Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Protests Erupt in Iran After Tehran Admits Shooting Down Plane, Trump Warns Against Killing Protesters; Officials Decline to Provide Evidence Soleimani Would Attack Four U.S. Embassies; Interview with Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA); Sanders, Warren, Biden Face Off Ahead of Last Presidential Debate, Iowa Caucus. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired January 12, 2020 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:18]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

Happening right now, the country that fired missiles at American troops in Iraq and blames the United States for the mistake it made shooting down a commercial airliner is, again, exploding with angry protests.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: This is a large public square in central Tehran. Riot police firing tear gas into crowds of people furious at the government. They're demanding Iran's supreme leader step down in the wake of what Iranian officials call a mistake, the shootdown of a civilian passenger plane that killed all 176 people on board.

President Trump, today, is sending a direct message to Iran's leaders, tweeting: to the leaders of Iran, do not kill your protesters. And adding, the world is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching.

Iran's tragic mistake, as they call it, happened the same day Iran launched a missile attack on an airbase where thousands of U.S. troops are deployed. No U.S. forces were hurt.

Live to Baghdad now and CNN's senior international correspondent Arwa Damon. And, Arwa, you're just back from that base that Iran targeted in that retaliation missile strike. You were the first journalist allowed to be there. The images of the destruction there are really frightening. It's unbelievable nobody was killed or even injured.

ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It really is, and that hits home once you're actually there and you see it for yourself and you're able to speak to some of the troops that lived through this.

Now, the reason why there were so few casualties is mostly because the U.S. was able to build a picture of what was going to happen before it did. They were anticipating a ballistic missile strike, and so they began to disperse the troops on the base. Because the base itself wasn't necessarily ready to defend itself against that kind of a strike. They were ready for mortar attacks, rocket attacks, some kind of a ground attack, but nothing like this.

The base happened to have, though, Saddam-era bunkers on it, so the bulk of the force went into shelter in those bunkers. But then you still had troops that were out in the open. There were still guard positions that had to be manned because, remember, they were also preparing for a ground assault. You still had some of the units that were operating the drones that were still manning aircraft.

So as these missiles are coming in, you have young soldiers holding their position, trying to ignore the explosions that are happening behind them. You had other troops going around, trying to assess casualties, assess damage. You had people diving into bunkers. Everyone who we spoke to said they had never been through anything like this even if they had been deployed before.

Remember, the U.S. has rarely been on the receiving end of this kind of a strike. They are usually the ones who are delivering it. Incredible stories of close calls that we heard as well while we were there. The base, right now, is still on high alert. They are still readying themselves for the possibility that Iran's proxies on the ground here might also be carrying out some sort of an attack.

And a lot of gratitude and relief, and amazement, yes, that there were no casualties despite the fact that so many missiles came down. One of them actually landed on an area where troops lived. And the reason why there were no casualties there, again, is because they had already evacuated all of these areas.

And there is this sense that life changed because -- look, I've covered a lot of fighting. I've covered a lot of the aftermath of roadside bombs, of firefights, of anything. This, for those who had been through it, it was different because they were helpless. All they could do was hunker down, protect themselves as best they could, and hope that the missiles would not hit them.

CABRERA: Wow. Arwa Damon, thank you for that reporting. We salute those men and women serving our country overseas.

Let me bring in Jim Sciutto, our chief national security correspondent.

And, Jim, as you know, that missile attack on U.S. troops in Iraq and the shootdown of that civilian airliner in Iran, both incidents follow the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran's top general Qasem Soleimani. Now, U.S. officials seem to be struggling to really have specifics, to provide those specifics, to justify why he was targeted.

[19:05:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, generally, if you have specific intel, it's a very clear message one official or multiple officials can deliver. This administration has not been able to do that. And the President has made claims about how far the threat from Iran went to justify this killing and, also, how specific it was, including going as -- so far as to say he believed Iran was targeting four U.S. embassies.

But when challenged on that today, the Defense Secretary Mark Esper, of course, who was involved in this decision and saw the same intelligence, did not describe the intelligence in that way. It was much less clear, must -- much less specific.

And listen to his succession of answers this morning on the Sunday shows. First, let's start with CBS, this interview actually recorded earlier. Listen to how he described the intelligence there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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.

MARK ESPER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, the President didn't say it was tangible -- he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence. What he says is 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)

SCIUTTO: Very clearly stated there by the Defense Secretary, he did not see intelligence that backed up a specific threat to four embassies from Iran.

Now, in an interview that took place later with my colleague, Jake Tapper, here on CNN, Esper, it seems, trying to clean up what he had said in that interview that was taped earlier. Have a listen, but still, no more of a clearer answer on how specific the intelligence was. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

ESPER: There was intelligence that they had -- there was an intent 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 that --

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 they -- and I believed it too. What -- what -- what --

TAPPER: Four embassies, do you believe that?

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Fair to say it seems that it was possible Iran was planning such attacks, Ana. But, typically, when an administration uses imminent, one, it gets to credibility here. Of course, this is an administration, a president, that has repeatedly questioned intelligence supplied by the intelligence community regarding, for instance, Russian interference in the 2016 election, so it gets to credibility in describing that intelligence.

But it also gets to a legal issue here. Because to justify something like this, to prevent an attack, some lawyers will tell you, you need an imminent specific threat to justify such action.

CABRERA: Yes.

SCIUTTO: And that's something that the administration has waffled on.

CABRERA: Yes.

SCIUTTO: And those answers to those questions today certainly did not clear it up.

CABRERA: Yes. Jim Sciutto, thank you very much for joining us.

Of course, this dangerous situation with Iran playing out at the same time as a Senate impeachment trial looms for the President. And you are previewing that impeachment trial, what to expect, and when it could start in a CNN special live next hour alongside Poppy Harlow. "THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD J. TRUMP," a CNN special report, that's right here at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

Congressman Gerry Connolly of Virginia joins us now. He serves on both the Foreign Affairs and the Oversight Committees and was in the briefing room in the House, which it received on that decision to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

Congressman, the President claims Soleimani was planning to attack four U.S. embassies. Were you shown any intelligence that Soleimani was targeting multiple embassies?

REP. GERRY CONNOLLY (D), VIRGINIA: We were shown no evidence of Soleimani targeting anything or anyone.

CABRERA: So do you think the President --

CONNOLLY: Zero evidence.

CABRERA: Do you think the President is then making this up?

CONNOLLY: This is a president who has been impeached for using military aid for a country that's under siege by the Russians on the eastern part of its border for partisan political gain. So do I believe he might make it up to try to justify after the fact an impulsive action that has led to lots of ramifications and could yet -- excuse me -- lead to more? Yes. Of course, he could.

CABRERA: Even though he didn't provide evidence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper says the risk of doing nothing was greater than the risk of taking Soleimani out. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ESPER: A very, very senior intelligence community official said to us that the risk of inaction is greater than the risk of action. To me, that is very compelling.

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 flag-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)

[19:10:08]

CABRERA: Congressman, is that an assessment you can get behind?

CONNOLLY: No, and I say shame on the Secretary of Defense for trying to provide the best cover he can for the President and using patriotism and the death of U.S. service members to hide behind. I say shame on him. He knows better.

There was no intelligence. And the idea that it's better to act than not act, well, it depends on the consequences. Was there a careful vetting of the consequences that would flow from the assassination of a foreign leader, a leader from Iran, in particular? There was no evidence that that kind of careful vetting was done. And frankly, what the Secretary just said is a nice try but not true.

CABRERA: I want to ask you about the President's tweets to Iran, written in both English and in Farsi. And he warns the government not to harm protesters and to allow journalists to roam freely. Your reaction?

CONNOLLY: Well, I just think that it's a bit much for this president to be lecturing other people about press freedoms when he calls his own press the fake media and has banned individual members of the press from the White House, you know, following.

But having said that, there are a lot of forces at work in Iran that wants to see reform and want to see accountability. And I think that the shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner and initially denying responsibility for it has really put the current Iranian government and the revolutionary leadership in a bind with its own public in terms of credibility. And I think we're seeing that play out somewhat on the streets of Tehran and some other urban areas of the country.

CABRERA: Let's turn to impeachment. Speaker Pelosi is now warning Republicans against having a trial without calling witnesses. Listen to her today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), HOUSE SPEAKER: He signed on, on Thursday, to a resolution to dismiss the case. The dismiss -- dismissing is the 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: As you know, former national security adviser John Bolton says he'll testify if subpoenaed. That is something the House never did. Why not do it now?

CONNOLLY: The House did not want to get into litigation for, potentially, years and delay consideration of the articles of impeachment. There is nothing, however, to prevent and, as much, to recommend the Senate from hearing some witnesses we could not or would not hear from.

Bolton's one of them. Mulvaney is another, the Acting Chief of Staff. The White House General Counsel -- former White House General Counsel McGahn. Those are all people we would have liked to have heard from that I think the Senate --

CABRERA: Right. And I know the House --

CONNOLLY: -- should hear from and would benefit from.

CABRERA: I know the House wanted to hear from all of them and there were efforts to hear from them, but I recall John Bolton was asked to come and speak to the House and declined the voluntary --

CONNOLLY: That's right.

CABRERA: -- you know, testimony. However, he wasn't subpoenaed. And now, he's stating on the record, if I'm subpoenaed, I will testify. He's not saying he's going to take, you know, you or the members of the Senate to court, so I just -- I just want to come back to why doesn't the House still subpoena him now? The investigation, we're told, is still continuing in the House, right?

CONNOLLY: That's correct. And there's nothing to prevent the House from doing that, but I also think that moving toward the trial in the Senate, the bigger question is why doesn't the Senate call witnesses? And John Bolton ought to be one of them. That is a normal part of a trial.

In the previous two impeachment trials in the Senate, the only two we have, witnesses, in fact, were heard from. Depositions were, in fact, taken as part of the trial. And I think the burden really, at this point, ought to be on the Senate to answer the question. Why aren't you going to hear from witnesses so that the public and all members of the Senate can hear the evidence and make an impartial and objective decision?

CABRERA: We know that the President and his allies are hoping this impeachment trial is over by the state of the union, which is February fourth. Are you concerned at all about the President going out there in primetime, you know, this primetime address and taking a victory lap?

CONNOLLY: I think it's a risk, but the normal business of government has to proceed and the state of the union address is part of that normal business. So it's a risk we have to take. We'll see how he comports himself, whether the trial is still underway or whether it's been completed.

[19:15:05]

The ultimate jurors here, though, Ana, are the American people. And they'll get their judgment day in November, and they'll render their verdict on this president.

CABRERA: Congressman Gerry Connolly, I really appreciate your time. Thank you for being here.

CONNOLLY: My pleasure, Ana. Thank you for having me.

CABRERA: The impeachment trial happening right as the 2020 campaign trail heats up, just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Up next, battles are brewing on the 2020 campaign trail. Again, just days before the next Democratic debate, in a rare slap-back, Senator Elizabeth Warren says she is disappointed in Bernie Sanders' campaign attacks. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Senator Sanders is on the rise in Iowa according to the latest polling, and his campaign appears to be on the attack. Check out these two headlines just two days before the next debate here on CNN.

[19:20:01]

From "The State," a newspaper in South Carolina, an op-ed from Sanders' campaign co-chair entitled, "While Bernie Sanders Has Always Stood Up for African-Americans, Joe Biden Has Repeatedly Let Us Down." And from Politico, "Bernie Campaign Slams Warren as Candidate of the Elite." That Politico piece goes on to reveal these details. Sanders'

campaign has begun stealthily attacking Warren as a candidate of the upper crust who could not expand the Democratic base in a general election, according to talking points his campaign is using to persuade voters obtained by Politico. The script instructs Sanders' volunteers to tell voters leaning toward the Massachusetts senator that the people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democrat no matter what.

Senator Warren was asked about this on the campaign trail today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was disappointed to hear Bernie that 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: And now, here is Senator Sanders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have over 500 people on our campaign. People do certain things. I'm sure that in Elizabeth's campaign, people do certain things as well.

But you have heard me for months. I have never said a negative word about Elizabeth Warren, who is a friend of mine. We have differences on issues. That's what campaign is about. But no one is going to be attacking Elizabeth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: With us, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi and former adviser to four U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican, David Gergen.

Joe, considering how close Sanders and Warren are on the political spectrum, wasn't this inevitable?

JOE TRIPPI, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: No, I don't think so. They may have to take each other on at some point. But my experience, particularly as we get close in Iowa, is that when two campaigns go after each other in a multicandidate field like this, they both tend to get hurt.

And so, I think if they are -- if they do get into this kind of fight, you know -- you know, Dick Gephardt and my Howard Dean, my candidate in 2004, got into an ugly fight the last few weeks of Iowa, and that's what helped John Kerry and John Edwards get by both of us.

And so, I think it's the way that -- right now, I think people in that state are trying to gauge electability and, I think, making a choice between two of their favorites. And if those two favorites start fighting each other and creating doubts, it tends to hurt both candidates. So I don't think this is a smart strategy.

CABRERA: David, what do you think?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think Joe Trippi is absolutely on point that both candidates could easily get hurt. The bigger issue is if they have -- if they break into a fight now, it's going to carry over into the nomination fight and eventually, carry over into the national campaign.

There are a lot of people who loved Hillary Clinton who believed that Bernie Sanders was not respectful of her during -- and that he -- she lost a lot of ground because of Bernie just not getting -- you know, sort of uniting with everybody.

What I sense is happening is that Bernie is now in a position where, if he -- if things work out for him, if things fall the right away, he could potentially win Iowa where he's a little bit ahead. And he could win New Hampshire with a momentum coming out of Iowa. He's in a tight race for number one in New Hampshire.

If he were to win the first two, that's going to -- he is going to have a -- he's going to be the person with the Big Mo, the momentum, coming out of these first four races. So I think his strategy now is to see if he can nick and take a little blood out of each one of the other three, not just Elizabeth.

He's also going after Buttigieg, as you reported. He'll be going -- you know, he doesn't -- he doesn't have -- you know, he doesn't have any votes in the Black community, and he's going after Joe Biden --

CABRERA: Right.

GERGEN: -- for a lack -- or at least, these are his volunteers. Now, he's not doing it, but his volunteers are doing it.

CABRERA: Well, he has been going after Joe Biden over his Iraq War vote.

GERGEN: Yes.

CABRERA: And we can expect foreign policy --

GERGEN: Yes, that's fair.

CABRERA: -- to be a huge topic at the debate. And, of course, Biden has been touting his own foreign policy chops and expertise and experience.

David, who do you think is more vulnerable when it comes to issues of foreign policy going into this debate, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden?

GERGEN: I must say I think Bernie Sanders is more -- you know, he is -- the electability issue really has cut against Bernie in the past. And many, many strategists on the Democratic side think he's unelectable because, A, on the domestic issues, he's seen as a socialist and, B, on the international side, you know, he sort of wants to cut and run. He doesn't want to -- you know, he's closer to Trump than he is to Biden, in some ways, about the use of force and America's place in the world.

[19:25:06]

So is Biden somewhat vulnerable? Yes, he is. But he has the kind of experience that is invaluable when it comes to national security. And I think he's -- I just think he's in better shape on the record even though there are elements where, you know, voting for the Iraq War, et cetera, where he's vulnerable.

CABRERA: Right.

GERGEN: I think, overall, he's less vulnerable than Biden -- than --

CABRERA: Joe, do you agree --

GERGEN: -- than Sanders.

CABRERA: Do you agree, Joe, with that assessment?

TRIPPI: Yes, I do. I think, look, there's -- Bernie does have a strong following, and they will support him completely and see him as the world, you know, leader on the world stage that they want.

But I think Democrats, writ large, see -- look at this through the prism of Donald Trump, President Trump, chaotic, divisive, impulsive. And I think Joe Biden benefits when people start to look at foreign policy. That experience and not being that impulsive, that divisive, that sort of -- you know, chaos -- chaotous (ph) -- chaotic approach to things, I think, benefits him when they're thinking about who on foreign policy they'd like to see there.

So I think they both have different reasons. I think there are a lot of anti-war partisans in the Democratic Party. Howard Dean ran on that in 2004. But again, I'd point out we didn't win the nomination, John Kerry did. And that was in the thick of a strong anti-war movement in the party.

So I do think Joe Biden ends up benefitting more from if that's the focus, at least in these last few weeks. And particularly, if Bernie is fighting with different -- you know, other candidates as well. I really think that's a dangerous strategy in these last three weeks.

CABRERA: We just have a couple of minutes, and I want to get in two more questions.

Joe, we have this new impeachment poll out of Iowa voters. They are finding 48 percent of voters there don't think President Trump should be removed from office while 40 percent do. When you break it down by party, just 30 percent of independents think Trump should be impeached and removed. How should Democrats handle impeachment as we head into the debate? What's the best strategy?

GERGEN: I -- Joe, go ahead. I've got a couple of thoughts, but go ahead. TRIPPI: Well, no, I mean, I think --

CABRERA: Go ahead, David, if you want (ph).

TRIPPI: No, I think, look, within the party, within the context of this nomination fight, I think the -- all the candidates already staked out their positions. I think the bigger problem for a lot of them is going to be they're going to literally be taken off the field in Iowa and New Hampshire by Tuesday or Wednesday of this week, or we don't know how long. And that's going to take them out of -- out of being able to speak out as this changes.

The one thing I would say is, look, all these numbers about impeachment right now are interesting, but they're not reality. Until the trial actually gets -- starts to happen, until the evidence is out there, one way or the other, whether it exonerates or puts, you know, more emphasis on the charges, and how the Senate reacts to all that --

CABRERA: Right.

TRIPPI: -- whether it does indeed hold witnesses, all these things are going to change the numbers. So I think it's more impact, politically, is taking the Elizabeth Warrens, the Bernie Sanders, Booker and other people off the --

CABRERA: Yes.

TRIPPI: -- out of the mix in terms of being a campaign statement.

GERGEN: Yes.

CABRERA: Quick final thought, David?

GERGEN: Yes, OK. Yes, I just want to shift the subject a little back to Iran because I think it's so interesting, what is going on right now. What we know so far back here in America is more than half the voters are not happy with the way the President has been handling Iran. It's 56-43 -- 43 percent approve in a recent ABC poll.

But I think you have to keep an eye on what's going on in the streets now in Tehran. If these protesters can keep protesting and if by chance, they have enough strength and the -- the regime there is vulnerable. If they were to topple the regime, all bets are off on the politics here in the United States. The Republicans will -- if there was a toppling of the regime in Iran, the Republicans will claim that as a dramatic victory.

CABRERA: David Gergen and Joe Trippi, great to have both of you here. Thank you.

GERGEN: Thank you.

CABRERA: Don't miss the final Democratic presidential debate before the Iowa caucuses, CNN and "The Des Moines Register" host six candidates. It's all on CNN, Tuesday night, starting at 9:00 Eastern. Up next, there are so many unanswered questions about the exquisite

intel that led to the killing of Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. We'll look at the national security impact of the shifting stories, next.

[19:29:59]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:34:21]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: As questions continue to swirl about what exactly led to the U.S. decision to kill Iranian General, Qasem Soleimani, the Trump administration is touting the quote, "exquisite intelligence" that led to the strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT O'BRIEN, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: 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.

MARK ESPER, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: 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.

There was a reference in this exquisite Intelligence to an attack on the United States Embassy in Baghdad.

MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: ... watched him rely on the capable men and women who are delivering exquisite information to the Executive Branch.

[19:35:05]

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: And that brings us to your weekend presidential brief, a segment, we bring you here every Sunday night, with the most pressing national security issues the President will face this week and here to break it all down is CNN's national security analyst, Sam Vinograd. She helped prepare the presidential daily brief for President Obama.

Sam, we heard it repeated over and over again, exquisite Intelligence. What exactly is that?

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, this was not a term I was familiar with, and I actually just spoke with the former Acting Director of the C.I.A. and a Deputy Director, Michael Morell. He said in 33 years of service at the C.I.A., this was not a term he had heard before today.

Now "The Washington Post" has reported that exquisite Intelligence has to do with collection methods and satellite intercepts, for example. But Ana, how Intelligence is collected has no bearing on the fact that the administration has not made a credible case about the content of the Intelligence. In this case, that there was an imminent threat to U.S. interests.

So the administration appears to be mixing apples and oranges and trying to distract from the fact that again, they have not made a credible case about the imminent threat reporting.

CABRERA: As the U.S. administration tries to get its story straight, U.S. officials are also warning about the potential of an Iranian cyberattack. What might that look like?

VINOGRAD: Well, the Iranians actually have good reason to be worried about a U.S. cyberattack. We have launched offensive cyber operations against Iran in the past, and reporting indicates that we were considering attacks against Iranian critical infrastructure -- oil and gas infrastructure -- to be exact in the aftermath of the Soleimani strike.

Now, from a U.S. perspective, Iranian cyber espionage and cyberattacks are nothing new. The Intelligence Community warned last January that Iran is one of the four primary state sponsored cyber threats. They specifically called out election interference by Iranian influence operations.

In the aftermath of the Soleimani attack, the Department of Homeland Security has named potential additional targets -- power companies, private companies and other critical infrastructure. Now, these attacks could vary from Iran in terms of how they're implemented.

Iran could for example, engage in relatively less disruptive cyber operations, web-based -- website defacement, and spearfishing, for example, or if they wanted to up the ante, they could bring critical infrastructure offline, for example, and/ or steal highly sensitive data, for example, from government officials.

At this point as well, all Americans have to be deeply aware of the fact that influence operations by Iran in cyberspace are likely increasing. One, because the regime wants to spread its messages about how it used the United States in the aftermath of the attack, and because we're in the middle of an election cycle, and the regime has a track record of election interference via influence operations.

CABRERA: So let's talk more about influence operations because you tweeted this weekend that the administration's response to the anti- government protests in Iran is unsophisticated. Is the U.S. engaged in an influence operation of its own?

VINOGRAD: Well, it certainly appears that way. President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo have tweeted about the protests in Iran, and there is a real case to be made that they are trying to put the regime on notice about violence against anti-regime protesters. But, Ana, Pompeo tweeting that the voice of the Iranian people is

clear when their anti-regime protest looks like a pretty amateur influence operation. It is treating Iran as a monolith. There are 80 million people in Iran. And guess what? They have a range of views. Some are anti-regime, some are pro-regime, pro-U.S., anti-U.S. and so forth.

If Secretary of State Pompeo can't be sophisticated enough have to acknowledge that he understands the complexities of Iranian society and doesn't -- that really doesn't send the message that he cares about the Iranian people, that degrades our narrative that we are about supporting the democratic freedoms of the Iranian people are yearning for.

And finally, President Trump should probably just sit this one out. His credibility on supporting protesters around the world is highly inconsistent. He has a really mixed track record when it comes to protests. In Hong Kong, for example, he's called them riots because he didn't want to upset the Chinese government.

And in Iran's case, he is again ignoring the fact that there were anti-U.S. protests just a few days before this all happened.

CABRERA: Sam Vinograd, always good to see you.

VINOGRAD: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: Thank you very much. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:48:48]

CABRERA: Just this evening, Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau joined a large group of mourners as they remembered those killed in the Ukrainian Airlines flight that was shot down over Iran and vowed he won't rest until there is accountability.

The Chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps apologized earlier today saying they made a mistake and quote, "In all of my lifetime, I haven't been as sorry as much as now. I wish I had been on board and burned with them." He says they are determined to make up for it. CNN's Paula Newton spoke with one of the families who lost a sister, brother-in-law and niece.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): For hours at a time, Amir Arsalani's only comfort is silence. The joy in what could have been all gone --

AMIR ARSALANI, SISTER, BROTHER-IN-LAW AND NIECE DIED ON UKRAINIAN FLIGHT: My sister's family is gone.

NEWTON (voice over): Only the pain is left. Amir's sister, Evin, her husband, Hiva Molani, and their little girl, Kurdia lived their last moments on Flight 752. They were returning to Canada from their native Iran after a family wedding.

ARSALANI: I will never know what really happened. Whether they were true.

NEWTON (on camera): Do you worry about what their last moments were like on the airplane?

[19:45:04]

ARSALANI: Of course. Of course. What she said and what would he said to her, if they had the moment to kiss each other goodbye. If they did, they said they love each other together. You know, this is just unbearable.

NEWTON (voice over): For hours, he scanned images of the crash site and found this.

ARSALANI: This is hers.

NEWTON (voice over): He says, they're Kurdia's.

ARSALANI: I saw Kurdia's toys and her red shoes, just devastated. We just wait. I don't know.

NEWTON (voice over): And then there's what happens next? Going into his family's home in Canada and facing all the memories it holds.

ARSALANI: And now I have to go to Kurdia's room. All her baby pictures. What I'm supposed to do with their belongings here, with their house, with their clothes with their everything? That's it -- like at one point I have to go through it, but thinking about just gives you anxiety.

NEWTON (voice over): After days of private grief, Amir now seems determined to speak up. He says it's the only way to honor his family. He is grateful Canada is pushing for an investigation, but he says the Iranian government must pay for what they did. Especially he says, for the murder of his one-year-old niece.

ARSALANI: She was an angel. Like how can you do that?

NEWTON (on camera): They say it was an accident.

ARSALANI: It was not an accident.

NEWTON: What does justice look like for you and your family?

ARSALANI: We say eye for an eye. I know it's not a possible way. What are they going to do? Give us money? Give us a piece of land? Give us -- put a street under their name? I don't care. I can care less. I want them back. If I can get them back. They have to leave. They have to go.

NEWTON: Amir is now watching the protests in Iran with hope just as he watches this video over and over. I love you, she says.

Four days Amir has only had tears. Now, he says his family deserves more from him and from Iran.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: You know, Ana, of course, every life lost in this tragedy is just absolutely precious. You know, there are those that just stick with you in the most horrible of ways.

Maybe Kurdia was just a year old and for that family just to have to repeat all those memories, you know, hour after hour, it really has been unbearable. And through that, Ana, they are now left to try and really navigate you know, trying to identify them via DNA and obviously, having the politics of this story really intrude on their lives and on their grief.

I'm here at a memorial in Toronto behind me. People literally, Ana, just come here hour after hour spontaneously break out in tears, still -- Ana.

CABRERA: It's so heartbreaking. Paula Newton, thank you.

Now to Dallas, where a 15-year-old boy has been charged with aggravated assault after a shooting at a high school basketball game that was caught on camera.

[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]

CABRERA: According to Dallas Police, the shots were fired after a fight broke out last night at that game. An 18-year old was wounded and is hospitalized in critical condition. Another person was also wounded. Police say the video is now part of their investigation.

Still ahead, as the Royal Family prepares to meet face-to-face tomorrow, it is tough love and hard words being quoted from Prince William about his younger brother.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:53:05]

CABRERA: Members of the British Royal Family will hold an emergency family meeting tomorrow to talk about the turmoil over Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepping back from their roles as senior Royals.

According to the "U.K. Sunday Times" Harry's brother, Prince William told a friend quote, "I've put my arm around my brother all our lives and I can't do that anymore. We are separate entities." CNN's Anna Stewart has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNA STEWART, CNN REPORTER (voice over): The Queen's Sandringham Estate, a much loved country retreat and the Royal Family's Christmas getaway. Monday it will host a different sort of get together. Crisis talks to decide the future role of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Attending will be Her Majesty, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry. It will be the first time senior Royals have seen each other face-to-face since the Sussex's shock statement on Wednesday. Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex returned to Canada, but is expected to dial into the meeting.

The announcement came in defiance of the Queen that expressly asked Prince Harry to hold off making any statements. A terse response from Buckingham Palace appear to express her displeasure.

"Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through."

STEWART (on camera): Officials acting for the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William were instructed to work together at pace to find workable solutions for the future role of the Sussex's.

STEWART (voice over): A range of potential options are to be discussed Monday, any of which will take time to implement. On the negotiating table are expected to be income, properties, security and even titles. Defining their future role will likely involve a compromise on both sides.

For the Queen and her heirs, it's crucial they reach a solution that is workable not just for Prince Harry and Meghan, but for other Royals who slipped down the line of succession. Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward and one day, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louie, too. A transformative chapter in Royal history worthy of a future blockbuster episode of "The Crown."

Anna Stewart, CNN, London.

[19:55:20]

CABRERA: That does it for me tonight. Thanks so much for being here. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York don't. Do anywhere. As CNN special report, "The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump" begins after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:00:00]