Return to Transcripts main page


False Missile Alert In Hawaii; Steve Bannon To Be Questioned On Capitol Hill; GOP Senators Give Conflicting Views On Trump's Use of Slurs; End Of Protected Status May Uproot 250,000 Salvadorans. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired January 14, 2018 - 15:00   ET



[15:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happening now in the NEWSROOM, the president under fresh fire over his vulgar comments.

REP.JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: I think he is a racist.

SEN. DAVID PERDUE (R), GEORGIA: Of course I think that's ridiculous.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC CHIEF ANCHOR: You are saying the flat out, definitively, the president did not say those words?

PERDUE: I'm saying this is a gross misrepresentation.

SEN. TOM COTTON (R), ARKANSAS: I didn't hear that word either.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You are saying it didn't happen or -- you haven't -- or you just don't recall?

COTTON: I didn't hear it. And I was sitting no further away from Donald Trump than Dick Durbin was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of the state of Hawaii is reeling from a toning missile alert (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to check out and head to the airport because I don't want to sneak around and see if this place is going to get blown up or not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just told them, let me use your phone and let me call my wife and tell her I love her.

REP. TULSI GABBARD (D), HAWAII: I think traumatic understates the experience that the people of Hawaii went through yesterday. This was unacceptable that this happened but it really highlights this dark reality of the people of Hawaii are facing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: CNN NEWSROOM starts now. MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Martin Savidge in for Fredricka Whitfield. Thanks for joining me.

Let's begin with what was that chaotic scene in Hawaii. We're learning that an FCC investigation is underway and already showing Hawaii lacked reasonable safeguards after yesterday's false alert about an incoming missile. The FCC chairman went on to say that the state did not have processed controls in place to prevent the transmission of a false alert.

CNN's Sara Sidner is Honolulu with the latest.

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Martin, it depends on the officials that I speak with, the state legislator has told me that he was huddling with his family in their bathtub. His daughter looked up at him and said, "Daddy, are we at war?" And he said, "Yes". Speaking very emotionally, tears in his eyes he reacted very much the same way as many people in Hawaii reacted who saw those warnings, both on television, radio, and more importantly, their cell phones because it says that this was not a drill.

Here's how people reacted to all of this and then I'll tell you a little bit about what authorities are doing to try to keep it from ever happening again.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's hard to stay calm when you don't know what's happening. We kept looking out the window in case if we saw something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nearly notified the hotel that I want to check out and head to the airport because I don't want to stick around to see if this place is going to get blown up or not.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I got a message to my grandkids at home and it just -- it made me realized, my god, I could have never seen them again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is not enough time to probably get in and get home. So, I just told them let me use your phone and let me call my wife and tell her I love her.


SINDER: Now, Vern Miyagi who is the administrator for the State Emergency Management Agency said he is in there. They have been looking at these procedures. This all happened during a shift change, which there are three of inside the state warning point that is just behind me in the Diamond Head Crater there in a bunker actually and that's where they operate.

They said there was shift change. There was -- they were testing the systems and the wrong button was pushed. That was how it was told to me and to the public as well. We will be speaking to them a bit later on about exactly what they are doing to stop this from happening again.

But one thing that we should make very clear is that, you know, now, that people have had the scare. There is a lot of talk here, something that government had wanted earlier of what to do in case there is an attack. People are discussing now where would they go, what do they need to have in their homes

The government was the first in the nation to upgrade its alarm system. It's the alert system, the sirens that would go off here. This is certainly not how they wanted to warn the public though. Martin.

SAVIDGE: No, it is not. Sara Sidner, thank you very much.

Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard did not shy away from explaining the severity of the situation. She spoke to CNN earlier today.


GABBARD: This is not just about what happened to Hawaii, and this is where I really hope that people across the country, that leaders here in Washington are paying attention to what people went through and what the consequences of that can be. So, we are facing a very direct nuclear threat from North Korea. That to get to the underlying issue here of why are the people of Hawaii in this facing a nuclear threat coming from North Korea today, and what is this president doing urgently to eliminate that threat?

I have been calling on President Trump to directly negotiate with North Korea, to sit across the table from Kim Jong-un, work out the differences so that we can build a pathway towards denuclearization to remove this threat.


SAVIDGE: Of course, there are a lot of questions about all of this and we've got some people with some answers. CNN Global Affairs Analyst David Rohde and Kimberly Dozier, thank you both for joining me.


SAVIDGE: First off, David, you know, it still staggers my mind. And I was on the air when all of this happened. How does something like this happen like happened in Hawaii?

DAVID ROHDE, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: It's the technology we have today. It was sort of extraordinary that a single employee can send out this kind of alert by mistake. But it's a reality and a real concern.

[15:05:01] We have to have better safeguards with the technology we have this instant alert systems to cell phones that are in place. And there's a bigger, you know, concern here that some experts talk about, which is the possibility of hacking into the systems and sending out false alarms. They're not secure enough and that this never should have happened.

SAVIDGE: Well, and, you know, for a while, yesterday, that was a concern that perhaps that was the case of what had happened, although now, the governor says that was not. But there must be a standardized protocol or is there standarized protocol when this alert goes out? David.

ROHDE: Apparently, there wasn't in Hawaii. I have seen news reports that they have -- they're going to change the protocol now. And we will take two individuals to sign off before an alert goes out like this.

In other areas, though, with other situations in Houston when the hurricane came in and another problem, the system is that these emergency alerts are sent out to very -- a very broad area in terms of cell phone coverage. And you end up alarming a large number of people about a criminal incident or a storm when it should be much more targeted. So, this is really the FFC, the Federal Communications Commission that needs to address this I think across the country.

SAVIDGE: You know, it's interesting, Kim, that yesterday as this all played out, there was this kind of 38-minute vacuum of information really, especially for the people of Hawaii. And I'm wondering for, you know, our enemies around the world, do this somehow exposed vulnerabilities in the system and did the, you know, the U.S. somehow kind of show their hand here?

DOZIER: Well, it certainly did give everyone a view of how the United States is going to react, at least how one of the states is going to react in the event of some sort of missile warning. In the end, I think that this mistake could end up having positive consequences and not just Hawaii, but a lot of other states are going to look at their systems and say could this happen here and fix it.

I spoke to some family members who were in Hawaii yesterday. One of them didn't even notice the alert. Now, he is like thinking, OK, what else do I have to do to make sure that I'm aware in the event that this was real?

But the other knock on effect that can happen in the case of a false warning or a real warning is that, our adversaries like North Korea are watching that and wondering is Hawaii issuing an alert because the U.S. is about to attack us? That is how horrible mistakes can happen and perhaps North Korea would decide to do a preemptive strike if they thought the U.S. was preparing to attack them. So, all of these things have second and third order effects that nuclear weapons specialists are saying -- show you how few minutes you have to decide in the event of a nuclear strike and how important accurate information is and getting it out there quickly.

SAVIDGE: Right. And that did not happen yesterday. David, I watched as this all happened and, of course, people were notified even though it was erroneous and they were notified quite quickly that they it was -- they were told a real threat, but there is nothing they realized to do after that. In other words, you know, there are no bomb shelters to really go to. There no civil defense plan that had been clearly outlined to them. They had been told it is incoming but they really had no idea what to do. How do you fix the vulnerabilities?

ROHDE: Better planning. Look, I have a friend in Hawaii who had moved there from New York recently. They got this alert. His wife began to weep. They sort of formed a circle with their young 3-year- old daughter and they thought, you know, that was the end. So, he was deeply shaken by what happened when I spoke to him. So, I think top to bottom planing for preventing again this kind of alert that can be sent off by one person to better management for the situation.

And, you know, Congresswoman Gabbard was talking about the broader policy problem. That's a separate thing. There was a technology problem, the emergency system, and then a broader problem with, you know, North Korea and why this nuclear problem has gotten so severe in that region. But I don't think it's fair to blame President Trump for this mistake yesterday and that was by state officials.

SAVIDGE: But let me -- it's a good point to bring up for you, Kim, and that is do you think that the situation, we've got only a few seconds really, could escalate talks on how help the negotiations on anything between the U.S. and North Korea?

DOZIER: Well, it certainly does make it clear to Trump's base as well as to the wider American public that talks would be preferable than a missile incoming on one of the U.S. states. But at this point, other than economic pressure on North Korea, it doesn't look like they are ready to come to the table.

SAVIDGE: Yes, but it is a frightening example of just even a taste of what it could be like if it were real. Certainly, for a couple of minutes in Hawaii, many people thought it was. David Rohde, Kim Dozier, thank you.

ROHDE: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Still ahead, President Trump's vulgar remark, it's raising questions about his policies. Could his rhetoric impact immigration laws and a potential deal on DACA?

[15:10:00] Plus Trump's former right hand man will be on Capitol Hill testifying in the Russian investigation are likely part of the probe. Why Steve Bannon thinks Don Jr.'s secret meeting at Trump Tower was treasonous?


SAVIDGE: Welcome back. There is a growing argument over what President Trump did or did not say in a crucial immigration meeting. The conflicting reports over the use of vulgar language firing up again today.


PERDUE: Coming out of that meeting, we heard a gross misrepresentation of what happened in that meeting.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say it was a gross misrepresentation. Senator Durbin has been very clear. Senator Graham has told others that the reports were basically accurate. Are you saying the president did not use the word that has been so widely reported?

PERDUE: I am telling you he did not use that word, George. And I'm telling you it's a gross misrepresentation. How many times do you want me to say that?

COTTON: I didn't hear that word either. I certainly didn't hear what Senator Durbin have said repeatedly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you're saying in that room, you didn't hear any of this sort of lumping everybody together? Is that what you're saying?

[15:15:03] PERDUE: I did not hear derogatory comments about the --.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the sentiment.

PERDUE: -- individuals or persons, no.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. So, this sentiment is totally phony as well that is attributed to him?


SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: All I can say is I was in the in a meeting directly afterwards where those who had presented to the president our proposal spoke about the meeting. And they said those words were used before those words went public. So, that's all I can tell you as I heard that account before the account even went public.


SAVIDGE: The president is at his Florida golf club and tweeting today, blasting Democrats and declaring a bipartisan deal on DACA is probably dead.

For the latest on this controversy and how it may impacts the fragile deals being negotiated, let's go to the CNN White House correspondent, Boris Sanchez. He is near the president's resort in Florida. And Boris, what is the president saying and doing today?

BORIS SANCHEZ, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Martin. Yes, the president returned a short time ago from his golf club to Mar-a- Lago. We should know he is tweeting today, just five days away from a potential government shutdown about progress that is not being made on a deal over DACA and the legal status of DREAMers, these young adults that were brought into the United States illegally as children.

Ultimately, the president's comments earlier this week drive a wider gap between Republicans and Democrats, not just on policy, but as you saw on the president's own words during this immigration negotiations. You noted that the president tweeted that a DACA deal was probably dead, assigning blame to Democrats. He then further tweeted this, writing "I, as President, want people coming into our country who are going to help us become strong and great again, people coming in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries, #AMERICAFIRST."

The president's tweet coming after Kirstjen Nielsen, the head of the Department of Homeland Security was on a Sunday morning talk shows backing up the president's argument that the United States should have a merit-based immigration system for ending chain migration and the visa lottery system as well.

Though, she kept the possibility for deal on DACA open, she did promote the idea of removing DACA from these budget negotiations that again are creating the potential for a government shutdown just a few days from now. Despite that, there are some Democrats that are saying that they will simply not support any kind of budget deal that doesn't address the issue of DREAMers.

Here's some sound from Kirstjen Nielson and Congressman John Lewis earlier today.


KIRSTJEN NIELSON, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We need to fund our troops. We need to protect them. We need to increase Homeland Security. These are vital national security interests we need to fund. To tie them to a DACA deal where the actual expiration date is in March is irresponsible.

LEWIS: Well, I, for one, will not vote for government funding until we get a deal on DACA.


SANCHEZ: The key here, Martin, is that Republicans are going to need Democrats to get any kind of budget deal passed and Democrats are using that as leverage to get something done on DACA. The deadline for that program it officially ends in March. So there is a lot of pressure on both parties to get something done.

They do have to come up with a compromise by Friday at midnight. If not, we may see what some Republican lawmakers have suggested another continuing resolution. Essentially, a stop get bill to kick the can down the road and keep the government funded as they continue this debate over Dreamers and immigration and other issues like childhood insurance funding. Martin?

SAVIDGE: All right. Boris Sanchez, thank you very much.

A Republican congresswoman and a Democratic congressman are offering very harsh assessments of the president's reported slur from that immigration meeting. One is civil rights icon and Georgia Representative John Lewis, the other is Utah congresswoman and the daughter of Haitian immigrants, Mia Love. Both believe the president's remarks were racist.


JAKE TAPPER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Were the comments racist, do you think? REP. MIA LOVE (R), UTAH: Well, I think they were, yes. I think that they were unfortunate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think President Trump is a racist?

LEWIS: I think he is a racist.


SAVIDGE: Let's discuss this with our panel. Joining me to address that, John Thomas, a Republican Consultant and Dave Jacobson, a CNN political commentator and a Democratic strategist. John, I'll start with you.

These are pretty tough words from two members of Congress. Do the president's words and actions add up, in your mind, to him being a racist?

JOHN THOMAS, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: No, they don't. Well, first of all, there are questions coming out today like you introduced whether or not the president even used that specific language. Senator Durbin has been accused in 2013 and actually found to be true that he made up something that happened in a private meeting against Pete Sessions that turned out to be false.

[15:20:00] So, it does bring to question whether or not the president even used this language.

SAVIDGE: Supposing though, let's ignore that. The president did say it exactly. That is the --

THOMAS: OK. And it is possible that the president does use strong language. No, I don't. I think this brings up an important point that the president, and a lot of Americans feel that we need to use merit-based immigration policies. That the fact is we need to be bringing in the best and the brightest of socioeconomic statuses from across the world. Being an immigrant to this country is not a right. It's a privilege. And we should select the best and the brightest.

SAVIDGE: All right, David, let me sort of turn it another way in followup to you. Did these two members of Congress go too far when they called the president of the United States a racist? And do you believe that those views are sort of racist views if he has them, guiding his immigration policies?

DAVE JACOBSON, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I would say it's about time. Frankly I'm not surprised or shocked that Donald Trump made these comments. Let's not forget. Donald trump launched his campaign by calling Mexicans drug dealer, rapists and criminals. He attacked a Latino judge for his Mexican heritage, saying that he's biased. He attacked a gold star family.

He says that he grabs women by the genitals. The fact to the matter is Donald, the devil, is an evil person. He is a racist. He is a bigot. He is a divider in chief. He's a misogynist. And frankly Donald Trump shouldn't be able to step foot on the White House. Let alone, sit in the oval office as commander in chief.

SAVIDGE: Well I mean, Dave, he was elected by the President of the Unite -- by the people of the United States at least. The majority of those who voted under the system we have. Hold on one second.

So, here's the point. The point is this. That we have spent the last four days going-over the vulgarity that the president has used and also what his intonations were in using that vulgarity. But at the same time the clock is ticking down on DACA but PLACA is taking down on some kind of budget deal. You have hundreds of thousands of young people now, adult people who their fate about deportation hangs in the balance. And we're still talking about what the president may or may not have said. And is that really what we should be doing at this critical juncture?

THOMAS: No, it's not. In fact that -- it's not at all. I think part of the reason whether or not the president used that strong language. Whether or not a Democrat leaked it to inflame the debate, aside it's the fact that the President did say he used tough language because he was so disheartened with the package that he was presented on immigration. We need to get back and solve this. Because you're right this is a critical issue that we have to get the bottom off, but if we keep getting he said, she said name game and calling the president racist, somehow I don't think that's going to bring him to the table to want to make a deal. But the bottom line --

SAVISGE: John, the President doesn't seem to -- you know this all rolls off of him. And what I mean by that is that the public doesn't necessarily his supporters. Don't really blame him for even his own language. But I'm wondering if the Republicans supper severely because they don't seem to becoming out too harshly against their own President. And in fact they seem to have a kind of selective memory. I mean we're divided on political lines about what was remembered from that meeting?

THOMAS: Well, there seem to be conflicting accounts. So, I don't necessary see that that that's a problem. But I also think if you drill down and you look at that word ass hole. Now, it should have never been used if in fact it is even was used which is in question. But the issue is, I would ask Dave the question, would you travel to Africa without your vaccinations or would you rather travel to Norway without vaccinations?

SAVIGDE: Dave, but it wasn't the word. It wasn't the word. It was the question. The president is asking why do we want these people from a shit hole country. And that is the part that's very striking because immigration has been a part of the whole American ideal here, so, the fact that he would ask the question, not so much the word. How do you defend that?

JACOBSON: I don't think you can defend it. I think fundamentally the president doesn't understand that immigration is what this country was founded on. It's what makes America great. Bottom line, we are a nation founded by immigrants. We're here talking to you from Los Angeles. We are a melting pot. We've got an enormous amount of folks all over the globe. That's what make -- that's what makes Los Angeles such a dynamic and diversity but going back to John's point about the --

SAVIDGE: Well hold on, hold on a bit, because we're going to run -- we're going to run out of time Dave, and I do want to give John at least one more shot at this. So, John, please.

THOMAS: Dave is absolutely right. I'm not going to disagree, an immigration one of the things that does make this country great. What Trump and the Republicans are saying is we just to want to be selective and merit-based and make sure that the people that are coming here are lifting up the country, not bringing it down.

SAVIDGE: All right, I appreciate both of your inputs. Thank you very much, John Thomas and Dave Jacobson. It's good to have a civil conversation on this. Thank you.

[15:25:01] Coming up, a false alarm over an incoming missile, it terrorizes Hawaii.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When we got the alarm, we were terrified. We were on the 36th floor of our hotel. And we didn't know what to do.


SAVIDGE: And, of course, it begs the question, how in the world did it happen? And what vulnerabilities did this possibly expose? That's all up next.


SAVIDGE: There are a lot of questions today with good reason about that erroneous alert that was sent out yesterday to people in Hawaii warning them to take cover because of an imminent missile strike.


[15:30:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): The U.S. Pacific command has detected a missile threat to Hawaii. A missile may impact on land or sea within minutes.


SAVIDGE: A chaos and (inaudible) after that false alert went out. People scrambled to find cover in what they thought were their final moments. And it took 38 minutes before a correction alert went out. So when and how did all of this happen?

Well, it started around 8:05 a.m. local time during a shift change. Routine internal test was initiated involving the emergency alert system then at 8:07, a statewide warning system was erroneously triggered by an employ at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. And at 10 a.m. the U.S. Pacific Command validated that there was no missile launch.

At 8:20 a.m., 30 minutes after the false alarm was sent out, Hawaii Emergency Management issue to public a notification of cancellation via Facebook and Twitter. And then finally at 8:45, 38 minutes later after receiving authorization from FEMA, Hawaii EMA issued a civil emergency message cancelling the false alert.

So let's bring in CNN National Security Analyst and former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Juliette Kayyem, and CNN Military Analyst Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. Thank you both.

General, let me start with you. What is the protocol news kind of circumstances? And I'm wondering when all of this was happening, where there were alerts that were somehow sent to the White House and the Pentagon?

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, during the action there probably was, Martin. The protocol though went backwards in the event yesterday. Usually what happens is Northern Command or North American Defense Command will receive a launch indicator that will show potentially through satellites, the point of origin and the point of aim, and the trajectory for any incoming missile.

They get that relatively quickly. They confirm it with the command of the theater in this case, Pacific Command, which is in Hawaii. And then they notify the Emergency Management Agency.

What happened yesterday is that was completely backwards. Emergency Management Agency in Florida -- around, sorry in Hawaii was doing a test, they started the message system part of their exercise or their drills, their rehearsals. And then I'm sure if you were in the watch of Pacific Command and you heard that message and there's a desk in Pacific Command for EMA, what the heck is going on, who sent that message? Why is it happening?

And then it had to be either confirmed or denied, which took a few minutes. So in effect it was backwards from the way the process normally worked.

SAVIDGE: And it was Pacific Command that's seen to put out any kind of real official notification that it was not true.

HERTLING: Well, they, in fact checked EMA and then EMA sent it out. But, you know, that's not truly their responsibility of pacific command to issue the alerts. They are the ones that have to be in this kind of case tracking the targets, determining their defense.

HERTLING: Of course.

SAVIDGE: And it's the EMA that actually alerts the civilians and the population.

HERTLING: Yes. And, Juliette, we talked a lot yesterday. Let's talk about this. Homeland Security Chief Kirstjen Nielsen called Hawaii's missile warning an unfortunate mistake. The situation could turn into a kind of, you know, boy who cried wolf and force that people are just not going to abide by in the future. We discussed this yesterday. That is a real concern. JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. It is. And how Hawaii rebuilds confidence in the system is going to take a while. The best way for them to do that, will they've started? They sort of accepted responsibility. There's only so much, you know, sort of blame we can throw their way. Let's move on and then how are they going to fix the system?

Both on the alert side and it appears they're already fixing that, you're going to have to have two people on the gap issue which all of us agree is sort of the incomprehensible that they we know within two minutes that it was a mistake. This 30, 30 plus-minute delay it's just incomprehensible.

And then, of course, you know, the interaction between local, state and federal. We are hearing reports, you know, of course, you know, what did the White House know? When did they know it? Were they sort of giving information that was not accurate? We've got to tighten that up in the incident command system that has been built up over decades to ensure that there is a seamless flow of information.

And so, you know, so the blame is done. And the best that can come out of this because it is a mistake is now go back and build confidence in the system because it's not just North Korea and missiles. Hawaii is vulnerable to all sorts of threats including tsunamis, of course. People have to respond if they get the next time that this kind of alert goes on out.

SAVIDGE: Yes. General, I'm wondering, you know, it was a flub. There's no better way to put it.


[15:35:00] SAVIDGE: Do our adversaries learn from this? Is there some insight they gain by sort of studying that happened?

HERTLING: They won't be able to see much, Martin, truthfully. I think the biggest gains are going to be the observations and the corrections as Juliette just said, not only in the way the messages are passed. But also, I mean, there are might be a positive side of this. Hawaii has been working on this system for a long time. I mean people, the population tends to somewhat ignore the sirens and the messages and then these kinds of alerts and they haven't thought ahead about what they might do in an emergency.

So if that has happened and people have thought ahead, there's a good thing that comes to that. But the other piece of all of this truthfully is not only messaging within Hawaii, but also the connection and having been in these exercises and know how they work. The way these communication flows between the various commands. In this case NORAD, NORTHCOM, PCOM, and the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon that goes to multiple agencies in Washington to include the White House and how fast that communication works.

But what you're talking about really in -- from a timeline perspective, the way you just laid it out that's quick. And I know it doesn't seem quick for the people of Hawaii, but when you're talking about humans in the loop, you have to have conversations, communications, talking and messages to make sure things are going right and trying to get the correct word out to the population.

SAVIDGE: Juliette as far as I understand, Hawaii has the most advanced system? Is that right so far?

KAYYEM: It does. It has a very advance very advanced system and part of FEMA region nine. FEMA is divided into regions which is because it includes California, quite sophisticated. This was just a major mistake.

And so just picking up on what Mark said. People like me in Homeland Security find, it's very difficult to get the public to prepare for something. You know, they sort of ignore it. It's not going to happen to us.

And so one silver lining over this just horrible, you know, 24 hours is every person in Hawaii who felt that, you know, those minutes of just utter panic, if you can take that and steer it towards OK, do I have a plan? Do I know, you know, what I would do? Do I know and not just for obviously missiles.

But, you know, do I have preparations at home. Do I have communications with family? All of those things that anger that people are feeling if they could put it towards preparing us for any hazard, there will be at least some silver lining out of this.

SAVIDGE: And hopefully also it cannot happen again. Juliette Kayyem --


SAVIDGE: -- and General Mark Hertling. Thank you.

HERTLING: Thank you, Martin.

SAVIDGE: President Trump's former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon could be a key in the Russia probe and he's expected to talk to congressional investigators this week, the potential blow back for the president. We'll talk about it next.


[15:42:02] SAVIDGE: It's going to be a busy week in the Russia investigation. Former White House Adviser Steve Bannon is expected to testify before the House Intelligence Committee in a close door session on Tuesday. His questioning will be limited to the committee's investigation and won't include the criminal probe being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump's former Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski is also expected before that same committee this week. So let's bring in Shawn Turner and he was a CNN National Security Analyst and Former Communications Director for U.S. National Intelligence. Nice to see you, Shawn.

SHAWN TURNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Thanks Mark. SAVIDGE: No official word on what Bannon will be questioned on, but what do you think this panel wants to know?

TURNER: So I think there are two primary areas of interest for this panel. The first deals with former FBI Director James Comey. As you may recall, Bannon was the president's -- one of the president's chief advisers, chief strategists when Comey was fired last year. So I think that any insight that he can provide into the process that the president and his team went through prior to that firing, any insight he can provide into the president's thinking with regard to firing Jim Comey would be helpful to this panel.

But I think the second issue is more relevant here. As you may recall, Steve Bannon is a former board member of a firm called Cambridge Analytica. And I there'll be a lot of interests in Cambridge Analytica in his ties to them because Cambridge Analytica was the firm that Jared Kushner hired to run president's digital operation. And so to the degree that there was -- that's -- there was some collusion between Russia and Cambridge Analytica with regard to kind of trying to sow seeds of discord through social media. I think there'll be that the intelligence committee will be very interesting in talking to him about and trying to get to the bottom of it.

SAVIDGE: You know, these are not in the best of times for Steve Bannon. We know that he's hired a lawyer ahead of this appearance.

TURNER: Right.

SAVIDGE: And I'm wondering what advice do you think that lawyer will give. But I'm also wondering, you know, the president and Mr. Bannon have had a real falling out here and could that in some way influence the kind of testimony?

TURNER: Yes. I think it could. You know, with regards to the advice that the lawyer would give. First of all I think it was a good idea for Steve Bannon to hire a lawyer. You may recall that initially he said he did not need a lawyer, but not only to hire a lawyer, but this particular lawyer also represents -- is representing the -- a current White House attorney, Mr. McCabe as well as former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

So I think that the advice that he will give him will focus on making sure that he preserved himself and that he preserve convenient information that he may have with regard to what happened in the White House during that time. So I think that this was a smart move on Steve Bannon's part.

That was going to be interesting to see what happens here with regard to the kind of falling out between the president and Steve Bannon.

[15:45:01] I think that's, you know, we can certainly look for Democrats to be hard on Steve Bannon.

But based on what happened, we may be able -- we may see Republicans kind of come down on Steve Bannon hard as well for some of the comments that he's made. And from Steve Bannon's perspective he is a complete wild card now that he has -- kind of had this falling out with the president and now that he's lost his job. You know, he may go into this hearing saying, what if I got to lose? So it really it's just going to come down to what Steve Bannon knows and how he's feeling about his relationship with this administration and this president when he walks to the door.

SAVIDGE: Well, and then there's going to be another sort of, you know, star witness here. Corey Lewandowski he was of course one of the senior campaign officials who got e-mails from the foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos --


SAVIDGE: -- about his outreach to the Russian government, according to reports at least. You expect that that will play into question by this panel or one of the other Congressional investigations going on right now?

TURNER: I think it absolutely has to. I mean as you put it out Corey Lewandowski was in communication with George Papadopoulos who we know was in communication with or allegedly in communication with the Russians. I think that it would be unlikely and unreasonable to suggest that Steve Bannon would not have had some knowledge of the communications.

So I think this panel will be very interested in the degree of knowledge that he had? What interactions he had with Corey Lewandowski about what George Papadopoulos was proposing. And what advice he gave the president. You know, Steve Bannon came along late enough in this process but I think that there's a certain level of cover for him because there are a lot of things that happened -- that may have happened with regard to the Russians prior coming off.

But certainly as the president's chief strategist and someone who spent a lot of time with him, it's reasonable to presume that he has got some pretty detailed knowledge about what happened here.

SAVIDGE: Yes. You paint a very interesting picture, should be some remarkable testimony. Maybe we'll hear about it sometime. Shawn Turner, thank you very much.

TURNER: Thanks, Martin.

SAVIDGE: Next a potentially deadly welcome for thousands of Salvadorian Americans who could suddenly face deportation. With poverty and increasing violence Salvadorian's tell CNN the country quote "Will become a hell if President Trump forces them to go back."


[15:51:47] SAVIDGE: It's an uncertain future for many Salvadorian's living in the United States. Last week the Trump Administration announced the end of a policy that gave more than 250,000 Salvadorian immigrants protected status after they fled civil war and natural disasters in their homeland. That means these immigrants are at risk of having to uproot their lives in a little more than a year. Patrick Oppman is following the story in San Salvador. And he joins us live. And Patrick this is as much a concern in El Salvador as it is in the United States for those who may have to return.

PATRICK OPPMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You're absolutely right, Martin. You have to think that for many year, President Trump's controversial and voter comments this week on top of this change in immigration policies were already really adding insult to injury. But the thing is this not going to just affect possibly tens of thousands of Salvadorans, its also going to affect many Americans.


At the end of a dirt road in the mountains of El Salvador is a family facing a gut wrenching decision? Rogelio Galdamez has lived in the United States for the last 17 years. He may soon return here.

The Trump administration announced in January they're ending the program that allowed over 200,000 Salvadorans like Rogelio to live legally in the U.S. In 18 months he could be deported. Rogelio worries about the impact the change in policy could have on the already impoverished and crime-ridden country.

"The worry is that if there were a massive deportation", he says, "this would become I guess I would call it a hell, it's a disaster. Everyone wants to work but there isn't any". So Rogelio has come back to El Salvador for a few weeks with the money he earns working as a landscaper in New York to finish the home he's building here. Should he return for good?

So he's telling me that because million people are thinking that among those had last (inaudible) they might need to come back and it's really hard from the workers. I mean there's so many other people are fixing their homes.

But Rogelio's biggest concern is his three children, all born in the United States. His eldest have been to El Salvador just twice. This is six-year old Jocelyn's (ph) first visit.

What do they know about El Salvador?

(Foreign Language)

OPPMAN: Rogelio has says he doesn't want to live in the U.S. illegally or run the risk of having his family separated so he may soon move his children all U.S. citizens back to El Salvador, one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Even here in the remote country side criminal gangs terrorize the population. Barbed wire fencing surrounds Rogelio's house.

MARELIN GALDAMEZ, DAUGHTER: For us it's going to be really hard. And I keep telling him I like it here but I wouldn't live here.

OPPMAN: They may have no choice. Rogelio would hope to provide his children a better life in the U.S. But is afraid of what could happen if he's deported. "The day I'm not with them and they are not with me", he says, "I think they're going to suffer and I will, too."

Rogelio drives his children to the airport to fly back to the U.S. He will remain in El Salvador a little while longer to finish their home just in case. They don't know what the future holds but they say they will do whatever it takes to stay together.


[15:55:09] And, Martin, the state department has just come up with a travel advisory urging Americans to reconsider visiting El Salvador. But, of course, for American citizens like the ones we spoke to in our story who have relatives that are Salvadorans facing deportation. They just don't have any choice but to come back and expose themselves to the danger that exists here.

SAVIDGE: Wow. Patrick Oppman, thank you very much for reporting today to this issue. Thank you.

Well, we got a lot more just ahead in the NEWSROOM right after a quick break.