Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Airline Passengers From China To be Screened For New Virus; Trump Insist He Doesn't Know Giuliani Associate Parnas; New Parnas Documents Suggest U.S. Ambassador Was Spied On; House. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 18, 2020 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE: And/or they had contact with an individual who was being suspected or being suspected of having this. Another part of the criteria is if you have fever or symptoms, and you have had contact with someone with documented new coronavirus, so the CDC has a very strict and very-well described series of screening.
And if in fact, you do fall into that criteria, they'll take you aside for tertiary screening, then they will determine In fact, if you do have this particular infection, so it's a very well oriented way of looking at this.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Yes, because this is very, you know, potentially very serious on, you know, contact if you were to come close to it. All right, Dr. Anthony Fauci, thank you so much. Good to see you.
FAUCI: Good to be with you.
WHITFIELD: We've got so much more straight ahead in the newsroom. And it all starts right now.
All right. Hello again, everyone. Thank you so much for being with me this Saturday, I'm Fredericka Whitfield. All right. With the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump set to begin next week, Democrats are revealing new evidence in the case. Photos released last night show more documentation of indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas meeting with President Trump.
The latest new evidence is the third release this week showing Parnas in close connection with the President and his family. The President has repeatedly denied knowing Parnas at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know those gentlemen, that was possible I have a picture of them because I have a picture with everybody. I don't know them. I don't know about them. I don't know what they do. But I don't know. Maybe they were clients of Rudy, you'd have to ask Rudy.
I don't know Parnas, other than I guess I had pictures taken which I do with thousands of people including people today that I didn't meet, but just met him. I don't know him middle don't know what he's about. I don't know where he comes from. Know nothing about him. He's trying to probably make a deal for himself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: Meanwhile, other documents released last night show new text messages about the apparent surveillance. Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, those texts also show contacts between Parnas and some of President Trump's fiercest supporters, including an aide for the House Intelligence Committee's ranking member, Congressman Devin Nunes.
Senior Writer at CNN politics, Zack Wolf is looking into all of this. So Zach, you know, how might this new evidence add or influence things to come this week?
ZACHARY WOLF, CNN POLITICS SENIOR EDITOR: Well, of course we have the impeachment trial of President Trump which really gets underway on Tuesday. Before that, House Democrats are supposed to offer up some of the evidence that they have tied to those articles of impeachment a little bit later today. It will be interesting to see how or if they are able to factor this new information into that briefing.
Certainly they will want to bring up this information at the impeachment trial. There is some question about whether they will be able to. And if you think about it, we've learned so much about what was going on in Ukraine in the month since President Trump was impeached. So we have the impeachment occurring. And then we're still learning so many things about these characters that had access to the President, but we're also trying to help him dig up dirt on his political rivals.
WHITFIELD: The documents also appear to implicate Congressman Devin Nunes and an aide working with him. Parnas was in close contact with an aide and where might this go now? I mean, with this aid have this contact without the Congressman Devin Nunes knowing?
WOLF: It's kind of hard to believe, all, you know, although suppose it's possible. What's really interesting for me is the Devin Nunes was essentially the face of Republicans at the impeachment hearings. He was somebody who was questioning the impeachment witnesses, he was constantly calling this a hoax. But clearly at least his staffers and he also had contact with Lev Parnas.
They were, you know, being fed this information about the effort being undertaken on the President's behalf. So they were in, perhaps on the thing that they were then supposed to be investigating. It's a remarkable turn of events.
WHITFIELD: Indeed it is. Zachary, thank you so much.
WOLF: Thanks.
WHITFIELD: So in the middle of all of this, a few important deadlines on Capitol Hill now, House managers have just under four hours left to file their impeachment brief. That brief is expected to lay out the facts, the evidence, legal arguments, members plan to be presenting. The President is also facing a deadline tonight. His legal team must respond to the Secretary of the Senate by 6:00 p.m. tonight.
All right. A lot to discuss here. Let's bring in Reuters White House Correspondent Jeff Mason and law professor of the University of North Carolina and Legal Analyst Michael Gerhardt.
[13:05:01]
Good to see you both. All right. So Michael, you first you know, Democrats will lay out their case in this brief this evening. We've already seen a lot of new evidence, how will all of that be intertwined into their brief?
MICHAEL GERHARDT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: My guess is that they'll begin with the information they had when they voted on impeachment. So -- and that's a lot of information that came from the House Intelligence Committee, and House Judiciary Committee, particularly intelligence committee, then they'll go into the new information which basically reinforces or supports or strengthens the case already being made in the House.
At the same time, this new information I think reinforces a sense that it's getting harder and harder to trust, whatever the president says, if he says no, he might actually mean yes. And so I think the -- there's growing distrust of whatever he may say, which I think is going to be part of the presentation, in this case. The House basically saying you can't trust what the President is saying. You're going to have to trust the evidence we've got.
WHITFIELD: And in that brief, Michael, is there also a continued urging of witnesses or explaining the relevance of some of the requested witnesses?
GERHARDT: I think there will be. Again, I think it's going to be two different points being made. One is, we certainly had enough to impeach. But then secondly, we've got this other evidence and other information suggesting there's a lot of witnesses we'd like to hear from. Keep in mind, the President has demanded they don't testify. But that's not a good enough reason to keep them from testifying.
For example, lots of people have information about this and the President's keeping them from testifying. So that's a point that the House managers can make. And that's the basis of Article two against the president.
WHITFIELD: OK. And Jeff, among, you know, the four that we know publicly the House has listed as potential witnesses Lev Parnas is among them, you know, how, you know, much might his newest information that he's revealed, his willingness to testify how seriously, might that be considered in your view?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, I think Democrats would certainly consider it. But that -- it goes to the broad question of whether or not witnesses will be allowed. And there are, you know, there are competing views on that and competing impulses. The President himself has gone back and forth on whether or not he would like to have witnesses.
If he did, then you would probably see people like, perhaps Vice President Joe Biden, and certainly his son, Hunter Biden being asked to testify and the Democrats with no doubt want Lev Parnas and also John Bolton. So that's attention and I don't think we're going to have answers on that until a little bit later into the trial. But that's certainly something that's hanging over them now.
WHITFIELD: And then Michael, with these new images coming out with, you know, Lev Parnas with Trump with family members, with his, you know, accompanying interviews, we know that the Supreme Court Chief Justice, you know, John Roberts will be presiding. But would he in any capacity interject during the trial to underscore the need for witnesses, the lack of witnesses, would that in any way be in his role?
MASON: I think it's highly unlikely that Chief Justice Roberts is going to initiate any discussion about witnesses or engage in any kind of extemporaneous comment or Interjection. But what he will do is he may be asked to rule on witnesses or he may be asked to rule on the competency or relevance of witnesses. And then he has the power to do that. But keep in mind anything he rules may be overturned by a bear majority of the Senate.
WHITFIELD: So what does it mean -- what is the, you know, extent of what it is to preside? I mean, if a motion is made, I think that's what you mean by, you know, ruling on a motion, but if there is no motion, you know, being made by either side. Is he just observing? I mean, how might he interject himself into the process?
MASON: Well, he's there at the very least to really represent the law and to bring some real seriousness to the to the occasion. And he'll definitely do that. But beyond that, the rules of the Senate allow him to actually compel witnesses, compel testimony, even issue subpoenas that necessary, but the rules also provide that on any decision he makes, any decision, maybe appeal by one senator to the entire Senate, and then at least 51 can overrule the chief justice.
So Chief Justice Roberts knows that, he's -- I suspect, going to try and keep himself from being in a position where he can be overruled, but he's obviously going to be able to ask comments, or even reinforce some request for example if there is one made by witnesses. But again, I think he's going to be very careful to let the innocence of trial come to him, rather than he dominated or try and control it.
WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it there for now. Thank you so much, Jeff Mason, Michael Gerhardt. Good to see both.
GERHARDT: You too.
WHITFIELD: All right. Still ahead.
[13:10:00] On this Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend, demonstrators across the country are marching in the name of women's rights and equality. I'll talk to Dr. King's daughter, Bernice King about this movement and more, next.
And outrage over a doctored photo from the 2017 Women's March. The National Archives accused of altering history by censoring the poster.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back. Right now thousands of empowered women from across the country, many of them wearing pink hats are taking part in inclement weather everywhere for the fourth annual Women's March. You're looking at live pictures out of New York where it's blistering cold, windy and their snow. The event first began in 2017 right after -- the day after President Trump's inauguration.
[13:15:03]
WHITFIELD: That's when one million people turned out for marches nationwide making it the largest single day protest in American history. CNN's Rebecca Buck is in Washington. It's cold, may not be as snowy as New York, but it -- we've seen the snowflakes, what's going on there because people there have been marching on Pennsylvania Avenue. And they've been circling the White House. What's going on now?
REBECCA BUCK, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: That's right, Fred. Well, we started coming around the south side of the White House circled around and now you can see the White House behind me. This is the north side. These protests -- these marches rather are going to stop here in front of the White House face the White House and send a strong message to the President. They have planned a dance and song targeted at the president calling President Trump a racist, a very -- or racist rather, very strong terms from these marchers.
This is going to be sort of the climax of this March and then they will return to where they started at Freedom Plaza off of Pennsylvania Avenue. As you mentioned, the weather here today has been brutal. It's been cold. It's been raining. It's been snowing at times. But these marchers have been fired up throughout, you can hear the drums behind me. There have been chance of this is what democracy looks like.
There had been chants of Trump has got to go. And of course, impeachment is one of the new elements this year, looming over the March. And of course, it is also an election year. The year that these marchers hope to unseat President Trump from office. We have seen signs for multiple Democratic candidates here today for President, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders, all with supporters representing their campaigns here today.
And so that is really the biggest goal of this march is having these Democrats get fired up for the election, support Democratic candidates, and hopefully they hope run President Trump out of office. Their goal, of course, is that this is the last Women's March where they will be in front of a White House with President Trump as president, Fred.
WHITFIELD: All right, Rebecca Buck, thank you so much. And in the crowds of the last four years, it's been everything from Democrats, Republicans and Independents, women who were taking a stand for various reasons during those gatherings. So this 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 from the protest of that day is now at the center of growing controversy. The National Archives is acknowledging that it has made alterations to a picture of that protest that greets visitors at an exhibit on women's suffrage. According to a report in the Washington Post the National Archives blurred signs in the picture that are critical of President Trump and maybe deemed inappropriate for some audiences.
Moments ago we spoke with an historian who was stunned by the changes made to the photograph.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WENDY KLINE, HISTORY PROFESSOR, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right. With me now Bernice King, she is the daughter of civil rights icon, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and CEO of the King Center and administer in own right. Thank you so much for being here.
BERNICE KING, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KING CENTER: Thank you. Glad to be here.
WHITFIELD: So when you see the image, and I can't -- what has become an iconic image of the 2017 gathering of a million people, you know, from coast to coast for this Women's March and you see it doctored and it is at, you know, the archives, the National Archives, what's your reaction to the archives doctoring an image, a depiction of history?
KING: You know, I can't -- I'm not an archivist. So I can't speak to, you know, the importance of making sure documents have their historical accuracy so I can respect whatever opinion that they give in regard to that. When I look at the image period, I'm disturbed by the image itself --
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: What do you mean?
KING: -- because God and hate can't go in the same paragraph or sentence. God is love. So God would never hate anyone who even is a hater of people call them braces or evil. Because God is love. God's desire is that everyone would come to a certain place. WHITFIELD: So one -- in that picture, one of the -- one of the posters
that was, you know, held up and said, the reality of that moment is someone has a -- an image that says God hates Trump.
KING: Right.
WHITFIELD: And in the image you see on the right of your screen, the censored portion, the name Trump was taken out.
[13:20:03]
WHITFIELD: And there were other references, there were other -- there was another poster that said, you know, GOP, it's a Trump and GOP hands off women and the name Trump was kind of blurred out. So, you know, the dispute is over it was a appropriate, you know, to -- whether it's an attempt to erase history or change, you know, a documentation that shows a moment of history.
You know, your dad, foot soldiers alongside him dealt with all kinds of other efforts to erase their efforts, change history, distort the truth. Do you see a parallel here?
KING: You said my father named faced efforts to erase history?
WHITFIELD: There were people in factions who wanted to erase whether it be progress, moments of history that your dad was involved in that other foot soldiers were involved and --
KING: Yes, no. I get that.
WHITFIELD: Yes.
KING: I think it's important to reflect history.
WHITFIELD: Yes.
KING: But I also think it's important that we challenge people in reflecting history. Another truth, that's why I said I had to speak to the truth of God hates because God does not hate. That's all I was speaking.
WHITFIELD: Yes.
KING: But yes, reflecting truth is very important. We should not erase it, because if you erase it, we repeat it. And so history is so important for people to learn from, to extract from, to have dialogue about.
WHITFIELD: Uh-hmm. What is this weekend like for you? This holiday honoring your dad, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and honoring service and using this holiday as a real impetus for people to volunteer, to do something for their community. What is this weekend like for you?
KING: Well for us through the King Center, our theme is King's 2020 vision, the beloved community to fierce urgency of now in light of the climate that we're living in, we're in a very peculiar moment. All stakes are high in this election year for everybody, whether you're Democrat, Republican, Independent, whether you're someone who's -- doesn't vote.
And so it's important that we understand the need to change the trajectory of our nation toward building that community where everyone is valued and treated with dignity, and justice, and rise above this fray of back and forth. There's a lot of polarization and division liveness. And we've got to find a way to speak another language in the culture right now. Otherwise, we're going to come apart.
WHITFIELD: Yes. How troubling, disturbing is that for you to see this kind of polarization that you speak of? And, you know, when you look at the Democratic race for the White House, there were many people who celebrated the diversity, you know, of the field. And much of that diversity, you know, is no longer there. When you look at the top of, you know, top candidates in the Democratic race.
Do you see any real parallels between, you know, the polarization of America? Or, you know, what was the hope of the diversity and much of that diversity is no longer demonstrative in the -- in the top tier --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: I mean, you know, it's disturbing that we're still at a place where there not enough -- there's not enough diversity on either platform, not just on the Democratic platform, on the Republican platform as well. But the beauty is that it started out that way. It shows us that we can have a more diverse pool and should and it gives an image to future generations that this is the way in which we want to go.
The most important thing for me right now something that my father said is that we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or we'll be forced to perish together as fools. And therefore, we've got to learn to respect all of this diversity, move this to the diversity forward and capture the ideals that he left for us. I mean, he left for us this notion of nonviolence to create a more just humane and peaceful world.
And that's the education and the training that we do through the King Center to help people to know how to effectively change social systems and structures, where at the end of the day, there's the spirit and opportunity for reconciliation between people.
WHITFIELD: On Monday, in Virginia, there is a planned pro-gun movement or rally that's how it's being, you know, touted but there have already been some arrests of Neo-Nazis who were to be involved in that rally. Perhaps there's no coincidence that it would fall on the day celebrating your dad, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
[13:25:03]
WHITFIELD: How troubling is it for you that that would take place and how do you get ahead of, you know, a rally that might invite or welcome people who have already been arrested as Neo-Nazis and, you know, for allegations of wanting to incite, you know, disruptions on a day, that should be marking peace, volunteerism service?
KING: Well, first of all, we have to understand, everybody's not going to embrace or celebrate my father, that's to be expected. But those of us who understand his ideals, who seek to practice his ideals, have an opportunity to help to continue to educate those people about the work of Dr. King and the important work that we need to do in this nation to bring about peace, justice, and equality.
But we cannot do it. If we just ask people or cancel people as we call it in our culture. We have to dare those of us who have the courage, have to dare to cross some lines, just telling people who are part of hating Neo-Nazi groups which I think law enforcement has to deal with that in the way that they should. But those of us who are part of the citizenry have to find a way to bridge that divide, to try to win those people over.
And their people have done that and our coach Darrell Davis, for instance, out of Maryland, met with many people of the clan, and many of them left the clan as a result of his efforts. We need more courageous people like that because hate doesn't just go away because you hate it, or because you just push it to the side. I mean, that's like suppressing something in your system. Eventually, it's going to spread in other ways.
And so we have an -- we have a responsibility, and we have an opportunity during the year, every year during King's holiday, to practice his teachings to practice his ideals and to win More people over to the kind of world that we all want.
WHITFIELD: And you're the embodiment of that every day, not just on Martin Luther King, Jr. but how will you be spending the day on Monday.
KING: We have a commemorative service of course in the morning at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, Pastor Howard John Wesley will be delivering the message that day, our elected officials will be there. There will be special tributes and music, the consular corps here in Atlanta of the international community, we will be there. We're having voter education demonstration at the King Center because we have new voting machines with paper ballots and we want to help to prepare people for those machines that will be present at our March elections.
We're doing a beloved community talk that evening, dealing with the issue of systemic racism, what is it? We talk about these words, but what do they really mean? So we're going to educate people with the experts on that and the second part is two former NFL players Takeo Spikes and Anquan Boldin and I talk about how they're disrupting systemic racism and then during the daytime from 2:00 to 4:30 is introduction to nonviolence sessions at Spelman College for the promise and on the west side. So they can go to the Kingcenter.org and find out more.
WHITFIELD: All right.
KING: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: Dr. Bernice King.
KING: OK. Appreciate it.
WHITFIELD: Always good to see you. Thank you so much.
KING: Thank you so much.
WHITFIELD: A state of emergency is in place in Richmond, Virginia right now amid fear of violence at that pro-gun rally that we were talking about. That's plan from Monday at the state capitol and so far seven suspected white supremacists are under arrest. Three of whom police say, we're planning to go to that rally on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. A temporary weapons ban is in effect on the State Capitol grounds.
The governor putting extra security measures in place to avoid a repeat of the deadly violence in Charlottesville back in 2017. CNN's Nick Valencia joining me right now from Richmond with more on the growing tension. Nick?
NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's certainly growing tension and a lot of concern here, Fredricka, we're two days away from this rally already though seeing stepped up security measures. It was early this morning that I saw a group trying to enter the State Capitol grounds and it was a woman holding a toddler. And even she was wand and it was very thorough security screenings already even though this rally is planned for Monday.
This is a day that happens every year, Lobby Day hosted by the Virginia Citizens Defense League. They go and try to talk to the representatives into being more pro-gun. This year, though, it's different if only because Democratics -- Democrats now control the state legislature. There's also some concern about the state of emergency announced by Governor Ralph Northam that critics are saying his political theater, he says that there's credible threats that this could be a magnet.
This event on Monday could be a magnet for extremist groups, which is why he is announced a temporary weapons ban in and around the state grounds. We also saw as you mentioned what happened earlier this week, the FBI expressing concern arresting some suspected Neo-Nazis, some of whom were planning to attend this rally. And just really quick, Fredericka, there was also an anti-gun violence rally plan for Monday.
That has since been canceled because again, credible threats were announced by law enforcement. Fredricka?
[13:30:06]
[13:30:00]
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: All right. Nick Valencia, thank you so much for that.
All right. And now, this Breaking News. ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
WHITFIELD: Out of Buckingham Palace, the House of Windsor releasing a statement moments ago on Prince Harry and Meghan's future with the Royal Family. We have now with me, Royal Correspondent Victoria Arbiter. She's joining me with the very latest. So, Victoria, the understanding is Harry and Meghan may be getting what they wished for, but perhaps they didn't wish it to this extent?
VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): That said, to me, how it seems, Fredricka. Yes, we've just received, again, a very personal message from the Queen in which she refers to her family members by their Christian name, Harry, Meghan, an Archie will always be much loved members of my family, she says. I recognize the challenges they've experienced as a result of intense security -- scrutiny over the last two years, and support their wish for a more independent life.
Now, it looked like that independent life means them stepping back entirely from Royal duties, that includes Harry's official military appointments, the ceremonial roles he holds, they will no longer receive any public funds for Royal duties, and they are no longer going to use their HRH title. That is perhaps the most surprising elements to me. There didn't appear to be any reason for them to lose their HRH, but that suggests there's a desire for them to be financially independent as they stated. And in doing so, they can't be seen to monetize that HRH title.
So, something of a wrap up today. The couple are also saying they plan to repay the sovereign grant funds that were used to refurb their Frogmore Cottage. And in that respect, they'll be able to keep Frogmore Cottage as their U.K. based because they will have then funded the renovation of it. All of this due to take place in the spring or to take effect in the spring of 2020.
WHITFIELD: Oh my goodness. OK, Victoria. Well, Max Foster -- CNN's Max Foster is with us, he broke the story. Max, what more can you tell us about how this came to be? If there is disappointment, or if there's a feeling of liberty, you know, the between, you know, Harry and Meghan, is this what they wanted?
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): And they are -- the Queen is being very clear that she is trying to support them. But this is, I think, an agreement that this half-in half-out arrangement was never going to work. So, we've had lots of background discussions in the last half hour. They're losing this HRH title. So, the Royal Highness, they are no longer their Royal Highnesses. They will technically be, but they won't use those titles. So, titles they'll be using from now on or the names they'll be using now on are Harry Duke of Sussex, Meghan Duchess of Sussex.
So, they are leaving as working Royals. They no longer represent the Queen. They're going to give up -- Harry is going to give up his military positions, which are, in effect, representing the Queen. This will be a big giveaway for him because he's so passionate about the military. He's giving up his role as a Youth Ambassador for the Commonwealth. They'll still be involved in the Commonwealth, but any role representing the Queen, he's given up, and the Duchess has given up her roles as well.
I'm told there are no commercial agreements in place. Currently, we don't know where the next stage is going. This is very much about how they are leaving as working Royals. So, in terms of Royal history, this is a huge moment, and the Queen has allowed them to step out. So, they're going to pay this money back to the publicly -- public money that was used to renovate their home is going to be paid back. That's nearly $3 million. They are going to retain their income from the Prince of Wales.
So, 95 percent of their income, according to them, comes from Prince Charles and his estate, the Duchy of Cornwall. He's going to continue funding them as they transition out of the Royal Family and start trying to make their own money effectively. Lots of questions of them I've been asking about.
WHITFIELD: Wow.
FOSTER: All the commercial deals would make on their future because there are huge conflicts around there. So, there will be a review in future. I think it's next year, they'll be reviewing this whole arrangement, which is interesting, because they've never had -- this is unprecedented for a senior member of the Royal Family to do it in this way. Of course, there have been situations where monarchs have abdicated before. For example, this is a very unusual situation. And it's been very much emphasized to me that they very much remain part of the Royal Family if they're not working Royals, and they will continue to support the Queen in that position.
WHITFIELD: Interesting. So, Max, boy, do I have a lot of questions, but when you -- you just mentioned the, you know, the funding, 90 percent of it coming from Prince Charles and would continue to do so in transition. So, when we talk about in the spring, as of this spring, you know, they essentially can go on about their merry way without the Royal duties. Does that mean that is the moment that that kind of money is cut off? Or, you know, does it dovetail over a period of time, allowing them to get on their own two feet since they want to make their own money? Do you know that kind of detail?
[13:35:16]
FOSTER: So, no confirmation of that. I think, obviously, they have a very expensive lifestyle, because they are public figures and they need all the security (INAUDIBLE) you've got security as well. This is a big question for Canada. How will they manage the security? And how will that be carved out? So, that's going to --
WHITFIELD: Right, who pays for that? Uh-hmm.
FOSTER: That's all under discussion. I think Prince Charles, the impression I get is that Prince Charles will continue to fund Harry as much as he can. He doesn't see -- his income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall that will eventually be inherited by Prince William. So, the bigger question probably is will Prince William continue the same arrangement. But I think Prince Charles is committed longer term on this. It'll be very interesting to see what sort of commercial arrangements they are now looking at because it's very clear that they feel that they are going to be able to fund themselves as much as Prince Charles's money is probably, I don't know, $2, 3 million a year.
I think that ultimately their, you know, their lifestyle probably be much more expensive than that. So, they'll also be looking to some sort of commercial deal. I don't know whether they have conversations about that. They certainly haven't signed anything yet. But I think they're saying looking at how they're going to do that, but it's a big -- it's a big moment. So, I'm sure Victoria was -- I didn't hear Victoria's conversation, but she would have explained that the title of Your Royal Highness is very significant in many ways.
It not only shows that you're a senior member of the Royal Family, but it also gives you precedence of around the dinner table, for example, and what you -- in terms of state events, where you sit, how close you are to the Queen and the Prime Minister. So, they've given up all of that, all of the status effectively that comes from being a senior member of the Royal Family. And there's a bigger question, as well, about this website. They are known as Sussex Royal, their organization Sussex Royal. They're no longer Royals, does that come out of there.
(CROSSTALK)
WHITFIELD: Oh, that was my -- one of my follow-up questions. Yes. Can they keep that Sussex Royal because they've already marketed, you know, that moniker for themselves?
FOSTER: They have. And I think they -- I think that's under discussion. Let's say that.
WHITFIELD: Oh, boy.
FOSTER: Because the big issue for them is the accusation that they may be cashing in on the Royal brand, which they didn't create. Certainly, Harry has spent a lifetime adding to that in a very powerful way. But this is a -- this is a large -- this is a brand that goes back 1000 years. And they didn't create that brand. So, there's an issue about how they are allowed to cash in on that. I think the word 'Royal' will have to be taken away from a lot of what they do.
And it's interesting, they were using Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Harry, Duke of Sussex. So, I think they're going to be Meghan and Harry. You would have seen in the statement from the Queen, she's referring to them as Meghan and Harry. So, I think this is how we're going to know them from now on. They are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but I don't think we'll necessarily be using that in the future.
WHITFIELD: Is this considered a victory for this couple? Is this much of what they wanted, some of what they wanted, or a little bit of what they didn't want?
FOSTER: I think -- but they got what they wanted. They wanted to do what they wanted to do. They wanted freedom, which you give up very much when you become a member of the Royal Family. I often get criticized for saying that. But you do get -- you do give up fundamental human rights, you can't vote, you can't express your opinions, you can't travel freely. I think they very much were frustrated by that. They have a -- they genuinely want to change the world. If you have private conversations with them, that's the sort of thing that they talk about. And they want to bring fairness to the world, and they've got -- they're very powerful figures.
They weren't able to do any of that. So, these negotiation started off at the point where Harry would continue representing the Queen at events that he chose. And that we come out the other end where he's not allowed to do that. You're either in -- I think he's been told. That's what my reading of it, at least -- or you're out. And they've chosen out. So, there is some compromise there. They would have been quite tough negotiations. But I think -- I'm told that everyone is happy with the arrangement now.
So, I think for Harry and Meghan, their priority was being able to do what they want to do. And they've been allowed to do that. So, it is a trial. It's -- I think there's some sadness, particularly for Harry, I would have thought, knowing him a bit as I do. That he would have had to give up that public role which is supporting the Queen and supporting the military because he wanted to keep some of -- he spent his whole life building that up. But he's had to give up. So, there is compromise for him on that side. It is compromise on all sides. Also, the moment he loses two immensely powerful charismatic figures who opened up the monarchy to a --
[13:40:05]
WHITFIELD: Yes.
FOSTER: -- completely new world as well. The Duchess now, you know, lots been talked about her diversity, where she comes from. The American market has been very much opened up to them as a result of this. But also, the fact that she was a little older when she got married and she was a divorcee. So, she brought in a whole new market effectively for the Royal brand. And they will be losing that in terms of the working Royal.
WHITFIELD: Interesting. Wow. Yes. So, gains, losses, and vice versa, again, on so many levels. Max Foster, Victoria Arbiter, I want to talk to you more about this because so many questions. We're going to take a short break for now. But, again, if you're just now joining us, huge changes there for the monarchy, particularly as it pertains to Harry and Meghan. They got a lot of what they requested, you know, as they strive for independence and freedom. And at the same time, a lot of losses being measured, too. We're going to talk much more about this, Harry and Meghan and Archie no longer members of the Royal Family. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:45:39] WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back. More in this breaking news from the Royal Family. We are learning that Harry and Meghan Markel -- Harry and Meghan are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
The Queen releasing this statement just moments ago, saying, "Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family, Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years, and support their wish for a more independent life. I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across the country, the Commonwealth and beyond. And I'm particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."
That coming from Her Majesty the Queen on allowing Harry and Meghan to get much of what they have been seeking, independence, freedom. I want to bring back now CNN's Max Foster. He broke this story and he's joining us now on the phone. Also, Victoria Arbiter is also still with us. But, Max, you first. So, you know if there was a wish list, you know, from Harry and Meghan, where most of those items checked, or is there a happy medium, a compromise made with the Queen on getting some of what they wanted?
FOSTER: I think the main item was checked, which was their freedom to be able to do what they want to do without having to pass everything to the palace and work within the restrictions of being a working Royal, which is not compromising the Queen in any way. So, not associating with brands that she might not want to associate with and things like that. I think just hearing you reread that statements was -- it's interesting to hear that line, "I'm particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family." I think it's not just a statement. I think it's a peace treaty, as well. I mean, I had Royal sources last year, I mean, this rift between the brothers, for example, (INAUDIBLE) broken out very recently.
But also, more recently, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, his team, has felt very much that they were undervalued by the rest of the family in the palace system. And they weren't supported and they were almost set up to fail in terms of an office and a household. This is the Queen, you know, the boss saying that I'm particularly proud of Meghan. And this is her reaching out to Meghan, saying, "We are a family, we're going to move forward," and the words "new life," I mean, they're quite profound in terms of policy, as I'm sure Victoria will tell you, as well.
These are -- this is a grandmother speaking about her grandchildren, no longer referring to them as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, they are no longer working Royals. And I -- it feels, to me, quite liberating for the Queen to be able to just talk to them in that singular way. Obviously, one of the great conflicts at any moment is that they are the boss of the firm but also a head of the family. Now, she is just the grandmother to Prince Harry and Meghan is his wife. And she can rebuild that relationship without any of the tangling of the working Royals and the restrictions that they all obviously felt very uncomfortable with, which is why you've ended up with this family crisis.
I think it's a very hopeful and positive message. Going forward, obviously, the monarchy has to redefine itself. They don't have these two superstars, global superstars, in their mix that they can use to bolster the royal brand. So, part of this is that the pressure on Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge rises immensely because they now are the standard bearers for that generation when there was a clear agreement that Harry and William would share that burden going forward.
WHITFIELD: Interesting. So, you really were, you know, taking through gains and losses on both sides. I mean, you know, the monarchy had gained quite a bit, right? Because of the celebrity of, you know, Harry and Meghan, and how, you know, breaking the mold was something that so many Brits -- Britain's, you know, celebrated.
[13:50:10]
But then, what will be, I guess, in the loss category, you know, for the monarchy? And, you know, is it all gains, you know, for Harry and Meghan or are their losses that they are going to, you know, have to come to terms with?
FOSTER: They will reach an impasse. Though, the couple weren't happy with their positions, and it was really creating a horrible rot within the family. I mean, I've argued quite strongly that the, you know, whilst as a family crisis, you have to separate that from an institutional crisis. Actually, what you've seen is the institution itself become much stronger through this process. You've seen if you imagine that the monarchy is the backbone of the monarchy. You can modernize it as much as you like, but ultimately, it's a hierarchy, and this builds on the line of succession, the Queen, Charles, William, George. As long as that remains strong, the monarchy remains strong.
So, this wasn't necessarily a crisis of monarchy. In fact, they came together in a quite astounding way, actually, there are clear differences between those three households. But they came in lockstep and came up with a common response. So, actually, the monarchy, I think, is probably fine. There's a huge, massive support base for the Sussex's, they are superstars. And young people actually around the world, I think, look up to Meghan in particular, and the way she's confronted, you know, the ultimate institution, many would say the ultimate white institution, challenged it and wouldn't compromise.
I mean, there's certainly people in this country that felt very uncomfortable about that. They felt that she should have assimilated more. I think that her fans though, thinks she's an absolute rock star and she's going to take that forward. And then she's -- as a, you know, as a Royal correspondent, I've been fascinated to see how she's built her public role because, actually as a Royal, she did it fantastically. She's focused on one key cause which is female empowerment, stuck with it and applied it to all of her different engagement. She was immensely popular in all the things she went on. So, I think the public, the Royal Family has lost bad, but she's still going to be supportive. As I say, this is a peace treaty. She's not going to go out and do this big interview that was touted, tell-all interview, she's going to support the Royal Family, but she's going to have her own autonomy with Harry and going to start off in Canada. I suspect it will probably end up in the United States.
WHITFIELD: So, Max, we had built this full screen, just kind of ticking off some of the things that, you know, in this announcement that weren't necessarily in the statement from the Queen, you know, in terms of, you know, the two of them will no longer have Royal duties, and there will be eventually no more public funds that will finance their life, although you did mention that, you know, Prince Charles will kind of help them in the transitioning. They cannot -- the pair cannot formally represent the Queen. The Sussex's, you know, will continue to maintain their private, you know, enterprises and associations, but they can't necessarily right capitalize off of being members of monarchy because they no longer are that.
So, then, you had mentioned, you know, that the -- Prince Charles will help them in the transitioning, financially. But let's talk about what transitioning means, perhaps it might be easier for Meghan to transition back to a sort of civilian life because she knows, you know, as a working person, what it was, you know, to capitalize off her celebrity, you know, for instance to be a celebrity. But for him, won't the transition be very difficult because the Royal Life is all he has known, and now, you know, as a grown man, he will transition into being a civilian, someone who, you know, could make money, and market himself as an individual separate from the monarchy?
FOSTER: I see you're onto a really good point there. I mean, Harry, in my experience, he can be quite a negative person. So, if you're chatting to him, and also, a lot my conversations with him have been about media coverage. I think you could have a day where, from my perspective, he's had nothing but positive coverage in all the papers, and all of the T.V. network, and it's all great, but he will mention one negative story in a spurious magazine, he'll focus on that. And that'll be -- but I don't know, I can't explain why that is. He's absolutely traumatized from his upbringing in the shadows of Diana, where the security wasn't the same, the palace system wasn't the same, and photographers would literally just hound them. And he would end up -- he would see his mother cry.
[13:55:02]
You know, that was a very painful experience when he's traumatized from that. And there was a recent ITV documentary, which had a very powerful moment in it when he describes how every click of the cameras reminds him of the death of his mother. So, this is a traumatized man, a traumatized boy. And only recently confirmed --
WHITFIELD: Yes. And perhaps it was in that same interview where he pledged -- you know, he had said, you know, if ever he had a family, he had made a, you know, commitment to his self, that he would work really hard to try to shield them, protect them. And largely based on the kind of experience that, you know, he had and walking with his brother -- alongside his brother behind the casket of his mom.
FOSTER: He also said that he would never meet someone he didn't think that he could handle the pressure of his role.
WHITFIELD: Yes.
FOSTER: And I think I'm (INAUDIBLE) about this, but I think, probably he felt he could protect Meghan.
WHITFIELD: Yes.
FOSTER: And he hasn't been able to.
WHITFIELD: Yes. So, Max --
FOSTER: -- and I think that's been very hard.
WHITFIELD: Yes, Max, we are not finished talking because this is so fascinating. You've got incredible information as does Victoria. We're going to take a short break for now. And when we come back, we're going to talk more about this, the breakup, essentially, between Harry, Meghan and Archie and the Royal Family.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WHITFIELD: Welcome back. More on this breaking news on the Royal Family in just a moment. But first, the Screen Actors Guild Awards, or Sunday where the controversy over the movie 'Joker' could once again be ignored. Here's Stephanie Elam.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: 'Joker' getting the last laugh this award season.
ANNE HATHAWAY, AMERICAN ACTRESS: 'Joker'.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 'Joker'.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Joaquin Phoenix, 'Joker'.
ELAM: Already Joaquin Phoenix with two big wins, now nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award and an Oscar.
SANDY PHILLIPS, DAUGHTER KILLED IN AURORA SHOOTING: The more I read, the more upset I got.
ELAM: Only months ago, some critics argued the film could inspire violence.
PHILLIPS: How are other survivors of not just Aurora but of gun violence going to react to being triggered again.
SCOTT FEINBERG, AWARDS COLUMNIST, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: If there were to be another incident around the time of voting or whatever, you could see how that would maybe make people not want to elevate this movie further.
ELAM: But in his Critics Choice win for Best Actor, Phoenix flipped the script, while praising Joker's director.
JOAQUIN PHOENIX, AMERICAN ACTOR: Instead of inciting violence, you invited the audience in to see what it feels like when you're one of the forgotten.
ELAM: Hollywood seeing strength in numbers. The public rewarding 'Joker' with a billion dollar worldwide box office.
MATTHEW BELLONI, EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: The creative community's position on this is that no one should censor themselves because they don't feel like the message of the movie is for the masses. If that were the case, you wouldn't have any art.
ELAM: If Phoenix wins the SAG Award, Sunday, an Oscar win seems to be no joke. Stephanie Elam, CNN, Hollywood.
