well.

While we were there, it was very clear that the sense of relief among the forces we were able to speak to, among the commanders, that was very evident. But at the same time they do still remain on high alert because Iran's proxies on the ground. Remember, they're still vowing to carry out their own revenge.

CABRERA: Your reporting, Arwa, has just been so important. And those images you're able to bring us from the damage, it's amazing nobody was injured and let alone killed. Thank you so much Arwa Damon for that reporting.

I want to bring in now Rula Jebreal. She is a journalist a foreign policy analyst. Rula, thank you for being here. Let me begin by, you know, addressing the tweets today from the president, writing in Farsi, in Iranian people's own language, asking them not to harm protesters as he is speaking to the Iranian leaders, talking about allowing the freedom of journalists there. What do these words mean to the people of Iran?

JULA JEBREAL, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: So to the Iraqi people, to the people in the region, I mean, wouldn't see the president tweeting when journalist Jamal Khashoggi was butchered in a U.S. -- in a Saudi embassy. He actually defended the killer and covered up for the regime that issued the killing order somehow.

So, Iranians and people in the region understand that this president, who has been banning Iranians from entering the United States, who've been sanctioning the Iranians and they've been on the receiving end of these crippling sanctions.

But also the Iraqis, they understand that America's policies in the region has been all about backing authoritarianism, especially authoritarian regime if they are supportive to the administration in some way or another. I think they feel confused.

CABRERA: So, if he's writing things then like, you know, to the brave, long-suffering people of Iran, I've stood with you since the beginning of my presidency. Do you think --

JEBREAL: How did he stand?

CABRERA: -- think those words are falling on deaf ears?

JEBREAL: Exactly. I mean, he and the regime themselves, the Iranian regimes, they both treat the Iranians and the Iranian, and the Iraqi people and people in the Middle East as expendable, as irrelevant. They don't matter, because if their lives matter, the policies would have been different.

His policy has been about capitulation. He wants the Iranian regime to capitulate. That's not going to happen. It's unreasonable. It's not going to happen.

So if you want the Iranian regime to de-escalate, then you have you to start negotiation and you have to talk to them the same way the president is talking to the Talibans. The Talibans are as lethal as the Iranians.

However, he's not talking to the -- he's talking to the Talibans and not to the Iranians. Why? Because simply he understands that they will not -- not going to capitulate and he have to concede -- he have to concede in certain things.

CABRERA: What do the Iranian people want? We see these protests happening in the streets. Do they want regime change?

JEBREAL: These are two separate things.

CABRERA: What do they want?

JEBREAL: So these are two separate things. They don't want any war. Let's be clear about that. They don't want foreign interference, foreign invasion, occupation. They've been on the receiving end for 30 years, the Iraqi and the Iranians, of invasion, occupations that led to mass radicalization.

They've never seen ISIS in the region until we have these invasions and this mass desperation that created in the area and policy that destroyed the Middle East and destabilized the Middle East.

[17:10:06]

They understand that they don't want that kind of policy. What the Iranian people want is democracy, freedom, dignity. They want actually to stand up themselves to the regime, but also they want the support of the international community.

They want the lifting of economic sanctions so they can have a decent life, a life of dignity for their own children. But also they want us to stand up to the regime. How? With peaceful efforts.

Meaning they don't want, again, a regime change operation like we had in Iraq with Saddam Hussein or in Libya with Gadhafi that led basically to destroying these countries.

One million Iraqi died during that invasion. We never talk about that. But I just want to remind the audience that in November, 1,500 Iranians died. We never talked about them. They died standing to the regime and demanding accountability, transparency, democracy, freedom, social justice.

In Lebanon, people have been protesting. In Iraq, they've been protesting. Four hundred Iraqi died last month because they want Iran to be gone.

What the president has been doing and his policy actually might reinforce and embolden further these elements in the regime that don't want negotiation, they don't want to open up the country.

Sixty percent of the Iranians -- there are 80 million people -- sixty percent are under 30 years old. They want you and I want, what most Americans want, peace and freedom. But above all, they don't want invasions and occupation.

CABRERA: Thank you so much for opening our eyes to what is happening there and helping us understand a little bit more about what's going on, on the ground in that part of the world.

JEBREAL: Thank you, Ana, and thank you to CNN for having voices from the regions, speaking for the people but not about the regime only.

CABRERA: Rula Jabreal, thank you again for being here.

JEBREAL: Thank you.

CABRERA: And this just in, the pentagon has now identified the two U.S. soldiers who were killed in a roadside bomb in Afghanistan this weekend. Staff Sergeant Ian McLaughlin and Private First Class Miguel Villalon were both assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

McLaughlin was 29 years old from Newport News, Virginia. He leaves behind a wife and four children. Villalon, was 21-year-old. He was from Joliet, Illinois and is survived by his parents.

And just a reminder that last week, hundreds of troops from that same division as McLaughlin and Villalon were deployed to the Middle East amid the rising tensions with Iran.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is speaking out today defending her decision to delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate insisting that's putting pressure on Republicans. But is it? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

CABRERA: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is prepared to send the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate this week, but defended her decision today wait weeks.

During an interview this morning with ABC News, Speaker Pelosi said the delay achieved a very positive result. New information was revealed, John Bolton came forward to say he would testify if subpoenaed for instance.

Pelosi also warned of a cover-up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after he signed on to a resolution last week to dismiss the articles if not sent to the Senate within 25 days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), HOUSE SPEAKER: One of the things that I think is really important, what I think people should be very aware of, the very unusually, the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has signed on to a resolution to dismiss the case -- to dismiss the case. That in his view maybe --

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: But he's committed to having the presentations first now.

PELOSI: 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)

CABRERA: Joining us now is CNN political analyst April Ryan and CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein. April, do you think Pelosi's cover-up message is effective? And more broadly, is her approach working?

APRIL RYAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, is doing something we've never seen. She's very strategic in her approach with this, but she's so strategic and so cunning with how she's viewing this.

And she's playing this political game to the T that they are having they're own, I guess, House sessions if you will to try to thwart Nancy Pelosi.

So this back and forth with Senate Republicans versus Nancy Pelosi is going to keep going. But each side has to look at history, each side has to look at the Constitution.

And if you view this the way we are looking at it through the prism of the past, hearings, you don't necessarily have to have testimony or witnesses. Trials, you do. So the Senate, at issue, this impeachment trial.

And the problem is, is that Mitch McConnell is saying already that he wants to acquit the president. So, people are crying foul, particularly Nancy Pellosi. Her strategy is needed to show the Democrats and the Republicans what is factual. And what is factual is the fact that this president was impeached.

CABRERA: Yes.

RYAN: Now, will the Senate follow suit with following the order and the line of the law and the Constitution?

CABRERA: Let me play another clip. Something else Nancy Pelosi said today. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: We have confidence in our case that it is impeachable and this president is impeached for life. We feel very proud of the courage of our members to vote to impeach the president.

[17:20:00]

There's nothing the Senate can do that can ever erase that. We will have an election, if we don't have him removed sooner. But again, he will be impeached forever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Impeached forever -- has impeached forever, impeached for life, Ron, become Pelosi's new slogan and do you think she's saying it over and over again to jab at the president, get under his skin? RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: And we see from his

tweets that, in fact, that's exactly what has happened. It is true. I mean, look, there's only been three presidents impeached by the House in American history and Donald Trump is the third and he can never run past that.

And you know, one of the things, Ana, that has happened in this delay I think that is important, is that it has forced Mitch McConnell to argue that, in essence, by voting to proceed without knowing whether you're going to have witnesses at the beginning, all they are doing is following the Clinton precedent.

And a lot of the Republicans in the Senate have kind of retreated behind that, that they didn't make the decision initially in the Clinton trial to have witnesses at the outset. But of course, in the end they did have witnesses in the Clinton trial. They did depose three figures involved in the accusations.

And I think McConnell raising that precedent is going to make it even tougher, I think, for some of the Senate Republicans to explain why at the critical moment, maybe in 10 days or two weeks from now, they would be voting to abandon that president and not have witnesses.

I mean, how, if you are Susan Collins, do you go home and say I didn't want witnesses when John Bolton, who was at the center of this, said he was willing to testify?

CABRERA: Well, it sounds like Susan Collins, speaking of which, is one of those who is trying to work with other Republicans to ensure there may be some witnesses.

But let me turn to 2020 since we have limited time here and I've got a lot to discuss with both of you. Today, Senator Elizabeth Warren responded to a "Politico" report that Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign was attacking her with a memo that tells its volunteers to explain Warren as a candidate that's only attractive to the elite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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)

CABRERA: April, Sanders denied involvement in that memo, but also up until this point, he has avoided attacking Warren directly. Is this where things start to change?

RYAN: Oh, things have already changed. You're going to see candidates, Democratic candidates cutting each other off at the knees. And listening to Senator Warren, she needs to stop being apologetic in -- not apologetic, but saying why would you do this and toughen up and go after him.

Because what if she is the nominee against Donald John Trump? She can't say, well, why did you do that? She's going to have to strike and he won't know when she strikes so she can win. So the bottom line, stop saying why, why, why and go after and take it and go after him.

CABRERA: Ron, I want you to listen to what presidential candidate and billionaire Michael Bloomberg said about Bernie Sanders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BLOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that the number one thing is to replace Donald Trump and while I certainly would disagree with Bernie on an awful lot of things, if it's Donald Trump versus Bernie, I would support Bernie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Senator Sanders openly criticizes billionaires and yet you have Bloomberg there saying yes, I would still vote for him. So, is Bloomberg making the case for Sanders' electability, that he would be able to get the moderates along with the progressives versus just one or the other?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think Bloomberg of course is trying to make himself acceptable within a Democratic Party that is still uneasy about billionaires and showing that he's going to be a team player no matter what and saying he's going to continue his extraordinary spending all the way through the general election.

I think, you know, Bernie Sanders will ultimately face those questions particularly because his agenda has not really been vetted again in 2020 as it was not fully in 2016.

You do not see the candidates fully talking about kind of the full scope of what he is proposing including things like a guaranteed federal job for, you know, everyone in America who wants it, universal free college, universal preschool. I mean, the cumulative cost of all of that, you know.

Real quick, last four Iowa winners have won the Democratic nomination regardless of what happened in New Hampshire and that is not coincidence. It's probably because in this modern media environment, winning Iowa gives you a huge tailwind.

But each of those Iowa winners ultimately proved very competitive with African-American voters whether it was Gore in 2000, Kerry, Obama or Clinton.

And that will be the challenge for, I think, any of the possible Iowa winners, Sanders, Buttigieg or Warren, other than Biden. Can they convert that into breaking into the African-American community which is still pretty skeptical about all of them?

CABRERA: Right. And still largely behind Joe Biden with the lastest poll showing he is 48 percent -- BROWNSTEIN: Yes. That's right.

CABRERA: -- of the Black vote right now compared to the next closest being 20 percent, Sanders. April Ryan, Ron Brownstein, it's great to have both of you here.

[17:24:59]

Happy New Year to both of you since I haven't seen you since we hit 2020.

BROWNSTEIN: Happy New Year.

CABRERA: Let the games begin, guys. And a reminder, the last debate before that first vote is right here on CNN. Tune in this Tuesday at 9:00 p.m. eastern for the CNN presidential debate in partnership with the Des Moines Register.

Royal turmoil in the U.K. The royal family is expected to hold an emergency meeting tomorrow, to discuss that shock announcement from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle as a new report says Prince William is saddened over the rift with his brother.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: For years we watched them grow up together.

[17:30:08]

But now, Prince William is expressing sadness over a rift with his brother Harry as he and Meghan Markle make plans to step back from the royal family.

The U.K.'s "Sunday Times" reports William, the Duke of Cambridge told a friend, "I've put my arm around my brother all our lives and I can't do that anymore. We are separate entities."

William and Harry will come face-to-face tomorrow during an emergency family meeting that will also be attended by the Queen and Prince Charles.

For the latest, let's go to CNN's Anna Stewart in London. And Anna, this is going to be the first time everyone, as I understand it, comes face to face since Harry defied the Queen by making this announcement. What should we expect?

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it could be slightly awkward, couldn't it? I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

CABRERA: Seriously.

STEWART: It's going to be a discussion between all four households. Now, it's been eerily quiet since that shock announcement on Wednesday and that that terse response from Buckingham Palace. Then it kind of went silent. And all the royal households have been talking on the phone, all the officials have been working together to come up with all sorts of proposals. And that is what's going to be discussed tomorrow in Sandringham, the Queen's estate, and they're going to go through with them.

And on the negotiating table, we expect to be things like titles, funding, tax, grace-and-favor homes, how they see the Duke and Duchess of Sussex having a future role and within the royal family. Will they be doing lots of official trips, maybe perhaps some Commonwealth theme given they may live in Canada, all of this sort of thing.

The question is, of course, whether they can come to an agreement, whether or not the Duke and Duchess of Sussex can compromise with the royal family.

It's clear that the Queen did not like what was put on that website, otherwise, they wouldn't be discussing this now because whatever proposals they suggested haven't met with the approval.

CABRERA: What might the significance of all this be for future royals?

STEWART: It's such a good question because I do see this is a future episode of "The Crown," a blockbuster episode, might I add, because whatever is decided tomorrow is likely be a model not just for Harry and Meghan, but also for alhe future royals.

We've already been talking a lot about a slimmed down royal family. That is the dream of which we believe a Prince Charles. You got to look at his siblings, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Ann, the ones that slide down the royal succession as new royals are born. And that is the same as Harry and Meghan.

And it will be the same for Prince George -- not Prince George, sorry -- Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. So, this could be a model for the future, which is why they have to get it right.

CABRERA: Anna Stewart, we'll be curious to find out what happens at that meeting tomorrow. Thank you.

Jury selection in the trial of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein resumes tomorrow, and with a more than colorful first week. So, we'll discuss what to expect next, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:00]

CABRERA: After an impasse lasting almost three weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today is defending her decision to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate. Pelosi announced Friday she is preparing to send those articles this week.

And that brings us to "Cross-Exam" with CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig. He is here to answer your questions about impeachment.

So Elie, as we prepare for those articles to make their way to the Senate, one viewer wants to know whether the Constitution says anything about requiring that the articles be sent to the Senate before it can begin its trial.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So no, the Constitution does not say anything either way about whether the Senate has to wait until the House formally sends those articles over.

However, the Senate has its own set of internal rules. They were written back in the 1800's and those rules say the trial starts whensoever the House notifies the Senate.

So what Speaker Pelosi has done here is really a little bit of political judo. She has used the Senate's own rules to sort of tell the Senate, you can't go on until I say you can go. Now, there's a counter move. The Senate could amend its own rules, but they've made clear they're not going to do that.

At this point, they're going to wait her out. So, big picture, has Pelosi's strategy succeeded? On the one hand, McConnell has not budged. He has not agreed to anything Democrats want.

On the other hand, Pelosi's strategy and she said it this morning, was to focus attention on the need to have witnesses at trial.

CABRERA: Exactly.

HONIG: And whether she has ultimately succeeded there, it will come down to that vote whether she gets four Republicans to join with Democrats and vote to have a real trial with witnesses.

CABRERA: That issue of witnesses led one viewer to ask our next question about the role of Chief Justice John Roberts. And this viewer asked, can Chief Justice John Roberts order witnesses to testify even if Senator McConnell disagrees?

HONIG: It's a great question. It's controversial. I heard it from so many viewers this week it caused me to do a deep dive here. I conclude that yes, Chief Justice Roberts can and I think should overrule the majority if he has to.

Now, the Constitution tells us the chief justice shall preside. No limitation, no qualification. That's very broad. The Senate has those rules. Same rules that I talked about before.

And the Senate rules say the chief justice gets to decide issues of evidence and witness. However, the rules say we, the Senate, can overrule you, chief justice, by a majority.

Now, a couple of things. First of all, if you've got the Constitution on one hand and the Senate's internal rules on the other, the Constitution wins out.

And if you look back at precedent, in 1999 when Chief Justice Rehnquist presided over the Clinton trial, he famously said I did nothing in particular and I did it very well. But Roberts doesn't have to go that same route. He has that power if he wants to.

And if you look deeply at the history and reporting from '99, the Senate knew that it would be legally questionable and politically disastrous to overrule the chief justice. So, Roberts has a lot of power here to sort of step above politics and make sure we have a real substantive trial.

CABRERA: Wow, that's really interesting. And now we have a hypothetical that's a long way off here.

HONIG: Yes.

CABRERA: But another viewer wants to know if Trump is removed from office and Pence becomes president, would that count against Pence's two-term limit?

HONIG: So the answer is no and this applies to any president or vice president given the calendar. The 22nd amendment tells us that's where we formally encoded this idea that a president can only serve two four-year terms.

It was tradition and custom for a long time. George Washington set the precedent when he stepped down after two terms, but we didn't actually put it into the Constitution until 1951. That was after FDR served a third and a fourth term.

[17:40:00]

And that the Constitution tells us is it only counts as a full term if it's more than two years. So even if Mike Pence became president tomorrow, there's only about a year left. It would not count as one of his two terms.

CABRERA: And what are your top questions on impeachment this week?

HONIG: Oh, god. It's always so hard to narrow this down, but when will Speaker Pelosi release those articles of impeachment. She's meeting with the Democratic Caucus Tuesday. I think this time next week we will be in a Senate impeachment trial.

Second, who will represent the House as the prosecutor, essentially the impeachment managers? Who will represent the president at the impeachment trial? There is a lot of jockeying going on but we're going to see those starting lineups soon.

And third, will John Bolton tell us what he knows? This is the mystery man. He said he's willing to testify if the Senate subpoenas him. Trump has said he's going to try to block it. But John Bolton needs to just quit playing games here. If he knows something important, he clearly does, he should come forward and tell us.

CABRERA: I learned so much tonight from you. Our viewers' questions are fantastic. We appreciate those --

HONIG: They are, yes.

CABRERA: --- and you're right, we're going to have a lot to discuss next weekend. Thank you.

HONIG: Thanks Ana.

CABRERA: As always, Elie. Don't forget, you can submit your questions on impeachment to Elie at his "Cross-Exam" column at CNN.com/opinion.

Jury selection in the trial of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein will resume tomorrow and with a more than colorful first week. We'll discuss what's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:00]

CABRERA: A high-profile defendant hobbling in on a walker, a chance that A-list actresses might show up as witnesses, and a feminist flash mob leading a protest outside the courtroom.

Sex crimes trial of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is already off to a colorful start and the jury isn't even close to being seated. CNN's Jean Cassarez has more.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ana, what a first week it has been for jury selection on the Harvey Weinstein criminal trial. You know on Friday, it was about 11:00 according to pool notes, inside the courtroom. And they were talking to jurors and all of a sudden through the windows, they could hear on the 15th floor, I will tell you, is where the courtroom is, this chanting.

And what it turned out to be, outside there was a protest against Weinstein. So the defense asked for the entire jury panel right there to be stricken. The judge said no. You just ask them if they can be fair.

The defense also on Friday filed a motion saying as we go forward with voir dire, can jurors be individually questioned? They cite as an example that this week, one juror stood up in the midst of everyone in the room and said a very close friend of mine had an encounter with the defendant in his hotel room.

The judge said that he would not have individual questioning, that you just plan it out. You ask jurors if they can be fair and that will solve it.

The defense cited another example saying that shortly after someone was questioned and wrote out a questionnaire this week, they went to their twitter account and actually asked if anyone could help them maneuver to get on the jury so they can help sell their upcoming novel.

The defense also asked this week for the judge himself to be recused, for him to step down, saying they believed he was biased. The judge very aggressively told the defense and the whole court that he has not reached a conclusion on this case. He does not know how the evidence will come in. The second week of jury selection starts Monday. Ana?

CABRERA: Jean Casarez, thank you. And joining us now is CNN legal analyst, Joey Jackson. Joey, so much to discuss.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, yes.

CABRERA: It's already been crazy with this jury selection process, dozens of potential jurors already dismissed because they said they couldn't be impartial.

In fact, Ronan Farow tweeted that sources had told him about 50 potential jurors had been sent home because they had read his book --

JACKSON: Wow.

CABRERA: -- "Catch and Kill." How hard is the rest of this process going to be?

JACKSON: You know, it's difficult and keep in mind this, Ana, it's a very significant part of the process. Why? Because the jurors you select has everything to do of whether or not you're talking to a receptive audience, right?

If you have people that you select and they have their minds closed and they have pre-dispositions in terms of what he did and how he did it. You got flash mobs, you have Me Too, you got Times Up, you got accountability.

So, it's such a significant part of the process to pick a jury who will just listen to you, who will make decisions based upon the evidence they hear in a court, not what they read in the newspaper, not what they know about Harvey Weinstein, not 100 other alleged women or so who are charging him, accusing him of this.

You want a jury who will listen and so it's important. And so to the question, you know, how important is it and can you do it, right? So, we addressed the issue of importance. It's difficult, of course, right?

Now, in one hand, you know that Harvey Weinstein, everyone's heard of him. But that's not the operative question. The operative question is even if you've heard about things involving Harvey Weinstein, could you separate that out? Could you be fair? Could you be impartial? Could you just listen?

I think it's a challenge but I think it can be done. Why? Because they have 2,000 jurors in a jury pool -- you need 12 and about four alternates, right? Alternates are important just in case a trial goes long, people get sick, they get off the jury. But I think our system of justice, best in the world. They can get impartial jurors and he's going to have his day in court.

CABRERA: Given the media spectacle, one of the suggestions and request the defense lawyers made was for the rest of jury selection to be made in secrecy, a secluded jury. Will that make a difference do you think? JACKSON: You know, here is why I think it does, Ana. Because if you

and I are speaking, right, and we're in a closed room and we're having a conversation, I'm going to be more apt to be candid, right?

If you and I are speaking and the world is watching and international media is watching and everything I say in terms of the answers to questions is being vetted, evaluated, reported on and spoken about, then I might not be as candid as I possibly should be.

[17:50:00]

And so I think what the motion of the defense is doing, look, give me candor, do it outside the media spectacle. Tell me who you are and what you're about, no hidden agendas. Not that you're selling a book, not that you want on the jury. And I think it gives the best chance to have people who can be fair and reasonable. So it could make a difference.

CABRERA: Are you surprised the judge said no?

JACKSON: I'm not surprised given what the judge has been saying no to in this case. You know, look, the judge is not going along with that, but the judge did say I'll take it under advice then we'll re-visit it. Perhaps tomorrow he has a change of mind.

I think the judge is attempting to file the book. He's trying to give a fair trial I guess as best as he could, but I think it would be a mistake not to grant that motion.

And remember what the defense is doing, is they're setting up an appeal, right, because even if the judge denies it, the judge is not always the last word. Perhaps later on you say, judge, you know, other judges -- it was too inflammatory. It was too prejudicial, couldn't get a fair trial.

And maybe the appellate court says, you know what judge, you should have granted that motion. We're reversing. Not that he's convicted yet. Not that he will be convicted, but the defense has to anticipate, Ana, that possibility

CABRERA: Right. All the options out there. Charlize Theron, Salma Hayek, possible witness is in this trial. How does that level of fame on the stand factor into this case?

JACKSON: You know, I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind. Number one is remember what the defense is going to do. The defense is going to try to limit this and say, look, this is not about prior bad act witnesses.

This is not about what Harvey Weinstein did because we know, at least we believe we know, Anan, that the judge is admitting four other witnesses to speak to the issue of M.O. modus operandi -- who he is? What his plans or what is his intent were? That he did it to them, too. I think the defense is going to say look, this is about two people. Don't listen to the noise, listen to this. But listen, when you have other instances and people learn about what

you did last week, last month, the month before, the month before that and it sounds awfully similar, Ana, to what you're accused of now, jurors can't help but be persuaded by that.

You add that the extra element of celebrity and boy, is that a game changer. So, it's of course a source of major concern to the defense. Defense is about you two witnesses, nothing else. Prosecution consider it as a whole. All these other things go to who this guy is and he's guilty. Those are the competing narratives.

CABRERA: All right. Joey Jackson, as always, good to have you here.

JACKSON: Pleasure and privilege.

CABRERA: Thank you very much.

JACKSON: Thank you Ana.

CABRERA: Still ahead, stranded in subzero temperatures. A man survives in the wild for more than 20 days after a fire burned down his home. What he did to stay alive, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:55:00]

CABRERA: The Philippines is bracing for another major eruption from one of its most active volcanoes. The Taal Volcano about 37 miles south of the capital of Manila erupted today on the island of Luzon, sending ash plumes 9 miles into the sky.

It didn't stop this couple though from getting married. They did say they felt rumbles of thunder during their wedding. Thousands of people and at least three towns have had to evacuate as authorities warn another hazardous explosive eruption with lava is possible in the coming days.

He spent more than 20 days alone in the frigid Alaska wilderness. Tyson Steele found himself stranded I dire circumstances after fire destroyed his remote cabin. He managed to survive long enough to be rescued. CNN's Polo Sandoval has harrowing story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Kilo 3, you are partially (inaudible) at the cabin

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From high above, it's hard to imagine Tyson Steele's sense of relief as a state trooper circled above the southern Alaskan wilderness. It's where the 30-year-old survived after the remote hut he lived in went up in flames back in December.

He was 20 miles away from his closest neighbor in the tiny community of Skwent. After his Thursday rescue, Steele recounted rushing out of the burning dwelling with only a few supplies. His beloved chocolate Lab, Phil, did not make it alive.

TYSON STEELE, SURVIVED ALASKAN WILDERNESS: I sat down on the ground for a while like just -- it was cold, right, I didn't have any socks in my boots, and I was just wearing pajamas at that point and a t- shirt.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): Fresh after his return to civilization, Steele shared his detailed account with his rescuers. He describes sleeping in a snow cave the first two nights. "I just huddled into that dark cave and I slept," he Troopers. "And it was warm, warmer than outside."

Steele said he later scavenged for tarps and scrap lumber to build a tent-like dome around his wood stove. You can see it in the rescue video just feet way from his S.O.S. carved into the snow. Steele rationed his 30 days of food until a request for a welfare check from friends lead authorities to him.

STEELE: I was grateful that all my bullets blew up because that could have been a temptation to be like I'm not going to make it. I put myself out, right? That's -- it's a very real spot that crept up almost daily especially real cold nights.

SANDOVAL (voice-over): Steele told his rescuers he will probably head to his family in Salt Lake City for now and his plan is to return to the Alaskan wilderness he calls home and rebuild. Polo Sandoval, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: You're live in the "CNN Newsroom." I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Violent protests happening right now on the streets of Tehran for the second straight day.

[17:59:55]

A military missile barrage on a base in Iraq this week sending American troops to bunker down for their lives, the horrific shoot down of a civilian airliner that killed 176 innocent people.

All of these events are direct --