Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Bien Warns Netanyahu; Michael Smerconish Talks about the Trump Trial. Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired May 10, 2024 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:31:24]
KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: Israel's prime minister dismissing President Biden's warning to withhold some weapons if Israel escalates its operation in Rafah. Benjamin Netanyahu says that if Israel has to stand alone, they will.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I've known Joe Biden for many years, 40 years and more. You know, we often had our agreements, but we've had our disagreements. We've been able to overcome them. I hope we can overcome them now. But we will do what we have to do to protect our country. And that means - protect our future. And that means we will defeat Hamas, including in Rafah. We have no other choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, in an exclusive interview with CNN earlier this week, Biden had acknowledged that some American weapons have killed civilians in Gaza, but he reiterated the U.S. is not walking away from Israel's security.
CNN's senior White House correspondent Kayla Tausche joins us now live from the White House to break down her reporting on what went into Biden's decision.
Kayla, good morning. It's always wonderful to see you.
KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
HUNT: What went into the president's decision to kind of lay this out in this interview because there has been a significant amount of fallout?
TAUSCHE: This has not been a knee-jerk decision for the president and his top aides, Kasie. This was essentially three months in the making with President Biden and his national security team discussing the potential foreign invasion of Rafah with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his counterparts for the last three months, with a U.S. urging alternatives to go after Hamas leadership that would not involve mass civilian casualties. The U.S. warning Israel privately that U.S. weapons would simply not be a part of any military campaign that would amount to a full-scale invasion, lead to mass casualties and would essentially attack this densely populated city in southern Gaza that has seen a million Palestinians seek refuge and has been a critical conduit for humanitarian aid, I should say.
But it was when the U.S. really didn't have clarity on how Netanyahu planned to recede. And then when the White House saw that the Israeli Defense Forces were establishing a presence around Rafah, choking off entry points, that they said, you know what, these warnings behind the scenes are not doing enough. And that's when President Biden and his team decided to go public in that interview with Erin Burnett earlier this week with those warnings that he had delivered privately to Netanyahu and his war cabinet for so many months in hours of calls, virtual meetings and some in-person meetings too.
To be sure, yesterday, NSC Spokesman John Kirby told reporters this. He said, "I can assure you the direct and forthright nature with which he expressed himself and his concerns in that interview with Erin Burnett is consistent with how he has expressed himself to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to Israeli officials."
But, Kasie, this public declaration comes ahead of a critical deadline for the U.S. to essentially certify whether Israel has violated or not the international laws that allow it to continue receiving some of this military aid. That deadline was Wednesday of this week. I'm told that that report is still expected to come in the next few days.
Meanwhile, CNN contributor and "Axios" reporter Barak Ravid reporting that Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in that report, will say that Israel remains in compliance with those laws and shall continue to qualify to receive military aid from the U.S.
Now, of course, that might make some Republicans placated who have criticized Biden this week after those comments, saying that Israel is a long standing ally, none of that aid should be conditioned.
[06:35:01]
But progressives, Kasie, have been urging the president for several weeks to use that report and specifically the billions of dollars in new military aid that Congress green-light just a few weeks ago as leverage over Netanyahu. The president hasn't appear to be willing to do that just yet, but we'll see what the content of that report shows, Kasie.
HUNT: Yes, some really difficult dynamics for the president there, especially with his Democratic allies in the Senate.
TAUSCHE: Yes.
HUNT: Kayla Tausche, always wonderful to have you on the show. Hope you come back soon. Thank you.
TAUSCHE: Thanks for having me. HUNT: All right, our panel's here.
And just as a reminder, this is what Biden said on CNN this week on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I made it clear that if they go into Rafah - they haven't gone into Rafah yet. If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah.
I've made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet, they're not going to get our support if, in fact, they go into these population centers. We're not walking away from Israel's security, we're walking away from Israel's ability to wage war in those areas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Meghan Hays, kind of take us, in your view, like behind the scenes at the White House here where you worked for so much time. This clearly was a difficult decision for the president to come to. But the politics are what they are. It's still a major deal for him to do this in public to Benjamin Netanyahu.
MEGHAN HAYS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Yes, I think he's probably also thinking, OK, so we give them these bombs and they go into Rafah. How does that actually accomplish a ceasefire, the return of the hostages, and how is that working towards a two-state solution and ultimately peace here? That is the ultimate goal. How is killing all these people going to reach that? So, how do we make sure that Israel can do to eradicate Hamas in a more precise way than killing - going into these major population centers.
HUNT: Mike.
MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Look, I fully believed that they have been discussing for months that they were going to stop shipment of these weapons. And I fully believe that they calculated the leak of the stoppage of these weapons. What I don't think the White House, and I think they may be spinning a little bit now, was expecting was the president to say that these bombs kill civilians. I mean he took a very logical, we are going to - were are going to put some pressure on Israel and Rafah - he took a very logical step there and he turned it into something that now we're all debating about, American bombs killing civilians. He gave ammunition to continue the metaphor to those in the Democratic Party who are pro- Palestinian, pro-Hamas, that want to see this U.S. intervention end. And I don't - I don't believe that that was something the White House calculated.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he - a question for you, and more curious than anything else, what would have been - put on your Democratic adviser hat. What - and I'm serious though, what -
DUBKE: Is that a tri-cornered hat? WILLIAMS: Oh, nice. Nice.
What would have been the way, in light of the images coming out of Gaza now, right, what would have been the way for the president to speak about munitions going to Israel?
DUBKE: Oh, I think the first two. I think -
WILLIAMS: Because I think they're undeniable - the (INAUDIBLE) are undeniable, right?
DUBKE: No, no, but I think if he stopped at the first two.
WILLIAMS: Yes. Uh-huh.
DUBKE: They talked about the weapons. He talked about the stoppage of the weapons. That we are - we are putting a serious pause. But he didn't need to take that next step to say American weapons have been used by Israel to kill civilians in our - in our intelligence.
WILLIAMS: Right.
DUBKE: I don't think he needed to take that next step. And I don't know really why he did it other than to appease that faction of the Democrats.
HAYS: I think he was just trying to make the point that our commitment to Israel is ironclad. And we had - we had fighter pilots up in the air shooting down missiles from Iran. Like, we have not - we are not leaving Israel left behind. And I think that that was his point there.
DUBKE: Well, the Jordanians also had fighter jets shooting down missiles from Iran.
HAYS: A hundred percent. But I think that - but he's being accused from members of Congress and other people saying that we've left Israel and we're just leaving them to defend themselves. That is 100 percent false.
WILLIAMS: The only reason why I ask that question is maybe even since Vietnam have we seen, as a country, this many images of the toll of war on - sort of on a daily basis. And I'm just curious as to, more than - and literally it's just a curiosity, what would be - given what people see every day, set aside the college protesters and all that, but what the images are, how do politicians talk about it? So, I don't know.
HUNT: Mark.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, I - just go back to what we talked about earlier. We are incredibly divided right now in this country on so many issues.
HUNT: Yes. PRESTON: And this is one of them. And Joe Biden felt the pressure that he had to come out and say, some of our weapons have killed civilians. And, by the way, who didn't already know that. Like, we all knew it. I mean -
DUBKE: But there's a very big difference between the White - between knowledge and the White House acknowledging it.
PRESTON: I know - I know -
DUBKE: There is a big difference in that.
HUNT: It is a very rare thing for the White House to do in the context of foreign relations for sure.
PRESTON: Yes, I don't - I don't disagree with you at all.
DUBKE: Yes.
HUNT: One, you mentioned the protests, which is, of course, a big part of why the president is in the position that he's in, and why he was pressed the way he was by our Erin Burnett.
The Israeli prime minister also weighed in on the protests in an interview with Dr. Phil overnight. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: What is happening on American campuses and American cities, you've got - first of all, you have a lot of ignorant people there whose, I'm sorry to say, who've - whose sense of history at best goes back to breakfast, not even then.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[06:40:13]
HUNT: Sense of history goes back to breakfast, not even then.
PRESTON: We have a lot of ignorant people. I mean, who is he trying to reach out to as well, you know? It's just - I mean clearly there is a bigger problem at hand between Israel and the United States when it comes to Netanyahu and Joe Biden actually being able to work together and getting something done.
HUNT: Well, so "The New Republic" put it this way, and let's acknowledge that "The New Republic" is coming at this from a critical perspective. They're criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu. But they do write, quote, "there is nothing new or unexpected about Benjamin Netanyahu's arrogance. When President Bill Clinton first met him at the White House in 1996, mere weeks after Netanyahu first took office as Israel's prime minister, he reportedly seethed to aides, quote, who the f does he think he is? Who's the f-ing superpower here?"
Elliot, I mean, this guy's - he's been on the international stage for this long. And this is, again, Bill Clinton, Benjamin Netanyahu's - this is decades and decades ago.
WILLIAMS: Yes, I mean, and the decades point is an important one. We almost forget how long - it's almost like the scene in "Dances with Wolves" where, you know, first name the Spaniards, then came the French. He has survived all of these - these American leaders. And it's really fascinating.
HUNT: Take a drink for the first "Dances with Wolves" reference on - on the set of -
WILLIAMS: Tatanka.
HUNT: CNN THIS MORNING.
PRESTON: Nice one.
HUNT: All right, coming up next here, why President Biden may not appear on the Ohio ballot in time for the November election.
Plus, Michael Smerconish is here, Smerconish Fridays, with his take on Donald Trump's hush money trial.
This was Jimmy Fallon on that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JIMMY FALLON": According to experts, if Trump goes to jail for violating his gag order, he will likely just be locked up for an hour or two behind the courtroom. In other words, Trump would be the first former president to be given a time-out.
And if that doesn't work, they're going to take away his iPad and no dessert for a week. (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:46:32]
HUNT: All right, 46 minutes past the hour. Here is your morning roundup.
A 23-year-old black Air Force member killed inside his own home by a Florida county deputy. Police on Thursday releasing body camera footage from the shooting of Senior Airman Roger Fortson and disputing the family's claim that deputies were at the wrong apartment. An investigation is ongoing.
New this morning, the names of confederate leaders, including Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, will be added back to two Virginia schools. This after the Shenandoah County School Board voted five to one to reverse a 2020 decision that removed those names.
New this morning, a health survey finds one in eight American adults have taken prescription weight loss drugs used to treat diabetes or heart disease. The drugs include Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound.
And right now, President Biden is not on the November ballot in Ohio. It's because he won't officially be nominated until after the state's filing deadline. Lawmakers had until yesterday to pass a new law to fix the issue, but the effort failed.
And independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in a recent podcast interview, apparently changed his stance on abortion. RFK now saying the government should not play any role in determining abortion access after previously saying he would be supportive of some bans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: States to determine if and when a woman can have an abortion?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. (I), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, I wouldn't leave it to the states.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wouldn't - right.
KENNEDY: No, I would - I - I -
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You would say completely it's up to the woman -
KENNEDY: You know what I believe is we should leave it to the woman. We shouldn't have government involved.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even if it's full term?
KENNEDY: Even if it's full term.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: OK.
All right, let's turn back now to this story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY FALLON, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JIMMY FALLON": Today's cross-examination was described as heated and intense, which coincidentally are the only two settings on Trump's tanning beds, headed and intense. I'm going to go for five minutes intense, please.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, after two days of, yes, heated and intense testimony from Stormy Daniels, we're now finding out that the other star witness in Trump's New York hush money trial, Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen, says that he expects to testify next week.
Here was Cohen yesterday talking about it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I'm kind of looking forward to it because, again, can be finished with something unless you start it, right? It's kind of like an entrepreneurial mindset. You can't be in it unless you're willing to get in it. And so, there we go. You know, the sooner this thing starts, the sooner this thing finishes. And that way I can - yes, this too shall pass.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Joining me now is Michael Smerconish. He is the host of CNN's "SMERCONISH." Also, CNN political commentator and our regular Friday guest.
Michael, wonderful to see you. Thanks for being here.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thank you. Good morning, Kasie.
HUNT: So, I honestly have been dying to know what you have thought of how this has all played out over the course of the last few days with Stormy Daniels on the stand and the details that have been brought in here, including the - Trump lawyer's decision to put her on cross- examination in a way that drag that out even more.
SMERCONISH: So, my belief is that the prosecution is doing a fine job. They've absolutely convinced me that there was sex. And I accept her version. I believe that he was wearing the silk pjs and that he was not wearing something else that was significant.
[06:50:04]
I also believe that he paid her so that the story would go away.
I'm less certain, Kasie, that they're establishing what they need relative to his motive. I mean, the evidence, from my standpoint, and I - damn it, I wish we had cameras in that courtroom -
HUNT: Don't we all.
SMERCONISH: But it's pretty thin as to whether the campaign was a substantial factor in his decision to make that payment as compared to protecting in his family. Michael Cohen may be able to shed some light in that regard. I mean I know there are going to be fireworks. Michael Cohen is a street fighter. I've been on his podcast on a number of occasions. He's sort of a quintessential New Yorker. And I mean that with affinity.
But if this is the reaction to the Stormy Daniels testimony, buckle up for next week, because, if that's when he testifies, and I don't know what else they have except Michael Cohen, I think it's going to be very, very significant. But let's not lose ourselves in the salacious. Let's stay focused on whether they are ticking all the boxes that they need to meet the motive burden. HUNT: Yes, I mean, what do you think that they need to do, Michael, to convince the jury that it was election-related? Because I will say, we are so far removed in time -
SMERCONISH: Oh, my God.
HUNT: From when this happened that I do see how it's possible to confuse it. But when you are, you know, and having covered these presidential campaigns, it is not possible to overstate that in the weeks - like - and these are the very weeks leading up to the presidential election. If you are a candidate for president, the only thing you are thinking about and doing is trying to win. These campaigns are all consuming for these people who are running them. And the idea that it would be disconnected from that is, frankly, implausible to me as a campaign reporter.
But that said, the jury has to be taken back to that period of time. And I'm not totally convinced they've been - they've been back there yet.
SMERCONISH: And what you've just laid out, I think, is the very plausible prosecution narrative. Like, you think it was a coincidence that it happened in the 11th hour of the campaign? The payment got made as the clock was about to strike 12.
The other response, though, is to say - the pushback on that is to say, well, that's when she came forward because the iron was hot after the "Access Hollywood" tape. In other words, it really wasn't - the timeline really wasn't established so much by the election, as it was the re-emergence by Stormy Daniels.
Something else that I want to say. I've heard so many observers, pundits on CNN and elsewhere saying that this was - you know, Donald Trump is an incorrigible client and that yesterday perhaps they went on to long with the cross-examination and that was at his behest no doubt. And I believe that. But I think there's more to it. And that is that Trump is playing to an audience beyond those 12 jurors. Thus far, none of this has hurt him. And it looks increasingly likely, because of what happened with Judge Aileen Cannon, because we're waiting on the Supreme Court relative to the January 6th case, it looks - and the Georgia Fulton County case is still, you know, slogging along because of the relationship between Nathan Wade and Fani Willis, it looks like this is the only one. And Trump, I think, is mindful of that. Rick Scott, the audio that you played, which is really interesting, is further proof of what I'm saying, that he's trying to convince the American electorate that this is all political. It is about the sex, as tawdry as it is, and it's very little about a campaign finance violation.
HUNT: Yes, it's interesting that you raise that. And let's just play a little bit of - because I - my sort of bigger picture question is the degree to which this is breaking through with Americans.
But this was Jon Stewart last night on media coverage, saturation coverage, shall we say, of this trial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": It has been another big week of wall-to-wall, non-stop, penis to penis coverage.
Ubiquitous coverage is numbing, fading into televised wallpaper, with insight that only occasionally crackles through, such as -
HUNT: He greeted her at his hotel room in satin or silk pajamas.
STEWART: Which? Both are smooth materials, but satin or - which? Which? I need to know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Our thanks to "The Daily Show" producers for being CNN THIS MORNING viewers
Michael, is it breaking through? Is - like, is this something Americans are actually talking about focusing on, or is it all just noise in an incredibly noisy political environment?
SMERCONISH: I assure you, to the extent there are still water coolers in offices and people still go to offices, this is what people are talking about.
I hear the same criticism that you just heard from Jon Stewart. I'll get telephone calls on the radio today, why are you talking about this again? How could I not be talking about this?
[06:55:02]
It's got all the elements, and it's a former president, and he's the Republican standard bearer.
Is it breaking through? I think people are interested. Whether they're having their minds changed because of this trial, I seriously doubt. I don't think it's moving the needle at all in that regard. People are seeing in it what they want to see in it.
HUNT: Yes. All right, Michael Smerconish, always grateful to have you on Fridays.
SMERCONISH: You too. Thank you.
HUNT: Thank you for being here. And to all of you watching, make sure to watch his show tomorrow morning on CNN at 9:00 a.m.
All right, the panel's back.
I'm interested to know what you guys think about the breaking through, changing minds, what this all - like, whether this all matters, how it matters.
Mark, you -
PRESTON: I mean, quickly, I think it matters. I think it only matters in a few states. I think we talk about this election in national terms because it's interesting and what have you. But the reality is, it's going to come down to a very small group of people. I think in this case that there could be some minds changed in some of these collar (ph) communities around these cities and, you know, states, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
HUNT: Yes. I mean -
WILLIAMS: I - no, I'd say - I agree with Michael that prosecutors have set up a, quote, very plausible narrative. But very plausible narratives aren't necessarily what's going to get you convicted and sent off to jail.
Now, the question is whether it's succeeding with voters. That's a totally different thing. And, you know, we're - you're absolutely correct, he's - he's not playing to the jury at this point. He's playing to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
HUNT: Well, and look, the reality might be that the only thing that really changes the game is a conviction, right?
DUBKE: Or - or an acquittal by a group of Manhattan liberals. I mean that's going to resonate across the country. If they - if - if Donald Trump can't even be convicted by Manhattanites, what - what does that say about all these other cases? It - it feeds into the argument that every - all of these cases are political. And in the one venue that they should be able to get Donald Trump, they can't, everything's political.
WILLIAMS: Yes. The one thing I'd say - the one thing I'd say in response to that, I think it's far more likely that the jury hangs than acquits him because an acquittal would have to be unanimous and I think getting -
DUBKE: I'm not sure there's a difference there for the American people.
WILLIAMS: Well, for the people - in people's minds, politically, absolutely not.
DUBKE: Yes.
WILLIAMS: I just mean - just to be careful in how we talk about it.
DUBKE: Yes.
WILLIAMS: It will probably be - if - who knows. But a jury -
HUNT: And we'll - wait, wait, hold on. My - for - my - the lawyerly question.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
HUNT: How will we understand the jury, like, in case, like, yes?
WILLIAMS: Oh, I'll tell you. Very easily. If it's an acquittal, its unanimous. If it's a hung jury, you'll know that some jurors would not change their votes.
HUNT: Will you know how many?
WILLIAMS: They might. I think the judge may poll the jury, but I don't know what - you know, what the rules for this court would be.
HUNT: OK. But you will know that at least one juror decided that they could not vote. And so it's just split.
The goal is unanimity either for a conviction or an acquittal, like for - for not guilty verdict. It's technically a mistrial if somebody hangs, but we'll see.
HUNT: Right. So, how often does that happen typically?
WILLIAMS: Well, hangs, you know -
HUNT: Especially in high-profile case?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think it - I think certainly it can happen. I believe John Edwards' case ended in a hung jury, I believe. And forgive me if I got that incorrect. But, no, it certainly can happen. And it's - it's really just a question of, how well did the folks picking the jury read the folks that they picked up front. And all the stuff about the judge urging them to find unanimity sometimes just doesn't work. I've had juries hang on me before.
HUNT: Yes. As we wrap up here, Meghan, I mean how is the Biden campaign looking at this? Because they are going to have to react one way or the other once we get a verdict in this case.
HAYS: I think that this goes to just their continued message of the contrast that it's drawing. I think all these details coming out, it's a - just drawing a contrast between him and President Biden. And I do think that is what's going to change some of these minds in these five or six states, as we talked about earlier. So it's like whether or not we convict or not convict him, I think that these details being out there will change some of these - these minds of these undecided voters.
HUNT: What do you think?
DUBKE: I think the opinions baked in at this point. I think - this is the interesting thing to me. We are watching a presidential campaign being run out of a courtroom for one candidate. And I would - I wanted to say out of a bunker, similar to the way Biden ran in 2020. He's going to said event, said event, and then supposedly always has another meeting to go to so he can't take questions from the media.
So, you've got bunker Biden, and courtroom Don to - you know, running in a presidential campaign. I don't think we've ever seen anything like this.
HAYS: Except he literally just did an interview two weeks ago. Here we are.
HUNT: Yes. Well, he did just speak with Erin Burnett also.
HAYS: Yes. So - that's what I'm saying, like he -
(CROSS TALK)
HUNT: (INAUDIBLE).
DUBKE: One - one - yes, he did. He did.
HAYS: Sorry. Sorry. Thank you.
HUNT: All good. All right, so, on this Friday, I do want to leave you with this. It's the end of an era for an absolute classic. Love it or hate it. General Motors announcing they are going to end production of the Chevy Malibu. Perhaps you've driven one. By November, the factory that builds the sedan is going to be reconfigured to make electric vehicles. The Malibu was introduced back in the 1960s and it - like, lets be real, it was not really about glitz and glamour, it was about getting from point a to point b. Unfortunately, we don't have a video from the 1970s. This is the modern Malibu.
[07:00:02]
Over the years, more than 10 million people have used them to get where they need it to go. But of course, you probably remember it, if you do, from Hollywood.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN TRAVOLTA, ACTOR: Come on, man, let's go get a steak.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can get a steak here, daddy-o. Don't be a -
TRAVOLTA: Oh, yes, after you kitty cat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The cherry red 1964 Malibu had a supporting role in "Pulp Fiction" and also appeared in hundreds of other movies and TV shows.
The 1973 Malibu Coop was Ryan Gosling's car of choice back in the 2011 movie "Drive." And in "Say Anything," a 1977 Malibu was right behind John Cusack's character in this incredibly iconic scene. GM ended production of the Malibu in 1983 and then they brought it back in 1997. Who knows? Maybe it's not gone for good.
Our thanks to our panel. Thanks to all of you for joining us. I'm Kasie Hunt.
"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.
