Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House, President Both Face Key Impeachment Deadlines Today; Anti-Government Protests Turn Violent, Tear Gas Being Fired As Protesters Clash With Police; Donald Trump Legal Team Adds Starr, Dershowitz; Democrat Candidates Campaign In Iowa With Caucuses 16 Days Away; Women's Marches Taking Place Today Across The U.S., World; WAPO: National Archives Blur Images Critical Of President Trump; New Parnas Documents Suggest U.S. Ambassador Was Surveilled; Airline Passengers From China To Be Screened For New Illness. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired January 18, 2020 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me this Saturday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. All right, right now new evidence coming forward as Democrats tries to make the case to impeach President Trump.

New documents and photos released last night show more proof of indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas meeting with President Trump. This latest new evidence is the third release this week showing Parnas in close connection with the President and his family. A connection President Trump has strongly denied.

This as more documents released last night show new text messages about the apparent surveillance of Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while she was Ambassador. Those texts reveal contacts between Parnas and some of President Trump's fiercest supporters, including an aide for the House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Congressman Devin Nunes.

Meanwhile, there are only five hours remaining for House Managers to file the impeachment brief on Capitol Hill which lays out the facts, the evidence, and legal arguments members plan to present as the Senate trial starts next week. The President then must respond to the Secretary of Senate by 6:00 tonight.

CNN's Sarah Westwood is on Capitol Hill. So Sarah, what more are we expecting to learn from today's brief?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Fred, this is going to be a summary of the House Democrats' case against President Donald Trump like you mentioned that's due here on Capitol Hill at 5:00 pm and just an hour later, the President's response to the summons that was sent to him on Thursday by the Senate is also going to be due.

Now we did see the ceremonial start to the impeachment trial on Thursday that's when House Managers marched across Capitol Hill, read the articles of impeachment on the floor of the Senate, but really, the trial is not going to get under way until Tuesday so a few days remaining for both sides to get ready.

Now this House brief that we're going to see at 5:00 pm, that's going to give us the first glimpse into what will be the foundation of the Democrats' argument. It is going to draw from the evidence but the House compile during its inquiry to support those two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

But the President's response is due an hour later at 6:00 pm to the Secretary of the Senate. That's going to be a lot less substantive. We expect that to be more of a formality, responding to the summons sent to him. The equal document, the White House's trial brief that is not due until Monday at noon.

White House Counsel's Office led by Pat Cipollone and other White House Officials has been drafting that for weeks now. So it is not until Monday Fred that we might learn more about what the White House's strategy, the foundation of their case, will be.

WHITFIELD: All right. Sarah Westwood on Capitol Hill thank you so much.

A new text messages from Lev Parnas also suggesting that Former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch may have been illegally spied upon while working in Ukraine. The U.S. State Department is now investigating. However, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo only publicly committed to looking into the issue more than 24 hours after Ukraine announced its own investigation into the matter.

CNN's Zachary Wolf joins us right now from Washington. Zack, what's the latest, what does it mean that the Secretary of State will now say we, too, will investigate?

ZACK WOLF, CNN SENIOR POLITICS WRITER: Well, it is pretty remarkable I think that Ukraine jumped on investigating this before the State Department did because if you think about it, the U.S. government should be in charge of keeping its Ambassadors safe.

And these text messages and we just got new ones released yesterday really drive home the fact that or at least the idea that should be investigated that Yovanovitch was being watched essentially. Parnas has these undated text messages sent to him that include confirmation of her whereabouts is being in the country. And this you know drip, drip, drip format is really quite disturbing.

WHITFIELD: And then now we're also learning from Robert Hyde, he is Connecticut Congressional Candidate, who Lev Parnas says was talking to a person with a Belgian phone number, talking in text messages about the surveillance of the Ambassador at the time, Yovanovitch. What more do we know about this and how this information might be used in this impeachment process?

WOLF: Right. This is the person that Parnas was in contact with about apparently surveilling Yovanovitch, although they've both said that they weren't serious, and in fact, Hyde talked about it and suggested it wasn't serious at all. Take a listen.

[12:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT HYDE (R-CT), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: When they sent me these texts, I'm like whatever, dude, yes, under surveillance, just joking, nobody ever really knew that, I never pictured anything was real. I didn't think anything was real. Who would be surveilling a U.S. Ambassador, who could do that? I never imagined these jokers you meet at fund-raisers, that legit people were pulling you aside, stay away from these people. Never thought anything they were saying was real.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF: Now of course in the text messages that we have seen, he wasn't saying whatever dude, he wasn't saying this is a joke, and he wasn't saying this is real, that's what he is saying now. Back then he was forwarding text messages with this Belgian phone number, this mysterious Belgian phone number that had pictures of Marie Yovanovitch. So you know you compare the two stories. Something is not right there.

WHITFIELD: Yes. All right, Zack Wolf thank you so much. We'll check back with you.

Meantime, something that's very real indeed happening right now in Beirut, Lebanon. There are anti-government protesters who are clashing with authorities, with police. There's tear gas, explosions are being heard, felt and seen in the streets. Our Senior International Correspondent Ben Wedeman is there, and there are also fires now. Ben, bring us up to date. What's happening? How serious is this?

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This is very serious, these protests, these mass demonstrations have been going on for three months, but this is the worst I have seen yet this battle between the security forces and protesters has been going on for hours.

We have seen back and forth, but there are hundreds and hundreds of protesters, mostly young men just a couple hundred feet from where I am. Security forces are trying to move forward. The explosions are fireworks that the protesters are shooting in the direction of the security forces. And they're also using lasers in the hopes of disorienting the troops as they move forward, but looks like they're finally trying to clear this square, - which is the real heart of Beirut.

This week has been declared the week of rage. There have been protests for three months, mostly peaceful. But this time it seems that people have decided that peaceful protests aren't enough to get the politicians to finally form a government. Lebanon has been without a government for about two and a half months.

So what you see is now the security forces being moved back under fire with fireworks and rocks being thrown at protesters. There are the protesters, honestly, really outnumbering the security forces who simply don't seem to be able to bring the situation under control.

WHITFIELD: So Ben, we know you're taking all precautions necessary, you have been at this a very long time, but still this is a lot of volatility. So help us understand what we're seeing, too? When we see these laser lights, the green and the blue is that representative of the police force, the government forces, and then we're also seeing images of people with shields. One would presume that might be the police force. So who is representing what?

WEDEMAN: Okay. These people behind me, which probably you can't see very well because of the tear gas, those are internal security forces of Lebanon who were initially stationed outside the parliament where these flashes began about three hours ago. And they're facing off against hundreds of mostly young men, but also young women as well who have been throwing rocks, bottles, sticks, fireworks, whatever objects they could find in the direction--

WHITFIELD: All right, we lost the signal for now. We're going to check back with Ben Wedeman, when we can be because you could see the volatility the unpredictability of exchanges between anti-government protesters and the authorities there in Beirut, Lebanon. We'll check back with Ben when we reestablish connection. Meantime, we're going to take a short break for now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:10:00]

WHITFIELD: As the impeachment trial is set to begin, we're learning more about who President Trump is choosing to defend him. Now joining the President's legal team, Former Clinton Impeachment Prosecutor Ken Starr, Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Constitutional Lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz was on CNN this morning making the case of how he will defend President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE TEAM: I'm just not an expert on the underlying facts. I would be perfectly comfortable arguing any aspect of this. I have argued some of them in my writings. I'm an advocate, not a witness. I am advocating against impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Joining me now, White House Reporter for "The Daily Beast" Asawin Suebsaeng and Former Federal Prosecutor and CNN Legal Analyst Michael Zeldin. Good to see both of you. All right, so Michael you first and President Trump really going for who is who with his defense team and you heard Dershowitz saying you know he is an advocate. How will he be representing himself as an advocate of the law, of the facts, or of the President?

MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he is part of President Trump's Legal Defense Team.

[12:15:00]

ZELDIN: Alan can call himself whatever he would like to, but he is there to represent the President's point of view that the constitution does not allow for impeachment absent criminal behavior and that the mal administration argument that the White House is responding to does not arise to the level of an impeachable offense. So he is there to make that constitutional argument that the House impeachment articles are defective, and he is doing so on behalf of his client, President Donald Trump.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And now you have the GAO which says it was illegal to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine and that, too, is the nucleus of the abuse of power article of impeachment does that change the defense position on how it will defend its defendant, the President?

ZELDIN: Well, so the White House has flat out rejected the government accountability office finding of illegal activity in the withholding of the Ukrainian aid, so I think they're going to try to just disregard that.

I think their position has to be sort of what Dershowitz's position will be, which is that with the House has alleged is not an impeachable offense. We've always talked about this, Fred, over the past few weeks, that in the end, the President is going to have to say that his conduct doesn't rise to the level of impeachable conduct.

I think that's what we're going to see and we're going to see the defense team on behalf of the President trying to convince 51 Senators of that fact, and that they don't need witnesses to reach that point.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And the other issue is you know asking a foreign government to potentially interfere in a U.S. election which many Democrats and others are arguing that is unconstitutional.

So Asawin, you know this trial will ultimately be playing out on live television, broadcast around the world, starting Tuesday. Many on the President's defense team have significant experience in front of the camera. Is that you know the TV producer in the President, he wants TV ready legal representatives, could that at all be influential on the Senate and public?

ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST: Well, if a preponderance of the President's legal defense team for the Senate impeachment trial looks to your viewers like a Fox News prime time lineup, that's at least in part by design. It is not a coincidence.

The President has polled people for a long time close to him that performance on TV, including on Fox Business and Fox News is an incredibly important factor in his determination of who should be representing him, not just for the Senate impeachment trial but other matters of legal defense.

When it comes to someone like Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray or one of his Chief Personal Attorneys, Jay Sekulow, they all have incredibly broad experience on Fox News, for instance. Some of them have been paid contributors of the network. And also, when it comes to someone like Alan Dershowitz I just want to say very quickly that another special relationship he has with President Trump, is that in the past as we've reported before at "The Daily Beast" he has advised Trump, Jared Kushner, and other senior administration officials on the Middle East peace process.

So this is someone who Trump has been seeking as Counsel, and seeking as potential representation legally for years now.

WHITFIELD: So Michael, TV ready is one thing but still, you know, members of Congress and members of the public are going to be looking for the best legal argument in a defense for the President, and thus far while you've seen a lot of many of the people who are going to be on his legal team as a prelude to the Senate trial, you've seen them on the air, still absent is the legal argument. Do they have to change that? Do they have to really bring a good legal argument before the Senate or do you believe it is more of the same?

ZELDIN: No. I think that he's got some very serious lawyers on his team. They have Jane Raskin, Jay Sekulow, Pat Cipollone. Those are three solid trial advocates, appellate advocates who can I think address the factual presentation of the House articles of impeachment and try to cast doubt as to the legitimacy of those.

Dershowitz and Starr will argue the constitutional implications of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress articles. I think you'll have a one, two punch of, one the constitutional lawyers start and Dershowitz saying that this doesn't meet the standard of an impeachable offense, and Jane Raskin, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow arguing facts and the merits of underlying allegations contained within the House papers.

[12:20:00]

WHITFIELD: All right. We shall see it all play out beginning Tuesday and beyond. We'll all be right here in these very chairs having more dynamic conversations about it all. Thank you very much Asawin and Michael I appreciate it.

SUEBSAENG: Thank you, Fred.

ZELDIN: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, 16 days until the Iowa Caucuses and race for the White House. Today, the candidates are at a key legislative conference, their strategy once the impeachment trial begins?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

WHITFIELD: 2020 Democrats are appearing at a major conference in Iowa today with the clock ticking down to Caucus Day. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar among the candidates campaigning in the hawk eye state this weekend before they're both forced off the trail and they will be in Washington for a good amount of time during President Trump's Senate impeachment trial. CNN's Jessica Dean joining me right now from West Des Moines, Iowa Jessica, how are the candidates approaching this final weekend before many of them will be on Capitol Hill?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well Fred, they're certainly trying to maximize their time out on the campaign trial before the Senators have to go back to Washington, D.C. as you said to participate in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

So to that end we saw Senator Klobuchar and Senator Warren, also Vice President Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg here outside of in West Des Moines, just outside of Des Moines talking to a whole group of educators, and then from here, they're all kind of going across the state.

Everybody is doing different types of events that suit their style some big, some smaller. Senator Bernie Sanders is spending today in New Hampshire, and when you talk about these Senators that as you said are going to have to go back to Washington, D.C., this is a particularly unique situation that they're in, that they're going to be running for President while also having to go back to D.C. and be jurors in that impeachment trial.

They're going to have to rely on surrogates here in Iowa in New Hampshire and some of these earlier states, and this is a state remember where they love to see the candidates in person. Retail politics very important here in Iowa, people are used to going and seeing the candidates multiple times.

We've really seen here, as the polling bears out, that the top four tier so close, it is such a tight race here in Iowa. And people still, a large amount of people are still making up their mind. So we've had this long dating season with this historic number of candidates, but now is the time for them to commit and make their choices.

You can bet that Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg are going to make good use of their time because they don't have to be in Washington. Joe Biden will be back here next week. Fred?

WHITFIELD: All right, Jessica Dean, thank you so much in West Des Moines, Iowa.

All right, the very first U.S. lawmaker to endorse President Trump is sentenced to 26 months behind bars. Former Congressman Chris Collins set to go to prison in March after pleading guilty to federal charges in an insider trading case. The New York Republican admitted to sharing nonpublic information with his son relating to a drug company they were invested in.

The court saying Collins betrayed his duty before slapping him with a $200,000 fine and year of supervised probation. Collins resigned in September before pleading guilty. And President Trump's second backer in Congress, Duncan Hunter of California just resigned on Monday. He's pleaded guilty to conspiracy to misuse campaign funds.

All right, coming up, celebrating sisterhood thousands of people marching for women, including the wife of Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang who made a stunning announcement about an experience this week.

Plus, shock and outrage over a doctored photo from the 2017 women's march, the National Archives accused of altering history by erasing images in a picture.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:33:03]

WHITFIELD: All right, welcome back.

You're about to see images out of Denver, Colorado where people are gathering for today's Women's March. Thousands in fact are gathering from coast to coast for the fourth annual Women's March in major cities everywhere.

And moments ago in New York City, we just heard from the wife of Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang. This is Evelyn Yang's first appearance after an exclusive interview with CNN in which she revealed she was sexually assaulted by her gynecologist.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EVELYN YANG, WIFE OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ANDREW YANG: As terrifying as it was to share my story on a national stage, I had to believe that coming forward would help me reclaim my voice and help others reclaim theirs. Otherwise, we would all just be another statistic in the shadows. We need to do better for our mothers, for our daughters, for our

sisters, and for everyone who loves them. We need to roar against sexual violence. And roar against the culture of cover-up that so often follows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Evelyn Yang is among many turning out all over the country for the Women's March and we are covering it from east to west and back.

CNN's Kyung Lah is in Los Angeles, and Rebecca Buck is in Washington.

Rebecca, you first, you know, we just heard from Evelyn Yang in New York. How was the turnout in Washington and they are on the march now from Liberty Plaza which was right outside of Trump Hotel, and on their way to Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House now?

REBECCA BUCK, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: That's right. So they are circling the White House right now, Fred. You can see the marchers all around me here. Take a look at this crowd. It is not as big as some past Women's Marches that we have seen here in Washington, D.C. but it is certainly enthusiastic here.

[12:35:06] You can see from my arctic chic attire that it is very cold, it is also very wet. And did I mention cold but nevertheless a really strong turnout here in Washington. It tells you a lot about the commitment of these marchers. Many of them returning, having participated in one or more of the past marches here in Washington.

This is the fourth since President Trump took office. And the hope of many of these people here today is that this will be the last Women's March with President Trump in the White House just behind us. And a big topic of conversation as you can imagine is the looming impeachment trial coming up in the Senate as well as of course the looming presidential election at the end of the year.

We've seen signs representing Andrew Yang, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, many of the Democratic candidates for president. And there's a great deal of hope that these women and men who are marching will be able to vote and support those candidates in November and hopefully for them oust Donald Trump from the White House.

So that is the real focus here today, obviously some other issues, immigration, climate change, reproductive rights represented here. But the focus, of course, of this movement has been President Trump from the very beginning. They'll be circling around to the other side of the White house, the North Lawn and they are doing some choreographies and some singing. But you can see a very festive atmosphere here, a very excited crowd, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, Rebecca in the nation's capital. Let's go to Kyung Lah in Los Angeles, maybe not as bundled up but the crowd equally hardy. All right, so Kyung, what's happening there?

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, certainly not as bundled up because it's about to be, you know, in the middle of the day. The temperature is expected about 68 degrees and that's brought out a pretty good crowd here.

The women's -- the organizers for this Women's March here in Los Angeles say that this hasn't even started yet, the march is going to start at the top of the hour. They're going to walk several blocks but look at this crowd. The organizers here believe this will be the nation's largest Women's March.

And similar to what you're seeing in Washington, it is intensely political. There are a lot of issues being covered here about access to healthcare, about women's rights, the ERA, climate change. But it is also intensely political.

If you look at each one of these signs, a lot of the people here are talking about President Trump. There is absolutely an urgency to the fact this is 2020, and that this year the vote will matter more than ever before. So, you know, as I look around at the crowd, one says the Senate must remove Trump. Over here there are -- there's a sign that I am standing right next to says, stop the Donald vote in 2020. It is acknowledgment that the vote this year will mean something because it started four years ago. And four years ago, this organization was created in response to President Trump, it led to a record number of women running for office in 2018. So those themes, the power of the vote and the power of women to impact government certainly an overriding theme here, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right, Kyung Lah, thank you so much. Rebecca Buck, appreciate it. We're going to keep a close watch on all the marches taking place across the country in major cities.

All right, the event first began in 2017 right after President Trump's inauguration. That's when one million people, many of them wearing pink hats turned out for marches nationwide. A photo of that protest from that day is now at the center of growing controversy. The National Archives is acknowledging that it has made alterations to a photo of that protest on that day, a photo which greets visitors at an exhibit on women's suffrage at the National Archives.

And according to a report in the Washington Post, the National Archives blurred signs being seen disbursed within that picture, and the blurred portions are those that are critical of President Trump. And you can see a split screen of the same photo, it says "God hates Trump" and then the altered image says, God hates.

All right, with me now is Wendy Kline, a history professor at Perdue University. Wendy, good to see you. So what was your --

WENDY KLINE, HISTORY PROFESSOR, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Good to see you too.

WHITFIELD: What was your reaction when you heard of this blurring of the image? And actually an admission coming from the National Archives and we'll get into the explanation that they give.

KLINE: Well, let me tell you, as a historian, I was shocked. We place so much value on the artifact, the historic documents that we work with. And the idea that there would be any messing with primary source documents was shocking to me.

WHITFIELD: And -- go ahead.

[12:40:02]

KLINE: Just and -- and then as someone who works on the history of feminism in women's health, the fact that what was erased was the voices and messages of women who historically had already been silenced made it all them more troubling.

WHITFIELD: Right. And the impetus for why they are there, I mean, is kind of explained in some of those, you know, placards that they were holding. So a spokesperson for the National Archives, you know, told the Washington Post that what they did was non-par -- you know, non- partisan and that the agency, you know, the archive agency is a non- political one.

And that the reason why they blurred the references to the president on the posters is to avoid, you know, the eyes of some young people who might see the image when they come as a visitor because, you know, this was an exhibit that is to celebrate, you know, women. And that they were trying to avoid offending anyone.

Do you see that that is a good explanation?

KLINE: No. I have two issues with that. The first is that, it's inherently political to doctor a photograph. You can't get away from that. The moment they chose to inaccurately or censor or make something invisible that was actually there, you're entering the political debate and you're stoking the fire. So that was just, you know, an embarrassing mistake on their part.

The second issue, though, is this idea that these words are inappropriate, the fact that women --

WHITFIELD: That the Archives is saying or a spokesperson from the Archive says inappropriate for certain audiences. And just as a reminder, you know --

KLINE: Right.

WHITFIELD: -- this is an exhibit that's called, "Rightfully Hers: American Women and the Vote." And this photo, you know, is kind of emblazoned. It's one of the first things you see. Continue your thought now.

KLINE: Sure. So if young girls have not already been exposed to language about their own bodies in appropriate places, say from the president's mouth, then it's completely unclear me why it shouldn't be allowed in a public document that is portrayal of a generation, well, really, 50 years of women is trying to speak up and end silence about their bodies and their right to own and control and name their body parts.

WHITFIELD: And here's the other portion of the explanation which, you know, is coming from the spokesperson for Archives saying, you know, that this is not -- this image is not an artifact, it's actually an exhibit, you know, and to, you know, deface or, you know, alter an artifact is a whole different issue. But this is an exhibit, and it's an exhibit, you know, celebrating the centennial of women's suffrage.

KLINE: Right.

WHITFIELD: Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1920, prohibiting federal government and states from denying women the right to vote on the basis of sex. So, do you see that this is not an artifact that it's an exhibit and that's the difference in which you can make the alteration?

KLINE: Well, Fredricka, we could have a really long conversation about where you draw the lines between what's an exhibit and what's a historic document. But I will say that in general, the fact that it's ironic really that this is commemorating women's right to vote, but also to have -- to be present, to have a voice --

WHITFIELD: Right to be seen. KLINE: -- and have a language. And so why would you -- if you're going to choose anything in terms of what to hide, why would it be the very thing you're supposedly celebrating?

WHITFIELD: Yes.

KLINE: Right? I mean, that just doesn't make sense.

WHITFIELD: Right. And then the Archives is also saying, you know, kind of there's almost like a permission that they were given to by Getty. And Getty is now saying, well, we're still looking into who may have given that directive that it was OK to make that alteration. So there's a whole lot of, you know, finger pointing of who is responsible for this and, you know, still -- I guess all the answer is unclear for now.

KLINE: Yes. If anything, I am grateful that it's opening up a public discussion of the role of Archives in providing access to historic documents and what we do and what kind of conversations we have about those documents.

WHITFIELD: All right.

KLINE: And how we go about commemorating important events, particularly in this political era of, you know, fake news and the assault on women.

WHITFIELD: All right.

KLINE: I think it's all the more important to do it now.

WHITFIELD: Wendy Kline, thank you so much.

KLINE: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, still ahead, was someone illegally tracking the former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch while she was ambassador? We'll take a look at the risks and protections for diplomats.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:49:23]

WHITFIELD: Newly released documents shed more light on the alleged surveillance of former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch in Ukraine. And it took more than 48 hours now for the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to finally address the matter, vowing now to look into possible spying on the American diplomat before she was removed from her post.

Joining me right now to discuss the alarming messages, Jonathan Wackrow, a former Secret Service agent and a CNN Law Enforcement Analyst.

Jonathan, good to see you.

So, what kind of protections are generally in place for a diplomat serving overseas against something like this, surveillance by another country or, you know, even from the U.S.?

[12:50:02]

JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Absolutely. Well, the responsibility for protection of our U.S. diplomats around the world falls on the diplomatic security service of the U. S. State Department. And here in this case, the responsibility would lie with the regional security officer.

You know, the DSS or Diplomatic Security Service has over 2,400 special agents deployed worldwide to protect over 300 U.S. installations that are part of our diplomatic mission. So there's a very robust protective operation that set forth for our U.S. diplomats engaging in this very critical mission.

WHITFIELD: Great. So in other words, if you are followed, it's usually to protect you, you know, for your safety because often times our diplomats are in very dangerous places. It's very dangerous duty.

WACKROW: Absolutely. I think when you look at what's happening here, though, it's a little bit different. You know all diplomats accept some sort of risk. And that risk is typically faced by foreign adversaries that are looking to, you know, target our U.S. diplomats. What is really disturbing about this is that the surveillance that is, you know, was conducted against our U.S. ambassador in the Ukraine seemingly was directed from somebody in the United States. And the question remains why?

What was the objective of this surveillance? Was it to try to establish a pattern of behavior to exploit vulnerabilities or for some other nefarious reason?

WHITFIELD: So reading these text messages and the statements, you know, involving the indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas which include statements like, "They will let me know when she's on the move." And "They are willing to help if we/you would like a price."

I mean, when you read that, that's certainly as a departure from following a diplomat to make sure they are protected.

WACKROW: Absolutely, Fred. You know, I just want to contextualize how we think about threats. We look at the means, opportunity, and intent to cause harm. By those text messages themselves, we already know that these individuals who are conducting this surveillance had the means and opportunity.

The question is, and we see it in those text messages, they were debating the intent. And that's what any investigation by either the United States or our Ukrainian partners have to ascertain. What was the intent? Was the ambassador under threat of, you know, physical harm? And I think we're going to come to the conclusion that she was as

indicated by her late night phone call to have her recalled back to the United States for safety reasons.

WHITFIELD: Jonathan Wackrow, we'll leave it right there. Thank you so much.

WACKROW: Thanks a lot.

WHITFIELD: All right, up next, health concerns at the airport. Why passengers are being screened for a deadly virus?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:57:36]

WHITFIELD: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control is taking the highly unusual step of screening airline passengers from the Chinese city of Wuhan for symptoms of a deadly new virus. So far, two people in China have died from this new virus officially called the 2019 novel coronavirus while 41 others have been infected. Passengers will be checked for symptoms of fever, coughing, and difficulty breathing.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is with me right now. He's the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Good to see you.

So, what do we know about this virus, where did it come from, and, you know, how easy is it to spot in someone?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Well, it's a coronavirus, and it's interesting because it has jumped species likely from animal source into the human. We have experienced -- you know, generally coronaviruses are the cause of certain of the common colds. But our experience over the last several years with SARS in 2002 and the MERS virus in 2012 indicate that coronaviruses can actually be very serious infections, usually jumping species. This is likely what happened with the new coronavirus which as you know is causing infections, fever, and pulmonary infections with two deaths already.

So we're taking this very seriously. And that's why you hear what the CDC is doing very appropriately is now doing exit screening at airports including JFK, LAX, and San Francisco.

WHITFIELD: So now, the screenings and the notices, that's very different. You know, some folks might recall when they have traveled international and they make their way back into the United States, they may see signs about SARS, you know, if they've been to certain regions of the world or maybe even foot and mouth disease. But this is the first time that passengers have been screened since the Ebola outbreak in 2014.

So what does being screened mean? Do passengers or travelers feel like they're going to be swabbed inside their mouths? I mean, what's going to happen?

FAUCI: No. What happen, it's a syndromic thing. So when they get to, for example, last night when they got to JFK, they are looked for fever and symptoms and within the last 14 days from time of symptoms, they either came from Wuhan and/or they had contact with an individual who was being suspected or being suspected of having this.