Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
U.S. Embassy In Kyiv Closed Over Potential Attack; Today: House Ethics Panel Meets To Disclose Gaetz Report; Trump Taps Wrestling Executive To Head Education Department; U.S. Envoy Aims To Secure Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire Deal; Biden Approves Anti-Personnel Mines For Ukraine; Man Sentenced In Murder Of A 22-Year-Old Nursing Student; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired November 20, 2024 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:25]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Bracing for impact. Threats of Russian attacks lead to the U.S. shuttering the doors of its embassy in Ukraine.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: ONE WORLD starts right now. Access granted. Joe Biden approves new weapons for the war in Ukraine. It's his second
major policy shift this week.
ASHER: Also ahead, we could know the details of an ethics report into the alleged sexual misconduct and illicit drug use of Donald Trump's pick for
attorney general.
GOLODRYGA: Plus, swift justice in the murder trial of the student killed while out for a jog at the University of Georgia.
ASHER: All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching ONE WORLD.
And we begin with a stark reflection of what many political observers call an escalating war. The U.S. embassy in Kyiv is shutting today, saying that
it received information about a potential air attack.
The embassy has told its staff to shelter where they are. And it's not alone. The Greek and Spanish embassies in the Ukrainian capital have also
closed for security reasons.
ASHER: This comes as the U.S. defense secretary confirms the Biden White House is sending anti-personnel mines to help defend Eastern Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LLOYD AUSTIN, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: We provided them anti-tank mines from the very beginning. And because of the way the fight has evolved, this is
just another stage here. But again, our focus is to help them, is to meet their needs. And they've asked for these. And so I think it's a good idea
to provide them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: And just a few days ago, the U.S. gave key permission to launch longer-range American missiles similar to these at targets inside Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has since updated his military's nuclear doctrine.
But the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.N. says he has no time for Moscow's fresh round of nuclear saber-rattling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERGIY KYSLYTSYA, UKRAINIAN AMBSADDOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Our position is very strong. We have to make the Russians sit down at the table of
negotiations and the only way to do it is by strengths.
I don't believe that anyone in the Russian leadership is brave enough to commit a suicide. People are very weak in Russia.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Let's get the view from the Pentagon with CNN's Oren Liebermann. Oren, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said one of the reasons behind the
green lighting now, the anti-personnel mines, was what he said was Russia's increased reliance on foot soldiers leading their assaults as opposed to
military tanks. What more are we learning about this decision?
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: This is how Russia has continued to fight this war, and that's what makes anti-personnel mines
potentially very valuable to the Ukrainians.
Russia has effectively thrown massive numbers of forces at Ukrainian defensive lines. Even if those lines are well established, strong, and have
the right capabilities, they eventually have fallen in certain places or given way in front of these essentially brute numbers assaults, assaults
that might potentially now include, at least in the Kursk Region of Russia, North Korean soldiers.
It is because of that reliance on effectively throwing bodies at defensive lines to wear them down that the U.S., at least in part, made the decision
to send these anti-personnel mines.
It's worth noting that it's a fairly major policy reversal coming from the Biden administration, which years ago in 2022 had stated that it wouldn't
sell, produce, store or export anti-personnel mines with the notable exception of the Korean Peninsula and South Korea there.
So this, a major policy reversal there. The U.S. saying they will send anti-personnel mines. The concern is, of course, that these can be
indiscriminate in who they target and who they kill and they can last long after the conflict in which they are used has ended.
The U.S. has tried to mitigate that to some extent, saying that these are what are called non-persistent anti-personnel mines, meaning essentially
they need a battery and the charge that can blow them up and trigger them doesn't last forever. It's designed to last from a period of hours to a
couple of weeks.
So the U.S. is trying to mitigate the risk of allowing and encouraging the use of anti-personnel mines here. It is worth noting we have seen Russia
use anti-tank and anti-personnel mines since the very beginning of this war.
In fact, about a year ago, a Ukrainian officer told CNN that the density of Russian anti-personnel, anti-tank mines was insane.
So the U.S. trying to essentially help Ukraine hold its own lines here and be able to fight back against these Russian waves of numbers of assaults
here, and that is what led to this decision. Another fairly significant decision here coming within days.
[12:05:14]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and just days after President Biden greenlit the use of ATACMS as well inside of Russia. Oren Liebermann, thank you.
ASHER: All right. There are two significant events happening right now regarding Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump's highly controversial pick to be
attorney general.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. In just one hour, the House Ethics Committee will meet to discuss what to do with their report on Gaetz. There is growing pressure
for them to release the report to the public.
Now it looks into allegations of drug use and sexual misconduct by Gaetz, as well as whether he received improper gifts.
ASHER: Separately, Gaetz himself is on Capitol Hill today to meet with Republican senators who will have to vote on his confirmation. He's being
escorted by Trump's VP, J.D. Vance.
Vance seemed to be addressing skeptical Republicans in a social media post this morning, when he said Trump deserves a cabinet that is loyal to the
president's agenda.
Let's go straight to CNN's Annie Grayer, who's on Capitol Hill with the latest. So, Annie, in terms of what we know right now, the Ethics Committee
is meeting today to discuss this report. We don't know if this report is ever going to see the light of day.
However, if it does end up being released, how rare and unprecedented would it be for this committee to release a report on a former member? Walk us
through that.
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN REPORTER: Well, it actually has happened before. There are a few instances in the committee's history where the committee has
released reports on members who have or are no longer a part of Congress.
What is true, though, is this investigation had to end as soon as Gaetz resigned, because it can only apply to sitting members of Congress.
So now, the committee is grappling with what to do with this report. Donald Trump wants Gaetz to be his attorney general. Gaetz is meeting with
senators. He's trying to make his pitch directly to them. We know Trump has called senators directly on this as well.
And it's all going to come down to this Ethics Committee. What are the Republicans on this committee going to do? It is evenly split between
Democrats and Republicans. The committee is going to have to decide whether to vote to formally release it.
So far, there are signs that Republicans on this committee do not want this report to get out. We've seen the speaker of the House, House Speaker Mike
Johnson say, this report should not see the light of day.
So there are all eyes on this committee that normally operates very much in secret right now and the stakes could not be higher for Matt Gaetz who's
making his personal pitch for AG.
ASHER: All right. Annie Grayer live for us on Capitol Hill. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Professional wrestling executive and a T.V. doctor are Donald Trump's latest controversial picks for his new administration.
ASHER: Trump has tapped Linda McMahon to head up the Department of Education. McMahon was CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment but has no
practical experience at all in the field of education.
During the campaign, Trump often spoke about dismantling the Department of Education, and that could be McMahon's chief job.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Trump also picked TV talk show host Dr. Mehmet Oz to head up the agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid. Oz has a medical
background, but no administrative experience.
With more on the Trump transition, let's bring in CNN's Alayna Treene. Alayna, in just the last hour, we also learned that Trump has picked Matt
Whitaker, his former acting attorney general, as NATO ambassador.
We're still awaiting a few more key picks, including Treasury. What more are you hearing, though, about the rationale behind these picks?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Yes. I'll start with Linda McMahon, because I think you assessment is exactly right. I will say that she has known Donald
Trump for several years. She served in his first administration as the head of the small business administration. But you're exactly right that she
doesn't have that much experience when it comes to handling something like the Department of Education.
I'd also note that she was really gunning for the position of secretary of commerce. That was something that she had been told early on in this
transition process that would likely be hers. There had been some frustration and contention behind the scenes.
And that role, ultimately, went to Howard Lutnick. Now, both Lutnick and McMahon are co-chairing Donald Trump's transition process. She's doing the
policy side while he's doing more of the personnel side. But there had been some behind the scenes on that.
And the reason I bring that up is notable. I'm sure it sounds like I'm getting a little in the weeds of the palace intrigue, but I think it just
shows that she was actually pushing for an entirely different job with an entirely different set of credentials.
Now, another thing about McMahon is she's a big donor. You mentioned she was the former CEO of WWE. She also founded that with her husband Vince
McMahon, but she also, in the years after leaving the White House, had become a board member of America First Policy Institute, something that had
given millions and millions of dollars to Donald Trump, but was also seen as kind of the White House in waiting. So again, deep ties in Trump world.
[12:10:03]
Now, one key question is, what will she be doing when she gets to the Department of Education? And it's very clear Donald Trump himself has made
it very clear publicly throughout his time on the campaign trail that that is something that he wants to abolish.
He even said in a statement announcing McMahon as his pick that she would help in spearheading putting the resources from the Department of Education
back to the states. And so I think there's a key question of what will happen here.
One thing, of course, to keep in mind as well is just how important the Department of Education is. They are really the entity that provides all of
the resources to public K-12 schools, oversee a ton of the money that is tied to student debt loans.
So a lot of this has to be decided. She's going to have a big job ahead, particularly if that is something that Donald Trump ultimately moves to
dismantle.
Now, I do want to move on as well to Dr. Mehmet Oz because he was another very surprising pick and another pick that had a lot of people asking, what
are his credentials to do this?
Now, you mentioned he was a heart surgeon, but he was also a TV personality. And I think that's something that is crucial to keep in mind
with some of these picks. We have really been seeing Donald Trump's cabinet kind of be a made-for-TV administration.
It's the same when we saw Sean Duffy and Pete Hegseth both get cabinet roles as well. They were both former Fox News hosts. Mehmet Oz is someone
that defended Donald Trump repeatedly on television. He also has ties to the former president, given that Trump had backed him initially in 2022 for
the Republican Senate role in Pennsylvania. He lost that race.
And so they have ties there as well. But again, big questions on whether he is really fit to be the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. A role that is very serious and also, when you keep in mind, that he will be overseeing federal health care coverage, insurance coverage, I
should say, for millions and millions of Americans.
And also, in this role, if you look at healthcare overall in a future Trump administration, he would be under RFK Jr., another person that many people
have criticized for not potentially being the right pick. Zain, Bianna?
GOLODRYGA: All right. Alayna Treene in Washington. Thanks.
For some additional perspective on all of this, we welcome someone to the show who is the White House lawyer in Donald Trump's first term, May
Mailman, is now the director for the Independent Women's Law Center.
May, welcome to the program. Thanks so much for taking the time. Let me ask about some of these more controversial picks, as not only Democrats are
describing them, but as you know, many Republicans as well.
And let's begin with Matt Gaetz. Obviously, it's the president's prerogative to select who he wants, but it is the Senate's role in terms of
confirming them. And there is a lot of hesitation among Republican senators specifically about Matt Gaetz, his qualifications for the job as big as
attorney general, given the investigation and some of the concerns surrounding his behavior, past behavior, and whether or not he's even
suited for such a high-profile position.
Is this something that Donald Trump, I know he's publicly reporting that he is continuing to stand behind this move, but at some point do you see him
being a bit more open to nominating someone else, given all the pushback?
MAY MAILMAN, DIRECTOR, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S LAW CENTER: Let's just think -- give Matt Gaetz a fair shake. This is someone who's highly intelligent.
He's a debate nerd. He was a high school debate champion. This is somebody who, yes, he goes on T.V., but clear speaking is aligned with clear
thinking.
And the American people did not elect Donald Trump to have just sort of the same DOJ glut that they've had before. We have had DOJ spend tens of
millions of dollars investigating the president. And all of a sudden, it seemed like some sort of problem. Well, that Matt Gaetz might be loyal to
the president, meaning he might not investigate him.
But you know what? If the Department of Justice is a little bit less focused on going after its political enemies and a little bit more focused
on doing justice, on making sure that women like Laken Riley, who was killed by an illegal immigrant, can leave their house and feel safe, can
feel safe because that they know that there is a system of justice out there, then that is a win for the American people.
And so I think a lot of focus on Matt Gaetz' personality is less important than the focus that should be on what is the role of the Department of
Justice and have they been fulfilling that role. They have not, and hopefully, they will be soon.
ASHER: But, May, the fact that Donald Trump has chosen to surround himself with people who are extremely loyal to him, I mean, obviously, you have got
RFK Jr. potentially heading HHS. We all know that he is a vaccine skeptic. You have got Matt Gaetz, as we have just been talking about, potentially as
attorney general. And, of course, he is the subject of an investigation.
I mean, these are people who are so loyal to him, who will likely do whatever he says. And when you think about the fact that Donald Trump has
now chosen loyalty above experience, above background, what does that tell you about the type of second term that Trump is envisioning here?
[12:15:04]
MAILMAN: OK. Well, these people do have very impressive backgrounds. I mean, these are people who -- let's even just take Dr. Oz, a highly
successful business person, to run an agency that's budget has exceeded inflation.
The cost of our Medicare/Medicaid system are totally uncontrolled and there's fraud and people want to fix that. So I don't think that we should
diminish the backgrounds of the people who are being selected.
But a couple of other things --
ASHER: But also some controversies -- but also some controversies as well. You've got someone like Mehmet Oz who has touted hydroxychloroquine, an
anti-malarial drug as a remedy for COVID. You've also got RFK Jr., of course, talking about the fact that vaccines potentially cause autism.
I mean, obviously, they do have experience, but they're also extremely controversial in terms of some of their beliefs as well, right?
MAILMAN: I think pushing back on the COVID, I guess, prevailing narrative has been warranted. And we were all told that the vaccine would prevent
transmission and that was not true. And so it's OK. It is OK to question. It's OK to promote things that are not the prevailing narrative. That's
what Americans are coming to really appreciate.
But let's talk about quote-unquote loyalty. Of course, the president, any president deserves an agency heads who are loyal to their vision because
nobody elects agency heads. It is this wild fourth branch of government that is not supposed to be independent. The American people have power. The
American people have power. And the only way to make that work is that if we elect a president, then the people who the president has enacting his
agenda are part of his team. They're one. They're one in the same.
Because if they're separate and if they're doing something else and if they've got their own agenda, then you know who lacks the power, it's not
President Trump. The person who lacks the power is me. The person who lacks the power is the American people. So that unitary executive is something
that's not wild. It was promoted by Elena Kagan, who was a democratic appointee of the Supreme Court.
So that type of cohesiveness, teamwork from the president, you can call it loyalty, is the vision of American government that we're supposed to be
operating under.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned, if I can go back to Matt Gaetz, that the people of the Senate, I guess specifically, should give him a fair chance. What
does that look like? I mean, what specific cases has he prosecuted in his career? I believe he has law degree. I don't know if he's actually been
employed as an attorney throughout his career, if he has prosecuted any cases.
What legislation has he worked on forming that gives you the sense that he is up for the job? Because I think aside from personality, and you
mentioned his personality, but also legal cases that are looming. Experience matters for a job that important.
MAILMAN: Yes. So I don't -- I don't necessarily envision that the American people think that the head of the Department of Justice is going to get out
there and litigate. Even the attorney generals for the various states are not litigators.
These are people who have a conception of justice that will make the American people safe and help businesses thrive, you know, cut back on
unfair practices, these types of things, to make sure that our country runs.
And so that's what -- the American people, right now, see that they have some questions about the rule of law. If you're Elon Musk and your
companies are not investigated when there's a Republican president, but all of a sudden there's a Democrat president and you're being endlessly
investigated and you're being cut out of federal deals, that doesn't feel fair.
And so the attorney general should have a conception of fairness, a conception of justice that aligns with the people who voted for President
Trump and not necessarily like in the weeds of litigating experience, which I don't, you know, I don't think is the job of --
GOLODRYGA: Shouldn't it align with the -- shouldn't it align with the constitution more than the people who voted for any president? I mean, do
you have confidence that that's where his allegiance lies, to the Constitution of the United States and not to being loyal to Donald Trump?
MAILMAN: Of course. And so, but why I think that President Trump's loyalty is also to the Constitution.
So I think that that's what has really been lacking. That if you're going to have a government that is run by the people and is a system of laws and
not of people, and that you've seen all these very unique cases being brought against Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton had documents and there's not going to be a case brought. Donald Trump had documents and was the president and had the power to
declassify, but we are going to bring the case.
Alvin Bragg's case out of New York, never before, never before has there been a case anything like trying to use a federal hook of election in order
to say that there was a business record disputes, dragging all this. All of these are totally unique.
[12:20:11]
And so that to me is not allegiance to the Constitution. It's not allegiance to the rule of law. It's trying to twist the law. It's trying to
shape the law in order to go get the person who you don't like.
And I think people could sense that. President Trump actually was not ahead in the primaries until this law fair started. And people could sense that
there was this unfairness.
And so I think that they did vote for an allegiance to the Constitution, or an allegiance to the rule of law. And I think that if Matt Gaetz is
confirmed that that's exactly what you'll see.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Former Trump White House counsel, May Mailman, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. Appreciate it.
ASHER: Thank you.
MAILMAN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was asked his opinion of what President-elect Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon had to say about
women in combat. Trump's nominee, Pete Hegseth, said that women should not serve in military combat roles.
Austin said during his three tours of Iraq and one in Afghanistan, everywhere he went, women in uniform were doing incredible things.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AUSTIN: Well, you know, I don't know the potential nominee. So I can't comment on -- and won't comment on anything that he said. I don't know what
his experiences are.
But I can tell you about my experiences with women in the military and women in combat, and they're pretty good.
I think our women add significant value to the United States military. And we should never change that. And if I had a message to answer your question
to our women, I would say, I would tell them that, you know, we need you. We have faith in you. We are appreciative of your service. And you add
value to the finest and most lethal fighting force on earth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Austin added in Kuwait, the women in his command were not only courageous, but did amazing things to support the effort and their
colleagues as well.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Still to come for us, Israel's prime minister offers money and safe passage out of Gaza for anyone who frees a hostage. We'll
have details and a live report from Jerusalem, ahead.
ASHER: And any moment now, we're going to be hearing the sentence for the man convicted of murdering Laken Riley, the nursing student killed out --
while out jogging. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:25:14]
GOLODRYGA: The U.S. envoy, Amos Hochstein, says that he hopes to clinch a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. Hochstein heads to Israel
after spending the past two days in Beirut trying to broker a truce.
ASHER: Yes. The war has brought massive devastation to Lebanon. Hezbollah's leader says the negotiations will test the seriousness of the Israeli side.
The U.S. State Department is sounding an optimistic note.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW MILLER, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: We have made significant progress and that an agreement is within reach, but it's going
to take decisions by both parties, by both Israel and Lebanon to actually get an agreement. And that's what we're going to continue to push for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The Israeli prime minister, meantime, is offering money for the return of hostages. Speaking in Central Gaza Tuesday, Benjamin Netanyahu
said Israel would pay $5 million and ensure safe passage out of Gaza to anyone returning a hostage.
ASHER: Yes. Mr. Netanyahu also said that anyone who harms a hostage would, quote, also pay the price as well. Some hostage families are reacting to
this with outrage. In fact, the mother of one hostage says the prime minister is trading the hostages' lives.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. CNN's Nic Robertson joins us now live from Jerusalem. And, obviously, there are 101 hostages and their family's lives hanging in the
balance here, as were well over 400 days since October 7th attack.
I spoke with a mother who continues to remain optimistic about this. So a lot of mixed emotions here. But tell us what led to this new statement from
Prime Minister Netanyahu as he was in Gaza.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. I think some of the families feel that this statement has come out of the blue, that the
prime minister has announced this out of the blue.
The reality is that the offer of this sort of deal of money and a path out of Gaza has been behind the scenes on offer for help to get the hostages
out. Why the prime minister's gone public and put a $5 million figure is unclear right now. And, of course, it doesn't sit well with many of the
families who want him to prioritize the lives of their loved ones over the war and call a ceasefire and get the hostages out, rather than continuing
to fight.
And there was a protest again outside of the prime minister's residence here in Jerusalem, even in the rain, families of hostages sitting in silent
protest outside of the prime minister's house.
So I don't think the prime minister's announcement will have won him any favors with the vast majority of the hostage families who believe that he
has been on the wrong track all along.
Of course, there are some families of hostages that do support the prime minister. Whether or not the $5 million figure is enough to entice anyone
that might not have heard of these financial inducements before to offer up the hostages is unclear as well.
But this sort of possibility for Gazans to get free from Gaza and get some money for offering up information that has been going on in the background
for some time.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Nic Robertson, thank you so much.
ASHER: All right. The U.S. and Russia go back and forth. The U.S. approved anti-personnel mines in Ukraine while Russia continues to bomb Kyiv. We'll
look at what might come next after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:57]
ASHER: All right. Welcome back to ONE WORLD. I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga.
The U.S. has announced yet another major policy shift regarding Ukraine's fight against Russia. The Biden administration agreeing to provide anti-
personnel mines to Ukraine for the first time.
ASHER: Yes. Russia launched attacks on cities across Ukraine overnight, including the capital, Kyiv. The threat prompted a number of countries to
close their embassies for the day, including the U.S.
Here's our Nick Paton Walsh reporting from Kyiv.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv closed for the first time really since the invasion of
February 2022.
Diplomats not coming to work, many warned to shelter in place because of the fear, they say, of an air assault. Very untypical, this kind of warning
to Americans and their diplomats to essentially take cover. And not something that Kyiv itself would find that abnormal.
Look at the streets around me here. There's no signs of life really changing at all, despite the specific nature of this warning, indeed. But
it is a sign of the escalating tensions between Washington and Moscow since Ukraine has started using in the last 48 hours, U.S. made and supplied
ATACMS longer-range missiles to hit targets inside of Russia.
Is it likely that there will be a direct attack on this building? Or that would be an extraordinary escalatory move by Russia.
In just the closing months of the Biden administration, and I'm sure Vladimir Putin, frankly, would not want to take a move like that when he
knows President-elect Donald Trump may engage in more favorable discussions with him.
But other European embassies, we're hearing, are at least restricting their services, some closed to visitors. And it may be, I think, a reflection of
how there's increased anxiety in all of NATO's ranks about what may follow the stark move by president Joe Biden to allow the ATACMS to be used.
Overnight, we're hearing that Ukraine's Defense Intelligence says it's hit further targets inside of Russia but still it's Russia on the front foot
across the eastern battle zone here making incremental progress over the past months.
But you do get a real sense here in Kyiv of the heightened tensions between Washington and Moscow because warnings like this are just so rare.
Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Kyiv Ukraine.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right. I want to take a closer look now at how these new developments could affect troops on the ground in Ukraine. Joining me live
now from Kyiv is retired Major General Mark McCauley.
Mark, thank you so much. Major General, thank you so much for being with us.
Just in terms of these sort of policy changes we're seeing from the U.S., obviously President Biden announcing the provision of anti-personnel mines,
which of course marks a dramatic shift in policy for the U.S., but it also marks the second major policy shift we've seen by the U.S. in terms of
Ukraine in a matter of days.
Just explain to us what is prompting this. Is it the fact that you have North Korean troops getting involved in this war? Is it the fact that
obviously in two months Donald Trump is going to be inaugurated and that could dramatically shift things on the battlefield? Give us your take.
[12:35:09]
MAJOR GENERAL MARK MACCARLEY, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Yes. Certainly, it begs for some conversation, and I'm going to -- and I'm often reluctant to do this,
start opining on what I believe was the motivation at this time on the part of President Biden to move forward with these two very, very significant
escalation in military capabilities.
The first, of course, is the use of the ATACMS. Now, from a fundamental standpoint, all that literally happened was that the HIMARS, which are sort
of a small baby cousin, so to speak, of the ATACMS, meaning missiles, ballistic missiles, almost tantamount to field artillery, had a range of
about 50 miles.
What has happened now is with the ATACMS, there is an ability given to the Ukrainians to fire into Russia at a range of about 190 miles.
Now, whether this is right or wrong, that's a decision from a political perspective. That's a decision for those who serve as our chief executives.
But on the other hand, it is advantageous to conduct the war and give those in the Ukrainian army the ability to fight. And we've discussed this, I
personally have discussed this on this show, other CNN episodes months ago. I say 950 days ago, when I was asked the same question, and how do you
arrest, how do you stop the invasion of the Russians into Ukraine back in March, February, March of 22?
And the answer was, you've got to strike when the Russians come across. But and, of course, the second capability, not as quite as dramatic militarily
is the use of what we call these anti-personnel mines.
Mines have been used for years, years and years, even before the advent of such sophisticated systems that we have claymore mines. Those who've served
in the U.S. armies and armies around the world have these anti-personnel mines.
The problem with those mines are the optics, meaning, that these are the mines that either kill or more likely maim soldiers, enemy soldiers, enemy
combatants coming across the battlefield. They've been the subject of a lot of conversation about whether it's legitimate, whether this should be done,
because the injuries are ugly.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And the U.S. has already faced some pushback after they greenlit the use of cluster munitions for the very same reason.
MACCARLEY: Yes, absolutely.
GOLODRYGA: If I could get your take on the green lighting now of these anti-personnel mines, because a few military analysts that I've read
responding to this say that this could actually have a greater impact on the battlefield than the use of the ATACMS.
Would you agree with that and explain how so?
MACCARLEY: Yes, absolutely. I 100 percent agree with those who have spoken before me about the use of these anti-personnel mines, sort of advanced
claymore mines, partly because you have more of them. Meaning, that you can seed, meaning like plant, you could see the battlefields, the front line or
the line in front of the line of contact and plant these mines. And it makes it extraordinarily difficult for the Russians and the Russian
adjuncts now, the North Koreans, to come across without suffering horrific losses.
Again, a claymore mine or a mine, these anti-personnel mines, are relatively inexpensive. You compare the cost of one of these anti-personnel
mines to the cost of an ATACM, which can reach up into the high six, seven figures than a claymore mine that's a couple of hundred dollars. If it
reaches a thousand, that's interesting. You can have a lot more of these claymore mines, more destructive to those soldiers, those infantry soldiers
from Russia coming across.
And I think, and I concur with my peers, overall, the use of the anti- personnel mines is going to be far more effective and beneficial to the defense of Ukraine.
ASHER: All right. Retired general Mark MacCarley, thank you so much for joining us, appreciate it.
All right. Still to come, a man found guilty of murdering a 22-year-old nursing student will be sentenced any minute from now. We'll examine the
case after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:40:15]
ASHER: All right. I want to update you on the murder of a Georgia university student last hour. A judge found Jose Ibarra guilty of murdering
Laken Riley.
A 22-year-old was a nursing student on a jog when she was attacked and killed back in February. Prosecutors have said that they would seek a
punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
ASHER: Let's get more now from criminal defense attorney and former New York prosecutor, Bernarda Villalona. Thank you so much for being with us.
So as I understand it, now the judge is actually listening to victim impact statements, listening to statements from Laken's mother and, I believe, her
stepfather as well.
But, overall, in terms of what we've seen today, I mean, this has been extremely swift justice for the family of Laken Riley. The judge is about
to issue sentencing. Just walk us through what we can expect, because prosecutors are seeking life without the possibility of parole.
BERNARDA VILLALONA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. Today, justice was served in the sense that Ms. Laken's family has been waiting for this day
since February.
I have to say that this case moved fairly quickly. You have to think that she was killed in February. Here we are in November and there's already
been a trial, a conviction, and now we're dealing with sentencing.
So right now, what's taking place is victim impact statements where family members and friends of the deceased get to address the judge and tell them
how their life -- their life has been affected by the loss of this loved one by the actions of the defendant and what they desire in this case.
The prosecutor is seeking life without the possibility of parole and so is the family. They are seeking life without the possibility of parole. The
defense, of course, is seeking one. They didn't want this verdict. They're also preserving the record for appeal. But at this point, they will be
seeking life with the possibility of parole.
It's important to note that because the defendant, Jose Ibarra, is an illegal immigrant that I think it's life with the possibility of parole. If
parole is ever granted, he will be deported to his home country. If he gets life without the possibility of parole, he will remain and die in state
prison here in this country.
GOLODRYGA: Walk us through that what we saw in terms of evidence presented both from the prosecution and defense side, because the prosecution had
some 25 witnesses testifying. They had physical, digital DNA evidence. The defense had three, three people, witnesses who spoke in his defense and the
defendant himself did not take the stand.
VILLALONA: The prosecution had overwhelming evidence, overwhelming strong evidence, circumstantial evidence in this case. You have to think that in
this case, actually old-fashioned police work is what got us the first clue, the first step in this investigation in the sense that they were able
to find items that belong to the person that actually killed Ms. Laken Riley.
[12:45:12]
And based on that, they started looking for video evidence. And in that video evidence, they saw a man that was wearing a certain hat, an Adidas
hat. And from there, they started their investigation as to looking for people in that neighborhood who may have been spotted with that hat.
Unfortunately, the hat led them to the brother of the defendant, Jose Ibarra. But police followed up and went to that location. And when it went
to that location, they were encountered by Jose Ibarra, who was actually the brother, and noticed that he had scratch marks on his body. And those
scratch marks, it was ultimately determined, was that of Laken Riley who scratched her attacker, who scratched this person as she was trying to
fight for her life.
But the evidence was overwhelming in the sense of digital evidence, in terms of fingerprint on that phone that the defendant actually touched her
phone, in terms of the DNA that was underneath her fingernails, in terms of the video that was recovered, in terms of the phone that they were able to
track it to this defendant.
Now, on the flip side, the defense was contesting that same evidence, saying that that phone is used by the brother, that the hat that the person
was wearing, actually the brother used to wear that hat, and that the phone that was being used, the brother used to use that phone.
So he was trying to push the blame on the brother, but obviously that did not work. And I think it sends a message that the judge issued a verdict in
this case so quickly, within 15, 20 minutes.
Usually, what for bench trial a judge would request an hour or at least after lunch, if not a few days to go over the evidence. But he came back
with a verdict very quickly.
And what he stated when he issued that verdict is that, look, the statement that stands out to him is that there was overwhelming evidence of this
defendant's guilt.
ASHER: And you're absolutely right. I mean, just in terms of what the prosecutors were working with, you know, you mentioned the DNA under the
fingernails, the scratches, and, you know, really sort of interesting and somewhat bizarre that the defense would try so desperately to pin it on his
brother, Diego.
But a lot of people are questioning why the death penalty wasn't on the table from the get-go -- from the get-go here. And I know that has been a
source of a lot of controversy there in Georgia. Just give us your take on that.
VILLALONA: Well, that's a decision that's ultimately made by the prosecutor, by the prosecutor's office, that makes that decision of whether
they would seek the death penalty.
Actually, in Georgia, the prosecutors haven't sought the death penalty in a few years. They haven't sought the death penalty. And they made that
decision not to seek the death penalty. Many people will disagree with that.
But ultimately, if the prosecutor doesn't seek the death penalty, then there's nothing that a judge can do because the ultimate punishment will be
the life without possibility of parole or life with the possibility of parole because the prosecution didn't seek that type of penalty.
I'm not sure why they went that route because I think they have egregious circumstances here, aggravating circumstances that would have warranted the
death penalty in this case.
GOLODRYGA: The tragedy of the case itself has captivated the nation, as have the details, specifically as they involve the defendant, Jose Ibarra,
who is an undocumented illegal migrant here in this country.
In terms of what rights are afforded him, for example, could he appeal the case? Just walk us through the rights that are allowed for a U.S. citizen
versus someone who is here undocumented illegally in a case like this.
VILLALONA: So in terms of a criminal prosecution, in terms of a criminal case, it does not matter whether you're here legally, whether you are a
citizen, whether you're a resident, whether you're a migrant, whether you're in this country illegally or you're awaiting papers, you're still
afforded the same rights under the United States Constitution. And that is, number one, the right to counsel. That's why he had a counsel that was
appointed to him.
He's still afforded the same rights, the right to a fair trial, a right to the same rules of evidence as any person who would be arrested and facing a
criminal prosecution in this country.
Same rights he will be afforded in terms of an appeal. So he does have a right to an appeal where the defense, after this conviction is set, the
sentence is set, he will file a notice of appeal and give notice to the court that he will be appealing the conviction.
So there's no distinguish -- there's nothing that distinguishes or a change of law just because the person is an illegal migrant. They still have the
same protections under the United States Constitution when it comes to criminal law.
I wouldn't say that for any other type of law or facet having to deal with education or getting assistance.
GOLODRYGA: Fascinating to reiterate those points to our viewers just legally entitled to the same rights, but we know that this case in
particular became a political flashpoint in the U.S. presidential election here as it relates to undocumented immigrants in this country.
[12:50:12]
Bernarda Villalona, as we noted, we are just wrapping up the court hearing, the victim impact statements. We will be back when we have sentencing as
we're waiting for the judge to rule on that. And we'll come back to you. Thank you so much.
ASHER: Thank you. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right. We've been talking about a murder case that has really rocked this nation. The murder of 22-year-old Laken Riley, who was killed
back in February while she was out for a jog.
In the past hour or so, Jose Ibarra, an undocumented migrant from Venezuela, has been found guilty on 10 charges of her murder. We know that
the judge right now is listening to victim impact statements from not just her mother, Laken Riley's mother, and her stepfather, but I believe now her
friends are also addressing the judge as well.
Let's get more now from criminal defense attorney and former New York prosecutor, Bernarda Villalona.
So, Bernarda, we obviously were speaking to you before the break, but I understand that you got to hear some of the victim impact statements
earlier before you came on air.
Just walk us through what was said and how some of these victim impact statements are going to be impacting what we see in terms of sentencing.
VILLALONA: It literally gives me goosebumps and chills listening to the victim impact statement. I used to be a prosecutor in a -- in a homicide
bureau in New York for 10 years. And the most emotional part of a trial, of the process itself, is sentencing, the victim impact statement. Because
it's the one time that the victim's family, the people that were affected by the death of their loved ones, get to express their feelings. They get
to be heard. They get to speak to the judge and also speak to the defendant who is forced to sit down there and listen to what these loved ones are
saying.
The mother, in giving her victim impact statement, called this defendant a monster. A monster for the vicious way, gruesome way that she took -- that
he took away her life. You have to think that this defendant took a rock and used it as a hammer and smashed the skull of Laken Riley and continue
to bash her and scratch her and hurt her for no apparent reason, and possibly also try to rape her because her clothing was found pulled up and
her running tights pulled down as well as her underwear.
[12:55:14]
It's really damning, it's really emotional, it's really sad. Here, you have the roommate right now who's also given a statement of how she's affected
by this. And you got to remember that it was the roommate who actually contacted police and say that -- and said that she believed that Laken
Riley was missing because Laken Riley had not returned from her run and it was not natural of her course of for her not to return in a certain amount
of time after a run.
And also, there was so much trust with her and her roommates that they shared their locations and they noticed that her phone, her location had
not been moving for a while.
ASHER: Oh, that is -- that is heartbreaking.
GOLODRYGA: And her mother had missed a phone call from her as well just prior to her murder. I mean, just listening to you detail that, Bernarda, I
can sense the emotion in your voice.
Our reporter Rafael Romo, who's in the courtroom, said this is one of the most difficult emotional cases that he's covered. Thank you so much.
Hopefully some justice has been served now for Laken's family and friends. Appreciate your time, Bernarda.
ASHER: And we'll bring that sentencing to our audience as and when that happens.
That does it for this hour of ONE WORLD. I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. Don't go anywhere. I'll be right back after a quick break with "AMANPOUR."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
