Return to Transcripts main page

New Day Saturday

President Ends Shutdown Without Money For Border Wall; Interview with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Discussed The End Of Government Shutdown And Border Wall Funding; Federal Workers Speak OLT On Government Shutdown; Maduro And Guaido's Presidential Power Struggle Escalates; Grand Jury Indictment Shows Roger Stone Was In Close Contact With Trump Campaign About WikiLeaks; "Three Identical Strangers" Premieres On CNN Sunday At 9:00 p.m. ET; Name Game For 2020 Dem Presidential Candidates. Aired 7-8a ET

Aired January 26, 2019 - 07:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[07:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The central crime that launched the Russia investigation has now been directly linked to the Trump campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's still no evidence whatsoever that I had advance knowledge of the topic, subject, with the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures. I never received.

There is no circumstance what so far under which I will bear false witness against the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY WEEKEND with Victor Blackwell and Christi Paul.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Good Saturday morning to you. The shutdown is over. There's now this three-week funding measure. The bill has been signed and now the battle starts for the next budget deal.

CHRISTI PAUL, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, President Trump essentially signed the same deal that he'd been rejecting for weeks. No money for his border wall. He attempted to calm his base by tweeting this: "This was in no way a concession." He said, if he doesn't have a deal, or the wall included by February 15th, he'll declare a national emergency and get it done that way.

BLACKWELL: Meanwhile, Trump's longtime friend and advisor, Roger Stone, was indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and arrested.

PAUL: He's accused of stealing -- rather, seeking stolen e-mails from WikiLeaks and working with the campaign to damage their 2016 opponents.

BLACKWELL: The White House yielded the pressure from several people and entities and reopen the government. But president made it clear that this is not the end of the fight for that border wall.

PAUL: CNN White House Reporter, Sarah Westwood, joining us live. We heard him there in Twitter, obviously, a bit on the defensive about what this really was in his mind, this negotiation, this step back. What are you hearing from the White House this morning, Sarah?

SARAH WESTWOOD, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Christi, President Trump is emerging weakened from a shutdown battle that brought him no closer to getting money for his promised border wall. And after weeks of remaining defiant in the face of sagging approval numbers, polls that shows most Americans blamed President Trump for the standoff. He's no closer to fulfilling that campaign promise. And after all of that, he accepted a deal that looked a lot like the one he rejected in December right before the shutdown that would fund the government three weeks through February 15th, after which he says he will allow funding for the government to lapse again or he'll declare a national emergency to try to tap into federal funds that way.

Now, the president caved after Republicans, Democrats, were starting to put pressure on the White House increasingly. White House aides were worried about images of federal workers lining up at food banks and particularly about the chaos that had started to develop at airports, as TSA agents who have been doing their jobs without weeks without paychecks were starting to call in sick as they remained without a salary. Now, of course, the president already facing a conservative backlash, his home town paper, the New York Post, describing him as the caveman. And many Republicans wondering why the president allowed the shutdown to drag on for 35 days, the longest in U.S. history, and then agreed to reopen the government without any wall funding.

Democrats, meanwhile, remained united against funding any kind barrier along the southern border. That's not likely to change during the next three weeks. Although White House aides and allies hope that what's going to happen is that Democrats who had said they don't want to negotiate on any kind of deal while the government is shut down will now have a reason to come to the table with the government partially reopened. But make no mistake, this is a low point for President Trump who's really managed to anger all sides with his shutdown antics.

BLACKWELL: All right. Sarah Westwood for us there at the White House. Thank you.

PAUL: Note that the president said he made no concessions on this deal, insists the fight continues if there's no border wall deal in the next three weeks.

BLACKWELL: Joining us now to discuss what's next: Congressman Gregory Meeks, Democrat from New York. Congressman Meeks, welcome back to the show.

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D), NEW YORK: Good to be with you.

BLACKWELL: Let's me start here with the latest we've heard from the White House. The Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted this out. Let's put this up on the screen, in 21 days, President Trump is moving forward building the wall with or without the Democrats. The only outstanding question is whether the Democrats want something or nothing. What's your response to that?

MEEKS: My response to that is, forget that what I think that we heard that was significant yesterday, was that we're going to go with the Conference Committee, and that means that we're going to have Democrats and Republicans, sort of be bipartisan and bicameral, that they will have a discussion with real experts. Because we're all concerned -- Democrats have always been concerned about border control. But we want real border control that is efficient, not a campaign promise that has been broken, that we're going to build a big wall that Mexico is going to pay for.

So, now, we have a chance to individuals to sit down and review what really needs to be done at the border to protect our border. And what we need to also, as far as invest in our judges and our ports of entry where a lot of illegality has been taking place, with reference to drugs getting in. So, we want to make sure that we really protect our borders. And so, now, we have the time to sit down, negotiate, and get something done that is for real for the American people. And not just some campaign promise that the president knew was not legitimate in the first place.

[07:05:32] PAUL: So, congressman, what is the starting point on border funding now? I mean, the fact that the president, you know, some might say, well, he gave a little. You know, he backed off, the government's open. Is there an expectation that Democrats will give a little to finalize this?

MEEKS: Well, as I said, you know, Democrats had negotiated previously for I think it was $25 billion over ten years that would be something that we had agreed upon, and the president had backed away from that. So, again, so what we're looking to do is to talk to the experts that, you know, and if you just talk to some of the members that represent the border, Democrats and Republicans, for example, Will Hurd, they have a good idea what needs to take place at that border.

And you're going to have some on the Conference Committee, individuals who have districts right there to make this determination, and to talk through it so that everybody can stand up. And I think that you're going to see Republican senators coming to their good senses also because that is significant. They cannot just stand behind the president when he's talking just about a campaign promise, that he knew he could not live up to in the first place. Because the Mexicans will not pay for this wall. And the wall, as he has depicted it, is not something that will keep America secure.

BLACKWELL: So, let's set, just for this question, aside the promise that Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Important element of this argument from the president but just for this question. If the Conference Committee comes back and says, as part of the comprehensive package for border security, there needs to be the addition of more technology along the border, at the ports of entry, but also, additional barriers along the border. Could you vote for billions of dollars to be added to add border barriers along the southern border with Mexico?

MEEKS: What I will be looking at, and what I would think that the Conference Committee will look at, is those places where it may make sense to do some kind of security along the border, in regards to fencing, whatever it is. But it has to be something that is not just, you know, 2,000 miles, or 1,000 miles, as he said of fencing that's going to keep America safe, that just does not make sense. And I think that what Democrats have talked about all along, let's negotiate.

But let's not negotiate with the American people. 800,000 American people-plus. You know, contractors, et cetera, being held as basically hostages in this process. So, now, we've always been ready to negotiate. We are going to negotiate. But we're going to negotiate something that makes sense, that's based upon some real rationale of securing America's borders and trying to make sure that we're protecting our ports of entry.

PAUL: OK. Just to be clear, you are willing to vote for some sort of barrier in certain places along the border, if necessary?

MEEKS: Well, look, there are some places right now where there is something that's up on the wall. Then, some of those places need to be repaired. And if that's what's concluded by the Homeland Security experts, yes, that is something that I can support. But if we're talking about just building a wall that is, I don't know how high he said it was going to be, for the sake of building a wall and keeping a campaign promise, that is not something that I can vote for. I'm not going to vote for anything that is not really there to protect the American people, but just there so that the president can say that he kept a campaign promise. Nor do I think that the Republican senators, that's going to be involved in this conference committee, that they're going to step up.

BLACKWELL: Congressman, I want to get to the Roger Stone indictment in that reporting as well, while we have you, but you say that there's a potential you can vote for barriers if the Homeland Security experts and this Congress committee endorsed that. Reconcile that with Speaker Pelosi's characterization of a wall being immoral?

MEEKS: Well, I think what we're talking about, and Speaker Pelosi has always said is that she is willing to have to conversation and negotiate. Democrats want to negotiate budget -- I mean, border security, but not with the American people held hostage. 800,000 American people held hostage. She's always said that we need to sit down and talk about real border security, and that's what I'm talking about now.

BLACKWELL: But she said the wall would be immoral, right?

MEEKS: Yes.

[07:10:07] BLACKWELL: If this committee comes back and says, well, we need a bollard -- called the bollard fence now -- the president calls it the bollard wall. We need this steel wall for two or 300 miles along the border is that vote immoral in the context of what Speaker Pelosi said?

MEEKS: I think that it is clear from everyone we've talked to thus far, it is clear from all conversation, and when you do some fact- checking that the wall that as depicted by the president of the United States is, in fact, a problem. And that's what I think that the Nancy, Speaker Pelosi was talking about being immoral. The wall as depicted by the president doing his campaign and throughout, that is what she's talking about as immoral. The wall that just says we're building something that's made 100 feet high, separating the countries without really border security, that is, you know --

BLACKWELL: But that's not the latest request from the White House. That's not what the president has been talking about for at least the last ten days or so. He's been talking about a bollard wall, which looks a lot like what we see on the border right now. So, would a vote for that type of barrier be immoral?

MEEKS: Again, what I'm saying, what Nancy Pelosi said at that time is that we're willing to negotiate once they were not held hostage. Negotiation will now start with the Conference Committee. That will be what will be the determining factor.

PAUL: OK. So, we're going to -- what you're saying is, we're going to see a different kind of negotiation from this point on because the government is open. Here's my question, Phil Mattingly, CNN, talked to a Democratic senator on Thursday night. That Democratic senator told him there was, "zero incentive to give in to President Trump." There are some people that might look at that and argue -- there are about 800,000 incentives.

Meaning, of course, the government workers who are not -- who are going to work at home weren't being paid. How much of this, at the end of the day, is about the shutdown, is about the government workers and how much of this is a battle between Speaker Pelosi and President Trump and how will that change in the next three weeks?

MEEKS: I think that we have a responsibility. And Speaker Pelosi has a responsibility. We are not -- we are a separate and equal branch of government. And I think that now, what we will do, is there is a pushback unlike what took place when we had one government, you know, Republicans were in complete control. So, now, we have a voice to negotiate what we believe, and not just support as Republicans have done in the past whatever the president wants. So, we're going do our job. And Speaker Pelosi is going to do her job to make sure that all of the voices of the American people take place, and is heard.

And now, the Senate has finally stepped up to do their job. And I think that's what made a substantial difference in this case. When Senator McConnell had gone silent and just said he was only going to do what the president said he wanted, then we were showing that we were not an equal and separate branch of government. But when we took that vote, and we saw six senators voted with the Democratic plan, then just three votes short, I think that gave the president the knowledge that this is not just Democrats who wants something smart, but this is also Republicans who want something smart. And that's the direction in which we're moving in. PAUL: Congressman Gregory Meeks, thank you so much for taking time

for us this morning.

MEEKS: My pleasure. Good being with you.

PAUL: You too. Thank you.

BLACKWELL: The Mueller investigation has now rounded up six Trump associates on various charges. The arrest and indictment of Roger Stone is the latest in the ongoing Russia investigation. So, where does it go from here?

PAUL: And a TSA worker just breaks down the struggle of the last five weeks. We're going to get reaction, his reaction, to the president's three-week stopgap, and how he's feeling going towards February 15th.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:18:03] BLACKWELL: President Trump's old friend and adviser, Roger Stone says, and this is a quote: "When you don't have evidence, you use theatrics." And he was speaking about the FBI's early morning raid on his home there in Fort Lauderdale yesterday. Stone, made his case during an interview with Chris Cuomo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: When you say they have no proof, Roger, to be honest with you, I have not seen an indictment connected to this probe that has more proof than this one does of communication that you have had that prove that you didn't tell the truth to the Congress, the congressional panel you were before?

ROGER STONE, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: False. Every one of those statements is out of context. If you go to my Web site, Stone Cold Truth or watch any of my interviews, I have actually refuted virtually everything in there. And then there are a bunch of things in there that frankly I don't believe are true. No senior campaign official told me to find out anything about WikiLeaks. That doesn't mean that Mr. Mueller can be induce somebody to say that, but there'll be no corroboration for it. And no other person in the campaign who is junior official inquiry of what happened.

Now, what I did hear from Steve Bannon, the day after Assange had a press event on October 1st as to what he said, I responded with two matters of public record. Politico had already reported that he said there would be releases every week for the next following weeks. And that all the U.S.-related campaign elect, or election related material would be released in the weeks before the election. I also told them that Assange had security --

CUOMO: So, the only communication that you had with the campaign, just to be clear. Just to be clear, Roger, to allow you to respond directly to what's in the indictment, if you're comfortable doing so, you're saying the only communication you ever had with anybody related to the campaign was this one communication you're talking about with Steve Bannon that you're saying is already public information? STONE: It was published in the Times, and I respond to it in great

written detail.

CUOMO: So, that's yes --

STONE: And my response to him is entire public information.

CUOMO: And that was the only communication --

STONE: That's the only one that I recall, and the only one that I can find in my e-mails.

CUOMO: Would you entertain cutting a deal, or anything short of going to trial on these charges?

STONE: Again, you're asking me to answer a hypothetical question, without knowing any of the facts. I know that I am innocent. My intention is to plead not guilty and to fight the charges. And I've had no discussion with anyone regarding a pardon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Well, Stone will be arraigned in federal court on Tuesday. He was indicted on several counts yesterday, including making false statements, obstruction, witness tampering. Now, part of the indictment claims Stone lied about his ties between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks. He calls the charges politically motivated, as you heard, and plans to plead not guilty as he left court. He said, "The charges today relate in no way Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration or any other illegal act in connection with the 2016 campaign. Here with me now, is former Federal Prosecutor and CNN Legal Analyst Shan Wu and CNN Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider. Good morning to both of you.

Shan, let me start with you just pick up on that last element from Roger Stone. His attorney, Grant Smith, said they found no Russian collusion or they would have charged him with it. That's what your hearing from a lot of the president supporters. What's your take on that assessment?

SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, they're correct, he wasn't charged with any actual substantive conspiracy aspect of it. But I think what's really important to note is, as we all know, the Trump campaign, Trump defenders started all saying absolutely no contact whatsoever. Now, obviously, there's been a lot of contact and now there's more substantive contact. For example, from the Manafort case, we see that there is substance being exchanged. So, it moves closer and closer to showing the actual substantive cooperation or conclusion. I think what's important about this indictment, Victor, is that you really show -- it shows the interest and the eagerness on the part of the campaign to want to get this information, so I think that's a very important point.

BLACKWELL: I want to talk about that stuff in just a moment, Shan. But Jessica, let me ask you, the chronology, not of the entire case, but of just the last 24 hours is so unique. I mean, we didn't have Paul Manafort or Michael Cohen or General Flynn indicted and then they're on television the same night or in a news conference there in that circus outside of the court house. Why is he doing this? Do we have any indication on what he thinks this advantage is for him?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, he seems to have acknowledge that he is going to fight this and he's really making it a public case. I mean, going on Chris Cuomo's show last night, he's being outspoken about the fact that he's going to fight these charges, that he is not going to testify against the president. I mean, as mentioned, Victor, it really has been an incredible past 24 hours. I mean, you know, our camera crews were staked out outside of Roger Stone's home.

We saw that whole FBI raid unfold. And interestingly, like you said, we didn't see this with the other defendants. There was no FBI raid and subsequent arrest of those other people. But Roger Stone, the reason they did this, is because they sealed the indictment against him on Thursday, and they said that they were worried that Roger Stone, he might destroy evidence. He might flee. And that's why they did this early morning raid and arrest of Roger Stone.

But it is quite interesting, you know, he was released on $250,000 bond. He was able to leave the court house. He'll appear in D.C. here on Tuesday. But yes, being very public, very outspoken about it, saying he's going to fight the charges. And again, bringing up the fact that there's no collusion here, of course, but he was charged with a lot of other serious crimes: obstruction, false statements, witness tampering.

[07:23:48] BLACKWELL: Yes. Shan, let me get to one element of the indictment, let's put up on the screen: "After the July 22nd, 2016 release of stolen DNC e-mails by organization one, which is known to be WikiLeaks. A senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases of what other damaging information WikiLeaks had regarding the Clinton campaign. Stone, thereafter, told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by WikiLeaks."

Would you caution, as we've seen some do on air, would you caution legal analysts away from suggesting who that person is, who directed the senior Trump campaign? Is that premature to say, well, it's got to be the president who can, you know, direct a senior campaign official?

WU: I guess you could caution them. I mean, we're all kind of reading the tea leaves here, but there is a limited number of people who could do that direction. And it's certainly not, I think, reckless speculation to imagine that it could go to the level of the president. I think the biggest takeaway from that, as I said, was really, their eagerness to get at this. But I do think that's not implausible that it could have been the president.

BLACKWELL: Jessica, what are we expecting on Tuesday?

SCHNEIDER: Could it be more of the same, could it be more of that circus-like atmosphere that we saw outside his Florida house, in Fort Lauderdale? Quite possibly. You know, I'm at the court house all the time here in D.C. and there is always that camera presence right outside those front doors. So, I have no doubt that we will see Roger Stone walk in, possibly in spectacular fashion. You know, he's known for his fashion. He's known for those outspoken and loud suits.

So, we might see another circus, this time in Washington, D.C., which has been the epicenter of really an entire circus for maybe the past two years. So, yes, we could see a lot of the same because again, he is out on bond. So, he'll be able to walk in and out of the court house on his own accord. He won't be ushered in underground or anything like that. So, it could be more of the same

BLACKWELL: All right. Jessica Schneider -- did you want to weigh in on that, Shan? Go ahead.

WU: Yes, just one thing I want to point out, I think Roger is going to get shut down once he gets to D.C., because this is the same judge as we had in the Gates case. And she's been very, very strict about the gag orders. Even using his agents to talk about it, I think, is going to be problematic. So, this might be his last hurrah on the talk shows.

BLACKWELL: All right. He made the circuit last night. We'll see if he gets more round in before Tuesday. Shan Wu and Jessica Schneider, thank you both.

WU: Good to see you.

[07:26:15] PAUL: Well, this morning, there's a collection of 800,000 sighs relief from the federal workers now that the government shutdown is over. How many of them are cautiously optimistic, though? They have three weeks to fix this. We're going to talk to a TSA employee, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:52] BLACKWELL: President Trump has agreed to temporarily reopen the government. He says that he struck a deal, he calls it, with the Democrats.

PAUL: Now, the president had promised that he would not reopen the government without funding for his border wall.

BLACKWELL: So, despite the claim of a deal, some publications, let's say, The New York Post are saying President Trump caved. Cave man, they call him. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats got their way. Now, open the government first, they said. And then, talk about border wall funding.

PAUL: TSA worker Brian Turner is with us now. Brian, welcome back to the world of the working.

BRIAN TURNER, EMPLOYEE, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: Thank you very much. Great to be here.

PAUL: Yes, I'm glad that you're here. What I want to ask you, this is the first morning you're waking up with, at least, some answers as to when you can go back to work. What does it feel like for you this morning?

TURNER: It feels a lot different than yesterday morning waking up. I'll tell you that. It feels great. I know there's 800,000 people that are breathing a very big sigh of relief. Going without pay for a month is difficult. And I think we're all cautiously optimistic.

PAUL: Yes, have you had any indication when you'll get that first paycheck of back pay?

TURNER: I think there's a very big sense of urgency to get payroll started. If I were to make an educated guess on it, I would say within the week, we're going to start seeing that money come in.

PAUL: OK, but you haven't been advised by anybody?

TURNER: No, we have not.

PAUL: OK, OK. So, you talked about cautious optimism, certainly. Is it fair to say -- you think that the TSA workers and the workers at the airports that kind of because of their backing off of their jobs, and caused some disruption yesterday at some major airports across the country, that they're the ones in part that made this, this deal happen?

TURNER: I definitely think it's a fair thought. When you -- when you take away paychecks for a month, this is bound to happen and it's not by choice. When people sign on for the government, they have a passion to serve. It's not about the money, it's not about politics. They want to serve.

And when they decide that they can no longer get to work, it has nothing to do with politics it has everything to do with not getting a paycheck. So, sure I think this is was bound to come to a head at some point, and here we are.

PAUL: How confident are you that it's not going to happen again?

TURNER: I would like to say I'm very confident. I think we learned a very big lesson from the shutdown, and it shouldn't be happening again. I don't think it's a very good negotiation tool at all. I think we need to have conversations across the aisle. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about doing what America is supposed to do. I'm confident it won't happen again, but we're going to have to see in three weeks.

PAUL: How -- helped us understand what it was like for you these last several weeks.

TURNER: Well, you live within your means. Which is what we've always done. But when you don't have a paycheck, you have to live under that. Which is difficult. You have to decide which bills are important and which ones can wait.

Luckily for us, we've found a lot of creditors to be very sympathetic to our situation, and we were able to put off paying some of those bills. But not everyone is that sympathetic and it's been very stressful.

PAUL: Did you ever have any concerns about the safety at airports?

TURNER: I have not. Everyone that signs on for the TSA customs, like I said, when you join the government, you have a passion, you have a desire to serve the public. I don't differentiate between Republican or Democrat, if you're in front of me on the checkpoint, I'm going to make sure that you're safe getting onto an aircraft, and everyone shares that mentality.

PAUL: So, if you could sit down with Congress, with President Trump as they head into these next three weeks of negotiations. What would you want them to really understand about this for you?

TURNER: That we don't need to hold 800,000 families hostage. This doesn't just affect the 800,000 employees, it's everyone that depends on these people.

America needs to stay in business, we need to keep everything running so we can operate properly. The safety of America depends on it and we don't need to shut down the government to get a point across.

[07:30:04] PAUL: Brian Turner, we appreciate so much you taking time to be with us. And as I said, welcome back to the working world.

TURNER: Thank you for having me.

PAUL: We're glad -- we're glad you're going to be back out of here.

TURNER: Thank you very much.

PAUL: Absolutely, take care.

BLACKWELL: President's struggle for power is escalating in Venezuela. Coming up, the international efforts to end this crisis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACK: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is holding on to power. That's despite the intense pressure that's inside his country and diplomatic pressure from the United States.

PAUL: We have nearly 20 people have died in protests this week as Maduro struggles to hold onto power there. We want to bring in Stefano Pozzebon in Caracas. Stefano, so, this morning, any signs either side is prepared to compromise?

[07:40:07] STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN JOURNALIST: No actually, Victor, and -- yes, and they've -- the situation here is still building up. And there is really the feeling that it could escalate even further because both sides, both Nicolas Maduro, the embattled Venezuelan president, and Juan Guaido, the opposition figurehead who swore himself in as the new legitimate president are rarely in their support in the international community. Guaido is strongly backed up by the White House, by the Latin American community and by European countries such as Spain, Germany, and France. But Maduro feels strong because of the support of the Kremlin, of countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, who have been cultivating a commercial relationships with Caracas and are not ready to let him go so quickly.

So, these weekend will be extremely, extremely important to monitor here in Venezuela because the situation can escalate even, even further, Christi and Dave.

BLACKWELL: So, Stefano, from a military perspective when you've got one, one president here, it -- there should be only one president, I should say.

PAUL: Right, right. Yes.

BLACKWELL: Is there any evidence that the military is going to stand down?

POZZEBON: The feeling that we have here is that the top military brass, the top brass, the people who are closer to Maduro are still on Maduro side. We're talking about generals, colonels, lieutenants, admirals, who also -- as well as being military men, they also oversee the little economic activity that goes on here. Because Maduro has been in the past -- in the past few years put in place the top military brass in charge of the state enterprises that run the economy.

You have militaries run in ports, militaries run in state contractors, built-in enterprises. A lot of militaries are inside the oil company here. But there is a breakthrough between the top military brass and the average soldier, the sergeant's the private officers who are also feeling the burnt and the heat, but a deep economic crisis that is bringing Venezuela to its knees.

So, the top brass has been repeatedly showed pledges of allegiance to Nicolas Maduro. But, is the troop with them? That's one of the main question.

PAUL: All right.

BLACKWELL: All right. Stefano Pozzebon, thank you so much.

PAUL: Well, still to come. Roger Stone, indicted by a grand jury on charges brought by the special counsel. Part of this indictment alleges that he sought inside information about WikiLeaks stunts that could damage Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 campaign. Looks for more that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:47:06] BLACKWELL: Former Trump campaign advisor, Roger Stone was arrested and indicted for obstruction, making false statements, witness tampering. This is in connection to the special counsel's Russia investigation. At the center of his indictment is a mention that, "A senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about what dirt WikiLeaks might have on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. CNN correspondent Phil Black has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STONE: The charges today relate in no way to Russian collusion, WikiLeaks collaboration or any other illegal act in connection with the 2016 campaign.

PHIL BLACK, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: At the center of longtime Trump associate, Roger Stone's indictment, that stunned the sort stolen e-mails from WikiLeaks that could damage Hillary Clinton's presidential race in coordination with the Trump campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anyone who come you to contact in the Trump campaign to contact WikiLeaks.

STONE: No, I've researched that before that is incorrect.

BLACK: But the Mueller probe paints a different picture. Back to July 2016, when WikiLeaks releases thousands of stolen documents from the DNC, damaging to Hillary Clinton.

And that after that, a senior Trump campaign official is directed to ask Stone about more damaging information, organization one, WikiLeaks might have.

By August, Stone gets an e-mail from person one. Now, confirmed to CNN, a stone associate Jerome Corsi, including these words. "Word is a friend in embassy plans two more dumps. One shortly after I'm back, second in October. Impact planned to be very damaging."

That friend, WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012, evading a fiat arrest on an unrelated matter and potential extradition to the U.S.

Within a few days of the e-mail, Stone claims direct communication with Assange.

STONE: I actually have communicated with Assange. I believe the next crunch of this documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation. But there's no telling what the October surprise may be.

BLACK: And sends this e-mail to form a Trump advisor Sam Nunberg. "I dined with my new pal, Julian Assange last night." Stone would later explain, it was a joke but was it? Both WikiLeaks and Stone's camps deny Stone and Assange ever meeting.

And WikiLeaks maintains there wasn't even a back-channel. Tweeting Friday these are only Stone-Corsi attempts at braggadocio. New evidence of no back channel with WikiLeaks.

Amid all these conflicting statements, we know that stone and WikiLeaks have communicated directly from these private messages on Twitter. October 13, 2016, Stone messages WikiLeaks that since he's been defending them and Assange, they may want to re-examine the strategy of attacking him.

A WikiLeaks' staff member replies and attempts to distance WikiLeaks from Stone. "We appreciate that. However, the false claims of association are being used by the Democrats to undermine the impact of our publications. Don't go there if you don't want us to correct you.

WikiLeaks tweeted this statement from an Assange's lawyer, Friday. "The charges against Mr. Stone lied about his lack of contacts with Julian Assange, but rather about his contacts with others and about documents reflecting those communications.

And goes on to say that "The office of the Special Counsel has never spoken with Mr. Assange." Phil Black, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[07:50:33] PAUL: So the president signing a deal to reopen the government after a record shutdown. Was this deal any different from what he's been offered for weeks now? And what does this mean for the fight ahead?

BLACKWELL: Plus, the list of 2020 presidential candidates grows every day. But first, everybody needs to learn how to pronounce their names. Coming up, Jeanne Moos, that's how you pronounce her name with some fun pronunciation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:55:10] BLACKWELL: Imagine walking down the street, pick up a newspaper, open your front door, and you discover someone who looks just like you. I mean, what would you do?

Well, the all-new CNN original film, three identical strangers dives deep into this surreal story of triplets. Separated at birth who are reunited with one another by chance at the age of 19.

PAUL: Yes, earlier this week our colleagues Alisyn Camerota and John Berman have a chance to speak with David Kellman and Bobby Shafran, two of the brothers who were featured in this film. Listen to this conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: So, what was that like? At 19, when you discover that you had these identical brothers, what -- how did that change your life?

BOBBY SHAFRAN, FEATURED IN THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS, CNN FILM: Everything changed. Everything changed. First of all, it was a streak of fantastic, amazing incredible feelings that most people have for a moment. And for us, it went for a decade or more. OK? And it was -- it was non-stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLACKWELL: I've seen this film, it is amazing. Be sure to watch the award-winning CNN original film, Three Identical Strangers. It premieres Sunday at 9:00 right here on CNN.

So, the list of Democrats running for president in 2020, it keeps growing.

PAUL: Yes, and they're not all easy to pronounce, let's say.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

PAUL: You might have had a problem -- some of us at times have had a problem.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

PAUL: Making sure that we get it right. We want to get it right. Here's CNN's Jeanne Moos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: there's a new democrat looking to run for president. If only we could pronounce his name.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God. Pete Butieg.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pete Butigieg.

MOOS: You try saying the name of South Bend Indiana's mayor.

PETE BUTTIGIEG, MAYOR, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA: I'm Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg. But around South Bend, they just called me Mayor Pete and that's fine with me.

MOOS: What isn't fine is that so many of the Democratic presidential wannabes have names that trip you up. Don't call him Julian Castro.

JULIAN CASTRO, FORMER UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: No, my name is Julian.

MOOS: And don't do what Whoopi did when she introduced --

WHOOPI GOLDBERG, HOST, ABC: Kamala Harris.

MOOS: Oops, accent on the wrong syllable.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: It's Kamala. It's just --

GOLDBERG: Kamala.

HARRIS: Yes, just think of like a comma and add a la.

MOOS: Somebody forgot to tell right-wing critics Diamond and Silk.

DIAMOND, POLITICAL ACTIVIST, DIAMOND AND SILK: You know, Kamala should be ashamed of herself. Shame all Kamala Harris --

MOOS: It's really a shame when both names are tricky.

BARBARA WALTERS, HOST, THE VIEW, ABC: Please welcome Senator Kris -- Kristen Gillibrand.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How often people call you Kristin Gillibrand?

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY), SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: A lot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I know her. That's Kristen Gillibrand.

MOOS: Kirsten.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my goodness.

MOOS: And then there's this guy whose childhood name, Stuck.

BETO O'ROURKE, FORMER CONGRESSMAN, TEXAS: Hey there, this is Beto O'Rourke.

MOOS: But his political foes delight in saying, Beyto rather than Beto.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Where is my opponent, Beto O'Rourke?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Referred to as Beto.

MOOS: Campaign sometimes go along with the joke.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Weird on get me, one of them signs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Beto.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Beto.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not Kamala.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not Kamela.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's Kamala.

MOOS: Mayor Pete's husband offered some tips like Buddha-judge to help pronounce this Maltese name that translates to Lord of the poultry. But even easy names get mangled. Take Bernie Sanders,

CHRIS HAYES, HOST, MSNBC: -- and Bernie sandwiches.

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, CBS: Yes, right.

MOOS: Sometimes a name is more than people can bite off. Jeanne Moos.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Genie Moose. Moose. MOOS: Moo.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Genie Moom?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Moos.

MOOS: CNN.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. It's Moos, right? Moos. Moos.

MOOS: New York.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Moshie? He's -- at you?

MOOS: He and -- right in front of you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's you, right? All right, how you doing?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLACKWELL: We have to occasionally remind each other. It's Moos.

PAUL: Moos.

BLACKWELL: Yes, Jeanne Moos. OK.

PAUL: Moos, yes. So, listen, as there is this stretch of just brutal weather heading across the Midwest and the Northeast. Do you may be one of the 65 million people who are going to see temperatures fall below zero. And I mean below zero.

BLACKWELL: Yes, way below.

PAUL: It's a high next week.

BLACKWELL: And there are some cities -- may be more than a few that are potentially going to break record lows. Let's go to have our CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar, following this cold front that's coming in. Allison, some of these numbers are just unbelievable.

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes. It's not just records for the day. To some of these could end up breaking all-time record lows. Chicago potentially being one of them.

But it's not just the cold, you also have snow to go along with it. We've got another clipper system coming in Sunday into Monday. It's going to be very fast moving. But despite the speed, it will still have the potential to dump a significant amount of snow in that short period of time.

Widespread amounts of about six to eight inches, but it is not out of the question, where you see the pink for those folks to get over a foot of snow in just a short period of time.

But here is the thing, once that clipper moves out, that cold arctic air moves back in. And again, guys take a look at this. The high temperature in Minneapolis on Wednesday, the high, minus 12.