Return to Transcripts main page


Daunting Task of Rebuilding Mosul Lies Ahead; Russia Investigation; Qatar's Neighbors; U.K. Court Orders Charlie Gard's Parents to Present New Evidence; New U.K. Video Offers Advice to Survive Terror Attacks; Trolls Target Woman with Avalanche of Hate; J.K. Rowling Helps Children in Orphanages; Amazon's Alexa Shaping Future of Shopping. Aired 2-3a ET

Aired July 11, 2017 - 02:00   ET




SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): This is CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Ahead this hour, celebrations for Mosul, the Iraqi city finally liberated from ISIS after three years but at a staggering cost.

SIDNER (voice-over): Plus a new report that Donald Trump's son was informed by e-mail about a Russian government effort to help the Trump campaign.

VAUSE (voice-over): And later: targeted by neo-Nazis. What it's like to be harassed by an online army of Internet trolls.

SIDNER (voice-over): Hello and welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Sara Sidner.

VAUSE (voice-over): I'm John Vause. This is NEWSROOM L.A.


VAUSE: Iraq is facing the daunting task of rebuilding Mosul after liberating the key city from ISIS control. This major military victory was a cause for celebration, the end of three years of a brutal ISIS reign

But now most of the city is in ruins and thousands of residents who fled are expected to return.

SIDNER: Mosul is also facing major political challenges. The ethnic and religion divisions ISIS exploited in the first place have not been reconciled. The prime Iraqi minister is now urging the country to unite.


HAIDER AL-ABADI, IRAQI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Iraqis, the sons and brave fighters of Iraq lived up to their promise. It was with our unity and with the closing of our ranks that we were able to defeat ISIS over these years.

It was because of your efforts, blood and sacrifices we foiled all the plans to disunite Iraqis and the lands of Iraq.

SIDNER (voice-over): The battle against ISIS, however, is not over yet. This map shows in red the territory that the terror group still controls in Iraq.


SIDNER: Iraq says its forces are now in firm control of Mosul but a small number of ISIS fighters do remain in the city.

VAUSE: CNN's Nick Paton Walsh was with Iraqi troops as they fought amid the rubble.


NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SR. INTL. CORRESPONDENT: Nearly 48 hours of celebration on Iraq's streets since we heard that Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi was coming here to announce the liberation of Mosul.

In the last hours he finally made that statement, praising the sacrifice of the Iraqi nation, saying ISIS were consigned to the dustbin of history. But even as he spoke, the tiniest pockets of ISIS are still holding out in the remnants of the old city.

We saw this morning quite how that violent standoff looked.

WALSH (voice-over): It's like something supernatural or otherworldly has hit it. This destruction absolutely breathtaking and really a sign of the dust and bones that ISIS have left in their wake.

Old city Mosul, the damage new, the city gone and Mosul almost free of ISIS. Elsewhere, Iraqis are celebrating victory, dancing in the streets. Yet here, the streets are still being ground to rubble in the last 100 yards of ISIS.

The group that once held swaths of Iraq and Syria, down here to their last bullets we are told.

WALSH: There it is the river that runs through the heart of Mosul that marks the end of ISIS territory in Iraq, really. But between these Iraqi special forces and that body of water that marks victory are still just dozens of ISIS fighters still holding out.

WALSH (voice-over): American airstrikes hammer them.

WALSH: That's the intensity and proximity of the fighting here that airstrikes are called in right next to Iraqi forces. They even feel the rubble landing in their faces.

WALSH (voice-over): Perhaps because this really is the end, some of them appear to give themselves up. A sniper still there.

They're welcomed.

"Carry him, carry him," the commander shouts.

After the masks, the manicured propaganda, now we finally see what the Iraqi soldiers say is the true, human and defeated face of ISIS. This man appears like he has a disability and is asked how he got here.

"ISIS forced me here," he insists.

They fought the world's war on ISIS here in Mosul and now casually pass dead fighters. Major Salaam (ph) was with us at the start and has lost many friends.

WALSH: How does it feel?



SALAM HUSSEIN, COUNTER TERROR FORCES: I feel tired. I try to done the operation here after all this nine months.

WALSH (voice-over): Brigadier General Asadi planted the Iraqi flag, he says, on the riverbank the day before. But this isn't a battle of flags anymore but for ISIS of smaller cells and survival. So, the fight went on even as the official declaration from Iraq's prime minister announced victory. So it will be for Iraq in the years ahead.

Now are ISIS done in Iraq?

Well, I think as a symbol yes, they suffered possibly a fatal blow to some degree through losing control of the second biggest city, the heart really of their caliphate as they call it here in Iraq.

And because their image is so much an important part of frankly their ability to project power, I think they suffered enormously from the loss of this city. Yes, there are other towns, cities where they do retain a presence where Iraqi military will have to launch operations in the months ahead. And they still retain control of Raqqa, their own self-declared capital across the border in Syria.

But the speed of their collapse to some degree will probably force them into some sort of low-level insurgency in the months and years ahead.

And I think it will cause great suffering amongst the Iraqi people, but they have a broader challenge ahead of them now and that's to heal the sectarian rift between Sunni and Shia that allowed ISIS to get a foothold in Iraq's society in the first place.

That's a massive task, torn apart really of 15 years of internal strife since Saddam Hussein fell, a very difficult task ahead for Iraqi even now the bloodshed possibly looks like it may be beginning to ebb -- Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Irbil, Northern Iraq.


VAUSE: CNN's Jomana Karadsheh joins us now live from Amman, Jordan, with more on this.

Jomana, is there any indication the Iraqi government actually has a plan how to rebuild Mosul?

And where they will they find the billions of dollars they need to restore basic services?

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's unclear right now. We hear all the Iraqi officials speaking about the phase after the battle. That is rebuilding cities like Mosul. It's unclear if they have any sort of concrete or solid plan in place.

Remember the Iraqi president was Amman a few weeks ago. I asked him the question about rebuilding Mosul. He said it's very hard to put a price tag on that, that we had to wait till the fighting ends and then they will properly assess.

But he described the destruction as phenomenal at that point. Since then, we've heard in recent days from the United Nations estimating that it will cost at least $1 billion.

That's probably a conservative estimate of how much it's going to cost them to restore some basic services for some basic reconstruction of this devastated city.

But I think, John, it's going to be very hard for the Iraqi government to foot that bill because this is a country that relies on oil when it comes to its budget; 90 percent or more of Iraq's budget is based on oil prices.

With the oil prices so low right now, they are going to struggle and probably turn to the international community for support. We've heard these hints from Iraqi officials.

But they might have trouble with that, too. We've heard, for example, President Trump, you know, awhile ago saying that the United States is no longer in that business of nation building.

And also recently we've heard from the United Nations, saying the international community hasn't really provided it with the funds. It's only given them 43 percent of those funds that were pledged last year for the humanitarian effort.

So I think there might be some difficulty when it comes to getting the money to reconstruct and rebuild Mosul.

VAUSE: While they work out where this money is going to come from and whether the Iraqi government has it, the last number I saw was more than 300,000 people still living in emergency shelter. They will have to stay there till they get basic services back on.

So they could essentially be in that situation for months to come?

KARADSHEH: Exactly. And they've been in that position for months now. You're talking about 100 degree Fahrenheit temperatures they're in, living in these horrific conditions in these camp where, in many cases, there isn't really running water and they have sewage problems and all that.

I think it's going to be very critical, John, for the Iraqi government to rebuild these destroyed cities like Mosul, for these internally displaced people to return to their homes as soon as possible to try and put their lives back together.

It is also very important when it comes to the whole idea of moving past, you know, ISIS to try and reconcile, to try and show these communities, when you're looking at these communities who have been displaced, the majority of them, of course, Sunnis.

The longer they stay in these camps the more vulnerable these communities are to ISIS recruitment, for example; basically we know that the terror group does exploit things like the sectarian divide and playing on feelings that the Sunnis are marginalized --


KARADSHEH: -- and discriminated against. The faster they go back home, the easier it is for Iraq to move on.

VAUSE: Yes. An Iraqi summer living in a tent outside Mosul clearly is one of the worst things that they can do to these people right now.

Jomana, good to speak with you. Thank you.

SIDNER: The Trump campaign reportedly knew more than a year ago that the Russian government was trying to help it win the election.

According to "The New York Times," Donald Trump Jr. was informed of Kremlin efforts in an e-mail shortly before he met with a Russian lawyer, who claimed to have damaging information from the Russian government on Hillary Clinton.

VAUSE: Now the Trump White House has dismissed the meeting as insignificant. And a lawyer for Trump Jr. says it's much ado about nothing. Anderson Cooper spoke with "The New York Times" reporter Maggie Haberman, who helped break the story.


MAGGIE HABERMAN, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": We know that before this meeting that has been the subject of stories over the last few days was arranged, that Donald Trump Jr., who was ascendant in the campaign at that point was informed in an e-mail that there was some compromising information about Hillary Clinton and that it was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's campaign.

The e-mail came from Rob Goldstone, who was this publicist, former tabloid reporter. He was essentially the intermediary on this meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer.

The initial statement from Don Trump said that this meeting was about adoptions. In a subsequent statement on Sunday, he said that it was indeed a presentation initially about information about Hillary Clinton and then it became clear as he was talking to this woman that she didn't information according to him.

But look, the fact that there is an e-mail chain where it was said and it's not clear whether Goldstone had direct knowledge of any of this, but the fact that there was an e-mail chain even discussing this makes it more complicated certainly and harder to say, you know, that there were no strings attached or no concerns potentially about this.

And, Anderson, as you and I both know that this was a campaign that was known for -- and I would say at times prided itself on -- not vetting people the way that typical campaigns did.

They would hire in some cases staffers who would not have necessarily gotten hired on any other campaign and they often did not vet people who they were potentially meeting with.

Donald Trump Jr. also had a pretty open-door policy meeting with almost anyone.

But this is going to, I think, become complicating. And it also raises questions about the White House, which I believe, you know, was aware, at least elements of it, that this e-mail existed, has had a pretty slow response off the blocks about all of this.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yes, Maggie, I mean there's so much to talk about on this. But it would be hard to imagine Donald Trump Jr., who the president has said is one of his closest people in his life to him; they talk as he does with all his children numerous times a day and certainly did during the campaign and before, that the president would not have been informed either before or after this meeting had taken place, that the -- that, in this e-mail, that there was information that the Russian government itself was interested in helping Donald Trump.

I mean that Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner would keep that all to themselves, that's, I mean, it's an unknown.

HABERMAN: There's no way to know. It is conceivable that they did. It also, well, legally -- and I don't know that there is any legal exposure here. But in terms of the president and what he knew or didn't know, you know, that gets him removed.

But certainly when you are the president and you are -- he ran for president; he campaigned on the promise of, you know, competence and leadership and there is a buck-stops-here component to the presidency.

And so whether he knew it or not, I'm not sure how much that matters right now.


VAUSE: Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney has issued a statement responding to the story from "The New York Times."

It reads in part, "At no time was there ever any understanding or commitment that he or anyone else would find the information, whatever it turned out to be, to be reliable, credible or of interest or would even survive due diligence.

"The meeting lasted about 20 to 30 minutes and nothing came of it. His father knew nothing about it. The bottom line is that Don Jr. did nothing wrong."

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 quick to call this out as something which could amount to treason, this meeting between Donald Jr. and the Russian lawyer. The U.S. Constitution says treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies --


VAUSE: -- 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, right?

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, LAWYER: Well, this absolutely isn't treason because Donald Trump Jr. didn't receive any information that would 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 read this to you. 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 laws say, "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 a music publicist friend approached Donald Trump, said I want you to meet this female Russian lawyer. So he didn't solicit anything, number one.

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 that meeting.

SIDNER: But there are 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 have not all been connected. And of course, we don't have all the evidence.


CLAYPOOL: -- there's perception versus legality are two vastly different concepts.


VAUSE: Because do you agree with his assessment?

Do you think there was something of value?

Because (INAUDIBLE) he was told ahead of time, hey, there's damaging information that we could have, the Russian government has, to help your dad get elected.

Isn't that something of value?

AUSTIN DOVE, LAWYER: Damaging information is itself the value here. Let's not be naive. We're looking at a significant election, a major pivotal point in the election, against basically the only -- he had just been named the Republican candidate.

Now he's going against the Democrat, the only remaining standers are those two. And it's information against that particular candidate, not one of the many Republicans he ran against but that particular candidate.

That has immense value. That is tremendously important to the campaign. And indeed it has been remained the issue throughout and beyond the campaign. So I would say the inherent value is the information.

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 obviously numerous people on the staff, many people worked around this issue and we just talked about the fact that this information came from one source and then sort of filters its way to Donald Trump Jr.

He arranges or accepts a meeting. So there's numerous people who are participating in that process.

And if those individuals are in violation of the election laws, are in violation of federal statute that very specifically outline what you can do with a foreign national, the 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 that area.


CLAYPOOL: Look, 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.


CLAYPOOL: I'll just say esteemed female lawyer from Russia.

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

CLAYPOOL: We don't. I believe Donald Trump Jr.'s position -- and I think it's well founded -- is that she used having some information that might help his father in the election as a pretext to get the meeting.

And then when they get in this meeting, five minutes into the discussion, she's talking about Russian adoption of children in the U.S. And then the meeting went south after that.

SIDNER: But to be fair, I want to open this door because does this -- when you look at it on its face, does it show that Donald Trump Jr. was open to the idea of collusion?

Because 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 legal culpability. I would argue the fact that there's no question.

In fact, Donald Trump Jr. has come forward and said, hey, look, albeit late in the game, he said, look, I did have a meeting with her. We did talk about this. The fact he knew ahead of time that she might have some information that might be detrimental to Hillary Clinton and the campaign, that in and of itself is not enough to hold him legally culpable.


CLAYPOOL: Why not talk to the female Russian lawyer?

VAUSE: We're trying.

[02:20:00] CLAYPOOL: Well, if they can get her under subpoena, you can probably get to the bottom of this very quickly. But I feel, at the end of the day, a lot of smoke but there are no illegal act.

VAUSE: By the way, nice gray suits. Got the memo. Looking sharp. Appreciate it.

SIDNER: And coming up, America's top diplomat is in the Middle East, hoping to mediate the dispute involving Qatar. Up next, new information on the root cause of the standup.




VAUSE: U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson is in Kuwait to try and mediate the dispute, the diplomatic crisis involving Qatar, which has been isolated diplomatically over allegations by its neighbors that it supports and funds terrorism.

SIDNER: CNN has exclusively obtained copies of secret agreements among Gulf nations that may explain how we got here. CNN's Jim Sciutto is following the story and he spoke with our Wolf Blitzer about the agreements.


JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF U.S. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: CNN has learned that Qatar made a series of secret agreements with its Gulf neighbors, in 2013 and 2014, barring support for opposition and hostile groups in those nations as well as in Egypt and Yemen. This according to the copies of these agreements obtained exclusively by CNN.

Now, the existence of these agreements has been known but both the contents and the documents themselves were kept secret due to the sensitivity of the issues involved and the fact that they were agreed in private by heads of state.

Now, the agreements you're seeing here, the first of which was handwritten, signed by the king of Saudi Arabia, the emir of Qatar and the emir of Kuwait, were obtained by CNN from a source from the region with access to the documents.

A second agreement, dated in 2014, headlined, "top secret," adds the king of Bahrain, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and the prime minister of the UAE.

Now the Gulf countries have accused Qatar of not complying with the two agreements, which helps explain what sparked the worst diplomatic crisis in the Middle East, really in decades.

Abiding by the agreements was, among six principals, the Gulf nations, set as requirements to improve relations with Qatar. In a statement released last week, in the statement to CNN, Qatar accused Saudi Arabia and UAE of breaking the spirit of the agreement and indulging in, quote, "an unprovoked attack on Qatar's sovereignty."

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: The secretary of state of the U.S., Rex Tillerson, when he's in Kuwait, when he's in the region, he would like to mediate this and end this dispute. Qatar has a U.S. airbase and a ground facility there. A lot of U.S. troops are in Qatar.

And this is a very dangerous situation from the U.S. perspective as well, because the U.S. has close alliances with the Saudis and the Bahrainis and the Emiratis.

SCIUTTO: Absolutely. Absolutely. And the president himself got in the middle of this, really. You'll remember the tweets he sent after his trip to Saudi Arabia, siding, in effect in those tweets, with the other Gulf countries --


SCIUTTO: -- against Qatar and accusing them as much, in the tweets, of supporting terrorism and other things.

And what we see in these agreement here, again, first, the handwritten one, that among three of the emirs and then, in 2014, another one, somewhat more formal, backed by agreement among foreign ministers, is commitments among all the nations, not singling Qatar out, but among all the nations to do things like not support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, not support what are called deviant groups -- to some, that is a codeword for terrorism in the region -- and not to support other opposition groups in the region.

BLITZER: But one of the demands they made here in this document -- I've gone through it earlier today, thanks to you and your team -- and one of the current demands is, basically, that Qatar shuts down Al Jazeera?

SCIUTTO: Well, that's the other thing. It's referred to in the first agreement, though not named, as antagonistic media, because as you know, the leader of some of these other Gulf countries and Al Jazeera based in Qatar, they accuse it of sort of drumming up support for opposition groups, for instance, in Bahrain, but also, at worse, drumming up some support for terrorist groups. That's what they accuse them of.

And one of their demands, recently, to end this, is to shut that station down. Of course, a whole host of issues there, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and so on. But these Gulf nations accuse that station, backed by the Qatar government, of, in effect, supporting these opposition groups.

BLITZER: Very vocal in that condemnation about Al Jazeera, the Gulf nations, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Bahrainis but the Egyptians as well --

SCIUTTO: That's right.

BLITZER: -- they are very angry at Al Jazeera. SCIUTTO: And as you know -- as you know, now Rex Tillerson is in the region, hoping to bring those partners back together because, as you said, the U.S. has close relationships really with all of them.


SIDNER: (INAUDIBLE) issued the following statement responding to a question by CNN on the documents broadcast by us, allegedly revealing the contents of the Riyadh agreement in 2013 and the Riyadh supplemental agreement in 2014.

His Excellency said he was unaware of the channel's report on the two agreements and whether it contained the full agreement or parts of it.

His Excellency stressed that some of the allegations and demands of besieged countries have no basis while the others are an unwarranted and unprecedented attack on the sovereignty of the state of Qatar in violation of all international and regional agreements.

VAUSE: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt issued a joint statement on Monday.

It reads, "The four countries assert that the documents published by CNN...confirm beyond any doubt Qatar's failure to meet its commitment and its full violation of its pledges."

SIDNER: Time for a quick break. "STATE OF AMERICA" with Kate Bolduan is coming up next for our viewers in Asia.

VAUSE: For everyone else, for British holidaymakers about to leave on summer vacation, a new safety video: how to survive a terrorist attack.


[02:30:11] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause.


The headlines for you at this hour --


VAUSE: Britain's high court adjourned till Thursday as it reconsiders the case of Charlie Gard, an 11-month-old child dying from a rare terminal illness.

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

CNN's Erin McLaughlin brings us the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) 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. The next hearing and scheduled for Thursday.

Erin McLaughlin, CNN, London.


VAUSE: Six months before the start of World War II, British National Films produced a documentary called "The Warning," for preparing the country and especially London for the German air raids, which were yet to come.


ANNOUNCER: You still have 18 minutes. This is most important. Please take shelter now.

No time now for asking what to do, where to go. No time now for further training and organization. The hour of trial is upon us.


SIDNER: Now, here's what might be considered the modern-day version, a four-minute long video with advice on how to survive a terrorist attack.


ANNOUNCER: If you hear gunshots, think about your safest option. If there is a safe route, run.

UNIDENTIFEID FEMALE: We have to get out of here now.

ANNOUNCER: This is the best option. Act quickly.


ANNOUNCER: Leave belongings behind and insist others go with you.

Don't let their indecision slow you down.

UNIDENTIFEID MALE: Leave the building immediately.

ANNOUNCER: Once you identify a safe route, run.

Make sure your route doesn't put you in the line of fire.


SIDNER: The video is made by the British Foreign Office and an association of travel agents, and advises travelers to be on alert, and if they're caught in an attack, the advice given, run, hide and tell.

Counter-terrorism officials say there is no specific threat. This is a new campaign to raise awareness and provide advice.

VAUSE: Let's bring in law enforcement contributor, Steve Moore. Also a retired FBI agent in Houston who used to make these kinds of warning films, as well.

Good to have you here.

If we look at the U.K. video, it seems the attack two years ago that many Britains dead was top of mind when they made it.

[02:35:12] STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: They're basing the film on something that happened which increases the value of the film.

VAUSE: The British advice is clearly at odds with the guidance you give out. The FBI says run, hide, but then says fight, especially if you have no other option. Look at this.


ANNOUNCER: As a last resort, if your life is at risk, whether you're alone or working together as a group, fight. Act with aggression. Improvise weapons. Disarm him. And commit to taking the shooter down.


VAUSE: OK. So explain the difference here.

MOORE: The difference is I think that the British filmmakers were being a little bit fatalistic because if the guy comes in the room assuming it's a guy and he's got a gun or A.K.-47 or something, you don't have much of a chance. That's what they're saying. They don't want to say by the way, if he comes in the room, it's all over. The American training program is to fight, never to give up. It's kind of like the American Airlines flight over Pennsylvania. It's just do what you can. I don't know if it's a cultural difference but it is the U.S. authorities saying never give up. VAUSE: I'm curious. There are studies which show if people get

together like you say the flight over Pennsylvania, if people get together, they can overwhelm somebody.

MOORE: It's proven. Even if you lose some people which you probably will.

VAUSE: You won't lose everybody.

MOORE: Yes, you're going to save lives and many, many active shooters have proven this.

VAUSE: Is there a problem of knowing when that point arrives whether he there is nothing left to lose?

MOORE: I think that's going to be very obvious. If the person comes in and they've got a gun and say I see you.

VAUSE: You're dead.

MOORE: Right at the end of the U.K. video there was one line that talks about the police and how they will deal with the situation. Watch this.


ANNOUNCER: The police may be unable to distinguish between you and an attacker.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police, stand down.

ANNOUNCER: They may treat you firmly. Do everything they tell you to?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walk towards me.

ANNOUNCER: Don't make any sudden movements or gestures that could be seen as a threat. Stay calm.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get your head down.

ANNOUNCER: Don't shout or wave. Keep your hands visible so they can see that you're unarmed.


VAUSE: How important is that message? I haven't heard that before officially. And how important is it if you're traveling to a country where the police may not be sort of at the same legal standards or training as they are in western countries?

MOORE: It's even more important to do it that way. I've been on both sides this. I have posed as the shooter and I have been on the SWAT teams that bring these people out. One thing shooter occasionally do is after they've shot several people, they'll lay down in the blood and say he went that way. They'll hope to get out. As a tactical team member entering the building, you have to assume that anybody there, even a wounded person, could be the shooter. And so if you do not comply with the police or the SWAT team or whoever comes in, they only have one conclusion to come to.

VAUSE: Because your natural reaction would be, oh, the police have arrived, I'm safe, everything's great, they saved me.


MOORE: If you look like -- look at the shooters ha have gone through - and, unfortunately, in America, we have quite a record -- they look just like the people who are in there. If they don't have the gun in their hand, you don't know if they're still in the building or this guy hiding is the good guy or the bad guy.

VAUSE: The video from the U.K. seems a lot like airline safety videos before the flight. No one watches them or pays attention.

MOORE: I would say anybody in the world who can view this, this is one of the best tapes I've seen.

VAUSE: Good advice.

Steve, thank you.

MOORE: Thank you.

SIDNER: Just ahead, with a few clicks and key strokes, an army of trolls have bombarded a woman and her family with hate. Find out how she's fighting back.


[02:41:25] VAUSE: The creator of a Neo-Nazi Web site is being sued for urging his readers to attack a Jewish woman and her family with hateful messages, including messages sent to her 12-year-old child.

SIDNER: The family faced a barrage of hate mail, messages and letters for months. The mother is fighting back to try and keep it from happening to another family.

We should warn you, the language in this story is explicit and may be disturbing, but illustrates the depth of hate in America today.


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


SIDNER (voice-over): In the digital era, it only takes a few keystrokes for hate to suddenly consume your life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are a piece of shit.

SIDNER: This is what is often waiting for Tanya Gersh every day when she goes online or picks up the phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I hope you die you worthless -- (INAUDIBLE) -- you stupid ugly bitch.

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

SIDNER: The Gershs, including their 12-year-old son, have received thousands of messages like this for months.

GERSH: You're a whore of a mother should watch herself. Why don't you crawl into this oven, little boy? There's a free Xbox inside.

They photoshopped endless imagery of me with Nazi symbols on my forehead or my arm and terrible imagery of me and my son on the gates to Auschwitz concentration camp.

SIDNER (on camera): You think it scarred him?

GERSH: Yeah.

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

GERSH: I just pray that we'll be safe.

SIDNER: Gersh says it all started when she came into contact with fellow resident, Shari Spencer, who happens to be the mother of white nationalist, Richard Spencer.

RICHARD SPENCER, WHITE NATIONALIST: Hail Trump. Hail our people. Hail victory.

SIDNER: 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 a lawsuit filed by an anti-hate group, Spencer published a blog post accusing Gersh of threatening her with protests until she complied and sold her building.

We called Spencer, who said she didn't want to talk to us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People say, who do you believe? I say, I don't know.

SIDNER: But the police chief says no complaint was filed by Spencer and no charges were brought by any other agency.

But after the blog post, the lawsuit says Andrew Anglin, the founder of one of the most popular Neo-Nazi Web sites, the Daily Stormer, picked up the torch and unleashed what he called his troll army on them, publishing their contact information on his site. The Southern Poverty Law Center is suing Andrew Anglin on Gersh's

behalf accusing him of intentionally inflicting emotional distress, invasion of privacy, intimidation.

JOHN MORRISON, CO-COUNSEL, SOUTHERN POVERY 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: We reached out to Andrew Anglin, who told us he now lives in, of all places, Lagos, Nigeria, where he says his rights to say what he wants aren't limited. He did not return comment about the Gersh case.

But we managed to catch up with one of the writers on the Daily Stormer Web site at a rally in Houston.

[02:45:00] ROBERT FLAY, WRITER, DAILY STORMER: Andrew Anglin specifically called on the readers of Daily Stormer to contact Mrs. Gersh and tell them what they think about it. That's exactly what they did.

There's no evidence that anyone from -- who was influenced by Daily Stormer made any death threats or anything. I've watched what little --


SIDNER (on camera): They made some threats definitely.

FLAY: Like what? We're going to throw you in a gas chamber? That's a real credible threat.

SIDNER (voice-over): The Anti-Defamation League says Anglin has launched his army of hate many times before.

Anglin initially responded to the Gersh lawsuit with this image.

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

SIDNER: Asking for donations to fight the lawsuit. He has raised more than $150,000 so far.

Gersh is also receiving support in the form of batches of letters and e-mails.

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

SIDNER: While it was the hatred spewed by strangers that has terrified her family, it is also the kindness of strangers that is saving them from utter despair.


SIDNER: Brian Levin now joins us. He's the director of the Center of the Study of Hate and Extremism, and a researcher on militia groups.

Brian, the publisher of Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin, who I know you're familiar with --


SIDNER: -- asked his so-called troll army to stop contacting the Gershs 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 he has. And could that hurt him in this lawsuit?

LEVIN: It may. Here's the interesting thing. We just came out with a study over at Cal State, San Bernardino, showing that hate crimes in 2016 were up another 6 percent in 25 of the largest cities and counties. I think if you look towards how hate is manifested in legal ways or noncriminal ways, I think the increase is even higher. We've seen in Orange County, California, for instance, an increase in hate crime last year of 13 percent but in hate incidents about 70 percent.


SIDNER: Because there is a difference between hate crimes that are you know, legally -- there's a legal net for those and then hate incidents which are something else. People are publishing fliers for example or writing messages on message boards or calling people on the phone which aren't necessarily hate crimes.

I do want to ask you about this particular fight. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the attorneys for the Gershs have beak said, look, this is intimidation and they're going after the client and harassing her and her family making it difficult for her to do business, impossible to do business and making them feel fearful all the time. Whereas, Andrew Anglin and the Daily Stormer have said we're using our freedom of speech and no one can stop us. Who's right?

LEVIN: Great question. I used to work at the 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 -- I'll put on my lawyer hat -- intentional infliction of emotional distress. If your conduct is so outrageous and by design is to cause someone that kind of distress, that's something that could very well be actionable. What will happen here is the evidence will determine whether the First Amendment is violated or not. And what we can see is, was there an intent in the context of this? Not just to offer an opinion to Mrs. Gersh but rather to intimidate and terrorize her, there's no constitutional right for that. Indeed, the Supreme Court, in the case going back to the Vietnam era, said crude political statements -- a fellow said if I'm drafted into the war, the first person I'm going to get into my rifle sites is President Johnson, LBJ. The Supreme Court said, you can punish someone for making a threat but a crude political statement, no. Here though, there's a context where they're calling for a troll storm. And that seems to me to be something beyond merely expressing one's opinion but to intimidate and harass someone. We'll see what the injury says in this case if they can even find Mr. Anglin, who we don't know where he is.

SIDNER: That's an interesting point. They're having trouble just serving them. He still runs the Web site and it's still out there.

Let me lastly ask you, when it comes to cases like this, is there anything a person can do? This is just a regular citizen. They don't have a big company behind them. They don't have a law enforcement group behind them watching every single thing. The FBI certainly, normally, in these cases, would be looking into these sorts of things. Is there anything you can do as a regular citizen when something like this happens to you.

LEVIN: Great question. As an attorney, many years ago, I represented a woman who was harassed over the Internet and also by a Klansman. We got her out of that location and we changed as much as we could about information on how to find her. And I think that may be 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.

[02:50:24] 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.

VAUSE: OK. We'll take a short break. When we come back, everybody knows J.K. Rowling, the Harry Potter author. Now she's using her fame, money and success and her name to try and bring awareness to one issue which is close to her heart to help children in orphanages. She'll tell you all about it when she sits down to speak exclusively with Christiane Amanpour.


SIDNER: For 20 years now, Author J.K. Rowling has captured the imaginations of readers of all ages with the magical world of Harry Potter.

VAUSE: In the real world, Rowling is trying to improve the lives of children sent to orphanages, even though one parent is still alive. It's called institutionalization. Research shows it can lead to poor health, development delay, and emotional disorders.

And she spoke exclusively to Christiane Amanpour.


J.K. ROWLING, AUTHOR: I would be writing no matter what. Like many people in the world, I would like to make a difference. But I want to do it in a meaningful way.


ROWLING: Possibly the most staggering figure in all of this is that we know at least 80 percent of these children aren't orphans.

AMANPOUR: They're not orphans.

ROWLING: Exactly. This is mind blowing to most people. It's in the name, right? These are orphanages except they're not. We know that 80 percent of these children have at least one living parent and overwhelming the parent didn't want to give the child up. Why are they in the institution? Grinding poverty. How do we reunite children with their parents? Get them back to families that want them. This is doable. It is 10 times cheaper to put a child even with special needs back into their family than to keep them in the institution.



VAUSE: Well, Rowling has a net worth of around $25 billion all because of Harry Potter. And as CNN found out, she's given hundreds of millions of dollars to her charity.

SIDNER: You've probably heard of Black Friday and Cyber Monday. But if Amazon gets its way, a new date will be cemented into the shopping calendar.

VAUSE: Right. Prime Day. The company's third annual day of deals kicked off Monday night. It's promising bargains on more than 100,000 products for members worldwide. It's in 13 countries, including the U.S. and U.K. 30 hours, go shop. New deals will be posted every five minutes. Prime members shopping with Amazon's voice-activated assistant, Alexa.

SIDNER: Excuse me, I'm shopping.


VAUSE: If you have Alexa, you could have started two hours before everybody else.

SIDNER: CNN Money Correspondent Claire Sebastian explains how Alexa is enhancing the experience and helping to shape the future of retail.



ALEXA: Here are my deals.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): There was a time when one click was the pinnacle of convenience on Amazon. This year on Prime Day, it's all about the voice.

Right, Alexa?

ALEXA: Voice shoppers get early access to Prime Day deals starting at 7:00 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, July 10.

[02:55:14] MAX WOLFF, MARKET STRATEGIST, 55 INTERNATIONAL: I think Alexa will become front and center for the Prime Day experience. The true network primed in all senses of the term Amazon client uses too. Use it first, get the best of us.

SEBASTIAN: While she has yet to rival of mobile or line jumping or swearing. RBC Capital Markets predicts Alexa could increase spending by up to 15 percent per customer by 2020. That's an extra $5 billion in revenue.

ALEXA: Five billion's number of zeros is nine.

SEBASTIAN: And stiff competition. Google launched voice-activated shopping through its Google Homes and Google Assistant in February. This month, Chinese giant, Alibaba, launched its own mandarin-only assistant. And Apple's which goes on sale in December.

WOLFF: I think people think the next two major areas for the Internet are the car experience and the house experience. And Alexa is in position for the house experience.

For them, it isn't about selling the device but walling the garden with a higher wall or making the wall garden a more pleasant place to live.

SEBASTIAN: Along with Prime, Alexa is another way for Amazon to lock in customers. Food is a key part of that, especially now it's buying Whole Foods.

(on camera): Alexa, I need milk.

ALEXA: I added milk to your shopping list.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Alexa take a video.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): Alexa can even provide fashion tips with a new Echo look.

WOLFF: Amazon is trying to prove they can do what you need to do better, easiest, faster, more fun than anybody else.

ALEXA: Would you like to shop?

SEBASTIAN: Alexa, experts say, may be a reliable assistant, even if she's not willing to admit it.

(on camera): Alexa, what is the future of retail?

ALEXA: Sorry, I'm not sure about that.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): Claire Sebastian, CNN Money, New York.


VAUSE: Where are we going? SIDNER: You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm

Sara Sidner.

VAUSE: I'm John Vause.

The news continues next with Max Foster. He's in London.


[03:00:08] MAX FOSTER, CNN ANCHOR: Liberated from ISIS. Iraqi troops claim victory in Mosul, a city left devastated by a brutal nine-month military --