Return to Transcripts main page
Hala Gorani Tonight
Jennifer Williams Testifies Today In Impeachment Inquiry; Emmanuel Macron Suggests Europe Is Experiencing NATO Brain Death; Investigation Into Americans' Deaths In Mexico Continues; Numerous Officials Testify U.S. Was Pressuring Ukraine; Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn Accused Of Racism; New Zealand Lawmaker Shuts Down Heckler; Independent Voters Respond To Trump, Impeachment Inquiry. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired November 07, 2019 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone. Live from CNN London, I'm Hala Gorani.
Tonight, an aide to the vice president testifies in the impeachment inquiry in Washington. But former National Security advisor John Bolton is a no-
Also this hour, Emmanuel Macron says NATO is facing brain death and can't count on America for protection any more. I speak to the journalist who
interviewed the French president.
And we hear the distraught family members, shortly after learning their relatives were massacred in Mexico. We are live inside the country with
What did White House officials know about efforts to pressure Ukraine for political favors, and when did they know it? U.S. lawmakers investigating
those very questions are focusing today on the office of Vice President Mike Pence, as they push ahead with the impeachment inquiry.
An advisor to Pence is testifying today behind closed doors. Jennifer Williams was one of two Pence aides to listen in on that July 25th phone
call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine's leader, Zelensky.
Today, Pence was asked about that call and whether he played any part in asking Ukraine to launch investigations into political rivals in exchange
for crucial military aid.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The American people have the transcript of the president's call, and they can see there was no quid
pro quo. The president did nothing wrong.
The president's focus has been -- as my focus was in my meetings with President Zelensky -- on supporting President Zelensky's efforts to deal
with a historic pattern of corruption in Ukraine. And also to enlist more European support.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Another witness scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill today could have provided some blockbuster testimony, to be sure. But former national
security advisor John Bolton did not show up. House Democrats decided not to subpoena him, and there could a reason behind this.
Let's bring in one of our two White House reporters, Stephen Collinson, and -- as well as our second White House reporter, Jeremy Diamond, who is at
the White House.
Stephen, I want to start with you. This decision not to subpoena John Bolton could be because House Democrats want to wrap this whole thing up
before Christmas, and a subpoena would delay things. Really trying to fast-track this impeachment inquiry.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right, Hala. It was an interesting move. Several other officials who declined to testify were
subpoenaed, and there are several legal challenges going on.
The problem with subpoenaing Bolton, important witness as he is, would be that this would unleash a legal process that would go at least into January
and probably many months afterwards. So that would frustrate the Democrats' capacity to get this done.
Politically, they want, as you say, to get this done by Christmas, to finish all the action in the House. That would allow the Senate to take it
up for its impeachment trial, presuming that the president was impeached by the House, in January.
That gets it out of the way before the start of the Democratic nominating contests for the 2020 election in Iowa in the beginning of February. So
you can see there's a very fast political timetable.
I think what the Bolton decision by Democrats also shows is that the Democrats believe they have a very strong case, with a transcript of the
Trump-Zelensky call, all those texts showing conversations about a potential quid pro quo between officials, and all of this witness testimony
that's going to start moving into the public sphere with open televised hearings next week.
So they're very confident that they've got the goods on the president, and now is the time to speed up that political timetable.
GORANI: And what is the White House strategy? A few weeks ago, I asked you that same question, Jeremy Diamond, and it was unclear how the
president was planning on responding. Because, now, this new phase with open public testimony, this could do more damage to the president. Are we
seeing any kind of strategy emerge in a clearer fashion as we enter this new phase?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, at least from a staffing perspective, we are seeing some movement from the White House. Just
yesterday, we learned that Tony Sayegh, former Treasury Department spokesman, and Pam Bondi, the former attorney general for the state of
Florida and one of the president's allies in the Republican Party, both of them will be joining the White House as communications advisors,
essentially, to help kind of bolster the White House's messaging on impeachment.
That has been one of the criticisms from Republicans on Capitol Hill, is that the White House does not have a sufficiently beefed-up operation. And
part of the reason why it's taken them so long to make these hires is because the president has been reluctant to build out a war room, believing
that it gives too much credibility and credence to the impeachment proceedings that he is facing from Democrats.
At the same time, we are also seeing what the president's messaging is, and we expect that that will continue no matter who he hires to actually do the
official messaging from the White House side.
And what the president has been saying is, he has increasingly focused on attacking this whistleblower, on calling for the whistleblower's name to be
outed, despite the fact that we have seen multiple current and former administration officials corroborating what that whistleblower has said.
And we're also seeing the president focusing on the call, and talking about how the call was perfect even though it's very clear now, Hala, that this
is about so much more than one telephone call.
GORANI: And also these accusations that the personal attorney of the president, Rudy Giuliani, was conducting a shadow parallel foreign policy -
GORANI: -- in the name of the president in Ukraine. And in fact, Rudy Giuliani tweeted that he was only acting in his capacity as defense
attorney to the president, and not in any official capacity.
TEXT: The investigation I conducted concerning the 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my
client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven.
GORANI: There it is. "The investigation I conducted concerning the 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption was done solely as a defense attorney to
defend my client against false charges."
Stephen Collinson, Rudy Giuliani and things he's said in live television interviews and his conduct in Ukraine, this really is, in the end, at the
heart of a lot of this investigation.
COLLINSON: Yes. And if you look at all the testimony that's been coming out this week, it's clear that Rudy Giuliani was acting as far more than a
defense attorney for the president. He set up a powerful and political channel to Ukraine, which had access directly to the president.
Ukrainians, in fact, asked to be put in touch with Giuliani because they believed that was the best way to get a message to President Donald Trump.
I think what Giuliani is perhaps doing in that tweet is to try and give himself a measure of protection. If he says, I was just acting as the
president's lawyer, that could bring in the possibility of attorney-client privilege and that would be a way that he could avoid testifying.
It's going to be very interesting to see if the Democrats try and subpoena Giuliani to come before their public televised impeachment hearings. It
seems unlikely that he would show up because he has a lot of political and legal exposure.
But increasingly, everything we see coming out of this inquiry, all this testimony that's been released this week, Giuliani is absolutely all over
it and it's increasingly difficult to think that we will actually get to the bottom of exactly what was going on between the president and Ukraine
without in some way hearing from Giuliani.
GORANI: And there were reports, Jeremy Diamond, that the president asked Bill Barr to hold a news conference, denying some of the accusations
leveled at him and the aftermath of the revelation of that phone call with Zelensky. And that Bill Barr, the attorney general, refused.
Now, the president is calling that fake news. But the reports indicate that this apparently did take place.
DIAMOND: Yes, that's right. And CNN has confirmed, according to a source familiar with the matter, that the president did want Bill Barr to give
this kind of a press conference, essentially saying that he did nothing wrong on this phone call with Ukraine's president.
Now, the question is whether the president communicated that directly to Barr. It seems, at this point, that it's more likely that the president
made that known to White House officials, who then transmitted that message over to the Justice Department and Attorney General Barr.
And what we have seen from the president is him lashing out on Twitter, accusing "The Washington Post" of being biased against him. Of course,
despite the fact that almost every other major newspaper and news outlet in this country has confirmed that report at this point.
But what underscores all of this, of course, is the fact that this is something that the president has wanted before. He wanted Jim Comey, he
wanted Attorney General Jeff Sessions to exonerate him during the Russia investigation, and so it's not a surprise that the president would be
seeking some kind of similar exoneration in this case.
And while Attorney General Barr did not give that press conference, what he did do is that the Justice Department delivered a memo that said --
essentially decided very quickly that the president, there was -- there were no grounds to pursue a criminal investigation into the president over
this call, despite a criminal referral coming over to the Justice Department from the inspector general for the intelligence community.
GORANI: Jeremy Diamond and Stephen Collinson, thanks to both of you.
In France, a blunt warning about NATO from the French president, Emmanuel Macron. In an interview with "The Economist Magazine," he said the
transatlantic alliance is experiencing, in his words, a brain death.
What he meant by that is that Europe can no longer rely on the United States to defend its allies. And he said Europe needs to start thinking
strategically as a geopolitical power of its own.
NATO's secretary general is distancing himself from Mr. Macron's comments. And the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is calling it a rather drastic
I'm joined by Sophie Pedder. She's the Paris bureau chief for "The Economist" and she conducted the interview. CNN's Melissa Bell is also in
Paris, and Matthew Chane is in Moscow for the view from Russia.
Sophie, so Macron says basically, Europe can no longer depend on America to defend it. What else did he tell you in this interview? Because this is a
very bleak worldview from the French president.
SOPHIE PEDDER, PARIS BUREAU CHIEF, THE ECONOMIST: It really is. And, you know, I think he dates the fact that Europe is being, in some ways, cut
loose from the United States to before the election of Donald Trump. He talked about how, even under President Obama, this was beginning to happen
and that Europe is taking a long time to waking up to the fact that it's going to have to look after itself more in the future. That's the way he
So, you know, he -- I think he has this vision of Europe as being really surrounded by threats. There's authoritarian regimes in Russia, in Turkey.
America withdrawing from Syria, withdrawing its troops from Syria abruptly, the sense -- and then rising China, of course, further east, that Europe is
sort of surrounded by a lot of threats.
And his feeling is, Europe thinks too much of itself in terms of markets, you know, regulation and those sorts of issues, and not enough about itself
as a sort of geopolitical proper power with -- with a muscular ability to project that power abroad.
GORANI: It's the -- really, the eternal challenge of the European Union, is becoming some sort of homogenous geopolitical force, which we know
Emmanuel Macron would like it to be, though it presents so many challenges.
And Matthew Chance in Moscow, this type of interview must be music to the ears of President Vladimir Putin.
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it must be. I mean, I'm sure he'll be reading this week's edition of "The
Economist" with some relish, you know, savoring every single word that Emmanuel Macron uttered. And actually, within minutes of, you know,
details of this interview coming out, the Russian foreign ministry has already sort of issued a statement in response to it.
Maria Zakharova, who's the often sort of very, you know, sharp-tongued critical spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry, posting this on her
Facebook page, saying, "Well said. Truthful words, and ones that get to the nub of the matter. An accurate" -- she's -- description, she says, of
NATO's current state, a reference to the description of the Western military alliance as being brain dead.
Though also, you know, all these kind of words in this interview from Emmanuel Macron, talking about the need to, you know, reassess the
strategic relationship between Europe and Russia, to essentially rehabilitate Russia, a Russia that continues to occupy territory of other
countries, you know, support conflicts in neighboring lands, crack down on civil protest, poison people in the streets of Britain. And this is the
country that Emmanuel Macron, according to this interview, wants to -- wants to build bridges with.
GORANI: Mm-hmm. And, Melissa Bell, we've heard this -- similar sentiments from Emmanuel Macron, perhaps not in stark terms such as the ones he used
in this interview with Sophie.
But his critics might say, hang on, you've got enough problems at home before you start talking about NATO and your issues with the Trump
administration and how you can't count on the U.S. any more, you have high unemployment, you have the gilets jaunes, you have all sorts of issues at
home. How are interviews like this and statements and rhetoric like this being received inside of France?
MELISSA BELL, CNN PARIS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Hala, you're absolutely right. This is a French president who has projected remarkably well
abroad, proving to be the champion of all those who sort of continue to espouse that liberal universalist approach to international relations as
opposed to the populism that appeared to be on the rise elsewhere.
And even then, he had all these problems at home, you're quite right. The yellow vests will be celebrating their one-year anniversary on the 17th of
November, we expect more protests. He's trying to push through very unpopular pension reforms as well.
But you have to remember, also, that even on the international stage and in that realm that should be his own, that is, European integration, he is
(ph) at (ph) not all popularity with his neighbors. You mentioned, a moment ago, the need now to get Europe together and acting in his -- you
sensed his frustration in that interview, the fact that he hasn't been able to do it.
He's been criticized, even by his European friends recently, for his unilateral approach to things like trying to block the accession talks of
some of the Balkan countries, to trying to get Iran and the United States to speak to one another again. So he isn't exactly facing plain sailing at
home. And even within the sphere of that one project that he had really claimed as his own and hoped to champion, which is Europe -- Hala.
GORANI: And Sophie, reacting to this statement by Macron that NATO is suffering from brain death, the American secretary of state, Mike Pompeo,
had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think NATO remains an important, critical -- perhaps historically one of the most critical -- strategic
partnerships in all of recorded history. That's why it's -- frankly, it's why, when you hear President Trump talk about the fact that we need to make
sure that every nation shares that burden, that every nation works alongside --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: So, Sophie, we've -- the Trump administration has said this time and time again, that all nations need to pull their weight, contribute in
the same way to NATO by spending two percent or more of their GDP on the military. How does Emmanuel Macron react to those types of statements from
the Trump administration?
PEDDER: Well, I think, you know, I would really urge anyone who's interested in any of these issues to read the full transcript of the
interview. We've published it online, it's long, it was an hour long. It's available in French as well. And it -- I think puts it -- it
explains, really, where he's coming from on a lot of these issues.
You know, he -- when it comes to NATO, he very clearly attached to the transatlantic alliance. He's not seeing this -- his idea for European
defense -- as a challenge to NATO or as a way of undermining NATO. He wants it to be complementary to NATO. He knows very well how much France
relies -- for example in its counterterrorism operations in the Sahel in Africa -- on -- precisely on American military power and intelligence.
So, you know, he doesn't see this as a kind of binary situation. What he's trying to do, I think, is have a debate, is to get Europeans to wake up, to
realize that, you know, something that -- a guarantee of civility that's been there for 70 years may not be quite what Europeans like to think of
it. And I think it's that debate. And Syria -- what happened in Syria has been a bit of a jolt for Europe because Europe feels very close to what's
happening in Syria and the refugee crisis that that's provoking.
So I think, you know, it's important to look at a lot of these issues -- whether it's Russia, whether it's the Balkans -- take a look at the
transcript. Have a look at what he said. It's very interesting. He doesn't -- he says, I'm not being naive about Russia. He's not calling for
sanctions to be lifted, you know, he's very clear that he wants to see the Minsk peace accords put into place.
But I think what he feels also is that, you know, from where he's sitting, he's now been in power for two and a half years, he's met a lot of foreign
leaders, he's traveled to over a hundred countries. He feels that Europe is very vulnerable, and he feels that quite acutely and in quite a historic
sense. And he wants to have that debate.
GORANI: Sophie Pedder, thanks very much, the Paris bureau chief for "The Economist." Matthew Chance in Moscow and Melissa Bell in Paris.
Still to come tonight, the chilling messages sent between family members just hours after they found out that their loved ones were killed in an
ambush in Mexico.
GORANI: In Mexico, grieving loved ones are laying their family members to rest. The first funerals are being held today for the nine relatives
gunned down in a massacre near the U.S.-Mexico border on Monday. Three women and six children, including two babies, were murdered.
We're now getting audio messages shared between family members just hours after the incident as the family frantically tried to find out what
This is what Kendra Lee Miller, one of the family members in Mexico, had to say. This is only her portion of the conversation.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
KENDRA LEE MILLER, FAMILY MEMBER OF RELATIVES KILLED IN MEXICO (via telephone): Dear God, everybody pray... Officers just came and said my
mom's Suburban is blown up, up on the (inaudible) up by the hill. Everyone please pray."
"Nita, (inaudible) her children are gone. They've been burned inside the vehicle. Uncle Jeffrey verified, counted all five bodies. Their bones are
burned, their bodies are burned to a crisp. Dear God, pray for us all.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
GORANI: Eight children did survive, including a seven-month-old baby named Faith. That's -- we've blurred her face, but that's video of her in the
back seat of one of the cars, that's where she was found. Her mother hid her there before being shot to death.
CNN's Matt Rivers traveled to the site of the ambush as a timeline of events is being pieced together.
MATT RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it took us hundreds of miles of driving on small winding mountain roads to get to this part of very rural
northwest Mexico. And when we arrived, we found an area teeming with a military presence.
RIVERS (voice-over): At the checkpoints, soldiers covered their faces. Guns and armor aside, better to stay anonymous in such a violent place.
Bienvenidos a Bavispe, the town closest to where nine Americans were slaughtered on Monday.
RIVERS: So this place is so locked down right now that we're being given a military escort to the area where at least one of the shootings happened.
RIVERS (voice-over): The massacre started here.
RIVERS: This is the exact spot where Rhonita Miller and four of her kids, ages 12, 10, and two eight-month-old twins, were killed. They were
ambushed by armed gunmen, shot, and their vehicle lit on fire. This is what remains.
RIVERS (voice-over): Up the road a few minutes later, two more cars were ambushed, two mothers and two children also killed by gunfire. Another
seven kids escaped.
They'd all left, just minutes before, from Rhonita's home just a few blocks away. They were part of a community of hundreds of Americans, largely
Mormon, who have lived here for a long time. Julian LeBaron found one of the bodies.
JULIAN LEBARON, FAMILY MEMBER OF SLAIN AMERICANS: And then she was just laying on the ground when we came on her. And I could tell that -- you
know, I could tell from the blood stains that they aimed for her heart.
RIVERS (voice-over): The family wants to know who would shoot and kill women and children and then light their bodies on fire. We saw Mexican
investigators at the scene on Wednesday.
RIVERS: Might not look like it, but this area can be one of the most dangerous drug trafficking routes in the entire world. The U.S. is a
hundred miles that way, and drug cartels have been fighting over this land for a long time.
The government says that could be the reason why the people on this road were killed. They say that maybe one cartel mistook that caravan for
another. But increasingly so, the family of the victims isn't buying it.
RIVERS (voice-over): They think the families were specifically targeted by drug cartels, though they don't know why. This community has had run-ins
with gangs before, but say this came out of nowhere.
LEBARON: We haven't been threatened, at least not in any way to suppose that women and children would be murdered.
RIVERS (voice-over): Mexican President Lopez Obrador campaigned on the need to reduce crime in this country, though Mexico's murder rate now
stands roughly six times higher than that of the United States. The president insists his strategy of poverty reduction will eventually ease
drug violence, but some are losing patience.
RIVERS: And while authorities aren't yet saying who is responsible for this shooting, they are saying that the shooters used American-made
firearms, firing some 200 rounds at three women and 14 children. Matt Rivers, CNN in Sonora, Mexico.
GORANI: Well, investigators are still sifting through all of that ash, bones and a gutted car to try to figure out exactly what happened. CNN's
Patrick Oppmann is in Mexico City with more. And you have more of that terrible audio that was released, the family members reacting to the news
that their loved ones had been murdered?
PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is really remarkable and horrifying to listen to. But also puts us in their shoes, helps us to understand what
they knew and when as, throughout the day on Monday, they first realized that their relatives had had a problem on the road, that they were
seemingly under attack.
They tried to get help, they tried to reach the scene and then, of course, desperation turned to sorrow as they realized that so many of their
relatives had been killed. And we'll just go ahead and listen to a little bit more of the audio from Kendra Lee Miller.
Again, these are audio messages that she sent to relatives in the U.S., trying to get help, trying to make them aware. And also trying to make
relatives in Mexico, in this area, be aware of the danger on the roads near where they lived. And you can just hear the horror in her voice.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
MILLER: Guys, Aunt Donna and Christina are dead. Aunt Donna's son Trevor got here. I don't know how many other of the kids got here, but get that
Trevor arrived in La Mora. Aunt Donna and Christina are gone. They are not -- they are dead.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
OPPMANN: You can hear the cries in the background, just an unimaginable scene for this family to have gone through. You know, the day of the
massacre, they were planning on attending a wedding. And now these poor people today are beginning to bury their dead, the first funerals are
taking place today.
Such a turn of events for the families in this area that, although have lived, you know, with the shadow of death around them all the time, they
said that they, for many years, had managed to live amongst the cartels and not have to interact with them and were not targeted by them, specifically
for the most part.
And now they -- obviously their lives have changed forever. It's really impossible to imagine how they can ever go back to the way of life that
they used to have.
GORANI: Right. And also, people really want to know why were they targeted? What happened? More information, certainly something people are
very eager to get from authorities. Thanks very much, Patrick Oppmann.
This note as well, the International Criminal Court has handed down its longest sentence yet. Congolese warlord Bosco Ntaganda was given 30 years
in prison for crimes against humanity. The court found him guilty of war crimes including murder, rape, sexual slavery and using child soldiers.
Ntaganda's brutality even earned him a nickname, "The Terminator."
Still to come tonight, a leading expert on Ukraine joins me amid reports describing how the quid pro quo was handled behind the scenes in Ukraine
Plus, new accusations of racism and anti-Semitism against Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as he heads into a general election campaign. We'll
be right back.
GORANI: Back now to our top story. The impeachment inquiry into U.S. president, Donald Trump, and the quid pro quo at the heart of it. It
appears Ukraine's president was ready to agree to Mr. Trump's demand to investigate his political opponents in exchange for that $400 million in
The New York Times reports that in early September, President Volodymyr Zelensky was close to announcing the investigations when the White House
went ahead and released the aid because Congress had started asking questions about it.
Trump administration officials had even sent Ukraine drafts of a statement announcing the investigation into Joe Biden and his son.
Joining me now is global affairs analyst, Michael Bociurkiw. He's the former spokesperson for the Organizations for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, and has spent time in Ukraine.
So let's talk about how this is all putting Ukraine in a tricky situation, right? President Zelensky, newly elected on an anti-corruption platform,
and then this happens. They're between a rock and a hard place. They need this money.
MICHAEL BOCIURKIW, GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: A very, very tough place. And don't forget right now, they're in the midst of negotiating a historic
peace agreement with Russia, with Putin. And without that even perceived backing of the United States, the White House is very, very difficult to
As for the New York Times report, I do take a little bit of issue with it.
BOCIURKIW: What I hear from a whole bunch of diplomats and other sources in Ukraine is that there was no policy, really. It was a policy of
silence, don't say anything to upset the White House. But now, they're actually re-evaluating it, as I said in my CNN op-ed piece.
And there's even talk into Europe, maybe pushing for a joint address to Congress, to show that bipartisan support, because Zelensky and Ukraine
needs to get the message out, we're not corrupt. We're here to build a peaceful and successful Ukraine.
GORANI: So just so we're clear, The New York Times report suggests that Zelensky was basically on the verge of making that announcement, but your
sources are saying, within the Ukrainian government, that that was not the case?
BOCIURKIW: Correct. Because the ground -- the basic policy there is to not upset either party. That's always been the kind of basic Ukrainian
foreign policy when it comes to the United States.
But now, what they're also doing, Hala, is they're also re-evaluating foreign policy relations with the U.S., and maybe leaning closer towards
European partners, because again, they do need strong backing from countries like France, Germany, to pressure for that peace agreement.
GORANI: Now, one of the things you say in your op-ed on cnn.com is that -- and you touched on this, and your first answer is that Zelensky should
address the U.S. public directly, maybe even a joint session of Congress.
But how would he go about doing this? He would need some support coming from Washington in order to achieve this.
BOCIURKIW: Sure. I know Netanyahu has more influence in Washington --
GORANI: Yes. He's done that in the past.
BOCIURKIW: He's done that. So if they were following that tact, I think it could happen because even Bill Taylor, Ambassador Taylor told me is that
there is that strong bipartisan support in Washington and he would be in favor of such a thing.
GORANI: But what would he achieve?
BOCIURKIW: Well, two things really. One is to get the message across that Ukraine needs strong U.S. support, economic, military, also for getting
that peace agreement, but also to put across the message that, no, we're not corrupt.
Every time Trump and his circle seem to open their mouths about Ukraine, they mention the word corruption. So it's really important that they also
get that across, too.
GORANI: But on the phone call he said things that maybe people who are ready to see the -- an inclination for corruption could pick up. For
instance, he mentioned staying at a Trump hotel.
I mean, it seemed like he was using the type of language that -- I mean in a phone conversation with a much, much stronger and more powerful world
leader was perhaps designed to flatter Donald Trump.
GORANI: But at the same time, perhaps, you know, was not the best transcript for Zelensky to have released.
BOCIURKIW: I agree. And, you know, he is a former T.V. comedian. He is in that type of, you know, mindset to flatter and to be funny. But he
didn't come across very well. And I think the Ukrainian public have problems with that. But look, that's what most world leaders do now when
they meet with President Trump.
And then the other thing is, how do you go up against someone who approaches foreign policy as if it's an Atlantic City casino transaction
Trump is very transactional. And for someone new like Zelensky to deal with him, almost like a mafia boss is very, very difficult. So they're
learning as they go along. But I think now they're prepared to re-evaluate the policy and do something like that address before Congress and also
speak up more for Ukraine.
GORANI: And you mentioned European countries and how perhaps the Ukrainian government would be wise to turn to countries -- Macron, for instance today
GORANI: -- you saw his comments about NATO.
GORANI: How does that fit in? How does that?
BOCIURKIW: Well, I think that macron, with Angela Merkel retiring soon, wants to appear to be the states person of Europe, kind of the peace
broker. So he's very, very keen on getting a deal together where Putin and Zelensky would agree to a peace deal for the east of Ukraine.
But there's a long way to go. There are a lot of technicalities. So it's really important that they all get on the same page and push this deal
forward, because they can't afford to wait much longer for a peace to come to Easter Ukraine.
GORANI: All right. And I encourage our viewers also to check out your op- ed on cnn.com. Lots of great analysis there.
Thank you so much for joining us, Michael, and nice to meet you in person, finally, after all these years of speaking down the line over satellite.
On the day Britain's Labour Party wanted the nation to focus on its plans for the economy, its leader is facing some scathing criticism from two
The U.K.-based newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle, published a damming editorial calling Jeremy Corbyn a racist and urging voters to think
carefully before casting their ballots on December 12th.
It comes on the same day a former member of the Labour Party made an extraordinary call for party supporters to back the back conservatives.
Ian Austin said he believes Jeremy Corbyn is unfit to be prime minster.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IAN AUSTIN, FORMER BRITISH LABOUR PARTY MP: I think it's a disaster for my party and it's a disaster for our country. And it's a really difficult
choice, but decent mainstream patrioting Labour voters have to ask themselves whether Jeremy Corbyn, who supported terrorism, supported
extremism, backs our country's enemies, whether he can be trusted to lead it. And I just don't think he can.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Nic Robertson joins me now.
So Nic, let's talk about -- I mean I'm always hesitant to look at polls. But after all, I mean, at some point, you need a gauge of some sort, right?
But six weeks out, the conservatives have an advantage.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Ultimately, they do.
GORANI: They have an advantage.
ROBERTSON: They basically 10 points over and above Labour at the moment.
GORANI: They're retreating slightly.
ROBERTSON: They're retreating slightly and polls are polls. And let's remember in the 2017 election and the 2015 election, the polls in this
country, as many countries, that's actually just weren't very accurate. So this far out, it is -- don't set your heart on those polls.
GORANI: Maybe we should just give up on polls all together.
ROBERTSON: Let's not entirely ignore them.
GORANI: I don't know.
ROBERTSON: And certainly the parties look at them. I mean the parties are looking when they have days like today where the Labour Party has bad news,
not only Ian Austin but Tom Watson, the deputy leader, stepping down.
GORANI: How much will that hurt the Labour Party?
ROBERTSON: You know, today was supposed to be the big message about the future finance, what both parties were going to do. Both the Chancellor of
the Exchequer and John McDonnell from the Labour Party, both laid out broad terms, Labours talking about borrowing a lot more and spending a lot more,
hundreds of billions, and conservatives tens of billions, nevertheless, going over their own thresholds for borrowing.
Massive infrastructure projects. But that all gets lost. It all gets lost when you have an M.P. like Austin speaking. And it gets lost for Boris
Johnson when you have some of your own, you know, cabinet members -- one cabinet member resigned. Another one was -- used very inappropriate
comments, had to backtrack on that. The spin machine was getting out of kilter doctoring videos.
But today, the prime minister had a whistle stop tour. I mean, he was in tea side at a tea factory. He was in Scotland at, guess what, a whiskey
ROBERTSON: And he was in Northern Ireland at a crisp factory.
GORANI: Yes, but still, Brexit, the dark cloud of Brexit is hanging over this entire process.
ROBERTSON: Oh, totally.
GORANI: And in the end -- in the end, even though -- and this is something that I found out that was interesting that just a few months before the
referendum of 2016, the issue of Brexit for voters was not even, I think, in the top seven or eight issues they cared about.
ROBERTSON: And today --
GORANI: And today, it is probably going to be one of the determining factors of the election of December 12th, because this country has just
been paralyzed now for 2-1/2 years. So the two parties, main parties, are having to campaign on that. How is the Labour Party going about it?
ROBERTSON: Well, that, and I would also add to that, they would have you believe that they're the only two parties. You know, when Boris Johnson
yesterday laid out his sort of big campaign kickoff speech, he was -- he was hammering on Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party.
You wouldn't have any idea that there was a liberal Democrat Party or the SMP in Scotland. And what you wake up today is the news that 60 seats in
England and Wales, there's going to be pact between the Green Party, the liberal Democrats and Welsh National Party, to not compete against each
other so that they push and allow the maximum votes to go to a single remain candidate.
GORANI: And it's already getting dirty. I mean, Boris Johnson compared Jeremy Corbyn to Stalin. So, you know, hyperbole there.
So these attacks are, I think, only going to get more and more colorful as we approach the big day.
ROBERTSON: Jeremy Corbyn said he wouldn't get into those type of personal attacks, but even he is sort of framing this as a Labour conservative
affair, if you will.
And we understand that the T.V. debate would be just between the two leaders, and the liberal Democrats are complaining about that Scottish
national party are complaining about it.
GORANI: Why is that though in the U.K.? I mean, shouldn't you have all the main parties represented? Why only the two main parties?
ROBERTSON: Some people would say -- use the expression a stitch-up because it's simpler for those two parties and they think that they can maximize a
share of the vote if the electorate isn't getting --
GORANI: No, I mean why doesn't the broadcaster include the other parties? Why is it just the two main parties?
ROBERTSON: You know, let's look back when they had the debates over the E.U. referendum, leaving the European Union. It was very difficult to get
some of the players, and going back to the 2017 election as well, to get some of the players to show up and agree to turn up.
So the parties have power in this. And while they were -- while right now it appears that they'll agree to turn up when it's one-on-one, Corbyn
versus Johnson, it's harder -- it's harder to get those players to buy and if you bring other candidates along.
GORANI: Maybe voters want to hear from everyone.
You saw that story of the New Zealand M.P. responding to a heckler by calling him a boomer. You're a boomer, 1960 -- it's 1960 -- yes, up until
ROBERTSON: Oh, I qualify.
GORANI: You qualify.
ROBERTSON: I was called a boomer -- a boomer.
GORANI: I'm a Gen-X. The generational divide was on full display. I'll be speaking to Richard Quest -- Richard Quest about the generational divide
on full display when an older heckler in the New Zealand parliament tried to cut off a younger M.P. Her response, OK, boomer, raised some eyebrows.
We'll be right back.
CHLOE SWARBRICK, NEW ZEALAND GREEN PARTY MP: -- outside at a short political term.
GORANI: One lawmaker in New Zealand left her critics in parliament baffled over a response to a heckler. She's 25 years old, a Green Party M.P.,
Chloe Swarbrick She was speaking about the zero carbon bill and how it will affect generations to come when she was interrupted by another lawmaker who
jeered at her age.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SWARBRICK: In the year 2050, I will be 56 years old. Yet right now the average age of this 52nd parliament is 49 years old. OK, boomer. Current
political institutions have proven themselves incompetent in thinking outside of a short political term.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GORANI: Richard Quest joins me now from New York. What did you think? Witty or rude? OK, boomer.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Oh, both.
GORANI: Both, OK.
QUEST: Absolutely. I am -- I am a self-confessed -- well, you can't help it, you can't help the date that you were born. But I am a boomer. And
I'm absolutely 1962, and proud of it. I am getting old and curmudgeonly and I'm starting to think the policemen are looking ridiculously young, all
the hallmarks of somebody who's clearly on the way down.
Now, the MP in question in New Zealand is a certifiable millennial. And millennials and boomers, bearing in mind --
QUEST: -- that millennials are often the children of boomers and beyond. They don't mix. And then they come face-to-face, there is usually
GORANI: She's barely a millennial. Millennials are born -- she's almost Gen Z because Gen Z starts in 1997 for births, and she's 25 years old. Is
it ages though? Is it ages? I'm a Gen X, by the way. I was born in 1970. So I'm just -- the one up from you on that graph.
And I wonder if someone sort of responded to a comment I made about something by referencing my age, I might find that offensive.
QUEST: No, I don't think it is, because she wasn't talking about his age as much as she was talking about his culture or his outlook on life.
QUEST: And that's why -- remember, these generational groupings are used primarily by social scientists but also by marketers to find the common
trends that you can then go and market to them. And your trend and your generational trend is very dependent upon what your parents were.
So in my case, the silent generation were my parents. Those -- that silent generation gave birth to the boomers and so forth. Now, I don't think it
was rude. I don't think it was ageist. I don't think she was being discriminatory. She was making a very valid point that the older MP will
not see the world as she does, and that is the problem as you have to find compromise to reach.
But those of us who are boomers, I ought to warn you -- and there's plenty of us as boomers, we are probably as we collect our pensions going to
bankrupt most of the social security network.
GORANI: But I guess this is my issue, is being older doesn't mean you're curmudgeonly necessarily or not liberal or can't see the world with fresh
eyes. And somehow this idea -- by the way, OK, boomer, I looked it up because I hadn't heard it before.
It's basically a generic remark used by young people to reply to older people who don't care about the issues that are important to them.
GORANI: They're saying, OK, boomer, essentially means stick in the mud, you don't get it, condescending, stop talking.
QUEST: Yes, yes, and that is exactly -- and I shall retort in type. That is exactly the sort of comment you would expect from a privileged, a self-
righteous, a "we've got it all right and the world owes a living" millennial. There you are.
GORANI: Well, I'm not a millennial. I wish I were for obvious reasons, it would make me a lot younger than I am.
But, yes, but there's always been, you know, this friction between generations. We've to go. But the younger generation is entitled, the
older generation will always say that about the younger generation.
I used to walk to school in the snow bare foot.
QUEST: I shall leave you with the words of my late grandmother. You have never had it so good. You don't know you're born.
GORANI: Exactly. Thanks very much. Richard, we'll see you at the top of the hour on "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS."
QUEST: Thanks you.
GORANI: OK, boomers, and Gen Xs, and all of the rest of you watching, we'll be right back.
GORANI: We've been speaking a lot about the impeachment's inquiry that has riveted Washington, but what about the rest of the United States? Alisyn
Camerota talked to a group of independent voters, all women, from Pennsylvania.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: How many of you, show of hands, support the impeachment investigation that is beginning?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Investigation?
CAMEROTA: The investigation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Support it.
CAMEROTA: Four of you support that?
GAYLYNN BLASKI, PENNSYLVANIA SWING VOTER: Well, for the simple fact, it's never, ever, ever going to pass through the Senate. Congress isn't doing
anything but inquiries and hearings and inquiries and hearings.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
CAMEROTA: What they would say is that there's new information and that's the Ukraine call.
ALISON GREEN, PENNSYLVANIA SWING VOTER: Oh yes, there's consistently evolving information.
ANDREA CAPWILL, PENNSYLVANIA SWING VOTER: Yes.
CAMEROTA: And so how many of you are comfortable with what President Trump asked for in terms of withholding military aid for an investigation of the
MARIAN TAYLOR, PENNSYLVANIA SWING VOTER: Well, as a business owner, I wouldn't give up that kind of money if I thought something was going on.
He -- I think he had every right to ask that.
BLASKI: Because it was a new president.
Why are we giving Ukraine so much money anyway when we have homeless veterans on the streets? Like, really? Go to San Diego, go to Los Angeles
and you'll see them and it's pitiful. Those people are --
CRYSTAL ARLINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA SWING VOTER: That's where Congress should be working.
ARLINGTON: That's where they should be working.
BLASKI: Yes, thank you.
CAMEROTA: Just so I'm clear on that, so you're comfortable with withholding military aid to Ukraine -- they're fighting Russia -- because
you don't like the idea that those -- that that money goes there anyway.
BLASKI: Well, I don't know why it's going there. But I'm saying if they have money to keep giving to everybody, why not help our own people first?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly.
CAMEROTA: Are you comfortable -- show of hands -- with asking a foreign entity for help with dirt on a political opponent?
CAMEROTA: Nobody is comfortable with that?
ARLINGTON: I am.
CAMEROTA: You are comfortable with it, Crystal? Why are you -- why do you think it's OK to ask a foreign power?
ARLINGTON: He's the President of the United States. He should be allowed to ask for military information.
CAMEROTA: Well, this is political information.
ARLINGTON: Oh, even political information.
CAMEROTA: Does that bother you?
ARLINGTON: Didn't every other president do it?
CAMEROTA: I can't speak for any other president, but I know that --
ARLINGTON: They all do it.
CAMEROTA: I don't know that to be true.
ARLINGTON: I don't know that to be true, either.
CAMEROTA: So why are you resting -- hanging your hat on it?
ARLINGTON: I'm just saying -- I'm just saying. I mean --
CAMEROTA: But you're comfortable with it because that's how you think it works?
ARLINGTON: I --
TAYLOR: As a business owner.
ARLINGTON: As a business owner, yes, it's --
CAMEROTA: So you just see this as a business transaction.
ARLINGTON: It is.
GREEN: His business is this country, so getting dirt to benefit him does not benefit this country. That benefits him.
GREEN: He's not a business leader.
LISA MARIE HALECKY, PENNSYLVANIA SWING VOTER: Yes, there's no accountability. And no matter what business you're in or what you're
doing, you need accountability. You just --
HALECKY: It's bad practice.
CAMEROTA: Show of hands. How many would like the identity of the whistleblower to be revealed and think it should be?
GREEN: That's not how it's supposed to work. The whole point is it's supposed to be one of those checks and balances where you can come forward
and say this is going on and people don't know and it's wrong.
BLASKI: It's like going to your human resources department. That's supposed to be confidential.
GREEN: Exactly. That's what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be a confidential thing.
CAMEROTA: What's your response, Andrea?
CAPWILL: I don't think that it should be revealed right now. I think that for, like, historical purposes that, yes, it would be nice for the American
people to know what happened. Who saw this? Like --
CAMEROTA: You're curious?
CAMEROTA: You're saying you're curious.
BLASKI: Yes, but that could get that person shot.
CAMEROTA: The point of the whistleblower is anonymity, so are you uncomfortable that President Trump calls for their identity to be unmasked?
TAYLOR: I don't think it should be unmasked publicly.
CAMEROTA: But what if President Trump knows about it?
BLASKI: Then it would be public.
GREEN: That's wrong.
BLASKI: It'll be public. I mean, it'll be on Twitter, I assume, like in five minutes.
CAMEROTA: How many people think the impeachment process will hurt President Trump?
GREEN: I think it's going to hurt everyone.
CAMEROTA: OK, so you think it will hurt President Trump. Is that to say that the other five of you think it will hurt the Democrats?
GREEN: I think it's going to hurt everyone.
GREEN: I think when you splash mud, it hits everyone.
BLASKI: Yes. And again, they're not going to get nothing done because they're doing all this -- worried about these hearings and impeachment.
CAMEROTA: To be fair, 490 bills have been passed by the House.
BLASKI: And, Senate?
CAMEROTA: Sixty-five pieces of legislation.
BLASKI: How many are sitting in the Senate?
CAMEROTA: So, 65 pieces of legislation have come --
GREEN: And I say because a lot of things are coming out of the House and then dying in the Senate.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
BLASKI: Because they won't work together.
GREEN: There's literally no compromising.
CAMEROTA: Do you guys want compromise?
GREEN: No one's supposed to win all the time.
GREEN: From a business perspective, you compromise. You don't walk away every time.
TAYLOR: Why --
TAYLOR: Most of us are mothers and we want everyone to work together.
CAMEROTA: You're tired of the divisiveness.
ARLINGTON: We are.
BLAKSI: Yes, absolutely.
ARLINGTON: We are.
TAYLOR: I think most people in the country are.
CAMEROTA: Do you think that President Trump plays any role in that divisiveness?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
CAMEROTA: Do you think he's being helpful?
ARLINGTON: I think he's being helpful, yes.
CAMEROTA: How? How is he bringing the country together?
ARLINGTON: I'm not sure how he's bringing the Democrats and Republicans together. However, I do think he's trying to get stuff done.
CAMEROTA: Let's go around and one word for these past three years -- how you would describe the Trump presidency.
Go ahead, Alison.
GREEN: Uh, divisive.
BLASKI: Entertaining. You never know what you're going to get every day.
HALECKY: One long -- one of a kind. One of a kind, definitely.
TAYLOR: I believe he's for the people.
CAMEROTA: So you believe the Trump presidency -- for the people means selfless?
CAMEROTA: Just for the people.
TAYLOR: He's making a change.
BLASKI: Oh, that's a good one.
GREEN: That is a good one.
CAMEROTA: And so, Crystal, is there anything that he could do or anything that could happen that would make you not vote for him?
CAMEROTA: If he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, would you vote for him?
HALECKY: Well, you'd have to know why he shot them.
ARLINGTON: Yes, why did he shoot them?
Finally, a French historian says he solved a mystery surrounding one of Napoleon's top generals. Saskya Vandoorne has that story.
SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For 200 years, it lay undisturbed in a Russian park, the skeleton of a one-legged man, a general
who died of gangrene after having his leg amputated during Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia.
The remains of a man believed to be Charles Etienne Gudin, one of Napoleon Bonaparte's favorite generals were found by Russian and French
archeologists in July during an excavation in Smolensk Park, 250 miles west of Moscow.
A French historian, Pierre Malinowski, led the dig and personally flew part of the skeleton's femur and teeth to Marseille where DNA was matched to the
remains of the general's mother, brother, and sons.
The Kremlin said it was ready to facilitate the repatriation of the rest of the remains as soon as it receives word from the French government.
Gudin descendant, Alberic d'Orleans, welcomed the news and hopes the general will now be buried near the sight of Napoleon's tomb in Les
Invalides, in honor of his sacrifice, fighting in another world and another time more than 200 years ago.
Saskya Vandoorne, CNN, Paris.
GORANI: Thanks for watching tonight. I'm Hala Gorani. "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" is next.