Return to Transcripts main page


China Plans Tariffs on U.S. Goods; Trump Orders National Guard to U.S.-Mexico Border; Trump Agrees to Hold Off on Total Military Pullout in Syria; U.S. to Sanction Several Russian Oligarchs; Trump More Than a Witness in Russia Probe; The Trauma Affecting Displaced Syrians; Saudi Crown Prince Meets with Hollywood Execs; YouTube Shooter Did Not Know Her Victims; Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg in the Hot Seat. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired April 5, 2018 - 00:00   ET




ISHA SESAY, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): You're watching CNN live from Los Angeles. Ahead this hour: more global uncertainty courtesy of the Trump White House. The U.S. president threatens to pull troops out of Syria while deploying others to the Mexican border, all as fears grow of a possible trade war with China.

Plus the Saudi crown prince is here in Los Angeles, hoping to bring a little Hollywood to a kingdom that's been without it for a generation.

And the Facebook status scandal gets worse. The social network admits that millions more users may have had their data exposed.

Hello and thank you for joining us. I'm Isha Sesay. This is NEWSROOM L.A.


SESAY: We begin with major moves on both the military and diplomatic fronts for U.S. president Donald Trump. First Syria. Sources tell CNN that the president is irritated with top military brass who are advising him against withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Instead the White House is now painting a picture of a more gradual pullout.


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The purpose would be to transition that and train local enforcement as well as have our allies and partners in the region, who have a lot more at risk, to put more skin into the game.

And certainly that's something that the president wants to see happen, is for them to step up and for them to do more.


SESAY: Meanwhile, the president has authorized the deployment of National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. But the administration is not yet providing key details, including the number of troops, where they'll go or for how long.


JEFF ZELENY, CNN SR. WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: I'm not sure I understand what the urgency for this is. It seems like it ramped up again over the last several days.

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: Why today, not yesterday, tomorrow?

Today is the day. Today is the day we want to start this process. The threat is real.


SESAY: And on the diplomatic front, the White House is trying to put a positive spin on what could be a looming trade war with China, after the U.S. said it could hit 1,300 goods from China with new duties. Beijing announced a plan for a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion in U.S. goods, including planes, cars, chemicals and soybeans.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could we lose the trade war?


I'll accede here (ph). I don't see it that way. This is negotiation using all the tools.


SESAY: Well, the Dow plunged more than 500 points in early trading but rallied late in the day, finishing 230 points higher. It's been a wild ride on Wall Street.

Jessica Levinson is a professor of law and governance at Loyola Law School. CNN's Ivan Watson is standing by for us in Beijing and CNN military analyst Lieutenant Colonel Lt. Col. Rick Francona joins us via Skype and Robert English is the deputy director of the USC School of International Relations. We have a full house. Welcome to you all.

Ivan, to you first in Beijing. Trump's new economic adviser saying there's no trade war and part of the Trump administration's plan right now, it seems, is to tamp down talk of an escalating situation.

But is Beijing viewing these tariffs in the same way?

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think what we've clearly seen is, you know, one side threatening tariffs; the other side responding, threatening tariffs, posturing and now both sides calling for some kind of negotiation.

That's certainly what we're hearing from Chinese officials; by the way, Isha, it's a holiday here so we're not going to hear probably much comment now. But the Chinese ambassador to Washington spoke to journalists.

He said it takes two to tango and he also called for negotiation. We heard kind of an echo of that coming from the White House. They are repeating their accusation that China has unfair trade practices and they're saying that it's up to China to do the right thing but also saying we don't want a trade war right now.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House spokesperson, saying it could be months before the tariffs that have been proposed by both sides would actually go into effect. So there seems to be some wiggle room here.

The Chinese strategy seems to very much be (INAUDIBLE) threatened to hurt the U.S. economy where there are supporters for President Trump. So it has (INAUDIBLE) out pork in the last week with a 25 percent tariff already imposed, threatening a 25 percent on soybeans, for example, beef as well.


WATSON: And today's "China Daily" has an editorial saying, quote, "Soon farmers, ranchers and other U.S. workers will now be adding their voices to the chorus of blame directed Trump's way."

And the White House must be watching that closely as well. The White House line has been President Trump is a master negotiator. He will be able to get some concessions out of Beijing.

That said, Larry Kudlow, the presidential adviser, was asked, how can you have growth if there's a trade war?

And his answer was, well, that's kind of an existential question. And he went back to that (INAUDIBLE) line.

So we'll just have (INAUDIBLE) where both governments go. The two world's largest economies in this (INAUDIBLE).

SESAY: Existential until it becomes reality.

We appreciate it, Ivan Watson, thank you. Stand by for us.

Jessica, to you here with me in the studio. Let me read to you what the president has tweeted about this situation because it gives us some insight into his thinking.

It says, "We are not in a trade war with China. That war was lost many years ago by the foolish or incompetent people who represented the U.S. Now we have a trade deficit of $500 billion year with intellectual property theft of another $300 billion. We cannot let this continue."

Jessica, the president's saying that the war was lost many years ago. But that doesn't mean there still isn't more to lose if this becomes a fully-fledged war. I mean, the fact of the matter is if these tariffs go into effect, American consumers will lose out; manufacturers will lose out and the world economy could be dragged into this.

JESSICA LEVINSON, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL: Well, that's exactly right. And let's remember there's no kind of definition of trade war. It's not like (INAUDIBLE) --


LEVINSON: -- start now and I think we signed a peace treaty and said no more trade war, it's over.

And so one, this is, I think, kind of classic President Trump where he says other people before me totally screwed up and they did something really bad. Don't look over here, look over there.

And what he's forgetting is that -- you used the word existential -- this will become very real to people with very real money in their pockets, who are trying to purchase goods.

And I frankly think that the Chinese strategy is absolutely brilliant in terms of targeting goods that will hurt Trump voters the most.

And not brilliant in terms of I want this to happen, brilliant in terms of good strategy.

SESAY: The president and the White House have been busy. So not only has there been the move on the tariff front; there's also the situation where the other side of the White House is busy playing catch-up with the president's comments in recent days, where the U.S. military should or shouldn't be.

The president wants forces out of Syria but he wants them at the border.

Rick Francona, to bring you in here and start with this whole border plan, let me read you a little bit of the president's memo, authorizing this development, this maneuver if you will.

He said this, "The situation at the border has now reached a point of crisis. The lawlessness that continues at our southern border is fundamentally incompatible with the safety, security and sovereignty of the American people. My administration has no choice but to act."

Rick Francona, as far as you can tell, is there an actual crisis at the border or is the president playing politics, using the military as a tool?

LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, he is a politician now, whether he claims to be or not. Sure, there's a certain element of politics with this. But he's very frustrated and I think he's acting out in another way. He's not been very successful in getting what he wants with the wall.

So he's trying to solve the problem another way, calling out the National Guard is, I guess, his answer. That would be the first step.

To use active U.S. troops on the border would be very, very difficult because then you run into legal ramifications because we consider illegal immigration to be a civil infraction or a criminal matter, not a national security matter.

I think he's trying to change that calculus. But in the interim, he does have the authority to mobilize the National Guard and we've seen other presidents do that, both President Obama and President Bush have done it before.

So again, he's following in their footsteps.

SESAY: And I get what you're saying and I get the point you made about him being frustrated.

But again, from where you sit, to the basic question, the fundamental question that has fueled all of this action, is there a crisis at the border?

FRANCONA: I'm probably not the right one to answer that. I'm very concerned with the illegal immigration and our inability to seem to stop it. And I think that's what's driving all of this.

But if you ask me, is it a crisis, no; Syria's a crisis. This is not.


Jessica, to you, Rick Francona touched on the legality or the ringfencing of using active military troops. This is something that many have pointed out in recent days as the president said I want the military to go to the border; then the White House is like, it's the National Guard.


SESAY: Let us be clear on the legal situation. I want to read something from "The New York Times," and you are going to have to correct me on this because I know -- I'll read it.

"One impediment to using troops on the border could be American law. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars the use of the armed forces for civilian law enforcement tasks unless authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

"Since the 1980s, however, the Defense Department, including the National Guard, has provided indirect support to border-related antidrug and counterterrorism efforts."

So bearing in mind the president's intent and the limitations of the law, how effective can he be?

LEVINSON: Well, I guess there are a couple questions, how effective can he be politically?

So he needs to give his base something, he needs to deliver on campaign promises. So the fact he's saying there's crisis, I'm going to solve that crisis, send in the National Guard, I think in and of itself can look like action.

Now there's a different question, which is, can there be actual progress here?

I think the answer is he's severely limited on what he can do. Yes, there's absolutely precedent for sending the National Guard to the border but not in this specific circumstance.

So I think he's treading on, as we've seen previously, kind of infirm ground in some ways.

To your broader point of is there some sort of exigent circumstance that just happened, no. I think the emergency is that he wants to direct our attention to this.

SESAY: Just to be clear, Rick Francona, as you know, in the past, National Guard troops have gone under Bush and under Obama; with Bush it was maintenance and building and under Obama it was surveillance. So to Jessica's point, the way the president wants to use them now seems slightly different.

But I want to shift attention to Syria, because obviously there's movement on that front. The president wants to see troops brought home from Syria.

Rick, the president has said in meetings with his top military brass that there's nothing to show for the years in Syria, that it has not done anything for the U.S.

Is he right?

FRANCONA: No. No. That is absolutely not true. The United States has had a series of military successes, both in Iraq and in Syria. We're using what many of us call the Afghan model. We're using American airpower and logistics support and firepower supporting the indigenous ground force.

And it's worked well. It worked well in Iraq when you had not only the Kurds fighting but you had the Iraqi army, the Iraqi security forces. In Syria, it's been primarily the Syrian Democratic Forces. They've been very successful.

This is a model that works. We're on the verge, we're on the cusp of virtually eliminating ISIS as a fighting force. Now is not the time to pull back from that.

And when the president and his spokesman, Ms. Sanders, says we're going to turn it over to local enforcement, there is no local enforcement. We are the local enforcement. The Kurds are the local enforcement. The model we have works; don't mess with a good thing. I think that's what his generals are telling him and he needs to listen.

SESAY: But Rick Francona, I'm sure you saw the (INAUDIBLE) he grew irritated with the military brass when they told him that.

Your thoughts when you heard that?

FRANCONA: Well, you know, he was pretty uncomplimentary to us military officers during the campaign, telling us that he knew more than the generals and colonels. I think he's finding out that's patently not true.

He needs to the listen to these military professionals because they understand the situation on the ground. And if he wants success, he needs to follow their advice.

SESAY: Jessica, to that point about the president following the advice of the experts, he wasn't happy, this is CNN's reporting now, he was irritated. And the concern I think some people have is that, as he surrounds himself, that inner circle, with more and more people that basically just reinforce his core beliefs, it's going to be harder to get the facts through to him.

LEVINSON: And these are people he has picked to be his advisers and he's frustrated with them because I think they're trying to shine some reality into the Oval Office and show him that this really is not a prudent course.

And I think we've seen in this microcosm of classic Donald Trump moves, he wants to pull troops out because this was part of his campaign promise. He then makes announcements that go against what his inner circle has suggested and in fact surprises them.

And then there's a pullback and a massaging of what's really going on. And I think it's very scary for people looking from the outside to think that these generals now may be turned out because they're not providing the type of advice that President Trump --


LEVINSON: -- wants to hear.

SESAY: Busy day.

Rick Francona, we thank you. Stand by for us.

Robert English, to bring you into the conversation. We're hearing that Robert Mueller, special counsel, has Russian oligarchs in his sights and is now effectively interviewing some of them. Let me read you some of the CNN reporting.

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has taken the unusual step of questioning Russian oligarchs who traveled into the U.S., stopping at least one and searching his electronic devices when his private jet landed at a New York are airport, according to multiple sources familiar with the inquiry."

In your view, how will this go over with Vladimir Putin?

ROBERT ENGLISH, USC: The first thing I'd say is no more oligarchs are going to fly into American airports with anything more than movies on their personal devices.

I know that sounds facetious but in fact some of the reporting in your story noted a former federal prosecutor emphasizing the element of surprise. That element is gone. We used that once apparently.

But more seriously, I don't know how to read this because it may be a sign of, you know, the special prosecutor looking for confirmation where he already has a lot of evidence and sort of the net is tightening around the guilty and he's just buttressing his case.

Or it could be a shot in the dark, hoping with this surprise move in a couple of cases that he'll stumble upon or get lucky with something. My bet would be the former, knowing the care and caution with which Mueller seems to operate. But we're still trying to judge from the outside without knowing what's inside.

SESAY: Indeed.

Jessica, to draw on your legal expertise here, would such a move be an exploratory shot in the dark or would it be based on something substantive?

LEVINSON: I agree with what Robert said. Where he said I think it's the former, I don't think that this is a shot in the dark. I don't think -- and he didn't use this word but I don't think it's a fishing expedition for a couple reasons.

One is that's generally not the way that federal prosecutors and special counsels who are anywhere near the level that Robert Mueller operate.

Second, that's not how we've seen Robert Mueller operate at all. So my guess is there's absolutely something behind that.

It's fascinating to me that it's largely coming down to something that is basically follow the money. What they're looking at is, as an election law professor, this absolutely fascinating issue, whether or not there's foreign money poured into our American elections and through a variety of different avenues.

And it would be kind of ironic. But if we take a step back, maybe predictable that it be these types of monetary prohibitions which is what Robert Mueller ends up indicting some people on.

SESAY: It is fascinating because we don't have the full picture. We're just trying to piece it all together.

Robert English to you, staying with the issue of Russia. We're now hearing from the administration that there are going to be sanctions leveled on Russian oligarchs -- yes, oligarchs again -- oligarchs with ties to Putin, that these sanctions will come probably this week, is what CNN is learning. I guess given this administration's relationship with Russia, does it

surprise you to hear that such moves are in the offing at this point in time?

ENGLISH: No, it doesn't. Number one, there is just this growing pressure from the entire U.S. political establishment to be tougher on Russia. So Trump has to do something to relieve some of that pressure.

And his team of advisers seem to have really buckled down and started making the case more strongly and more consistently and maybe have actually convinced him.

At the same time we have to be honest, sanctions can only do so much. They won't have -- I won't say a pinprick effect but a relatively small effect on any possible modification of Vladimir Putin's behavior. Whatever money is lost or freedom to travel or invest is reduced by these sanctions is more than made up for by support from the Russian state.

So they do have a small effect but mainly a symbolic one. It's not a weapon so far that's working. And Russia has weathered through low oil prices and an economic recession for two years, a much more severe situation. Now oil is up to almost $70 a barrel, the Russian economy is growing again.

The regime's resources to make oligarchs and business people whole, if they do encounter sanctions from the U.S. is greater than ever. So from that point of view, this can only be a small part of our arsenal. If it's the main thing, it's not going to change things very much.

SESAY: Robert English, we thank you for that insight.

Jessica to you, the final word, we're also learning -- yes, there's more -- we're also learning that Robert Mueller has let the president's --


SESAY: -- legal team know that he is a subject but not a target of this investigation and exploration of collusion with Russia. Some say the president and his team should be, you know, breathing a sigh of relief. Others say he's laying a trap and trying to get the president to sit down for that interview.

How do you see it?

LEVINSON: Look, there's no Easter bunny and President Trump is not off the hook by just saying he's a subject but not a target. So I think Robert Mueller would very much like to sit down with the president.

And we have a lot of -- because President Trump is quite litigious, we have a lot of examples of how he actually does behave under oath in depositions, never in this specific circumstance. But I think that Robert Mueller is being very, very careful with his words. And I frankly think that the end game here for Robert Mueller may be

providing us with so much information that it is later left up to the political branch to determine what they want to do with it, because, at the end of all of this, there's still a legal question as to whether you can indict a sitting president.

So whether he's the subject or a target, I think the bigger question is would you even be able to indict him?

And if that's the question, then I think we're really looking at what do the Senate and House want to do once Robert Mueller is done?

SESAY: So much to dig through. Jessica, I'm glad you're here with me. My thanks to you.

And to all our great guests for that spirited conversation, thank you.

Let's take a very quick break. When we come back, we are inside Syria, meeting with civilians displaced from their homes and desperate for the seven-year war to end.




SESAY: Three major players in Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey, entered a summit Wednesday with a commitment to achieve a lasting cease-fire in the war-ravaged country.

The U.S. and Syria itself were notably absent from the talks. The meeting brought together two of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's strongest supporters, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, along with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey.

During the joint news conference, the leaders reiterated their desire to drive terrorists out of Syria and to end the war.


RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, PRESIDENT OF TURKEY (through translator): It is of utmost importance to ensure that all terrorist groups, which are a threat, not just to Syria but first and foremost to Turkey, surrounding countries and in fact the entire region are marginalized.

HASSAN ROUHANI, IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): No country has the right to decide the future of Syria. The future of Syria belongs to the Syrian people.


SESAY: Meantime, our Frederik Pleitgen is inside Syria, where he visited one of the largest camps for civilians seeking refuge from the war. As he found out, these Syrians are traumatized by what they've endured and face an uncertain future as the seven-year conflict rages on.


FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): After escaping the violence in the eastern outskirts --


PLEITGEN (voice-over): -- of Damascus, for these kids, getting a haircut is a new and welcome distraction from the traumatic world they just got out of.

The 10-year-old Mohammed Mezza (ph) describes the fighting he endured. When it was calm we could go out, he says, but when there are air strikes we had to go into the basements. Rebels held the Eastern Ghouta area just outside Damascus for almost seven years, but recent government offensive forced tens of thousands of civilians to flee.

Many of them ending up at this camp ran by the government and aid groups. Workers here say there have been around 21,000 new arrivals from besieged areas in the past weeks and they are struggling to keep up.

PLEITGEN: Malnutrition and even starvation were major issues in the encircled areas of Eastern Ghouta. Now that thousands of people have fled just to this one center for displaced people, simply keeping them fed is a major logistical challenge.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): Medical care is another challenge. NGOs across doctors and even a mobile clinic to the camp, but the camp's director tells me psychological care for the traumatized civilians is an even bigger problem.

"We're doing what we can, but it isn't enough," he says.

A siege of seven years and planting thoughts in the minds of children who were 6 years old when it began, this is the generation that we have the biggest problems with.

Tired and worn down and with an uncertain future. The people who have made it here don't know when or if they'll be able to go back to their neighborhoods or whether they will still have a home to go back to.

But some, like this man, say they used to fight with the rebels but laid down their arms and came to this government-controlled area.

"If you're a fighter with them, they won't let you go," he says. "If you think you can escape, this option doesn't exist."

After going through years of violence and losing almost everything they have, many here are happy to have just escaped with their lives -- Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Hadjirli (ph), Syria.


SESAY: Russia is calling for a U.N. Security Council meeting over the nerve agent attack on a former Russian double agent and his daughter in England. This as "The Times of London" reports British officials have pinpointed the Russian lab that made the substance.

Reports security sources cannot claim 100 percent certainty but have high confidence in the location. Russia denies any involvement in the attack and wants to address it.


VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): We're not expecting anything but common sense to prevail. International relations will not tolerate the recent damage done. This concerns not only the Skripal case, by the way, but a whole range of other issues, too.

We need to restore healthy political process based on a framework of fundamental international norms and principles and only then will we achieve stability and predictability.


SESAY: Russia's request to join the investigation (INAUDIBLE) chemical weapons was voted down by its members.

Saudi Arabia's crown prince wants (INAUDIBLE) and Hollywood wants to get involved. A new opportunity that could make that happen -- next on NEWSROOM L.A.





SESAY: You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. I'm Isha Sesay. The headlines this hour.


SESAY: Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, is here in Los Angeles this week for the West Coast leg of a U.S. trip. He's met with city officials as well as tech and media executives as he tries to sell a more modern vision of his country.

Prince bin Salman's visit also comes as global theater chain AMC announces plans to open its first movie theater in the Saudi capital of Riyadh on April 18th. The company received the first cinema license after Saudi Arabia lifted a 35-year ban on movie theatres.

Maan bin Abdulrahman joins me now. He's the CEO and founder of Prince of Arabia Entertainment.

Maan, thank you for being with us.


SESAY: There's so much excitement in Los Angeles and within Hollywood and the entertainment circles at this idea of Saudi Arabia opening up and movie theatres opening up and the crown prince being willing to invest in productions.


SESAY: How do you view this moment and the opportunities that exist for content providers, if you will, producers like yourself?

ABDULRAHMAN: Well, as myself, as a producer, I'm very happy and excited that I can -- I carry the knowledge. I came here in 2010, in hopes to study filmmaking, in hopes that cinemas and movie industry will open up in Saudi Arabia.

And I graduated two years ago and I've been freelancing here in Los Angeles. I have enough experience I think and now, boom, I have an opportunity to carry that knowledge and go back home and do amazing films, hopefully.

SESAY: And I think that's the question, though. The opportunity --


SESAY: How open is it?

I think that's the question people will have, considering the conservativism of the kingdom, as they open up for a producer, what will be the restrictions on what you can and cannot make or what you can and cannot show in a public theatre?

ABDULRAHMAN: Well, personally I believe that I came here to America, I respect your culture, even though it's a free country, I understand that. But me, I respect the culture. So I have limitation to myself.

So when I go back home and whatever restrictions they have, I'm going to respect it. And I'm sure I can tell a story without upsetting anybody, without, you know, so my government would be happy and the people -- because I want to please the people. I want to make movies that -- because Saudi Arabia is kind of new into this.

So I want to make them for them to like it and enjoy it and they want see more so I can produce more.

SESAY: That's an interesting idea because you say that you want to make films for the people, then let me ask you about, as you look at the kingdom, do you make aspirational films?

Would the goal be to make aspirational films?

By that, I mean films where women can drive and they see women as empowered and equal?

Or would you, as a producer, be looking to make films that just mirror the current culture? ABDULRAHMAN: Well, you said it. I will do this and that. And also, we have a lot of stories. We have a lot of stories in Saudi Arabia that need to be told. It's all written in books. We've read them since I was a kid. And now I think, as soon as I go back home, there's these stories that I have --


ABDULRAHMAN: -- that I can show. And especially historical stories from the past. And personally, there is a lot of various things that we can work --

SESAY: Yes. And obviously from the American perspective, from Hollywood and all these producers out here, they're looking to make films to sell and to show in Saudi Arabia.

How much appetite is there for films made outside of the region?

So you talk about telling stories that are out of books and out of legend and lore and tradition. Something made out of here would be maybe more American and Western.

How much interest, appetite, is there amongst Saudis for that kind of content?

ABDULRAHMAN: Because we already have those. We already see them on TV, on -- yes, like I grew up watching American movies. We have video stores. I rent from like Blockbuster here back in the day.

So we know the kind of product that America produce. And I'm sure America is hungry and they want to see what we will produce and I'm excited for that because whatever we're going to produce is going to be unique and different.

SESAY: So you see it as a two-way, as much as America selling to Saudi Arabia, production coming out of Saudi Arabia and coming back.

ABDULRAHMAN: Yes, in hopes. I'm talking in hopes, yes, because I wanted something and it happened.

SESAY: I hope this is a good thing --


SESAY: Yes, indeed. Thank you for coming in.

ABDULRAHMAN: Thank you so much more having me. I appreciate it. Yes, thank you.

SESAY: Quick break here. Next on NEWSROOM L.A., the boss of Facebook may be in for a tough time when he testifies next week before the U.S. Congress. It now appears the data scandal overtaking his company is even worse than first feared. Stay with us for details.




SESAY: We have some breaking news to share with you from Brazil, where the supreme court has just ruled against former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's petition to delay his prison sentence.

Lula da Silva was found guilty last year of corruption and money laundering but denies any wrongdoing. The supreme court's decision now goes back to a lower court, where it's expected a warrant for his arrest will be issued within the coming day.

The court's decision could likely diminish any plans he may have had to run again in Brazil's next presidential election.

The woman who opened fire at YouTube's headquarters practiced at a gun range just hours before her attack. Police say 39-year-old Nasim Aghdam was upset with YouTube's policies and that was the motive for the shooting.

Aghdam shot three people she apparently did not know before killing herself. Two of the victims have been released from hospital and one remains in serious condition. Members of her family say they warned police that she might do something.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They said she was angry with YouTube so be careful. And police said we are going to watch her. But they didn't watch her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you guys angry with the police?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you blame the police?

Do you -- should they have done more?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They should watch --


SESAY (voice-over): Police are looking into a website that appears to show Aghdam accusing YouTube of restricting access to her videos and changing the number of times they were viewed.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify before Congress next week about the data scandal engulfing his company. And the scope of that scandal could be much worse than anyone thought. The company now says data might have been shared on up to 87 million users. Zuckerberg spent an hour talking about it with reporters. For more on what he had to say, here's CNN's Laurie Segall.


LAURIE SEGALL, CNNMONEY TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT: Hey, there. Well, Mark Zuckerberg taking questions from multiple reporters today. He started out a call, it ended up being a 45-minute call. And he started it out by simply saying it was clear that they weren't doing enough. Take a listen.


MARK ZUCKERBERG, COFOUNDER AND CEO, FACEBOOK: We're an idealistic and optimistic company. For the first decade, we really focused on all the good that connecting people brings. But it's clear now that we didn't do enough. We didn't focus enough on preventing abuse and thinking through how people could use these tools to do harm as well.


SEGALL: Ahead of this call, Facebook's CCO put out a blogpost that essentially said as many as 87 million people could be impacted by the Cambridge Analytica scandal that left people wondering what happened to their data. That number is up from 50 million.

Mark Zuckerberg on this described that they looked at the max pact. This is a part of a transparency tour that Facebook is going on, answering these questions, whereas a lot of folks are wondering how much access did this company have to our data, what happened.

And during this call, he had a lot of reporters asking Mark Zuckerberg is he the one to run the company. And he responded, yes, I am. Life is about learning from mistakes. He's preparing to go next week, it was announced he'll testifying in front of Congress, he'll be answering a lot of hard questions about data retention, what did the company do, what did the company not do.

This call today is part of him going around and talking to different members of the press about transparency and control and what the company is doing with your data.

Over the last couple of days, the company has actually put stricter data policies, making it harder for third-party app developers to access your data. So I think this is just the beginning of it.

Next week will be a big week for Mark Zuckerberg. You have lawmakers who are upset. You have the general public wondering what's happened, why was our data being used for political purposes, it's not what we signed up for.

And you have Facebook's CEO going on this apology tour and saying we'll do a better job, we'll be more transparent. This was a part of it today. He extended the call by 10 minutes, saying let's keep going; I want to answer the questions. I think a lot of folks have a lot of questions for this company at this point in time -- back to you.


SESAY: Our thanks to Laurie Segall for that.

Cambridge Analytica did not get user data directly from Facebook; rather, it came from a third party. (INAUDIBLE) global science research in response to Facebook's claim that up to 87 million users could be affected, Cambridge Analytica said it had licensed data for no more than 30 million people.

It says that that was clearly stated in their contract with the research company and it says it not receive more data than that. Analytica also denies using any of it in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. I'm Isha Sesay. "WORLD SPORT" starts after the break.