Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Royalty Giving Up Titles; The Impeachment Trial; Suspected Neo- Nazis Arrested Ahead Of Virginia Pro-Gun Rally; House Democrats File Arguments Ahead Of Impeachment Trial; Trump White House Pushes Pizza Over Veggies For School Lunch. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired January 18, 2020 - 17:00   ET

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

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

Our breaking news, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will no longer go by his and her royal highness. They are giving up those titles. And, as of now, it's official. They will no longer be working members of the royal family. Queen Elizabeth announcing the terms of the agreement she has reached with her grandson and his wife today.

And this royal fracture follows their surprise announcement from the duke and duchess of Sussex last week. An announcement that has said to have taken even the palace by surprise. Their big reveal that they wanted to step back from their royal roles and split their time between the U.K. and North America, presumably Canada.

In a moment, I'll get reaction from the former spokesman to the queen, herself. But first, to CNN's Anna Stewart live in London. Anna, the queen issued rather personal statement today.

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Buckingham Palace released a statement going to the nuts and bolts of how this is going work, this new arrangement. But from her majesty, the queen, a much more personal statement, which I will read to you now.

It says, 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 that they have experienced, as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years, and support their wish for a more independent life.

And I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across the country, the commonwealth and beyond. And I am 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.

It feels personal. It also feels very final. It feels like a clean break from the royal family for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They said, initially in that shock statement a couple of weeks ago, that they wanted to step back as senior members of the royal family. This feels like much further. It's stepping back as working members altogether.

And you can see the terms of this agreement here. They will no longer use they HRH, the his and her royal highness titles. They're stepping back from royal duties. They won't receive any public funds for those duties. An interesting one.

They will repay for the furbish --refurbishment costs of Frogmore Cottage that was gifted to them by the queen. But it took $3 million of taxpayer money to get it ready for them. They will maintain some private patronages and associations. The things that they have struck themselves. For instance, Prince Harry and the Invictus Games and so on. They are also planning, I believe, to set up a new charitable foundation.

So, we'll hear more about that in the coming weeks. But, really, it's taken the nation by surprise. This feels like it's on the extreme end of the spectrum of the future roles that we saw for them. It feels like a clean break, Ana.

CABRERA: Anna Stewart in London for us. Thank you.

And, earlier, I got the chance to speak to the former spokesman for Queen Elizabeth, herself, and get his reaction. Here's my conversation with Dickie Arbiter.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Dickie, first, I have to get just your reaction to this news that is breaking all around the world tonight.

DICKIE ARBITER, FORMER SPOKESMAN FOR QUEEN ELIZABETH: Well, I'm not terribly surprised. They had to come to a solution that would satisfy both parties. Both parties being the Sussexes and the queen, Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Cambridge. And they've come up with the best solution.

The queen is very pragmatic. She's very fond of Harry, very fond of Meghan. And he wanted --she wanted the right arrangement that would suit them and suit her and the rest of her family.

ARBITER: So, they're going to retain their titles, Duke and Duchess. They're not going to use HRH. Although, I think, God bless you, Americans would probably like the idea of using HRH. You go back, historically, when King Edward VIII was demoted to Duke of Windsor, when he abdicated. Wallis Simpson didn't get an HRH title, but there were occasions in America where she was referred to as HRH and the Duke of Windsor referred to her as that.

But Harry and Meghan won't be using HRH, because it really will be a conflict of interest if they decide to use the Sussex brand and go commercial.

CABRERA: But they are still the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. So, you know, there's been talk about that, you know, royal Sussex potential trademark or, you know, I guess, you know, brand that they might want to capitalize on. Is that still a possibility? ARBITER: It's very much a possibility. They've still got to get the

Sussex royal brand confirmed. They have launched it with the world intellectual property organization. But there's a little bit of a glitch. I believe it's been approved in the United States and Canada. It's a bit of a glitch in Europe because somebody in Europe wants to -- wants that name as well, so they're going to be challenging that.

But once they do get it off the ground, it will provide them with an income. It will also provide funds for charities that they want to support. And that's important. That's why they're working. They're working and going commercial to provide funds for charities.

[17:05:02]

And they've still got to pick their own charities that they want to support, both --

CABRERA: Yes.

ARBITER: -- in Canada and in the --in the United Kingdom. Although, they're involved in charities here anyway.

CABRERA: I want to ask you more specifically about your knowledge of, you know, inside the queen's head. And, in her statement, she acknowledges the, quote, "intense scrutiny Harry and Meghan have been under." She also really seems to wrap her arms around Meghan, noting how quickly she has become part of the royal family. Did that stand out to you?

ARBITER: Yes, well, she was embraced very quickly, not just by the royal family but by the British people. If you remember, when they got engaged, Harry took her around the four nations of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. And she was greeted -- they welcomed her with open arms. They were greeted by 10s of thousands of cheering people.

If you look at the wedding, there were --there were in excess of 100,000 people along the route. It just shows you how the people of the United Kingdom embraced her, embraced Harry. They were happy for the happiness that Harry sought in marrying Meghan.

What went wrong, somewhere along the line, was last year. Unfortunately, it was the taking private jets, having preached about carbon footprints, about global warming, about protecting the planet. And, you know, you've got to lead by example. And that wasn't leading by example. So, they got a lot of bad press on that.

I have to admit that the press did go over the top and they went on incessantly. But they swung around when Harry and Meghan went to Southern Africa. They got the most fantastic wall-to-wall coverage for any tour that anybody's got. But, unfortunately, they decided that they made up their own minds. They want to back off from being royals, and they want to be just Harry and Meghan doing their own thing.

CABRERA: When I think of the queen and Prince Harry's relationship, I go back to this video that they shot together in 2016 for the Invictus Games. And, at the end, the queen says, boom, and Harry drops the mike. That was such a relatable moment, not just bringing the monarchy into modern times and pop culture, it, kind of, just makes us all think about that special connection we all have and the bond between a grandchild and a grandma. Just how close are the queen and Harry? What's that relationship like?

ARBITER: They are incredibly close. You've got to rewind a bit further back to the death of his mother, William's mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. They were in Scotland. They were at Balmoral when the news came through. And it was, really, Queen, Prince Phillip and Prince Charles who got them through those initial days of grief, that they were able to come back in London and do what they did.

But they've never forgotten the death their mother. They keep on -- they talk about it. There are hints. Catherine got Diana's engagement ring. Meghan's engagement ring was made up of jewelry from Diana. But you mentioned that wonderful sequence of the launch of the Invictus Games, when Harry --when the queen said, boom. Quite unlike her.

But she's done things --she's done things, recently, that are, really, quite unlike her. Take the James Bond experience on the opening of the Olympic games in London. She'd never would have done that before, but she quite enjoyed doing that. She's very, very devoted to both William and Harry.

And there will be a bit of disappointment that Mary and Meghan have walked away from this. Particularly, as the queen, almost two years ago, created them ambassadors in the queen's commonwealth trust. Very important role, in terms of youth in the commonwealth. That falls by the wayside. And who's going to have to pick that up? Because it is a very important job. And that might well fall to William and Catherine.

CABRERA: Do you think the queen takes this as a slight to her, in some way, and takes it personally?

ARBITER: No, she doesn't take it as a slight. She's very much a family person. She wants the best of her family. She knows and realizes that they are constantly under the media microscope, constantly under the public microscope. She's been under it all her life. She -- next month, in a couple of weeks' time, she will have been on this throne, reigning as queen, for 68 years. And she's been constantly under the microscope. Some people can hack it and others just find it very difficult.

You've got to remember, too, with the loss of his mother, Harry did admit, a couple of years ago, that he did suffer mental depression.

CABRERA: Yes.

ARBITER: And that was quite an admittance for a member of the royal family. And, you know, I suppose having created a family, himself, and got married and had a son. And then, have this incessant media onslaught has rewound the, sort of, mental anguish. And he just wants to step out of it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter where he or Meghan go, there will always be media.

CABRERA: Yes.

ARBITER: In this country, we have control of the paparazzi. Elsewhere, there is no control. And they will be constantly pursued by the media.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: More breaking news. This time in the Impeachment Trial, we are learning how President Trump's defense team will make their case.

[17:10:02]

And it's being described as aggressive in nature. What it reveals about President Trump's strategy, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: New information just in to CNN. Sources close to President Trump's legal team, men and women who will defend him in the Senate Impeachment Trial, they say they are preparing what they call an aggressive response to the charges levelled against the president. And that legal plans to make that response public. Tonight, there is a 6:00 deadline for them to file this brief.

Our White House Reporter, Sarah Westwood is on Capitol Hill right now. Sarah, what will this brief reveal? What is their defense?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Ana, as you mentioned, this brief is expected to be quite aggressive and extensive. Sources close to the legal team saying it will defend the president on the substance of the Articles of Impeachment and, procedurally, arguing against what they will describe as an unfair process in the House.

[17:15:03]

Now, substantively, on the Articles of Impeachment, the sources closest to the legal team say that this response, which is supposed to be about six pages long, will argue that the Democrats, in their pursuit of the president on these specific grounds, will do lasting damage to separation of powers. Arguing that the president was well within his rights to do everything that the Democrats accuse him of, particularly in that first Article of Impeachment, Abuse of Power.

And procedurally, the sources close to the legal team say that this response, that is coming to the secretary of the Senate tonight, will also go after the way the House Democrats conducted their impeachment inquiry. For example, hitting the Democrats on the fact that they chose not to enforce subpoenas that they issued to potential witnesses in their investigation.

Now, just to give you an idea of just how aggressive this response will be, I want to read you a line that one of the sources said is close to the end of this response. In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people, themselves, and their right to vote.

That's part of the closing of this document. That will address both phone calls that the president had with Ukrainian President Zelensky about the April 21st phone call and the July 25th phone call. Now, this is coming tonight as House Democrats are filing their legal brief. Theirs was due at 5:00 p.m. That is coming in to Capitol Hill now. The House's summons is due at 6:00 p.m.

But we should be clear, Ana, this is different than the legal brief that the White House has to give to the Senate before the trial starts. That is due at noon on Monday. And as sources said, that is going to be another very extensive response to the charges against President Trump. But this response, Ana, is so significant. Because it's, really, the first official engagement that the White House is having in the Impeachment Trial. So, it's our first real window into what the president's defense will look like, substantively.

CABRERA: OK. And I'm being told, Sarah, that we just got this brief from the president's team. We're going to look through it. We'll, of course, go back to the Capitol. And the House brief, I am told, is the one that we got. The one that was from the House side. So, we'll look through that. We'll be bringing out that as well to report on the details.

But, in the meantime, Sarah, because you have been working your sources, any word on how the president's legal team is prepared, in the event the Senate decides to call witnesses?

WESTWOOD: Well, Ana, the sources close to the legal team said that the lawyers defending the president are prepared for all contingencies. Of course, there has been a long battle between Republicans and Democrats, over whether those witnesses will be brought up in the trial. That's something, obviously, that's going to be debated, starting Tuesday afternoon when the senators get into that chamber for the first real day of the Impeachment Trial.

Obviously, it started, ceremonially, on Thursday. But it will start in earnest on Tuesday. And details, like whether witness will be called, will finally be debated by the lawmakers, themselves --Ana.

CABRERA: OK, Sarah Westwood on Capitol Hill. Thank you. Keep us posted.

Joining us now to talk more about the Senate Impeachment Trial, and other political questions this evening, CNN Political Commentator, and Host of "S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED," S.E. Cupp, and CNN Legal Analyst, Paul Callan.

Paul, let's go argument by argument here, related to the president's defense team, what they plan to offer in their defense in this brief tonight. On the first Article of Impeachment, Abuse of Power, team Trump will say no violation of the law, and that this article will do lasting damage to the separation of powers. To that, you say what?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's an interesting defense because it really is central to the actual charges against him, Abuse of Power. And, of course, presidents, he will say, have always exercised substantial power and have been the rival of Congress. And that's why the government is set up with the balance of powers. And, he's saying, ironically, that his exercise of this power is consistent with what the framers thought.

But, of course, Congress is saying that you're trying to destroy the balance of powers by destroying the power of Congress. So, I think he's going to have trouble with that argument.

CABRERA: Obstruction of Congress is the Second Impeachment Article. The legal team will argue that the president has shown extraordinary and unprecedented transparency. That is a quote. By releasing the transcript of that phone call on the 25th of July between him and the president of Ukraine. Does that argument hold water?

CALLAN: No, it holds no water at all. As a matter of fact, it's ridiculous on its face. He hasn't been transparent. Yes, he released that one transcript. And then, he tried to hide everything else. He didn't obey any subpoenas that were issued. He sat on documents. He really obstructed the investigation throughout. That's hardly transparency. So, I think that's a problematic defense area for the president.

CABRERA: All right, your thoughts, S.E., on what we're hearing now from the president's defense team.

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it's going to be really interesting to get the document. Of course, we'll talk about it in my upcoming hour as well. Because if they decide to really attack the substance of the claims, that will be one of the first times we've heard that kind of defense -

[17:20:00]

CABRERA: But not just process.

CUPP: -- going after -- not just this was hearsay. There was no quid pro quo. All the things we heard from Republicans and Donald Trump, himself, leading up to this moment really didn't attack the substance of, was this an abuse of power? Other than Trump saying the call was perfect.

So, it will be interesting to see if one of these attorneys or collectively these attorneys decide to actually address the substance of what Trump did. I think that will be really eye opening.

CABRERA: We have, now, knowledge of the players, who these attorneys will be who represent President Trump. He's added a couple of big names to his legal team. Former independent counsel during the Clinton saga, Ken Starr; Alan Dershowitz, who previously has represented O.J. Simpson; and Jeffrey Epstein. Do you think this, S.E., is about playing to the T.V. cameras? Or why do you think those two, in particular, were selected?

CUPP: I mean, we know, actually from our reporting, that it was. It was exactly about playing to T.V. reporters. We know from our reporting from our own -

CABRERA: Our team up there at the White House.

CUPP: Yes, Pamela Brown and others, great reporters. That, yes, he chose these attorneys, because he wants to, quote, "break up the monotony" of what will be lots of lawyers giving lots of, sort of, you know, legalese, sort of, testimony. And he wants it to be more exciting. And having one person deliver this and one person delivering that. And, not to mention, a couple of very recognizable figures up there, according to our reporting, is set to appease his desire to make this a show fit for television.

CABRERA: Yes, they're recognizable but, Paul, they're also controversial. Do you feel like there's risk in choosing these individuals?

CALLAN: Yes, they are --they are seasoned T.V. lawyers. But they are, also, in a lot of controversy. Dershowitz was hauled into the Epstein controversy in major way. And we also have controversy attaching to Ken Starr. You know, Ken Starr, in his prosecution of Bill Clinton, said things like lying under oath is a serious crime. Lying to the American public is a serious crime and you can be removed from office for it. Now, he's saying that all of the charges against Trump are meaningless and don't arise to the level of impeachment.

The other thing I wanted to add look at this new defense that's being, you know, handed out, really, like talking points to the press.

CABRERA: Yes.

CALLAN: OK. And the real briefs are going to come later on. But he talks about when he says procedural problems. Now, this is legalese. What he's saying here is that the whole process in the House was unfair to the president, because he didn't get to call witnesses. He didn't get to have his lawyers there.

Well, what is happening in the Republican-controlled Senate at the trial, if no witnesses are called? He undermines his position. Because if he thinks we need it open, fair, due-process proceeding, then we need witnesses in the Senate trial. So, I think his lawyers are contradicting themselves by making this argument.

CABRERA: Let me play some from Alan Dershowitz. After we learned that he was a member of the team, he talks about what his role will be. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWTIZ, COUNSEL, TRUMP LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM: I'm a liberal Democrat. I voted against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton. I would be making exactly the same argument, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president and she were impeached on similar grounds. I am advocating against impeachment. I think it would create a terrible, terrible precedent for future presidents if we were to weaponize the impeachment provisions of the Constitution and apply them to any president who was accused of abusing his power. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: S.E., this argument he's trying to make, I'm just a liberal Democratic who is trying to defend the Constitution, what did you think of that?

CUPP: Look, that's an argument, on two levels. One, it's persuasive to, sort of, say, I have nothing against -- no politics at stake here. I'm a Democrat. I voted against Trump. And so, you should believe me when I defend him that it actually means something.

And, also, it is an argument. Look, he's a lawyer. Lawyers have to do a job, even when it's controversial and their clients are controversial. That's an argument. The problem is Alan Dershowitz has been on television for a very long time. And he's been not only attached to some controversial people, he, himself, has been part of the controversy, with the Epstein case just being one example. So, you're really going to have to divorce what we already know about Alan Dershowitz from this trial.

Same with Ken Starr. Ken Starr was hired to do a job with Bill Clinton. He did it. You can argue whether he did it well or not. But some --you know, everyone gets an attorney or a special counsel, as it were. But he's so attached to a time and a place and a --and a historical memory.

I think earlier in your show, you talked about Monica Lewinsky's reaction. It was a colorful one. Again, we're going to have to divorce what we know about so many of these people and characters, if we're going to be impartial jurors in this.

[17:25:00]

And, in a way, in addition to the senators, we are also jurors in this trial. And we'll all get to make our minds in November.

CABRERA: That's a good point, a good place to end this conversation. Thank you both. S.E. Cupp, Paul Callan, good to see you. S.E. Cupp's show at the top of the hour is "S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED." And we'll see you then, S.E. Thank you.

Ahead, state of emergency in Virginia and tight security after a number of suspected white supremacists are under arrest. The FBI now expressing a, quote, "fair sense of worry" over planned gun rally come Monday. We'll take you there live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:00]

CABRERA: Richmond, Virginia is under a state of emergency right now as fears grow that a planned pro-gun rally set for Monday may turn violent.

So far, seven suspected white supremacists are under arrest in multiple states. Police say at least three of them were planning to go to that rally in Virginia on Martin Luther King Day. This as Virginia's Governor enacts a temporary weapons ban for the State Capitol grounds.

CNN's Nick Valencia joins us from Richmond with more on the growing tensions. Nick, we are just hearing about increased threats. What are you learning?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I just got off the phone, Ana, with a source at the Virginia State Police and that source tells me in the last 24 hours that there have been an increased amount of threats towards law enforcement particularly on their social media pages.

That source went on to say these threats have appeared on the social media sites of the Richmond Police Department, as well as the Virginia State Police ahead of this planned pro-gun rally on Monday.

We've already seen stepped up security measures here. In fact, earlier this morning, we saw a group trying to enter the State Capitol grounds, which included a woman holding a toddler. She was thoroughly screened. We're seeing some thorough screenings of backpacks and bags already here and the gates, if you see behind me here in the State Capitol grounds.

What's happening here on Monday, we should be clear, it happens every year. This is officially known as Lobby Day. It's the Virginia Citizens Defense League, their day to lobby their representatives to be more pro-gun rights.

What makes it different, though, it is against the backdrop of a state of emergency, a state of emergency that led Governor Ralph Northam to announce a temporary weapons ban on the State Capitol grounds. That's different from what was allowed just last week.

Many people have called it, at least his critics have called it political theater. He said though, however, he made that state of emergency because of credible threats of violence here on Monday.

And as you mentioned, Ana, we saw what happened earlier this week. The F.B.I. expressing concern, some suspected Neo-Nazi members arrested, some of whom they say we're planning on coming to this rally on Monday.

CABRERA: Right, and the people who were arrested are all part of the same group, as my understanding called The Base. What do you know about this group, The Base?

VALENCIA: That's right. Well, they're a shadowy organization. These arrests happen in a variety of states including Maryland, Delaware, even in Georgia. This group is what appears to be a white nationalist group, a far-right, alt-right group that wants to -- it talks about, in some cases, overthrowing the government.

In at least one of the cases, those individuals arrested, they had planned on murdering a couple that they saw or suspected to be anti- fascist. And according again to law enforcement, some of them planned on making their way here and that of course is a concern. That's why there's a lot of nervousness here.

Officials don't want this to turn into another Charlottesville. They are concerned that this is going to be a magnet for extremist groups, of course, officially the group that is hosting this event, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, they've put up warnings on their side saying if they see any bad actors or if their members see any bad actors to notify law enforcement -- Ana.

CABRERA: Nick Valencia reporting in Richmond, Virginia. Thank you. Let's turn now to CNN security correspondent, Josh Campbell. He is a former F.B.I. Supervisory Special Agent.

Josh, let's talk about the Intelligence officials would have to make them so convinced that this gun rally in Virginia might attract white supremacists. Is this as easy as following online chats? Or does the F.B.I. have informants inside these groups?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, very robust effort by the F.B.I. and counterterrorism remains F.B.I.'s number one priority in the wake of 9/11. We think about international terrorism, but inside the F.B.I., there is this robust entity of domestic terrorism investigators trying to ferret out people inside the United States who are attempting to act with violence in the pursuit of political goals.

And so each of the F.B.I.'s 56 field offices, there are agents dedicated to domestic terrorism, a large section has headquarters in Washington that's managing these cases and they use basically the same tools as any investigation.

You have informants, you have online investigators who are looking through social media and attempting to identify threats there. They have a very much a whole of government approach here involving other people agencies as well.

And I can tell you having to work these investigations, having read some of the reporting from informants inside these groups, I think most Americans, Ana, would be shocked at just what kind of vitriol is out there here in the United States. These people that are seeking this white ethno state, attacking African-Americans, minorities, attacking Jews, they continue to operate and the F.B.I. continues to investigate.

CABRERA: Right. And oftentimes, it's just a matter of watching and waiting. The F.B.I. though made arrests this time. At least three of the arrests we're told of the white supremacists were people who they say definitely had an intent to travel and attack that Richmond rally. These arrests again, have been, prior to this event.

So thank goodness, officials may have prevented an attack here, Josh, but in the past, you know, we've talked about the gaps in the law that make it difficult to apprehend someone who may have nefarious intentions, but haven't actually taken action. So what is that threshold for making these arrests?

CAMPBELL: Well, it's a very fine line and the difference between domestic terrorism and international terrorism and other threats is that there are First Amendment issues at play as well.

[17:35:02]

CAMPBELL: The F.B.I. can't investigate people for simply expressing their views. In the United States, you know, some people hold what some would consider very disgusting views, but that's not illegal. The question is, if that is going to cause someone to act with violence in pursuit of those goals, then we expect the F.B.I. and Federal law enforcement to try to interdict those threats.

As you mentioned, the one issue that continues to face Federal investigators is there is no domestic terrorism law, so officials often have to look to other charges. The individuals that you mentioned who were arrested, who were trying to stage some type of attack on this rally, as indicated by Federal law enforcement were charged with weapons violations and immigration charges.

Again, officials having to look to some other way to try to stop these threats.

CABRERA: Josh Campbell, good to have you here. Thank you.

CAMPBELL: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: This just in to CNN. House Democrats who are prosecuting President Trump's impeachment in the Senate released their official brief just short time ago.

Our White House Reporter, Sarah Westwood is on Capitol Hill right now. Sarah, what are you reading in there?

[17:40:06]

WESTWOOD: Well, essentially this trial brief is the paper version of the arguments that we're going to hear from House managers, we're going to see them present on the floor of the Senate when the trial begins.

This brief essentially, a summary of why the House voted on those two Articles of Impeachment: Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I want to read you one of the top lines of this brief just in to the Senate at 5:00 p.m., this hour that was the deadline.

"President Donald J. Trump used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to interfere in the United States election for his personal political gain, and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing Congress's investigation into his misconduct."

There were few surprises in this brief, Ana, a lot of this is the type of stuff that was cited in reports by the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. They both released summaries of their findings earlier in the House Inquiry before that vote for the Articles of Impeachment.

But in this brief, the House Managers described their evidence as overwhelming, what they're going to lay out as the case against President Trump. They also reviewed the constitutional grounds for bringing impeachment, those high crimes and misdemeanors laid out in the Constitution, also making reference to the case of Nixon.

Now, this is coming just before that 6:00 p.m. deadline when the White House is set to file its response to the summons that the Senate sent President Trump on Thursday when there was the ceremonial beginning of the Senate Impeachment Trial, but the identical, the parallel document from the White House, the White House's trial brief, that is not due until Monday at noon.

But tonight, Ana, we are seeing this first real official filings, the first engagement from both sides in the impeachment trial. So a really big night for those filings here on Capitol Hill tonight.

CABRERA: And Sarah, I understand the House brief includes some references to new evidence.

WESTWOOD: That's right. And this is going to be a key point of debate as this trial gets underway. Obviously, there are documents related to Rudy Giuliani's associate, Lev Parnas that have emerged over the past few weeks, including last night. And that's something that House Democrats obviously want to see examined on the floor of the Senate.

In addition, obviously, they want to call witnesses. They want to be able to continue to look into this, but specifically this evidence that has emerged after the House voted on those Articles of Impeachment, that's something they want to take a look at.

It's not clear if Senate Republicans are going to be amenable to that. Already, as we spoke about earlier in this hour, the President's legal team is arguing that the House has not been fair to the President procedurally throughout this impeachment process, so they are not necessarily going to be open to hearing this new evidence.

Obviously, though, by including it in their trial brief, House Democrats, these managers are making clear that they want it to be part of their case against Trump.

CABRERA: Sarah Westwood on Capitol Hill. Great job. Thank you for turning that around for us. We'll come back to you of course, once we have the President's legal team brief in hand and have even more details than the one that we've already been given in terms of that the cliff's notes version.

And for more on who is representing the team of President Trump. Here's Tom Foreman.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KENNETH STARR, THEN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR WHITEWATER: Indeed, the evidence suggests that the President repeatedly trying to thwart the legal process -- TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): When Ken Starr was

building the impeachment case against Bill Clinton saying the President had sexual relations with an intern and lied about it under oath, Donald Trump called the special prosecutor a freak and more.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, THEN A PRIVATE CITIZEN: I think Ken Starr is a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN (voice over): But now, Starr is on Trump's impeachment defense team, joining Robert Ray and Alan Dershowitz as the President's latest ready for TV legal heavyweights.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT RAY, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: We shall do our best to be thorough and fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN (voice over): Ray took over the Whitewater probe when Starr down and seems ready to stand by him again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAY: Although there may not be at this point the votes to actually dismiss this outright. I think you can look for summary proceedings in the United States Senate without witnesses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN (voice over): Dershowitz was part of the so-called Dream Team that defended OJ Simpson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY: If Your Honor didn't see, everybody else in the country saw him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN (voice over): He represented Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and for a time, the late accused sexual predator, Jeffrey Epstein. He told "The New Yorker" he regrets that one, but he has also said a lot of other things.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: Black Lives Matter is endangering the fairness of our legal system.

(END VIDEO CLIP) FOREMAN (voice over): His flair for grabbing headlines may be why a

defense team spokesperson says Dershowitz will present the oral arguments against the impeachment charges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: They're the kinds of broad, general, vague, open-ended criteria that can be weaponized against virtually any President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN (voice over): The defense team also includes former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi; longtime Trump lawyer, Jane Raskin and leading the effort, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and outside attorney, Jay Sekulow.

Yet even with all that legal firepower, a question remains.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the issues is, will the President follow legal advice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:45:07]

FOREMAN (on camera): Even as the President stacks up all this big name legal help, he keeps insisting the case against him is incredibly weak, and anybody can see it's a hoax.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Now which would you want your children eating for lunch? Vegetables and fruit or pizza and burgers? That's the essence of a new move by the Trump administration to undo Michelle Obama's School Lunch Menus. We will explain, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

CABRERA: The Trump administration is now taking aim at another Obama era policy, this time it is the Federal School Lunch Nutrition Standards championed by former First Lady Michelle Obama that the White House has in its sights.

And according to published report, the Trump administration wants fewer fruits and vegetables and more pizza and burgers.

CNN's Amara Walker is following this for us. Amara, "The New York Times" headline on this story reads, "Trump targets Michelle Obama's school nutrition guidelines on her birthday." The question is why? AMARA WALKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Ana, I mean, the timing is

quite interesting. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture tells "The New York Times" that this is basically all just a coincidence and that it did not intend to propose this rollback of Michelle Obama's signature lunch program on her birthday, which was yesterday.

Now the U.S. D.A. says that this was all about reducing food waste, but by giving students school meal options that might be more appealing to them that could be like you said, less fruit and vegetables and more burgers and fries.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALKER (voice over): When former First Lady, Michelle Obama launched her Let's Move Initiative in 2010, her goal was to fight childhood obesity.

MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: We have improved the quality of food in our schools. That's where kids are eating many of their meals and we have to do a better job of making sure that that food is quality.

WALKER (voice over): As part of Let's Move, she often promoted the White House vegetable garden and played a key role in bringing healthier food to the 30 million students who get their meals through the National School Lunch Program.

The Healthy And Hunger Free Kids Act required more fruits and vegetables to be served while cutting sodium, saturated fat and sugar out of meals.

Now, the Trump administration wants to roll back these Federal nutrition standards.

On Friday, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced proposals that would reduce the amount of fruit and types of vegetables required in school meals. According to "The Washington Post" giving the schools the flexibility to decide which meals would be appealing to their students.

The U.S. D.A. says it's about reducing food waste, especially if students are throwing out what's being offered. In a statement, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said, "Schools and school districts continue to tell us there is still too much food waste and that more common sense flexibility is needed to provide students nutritious and appetizing meals. We listened and now we're getting to work."

Under the current standards, schools that participate in the School Breakfast Program must provide a half to one cup of fruit during breakfast for preschool through high school. The new rule would allow meal providers to change the amount of fruit that is served and customize meal patterns.

It would also allow schools to offer lunch entrees ala carte to reduce food waste. Critics argue that proposed changes can result in children eating less

fruits and vegetables and instead getting foods that are greasier and higher in saturated fat and in calories.

Mrs. Obama had hoped the vegetable garden she had planted at the White House would live on as a symbol of a healthier nation for the children. That remains for now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALKER: And Ana, I do want to mention that a Harvard study in 2014 reported that under Obama's lunch program, children ate 16 percent more vegetables and 23 percent more fruit, obviously, all of that could change. Back to you.

CABRERA: Amara, is there a timeframe for this change?

WALKER: That is not exactly clear at this time. We do know that the proposal will be published in the Federal Register next week, and then from there, there'll be a 60-day public comment period. And after that, it could take a few months up to more than a year before this actually takes effect.

CABRERA: Okay, Amara Walker, thank you for that. Edgy art or dangerous provocation since its released last October, the movie "Joker" has been a topic of strong debate that has only intensified with award season in full swing now.

"Joker" has picked up multiple nominations, including another Best Actor nod for Joaquin Phoenix at tomorrow's Screen Actors Guild Awards and CNN's Stephanie Elam reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): "Joker" getting the last laugh this award season.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Joker.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Joker.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Joaquin Phoenix, Joker.

ELAM (voice over): 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: And the more I read, the more upset I got.

ELAM (voice over): 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 (voice over): But in his Critics Choice win for Best Actor, Phoenix flipped the script while, praising "Joker's" director.

JOAQUIN PHOENIX, ACTOR: ... instead of inciting violence, you invited the audience in to see what it feels like when you're one of the forgotten.

[17:55:00]

ELAM (voice over): 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 (voice over): If Phoenix wins the SAG Award Sunday, an Oscar win seems to be no joke.

Stephanie Elam, CNN Hollywood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: I'll see you at seven. "S.E. CUPP UNFILTERED" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]