Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
French Prime Minister Ousted After Losing No-Confidence Vote; Opposition Parties Submit Bill To Impeach South Korea's Yoon; Hegseth Meets With GOP Senators Amid Growing Scrutiny; Supreme Court Hears Argument On Gender-Affirming Care For Minors; CNN Obtains Video of Fatal Shooting Of UnitedHealthcare CEO. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired December 04, 2024 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[15:00:37]
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Thanks so much for joining me today on CNN NEWSROOM. And let's get right to the news.
The French prime minister has just lost a no confidence vote plunging the country into further political instability. Just three months into his term, Michel Barnier lost the support of his fragile government after attempting to push through part of the government's annual budget on Monday. That proposal includes $63 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts aimed at reining in the national debt.
CNN's Jim Bittermann is in Paris tonight.
Jim, what happens now?
JIM BITTERMANN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good question, James. The fact is what happens is that that Emmanuel Macron, who just got off a plane from Saudi Arabia about an hour ago. Emmanuel Macron will name a new prime minister. The current government Michel Barnier and all of his ministers will resign. They -- it's an automatic thing and they will probably be kept on in a caretaker role.
This is something that's happened before like, for example, over the summer months. In fact during the Olympics there was no government here and there was just a caretaker government from the previous prime minister. So Macron will name somebody if he can find somebody who may be able to get the French budget passed, as he would like, so that that the, that the country will have a budget going forward.
As it stands now, the previous year's budget 2024 will be the one that will go into use at January 1st. But the question is whether or not that will please anyone and it certainly won't please the financial markets because the present budget also is raising the debt. So its a kind of a head scratcher for the president in terms of who he can find, who can please the various factions in the parliament. And the parliament is now pretty closely divided -- one third, one third, one third.
Just before this vote was taken tonight the prime minister, Michel Barnier, got up and made a last ditch plea for his budget and for his government and warned of the consequences of what might happen if indeed he was voted out of office.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHEL BARNIER, FRENCH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): What I'm sure ladies and gentlemen, what I say seriously before you is that this motion of no confidence at the moment when you are probably preparing this coalition of opposites, this no confidence motion will make everything more serious and more difficult. I'm sure of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BITTERMANN: Well, that's something remains to be seen, Jim. But it certainly seems like that's in the offing -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: So the prime minister is out, though he will be replaced. Is this a threat to the government as a whole?
BITTERMANN: Well, all the -- all the other ministers are out as well. Tthey all have to give their resignations. But Emmanuel Macron stays in. He has a term that goes until 2027 and the while he could resign, it won't -- it probably will not happen because I think they view -- the Macron people view the president now as the only force of stability in the country in a very unstable situation where there's no government, but there is a head of state, which is what Macron is -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Well, difficult negotiations. We already saw that in forming this government. We'll see how the next round goes.
Jim Bittermann in Paris, thanks so much.
BITTERMAN: Yeah, exactly.
SCIUTTO: Well, now to another country grappling with its own deep political crisis, President Yoon of South Korea is defying calls for his resignation after he declared martial law as it turned out, just for six hours late Tuesday night. Six opposition parties have submitted a bill calling for the president's impeachment, while the main opposition Democratic Party is preparing charges of treason as well.
Yoon's defense minister, chief of staff and at least 10 other senior secretaries of that government have resigned. Protesters have been taking to the streets by the thousands demanding the president's resignation.
Kenneth Choi, international editor for "Chosun Ilbo" newspaper there, has been following this very closely from Seoul.
[15:05:07]
Tell us now where this stands. Are we through at least the initial crisis? He declared martial law, withdrew it. Now it's really about whether he survives as president I imagine. KENNETH CHOI, INTERNATIONAL EDITOR, THE CHOSUN ILBO: Right, you know, the initial crisis is probably over, but -- from now on, there will be a lot of political jostling, you know, between the ruling party and the opposition party and you know, even the ruling party members actually called for the entire cabinet ministers resignation. So the ruling party is not really, you know, going along with the president himself the president, he's hunkered down. He defied, you know, the impeachment issues. He said he will stay on.
So it remains to be seen how we are going to be resolving all these mess and actually, you know even with the impeachment, it's not certain whether the constitutional court will, you know, rule in favor of the impeachment, because, you know, we need to put -- we need to appoint three more judges who actually left, like, you know last month or something like that.
So, and guess who's appointing the -- you know, constitutional court judges? It's the president.
SCIUTTO: Right.
CHOI: And if he's -- if he's impeached, then, you know, there's nobody to appoint these judges. And then, you know, the constitutional court cannot proceed with this impeachment hearing so its all the legal experts like, you know trying to figure out a way to resolve this, because we have never gone down this, this path before. So nobody is certain what's going to be like. So you just have to see how it goes.
SCIUTTO: So, of course, our own country, we've been through our share of impeachments recently and didn't lead to removal from office. In your case, it's not -- you're saying its not an entirely political process. It's not purely the vote of legislatures, legislators rather, but that judges have a role in deciding basically guilty or not guilty.
CHOI: Yes, absolutely. So, you know, the proceed -- the parliamentarian proceeding may take place. They may impeach, but, you know it's the final say will be on the constitutional court. So they have to decide within like three month period whether to impeach the president or not.
But right now, we only have six out of nine judges. So we need three more judges to be appointed. But, that's one of the territory that we have to sort of look in.
SCIUTTO: So, the president may be facing his own charges of treason he, of course, in calling for martial law, was in effect making his own charges of treason or at least disloyal loyalty, accusing members of the opposition party of in effect, favoring China, favoring Beijing, favoring North Korea.
And I just wonder what the origin of those accusations are exactly.
CHOI: You know, recently the government, the police or the national security intelligence officers, they uncovered some of the North Korean agents, you know, playing active roles in some of the labor unions and so on. And it is no secret that some of the North Korean agents are trying to infiltrate into the South Korean system.
So, you know, the president was very upset, and using this as a motive to call for the martial law to eradicate any influence of these North Korean agents or, you know, foreign agents, you know, playing roles in South Korean politics.
I'm not sure whether the Korean public will accept that. He's definitely was, you know, frustrated because the opposition parties for the past, you know, year, try to hunker down the current government. You know, for instance, he cut down like $4 billion of budget. He tried to impeach like 18 other cabinet ministers level people.
So, you know, the president was very frustrated. The government was about to be, you know, in a screeching halt, couldn't do anything. So I think he used that that North Korean agent thing to start this martial law decree and try to, you know, clean things up. But obviously, it didn't work out.
SCIUTTO: Well, it's interesting. That's the common thread between events we saw in South Korea and that we just reported in France. Right at the root of this are quite difficult budget negotiations and debates.
Kenneth Choi, thanks so much for bringing us a view from the ground.
CHOI: Thank you very much.
SCIUTTO: Well, back here in the U.S., a defiant Pete Hegseth, a Fox News anchor, is back on Capitol Hill today with doubts growing among some lawmakers over whether President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Defense Department would win confirmation in the Senate.
[15:10:08]
It's been a drip, drip of some quite alarming scandals and allegations against Hegseth from financial mismanagement of a veterans charity that he ran to sexual assault.
Hegseth doubled down on it all, telling reporters that, quote, we're not going anywhere.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, TRUMP'S PICK TO BE DEFENSE SECRETARY: It's been edifying and a wonderful process to go through and meet with senators and talk to them, especially members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose passion is the Defense Department and our war fighters to hear what they want to do, to make sure that department is properly oriented for the threats of the world, and make sure that we're putting the war fighters first. That's what Donald Trump asked me to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SCIUTTO: Well, with more on Hegseth's visit to the Hill and his reception, CNN's Lauren Fox.
Lauren, it's CNN's reporting that Trump's team is already weighing potential replacements for Hegseth.
Are they acknowledging in effect, that his nomination is not going to go through?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's just lay out the scene up here on Capitol Hill, Jim.
It's never a good feeling when you have a nominee who is trying to win over support on Capitol Hill, who then is waking up to headlines that there is discussion about potential replacements if they do not have the votes.
Now, I will just tell you that Pete Hegseth just walked into Senator Joni Ernst's office. This has been a highly anticipated meeting today for a couple of reasons, one is that Ernst is a sexual assault survivor herself. She told us earlier that this was going to be a thorough discussion. She was looking forward to.
Also, she has fought for a long time to make sure that women can serve in combat roles in the military. That is something that Pete Hegseth has spoken disparagingly about in the past. And so that is going to be another issue for the two of them to discuss today in this highly anticipated meeting.
Meanwhile, you have people who have continued to meet with him, who have not committed yet to backing him.
Two of those individuals I talked to today, Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican of West Virginia, who met with him yesterday, who said that they had a good meeting, that they did talk about some of these allegations that you referenced earlier, Jim, and that she was not sure yet where she was going to land on this vote. She said she had not made up her mind. She's continuing to go through the process.
Also, Senator John Thune, who will become the next Republican leader and is the Republican whip right now. That means the man in charge of counting GOP votes in the senate. He said that this is a process that he is telling Hegseth, as he has told other nominees he's met with, that they are guaranteed to have a fair confirmation hearing, a fair confirmation process but he said that this conversation with Hegseth is going to continue as more and more members both on the Senate Armed Services Committee and beyond, meet with him.
So, to me, that was a really strong indication that Thune is not saying either whether or not he is going to back Hegseth's nomination -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: You mentioned the question about women serving in combat. We should note that Joni Ernst herself, of course, a veteran of the Iowa National Guard, and should it be noted, is it correct to say that she herself is a potential replacement as nominee to lead the DOD? FOX: Yeah, I mean, that's obviously a dynamic here, right? She did not talk about that earlier when we were asking her about Hegseth's meeting. But she is a name that we have heard repeatedly come up in conversations. And CNN has reported she is being looked at as a potential replacement if Hegseth does not have the votes.
And we should just lay out how hard it could be for Hegseth. Republicans do have a majority in the senate. It only takes a simple majority to get these nominees through. But Republicans have a 53-seat majority, which means they can only afford to lose three Republican members if they lose four. That nominee goes down on the floor.
Now, we are still weeks potentially months away from a potential floor vote on someone like Hegseth. But that just gives you a sense of how narrow your wiggle room is when you were talking about getting these nominees through the process, Jim.
SCIUTTO: No question. We saw, of course, that was the problem with Matt Gaetz. He didn't have the votes.
Lauren Fox, thanks so much.
Still ahead, the key takeaways from today's Supreme Court hearing on a major case involving banning -- a law banning transgender care for minors.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:17:40]
SCIUTTO: Today at the U.S. Supreme Court, a critical case for minor's access to gender affirming care. The nine justices considering a Tennessee law that bans puberty blockers as they're known, and hormone treatments for transgender youth. Tennessee is one of 26 states now with similar laws on the books, the law counters the advice of every major medical association, which say that gender affirming care is safe and potentially life saving for some patients.
However, the arguments today focused less on the medicine itself and more on whether the ban in Tennessee violated the Constitution's equal protection clause for men and women.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ELIZABETH PRELOGAR, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: This case is about access to medications that have been safely prescribed for decades to treat many conditions, including gender dysphoria. But S.B.1 singles out and bans one particular use. Someone assigned female at birth can't receive medication to live as a male, but someone assigned male can. If you change the individual sex, it changes the result.
MATTHEW RICE, TENNESSEE SOLICITOR GENERAL: The law imposes an across the board rule that allows the use of drugs and surgeries for some medical purposes, but not for others. Its application turns entirely on medical purpose, not a patient's sex. That is not sex discrimination. (END AUDIO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: We're going to talk to advocates on both sides of this case now. First, I want to go to Tennessee State Senator Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill at issue. And he attended those oral arguments today at the court. He joins me now.
Thanks so much for joining.
JACK JOHNSON (R), TENNESSEE STATE SENATOR: You bet, Jim. Thanks.
SCIUTTO: So, first, I'd ask you to respond to the solicitor general's argument there. How do you explain saying that these treatments are fundamentally dangerous but they are still allowed, in fact the exact same treatments for boys and girls for other purposes?
JOHNSON: Sure.
SCIUTTO: So if they're dangerous, for one, why aren't they dangerous for the other? Perhaps I ask it the other way around. If they're safe for some patients, why are they fundamentally dangerous for those going through gender affirming care?
JOHNSON: Well, the Tennessee solicitor general who argued this case on behalf of the state of Tennessee, I think gave a great analogy. He used this analogy in the court, and he said it's -- it's one thing to prescribe morphine to someone who is in intense pain. It's another thing to prescribe morphine for someone to help them commit suicide.
So drugs are used for different purposes, and that's been our point about this legislation is we're targeting a medical practice, a medical purpose, the reason for the drugs being administered to someone.
[15:20:09]
And we do that in a myriad of ways. And I would say at best, the science is unsettled in terms of the long term implications, especially on kids.
SCIUTTO: Well, I know there have been debates and we saw the, for instance, the UK, the National Health Service, they're scaling back use, although they did not, we should note, outright ban them.
Let me ask you the question that you just raised there because you heard the lawyer there making the case for the Tennessee law that this is not about sex. How can that be right if the specific use you're talking about are people who are seeking to change their sex? How could it not be about sex?
JOHNSON: Well, and again, I'm not an attorney. I'm going to do my best to tell you about the public policy debate we had in Tennessee, which is we believe that these procedures. And by the way, we ban the surgical procedures as well as use of these harmful prescription drugs, the surgery part is not at issue. The case centers around the use of the puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and so forth. And I do believe -- I'm convinced, after consultation with numerous
medical professionals, we had them come testify. There's a whole organization that's made up of physicians across the world who advocate against using these medicines for kids.
And again, we're talking specifically about kids -- kids that are either prepubescent or they're in puberty. We're not talking about adults. If you're an adult and you wish to use these medications or have a surgery, that's certainly your prerogative.
We're talking about kids that are 13, 14, 15 years old. We just don't know what the long term implications are. And there are many in the medical profession who share that opinion. So in Tennessee, we said no, we're not going to do that.
And I -- and I will take issue with one thing to I think as you introduced the segment that we banned care. No, we didn't ban care. We didn't ban mental health treatment. We didn't -- we didn't ban loving these kids and embracing them and giving them access to mental health treatment to get them through these difficult times. And I certainly acknowledge that for some kids, this can be a very difficult time. But let's don't do something that's irreversible, a surgery or use of a medication that could potentially render a woman infertile.
SCIUTTO: Well, you know, the argument in response to that is that if you wait, then its irreversible to some degree, right? Because if you don't use puberty blockers during puberty, then it's, I suppose, harder to make another choice.
And, and I raised the example of say, a West Virginia where lawmakers, they didn't ban it entirely, but they in effect raised the threshold. They added barriers to accessing it, the additional mental health screenings, et cetera.
Why not consider a path like that at that if the concern is that some young people might make the right choice, but one might assume that some young people might -- might make the wrong choice. But some might be making the right choice for them.
JOHNSON: Well, and that's fundamentally what this case is about is states should have the leeway, as we do in so many other areas, especially with regards to prohibited medical practices and regulating medical procedures. We do that. And states have variations of that.
And it's fine for West Virginia to have a certain policy or Tennessee or California or New York to have different -- different policies. We're laboratories of democracy, and we should be having intense conversations about this and consulting with medical professionals.
The state of Tennessee and the general assembly is reflected by the people of Tennessee, who overwhelmingly support the legislation. We pass decided, no, we shouldn't utilize these drugs for these kids. We don't know enough about the long term effects on them.
So we did pass an outright ban, and I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will affirm the right of states like Tennessee to do that if they choose. SCIUTTO: Before we go, you know that this is a deeply difficult and
emotional decision, not just for the young people involved, but for their parents and, you know, you hear the accounts of many parents who -- who are concerned that if their child doesn't get to choose who they believe they truly are, that their life might be in danger for -- for -- not from the medication, right? How do you answer that concern?
JOHNSON: Well, as I said earlier, we -- we love these kids. We recognize that it can be a difficult time for many of them. And we should give access to mental health treatment and get them through that difficult time.
The issue we have is the fact that some of these drugs have irreversible consequences and so should you allow a young lady or a young man at the age of 14 or 15 or 16 years old, to make a medical decision that's going to impact them when they're 25 or they're 30 and they may be grow out of the gender dysphoria they're experiencing, but they've taken these drugs, they've delayed their puberty, their body didn't develop appropriately, or it renders a young lady infertile. Now, she can't be a parent.
I get asked oftentimes about -- well, what about the parent's role in this? Well, what about the right of that child to become a parent when they're 25 or 30, and perhaps they grow out of their gender dysphoria?
So let's love the kids. Let's embrace them. Lets get them the mental health treatment they need
[15:25:02]
But let's don't let them do something to their body that can't be undone.
SCIUTTO: Senator Jack Johnson, thanks so much for sharing your point of view.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Jim. Appreciate it.
SCIUTTO: Well, the Transgender Law Center is the largest trans-led legal group here in the U.S. and they filed amicus briefs supporting the trans plaintiff plaintiffs in this Tennessee case, of course, opposing the state law in Tennessee we were just discussing.
Joining me now is the executive director of that group Chelsea -- Shelby Chestnut.
Thanks so much for joining.
SHELBY CHESTNUT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSGENDER LAW CENTER: Hi. Thanks for having me.
SCIUTTO: So you heard State Senator Johnson describing the pro point of view prior. And I suppose I would ask your response to his argument first on the question as made in the courtroom today, that the opposition to this law is not about gender. It;s purely about medical risks. What's your answer to that argument?
CHESTNUT: Well, I think lets take a step back. It's a historic day for all Americans and really people who believe in our freedom to be our authentic selves. So I think for me, as a transgender person, to see what the arguments supporting our communities was in the courts was tremendous. And I think we're in a moment where we, the people means all the people, and there is no transgender exception to the U.S. Constitution, and we're asking the court to reject efforts to deny trans people particularly trans youth, not having health care.
SCIUTTO: What was your reaction hearing those oral arguments today? There is a read from a number of those who was who were observing them, listening to them that it appeared that the conservative majority was at a minimum open to but possibly supportive of the Tennessee law?
CHESTNUT: Yeah, I think its a very hard time to be transgender in America. And I think I commend the youth and their families who are on the front lines of these decisions and we have said for a long time that Transgender Law Center, that medical decisions should be between a patient, their parents and a medical provider, not lawmakers, and certainly not courtrooms.
But I do think that today was a moment to say that this case is about whether trans people are protected under the U.S. Constitution, and I think we made our arguments very clear as to how we are and why we should be.
SCIUTTO: Do you see, given that there are a good two dozen states in the country that already have laws like this on the books that we're heading to a similar reality that we saw for instance, post-Dobbs, in terms of women's reproductive rights, that you're going to have, its a constitutional right in half the country or half the states and not in the other. And what would that mean for -- for trans Americans?
CHESTNUT: Certainly, I think that we are in a moment where this decision, if it does not go in the direction that we hope has larger consequences for all people's bodily autonomy and our abilities for people to make decisions about their own bodies and about the future of their lives. I think it will specifically mean that states can then pursue sex discrimination in medical settings and we could say we're going to start with transgender youth, which states are doing but I think we should and could expect full bans on transgender health care, which will be catastrophic to our communities.
SCIUTTO: To that point conservative political commentator Matt Walsh said the following outside the court this morning. I want to play that and get your thoughts on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT WALSH, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This case is just the beginning of the fight. It is not the end. We are not going to rest until every child is protected, until trans ideology is entirely erased from the Earth. That's what we're fighting for and we will not stop until we achieve it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Trans ideology entirely erased from the Earth. That's his stated goal. What's your reaction?
CHESTNUT: Yeah, I think it's unfortunate that we have people who have a sort of pulpit to make those sorts of unilateral decisions, because I think at Transgender Law Center, whether you're black, white or brown, native or newcomer, transgender or not, you deserve to shine bright in our society, and we're not going to be dimly lit out by people who want to stand up and bully us and harm our communities.
And I think right now, we're in a moment where young people are asking us to make decisions that will help ensure their future and we owe it to them to stand behind them and to understand that an attack on transgender youth is really an attack on all of us.
SCIUTTO: Before we go, what is your response to the concerns as expressed not just by the state senator, but by other parents, that while they -- some of them support trans rights, that they fear a child is not old enough to make a decision that would have long lasting consequences. What's your answer to that argument? And that question well, I think its two part.
CHESTNUT: Well, I think it's two-part. I think on one side they are not understanding scientific research that's been proven to say that these are life saving measures, both for immediate and long term. Much of the things that they're saying are irreversible are reversible. And many people can choose to make decisions differently at later in their life than what they maybe did as a young adult.
But I think what they're ultimately saying is that trans kids and trans youth and their parents should not be trusted to make decisions for the well-being of their of their families and of their futures, which I don't think that they would like it if we asked to make similar decisions about the children and their families, and certainly lawmakers don't have the best interest of young people in mind.
SCIUTTO: Well, Shelby Chestnut, we appreciate you sharing your views and your experience. Thanks so much for joining.
CHESTNUT: Thanks for having us.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, we are following a developing story out of midtown Manhattan, where a gunman is still on the loose after shooting and killing the CEO of UnitedHealthcare in broad daylight on the street of Midtown Manhattan. The motive is still unclear at this hour.
We'll be right back with the latest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: A brazen and targeted attack, that is how the New York City police commissioner is describing the deadly shooting of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare earlier today. CNN has now obtained video of the attack. We are going to show it to you but to be clear: we're going to stop before the point shots are fired.
Police say here is the moment when the gunman you can see on the left hand side of the screen after the target, they're pointing his weapon shooting him in the back and then again in the leg.
[15:35:07]
This happened outside a hotel in midtown Manhattan early this morning.
Police added this detail: the gun jammed in the midst of the shooting, but the suspect was able to adjust and expel live rounds and continue firing. That shows training they say.
Investigators also say the suspect was lying in wait and specifically targeted Thompson. The suspect, now on the run, has been described as a light skinned man last -- last seen wearing a cream or light brown jacket and a gray backpack.
Joining me now is Steve Moore, retired supervisory special agent for the FBI and CNN law enforcement center.
It's good to have you on here. I mean, listen, I mean, it clearly took a lot of planning. He knew where his target was going to be and when he was going to be there, he had the weapon and he had an escape plan.
He rode away on a one of those rented city bikes into Central Park, which is the last place he was seen. That speaks to planning, does it not?
STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, yeah. It speaks to intricate planning and casing, the fact that he had that bike. I mean, if you've ridden those or any of the scooters, just like them, you'd have to walk up with a credit card and do something he had already. He had pre-energized that vehicle is what I'm getting.
And then the video what you see here is him closing to a certain distance, kind of an absolute no miss distance. And then if it's accurate that he had a misfire and then cleared the weapon and came back on target, that's very much a high level of training to be able to do that, and continue to fire accurately.
SCIUTTO: So, of course, there's the shock here. I mean, it's a murder in broad daylight on a busy street in one of the busiest parts of Manhattan, in one of the busiest cities in the world, the police commissioner said every indication is that this was a premeditated, pre-planned attack.
We should note that Brian Thompson, the victim, his wife, told NBC news that there had been some threats toward her husband in the past.
Can you tell us what investigators would be doing right now to come up with some potential suspects?
MOORE: Well, it's -- you're certainly going to go after those threats that they're aware of. And it's not mind boggling for me to think that a head of a company that decides if they're going to or not going to pay insurance claims or give you certain treatments is going to have some people very dissatisfied with them, occasionally.
But something that reaches the level of the president's wife is something of concern. So they're going to be drilling down on that and at the same time, they're going to be going through probably a myriad in the last 5 to 10 years of people who have had the same gripe. And that's before you even get to people who had been laid off or fired.
The interesting thing here is to me, they either had a very well- trained disgruntled person who could do a hit or they upset somebody who had the means to hire somebody who was very well-trained, which is, you know, going to be an interesting thing to unpack.
SCIUTTO: I didn't think of that. I mean, the possibility of a hit man, right?
Steve Moore, thanks so much for joining.
Of course, we'll continue to follow the investigation in that story.
MOORE: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up this hour, the Syrian military and opposition forces continue to clash over control of major cities in that country. The rebels making massive advances against the regime of Bashar al- Assad.
We'll be right back with more.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:41:45]
SCIUTTO: Syria's rebel forces have set their sights now on a new target, the key city of Hama. They are now locked in a battle with government forces after advancing to the edge of the city on Tuesday. That city, a symbolic stronghold for the Assad regime.
In 1982, then-President Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar, cracked down on an Islamic uprising, killing tens of thousands of his own people in Hama. Its fall would mark another major win for the opposition forces following a lightning offensive that began last week.
As we look at the map here, the area in green is under rebel control, as you can see. It includes Idlib and much of Aleppo provinces -- Aleppo following falling earlier in the week.
I want to bring in now, Jane Ferguson. She's a former war correspondent who spent time reporting from Syria during the early days of the civil war and is currently the founder and CEO of Noosphere.
Jane, good to have you on.
JANE FERGUSON, FORMER SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS: Good to be here, Jim. SCIUTTO: You've been in the midst of this, going back to the early
days of the Syrian civil war, and you've seen the horrors of it up close. Can you tell us about what's fundamentally and fundamentally at stake between the government of Bashar al-Assad and these rebel forces, who we should note have a past affiliation with al Qaeda?
FERGUSON: They do have that past affiliation, Jim. They used to be the al-Nusra front. That's what Tahrir al-Sham used to be which had that alliance with al Qaeda.
They went through something of a rebranding and have really tried to bolster their credentials as a sort of local government up there in Idlib now. Of course, the United States and many other western partners still view them as a terrorist organization, but their ambitions are very much so Syria-focused right now. This has been an extraordinary upending of the status quo in Syria. You know, this war, of course, has been going on for 13 years now, but we haven't had a change, a serious shift on the front lines in many years.
Now, this is obviously also a sort of group of rebels. It's an alliance, but largely led by Tahrir al-Sham. By taking Aleppo, they've taken the biggest city in the entire country. Over 2 million people live there, and commercially vastly important. And as they move south, they're now, of course, as you've mentioned, trying to take Hama.
Now this doesn't mean that they're threatening Damascus or the capital at this point. We've also -- it's worth noting that a decade ago, it was -- Syrian opposition rebels did occupy Aleppo. We've been here before, but this lightning pace has really changed everything.
And, Jim, you know what really has become stark is that the multi- layered proxy wars that we see in Syria remain the same. The sides remain the same. What's changed in the region is a power balance.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, the front lines.
And so, I wonder what your read is of why now? I mean, of course, we have many of the backers of those proxy forces fighting their own wars in different places. Russia with the war in Ukraine, Iran and Hezbollah, of course, focused right now on their growing -- their growing fighting with Israel.
Is this a case of those rebels seeing an opportunity here -- some weakness and striking?
[15:45:03]
FERGUSON: It is, Jim. This is -- this has taken place just shortly after we saw Hezbollah agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon. It's important to remember that that ceasefire agreement was really largely a surrender. It was quite a humiliation for Hezbollah. However much they wish to brand it as -- as a victory, it was very much so, a capitulation. It was very much so a sign of weakness.
And we must remember that, of course, Hezbollah, Iran's proxy force in Lebanon, of course, have been fighting in Syria for over a decade, supporting the Assad regime. The Hezbollah fighters have provided extraordinary expertise and ground forces where of course, you've also had the Russian air -- air cover and airstrikes across the country to help support Bashar al-Assad.
What those rebels saw was a chink in the armor of Iran's allies on the ground. And they moved against them. And they've been very successful.
SCIUTTO: When the fighting broke out between Israel and Hezbollah in September, hundreds of thousands of Lebanese actually fled into Syria. Syria's as well, who had taken -- taken shelter there. Then, of course, they find themselves in the midst of another war.
And this is a sadly been the experience of more than a decade there, right? I mean, just the people have suffered. Civilians have suffered. What does this offensive mean for the people of Syria?
FERGUSON: It's a very important topic, Jim, like, you know, Syrian refugees and they number in the millions of people who have been displaced from Syria itself. They were pushed into Lebanon. And now as you've said, many of them now have had to cross the border back into Syria to try to find some semblance of safety.
And that doesn't even get to the many 90 millions inside Syria who have been constantly on the move. The area in the north east of Syria that these rebels have rushed down from is called Idlib and Idlib province is effectively supporting and is home to an extraordinary amount of displaced people, many of whom are living in terrible conditions.
But, you know, part of this war and the broader regional wars and the politics around the region has also seen Syrian refugees. So often used as pawns -- you know, these rebels have they have the backing and support of Turkey across the border. Now, Turkey has been in talks with Bashar al-Assad about trying to get the huge amounts of Syrian refugees who have poured into Turkey to return to Syria.
Those talks had broken down. So as far as the Turks are concerned, the sooner these rebels can -- can open up areas of land. So, Syrian refugees can return -- the more that the Turkish government would be happy with that situation but, of course, you know, it's impossible to think that this offensive wasn't -- didn't get the backing or at least a heads up for what was given a heads up to the Turks.
SCIUTTO: Goodness. Well, now we have a new president coming here in the U.S. who tried to pull out U.S. forces, who remain in Syria today during his first term. We'll see what he does in his second term.
Jane Ferguson, thanks so much for joining.
FERGUSON: Thanks, Jim.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, President Biden is returning to Washington from his first trip to Africa while in office. We're going to dive into the importance of the visit and his message while he was there, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCIUTTO: President Biden capped off a three day trip as the first sitting U.S. president to visit the nation of Angola, fulfilling in the twilight of his presidency a two-year long promise to visit the continent of Africa.
[15:50:09]
Key to the trip, economic cooperation across continents. Biden today participated in a summit with leaders from Zambia, Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo. At the port in Lobito, he pledged nearly $600 million toward the multi-city railway system currently under construction there, adding to some $4 billion in U.S. investments in the project since Biden took office.
For more on Biden's visit, let's bring in Mvemba Phezo Dizolele. He's the director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Thanks so much for joining.
MVEMBA PHEZO DIZOLELE, DIRECTOR OF AFRICA PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Thank you, Jim, for having me.
SCIUTTO: President Biden, he opened the bilateral meeting with a phrase he's used many times and that is that the U.S. is all in on Africa. I wonder when you look at the investments, the visits, the presence there, is that true?
DIZOLELE: I think it's a good point to start with. At this point, we still are curious to see how that will translate into real action. If the U.S. is all in on Africa, that's a good thing. But it's a bit behind and a little late compared to other competitors like China, like Turkey and now the rise of the Gulf Arab states across the continent.
But having said that, the investment on the Lobito corridor is a great signal to the Africans that finally the U.S. is ready to engage with them and we hope it's not just to counteract the Chinese but actually to engage Africa on their own terms, and due to the potential that the continent offers the United States and the world.
SCIUTTO: It is of course, one of the many fronts where the U.S. is competing with China. And I wonder what are the criticisms you hear about China's investments in Africa and elsewhere is that they're one way streets, in effect, right? Serving China's interests, but not necessarily the interests of its partners on the ground there.
And I wonder, what do you agree with that criticism? And is that -- does that give the U.S. and its relationships there an advantage?
DIZOLELE: That criticism is not exactly accurate on one level. But also the U.S. engagement now with Lobito corridor is already facing the same criticism that is, the U.S. is coming to the region to extract critical minerals and extract them evacuate to them to the United States and the West which is exactly what the China, the China investment does evacuating them through the Indian Ocean. So I think China engages Africans where they are, offering them a lot
of money particularly with the infrastructure needs, which are tremendous when you consider that Africa is lagging behind in terms of economic development. So building roads, building ports, building schools have direct impact on the lives, the livelihoods of Africans.
We hope the United States will do the same that the railroad will just not be a railroad, but it will feed into the agricultural potential of these countries and raise the standard of living.
SCIUTTO: You mentioned those key minerals. I mean, of course, many of them key to producing microchips, batteries, electric vehicle batteries, so many things central to high technology production today. You, of course, have a new U.S. president coming in in less than two months time.
Do you have any sense of how President-elect Donald Trump will approach Africa and U.S. policy there?
DIZOLELE: We do not. We, of course, have a reference back to his last term, an unfortunate one where he called African s-hole countries.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
DIZOLELE: That kind of would remember people remember of his -- his first term vis-a-vis Africa. But we also need to recall that it was during the Trump administration that the U.S. created the Development Finance Corporation which is a huge undertaking putting money at the disposal of developing countries to push their project.
We hope that with Trump two, there will be more engagement on the front of investment in finance. So DFC, as they call it, will push more money to projects in Africa.
We also think the likes of U.S. EXIM Bank, the export and import bank will be doing the same. But we also know that President Trump is very committed to counteracting China. And Africa is a place where China is invested a lot. Will the president promote Africans to give them the strength to deal with China, or will he try to punish the Africans along with his engagement against China?
SCIUTTO: I didn't mention that -- I didn't mention Russia. Of course, Russia has its own presence in Africa. Often -- well, a nefarious one involved in several coups in the country, often through the Wagner Group.
[15:55:01]
But where does Russia's position in Africa stand? And is that another conflict between -- between the U.S. and Russia the president, the incoming president, President-elect Trump, has not been confrontational with the - with the Russians.
So his relationship with Russia has been at best kind of, you know, lukewarm so to speak. I mean, it's hard to describe, but he has not been confrontational in the way that he engages with China. And Russia investment is very limited. It's true security and defense agreements with certain countries. These are long standing security and defense agreements that go back to the days of independence, to the '60s.
And then it's also through some mining ventures, diamond, gold, in a few places. So it's not at the same scale as the Chinese engagement.
However, I will say that if we go back to the Chinese issue in the case of Angola, for instance, you know, the Lobito corridor is which achieved a lot, received a lot of attention.
SCIUTTO: Right.
DIZOLELE: But I think for the Lobito corridor to work, the U.S. will have to work with China. There's no way around it. China controls the mine.
SCIUTTO: It's not the only place where the U.S. and China have to work together on global issues.
Mvemba Phezo Dizolele, we appreciate you joining.
DIZOLELE: Thank you very much, Jim.
SCIUTTO: I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Thanks so much for joining me today.
"QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is up next.
