Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

More Testimonies Expected in January 6th Hearing; Majority of Severodonetsk Now Under Russian Control; Senators Agreed on a Gun Reform Framework; British National Facing Death Penalty. Aired 3-4a ET

Aired June 13, 2022 - 03:00   ET

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

[03:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and a warm welcome. You are in CNN Newsroom. I'm Paula Newton.

Coming up, we are just hours away from the second televised hearing into the January 6th insurrection. We will preview what today's session could reveal, and look at the audience the committee is trying to reach.

Finally, an agreement in principle that if passed would be the largest gun reform legislation in decades what's in it and what's not.

And Russia makes a push to take all of the key Ukrainian city. We are live in Kyiv with details.

Their first hearing was a smash hit of sorts, that drew some 20 million viewers. Now, the January 6th committee is about to reconvene in front of the TV cameras once again just hours from now. 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 was the victim of massive voter fraud.

Here is a preview now from CNN's Marshall Cohen.

MARSHALL COHEN, CNN REPORTER: The second public caring 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; 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 is also going to be testimony from Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg. He is a heavyweight in GOP circle and he was involved in the Bush v. Gore recount back 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 help to 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 attempt to falsely claim victory and infuriated the Trump campaign, even though it did end up being correct. He has since said that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. That's going to be a very interesting witness.

So, here's 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 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 as 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 OF LAW, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL: Well, it depends on what we define as success, but the fact that people are engaged, that they are watching and hopefully with an open mind I think it is very important. I think that the conventional wisdom is people are dug in, and for the people who think that 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.

[03:05:01]

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 really want to talk 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 that 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 investigation. 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 is involved in January 6. 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're looking for, of course this is not a court of law. And I think it's important to note 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 there-there but also saying that we understand your independent agency. And we don't want them to be subject to political pressure.

NEWTON: I know the committee says that they're 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 elector in general, their audience includes the Department of Justice.

But what they're 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 whomping public officials? The Department of Justice has a very different inquiry an audience. They're asking whether they're 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 that he may not be our best chance for the White House in 2024. Because of what this committee has put on the table.

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 that we have seen for so many times over the past five, six years that many people thought, OK, 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 is a disrupter and for now that still seems to be the former president.

Jessica Levinson, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

LEVINSON: Thank you.

NEWTON: U.S. Presidential Joe Biden says the framework of gun safety reflects important steps in the right direction. His comments after a bipartisan group of senators announced an agreement in principle that could lead to the largest gun reform legislation in decades.

Now, that news nearly three weeks after a gunman opened fire inside an elementary school in Uvalde Texas killing 19 children and two teachers.

CNN's Daniela Diaz has more now from Washington.

DANIELLA DIAZ, CNN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: The bipartisan group of senators that has been working on some sort of framework on gun safety reform in the wake of the Uvalde shooting announced on Sunday that they reached a framework, that they reached a deal.

[03:10:05]

Now they do not have the legislative text of bill language yet. That is incredibly important. It's just an agreement on principle. It will have measures that support state crisis intervention orders, investment in child and family mental health, protections for victims of domestic violence, , funding for school based mental health and supportive services, funding for school safety resources, and telehealth investments.

And also, important and notable, and enhanced review process for buyers under the age of 21. And there is also going to be a measure that includes penalties for straw purchasing.

I want to emphasize, too, that there are 10 Republicans who signed off on the announcement for this framework. And remember, because of that 50/50 split in the Senate, 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, if every single Democratic senator supports this, there still needs to be 10 Republicans to break that 60-vote threshold for the filibuster.

Now, Republicans are saying, an aide actually told our Dana Bash, a Republican aide told our Dana Bash earlier today that they have not agreed yet. Once they see the legislative text, those details are going to be important. They said, quote, "this is an agreement on principles not legislative text. The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly for the firearms related provisions."

One of -- or more of these principles could be dropped if the text is not agreed to. So, really, really important as we continue to see once they start writing the text to this bill. But I do want to note that the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell put out a statement on Sunday after this announcement on the framework praising the top negotiators, John Cornyn and Chris Murthy.

He said, I appreciate their hard work on this important issue. The principles they announce today show the value of dialogue and cooperation. So, there is some praise from the top Republican in the Senate very, very notable.

But Senator Chris Coons was actually on CNN on Sunday after this announcement. And he told our Dana Bash, that while they do have this framework it's not a win yet for Democrats for this bipartisan group because there is still a lot more work to happen that needs to take place before they vote. Take a listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It's very delicate, still.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): That's right. There is a lot of work still to do, to take this framework agreement and reduce it to legislative language. We shouldn't take a victory lap yet. But I'm so grateful for the leadership that senators like Chris Murphy and John Cornyn have showed in getting us to this point. And I'm optimistic that the pressure that we are all feeling from our constituents to act and to deliver real results will get us to the president's desk with legislation this time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAZ: I want to emphasize that while this framework is incredibly important that it just came out super notable, it is narrow in its scope. But Democrats are hoping that they could at least have some sort of incremental change on gun safety reform.

That was the goal in these bipartisan talks to find something, find consensus with Republicans to make progress on this issue that has been a stalemate for more than 30 years. So, that is why it is so notable that they are now doing this. But they are still a lot more work ahead for this bipartisan group to get it over the finish line.

Daniella Diaz, CNN, Washington.

NEWTON: News of the gun safety came on the anniversary of one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history. Six years ago, a gunman killed 49 people and injured dozens more at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida. On Sunday, the community there gathered for a remembrance ceremony at the memorial site for the Pulse Nightclub. The names of the victims were read aloud and survivors share their stories.

Last year, U.S. President Joe Biden signed a law designating the site of the Pulse nightclub a national memorial.

Still ahead for us, a key Ukrainian city could be close to falling as Russia's onslaught continues in the east. We'll have details right after the break.

[03:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: Russian forces appear closer than ever to taking total control of a critical city in eastern Ukraine. The grinding battle for Severodonetsk is central to Russia's efforts to seize control of the wider Donbas region. Ukraine says the Russian now controls most of the city and plans to cut it off completely in the coming days.

Fighting has rage there for weeks with Russian forces unleashing the full might of their artillery to pummel the city into submission. Ukrainian officials say Russian shelling also caused a fire at the chemical plant in the city where hundreds of civilians are still sheltering.

Ukraine's top general said Sunday that he'd briefed his U.S. counterparts on the latest updates and urge the U.S. to send more heavy weapons to help Ukraine counter such attacks.

For more now we want to bring in CNN's Salma Abdelaziz. She is live for us in Kyiv. Good for you to be with us this morning from Kyiv. With Russia showing significant progress now. You, know as we just said they could soon take all of Severodonetsk. How could this change the direction of the war. Russia could now effectively partition the east, could it not?

SALMA ABDELAZIZ, CNN REPORTER: And in some ways, Paula, that's already happening. Russia has moved quickly to solidify its gains all along the eastern front. They've repaired infrastructure, they have connected railroads now, railways that bring you all the way from Russian territory down through the eastern front to Crimea, all the way to those newly gained territories, newly occupied territories of Kherson and Mariupol.

And of course, on to those very important strategic ports on the Black Sea, they are already using that area to blockade, the shipment of grain from Ukraine. They are already using those places to try to solidify what is a land bridge, essentially one of President Putin's larger goals here.

[03:19:59]

And this is also a cultural victory for President Putin who has disregarded Ukrainian sovereignty, of course does not recognize its autonomy. He says that these territories belong to Russia, that they are culturally Russian.

Now, let's zoom in on Severodonetsk, because as you said, that is important. That is, that key step forward to try to solidify the whole of the Donbas region to try to claim that territory. What we understand from Ukrainian officials is that Russian forces are potentially just days away from being able to cut that city off.

They have blown up two key bridges that connect Severodonetsk to a sister city, Lysychansk. And they're already shelling and bombing a third bridge. And the reason why this is important is of course that makes it ever more difficult to evacuate civilians.

I know that there is a steel plant, the Azovstal plant that's been a flash point there. Hundreds of civilians trapped inside. It was on fire yesterday that has been put out. But there's up to 10,000 civilians still in Severodonetsk unable to get out.

And again, that highway, that road leading into that city that's being heavily bombed. That means getting more supplies, getting more weapons for Ukrainian forces is extremely difficult.

The Ukrainian commander-in-chief was briefing U.S. officials yesterday and said Russian fire housing fire is 10 times that of Ukraine's. It is extremely difficult to imagine, Paula, that the city will not fall very soon to Russian forces.

NEWTON: Yes, and as you make the point, there are still civilians trapped in various locations including in Severodonetsk. Salma, thanks for the update. I appreciate it.

Now the family of a British man condemned the death for fighting for Ukraine says they are devastated by the verdict. Shaun Pinner is one of three foreign fighters given the death penalty by a pro-Russian court in the self-proclaimed Donetsk people's republic. A court accused them of being mercenaries for Ukraine, but Ukraine says that they were part of its armed forces. Meaning they are entitled to certain legal protections. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DENIS KRIVOSHEEV, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EAST EUROPE & CENTRAL ASIA AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: This is not a child. There should be no decision which is called death penalty which isn't, even isn't. And they should be treated as any prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. None of that is happening. And that's what must happen. So, cancel that decision, don't pretend it's a trial. And provide them with their rights, which they have asked prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Joining me now is Dapo Akande, he is a professor of public international law at the University of Oxford. He is also co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict.

Thanks for joining us. And this is really been a confusing situation for so many. And I want everyone to remember, right, Ukraine did have trials of its own of Russian soldiers. They were given life sentence -- sentences. But the legal definition is so important here. So, let's try and go through this.

Is it true that a prisoner of war, a POW, could not be prosecuted for a lawful act of war? So, then what is the legal distinction between someone who's tried for a war crime, let's say or a mercenary, or a POW?

DAPO AKANDE, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD: Thanks very much. Yes, that's right. A person who is a prisoner of war, that means a member of the armed forces of one of the two parties that are fighting who is captured and detained by the other side, that's a prisoner of war. is entitled to what's called combatant immunity.

So, what that means is that the person may not be tried merely for taking part in the hostilities. And what that means is that as you said they may not be tried for the lawful acts of war. So, if they commit an act which is a war crime, in other words, something that is contrary to the laws of war, they may be tried for that.

But if what they do is not contrary to the laws of war, even if it results in death or destruction, then they may not be tried for that. And so, essentially, the distinction between what the Ukrainians have done and what has happened to these two British individuals, is that the Ukrainians were prosecuting these Russian captured soldiers for things that war crimes. Things that are contrary to the law of armed conflict; whereas, there isn't an allegation that these British nationals have committed war crimes.

NEWTON: And, yet there is the allegation that they, in fact, are mercenaries. So, trying, can you clear that up? I mean, what is a difference between a mercenary and a foreign fighter? And does that status even matter, really in this case when you're captured by the enemy?

AKANDE: So, as a matter of international law, there is something called a mercenary. And if you are a mercenary then you could be deprived of your right as a prisoner of war. But there isn't something that's just generally described as a foreign fighter. That isn't a stage as in international law.

[03:25:03]

So, the question is what is a mercenary. And the definition of a mercenary as a matter of international law is actually very narrow. So, we are talking about people who are not nationals of the state that they're fighting for, who are also not members of the armed forces. So, they're not nationals, they are not resident in their territory concern. They are not integrated into the armed forces. They are motivated to fight for private gain and they are paid, compensation that's substantially in excesses of what is paid for to the local members of the armed forces of the state.

And in the case of these British nationals, in the first place these two actually our resident of Ukraine. So, that in of itself takes them outside the definition of a mercenary. They are also members of the armed forces of Ukraine. They're integrated into the armed forces of Ukraine. Again, that means that they are not mercenaries.

And finally, there is no evidence that they are being paid substantially in excess of what other members of the Ukrainian armed forces are being paid. So, for each of those reasons, they are not mercenaries. And therefore, they retain their prisoner of war status which means they should be entitled to that combatant immunity that I spoke about.

NEWTON: Yes, and it will be difficult to see who will actually be the arbiter of what happens to these men at this point in time. You know, these foreign fighters have been warned by some -- by their countries to stay away from this war. According to Ukraine, thousands have ignored that advice and join their fight anyway. How does that further complicate this conflict?

AKANDE: Well, I mean, I suppose it allows Russia to make this allegation that these individuals are mercenaries, even though that they may not actually fall within the definition of being a mercenary. It makes it -- it makes it easy for Russia to make that allegation.

And I suppose that the further complication that you have then is whether or not the state of nationality of these individuals chooses to make representation to either Russia or, in this particular case, remember these individuals are being tried by the local separatist forces in Donetsk, so the so-called Donetsk people of the republic.

And of course, the separatist forces are not recognized by foreign states. So, they're not recognized by the U.K. And so, the complication that you have here is that even if the U.K. wants to make representations, it might be hesitant to make representation to an authority that it doesn't recognize as a state because it doesn't want to treat them as a state.

And so that means that they are probably going to try to either make representation to Russia or try to get to Ukrainians to make representation. And just the sort of diplomatic relations aspect of it is complicated when you're being tried by an entity that is not recognized by your state of nationality.

NEWTON: Yes, and you can certainly see why the families are so concerned just given everything that you have spelled out illegally there for us. Professor Akande, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

AKANDE: Thank you. NEWTON: Now, a violent attack against women caught on video prompts

public outcry in China. Now, some are saying it's a much larger issue throughout the entire country. We'll have the latest from Beijing.

And South Korea pairs its defenses after another weapons launch from the north. We are live in Seoul with the latest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[03:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: A bipartisan group of U.S. senators says they've reached an agreement in principle on gun safety legislation. Now the deal includes more funding for mental health and school safety resources. The so-called red flag provision, an enhanced review process for buyers under the age of 21 and penalties for straw purchasing.

Now the proposal has support from 10 Republican who'd be critical to defeat the filibuster in the Senate. If the deal becomes law, it would be the largest gun reform legislation in decades. Senators say that there is more work to do, but they are cautiously optimistic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): We are in the midst of these national tragedies where these mass shootings one after the other. To think that a group of senators, bipartisan group could come together and take measured but important steps forward toward gun safety is nothing short of a political miracle. We're not at the finish line but at least we can see it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Now earlier, I spoke with Mathew Littman, he is the executive director of Ninety Seven Percent. a group working to reduce gun violence. I asked him if he believes the proposal by senators can help save lives.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATHEW LITTMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 97 PERCENT: Yes, I believe that they can save lives. It's very important that 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 that with this legislation, absolutely yes.

NEWTON: Well, that's the most optimistic thing that 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. 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 anyway, even if it is a bipartisan success?

LITTMAN: It's always possible and states could end up suing. That's always possible bit 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 is a conservative governor. Right? Now you would think that maybe Florida would assume, no. Florida likes the red flag law. They've taken away eight -- over 8,000 guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.

So, having these laws and more states around the country can only be helpful. So, yes. There is some reason for optimism. But 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.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[03:35:07]

NEWTON: A really insightful to get his opinion there. That was Mathew Littman, executive director of 97 Percent.

Now, activists voicing their support for the proposed reforms include March for Our Lives, a movement focus on gun violence prevention. One of its founders is a survivor of the Parkland school shooting who is welcoming the latest Senate plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID HOGG, PARKLAND SHOOTING SURVIVOR: This is something, this is something substantially more than we've seen in decades from Congress. Is this everything that I want? Definitely not. But it is something. You know, it's going to take a long time for us to address this issue, the same way it did with cigarettes in terms of addressing it in a public health and evidence-based approach and manner.

But if this stops the next Parkland from happening, or even just one more Parkland from happening, or one more shooting from happening, it's progress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: OK, also welcoming that progress, U.S. President Joe Biden. CNN's Joe Johns has more now on the reaction from Washington. JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: The take away from

the White House on that gun safety framework agreement announced on Sunday was praised, 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've done more.

Here is part of a statement. He said it does not do everything I think it's 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 is 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: So, the White House said last year that Joe Biden 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 to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she was asked if she would endorse Biden in 2024.

(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 that we're all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's not a yes.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes, you know, I think that 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.

South Korea says North Korea fired multiple rocket launcher shots early Sunday morning. The South Korean joints chief of staff didn't give any of the details. Now multiple rocket launchers usually fire shorter range ammunitions, and they're not like long-range ballistic missiles.

And this comes as Seoul announces a dramatic boost in its defenses. CNN's Paula Hancocks joins me now live from Seoul. Of course, we have more evidence of North Korea's menacing posture. But I'm wondering what your take is now on South Korea's strategy which of course is changed given South Korea's new leadership.

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Sydney, what we're seeing from this new current president he has said himself that he wants a stronger response to missile launches, to weapons test, that he wants to be firmer in that response. Of course, it's difficult to see exactly what kind of response there will be as he goes forward.

Because when you bear in mind, Kim Jong-un is very much in the midst of a testing cycle. He has shown absolutely no interest in negotiations or engaging in any shape or form with the U.S. or with South Korea even though both have reached out recently, also with the COVID outbreak, saying that they could help with pandemic materials.

So, at this point it's difficult to see what that strong response would be from the South Korean side. But they've certainly said physically that that would happen. We heard from the defense minister, Lee Jun-seok on Sunday, this was in Singapore at the defense minister's meeting, the Shangri-La dialogue.

And he said that South Korea will boost its defense capabilities dramatically to counter the North Korean threat. So that's certainly one concrete change that we can see, saying that the repeated provocation from North Korea are advancing in quality and quantity.

[03:40:00]

Something which has concerned many in the region given that the sheer number of missiles launches that we have seen this year, some of them have been failures. But even a failure will help North Korea move forward. Paula?

NEWTON: All right, Paula Hancocks, live for us in Seoul for that update. I appreciate it.

Now, a viral video showing a man brutally attacking women is fueling new discussion on women safety in China. Nine people were arrested following a fight that broke out at the barbecue restaurant with at least four women injured.

Now, we have to warn you that the video of this incident is in fact very disturbing and difficult to watch. But it has triggered nationwide outbreak in China and it is important for us to show.

CNN Beijing bureau chief, Steven, Jiang joins me now. And Steven, you're going to take us through this horrifying video. But also, it is emblematic of other issues in China with, you know, really the treatment of women.

STEVEN JIANG, CNN BEIJING BUREAU CHIEF: That is certainly the question that undermines the millions of people across this country, Paula. But as you said, as difficult as it is to watch this horrific video, it is important to show our viewers or at least a portion of it to illustrate why this incident has stirred such strong reaction and emotions across China.

In this surveillance video from last Friday, you can see a man in green walking past a group of women eating at this 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 started hitting her in the face.

And that's when she and her friend tried to get him away by trying to hit him with what appeared to be beer bottles. And that's one this man and his cohorts escalated their violence against these win it by punching and kicking them in the restaurant and even throwing a chair at them.

And then these men drag this woman in white out of the -- out of the restaurant and continue to pummel and kick her and also throwing her and her friend to the ground littered with broken beer bottle glass. And that's why two women suffered serious injuries. They remain hospitalized. And two others sustained minor injuries.

Now as you mentioned all nine suspects have been arrested, but of course, this is vicious attack has not only an enraged the whole nation, but also really stirred renewed debates about violence and sexual harassment against women.

Topics increasingly becoming taboo in this country because the government has been cracking down on many such conversations, and especially on feminist activists, many of whom have been portrayed as subversive forces being instigated by anti-China element from overseas.

That's why even after this incident we have seen the authority seem to try to steer the focus away from gender-based violence to something more to an isolated incident involving local gangsters. Some social media platforms here in China even blocks and censored post and accounts that they deemed to be, quote, unquote, "stirring gender- based confrontations."

But no matter these efforts, Paula, one thing is clear, this topics of women safety and rights are very much back front and center of a national discourse with many highlights systemic problems faced by women in this still very much patriarchal society. Paula?

NEWTON: Yes. We're going to wait to see if the government does confront some of those issues especially given the outrage in that horrifying video and incident.

Steven Jiang for us in Beijing, thank you.

Now a last-minute attempt to stop the British deportation to Rwanda. Coming up, how an appeals court could decide the fate of dozens of migrants.

[03:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) NEWTON: In the coming hours a British court of appeal will issue a

ruling on an asylum appeal that could see dozens deported to Rwanda. Now on Friday, the high court ruled the deportation could go ahead after denying an attempt by human rights groups to get an injunction. If the appeal fails some 50 people could be on the first schedule flight to Rwanda Tuesday.

Under the controversial government plan anyone who arrived in Britain illegally, since January 1st of this year could be relocated to Rwanda.

I'm joined now by Nada's -- by CNN's Nada Bashir who is live for us in Paris with more on the story. Would this be the last legal hurdle to this, we've already said, is a very controversial policy?

NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER: Well, look, Paula, there is a much broader legal question over the legality of the entire policy of deporting asylum seekers from the U.K. to Rwanda. But as you mentioned that this legal challenge that we're seeing in the high court today could have very immediate consequences, that flight is scheduled to leave tomorrow will carry asylum seekers to Rwanda, the first flight to take part in this policy.

Now there was that legal challenge on Friday put forward by advocacy groups including Care4Calais which does a lot of work here in France on the northern Calais region where many refugees and asylum seekers are still waiting to make that dangerous crossing across the English Chanel to reach the U.K. As well as a union representing a civil servant from the government's own home office.

Now they were calling for an emergency injunction on that flight scheduled to leave tomorrow. That was rejected by the high court, but it's set to be appealed this morning. So, we are going to hear the judgment on that. But there is a second legal challenge that are being put forward at the high court today by asylum aide and other advocacy groups for asylum seekers.

That is being heard today in the high court but also by the same judge. So, there is some skepticism over whether or not there will be a breakthrough on the case. But as they said there is a much broader question on the legality of this entire policy which has sparked so much controversy here in the U.K. both in parliament and within members of the public and human rights organizations in particular.

The home secretary, Priti Patel, has said that this policy seeks to deter asylum seekers from making that crossing from taking those boats across the English Chanel which can often be very dangerous. We've seen lives lost.

But we actually visited a number of these camps in northern France just over the weekend. And we spoke to asylum seekers there and many of them told us that they weren't deterred by this policy. That the idea that they would be sent to Rwanda once arriving in the U.K. was just another obstacle in the already long, difficult and often dangerous journey that they have taken to get to the U.K. Paula? NEWTON: Yes, and it's definitely a measure of their desperation.

Nada, we'll wait to hear more from your reporting there from France as you've spoken to them. I appreciate it.

Coming up, inside Russia's answer to McDonald's, it has a snapping your name but a familiar menu.

[03:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: Russia Day was celebrated Sunday. The holiday commemorates the declaration of state sovereignty of the Russian Federation in 1990. President Vladimir Putin handed out medals on awards for achievements in science, literature, and the arts. Russia Day was also marked an occupied parts of Ukraine.

Ukrainian officials alleged that people celebrating in Kherson were lured there with the promise of food and used as propaganda. CNN cannot independently verify that claim.

McDonald's was one of the many U.S. and global brands to leave Russia because of the war in Ukraine. And coinciding with Russia Day, the company that took over the McDonald's stores has now launched its first 15 restaurants in the Moscow area with more to follow right across the country.

CNN's Fred Pleitgen was there.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, Russia now has its own version of McDonald's. It comes under a different name here, it's called Vkusno i tochka, which essentially means tasty and that's it. It also has a different label or different logo. You could see it right there.

It's supposed to symbolized, the company says, fries and a hamburger. Other than that, other things are very similar to McDonald's. However, there is no big mac and there are also is no happy meal either. As you can see this place is pretty much jam-packed. There's really a lot of people who came here.

We spoke to some of the customers, including some actually wearing the symbols of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine which of course, the Russians call a special military operation.

[03:55:02]

UNKNOWN: Food and politics have nothing in common. Like, come on, man, keep things separate.

UNKNOWN: Basically, it's important for me to come to McDonald's feel.

UNKNOWN: I think it's not a good idea because McDonald's it's a history. It's a brand. It's a great idea. It's not classical McDonald's. PLEITGEN: As you can see the Russian version of McDonald's looks a

lot like McDonald's. You have the double cheeseburger here, fries. And this is a nine-piece not McNuggets, it's nuggets and some sort of soft drinks. See how it taste. So, the packaging is also very, very similar to McDonald's. You can see the cup here, everything except the branding. Same goes for the fries, and if you look carefully, you can see the sauces, it even seems to have a McDonald's logo blacked out. You can see how it looks, McNuggets looks nuggets. It tastes pretty much exactly the same as McDonald's.

This is a very historic place also. This is where in 1990 back then during the Soviet Union, the first McDonald's restaurant was opened. Now, that of course led to a huge success story of McDonald's here in Russia, and the Russian company that's now bought these franchises from McDonald's say they hope they'll be able to replicate that success.

Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Moscow.

NEWTON: I'm Paula Newton. I want to thank you for joining us. CNN Newsroom continues with my colleague Isa Soares. That's right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[04:00:00]