Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

The Senate Impeachment Trial Is Officially Underway; House, Trump Facing Impeachment Trial Deadlines in Coming Hours; New Documents Show Communication Between Parnas and Nunes Aide; Harry And Meghan Will No Longer Represent Royal Family. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 18, 2020 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:04]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: This royal fracture follows a surprise announcement from the duke and duchess of Sussex last week, and announcement that is said to have taken even the palace by surprise. The big reveal that Harry and Meghan wanted to step back from their royal roles and split their time between the U.K. and North America, presumably, Canada, where Meghan and the couple's son Archie has spent the better part of the last couple of months.

Let's go to London now and CNN's Anna Stewart with more on this breaking news.

Anna, tell us what the queen is saying today.

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, because we have statement from Buckingham Palace which lays out some of the future kind of guidelines as to how this is going to work.

A statement from her majesty, the queen, is much more personal. I'll read it to you.

Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I'm 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 that 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 their dedicated work across this country, the commonwealth and beyond, and I'm particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my who family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.

Interesting the statement not only on the personal level of it. She says my family, my grandson, a lot, but also, this is the first time she noticed the intense scrutiny over the last two years, the media element of all of this. I do feel like this whole last two weeks has been a new chapter to the royal family and how they speak to the media and how they express themselves. It's a very honest statement. Now, we were looking at how spectrum of options really for Harry and

Meghan, the duke and duchess of Sussex, as they're going forward, how they be royals that take a bit of a step back.

This is very much on one end of the spectrum. We can see the terms of the royal agreement here. They will not use the royal highness HRH titles. They will step back from royal duties. They no longer receive any kind of public funds for those duties. And this is an interesting one, they're going to repay the $3 million of refurbishment for Frogmore Cottage. That was gifted to them by the queen, but the British taxpayers spent $3 million doling out for them to live in.

They will maintain private patronages and associations. One would imagine that would be Prince Harry's Invictus Games and so on. We know that also they're looking to set up a new charitable foundation.

Relinquishing the titles is such a crucial one because it will allow them to be much more independent and perhaps financially independent. So, the big question next will be, what do they do with the newfound freedom? Are we going to see book deals? Are we going to see them striking out contracts with Netflix and Apple? Will there be speaking engagements.

So, much more clarity, of course, but plenty more questions remain -- Ana.

CABRERA: Indeed. Anna Stewart in London for us, thank you.

Royal expert and CNN Royal Commentator, Victoria Arbiter joins us her in New York now.

Victoria, I want to go back to the statement from the queen today.

What stands out most to you about that?

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: I think really was -- it was the deeply personal nature of the statement. You know, the British monarchy is an institution dripping in formality. And so, we normally see the kind of verbal signs of that in such statements.

This was very much about reiterating that the queen is acting as head of state but also as a grandmother. She needed to find a solution that was going to really satisfy the wishes of Harry and Meghan but also something that was going to be acceptable to the British public. And I think this statement really hit all the right marks.

CABRERA: I want to also bring in royal commentator and historian Kate Williams.

Kate, the queen mentions that intense scrutiny that pair had been under and she had such warm words to say about Meghan saying how quickly she's become part of the family. Is there a sense at all from some that perhaps the queen could have put out a supportive statement like this over the last couple of years when the couple was under that scrutiny she mentions? KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Well, I think that's a

really important point, Ana, because as you say, this is a very personal, very warm statement. The queen complimenting Meghan, how quickly she had been part of the family, talking about the scrutiny which I have to say really jumped out to me because the royals don't normally talk about press scrutiny and intrusion. They just ignore it.

So, here is a moment the queen is actually saying they have been under scrutiny. And we saw this very personal statement from the queen last week. And I do think that actually going forward the monarchy are going to have to realize that sometimes ignoring it, it's too much.

There was a survey done today actually in the United Kingdom about newspaper coverage and it found out that huge amounts of the coverage, 72 percent of the coverage of Meghan was usually negative.

CABRERA: Wow.

WILLIAMS: -- and this is a really high amount -- it's incredible. So, I do actually think that the palace perhaps hoped it would go away. They thought it if they ignored it, it would go away and actually perhaps it might have been helpful at some point to back up some of Prince Harry's statements about the press intrusion.

But this statement really jumped out at me. It really is the queen saying, everyone, this is part of my family. Stop the speculation. Stop saying all these things. There's been some cruel things said, stop saying all these things.

[16:05:02]

We love them. We want them to be happy and, you know, every one pull together and try to give them this happiness.

CABRERA: You know, it's interesting, you talk about things going away. We know in this case their titles go away, but it doesn't change the fact that Prince Harry is still Prince Harry. He's still a member, you know, a blood member of the royal family.

Do you think, Kate, the press will change the way it covers this couple? At least the press there in the U.K.?

WILLIAMS: You're quite right, Ana. So, he's choosing not to keep his title. He's choosing not to use his title. He has got it.

And a lot of people have been saying to me last week, is the queen going to take away their titles as happened to Princess Diana. But, you know, she was divorced. It was different. Harry will always be a prince.

So, he still has his title. He would be called Harry, duke of Sussex. And Meghan will be Harry (ph), duchess of Sussex. People have been asking me is he out of the succession. No, he's still exactly in the same place. He's number six, Archie is number seven, always as it was.

But certainly, going forward, it is going to be different and there are certain amounts of restraints that are applied members of the royal family. They may get more privacy. They have chosen Canada, they've chosen North America, because they feel there will be more privacy. They suffered under this press invasion, the speculation, the comments.

But certainly, I think it would be a different kind of press scrutiny. It will be more of a celebrity kind of press scrutiny because they are not, as the queen says, working members of the royal family. They are really much more like internationally very famous people and Harry and Meghan are mega wattage celebrities. The whole world wants them.

CABRERA: Yes.

WILLIAMS: They will be everywhere.

CABRERA: The fact they are no longer working royal, Victoria, does that mean we won't see them at some of these, you know, traditional events, trooping of the colors or things of that nature?

ARBITER: I think it's highly probable we will see them at trooping the color in particular. That's the queen's annual birthday celebration. And that's really where we see all hands on deck with the royal family.

I think Harry and Meghan will likely the follow the model by Peter Phillips, the son of Princess Ann, where he appears on the balcony. His children front and center greeting Prince George, but Harry and Meghan then wouldn't ride in the carriage procession.

I think one of the trickier ones perhaps is Remembrance Sunday. Now, of course, Harry has devoted himself to the welfare of veterans. He's a committed former military man himself. But I think if he wished to show up at Remembrance Sunday, he would need to be on the balcony. He wouldn't be laying a wreath at the Cenotaph.

CABRERA: Right, because he loses his military role, right?

ARBITER: He loses his ceremonial military role. But the thing is if Harry were to be on the balcony, that would be such an enormous distraction this year anywhere from the veterans that they are honoring.

So, I'd be surprised to see Harry at Remembrance Sunday this year. Who is to say he wouldn't be there next year and moving on when people have got used to this sort of new normal? Christmas, Easter, absolutely, I think the queen's invitation will extend to Harry and Meghan.

CABRERA: Kate, some place blame on Meghan for this decision. But Harry gave a telling statement in 2017. According to "Newsweek", he said quote: Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.

I mean, looking back, is this decision to step away all that surprising? WILLIAMS: You are right. There's been some -- you know, people

blaming Meghan. I'll just -- and I'll have to keep saying no, no. They can't blame Meghan. I think this is Harry's choice.

It's really -- he's always found the royal role very confining, very restricting, he's always found it very difficult. He struggled under the scrutiny. He never liked it.

And the only place he really felt happy was serving in the army and doing active service in the army. But much to his distress, his position in Afghanistan was revealed by a magazine in Australia, and that was the end of that.

So, he always has felt struggling to find his role. He's not the future king like William. It's different. And you do -- when you start looking at it, you see earlier moments when he said, you know, I'm not happy. I'm not happy here.

And that interview you're referring to there, Ana, absolutely saying, who would be monarch, who would be in the royal family? So, simply, I think definitely Britain needs to take a big hard look at itself, because a woman of color has married into the royal family and, frankly, she's been chased out -- the speculation, the scrutiny, sexism, racism.

But also at the time of this, I think that Harry really has felt as if he couldn't -- he's struggling to find a role and when his wife is made so desperately unhappy, I think he feels, why should I stay for this?

CABRERA: All right. Kate Williams, I appreciate it.

Victoria, you're back with us in just a moment because we have more breaking news from Buckingham Palace.

Now that Harry and Meghan are giving up their royal titles, what might that mean for their new lives in Canada?

And a programming note, CNN will debut a new series about the world's most famous royal family next month. "The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty" premieres Sunday, February 16, at 10:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.

[16:10:02]

We're back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:14:09]

CABRERA: More on our breaking news, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will no longer be working royals and will now split their time between the U.K. and North America. In fact, Meghan is in Canada with the couple's son Archie as this news breaks. She's been there since before Christmas, flying to London for just a few days before heading back to what may be her new home.

And I say that because she seems ready to build a life there. This week, for instance, she visited a women's shelter where she posed for this photo.

But is Canada ready to accept Meghan and Harry in their new life roles?

"The Globe and Mail", one of Canada's biggest newspapers, published a scathing opinion earlier this week, saying Harry and Meghan aren't really welcome to stay permanently in Canada. The paper made that pronouncement predicated on the basis they would retain their status as senior royals.

[16:15:00]

Now, with that off the table, what do Canadians think?

CNN's Paula Newton is live for us in Ottawa, Canada, on the phone now.

Paula, what can you tell us?

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): Well, I think that even the "Globe and Mail" editorial, while perhaps constitutionally appropriate, really, Ana, got ahead of public opinion on this.

I mean, look, by and large, Canadians took this announcement in stride, understood that, in fact, it was good bragging rights for their country and for Canada. And there was one caveat there, right, Ana, the one you could understand. No taxpayer money involvement. And they thought that even if they were going to be working royals.

Now -- and you hit on the proper point there. Now that they are no longer working royals, they will not be entitled to any access to those kinds of taxpayer funds that they would normally have access to. There's no obligation on the part of Canada even really to provide security if they are not working royals.

So, then, it reverts to them as private citizens. They can stay up to 180 days as visitors. Once they start to get, you know, cross that finish line of being here more than a half year, in one calendar year, it becomes more problematic and they would have to immigrate to Canada.

I think I would strongly say, Ana, that at this point and time, the impression I got was that, you know, Canada was the compromise country between the U.K. and the United States. Perhaps, Meghan would rather go to the United States now that their status has been cleared up where they are literally backing away from their working roles in the family. You perhaps may see a transition to Canada. But she may just want to move back to the United States with the entire family.

Canada here again would be welcoming, again, understanding that the kind of private life they want, Ana, is here to be had in Canada. You know, we had it on CNN earlier in the week, they had run into a couple hiking in British Columbia, during a Christmas vacation here. They stopped to help them take a picture.

This couple did not ask for anything or an autograph. Not a reciprocal picture. The woman said, yes. We said, happy New Year and we went on our way. That's what they want.

And Meghan lived in Toronto for several years and that's the kind of life she had there. I've spoken to her neighbor there who cleaned the gutters, can you imagine, Ana, just the cleaned the gutters for her. Used to speak to Prince Harry from over the fence. Prince Harry used to make jokes to him about how good the food smelled in his home.

That's the kind of life they had a taste of in Canada and it seems, Ana, that that's what they are craving again. And, again, as long as it does not cross the line in taxpayer fund, I doubt you'll have a lot of controversy about them coming here to live.

CABRERA: It's very interesting. Paula Newton, thank you for that reporting.

I want to bring back our royal commentator, Victoria Arbiter.

Victoria, you know, the terms of this agreement say Harry and Meghan are planning to pay back the money spent on the renovations at Frogmore Cottage. We also had the headline earlier this week that staff at Windsor, their Windsor Residence were redeployed.

Do all signs point to them wanting to spend the majority of their time in Canada?

ARBITER: Yes, certainly for the time being. And as we understand it, they are going to spend the majority of their time in North America. Now, of course, they will still have commitments in the U.K. They're going to see the family in the U.K.

But I think, really, in terms of repaying those funds, this was a brilliant compromise. This was the royal family really recognizing its position where it has kept the British public happy, but also, Harry and Meghan. So, at first, the British public were saying, well, how come you can stay rent free in your lovely home that we've renovated. Well, now, Harry and Meghan are going to pay back those funds. That's nice.

CABRERA: They're going to pay rent, they say.

ARBITER: They're going to pay rent. This is a goodwill gesture because that's the type of terms where the British public will then go, OK, you can have -- you can have your house. We don't mind that as long as you're the one paying for it.

CABRERA: How do you see this couple making money?

ARBITER: I don't think that's gong to be a problem in all honesty. Really, where the problem will come, it will be in terms of as the statement says, upholding the values of the queen. Now, I think Harry and Meghan have proved to be a massively successful and popular global brand. So, I think companies are going to be lining up to throw potential

endorsements and sponsorships at them. The public speaking circuit is incredibly lucrative for people in their position, book deals, Netflix deals, Google TV deals. I think there's going to be so many opportunities.

Where it's going to be tricky is, number one, making sure that any funds that come to them is from clean money. Not from unscrupulous places, without the checks and balances in place from the British monarchy, making sure that every penny clean. That's going to be a little bit tricky, and also making sure that whatever it is that they do doesn't reflect negatively on the on monarchy, because, yes, they may not be going by RHR, but Harry is still a blood born royal. They need to make sure that whatever they do doesn't reflect too negatively on the monarchy.

CABRERA: They still have a public image to uphold.

ARBITER: That's right.

CABRERA: Reputation that is a family legacy, really, that's going to be impacted.

As far as security, will they still have security everywhere they go?

[16:20:02]

Who pays for that, especially when they are in Canada?

ARBITER: That's the million dollar question. Now, the royal family never comments on security and for obvious reasons. They don't want to jeopardize how -- what systems are in place currently by royal protection officers. They never talk about the costs associated with royal security. We know they are very high.

Now, it's imperative that Harry and Meghan have an element of security. They are prime targets: Harry with his former military service, just based on who they are. They are still members of the royal family, albeit not working members. They have to be kept secure.

But who does pay for that? Harry and Meghan, yes, they are already financially very well off. Most of Harry's money however is tied up in investments. Meghan is said to be worth around $5 million. But security can run into incredibly high numbers.

Does the Canadian taxpayer meet those costs? The British taxpayer is going to will be a little flummoxed if they are ones expected to meet those costs when Harry and Meghan are also earning money from the commercial sector. So, those types of decisions are still being worked on.

CABRERA: All right. Victoria Arbiter, always good to have you. Thank you.

ARBITER: Thank you. CABRERA: Several impeachment deadlines are arriving in the coming hours, in fact. This as new evidence shows a link between indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and some of President Trump's fiercest supporters.

And a question for you this weekend, is this a case of censoring history? The National Archive admits to editing a photo of the women's march to blur out signs critical of president. Why they did it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:26:00]

CABRERA: Saturday in Washington, D.C., normally not a busy day but there's nothing normal about a looming presidential impeachment trial. Look at that live picture. It's darkness. Is it foreshadowing something? I don't know.

Really, it all starts in earnest on Tuesday. That's when the bulk of the work and the busyness will get underway. But there's some busy work happening right now on Capitol Hill, legal preparations also happening at the White House.

Our Senior Washington Correspondent, Joe Johns joins us from Capitol Hill.

Joe, those seven House managers are up against a deadline that comes in less than an hour.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Ana. And this is going to be essentially a persuasive brief, a trial brief that they are putting together. It's words on page to try to convince members of the United States Senate that the president ought to be convicted on the impeachment charges and removed from office.

It's pretty simple to explain. They're going to talk about in all likelihood the procedures that ought to be used by the United States Senate and go into the facts and go into the precedence of impeachment that the Senate has dealt with in past years, including perhaps the impeachment of President Clinton.

By the way, his brief was pretty long and detailed but a very readable document, not filled with legalese but a lot of information that was used to try to persuade the Senate to convict him. Of course, in the end, they did not, Ana.

CABRERA: Joe, there's also new spotlight on California congressman, Republican Devin Nunes right now, and one of his aides as there are new documents that just came out in the last 24 hours connecting Nunes' office to Lev Parnas, the associate of the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Tell us more about those.

JOHNS: Right, that's the real significance of it. It is more entanglement for the office of Devin Nunes, a top staffer of his, a guy named Derek Harvey apparently having textual conversations with Lev Parnas who is one of the figures at the center of this Ukraine controversy, going back and forth, trying to set up interviews with Ukrainian officials.

The upshot of it, of course, while we don't have all the details is that the office of Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, was apparently having actively involved in trying to dig up information that apparently would have helped the president of the United States. Of course, Devin Nunes, as we all know, is a huge supporter of the president in this controversy, Ana.

CABRERA: Joe Johns for us on Capitol Hill, keep us posted on those briefs that we expected to be filed in the coming hour and a little bit beyond. Thank you.

Devin Nunes has been asked about his connection to Parnas and his stories have changed.

First, watch this response from December 5th.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What did you discuss with Lev Parnas?

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Well, I don't know because I've never met Parnas. It's a great question because many people want to know, including myself.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You never had any phone conversation with him?

NUNES: We have not been able to confirm that yet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: But this week and again on Fox News, Nunes had to walk back that denial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said that you didn't recall speaking with him or whether it was on your cell phone or your office phone. Have you figured out the answer to any of those questions?

NUNES: Yes, if you recall, that was brand new when that had come out when I came on your show.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, that's right.

NUNES: I just didn't know the name, this name Parnas. You know he called my cell phone and I didn't know his name. I didn't remember the name but I did remember going back looking at where I was at the time, because you can do that now. You know where you physically are. Checked it with my records and it was very clear.

I remember that call which was very odd, random, talking about random things.

[16:30:00]

I said great, just talk to my staff and boom, boom, boom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Joining us now with more on the latest revelation, CNN Presidential Historian, Doug Brinkley; and CNN Legal Analyst Shan Wu, a former Federal prosecutor.

Shan, Democrats have released three sets of Parnas documents just this week showing that one of Nunes's aides was talking to Parnas. How big of a development do you think that is?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's a very big development in putting more pressure at least publicly on why we need witnesses. Parnas has essentially already given his testimony not once, but twice on national television, and it seems like he is very important relevant things to say.

For Nunes, a little bit hard to believe his story that that was just a random call on his cell phone in that case, why was he talking to the person? But I think the connection goes to the knowledge question, you know, how far up in the administration? How wide was that knowledge?

CABRERA: And is it possible, Nunes's aide was operating without the Congressman's knowledge?

WU: Rather unlikely, particularly the aide wanted to keep his job. That sort of plausible deniability does not work well in those sorts of offices.

CABRERA: Douglas, official after official has denied even knowing Parnas. The President has mentioned it multiple times, only then to have a photo release showing them with Parnas, either, everyone is either lying, or someone who nobody seems to know has incredible access to some of the most powerful people in the world. Certainly number of members of this administration.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, obviously, Nunes's answer, there's just a lot of BS, but we all can see through that. He lied on, you know on television. He is in cover up mode, and that's really the Trump administration's act right now, is cover up these people, I barely knew them.

We had previously heard Donald Trump barely knew Michael Cohen or didn't know stormy Daniels or everybody takes a photo with me. And the Parnas revelation is eye opening because it shows that he really was a player.

He had the cell phone numbers of whoever he wanted. He had Rudy Giuliani's blessing and friendship. He was basically a rogue agent of President Trump.

So I do think that the name Parnas is going to be very dominant this week along with John Bolton and the fact that they need to be witnesses. The American people need to hear from them and try to sort out just how wretched the whole Ukrainian situation is. CABRERA: Shan, Parnas is indicted. He is facing Federal charges. When

he has been giving interviews this week, he has been wearing an ankle monitor. Does he have any credibility? Can he be trusted?

WU: Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's sort of the trust but verify situation when you have a cooperating witness. That's one of the foundations of building cases, and they have to be tested.

I mean, the investigators have to test them, and if there is some equivalent of questioning of him where he needs to testify, he is tested that way. But just because someone has been indicted doesn't mean that they automatically will never tell the truth. And actually, they have a rather strong motivation at this point to be cooperative and to be forthright.

CABRERA: Doug, Trump has announced his team of attorneys that will represent him in the defense during this impeachment trial and they come with some baggage to say the least. What do you make of the addition of Kenneth Starr and Alan Dershowitz?

BRINKLEY: That they're both Fox News media stars. They're on all the time, and that's the audience, the base that Donald Trump seems to want to talk to, and also the fact that somebody like Ken Starr, you know, he has the Bill Clinton story behind him and he did a four-year investigation on Bill Clinton to produce the Starr report.

So I think Starr is going to be able to say look how rushed what the Democrats were. Yes, I dealt with Whitewater and Lewinsky, and the like, but that was a four-year investigation where the Democrats have just run very quickly on this.

Also, I have heard some media people questioning Ken Starr. He is very smart. He was dean of Pepperdine University. He was Chancellor at Baylor. He got into some problems, but he is media savvy. And Alan Dershowitz is a legend as a talking head and a lawyer and his defense of Donald Trump can end up being very showy.

So I think what mattered to Donald Trump is winning in the court of public opinion, and these are two masters at getting on television and getting the story that Donald Trump wants heard to a wide audience.

CABRERA: Doug, I want to pivot real quick and ask you about this other news that we've had this weekend and some drama playing out with the National Archives.

It blurred an image from 2017 in the Women's March of course, the Women's March is happening this weekend, so it becomes timely. This image was apparently very critical of President Trump and that's what's blurred.

The Archives has since apologized for blurring it. It says the photos were part of the promotion for an exhibit, but not on display as an artifact and there hasn't been any editing to the actual photos that are part of the Archives. What's your take on this situation?

[16:35:19]

BRINKLEY: Well, I was called yesterday by a "Washington Post" reporter about it and he produced the evidence of what was happening and I was stunned. It was a low moment in National Archives history, on the fact that they're taking on an exhibition about women's suffrage, but 1920 was when women got the right to vote, and so it's a hundred years of women voting, and then doing a blown up photo of the more recent march against Donald Trump in many ways.

The fact that they erased Trump's name. So a sign that said, you know, God hates Trump on the new photo at the National Archives simply says God hates. That's a drastic change of meaning.

The good news here and it is good news. The National Archives responded to "The Washington Post" investigation and said that they're going to, you know, put back the proper photograph, but it isn't the role of the archives to be Photoshopping and censoring the photography of America's history.

CABRERA: Doug Brinkley and Shan Wu, good to have both of you here. Thank you. I really appreciate your insights.

WU: Thank you.

BRINKLEY: Good to see you.

CABRERA: Well, an acquittal is expected in the impeachment trial, it doesn't necessarily mean there won't be any rebellions in the Senate. The eight senators to watch for. Surprises next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:45]

CABRERA: The Senate impeachment trial is officially underway, but we won't know the official ground rules of this trial until Tuesday, and the big question remains will there be witnesses?

Twenty Senate Republicans would have to join with the entire Democratic caucus and two Independents to reach the 67 person supermajority threshold that's needed for Trump's removal. But this question about witnesses only requires a simple majority, so just 51 senators have to agree on the process moving forward, and that's why the votes of just a few could make a difference.

CNN Senior Political Writer and Analyst, Harry Enten is here with us to break down the eight senators to watch out for and let's start with those who are up for reelection.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER AND ANALYST: Yes, so there are four Republican senators up for reelection I think we really should watch: Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, Martha McSally. Why should we watch them? It's because take a look at your 2018 congressional votes in their state, they tend to either be tied or actually leaning towards the Democratic column. So they are senators who are thinking, I want to win reelection in

2020, maybe I should take that middle road, right? But there's also a Democratic senator who is up for reelection in a deep red state. That's Doug Jones. Of course, you remember him winning in 2017 in that special Senate election. That is a deeply red state in Alabama.

Plus 23 GOP in the House vote in 2018. So he is someone who might go the other way. So if he's going the other way, then you're probably not getting that simple majority you spoke about.

CABRERA: There's another pair of senators who are known for going against their party. Tell us about them.

ENTEN: Yes. So, you know, take a look at someone like Lisa Murkowski, right? She's the senator from the State of Alaska. She tends to have a more moderate record. But it's also she can afford to have that moderate record because a lot of her base in Alaska actually tends to be independents and Democrats. Only about 53 percent of her vote in 2016, when she was running for reelection came from self-identified Republicans.

Most Republicans, the vast majority closer to 76 percent, their vote and the average the average GOP vote for those senators, so she in fact can afford to go more towards the middle.

Another senator that of course we always talk about, so Mitt Romney, right? He is always such a thorn in the President's side.

CABRERA: At least in his statements.

ENTEN: At least in his statements, right? He is deeply concerned at least, right? But you know, if you look at him and you look at the vote that he got back in 2018, when he ran for the Senate, in Utah, what you saw was he went upwards of 90 percent of the self-identified Republican vote versus Donald Trump in the state of Utah, he only won 64 percent of the self-identified Republican vote.

So Mitt Romney has much more of that Republican base cornered in the state of Utah than Donald Trump does.

CABRERA: That's interesting. There's also Senator Lamar Alexander, who is retiring.

ENTEN: Yes, you know what? This, I think is a big thing, right? You always talk about Donald Trump's stranglehold on the Republican Party and the Republican electorate. Of course, if you're Lamar Alexander, you don't have to worry about that, right?

Because he is someone who simply isn't running for reelection. So you can basically vote his conscience without worrying about reelection. And so to me, he is someone that we should definitely be focusing on, and if you can just get a few Republican senators -- remember, Democrats have 47 seats, so if you just get four -- four -- that is enough to reach that simple majority.

CABRERA: All right, Harry Enten, as always, you break it down like nobody else. Thank you, sir.

ENTEN: I try my best.

CABRERA: We appreciate it.

ENTEN: Thank you.

CABRERA: With Harry and Meghan trimming their ties with the Royal Family, what will their newfound freedom mean for the Royal business and their bottom line? We will discuss here live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:30]

CABRERA: Before today's shocking announcement that Harry and Meghan would surrender their Royal Highness titles, the couple had actually announced they were trying to trademark the name Sussex Royal.

So what could that bode for a future we now know won't be bankrolled by the Queen? Royal expert, Victoria Arbiter is back with us, as well as CNN chief media correspondent and anchor of "Reliable Sources," Brian Stelter.

Brian, I'll start with you. Meghan was an actress, of course, before she became a Royal. Could we see both of them, you know, lending themselves to television, to movies? What do you think?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: I think the answer is, yes, tens of millions of times over. You know, they're 10s of millions of dollars that could pretty easily be gained if they were to go and strike deals for television shows, for books, for movies, et cetera.

And I think the Obamas could be a template for this. The Obamas have struck deals with Netflix to lend their names and help develop documentaries and television shows, with Spotify on the podcasting front, and of course, the Obamas both had book deals. Michelle Obama's book came out it was the number one book of 2018 and one of the top books of 2019.

Barack Obama's book sells now. Yes, but that deal was reportedly worth $60 million -- just for those two books.

CABRERA: Wow.

STELTER: I think that's the kind of money we're talking about in this case as well. Not millions, but tens of millions of dollars.

CABRERA: Victoria, we knew that Harry was teaming up with Oprah Winfrey for a documentary, right, about mental health?

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

CABRERA: You see him doing more projects like that? More work like that? ARBITER: I think so. Harry is not remotely interested in fame or

celebrity, but he is interested in using his platform for the betterment of the things that he is most interested in, the welfare of veterans, conservation and climate change and of course mental health.

[14:50:11]

ARBITER: Those have been the key issues that he has tried to champion on the back of also what he continues with his mother's legacy, HIV- AIDS and the land mines issue.

So yes, I think Harry will very much like to use that medium, but at the same time, he is going to have to be careful not to cross into two political align.

Now, the Royals have all come very close to that political line. Prince Charles with climate change, William with his poaching crisis, Camilla safety with the rights of women. They all walk a very fine line, but it's not putting that toe over the line because of course that reflects on the Queen.

CABRERA: Right, and it creates polarization and controversy. Brian, they have been successful on social media. They have in their handle, Sussex Royal, 10 million followers, I imagine they can grow that.

STELTER: Right and then the question then becomes how valuable is that property? So when you have an Instagram account or a Twitter account, theoretically, you could, in a matter of minutes get brands, advertisers, companies to pay you, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars per post for sponsored posts, for endorsement deals. Whether they'd be willing to do that, though is I think, an open question, right?

ARBITER: Well, it especially because the statement says they want to uphold the values of the Queen. Now, what does that mean exactly in this instance?

They're going to have to be very careful that whatever commercial deals they do are within keeping of brand Britain and brand monarchy. I think the --

CABRERA: So kinds of things would you say stay away from?

ARBITER: Well, I guess really, it's not necessarily the things to stay away from, it's just making sure that those funds come from legitimate sources.

So one hypothetical: Meghan, she's a fashion powerhouse. Everything she was sells out in a nanosecond. Let's say a fashion house asks her to be a brand ambassador. They do all the checks and balances. They do it to the best of their ability, but then find out that said clothes are being made in a sweatshop somewhere in the Far East. That's where they've got to be very careful moving forward and have the right team in place to make sure that any money that is coming their way has been come -- is really coming from clean background and legitimate sources. CABRERA: Brian, one of the reasons it seems they wanted to step back

from their roles was because of the amount of media scrutiny, the lack of privacy that they've had. I mean, just because they lose the title, His or Her Royal Highness, doesn't mean they lose who they are, and of course, as I mentioned earlier, Harry will always be Prince Harry, do you think the media is going to cover them any differently?

STELTER: Well, there still will be a lot of attention, a lot of interest. But I think being largely in North America and not in Britain is going to make a difference.

You know, some of the coverage from the British tabloids was harsh and even hateful toward Meghan, and there will be a little bit less focus from the British tabloids perhaps if they're spending most of their time in Canada and the United States.

There will still be -- and there will still be paparazzi and all of that, but they'll have more control over that because they'll have more control over their lives.

CABRERA: You mentioned charity and how important that is to Prince Harry, you also talked about Meghan's fashion, and how that draws people to her, and that's an area where she could capitalize.

She has already designed a capsule collection for Smart Works. It was an organization that helps women find employment. Is that sort of merging all things together? Do you see her doing more work for charity, but also, you know, making money off of it?

ARBITER: I think the primary concern is going to be charitable endeavors. Meghan had a very impressive philanthropic resume before she ever joined the Royal Family, and she has been very clear on the things that she is most devoted to: Education and welfare of young girls and women.

Just this week, she visited two women's organizations in Vancouver in a private capacity. So yes, there's going to be a need to earn some money because they're going to be financially independent. They're not going to be getting any money, taxpayer funds.

So yes, they do need to earn a living. But I think the focus of their work, whatever they choose to endorse or speak about, or write about, is going to be their charitable foundations.

CABRERA: I have to say that that is going to be an easier transition for Meghan versus Harry because Meghan has had a life before being a Royal. Harry doesn't know what life is like not to be part of the Royal Family and to be within you know, the way things are done in that Royal Family.

ARBITER: True. A very new world, and I think where I worry for them a little bit will just be in terms of the media coverage because Brian is right, the British tabloids worked won't be on their backs as much, but however, they're earning their money, there's going to be financial scrutiny. Did they cross the political line? There will be political scrutiny.

Will they be too celebrity? So are they going to be on all the entertainment shows? Now in the U.K., as members of the Royal Family, they're not allowed to be chased by paparazzi. But already there's been paparazzi shots of Meghan in Vancouver just this week.

So I think Canada, they've been very smart to pick there because Canada overall has a very respectful attitude towards its celebrities and public figures, but they're not too far from Los Angeles. So you just have to hope that the Los Angeles paparazzi are not having heading up to Vancouver.

STELTER: But Meghan's Hollywood connections can also help both of them potentially, right, in terms of navigating that?

ARBITER: Yes.

STELTER: And you mentioned speaking, I think that's the other moneymaking opportunity is speaking fees, speeches. They could be -- they could give hugely lucrative paid speeches. So not just a book deal, not just a movie, but maybe speeches is a big part of this as well. We'll see.

[14:55:10]

CABRERA: Okay, you heard it here first, right? Victoria Arbiter and Brian Stelter, thank you both very much.

ARBITER: Thank you.

CABRERA: And a programming note, be sure to tune in tonight for the CNN Special Report, "Royal Revolution: Harry and Meghan," that's at 9:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

And another programming note since Brian was with us. Don't forget about his show tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m., "Reliable Sources," here on CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)