Return to Transcripts main page


Rutte Beats Wilders in Dutch Election; Rex Tiller in Asia to Discuss North Korea; New Details in Fat Leonard, Navy Bribery Case. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired March 16, 2017 - 01:00   ET


[01:00:00] ISHA SESAY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR: And I'm Isha Sesay, and this is NEWSROOM L.A. We are following several big stories for you this hour. Starting with the temporary restraining order issued against President Trump's travel ban on several mostly Muslim-country.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN NEWSROOM ANCHOR: And the crucial election in the Netherlands, seen as a dull weather of far-right politics in Europe. Dutch voters appeared to have rejected the anti-immigrant message of Geert Wilders. We'll have more on that later this hour. But now, we will start with the travel ban.

SESAY: Yes. Well, Wednesday's ruling by federal judge in Hawaii is another major setback for U.S. President, Donald Trump. The new travel ban was knocked-down just hours before it was due to take effect.

VUASE: Mr. Trump had revised his, originally, Executive Order from January, which then cause havoc at U.S. airports and was ultimately stuck-down. He tells supporters in Tennessee, he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if he had to.


DONALD TRUMP, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: Hundreds of refugees are under federal investigation for terrorism, and related reasons, we have entire regions of the world de-stabilized by terrorism and ISIS. For this reason, I issued an executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from places where it cannot safely occur. And let me tell you something, I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way, which is what I want to do in the first place.


SESAY: Well, an attorney with American Civil Liberties Union said this about the judges' ruling: "The Constitution has once again, put the brakes on President Trump's disgraceful and discriminatory ban. We are pleased but not surprised by this latest development, and we'll continue working to ensure the Muslim ban never takes effect." Well, our Stephanie Elam is covering the judges' ruling in Honolulu, Hawaii. Also with us here in Los Angeles; Civil Rights Attorney, Bryan Claypool; and CNN Legal Analyst, Areva Martin.

Stephanie, let's start with you, help our viewers understand why Hawaii's Attorney General felt compelled to take this stand?

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Isha, there is multiple reasons and its interesting when you to the Attorney Generals, and there are few actually in Honolulu right now, representing different states. But the fact that they're saying, if you attack this problem as they saw it from multiple states, then you can actually find a resolution perhaps in one place that you might not find in the other. But one of the other things I came up, and I asked the Attorney General for Hawaii this question - Doug Chin, I asked him, why not join in with the other lawsuit that was in Washington State, which other states did join? And he told me that, he felt that this ban - this travel ban, here in Hawaii, specifically went against - counter to the culture here. It went against that "aloha spirit," and that sense of welcoming and working with people here, as they would like to do.

There're also very concerned that their universities and institutions would be directly impacted, as right now, the universities are in the process of accepting candidates - obviously, they'd have to get their visas, and then pay their tuition, and all of that would affect them. So, they were saying that, that was something that needed to be handled right now. And then also this other point that is worth- noting here, which has been mentioned in context - from the Attorney General, and from others; is the fact that here Hawaii, there is a large population of people of Japanese descent, and in light of World War II, and the internment camp - the idea of something similar to that, which they felt the travel would do, did not sit well with the population here on.

[01:05:00] And so, they felt that this was something that needed to be addressed. And this federal judge here ruling, that there was a need for this temporary restraining order, blocking those cheap revisions within this executive order saying that this was just against what would happen - what should happen here in the country based on the fact that will take - took a look at where people were from, and it looked at their faith. Even if it was water down as the President said, it was still the same intent of the first executive order.

SESAY: Stephanie, we appreciate it, do stand-by for us. I want to bring in our guest here in the studio.

VAUSE: Yes, let's take in a close look at the legal reasons behind all of this, also the implications. Bryan, first to you, this travel ban 2.0, this was the slim downed, cleaned-up, meant to be court proof version of the executive order that Donald Trump issued back in January. All those changes which the administration made, at least according to Judge Watson in Hawaii, refuted.

BRYAN CLAYPOOL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, I was stunned by this judges' ruling. And in fact, I believe this ruling was politically motivated. I think this was an ambush from President Trump. I'll tell you why, President Obama had identified the same six countries when he was in office, as being on the hot bed list for domestic terrorism, so now President Trump identified those. And I was in your show by six weeks - weeks ago, and I was critical of that first travel - by the way, it's not travel ban either, it's a temporary travel restriction to allow proper vetting. But I was on your show six weeks ago, I was very critical of that first travel restriction because I did believe that that was creating a law that unduly favored one religion over another.

But here, I disagree, I believe that it was - it was shored up, and this was facially constitutional. And you have waivers in this executive order too, to allow folks who are immigrational refugees who might not even have a visa or a green card to obtain a waiver to come in the United States, and that is unconstitutional?

SESAY: Let me ask Areva, to weigh in and respond to that. I mean, you heard what Bryan said, the administration tried that line to kind of tie this to pass thinking on that part of the Obama administration. That just didn't wash.

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No. The federal court judge in Hawaii - a stinging rebuke of this second travel ban, which I think many of us will believe it absolutely is a travel ban. And the court reject it. The Trump government argument, that this ban was needed to protect the country from terrorist coming into the United States. In fact, the court focused on the Department of Homeland Security's report, which said, that the country was not at risk from suffering any kind of terrorist attack because of individuals coming from any other countries that are identified in the ban.

And let me just talk one thing about, the timing of the new travel ban. The court also said, if this is so urgent, why the delay? Why the constant delay from the Trump administration? And we heard, one delay was to allow the President to bask in the glory of his speech that he gave to Congress. Doesn't suggest a real urgency.

VAUSE: OK. Hold it. For Bryan, because - another aspect to this decision by the Hawaii court. The judge took into consideration past statements notably by the President and also those around the President, the surrogates, the court, and the decisions specifically referenced and interview; Donald Trump do with CNN last year, when he said this:


WOLF BLITZER, CNN THE SITUATION ROOM HOST: You think Islam is at war with the West?

TRUMP: I think Islam, hates us. There's something - there's something there that there's a tremendous hatred there. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There is an unbelievable hatred of us.

BLITZER: In Islam itself?

TRUMP: You don't have to figure that out.


VAUSE: OK. So, Bryan, so it seems that, you know, this judge considered not just content of the executive order but also, motive. CLAYPOOL: Well, couple of things: first of all, how is this a Muslim ban, when there are 90 million plus other Muslims in 40 plus other countries who are not on this travel ban list? That's my first point. So, I don't believe this is a Muslim ban because of that. And this judge by the way, his opinion was very personal. He's says something to the effect that, that government's position on this is palpable, or the - their logic was palpable. That's personal, that's the first point I want to make. Secondly -

MARTIN: For the lack of what?

CLAYPOOL: Yes, the lack of what - right. It was - the lack wasn't -


VAUSE: Here it is: "The illogic of the Governments' contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries."

CLAYPOOL: John, one other point, this judge should clearly have not considered comments by President Trump during the election process. Because that could have a chilling effect and could create a global gag-order for any person who wants to run for public office. He or she then, is going to zip their mouth shut because anything they say now can be used against them when they try to craft legislation.

[01:10:02] MARTIN: That's just false, Bryan. The reality is, there's a 2005 Supreme Court case that's says, that the court should look at the context on which policy is made. And it wasn't just the interview, John, that you just showed, it was also the surrogates; Rudy Giuliani, Steven Miller, who came on television and said that Trump wanted to develop, design, create a travel ban that restricted Muslims on the basis of their religion. And asked Giuliani, how do I it?

The reality is, Trump has his own worst enemy, whether it's his tweets, or his own words. Those are the things that are haunting him in this order. The judge says unrefuted evidence that your intent is not to protect the country, but to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their religion. And that is unconstitutional.

SESAY: Why is she wrong, Bryan?

CLAYPOOL: She's wrong because, the six countries that are on this travel -

VAUSE: 30 seconds.

CLAYPOOL: The six countries that're on this travel restriction list, are the pre-dominant countries that have the most - the most potential for domestic terrorism. Trump has isolated to those six countries, he hasn't just magically created this list of countries. MARTIN: Trump says, we'll see you in court. And we already know the

Ninth Circuit has rejected his travel ban, so let's - let's go to court.

VAUSE: OK. He's two for row. Bryan and Areva, thank you. OK, next here on NEWSROOM L.A. A federal judge, U.S. state of Hawaii, we've been telling you, had blocked President Trump's new travel ban. We will speak with Hawaii's Attorney General, in just a moment.


KATE RILEY, CNN WORLD SPORT ANCHOR: I'm Kate Riley, with your WORLD SPORT headlines, on Wednesday. Pep Guardiola's Manchester City took a 5-3 aggregate lead and stack second-leg against Monaco. All City had to do was avoid defeat by more than a goal. The leaguer sighed, went to head after eight minutes. Silva found Kylian Mbappe, who scored for the 11th-time in 11 games, come second-half, Leroy Sane got one back to City. It wasn't enough though. Tiemoue Bakayoko made a 3-1, that was the final scores around the Champions League, as they draw 6- 6 on aggregates and get out on Away Goals. Elsewhere, it was Atletico Madrid who would also boast the two-goal advantage in their time led by Leverkusen, Diego Simeone, has lend on what it had to do to make sure they didn't concede.

This almost goal, that's in the end, Atletico go through to the quarter finals on the Champions League for the fourth-time in of many seasons. And Jose Mourinho, is infamous for its mind games regardless of the team he's managing. The latest relates to comments he made about Paul Pogba, he's scorch feed - the world's most expensive player. The 24-year old has been criticized for his performance in the FA Cup clash on Monday, against Chelsea United last one goal away to the Blues which comes to some of the bat clash. The so-called session one says, the negativity could be a case of jealousy towards his player. And that's a look at all the sports headlines. I'm Kate Riley.

[01:15:23] VAUSE: Welcome back, everybody. We have more now on a Hawaii Court - a Federal Court putting a temporary block on President Trump's second attempt of the travel ban. Let's go now to Honolulu and the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, Doug Chin.

Attorney General Chin, thank you being with us again. Bottom line here, did Judge Watson, he Judge on this case, he essentially decide that the Executive Order, the travel ban is a religious test?

DOUG CHIN, HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, I mean essentially the rational that Judge Watson applied to this case was a little different from what Judge Robart on the Washington case, where he looked at in it and analyzed the factors from the establishment plus standpoint which is essentially establishing clause just wants to make sure that whenever there is an official action taken by the State, that is not favoring one religion or disfavoring one religion, that's what's the case here.

SESAY: Attorney General Chin, how do you respond to President Trump's reaction to this move? He said in public comments on Wednesday that this judgment is placed unprecedented judicial overreach. What do you say to that?

CHIN: Well, I don't think that Judge Watson was necessarily overreaching since there is press demand for the courts to be able to look at the context -- context matters. In other words, that is something that U.S. Government has been arguing which that the only right thing to do is to look at the four corners of the document to see whether or not there's neutral language. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has disagreed with that proposition and has told Judges that the right thing to do is actually to look at what is going on behind the curtain and that is our argument and essentially that's what was happening.

There have been so many statements and even up until tonight, statements made by President Trump and even when he was a candidate, now when he's President, that just indicates that he continues to display, unfortunately, our religious animus that is not constitutional.

VAUSE: During arguments, the Department of Justice asked the Judge if he was leaning towards an injunction, if he could tell specifically for Hawaii he rejected that, and you know, applied it nationwide. So they lost on that front as well. What are the indications there?

CHIN: Right, well I mean, I think certainly the most important thing is that National Security has protected and what really the implication of this temporary restraining order is that the existing system which is very secure, which is very strict and this also constitutional continues to remain in place. What the Judge was enjoining was the application of a unconstitutional standard that was grouping people or just basically saying if you're from one of these six Muslim majority nations, you're presumptively a terrorist. It didn't matter if you we're a baby, didn't matter if you we're a grandmother or the mother-in-law or an individual plaintiff in the case who wasn't able to get a Visa and still hasn't. You were presumptively a terrorist and you would now have to go through some extra stuffs in order to prove to the government that you're not.

SESAY: You have made the point that challenging this travel ban wasn't simply a matter of the law but it also came down to Hawaii's history. OK, tell us a little more about that and what you mean.

CHIN: Sure, I mean, but timing of this Executive Order couldn't be any worst. It's really 75 years ago to two weeks ago, that another President and it was President Roosevelt, had issued an Executive Order based on national interest -- National Security interest that results to then the internment of Japanese-Americans, German- Americans, Italian-Americans who were placed into camps having done nothing wrong. And really, what's chilling about when you read the Executive Order back then is that there was a certain rational and a certain argument that deference must be given to the Federal Government to decide what National Security interest are, as well as phrases such as the reason why we need to put them all in the camps is because you actually can't tell which further one's you can trust and which is the one you can't trust.

Sadly, I think that's the kind of rhetoric that gets repeated today and it's just - it's a dark chapter in history that we simply don't want to repeat.

VAUSE: This is a temporary injunction which is being issued by Judge Watson.

CHIN: Right.

VAUSE: So I guess, what happens next here and do you see this going all the way to the Supreme Court?

[01:20:06] CHIN: Well that - yes. That's a great point. So it is just a temporary injunction, it will only last for a few days and the parties are supposed to work together to set another briefing schedule to be able to decide whether Judge Watson will extend the order. What I would predict might be something that's similar to what happened in the Washington case. They initially got a Temporary Restraining Order and the procedure that the U.S. government could do if they repeated the same thing would be to appeal the current temporary injunction and appeal that up to the night circuit and if they get a ruling that's adverse or either side, if they get a ruling that's adverse, there's the option to appeal to the Supreme Court.

So, you know, I think we're all predicting that this isn't the end of the story, that we're simply, you know, first round but moving on from here.

SESAY: He had the broad expectation, Attorney General Chin, is that this will end up in the Supreme Court and the point has been made by other lawyers that where in the Federal Judge in Hawaii looked at the motive here in the drafting of this travel ban that when it would get, if it does get to the Supreme Court, it would simply be about the content and not the motive. That's unclear. But that is that what some legal experts are saying. If that is the case, what is the preparation in terms of how the arguments is adjusted for that set - for that setting?

CHIN: Sure. Well may not actually know until the - we get to this Supreme Court but certainly, that would be one of the legal issues. It's how much can the court look beyond what was in the initial document. U.S. will say, let's just stick to the document, we'll say, no I think you should look at the entire context.

But ultimately, I think the - we have some other arguments that we've raised and we preserved to the record below that talk about how the President's order is also -- the President's order is an overreach, just to borrow a phrase from what was said tonight by the President. He in fact was overreaching by discriminating against people by national origin, in contravention to what Congress had ordered in the Immigration Nationality Act 50 years ago in 1965.

SESAY: Well, Attorney General of Hawaii Doug Chin, we appreciate you joining us to tell us more about this moment and its significance. Thank you so much.

VAUSE: Thank you, Sir.

CHIN: Thank you. SESAY: Well joining us now is Democratic Strategist Matthew Littman and CNN Political Commentator and President Trump's supporter John Phillips.

VAUSE: So John, first to you. Strike two for the President now.

JOHN PHILLIPS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is just the beginning of the story. This is a Democratic elective politician. The Attorney General who we just turned from who took it to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the most liberal court of appeals in the country. The President has said he's going to appeal and Alan Dershowitz, who is so liberal he actually thinks that OJ Simpsons didn't do it. Which is a boutique space to occupy, believes that President Trump is going to win at the Supreme Court level. It also underscores how important it is for them to get Judge Gorsuch approved on the Supreme Court because right now, there's a 4-4 split on that court. And if he is successfully able to get his nominee on that court that I think you could see Alan Dershowitz be proven true and you could see the Supreme Court vote in Trump's favor.

SESAY: Matt likes him John. And the President making it out that this is very much a political decision on the part of this Judge.

MATTHEW LITTMAN, DEMOCRATIC STATEGIST: Well, I think what's interesting here - there are couple things that are very interesting. One is that the Department of Homeland Security - Trump's Department Homeland Security said that this ban won't make Americans any safer. Two, Sean Spicer's Press Secretary had said there were no imminent threats from any of these countries, right? So what's Trump doing here, he's banning Muslims. Rudy Giuiliani said Trump called him and asked him how could ban Muslims and now he's trying to do it.

What is also important here is that we're spending two months - first two months of the Trump Administration talking about this. Trump came in as the job's President who's going to help all these people get jobs, build up infrastructure, cut taxes. Where's the focus on the reason that people elected him?

VAUSE: OK. You mentioned the statement from Rudy Giuliani. It was considered by the court, it was part of the Judge's opinion. This is it. Let's listen.


RUDY GIULIANI, NEW YORK CITY FORMER MAYOR: When he first announced that he said Muslims ban, he called me up he said, "Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally." I put a commission together with Judge Mukasey with Congressman McCaul, Pete King, whole group of other very expert lawyers on this and what we did was we focused on instead of religion, danger.


VAUSE: John, the Trump Administration and those who are at him, are they blowing out that, that words matter? PHILLIPS: Well, if this is a Muslim ban, it's not a very good one because Saudi Arabia is not on there. Any number of countries, prominently Muslim populations aren't on the list. They said that they came up with these list because they can't trust the documents from these countries, you can't trust them from Saudi Arabia, you can't trust them for other countries that's why they're not on the list. Matt said that this was not part of Trump's main agenda when he was running. This was absolutely part of Trumps agenda when he ran. He ran on this explicitly when he was a candidate. He said he was going to bring back extreme vetting and he was going to try to make sure that the Orlando night club shooting and terrorist events like that don't happen on his watch.

LITTMAN: Actually, what Trump - what Trump supporters kept telling us was that Trump didn't really mean it when he said that. That's what they kept telling us, right? I mean, you told exactly, put that on CNN a million times. But the problem for Trump is that this is a Muslim ban, he's doing it with the country -- he tried to do it, but the countries from which he thought he can get away with it then they wanted to expand it to other countries. I think it's pretty clear. I don't know even why we're arguing if it's a Muslim ban. Giuliani just said he wanted to ban Muslims. He's trying to find a way to ban Muslims.

[01:25:50] SESAY: Well we need to pivot to other issues because there are also many to dig deeper into. Let's talk about Obamacare as we talk about what's mattering. What's matter when it comes to the issue of what the President said about wiretapping? Take a listen.


DONALD TRUMP, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: Wiretap covers a lot of different things. I think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.


SESAY: So many issues, Obamacare, wiretapping. It's really wow, yes. So let's talk about that. Why does it matter then only if they're in or not in quotation marks?

LITTMAN: So on the wiretapping thing, he said that Obama is a sick guy who is wiretapping the phones of Trump Tower, now he's trying to walk it back. The problem for Trump is he sounds a little caucus here and even the people on the House Intelligence Committee, the Republicans have also - there's no evidence to indicate that what Trump is saying is true. Again, he's ruining his own credibility when he needs to concentrating on the reasons that people elected him. Jobs was the big focus on why the people elected him. He's losing credibility.

VAUSE: One step ahead of us because again here is Devin Nunes, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee which is investigating the wiretapping. A big support on Donald Trump, that's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DEVIN NUNES, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIR: We don't have any evidence if that took place. In fact, I don't believe. Just in the last week of time that people would talk to, I don't think there was an actual tap of Trump Tower.


VAUSE: OK. So John, you know that was Nunes here who's carried so much work of Trump in Congress and even he is sort of walking away that into.

PHILIPPS: Yes. He's not a big supporter of Donald Trump. I think he may have snuck in the drink card back in the train to be generous too, you know. Look, Trumps critics, they take him literally, they don't take him seriously. And people who like to take him seriously but they don't take him literally, is the guy who cut his teeth in the New York tabloids.

We all know, or at least I know what we meant when he said that. He had conversations with the President of Mexico, leaked to the press. He had conversations with the President of Australia leaked to the press. Micheal Flynn's conversations with the Russian Ambassador where leaked. Someone is listening to those phone calls, someone is taking that private information and illegally making it public. And they're not in prison. They should be in prison for doing that because it's a violation.

LITTMAN: So Trump said that Barrack Obama is a sick guy who is wiretapping the phone in Trump Tower, and that's what he meant. He didn't mean that Barrack Obama's putting in the wires but he meant that his phone calls were being tapped at Trump Tower and Obama's ordering them to do it. That is not what happened. So now he's being called out by his fellow Republicans who see here that Trump has gone off the deep end a little bit. How does this help him get his agenda?

PHILLIPS: And Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio.

LITTMAN: Who's not in the Congress.

PHILLIPS: Presidential candidate who's recently come out and said that his line was tapped by President Obama.

SESAY: All we ask is that the White House present the evidence.

VAUSE: We look forward to that.

SESAY: That's all we ask for.

VAUSE: It's one of these days coming. Matt and Doug --

PHILLIPS: Main task number one.

SESAY: Thank you, thank you. Time for a quick break now. Voters in Netherlands are making a strong statement. Just ahead, how immigrant candidate Geert Wilders peeks into their future.


[01:32:15] ISHA SESAY, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. Welcome back to our viewers in the United States and around the world. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm Isha Sesay.


The leader of far-right anti-immigrant party in the Netherlands is trying to put a positive spin on disappointing election results. With 94 percent of the vote counted, Geert Wilders of the Freedom Party is projected to finish in a distant second with 20 out of 150 seats in parliament. The People's Party, led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, is leading right now.

SESAY: And Rutte is claiming victory over Wilders' anti-immigration and anti-E.U. campaign themes. He spoke with supporters in The Hague.


MARK RUTTE, DUTCH PRIME MINISTER (through translation): I've had lots of European leaders on the phone already. This night is a night for the Netherlands. After Brexit, after the American elections, where we said, stop it, stop it to the wrong type of populism.


VAUSE: Wilders wanted to ban immigrants from Muslim countries and wanted to close down mosques. He says he'd hoped his party would have won for seats. Even so, he's not giving up.


GEERT WILDERS, FREEDOM PARTY CANDIDATE (through translation): If they need me or if they need the PVV for talks, then I am happy to take part. If not, then they haven't gotten rid of me yet. With more people, with 19 to 20 people in parliament, we'll have a strong opposition against the cabinet, and we'll make their lives difficult every day.


SESAY: Let's go live to The Hague now with CNN's senior international correspondent, Atika Shubert; and the chair of the department of French and Francophone studies at UCLA, Dominic Thomas.

Dominic, let me start with you.

The president of the European Commission called the result in the Netherlands a vote for Europe, a vote against extremists. How are you reading these results?

DOMINIC THOMAS, CHAIR, FRENCH & FRANCOPHONE STUDIES, UCLA: I would agree with him. I think what happened yesterday -- and this was very much in response to the enormous international attention bestowed on the Netherlands in this election -- is that in recent years there's been a decline in voter turnout. Yesterday we saw a surge over 80 percent of Dutch people came out and voted. The message was wrong. There may not be consensus on every issue, but they're not the divided society of French, and not the Trump of America, and we're not the Turkey of Erdogan. We're going to work these things out. And as we move forward, the Dutch people have reaffirmed a fundamental belief in the ways in which the society in Netherlands operates around ideas of democracy and tolerance. Wilders picked up seats. There are many stories around the ways of the votes working out. Wilders did not perform well. The ideas and issues he raised will not go away overnight. Yesterday was a strong affirmation against those, and also a very good day for the European Union.

[01:35:05] Atika, you heard Dominic talk about working things out in the Netherlands. Given the number of parties that won seats, the next stage here is one of coalition building, working things out. What are the expectations for that process? How difficult is that likely to be?

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think it's still going to be quite difficult. I mean, Rutte did win a good chunk of the seats, but he lost 10. So he really still has a lot of bartering to do. And the way the votes spread out are interesting. A three-way tie for second with a desperate group of parties. Wilders, with the PVV, and Socially Conservative Democrats. Rutte now has to figure out how to stitch something together. That's a process that's going to take weeks. Either way, Wilders is not going to be a part of this. Rutte made very clear in a number of other party leaders that they will not work with Wilders. So he is being relegated to an opposition role, but that's clearly a role that he relishes -- Isha?

SESAY: Yeah.

And, Dominic, to drill down a little further in that. We heard Wilders say basically that Rutte hasn't gotten rid of him. He tweeted out, "Rutte has not seen the last of me yet." He clearly plans to remain a thorn in the side of the next government. What does that mean going forward?

THOMAS: Well, he can. He has to say this. The ideas and issues and problems that he is talking about are problems that are impacting much of the European Union. That important conversations need to be had on these sorts of questions. I think there's a way to go about doing this that is engaging with tolerance and trying to find positive solutions. Wilders is not really interested in that, or interested in compromise. He's been interested in fear mongering and dividing society. People are not going to be accepting of that. And as we look at the different political parties and the way they come together, most of the -- the overwhelming majority of the political parties rejected the idea of working with Wilders. He really stands alone. Yes, he's picked up seats in parliament. He will have a voice. He represents a segment of the population. I think it's the responsibility of the new leadership to try to understand a little bit better perhaps who the Wilders voters are. What is it they're upset about and what is it that they see in him. That may be the most productive thing that could come out of this conversation.

SESAY: Atika, final question to you. Wilders unleashed, if you will, in the eyes of some, some dark forces, dark ideas during the course of this campaign in this election. And some say this nation is forever changed as a result. How do you see things now that the votes are in in terms of what happens to the soul of the Netherlands? What does that look like now?

SHUBERT: Well, you know, I think is right. There have been so many questions about identity. What are traditional Dutch values? How should they be defended? What does it mean to be Dutch? Through the process of the election, voters are saying, this is who we are. We are not extremists and so concerned about Islam that we're going to be wrapped up in voting only for Wilders.

Whereas, a variety of opinions on display here. One of the great stories was the fact that green left basically suddenly came up and won a surprising amount of seats. And I think that goes to show that, yes, there is this voice that says, look, we don't want the establishment anymore. We don't want the mainstream parties, but neither do we want the far-right. There's a lot of alternatives out there. I think that is very Dutch. It's a Dutch identity where you say we're open to all kinds of ideas and, yes, we'll even listen -- some of the people will listen to what Geert Wilders has to say, even the most extreme things. But ultimately, there are other voices just as Dutch as his.

SESAY: Our own Atika Shubert and Dominic Thomas joining us from The Hague. Thank you for the great conversation.

[01:19:19] VAUSE: We'll take a short break. When we come back, we now know who was behind one of the biggest cyber hacks in history. The Justice Department says it was the Russians.


SESAY: Hello, everyone. The U.S. Department of Justice charged two Russian spies in a massive breach of Yahoo user's information. Two hackers were also indicted in the 2014 attack that affected at least half a million e-mail attacks. The stolen data included stolen e-mail addresses and passwords but not financial information.

VAUSE: The FBI says government officials and journalists were among the targets.

This indictment is the first to link Russia's cyber criminals directly to their government.


JACK BENNETT, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE FBI: We want to send a clear message to criminal hackers everywhere, you can try and hide in corners of the dark web, but we will hunt you down, we will expose you, and we will bring you to justice. The FBI has a long reach and a longer memory.


VAUSE: The four accused are now facing several counts, including economic espionage.

SESAY: U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in Tokyo as part of his first official visit to Asia. He's meeting with the Japanese foreign minister right now followed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in a few hours.

VAUSE: It will be a busy few days for Rex Tillerson. Next, he heads to South Korea then China. And the one topic in all these meetings is likely to be the growing threat from North Korea.

Ivan Watson is following the story in Tokyo. We also have Matt Rivers in Beijing.

Ivan, first to you.

This stop in Tokyo should be relatively easy for the secretary of state. Not a lot of daylight between Washington and Tokyo on most issues.

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. These are two very close allies. The meeting is under way right now at the top American and Japanese diplomats sitting down. It's not the first time they've met. In brief comments before the meeting, Rex Tillerson did say that part of his goals here was deepening not only the bilateral relationship between Tokyo and Washington, but also the trilateral relationship that includes South Korea. And this, of course, is in response to the nuclear program in North Korea, to the missile program there, in particular, the missile launches of last week, one of which landed within the economic exclusion zone of Japan. So it was seen as a threat in this part of the world.

Naval exercises conducted for the past two days involving ships from all three countries that have the missile defense on them to try to theoretically intercept missiles in the future if North Korea is to launch missiles in the direction of U.S. allies.

But a big challenge for this trip will be the fact that while Japan is a stable and reliable ally of the U.S., South Korea is suffering from a leadership vacuum. Its president forced to step down after an impeachment, and elections suspected within 60 days. And big questions about where the next president, where the next government of South Korea will take that country, and whether its future policy will be as close to U.S. policy as the past disgraced president's policy was -- John?

[01:45:50] VAUSE: Ivan, Rex Tillerson has kept a fairly low profile for the first month in office as secretary of state. It looks like he intends to keep that low profile. He's not traveling with a press pool.

WATSON: This has been a subject of some controversy, notably with the State Department press corps, that he's not bringing along journalists on his plane. They were told originally there wasn't room. Then it came out he was going to be bringing journalists from a website called "The Independent Journal Review," which is supposed to have conservative leanings. When asked about this, the State Department spokesman said, well, the effort was to try to broaden exposure to media outlets that haven't traditionally gotten exposure.

That said, there is international press in the meeting where they will be attending a press conference where Rex Tillerson will come out and speak and presumably take some questions from the assembled journalists who have traveled separately -- John & Isha?

VAUSE: Ivan, I guess we'll wait and see if that happens.

Matt Rivers standing by in Beijing.

When Rex Tillerson arrives there, he's going to have tough words for China when it comes to dealing with North Korea and the possibility of penalties for Chinese companies which do business with North Korea.

MATT RIVERS, CNN ASIA-PACIFIC EDITOR: That's right. Senior U.S. officials tell CNN that the secretary of state will make it known that the U.S. is prepared to increase financial penalties against Chinese companies, Chinese businesses and banks that do business with North Korea, that the United States is tired of Chinese companies helping to fund Pyongyang's weapons program.

John, earlier today, we had a rare opportunity to sit down with a policy maker here in China. It almost never happens. The government never puts up people to be interviewed.

This is the director general of the Asian Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And we asked him about what the secretary of state plans to say when he comes to Beijing.


XIAN CHEN (ph), CHINESE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: It is not fair. That's not right. That's not the correct way of dealing things.

RIVERS: If it did happen, would that propose a serious obstacle in China's ability to deal with the United States diplomatically and work together on this issue?

CHEN (ph): Well the secretary is coming in two days. Let's see how we communicate.


RIVERS: And so he did avoid that question there. But it will be an interesting meeting.

The other thing that's going to be brought up, as we talked about, is how the United States will work with China to curb the North Korean problem. China has a message for the United States and for North Korea. They have a proposal they're calling the Suspension for Suspension Proposal. That's just a fancy way of saying if the U.S. and the South Koreans stop the military exercises, that the DPRK, the North Koreans, would stop their missile tests. That's the proposal from the Chinese that they say is a win/win.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHEN (ph): We would like to see Americans to move first to show their sincerity, and visa-versa. China's proposal is, why not do it at the same time. No secrets. No first or second. There's a parallel. We do it at the same time.


RIVERS: Both sides have said they want to work together on the North Korean problem but, at this point, it's unclear how they are going to do that.

[01:49:35] VAUSE: Matt, thank you.

Matt Rivers, in Beijing, and before that, Ivan Watson, in Tokyo, thanks to you both.

A short break here. When we come back, we'll learning new details about the infamous Fat Leonard bribery case. The charges against some of the Navy's highest-ranking officers, in just a moment.



SESAY: A U.S. grand jury has issued indictments against nine active and retired naval officers as part of the so-called Fat Leonard bribery scandal.

VAUSE: Brian Todd breaks down the accusations.


BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The 7th Fleet, the Navy's largest. Its motto, "Ready power for peace." But according to a new indictment, some of the fleet's commanders were ready for parties and prostitutes.

Prosecutors say retired Rear Admiral Bruce Loveless and eight other officers accepted luxury travel, expensive dinners, and prostitutes, and in return, gave a civilian contractor classified information about their ship's movements.

CMDR. KIRK LEOPOLD, FORMER COMMANDER, USS COLE: This is beyond the pale. When you look at the ranks of the officers involved in this scandal, it is something the Navy hasn't dealt with literally in decades.

TODD: According to the indictment just unsealed, when some of the officers docked in Manila in 2007, they went to a party at the McArthur suite in the Manila hotel. Quote, "During the party, historic memorial related to General Douglas MacArthur were used by the participants in sexual acts."

LEOPOLD: Totally disgusting. It is absolutely -- when you look at that, that is the history of the United States of America. And to take those artifacts and embarrass General MacArthur's family in that manner, being used in what is purported to be those sexual acts, it's just -- I -- there is no words that can describe it.

[01:55:06] TODD: The contractor who allegedly supplied the lavish gifts and parties was this man, Leonard Glenn Francis, also known as Fat Leonard, a wealthy flamboyant executive who ran a Marine contracting agency which provided dockside services to U.S. Navy ships. Fat Leonard Francis has pled guilty in the case and is awaiting sentencing.

But until now, many of the details of what happened were not public. In May 2008, according to prosecutors, Francis allegedly paid for Admiral Loveless and five other Navy men to stay at the Shangri-La Hotel in Manila. In the indictment, prosecutors write, "Francis hosted a raging multi-day party with a carousel of prostitutes. During the party, they drank all the Dom Perignon at the hotel, to the tune of more than $50,000. For some officers, in 2006, there was a dinner in Singapore with Foie gras tureen, duck, roasted Chilean sea bass, followed by expensive drinks and Cohiba cigars, $2,000 per box. Prosecutors say, in return, the officers helped steer Navy ships to ports operated by Francis where he overbilled the Navy tens of millions of dollars.

Experts say Admiral Loveless, who was a top intelligence officer, and the others charged took massive risks that could have exposed American secrets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are susceptible of being blackmailed by foreign intelligence agencies, by other corporations, by this person himself that they're involved with.

TODD: Experts say given this all allegedly happened in the Asia- Pacific theater, Chinese spies could have gotten wind of the alleged bribery that was going on. We contacted an attorney for Admiral Bruce Loveless who said neither he nor his client would comment on the case.

Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.


VAUSE: Fat Leonard threw quite the party.

OK, I'm John Vause.

SESAY: I'm Isha Sesay.

More news right after this.