Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Rules Established for Trump's Senate Impeachment Trial; Trump to Attend World Economic Forum During Trial; Prince Harry Expresses 'Great Sadness' Over Decision to Step Back; Scientist Says Volcano in Philippines is 'Recharging'; Coronavirus Outbreak. Aired 12-1a ET
Aired January 21, 2020 - 00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[00:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello and welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm John Vause at CNN World Headquarters.
Coming up, Trump's impeachment defense now comes down to a legal argument most experts dismiss as constitutional nonsense. But with Mitch McConnell writing the trial rules it probably doesn't even matter.
China dealing with a deadly new virus at the worst time of the year, hundreds of millions of people about to cram together as they journey home for the Lunar New Year.
And Huawei gets its moment in court with a pivotal hearing in Canada.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
VAUSE: It seems Donald Trump's defense strategy now comes down to this: he did nothing wrong; it's the articles of impeachment which are constitutionally invalid. The argument is not new. But it has been widely debunked as nonsense. But that may not matter given that the Senate leader Mitch McConnell has now released the rules for the trial and they are very favorable to the president. Kaitlan Collins begins our coverage.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: On the eve of his impeachment trial, President Trump's legal team is previewing its defense and calling on the Senate to swiftly acquit him. In a 110-page legal brief, Trump's attorneys argue that neither of the impeachment articles against him are valid, because they don't include violations of the law, writing, they do not remotely approach the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office.
The brief also indicates his legal team won't just attack the articles of impeachment, but also defend his conduct toward Ukraine, including floating a baseless and debunked theory that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election despite his former Russia ambassador testifying this.
FIONA HILL, TRUMP'S FORMER TOP RUSSIA EXPERT: This is a fictional narrative. This is being perpetrated and promulgated by the Russian services themselves.
COLLINS: In their own brief, Democrats argue the president solicited foreign interference in the next election for his own political benefit. What neither side seems to know is whether the trial will include new witnesses. Democrats say they'll force votes and say the White House claim that the articles are invalid is, quote, chilling and dead wrong.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We are going to demand votes, yes or no, up or down, on the four witnesses that we have requested.
COLLINS: But the president's legal team says that witnesses aren't needed.
ROBERT RAY, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT: It has to be fair. There has to be witnesses on both sides. It's very simple.
COLLINS: Trump's attorney Robert Ray did not answer whether the whole legal team has met in person yet. As one of the new attorneys, he says that he is not part of it and despite Trump personally asking him to join.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: I didn't even see the brief until after it was filed.
COLLINS: Alan Dershowitz is also reversing his stance on whether a president can be impeached without committing a crime.
This is what he said in 1998.
DERSHOWITZ: It certain doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime.
COLLINS: Now that he's representing Trump, he's arguing this.
DERSHOWITZ: Without a crime, there can be no impeachment.
COLLINS: This afternoon the president's legal team went to Capitol Hill to do one last walkthrough for that trial, walking around the Senate floor, going to the vice president's Senate office, which is where they will be working out of for the next several days and weeks as they wait to see how long this trial is going to last -- Kaitlan Collins, CNN, the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: Late Monday, Senate leader Mitch McConnell released the rules of the road for the president's trial. By rules of the road, think high speed trip on the autobahn, destination, freedom town. Manu Raju has the details. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Under the resolution, it would allow for up to 24 hours of debate on each side. That would have to be split for just two days each, essentially, 12 hours a day in which both the House impeachment managers would make their arguments for up to 12 hours on their side.
And when they are done with their day, they'll do another 12 hours the next day. Then, they will be done with their arguments. Then it will be time for the president's defense team to make up to 24 hours of arguments on their side.
At that point, senators would have up to 16 hours to ask questions to all of the people making the case on both sides. Then the question about witnesses would occur.
[00:05:00]
RAJU: And if there are no witnesses, Republicans don't have a majority to compel witnesses to come forward and if there is no majority, you could see a vote to acquit this president happening potentially even by next week.
It is still uncertain if that will happen but that is very possible. Democrats plan to object to how this is being laid out by Mitch McConnell. They plan to force a vote right off the top of tomorrow afternoon's debate to try to force witnesses to come forward, force documents to be produced that have been blocked by the White House.
Republicans plan to reject that and move forward on the opening arguments. They will worry about those issues later. So how this is laid, out expect a quick trial.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: Joining me now from Washington, CNN legal analyst Michael Zeldin.
It's been a while, it's good to see you.
I want to start with the two rules from Mitch McConnell. Firstly, the evidence from the House impeachment hearings will not automatically be admitted. It was during Bill Clinton's impeachment and, more importantly, the second to the last line reads, if the Senate agrees to allow either the House of Representatives or the president to subpoena witnesses, the witnesses shall first be deposed and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify, pursuant to the impeachment rules.
No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses.
Am I reading this right?
Does that mean that the Republicans, if they're unhappy with their testimony, they have the option to block the witness?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's not clear what they mean. In the Clinton impeachment, they wanted live witnesses to testify in the well of the Senate. And instead they reached an agreement where they would take their depositions in private.
And then they would play those depositions in the Senate in lieu of live witnesses. If that is what they are doing here, taping the testimony in a separate proceedings and then play it, that's not very different than Clinton.
If what they are saying is, we will tape the testimony and if we don't like it, if it's not favorable to our client, we will exclude it, that would be problematic to say the least.
VAUSE: It seems to be very vague, all of it it's very vague. A lot of holes there. We've heard from Trump's defense team about the strategy now, not to contest the basic facts, they will argue that the charges are unconstitutional because there is no violation of a law.
They argue that the standard would weaken the presidency and alter the balance among the branches of government in a manner that offends the constitutional design established by the founders.
The argument is, is it their least bad option?
Do they have anything else to argue?
ZELDIN: They are of the mind that they cannot defend the president on the facts. He made the call to Zelensky; he asked for the investigation of Biden and it's irrefutable that is what the case is.
They are left with saying two things: one, he did that, yes, but because he is president he gets to do that, he is entitled to do that.
Or in the alternative, he did that, he gets to do that and even if it is wrong, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, a high crime or a misdemeanor. It's not a great defense.
But we know that McConnell and the Republicans control the votes in the Senate. So the evidence and the truth of the proposition may not matter in how they vote to acquit or not acquit.
VAUSE: Alan Dershowitz, the famous lawyer defending President Trump, there was a time when he said impeachment did not require the violation of a law. But not now. Here he is a few hours ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP ATTORNEY: It is very clear now that what you need is criminal like behavior akin to bribery and treason. What is very clear is obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress or abuse of power aren't even close to what the framers had in mind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: Here's the founding father, Alexander Hamilton, speaking from the grave, part of an essay he wrote on impeachment in 1788.
"The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
It seems the argument was settled 230 years ago.
ZELDIN: Absolutely right.
[00:10:00]
ZELDIN: What he's trying to do is be cute by calling this criminal like behavior, so it's clear that he is in a vast minority by saying it has to be a crime. That has really been debunked as a constitutional theory.
So now he is in this criminal law like behavior. And that criminal law like behavior is exactly what abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is all about.
In fact, abuse of power has been articulated as a basis for impeachment in the Clinton case and obstruction of Congress is specifically denominated in the United States criminal code as a criminal offense.
So they are stretching the bounds of credulity to argue, as they are arguing but because they have no factual defense, this is all they are left with. That is why they don't want witnesses.
VAUSE: It's hard to find anyone who agrees with Dershowitz and the Trump team, that includes a very outspoken critic, Laurence Tribe from Harvard. Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURENCE TRIBE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: When Alan Dershowitz or anybody comes up and says, well, it's an abuse but it is not a crime or crimelike and therefore we cannot remove him for it, that's disgusting. There is no basis in our Constitution or our history for that.
It means that if Abraham Lincoln had said let the South go or let's give it to France, that would not have been a crime but surely it would have been impeachable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: At the end of the, day all of the legal arguments mean nothing, because the Republicans are determined to acquit the president.
What does that do in terms of precedent for future administrations?
ZELDIN: It's a very bad precedent, that the Republicans are arguing that the Democrats are setting a bad precedent by arguing that the president's obstruction of Congress amounts to an offense. That's basic blocking and tackling checks and balances built into our Constitution.
What they are doing, which is precluding evidence, testimony evidence, documentary evidence, railroading this trial through in two 12 hour sessions, which will be running through the middle of the night here, they are afraid of the facts and they are creating a sham trial process.
That is what will have the consequences going forward when you look at this historically, you will find the Republicans have been found wanting in terms of their constitutional responsibilities in the way they are proceeding so far.
VAUSE: It does make you wonder if they want to sign onto this and have it with them for all time. I guess we will find out.
ZELDIN: That's exactly right. And they take an oath of office and they take an oath at the impeachment trial to uphold and do impartial justice. They are in violation of that oath straightaway.
VAUSE: Michael, thank you.
VAUSE: A new CNN poll reveals this legal strategy by the president may have political consequences, with majority voters saying the impeachment charges are true. 58 percent believe the president did abuse the power of office to obtain personal and political benefit.
57 percent believe he obstructed the House of Representatives. Donald Trump is on its way to Davos but he made it clear he was feeling very unappreciated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The President of the United States who has led the latest economic revival of any country were doing better than any other country by far. It's the best we've been in far, unemployment, the best in the history of the country. And I have to go through a hoax?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: For the past days, the people infected with a new virus in China has tripled. And the government has acknowledged the health crisis for the first time.
Xi Jinping has ordered all out prevention and control efforts. The World Health Organization has acknowledged the virus is spreading by human to human transmission.
There are fears of a wider outbreak as millions of people travel home over the coming Chinese New Year holiday. So far, the virus has claimed four lives, infected more than 200.
The epicenter of the outbreak is the city of Wuhan but the disease has spread to other places such as Beijing and beyond. Two cases have been reported in Thailand, one case in South Korea and Japan.
[00:15:00]
VAUSE: For more now, CNN's David Culver joins us live.
It is notable President Xi has spoken publicly about this health emergency. Especially the need for timely information to be released to the public, because previous governments don't have the best record when it comes to being open and honest in times like this.
DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, you can go back to 2000 to 2003 when SARS was going around and there were accusations of things being under reported, misreported and things being covered up, essentially.
That even led to Beijing's mayor and the health minister at the time being fired, so for President Xi to come out in front of this and say he wants resolute efforts to stop the spread is certainly symbolic.
However, there are still questions on Chinese social media as to how much information is reliable, that's coming forth right now. So it's not that everyone here is comfortable with the information coming from health officials.
Nonetheless health officials are starting to paint a different picture than they were a couple of days ago. They are now looking at this in a much more urgent matter. In fact on the broadcaster CCTV in a live interview, one of the leading health experts here who is working on this virus and trying to track down its origins said that this is the starting stage and it is climbing.
He goes on to say this is the most alarming in part, that it is human to human transmission that has been confirmed, so it's no longer, as you pointed out, coming from an animal or the original source, just that market that you had to, visit.
It can be from one person to another, he also went on to say that that has proven in part by 14 medical professionals, who were apparently infected by one patient. That in and of itself is quite alarming.
What are they doing to prevent the spread and contain it?
As of now we can tell you the city of Wuhan has put in some intense screening measures at the railway station, the airport, testing for temperatures, they are screening individuals coming in.
But it goes beyond just China that this is happening. It's happening in Japan and Thailand, even now in Australia in South Korea they're also putting in similar measures to scan passengers. Particularly those coming from Wuhan, the reality according to the health official is that 95 percent of the cases are still linked directly to that city.
VAUSE: We appreciate you the update, live from us in Beijing.
China has long been ground zero for new strains of the influenza virus. Almost 20 years ago it was SARS, 40 years before that the Hong Kong flu, a decade earlier the Asian flu and just like the SARS outbreak, authorities are tracing the breeding ground for this new virus to so-called wet markets, where shoppers and live animals are often crammed together in narrow spaces.
It's days before China's new year. Families stocking up for celebrations. All part of the biggest human migration on the planet. Hundreds of millions of people crammed together for hours or even days of the time on buses, trains and planes and officials fear it's a perfect storm that could see the number of cases skyrocket.
In Wuhan where the virus was first detected, the markets have been closed but it might be a case of closing the market doors after the virus has bolted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZHONG NANSHAN, CHINESE ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING (through translator): The newest update is that local authorities have shut down these places that sold wild animals. Now we have seen cases of the virus being transmitted from person to person, so now is the time that we should be on high alert.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: To New York now and joining us this hour is Dr. Celine Gounder, host of the podcast "In Sickness and in Health."
Thank you for being with us.
DR. CELINE GOUNDER, INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALIST: My pleasure.
VAUSE: Now the virus has made that jump from being just animals to human transferred, to human to human, how significantly does that increase the rate of infection?
GOUNDER: The way I think about this if this is the tip of the iceberg or is this the whole iceberg. So similar to other coronaviruses we saw a transmission from animals to humans and then in some very intense cases, especially with health care workers who are exposed to patients in a hospital setting, for example, there were cases of infection among doctors and nurses.
The question is are we looking at something that is even more contagious than that?
That you can get just in passing with casual exposure to somebody?
And that we don't quite know yet.
VAUSE: We spoke to the official we just heard from, he is a specialist and one of many in China who are watching just how quickly this virus developed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) NANSHAN (through translator): We also need to find ways to contain it fast and reduce infections. In the process of infection the virus adapts to the human body and becomes more serious. So if you compare the novel coronavirus and SARS now I think they are quite different in terms of the level of seriousness and contagion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAUSE: My take away is that it's not bad right now but there is definitely the potential.
[00:20:00]
VAUSE: This is the beginning, there is a lot more to come.
GOUNDER: That's what we don't know.
Could this have been a virus that has been transmitted on the ground?
Coronavirus is also caused the common cold and those people who just have the common cold and those people who just have the common cold are not going to go to the hospital, they're oftentimes not going to see a doctor, so those cases are going to be under counted in all of this.
A lot of this transmission could be under the radar and we didn't know. And we are only finally picking it up because you have a couple people who have died from it.
VAUSE: Over the weekend a number of cases in China tripled, according to the World Health Organization this is the result of increased searching and testing for the virus among people sick with the illness. This is to your point, I'm just wondering overall is that a positive?
There's increased testing and people need to be aware.
Or is it a negative in the sense of, how many more cases are out there that people don't know about?
GOUNDER: I think it's a positive that we are doing the testing because if you do not have the information, you don't know where the cases, are if you don't have that data and you cannot contain something.
So step number one, do the surveillance, do the testing, be screening the patients who have the symptoms of the Wuhan coronavirus, that includes fever, shortness of breath, dry, cough but obviously a lot of things can cause, that so to tease out which of those things are causing.
Or are these patients with the symptoms. Infected with the virus or just your run-of-the-mill cold and cough that you get in the winter?
That's what requires a more sophisticated level of surveillance and testing. VAUSE: Officially the virus has infected just over 200 people. A
scientists from the Imperial College in London believe that number is more like 1,700, they did like this for three cases discovered elsewhere in Asia, they looked at the number of people from Wuhan which is the epicenter of the virus to travel overseas daily, that number is actually fairly low.
For those of you are into math in the equation, there it, is we found it complicated. But the say the number of cases must be higher, maybe as high as 2,200, they admit it's imprecise but in theory if you have a few people traveling overseas, you would require a larger number of people to have the disease for it to spread. So in theory that makes sense.
GOUNDER: In theory we've only had four deaths so far. So if you only had four deaths out of 2,200 that would make this a less deadly disease compared to Middle East respiratory, MERS, or the SARS coronavirus.
MERS was a third of people infected died; SARS was more of 10 percent. So if you're talking about four out of 2,200 obviously that's much less deadly so that is why the question of, is this the tip of the iceberg or the whole iceberg really matters because that determines the denominator that you are dividing that four deaths by.
VAUSE: The question is also transparency from the Chinese government, we will see what happens with that, thank you for coming in.
GOUNDER: My pleasure.
VAUSE: As the trial begins in Washington, President Trump will not be there. He will be in Davos. Impeachment will not be the main focus but another Trumpian hoax will be: climate change.
Plus a Chinese tech executive heads to court to fight extradition to the U.S. But there's a lot more than the criminal charges she's facing.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:25:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
VAUSE: A top executive at Chinese tech giant Huawei is now fighting extradition to the U.S. She arrived to a packed courthouse in Vancouver, arrested by Canadian officials in 2018 on numerous accusations of bank fraud and sanctions violations. Clare Sebastian has more on this.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is a case deeply entangled in geopolitics. Huawei's chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou gets her first chance to defend herself more than one year after she was arrested in Canada at the behest of the U.S. government, which now seeks her extradition to face charges of bank fraud and evading U.S. sanctions on Iran. She denies the accusations.
The key point here, in order to extradite her to the U.S., Canadian prosecutors must prove that what she did would have been illegal, not only in the U.S. but also in Canada. So called double criminality.
They are arguing this, saying her conduct amounts to fraud. Others argue the charges do not meet that standard, because they hinge on U.S. sanctions. The U.S. withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2016 and reimposed sanctions. Canada and other signatories did not.
Wanzhou's defenses are also expected to argue the case is politically motivated. That argument reinforced by the president's comments shortly after her arrest, that he could intervene if it would help get a trade deal with China.
This whole process could last months and there's a lot at stake. If she is extradited it would put a huge strain on China and the U.S. just as they move to negotiating phase two of their trade deal.
Huawei, which is also on U.S. trade blacklist has been a stumbling block in the talks. And it could hurt rock-bottom relations between China and Canada. China detained two Canadian citizens on spying charges. And they are still in jail, facing harsh conditions without access to lawyers or their families.
Beijing denies it was retaliation but their fate may hinge on the outcome of this case -- Clare Sebastian, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: All the duties of being a royal will soon be over for Prince Harry, we will look at his attendance at the U.K.-Africa investment summit.
Also, no texting, no talking, no standing. Rules for senators. Details in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VAUSE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm John Vause with the headlines this hour.
(HEADLINES)
[00:31:07]
Donald Trump on its way to the World Economic Forum, just as the U.S. Senate is about to start his impeachment trial. Rules proposed by the Republicans will give each side two 12-hour days for opening arguments, followed by a vote on whether to allow witnesses.
But they're not the only rules. CNN's Brian Todd takes a look at the other important dos and don'ts of an impeachment trial. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Do you solemnly swear --
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The impeachment trial, a test of the president's political strength, a test of America's constitutional resilience, and a test of senators' abilities to sit down and be quiet.
MICHAEL STENGER, U.S. SERGEANT AT ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment.
TODD: Among the new written restrictions for senators inside the chamber during the trial: keeping your mouth shut, even refraining from whispering to the person next to you.
There's no use of cellphones or other electronic devices in the chamber. No reading materials are allowed, unless they're related to the impeachment trial. And no standing. Senators have to sit in their seats when the trial is in session, except to vote.
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: You cannot even move during the course of the trial. Now, what that will do for middle-aged and older men who may need to bring in catheters is another story.
TODD: Some senators are already chafing. Quote, "That's going to suck," said Marco Rubio about the no-talking rule. Others are rolling with it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think this will actually probably be healthy for all of us, but it will be a challenge.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sitting for the trial --
TODD: James Ziglar was the Senate sergeant-at-arms during the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment.
TODD: Ziglar says in the Clinton trial, there were similar rules. They just weren't written down, and he points out Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa did violate the no-talking role when he stood up and raised an objection.
SEN. TOM HARKIN (D), FORMER IOWA SENATOR: Mister Chief Justice, I object. I base my objection on the 26 rules of the Senate, adopted by the Senate, governing impeachments.
JAMES ZIGLAR, SERGEANT AT ARMS DURING CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Which, by the way, Chief Justice Rehnquist sustained and it was not -- it wasn't a situation where I needed to go do something or talk to Senator Harkin. TODD: Ziglar doesn't believe it's too much to ask of a senator to sit
still, be quiet and refrain from reading or texting on their phone in a proceeding with the gravitas of a president's impeachment.
ZIGLAR: Jurors in a normal criminal proceeding in our court system are required to sit still and listen to what's going on, and I think it's part of that general culture that they're trying to make it clear to the Senate, you're expected to be there, you're expected to listen to this, you're not expected to be doing other work.
TODD: But analysts say among a group of people not known for wide attention spans or discipline, we can expect those rules to be broken.
ORNSTEIN: Senators are not used to being reined in. This is not just reining them in; it's putting them into chairs with straps around their arms and legs. And that's not something that's going to sit well with an awful lot of senators.
TODD (on camera): A key question is, what happens to a senator who gets caught violating these restrictions, who is seen talking out of turn or looking at a cell phone? Analysts say it's not quite clear what that senator's punishment may be. They could get kicked out of the chamber or, in the worst case, even get arrested. Although most analysts believe it would never really come to that.
Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: We will have full coverage of the impeachment trial as it happens. It starts at 3 p.m. in London, 11 p.m. in Hong Kong. All of that only here on CNN.
{DAVOS 2020 GRAPHIC)
VAUSE: Funky. White House aides are hoping the World Economic Forum in Davos will be a reprieve for President Trump as his impeachment trial begins. He arrives in Davos in a few hours, will deliver what organizers are calling a special address. He's expected to focus on the U.S. economy and recent trade agreements. But as Richard Quest reports, it will be a challenging environment for President Trump. He will not be able to ignore the focus of this year's summit: it's on climate change.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL EDITOR-AT-LARGE: They've been talking about the environment for many years here in Davos, but this year, it has gone to the top of the agenda.
And when Donald Trump opens WEF formally, well, everybody will be looking to see whether there are the comments of the Trump, the climate denier, or has he shifted ground and is now willing to concede that the environment is in trouble and climate change is very real?
Greta Thunberg, two hours later, will certainly remind everybody of those facts if the president fails to do so.
The two, Greta and Trump, are not expected to come face to face, but their agendas will very much be analyzed by those who are there, because CEOs and businesses have been falling over themselves to make climate change pledges, what they are going to do to help protect the environment.
Richard Quest, CNN, Davos.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: Thank you, Richard.
All that arduous waiting, smiling, shaking hands, the endless small talk, all about to come to an end for Prince Harry. But with only a short time left as a working royal, has Harry gone rogue?
Monday, he made an unannounced appearance at the U.K.-African Business Summit. A day earlier came that unexpected public statement about his changing role within Britain's royal family. Anna Stewart has our details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNA STEWART, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was back to business for Prince Harry Monday as he attended the U.K.-Africa Investment Summit. He had various meetings with African leaders and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Prince Harry will have several other official royal engagements in the weeks to come, as we understand it, before this big transition in the spring, at which point he will cease to be a working member of the royal family and will give up the title of "HRH," "his royal highness."
Now, speaking at a charity event Sunday, Prince Harry made a very heartfelt speech in which he expressed great sadness at reaching this decision.
PRINCE HARRY, UNITED KINGDOM: 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.
STEWART: Prince Harry also made clear that this was his decision, perhaps speaking to the British tabloid press who have suggested the move was masterminded by his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.
Now clearly, the agreement is not exactly what Prince Harry and his wife wanted. Nor is it exactly what the queen wanted either. She wanted them to remain senior members of the royal family.
However, the agreement can mean, perhaps, an end to a couple of very tumultuous weeks for the royal family and a start of a new chapter in royal history.
I'm Anna Stewart, outside Buckingham Palace in London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: More than a week after erupting, the Taal volcano in the Philippines is still spewing ash clouds, bringing a warning from volcanologists. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:41:17]
VAUSE: The Taal volcano in the Philippines continues to rumble and spew. That could mean it's recharging, and the risk remains high for a much bigger eruption. Thousands of evacuees are still living at shelters, but despite the warnings, some have returned home to try and rebuild their lives.
CNN's Tom Sater has details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TOM SATER, CNN METEOROLOGIST (voice-over): The moment when Taal erupted, spewing ash into the air and suddenly blanketing nearby towns and villages, making life there almost impossible.
Residents panicked. Tens of thousands fled. The government issued a mandatory evacuation order to include everyone living within a 14- kilometer radius of the volcano.
A week later, about 100,000 people are in evacuation centers like this one, a school in Tagaytay. Relief organizations like Rotary International have stepped in to help people cope, providing food, water and other essentials.
LIZA VICENCIO ELORDE, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: So they are very, very desperate, and we think there are some places that really cannot get the help that they need. So we are helping out the government.
SATER: Despite the mandatory evacuation order, some residents, like Elaine Basa, chose to remain at home. Today, she's visiting a donation center to receive much-needed aid.
ELAINE BASA, RESIDENT (through translator): If anything happens, we can still move. Some of the local officials are helping us, and we get help from donations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
SATER: Here's a moment when one of the local residents returned to his home, days after the eruption, to find his horses covered in ash. In the towns near Taal, some locals rely on horses as a source of income. They use them to transport tourists up to the mountain to Taal.
Now, some, like this 39-year-old, are forced to sell their horses to survive.
ORIAN VILLACAMPO, TOUR GUIDE (through translator): It's difficult for me to let go of my horses, because this is the main source of my livelihood. It's hard for me not to be with them.
SATER: There's still no word on when people will be allowed to return to their homes. Philippines Institute of Volcanology and Seismology warns that another hazardous, explosive eruption is still possible within hours or days.
Tom Sater, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VAUSE: Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm John Vause. Stay with us. WORLD SPORT with Vince Cellini is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:45:20]
(WORLD SPORT)
[00:57:38]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
