Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Charges That Led To Trump's Impeachment; Trump: Giuliani Letter To Zelensky "Wouldn't Have Been A Big Deal; Grave Fears For Wildlife On Australia's Kangaroo Island; Harry And Meghan Will No Longer Use "Royal Highness" Titles. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired January 18, 2020 - 20:00   ET

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

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Passengers are being checked for symptoms of fever, coughing and difficulty breathing. The screenings are underway at airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York's JFK.

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. Thank you for staying with me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

And, right now, in an unusual busy evening for Washington, D.C., we have the first official look at how President Trump's newly assemble legal team plans to attack the charges that led to his impeachment. Just late this afternoon, two things happened that are key to the Senate Impeachment Trial which, really, gets moving on Tuesday.

First, we have the House managers formally transmitting their trial brief to the Senate. That's the top-to-bottom summary explaining why the House believes the president should be removed from office. And shortly after that, a strongly worded, very aggressive response from the president's impeachment lawyers. It's a letter that argues against the substance of the charges and against the procedures that have been followed so far. So, both sides now making their cases known and making them official.

And what about the president? Spending the weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida. What is his state of mind as the hours tick by until this historic Senate trial? A source close to the president tells CNN he appears distracted and is telling people around him that he can't understand why he is impeached.

Let's go live to our Senior Washington Correspondent, Joe Johns.

Joe, a lot of developments this evening. We just heard about the president's mood. And, also this evening, some details about how he assembled his legal team. A team that he wanted to be sure could perform well on T.V.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Ana, it has been just a very busy Saturday, uncharacteristically so, I think. You have dueling briefs coming from the Democrats and the president's team. We've also had dueling conference calls, the Democrats' brief coming out. Essentially, summing up the arguments they would like to make, when the Supreme Court chief justice calls the trial to order on Tuesday. The Democrats also taking a stab at trying to convince the senators here in Washington, D.C. that there is, essentially, a real problem with the way the framers of the Constitution would view the con -- the president's conduct, indicating, in their view, that this conduct by the president is, essentially, the framers' worse nightmare.

A lot of the information we see in the House brief, clearly, we've heard before. But there is some new information in there, talking about the more recent developments. Including that legal guidance that came out just last week from the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, indicating, in their view, that the Trump administration broke the law. Violated the law by withholding that almost $400 million in military aid from a Ukraine. They think that's very important. They see it as a rebuttal to the claims by the administration that no laws were broken.

For the side of the White House, they put out an answer to the brief in which they did include some of that language. Indicating, in their view, there's no crime. No violation of law alleged in the Articles of Impeachment.

So, it's also important to say that the administration's answer to this brief by the House managers is much more political in nature. It accuses the Democrats of trying to overturn the 2016 election.

Now, the White House is expected to put in its own official trial brief on Monday. Ana, back to you.

CABRERA: Joe Johns for us on Capitol Hill tonight. Thanks.

Joining us now with more on the Democrats' trial brief, the president's legal case, and the response from President Trump, I want to bring in Tiffany Cross. She's the co-founder and managing editor of "The Beat D.C." Also with us, CNN Political Commentator, and former Republican Congresswoman, Mia Love; and former federal prosecutor, Gene Rossi.

So, Gene, we learned tonight, the Trump legal team is arguing that the First Article of Impeachment, Abuse of Power, quote, "alleges no crime at all let alone high crimes and misdemeanors." The team cites Ukrainian President Zelensky's denial that he felt pressure from Trump. Do you feel, legally, this is the right track to try to invalidate the case for impeachment?

GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's the best they can do. What they're arguing, Ana, is that the Article of Impeachment is vague on its face. And, as a former prosecutor, you file motion to dismiss an indictment for vagueness.

But what the House managers have to do is this, stick to the focus and the -- and the core of your argument. It's an arms for dirt scheme with three objects, bribery, election interference, and the third object is the global abuse of power under the Constitution.

If the House sticks to that, the three-prong attack, then it will defeat the argument that the president's lawyers are making. [20:05:05]

They're doing the best they can. It's like poker. You play the cards you have. But I think the president's argument is very, very weak.

CABRERA: Congressman Love, in their written argument to remove president from House, the House Democrats separately reference indicted Rudy Giuliani, associate Lev Parnas as well as former national security adviser, John Bolton.

So, outside of, though, tonight's legal brief, Democrats keep pointing to the polling this week that shows 66 percent of Americans want to hear from witnesses, specifically Bolton. Do you see four Republican senators ultimately joining with the 47 other senators to compel the testimony of partisan Bolton?

MIA LOVE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think, actually, every role (ph), every witness, you're going to have in ebb and flow. You're going to have some Republicans that are going to vote to see some witnesses. But, ultimately, when it comes down to actually removing the president, I suspect that number is going to be 50 -- it's going to be the numbers that we saw, 47, 53.

Where I cannot see the Republicans actually voting to actually remove the president, especially when you look at what's happening nationally. The CNN Iowa caucuses, where the independents, you have 51 percent of independents that actually do not believe that the president should be removed from office.

When you look at some of the battleground states, a lot of people want to continue to talk about the economy. This is -- you're going to see the process. You're going to see people actually vote one way or the other, even move towards Republicans or move towards Democrats.

But, ultimately, it's going to be about whether they are going to remove the president from his seat. And I don't think you're going to get Republicans that actually are going to vote for that.

CABRERA: Tiffany, the House managers in this impeachment trial are also arguing today that Trump must be removed to safeguard the integrity of the 2020 election. So, they're saying it's not just about what's been done but what is still to come. A very strong statement, obviously.

But the president argues tonight that Democrats are just trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election. So, they both have election integrity arguments. I wonder, Tiffany, if it's fair to argue that the president, you know, let voters choose who is going to be president? They chose Trump in 2016. Why not let them decide in 2020? Is that a fair argument, if the question is the sanctity of the upcoming election?

TIFFANY CROSS, CO-FOUNDER, THE BEAT D.C.: Yes. Well, the voters didn't choose Trump in 2016. Three million more people voted for Hillary Clinton. Trump was aided by Russian election interference. The Internet Russia agency plowed this country with false information to which he benefited from. There was domestic election interference with voter suppression perpetuated by the GOP.

So, I think it's dangerous when we present this argument. While Democrats say one thing and Republicans say another. No, this isn't necessarily political. It's not a partisan issue. You have one side who's advocating for a president who's clearing running an international crime ring. And then, you have the side of the Democrats who are trying to protect the pillars of democracy which we see are eroding.

And I just want to push back a little bit on what Congresswoman Love said. Listen, I understand there are a small group of people who don't support removing this president. But we can't present that either. A small group of people in Iowa caucuses hardly represents the majority of the country. The people who don't support the impeachment proceedings are such a small minority.

So, again, I think when you present them as though, well, half the country feels one way, the other half feels another, it's a bit disingenuous. Look, this is about protecting 2020 elections. We already know that there's foreign interference happening now. Russia will definitely be involved. We saw, it was revealed in October, Microsoft said that the Iran government was trying to hack into our elections. They've tried to hack into over 2,500 accounts.

So, I don't think that we can just look at this as though it's two sides saying two different things. There's one side who are patriots. There's another side who are trying to perpetuate something else.

CABRERA: Gene, in the trial brief that was released today by the House managers, they made the case, by stating in part, President Trump's conduct is the framers' worst nightmare. If you put politics aside, is there a legal basis to make that point?

ROSSI: Oh, absolutely. And one of the framers that I always try to invoke on this issue is George Mason. The others are important, but the abuse of power is what they were concerned about most when the Constitution was approved. We didn't have federal criminal statutes. It was a nebulous abuse of power.

But the gestalt, the core of that abuse of power into the Constitution is this. The president of the United States should not use his office to benefit himself, personally. And what President Trump did is he used the office. He used $400 million, roughly, to try and get a country, whose fledgling and under attack by Russia, to get them to do the dirty work for him, using our taxpayer money.

[20:10:00]

I can't think of a more consummate abuse of power than what President Trump did.

CABRERA: Although, they argue, and I'm quoting here, that the actions that he took in his calls, both of them, the one in April as well as the one on July 25th, as well as the surrounding and related events, quote, "were Constitutional, perfectly legal, completely appropriate, and taken in furtherance of our national interest." ROSSI: You know what? I wonder if they had a straight face when they wrote that letter, because I respect defense attorneys. I'm a defense attorney. You make the best argument. But sometimes when you make an argument, you kind of have to pass the laugh test that doesn't pass the laugh test.

CABRERA: Tiffany, is this the framers' worst nightmare, after months of public testimony and reporting polls don't seem to show that the public is overwhelmingly sold about this president needing to be removed from office?

CROSS: Look, I don't think the framers intended on having a rogue president. You know, I think when the country elected a clown, it's been a circus ever since. And Donald Trump is still the ring master who's able to manipulate the media and the landscape to present this argument as though, well, maybe voters don't want him removed.

That's just not true. The data does not support that. There are groups of people who there are groups of people who don't understand the intended consequences of impeachment. Look, everybody doesn't consume the minutiae of this process like the four of us do right now. So, most people are focused on picking up kids from after school and preparing dinner. They're not looking at what happened.

And when you present the facts to people, when you inform people, instead of showing, you know, three people booing at a town hall, then people do start to have an intellectual curiosity. And that's what we have to depend on. But more than that, Ana, I think we have to hold our elected officials responsible to do their jobs. Their jobs are to protect the pillars of democracy which we see being eroded.

So, I don't think we can count on a bunch of people wearing MAGA hats to, you know, if they get upset, then we shouldn't do it. That's not how democracy was intended to work, and the framers didn't design it to work that way.

CABRERA: All of you, please stand by. I know I owe you a question.

ROSSI: Sure.

CABRERA: Up next, we have a lot more to talk about. Because as the Senate prepares to take up the impeachment case, more and more evidence is still coming to light. We'll discuss next.

[20:12:21]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: House Democrats have made clear they believe the upcoming Senate Impeachment Trial must include witnesses and a trove of new documents related to the Ukraine scandal, some of which were released just last night. It may include more text messages handed over by Lev Parnas, that now-indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani.

Remember, Parnas has already claimed the president knew everything about a dirt for dollar scheme to manipulate Ukraine and smear Joe Biden. But, now, add this to the mix. Evidence suggesting that the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was under surveillance before she was eventually forced to leave Ukraine, because she, allegedly, got in their way of their scheme.

The text messages were given to Parnas by a Trump donor and Republican congressional candidate in Connecticut, named Robert Hyde. She talked to three people Her phone is off. Computer is off. She's next to the embassy. Not in the embassy. Private security. Been there since Thursday. He later texted, quote, "That address I sent you checks out. It's next to the embassy. They are willing to help if we-you would like a price. Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money. What I was told."

Now, what he meant with, you can do anything with money, what he meant by that, remains unclear. But it was enough for police in Ukraine to be concerned and to actually open a criminal investigation into possible spying on Yovanovitch. Hyde has denied being involved in any surveillance of Yovanovitch.

But what does all of this have to do with the president? Lev Parnas told Anderson Cooper he actually witnessed Trump telling a top aide that the ambassador should be fired

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI: In the conversation, the subject of Ukraine was brought up. And I told the president that -- it our opinion that she is bad mouthing him, and that the -- she said that he's going to get impeached, something like that. I don't know if that's word for word, but that she was --

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: You said that at the table?

PARNAS: Correct.

COOPER: Where the president was?

PARNAS: Correct. Correct. And his reaction was, he looked at me like he got very angry and basically turned around to John DeStefano and said, fire her. Get rid of her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: The president has denied even knowing Parnas.

But what is not in dispute is that in Trump's new-infamous July 25th call with Ukraine's president, Trump said this. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, she's bad news. She's going to go through some things. It was a comment that Yovanovitch later told Congress she perceived as a threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANIEL GOLDMAN, ATTORNEY: What did you think when President Trump told President Zelensky and you read that you were going to go through some things? MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: I didn't know what to

think, but I was very concerned.

GOLDMAN: What were you concerned about?

YOVANOVITCH: She's going to go through some things. It didn't sound good. Sounded like a threat.

GOLDMAN: Did you feel threatened?

YOVANOVITCH: I did.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Back with me again for more on what happens Tuesday when the Senate trial begins, Gene Rossi, Tiffany Cross, and former Congresswoman, Mia Love.

[20:20:00]

Congresswoman, Democrats want all of this new evidence included in the Senate trial. But you ask some Senate Republicans, and their response is very different, to say the least.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MANU RAJU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the Impeachment Trial?

SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R), ARIZONA: Manu, you're a liberal hack. I'm not talking to you.

RAJU: You're not going to comment?

MCSALLY: You're a liberal hack.

RAJU: Do you think the Senate should consider new evidence as part of the Senate trial that has come out?

SEN. DAVID PERDUE (R), GEORGIA: Absolutely not.

RAJU: Why not?

PERDUE: Because that's not our job. The job is to respond to what we've been given in the case that was built by the House. They've given us two very weak Articles of Impeachment. Our job is to look at what they brought us and decide if that rises to the level of impeachment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Congresswoman, can they really just turn their back on all this new evidence?

LOVE: Well, I think that they, honestly -- everybody believes that they are supposed to take what the House has given them and vote on exactly what has been presented in front of them. Marco Rubio even said that that is our job. That we are supposed to look at what the House has given us and vote on that.

And, again, I wanted to agree with Tiffany on something. That most people are looking at this and they're concerned about picking up their children. They're concerned about the economy. They're concerned about health care and what's going on. And I would be very careful ignoring smaller states or battle states or swing states that actually make a difference in the presidential elections, like Iowa where they're saying, look, we don't agree with this phone call.

I've actually said, I don't agree with what's happened in Ukraine. Does it support removal of a president? They've seen the entire 2018 be focused on impeachment and removing a president. And, ultimately, I don't believe that that's actually going to happen in the Senate.

So, people are concerned about actually getting things done in their household. And they want to be the ones to vote on whether they keep this president or whether they send -- or they say somebody else.

CABRERA: But shouldn't that judgment have something to do, Congresswoman, with what exactly happened in this situation? And the facts are still coming out. And so, shouldn't members of Congress feel compelled enough to make sure they have the complete picture before making any decision on whether to remove or acquit this president?

LOVE: I think things should be as transparent as possible. So, if there's any new evidence that they can bring up that is not skewed one way or the other, the American people have the right to know what is going on.

But what I've seen what has happened in the 2018 election where -- the 2018 impeachment proceedings in the House, where there were some witnesses that were called and some that weren't able to be called. And even those weren't allowed to go, as instructed by the administration, I don't think that does any good for the American people. I think we should get as much information as possible.

CABRERA: Gene, on the evidence that is suggesting the ambassador was being spied on, we now actually are hearing from the man who sent some of those text messages we just talked about. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT HYDE, U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: So, when they sent me these texts, and I'm, like, whatever, dude. Yes, under surveillance, just joking, nobody really knew that -- I never pictured anything was real. I didn't think anything was real. Who would be surveilling a U.S. ambassador? Like, who could do that? I never -- I never imagined you'd, like -- these jokers that you meet at fundraisers, that, you know, legit people who were, like, Rob, pulled me aside and said, stay away from these people. You know, I never thought, like, anything they were saying was real.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CABRERA: Gene, two quick questions. First, your reaction to what we just heard. And, two, I mean, how important is the substance of what we've just been learning from the Lev Parnas documents, interviews, et cetera?

ROSSI: Well, I want to say this about Robert Hyde, who's running for Congress in Connecticut, my home state. He's more than just a landscaper from Simsbury, Connecticut. It is not a coincidence that he was sending information from a Belgian source and conveying it to Lev Parnas.

And I want to talk about Lev Parnas. Lev Parnas, potentially, could be one of the most explosive witnesses on the planet in the history of politics for one reason. If his allegations are proven true and you got to corroborate him, you've got to see if they're consistent with other witnesses, and does his testimony make common sense?

I call it the three Cs for judging credibility. If you take what he says on face value and it's corroborated and consistent, makes common sense, what has he said? There was an arms for dirt scheme organized by the president and executed by the president's team, Giuliani, Parnas, possibly the attorney general of the United States. Ana, that is a big darn deal. And Lev Parnas, if anybody testifies for the Senate, it should be Lev Parnas.

[20:25:00]

And I want to end with this. When president Johnson was impeached in 1860s, there were 41 witnesses, 41.

CABRERA: And so, here, we're talking about potentially none.

Tiffany, I have to ask you about how the president is, you know, trying to spin this. He is suggesting this Senate trial is now a calculated strategy by the establishment Democrats, to try to keep Bernie Sanders off the campaign trail, to help Joe Biden in the Democratic contest for the 2020 election.

Here's the tweet from President Trump. They are rigging the election, again, against Bernie Sanders just like last time, only even more obviously. They are bringing him out of so--important Iowa, in order that, as a senator, he sit through the impeachment--hoax trial. Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to sleepy Joe Biden and Bernie is shut out, again.

Now, the Impeachment Trial is not an effort to rig the primary. But do you think Pelosi would have or should have considered the campaign timing and which candidates could be impacted, when she delayed sending over the articles?

CROSS: Well, I know the president's tweets make for great fodder for the punditry class. But I think, at certain points, it's just, you know, beneath our dignity to keep discussing them. I think Speaker Pelosi has handled him several times right to his face in the Oval Office, in the way that she handled this impeachment process. And he has a problem with that. And he can always depend on the media landscape to chase around his latest tweet, instead of focusing on the actual crimes that he's been accused of committing.

Look, we have a president of the United States who is an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple crimes. He's been implicated and threatening and surveilling a member of the U.S. government. And this is why the senators don't want to call witnesses, because they have never developed a spine to stand up to this president.

And when you hear from John Bolton, they will be forced to confront things that they have run from. And this is very consistent with his behavior throughout his entire presidency. Remember, former White House Counsel Don McGahn said that this president is asking me to do some crazy, you know what, sugar, honey, iced tea. They didn't want to hear from him either.

So, when I think we have to start focusing on the crimes that are committed, not what this asinine president will tweet out. Because we've already seen as evidence as the past two years of chaos trying to cover every ridiculous things he does is like trying to catch confetti. And it's just beneath our dignity.

And I just want to say very quickly to Congresswoman Love. I'm not at all suggesting that we ignore battleground states. But given what we've seen from this president, when we have voters who say, well, I don't care about that or Democrats didn't get anything done. Well, that's just not true. The Democrats in the House have passed multiple bills that have fallen flat in the Republican-controlled Senate.

And for people who are dismissive of this kind of behavior, I'm supposed to take that voter seriously who says, yes, it doesn't matter that he's threatening members of the U.S. government. It doesn't matter that he's openly called for war in this country.

It doesn't matter that he says all these racist, misogynist, xenophobic things. Those are people who I don't think we should be basing our constitutional duty or our opinions about what's happening in this country, Ana. Regardless if they live in a battleground state or not, we have to focus on protecting a democracy that is clearly in peril right now.

CABRERA: Mia, go ahead, if you want to respond.

LOVE: Yes. I just needed to say that, look, we're going to have a difference of opinion on this. But I'm just going to put a warning out there, that the longer Democrats continue to push on with impeachment, it's going to give -- the American people are going to tire of it. And it's going to be a big problem for the -- for the Democrat presidential candidates. They need -- America needs a vision of what's next.

(CROSSTALK)

CROSS: They need a vision on what's next. They need a vision on what's next. They want to know what policies are moving forward. We've been waiting for immigration. We've been waiting health care policies. We've been waiting for all of these other things. They haven't been moving forward. LOVE: It's a Republican--controlled Senate. The Democrats need to --

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Let the Congresswoman respond.

LOVE: I didn't interrupt you. I didn't interrupt. I'm just trying to finish my thought. I know you're going to think differently than I do. But that's what -- this is good for America, having these of times debates. I think that it's important for us to continue to recognize that the economy is doing well.

And Democrats need to have an answer of what -- how they're going to make this better. Because one thing that Trump has actually said that is going to ring true. He had said that you may not like me. But when it comes to the economy, you may have to vote for me.

And be careful because if they do not have -- if Democrats don't have a vision going forward, they're going to lose the election.

CABRERA: Let me bring this conversation back to the impeachment trial, for just a moment here, Gene. Because I want to ask you --

ROSSI: Yes.

CABRERA: -- about that letter, that is now a new piece of evidence, from Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine's President Zelensky, in which he says, quote, "I am private counsel to President Donald J. Trump. Just to be precise, I represent him as a private citizen, not as president of the United States, in my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump. And with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you."

How problematic might this be?

ROSSI: It's very problematic. I do want to say something about Congresswoman Love. I totally agree with her that if the Democrats don't have a vision for the future, and every election is about the future, we're going to lose.

[20:30:05]

But let's go to the letter. The letter is important because --

But let's go to the letter. The letter is important because it goes back to what I said, it's an arms for dirt conspiracy, a scheme. And at the head of it is President Trump who has authorized Rudy Giuliani to engage in personal matters. And this gets to the constitutional issue.

Rudy Giuliani was on a mission for personal matters regarding the president of the United States. So whatever Rudy Giuliani says in this scheme, conspiracy, it can be attributed to the president. Whatever Giuliani says to Lev Parnas can be attributed to the president, and what Parnas says, that's called a conspiracy.

So this letter is an invaluable piece of evidence to show that there was a conspiracy and that the president designated Giuliani and Parnas to be the pit bulls to execute the scheme.

CABRERA: All right. Everybody, thank you so much. I'm trying to hold in a sneeze right now. Gene Rossi, Mia Love, and Tiffany Cross. I really appreciate you all taking the time.

Australia's wildfires have scorched tens of thousands of acres, but some of the most affected have been the nation's unique wildlife and many scientists worry many species won't be able to survive. We'll have details on the fight to save them when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:35:08]

CABRERA: Now to Australia where fires have scorched more than half of Kangaroo Island, an area once known for its abundance of wildlife. Rescuers say few animals have survived the intense blaze and are trying to save the survivors, makeshift shelters have now been set-up with koalas recuperating in laundry baskets.

The military has been deployed with a grim task of clearing animals that weren't as lucky.

CNN's Lynda Kinkade brings us this report. And I have to warn you, some of the images are graphic.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LYNDA KINKADE, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST (voice-over): Australia's Kangaroo Island once green and filled with wildlife now looks like a wasteland. Very little survived under the smoldering husks of trees, ferocious after bushfires ferocious and fast-moving incinerated more than half the island.

Rescue workers see a sign of life on the horizon and move quickly to save a stunned creature, bringing him to a makeshift animal clinic for treatment.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a possum. We just pulled him out of the fire.

KINKADE: One life saved, but experts say more than half a billion animals have died in bushfires across Australia. It's one of the grim tasks for military units to search and clear the carcasses from the island.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's been an extraordinary day. To be honest, it's never a good thing to come across deceased wildlife such as koalas and kangaroos.

KINKADE: Experts say that the koala population was particularly devastated here. Out of the island's 46,000 koalas, it's estimated as few as 9,000 survived.

The survivors are injured and stressed, many requiring treatment so rescuers are transporting them in laundry baskets. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are probably finding burns that come in now, are looking at four weeks' worth of treatment. Obviously with the fire still burning, we're still having multiple new cases coming in at the moment.

KINKADE: Where to send those who recover is another problem. With over 80 percent of their habitat gone, the koalas on Kangaroo Island are also the only population in Australia that doesn't carry the disease chlamydia, which has ravaged the species, which means they have no immunity to the disease.

Lynda Kinkade, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Also new tonight, we are learning Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, will no longer be working members of the Royal Family. Details on what's next for them and the warm words from the Queen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:40:40]

CABRERA: After expressing a desire to step back from the royal duties, it's been decided that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will leave their royal lives almost completely.

The Queen announcing today that the duke and duchess will no longer use their royal titles or carry out royal duties on behalf of the Queen after this spring. But she says they always will be, quote, much-loved members of my family.

Earlier, I got a chance to speak with a former spokesman for Queen Elizabeth. Here's my conversation with royal commentator, 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 Sussex, the Queen, Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Cambridge. And they've come up with the solution.

The Queen is very pragmatic. She's very fond of Harry, very fond of Meghan. And he wanted -- he wanted the right arrangement that would suit them and suit her and the rest of her family. 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 will probably like the idea of using HRH.

You go back historically when King Edward the 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 her as HRH. And the Duke of Windsor referred to 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 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: That's still very much a possibility. They've still got to get the Sussex royal brand confirmed. They have lodged it with the World Intellectual Property Organization. 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. And they still got to pick their own charities that they want to support both in Canada and in the -- in the United Kingdom.

[20:45:19]

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 the two are talking about the games. And at the end, the Queen says boom, and Harry drops the mic. That was such a relatable moment, not just bringing the monarchy into modern times and pop culture, but 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 up at the moral when the news came through, and it was really Queen, Prince Philip, 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 of 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 then she's done things -- she's done things recently they're not really quite unlike to 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 they will be a bit of disappoint that Harry and Meghan have walked away from this, particularly as the Queen almost two years ago created the ambassadors of the Queen's commonwealth trust, very important role in terms of youth in the commonwealth.

That force 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.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: And we'll have more on our big story tonight with Prince Harry and Meghan giving up their royal titles. Just what else are they giving up? So many questions even after hearing from Queen Elizabeth's former spokesman, Dickie Arbiter.

So Victoria Arbiter is here in New York, and the apple did not fall from the tree. Can't get enough of the shocking royal news. So much more, next live here in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:50:04]

CABRERA: Before today's shock 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 bank-rolled 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 -- yes, and the answer is yes, tens of millions of times over. You know, there are tens 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 had book deals, Michelle Obama's book came out. It was the number one book of 2018. And one of the top books of 209.

Barack Obama's book sells not yet, but that deal was reportedly worth $60 million, just for those two books. I think that's the kind of money we're talking about in this case as well. Not millions but tens of millions.

CABRERA: Victoria, we knew that Harry was teaming up with Oprah Winfrey for a documentary, right, about mental health. Do you see him doing more projects like that, more work like that?

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: 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's most interested in, the welfare of veterans, conservation, climate change and, of course, mental health. Those have been the key issues that he's tried to champion on the back of also what he continues with his mother's legacy, HIV AIDS, and the landmines issue.

So, yes, I think Harry will very much like to use that medium. But at the same time, he's going to have to be careful not to cross into too 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, Sophie, 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?

V. ARBITER: Well, especially because the statement says they want to uphold the values of the Queen. And now what does that mean exactly in this instance? They're going to have be very careful that whatever commercial deals they do are within keeping of brand Britain and brand monarchy. I think the...

[20:55:06]

CABRERA: So what 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 fashion powerhouse, everything she wears sells out in a nanosecond.

Let's say a fashion house asks her to be a brand ambassador, they do all of 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 sweat shop, 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 -- is really coming from clean background and legitimate sources. CABRERA: All right. Thanks to Victoria and Brian Stelter, and that does it for me tonight, I'll be back tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Eastern. The CNN Special Report, "Royal Revolution: Harry and Meghan" starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)