Return to Transcripts main page


Iraq Declares End Of ISIS Control In Mosul; White House Downplays Meeting As Insignificant; Neo-Nazi Trolls Target Woman With Avalanche Of Hate; U.K. Court Orders Parents to Present New Evidence; Silicon Valley's Sexism Problem, Paris & Los Angeles in Competition to Host 2024 Olympics; Daniel Craig May Return as 007. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired July 11, 2017 - 01:00   ET


[01:00:00] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Ahead this hour, victory declared a bloody fight for Mosul, but the battle rages on against ISIS elsewhere in Iraq and Syria.

VAUSE: New details about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer with reports he'd been e-mailed ahead of time, and told it was part of Moscow's efforts to help his father's campaign.

SIDNER: Also, targeted by neo-Nazi trolls; the story of one woman who was a victim of intense online abuse.

VAUSE: It is a powerful story, and it's a story by Sara Sidner. Hello, everybody! Thank you for being with us. I'm John Vause.

SIDNER: And I'm Sara Sidner. This is NEWSROOM L.A.

VAUSE: There have been celebrations in Iraq after the liberation of Mosul from ISIS control. But rebuilding Iraq's second largest city will be challenging to say the least, and very expensive.

SIDNER: Nine months of an offensive against ISIS has left Mosul in ruins, and thousands of residents who fled are expected to return. The Iraqi Prime Minister said the country should unite to bring stability and security.


HAIDER AL-ABADI, PRIME MINISTER OF IRAQ (through translator): I declare from here for the whole world the end, the failure, and the collapse of the Daesh, the state of myth and terrorism that was declared from here in Mosul three years ago.


SIDNER: The battle against ISIS is not over yet. This map shows the territory the terror group still controls in Iraq.

VAUSE: Well, for more, we're joined now by Gayle Tzemach-Lemon, she's a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. OK. Gayle, so, the Iraqi Prime Minister, he wasn't just declaring a victory in Mosul; he was declaring this as a victory only for Iraqi. This is what he said.


AL-ABADI (through translator): This operation was planned and executed by Iraqis only. No other nationality shared the Iraqis in fighting on the ground. It was them who achieved this victory and it is their right to be proud before our people and the world.


VAUSE: It is understandable that he's proud of the forces, especially the Special Forces who were part of the offensive, but to say the Iraqi stood by themselves is not exactly true.

GAYLE TZEMACH-LEMON, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: This was a victory, though, for Iraqi forces in terms of look who taken the casualties, look who has paid the price in terms of national treasure, in terms of losing forces, especially special operation forces, right? Who, you know, there have been some discussions about whether the Iraqi special operations forces did work that conventional forces should have done. But the truth is that, yes, certainly, the Americans provided their support, and certainly the Americans were involved, but this was an Iraqi-led operation.

VAUSE: Well, the Kurds also played a role here. So, what happens now to that often difficult relationship that the Kurds have with Baghdad now that this military offensive is over?

LEMON: Well, the difficult relationship is not getting easier. And I think this is really the question of, and then what, right? Which has been the three-letter question that has started from the very start of the ISIS campaign has plagued the planet, right? Which is what comes next and who gets what?

VAUSE: This is all about rebuilding that city, trying to make it inhabitable for, you know, two million or so people who once lived there. And you know, fewer sources know anything when it comes to Iraq; winning the battle does not mean that the violence is over.

LEMON: Yes. The fight may have ended, but the humanitarian crisis is dire, and it is just starting in terms of come people being able to come out after months under siege, right? You have moms who were hiding in buildings with their children without food, without medicine, without water who are finally beginning to emerge. You have bodies under rubble that people are trying to recover. So, the scale of this humanitarian crisis is just enormous, and this war is deeply personal as it's the way it was being fought.

VAUSE: And it's not over. It certainly is when it comes to ISIS in Iraq, Stephen Townsend, as Commanding General Operation inherent resolve, and he basically laid out what's ahead.


it will be to finish operations in the minimal province. There's not much left, but there is still a bit of minimal province that needs to be cleared to include the major population center of Tal Afar about 40 kilometers west of Mosul. Then there'll other areas that have to be cleared in Iraq and Western Anbar province.


VAUSE: OK. So, essentially, you have a, you know, a relatively strong presence of ISIS still across the country. So, how long is this expected to take?

LEMON: It's going to take what it's going to take. And the truth is, it's much easier to kill a terrorist than it is to slay an ideology. And the biggest challenge is what's next in terms of making ISIS less appealing as an idea in its next incarnation? And I think that's the much harder problem to solve.

VAUSE: Well, it's not by rebuilding Mosul, and getting people hope for the future, I guess.

LEMON: Well, and this is the issue, right? Who's going to pay for that rebuilding? Who's going to make sure it happens? You know, nation building has become somehow this four-letter word, when really we talk about stability, roads, schools, water, things that most of your viewers will take for granted, right? That moms and dads are looking for. And if that doesn't happen, then what comes next? What fills in the blank?

[01:05:20] VAUSE: Well, we know that the next battle is we taking Raqqa from ISIS in Syria. That's something that's going to be very different to what happened in Mosul. There is a cease-fire anyway there right now, in the south of Syria; three provinces -- I think what, it's almost two days old. But the U.N. envoy, who was at these peace talks in Geneva, and he said there's actually some concerns about this cease-fire. This is what he said.


STAFFAN DE MISTURA, U.N. SECRETARY ENVOY FOR SYRIA: This de- escalation process needs, however, to be considered as interim. Let me underline the word interim. And with a clear understanding that it's not going to undermine ultimately the Syrian national unity, territorial integrity. Otherwise, this means partition, and I know this is something that no one, at least, people we talk with would like to see.


VAUSE: Explain his concerns.

LEMON: His concern is the slicing and dicing of peace deals across Syria. But what you really have is a hot potato that no one wants to catch, right? Because Russia, U.S., no one wants to be in charge of rebuilding the Syrian country, once this war is finally over. And we're not talking about just one war; there's the fight against ISIS, and then there's also the Syrian civil war, in which gave rights to the fight against ISIS. And what you see now is really a sort of, a choose your own piece of the country to come up with the peace deal, kind of ad hoc discussions that are going on. And this whole idea, the Geneva peace talks were based on, which is a political transition for all of Syria and to keep Syria's territorial integrity. I mean, we see peace talks that are going to happen with no one including the gentleman who's leading it, you know, really expecting anything to come out.

VAUSE: Yes. He laid out a low bar; it's so low, it's actually buried at this point. He said there'll be no major developments.

LEMON: Right.

VAUSE: Gayle, thank you for coming in, always good to see you.

LEMON: Thank you for joining me.

VAUSE: Thank you.

SIDNER: New details are emerging about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016, which was just weeks before his father became the official Republican nominee. According to the New York Times, Trump Jr. was held before the meeting that the lawyer had damaging information about Hillary Clinton and that it was part of an effort by the Kremlin to help the Trump campaign. Here's CNN's Jeff Zeleny.


JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The White House faced a new round of questions today over potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians during last year's election. Fresh off, President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin, it is another meeting in June of 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer that's drawing fresh scrutiny.

The Russian lawyer, known for her opposition to U.S. sanctions against Russia over human rights said she had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The White House on the defensive again today, insisting President Trump didn't know about the session in Trump Tower that came only two weeks after it clinched the Republican nomination. White House Spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said the President only learned about it in the last few days.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: I would certainly say Donald Jr. did not collude with anybody to influence the election. Our position is that no one within the Trump campaign colluded in order to influence the election.

ZELENY: But the meeting first reported by The New York Times is the first acknowledgment people in Trump's inner circle were willing to accept help from the Russians. The questions of whether they did, is the subject of a Special Counsel's investigation and inquiries on Capitol Hill. The President oldest son said he, Jared Kushner, and Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, agreed to meet with the Russian lawyer to hear what she was offering up about the Clinton Campaign. It turned out to be nothing, Trump said telling CNN: "Her statements were vague, ambiguous, and made no sense." The meeting was arranged by Rob Goldstone, a publicist for a Russian pop singer who worked with President Trump on the Miss Universe pageant, hosted in Moscow in 2013. Trump's also seen in this music video.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What's wrong with you, Emman? Emman, let's get it with.

ZELENY: On CNN's NEW DAY, a Senior Adviser to the President, Kellyanne Conway, downplayed the meeting.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: I don't think anybody had to look very far to find damaging information on Hillary Clinton or negative information.

ZELENY: Robby Mook, the Clinton Campaign Manager, said the revelation puts potential collusion closer to Trump.

ROBBY MOOK, FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER FOR HILLARY CLINTON: What's disturbing is at each and every juncture, the Trump campaign gets closer and closer to Russia and the connections become more direct.

ZELENY: All this as the White House deals with the fallout from Trump/Putin meeting, Friday at the g20 summit. On Sunday morning, the President wrote: "Putin and I discussed forming an impenetrable cyber- security unit so that election hacking and other negative things will be guarded." That statement sparked an unusually swift rebuke, and that's just from Republicans who blasted the President for being naive.

[01:10:11] SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: When it comes to Russia, he's got a blind spot. And to forgive and forget when it comes to Putin, regarding cyber-attacks is to empower Putin. And that's exactly what he's doing.

ZELENY: By Sunday night, Trump had reversed himself completely saying: "The fact that President Putin and I discussed cyber security unit, doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't." Republicans here in Washington are being sharply critical of that meeting between President Trump and President Putin last week at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany.

They believe that President Trump did not stand up enough to President Putin on election meddling and other matters. Now, this issue with the President's oldest son Donald Trump Jr., also now front and center, the Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner, telling CNN he absolutely wants to see the President's son called to testify and answer questions about the meeting before the committee. Jeff Zeleny, CNN, the White House.


VAUSE: OK. That was the politics here with Jeff Zeleny. We'll take a close look at legal issues, so joining us here in Los Angeles: Criminal Defense Attorneys, Brian Claypool, and Austin Dove. Good to see you both. Brian, first to you, some legal experts are really on quick too, you know, calling this out, as certainly which could amount to treason, this may be between Donald Jr. and the Russian lawyer. OK. The U.S. Constitution says treason against the United States shall consist only in living war against them or in a hearing to their enemies giving them aid and comfort. I'm no lawyer, which is why you guys are here. But I read that, this doesn't sound like treason.

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, this absolutely isn't treason because Donald Trump Jr. didn't receive any information that aided and comforted the election process for his father, number one. Number two, there's a federal election law that you didn't mention, and I'm going to tell you why as it stands now, the facts do not support Donald Trump having committed an illegal act. The federal election law says soliciting or accepting anything of value in connection with an election from a foreign national.

So, the key here is Donald Trump didn't solicit anything. He was approached -- apparently, music publicist friend approached Donald Trump said, hey, I want you to meet this female Russian lawyer. So, he didn't solicit anything, number one. And number two, what did Donald Trump Jr. receive in this meeting of value that somehow helped the election process? My argument would be at this point, we don't have any evidence whatsoever to support that Donald Trump Jr. received anything of value in the meeting.

SIDNER: But there were some timing issues, right, that if you look at some of the timing of when Donald Trump tweeted about e-mails, and when he started going after Hillary Clinton about her e-mails and asking Russia to bring. Those things happened after this meeting, not long after this meeting, so there are some, as we talked about earlier, some dots there; they've not all been connected. And, of course, we don't --

CLAYPOOL: That's perception versus legality; are two different concepts.

VAUSE: (INAUDIBLE), do you agree with the assessment here? Do you think they want something of value? Because New York Times was reporting, he was told ahead of time, hey, there's damaging information that we could have the Russian government has, and help your dad get elected. Isn't that something of value?

AUSTIN DOVE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Damaging information is itself the value here. I mean, let's not be naive. We're looking at a significant election, a major pivotal point in the election against the basically the own; he had just been named the Republican candidate. Now, he's going against the Democrat, the only remaining standing of the two, and its information against that particular candidate. Not one of the many Republicans who are against but that particular candidate.

That's immense value. That's tremendously important to the campaign and be it, it remains the issue throughout and beyond the campaign. So, I would say the inherited value is the information there. It doesn't have to be money or stocks or something that we think of in other ways of value. The value was itself the information.

SIDNER: Let me read to you what the legal scholar, Laurence Tribe, tweeted after hearing all this. He said, "Attempted theft of a presidential election in collusion with Putin is a serious felony and a high-crime against the state." Is there a law specifically talking about collusion? We know we've heard about treason, but collusion itself?

DOVE: Well, that really falls under the umbrella of conspiracy. So, if there are -- There are obviously numerous people on the staff, many working around this issue and we just talked about the fact that this information came from one source, and then, you know, sort of filter its way up to Donald Trump Jr., he arranges or accepts a meeting. So, there are numerous people who are participating in that process.

And if those individuals are in violation of the election laws, are in violation of the federal statute that very specifically outlying what you can do with a foreign national, to foreign countries that really cannot really be, specifically kind of stepping on the toes of our election process. Then, you do get into the process of collusion and it raises some very, very disturbing and important questions in the area.

[01:15:03] SIDNER: Brain, I saw you smiling.

VAUSE: Brian, is it --

CLAYPOOL: I think this is a knee-jerk reaction. You've got to look at the entire context of this meeting. Remember, the female lawyer -- I can't pronounce her name.

[01:15:18] DOVE: The esteemed female lawyer from Russia.

VAUSE: We don't know if she's connected to the Kremlin.

CLAYPOOL: We don't and I believe Donald Trump Jr.'s position is well- founded that she used having some information that might help his father in the election as a pretext to get the meeting, and them when they get in the meeting, five minutes into the discussion; she's talking about Russian adoption of children in the U.S. And the meeting went South after that.

SIDNER: To be fair, I do want to open this door because does this -- when you look on its face, does it show that Donald Trump Jr. was open to the idea of collusion? That is what it might appear to someone looking at this from the outside.

CLAYPOOL: You get a gold star for that fact, but the problem with that is that doesn't end up in any culpability. Donald Trump said, it's late in the game, but look, we had a meeting, talked about this. The fact he knew ahead him she might have information that might be detrimental to Hillary Clinton and the campaign, that in and of itself is not enough to hold him legally culpable.

VAUSE: This is a statement from Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney from hours ago. At no time was there ever understanding or commitments that he or anyone else found information whatever it turned out to be, to be credible or survive due diligence. Nothing came of it. His father knew nothing about it. The bottom line is Donald Jr. did nothing wrong. That was carefully worded and sound to me what they keep in mind there is this issue of value. It was of no value. There was nothing there. Lawyers are worried about the electoral rules when it comes to receiving something of value from a foreign national.

DOVE: Exactly. The issue is this; he took the meeting with a particular intent. I don't believe there's any way to say he took the meeting to talk about an adoption process or that there was some of public policy issues or benign reason it was put together. It was put together with significant information to damage the opponent, Hillary Clinton, benefit Donald Trump, and that's this here. You can't escape that reality by saying, well, later on; nothing came out of the meeting. It was, you know, it was less than productive. It was a dead end. That's significant about the intent. Wrap this around all the other issues going on.

To this day, as recently as this weekend, some sort of -- I said, you know, soft pedaling about what's going on with Russia and now we're going to do a joint operation on the cybersecurity issue. I mean, you still have a very cloudy issue from the Trump administration, and proceeding its administration and up to the current time about what's happening with Russia. There's going to be questions. It will be put to rest, with more transparency, but you can't have it both ways.

CLAYPOOL: Go to the horse's mouth, talk to the female Russian lawyer.

VAUSE: We're trying.

CLAYPOOL: If they get her, you can get to the bottom of this very quickly, but I feel at the end of the day, a lot of smoke, but no legal action.

VAUSE: Nice gray suits got the men low, looking sharp. Appreciate it. Thanks, guys.

DOVE: Thank you.

SIDNER: Next on NEWSROOM L.A., what happens when an army of hate takes over your life? Hear from a mother who says her family is the target of a disgusting hate campaign.

VAUSE: Also, U.K. high court sets a new hearing in the case of a terminally ill child. Could there be new hope for baby Charlie Gard?


[01:21:22] VAUSE: Well, the founder of a neo-Nazi site is being sued for allegedly using the platform to encourage readers to send a Jewish woman, her 12-year-old son, and husband hateful messages. They faced hate for months but are fighting back to stop this from happening to anyone else.

SIDNER: The language in the story is explicit and may be disturbing, but it illustrates the depth of hate in America today. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SIDNER: They call themselves trolls. What do you call them?


SIDNER (voice-eover): In the digital era, it only takes key strokes for hate to suddenly consume your life. This is what is often waiting for Tanya Gersh every day when she goes online or picks up a phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope you die. You worthless, you ugly Tanya Gersh.

GERSH: I had a lot of phone calls with gunshots. That sound still makes me sick.

SIDNER (voice-over): The Gersh's, including their 12-year-old son received thousands of messages like this for months.

GERSH: Your whore of a mother should watch herself. Crawl into the oven, little boy. There's a free x-box inside. They Photoshop images of me with Nazi symbols on my forehead, my arm, and imagery of me and my son on the gates to the concentration camp.

SIDNER: Do you think it scarred him?


SIDNER (voice-over): It's the last thing you'd expect in the quaint resort town of White Fish, Montana.

GERSH: I just pray we'll be safe.

SIDNER (voice-over): Gersh said it started when she came into contact with a fellow resident Sherry Spencer, who happens to be the mother of White Nationalist, Richard Spencer.

SIDNER (voice-over): He shot to fame celebrating President Trump's win with Nazi symbolism. His mom, Sherry Spencer, owns a commercial building in town. Gersh, a realtor says she was trying to help Spencer sell the building to calm tensions within the town over her son's beliefs. But according to the lawsuit filed by anti-hate group, Spencer published a blog post accusing Gersh of threatening her with protest until she complied and sold her building. We called Spencer who said she didn't want to talk to us.

BILL DAL, POLICE CHIEF, WHITEFISH: People said, who do you believe? I said, you know, it's -- I don't know.

SIDNER (voice-over): But the police chief says no complaint was filed by Spencer and no charges were brought by any other agency. After the blog post, the lawsuit says Andrew England, founder of the most popular neo-Nazi website, picked up the torch and unleashed the troll army on Gershs's, publishing their contact information on their site. The Southern Poverty Law Center is suing Andrew on her behalf, accusing him of intentionally inflicting emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and intimidation.

JOHN MORRISON, CO-COUNSEL, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: The purpose is to cause them fear and emotional harm, and that's illegal. It's not protected by the first amendment.

SIDNER (voice-over): We reached out to Andrew England who told us he now lives in, of all places, Nigeria, where he says his rights to say what he wants are not limited. He did not return comment about the case. We managed to catch up with one of the writers on the Daily Stormer website at a rally in Houston.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Andrew England specifically call on the readers of Daily Stormer to contact her and tell them what think about it, and that's exactly what they did. There's no evidence that anyone from -- who was influenced by Stormer made threats. I watched --

SIDNER: They made some threats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And like why? We're going to throw you in a gas chamber? That's a real credible threat.

[01:25:13] SIDNER: England initially responded to the Gersh lawsuit with this image.

GERSH: It's on a horse with a big spear into me.

SIDNER: Asking for donations despite the lawsuit. He's raised more than $150,000. Gersh is also receiving support in the form of batches of letters and e-mails.

GERSH: I think I couldn't have survived the whole thing without this.

SIDNER (voice-over): While it was the hatred spewed by strangers that has terrified the family, it is the kindness of strangers that is saving them from utter despair.


SIDNER: Brian Levin joins us now. He is the Director of the Center of Study of Hate and Extremism. The publisher of Daily Stormer, Andrew England, who I know you're familiar with.


SIDNER: Asked the troll army to stop contacting the family after the lawsuit was filed, and, indeed, the family said, suddenly, most of it stopped. Once a day, they get something, not thousands of e-mails and mail and phone calls pouring in. Doesn't that speak to the power that he has, and could that hurt him in this lawsuit?

LEVIN: Well, it may. Here's the interesting thing. We just came out with a study over Cal State San Bernardino showing hate crimes from 2016 were up another six percent than 25 of the largest cities and counties but I think if you look towards how hay manifested in legal ways, or non-criminal ways, I think the increase is even higher. We've seen an Orange County, California, for instance, increase in hate crime last year of 13 percent but hate incidents about 70 percent.

SIDNER: There is a difference between hate crimes that are, you know, legally -- there's a legal net for those, and hate incidents which are something else, publishing fliers, for example, or they are writing messages on message boards or calling on the phone, not necessarily hate crimes. I do want to ask you about this particular fight. The Southern Poverty Law Center and attorney for the family said, look, this is intimidation, going after the client, harassing her, her family, making it difficult for her to do business. Whereas Andrew on the Daily Stormer said, look, we are using our freedom of speech. It is constitutionally justified, and no one can stop us. Who is right?

LEVIN: Well, great question. I used to work at Southern Poverty Law Center many, many years ago. Freedom of Speech does not allow someone to intimidate someone or one of the causes of action in this particular case, putting on my lawyer hat, intentional infliction of emotional distress. If the plan by design is to cause someone that kind of distress, that's actionable.

What happens here is the evidence will determine whether the first amendment is violated or not. What we can see is was there intent in the context of this, not just to offer an opinion to Ms. Gersh, but to intimidate and terrorize her. No constitutional right for that. Back to the Vietnam Era said crude political statements, if I'm drafted into the war, first person in the rifle sights is LBJ. The Supreme Court said you can punish for a threat, but a crude political statement? No. Here, though, there's a context where they call for a troll storm.

SIDNER: Right.

LEVIN: That seems to me to be beyond expressing one's opinion, but to intimidate and harass. We'll see what the jury says in this case if they can even find him, which we don't know where he is.

SIDNER: Interesting point. They are having trouble serving him. He still runs the website. It's out there. Let me lastly ask you, when it comes to cases like this, is there anything a person can do? This is a regular citizen. They don't have a big company behind them; they don't have a law enforcement group behind them watching everything. The FBI certainly, normally in the cases would be looking into these things, but what do you do? Is there anything you can do as a regular citizen when this happens to you?

[01:29:47] LEVIN: Great question. As an attorney many years ago, I represented a woman who was harassed over the internet and also by a clansman, and what we did is we got her out of the location, and we changed as much as we could about information on how to find her, and I think that maybe some of the things that Ms. Gersh might want to consider. Maybe changing the location, also setting up some kind of security apparatus, cameras and the like. And also, having her fellow friends and citizens look out for her as well.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much for joining us. An important topic to discuss. And I think a lot of people are watching the hate incidents grow in this country and people are worried about it.

LEVIN: Thank you so much.

SIDNER: Appreciate it.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: A good story. You experienced firsthand what it was like in that story.


VAUSE: OK. A short break, and when we come back, Silicon Valley's dirty secret. But women are coming out and speaking out about sexual harassment.


VAUSE: Welcome back, everybody. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause.

SIDNER: I'm Sara Sidner.

The headlines for you at this hour.


VAUSE: The U.K.'s high court has adjourned until Thursday as it reconsiders the case of an 11-month-old baby desperately fighting for his life

SIDNER: Baby Charlie Gard's parents will have a chance to summit new evidence showing why their terminally ill son should receive experimental treatment. The new date was set Monday in London.

CNN's Erin McLaughlin brings us the latest on the story.


ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was a dramatic preliminary hearing here at the royal courts of justice. As one point, Chris Gard, Charlie's father, openly yelled out in court, "When are you going to tell the truth?" It was directed at the legal counsel of Great Ormond Street Hospital, the hospital treating his son. The hospital actually requested today's hearing citing claims from Charlie Gard's parents of new evidence in this case, new evidence that the hospital says it has yet to see. And the judge in this case ordering the legal counsel for Charlie's parents to produce that evidence in summary form by 2:00 p.m. Wednesday. Also asking the question, if this new evidence will show that the brain damage suffered by Charlie can be reversed. He said, without that, what sort of life would Charlie be able to lead? He also expressed concern over the baby's continued suffering.

Now, this is a case that has garnered intense international attention, with tweets from Pope Francis as well as U.S. President Donald Trump. But the judge was very clear. He said, he will not be swayed by tweets. He needs to see new and dramatic evidence that Charlie Gard will benefit from further treatment. Otherwise, the original ruling of the court will stand. Next hearing and scheduled for Thursday.

Erin McLaughlin, CNN, London.


[01:36:06] SIDNER: Stories of sexual harassment in Silicon Valley have dominated headlines recently, from Uber to Get Hub, revealing the dark side of one of the most powerful place on earth.

VAUSE: Two tech investors have resigned from the companies they helped build after being accused of sexual harassment.

SIDNER: Now, more women are stepping forward to stop this abuse of power, including one entrepreneur who shared her experience with CNN's Laurie Segall.


CHERYL YASH, CEO, CERYLE YASH & CO: They came over after dinner, and we, you know, started out pretty normal, you know, just chatting on ideas. And they had brought whisky over, and it was in the apartment. Sure, I'll drink, right, but they kept pouring it into the cup, and he kept pouring. I couldn't keep track of the drinks I had. People were tired, and they, on the other hand, they wanted to leave. When they left, Dave was there. He did not leave. Like, OK, are you drunk? Crash on the couch or I have a guest room. He followed me into my room, and that's when he started propositioning me, suggesting that we sleep together. And I was, like, no, no, like, what are you doing? I have a boyfriend, remember. This is not OK. I told him, you know, I think you have to leave. I was leading him out, showing him the door. Pretty close to the door, he pushed me, and pushed himself onto me, and started kissing me. And I kept saying no. And I remember him saying, just one night only, please, just one time. I just can't forget those words.

LAURIE SEGALL, CNN MONEY TECH CORRESPONDENT: What was going through your head?

YASH: I have a boyfriend, he has a wife and kids, like, what do I do? What if he uses more force on me, so I was pretty shocked, and I didn't quite know what to do beyond just pushing him away. I felt like I couldn't speak up because we had this deal that we were going to do to bring accelerator to southeast Asia.

SEGALL: You were worried if you said anything the money he was going to commit and the role he was supposed to play, that would go away?

YASH: Uh-huh, so that's where I think it's a problem because there was a huge power dynamic at play here. If you go on record in terms -- there's career repercussions. Some people are fundraising. They do not want to jeopardize that ability to fund raise?

SEGALL: How do you feel now?

YASH: Closure, but I still felt like this need to be told. There's a difference between making an off-colored joke or sexist commitment to actually sexually assaulting someone without concept, touching or kissing someone without permission. Gory details matter and what make a difference.


VAUSE: Well, for more, joining us now from San Francisco, Recode CEO, Kara Swisher.

Kara, thank you for being with us.


VAUSE: Why is this coming out now? Is there a trigger? Anything in particular to point to as a breaking point here?

SWISHER: I think the situation at Uber, an engineer there wrote a blog post getting attention in Silicon Valley and worldwide really about her experience there, which is a lot of sexism, a lot of sexual harassment, and badly managed company, and that set off a chain reaction where these things lead. It's not Uber, but a systematic problem in Silicon Valley. That naturally moved to venture capitalist where the power dynamic of the person looking for investment and the investor is out of whack, especially for female entrepreneurs. Since then, people feel end boldened to speak up.

[01:40:04] VAUSE: Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs predominantly men, 92 percent male.


VAUSE: And they usually operate without employment contracts, no human resources department.


VAUSE: How do you essentially hold someone accountable under those circumstances?

SWISHER: Well, they should have human resources rules in place. This are actual laws around behaviors, and they can't just act any way they want to. What happens is you have a really unequal power dynamic, and some venture capitalists, not all, by any stretch of the imagination, take advantage of that. This is two examples of that happening. In both cases, a very systematic pattern going on, continual pattern that did not stop, and the women decided enough was enough, and they spoke up, spoke up on the record, and as the interview just did, and very bravely told their stories even though they could suffer consequences for doing so.

VAUSE: Consequences, though, because the clauses - essentially, nondisclosures, which are common?

SWISHER: Well, that's some cases. In a lot of cases, people can't speak out. The example is the woman who headed Stitchfix. Under a nondisclosure agreement, she can't speak out. She made an overall statement about the problem, but she can't talk specifically to it. More to the point is that if you talk up too much, you end up labeled a troublemaker or someone who is difficult to work with, and you don't get investments so people avoid you if you speak up about abuses. That's the problem.

VAUSE: Something unique to Silicon Valley or corporate culture?

SWISHER: Unique to humanity, right?


SWISHER: I think that's the problem. Silicon Valley's talked about being better, better culture, tolerant, but it's the same patterns that happen, you know, on Wall Street or Hollywood. You heard the stories time and again. In many, many occasions. It's just sad that a group of people that talks about being sort of part of the future is so mired in the past and past behavior.

VAUSE: Very quickly, almost out of time, some capitalists in Silicon Valley promise a decency pledge. What do you think of that?

SWISHER: Yes. Just window dressing. That's not the point. The behaviors have to change.

VAUSE: Kara, good to speak with you. Thank you so much.

SWISHER: Thanks.

SIDNER: Ahead, it's going to be a tough competition, but the new French president is setting his sights on the Olympics. And why he says Paris will be the perfect host city.


VAUSE: Delegations from Paris and Los Angeles visit the Olympic museum Tuesday to make final presentations to try to win the bid to host the 2024 Olympics.

SIDNER: It's well-known host cities rarely make a profit from the games, so why is Paris so determined to win the bid?

CNN's Jim Bittermann explains.



[01:45:08] JIM BITTERMANN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Oh, the bands, oh, the banners. Make no mistake, Paris really wants the 2024 Olympic games. They're spending nearly $70 million on splashy shows and demonstrations to convince the International Olympic Committee and perhaps their own countrymen that Paris has the infrastructure, enthusiasm, and engagement financially to stage the games.

Everyone is getting involved, from past and present Olympic stars, to the newly elected president. And even the mayor, who initially was a bit dubious about the whole thing. There's a reason why Paris is putting so much effort into the bid, why

it's put its mayor into a canoe and sending divers plunging into the River Seine. The reason is, the last time the city tried for the Olympics, in 2005, the organizers were accused of being arrogantly overconfident. When London got the nod, the disappointment here was palpable.

ANNOUNCER: The gates of the 30th Olympian, are awarded to the city of London.


BITTERMANN: It wasn't just the loss of the 2012 games to ancient rivals across the English Channel that hurt so much. It was the blow to national pride.

This time organizers are determined not to make the same mistakes. Among other things, they put sports heroes out in front.

UNIDENTIFIED FORMER OLYMPICS ATHLETE: We have all the resources, 95 percent of existing venues. We have all the transport facilities. So it's time now to really consider that France is the right place to organize again in '24.

BITTERMANN: Despite all the facilities Paris already has in place, organizers plan to spend more than six billion euros on new sites and improvements to existing ones.

But Olympic budgets are notoriously unrealistic. When asked if the Olympics would put the taxpayers at risk, the mayor said, we are no longer there. Meaning perhaps that things have moved well beyond debating a price tag.

And while the promoters claim that costs that can covered, ask someone who studies such questions, and he'll tell you that no Olympics since 1984 has made money on the games. Although that may not be the point.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's like when you host a party at your house, you don't do it for the money. You do it to shine. You want to show that you can succeed.

BITTERMANN: But to succeed, Paris must defeat the only other city in the bidding for the 2024 games, Los Angeles. Three other cities have dropped out, in part or entirely, over the question of costs.

(on camera): In any kind of competition, you always have your eye on the competitor to see how far they're behind you. Are you keeping an eye on Los Angeles?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will win on our strengths.

BITTERMANN (voice-over): And for Paris, looking forward means towards September, for the announcement of which of the two cities has made it over the top.



VAUSE: OK. Everyone's going to win, I think.

Next here on NEWSROOM L.A., he's back as Bond. Daniel Craig reportedly signing up for the 25th film in the iconic spy franchise. But is his heart really in it?


[01:50:47] SIDNER: I've never, ever heard of this happening. A teenager in the U.S. state of Colorado is lucky to be alive after waking up to a bear chewing on his head over the weekend.

VAUSE: Chewing. Dylan McWilliams was sleeping outside, and he said he thought he was dreaming, but he heard a crunchy sound --




DYLAN MCWILLIAM, BEAR ATTACK VICTIM: He grabbed me like this, and pulled me, and then it bit the back of my head and drug me.


SIDNER: John is not laughing.



SIDNER: But it's an odd sentence. The animal pulled McWilliams for about three or four meters before other staffers scared it away. And, apparently, he fought him by poking the bear in the eye. The camp says it's worth working with state wildlife officials to try and remove that bear.

John is melting down.

British Actor Daniel Craig is not ready -- get this -- to give up his license to kill just yet.

VAUSE: Ah, the U.K.'s "Daily Mail" is reporting that Craig has signed on not for one but for two more James Bond films. You may recall Craig was less than enthusiastic about ever playing 007 again.

Joining us to talk about this, Sandro Monetti, film and entertainment journalist and 007 ---

SIDNER: Is this your gun? VAUSE: I love it. OK. OK, we all know what Craig said about playing

James Bond. It was back in October 2005, and he just wrapped "Spectra," right? Asked about another film? "Now, I'd rather break this glass and slash my wrists. No, that's fine, I'm over it at the moment. We're dope. All I want to do is move on."

But it did seem to all the world he was over the role completely. Apparently, James Bond is better than slashing wrists?

SANDRO MONETTI, FILM & ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALIST: Well, he's not reaching for the razors yet because in the interview with "Timeout London," he said only doing another for the money.

SIDNER: Oh, yes.

VAUSE: At least he's honest.

MONETTI: But let's - the James Bond franchise is a license to make money. It really is. "Skyfall: made $1.1 billion. " The Spectra" was considered a failure, but still made $880 million. If you think it's about business rather than show business, the franchise could go one of two ways, reinvent or play safe and this is a play safe move to get a big return on the investments. People clearly turn out for the Daniel Craig films, let's do another couple.

SIDNER: After saying what he said, the studio decided to stick with this guy. This is a role that some people would be, like, hey, I got a job, I can do ten of these if it goes well.

MONETTI: Well, they also need to stick the P.R. department closely to make sure he never says anything like that again. It's a P.R. nightmare. But there is a risk with the continuing franchises if the actor does not seem to want to be there. We can think of continuing franchises where that's been the case. But if you look at a movie from earlier this year, Logan, Hugh Jackman, never better. That's an actor giving his all to the part and best performance. Hopefully, Daniel Craig gets behind this and it's not a money play.

VAUSE: Funny you mention this, because there was a piece in "The Daily Beast" about why Daniel Craig should not play James Bond. What you said. This is what part read. We've seen too much about franchise overvaluing return of a marquee star who was, in spirit, done with the franchise, essentially phoning in a comeback in order to catch a paycheck.

MONETTI: Did they say who they mean?


VAUSE: Too early to tell if that's the situation. I mean, how much money is this guy going to pull from this? $125 million for two films. So it would be more.

MONETTI: Reportedly, as high as $154 million. For two films. Showing how star salaries are big. That's a drop in the bucket if they are doing a billion. (CROSSTALK)

MONETTI: He's underpaid.


SIDNER: This is where people complain about Hollywood to be fair, right?


[01:55:11] SIDNER: I don't want to do it, but $154 million? This franchise -- look at it now, people still go. It doesn't matter if the actor said he wants to do it or not. People love the franchise, correct?

MONETTI: You know what you're going to get. They are talking about bringing back Adele for the theme song for this.

SIDNER: I think she said yes about that.

MONETTI: That is the dream team. Daniel Craig and Adele. Worked before, presumably, will work again.

VAUSE: Can we play a clip from Adele?




VAUSE: Whiney, terrible, most annoying terrible song I ever heard. It just went on and on and on. Won an Oscar and Grammy.


SIDNER: It's Adele? She could read the phone book and I'd go to see it.

MONETTI: You don't have the most commercial taste, do you, John?



VAUSE: I read wrong.

MONETTI: Very good.

VAUSE: There were other names like tom hardy -- just to name a few -- this is a coveted role a lot of people wanting and that was one of the revelations why he signed off on two more, right?

MONETTI: Yes. So many people were coveting his job. He thought, hang on. I'll hang on to it. Daniel Craig has, you know, since "Spectra" worked off Broadway.

So, Barbara, you know, who runs the James Bond franchise, you know, has been with him working on projects. Said, maybe I don't want to slash wrists after all.

But, yes, so, yes. I mean, he's been great. Hopefully, he'll be great again. Hugh Jackman is the example.

VAUSE: We'll see.

Sandro, thank you.

SIDNER: Thank you so much.

You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, from Los Angeles. I'm Sara Sidner.

VAUSE: I'm John Vause.

We'll be back with more news after a short break.


[02:00:06] SIDNER: This is CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles.

VAUSE: Ahead this hour, celebrations for Mosul. The Iraqi city finally liberated from ISIS after three years, but at a --