Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Bipartisan Deal on Gun Safety in the Senate; Much of Severodonetsk Under Russia's Control; Second Hearing of January 6 Committee is Set; South Korea: North Korea Fired Multiple Rocket Launches Shots; Violent Video Shows Women Attacked In China; Ocasio- Cortez Won't Committee To Backing Biden In 2024. Aired 2-2:45a ET

Aired June 13, 2022 - 02:00   ET

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

[02:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAULA NEWTON, CNN HOST: Hello and a warm welcome to our viewers joining us in the United States and all around the world. You are watching "CNN Newsroom." I am Paula Newton. Just ahead here for us, after years of gridlock, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators may finally have a deal on gun safety. But if those modest steps become law, could they actually prevent the next Buffalo or Uvalde?

In the coming hours, the January 6 committee will have the nation's attention once, again looking at whether former president, Donald Trump was at the center of an attempted coup.

Plus, Ukraine's president pleas for a modern defense system as Russia pummels the eastern part of that country. We are live in Kyiv with more.

And so, it is being called an important step in the right direction. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators say they have reached an agreement in principle on gun safety legislation. Now, the deal includes more funding for things like mental health and school safety resources. A so-called, red flag provision, an enhanced review process for buyers under the age of 21. And penalties for so-called straw purchasing.

Now, the proposal has support from 10 Republicans who'd be critical to defeat a filibuster in the Senate. If the deal becomes law, it would be the biggest gun reform legislation in decades by far. Now that news just 19 days after a gunman opened fire inside an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas killing 19 children and two teachers.

Listen to this though. Since that tragic day, there have been at least 52 mass shootings in America. That's according to the Gun Violence Archive. CNN's Joe Johns has the president's reaction to the bipartisan agreement on guns.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: The take away from the White House on that gun safety framework agreement announced on Sunday was praise, encouragement and a bit of urgency. Praise for the bipartisan group of senators who worked on the agreement, and praise also for the fact that there is a framework, even though the president said he would have done more. Here's part of his statement.

"It does not do everything I think is needed, but it reflects important steps in the right direction." The president says it would be the most important gun safety legislation in decades. He said there is no reason why this should not go quickly through the House of Representatives as well as the Senate.

He said there's no reason for delay. But the fact of the matter is, this is just an agreement on a framework and not legislative language. The devil is often in the details in these types of agreements. So, we'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out. Joe Johns, CNN, Wilmington, Delaware.

NEWTON: Joining me now is Matthew Littman. He's executive director of 97percent, a group of course, working to reduce gun violence. And good to have you weigh in on this. The word here needs to be incremental, right? It was clear that after the Texas shooting, that any deal, any at all, would be better than no deal. But do you believe the measures as outlined so far can save lives?

MATTHEW LITTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 97percent: Well, good question Paula and thanks for having me on. So, yes, I believe that they could save lives. It's very important. This is not a great deal but it's a great deal, right? Because it's amazing that we got anything at all. Who knew even a few weeks ago that anything would happen? Any type of legislation was a long shot.

There's a bunch of stuff in here and it's very important, Paula, for the audience to understand 45,000 gun deaths in the U.S. a year. This legislation is not getting that to zero, but can you make any difference and save some lives? I'm inclined to think with this legislation, absolutely, yes.

NWTON: Well, that's the most optimistic thing I've heard really in years for many groups trying to get to gun reform. Let's try and dive deeper, though, into these proposals. They don't ban any type of gun or ammunition. So, we just talked about it, right? There's this red flag provision for states if they choose to take those grants, potentially guns could be confiscated from those deemed dangerous. And that brings up a key point, right? Do you think states could try and sidestep or override this in any way, even if it is a bipartisan success?

[02:04:57]

LITTMAN: It's always possible and states could end up suing. That's always possible. But red flag laws have been proven to be effective. And so, 19 states in the U.S. already have been. Let's take Florida for example, which has a conservative governor, right?

Now, you would think that maybe Florida would sue. No, Florida likes the red flag law. They've taken away over 8,000 guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others. So, having these laws in more states around the country can only be helpful. So, yes, there is some reason for optimism. Again, Paula, it doesn't solve all the problems, but something like a red flag law can be effective and can save lives so I do anticipate seeing that more states around the country.

NEWTON: Yes. And, again, so much of that progress, unfortunately, came after Parkland, right, after that terrible school shooting. Now, this could possibly include diving into those juvenile records and this means going into those background checks, right? Whatever went on with someone before at the age of 18.

It is that real progress? And a direct question to you, would it have prevented, in your, opinion the Buffalo or Uvalde shooters from obtaining guns and, I am going to stress this point, they obtained those guns legally.

LITTMAN: And I don't know the answer to the question because I will tell you, Paula, if they couldn't obtain them legally, perhaps they would have obtain them legally -- illegally again. We can't prevent every shooting. There are 340 million people the United States with 400 million guns. We cannot prevent every shooting. We can prevent some.

So, for example, you are specifically focusing on mass shooting, which is important. There are 26,000 suicides a year in United States with a gun. So, if you have something like a red flag law where you're able to take the gun away from somebody temporarily, that could prevent a life from being taken, right?

If you have -- we have background checks, you mentioned, for 18-year- olds to 21-year-olds, we're going to have a background -- a deeper background check. So, for example, so people known United States now. If that background check is not completed within three days, the person gets a gun, very often, right? So, this would prevent that. You get to go longer for that background check from 18 to 21-year-olds.

If you're able to prevent them from getting a gun when they may be a danger to themselves or others, you may prevent the mass shooting, but you also may prevent a suicide, which is the vast majority of gun deaths. Most people, 95 percent of people, they try to commit suicide with a gun, they are succeeding. If they try any other way, they are not succeeding.

So, if somebody is going through something temporarily, a state of depression, PTSD, being able to prevent that, Paula, it's so important. And this is why this is helpful legislation.

NEWTON: Yes, it is such a tragic point, but important because sometimes, many times those firearms come from within the home. They have firearms that are already legally within their own homes. Before I let you go, I want to talk about whether or not your optimistic that this could actually provide some momentum. Perhaps not in this Congress, maybe in the one, you know, after the midterms. Or do you worry sometimes that this could be celebrated as some kind of bipartisan win and yet will still be looking at the same statistics in 2023, 2024?

LITTMAN: Great question. And the answer is we're going to be looking at bad statistics, the Supreme Court is going to make it easier for people to carry guns in public places very soon, right? So, we're still going to be looking at bad statistics, but as you said, Paula, there is some momentum. It doesn't mean that things are going to happen in the next year or two, but you first have to prove that you can get bipartisan legislation -- Senator John Cornyn from Texas, Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut, very across the aisle from each other, really made this thing happen with a group of 20 out of 100.

Bipartisan efforts to make this happen to make sure that we have less of these mass shootings in less of these suicides, and that's the first step, Paula. Let's see how this works. It's obviously going to be a couple of years before we see new legislation, but let's see how this works.

And keep in mind, something we talk about all the time, gun owners are onboard with this. Gun owners want this legislation. Gun owners want less gun deaths in the United States. And it's been a very tough hill to climb, but I think that this is a very important step.

NEWTON: Yes. And so crucial that you point that out. It's bipartisan, but also reflected in Americans thinking even the NRA convention that we had a few weeks ago. They were saying they want some of this. Matthew Littman, again --

LITTMAN: Also, let me just say one more thing (inaudible) 80 percent of NRA members want background checks. So, there's no reason for us not to be doing all these things that Congress is doing. We can do more, but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the gun.

NEWTON: Okay, Matthew, we'll leave it there for now. We'll wait to see the details of this new proposal. Appreciate it.

And now to Ukraine where Russian forces appear ever closer to taking total control of a critical city in the east. Now, the grinding battle for Severodonetsk is central to Russia's efforts to seize control of the wider Donbas region.

[02:10:01]

You can see it there by looking at that map. Ukraine says Russia now controls most of the city and plans to cut it off completely in the coming days.

Now, fighting has raged there for weeks with Russian forces unleashing the full might of their artillery power to try and pummel the city into submission. Ukrainian officials say Russian shelling also caused a fire at a chemical plant in the city where hundreds of civilians are still sheltering. Now, in his nightly address, Ukraine's president pleaded with western allies to send more heavy weapons to help counter those Russian attacks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE (through translation): s the 109th day of a full scale war, but it is not the 109th day as we tell our partners a simple thing. Ukraine needs modern missile defenses systems. The supply of such a system was possible this year, last year, and even earlier. Did we get them? No. Do we need them? Yes.

There have already been 2,606 affirmative answers to these questions in the form of various Russian cruise missiles that have hit Ukrainian cities. Our cities, our villages for the period from February 24th. These are lives that could have been saved. These are tragedies that could have been prevented if Ukraine had been listened to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: For more on all of this, we are joined by CNN Salma Abdelaziz in Kyiv. Thanks so much for joining us, Salma. I mean, that was pleading from President Zelenskyy. We've heard it really since this war began, but it is, and it seems different this time, right? Russia seems close to a pivotal accomplishment down in the east.

SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN REPORTER: Absolutely, and the tide those early days of war where we saw Ukrainian resistance able to fight back Russian forces. That seems very much not the case now. You are looking at the tide turning in Russia's favor. Let's start with Severodonetsk because, of course, that is the flash point city in the Luhansk region, as you said, a pivotal victory if it falls to Russian forces.

Ukrainian officials predicting that it could be completely encircled, completely cut off in a number of days. Over the last few days, what Russian forces have done is they have bombed two out of three bridges that connect Severodonetsk to its twin city, Lysychansk. That third bridge that remains is being shelled heavily.

If those bridges are destroyed completely, it makes it almost impossible to evacuate civilians. You mentioned that chemical plant, the Azov plant where about 500 people are sheltering, but across the city, there is an estimated 10,000 people still trapped inside with no clear way out and, again, these bridges would make that ever more difficult.

And, of course, that makes supply routes particularly bringing weapons in for these Ukrainian forces even more difficult. Now, Ukrainian commander-in-chief was updating U.S. officials yesterday and he said Russian firepower is 10 times more superior than that of Ukraine. That's why you hear, of course, President Zelenskyy yet again pleading for weaponry.

But all along this eastern front, Paula, Ukrainian forces are struggling to hold back a Russian advance. The full front line is over about 2,500 kilometers long, about 1,000 of it is active, so you can see that the Ukrainian forces are spread out. There's been increased shelling in the north and areas like Kharkiv and Sumy.

So, again, Ukrainian forces saying they're having to respond to this. So, a real struggle here to fight back what is a superior military, of course, and a meter by meter artillery advance from Russian forces as Ukrainian troops run out of weapons.

NEWTON: Yes, thanks for pointing that out, Salma, that they actually quantify the 10 times, right, the kind of artillery power that Russia has over Ukraine. Salma Abdelaziz for us in Kyiv. Thank you so much. Just ahead for us, their first hearing was apparently must-see TV.

Now, the January 6 committee is about to re-convene. We will have a preview from Washington.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:15:00]

NEWTON: The second public hearing of the January 6 committee is scheduled to begin in just a few hours and the focus will be on what former President Trump knew about the election results and when he knew it even as he kept pushing the big lie that he had been robbed of victory. Here's a preview now from Marshall Cohen.

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: The second public hearing from the January 6th select committee is shaping up to be a blockbuster event. The witness list includes Donald Trump's 2020 campaign manager Bill Stepien. That was a bit of a surprise. He is appearing under subpoena and we'll find out soon how helpful he is going to be. It's notable that he's even showing up.

The panel will also hear from B.J. Pak. He was the U.S. attorney in Atlanta who was pressured by the Trump White House to backup Trump's false claims about massive voter fraud in Georgia. He refused to do that and he resigned. And he'll now share his story publicly for the very first time.

There's also going to be testimony from Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg. He's a heavyweight in GOP legal circles and he was involved in the Bush v. Gore recount back all in 2000. He disavowed Trump's election lies in 2020. And so did Al Schmidt, another Republican who will be testifying at the hearing. He was a Philadelphia city commissioner, helped oversee the election there in 2020, and debunked Trump's false claims that the vote counting was rigged to help the Democrats.

Finally, the committee will hear testimony from Chris Stirewalt. He was a Fox News staffer, part of the network's decision team that projects winners and losers of elections. That team made waves on election night 2020 when they called Arizona for then candidate Joe Biden. That was a massive blow to Trump's attempts to falsely claim victory and infuriated the Trump campaign even though it did end up being correct.

[02:20:02]

He has since said that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. That's going to be a very interesting witness. So here is the big picture. The big picture for this hearing is that the committee, they say it's all about exposing Trump's election lies, which he weaponized to try to overturn the results and stop the transition of power.

The committee says that Trump did all of this even though his advisers told him over and over that he lost the election fair and square. Marshall Cohen, CNN, Washington. NEWTON: Jessica Levinson is a law professor at Loyola Law School and

host of the "Passing Judgment" podcast and she joins me now from Los Angeles. You know, more people apparently watch these hearings than watch the Oscars. You are one of them. Is it enough to declare these hearings a success just because of that? You know, we've been arguing for months that Americans aren't interested. That they've already heard this. That they've already made up their minds. Is that true or do you think these hearings did really step it up into another level?

JESSICA LEVINSON, PROFESSOR, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL: Well, it depends on what we define as success. But the fact that people are engaged, that they're watching and hopefully with an open mind, I think is very important. I think that conventional wisdom is of people are dug in and for the people who think January 6 is a big deal, they'll watch, but nobody else.

And maybe that actually is the case. But I do think it's important regardless of your political affiliation, regardless of your partisan views, just to hear what members of Congress have to say about what led up to the insurrection in the capital, and of course this is not a court of law, but whether or not there is any evidence that could give rise to federal criminal charges against the former president or anyone else.

NEWTON: Yes. And given your legal expertise, that's what we want to talk to you about. We talked about the audience. What about the audience of the Justice Department? What more do we know about when or if there will be prosecutions? And of course, if that will include the former president.

And you know, the hearings that will be going on today will focus on Trump's actions and, you know, this will be different in the sense the TV networks will broadcast them again, but this time Fox will as well.

LEVINSON: So, a couple of things. One, it is not at all unusual to basically have almost no transparency with respect to the Department of Justice investigations. And of course, during the work of the January 6 committee, they have had a parallel investigation. We know, of course, that they have tried a lot of people with respect to who were involved in January 6th, but not the president, not members of his administration except for former members of his administration being charged with contempt of Congress for just not cooperating with the January 6 committee.

You know, in terms of what we are looking for, of course, this is not a court of law and I think it's important to know that we do want to hear everything that the January 6 committee found. They went through hundreds of depositions, thousands of papers, but we also want the Department of Justice to exercise its independent assessment. They are not a political body. They should not be a political body.

And I think a lot of what Congress is doing is trying to walk a fine line between maybe arguing to the Department of Justice, we think there is a there there, but also saying we understand you're an independent agency, and don't want them to be subject to political pressure. NEWTON: I know the committee says that they are political, that it's

the Justice Department's job. But in the end aren't they hoping that somehow this sends a message?

LEVINSON: Absolutely. So, I think there is no question that the committee is hoping that they are going to send a message to the American public, and maybe, yes, to the Department of Justice. But of course, it is a very different audience. Their audience is the voters. Their audience is the electorate in general. Their audience includes the Department of Justice, but what they are really saying is, are these people who you want to be your representatives?

Are these people who pose an existential threat to our constitution, those who you want being public officials? The Department of Justice has a very different inquiry and audience. They are asking whether or not there are specific provisions of the federal criminal code that they can point to and that they can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that those provisions were in fact violated. Two different audiences, two different standards of proof. Obviously, the overlap in the facts is enormous.

NEWTON: Yes. And the bar, as you said, for trying to bring those charges forward is much higher. What do you think though about the GOP and what they will make of these hearings, you know, even those who oppose these hearings, some pundits have actually said that look, they are looking at the former president, President Trump, and saying he may not be our best chance for the White House in 2024 because of what this committee has put on the table?

[02:25:02]

And by any measure, the hearings have already achieved something, right? If that's the case.

LEVINSON: So, if the case is to bring the truth to more people, to simply bring facts and allow people to evaluate on their own, then yes, that is a win. That is successful. But I think we have seen for so many times over the past five, six years that many people have thought, okay, this is it.

The former president or when he was the president or when he was a candidate. He has shown that he should not be the standard bearer for the Republican Party, let alone the American public. And the Republican Party has stayed behind him. So, if this is the moment, if this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, then it is. But I want to wait to see after the hearings, did the needle move?

NEWTON: Now, and as you said, the Republican Party has shown that what they want as a disruptor, and for now that still seems to be the former president. Jessica Levinson, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

LEVINSON: Thank you.

NEWTON: U.S. President Biden is committed to seeking reelection, but one House Democrat says she's not sure he will have her support. More on what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had to say. You'll want to hear this. Straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: The White House said last year that Joe Biden, in fact, intends to run for reelection in 2024. But one Democrat wouldn't say whether he'd have her support when asked by CNN's Dana Bash. Take a listen now to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she was asked if she would endorse Biden in 2024.

[02:30:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. But I think if the president has a vision and that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the -- when the time comes.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: That's not a yes.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes, you know, I think we should endorse when we get to it, but I believe that the president has been doing a very good job so far. And, you know, should he run again? I think that I -- you know, I think it's -- we'll take a look at it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Interesting, right? Ocasio Cortez went on to say that right now the focus for her party needs to be winning a majority in the upcoming midterm elections rather than thinking about the presidential election. So, one issue the U.S. president has been criticized over has been his stance on Saudi Arabia. On the campaign trail, Mr. Biden promise to make the nation and I'm quoting here, a pariah after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The White House said earlier this month, a possible presidential visit to Saudi Arabia was pushed back to July but it's been tight lipped about details. And it's not clear now, if that trip is actually happening or if President Biden will meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Spokesperson for the White House National Security Council spoke earlier to CNN's Pam Brown. John Kirby defended the administration's softening towards the region.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: What hasn't changed is a long standing eight decades long partnership with Saudi Arabia and members, other countries in the region. But Saudi Arabia is specifically, a key partner in the fight against ISIS, a key partner in the region in terms of counterterrorism writ large, and in terms of pushing back on Iran's destabilizing behavior.

And again, we have worked closely with the Saudis engaging diplomatically on the war in Yemen, which obviously the president has called for that war to end, he's called for a diplomatic negotiated solution. And now working with the Saudis, we've been able to help put in place a truce now for two months just got extended for another two. There is a spate of national security issues that remain front center -- front and center for us in the Middle East. So, it's what hasn't changed I think that's important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Now the White House says they are thinking about what a trip to the area would look like and what would need to happen if they go. It may also include a stop in Israel.

South Korea says North Korea fired multiple rocket launcher shots early Sunday morning. The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't give any details though. Multiple rocket launchers usually fire shorter range munitions and are not like long-range ballistic missiles. And this comes just as Seoul announces a dramatic boost to its defenses. CNN's Paula Hancocks has been following all of this for us from Seoul.

Good to see you, Paula, and get your insight on this. You know, we have more evidence of North Korea's menacing posture. We just heard about it there. And you've been pointing out to us for weeks that with this new leadership change in South Korea, that they have said they will follow a different strategy towards North Korea. Are we seeing evidence of that now?

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they have said that they're going to have a firmer and sterner response to missile launches. This -- what happened on Sunday morning is less concerning than a ballistic missile launch, for example. But of course, the question is, how will they respond to show that they have a stronger -- a stronger reaction to what North Korea is doing at the moment, which is intense missile testing.

And potentially a seventh underground nuclear tests which many intelligence agencies believe they're ready for and could carry out at any time. Now, we had an interesting speech from the South Korean Defense Minister on Sunday, Lee Jong-sup. This was at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore which is where many of the defense ministers around the world are meeting at the moment.

And he did say that they were going to increase their defense capabilities dramatically to try and counter the North Korean threat. He also pointed out the North Korea's repeated missile, as he says provocations are advancing in quality and quantity, saying that it's not only destabilizing for Northeast Asia, but what North Korea is doing at the moment is destabilizing for the entire Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

Also, he pointed out that if North Korea did show willing and was pushing towards denuclearization, then South Korea would pursue a bold plan, he says to try and help their economy and the quality of lives of their people. But clearly that's not a concern for Kim Jong-un at this point. He is showing absolutely no indication that he wants any engagement with either South Korea or the United States.

And he doesn't give any indication that he wants any kind of negotiations with both countries. He is very much focused on improving his weapons capabilities at the moment. Paula?

NEWTON: Yes. And that definitely translates to escalation. Paula Hancocks for us in Seoul. Thanks so much.

[02:35:05]

NEWTON: Now a violent attack against women caught on video prompts public outcry in China. Now some are saying it's a bigger issue right throughout the entire country. We'll have the latest from Beijing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: A viral video showing a man brutally attacking women is fueling new discussions on women's safety in China. Nine people were arrested following a fight that broke out at a barbecue restaurant with at least four women injured. Now we have to warn you that this video of this incident is incredibly disturbing and difficult to watch but it has triggered nationwide outrage in China.

And it's important for us to show this. CNN Beijing bureau chief Steven Jiang, glad to have you with us. You are going to take us through this incident was just truly horrifying. And also I'm wondering if this is emblematic, right? Of the treatment of women in China more broadly.

STEVEN JIANG, CNN BEIJING BUREAU CHIEF: That's right, Paula. That's the question on many people's minds before we go there as you mentioned, it is as difficult as this to watch this video and it is important to illustrate why this incident hosters so much emotions and reactions around the country. Now in this surveillance video from last Friday, you can see a man in green walking past by this group of women eating there at a restaurant and making unwanted advances to this woman in white.

And after she rebuffed him more than once, not only he did not give up. He actually started hitting her in the face and that's when she and her friends tried to get him away by trying to hit him with what appeared to be a beer bottles. And then this man and his cohorts escalated their violence again -- against these women by punching and kicking them in the restaurant and even throwing a chair at them.

And then this group of men actually drew robbed the woman in white out of the restaurant and continue to pummel and kick her and throwing her and her friend to the ground littered with a broken beer bottle glass.

[02:40:08]

JIANG: And that's why a two women suffered serious injuries and got hospitalized and two other sustained minor injuries. Now, of course, as you mentioned, nine suspects have been arrested. But this incident really has not only enraged nation, but to renew this debate about violence and sexual harassment against women because those are topics increasingly taboo here, as the government cracks down on many such conversations.

And especially on the feminist activists, which many of them being portrayed as subversive forces instigated by overseas anti-China elements. So that's why even after this Incident, we have seen the authorities here seem tried to -- seem to try to steer the focus away from gender-based violence to something more akin to an isolated incident involving local gangsters and some Chinese social media platforms have also censored and blocked posts and accounts that they deem to be "stirring gender-based confrontations."

But despite these efforts, Paula, it's undoubtedly this topic is now back at in front of center of a national discourse with many highlighting systemic problems faced by women in this still largely patriarchal society. Paula?

NEWTON: Yes. As you said, a lot of questions there for what went on and why. Steven Jiang, thanks so much for bringing us that story.

Now for our international viewers, World Sport is next. For everyone else here in the United States and Canada, I'll be back with more news after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[02:45:00]

(WORLD SPORT)