Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CNN International: RFK Jr. Says He's Suspending Campaign, Endorsing Trump; Harris Vows "A New Way Forward" As She Accepts Nomination; Trump Hits Trail In Las Vegas Before Phoenix Rally Tonight; Gaza Ceasefire & Hostage Release Talks To Continue In Cairo. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired August 23, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:38]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: It is 8:00 p.m. in London, 12:00 p.m. in Las Vegas, 10:00 p.m. here in Tel Aviv. I'm Jim Sciutto. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM. And let's get right to the news.

It was 74 days -- just 74 days until election day. There is another twist in the race. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is currently addressing supporters amid questions about his campaign's future. He is expected to withdraw from the race after removing himself from the ballot in Pennsylvania and Arizona, two key swing states, of course, while a recent poll from CBS had RFK Jr. polling at just 2 percent, his presence on the ballot in key swing states could have been the difference in a race decided by just a few thousand votes.

Any moment, Donald Trump will take the stage at this own rally in Las Vegas before traveling to Arizona, where Kennedy is currently speaking, teasing, Trump says, a special guest.

I'm joined now by former GOP Congressman Charlie Dent, as well as CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer.

Charlie, first to you, you know Republican politics. Well, Kennedy stayed in this race as long as he could. A lot of speculation now as to what his departure will mean for the general election and where his supporters are most likely to go. What's your read?

CHARLIE DENT, FORMER GOP CONGRESSMAN: Well, his campaign imploded after Biden was replaced by Harris. It seems to me that his vote will be split between both candidates, probably slightly more to Trump. The reason I say that is there were traditional Democrats and maybe pro- choice Democrats as well who are supporting RFK Jr. And I was -- as a Pennsylvania and I was receiving mail regularly saying RFK Jr. pro- choice, pro-choice basically trying to split the pro-choice vote between Harris and RFK Jr.

Now that he's out, some of those voters may go to go back to Harris, but Trump will probably pick up those RFK voters who would be labeled anti-vax or conspiracy theory oriented. And that's a significant number of RFK support, too. So on balance, I don't think it's going to make a big difference. But on the margins, Trump probably has a slight edge out of that. But

again RFK's campaign had imploded. I mean, he was dead, moving a dead bear cub in the Central Park and brain worms all campaign was becoming rather off the rails.

SCIUTTO: All right. Charlie and Julian, hang on there for a moment. We're going to dip back into RFK Jr.'s speech for a moment. Have a listen.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., U.S. INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: -- changed the national political conversation forever. Chronic disease, free speech, government corruption, breaking our addiction to war have moved to the center of politics I can say to all of work so hard the last year-and-a-half. Thank you for a job well done.

Three great causes drove me to enter this race in the first place, primarily, and these are the principal causes that persuaded me to leave the Democratic or Democratic Party and run as an independent and now to throw my support to President Trump, the causes were free speech, a war in Ukraine and the war on our children. I've already described some of my personal experiences and struggles with the government's censorship, industrial complex.

I wanted to say a word about the Ukraine war. The military international complex has provided us with familiar comic book justification like they do on every war at this one is a noble effort to stop a super villain, Vladimir Putin, invading Ukraine and then to thwart his Hitler-like march across Europe. In fact, tiny Ukraine is a proxy in a geopolitical struggle initiated by the ambitions of the U.S. neo cons or American global hegemony.

I'm not excusing Putin for invading Ukraine, and he had other options. Russia is the war -- Russia is predictable response the reckless neo con project of extending NATO to encircle Russia, a hostile act.

[15:05:01]

The credulous media rarely explain to Americans that we unilaterally walked away from two intermediate nuclear weapons treaties with Russia and then put nuclear where Aegis missile systems in Romania and Poland. This is a hostile, hostile act and the white and that the Biden White House repeatedly spurned Russia's offer to settle this war peacefully.

Ukraine war began in 2014 when U.S. agencies overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installed a handpick pro-Western government that launched its deadly civil war against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. In 2019, America walked away from a peace treaty, the Minsk agreement that have been negotiated between Russia in Ukraine by European nations.

And then in April of 2022, we wanted the war. In April of 2022, President Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force President Zelenskyy to tear up a peace agreement that --

SCIUTTO: We listen to RFK Jr. there repeating number of point just then about the Ukraine war that notably a mirror Vladimir Putin's talking points on the war in Ukraine both justifying, in effect, the RFK Jr.'s appears to be doing their Russia's full-scale invasion of you crane that took place two-and-a-half years ago and its resulted in the deaths of many tens of thousands of people.

I'm joined again by former GOP Congressman Charlie Dent, CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer, also joining us now CNN's Daniel Strauss.

So, Julian, I want to give you an opportunity to comment on on what you think the impact of RFK Jr.'s withdrawal is his support has trunk and dramatically over the course of the last several weeks.

But do you believe his voters are more likely to move to Trump or to Harris or not show up at the ballot box?

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think slightly favorable toward moving toward Trump. I think a lot of the points he's made even today, both about Ukraine about the Democratic Party. He was talking about earlier in the system being rigged echo. Many of the talking points of the former president as well. And I think that well be the natural attraction.

I think some just won't vote. I think they were going to vote for RFK Jr. or not vote. But in the end, I think is supported fallen so much. We're not talking about huge pockets of voters anymore. And there's a lot of energy and excitement right now for Democrats that will probably counteract any losses they incur.

Daniel Strauss, do the Democrat have a plan, does the Harris campaign have a plan for a race without RFK Jr.?

DANIEL STRAUSS, CNN REPORTER: I mean, they've been treating it that way since the campaign -- their campaign began, all of three weeks ago. And their -- most of their attention has been on Trump. At the same time, a sect of the Democratic National Committee has been laser- focused on countering. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And now that that's over, the issue for Democrats is winning over those swing voters that were attracted to Kennedy Jr., and the voters who in the Republican primary really just were repulsed by Donald Trump's.

So that is a priority for them final 70-some days of this campaign and its something that the Harris campaign is taking very seriously.

SCIUTTO: Charlie Dent, third parties have at times made an impact in several elections and certainly most perhaps -- most impactfully in 1992 and '96 with Ross Perot. But, there are many Democrats will look to Jill Stein in 2016 and blame her presence in that race for stealing votes potentially from Hillary Clinton. Not clear that that's -- that's supported necessarily by the facts, but you do have in close races, third parties pulling significant numbers of votes that could have eventually turn the result.

John King, however, last night had a segment where he looked at the data and show that given Donald Trump's ceiling of around 47 percent or so in recent elections, that two candidate elections tend to favor Democrats. And I wonder what your view is on that. DENT: Well, I tend to think that a two candidate race probably does favor the Democrats a little bit, but the Democrats though -- let's be honest. You just heard RFK Jr. going off on Russia, making absurd comments, acting as Putin's useful idiot.

[15:10:00]

But what he did say previously about how the Democratic national committee and their allies were going out -- doing everything they possibly could to thwart the No Labels candidacy, RFK's candidacy and others. And so, their argument -- the Democrats are arguing that a vote for one of these third-party can at age was a vote for Trump, and that would be the end of democracy.

So Democrats are arguing we need a little less democracy in order to preserve democracy. It wasn't a good argument. The Democrats were smart about this. They would simply run their campaign and ignore these people, because as was stated, a lot of these small party candidates there's not a lot of people. Many of them won't vote anyway.

So that's one thing about them, we all assume that they're just going to go to one candidate to the other. They may not vote at all. But maybe Trump's got a slight edge, but they should just put their heads down, the Democrats and run their campaign, and be confident rather than fearful when it was Trump and Biden -- was Trump and Biden, yeah, look at that, two thirds of the people thought that Biden was too old and Trump was too dangerous.

Well, now that whole dynamic has been has changed, and that race has been reset. So they can ignore these third-party candidates now.

SCIUTTO: Julian, you know, the thinking are on RFK Jr.'s impact on this race change because I remember several weeks ago, there were a lot of Democrats, nervous RFK Jr. would hurt Democrats more than Republicans.

But over time, they seem to become more confident that actually he would take more votes from Trump. And you saw some perhaps evidenced that are signs from that based on Trump's own attacks on him. And lack of comfort with his presence in the race.

And, of course, now, it seems celebrating his exit from the race. Was it clear? I mean, it was clear to you in the data that you watched who he would hurt or help more?

ZELIZER: No, it wasn't clear at all. And there were enough sources that were showing that it could affect both sides. I think once Biden was no longer the candidate, it changed the equation. It took away young voters who might not be excited about Biden, who might possibly go for RFK, is a different kind of candidate, a candidate of change.

Now, Vice President Harris is that candidate and secondly, I think his numbers fell so much. I think that threat diminished. It wasn't clear which way it was going, but I see why in the end, in the last few weeks, it was more of an issue in terms of the relationship with the Trump campaign.

SCIUTTO: Daniel, it seems that Democrats are already talking about their campaign strategy in response to this and that is too take advantage of RFK Jr.'s support for Donald Trump to add to this weird attack that they've already leveled at Donald Trump. But I wonder if that's what you're hearing as you cover the campaign, cover the Harris campaign?

STRAUSS: Yeah, absolutely. Democrats have really embraced this moniker, which is both sort of something that's like PG-13 and acceptable to both adults and I guess young adults and is also effective in something that Republicans have not been able to counter. And the narrative of this campaign for Robert F. Kennedy definitely lands him in that sort of pillar. Stories about him taking a dead bear cub off the road and dumping it in central park -- all fall into the weird category and its something in that Democrats want to peg both Donald Trump and J.D. Vance as.

So, what we're going to hear in the days and weeks ahead is see, see, these guys are weird. They've got support from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And remember all of his weird positions and comments in the past.

SCIUTTO: Well, we will certainly be looking at the data and the coming days and weeks as to where those votes go.

Charlie Dent, Julian Zelizer, Daniel Strauss, thanks so much to all three of you.

Coming up, we're going to turn to the other side of the race. The key takeaways from the Democratic National Convention's highs, lows, and history making moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:25]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

One hundred thousand balloons capped off Vice President Kamala Harris's historic first, accepting the Democratic Party's nomination for president and kicking off a sprint to the finish before Election Day. Her keynote speech ends what's been a star studded roaring convention, which Democrats hope can energize voters into the fall.

Let's listen back to one key moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Our nation with this election has a precious, fleeting opportunity to move past the bitterness, cynicism, and divisive battles of the past, a chance to chart a new way forward.

(APPLAUSE)

I promise to be a president for all Americans. You can always trust me to put country above party and self.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Well, the DNC is now over. Democrats now turn to start the arguably harder work, and that is convincing voters they just spent the last week reaching out to, convince them to get to the polling booth and vote for Harris.

I'm back with my panel now. Julian Zelizer, Charlie Dent, and welcoming Democrat critics strategist, Taryn Rosenkranz.

Good to have you all on.

Taryn, first, your reaction, if I can, to RFK Jr.'s withdrawal from the race, and how you think the Harris campaign response?

Taryn, you hear me okay?

Taryn, okay, Julian, I'm going to move on to you for a moment while we check the audio with Taryn there.

But, Julian, Vice President Harris, she seemed to make a real decision here to make her case as future commander in chief during the convention, certainly top of the agenda for Democrats, and to embrace this message of patriotism hope, positivity, the military -- typically themes that the Republican Party likes to put an up monopoly on. How successful was that -- was that effort?

ZELIZER: I think it was very successful. Democrats for a long time has been complaining off and that patriotism has been seized as an issue by the right I think the last four days, one of the more effective elements was to reclaim that idea, both from someone who Democrats argue is more competent into handle the issues of national security, respects the military as an institution to broadening how we think of what it means to be patriotic and bringing into that different themes of freedom here in the United States.

So, I think that message of all was effectively delivered, culminating with her speech last night.

SCIUTTO: Taryn, I think we have audio back with you now.

I wonder if you could give your thoughts on how Democrats try to turn that hope, right, that hope that they could wrap themselves in the flag in a way that Republicans traditionally do, how they bring that to the fore?

TARYN ROSENKRANZ, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah, I thought it, was, really great and exciting to finally be able to have a chance to show what we've been saying for a really long time. We are very patriotic. We love this country and we want to be able to show it.

And I think Kamala as being a prosecutor and someone who has fought for the people for all these years and really believes in this country. And really is it very patriotic person. And Tim Walz being a veteran, being able to show what we really believe in at our core beliefs that we are fighting for this country and that this is really what this is about for us.

I think it was something that really shown through, and I think now moving forward all of these policies, all this agenda, what they're trying to do and get across is that this is at the core of what we're doing is this patriotism.

So, I think it's actually going to be really part of what every single thing they're doing about why we need to vote, that democracy is at stake. That's been this repeated message about freedoms and what were doing that all of this is about the core value of what we as Americans believe in. And that's why this patriotism is so important, and that's why it needed to be so much a part of the theme of that last night and have her accepting it is like if were going to move forward, were going to march on. We really got to show them what this is all about.

SCIUTTO: Charlie, this is not the campaign that Trump and his team thought they were going to have to run. They thought they were going to run against Biden. It's a new candidate. Its new themes and you have a candidate at the top of the ticket who it doesn't really like to change. I think we could be saved to say his message has been quite consistent, going back a number of campaigns for better or for worse, let's be frank.

Does he change this time?

DENT: I don't think he does, but he does. But he must change. The race has been completely reset. And he's not running against Joe Biden anymore. And the problem for Trump is the question of fitness. Now, boomerangs back on him. It was easy to say that Joe Biden was unfit. He was too old it was a diminished figure. Well, now its all back on Trump.

And frankly, Trump is making it very easy for Kamala Harris and the Democrats to make their case. You know, we've talked about veterans. I mean, republic has always had a strong record on veterans, but Trump just last week was diminishing the medal of honor, you know, relative to the medal of freedom. I mean, it gets in these issues, of course, diminished John McCain service, John Kelly's son.

I mean, you can just go down that so many issues where Trump makes it so easy for Democrats to claim the high ground. One of Kamala Harris's big points last night was that she was for a peaceful transfer of power. Well, you know, that's a no brainer. We should all be for that, but she doesn't have to take hard policy positions because she's just contrasting herself with Trump on these basic fundamental questions of governance and respected veterans and that sort of thing.

So right now, Trump's got to figure out how to attack Kamala Harris, be disciplined, and attacker on issues of the economy, on issues at the border, but he's just not capable of doing it because he just he just to unfocused and scattered.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Julian, the two issues that Harris does not poll well on relative to Donald Trump, you see there about to speak in Las Vegas, is on immigration and the economy. Let's listen in briefly then I'll get your thoughts. DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT & 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You're right and thank you very much. I want to thank everybody for being here. We just had a very nice endorsement from RFK Jr., Bobby.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And I'll be talking about that. We're heading out right after this. We're going to be going to Arizona. We'll be talking about that that and a lot of other things too. But I just want to thank everybody.

And I want to thank Bobby. That was very nice. That was really very nice. That's big. He's a great guy, respected by everybody.

So thank you all for this incredible welcome were getting and I'm going to tell how be the next time we do this together, he's going to get me a little lighter up here, can you give me a little light so you can read this speech, but you know what it does it make you speak a little bit less than that's okay, too.

[15:25:03]

But I do want to thank you all. And I want to thank Javier. This is a fantastic restaurant and the reputation is as good as it gets, as good as it gets. And I'm going to come here next time to eat. Is that okay, huh? I will be doing that too.

We have with us Lieutenant Governor Stavros Anthony, wherever Stavros is?

Thank you very much, Stavros. It's an honor. We'll see you soon, okay? Thank you. It's really an honor. Great guy, too, and Nevada GOP chairman Michael McDonald.

Michael --

(CHEERING)

TRUMP: And he's very happy about the no tax on tips because he was the one -- he was the first one that presented after the young beautiful waitress that suggested, I said, what do you think of it, Michael,? He said, I think it's a great idea.

But we've come here today to talk about the biggest promise I think that the restaurant workers have had in a long time and that's no tax on tips. And in our case, we mean it.

Somebody that I know just copied it, just copied it, but you know, that's going to happen. If you're a restaurant worker, a bartender hospitality worker, a caddy, a barber, mover, driver of any kind, or anyone else you rely on a lot of tip income, hopefully a lot, but when I win in November, hopefully, we're going to win. We're going to turn our country around. We're going to make America great again,

(CHEERING) TRUMP: We are going to let you keep 100 percent of your tip income and not be harassed. And just so you understand the other side, Kamala, have you ever heard of her, Kamala? Nobody ever heard of her before.

She lost in the first round. She was the first one out. They weird thing, he got 14 million votes and he's sitting on a beach angry as hell and she got no votes and she's running. So you explain that to me.

But the United States is home to an estimated 5.5 million workers, whose livelihoods depend on tip income and they work with their hands and their talent, their sweat, and their skill, and they are really skilled people and they're great people. They're people that have been with me always and I'm with them, I'm doing them a big favor.

Nobody ever heard of this concept before, and it's something that makes a lot of sense as soon as I heard that I said, let's do it. And then they copied us a couple of months later but I don't think anybody's buying it. I don't think anybody's buying it.

That's like last night, the speech, she made 26 different things that were lie. She lied, but that's okay because a lot of people lie. They'll do anything to get elected.

But she lied about -- you know, she's increasing taxes. I'm decreasing taxes and she put it the other way around. Perhaps she misspoke, perhaps.

Nearly two thirds of the workers are women. And an estimated 700,000 single mothers nationwide rely on tip income to support their children. These are some of the best and hardest working people America.

And when I'm president, you are the ones I will be fighting for and I'll be fighting for your very hard every single day.

Kamala Harris is now pretending to endorse my policies. She's got a lot of other policies. She just -- she's a copycat. She's a -- she's a flip flopper. You know what if flipped, she's the greatest flip flopper in history.

She went from -- she went from communism to capitalism in about two weeks. But in fact, Kamala cast the tie-breaking vote to hire 87,000 new IRS agents to go after your tip income. They're going after it in a lot of ways. So I don't know what they're doing now, this has happened with a lot of industries where we come out with something they made immediately follow.

But you know that after the election, if something horrible, horrible happened, which is always a possibility especially the way they cheat. But if something horrible, horrible happened, you know that she'd go right back and, you never see anything about no tax on tips, you know that.

Under Kamala and crooked Joe Biden, where is he? Where is Joe? What happened to Joe? He's on a beach someplace. He's angry.

The IRS has imposed costly and burdensome new reporting requirements and restaurant and other employees and these employers are great people, they're great people. They really work hard like Javier.

They worked very hard and they do an incredible job. And this is going to make their life a little bit easier because frankly for them, it's a lot better too. When they have happy important please, that are making a little more money and just do a better job, people like Javier, very happy.

[15:30:00]

He was happy to hear about this. Every restaurant owner is happy to hear about this.

But they're trying to squeeze every penny out of this tip income. The government is now they're not going to be able to do that. We're going to get this done very fast too, by the way.

Kamala also -- she also sponsored legislation to blow up the tip system entirely, which would inflict financial calamity on food servers and bartenders in Las Vegas and all across America. You know, they have bills pending and things pending and resolutions pending, and special orders pending where they going after your tips.

I don't know what they're going to do with that. Are they supposed to be dropping? I assume they're going to be dropping all that stuff at least until after the election. They'll bring it back after the election. Kamala supports a bill to eliminate the federal tip credit which would force the restaurants to impose large service charges on diners. Meaning customers will not leave tips at all, and you'll be stuck with a minimum wage or whatever you might be making. This is something that they're forcing.

I will -- I will never let that happen. Under the Trump administration, you'll keep your tips and restaurant workers will keep all of your hard-earned money I met this incredible young woman, she was standing behind a counter. I walked into a restaurant, whatever it may be, what was restaurant? Is that Chick-fil-A, right?

SCIUTTO: We're listening to Donald Trump there speaking in Las Vegas, Nevada repeating policy proposal he made prior, which would be to remove tips -- taxes rather on tips income for workers, hospitality workers in Nevada, a policy since echoed by his opponent in the general election, Vice President Kamala Harris.

We will continue to monitor those comments for news. Of course, his comments follow and he welcomed this as well, in his comments there in Nevada, the withdrawal from the presidential race of RFK Jr. and his subsequent endorsement of Donald Trump.

Our live coverage from Tel Aviv continues next on Israel, Hamas, ceasefire and hostage release talks. I'll also be joined by the chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, who says Israel has implemented every civilian harm mitigation technique developed in decades in Gaza, despite criticism from around the world. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:35:45]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back.

Israel is now claiming to have killed a key figure in Hezbollah's ranks in another day of daily cross-border fire along the northern border. A series of Israeli strikes killed at least eight people, marking the second deadliest day inside Lebanon since the October 7 attacks.

As tensions remain on the northern border, Israel's participating in another round of Gaza ceasefire and hostage negotiations in Cairo. After a week of little concrete progress, they are reportedly moving forward as Israel presented a new proposal reducing the number of IDF troops stationed at a crucial corridor between Gaza and Egypt.

We should note that Hamas has opposed any presence. Israel's control of the Philadelphi corridor has been a major point of contention during these talks.

CNN's Nada Bashir is in Cairo.

Nada, that's a move. It's less of an Israeli presence but still an Israeli presence there nonetheless. Is that forward progress from what you're hearing?

NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER: Well, look, Jim, it is interesting that Egypt had received a proposal from Israel just in the last few days for that proposed presence of Israeli troops and it's an Egypt -- Egyptian negotiators and officials actually flat out rejected that proposal. They saw it as a non starter.

However, this revised proposal that they've received from the Israeli delegation which as you mentioned proposes a reduced number of military posts and troops on the Philadelphi corridor, that has now been accepted by Egyptian officials according to sources and they are now planning to present this to a Hamas delegation.

So in that sense, perhaps some progress in the eyes of negotiating just like that has been seen as at least at some level acceptable to present to Hamas officials, but it remains to be seen whether or not those Hamas officials are actually accept this proposal, whether they do you see this as acceptable as you mentioned, Hamas has long stood by their rejection of any sorts of presence, any suggestion of Israeli troops on the ground within the Gaza strip, any sorts of post-school a structure that has been a longstanding sticking point.

However, their decision on whether or not they can see this as acceptable will be crucial over the weekend and that's those negotiations continue, crucial to discussions as to whether or not Hamas will send representatives to these talks, as we know, Hamas has not been directly involved in the negotiations. But rather has been communicating via Qatari and Egyptian mediators. And, of course, while this has been one of the main sticking points,

there are other disagreements, other issues still on the table, there are still significant gaps between Israel and Hamas, including on the release of Palestinian prisoners that Israel has been pushing for veto power over which panel? CNN prisoners are released. That's something that Hamas has rejected so far.

There's also disagreement on proposals around the movement of free movement of Palestinians within the Gaza Strip from southern Gaza to the north. And crucially, what we've been hearing repeatedly now from Hamas officials is that in their view, the current proposal on the table that's not include firm guarantees for a permanent ceasefire.

And we've heard from Israeli officials in the past saying that while they might welcome a pause in fighting, we know that that first phase of the ceasefire stipulates a six-week pause, the hope from mediators is that could then translate and transition to a permanent ceasefire. Have Israeli official denied or rejected this? They've said they will a continuation of the war in order to achieve their goals of eradicating Hamas's military capabilities.

Hamas wants to see that permanent cease-fire guaranteed. They said they want see a deal delta, which reflects the proposal put forward by President Biden in late May, which they say they accepted in early July.

But at this stage, there are still significant gaps. Negotiators we worked on hammering out this final details over the weekend. But again, some words of optimism from U.S. officials, as you mentioned, national security adviser John Kirby, saying that the talks have been constructive and suggesting that they are moving in the right direction so far -- Jim.

SCIUTTO: Nada Bashir, thanks so much for keeping a close eye on the talks there in Cairo.

I want to discuss now the state of the war in Gaza, as well specifically, Israel's military tactics there with someone who is close to the Israeli military operation.

[15:40:01]

That is Major John Spencer. He served in the U.S. Army and is now chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point's Modern War Institute.

John, good to have you on. Thanks for taking the time.

MAJOR JOHN SPENCER, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Thanks for having me back, Jim.

SCIUTTO: I want to begin by noting how the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described your own analysis during his joint address to Congress last month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I suggest you listen to Colonel John Spencer. John Spencer is head of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point. H studied every major urban conflict, I was going to say, in his -- in modern history. He corrected me, no, in history.

Israeli, he said, has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history and beyond what international law requires.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: So that's the Israeli prime minister's view, which I know you're familiar with.

I want to quote to you, Secretary Antony Blinken's view. He has said that measures taken by the Israeli military to protect civilians have not been applied consistently and effectively.

So I want to ask you why in your view, is the Biden administration which, of course, you know, has been quite supportive of Israel since the start of the war, of this war on October 7. Why is that view wrong?

SPENCER: Well, I can't speak for the administration, Jim, but I mean, my assessment based on to include been on the ground in Gaza with the IDF. But more importantly, is the research, the decade of research into every urban-centric battle.

What are you talking about battles against ISIS or World War II battles, is that the data supports my -- my conclusion that Israel has done more as in these, we call them civilian harm mitigation measures. Things like evacuating cities, daily pauses, not taking strikes, handing out their maps, using advanced technologies to track civilian population, all these measures that even the United States military did not use in its past operations like the invasion of Iraq or invasion of Panama and other urban-centric warfare.

SCIUTTO: Okay. Let's speak about the data for a moment, because I know you've analyzed the data closely.

I want to quote from someone else who's analyzed the data, Wes Bryant special operations with a joint terminal -- he was a joint terminal attack controller during the U.S. war on terror. He reviewed thousands of incident reports, tens of thousands of individual data points from several dozen incredible organizations, as well as from the Israeli military. And he found, quote, a systematic disregard for fundamental principles of international law, including recurrent attacks launched despite foreseeably disproportionate harm to civilians.

So I wonder what your reaction is to his assessment of the data and why you're confident that your analysis of the data supersedes his and others?

SPENCER: Sure. I mean, one of his starts with you're comparing apples to oranges. So, to compare Gaza or the operations against Hamas embedded in 400 miles of tunnels, tunnels, and bunkers, and to use whatever data point that they're comparison, one is it sounds like a misunderstanding of what the law of war requires, especially a proportionality assessment.

So what's the military advantage of a target? And then what are the expected collateral damage and the feasible, feasible steps taken to prevent civilian casualties, like evacuating cities and prior notice to attack and intelligence.

So I think that the difference is one is an understanding of the law of war requirements to do proportionality assessments. And then the data which these people -- not citing anybody -- don't have access to. So to what they do is infer, Jim, they do what's called text-based --

SCIUTTO: John, in fairness, I'm quoting -- I'm quoting to you someone who is quite aware of the law war. He worked in special operations for the U.S. military in the joint terminal attack -- as a joint terminal attack controller, making exactly those decisions. And he examined not the data about U.S. military interactions prior, but Israeli military activity in Gaza.

So he's looking at the same data and coming to a different conclusion.

SPENCER: So far as I know -- I know, Jim, that author has not visited Israel or Gaza and embedded with the IDF or tar -- you know, the targeting cell. So he's making an analysis without the actual body of data that you would need, which would be the information that Israel had when they're doing their targeting, whether individuals strikes or operations.

[15:45:04]

So I'm saying the person you're quoting is making an inference based on the effects of operations, but not the data in which a law of war proportionality assessment would include what intelligence did you have when you took those strikes, as in what was the target, what was expected collateral damage, and what did you do to prevent it?

So I'm saying you're quoting somebody who is making an inference without all of the information which I found a lot of people do or they do what's called lies, damn lies and statistics and take the effects of military operations and compare it to what they know, or a completely different contexts that you're quoting his experiences in the recent operations.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: But what you're doing, John, is you're dismissing -- you're dismissing what is not an outlier position. As you know, General David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, led the CIA, has criticized as Israeli military operations Peter Mansour, who wrote the book on the U.S. surge in Iraq, has criticized Israeli operations.

So I should note that view of both the data and the conflict is not an outlier.

Let me just for a moment, because for folks watching here --

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: -- often see images of particular -- particularly, let me just show you video of an incident that took place just in the last week since I've been in Gaza, since I've been in Israel. This took place earlier this month. It was an attack on a school in Gaza in which Israeli, sorry, Gaza civilians, Palestinian civilians were taking shelter, more than 90 people were killed in this includes women and children.

The IDF described this attack as precisely striking Hamas terrorists operating with a Hamas command and control center embedded in the building.

Now, I know, as well as knew that Hamas often hides behind civilians but CNN has confirmed the IDF used three GBU-39, 250 pound bombs.

How can that be described as a precise strike given the number of civilian casualties?

SPENCER: One is because I don't believe that number of civilian casualties. We have a problem with determining what is the civilian casualty count in operations where the only spokesman for those numbers is local sources that are Hamas validated or Hamas sources themselves.

So in that strike, which I think is a great example -- in that context of strike, you would have to know what was the enemy known target, number of targets, and then what was the known status when did they take the strike? What did they do to prevent civilian casualties? And then what were the actual results?

And this is where mass media not saying use specifically, but keep parroting whatever number that comes out of Gaza within hours. And I've stayed war for a long time. Ive never seen anybody ever be able to get civilian casualty counts within hours like we seem to be able to do repeatedly over and over --

SCIUTTO: John, but you're dismissing -- you're dismissing the entire -- you can take issue with the health ministry of Gaza's specific numbers, but as you know, the Biden administration, the Pentagon has said that civilian death tolls in Gaza of many thousands, including many thousands of women and children, they found credible as well.

So you can't dismiss the civilian casualties as entirely incredible. And I should note that CNN has fixers on the ground there that witnesses the results of these strikes and sees the bodies of women and children and the elderly.

So you can't dismiss all the civilian casualties. So my question is, what gives you confidence --

(CROSSTALK)

SPENCER: No, I'm not dismissing that there are (INAUDIBLE) civilian deaths in Gaza that's -- that's a fact. And this is war. But the question is, is Israel doing everything feasible? That's the

law of war requirements, feasible to prevent civilian harm. And there is no data that you're presenting that says they're not.

Have there been civilians to include women, children that have died in Gaza? Absolutely. Is it 40,000? Absolutely not. Is it -- who is the cause of that civilian death? I think that the international fingers should be pointed at Hamas who doesn't sometimes embed, it uses human shields and human sacrifice as its strategy.

So again, I think you -- we're coming at it from different angles when you can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts.

SCIUTTO: Understood, but I'm quoting people who have facts. But before we go and by the way, I've interviewed Hamas officials myself and challenged them on that very issue behind civilian casualties.

SPENCER: I saw that.

SCIUTTO: But this gets -- it gets to a larger issue and you've written recently yourself and I'm quoting you here. It is now Israel's responsibility to create the conditions that would allow new leadership in Gaza to survive. The role of Israeli forces should not amount to a constant presence in Gaza.

[15:50:01]

In other words, looking forward to the next step here.

And with the question for all this destruction, I want to put up a picture that we have here of what parts of Gaza have been leveled by Israeli military activity here for that level of physical destruction and the level of civilian casualties, Hamas remains in Gaza, and their leader is still alive. These are before and after pictures.

Has that civilian toll been worth not accomplishing, at least at this point, what was Israel's stated goal going into this war, which was to destroy Hamas? Hamas is not destroyed.

SPENCER: Well, Jim, I'd ask you to read the rest of the article you quoted, which is that Israel is winning, that there are few Hamas leaders left, and that there are fraction of what they are, where you have Yahya Sinwar wanting to add his survival onto the hostage negotiation deal?

I'd ask you to read the rest of the article or read the recent multiple general officers that went into Gaza as part of a military commission and conclude like me that Israel is following the law of war. It is destroying Hamas and is doing everything physically possible while Hamas is doing everything that they can to get civilians killed, Israel is doing everything to prevent it.

And I disagree strongly and that's why I wrote the article that Israel has not been successful while you want to use the numbers of at what cost. And this is where it really comes into. It is the war just and is it being executed justly? And I don't think your sources are experts or data says differently.

SCIUTTO: Yeah. Well, the fact is there quite public comments from quite reputable experienced generals, General Petraeus among them, but not confined to him, that have criticized the progress of the war.

John Spencer, I did read your piece. I appreciate the conversation. Look for another opportunity to explore the same.

SPENCER: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Yellowstone National Park draws thousands of tourists every year, many thousands.

But as CNN's Ed Lavandera reports, many of those tourists are pushing boundaries with a wildlife to damaging effect.

Here's a sneak peek of a special report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The motel over there has a sign that says: do not pet the fluffy cows.

[15:55:00]

You constantly have to be reminded about this stuff because you're walking around town and you think that they're just part of the atmosphere and that they're friendly. You have to remind yourself they're wild animals.

(voice-over): Friendly stranger reminds us of that in a loving way.

This is "Close Encounters: Tourists in the Wild".

It didn't take us long to figure out what not to do. There is such a thing as getting too close to wildlife.

(SCREAMING)

LAVANDERA: Wild animals don't want to take a selfie with you and they especially don't want to be held.

This scene was captured in North Carolina. These people pulled black bear cubs out of a tree because of this human interaction, at least one of the cubs could not be reunited with its mother.

Wildlife refuge staff were unable to locate the second cub.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Good Lord, you can watch close encounters, tourists in the wild. This Sunday on "THE WHOLE STORY WITH ANDERSON COOPER", that airs at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Sunday.

Thanks so much for all of you for joining me. I'm Jim Sciutto reporting from Tel Aviv.

"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.