Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Impassioned Start For President Trump's Impeachment Trial In The Senate This Week; Active Shooter Situation In Hawaii; Elie Honig Answers Legal Questions In "Cross-Exam"; Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg Is In Tulsa To Woo African-American Voters; Prince Harry Addresses Exit From The Royal Family; Screen Actors Guild Awards Gets Underway As Award Season Starts. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired January 19, 2020 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: All right. Got it. Rafael Romo, thank you so much for your reporting. Appreciate it. And thank you so much for watching. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. More NEWSROOM straight ahead.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. And buckle up, all signs point to a wild and contentious start to President Trump's impeachment trial this week.

The House impeachment managers gathering on the Hill right now to hash out their strategy after laying out their case this week in then a brief, that's more than 100 pages long, and they assert President Trump's conduct is the framer's worst nightmare.

History will judge each senator's willingness to rise above partisan differences, view the facts honestly and defend the Constitution. The president's lawyers now have until tomorrow to file their detailed brief.

But in a six-page initial response last night, they took scorched earth approach to this case laid out by the House declaring that articles themselves and rigged process that brought them here are a transparently political act by House Democrats.

Now, 100 U.S. senators will decide this case and Tuesday's debate over the trial rules will be the first test of whether Republicans are open to breaking from their president.

Let's get right to CNN's Sarah Westwood on Capitol Hill where the House impeachment managers are meeting today. Sarah, what's the latest?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Ana, some of those seven House managers have been filtering in and out of the Speaker's office over the past five hours since this began. They haven't really been taking our questions about how this prep session is going, but obviously the House Democrats have a lot to get to.

They were just -- their identities just unveiled late last week and yet they have to be prepared to present on the floor of the Senate by Tuesday when the Senate trial gets under way in earnest.

So they are going through who will present what arguments, what is the best way to lay out what they have described as the overwhelming evidence they have against President Trump.

Last night, we got a glimpse at what their case will look like. The House Democrats did file their trial brief. And from it, Ana, we learned that Democrats do want to present new evidence, evidence that was not included before the House voted for impeachment.

That's documents provided by Lev Parnas, an associate of the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Republicans have thought to limit what the Democrats can produce on the floor to what existed when the House voted for the articles. So that is something, Ana, you can expect to see hashed out when senators convene for that trial on Tuesday.

CABRERA: And let's talk about how Trump's legal team is now arguing against these two articles of impeachment, and let's start with the first article, abuse of power.

WESTWOOD: That's right, Ana. Last night in a response to the summons, the White House legal team essentially laid out a thorough overview of what will be their defense of against each article of impeachment.

So starting with that abuse of power article, the president's legal team argued that essentially some of the facts that the Democrats gathered to prove that the president committed abuse of power contradict their own allegations. They wrote, "House Democrats' abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution."

Now, they cite denials from Ukrainian officials including Ukrainian President Zelensky that anyone in Kiev felt pressure from the president to carry out his bidding, to carry out these political investigations. They pointed that as evidence that the president was not trying to use influence to hurt his political rivals.

They also cite testimony from ambassador to the E.U., Gordon Sondland, who testifies that the president told him in a phone call that there was no quid pro quo with regards to that aid to Ukraine. Sondland's testimony is something that the Democrats relied on heavily to build their case.

They also note that the president brought up on the two phone calls with Ukrainian President Zelensky things that were in the U.S. national interest that a president would be expected to talk to another foreign leader about like burden sharing and corruption in Ukraine.

So that is really the heart -- at the heart of the White House legal team defense against that first article of impeachment.

CABRERA: The second article is obstruction of Congress. What's their argument against that? WESTWOOD: That's right. And here, the White House legal team

essentially lays out an argument that points to what they describe as unfair procedural -- what was followed in the House as being unfair and they point to that as the reason why what the president did doesn't rise to the level of obstruction of Congress.

I want to read you part of that argument. "The president's assertion of legitimate executive branch confidentiality interest grounded in the separation of powers cannot constitute obstruction of Congress."

Now, they argue that what Democrats pushed for was confidential, was related to national security deliberations and therefore, would be expected to be protected by privilege and that's why they didn't provide some of those documents and testimony requested by the Democrats.

They also highlight House Democrats' failure to enforce their own subpoenas. They argue that those subpoenas were constitutionally invalid.

[17:05:02]

So they are blaming the House Democrats for the way they conducted the impeachment inquiry for why the president did not cooperate and that is at the heart of the defense against that second article of impeachment, Ana.

CABRERA: All right. Thank you so much, Sarah, for laying it all out for us. Sarah Westwood on Capitol Hill. Joining us now is John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Nixon whose testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 marked the beginning of the end for Nixon's presidency. John, thank you for being here.

JOHN DEAN, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Pleasure.

CABRERA: We have big week ahead of us. How are you reading Trump's legal team strategy here based on what we know now from this brief? Is it more of a, you know, he did it, yes, sure, but he, you know, it's not impeachable or is it just deny, he did anything wrong all together?

DEAN: I liked your intro, scorched earth. That's exactly what it was. I think it's actually going to insult some of the lawyers in the Senate if they're more detailed brief is of the same tone. They're making a serious mistake. Lawyers are not going to buy into this. Most members of the Senate, both parties are lawyers.

So, it is a blast them, distort the facts, untruthful statements, pick out little teeny things that he did right and say that's the action and leave out the fact that the articles of impeachment call for his abuse of a scheme to abuse his process and abuse his office.

And that's really what it was. And the House has evidence, as you well know. Any news person -- any person following the news would know it's been going on for months, involved multiple people. It wasn't just two phone calls to the president of Ukraine. CABRERA: But could a scorched earth approach work in terms of being

persuasive to the American people --

DEAN: The base.

CABRERA: -- and that they're able to, you know, grab on to something that is easy to understand, they're coming across as, you know, forceful and powerful? Do you think it works with the base but anyone beyond that?

DEAN: I actually thought Trump might have dictated part of this brief, like he did the letter that Cipollone sent to the Congress saying what they were doing was not proper. It's of that vernacular. It's not legally sophisticated. It obviously plays to the base.

CABRERA: Is it a strong legal argument?

DEAN: No, they are not strong legal arguments and they will not weather the arguments on the floor.

CABRERA: They're already arguing about the Democrats' brief. We heard from Alan Dershowitz who is now a member of the president's legal defense team this morning. Here is what he said about all the evidence laid out in the Democrats' brief.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, COUNSEL, TRUMP LEGAL TEAM DEFENSE: 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)

CABRERA: What's your reaction to that?

DEAN: Well, Alan is of counsel. He's not actually a member of the president's legal team. He's of counsel. He explained one point today that he was asked by the president's counsel to represent him. It's not clear if he's representing the Office of the President or Donald Trump.

If he's getting paid by the government, he's got to represent the office. And there is a distinction in the arguments you can make. He also is really taking on some heavy sledding, like Alexander Hamilton, which is the founder who thought this was an important process that he says really there can be no abuse of power.

CABRERA: You see it differently?

DEAN: It's -- I'm with Hamilton. That's why they put it in there, was for abuse of power.

CABRERA: Let me ask you about the president in how he may handle all of this based on what we already know how he's treated lawyers in the past and how he treats his advisers.

One of his former lawyers, Jay Goldberg, told CNN, "He believes Trump will be respectful of the process. It will shock you. After he's acquitted, then he will open up on the Democrats. The case will proceed in a very orderly way, without showmanship, because the president's lawyer, Pat, is a conservative lawyer, erudite and he will call the shots."

Do you really think the president will just sit back and let his lawyers call the shots?

DEAN: Doubtful. That isn't the way he treats his lawyers. I'm told from people who have represented him that he's all over his lawyers. We've seen that -- we saw it in testimony from no less than Don McGahn who we have records from the special counsel where the president is telling his lawyer to break the law.

[17:10:02]

So, that might be one past lawyer's take. It isn't the norm at the White House.

CABRERA: Let's talk about witnesses because we know Lev Parnas is somebody that Democrats, in particular, are contemplating calling. He has provided a lot of this evidence that's come out in the past few weeks since the articles were already voted on, they were withheld, and before being sent over to the Senate. Here is what he is talking about getting Lev Parnas is that now indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANIL: I basically told them very strict and very stern that several things. A, that he needed to make -- Zelensky needed to immediately make an announcement, literally that night or tomorrow, within the next 24 hours, that they were opening up an investigation on Biden.

If they didn't make the announcement, basically there would be no relationship, not just -- it was no specific military, there was no aid that was going to be assisted.

There was going to be no inauguration. Pence wouldn't be at the inauguration and there would be no visit to the White House. There would be -- basically, they would have no communication.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Parnas says he knows a lot but he has credibility issues, right?

DEAN: He does. CABRERA: What's the risk versus reward of having him testify?

DEAN: Well, he can corroborate himself apparently, on some issues. He's got documents with a little investigative undertaking. They can probably get other witnesses who can corroborate him. They'll have telephone calls, phone records, things of that nature that partially corroborate him. So, he could well end up a witness.

Now, there's a big mistake in the public's mind about what a witness is in an impeachment proceeding. Since the Clinton proceeding, what has happened is these are depositions that are taken off the Senate floor typically at another room in the Senate.

CABRERA: They don't have to be off the Senate floor, do they?

DEAN: They don't have to but that's, you know, you don't know what's going to happen in a live deposition so typically depositions are taken so they don't waste the senators' times.

They can actually focus on getting the information they want or the cross examination they want. So these are going to be likely video depositions that will be -- that's what happened during the Clinton, they have big screens --

CABRERA: Right.

DEAN: -- and then they used depositions, in that way they can narrow it down to just what they want to put in --

CABRERA: Should it be all or none as far as the witnesses go, for example, you know, John Bolton's top of the list for Democrats, but then Hunter Biden is top of the list for Republicans?

DEAN: Well, you know, I have no reason they shouldn't all testify. I think that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, if he's called, call their bluff. It does not help the president's case at all to have them come in. Now, if they can dig up some dirt along the way on Hunlter Biden, they're really not going to get it into the trial.

CABRERA: But it might hurt Joe Biden, couldn't it?

DEAN: It might hurt Joe Biden is right. But the bigger issue is what Donald Trump did. The more witnesses that come in, the clearer the record is going to be that this is unexceptional and extraordinary behavior by a president to do a shakedown of a foreign country for your own benefit, for your election, re-election. And he knows better, because he was investigated for that very issue.

CABRERA: John Dean, it's great to have your insights and expertise. I really do appreciate you joining us.

CABRERA: Thank you Ana. Thank you.

CABRERA: Thanks. Breaking news out of Hawaii, the FBI on the scene of an active shooter situation with reports that two police officers have been killed. We'll get a live report when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

CABRERA: Breaking news now. This is from Hawaii where CNN affiliate is reporting that at least two police officers are dead, killed in a shootout that might still be an active emergency situation. CNN has not yet independently confirmed that.

But these are images from a residential area not far from Diamondhead outside Honolulu. Heavy police and fire department presence you can see there on scene. CNN's Alexandra Field is gathering details. Alex, what happened there? Is this incident over?

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ana, a chaotic and alarming series of events there. You saw that smoke pouring out. People also hearing the gunshots ringing out on a Sunday morning in Honolulu in the Diamondhead area.

It is a residential area where our affiliate in Hawaii is now is reporting that two officers were killed in a shooting. They went on to say that the shooting suspect, according to this affiliate, is also responsible for setting fire to a home in that residential neighborhood.

Video shows several other homes also engulfed in flames on the same block. Police in Honolulu tweeted out that they had shut down part of that neighborhood for their investigation. Earlier, the FBI confirmed that they were responding to an active shooter situation. No update at this point as to whether or not they have contained the shooter.

A lot of focus right now, of course, on the loss of those two officers with the mayor of Honolulu tweeting this, saying that, "This is an unprecedented tragedy for not only the city and county of Honolulu, but the entire state of Hawaii. Our office is in communication with the Honolulu Police Department as more details about the circumstances around this horrific event come to light. Our hearts go out to the first responders who are on the scene as this event unfolds."

You can see some of the images there of the heavy police presence that had swarmed that neighborhood this morning in Honolulu, Ana. It is not far from the popular Waikiki Beach tourist destination.

CABRERA: Okay, Alexandra Field, thank you for that report. Please do keep us posted if you learn more.

Now back to politics and a growing debate over whether new witnesses and documents will be allowed at the president's upcoming impeachment trial. House Democrats serving as impeachment managers have made clear that allowing new evidence and testimony is essential to ensuring a fair trial.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We believe a fair trial involves witnesses. It involves evidence. It involves documents. [17:20:00]

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): There is ample evidence, overwhelming evidence, any jury would convict in three minutes flat, that the president betrayed his country by breaking the law.

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): My immediate response is let's call the witnesses then. That's what over 70 percent of the American people are asking for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: In such a momentous week, we are doing a special edition of "Cross-Exam" tonight. CNN legal analyst and federal prosecutor Elie Honig is going to work overtime and come back every single hour to answer your questions.

Okay, you called it the Super Bowl for people in your shoes. We have a lot to discuss tonight, Elie. One viewer talks about how since this impeachment began when the House passed the articles, more evidence has come to light. And they want to know, will House managers be able to use it?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, it's remarkable, Ana, first of all to see just how much new evidence has emerged over the past weeks and even days. We've seen important new internal e-mails about the hold on aid to Ukraine.

We've heard John Bolton, who has now said he will testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. And of course, just very recently, Lev Parnas has come forward with potentially damaging information about the president and Rudy Giuliani.

Now, if this was a criminal case like I came up doing or a civil case, no question, new evidence can come in. It's admissible. We used to investigate during trial right up until the jury got the case. I had cases we found important new evidence right on the eve of sending the case into the jury.

So, that's how it would work out if this is a criminal case, but its impeachment. Things are different in impeachment. There's a couple of different ways this could go. There could be an agreement between McConnell and Schumer as to which evidence comes in. Not very likely, but possible.

Now, the constitution tells us the Chief Justice, John Roberts here, shall preside. We saw him sworn in last week. And the Senate has its own rules saying that evidentiary questions go to the Chief Justice. He can either punt it, say I don't want to decide. Senate, you decide or he can decide.

But then those Senate rules say the Senate can overrule the Chief Justice. Now, that's legally controversial. I believe the Chief Justice prevails in that situation. A lot of smart people agree with me. I said it last week. A lot of smart people disagreed with what I said last week, but we will see. I mean, ultimately, I don't think there's any way the Senate overrules

the Chief Justice if he decides to rule on those questions of evidence.

CABRERA: Okay, let's talk about the impeachment teams here. We have Speaker Pelosi, who chose seven members of the House to serve as House managers. One viewer asked if were they the right people and what do those selections indicate strategically.

HONIG: Yes. So first of all, the House managers are the people responsible for essentially prosecuting the case for impeachment. I think Nancy Pelosi made some smart decisions here. First of all, in limiting the team to seven House managers for comparison sake, in the Bill Clinton impeachment, there were 13. That's a lot of cooks in the kitchen.

Again, in a regular criminal prosecution, even the most complex cases you have three, maybe in a super complex case, four prosecutors. So, seven is a more sort of reasonable number. And if you look at the lineup here, there's a real focus on litigators, courtroom lawyers and law enforcement people.

Adam Schiff, former prosecutor, Val Demmings, former police chief. The other five all have law degrees. So that tells me that they're taking a prosecutorial approach here. They're focusing on substance over political showmanship.

And you can see that in the brief they put in just yesterday. It reminds me of a prosecution memo that we used to write in the U.S. Attorney's Office. So look for that very straight forward prosecutorial type approach.

CABRERA: Okay. Now, on the president's legal team, a viewer asked, what do you make of it, and do his choices signal any specific strategy.

HONIG: So slightly different dynamic here. The president has chosen a combination of White House counsel Pat Cippilone anda team of private attorneys including high-profile names, Alan Dershowitz, Rob Ray -- Robert Ray has been here with you. I've argued and disagreed with him on impeachment.

CABRERA: We've talked about it with him.

HONIG: Yes. Pam Bondi, Jay Sekulow. There's deep experience on the Trump team in criminal law particularly on the defense side. I mean, these lawyers collectively have represented everybody from O.J. Simpson to Jeffrey Epstein.

But the one that really stands out as a lightning rod for controversy to me is Ken Starr. And I think the risk for Trump here is that he will emerge as a symbol of hypocrisy because I think people know he was the independent counsel who pursued Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

And on a couple of important points, first of all witnesses, we talked about in the beginning. I mean, Ken Starr turned over heaven and earth in his investigation of Bill Clinton.

He talked to everyone who ever had known Monica Lewinsky, ex- boyfriends, teachers -- he talked to other witnesses' dentist. He talked to White House window washers. And here he is going to say, but you shouldn't be hearing from primary witnesses.

And most fundamentally, this is a guy who tried to get Bill Clinton thrown out of office for lying under oath about sex. Now, he's going to defend this president who has been impeached for using the power of the presidency to try to get a foreign country to interfere with our election. That's going to be really hard to square.

CABRERA: Elie Honig, good to have you --

HONIG: All right.

CABRERA: -- and your legal expertise. Thank you. Keep your questions coming in. Elie is back next hour to answer more of them. Just head to his "Cross-Exam" column at cnn.com/opinion.

Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg spending the day at the site of one of the worst racial massacres in American history, but will his message work to woo Black voters?

[17:25:04]

You are live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: On the eve of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday, Michael Bloomberg today took his bid to be the Democratic nominee for president to the site of Tulsa, Oklahoma's historic 1921 race massacre. In a speech delivered a short time ago, Bloomberg proposed a multibillion dollar initiative that he says will help deliver economic justice to African-Americans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I often say my story would only have been possible in America, and I think that's true.

[17:30:00]

But I also know that my story would have turned out very differently if I had been black, and that more black Americans of my generation would have ended up with far more wealth had they been white.

Instead, they've had to struggle to overcome great odds because their families started out further behind and were excluded from opportunities in housing and employment, education and others.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: CNN politics and business correspondent Cristina Alesci is joining us now. And Christina, Bloomberg asking for African-American support especially on the heels of his controversial stop and frisk policy as mayor of New York is a pretty big ask, but he's choosing to do this in Tulsa, Oklahoma, today. He's spending time there versus one of the early voting states. What is he trying to accomplish with this speech?

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN POLITICS AND BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, leading up to the speech, his advisers and his friends really told me this is an important one for him because they know he can't win the election without the Black vote.

And as you point out, some black Americans really feel like he didn't understand the implications of stop and frisk in New York, that policing tactic that predominantly targeted Blacks and minorities. And when he did apologize for it, the apology seemed insincere because it came on the eve of him announcing his run.

Now, a couple of things I want to point out from this speech. What I took away from it, was one, he acknowledged his white privilege, first and foremost. He humanized himself because he said, you know, I didn't know about the events like the ones in Greenwood and in other places in America until a year ago when he went there and he visited the place and he kind of opened himself up to vulnerability there.

And third, he did present some really great ideas about addressing how to fix the systemic racism. He said that he's going to try and eradicate the racism that exists in the housing market in terms of redlining and other practices that keep Blacks from home ownership.

He's going to increase the amount of support for Black entrepreneurship. He wants to double the amount of Black-owned businesses. And look, his team picked Greenwood. It is a very symbolic place because it was a thriving place for Black-owned businesses in the early 1900s.

And in the 1920, a black -- a white mob basically destroyed the neighborhood and, you know, these things happened all across the country. And in this speech, he said all children have to be educated about this across America.

CABRERA: Cristina Alesci, thank you very much for being here, for reporting that out for us. Still ahead, for the first time, Prince Harry is addressing his exit from the royal family in a new video where he says I want you to hear the truth from me. We have his message, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:00]

CABRERA: Breaking news. In video published to his Sussex royal Instagram page, Prince Harry has just publicly addressed the decision by him and his wife, Meghan, to leave their royal lives behind. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX: Good evening, everyone and thank you

very much for being here for Sentebale, a charity that myself and Prince Seeiso created all the way back in 2006 to honor our mother's legacy and supporting those affected by HIV and AIDS.

Before I begin, I must say that I can only imagine what you may have heard or perhaps read over the past few weeks. So, I want you to hear the truth from me as much as I can share, not as a prince or a duke, but as Harry, the same person that many of you have watched grow up over the last 35 years, but now with a clearer perspective.

The U.K. is my home and a place that I love. That will never change. I have grown up feeling supported from so many of you and I watched as you welcomed Meghan with open arms as you saw me find the love and happiness that I had hoped for all my life.

Finally, the second son of Diana got hitched. Hooray. I also know that you've come to know me well enough of all these years to trust that the woman I chose as my wife upholds the same values as I do, and she does. And she's the same woman I fell in love with.

We both do everything we can to fly the flag and carry out our roles for this country with pride. Once Meghan and I were married, we were excited, we were hopeful, and we were here to serve. For those reasons, it brings me great sadness that it has come to this.

The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly. It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges. And I know I haven't always gotten it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option.

What I want to make clear is, we're not walking away and we certainly aren't walking away from you. Our hope was to continue serving the Queen, the Commonwealth and my military associations, but without public funding.

Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. I've accepted this, knowing that it doesn't change who I am or how committed I am, but I hope that helps you understand what it had come to, that I would step my family back from all I have ever known, to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life.

[17:40:02]

I was born into this life and it is a great honor to serve my country and the Queen. When I lost my mom 23 years ago, you took me under your wing. You looked out for me for so long, but the media is a powerful force. And my hope is one day our collective support for each other can be more powerful because this is so much bigger than just us.

It has been our privilege to serve you and we will continue to lead a life of service. So, in that respect, nothing changes. It has also been a privilege to meet so many of you and to feel your excitement for our son, Archie, who saw snow for the first time the other day and thought it was bloody brilliant. I will always have the utmost respect for my grandmother, my

commander-in-chief, and I'm incredibly grateful to her and the rest of my family for the support they have shown Meghan and I over the last few months.

I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear and dedicates his life to supporting the causes, charities and military communities that are important to me.

Together you have given me an education about living and this role has taught me more about what is right and just than I could ever have imagined. We are taking a leap of faith. So, thank you for giving me the courage to take this next step.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: There you have it. Let's bring in someone who knows the most players in all of this intimately. Patrick Jephson was Princess Diana's chief of staff. There you see some pictures of them together, and Patrick, I really want to lean in to your personal connection and knowledge of this family. What did you just hear and see there? What was your reaction?

PATRICK JEPHSON, PRINCESS DIANA'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF: Well, Ana, I think this is one of the most poignant bits of royal videotape I've ever seen. I think that really is Harry speaking from the heart. And I was just jotting down some of the things he referred to there.

The U.K. is my home where his wife was welcomed with open arms. He is taking this step back with great sadness. And I think there's no doubt from the way he delivered it and from the choice of subjects he gave as his examples, there is real sadness here and indeed, what we do know is that right across the family there is sadness because this is primarily a family crisis before it's a national or international news story. And the Queen addressed that quite directly in her statement.

CABRERA: Do you see much of Diana in Harry?

JEPHSON: I've always seen a lot of his mother in Prince Harry ever since he was a little boy. When, if you wanted him to do something, the best way was to get him to do the opposite. His mother was also pretty contrary. If you wanted to stop Diana doing something, suggest she should or vice versa.

And I think there is also this extraordinary gift that both harry and his mother share, which is the great talent to be able to speak right past men in suits and communications officers and secretaries, straight into the hearts of people.

And I think he is just doing it again here in this videotape. Especially here to the charity Sentebale, but also as he would have known, to the wider world and to all those Brits and others who admire and love the monarchy, that he still recognizes its great qualities. He holds them dear just as people around the world share that great faith and affection for the institution. CABRERA: In an interview last year, we heard Prince Harry talking

about his relationship with his brother and he appeared to confirm there had been some kind of a riff. I just want to play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCE HARRY: Part of the -- part of this role and part of this job and this family, being under the pressure that it's under and never to be, you know, stuff happens but like we're brothers. We'll always be brothers. And we're certainly on different paths in the moment but I will always be there for him, as I know he will always be there for me.

We don't see each other as much as we used to, because we're so busy, but, you know, I love him dearly and, you know, the majority of the stuff is probably -- the majority of the stuff is created out of nothing, but you know, as I said, as brothers, you know, you have good days, you have bad days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: You mentioned some sadness that you sense throughout the family right now. What do you think this change means for Harry and William's relationship?

JEPHSON: Well, we have to hope that this big decision is going to take Harry and Meghan and Archie, as Harry himself said, towards a more peaceful life, a happier life, a life where, in Meghan's words, they can thrive.

It does, of course, mean, though that this is going throw more work unto the remaining members of the royal family, William and Katherine especially.

[17:45:02]

And this, I think, Ana, really underlines the fact that although this is a family business, a dynasty, it's also a great institution of the British state. And we see here, in pretty raw terms, where the family meets the duty.

That always, as the Queen has shown by her own example, as the longest serving monarchy in British history, that when it comes to a competition between family and duty, duty must come first. And that, I think, is what we're seeing. This is the consequences of having to put duty first. You're in or you're out. And the message from the Queen is you're out.

CABRERA: And now Harry is saying -- and Harry is saying right back to her, family first, not duty first. I have to ask you about, you know, what this is going to mean for Harry because Meghan has lived in California, in Canada and the U.K. She has been a commoner and a royal.

But Harry has always been a royal. It's the only life he has ever known, even though this is something he wants. What challenges do you foresee for him in this transition?

JEPHSON: Well, there are going to be some nice challenges. I mean, I speak as a naturalized American citizen myself. I made the transition from U.K. to the U.S. It requires great commitment. It requires immersion, but the rewards are rich and they keep on coming.

But there will certainly be many challenges for Harry, perhaps most specifically the challenge that a lot of people, particularly maybe young men face when they move from a structured environment to essentially unstructured environment.

It's often said that Harry was happiest when he was in the army. There's nothing more structured than the military life. Buckingham Palace is a structured existence.

Now, well, we don't know, what is the shape of his life going to be? What is the system, the structure that's going to keep him happily employed, fulfilled in his work and to help both him and Meghan achieve their dreams?

CABRERA: Yes. Patrick Jephson, great to have you here. Thank you very much for taking the time.

JEPHSON: Thank you, Ana.

CABRERA: Don't forget, CNN will debut a new series about the world's most famous royal family next month, "The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty" premiers Sunday, February 16th at 10:00 p.m. eastern here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

CABRERA: In Hollywood, it's the season for red carpets and gold statues. The SAG or Screen Actors Guild Awards takes center stage tonight for academy award hopefuls.

This is an important night. These awards are pretty reliable indication of who might go home with Oscar glory in just a few weeks. CNN's Stephanie Elam joins us from Los Angeles with more on tonight festivities. Hey there Steph.

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ana. Yes, we are here on the silver carpet where you can see people are looking glam, getting ready for some of the big stars to arrive. The fans are in the stands waiting to see everyone looking glamorous and beautiful tonight.

And the reason why we pay so much attention on the Screen Actors Guild Awards because these are actors voting on their peers. And they also make up the largest voting block of the academy for the Oscars.

And so far, we've seen this award season that "Joker," the performance that we saw from Joaquin Phoenix has been running away with the awards in this category, which is noteworthy because when the movie came out, a lot of people thought it was very, very dark. They didn't think people were going to go for it, but Hollywood was

behind it. So that's one to watch. Also, the Judy Garland movie, "Judy," Renee Zellweger expected to win. And Brad Pitt expected to win for his portrayal in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."

On the T.V. side, last time that we'll see "Game of Thrones" to see if it will take an award. "The Morning Show" has three of its actors, Jennifer Aniston, Billy Crudup, and also Steve Carell up for awards. And watch for Jharrel Jerome from "When They See us." He's won an Emmy. He also went ahead and took a Critic's Choice Award. It will be interesting to see if he wins tonight as well, Ana.

CABRERA: All right. Stephanie Elam, looking very glam yourself my friend. Thank you very much.

We are continuing to follow our big story tonight as we gear up for a week that will come. Arguments in President Trump's impeachment trial get underway on Tuesday. And now we are learning the president made a personal appeal to the wife of one of his lawyers. We'll explain why he wanted her blessing and what it has to do with the impeachment trial.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN DEFTERIOS, CNN BUSINESS EMERGING MARKETS EDITOR (voice-over): This iconic New York City skyline is set to change over the next 10 years. Under 2019 City Climate Mobilization Act, buildings larger than 25,000 square feet must slash emissions by 40 percent.

(on camera): For over a century, success New York was defined by how high you could build or design. But in this modern age, value will be increasingly linked to energy efficiency in the buildings.

(voice-over): Once crowned the tallest skyscraper in the world, today, the Empire State building's green credentials are making headlines.

DANA SCHNEIDER, SENIOR V.P., ENERGY & SUSTAINABILITY, EMPIRE REAL ESTATE TRUST: We did a huge deep energy retrofit in this building starting in 2009 and we publicized all the work that we did. We shared everything in the hopes that we would not only succeed in the Empire State building, that we would motivate others to replicate what we had done.

DEFTERIOS (voice-over): The building's trust spent $550 million on initial energy upgrades.

[17:55:02]

More than 6,000 windows were changed, insulated and optimized for natural light within three years. Energy efficiency has reached 40 percent. Annual cash savings hit $4.4 million. In light of the new act, it will have to do even more. John Defterios, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:59:59]