Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Team Trump Lays Out Legal Defense Strategy; House Managers Make Their Case For Removing Trump From Office; Possible Active Shooting In Honolulu, Hawaii; Prince Harry And Meghan Give Up Royal Titles And State Funding; FBI Working With Virginia Law Enforcement Ahead Of Gun Rally; Navy To Name New Carrier After Black Pearl Harbor Hero; SAG Awards Help Pave The Road To Oscars Gold; Anger In Puerto Rico After Unused Disaster Supplies Found; Puerto Rico Emergency Director Fired Over Undistributed Hurricane Maria Aid. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 19, 2020 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Put all this together. Congratulations to you, Joshua Vanguard.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Thanks so much. We've got so much more straight ahead in the NEWSROOM, and it all starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WHITFIELD: All right, hello again, everyone. And thank you so much for being with me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Breaking news out of Hawaii where the FBI is responding to a possible active shooter in Diamond Head. That's outside of Honolulu, not far from Waikiki Beach on the island of Oahu. According to our affiliate there, two officers have been killed. We will have more on this in just a moment.

But first, right now, in the nation's capital, House impeachment managers are meeting on Capitol Hill. The meeting comes as we're just now 48 hours before the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump begins. That trial is expected to get under way Tuesday afternoon, but arguments are already being played out in the court of public opinion.

Last night, House managers who essentially act as prosecutors in the trial delivered their brief, arguing why President Trump should be removed from office, calling President Trump's conduct, I'm quoting now, "the framers' worst nightmare."

And now the ball is in the president's court. His legal team has until noon tomorrow to file their own brief, but today some already are making their case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE TEAM: There is a confusion between the reasons for having impeachment, and those include we don't want to see presidents who are dishonest. We don't want to see presidents who abuse their power. That's all true. But then when it comes to coming up with the criteria for impeachment, we don't use terms like dishonesty or abuse or maladministration or malpractice. We have to focus in on specific criteria to avoid weaponization of impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: CNN's Boris Sanchez is in Florida where President Trump has just departed for Texas, and CNN's Sarah Westwood is on Capitol Hill.

So, Boris, you first. We're learning more about Alan Dershowitz's role on the president's defense team and how he ended up joining the team.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Fred, it's really interesting. Initially when we heard that Alan Dershowitz was joining the team, he was a little bit ambiguous in his comments about his role on the president's legal staff, initially saying that he was a bit of an independent, objective expert on the Constitution, that he wasn't going to play any role in the strategy, in terms of trying to figure out witnesses or how exactly a president should move forward in a broader sense.

We know that the argument that he's made so far is that the accusations against the president don't rise to high crimes. He does not believe that they're impeachable offenses. But it turns out that some of that hesitation about him fully declaring himself a member of the legal team may actually have to do with his wife. Dershowitz actually telling CNN that President Trump had to get on the phone and personally make an appeal to his wife, Carolyn Cohen, that Dershowitz should join the team.

She was apparently opposed to it. The president did so. She relented. Dershowitz now saying that his wife is ambiguous about him being on Trump's legal team but that she does support him. Of course this pleases the president. We've known for some time that he wants high- powered staff of attorneys defending him especially people who will do well on television, and give him those TV moments that he is looking for.

Of course Dershowitz is well known for being not only a controversial defense attorney but for standing up for the president on television -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, Boris.

And, Sarah, House impeachment managers are meeting behind closed doors right now. They have only a few days to put together their opening arguments. Where do things stand?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Fred. And some of the seven House managers that will be presenting the case against President Trump, they have been coming and going from the speaker's office where this meeting started, now over four hours ago. Some of the members that have emerged from that closed-door session have not been taking our questions about how it's going, but Congressman Adam Schiff did acknowledge that they're preparing for the trial in the speaker's office. He told our colleague Greg Clary that those preparations were coming along fine.

And we also saw Democratic counsel Norm Eisen, Daniel Goldman among them holding big binders of material back and forth from the office. So that just shows you -- this gives you a taste of how much material these Democrats have to get through. Of course, these preparations are taking place amid a debate over whether to call witnesses in the Senate trial. That's going to be one of the key questions addressed when the trial opens on Tuesday.

And today, we heard Democrats expressing concern about not having witnesses, as well as other aspects of the case. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): If the Senate decides, if Senator McConnell prevails, and there are no witnesses, it will be the first impeachment trial in history that goes to conclusion without witnesses.

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): There is no question that working with a -- working with a foreign power, trying to extort a foreign power to interfere in our election is about as bad as you can imagine.

[16:05:01]

The main fear the framers of the Constitution had why they put the impeachment clause in the Constitution was they were afraid of foreign interference in our domestic affairs.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): We have a president that's We have a president that's been openly engaging with the Russians and others, right now in this case the Ukraine, to try to undermine our elections. This is a real threat to this nation. And so what are we going to do when a president openly, unabashedly in a way that's provable, in a way that his top levels of his administration has said was done. What are we going to do when our democracy is under threat? Tolerate this behavior or do something to stop it and hold that person accountable?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WESTWOOD: Well, over the next two days, these House managers have to figure out the best way to present their evidence, which they have described as overwhelming against each of the two articles of impeachment. And they may have to do that over what could be an aggressive schedule. Senate Republicans have considered packing the arguments from the Trump side and from the Democrats into longer and fewer days, perhaps as a way to shorten the trial.

So that's something these Democrats have to contend with. They have to decide who of the seven managers will be presenting what argument and of course, the Senate, when it returns this week will have to debate a rules resolution laying out the structure of the trial so the question of witnesses, the question of the length of the testimony on each day, that'll be questions settled when the Senate returns.

The House Democrats filed last night their trial brief. Essentially the paper version of the case that they are practicing, that they will present during the trial and in it they said that they wanted to present new evidence during the trial. That's the documents provided by Lev Parnas, an associate of the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, something that will -- lawmakers will have to contend with when they returned to Capitol Hill is whether to consider that new evidence, Fred, but it's something that House Democrat have in their trial brief and they intend to include in their case moving forward.

WHITFIELD: All right. Sarah Westwood, Boris Sanchez, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

All right, one of the newest members of the president's legal team spent today making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. But Alan Dershowitz also made sure to distance himself a bit from being a full- time member of the president's legal team.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: I'm not involved in the day-to-day issues such as --

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: But you haven't argued on the floor of the Senate dozens of time or a dozen times?

DERSHOWITZ: No, I actually was on the floor of the Senate once on behalf of Senator Alan Cranston.

KEILAR: Once.

DERSHOWITZ: Many years ago.

KEILAR: So who -- okay. But in this case I --

DERSHOWITZ: But, you know, very few people have argued -- go ahead.

KEILAR: I just -- I want to make this clear.

DERSHOWITZ: Yes.

KEILAR: Because I am not seeing this clearly, Alan. Who hired you?

DERSHOWITZ: I was asked by the president's defense team to become of counsel on the specific issue of the criteria, the constitutional criteria for impeachment. That's a very important issue. I will be making that argument as an advocate, not as an expert witness. I will be advocating against impeachment of this president based on the constitutional criteria.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, with me now, Julian Zelizer, historian and professor at Princeton University and CNN political analyst. Ross Garber teaches impeachment law at Tulane University and is a CNN legal analyst.

Good to see both of you.

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, so, Julian, to you first. Do you think, you know, Dershowitz is downplaying his role on the, you know, president's legal team, you know, could end up clouding the president's defense, perhaps even be a liability to an extent?

ZELIZER: Perhaps. He's backing away after some of the, you know, backlash yesterday from his comments about presidential power and really questioning what impeachment even is, which led to many people to criticize him. But I don't think it's going to cloud the overall strategy. I think the strategy is clear. I think the president's team is not really going to deny the facts of what happened.

They're going to focus more on what Dershowitz has been saying, that regardless of what the president did, that is not an impeachable offense. So he will offer the opening salvo to an argument that will be pretty consistent.

WHITFIELD: Right. So, Ross, he's not alone. Dershowitz is not alone saying, you know, the president, you know, didn't commit a crime. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: But they came up with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

KEILAR: And there's debate on that, I should say.

DERSHOWITZ: Is that -- yes. And the reason they came up with those is they could not, honestly, get a majority to charge bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors so they went back to obstruction and to abuse, and those do not fit the constitutional criteria.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Unfortunately, this seems to be more of a political or policy differences than actually a high crime and misdemeanor as the Constitution requires. This is the first time in history where a president has been impeached for a non-crime for events that never occurred.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Abuse of power is so poorly defined here, I don't know how presidents in the future can conform their conduct.

[16:10:04]

It's the first impeachment in history where there's no allegation of a crime by the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Ross, how effective do you think this argument is? ROSS GARBER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, so it depends what we're talking

about. I think the president is not worried about actually being removed from office. I think what's happening now is that the president and his defenders are playing to the base. And, you know, I've defended impeachments and I start often with the notion of a crime. Given how many crimes there are, it is very likely, overwhelmingly likely, that something that is so egregiously bad, so terrible as to warrant impeachment removal would also be a crime.

At the same time, I always acknowledge that it need not be a crime. But if it's not a crime, you've got to ask yourself why. So I think what's happening now is Alan Dershowitz is saying this is sort of amorphous notion of abuse of power. It's there because there is no crime. But I think focusing on whether or not it's a crime or not a crime misses the point. Is it so egregious that you need to remove the president from office? That's going to be the issue.

WHITFIELD: Julian, House managers, you know, for the Democrats were and have been, you know, meeting behind closed doors and other Democrats have been pushing for, you know, witnesses to testify. New evidence must be introduced, arguing it really is the only way to guarantee a fair trial. Is the momentum there to get enough Republicans to see it the same way, that if you want an impartial fair trial, which is what they all swore, you know, to do, that you have to include witnesses and new evidence?

ZELIZER: Enough Republicans might be possible. We've seen some shifts since the Parnas interviews came out and more evidence emerged about how this all worked and how the decisions with Ukraine happened. And several Republicans, such as Senator Murkowski have at least indicated they're open to witnesses. So even though we tend to say partisanship will never allow Republicans to buckle at all, there are some indications that I don't think witnesses are off the table.

And it will depend on the news and the revelations that come out in the next few days. This is a dynamic story that we're following.

WHITFIELD: And Ross, the White House has been pushing, you know, the Senate to allow the president's legal team to introduce a resolution to dismiss, you know, the impeachment charges all together. Lindsey Graham said today he doesn't believe the support for that is there. But what is at stake if there were that kind of motion to dismiss the trial?

GARBER: Yes, so in Clinton -- in the Clinton impeachment trial there was a provision allowing for motion to dismiss. And actually a motion to dismiss was filed. It was voted on and it failed. You know, here, I think what -- I think what's really going on is the House Democrats and Democrats in general are trying to say that the outcome of this trial, because it is -- it's pretty much preordained, the president is going to be acquitted, the outcome of the trial is not going to be reliable unless it is a full trial, there are lots of witnesses, which is they know very unlikely to happen.

And the less it looks like that, the more the Democrats, I think, believe they have to make that argument. In other words, if it's -- if the whole case is dismissed early on, the Democrats will be able to say this was not a fair trial, the result, the acquittal, is not legitimate. And I think that's what we're going to see. I think it's unlikely we're going to see witness or certainly a lot of witnesses. That will also enable the Democrats to say look, you know, the impeachment was valid. The acquittal, they will say, isn't.

WHITFIELD: Yes. All right, we'll leave it there. Ross Garber, Julian Zelizer, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

ZELIZER: Thank you.

GARBER: Good to be with you.

WHITFIELD: All right. An update on the breaking news out of Hawaii. A possible active shooter and a home burning. Firefighters still trying to get the flames under control at this hour and reports that two police officers are dead. We'll go to the scene in a moment.

[16:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back. This breaking news out of Hawaii where the FBI is responding to a possible active shooting in Diamond Head which is near Waikiki Beach on the island of Oahu. According to our affiliates on the ground, two police officers are dead. CNN cannot yet confirm that reporting.

CNN's Alex Field has been monitoring this story and has more -- Alex.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Fredricka. We've been watching this scene unfold over the course of the last hour. You can still see a police presence on the ground right now. As you point out, the FBI says they are responding to an active shooter investigation, meaning that they have not yet contained the shooter, at least not at the last update.

Police in Honolulu saying that they have shot down several streets as a result of their investigation. It would seem that the shots rang out in a residential neighborhood at the base of Diamond Head, not far from touristy Waikiki Beach.

You can also see, though, in your shot there heavy flames. Those seem to be pouring out of a house in that neighborhood. What's not clear at this point is what led officers to respond to that area this morning or how the sequence of events then unfolded. As you mentioned, our affiliates are reporting two officer deaths that CNN has not been able to independently confirm. We are waiting to hear for law enforcement officials on the ground. They certainly have had their hands full this morning. That very much an active scene there -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: OK. And James Gagliano, a CNN law enforcement analyst and retired FBI supervisory special agent also with us. There is -- there are so many question, James, because we don't know

what preceded this house fire, and, you know, why guns went off and, you know, who targeted police. But what are some of the questions that you have that might piece some of this together?

[16:20:04]

JAMES GAGLIANO, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Fred, certainly sobering news. And look, there's a dirt of information right now. I was watching the same file of footage that we've been showing on CNN as well as looking at some of the still photographs that I think the Star Advertiser posted. It does not appear that this was proactive law enforcement, meaning that this was a preplanned raid or operation.

This looks like this was a response. And for police officers in this area of the world, which is Oahu, in a place just north of Diamond Head, it's the same thing. It's being reactive, meaning something happens, you get a call for assistance. You get a call for help and you have to respond to it. And you're in a news or information vacuum. So we know that there were two officers injured. We were hearing reports that maybe two had been killed.

This has been a safe year, if you will, for police officers. We've only lost one officer to date. But unfortunately, this reverts to the mean. It looks like this could be -- this could be a tough and fatal situation for law enforcement.

WHITFIELD: Yes, it's terribly sad. All right, James Gagliano, Alexandra Field, thank you so much.

GAGLIANO: You're welcome.

WHITFIELD: All right, still to come, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex brokered an unprecedented deal with the Queen. But is this the royal exit they had in mind?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:25:46]

WHITFIELD: All right, Buckingham Palace says there is an official agreement in place that removes Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as working members of the royal family. It means the couple will no longer use the titles His and Her Royal Highness. They'll continue to work with their important causes but won't officially represent the Queen in doing so. The couple will still be known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and spend much of their time in North America.

Kate Williams is a royal historian and teaches at the University of London.

Good to see you, Kate. Wow.

KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Great to see you.

WHITFIELD: So this is something else. You know, what is this arrangement, you think, doing to the royal family?

WILLIAMS: Good question, Robyn, because we've been on tender hooks, this story, for nearly a fortnight now, has kept the UK absolutely galvanized. There's no other story, everyone has been fascinated by it on all the front pages. And now here is the resolution. When Harry and Meghan made their initial statement, it did seem very much as if they were aiming to have a half in, half out, some support to the Queen, some private work.

This statement issued last night in the -- moving towards the evening here in the UK really made it crystal clear. There's no half in, half out. They are pretty much completely out. They can do their private patronages but they are no longer using their titles HRH even though they still possess them, they're not using them. And they will -- Harry will no longer have his military appointments, which are very important to him, and they will simply not be doing any royal tours.

If they come to any royal engagements, they'll be there as personal members of the family, not as working members of the royal family. So this is a big moment for the royal family and it's a change. What they're saying here is that we can't be like the Europeans. We can't be half in, half out. And that, I think, is -- you know, it's a big question for the future. The sacrifices that the royal family demands, the royal goldfish bowl, the scrutiny, are they too much?

And increasingly, if you -- you know, if you have to be in there all the time, those people are going to struggle, I think, in the future. So it's a big question for the future of the royal family and the change it embarks upon.

WHITFIELD: Yes. So the couple has been pushing for this financial independence. Is there a feeling that they will be able to afford, you know, their lifestyle? They'll be living, you know, in Canada. They'll be visiting or perhaps living a little bit in the UK as well, and then there's talk of possibly, you know, living in the United States. All of that is going to cost a whole lot of money. Their financial independence will be able to carry that?

WILLIAMS: You are so right. This is a big question that's going to cost a lot of money. They are financially wealthy themselves. Money came in from -- they both make -- Meghan's acting career, Prince Harry inherited money. But they are going to have to earn money and they've made it very clear they're going to uphold the values of the Queen and what they do. We don't expect to see them endorsing pizzas but they are going to need a huge amount of money, I do think that's (INAUDIBLE) charitable foundation.

And what we'll see them doing is really doing what prime ministers do, presidents do. And they'll be going on tour. They'll be doing, you know, speaking engagements. That's where they'll get their money from. But certainly I know they've got a lot of offers, TV producing.

They have done TV producing before with Oprah. Let's see what they do. But I think this is a question now, how are they going to make it work in between what the royal family should do and basically how he should earn money. But I think that Harry has always wanted to be out of the royal family. He's always found it confining. He's always found it difficult, Fredricka. It's been hard for him.

WHITFIELD: Even before Meghan, you're saying.

WILLIAMS: Even before Meghan. Long before Meghan. He was -- the only place he was happy was the army. But his position in Afghanistan was exposed. Had to go. And you know, it's really been tough for him. And so as a consequence, I think, this is freedom that he wants. It's just a shame because they were -- you know, this was -- it's just a shame.

WHITFIELD: Yes. And you're saying it's a shame because you immediately think of the dynamic between the brothers?

WILLIAMS: I think of the dynamic between the brothers but I also think that Harry and Meghan, they really wanted full roles here in the UK, they wanted full roles as royals. And in less than two years after the royal wedding, they really have been chased out.

[16:30:00]

And I think, you know, the British needs to have a hard look at itself about the racism, about the sexism, about Meghan's treatment by our tabloid press. The queen even acknowledged that in her statement last night saying --

WHITFIELD: Yes.

WILLIAMS: -- she saw and understood the scrutiny --

WHITFIELD: So, they took control.

WILLIAMS: -- and royals never normally say that. They took control. And I -- they took control. And I think Meghan and Harry have suffered a lot. And, you know, we thought we learned after Diana that women who marry into the royal family do get treated badly. But Meghan, it was unprecedented.

So, it's a real shame, I think, that these two young people who had so much to give to the royal family, they have star power -- star power. They're superstars.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

WILLIAMS: They really, you know, attracted a huge new demographic for the royal family. Now, without them, the royal family -- well, it looks a bit stale.

WHITFIELD: Interesting. Kate Williams, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

WILLIAMS: Thank you so much, Fredricka. Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, straight ahead, a state of emergency in Virginia ahead of tomorrow's scheduled gun rights rally enrichment details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:35:17]

WHITFIELD: All right. The FBI is working with law enforcement in Richmond, Virginia ahead of a big, scheduled gun rights rally tomorrow. A state of emergency is in effect and a temporary weapons ban is in place on state capitol grounds amid increased threats of violence.

Officials hope to prevent a repeat of the deadly violence in Charlottesville in 2017. Extremist groups are expected to show up in large numbers to protest new gun control measures.

Seven alleged white supremacists have already been arrested around the country. Police say three of them planned to incite violence at that rally.

Joining me now, Areva Martin, a civil rights attorney and a CNN legal analyst. Also joining us is Tim Wise, an anti-racism activist and the author of several books including "Dear White America." Good to see both of you.

So, Areva, you first. You know, organizers say the rally has nothing to do with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday but it does happen to fall on the holiday honoring the civil rights icon. Don't you need a permit for this kind of gathering? And wouldn't the holiday have been taken into consideration?

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Fredricka. What we know is that white supremacists have a history of using MLK Day as a day to galvanize their members and to provoke violence. They have been opposed to MLK Day being a federal holiday since it was deemed so in 1983.

So, I don't take seriously the comments that this rally is not about provoking those fears and using it to bring white supremacists together. The comments that we've seen online, the kind of rhetoric that, you know, has been used with respect to this, the arrests that have been made all speak to these individuals coming together to stoke fears and to promote violence.

WHITFIELD: And Tim, tell me what you think when you see that President Trump, you know, tweeted out this in reference to this planned rally. Our "Second Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia. That's what happens when you vote for Democrats. They will take your guns away."

TIM WISE, AUTHOR: Right. Well, you know, when President Obama was in office, the same kind of right wing, far right supposed gun rights groups, many of them connected to white supremacist engaged in a pretty significant backlash. They were yelling and screaming. He's going to take our guns. He's going to take our guns. And of course, he didn't.

Now, with Donald Trump, they're not engaged in backlash. One of theirs is empowered. They're engaged in a front lash because they realized that this president has already given aid and comfort to people like them after Charlottesville.

They know that even if someone were to die, God forbid, as a result of their activities as happened in Charlottesville, this is a president who will turn around and try to find balance, try to find -- well, there's good and bad on both sides when only one side is killing anyone, and only one side is threatening violence and that's the side that's organizing tomorrow.

So, I think they see his words and his actions as an invitation to do whatever it is they wish to do because that's what they've seen from this president for the last two-and-a-half to three years. This is not leadership. This is a failure of leadership and encouraging the most extreme forces in this country today.

WHITFIELD: The top Republican in the Virginia State House struck a different tone, releasing a statement saying, quote, "Any group that comes to Richmond to spread white supremacist garbage or any other form of hate, violence or civil unrest isn't welcome here. While we and our Democratic colleagues may have differences, we are all Virginians and we will stand united in opposition to any threats of violence or civil unrest from any charter."

Areva, you know, what kind of impact does that make or as a prelude to the scheduled event?

MARTIN: Well clearly, Fred, we want to see these kinds of statements, these anti, you know, violence statements made by the Republican legislators in that state. But you have to do more. We need more than words. We need action. So, it's not enough to make these statements on the eve of this kind of rally.

You know, what kinds of policies are they enacting? What kinds of policies are they supporting that really speak to a more inclusive society and that really speak to, you know, taking seriously the kind of violence and hate that these groups spread?

And I want to see more from these GOP legislators. I think this statement is a good first step. And I think the efforts, the coordinated efforts, between law enforcement, the FBI, the courts, and the legislature in terms of trying to intercept the violence that is -- was planned for this rally tomorrow, those are all good steps. But we need a lot more if we're going to really address the issue of violence and white supremacy in this country.

WHITFIELD: And Tim, you take issue with how some other lawmakers have responded to threats from white supremacists and other hate groups.

WISE: Well --

WHITFIELD: Does that statement, you know, assist in anyway?

[16:40:05]

WISE: Well, I mean, you know, it's a little too late. I mean, the reality is, sure, it's great when we condemn these kinds of activities. But this is par for the course. And I just want to make sure we also think about this for a second. I want us to imagine that a group not of right-wing white people, but a group of black folks, a group of Latino folks, a group of Muslim folk of whatever color. We're saying we're going to gather at an American statehouse or maybe in front of Congress with weapons to protest laws that we don't like.

Do we think for one second that the president of the United States and other leaders and commentators would just look at it and go, oh this is a very bold statement of constitutional liberty. No. They would be calling it insurrection. They'd be calling it terrorism.

But when white folks gather with a bunch of guns and essentially threaten civil war, we just sort of sit back and go, gosh, isn't that funny? Isn't that interesting? We would never respond the same way if these folks were black and brown. And anyone who's honest knows it.

WHITFIELD: And Areva, what do you think about Virginia Governor Ralph Northam how he is interjected into this particularly after his blackface scandal?

MARTIN: Yes. He has so little credibility, I think, in the state, Fred, and definitely amongst the African-American community. He has been, in some ways, the face of what we are experiencing with respect to this rally.

So, it's a little ironic that he is taking the charge and that he's the leader that has to be the one on the front lines calling for calm, calling for peace with respect to this rally.

I think, too, when you think about Martin Luther King and everything that he stood for and the iconic, you know, figure that he is, to have his holiday, to have this distraction, to have people coming to Richmond for the sole purpose of provoking violence and spreading this kind of hate is really such a disservice to Martin Luther King and his life and his legacy.

And I'm so proud of the religious leaders and activists that are standing up against this kind of hate and saying despite the efforts of these types of groups like the ones that are going to be marching in Richmond that we still support, you know, democracy in this country and we still stand for inclusion in a way that, you know, is so antithetical to what we're going to see at this rally tomorrow.

WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it there for now. Areva Martin, Tim Wise, good to see you both. Thank you so much.

WISE: Thank you.

MARTIN: Thanks, Fred.

WHITFIELD: And now this, a different way to mark the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. For the first time in its nearly 250-year history, the U.S. Navy plans to name an aircraft carrier after a black sailor.

Doris Miller was the first black man to receive the Navy Cross for valor in 1942. He earned it for using a machine gun to return fire on Japanese planes during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Back then, black sailors were not trained for combat roles. Miller died in 1943 after a Japanese submarine sank his ship in the Pacific.

Back then, newspapers described Miller as an unnamed Negro mess man hero. But tomorrow, a $15 billion aircraft carrier will bear his name just in time for his family and on the day marking Martin Luther King, Jr.

We are back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:47:58]

WHITFIELD: Hollywood honors its best tonight as the Screen Actors Guild host the "SAG Awards" at the Shrine Auditorium. And tonight's winners could foreshadow the big Oscar winners. Here's CNN's Stephanie Elam.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Brad Pitt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brad Pitt.

LUPITA NYONG'O, ACTOR: Brad Pitt.

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This year's best bets like Brad Pitt.

BRAD PITT, ACTOR: Anybody accidentally kills anybody in a fight, they go to jail.

ELAM: And Renee Zellweger as Judy Garland will get their first major Oscar test at the Screen Actors Guild Awards since these voters also make up the largest bloc of Oscar voters.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How was it for you taking on this role and working the (INAUDIBLE)?

PITT: Just my mom didn't like the language.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What about the violence?

PITT: You know, she didn't mention the violence, funny enough.

ELAM: Pitt, once upon a time in Hollywood, will go head to head with "The Irishman," once both Oscar front-runners.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."

ELAM: "Once Upon a Time" has grabbed the momentum so far. But the "SAG Awards" could bring a "Parasite" upset. The Korean film is paving its way to history and could be the first international film to win a best picture Oscar. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it okay with you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think that just shows that the "Parasite" has overcome the language barrier and the barrier of subtitles.

ELAM: It's a hill "Roma" couldn't climb last year. But the "Academy" keeps growing its international base.

SCOTT FEINBERG, AWARDS COLUMNIST, THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: Things that might have previously deterred the "Academy" like subtitles may not bother as many people who are used to watching even American movies with subtitles.

ELAM: Diversity, or lack thereof, is a running theme this award season --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congratulations to those men.

ELAM: -- with the "Oscars" shutting out both female director candidates and many actors of color. "SAG" breaks that mold for nominations for performers including Lupita Nyong'o in "Us" and "Harriet" Cynthia Erivo.

CYNTHIA ERIVO, ACTRESS, "HARRIET": I think there aren't enough roles for us yet. And I that that causes upset.

ELAM: "SAG" continues the Robert de Niro snub, his disappointing award season evident when he finally took the stage at the "Critics Choice Awards".

ROBERT DE NIRO: I wasn't expecting it, frankly, at this point. But it's great.

ELAM: Still the "SAG Awards" come with consolation. De Niro will get a lifetime achievement award.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[16:50:07]

WHITFIELD: And there she is, dazzling on the red carpet, in emerald green. Hello, Stephanie Elam. All right. Who are you seeing there?

ELAM: Hello, Fred.

WHITFIELD: And who is seeing you?

ELAM: Well, you know what, right now, the carpet just opened. And it is a silver carpet this year which is --

WHITFIELD: Yes.

ELAM: -- we're seeing a lot of silver out here.

WHITFIELD: OK.

ELAM: But I have to say as the carpet is getting ready, people are walking around. There's some puppies behind us walking by, sure.

I have to tell you, though one thing we have to talk about is Joaquin Phoenix. When you take a look at his performance in "Joker", people did not think that at the time it was going to be a candidate. But now, he's running away. He is winning all these awards. If he wins again tonight that's a pretty big sign for what can happen at "Oscars". So, that's something people have been talking about the awards.

But because of the darkness of that movie, people kind of dismissed it at the time. But it's clearly one that the industry has enjoyed the performance of this one actor for sure.

WHITFIELD: And he does traditionally bring it on his performances. OK. Now, let's talk about the TV side, you know. Who are you watching?

ELAM: Well, you know what? You got to talk about Jharrell Jerome. He plays Korey Wise in Ava DuVernay's "When They See Us". His performance is so strong in that he did win an "Emmy". He also won a "Critic's Choice Award". It will be interesting to see if he wins tonight.

Now, the "Golden Globes" did give this award to Russell Crowe for his portrayal of Roger Ailes in "The Loudest Voice". So, that is one to watch as well.

And also, this is the last time that we're going to see "Game of Thrones" up for an award. We'll have to see if whether or not it gets it on its final bow here at the "Screen Actors Guild Award".

But other things to keep your eyes on are the morning show because three of those actors; Jennifer Aniston, Steve Carell, and Billy Crudup are all up for acting nods there. So, that's another thing to keep your eyes on on the TV side.

There is so much content out there.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

ELAM: It's almost hard for everyone to keep up, Fred, to keep up with all these different shows.

WHITFIELD: And I got to catch up with a whole lot of that content. And besides the emerald, the hair is bumping, too. Stephanie, you look great. Thanks for bringing that to us.

ELAM: Thank you. Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right. We'll be watching tonight.

Up next, a disturbing discovery more than two years after Hurricane Maria, supplies locked away in a warehouse far from the survivors who desperately needed it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:57:02] WHITFIELD: In Puerto Rico, outrage is growing after a stash of untouched emergency supplies was discovered at a warehouse. That aid is believed to be from Hurricane Maria. Which means, it's been sitting around for more than two years.

Puerto Rico's governor has responded by firing the island's emergency manager. But people there are demanding answers.

CNN's Rafael Romo is in Ponce, Puerto Rico. So, Rafael, this happened in the town that you're in. Tell us, do we know how many people could have been assisted by that supply?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: If what the reports have been saying is true, many, many people could have been helped with this aid, Fredricka. And this is the warehouse in question where I am that is now being heavily guarded by members of the Puerto Rico National Guard and also the state police.

Access to the public here in this area of the Port of Ponce is very restricted. And what happened, Fredricka, was that at about noon yesterday, there was a report that it was shared on social media here in Puerto Rico that spread like wildfire saying that emergency aid meant for victims of Hurricane Maria two years ago was still sitting here and had never been distributed.

That prompted about 200 people. And we were here when they came. They came here and lifted up the metal gates and wanted to check for themselves what was inside.

They found baby formula, water, cots, other basic necessities. And the man in charge, Carlos Acevedo, he is in charge of the, up until yesterday, the Office of Emergency Management here in Puerto Rico, said that there was no mishandling, that they had been distributing that.

But it was a little too late for Governor Wanda Vazquez who said that she was effective immediately dismissing Mr. Acevedo and ordering an investigation by the Secretary of State which is going to have 48 hours to find out exactly what happened here, Fredricka.

In the meantime, here on the island, we still have about 7,100 people who are living in shelters. And we have heard complaints that they don't have enough food, water, and some of the basic necessities that they need --

WHITFIELD: Oh my God. ROMO: -- after this new crisis, a series of earthquakes. Fredricka, back to you.

WHITFIELD: Yes. Right. So, I mean, double whammy, you know, the need after the hurricane, the need after the aftershocks. But wait a minute, so back to all those supplies, a lot of those things you mentioned would have expiration dates, like baby formula. Is any of this salvageable, you know, even sometimes bottled water has an expiration date. Are any of those things they can still be used? ROMO: Many of the stuff we're talking about has not expired. But there are also many pallets of water, baby formula that are very questionable. And the reality is that the investigation is barely beginning.

WHITFIELD: OK.

ROMO: And they're going to find out how much of the food is expired.

WHITFIELD: Yes.

ROMO: And how soon they can distribute to those who need it, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right. Got it. Rafael Romo, thank you so much for reporting. Appreciate it.

And thank you so much for watching. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. More NEWSROOM straight ahead.