Return to Transcripts main page
Quest Means Business
U.S. Stocks Fall as President Trump Suggests Waiting Until After 2020 Election for China Trade Deal; Impeachment Report Accuses President Trump of "Misconduct"; Boris Johnson Hosts NATO Leaders Amid Election Battle. Aired 3-4p ET
Aired December 03, 2019 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MARVIN PENDARVIS (D-SC), STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I would tell them the issues like housing, the issues like healthcare, the issues like economic
prosperity that are the ones that people really need, the ones that make sure that our candidates --
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Representative?
PENDARVIS: Yes.
KEILAR: Okay, thank you so much for joining us. I know -- I'm afraid, I'm going to lose you here on the window momentarily. So we'll continue this
conversation. Representative, thank you so much for joining us and "The Lead" starts right now.
[15:00:27]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Good evening, and welcome to a very special edition of QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Zain Asher for you in New
York, where trade threats from President Trump have set markets into a downward slide.
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: And I'm Bianca Nobilo in London. While world leaders have gathered for the anniversary of NATO. And 70
years on, the Alliance looks more of than ever, and we'll get to that in a moment.
But first, we begin with breaking news from the Impeachment Inquiry. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have just released their
report laying out President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
The lawmakers accused the President of unprecedented stonewalling. They say that evidence of the President's misconduct is quite overwhelming.
However, the report does stop short of outright recommending impeachment.
The committee is expected to vote to approve the report later today. It will then be sent to the House Judiciary Committee and then serve as the
basis of the Articles of Impeachment.
Kaitlan Collins joins me now. Kaitlan, what are the key points that we've learned from the release of this report? And has it actually told us
anything that we didn't know already?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it has. But first, the big broad point they're making in this report is essentially that the
President put his political interest over the interest of the United States laying out in pretty good detail, trying to wrap this narrative around,
essentially laying out for people explaining what it is exactly the President did, the timeline and why that is so damaging and why they think
it could potentially merit his impeachment.
Now, if you read the fine print here, it doesn't explicitly recommend impeachment, but essentially, it says that is up to the members of the
House Judiciary Committee, who of course, is expected to draft the actual Articles of Impeachment based off of this report that they're looking at.
But there is one notable thing that we're looking at here, and that is a list of phone calls that we're learning about between the President's
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and including the house -- the Ranking Member, the Ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Devin
Nunes, who you saw played a key role in those hearings.
And of course, not only conversations between Rudy Giuliani, Devin Nunes, but also Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, those are the two Giuliani associates
that were indicted recently accused of violating campaign finance laws with contributions --
NOBILO: Kaitlan, thank you. We will come back to you in just a moment because we're hearing from Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): At the outset, I want to just thank the incredible members of all three committees, as well as our amazing staff
that did long hours of work through depositions, open hearings, and compiling all of the evidence into today's report.
It was an enormous task, and I want to begin by acknowledging the great work of the great and late colleague of mine, Elijah Cummings. We continue
to be inspired by his legacy and guided by thoughts of his integrity and the great moral clarity that he always showed in his work.
I also want to thank my colleagues, Chairman Engel, Chairwoman Maloney for their tremendous work as well.
This report chronicles the scheme by the President of the United States to coerce an ally, Ukraine - that is at war with an adversary, Russia, into
doing the President's political dirty work.
It involves a scheme in which Donald Trump withheld official acts, a White House meeting, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars of needed
military assistance, in order to compel that power to deliver two investigations that he believed would assist his reelection campaign -- as
its president, President Zelensky.
A meeting with the most important patron of Ukraine, the President of the United States, in the Oval Office carries enormous significance, both to
the people of Ukraine, but as equally important to Russia, that the United States has Ukraine's back in its conflict with a nation which invaded its
territory.
The military assistance is also absolutely essential. As President Zelensky goes into negotiations with Vladimir Putin, the fact that the
United States is providing substantial military assistance approved on a bipartisan basis by Congress is enormously important.
[15:05:07]
SCHIFF: The withholding of that aid, even for a period of time, sends a disastrous message to friend and foe alike that the United States does not
have the back of its ally.
So these were things that Ukraine desperately wanted and needed. At the same time, there was something President Trump desperately wanted and
believed that he needed, and that was an investigation that would damage the rival that he feared apparently the most, Joe Biden, as well as an
investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in our last election.
Now, that conspiracy theory, which is often summarized or characterized by the term CrowdStrike, that conspiracy theory is a Russian narrative. That
is a conspiracy theory put out, promulgated by Vladimir Putin to deflect attention away from Russia's interference in our own election, and to try
to drive a wedge between the United States and the nation of Ukraine.
So that's what the President wanted, these two sham investigations, one into Joe Biden, also debunked and discredited, that sham investigative
theory, but also into this idea that Ukraine interfered in our election, not Russia.
And he was willing to sacrifice the national security of the United States by withholding military aid and diplomatic recognition in the form of that
White House meeting in order to get what he wanted.
That scheme, however, was discovered, because, among other things, a courageous person stepped forward and blew the whistle, but also because
Congress announced that it would investigate the matter.
Once we began our investigation, and once it became clear to the President and to the White House that this was going to become public, the scheme was
going to become public, only then did the President of the United States release the military aid.
And as for that White House meeting that Ukraine so desperately sought, that has still not happened to this day.
Now, what does this mean for Americans? Why should they care about what the President did vis-a-vis Ukraine? Why should they care indeed about
Ukraine?
First of all, this is not about Ukraine. This is about our democracy. This is about our national security. This is about whether the American
people have a right to expect that the President of the United States is going to act in their interests, with their security in mind, and not for
some illicit personal or political reason.
So Americans should care deeply about whether the President of the United States is betraying their trust in him, betraying that oath that he took to
the Constitution to protect our country and defend its institutions. So, we should care about this. We must care about this.
And if we don't care about this, we can be darn well be sure the President will be back at it doing this all over again, because, indeed, he already
has.
First, there was the invitation to Russia to interfere in our last election. Hey, Russia, if you're listening, hack Hillary's e-mails. And,
indeed, later that day, they tried to do exactly that.
But then there was the use of this official power to compel another country, Ukraine, to interfere in the 2020 election. And even after, even
after our investigation began, even after the Impeachment Inquiry began, there was President Donald Trump out on the White House lawn once again
making it abundantly clear that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
And what's more, he wanted other countries to interfere in our election as well, and that China should also investigate the Bidens.
This is the result of a President who believes that he is beyond indictment, beyond impeachment, beyond any form of accountability and,
indeed, above the law. And that is a very dangerous thing for this country, to have an unethical President who believes they're above the law.
The question now is, what does Congress do about this? One of the other very important elements of our report today which goes beyond the
President's misconduct with Ukraine goes to the President's obstruction of the Congress, of a co-equal branch of government.
And I want to underscore also the seriousness of this misconduct, because the President informed every department for which we sought records, the
State Department, the Office of Management and Budget, which has the records about the withholding of the aid, the Defense Department, his own
White House personnel, to refuse to turn over a single document and answer to congressional subpoenas.
The President instructed witnesses not to appear. The President used his office and his bully pulpit to try to intimidate witnesses.
[15:10:07]
SCHIFF: If the Congress allows a President to so fully and blanketly obstruct the work of Congress, even involving an impeachment investigation
into the President's own misconduct, then we are begging for more of the same. We are signaling to any future President that they can engage in
whatever corruption, malfeasance or negligence, and they are beyond accountability.
And to my G.O.P. colleagues, they need to consider that when we have a Democratic President, are they willing to say, in answer to their
oversight, that a President may simply refuse?
Because, if they are, and if we do, it will mean that the balance of power between our branches of government will be fundamentally altered, and
altered for the worse. It will mean that future corruption, malfeasance, and incompetence will be far more likely than it is today.
The facts here are really not seriously contested. Indeed, the testimony of the witnesses was remarkably consistent. And you might be forgiven,
having watched the hearings and watched the reaction of the members of the two parties to the testimony of these witnesses, if you thought that there
were two different hearings going on at the same time.
This points out another danger that the Founding Fathers were all too aware of, and that is the danger of excessive factionalism. That is that a
political party may become so wedded to a President of their own party that they're unwilling to do their constitutional duty.
But I firmly believe that, if one party relinquishes its responsibilities to the Constitution and to their oath, it does not relieve us of our
obligation to the same.
And I hope that every Member of the House and the Senate, whether these proceedings go forward in the House or they don't, will keep in mind their
duty is to the Constitution, not to the person of the President.
That ought to be our guiding principle.
Finally, I think what's presented to us here is really so aptly summed up in what the President's own Chief of Staff had to say, when he informed the
country that, yes, indeed, they had withheld military aid to get this political investigation. He told us to get over it -- to get over it.
That is what the President does. We should just get over it. This is essentially what he was saying, that we need to just get used to the idea
of a corrupt President and get over it.
And so we will have to decide, given that the evidence of this misconduct is so clear and uncontested, are we prepared to just get over it? Are we
prepared to say that, henceforth, we must expect from this President and those who follow that there will be a certain amount of corruption in which
the national security of the country will be compromised, in which the oath of the office will mean that much less, in which the belief in the rule of
law in the United States will be that much less?
Is that what we're simply to get over or get used to?
Well, I, for one, don't think we should get over this. I don't think we should get used to this. I don't think that's what the founders of this
country had in mind. Indeed, I think that, when they prescribed a remedy, this kind of conduct by a President of the United States, putting his own
personal and political interests above the interests of the American people, was exactly why they prescribed a remedy as extraordinary as the
remedy of impeachment.
And so we have a very difficult decision ahead of us to make. And I have every confidence that the Judiciary Committee, in consultation with the
entire caucus and our leadership, will not only receive this report, as well as the reports of others, and make a proper determination about
whether Articles of Impeachment are warranted.
With that, I'm happy to respond to your questions.
QUESTION: When did you obtain the cell phone records that are in this report? And what did they tell you that you didn't learn otherwise from
the witnesses you interviewed?
SCHIFF: Well, I can't go into specifics of dates in which we obtained certain evidence, or indeed whether we obtained communications from one or
multiple parties.
[15:15:00]
SCHIFF: But, certainly, the phone records show that there was considerable coordination among the parties, including the White House, coordination in
the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch, which cleared the way for the three amigos to take over a significant part of Ukraine policy,
coordination in the execution of that policy, and that this was indeed a continuum that began even prior to the recall of the Ambassador.
Now, Garrett, your question gets to a very important point, which is, there is more investigative work to be done. One of the issues that we are
looking into is, did this scheme begin far earlier than we first understood?
Was the scheme, in fact, put in place to try to pressure the last President of Ukraine, Poroshenko, and his corrupt prosecutor general, Lutsenko, into
conducting these same investigations? And was that plan put into a turmoil and chaos when this new reformer, Zelensky, surged in the polling and
ultimately won that presidency?
That is something we continue to investigate. And that is something that these phone records also shed light on.
But even as we believe that we cannot wait because the President's efforts to secure intervention in the next election persist, we continue our
investigation, and we will.
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Mr. Schiff, just to be clear, it sure sounds like you support impeaching the President. Do you
support impeaching and then the Senate removing him from office?
SCHIFF: I'm going to reserve any kind of a public judgment on that until I have a chance to consult with my colleagues, with our leadership.
And I think this really needs to be a decision that we all make as a body. So, I'm going to continue to reserve judgment.
But I -- as you can tell, I am gravely concerned that, if we merely accept this, that we invite not only further corruption of our elections by this
President, but we also invite it of the next President.
So I am keenly aware of the significance of the precedent we set in whatever direction we move. And I'm also very strongly guided by the fact
that one of the seminal moments in this scheme took place the day after Bob Mueller testified.
The day after Donald Trump thought that the last investigation was over, he began the next significant step in a new course of misconduct.
Yes.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).
SCHIFF: Well, I'd say a couple things. First of all, as I mentioned, we continue to investigate whether this scheme began earlier than expected,
whether this scheme also involved the last President of Ukraine.
But, look, we have provided overwhelming evidence in this report of a scheme to pressure the current President of Ukraine to conduct these
political investigations. Will it move others if we're able to show that this was not the first time, this was the second time?
I think what we have produced in remarkable short order is so overwhelming that it ought to be presented to the Judiciary Committee now, without any
further delay. If we do uncover additional evidence -- and we do learn more every day -- we will feel free to file supplemental reports to the
Judiciary Committee. But there is, I think, grave risk to the country with waiting until we have every last fact, when we already know enough about
the President's misconduct to make a responsible judgment about whether we think that's compatible with the office of the presidency. Yes?
QUESTION: Do the phone records cast out on anything you heard from the witnesses or anything the President has said publicly?
SCHIFF: No, they don't, at least that I can identify at this moment. I think the phone records are remarkably consistent with the coordination of
a lot of this scheme.
Now, we obviously don't have complete phone records. And some of the phone records are deeply suggestive of who the parties were talking to,
particularly in the White House or the Office of Management and Budget.
But because of the President's effort to stonewall investigation, including not turn over their own phone records, not only to us, but to witnesses
like Sondland, who asked for them, we don't have all the answers.
But we do know this without any doubt. And that is, the President of the United States solicited foreign interference in our election and used the
power of his office, the power to convene a meeting in the Oval Office, the power to provide or withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to an
ally at war to get his political dirty work done.
[15:20:10]
SHCIFF: The only question is, how much more, how more extensive was the scheme, how many others may have been involved, what was the full knowledge
and participation of other parties?
And while we intend to get the answers to those questions and let the American people know the full facts, we do not intend to delay, when the
integrity of the next election is still at risk.
QUESTION: Last question, Mr. Chairman, your report mentions, cites call records involving Ranking Member Nunes. Did you speak to him or inquire
about those with his office? And do you believe he should recuse himself later today on this vote? Also, do you or your staff plan to present this
report to the Judiciary Committee in person?
SCHIFF: The rules adopted by the Judiciary Committee provide that our staff counsel will present the report to the committee. So that's what we
expect will take place.
In terms of the Ranking Member, it won't surprise you I'm going to reserve comment. It is, I think, deeply concerning that, at a time when the
President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were
Members of Congress complicit in that activity.
Now, there's a lot more to learn about that. And I don't want to state that that is an unequivocal fact. But the allegations are deeply
concerning. Our focus is on the President's conduct first and foremost.
It may be the role of others to evaluate the conduct of Members of Congress.
Thank you very much.
NOBILO: Let's go back to Kaitlan Collins. Now, Kaitlan, are you with me from London?
COLLINS: Yes, so right when Adam Schiff started speaking there, Bianca, we were talking about something we learned when this report was published. And
that was about those phone calls that involved Devin Nunes, who is the Ranking Republican, essentially, Adam Schiff's counterpart on the House
Intelligence Committee -- calls that he had with Rudy Giuliani and with Lev Parnas that former associate of Giuliani's that was recently indicted on
violating those campaign finance charges, but also calls that were then made on the same days from Rudy Giuliani to staffers at the Budget Office
and the administration and the White House.
Now, we don't know who they spoke with at O.M.B., the Budget Office and we don't know who Rudy Giuliani spoke with the White House. But this is
really interesting, because these are phone records that clearly and while we don't know how and Adam Schiff wouldn't say how they got them, it does
reveal that they've have had a little bit more information on some communications that are happening behind the scenes that we did not know
about until this report came out today.
Now Schiff would not go into detail of how many parties got that and whether or not they had to subpoena or these were willingly given to the
House Intelligence Committee, but it does raise questions about what else they know about, essentially, who all was involved in this. And what the
Democrats are laying out in this report is they're saying everyone was involved in this, and there was a very coordinated effort that was directed
by the President.
Now, we've seen a statement from the White House tonight dismissing this, saying it's once again a one-sided process, meaning that Democrats are
leaving Republicans out of this, but that's the only reaction we've gotten from the White House so far.
And it will be really interesting to see how it is they respond to these phone records they got of the President's personal attorney.
NOBILO: Kaitlan Collins in London. Thank you very much. Michael Zeldin is a CNN legal analyst and he also served as Robert Mueller's Special
Assistant at the U.S. Department of Justice, and he joins me now.
Michael, I presume that you were listening to Adam Schiff's remarks just then. And even though the report is a copious document, it's huge. From
what you've heard so far, and from your knowledge of the Impeachment Inquiry as it stands, what do you think of the strongest arguments that
have been presented here?
MICHAEL ZELDIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So they are presenting two separate arguments. The first argument is that the President of the United States,
going back perhaps as early as April, was involved in a scheme to pressure the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation on his political rival, full
stop.
In addition, perhaps, there is evidence that that meeting -- that investigation of the Bidens would not take place unless there was a quid
pro quo, meaning no military aid without the investigation.
So there's two parts of this abuse of authority inquiry, one is just a flat out asking for the investigation and the other one is holding that military
aid and a White House meeting up until that investigation was completed. So that is part one.
Part two is the President's demand that nobody in the Executive Branch cooperate with the House in the any way, shape or form. So, if these
become Articles of Impeachment, you'll have one which will be high crimes and misdemeanors, abuse of office requesting the investigation of a
political rival and withholding military aid in a White House meeting in exchange for that investigation.
[15:25:16]
ZELDIN: And two, obstruction of Congress by stonewalling witnesses and document that have been subpoenaed to go over to the committee. So two
very important allegations in this report, both excruciatingly well detailed.
NOBILO: And Michael, when Adam Schiff was speaking, he is obviously trying to take the report and all of the details of it and try and make it
intelligible and a persuasive argument for the American people because having popular support is obviously key here as far as the Democrats are
concerned.
One of the main arguments that he was making was that to not proceed, given the evidence that they have amassed would be corrosive for American
democracy, that it would in perpetuity upset the balance of power in the United States. Do you think that that is a particularly cogent and
persuasive argument given the others?
ZELDIN: Well, it is for constitutional lawyers and people who have a historical view of the Office of the President. Schiff is essentially
saying it would be an abdication of our responsibilities if in the face of this behavior, we did not move forward with sanctioning that behavior.
That is what the framers of the Constitution explicitly expected of us these many years later.
And so he says, essentially, we may suffer political consequences. There may be blowback in the 2020 elections, who knows? But we have a more
important role here as congressional leaders and that is to make sure that the integrity of the system as created by the founders of the country is
upheld. That's an important message.
We'll see whether it resonates I think, probably for America, the allegations of abuse of office and stonewalling will resonate more if
anything will resonate rather than the historical view of the role of Congress in this, you know, sort of setup that we have of co-equal branches
of government.
NOBILO: Indeed, Michael Zeldin, in Washington. Thank you very much for joining us.
ZELDIN: Thank you very much.
NOBILO: So, we've just been hearing from our legal analyst to wrap up some of those remarks made by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
We will have plenty more news for you as well after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:30:00]
ZAIN ASHER, HOST, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: Welcome back, I'm Zain Asher. Investors have largely shrugged off the impeachment proceedings in
Washington where a resident's comments on trade are soundly spooking investors. In particular, the president's warning that a trade deal with
China may have to wait until after next year's presidential election. I want you to listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By the way, I'm doing very well on a deal with China, if I want to make it, if I want to make it, it's
not if they want to make it, it's if I want to make it. But they're going to find out pretty soon, we'll surprise everybody.
In some ways, I like the idea of waiting until after the election for the China deal. But they want to make a deal now, we'll see whether or not the
deal is going to be right, it's got to be right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: So, you heard the president there, it could be until November 2020 before a deal with China is reached. This chart you see on your screen
right now shows what happened next. A 450-point drop for the Dow, we are well off the lows of the day, but still down around 1 percent with less
than an hour to trade. Energy, financial, industrial shocks are the worst affected. We'll be back in just a moment after the short break, don't go
away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN HOST: Welcome back, I'm Bianca Nobilo in London.
ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher in New York. We'll have more QUEST MEANS BUSINESS in just a moment. Before that though, these are the headlines
we're following for you at this hour. In Washington, House Democrats are saying there's overwhelming evidence of President Trump's misconduct and
obstruction of Congress.
The House Intelligence Committee just released a report that lays the groundwork for the ongoing impeachment proceedings. The report says the
president's behavior with Ukraine compromised national security.
[15:35:00]
And French President Emmanuel Macron says that he's standing by his recent comments about NATO despite an outspoken attack from his U.S. counterpart.
Last month, Macron described NATO as suffering from brain death in part due to a lack of U.S. leadership. Donald Trump responded earlier, calling
those remarks nasty and insulting.
All eyes are on 10 Downing Street this hour as leaders from some of the world's most powerful nations converge on the Prime Minister's residence
for the NATO meetings. The gathering comes at a precarious time for Boris Johnson, he's battling to keep his job. And if he does, he'll try to push
through his deal on Brexit.
U.S. Senator Kamala Harris has suspended her campaign to be the Democratic nominee for president. Harris was among the leaders in the polls early in
the Summer after a strong showing at the first Democratic debate. But she has sank in the polls and in fundraising in recent months as well.
And 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the now iconic climate activist has arrived in Europe by sea. She's there for the U.N. Climate Conference known as the
COP 25 which is under way in Madrid. It is the last gathering before 2020 when the Paris Agreement goes into effect. Some 25,000 people from 200
countries around the world are expected to attend.
It has been a dramatic day for Donald Trump. We've just heard Adam Schiff accuse him of obstruction in the Democrats' impeachment report. This comes
as the president joins world leaders gathering to mark the 70th anniversary of NATO. The alliance meant to combat communist external threats, is
instead being defined by fierce in-fighting. Ian Bremmer is the president of the Eurasia Group, he joins us live now.
So, you listened to that presser with Adam Schiff; the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he talked about the various sham
investigations. He talked about the president trying to get Ukraine to do his political dirty work. Accusations of obstruction of justice. He said
that if we do not -- if American citizens do not sanction that kind of behavior, there will indeed be dire consequences. What are your thoughts
on that?
IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROUP: Well, it's not up to American citizens to sanction, it is up to the House of Representatives first, and
then the Senate, and the Democrats are going to sanction it, and the Republicans are not.
ASHER: But independent voters punishing the Republicans in the polls, though?
BREMMER: Well, we'll see, we'll see what happens. That has a lot more to do with the nomination. Impeachment is clearly going to play. It is
bringing the Democrats together in that regard if they end up with a strong progressive as the nominee, I think it will matter a little bit less
because people are so angry about Trump, so expect turnout to be higher.
But you know, you also have in every single swing state, unemployment is lower today, you know, was when Trump was elected. People care a lot about
the economy, and most Republicans you talked to, say they haven't learned very much new over the course of the last two weeks of public hearings.
So, I mean, frankly, there was a little bit of wobbling in the Senate at the beginning, maybe, they'd be a censure when they thought there were
other shoes that were going to drop. So far, what we've learned is a hell of a lot of proof that really plays out what we heard in that original
transcript, redacted transcript from the phone call between Trump and Zelensky. We haven't heard anything particularly broader than that. And
so, as a consequence, I don't think it's going much further.
ASHER: OK, let's talk about NATO, obviously the summit --
BREMMER: Yes --
ASHER: Is under way in London. Now, the alliance has had to have changed, adapt to a changing global environment. Obviously --
BREMMER: Yes --
ASHER: The world is very different now than it was in 1949 when the alliance first started. Just walk us through the various threats that NATO
is having to contend with, particularly threat from China.
BREMMER: Yes, well, I mean, China certainly is the biggest concern for the United States strategically out there, economically, technologically, and
increasingly militarily. Certainly, when you talk about the Asian theater. But a lot of Europeans don't feel that way, right?
When certainly the Turks don't, they feel differently on the Russians as well. The issue is not that NATO is broken as an alliance, we're spending
more, there are more troops actually, the --
ASHER: Militarily, they're actually very strong right now.
BREMMER: They are, but --
ASHER: Right --
BREMMER: Politically --
ASHER: It's the political in-fighting --
BREMMER: Not just in-fighting, it's that the world is shifting. You know, when you create institutions, those institutions are strong, but they don't
move very quickly. But the balance of power in the world changes dramatically. The Soviet Union's collapse, China has risen. Those things
are extraordinary, but NATO hasn't changed one iota.
So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that NATO at 70 is starting to show some stretch marks, right? And that's the problem that we have right now, and
that would be true even if Macron didn't think he could score points at home by beating up on Trump who is incredibly unpopular in France, playing
out on trade right now, too.
It's even true if we hadn't elected Trump who doesn't care very much about U.S. multilateral relations.
[15:40:00]
ASHER: So, one topic that there's a lot of contention between Emmanuel Macron and President Trump is --
BREMMER: Yes --
ASHER: Of course, the issue of trade. There have been retaliatory back- and-forth with France's digital tax on American companies. President Donald Trump announcing that he was going to retaliate -- what is the
smartest way -- I mean, Bruno Le Maire commented on this today --
BREMMER: Yes --
ASHER: What is the smartest way for France or rather the EU more broadly to handle this?
BREMMER: Well, number one, Trump is right, the Europeans don't have these tech companies. So, the consequences, it's very easy and politically
popular from the go after technology, big tech, big data like all the traffic in Paris. We had a lot of traffic because of the Amazon deliveries
in New York City. But that's our company.
ASHER: Right --
BREMMER: So, we're not going to hit them. Easy to do that. I also mentioned that Trump is very unpopular, particularly in France, easy for
Macron to hit him. They assume that Trump is going to be very constrained because he focuses on the stock market very closely. Today, he says he
doesn't watch the market, that's clearly not true.
ASHER: Don't you know?
BREMMER: And the elections are coming up. But the markets are doing very well, Trump knows that, you know that, I know that. And so, he has a
little bit more flexibility. This week, he talked about the Chinese, a little tougher, said maybe we won't get a deal until after elections.
Markets dives on that.
ASHER: Right, actually, you're looking at the Dow right now down 300 points --
BREMMER: That's where --
ASHER: Is all of the --
BREMMER: On that --
ASHER: Twenty-twenty, November 2020 comments that we won't get a trade deal until then.
BREMMER: And we've got Argentina, and we've got Brazil --
ASHER: And Brazil --
BREMMER: With steel and aluminum, and now --
ASHER: Right --
BREMMER: You're talking about zut alors hitting the French on handbags and champagne, right?
ASHER: Right --
BREMMER: So, I mean, look, I don't think that all of these are going to amount to another round of serious tariff expansion. But clearly, Trump is
feeling like he has the ability to lean in a bit after over the last few months. Everyone said this guy has to get a deal or otherwise this
president, he sunk. He's not feeling that way right now.
ASHER: Right, Ian Bremmer, always good to have you, thank you so much. As Prime Minister Boris Johnson hosts President Trump for a NATO reception,
but as we'll hear, the U.S. leader is saying he will not -- he will not get involved in the U.K. elections. That story, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right, welcome back everybody. Let's turn to the markets and trade. President Donald Trump, the self-described tariff man is on tour in
London and sending messages to his trade partners all around the world. Firstly, to Brazil, and to Argentina as well. A surprise message that he
is re-introducing tariffs on metals on specifically aluminum and steel.
[15:45:00]
That's a new front in the trade war. Then another message, here we have -- to France, tariffs on goods including cheese, including champagne and
cosmetics, that's a retaliation, that's pay-back for a French tax on American tech companies. And today, the president sent a more conciliatory
message, saying that he believes the U.S. and France can work together to work out some of their differences.
Finally a message, to China, investors read that with alarm. The president says a trade deal may need to wait until November 2020, until after next
year's presidential election. Now this, this red you see on your screen here was the result. A sharp fall in the Dow, where are we now? We're down
300 points or so, massive spike in volatility as well.
We are off the lows of the day, that's still down more than 1 percent with about 15, 20 minutes or so to go until the end of trading. Energy,
financial and industrial stocks are the worst affected. OK, so joining me now is David Lynch; he is "The Washington Post" global economic
correspondent.
So, David, thank you so much for being with us. Just walk us through, I guess, the economic consequences of all the different trade war fronts that
the president has opened with all these countries around the world. At the same time, how might this backfire on the U.S. and on the president
politically, do you think?
DAVID LYNCH, GLOBAL ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, the interesting thing is that the direct economic effect of the trade wars, the
various trade wars is actually pretty muted. It hasn't been that consequential. But the indirect effect in terms of all the uncertainty
that's been created by the way the president has prosecuted his various trade offensives, has had a big effect on the U.S. economy and the global
economy.
Because businesses just frankly don't know what's coming next, and as a consequence, they're afraid to invest if they might find out that the money
they've committed to a market is suddenly going to be hit with new U.S. tariffs.
ASHER: I mean, how do investors handle that? How do investors handle that we are at any given moment just one tweet away from an abysmal blood-bath
in the markets?
LYNCH: Well, it's been a little bit of a bipolar response I think. The president's various comments which can change frankly from day-to-day in
terms of how much optimism or pessimism he expresses -- for instance, about the talks with China, have caused a great deal of volatility in the market.
As you noted earlier, the market fell some 400 points or more earlier today after he indicated something he said before, frankly.
Which is that maybe he would want to wait until after the 2020 election to consummate the deal with China. I'm frankly surprised at how seriously
investors seem to take some of these statements since they do change so frequently.
ASHER: And just in terms of what he said about China perhaps waiting until the end -- I mean, it sort of -- it was a sort of non-answer, it was really
kind of like maybe, I'll wait until November 2020, maybe not. Is that just a negotiating strategy, just to sort of really kind of force the Chinese to
really come to the table, or should investors actually be taking it very seriously?
LYNCH: I'm afraid it's a little of both. The president I think views these negotiations as ones in which the U.S. has the leverage. He sees the
size of the U.S. market, and the relative outperformance of the U.S. economy in recent years as giving him a strong hand to play. He talks
quite frequently about the economic problems that Chinese President Xi Jinping confronts.
And so, I think he genuinely does feel that he has a strong hand to play. At the same time, he's already come out publicly, now almost two months
ago, and announced sitting in the Oval Office that he had an agreement in principle with China. So, it would be something of an embarrassment I
think if he was not able to consummate that phase 1 deal sometime soon.
ASHER: All right, David Lynch live for us, thank you so much. Coming up, after a tense day meeting with NATO allies, President Trump was in
Westminster for a reception hosted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. And a meeting with the queen as well, that story, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:50:00]
NOBILO: Welcome back. We're looking at live pictures now of outside Number 10 Downing Street, that is the president's vehicle I believe, the
Beast, which I've seen up-close before is indeed beastly. We'll keep you posted on that as world leaders gathered there this afternoon for a
reception and let's just take a look and see who is coming out here.
Yes, it is the first lady, Melania Trump and President Donald Trump. They've just been hosted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson earlier this
evening at his residence. And we understand, there he is being heckled by some of the British press in traditional style, obviously following an
afternoon, even more developments from across the pond in terms of the report being released into the impeachment inquiry.
He'll now be going off to his dinner. And we will speak to one of our correspondents in a moment to get a better sense of what his day has been
like, and what the evening holds. So earlier, President Trump arrived with his wife, Melania, which you saw there, the two of them leaving Downing
Street and President Macron.
Earlier today, Mr. Trump was at Buckingham Palace for a reception hosted by the queen after a day of tense meetings with NATO allies. Max Foster is in
London and has been watching all of this unfold. Max, what moments from today really stand out to you?
MAX FOSTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this sort of roller-coaster rise in the relationship of Macron and Trump I think probably stands out the most.
There's this big moment when they had their bilateral because of course, Macron had spoken out really against America and its relationship with
NATO. The way that America pulled troops in Northern Syria, that allowed Turkish troops to go in, all outside NATO, leaving NATO brain-dead in his
words.
And then Donald Trump didn't like that sort of language and was quite insulting back to Macron about it. And it looked like a pretty tense
bilateral meeting. Then as you say, Donald Trump gives a ride to Macron in the Beast to Downing Street and the reception there.
So, they appear to be great mates again. So, that was quite interesting. But there's a fundamental question that they're really grappling with here
which comes out of the bilateral. And that's what Donald Trump is saying, fundamentally, NATO probably is OK, and these are funding switch. But
Macron is saying, he needs a fundamental rethink.
An independent group of experts should come in and really ask what NATO is for, what it's doing and what its relationship with Russia should be for
example. So, some quite big questions going into the main NATO debate tomorrow. And as you know, Bianca, they got rid of the idea that this is a
summit because there won't be a communique at the end of it.
Because they don't think their leaders will be able to agree on one, which probably says more about the 70th anniversary meeting than anything else.
[15:55:00]
NOBILO: It does indeed. Max Foster outside Buckingham Palace for us in London, thank you very much. It does seem that today has been marked by
President Donald Trump focusing more on the financial contributions, and Macron -- President Emmanuel Macron focusing more on the strategic
direction of NATO. Well, that is it from me here in London for this hour, at least. Zain will have the final market numbers from Wall Street right
after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right, welcome back everyone. There's just 2 minutes left to trade here on Wall Street. Let's take a look and see how the Dow is doing,
we are down 260 points or so, we have been pretty much in the red. Ever since the start of trading this morning after President Donald Trump's
comments, that the U.S. and China trade deal might indeed be put off until after the U.S. election until November 2020, November next year.
That certainly spooked investors dramatically, stocks have been in the red as I mentioned pretty much all day. It's been very difficult for investors
knowing how to invest, how to plan their financial strategy, given that we are at any given moment one tweet away or one announcement away from pure
chaos on the markets.
A lot of people are saying that this is quite simply a negotiating strategy. A way that Donald Trump is trying to get China to come to the
table. A sort of stick approach with China. Let's take a look at the Dow components more specifically, you see energy, financial and industrial
stocks are the worst affected.
Companies who are sensitive to trade are suffering, Intel, Dow Chemical, Caterpillar and Apple are near the bottom of the board. And that is QUEST
MEANS BUSINESS, I am Zain Asher in New York, the news continues here on CNN.
END
