Return to Transcripts main page
Hala Gorani Tonight
Brexit Fight Moves To Courts; Immigration Law Takes Immediate Effect In U.S. Today; Mike Pompeo May Assume Bolton's Role; Top 10 Democratic Candidates To Debate Tonight; Saudi Princess To Appeal Conviction In Workman's Beating; ISIS Ideology Takes Root In Sprawling Syrian Tent Camp; Where Are The Black Referees? Aired 2-3p ET
Aired September 12, 2019 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:30]
ISA SOARES, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: A very good evening, everyone. Live from CNN London, I'm Isa Soares, sitting in for Hala Gorani.
Tonight, "I didn't lie to the queen," says Boris Johnson. The prime minister remains under pressure for suspending Parliament.
Then, a Supreme Court win for Donald Trump, his stricter filing (ph) rules can go into effect, shutting out many more people seeking a safe haven in
the United States.
And Democrats go toe-to-toe in Texas tonight. Frontrunners Joe Biden as well as Elizabeth Warren, face off for the first time and Bernie Sanders
keep the pressure on both.
But first, with just over seven weeks or so to Brexit and the concerns and controversies piling on the British government, Prime Minister Boris
Johnson is fighting back against claims that he lied to the queen.
Now, if you remember, Scottish court ruled on Wednesday that Mr. Johnson acted unlawfully when he told her why he wanted Parliament suspended or
prorogued. Did he lie? Well, he says, "Absolutely not." Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you lie to the queen when you advised her to prorogue, to suspend Parliament?
BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: Absolutely not. And that -- and indeed, as I say, the High Court in England plainly agrees with
us, but the Supreme Court will have to decide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: While, meantime, Mr. Johnson says he's working on a plan in case the U.K. crashed out of the European Union without a deal. We're, of
course, in the home stretch and his own government is painting a grim picture.
I'm joined now by CNN's Richard Quest and Bianca Nobilo. You have been discussing this for three years now, whether it's Abingdon Green or here.
Let's start, first, with the prime minister having to deny that he lied to the queen. How embarrassing is this for him -- Bianca.
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm not sure if "embarrassing" is the word. It's startling that he had to make that statement. But then this
was the ruling that came out, it was a very strong ruling, saying that he did act unlawfully, but that this was a political matter.
And that is important in itself because it tells us that we're not quite at the moment, we're in a constitutional crisis. Because this is still just a
political matter at the moment, and they feel like even though Boris Johnson didn't act in alignment with the law because they think he did this
for political reasons, to stymie Parliament at a crucial time where Parliament believes it should be scrutinizing every aspect of --
SOARES: Every detail, yes.
NOBILO: -- Brexit policy, that they're still not able to intervene.
SOARES: But, of course, we're going to go -- we're going to hear from the courts next week, Richard. I think it's -- it might take three days for
the higher courts to decide, How does he react, then, if it does -- go on, you were going to -- go on, go ahead.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: So you've got a situation where the Supreme Court is going to rule -- and there is a difference
between the High Court in England, which has said they didn't have jurisdiction, and the highest -- the Court of Sessions, the highest court,
Lord Drummond, saying he lied and we can do something about it. It's against democracy and the rule of law.
But how did they come to that? And the Supreme Court's going to have to decide. Now, let's assume that the Supreme Court decides that Scotland's
right, he did --
SOARES: What does he do then?
QUEST: It's unlawful, what he did. But that's the remedy --
SOARES: Yes.
QUEST: -- in all of this, both personal, as against Boris Johnson, and can you see the Supreme Court ordering the government to recall Parliament?
Now, remember, under the unwritten Constitution -- people always talk about the fact that Britain doesn't have a Constitution, what a load of nonsense.
Of course it does, it's just not written down in a single document.
Now, under the U.K.'s unwritten Constitution, one part of it very much says, "Courts cannot interfere or investigate what's going on in
Parliament." They have no power, they stop at the parliamentary door. Well, this is all about before the parliamentary door, isn't it?
NOBILO: It is. And what's concerning is, to see the courts being weaponized in this fashion by people on either sides of the debate. So
next week, the government is going to appeal and those who are challenging the government are also going to appeal.
And that is -- that is a concern.
QUEST: I -- well, it's not really a concern --
NOBILO: It is, though. Because they haven't --
QUEST: -- what?
NOBILO: -- instead of using the political remedies that are available, such as a no-confidence vote or even an election, they're deciding not to
do that. They're not leaving it in the political realm, and they're resorting to trying to bring in the --
SOARES: They're (ph) trying to control --
NOBILO: Yes.
SOARES: -- have control as (ph) much (ph) as (ph) possible (ph) --
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: Yes, but --
NOBILO: -- which is a dangerous precedent to set.
QUEST: -- but -- but the courts are well used to -- maybe this has taken them a bit further because they're actually -- but any question, if you go
back to the days of the poll tax and all the various different shenanigans under the Thatcher government, and then under the Blair government, under
all the law -- under the actions that were taken over going to war in Iraq.
[14:05:16]
So the courts are well-used to this. The issue becomes whether they choose to say, "We're not getting involved."
SOARES: What does this mean, then, for Boris? If it means that he has broken the law.
QUEST: I think it -- I think Bianca's probably more qualified on this because she has her ear very firmly to the parliamentary door. But I think
he has to go. I mean, if he --
SOARES: He would have to step down?
QUEST: If you have the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, saying it's clearly, as Lord Drummond in
Scotland said, he lied to stymie Parliament, I think his position becomes untenable.
NOBILO: And let's not forget that the Conservative Party is traditionally the party of law and order --
QUEST: Yes.
SOARES: Yes.
NOBILO: -- and now it's going through an identity crisis at the moment of epic proportion.
(CROSSTALK)
NOBILO: I'm not sure it could sustain another blow from another direction. Reputationally, that is damage (ph) that will never be undone.
SOARES: He is fighting so many fires on so many fronts. I mean, the Yellowhammer report coming out. I mean, did that -- on that report, being
forced to actually come out and reveal it, the assessment of what a no-deal Brexit would look like. Did we find out anything that we didn't know
already?
QUEST: Oh, it confirmed. It's one thing for everybody to say, and for Michael Gove to continue the (INAUDIBLE) for exiting the union for no-deal
and said, "It's one thing for them to sort of say, 'No, it was about (ph)'" -- but when you see it in black and white, stamped, you know --
SOARES: These are the repercussions.
QUEST: -- because even if they're the worst case, and even if you then do (ph) minimize it by half, it's still going to be pretty bad.
NOBILO: And the worst aspect, probably -- it was only a five-page document -- was the area on Northern Ireland --
SOARES: Northern Ireland, yes.
NOBILO: -- because it said it was unsustainable --
QUEST: Yes.
NOBILO: -- and that's the issue, because it's saying the U.K. may well say, "We will never, ever put checks on the border," but the fact that the
document acknowledges that that policy is unsustainable, means there's going to be --
(CROSSTALK)
QUEST: He was also -- he was also extremely unpleasant about the rest of Europe and what other countries are proposing to do, particularly the
French, which really -- reading between the lines, made quite clear that the French were out to hurt and hinder in any possible way they could.
SOARES: So how is Boris surviving this? To both of you. Because, I mean, you've just outlined pretty much all the fires that he's facing, he's
trying to put. Yet he seems -- I heard him today, he seems so confident, so much bravado when it comes to trying to get a deal.
QUEST: There is still 16, 17 million people who voted to leave. There is still a large swathe of the country, what Dominic Cummings said, rudely, to
journalists, "Get out and go to talk to -- get out of your rich Remainers and go and talk to the rest of the country."
And the rest -- and there is a large number of people in the country who are basically saying, "Thank goodness somebody's leading after three years
of Theresa May's waffling.
SOARES: But also he depends on this, politically, for his survival.
NOBILO: He does. But I completely agree with Richard here, because it's the epitome --
QUEST: Ooh.
(LAUGHTER)
NOBILO: -- it's the epitome of populism --
SOARES: Yes.
NOBILO: -- because he's positioning himself, there was this hashtag trending at the weekend, #peoplesprimeminister, as the man fighting against
the establishment --
SOARES: Very (INAUDIBLE).
NOBILO: -- to deliver -- yes, absolutely -- deliver on the result of the popular referendum. So even though the courts might be thwarting him,
Parliament might be thwarting him, the leader of the opposition might be thwarting him --
QUEST: The one thing --
NOBILO: -- he's still staying (ph) true (ph).
QUEST: -- that could do him --
SOARES: Besides (ph) the courts?
QUEST: -- the -- well, the queen. You know, we know she's the most glorified of rubber stamps, but because of that, the British people never
want to see her put in an untenable, embarrassing and unfortunate position.
SOARES: Yes.
QUEST: They don't like to think of the queen as being the glorious rubber stamp. And he might just have done that. Will that cost him his job?
That depends on what the -- and incidentally, by the way, the president of the Supreme Court was meant to be a Scottish judge, he takes over in
January. Luckily, it's the old president of the judge (ph), Baroness Hale.
SOARES: Three days of more action. I'm sure we'll (ph) be discussing it next week.
QUEST: And it's televised, if I'm not mistaken.
SOARES: There you go.
QUEST: The House of Lords is televised -- sorry, the -- I'm showing my age -- the Supreme Court is televised.
NOBILO: I didn't know that. I'll be tuning in.
SOARES: There you go. We'll all be tuning in. Thank you very much, Richard, Bianca. Thank you to you both.
Now, I want to switch gears now and take you to U.S. because President Donald Trump calls it a big win for border security. But critics say it
puts some of the most vulnerable lives in the Western Hemisphere at risk.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is basically allowing the Trump administration to go ahead with a hardline immigration policy, basically dramatically
limiting the ability of Central American migrants to call -- to claim asylum at the U.S. southern border. The court says the new rule can take
effect even while legal challenges are still under way.
I want to bring in CNN's Justice Correspondent, Jessica Schneider for details. Jessica, explain to our viewers right around the world, how
quickly this policy will be rolled out. And critically, what this will mean for migrants that are on waiting lists at border crossings, or those
waiting for asylum claims.
[14:10:03]
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: So this new asylum policy is now in effect, it's taking effect immediately. And that means any of those
migrants who have traveled through another country before coming to the United States, they cannot seek asylum here in the United States. They can
no longer seek asylum unless they've applied for and have been denied asylum in that other first country.
So, really, that means that this applied to migrants from the Central American countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. Of course, the
countries that make up the majority of asylum claims.
And when the Supreme Court issued its decision last night, two of the liberal justices, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg, they strongly
dissented, saying that this upends decades of U.S. asylum policy that really let anyone come to the border and if they claimed a credible fear,
they could be granted those asylum hearings.
But of course, the pushback from the Trump administration is that once these migrants are granted these asylum hearings, their credible fear claim
is processed, they can be in the United States. And they say that, often, since these asylum hearings take so long, Isa, that these migrants just
stay in the United States and sometimes never show up for their court hearing.
So that's the reason that the administration is now putting this policy into effect immediately, but getting a lot of pushback from these
immigrants' rights groups.
SOARES: You know, Jessica, when I was reading up on this story, something that made me scratch my head because I didn't quite understand this, maybe
you can explain. How is it possible that this measure can basically go into effect, as you're saying, nationwide while litigation challenging its
legality actually continues? How is that possible?
SCHNEIDER: And that's the big pushback from these immigrants' rights groups. They're saying, "Wait a minute here, how can this policy go into
effect if it's still being litigated in those lower courts?" And that's part of the problem here. The administration, their side of this is,
"Well, how can it not go into effect? How can one judge out in California say that an entire policy is null and void for the entire nation?"
So the Trump administration took this to the Supreme Court, sort of leapfrogging over those lower courts, and said to the Supreme Court, "This
is an emergency situation because of the crisis at the border with these migrants. We need you, the Supreme Court, to tell us that our policy can
go into effect while it's being litigated at the lower courts." And the Supreme Court took the side of the Trump administration, at least five
justices saying, "Yes, Trump administration, you're right."
I mean, there are both sides to this. The Trump administration's saying, "Well, how can one single judge decide that our policy can't go into effect
nationwide?" And then there's the other side, Isa, with these immigrant -- the immigrant rights groups, and they're saying, "Well, how can the Supreme
Court let a policy go into effect when the legality of it still hasn't been determined?"
So you have both sides arguing here. And in this case, the Supreme Court took the side of the Trump administration, letting the policy go into
effect while it's still being played out as to the legality of it, in the lower courts. So it is a confusing situation and it's leading to those
arguments on both sides.
SOARES: Thank you for clarifying. That makes much more sense. Jessica Schneider, there for us. Thank you very much, Jessica.
SCHNEIDER: Thanks.
SOARES: Now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly denying a report in "Politico," that his country has been spying on one of its closes
allies, that is the United States.
"Politico" says the U.S. government has determined within the last two years, that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cell phone
surveillance devised, like this one you're looking at, that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations in Washington.
Here's what Mr. Netanyahu said to CNN when asked whether this story is true. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: Absolutely not. We have a directive, I have a directive. No intelligence collection in the United
States. No spying, and it's rigorously enforced without any exceptions. It's complete -- it's complete fabrication.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: So, "complete fabrication," says Netanyahu. Well, the "Politico" reporter who wrote the story also spoke to CNN today. He explained why the
U.S. intelligence officials feel confident that Israeli agents did in fact plant those devices.
DANIEL LIPPMAN, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, POLITICO: So these are the type of devices called StingRays, which are cell phone surveillance devices which
can capture the contents of calls and data streams. And they're pretty expensive, not many countries have the capability to do them.
And so the FBI counterintelligence division, they did an analysis, they looked at these devices very carefully. What kind of parts they had, how
old they were, where they had been transmitting data to. And they concluded, most likely that it was the Israelis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Well, let's get more on this. CNN's Senior U.S. Correspondent, Alex Marquardt joins me for more.
Alex, you heard there, Netanyahu basically saying it's a complete fabrication. I think the U.S., the White House has been somewhat silent on
this, but correct me if I'm wrong.
[14:15:14]
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN SENIOR U.S. CORRESPONDENT: No, you're not wrong at all. In fact, we've reached out for comment to the FBI, to the CIA, to the
National Security Council, the Department of Homeland Security. None of them have decided to comment.
Isa, what is new here is not the discovery of these devices, the fact that these devices have existed around Washington. We learned that last year,
the Department of Homeland Security said that they had picked up signals that would lead us to believe that these devices are around, but they did
not attribute that to any party or to any country.
What's new here are these allegations that it was Israel. And you have three senior former U.S. officials, telling "Politico" that Israel was
behind it. You heard that very vociferous denial from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that they spy at all on the United States.
I reached out to the Israeli embassy, here in Washington. They agreed with him, they called this report -- called these allegations "absolute
nonsense," saying that "Israel doesn't conduct espionage operations in the United States, period."
Now, the way -- and you heard Daniel, there, briefly touching on it -- these devices work, and they're colloquially known as StingRays, is that
they essentially imitate cell phone towers. And so if you're nearby with a cell phone, your cell phone will latch onto it and thereby give up your
location. They enable the user to listen in on phone calls, read text messages as well as surveil other data streams.
So you imagine, if they're placed around sensitive locations like the White House and all across Washington, where there are some very important
people, that they would be able to glean some very important and vital information.
And we should note that in the past, the president, who is known, of course, to love his cell phone, to speak to friends and colleagues on his
cell phone, to tweet on his cell phone, has -- it has been reported that he uses a relatively insecure cell phone.
Now, we have not been able to -- we have not confirmed this here at CNN. But in discussing with former and current officials about this question of
whether Israel could have carried this out, they say that it is entirely plausible.
It could be other countries, like Russia and China. For major countries like these, it is not that difficult to get their hands on these devices
and it is entirely plausible, despite these denials, that Israel --
SOARES: Yes.
MARQUARDT: -- continues to spy on the United States -- Isa.
SOARES: But Alex, if -- I know that we've heard from Netanyahu, basically denying it. But if there's any truth to this, what does this mean between
-- in terms of relations between the U.S. and Israel? Very strong longtime allies.
MARQUARDT: Well, frankly, not very much because they are longtime and strong allies. You know, if this was China or Russia, you would certainly
be hearing a lot more from the administration today.
The fact is, the U.S. and Israel have this lengthy and very codependent relationship, where the U.S. relies on Israel to get so much of its
intelligence about the Middle East, about the Arab countries, about Iran. They entirely rely on each other for this exchange of information and
intelligence.
And, Isa, at the end of the day, the U.S. does the same thing.
SOARES: Alex Marquardt, thank you very much for that.
And still to come tonight, the sister of Saudi Cron Prince Mohammad bin Salman goes on trial over the beating of a workman at her flat. We'll tell
you what a court had to say.
Plus, the U.S. government tries to tackle the growing health crisis of vaping as doctors search for the key question: What's actually causing so
many vaping-related lung illnesses? We'll bring you both those stories after a very short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:21:00]
SOARES: We'll bring you more now on the latest shakeup in the Trump administration. Just days after John Bolton lost his job as national
security advisor, there's actually talk of replacing Bolton with his chief rival. Sources say administration officials are considering Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo for the position, in addition to his current duties.
Let's bring CNN's Jeremy Diamond for more. Jeremy, is this about the president basically consolidating the number of voices against him? Or is
this about Pompeo consolidating power?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, look. First of all, I do want to caveat this. You know, we know that administration officials are
discussing this at this point. We know that conversations have been had at the White House about this possible scenario, but we don't know at this
point how seriously the president is considering it.
But that being said, as to your question, I think it's a little bit of both. You know, we're seeing the president increasingly relying on himself
for foreign policy advice, increasingly relying on those voices who most align with his. And Mike Pompeo certainly fits that bill.
And it's also something where Mike Pompeo is going to be able to consolidate power. But that can happen regardless of whether or not Mike
Pompeo ultimately does get this dual-hatted role, and that's largely because Bolton was one of his chief antagonists. And now that he's gone,
Mike Pompeo's going to have considerably more influence.
What we also know is that two of the top contenders at this point for the national security advisor position who are not Mike Pompeo, are close
allies and aides of his. One of them is Brian Hook, the special representative for Iran policy, and the other is Steve Biegun, who is the
U.S. special envoy for North Korea. Both of those officials, working at the State Department, very closely, with the secretary of state, Mike
Pompeo.
So regardless of how this goes, no matter who gets the job, if it is one of those three people, Mike Pompeo will certainly be the big winner out of
John Bolton losing his job, and have an ability to now consolidate influence in the national security apparatus.
SOARES: Do they -- those contenders, Jeremy, do they need to be on the same page policy-wise, as President Trump?
DIAMOND: It certainly appears that way. We know that one of the reasons that John Bolton ultimately lost his job was because of disagreements that
he had, philosophical disagreements that he had with the president over a range of key policy issues, and that goes for everywhere from Iran to
Afghanistan to North Korea to Russia and more, perhaps, as well.
So, clearly, the president is now looking for somebody who is on the same page as him ideologically.
SOARES: Jeremy Diamond, there for us. Thanks very much, Jeremy, good to see you.
Now, in the U.S., 39 states are now reporting cases of severe lung disease possibly linked to vaping. The news comes after the Trump administration
announced it will ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. Our senior medical correspondent, in fact, Elizabeth Cohen, has more on this growing
health crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ADAM HERGENREDER, HOSPITALIZED AFTER VAPING: My lungs were that of a 70- year-old's.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Adam Hergenreder started vaping when he was 16. A year and a half later, he
landed in the intensive care unit, his doctors said because of vaping.
A. HERGENREDER: I had the shivers and I couldn't control it, so I would just randomly convulge (sic). And it was really scary. I knew it wasn't a
stroke, but it felt like that because I couldn't control myself.
COHEN (voice-over): Initially, Adam thought it was the stomach flu. But after days of nausea and vomiting, he ended up at Advocate Condell Medical
Center in Libertyville, Illinois.
POLLY HERGENREDER, MOTHER OF ADAM: To know that my son's lungs, 18 years old, healthy an athlete, typical 18-year-old boy, to be laying in a bed and
not being able to breathe, and it's every parent's nightmare.
COHEN (voice-over): Adam first started vaping nicotine, and then went on to marijuana.
A. HERGENREDER: So I first started vaping just to fit in because everyone else was doing it.
COHEN (voice-over): By the time he got to the hospital, he was severely ill.
STEPHEN AMESBURY, DOCTOR, ADVOCATE CONDELL MEDICAL CENTER: If his mom had not brought him to the hospital, within the next two to three days, his
breathing could have worsened to the point that he could have died if he didn't seek medical care.
[14:25:06]
COHEN (voice-over): Adam is one of more than 450 possible cases of vaping- related illnesses around the country, according to the CDC. But Adam is also one of the lucky ones. There have been six deaths in California,
Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas. And the biggest mystery? No one knows exactly what ingredients in e-cigarettes are causing the
problems.
AMESBURY: And you can see the hazy white opacity throughout his lungs, on both sides. So although we don't know for sure the exact nature of what's
causing the opacity, it's assumed that related to his vaping --
COHEN (voice-over): Until they figure it out, public health officials say, "Don't vape." In a statement, the American Medical Association, saying
they "urge the public to avoid the use of e-cigarette products."
And Adam will continue to speak out, and hopes that others will learn from him.
A. HERGENREDER: If one person stops, hopefully everyone else stops.
COHEN: The White House says that they'll ban nearly all flavors of e- cigarettes. But there is an important note. After that ban is in effect, companies such as Juul can then apply to the FDA to market those exact same
flavors again.
Anti-smoking advocates say they hope that the answer to those applications is no. Back to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: Now, U.S. tobacco companies are criticizing the move to ban flavored e-cigarettes. They claim the products help get adults to quit
traditional cigarettes.
Now, the president of the American Vaping Association appeared on CNN earlier with Alisyn Camerota and Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay
Gupta. And at one point, the discussion got a bit heated. Take a look.
SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You talk about teen smoking going down. I've seen those numbers as well. One of the statistics,
though, that I think you've also seen -- and I want to show this to our viewers -- is just the likelihood that if someone who starts using e-
cigarettes, these kids using e-cigarettes, then transitioning to using combustible cigarettes: 30.7 percent versus people who don't use e-
cigarettes going to combustibles, only 8 percent.
Teenage cigarette use may be going down, but it seems like it would have been going down even more, Mr. Conley, without these e-cigarettes on the
market because they then go on to use real cigarettes.
GREGORY CONLEY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN VAPING ASSOCIATION: Actually, no. If you have looked at the data, you would have found Kenneth Warner, David
Abrams, other respected public health advocates have posted -- published articles in journals, showing that not only did smoking decrease as
experimentation with vaping took off, but we saw record-breaking declines in teen smoking.
Teen smoking would not be as low today if youth were not experimenting with vaping products. It's be better if no youth experimented with anything,
but to pretend that smoking rates would be --
GUPTA: Hang on, hang on.
CONLEY: -- lower --
GUPTA: Hang on, Mr. Conley. You're saying teenage smoking rates would be even lower -- they are lower because of vaping, because of e-cigarette use?
You're saying that's been --
CONLEY: Vaping products have rapidly denormalized -- whether or not we approve of it, vaping products have rapidly denormalized cigarette smoking.
And I'll remind you, Dr. Gupta, you were wrong about marijuana, you admitted it, 20-plus years, you were wrong about marijuana and I hope that
there aren't body bags on the streets because of policies like these, in 20 years, when you realize that vaping products are saving lives.
GUPTA: Well, just going back to the kid use, though, the youth use. If people use e-cigarettes who would have never done anything -- they wouldn't
have done cigarettes, they would have done nothing -- and then 30 percent of them go on to use combustible cigarettes. That's according to the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, this is their data. Does that not concern you?
CONLEY: It is a concern. But, again, the data doesn't actually show huge numbers of teens going on to become regular smokers --
GUPTA: Well, the numbers are what they are --
CONLEY: -- a (ph) lot (ph) of that data you are citing, is based off of --
GUPTA: -- we (ph) just show the numbers.
CONLEY: -- experiment -- a lot of that data is based off of experimentation, teens who try vaping and, one year later, they try a
cigarette. That's not showing that teens are becoming addicted to smoking. We are at near-end game levels of smoking, almost 5 percent. We never
dreamed, 10 years ago, that we would be at 5 percent youth smoking.
And not to mention the fact that we didn't believe we'd have 2.5 million- plus ex-smokers, who have quit smoking with vaping. That is a positive public health benefit, according to the FDA.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: You know what's interesting, Mr. Conley, I've heard you say before that no prohibition has ever worked. You just said,
in fact, that it has. The prohibition against smoking in public places has decreased smoking from its height, in half.
And so why not do all --
CONLEY: Smoking --
CAMEROTA: -- why not do all you can to avoid teenagers getting involved in vaping, since we know they prefer these flavored cigarettes. Why not just
get rid of those?
CONLEY: First, smoking among adults nearly stagnated from 2003 to 2009. There were no great decreases happening before vaping products began to
help additional smokers quit. We need additional controls to reduce youth access and punish those that give products to youths, supply products to
youth.
[14:30:00]
But, again, we have about 13 million adults who are using these products, the vast majority of whom are smokers and ex-smokers. And we need to think
about their health and their lives when we make these policies. You need to think of the population as a whole.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Fascinating discussion.
And still to come right here tonight, ready to rumble. The Democrats who want to beat Donald Trump are set to go ahead -- go head to head in a
debate. We'll bring you more, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: We shall bring you some news just into CNN. A preliminary report says that the conception dive boat, if you remember, did not have a crew
member on overnight night watch when the boat caught fire last week, if you remember in California, killing 34 people.
Now, the report says the fire was discovered when a sleeping crew member was awakened by a noise and got up to investigate. He saw the fire and
alerted other sleeping crew members.
Now, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board explained, at least one of the crew should have been on watch. Of course, we'll bring
you more details on the story as soon as we get more details.
But now, I want to turn to Houston, Texas, where the top 10 Democrats vying to be the next U.S. president will take the stage. But the focus will be
on the frontrunner, former vice president, Joe Biden, as he faces Senator Elizabeth Warren for the first time.
This as a new CNN poll shows Biden still ahead, I'll show you that. There you go. Joe Biden at 24 percent. But Warren and Bernie Sanders gaining
ground. Elizabeth Warren there 18 and Bernie Sanders 17 percent.
Let's bring in CNN's Jessica Dean who is in Houston. Jessica, we have seen some very heated debates here on CNN between the Democrats. But what do
Americans, you think, want to hear tonight? What are they looking for? What kind of clarity are they looking for here?
JESSICA DEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, Democratic primary voters will tell you they are looking for someone who they know who can beat
Donald Trump in November 2020.
Now, the question is, who is that candidate and there are two approaches that are emerging here. You have Joe Biden who really talks a lot about
the Obama/Biden record, who believes that he can work within the system that exists to make progressive change. He's making the argument that he
has done that, that he knows how to continue to do that.
And then you have candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who really want to overhaul the system in a lot of ways, health care being one
of example of that, where they want to go for Medicare for All, really overhauling the entire health care system.
While Joe Biden wants to take the Affordable Care Act, which was passed under President Obama, and really expand upon it. So it's -- how do they
want to approach this? And the Democratic voters are then tasked with the decision of what do they think is the best recipe then to beat Donald Trump
in 2020?
[14:35:02]
So, Isa, we will see tonight the different approaches that they're going to bring. But all 10 of them here, again, it's the first time we're going to
see Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden, the three frontrunners, all together on that stage.
SOARES: Jessica, I look forward to it. Thank you very much.
Well, let's dig a little deeper on U.S. politics and take a look at the 2020 election, as well as a revolving door in my eye at the Trump White
House.
CNN Political Commentator, Doug Heye joins us now. He's a Republican strategist and former communications director of the Republic National
Committee.
Doug, thank you very much for being here. Let's start with what we're expecting today. Joe Biden facing Elizabeth Warren as we -- as you just
heard for the first time. What can we expect? How can they differentiate themselves? How can they stand out here against each other?
DOUG HEYE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, there are two ways, politics and policy. Elizabeth Warren has put together a really robust policy
agenda, more so than any other Democratic candidate. But Joe Biden is going to talk about the electability issue, how he can connect with voters.
The Democrats have really suffered within in the last election. I mean, Hillary Clinton.
But also my home state, yesterday, of North Carolina, there was a special election where we saw Democrats did very well -- they lost the race.
SOARES: They did, yes.
HEYE: They did well in the suburban areas outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, so similar to the suburban areas outside of Houston. But in the
rural areas, that's where they lost this race. And I would be surprised if Biden didn't make the case that he's the one that will be able to best
connect with those voters and win over Donald Trump.
SOARES: But what are they looking for clarity on? What do voters want to hear critically, besides them all bickering amongst each other? What are
they looking for solutions on?
HEYE: The bickering will happen regardless.
SOARES: Yes, of course, politics.
HEYE: They want to hear specific -- yes. They want to hear specific answers on health care, they want to hear specific answers on what's going
to happen on gun legislation, where there might be broad agreement, but who could be most effective.
But ultimately, Democrats, more and more, want to hear who can best beat Donald Trump. But we should remember, while this is being framed quite
often as Trump -- or excuse me, Biden versus Elizabeth Warren, it's not a one on one boxing match. This is going to be a professional wrestling
battle royal with a lot of candidates who need to make their last stand tonight.
SOARES: OK. Let's bring Trump into here then. Who do you think President Trump would like to face off against from the Democratic Party?
HEYE: Well, they've got a choice that they have to make, is -- do you fear the change agent? Which could be Elizabeth Warren, could be a Cory Booker
or Kamala Harris, or is it somebody who's more reliable to those soft Democrats and even soft Republicans that really turned over for Trump in
rural places like North Carolina? But also in Iowa.
I was in Iowa three weeks ago where somebody who voted for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and then Donald Trump said, I'm really nervous about these
tariffs. That's who Democrats have to appeal to, that's who Donald Trump has to also appeal to.
SOARES: Let's switch gears and talk about the U.S. Supreme Court basically allowing U.S. government to civilly limit the amount and the ability of
migrants, basically, to claim asylum. President Trump, in a tweet, I'm sure you saw, Doug, basically saying this is a victory. This is a major
win. Is this a big win for President Trump do you think here?
HEYE: Politically, it appears so.
SOARES: Especially 2020.
HEYE: On immigration, it is overwhelmingly played in Republican's favors in national elections. It certainly was the case with Donald Trump. And
as we've seen more and more footage of immigrants trying to cross the border from Mexico, we've seen a lot of ugly language from the president,
but it hasn't really backfired on him with his base.
I mean, also the broader -- the broader public who's trying to figure out where are they going to go in the next election. Because they have
concerns about, whether or not, our borders are secure. And as long as that's the argument that Donald Trump making, he gets forgiven for some of
his more incendiary rhetoric.
SOARES: There's so much for us to get to. I'm trying to make the most of having you here. And I want to ask you about the House Judiciary who
basically passed a resolution on impeachment. Let's forget the semantics and forget all the procedural -- we know it's procedural. Why aren't they
not getting together and calling it what it is? Why are they speaking on such different -- you know, not speaking from the same hinge, basically.
HEYE: Different Democrats want different things. There are a lot of districts that Donald Trump won that are held by Democrats. They do not
want to be out there saying that they're pro-impeachment. If you're -- if you're somebody who are in a very overwhelmingly Democratic district,
that's an easier place -- that's an easier for you to be.
But for those swing district Democrats, they are scared of this as an issue, and that's why you're seeing hesitation, which comes from the
leadership.
SOARES: So impeachment is not yet in motion, too soon to be saying that the impeachment procedures are in motion?
HEYE: These are not necessarily impeachment proceedings, but they are getting up to that starting gates that if they can -- if there are
substantive issues that push that forward, Democrats will be poised to do so. But politically, it could be -- and I say this having worked in the
Republican Congress when we impeach Bill Clinton. It's a very risky thing politically to do.
SOARES: Yes. The other question which we don't have time is, you know, who is actually willing to testify against this president, who would be
their star witness.
Doug Heye, thank you very much.
HEYE: Thank you.
SOARES: Appreciate taking the time to speak to us.
Focusing on legal troubles now for a member of the Saudi royal family. Lawyers say Princess Hassa bint Salman Al Saud will appeal her conviction
on charges that she ordered a workman at her luxury Paris apartment to be beaten.
[14:40:12]
CNN's Melissa Bell has more on today's bird's-eye view.
MELISSA BELL, CNN PARIS CORRESPONDENT: A 10-month suspended sentence and a $10,000 euro fine, that's what a Parisian court handed down today, Isa, in
the case revolving around the Saudi Crown Prince's sister, Hassa bint Salman.
Now, back in September of 2016, a cross man who had been employed to carry out work in her home here in Paris, says that she had believed at one point
that as he tried to take photographs of the room, in which he'd been asked to do some work, she had believed he was trying to take photographs of her.
That this famously secretive princess had then ordered her bodyguard to beat him and hold him hostage for several hours.
In the end, the verdict delivered today went further than what the prosecutors had been looking for, but it was delivered without the princess
being in court since what happened in those early days, just after the allegations were made by the cross man, is that she was taken in for
questioning, but very quickly released even before being heard.
Now, her lawyer says that she will be appealing that decision and spoke today of her incredulity at receiving it, Isa.
SOARES: Melissa Bell, thank you very much. We'll be right back after a very short break. Do stay right here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Now, there are fears that the ideology of ISIS is still thriving, even though its territory is gone and many of the surviving foot soldiers
are locked up.
The fertile ground for that ideology looking at is the camp in northeastern Syria.
CNN's Arwa Damon gives us this rare look inside.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's called al-Hol, a camp that sprung from nowhere, now, the size of a small
town.
The wind and sand mercilessly blow through the tents in the baking heat of the Syrian summer.
But it's the anger, the seething hostility that strikes you. To step into this camp is to witness a strange mutation of the caliphate, kept alive by
the widows and wives of ISIS.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): There are cells here, they are organized.
DAMON: A spirit of vengeance seeps into the next generation.
TEXT: I tell them your father was killed by the infidels.
DAMON (voice-over): Hatred and enmity is magnified by the wretched conditions.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: See, you think it's a camp --
DAMON (on camera): Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- but that's a prison.
DAMON (voice-over): It's a place in limbo, like no other refugee camp on earth, shunned by the international community.
Kurdish forces say this place is a ticking time bomb. An ISIS academy where its brutal ideology is incubated. They don't have the resources to
keep control.
Many of the women here don't know where their husbands and teenage sons are. They tell us quite openly they're teaching their children to hate the
infidels, who imprisoned and killed their fathers and brothers.
[14:45:02]
TEXT: If the prisoners aren't released, the hatred will grow.
TEXT: The biggest ISIS cell will be the women. If the men aren't released, I will go crazy!
DAMON (voice-over): The camp's population swelled while ISIS was making its last stand, not far from al-Hol. Many of the new arrivals have direct
ties to ISIS. They were organized and quickly established their version of the moral police, terrorizing those who refused to wear the full veil.
Beneath the black uniformity, some women want nothing more than to leave.
"I don't care if the Kurds or even the Americans who control my town," this woman pleads.
But there is no reintegration program. This is an open-air prison.
DAMON (on-camera): What do you want?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to go home. Are you scared of -- from us?
DAMON: Should I be?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm just asking. A lot of people, that's why they're talking in our countries because they're scared to take us back.
DAMON: If they gave you an option, let's say, of creating another caliphate for you --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
DAMON: No, you're done?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A lot of women, they think the same.
DAMON (voice-over): But few countries are repatriating their nationals.
The living conditions are horrendous. It's filthy. There's little access to medical care. Clean water is scarce, food is rationed.
A telegram chat group has turned this place into a cause for ISIS, referring to it as the al-Hol death camp, alleging atrocities by the pig
enemies of Islam.
DAMON (on-camera): There is a lot of propaganda here -- a lot of promoting of the ISIS ideology. But then, they're also using this platform to send
messages.
DAMON (voice-over): It's where they posted this video, the ISIS flag being raised inside the camp. That happened here in a part of the camp for
Syrians.
"It's the reaction to the psychological pressure on us," one woman says. "They should know that more can be done than the raising of a flag."
And more has been done. Foreign women here are no longer allowed to leave their annex and go to the market after two incidents when Kurdish guards
were stabbed.
The more radicalized women threaten and terrorize those less devoted to ISIS. One woman says her tent was burnt down, another, that she's so
afraid of being stabbed, she barely sleeps at night.
Outside the camp, we get access to a prison, a surreal scene. Former ISIS fighters painting and crafting paper-mache models.
This man says ISIS held his family hostage to coerce him to join.
"ISIS gave me the bombs," he tells us, "and then showed me on WhatsApp how to plant them." He's serving 20 years, the maximum sentence.
In the crowded cell, some men say they never supported ISIS.
TEXT: My cousin turned us in. He said we were ISIS. But he is an ISIS spy.
DAMON: Others accept their fate.
TEXT: I raised my hand. I said, "I am ISIS." I'm not scared, I'm here, I will pay the price.
DAMON: The Kurds are doing their best to separate the true believers from the rest.
In this rehabilitation center, there are scores of teenage boys. This 15- year-old was an ISIS fighter. His first mission, to plant explosives at a U.S. base.
He describes how they were given the bombs, weapons, and suicide vests. "We covered everything with the women's black niqab," he says, "So the jets
in the sky would not target us."
The operation failed and he ended up in prison. "But even there, ISIS ruled," he says. "But at the rehab center, things are different."
"I've left ISIS behind," he tells us. "It was a mistake. I learned from it."
But the center barely reaches a fraction of the children indoctrinated. There just aren't enough resources.
"If the situation stays like this and nations don't help, ISIS will come back," Musaab Khalaf, an administrator here, tells us.
"We hear about it, the sleeper cells. They take advantage of the children, trying to recruit them."
And the children are so vulnerable. They know nothing but conflict, destruction, and grief. Some have no parents, like this little boy.
DAMON (on-camera): He's just visiting his friends here. His tent is somewhere else. And he says that his mom was killed and his dad has been
detained and it's just him and his siblings, the oldest of which is 16.
DAMON (voice-over): Children pay the price for the sins of their parents but, in turn, are preyed upon.
There's only so much Kurdish officials can do to contain the situation and there is a shocking lack of international involvement here. The place is
forgotten, the legacy of yesterday's war, and that makes it uniquely dangerous because if allowed to fester, this sprawling camp contains the
seeds of the next war and ISIS' revenge generation.
[14:50:18]
Arwa Damon, CNN, al-Hol Camp, Syria.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SOARES: Incredible -- incredibly powerful reporting there from our Arwa Damon.
Fawaz Gerges is here with me. He's the author of "Making the Arab World." A well-known face here on the show.
Fawaz, you heard that piece there from Arwa's talking about one person saying this is an open-air prison. This is how they feel. But we're
talking about 70,000-plus refugees, not being repatriated. What are we looking at here?
FAWAZ GERGES, AUTHOR, "MAKING THE ARAB WORLD": Well, this is just one camp. So you have multiple camps, but this is the largest camp in northern
eastern Syria, 70,000 prisoners, including 50,000 children, 50,000 children.
SOARES: In just one camp.
GERGES: Imagine potential -- all potential ISIS combatants because of the condition, the conditions are inhumane, lack of resources and the
resources, lack of medicine, the water is contaminated, over crowdedness, it's an open prison. So you have the conditions are there for
radicalization -- further radicalization.
SOARES: And that's why you said, and why we heard Arwa say that this is a ticking time bomb.
GERGES: It really is. I mean, why? Because now, the core ISIS ideology is very rampant. You have many supporters of ISIS who are basically
imposing or dominating the camp. Governments, western governments and mid- eastern governments are unwilling to repatriate their own citizens, the U.K., France, Germany, Belgium, the former countries of the Soviet Union.
None of them would like to take their own citizens.
In addition to other camps. So no programs about de-radicalization. The war itself, basically, have left them with deep scars. So all these
conditions could easily -- I mean, it's a ticking bomb. It's a ticking bomb. And this is really could produce the next generation of ISIS
combatants.
SOARES: And the reason they're not being repatriated, as you said, be because the fear they could be -- they could be ISIS, they could have been
a ready trained and really --
GERGES: Some are and many are. The question is, if you leave them in northeastern Syria in these particular conditions, in fact, you are pouring
gasoline on a raging fire because you have -- I mean, some of the hardliners, in particular, some of the women, are basically -- believe in
the ideology of ISIS and they're breast-feeding their children on this ideology.
SOARES: Fawaz, this is not sustainable, though?
GERGES: Not at all. It's very -- it's untenable. Everyone knows it, the United Nations, human rights organization, even the United -- even the
United States itself. The United States says the situation is not tenable, it's not sustainable. Yet, the international community has done very
little about it. And that's why what you're seeing here is a potential, really, for a catastrophe, for the resurgence of ISIS.
I mean, we're talking about the camp. But ISIS is consolidating, is adapting, is creating the conditions for resurgence in the future.
SOARES: And like you said, this is just one camp we're looking at. It's the biggest, but it's one.
Fawaz Gerges, I appreciate you taking the time to speak to us here.
We'll be right back after a very short break. Do stay right here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:55:01]
SOARES: Now, all this week, we have been looking at the ugliness of racism in the beautiful game. There are 2,000 Black or Asian football referees in
England. But in the top four English leagues, none.
In fact, there has only been one black referee in the history of the Premier League.
Darren Lewis talked to Joel Mannix, one of the highest ranked black referees in England.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOEL MANNIX, FOOTBALL REFEREE: Some people don't want to be educated. Some people do. Some people see color. Some people don't. Some people
can't see past color.
One of the horror stories is a referee, a (INAUDIBLE) player. And the player went in to this changing room and went to the toilet on their
clothes, did all sorts.
I remember going to a ground and identified myself as the referee, I shook the chairman's hand, shook my hand and he took it back and he wiped his
trousers with it. At the time I was like, wow, 2018. It's still happening.
And then it was quite funny counting in this team, six or seven black players. And I'm like, OK, they're there to do a job. OK. I wonder if
you shake their hands as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Fascinating. You can see the full interview on "WORLD SPORT" later on.
And does that it for me. Thank you very much for watching. Do stay right here with CNN. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" with Richard Quest is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
