Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Impeachment; Coronavirus Outbreak; Israeli PM and Rival to Meet Trump at White House; New Book Takes Critical Look at "War on Drugs"; Australian Climate Crisis. Aired 3-4a ET

Aired January 26, 2020 - 03:00   ET

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

[03:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Hello and welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. Live from Studio 7 at the CNN Center in Atlanta, I'm Michael Holmes.

And ahead here on CNN NEWSROOM, defending the president: Donald Trump's lawyers start to make their case before the U.S. Senate.

Alan Dershowitz's plan: the constitutional lawyer gives CNN a preview of what he will say when he addresses senators on Monday.

And fighting the coronavirus: what's being done to try to contain an outbreak?

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOLMES: Welcome, everyone.

U.S. president Donald Trump's impeachment defense strategy is beginning to be unveiled. His lawyers took center stage in the Senate trial on Saturday. Chief among their arguments, that the proceedings are merely an attempt by the Democrats to overturn the last election and derail the next. Here's our Sara Murray.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The president did absolutely nothing wrong.

SARA MURRAY, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Trump's defense team took to the Senate floor, arguing that Democrats have failed to make their case that Trump should be removed from office for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

CIPOLLONE: Today we are going to confront them on the merits of their argument. Now they have the burden of proof and they have not come close to meeting it.

MURRAY (voice-over): They accused Democrats of trying to overturn the last election and preempt the next one.

CIPOLLONE: They're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history and we can't allow that to happen.

MURRAY (voice-over): Trump's team aimed to poke holes in the arguments House impeachment managers presented, claiming the Democrats didn't provide context around witness testimony and using clips of witnesses from the House inquiry that bolstered Trump's defense.

CIPOLLONE: The fact that they came here for 24 hours and hid evidence from you is further evidence that they don't really believe in the facts of their case.

MURRAY (voice-over): They insisted Trump never made a White House meeting and security aid for Ukraine contingent on Ukraine opening investigations into Joe Biden and the 2016 election, noting Trump never explicitly asked for such a quid pro quo in the call with the Ukrainian president.

MIKE PURPURA, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call.

MURRAY (voice-over): And they raised testimony from some administration officials, who believed Trump's call for investigations was simply a request rather than a demand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe in your opinion that the President of the United States demanded that President Zelensky undertake these investigations?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir.

MURRAY (voice-over): Trump's lawyers also made the claim that the president is legitimately invested in cracking down on corruption in Ukraine and taking a tough stance toward Russia.

CIPOLLONE: You will hear that President Trump has a strong record on confronting Russia. You will hear that President Trump has a strong record of support for Ukraine.

MURRAY (voice-over): But there's little evidence of Trump's interest in corruption, save for the call of an investigation into the Bidens, which also directly involves the president's personal interests.

And while the administration has taken steps to crack down on Russia, Trump's public statements have undermined those efforts. Over the course of their brief two-hour arguments, Trump's lawyers took shots at Democrats' lengthy and often repetitive presentations.

SEKULOW: We're not going to play the same clips seven times. He said it. You saw it.

MURRAY (voice-over): As well as House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff.

CIPOLLONE: Do you know who didn't show up in the Judiciary Committee?

Chairman Schiff.

MURRAY (voice-over): They wrapped up just after noon, leaving senators enough time to escape for a bit of the weekend.

CIPOLLONE: I thank you for your attention and I look forward to seeing you on Monday.

MURRAY (voice-over): Afterward, House Democratic managers argued the president's team did not refute the claim that Trump solicited foreign interference in a U.S. election.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), CHAIR, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: What was most striking to me about the president's presentation today is they don't contest the basic architecture of the scheme. They do not contest that the president solicited a foreign nation to interfere in our election, to help him cheat.

[03:05:00]

MURRAY (voice-over): The president's team has 22 more hours to make its case but says it's not planning to use it all -- Sara Murray, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: And they will continue to make their case on Monday. It will include presentations from members of the president's legal team that we haven't seen in action yet, like the constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz. He appeared on CNN a short while ago and gave a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: The process we're witnessing, isn't this exactly what the framers intended?

That it's not about tearing the ballots or taking voters' decisions away?

In fact, impeachment is different than disqualification from running again. That's a separate thing.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TRUMP ATTORNEY: What I'm going to argue on Monday is that it's precisely what the framers did not intend; that is, to remove a duly elected president from office and prevent him from running again, based on vague, open-ended and entirely subjective criteria, like abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The framers feared that those kinds of open-ended criteria would turn us into a British-type parliamentary democracy, where, in the words of Madison, the president serves at the pleasure of the legislature.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: When is Ken Starr going and how does his -- how do his -- what's his subject different from your subject?

DERSHOWITZ: We haven't discussed it. I don't know. I'll probably find that out sometime tomorrow.

But I know what I'm going to argue. I think they know what I'm going to argue. I'm going to argue some things that I haven't argued to you or on television. There will be some surprises.

But the general outlines of my argument are fairly clear and they don't focus so much on whether a crime is required. They focus much more on whether you can use the two criteria, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

And I'm going to argue very firmly that those are not appropriate criteria. If they had ever been put to the framers, the framers would have rejected those criteria as too open-ended.

In the terms of Madison, it would turn America into a parliamentary- type democracy, in which the president serves at the pleasure of the legislature, something that none of the framers really wanted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: The claim that Mr. Trump withheld aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political opponent is, of course, key to the Democrats' case.

And on that front, a recently released recording might give it a boost. It captures a conversation at a dinner in 2018 between the U.S. president and Lev Parnas, who, you might remember, is an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, who says he was part of the Ukraine pressure tactics. Have a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LEV PARNAS, INDICTED ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI: That's why you're having such, I think if you take a look, the biggest problem there I think where we need to start is we've got to get rid of the ambassador. She's still left over from the Clinton administration.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: What, the ambassador to (bleep) Ukraine?

PARNAS: She's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's going to get impeached. Just wait. I mean, it's incredible.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out, OK? Do it.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now Mr. Parnas is a man who Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed he doesn't know. But this tape suggests otherwise. The full recording was just released by Parnas' attorney, Joseph Bondy, and he spoke to Anderson Cooper earlier about its significance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSEPH BONDY, PARNAS ATTORNEY: First off, we hear the president himself saying get rid of the ambassador. Fire her. Get her out of there.

This is one of the first occasions in which he attempts to remove the ambassador. Lev Parnas, as he has explained it to me, was shocked that he might raise the subject of the ambassador and have the chief executive say, get rid of her and fire her. He could never have possibly expected that the president would literally take that step.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Natasha Lindstaedt is a professor of government at the University of Essex. She joins me from Poland.

Good to see you. Tell me what you made of the Republican debut.

Did it make a dent?

I mean there's a lot of criticism that there was not much by way of argument based on fact. They didn't really contest the actual allegations.

NATASHA LINDSTAEDT, UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX: No. The Republicans don't have to do much because they just have to ensure that senators don't go towards the Democrats and don't defect.

And so far the Republican Party is very committed to Trump. What the Republicans tried to put forward in some ways really bolstered the need to have witnesses. They said it was all hearsay, that there was no eyewitness accounts.

[03:10:00]

LINDSTAEDT: And that there were a lot of holes in what the Democrats were presenting. But that means they really do need witnesses to come forward.

(CROSSTALK)

HOLMES: Yes. That's a good point. I was actually going to ask you that very question. You know, the Trump team, in many ways, made a case for more witnesses by pointing out there had been no firsthand witnesses, when that's because the White House blocked those very witnesses from testifying and the documents being produced.

It kind of makes it a specious argument, right?

LINDSTAEDT: Right. It doesn't really make sense what they're arguing. They're basically saying that they were cherry-picking facts and that everything was based on hearsay and based on presumptions.

But that would really mean that we need witnesses. I mean, I've never heard of a trial without witnesses. It's unheard of.

But this is all because the Republicans want to push this forward very, very quickly and they're hoping that they can then quickly acquit Trump, maybe even by the end of the week.

You know, the other argument they were saying is that the Democrats are trying to undo the 2016 election. But then that says that there's no -- there's never a reason to impeach a president. And they're not really trying to undo the 2016 election because it wouldn't mean that, if Trump was impeached, then a Democrat would immediately take office.

Mike Pence would just be in office and he's just as conservative, if not more so, than Trump. So some of these arguments that they put forward, of course, may come back to bite them later.

HOLMES: And if there aren't witnesses, documents, evidence that has emerged and probably will continue emerging, I mean, will history consider this a fair trial, where truth has been honorably sought?

How will it be viewed down the line, decades from now?

LINDSTAEDT: Well, I think it's going to be viewed down the line as sort of a sham. It started when Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader for the Republicans, announced that he was going to be working with the White House, working with Trump.

Then they made a bunch of announcements that they were going to be blocking witnesses. Then they said, well, we're going to vote on it later. But it doesn't look likely that they're going to be admitting new evidence or having witnesses.

So that really isn't a fair trial at all. In comparison to the Clinton trial, which, at the time, seemed really ugly, really personal, that trial seemed to be conducted more fairly, relatively speaking.

HOLMES: I wanted to ask you about the Lev Parnas tape because it's made a lot of headlines here. You know, again, Donald Trump repeatedly claimed he didn't know this man, Lev Parnas.

Now on top of the many, many photographs, we have this recording. I mean, you've got the president basically talking about state business and the removal of an ambassador at a dinner with a guy he apparently doesn't know.

I mean you have to -- what do you make of that?

And also you've got to wonder what Parnas' motivation was, too.

Why was he making these comments?

At the time that this happened, he wasn't fully involved with Rudy Giuliani.

LINDSTAEDT: Right. I mean I think it's difficult for Trump to keep telling us that he doesn't know Lev Parnas. And I think that's actually what motivated Parnas to come forward.

He made a mention that that was really irritating him, that Trump kept saying, oh, I don't know him. I've just been in photographs with him. So Parnas has made clear Trump does know him and he was in the loop. He knew everything.

And he was very much involved in the process of trying to get Marie Yovanovitch because that was the first step that then would allow them to go ahead with the shadow diplomacy effort.

So what to make of all these tapes, I think it makes it very difficult for the Republicans to agree with this idea that there is actually no relationship between Trump and Parnas. And I think the Republicans would have to admit that Parnas was a shady character during this time.

HOLMES: Yes. I think a lot of people agree on that.

I mean, if, as it does seem certain there will be an acquittal, what again will be the precedent?

Just sort of looking at what presidents would be able to do going forward in terms of how they behave, what they could ask of foreign leaders in terms of domestic politics, the refusal to cooperate with Congress, ignore subpoenas, tell witnesses not to testify, claim privilege for just about everything, does that make that possible for every other president to come?

LINDSTAEDT: Yes, it does. That's one of the big dangers, that the U.S., at the moment, is backsliding democratically because we have Trump stonewalling. He's playing constitutional hardball. That's going to make it that much easier for other leaders.

And I think we have to take what Adam Schiff said, how he talked about the fact that the reason they are trying to impeach Trump is not because they want to undo the 2016 election but because they're trying to prevent electoral malpractice from taking place in the 2020 election.

So who's to say what's going to happen in the future, that the executive can use their power to undermine their political opponents to ensure an electoral victory?

That's what happens, of course, in dictatorships.

[03:15:00]

LINDSTAEDT: And, of course, the U.S. is not a dictatorship or anywhere close to that. But we're starting to see the Constitution being challenged constantly, rules being challenged and then, of course, the democratic political culture has changed and evolved, where we've become used to this type of activity, where it would have been unheard of in the past.

HOLMES: Professor Natasha Lindstaedt, thanks so much. Good to see you.

LINDSTAEDT: Thanks for having me.

HOLMES: As the president's attorneys close out day one of their opening arguments, what does Mr. Trump have to say about their performance?

We'll have reactions from the White House when we come back.

Also China cracks down on the sale of wild animals, the suspected source of a deadly new disease. We'll be right back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WORLD SPORTS)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOLMES: Welcome back.

China's all-out effort to stop the Wuhan coronavirus from spreading has led the government to ban the sale of wild animals. A market in Wuhan that sold wild animals is the suspected source of the coronavirus outbreak that has now killed more than 50 people.

[03:20:00]

HOLMES: Meanwhile, the transportation lockdown has been extended to the southern port city of Shantou in Guangdong province. Ships, vehicles and people will be banned from entering or leaving the city beginning on Monday.

President Xi Jinping ordering all infected people, approximately 2,000 patients at this point, to be treated in what's called centralized quarantine. Globally, almost 40 cases have been confirmed in more than a dozen countries and territories and it seems more every day.

Our David Culver is live in Beijing.

David, you know, of course, China often known for playing down bad news but you have the President Xi saying China is facing a grave situation. There's also ramped-up action on the ground.

What does all of this signal?

DAVID CULVER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He was very stern in his warning and in his orders to local provinces to carry out as many actions as possible to stop the spread of this virus.

Now, Michael, I was just monitoring a press conference with the National Health Commission. The numbers here are staggering. Here's what they're doing and it's a rare press conference, given we're in the midst of a holiday and it's a Sunday.

But they have 1,600 medical personnel that, as of today, have been deployed to Hubei province. They've got 450 military medical personnel already there, another 900 on the ground. So you're talking nearly 3,000.

And then they've got another 1,000 on standby. Listen to these numbers. We've been talking about the medical supplies and the dire shortage that they're dealing with. In fact, one health care worker telling us it's like going into battle without your armor.

The hazmat suits that they so badly need, they're bringing back some of the workers at these factories that make them and starting up production because they say they need 100,000 each and every day for that province. They can only make 13,000. That's the capacity they have.

So they're importing a bunch more. Roughly one month, they need 3 million of those suits. It's absolutely incredible.

As you mentioned, President Xi is urgently warning that this is an accelerating outbreak and he's also calling for the protection of medical staff. And he's asking for the centralized quarantining of those impacted.

So what does that centralized quarantining look like?

It's likely those will be two new hospitals that are already planned and underway. I mean, they're planning to build these, one of them within six days, the other within 15 days. They're supposed to be able to hold more than 2,000 patients.

In neighboring Hong Kong, they have dedicated a public housing unit to likewise be used for quarantine.

Now the numbers of those under lockdown, I mean they equate nearly the population of the U.K. That's how many people we're talking about, nearly 63 million individuals who are within these lockdown zones.

And earlier today, I was able to speak with one American woman, who is feeling the stress, the unease and the uncertainty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANA ADAMA, U.S. CITIZEN LIVING IN WUHAN: I woke up feeling quite desperate, sad, angry. Most of this is because of lack of information and lack of knowing what's going on. My mother's worried about me. I love her. She's 88 years old. My sister let her know the things I'm doing here. And I don't want her to worry anymore. And I'd like to see her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CULVER: One U.S. official tells us there are about 1,000 U.S. citizens within the city of Wuhan. We're learning from the embassy of China on their website, Michael, that they are planning a flight to fly out on Tuesday with some U.S. citizens and medical personnel along with them, to leave the city of Wuhan. It will land in San Francisco.

HOLMES: With an incubation of 14 days or so, it sort of goes against the concept of containment. But let's see how that all works out. David Culver in Beijing, appreciate it. Thanks so much.

Let's bring in Professor Linfa Wang, the program director for emerging infectious diseases at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore.

Thanks so much for being with us.

LINFA WANG, DUKE-NUS MEDICAL SCHOOL: Thank you.

HOLMES: China is saying that the spread is accelerating. That's obviously concerning. I mean how might that acceleration grow further?

What could happen here?

WANG: I think for any infectious disease, if you don't have effective control, then I think it will grow very rapidly. But we're hopeful now, with the epicenter is in Hubei province in China, as your correspondent already said.

These kind of measures is never seen in the history of human mankind. So we're hopeful, if the Chinese can control the spread within China, then I think, so far the spread outside China is still very, very limited.

HOLMES: The fatality rate, tell me about that.

[03:25:00]

HOLMES: Is it high or is it not, compared to other similar situations the world has seen, like SARS and MERS?

WANG: It is low. So we don't have exact number yet because we don't know how many people are actually infected without symptoms, right?

So if we had that number, currently we only have the number of deaths or the people who have been confirmed in hospital. That is put around 3 percent. The SARS is 10 percent. MERS is 35 percent. In that regard, this new coronavirus is not as lethal as the two previous coronaviruses that emerged to infect human.

HOLMES: In your experience, has China's containment strategy been a good one so far, its response?

WANG: Since I think January, maybe 1st, it's been transparent and very good. Before that, I think, especially in the city of Wuhan, they could have done much better.

HOLMES: You know, we're talking about SARS, which, of course, really caught the world off guard. I mean it took health experts really months to confirm that they were dealing with a coronavirus. I mean nobody really knew what that was.

But now there's better knowledge and protection and strategy, is that true?

WANG: Yes. I was deeply involved in the SARS research and the outbreak response and I actually went to China as well.

So yes, you're right. It took five months and many hundreds of deaths of human beings before we even knew which virus is causing the outbreak. Then fast forward 17 years later, this one in Wuhan, they figured that out in two weeks after the first cases.

HOLMES: Well, that's some good news. I mean the WHO says it's not a global epidemic yet.

Is that a fair decision to make at this time in your view and what would make it a global epidemic?

WANG: I feel the global epidemic has two criteria. One is the degree of spread and also the lethality. Secondly is really the international impacts. As I said now, judging by the situation in Wuhan inside China, I think it's very serious. But judging by the spread beyond China, I think it is still too early to call a global sort of emergency.

HOLMES: I mean the timing of this is not good in terms of it being the Lunar New Year, which is such an important event in terms of travel. Millions of people on the move.

I mean how does that complicate the containment issue?

And also this talk of some countries wanting to evacuate their citizens from Wuhan, which sounds very nice, but doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of containment?

WANG: Yes. So first, the Lunar New Year, I think the current very draconian quarantine and for President Xi to send army and build the hospitals, I think is all in anticipation of dramatic increase in numbers after the Lunar New Year.

Number two, evacuation by foreign governments, I think any response to outbreak like that -- I think government are worried about not doing enough. I think it's better to overreact than underreact. I think that's the choice for government decisions to evacuate.

HOLMES: That was Professor Linfa Wang with Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore.

Short and to the point, president Donald Trump's defense team not wasting any time trying to poke holes in the Democrat case. Coming up, we'll take a look at what is expected as the trial pushes on.

Also U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren securing a major endorsement days before the Iowa caucuses. Where she stands among the crowded field of Democratic candidates. We'll have that as well when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[03:30:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOLMES: Welcome back to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Michael Holmes. With the headlines for you this hour. (HEADLINES)

HOLMES: Well, Mr. Trump's attorneys are so far keeping their defense brief with day one in the books. CNN's Kaitlan Collins looks at what we can expect as the rest of the Senate trial unfolds.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: There are sources who say the president is pleased with how their performance went today.

Of course, it was pretty brief, only two hours. And that was the first time we've heard from the president's attorneys formally since this inquiry got kicked off with Nancy Pelosi back in September when this whistleblower came forward with this complaint.

Now there are other people who believe that they could have been more aggressive and it's been essentially this kind of weighing debate here at the White House over how aggressive they should be because some people, including the president, want them to come out, have this full-throated defense while others say, no, you've got to know your audience here, it's 100 senators.

And if you come out and you're essentially -- you know, this boisterous performance, it's not going to be something that they are really receptive to.

So that's the question going forward. And, essentially, their ultimate goal is to poke holes, sow doubt and it's a Democrat narrative.

And as you heard from Pat Cipollone today, they believe the burden of proof is on the Democrats and they told the senators in the room that they do not think that the Democrats met that during those nearly 24 hours of their presentations laying out the evidence against the president talking about this pressure campaign.

The question is going to be and a lot of it has to be with the president's ultimate decision over how something went, it has to do with the coverage of it itself and a lot of it could come tomorrow during those political Sunday talk shows that sources say the president watches incredibly closely.

So he'll be watching to see and, of course, they are going to have sound from the Democrats' presentations, so that really could be a better sense of how the president sees all of this.

[03:35:00]

COLLINS: And, of course, we still have at least one more day of a White House defense where you are going to see not only Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow and those other attorneys that we watched today, you are also going to see Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz -- Kaitlan Collins, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE) HOLMES: The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the

country's main opposition leader, Benny Gantz, are both scheduled to meet with President Trump on Monday.

That is ahead of the expected unveiling of the long awaited Trump administration Middle East peace plan. The White House visit may be helping Mr. Netanyahu both politically and personally as he seeks immunity from prosecution over corruption charges and an election is coming up. CNN's Oren Liebermann with the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The upcoming release of the Trump administration's long-awaited peace plan seems like it has little to do with advancing any sort of Israeli-Palestinian process and instead has more to do with helping two people, president Donald Trump and prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Look at the timing of this. It comes as Trump faces impeachment hearings in Washington, as Netanyahu faces indictment here and as the Israeli leader faces a tough re-election campaign, having failed to form a government twice.

More than that, the White House invitation is on the exact same day that immunity hearings are set to start in the corruption cases against Netanyahu. Even those who are generally supportive of a U.S.- led process are deeply skeptical or worse of the timing here.

It seems someone in the Trump administration, perhaps Trump himself or Jared Kushner or secretary of state Mike Pompeo or ambassador David Friedman has decided that Trump should go all in on Netanyahu.

It seemed Trump had backed away some before the last election in September but now it's all Netanyahu once again. The White House may even offer Netanyahu a green light to proceed with annexation with parts of the West Bank.

And for Trump, why not?

Netanyahu has been Trump's loudest international cheerleader. He's celebrated every move Trump made against Iran and urged other world leaders to do the same and he's never once criticized Trump.

What's in it for Trump?

Netanyahu helps him seal the support of the evangelical community, where the 70-year-old Israeli leader is very popular.

Netanyahu's rival, Benny, Gantz now has few good options. He had been moving to the right to try to steal votes away from Netanyahu. Now if he throws any support behind this peace plan, it looks like he's throwing support behind Netanyahu and that undermines his entire campaign.

Now that entire campaign changes. What was basically a referendum on Netanyahu and the indictments he faces has now been reframed by the Trump administration as a vote on the peace plan and perhaps on annexation -- Oren Liebermann, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Well, with little more than a week to go until the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren securing the coveted endorsement of Iowa's top newspaper. "The Des Moines Register's" editorial board endorsing the Senate Democrat on Saturday, saying Warren will, quote, "push an unequal America in the right direction."

Warren said she was delighted to hear about the support. It comes just days after "The New York Times" endorsed both Warren and Senator Amy Klobuchar. However Senator Warren isn't the only one getting an endorsement from an Iowa paper. The "Sioux City Journal" editorial board endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden.

They said Biden is, quote, "The candidate best positioned to give Americans a competitive head to head matchup with President Trump."

Recent polls show the former vice president in a tight race with Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders, also Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

A new book takes a critical look at the war on drugs. We'll talk with the author about what he found in his four-year investigation of the United States hardline approach. We'll be right back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[03:40:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOLMES: A new book is taking a critical look at America's war on drugs and its global impact. It is called "Pills, Powder and Smoke: Inside the Bloody War on Drugs." The author, Antony Loewenstein, joins me now from Jerusalem.

Good to see you. You started researching this book four years ago. Multiple countries later, it's published.

What surprised you most about what you found?

ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN, AUTHOR: Look, the reason I wrote the book, I think, was to challenge this misconception that, because many U.S. states have now legalized marijuana, because other countries have legalized pot, say Canada, Uruguay, and the fact people often think in Mexico the drug war is very vicious, that therefore the drug war is winding down in much of the world.

What I found is the opposite because Western demand for drugs is so high that in countries like Honduras, West Africa, places I visited on the ground, what you find is in fact the dislocation, poverty is in fact rising.

Therefore because there's such a great demand in the West, the U.S., the U.K. and many Western countries for cocaine, heroin and other drugs, the reality is in fact the drug war remains vicious.

And because drugs remain illegal, there's a massive half a trillion dollar annual trade. So that's what I was shocked about to report on the ground around the world.

HOLMES: Yes and, to that point, I mean the U.S., like many countries, the U.S. is a prime example, complains mightily about drug importation and the source countries.

But you know, is enough attention paid to demand?

I mean there wouldn't be the level of drug supply and importation if the demand for the product wasn't as strong. I think you wrote that Western demand for cocaine, for example, has never been stronger.

LOEWENSTEIN: That's true. And in fact, for example, in the U.K., there's evidence to suggest that, in London alone, 23 kilograms of cocaine is consumed per day. I mean the use of cocaine across Europe, across the U.K., in the U.S. is massive and growing.

And the danger for that is not so much for making a judgment of people that use cocaine. It's the fact that the purity is higher and people often are getting sicker because of using that kind of cocaine. And when you keep it illegal, no one knows what's in the drug.

And the effect to the supply chain from the source countries, Colombia, for example, Peru, the whole supply chain, the amount of misery along that supply chain is a problem.

So the fact that we often don't look why so many people in the West are using drugs, why they're so cheap now, I think causes dislocation in many communities.

In fact in the U.S. for example in the last few years, cocaine is often mixed with fentanyl. The effect of that can be that people often die or there's hospitalization. Until you legalize and regulate drugs, these problems are only going to get worse.

HOLMES: Another point that you make is the nexus between the drug trade and how lucrative it is and the immigration issues so much discussed by the Trump administration.

[03:45:00]

HOLMES: I mean many people -- and you make this point -- are fleeing Honduras for example, where drug gang violence is rampant and you've got this terrible irony of the drugs are headed for the U.S., the same destination as those fleeing the violence caused by the drugs.

LOEWENSTEIN: Look, too often we don't look at this. Honduras is a classic case. I was there a few years ago investigating on the ground what that meant. Honduras is a narco state. It's backed by the U.S. The president's brother was recently found guilty in the U.S. of trying to import cocaine to the U.S. from Honduras.

And violence in that country is so high, the dislocation is so high, in effect if you've been to a country, everyone you speak to is desperate to leave, not because they hate Honduras, because they're desperate for a better life.

The demand for drugs in the U.S. because of that causes people to flee. For example, most of the cocaine going from South America into the U.S. goes via Honduras. So it's a transit country.

Gang warfare is out of control. So when the U.S. and Trump administration talks about curtailing immigration from Honduras or Guatemala, the question is not next asked, but why is Honduras a narco state?

Why is the U.S. happy to support a narco state?

The only answer is because the Honduran government says they're trying to stop immigrants leaving their own country but not doing a very good job of it.

HOLMES: Yes, exactly. I met a lot of those down on the Mexico- Guatemalan border on their way up to the U.S. and what they are fleeing is terrifying.

Very quickly, because we're nearly out of time, but of course, the world can't just surrender and say legalize everything surely. You know, drugs legal for all and everything available without restriction.

I mean you can't imagine that?

LOEWENSTEIN: I think the most logical way is that countries which start to legalize and regulate all drugs. The idea that ethically sourced drugs means what it sounds like. Everyone on the supply chain could potentially be treated efficably (sic) and frankly with justice and with a good wage.

For example, rather than just legalizing cannabis, you could also legalize cocaine. The reason why you would do that is you take the criminal networks out of the picture, which is a huge part of the problem.

For example, if many countries which are moving towards legalizing the use of LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy for mental health issues, to deal with PTSD, we start normalizing drugs not to encourage people to use them but to say they can be treated in a normal, healthy way.

So legalizing and regulating drugs actually is a sensible future. I think many countries will move towards that if we get past the rhetoric against punishing those who use drugs normally and healthily.

HOLMES: Antony Loewenstein, joining us from Jerusalem, thanks so much. Good to talk to you.

LOEWENSTEIN: Thank you. Thank you.

HOLMES: We'll take a break. When we come back, with an area the size of West Virginia ravaged by bushfires and towns now bone dry, many Australians are calling for government action against climate change. We'll have an update for you coming up.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WORLD SPORTS)

[03:50:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES (voice-over): It is Australia Day but the day set aside for celebration also being marked by protests. Thousands of demonstrators taking to the streets of Sydney and other cities in Australia earlier, calling it instead invasion day, marking the start of British colonialism in the 18th century.

That has been especially hard, of course, on Australia's aboriginal people. They track near the bottom of almost every economic indicator in Australia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And aboriginal people have been especially hard hit from the infernos scorching an area as big as West Virginia. Record-high temperatures, crippling drought mean some towns are out of water as the bushfires rage on. And many Australians are looking at climate change as the cause. CNN's Andrew Stevens with more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDREW STEVENS, CNN ASIA PACIFIC EDITOR: It's 8 o'clock at the Royal Hotel in Murrurundi and the mercury is hovering at 42 degrees Celsius. The locals are gathering at one of their favorite watering holes in a town where there is no water.

STEVENS: What's it like living here in a town with no water?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you drink beer, you're all right.

STEVENS (voice-over): The laconic humor of the Australian bush, though, doesn't hide the fact that the drought here is deadly serious. The river in this town of 1,000 people four hours northwest of Sydney hasn't run for more than two years. Away from the sleepy main street, public spaces and backyards are becoming dust bowls.

This is what keeps Murrurundi alive now, trucking water in. Matt Byrne (ph) drives 12 to 14 hours a day, six days a week, delivering the precious commodity and he says he'll keep doing it until the drought breaks.

STEVENS: Behind me is the original reservoir, which is now just too low to pump. So the town is relying on this small pond here. Now without these trucks constantly resupplying, this pond would be used up in just about three days, leaving the town completely without water.

STEVENS (voice-over): It's not just outback Australia. Sheep and cattle country within an hour of Sydney is also bone dry. James Galbraith and his father, Bill, farm land that has been in the family since the 1800s.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is as bad as it's ever got, this drought.

STEVENS (voice-over): This was the farm two years ago before the drought took hold and what it looks like now.

JAMES GALBRAITH, FARMER: It's not just dry on the surface. It's dry right the way down, so what we're seeing is trees start suffering as well as the pastures. So for us as farmers, we're just sort of holding on.

STEVENS (voice-over): James has been forced to sell nearly all his stock and now works four days a week on another farm to make ends meet.

Southeast Australia, the most heavily populated part of the country, is in the grip of one of the worst droughts in living memory. The rains haven't come for nearly three years. Australia has endured many cycles of drought but this time it's different.

[03:55:00]

STEVENS (voice-over): More and more Australians are blaming climate change, not the natural cycle, for the crippling water shortages.

SCOTT MORRISON, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: I've always acknowledged the link, as has the minister, between the broader issues of global climate change and what that means for the world's weather and the dryness of conditions in many places.

TIM FLANNERY, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: The overwhelming majority of Australians see climate change as a real problem, see climate change as a manmade problem and say that something should be done about it.

STEVENS (voice-over): Professor Frank Jotzo is director of the Center of Climate and Energy Policy at the Australian National University. The problem, he says, is breaking Australia's economic dependence on fossil fuels. They account for 25 percent of total exports and provide 80 percent of the country's electricity.

It's a stark challenge for conservative prime minister Scott Morrison, who once stood before parliament and declared, "This is coal. Don't be afraid."

Morrison's hard line on protecting fossil fuel industries has been sharply criticized nationally and internationally. But he maintained only last week, Australia has the right balance between the economy and the environment.

STEVENS: Is Scott Morrison in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry? FLANNERY: The prime minister and his party are paying very strong emphasis to the interests of the fossil fuel industry and, in particular, the Australian coal industry.

STEVENS (voice-over): With an area the size of West Virginia already scorched and the fires still burning, the stark reality of Australia's vulnerability to global warming has never been clearer -- Andrew Stevens, CNN, Canberra, Australia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Thanks for watching CNN NEWSROOM, everyone. I'm Michael Holmes, CNN NEWSROOM with Natalie Allen coming up next.