Skip to main content

tv   Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer  CNN  December 23, 2019 2:00pm-3:00pm PST

2:00 pm
our continuation coverage continues right now. happening now, at an impasse. mitch mcconnell slams nancy pelosi for holding on to the articles of impeachment against president trump calling her strategy absurd. but mcconnell isn't ruling out the possibility of calling witnesses once the impeachment trial gets going. 90 minutes later, the top senate democrat ramps up his push for new witnesses and specific documents after emails show a white house official made contact with the pentagon within 90 minutes of the ukraine leader in july. could the author of that email be called to testify. ousted. boeing demands and receives the resignation of the ceo. the dramatic show of no evidence after the grounding of a popular airliner following deadly crashes and an embarrassing failure of boeing's new spacecraft.
2:01 pm
and kim's christmas gift. has north korea orders rocket engine tests and meets with top generals a source said the north koreans are about to unwrap a hard line approach to the u.s. i'm brianna keeler, wolf blitzer is off today. you're in "the situation room." we're following the political jockeying over president trump's upcoming impeachment trial. chuck schumer issuing a new demand for documents after the release of what schumer called explosive emails raising questions about the timing of president trump's freeze of aid to ukraine and his demand for political dirt on joe biden. also today republican leader mitch mcconnell said negotiations about the impeachment trial are at an impasse right now. but he won't rule out the possibility of calling witnesses. congressman dan kildee of michigan, a member of the house democratic leadership is standing by to take our questions and our constituents
2:02 pm
and analysts have full coverage of the day's top stories. let's begin with congressional reporter lauren fox. lauren, tell us, will democrats get the witnesses and the documents that they want? >> well, brianna, if republicans have anything to say about it, they won't be. majority leader mitch mcconnell making it very clear today that he and chuck schumer, the top democrat in the senate, are at an impasse when it comes to the negotiations over which documents to get and witnesses are part of the trial. they have yet to come to any kind of agreement and what we're told is that mcconnell is not getting ready to cave. here is what he said about what he expects from an impeachment trial. >> well, we need to do is to listen to the arguments, have a written questioning period and then decide whether we need witnesses or not. we haven't ruled out witnesses. we've said let's handle this case just like we did with president clinton. fair is fair. >> and nancy pelosi still hanging on to those articles of
2:03 pm
impeachment. she tweeted earlier this morning, arguing she will not send them over until she sees what kind of structure the senate impeachment trial will have, brianna. >> and she's still holding off on that so is this something helping democrats? >> well republicans will tell you they're not in any hurry to have a senate impeachment trial to begin with. therefore if nancy pelosi thinks she'll get leverage out of this, their argument is that is simply not the case. but still, you are seeing today chuck schumer sending a letter to his colleagues, republicans and democrats, arguing that they need to see a very specific list of documents whether it comes from the omb, the white house or the pentagon. >> lauren fox, thank you so much. now let's do to cnn chief white house correspondent jim acosta. and the emails are raising questions. >> reporter: they are. and even though president trump has already been impeached and spending the holidays down in florida, critical information is coming to light in the ukraine investigation. democrats are seizing on these new emails that show the administration mandated that a
2:04 pm
freeze be placed on military aid to ukraine just 90 minutes after mr. trump hopped off the phone with the leader of that country. this discovery could be the latest obstacle to get a trial going in the senate. playing golf down in florida, president trump is teeing off on democrats who are still holding up an impeachment trial in the senate tweeting, house speaker nancy pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the u.s. congress. and now she's crying for fairness in the senate and breaking all rules while doing so. she lost congress once, she will do it again. but democrats aren't ready to give the president a mulligan. pointing to new administration emails discovered by the center for public integrity. in the emails budget official michael duffey orders a hold on military aid to ukraine roughly 90 minutes after mr. trump had his infamous phone call with the leader of that country. duffey writes based on guidance i've received in light of the administration's plan to review assistance to ukraine, including the ukraine security assistance initiative, please hold off on
2:05 pm
any additional d.o.d. obligation of the funds pending direction from that process. he goes on to say, given the sensitive nature of the request i appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction. democrats now want duffey to testify. >> if there was ever an argument that we need mr. duffey to come testify, this is that information. this email is explosive. a top administration official, one that we requested, is saying stop the aid, 91 minutes after trump called zelensky and said keep it hush-hush. what more do you need to request a witness? >> reporter: in a statement, an administration spokesperson insisted the freeze was in place before mr. trump's call saying the hold was announced in an interagency meeting on july 18th, to pull a line out of one email and fail to address the context is misleading and inaccurate. >> so yes, there was a delay.
2:06 pm
there is nothing new in the emails about the timing truly, chuck. there was emails back and forth about this. the aid was released. >> reporter: the president is playing defense with the evangelical voters after the publication christianity today doubled down on him as an immoral leader writing in a new post, it is one thing to praise his accomplishments it is another to excuse and deny his obvious misuse of power. republicans see the criticism as an outlier among the trump faithful, a group releasing their own letter slamming christianity today saying the editorial questioned the christian witness of tens of millions of believers who take seriously their civic and moral obligationsme obligations, and at the conference over the weekend, mr. trump also spun up some major falsehoods when he mocked the use of windmills claiming they contribute to climate change and that almost none are produced in the u.s. wrong on both counts.
2:07 pm
as wind is one of the cleanest sources of energy and creates american jobs. >> i never understood when -- and i know windmills very much. i've studied it better than anybody. it is very expensive. they're made in china and germany, very few made here. almost none. but they're manufactured tremendous, if you're into this, tremendous fumes, gases are spewing into the atmosphere. >> reporter: and the white house is praising saudi arabia's decision to sentence five people to death in the killing jamal khashoggi. a senior administration official saying it was an important step in holding khashoggi's responsibility and they are accusing them of covering up the death, whether the crown prince was behind the murder. and brianna, here we are, we still don't have the details as to what happened to jamal
2:08 pm
khashoggi. >> thank you. the cia certainly believes that the crown prince is behind it. joining us now, let's talk about democratic congressman dan kildee of michigan. he's on the ways and means committee and he's also a member of house democratic leadership, sir, thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> i want to talk about the newly-revealed email which chuck schumer said proves there is need for more documents and witnesses. as you are very well aware, house democrats decided they didn't want to fight this out in court before proceeding. they didn't want to fight it out to get documents and testimony. they wanted to move quickly. so how long are democrats willing to wait for this new evidence? >> well, i think that is a decision that the speaker is going to have to make. but it is important evidence. and it ought to be given a chance to be fully heard and fully vetted. we thought we had -- we clearly had enough information to move forward with these two impeachment articles but that does not mean that all new facts that are uncovered are exempt
2:09 pm
from any inquiry and that seems to be what senate republicans want to imply. no matter what the president does or what we learn more about this particular case, that can't just be ignored because it happens to come up after we have voted on impeachment. this is an important set of facts. and i think it helps paint a clearer picture of what the president did and how he came to the conclusion that he was going to try to withhold this necessary military aid in order to exact a promise of an investigation of one of his political opponents. that is the core of the abuse of power claim. and i think it has to be fully vetted and fully understood. and i hope that that is considered by senator mcconnell. >> do you expect speaker pelosi will turn over the articles of impeachment to the senate ultimately? >> yes. i think ultimately. but i do think, first of all, she's right. we don't -- the house, that is, we're not bystanders to the
2:10 pm
senate process. we're a part of the senate trial. we appoint managers to prosecute the case. so we have a stake in how that process will move forward. and we have to know how that process is framed in order to properly prepare the case that we'll put forward and the managers that we'll submit to present the case. so we have a clear stake in this. but it does beg the question, what is mitch mcconnell afraid of? >> what leverage -- >> is he afraid that -- >> what records do you have? if you say the articles are going over to the senate anywayses and mitch mcconnell is basically saying that is not really leverage as he sees it ant doesn't want to have the trial, what leverage do you have if you're saying, well we'll turn them over anyway. >> well, i'm not sure how much leverage there is. but doesn't it seem as though the constitution ought to be the leverage that mitch mcconnell would be concerned about. the constitution says he has to conduct this trial. and he can be concerned about
2:11 pm
the pressure that nancy pelosi is putting on him. but he ought to be more concerned about whether or not he's going to uphold the oath to office that he swore. the leverage ought to be, the long view of history and whether or not he's going to be seen as a person who put on a joke of a trial or somebody who did his job, listened to the evidence, fully vetted the facts, even though he said he's not bias, that doesn't mean he should prevent those facts from being presented to the senate even if they come to light after the house has voted. he's doing to have to answer to history and i think the way he's conducting himself right now, history will take a dim view of the way he's approaching this. >> i understand what you're saying about the measure should be the constitution and it should be what the judge of history will be. but what does that have to do with speaker pelosi deciding to or deciding not to hand over these articles of impeachment? i mean, is she not going to hand them over unless she gets a firm
2:12 pm
guarantee from mitch mcconnell and new witnesses will be called and why do you think he'll actually comply with that? >> well, because we don't want to -- first of all, in terms of the house, and i think where the speaker is, she doesn't want to submit the articles to a sham process. and if he doesn't feel any pressure to do the job in a way that the constitution required him to do, there is nothing we can do about that. and but i do accept the point. there is limited leverage that we have as long as he's willing to not do his job. we just think that if this moment, as we're going into the holidays, before transmitting the articles over to the senate, we have some clarity as to what the process will be and then let the public and perhaps other senators weigh in with senate moik connell on this question and perhaps there will be a change of heart. he's already begin some indication that he might be open to witnesses. so it obviously seems to be working to a certain extent. and i've heard him say that he wants to use the same process that was used for the clinton
2:13 pm
impeachment. that is nonsense. is he willing to require president trump to submit to a videotape deposition? that is what happened during the clinton impeachment? if he's willing to play -- if he wants to play by the same rules, maybe we could have a conversation about that. but what he's trying to do right now is everything he can to shelter donald trump from scrutiny. and i don't think the public is going to ultimately accept that. >> do you think the public even as speaker pelosi said she doesn't want this to look political, do you think you're in danger of the public thinking it's political? >> yeah, i think -- i do think that the president and people around him and others have done a good job of framing it that way. and i think the environment that we're in right now causes a lot of folks to just conclude that everything is political. but that is not always the case. and just because people think that doesn't mean we should shy away from taking care of our responsibilities.
2:14 pm
when i swore an oath on january 3rd of the beginning of this term, i didn't swear an oath to public opinion, or to the polls. i swore an oath to the constitution. and i just wish that senator mcconnell and those around him would take the same approach. >> i understand what you're saying about that. but if you swore an oath to the constitution, taking actions that don't seem political might help democrats succeed in that effort more, don't you think? >> well, i think there are two questions weather they seem political or are characterized by people as political. that is an easy thing for people to do. but i think what the speaker is trying to do is make sure that the trial itself is not a sham. that it is not a joke. that it is not a rush job where leader mcconnell simply brings up the case, moves for dismissal and they move on. we want to make sure that the facts are presented and while we're preparing the case and determining who the managers will be, i think it is entirely
2:15 pm
legitimate for us to say to senator mcconnell, let us know what this will look like. let us know what the trial will look like. so that we could properly prepare ourselves for that. i don't think that is too much to ask. >> congressman -- >> and he -- i don't think that is political. that is just us doing our job. >> congressman dan kildee, thank you. and up next, will democrats get the documents and witnesses they want for the impeachment trial? new hints about what north korea's gift may be for the u.s. before they're gone. now in-network with vsp. visionworks. see the difference.
2:16 pm
2:17 pm
male anchor: update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: beats the odds at the box office to become a rare non-franchise hit. you can give help and hope to those in need.
2:18 pm
2:19 pm
senate democrats today renewed their demands for documents as well as witnesses for president trump's upcoming impeachment trial and the demand
2:20 pm
comes after newly-revealed emails show the white house budget office moved to freeze ukraine aid within 90 minutes of the president's july tone call with the ukraine president. let's talk about this now with our experts and our analysts. so dana, senate democrats at this point in time have -- they want four impeachment trial witnesses to come. how likely is it they're going to be hearing from any of these folks that you see on the screen? >> well, long-term, pretty unlikely. but in the short-term, meaning getting an agreement from republicans before a trial even starts, highly unlikely. but assuming that they agree in some way, shape or form to start the trial and do it along the lines of what happened in 1999, 21 years ago, during bill clinton's impeachment, they likely could have votes on whether or not to bring any and all of those witnesses before the senate trial. and that is going to be really
2:21 pm
fascinating to see how it breaks down because there are so many -- a handful of republicans up for re-election, it will be that very year, 2020, who are going to face a lot of pressure to be able to go home and say, i did what i could to find all of the facts. so it will be individual votes on all of the witnesses. assuming they get this far. and to say -- to go back home and say no, i don't want to hear from john bolton is hard to do and democrats only need four, assuming none of the ranks break. >> which would put a lot of republicans ultimately in the position of voting to hear from people than not hearing from them and still voting not to impeach the president. >> right. and look, if you are just someone who wants transparency, want to know what your government is doing, you should want to hear from these people. you should want to hear from people like mike duffey who sent the email 90 minutes after the phone call with zelensky and you should want to hear from john
2:22 pm
bolton and know aun of the facts if you're making a decision as grave as whether to remove the president from office. but i think there are are a lot of members of republican party right now in the senate who are much more concerned about the power the president wields on twitter than they are about figuring out exactly what happened in this situation. >> because let's talk about michael duffey. he's a political appointeeond omb official and on the list of witnesses and ordered that freeze on ukraine just 91 minutes after the president's phone call with the ukraine president zelensky ended. what all do you want to know from this guy? >> why don't we talk to a witness. we get to read some emails or maybe telephone records. i'm sort of watching this with some humor. because the senate is theoretically going to conduct an investigation, and any investigation you would like to see the technical information, email, phone records. that gives you the who was involved, when did it happen, what did they discuss? the why, typically you get from
2:23 pm
a human being. so i'm loving watching investigators here say let's get to the bottom of this without people who can actually give you motive. no fbi or cia official going into investigation would ever say i'd like to conclude the investigation on the most somber thing the senate can do to review impeachment but i don't want to talk to anybody that could give us motive. >> senate republicans say they don't want to investigate. that is not their job. that the house was supposed to investigate and they decide whether or not it is to go forward and find him guilty or not guilty. >> which in theory makes sense but i would go back to them and say you prefer to vote without knowing what happened. >> and house democrats wanted to move along quickly which is why they didn't wait to see how the court action played out. because it would have taken so long. they did forego that opportunity. but now they're trying to push republicans into this position of highlighting the fact that maybe they don't really want to know the full truth. when you look at this and how this would go down in history, like this, how would it be in
2:24 pm
terms of reflecting on republicans for not wanting these answers? >> i mean, look it speaks volumes to how much republicans actually want to get to the bottom of this. the idea that you would ask the courts to come along now and say, look, the president has been impeached and it is already done and now you don't need to answer this question of whether or not we need to hear from the witnesses. it really feeds into this idea that this white house understands that there are still something to hide here. when we look at what the recent emails tell us about when the president made the decision to freeze the funding here, that tells us, as i've said earlier, that tells us there are still facts, despite the fact that we have all of the evidence and that we know so much about what the president did and why he did it, that tells us there are still more gaps that need to be filled in. so what will history say about this? history will say what we're saying today. this white house, this president, this administration is still trying to hide the facts here. but even if they succeed in doing that.
2:25 pm
even if they succeed, there is still enough evidence here for this president to be convicted and the senate even though we don't know that will happen. >> dana, you had an interesting interview with the chairman of the senate republican conference roy blunt. you pressed him about the president's call and this is what he told you. let's listen. >> the president and the secretary of state and the retired lieutenant general who is a foreign policy adviser all feel like that call was within -- >> what does roy blunt think? >> i think i've never been very happy with any of the ukraine decisions since the russians invaded crimea. we told president obama in december of 2015 to provide lethal aid, which he never did. i'm never been happy with the way think of this has been handled regarding ukraine. >> you've covered roy blunt for years. you speak roy blunt fluently i
2:26 pm
would say. tell us, what do you think of that? >> he's not -- he's a lot like a lot of his senate republican colleagues. and even some in the house who think it was a terrible idea. he didn't say that. these are are -- this is my interpretation. he was being incredibly careful. he is a member of the senate republican leadership. others who are more free to say what they think have said from mitt romney to marco rubio to others, but back to what sarah was saying before about the president's twitter feed, the minute any republican stepped out and said, yeah, it wasn't great, but he shouldn't be impeached, they got a back of the hand on the president's twitter feed. >> stand by for me. i do want to hear what you think of president trump's comments attacking, of all things, windmills. at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow.
2:27 pm
because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.
2:28 pm
because when you're with fidelity, a president who abuses power. and obstructs justice. the impeachment of donald j. trump. he was supposed to protect our constitution. not trample on it by asking foreign countries to undermine our democracy for his personal political gain. trump broke his oath to america. members of the house and senate must now do their constitutional duty. if you agree, sign our petition at need to
2:29 pm
need to impeach is responsible for the content of this advertising. billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges.
2:30 pm
help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.
2:31 pm
we're back now with our experts. and let's talk about something that the president said and he really did go there. trump tilting at windmills. >> i never understood wind. and i know windmills very much. i've studied it better than anybody. i know. it is very expensive. they're made in china and germany, mostly. very few made here. almost none. but they're manufactured tremendous, if you're into this, tremendous fumes, gases are
2:32 pm
spewing into the atmosphere. you know we have a world, right. so the world is tiny compared to the universe. i've seen the most beautiful fields, farms, fields, most gorgeous things you've ever seen and then you have these ugly things going up. if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50% of the price. they're noisy, they kill the birds. you want to see a bird graveyard, just go and take a look. a brird graveyard. go under a windmill some day. >> the president cares about birds? that is aside, and just fact check the whole thing. >> as you know, i'm a windmill expert. >> yes, you are, dana bash. >> i'm not. >> the new beat we've added to your repertoire. >> it sounds like we need that beat. luckily our friends at cnn did a fact check, zack wolf, and
2:33 pm
others and a couple of things. one is it is true that windmills kill birds, i have learned. but apparently birds -- i'm going to go there. apparently birds do also suffer from electrical wires so there is unclear how much more they suffer from windmills. in terms of the value for your house, he says it goes down 75%, other times he said 50%. apparently the experts say home values do go down but not that much and things in the past about causing cancer and other issues, that is dubious. but he's obsessed with windmills because he was in a very long -- i think a ten-year lawsuit with his property in scotland against the u.k. government because they wanted to build windmills and he thought it was an eye sore so that is why he said he is an expert on windmills. >> most true and then half true and the other parts really not
2:34 pm
true. you heard this a long time. >> he's been talking about this on the campaign trail. >> exactly. >> forever. it is one of the rifts that he goes off on. we're doing the windmills thing today. and it is interesting, there is another riff which is about building the walls and it is like, they say you can't build the walls because of thor marsh land and because of the frogs and the todays and reptiles and he's not worried about any of those animals dying from building a wall in the southern border but he's very worried about the birds and the windmills. these are all campaign riffs if you're at a trump rally. >> he's -- >> brianna -- >> why does he care about some animals and not others. >> the real problem is the president is doubling down on the unfortunate but true fact that when you reach to the far end -- far areas of the internet and find these really bizarre obscure sort of conspiracy
2:35 pm
theers -- theories and even if there is a little bit of truth to these things, he makes them seem much larger and more significant than they actually are. so there is just this idea that, look, i hear this from members of my family who get these conspiracy theories in their head and i have to say that is not true. but when they hear it from the president of the united states, with well they immediately start calling me up and saying it is true. but it is not. so, look, it is kind of funny that he does this but there is a real danger here when the president -- when people start believing that whatever he says is true. and there are still people out there who do. unfortunately they just don't seek information to really understand that this is for the most part nonsense. >> i'm sure it is troubling. and phil, we're laughing because it is kind of nuts. but at the same time, you hear something like this and it's almost an out of body experience. is this really happening? is this really what the discussion or the speech is about? >> well, i think there is a couple of pieces -- this is almost a christmas gift to me.
2:36 pm
as a national security guy, we could talk about north korea, iran -- >> you could talk about don quiqote. >> we could talk about health care or the new england patriots which is a national security issue but we have to talk about windmills. i think this is about him facing legal issues at the golf course but the tough guy mr. bone spur talks about coal and these are middle america issues, talks about stuff that is important to america. windmills are seen as east coast liberal so there is a political dimension beyond what i agree is the primary issue which is i'm going on the stump and i'm saying i'm coal and oil. i don't do windmills. i don't do stuff like north korea and iran. i do coal and oil. >> it is definitely coastal scotland. thank you so much. coming up, boeing is shaking up top management after the deadly crashes. and later an ominous hint about
2:37 pm
north korea's long promised christmas zbigift to the u.s. your home and auto" part?oue -i like that, just not when it comes out of her mouth. -yeah, as a mother, i wouldn't want my kids to see that. -good mom. -to see -- wait. i'm sorry. what? -don't kids see enough violence as it is? -i've seen violence. -maybe we turn the word "bundle" into a character, like mr. bundles. -top o' the bundle to you. [ laughter ] bundle, bundle, bundle. -my kids would love that. -yeah.
2:38 pm
bundle, bundle, bundle. i am not for ignoring the first sign of a cold. i am for shortening my cold, with zicam! zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam! oral or nasal. (children laugh and scream) (dog barking) ♪music it's the final days of the wish list sales event. hurry in to your lincoln dealer today to get this exceptional offer.
2:39 pm
male anchor: update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: beats the odds at the box office to become a rare non-franchise hit. you can give help and hope to those in need.
2:40 pm
2:41 pm
we're following new legal wrangling over congressional democrats efforts to here from a former member of the trump
2:42 pm
administration. let's bring in cnn crime and justice reporter shimon prokupecz on this. and this is the power battle between the president and congress on full display yet again. what are the possibility of the outcome here. >> it is really is, i think you put it perfectly and when you say legal wrangling and you have members of congress fighting with the white house through the courts trying to continuously get information, a lot of the federal judges so far that they have faced have said the president is not immune from had kind of scrutiny and that the president should turn over information, that certain people should testify and all of this will wind up in the supreme court. but the relevance of all of this is the precedent here for congress. they want to prove a point that the white house should not be immune from the scrutiny that it finds it under with members of congress that they should be able to get certain pieces of information. some of the federal judges have sided with members of congress on this and again where does this likely wind up? it is probably the supreme
2:43 pm
court. and they're looking for very important information here. certainly on the don mcgahn front. he was one of the most important witnesses in the entire mueller investigation and members of congress want to hear from him. >> if they do hear from don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, in impeachment hearings on the house side, is it possible there could be more articles. >> it is certainly possible and that is a possibility. politically no one feels that is going to happen but of course the members of congress, they want to keep their legal options open here. in fact, in the court filing, this is how they explain it, what they say is that if mcgahn's testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that president trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the house, the committee would proceed accordingly. so it is possible. and then they go on to say that including if necessary by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment. and i guess in many ways the
2:44 pm
whole point is they need to keep the argument going. no matter what, we could have the senate trial and even after that, they still want to be able to hear from don mcgahn. they still want to have access to information that is now being tied up in the courts because the white house, because the administration is continuing to refuse to release a lot of the information. >> shimon, thank you so much for that report. today brought a major shake up at boeing. the airline maker forced out -- the airplane maker forced out the top executive after a disastrous year of crashes involving the 737 max jet. i want to bring in business editor-at-large richard quest. tell us what is the main reason that he's gone? >> it was time. it was more of a liability than an asset. we knew he was going to have to go. the question -- it is not a question of if, it is when. and i think the final straw was this latest spat that boeing had behind the scenes with the regulator, the faa, when boeing,
2:45 pm
according to the faa, was being seen to pressure them to get it back in the air, the 737. and numerous little snipes from the faa reminding boeing, we had one today when boeing, they acknowledged that mulenberg was going, right at the end of the statement, there was a little bit that said to boeing, and when you start behaving basically, you start providing us data and start following proper rules of transparency. so i think what happened here is the board basically said enough is enough. we know he's going. it is a liability at the moment. it's time. >> this is a brand that is in crisis, richard. people just have so little faith after all that has gone on. what would a new ceo have to do to turn things around. >> stabilize the ship basically. the first thing they have to do is get the max back in the air and they do that by providing the data that the faa is seeking and having the transparency that is being demanded. thereafter they need to convince
2:46 pm
customers. that is airlines, that the plane is not toxic, that they could still buy the max and passengers won't bulk at flying it. and then after that, longer term, you have to look at what were the systemic issues that led boeing to deviate so greatly from its own principles in terms of pilots come first and redundancy in machinery. but here is one point to remember. it is not a case of a company just going away. remember, there are thousands, thousands of boeing planes in the air at the moment. they have to be serviced, there are many more on order. there is the 777 and the 78 being manufactured and delivered. so boeing has literally, pardon the pun, it has to fix the airline while its flying. >> it is a lot. it is quite an undertaking. richard quest, thank you for following that. and coming up, troubling new signs north korea's dictator is
2:47 pm
preparing for a more aggressive and dangerous new year. if your glasses aren't perfect, we'll fix them. so will we. no we won't. don't forget to use your vision benefits before they're gone. now in-network with vsp. visionworks. see the difference.
2:48 pm
2:49 pm
2:50 pm
2:51 pm
itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. this past weekend brought ominous new signs from north korea. will ripley is following the latest developments from hong kong. tell us the latest, will? >> reporter: well, what we know is that the north koreans, according to a source of mine, are are not planning a launch.
2:52 pm
a long range missile launch around christmas because there is speculation about that christmas gift that kim jong-un promised. so what is the gift. a new hard-line of policy when it comes to dealing with the u.s. north korean leader kim jong-un meets with his military top brass over the weekend. ordering them to bolster the overall armed forces of the country. discussing the sustained and accelerated development of military capability. cnn obtained new satellite images showing increased activity at this facility, tied to north korea's intercontinental ballistic missile program. not one but two apparent engine tests at this known launch site sparking speculation of a bigger test to comment but not so fast. chances of a highly provocative launch like an icbm or a nuclear test very low, a source familiar with the north korea position tells cnn. north korea cryptically promised a christmas gift for the u.s. if the year ended without a
2:53 pm
diplomatic break-through. the most likely christmas gift from north korea, the source said, a new hardline approach in dealing with the u.s. the negotiations seen as a waste of time. kim taking a wait-and-see approach on dealing with president trump. received, the source said, as vulnerable as he move news an election year. >> he likes sending rockets up. i call him rocket man. >> reporter: when president trump revived his old nickname for kim, north korea returned the rhetorical fire calling him the dotage of a doter which means old, senile and lunatic and john bolton told axios trump has failed to slow kim's nuclear program. three face-to-face meetings in singapore, vietnam and the demilitarized zone but washington and pyongyang are deadlocked over sanctions and
2:54 pm
denuclearization saying it is off the table and the bar to return to talks is significantly higher. on the week before christmas, this appeal to pyongyang from president trump's point man on north korea. >> let's get this done. we are here. and you know how to reach us. >> reporter: last ditch diplomacy hitting an all too familiar dead end. just because north korea is not planning to launch an icbm around christmas, my source said, doesn't mean they won't do it in 2020, an election year for president trump, the north koreans are aware there is pressure on the president, brianna, could they add to that pressure in the coming months after they analyze the data from the recent tests, we'll have to wait and see. >> we'll be waiting with you. will ripley, thank you for that report. and coming up, democrats renew their demand for more documents ahead of president trump's impeachment trial. will they get what they want? the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide.
2:55 pm
while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. male anchor: update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: beats the odds at the box office to become a rare non-franchise hit. you can give help and hope to those in need. that will makeout washington insiders very uncomfortable: term limits. you and i both know we need term limits, that congress shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. but members of congress, and the corporations who've bought our democracy hate term limits. too bad. i'm tom steyer
2:56 pm
and i approve this message because the only way we get universal healthcare, address climate change and make our economy more fair is to change business as usual in washington.
2:57 pm
they got him. [ panting ]
2:58 pm
2:59 pm
happening now, deadlocked as the impeachment trial impasse deepens, we're following new demands and partisan maneuvering by senate leaders. are democrats any closer to getting what they want? explosive. that is how the top senate democrat is describing newly-released emails revealing exactly when u.s. aid to ukraine was frozen. does it bolster the case for removing the president. power struggle, the justice department is waging a multi-front legal battle arguing the house no longer needs grand jury secrets or key testimony from the mueller investigation. will the courts buy it? and klobuchar one-on-one.
3:00 pm
cnn talked to the 2020 democrat on board her campaign bus in iowa trying to cover new ground as she stakes her presidential hopes on the heartland. welcome our viewers in its united states and around the world. i'm brianna keeler, wolf blitzer is off today. you're in "the situation room." tonight democrats are ramping up demands for the impeachment trial pushing for new documents as well as witnesses. senate minority leader chuck schumer is seizing on the release of what he calls explosive emails that show ukraine aid was frozen only 90 minutes after the president's infamous call with the ukrainian president. mitch mcconnell is signaling there won't be any progress in negotiations until next year. i'll get reaction from congresswoman debbie dingle and our analysts are also standing by. first


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on