Return to Transcripts main page

Connect the World

Democrats Ramp Up Impeachment Inquiry; . Aired 10-11a ET

Aired September 29, 2019 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:28]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I said to the president and I'm saying to you --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

PELOSI: -- you've come into my wheelhouse now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: This hour the White House in crisis, as the Democrats ramp up their impeachment inquiry.

(YELLING)

Boris Johnson on the defensive, as the British Prime Minister meets his party faithful.

And a new report projects sea levels will rise much higher than anyone thought and sooner than you can imagine. We're going to take a look at

what that means for you, your home and your family.

Well, it's 6:00 pm in Abu Dhabi, 5:00 pm in Kyiv and 10:00 in the morning in D.C. I'm Becky Anderson and this is "Connect the World."

We begin with the latest on the scandal involving U.S. President Donald Trump that's done what no other controversy has done up until now.

Launch and impeachment inquiry, and that's only happened three other times in U.S. history, and this is the first involving a president's ties with a

foreign country. Now, this all stems from a whistleblower complaint, alleging President Trump tried to get Ukraine to interfere in the upcoming

2020 election. And that those efforts were subsequently covered up by the White House.

Well, Congress wasting no time with this investigation, the former U.S. envoy to Ukraine is set to appear before three different House Committees

this week. He's painted as key player in what is this whistleblower complaint and resigned in the wake of its release last week.

And the sources say the acting White House Chief of Staff is in trouble with his boss. We're told President Trump blames Mick Mulvaney for the

swift backlash from the release of the whistleblower's report. Though the White House Press Secretary pushing back, call it, quote, manufactured

palace intrigue.

Kristen Holmes is at the White House for us. CNN's Matthew Chance is in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv. Kristen, let me start with you.

Manufactured palace intrigue is certainly one of describing what's going on. Does the White House genuinely believe there is nothing to see here?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Becky, it obviously depends on who you ask. As you said, our sources did tell us that Mick Mulvaney was on

shaky ground, but the White House is saying he's not.

And I want to clarify something here, it's not so much just the backlash to the release of those transcripts, it's the lack of response to the

backlash. Keep this in mind, last weekend we were talking about the White House mulling over whether or not to release this transcript. That means

that they had days to prepare some sort of strategy, some sort of rapid response once that transcript actually came out. And they simply did not.

So, that is what we are hearing, that President Trump is upset about, is that lack of a rapid response. And this is causing a lot of tension

throughout the White House, not just about these transcripts, but overall, what is the White House strategy moving forward with this impeachment

inquiry, and I think that we saw a little bit of what that strategy might be on a poll (ph) tweet today.

This is from President Trump today. He said, we're going to win. He's talking about how they're going to target all of the Democrats who had

actually said that they would be in favor of impeachment, saying they're going to flip that district red. And we saw this all day yesterday. It

was complete tweet storm.

We saw videos of President Trump painting himself as a victim. He was blaming the Democrats, he was blaming the whistleblower, calling them out

on this, doing what he does, taking to social media and directly addressing the people, directly addressing his base. But, a lot of concern that this

is just not going to be enough of a strategy to move forward with something of this magnitude.

[10:05:00] Many were wondering if there was going to be some sort of war room set up for rapid response. President Trump said he heard rumbling --

excuse me -- President Trump did not say that. Sources say President Trump heard rumblings of this potential war room and grew angry, saying that he

didn't need help to put this all together here. He didn't need help with this situation, no outsiders needed to be involved. But again, this is a

huge situation.

And, I do want to mention one thing, we've reached out to Trump's personal attorney, and this is what he said about that potential war room. He

released a statement saying, there is no war room being established. This is not a war, it's a skirmish. I am confident that our existing legal team

will be in a position to respond appropriately to any developments. But, a lot of questions here, a lot of tension over whether or not it will be

enough to keep this all in house. Becky?

ANDERSON: Kristen's in D.C. Matthew is in Kyiv in Ukraine, where you have been now for some time. What is the view there?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Oh, well I mean, of course, the Ukrainians are watching this closely. We saw Volodymyr

Zelensky, the relatively newly elected president of the country, in the U.N., in New York earlier, looking distinctly uncomfortable in his face-to-

face, one-on-one meeting with President Trump.

I mean, look, the Ukrainians are absolutely mortified at the fact that they have been sucked into this quickly developing American political crisis,

which is very partisan, which is very divisive, and which is basically casting or forcing the Ukrainians to either sort of back President Trump or

back his Democratic rivals. They don't want that.

The number one nation security interest in Ukraine is making sure that they have cross party support in the United States for their actions. Remember,

they're fighting a conflict in the east of the country with Russian backed rebels.

They've got a very live diplomatic effort underway to try and resolve the situation with Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. And they do not want

to risk alienating either the current administration or the next administration.

Remember, it could be a Democratic presidency in 2020. It might even be Joe Biden that takes over. And so, they really feel they're stuck between

a rock and a hard place, and are trying desperately to walk the tight rope between those two sort of competing claims. Becky?

ANDERSON: Matthew is in Kyiv, and to you Kristen, thank you.

Well, the U.S. Democrats, they're moving forward with an impeachment investigation, but it took a while for one key player to get on board the

bandwagon, and that is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was cautious of launching this process. But, this past week she announced here support for

a formal inquiry. And now she is saying the process will move forward, regardless of political consequences.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: Look, I said the president and I'm saying to you --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

PELOSI: -- you've come into my wheelhouse now.

(LAUGHTER)

To tell you the truth, I've been very prayerful about this. I'm heartbroken about it. I would just have hoped that there would be

something exculpatory, something that would say, this is not what it seems to be, but that's not where we are right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Where we are right is what 14 months away from the 2020 elections, those aside, though Pelosi said she has a responsibility to

protect the Constitution. She also said the tide completely changed after the whistleblower complaint emerged.

Well, my next guest says this is a tipping point in the Trump presidency. Writes, and I quote, "After several months when Pelosi resisted taking this

step for fear of a political backlash, President Trump finally found a way to go too far." Julian Zelizer, a regular guest on this show, wrote that

just a few days ago. He's a political analyst for CNN, and he joins me now live from New York.

Red line or no red line, truth is, as you point out in that article, Julian, no one knows how this will turn out, right?

JULIAN ZELIZER, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We don't know how it will turn out, but what changed this week was that the Speaker of the House put

her formal word behind this impeachment process. She called it an impeachment process, and as you just showed, she laid out her support for

moving forward because of what the president has done.

That changes the equation in Congress, and that's why the next few months, while we don't know where this is going, will be dominated in many ways by

this inquiry.

ANDERSON: Bret Stevens, an opinion columnist with "The New York Times" suggest that Nancy Pelosi's timing may still not be in her favor. He

writes, Democrats may now find themselves in the curious position, trying to convince the country that Trump should be booted from office, to which

he was lawfully elected, for behavior that whatever might be said about it, was not unlawful. These, the words of Bret Stevens.

That will be a tough sell, he says. And the conceit of his argument, begin that Nancy Pelosi's ultimate haste may actually benefit Trump voters, who

don't like impeachment. So, the argument goes. It takes the decision about who is president out of the people's hands.

[10:10:10]

Your thoughts?

ZELIZER: Well, I don't think this is hast (ph). There's been pressure to start a process for a long time now. The story about Ukraine and the

President using his influence for political gain overseas is just the latest in many stories where we have seen very strong evidence about the

presidential abuse of power and the impeachment process is not about booting the president.

I think Stevens (ph) is wrong. I think what the impeachment process is the house taking a vote about whether the president has committed high crimes

and misdemeanors. And so while there's always a potential for back lash there's also a potential that framing the conversation in the next few

months about a president being politically corrupt and abusing his power wont work in his favor going into the election but democrats cant make

their decisions based on those predictions.

ANDERSON: Yes. Public opinion still divided in the US about the seriousness of the presidents actions, Julian. A new poll conducted by ABS

(ph) asked Americans exactly that and the results here show nearly two thirds of people polled believe President Trump encouraging the president

of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son is a very serious or somewhat serious problem.

The democrats of course would ultimately need the republicans to break rank with the president, wouldn't they? Do you believe there is a conservative

case for impeachment? (Inaudible) explain if you will.

ZELIZER: Sure. I don't think the case that's now being made against the president is a radical, left-wing case. One argument is that president

power should be restrained. This traditionally has been something conservatives at least talked about. Second is that national security

should be a paramount concern and that a president making decisions that go against national security interest or don't align with them is a very

serious problem as we're seeing in this Ukraine memo about the phone call.

And finally, law and order matters and President Trump has continued to trample over concerns and institutions that uphold law and order and so

it's very possible for democrats to make a case to republicans that this is your agenda, these are your concerns as well. But the bar is very high and

it will be hard for those concerns to trump partisan interest in the senate.

ANDERSON: Finally, CNN has learned the Ukraine phone call (ph) that set the impeachment inquiry in motion of course was not the only call that the

white house allegedly tried to keep secret. Sources say President Trump's conversations with Russia's Vladimir Putin and the Saudi crowned prince

were also subject to tighter than normal restrictions. We will hear - I'm pretty sure a lot more about this in the weeks to come. More grist for the

mill (ph) from democrats or something more?

ZELIZER: Well, one of the things you learn when you study the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon in 1974 is that once the

impeachment process starts, you don't know what else is going to be revealed and often information comes up that's more damning than where the

inquire originally starts and this treasure trove of documentation about these phone calls that the white house decided to store and keep out of

public view is very intriguing.

The Washington Post already had a story about Trump's comments toward the Russians about election interference and not caring about it in 2017 and I

suspect there's a lot more to come. So this is what should make the white house uneasy.

It's not simply the story we have but it's the way the investigation could unearth even more damaging information. Again, all about national security

and it looks like that might be the presidents great vulnerability.

ANDERSON: Well the response to all of this by the presidents own lawyer who is front and center in all of this named in the whistleblower account

one. Giuliani, of course, said and I quote, "I appeal to honest and fair minded democrats to realize that equal treatment under law is necessary for

domestic tranquility. We are all Americans. The differing treatment by media and law enforcement for Trump versus Biden's and Clinton's is a real

problem for all of us to solve".

Really Giuliani sees himself as part of the solution not the problem is seems.

[10:15:15]

ZELIZER: Yes, but I think that's a hard argument to make. He's right at the center of this investigation. He and the president, as the New York

Times recounted, were conducting basically secret diplomacy with Ukraine - if you want to call it diplomacy that's at the heart of this investigation.

There's only one president of the United States right no and so kind of bringing in Biden and Hillary Clinton I assume is who he is talking about

into this conversation really is just an effort to muddy the waters.

This investigations about one person. It is equal because we're talking about impeachment and there's only one office that the impeachment process

right now is looking at.

ANDERSON: Busy times ahead, Julian, always a please. Thank you for joining us, Julian Zelizer in the house.

ZELIZER: Thank you.

ANDERSON: Well this inquiry is only the start of what could be a long, complex, and of course very rare political process, but if you're already

feeling a little overwhelmed well here's our legal analysts, Danny Cevallos to talk you through what are some of the key points?

DANNY CEVALLOS, LEGAL ANALYST, CNN: What is presidential impeachment? Impeachment is a trial without a judge, jury, or prosecutor but instead

politicians accuse, prosecute, and stand in judgment of another politician. In impeachment proceedings, the house of representatives is the

investigator and the prosecutor. The senate is the judge and the jury.

It takes 67 votes to convict and only 34 to acquit. We've had exactly 2 impeachments, both of which resulted in acquittals. Andrew Johnson was

impeachment for actions that were really more political at the time than criminal. And of course President Clinton was the last president

impeachment.

He was charged with perjury and obstruction. When the senate impeaches and removes a judge they're just removing one persons appointed official. When

the senate impeaches and removes a president they're undoing the votes of millions. There's a lot of debate about what is an impeachable offense.

The constitution says treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.

In other parts of the constitution like the arrest clause, the framers (ph) list treason, felony, or breech of the peace. In the extradition clause

they list treason, felony, or any other crime. The framers knew what kind of language they were using. If they intended for the president to be

removed first any crime at all they would have put that in the text.

ANDERSON: Moving on and police in Hong Kong say protestors are posing a serious threat to safety. A short time ago we saw authorities charge on

demonstrators who swarmed the legislative complex in nearby neighborhoods.

In the past few hours we've seen protestors throw petrol bombs, vandalize train stations, and start fires. Will Ripley has more.

WILL RIPLEY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Here in Hong Kong riot police continue to move the front line through the heart of this city to

the area where protests began on Sunday, a very popular mall, the Sogo Mall, where protestors decided to gather despite the fact that their march

was not authorized by police making any public assembly illegal here in Hong Kong and leading to a very quick police response including the water

cannon right there that they've been using to fire the blue dye.

Let's get across the street here as we continue to kind of follow scenes that have been playing out - familiar scenes and yet very violent and very

disturbing for people in this city on this 17th consecutive weekend of protest and just two days before the anniversary - the 70th anniversary of

the foundation of the people's republic of China.

Tuesday, October 1st is a day where Hong Kong police have made clear any demonstrators are illegal but that has not stopped these protestors from

coming out here and promising to come out in larger numbers. This is some of the propaganda that they have all over the city.

These signs where they've turned the Chinese flag into the Nazi emblem. They are saying these marches are anti Chi-Nazi comparing the Chinese

government with Nazi Germany. That is the anger, that is the fear that is fueling this hard core group of demonstrators.

The younger people, the radical protestors in the words of city officials who continue to come out in much smaller numbers but they're armed with

petrol bombs, they're hurling bricks at officers and they are prepared for the tear gas and the water cannons, which inevitably come their way. And

really as we see this playing out weekend after weekend no end in sight here in Hong Kong. I'm Will Ripley, CNN.

ANDERSON: Well in the US, late night TV doing one of the things it does best, taking on political crisis (ph) in Washington ahead. See how

Saturday Night Live spoofed Donald Trump's impeachment woes.

[10:20:20]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEC BALDWIN, ACTOR: How do you handle a whistleblower?

BOWEN YANG, ACTOR: Oh, that's easy. You have a big ocean in your country?

BALDWIN: Yes.

YANG: OK, send whistleblower to the bottom of there.

BALDWIN: Oh, right. I wish my country was as cool as your country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(YELLING)

ANDERSON: (Inaudible) defiant Boris Johnson batting away several controversies. We're live in Manchester as his Party gathers amide the

Brexit crisis.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETA THUNBERG, SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: You all come to us young people for hope, how dare you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Well, a moment to remember, the climate crisis took center stage at the United Nations General Assembly. The world is listening, and other

leaders. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(YELLING)

ANDERSON: Angry reception for the British Prime Minister in Manchester. Hecklers shouting at Boris Johnson, calling him a liar and a cheat, when he

was arriving for his Conservative Party's annual conference. He is under fire on several fronts right now, facing a possible no-confidence vote as

early as this week. Something I think most of his supporters would say he would applaud.

The Prime Minister is also defending his language used in Parliament last week, that has sparked outrage and Mr. Johnson denying he did anything

wrong as conflict of interest claims continue to dog him.

Well, those allegations claim he had a relationship with an American businesswoman during the time he served as Mayor of London. "The Sunday

Times" reported that a company run by Jennifer Arcuri received tens of thousands of pounds in public funding when Johnson was mayor.

Here is what the Prime Minister told the BBC earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BORIS JOHNSON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: What I can tell you is that I am very, very proud of everything that we did in city hall to promote the

public interest --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you declare --

JOHNSON: -- and to promote the interest of London. And everything was done in accordance with the code that you have just --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you did declare the interest?

JOHNSON: -- and everything was done with full propriety.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, you did declare the interest, and you'll be able to say that when you're --

JOHNSON: No, I said that everything was done in accordance with full proprietary --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I asked a very specific question. You have to declare an interest. Did you declare it?

JOHNSON: There was no -- there was not interest to declare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON: Nina dos Santos is in Manchester, as the Tory Party gathers. She joins us live from inside the actual conference itself. Much like in

the U.S. at present (ph), this is a leader overshadowed by scandal, whose response to coin a British bard, this is all much ado about nothing, Nina?

NINA DOS SANTOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. It's going to be a really busy week and an interesting start to the Conservative Party

conference, given that second part of "The Sunday Times" investigation that you were referring to in your introduction there, Becky.

In the meantime, as you said, the greater London authority that had oversight over the mayor's office during Boris Johnson's two terms as the

Mayor of London, has now referred these allegations to the police.

So, potentially the police will have to look into whether or not they will launch an investigation and all of this continues to overshadow the

Conservative Party conference, but it is not the only thing that is overshadowing the Conservative Party conference. Here in Manchester, we

have protesters demanding to stop Brexit, that have convened outside the gates of this convention center.

[10:25:00] We've also got the issue of opposition parties trying to, as you mentioned, launch a no-confidence motion in the House of Commons in the

week to come. That potentially may not go forward it's look like, because they can't agree on who could be the Caretaker Prime Minister they would

all find minable (ph) thereafter.

And in the meantime, one of the logistical concerns the Conservative M.P.s have to contend with is that, after all the fury (ph) surrounding whether

or not Parliament was rightfully purogued, while recess now has not been granted for the Conservative Party, and that means that Parliament will

continue to sit during this three or four day conference.

It means that Ministers are going to have to go back and forth on the three hour train ride between Manchester and London. It also means that Prime

Minister's questions time may happen on Wednesday, which is when we're supposed to expect the final closing speech by Boris Johnson.

In the meantime thought, the message here in Manchester is very similar to the one of 2016 of the Leave campaign that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove

fronted it. As namely as you can see behind me, get Brexit done so that the country can focus on other domestic initiatives, save money for things

like the NHS and the first policy unveiled that we've had so far is, in fact, the Health Secretary announcing that he's going to be opening 40 new

hospitals. Becky?

ANDERSON: All right, like you said, this is going to be a busy week for the Conservatives. A very week for all Parliamentarians in the U.K.

It is the beginning of October in a couple of days and that means we are literally a month from Brexit day. Certainly, the deadline self-imposed by

the Prime Minister.

All right, we are covering remarkable political developments on both sides of the Atlantic aren't we?

Up next, from a hard no to a strong yes, meet one of the women playing a key role in leading the impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald

Trump.

[10:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON: Welcome back. You're watching "Connect the World." I'm Becky Anderson. It is half past six here in the UAE, this show coming to you

from our Middle East broadcasting hub.

Returning to our top story, the darkening cloud of impeachment gathering over the White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants to move,

quote, "expeditiously" with the inquiry.

In other developments, the Chairman of three House Committees have subpoenaed U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, of his failure to produce

documents related to Ukraine. Remember, Ukraine at the heart of all of this.

The former U.S. Special Envoy to that country also due to appear before three House Committees. Kurt Volker stepped down from his post on Friday.

Then there's a "Washington Post" report which says, back in 2017 President Trump told Russian officials he wasn't concerned about Kremlin interference

in the 2016 U.S. election.

Well, Elissa Slotkin is a U.S. House Democrat and former CIA Agent, who went from saying no to saying yes on impeachment. And on doing so, helped

change the dynamics in the House and start rewriting American history.

So, perhaps no surprise that she's part of the group known simply as the bad asses, and she joins us now, live, from Washington. Thank you for

joining us.

You've set the onus on the Trump Administration to disprove these claims. Doesn't that highlight this is a political and not a legal campaign?

REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): No, it's -- the onus is on the Administration to provide facts one way or another that either confirm or deny that very

basic idea.

And it think it's really important, with all the commentators and everything that's going to be -- everyone's going to be talking about this,

the basic idea and the reason why I came out this week along with seven of my national security colleagues, is that the President of the United

States, you know, the most powerful nation in the world, reached out to a very junior partner and asked for dirt on an American, on a political

opponent in a future American election.

That's it. And I -- for me, if we find that there's a deep link between withholding security assistance --

ANDERSON: Right.

SLOTKIN: -- beyond this dirt, that's another piece of it. But, that very basic idea which the president acknowledged and his lawyer certainly

acknowledged, are where I start from. And I think the onus is on the Administration to say, OK, if you weren't trying to leverage your position

for dirt on a political opponent, show us that.

ANDERSON: You rightly point out you were one of seven freshmen Democrats who wrote "The Washington Post" op-ed last week. This op-ed, just to

remind our viewers, coming out before the release of the transcript of the call with Ukraine, and certainly before the release of the whistleblower's

report.

Saying, quote, "We are not career politicians. We've devoted our lives to the service and security of our country. If these allegations are true, we

believe these actions represent an impeachable offense. We do not arrive at this conclusion lightly." And I -- just to avoid confusion here, and I

hope you don't feel like you're repeating yourself, how did you arrive at that decision?

SLOTKIN: Sure. So, most of us had been extremely reticent to support impeachment inquires. Since April when the Mueller Report came out, many,

many of my peers have been supporting it.

And I think one of the things that I felt very strongly about is that if we're going to take the countries through something like this, and it is a

huge deal to do this, then we really have to bring the country along with us.

We have to explain to the American public what's happening. We can't do it as insider Washington thing, it really needs to be clear, it needs to be

strategic and it needs to be efficient.

So, I was very judicious about it, but then when we started to learn about the Ukraine story, and again, when the president and the lawyer that

represents him said openly, talked about openly, that they did, indeed, reach out to the Ukrainian president and ask for dirt, that just felt

different.

Also, this is prospective, it's forward-looking, right? It's about 2020 and protecting American political elections in 2020, not retroactive,

looking backwards at what may or may not have happened in 2016.

So, for me, this was an oath of office thing. This is protect and defend the Constitution and I've taken that oath my entire career.

ANDERSON: You didn't need the whistleblower report, you didn't need the transcript. I appeal to honest and fair-minded Democrats to realize that,

quote, "equal treatment under law is necessary for domestic tranquility." Not my words, Rudy Giuliani's words, these in a tweet.

He is, of course, the U.S. President's lawyer. We are all Americans, a differing treatment by media and law enforcement for Trump versus Bidens

and Clintons is a real problem for all of us to solve.

He is the solution, he says, not the problem. Your thoughts?

SLOTKIN: Listen, I think that there's a lot of pounding the table going on right now by folks who are protecting the president. There's a lot of

pounding the table in general right now on TV. Nothing can do more than just getting the facts. Than just methodically and efficiently looking at

the facts and we can't -- we're not playing dodgeball here. We're not saying, well, look over here, look over here at this complaint. If there

are concerns about someone else, handle that through proper channels.

What I'm talking about is the President of the United States potentially violating his oath of office. I want that to be a strict project that we

work on and not get bogged down by all kinds of arrows being thrown at either side.

ANDERSON: OK. With that, we're going to leave it here. We thank you very much, indeed, for joining us. One of the bad asses.

Coming up, what would you do if you home was swallowed up by the sea. That is the threat facing a low-lying nation and it is a real threat. We speak

to the Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON: All right, connecting you to an issue that dominated the week that was. Not impeachment, not Brexit, the climate crisis. An issue that

will continue to dominate no matter who is in power.

The final of three special climate U.N. reports hit the spotlight this week, warning that our oceans are close to tipping point. You say you've

heard it all before, right? Well listen, you haven't.

For small island nations the climate crisis is not a threat, it is already here. Lois Young is the Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, and

over the summer she wrote in "The Financial Times" and I quote, "The time for climate denial and incremental action is not over. This is a crisis

that effects our security and we call on those blocking at the U.N. to step aside.

Well, she joins me now from New York. For new readers, as it were, break down this latest U.N. IPCC report. What does it mean for small island

states?

LOIS YOUNG, CHAIRPERSON OF ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES: Thank you for having me. The new report actually underscores what the 1918 -- 2018 IPCC

1.5 degree special report has said, which is that we if we do not limit global warming to below 1.5 degree Celsius by 2050, we are on a trajectory

to go beyond the 2.5 and to burn up the earth. What it means for small island is that we will loose our biodiversity. We are already loosing it.

[10:40:00]

We will have a sea-level rise, infusions of the sea into our fresh-water supplies, coastal degradation, complete loss of environmental diversity.

ANDERSON: According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, another center keeping an eye on stuff; a record 7 million people were

displaced in the first half of 2019 due to extreme weather. The U.N. warns 140 million could be displaced by 2050 because of the climate crisis.

People are losing their homes, their livelihoods, access to resources, forcing them to leave. The U.N.'s law -- refugee law established in '51

does not include any reference to climate or natural disasters. As your small island states face extinction, what is the status of a climate

refugee out of interest?

YOUNG: In actual fact, there is no such status as a climate refugee and in fact a couple of years ago there was a case that came before the

jurisdiction of one of the bigger states where someone petitioned the court to be found to be a climate refugee and that was denied. It's an actuality.

Take for example what happened in the Bahamas. Many people from Abaco and Grand Bahama actually went to the United States not as climate refugees

because there's no such status. I would dread to think that we would reach the point where we would have mass migration because of that, but it is a

possibility.

ANDERSON: All right. Yes. Everything is a possibility, isn't it at this point? It's been a joy having you on. I'm running out of time today but

we'll have you back; an extraordinarily important story. Do join us again and folks, do stay with us. This is our newly-expanded "Connect the

Worlds." Next hour, CNN sees the impacts on our oceans traveling pole to pole.

(WORLD SPORT)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]

END