Return to Transcripts main page


Rudy Giuliani Suggests It May Be Pointless For Trump To Testify; Giuliani States Trump Could "Shoot Former FBI Director James Comey And Still Not Be Indicted For It"; Central America's Fuego volcano has stopped erupting after nearly 17 hours, but ash from it is still in the air affecting nearby communities; Thousands Of Protesters Taking To The Streets In Jordan Demanding The Prime Minister's Resignation After The Government Proposed Raising Income Taxes For Some Workers. Aired 3-4a ET

Aired June 4, 2018 - 03:00   ET


[03:00:00] ROSEMARY CHURCH, ANCHOR, CNN NEWSROOM: Can the U.S. president be charged with a crime? Why Donald Trump's attorneys say no. Also, North Korea's military shakeup, the country's top three military officials have been replaced just over a week before the Trump-Kim summit. Plus, a deadly eruption. A volcano spews smoke and ash into the sky in Guatemala, killing more than two dozen people.

Hello and welcome to our viewers here in the United States and all around the world. I'm Rosemary Church from CNN Headquarters in Atlanta. This is CNN NEWSROOM. And we begin with the Russia investigation. One of the U.S. president's attorneys, Rudy Giuliani is suggesting it may be pointless for Donald Trump to testify before the special counsel.

Giuliani told ABC News the president could probably pardon himself if it ever came to that, though he doesn't intend to, apparently. Giuliani also told the Huffington Post, quote, "In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted. I don't know how you can indict while he's in office, no matter what it is. If the president shot James Comey, he'd be impeached the next day. Impeach him and then you can do whatever you want to do to him."

More now from CNN's Boris Sanchez.

BORIS SANCHEZ, U.S. CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Rudy Giuliani for the most part echoed some of what we saw in those letters published by the New York Times on Saturday that were sent from the White House legal team to the special counsel in January of this year. Giuliani said that he likely would have changed some of it but that he agrees with 80 percent of its premise.

Namely, the idea that President Trump being the top law enforcement officer in the country could end any investigation he so chooses, even one directed at him. To clarify, Giuliani said that he perhaps wouldn't go that far but he said that theoretically it is clear in the constitution that the president reserves that right. Further, on the issue of pardons, Giuliani made the case that in theory, the president does have the authority to pardon himself. But on both counts, Giuliani said that the president likely wouldn't

go that route. Here's more from the former mayor of New York City.


RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY, DONALD TRUMP: He's not but he probably does. He has no intention of pardoning himself, but he probably -- not to say he can't. I mean, that's another really interesting constitutional argument, can the president pardon himself. I think the political ramifications of that would be tough. Pardoning other people is one thing, pardoning yourself is another.


SANCHEZ: Giuliani also said that he would be prepared to challenge any subpoena coming from the special counsel in court. Further, he argued that the president reserves the right to challenge the special counsel probe in court legally as illegitimate. Boris Sanchez, CNN, at the White House.

CHURCH: Joining me now to talk more about this is CNN legal analyst and criminal defense lawyer Mark Geragos and CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for the New York Times, Michael Shear. Good to have you both with us.



CHURCH: OK. So President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani told the Huffington Post that Mr. Trump could shoot former FBI Director James Comey and still not be indicted for it. And these are the actual words he used. "In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted. I don't know how you can indict while he's in office, no matter what it is. If he shot James Comey, he'd be impeached the next day. Impeach him and then you can do whatever you want to do to him."

Mark Geragos, to you first. What does this tell you about Giuliani's understanding of presidential powers. Is he right or is he wrong?

GERAGOS: Well, there's -- I think he's engaging in a little rhetoric. Because what -- it is an open question as to whether you can force somebody to stand criminally trial during their presidency. But I think most people would agree that if a president were indicted during office, then all they would do is they could suspend the proceedings or keep the indictment sealed until after the president was out of office.

That doesn't mean that they can't impeach him at the same time because impeachment is the process by which you'd get him out of office. So I understand what he was trying to say. I wouldn't say it was the most artful way of describing it, but that has been kind of the tour that Rudy has been on for the last month and a half.

CHURCH: Yes. So it was most certainly an unfortunate example, wasn't it? Michael Shear, what was your reaction to what Giuliani said about shooting James Comey?

SHEAR: Well look, I think Mark is right. What -- what Giuliani was brought on to be was a public relations pit bull, not a kind of stellar legal mind. I mean, he's a lawyer but the -- the legal strategy is being done largely by other people. What Rudy Giuliani's mission is is to sort of muddy up the waters in a public relations sense.

And, you know, what we've seen from him from the time that he came on the scene representing Donald Trump about a month ago is that he's basically done one -- remained (ph) one outrageous statement after another. And this is the sort of height of that, the idea being to kind of whip up public opinion, not so much to lay out a sort of reasoned legal strategy.

CHURCH: Well it certainly got our attention, didn't it? And this is what Rudy Giuliani said when he was trying to explain why it's better that the president doesn't testify before the special counsel on the Russia investigation. Let's have a listen.


GIULIANI: I mean, this -- this -- this is the reason you don't let the president testify. If -- you know -- every -- our recollection keeps changing or we're not even asked a question and somebody makes an assumption. In my case, I made an assumption. Then I -- then -- then we corrected and I got it right out as -- as soon as -- as soon as it happened. I think that's what happened here.



CHURCH: So Mark, what's your legal view of what Giuliani said there? Are changing recollections sufficient justification for not letting a president testify?

GERAGOS: I -- look, this is an area that I would agree on -- with him on. Anybody who practices criminal defense, anybody who does the defense of criminal cases will tell you that it's a rare case where you would like your client to go in and testify. It just is too fraught with danger.

The expression we always use when we're talking about this is a perjury trap. No matter what you -- your client is going to say, if the client does not say exactly what the prosecutor thinks is the truth, then they expose themselves to perjury or obstruction or having their words manipulated because it isn't signing from the same kind of sheet of music that the prosecutor has. So in that instance, I would agree.

I think you would have to be hard-pressed to have somebody allow their -- their client, let alone the president go in and testify and I think Bill Clinton is exhibit A as to why you wouldn't do it.

CHURCH: Michael Shear, do you agree? SHEAR: Well, I mean I'm not a lawyer. I -- I -- that makes sense

from a legal perspective. I think from a political perspective, that doesn't -- that hasn't been the way politics has been practiced in this country for a long time. We expect our political leaders to answer the questions that are put to them.

There's been a real sense, I think, in Bill Clinton's willingness, ultimately, to testify was testimony to the fact that there is a -- there has been a sense that political leaders can't dodge the public completely, they can't simply refuse to answer question when they're serious like this.

Now, I think that Donald Trump has been testing norms since the beginning of his campaign, much less coming into the White House. I mean, this -- he -- he shatters them. HE -- he -- he looks at historical trends and historical assumptions and then does the opposite. And so I -- you know, Mark is probably right. The lawyers are telling him and obviously Giuliani is saying, you know, we're telling him not to do this and it's probably the safest thing from a legal perspective.

And I think what we don't know is what will the public do if -- if there were to be a real big fight between Mueller and the president over coming in to testify and the president simply refused. What will the public assume that means? And I -- I don't think we know what they will think and how they will react.

CHURCH: Yes. And of course --


CHURCH: Yes, go on --


GERAGOS: I think that's a -- I think that's a brilliant point. Because the first thing I thought of when I heard the Rudy Giuliani thing was today was Trump famously saying that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and his base wouldn't care. And so I think he operates from that. I think that there's -- in fact Rudy, probably in his mind, was harkening back to that, that the base wouldn't care. And I think it's a very astute point that he does break norms.

And in this case -- you know, there's always a tension in these high profile cases. Having lived some of these, I will tell you that there's always a political or a P.R. strategy and that's, a lot of times, at tension with a legal strategy. In this case, the two actually may kind of be able to meld (ph) and be counterintuitive to whatever the historical perspective (ph).

CHURCH: And interestingly, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie rejected the claim made by Donald Trump's legal team that by the very nature of his office, the president cannot obstruct justice and could simply shut down the Russia investigation altogether. Let's listen to what he said exactly.


CHRIS CHRISTIE, FORMER GOVERNOR, NEW JERSEY: You could tell anytime that -- that Rudy didn't agree with something, he said, "You'll have to ask John about that," and go back to John Dowd. It's an outrageous claim. It's wrong. They were trying to make a broad argument. Lawyers do that all the time in brief cedings of court (ph). And Dan, I've seen that many times happen. In the end, cooler heads prevail.



CHURCH: So Mark, what is the legal situation here, given even Republicans can't seem to agree? Can the president obstruct justice or not, and can he legally shut down the Russia investigation or not?

GERAGOS: Well the interesting here is whatever he does is going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Right now, the present constitution of the U.S. Supreme Court is in his favor. I -- if you're speculating, so there is no definitive answer.

I mean, we have a definitive answer if it were a civil lawsuit, but in a criminal context, I don't know that we've got an answer. And it would go, no matter what he does, it would probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And he's got better than 50-50 chance that he would prevail there, that he could shut it down.

CHURCH: And Mike Shear, you get the final word here, where do you think this is all going? What do you think we're going to see happen? Presumably the president will not testify, is that where this is all going? And what do you see is the end game here?

SHEAR: Well I think the two big questions that we don't know looming over the next, say six months, are one, will Mueller push the question of a presidential interview or testimony? And will he push it to the point of taking it all the way to the Supreme Court, as Mark says. And then second, whether or not the president does come testify, does come in for an interview.

What is Bob Mueller's end game? Is he -- is he planning to try to test the question of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted? Is he simply going to send skip that stage and send the report directly to Congress and basically say to this Congress, look, this a political problem, you have to solve this. But we don't know the answer to both of those.

I think there's lots of people that are guessing, and lots of speculation about what might happen. But I think those are the two big booming questions. Will he sit for an interview? And will Mueller indict him? Those are the two questions we should all be looking for over the next six months.

CHURCH: Yes, and we watch every twist and turn on this. Thank you so much, Mark Garagos and Michael Shear, appreciate it.

SHEAR: Sure. GARAGOS: Thank you.

CHURCH: We're just eight days before President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are set to meet face to face in Singapore. North Korea is shaking up its military leadership. The countries top three military officials are out, there replacement, younger (inaudible) who also is said to have experience interacting with foreign delegations. Now, this comes as preparations are in full swing for the June 12th summit. The first time a sitting U.S. president will meet with the North Korean leader.

And CNN's Alexandra Field is in Seoul, South Korea, she joins us now live. Good to see you, Alexandra. So let's start with this latest development. The replacement of these three top North Korean military officials by Kim Jong-un, ahead of the June 12th summit. What does this tell us?

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Rosemary, this is certainly interesting to watch. Don't forget the U.S. replaced its top diplomat in the run up to this all important sit down. Now, we're seeing a shakeup at the top within North Korea. We're talking about the director of general political bureau, the army chief, and also the defense chief. You point out that these are younger men, obviously, they're loyal is to Kim.

These are people who have held sensitive and high level positions in the past and they've had that all important interface with foreign relations to the extent that they can within North Korea. Why is this happening? Well it's tough to (inaudible) what the motivations always are inside of North Korea. But certainly, analysts are weighing in saying, that there are really a variety of factors that could have prompted this.

This could certainly be another effort to shore up or even further consolidate Kim Jong-un's power within North Korea which he's already holding very firmly. It could also be part of a trend that we've seen since 2011. A shuffling of personnel within North Korea since Kim Jong-un came to power, and also you have to regard it to some extent as obvious preparation in some way for this all important sit down with the United States and also for these ongoing inter-Korean talks.

Look, it was just last week that Secretary Pompeo said that it seems that North Korea was contemplating a strategic shift in a new direction. The likes which, we had not seen before. So certainly, you could look at this as feeding into that. But you've also got to remember, news broke just yesterday, Rosemary, you and I were talking about it.

But at the same time, you've seen North Korea, also shoring up some of its old relationships like making moves like inviting Bashar al-Assad to Pyongyang to meet with Kim Jong-un. So you've got to take all of this into perspective. And frankly, you just can't entirely determine what the motivations are inside the regime. But these are all good clues that what could be happening.

CHURCH: Yes, they absolutely are. Alexandra Field, bringing us up to date from Seoul in South Korea where it is nearly 4:15 in the afternoon. We thank you so very much. And I talked just a short time ago with Graham Ong-Web. He's a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, and I asked him what the expectations are for this meeting.

[0315:00] GRAHAM ONG-WEB, RESEARCH FELLOW, S. RAJARATNAM SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: There's a lot of anticipation building up in Singapore being the hosts of this summit, this very important summit, very high stakes. But I think observers here in this country and the region, have a very low bar in terms of the expectation coming out of the summit.

This is an unprecedented historical event where we have a sitting a U.S. president, as in Donald Trump, Mr. Kim Jong-un meeting, two heads of state meeting eye to eye for the first time over this ongoing crisis, decades long crisis.

And the bar is set pretty low because I think for many of us, we think that just the two rapport, striking it off and really establishing a working relationship would in and of itself be a huge success coming off the summit. I mean, never mind all the other declarations or agreement that we are expecting from it. But these two important people in the room have to get along with each other in order to negotiate the terms of denuclearization.

CHURCH: But is that more success for Kim Jong-un, because he, his father and his grandfather have been wanting to sit down with the U.S. president for so long. Now, they're getting that opportunity. But it doesn't they're having to give very much up for that.

ONG-WEB: You're quite right. And this is what concerns many of us that the fundamental goals of the Kim Jong-un's regime, Mr. Kim Jong- un himself are actually quite different from the goals set out by the Trump administration and all the other stakeholders involved in this particular issue. The goals for the DPRK really are quite simple.

It's about getting that handshake in the room with the leader of the world's sole superpower and getting lots of cache (ph), a lot of legitimacy from that. Mind you, Mr. Kim Jong-un has had to work quite hard to earn his place as the leader of the DPRK. It's easy to overlook that fact. It wasn't just handed to him. He's had to earn it over the last two years, and not less than a decade upon coming into power in 2011. He's two steps away from this hereditary rule of Mr. Kim Il-sung (ph). And so he's had to build his place in history of the DPRK.

And so shaking hands with Mr. President Donald Trump is going to build a lot of legitimacy, consolidate his power in the eyes of his own people which will allow him to rule over the DPRK going forward for some time to come.

CHURCH: But will he give anything up? And will he really venture into the realm of this concept of denuclearization which of course means one things for the United States and another thing for North Korea? ONG-WEB: Well, I would argue that he has to. And I think he knows

this. And this is where I think we get into the sticky areas of this whole event about what exactly the DPRK, Mr. Kim Jong-un, the kind of concessions that they are going to make when they meeting with President Donald Trump on the 12th of June. I mean, something tangible clearly has to come out from this meeting.

It's not certain what this tangibility is going to be, but I think some concessions have to be made. And coming back to the point about the three top military officials being replaced by younger generals, that could be a positive sign, still too early to say, I agree with the correspondent earlier on.

But I think more needs to be done. So one is expecting that he will address directly the issue of denuclearization, what that's going to look like and also the verifiability of that as well. In order for any lasting deals to be in place, the DPRK clearly to have to abide by this notion of verification and irreversibility.

CHURCH: Graham Ong-Web, thank you so much for sharing your analysis with us. We do appreciate it. And we'll all be watching very closely on June 12th to see what does come out of this summit.

One of central Americas most active volcanoes erupted for the second time this year and nearly 2 million Guatemalans are being effected, the latest on the Fuego volcano still to come. Plus, we will explore how a new medical study could change the lives of breast patients, breast cancer patients across the globe.




CHURCH: One of Central America's most active volcanoes has stopped erupting, but ash from the Fuego volcano is still in the air affecting nearby communities around the summit. At least 25 people were killed during the nearly 17 hour eruption, black smoke was sent into the sky Sunday, drifting all the way to the capital, Guatemala City some 40 kilometers or 25 miles away. Nearly two million people are being affected and officials warn new eruptions are still possible. Evacuations and rescue efforts are underway; more than 3,000 people have been forced from their homes so we do want to get more on all of this from our meteorologist, Ivan Cabrera. And Ivan this is tragic for those 25 people and their families killed in this eruption and of course there's more eruptions expected and that is the concern here.

IVAN CABRERA, AMS METEOROLOGIST: It absolutely is, Rosemary, and unlike Kilauea, we are thinking this was the main event, but as you mentioned there are additional threats here that will continue. Of course the main eruption was through Sunday afternoon as this ash just kind of spewed up into the atmosphere a good 10 kilometers here and then we have what we call a pyroclastic flow, that is nasty stuff it has a mixture of the lava fragments, gases and also ash that comes down the mountainside and what's waiting for them? Well villages are right on the foothills here of the mountains and so they had no time because one, it's 1,000 degrees by the way Celsius, as far as how hot this gas is and this whole flow and then it flows down a good 700 kilometers per hour. There's just no time to get people out of the way.

Let's talk a little bit more about the additional threats that we have ongoing here in Guatemala and the southern side of the country here as - - by the way, there's three volcanoes here, the Fuego volcano, Fuego means fire how about that in Spanish here. The town that was mainly hit, El Rodeo, was right here very close to the summit here of the volcano so there was really just no time, we had a flow that just went directly through the town and as you saw the folks that were able to escape were coming out just with suet all over. By the way, this volcano has already erupted, this is the second time so far this year, but nothing like we've seen; this is the most violent eruption that this volcano has produced in forty years and it was quite something as obviously you can tell with the death toll there.

The cloud as I mentioned went all the way up into the sky, 10 kilometers and that ash is not just going to disappear, it continues to fall across other villages here depending on the wind flow, which has right now been coming in out of the south; that's going to continue to be a threat of the next couple of days and as Rosemary mentioned, we could have additional eruptions although because this one was so powerful, thinking that that was the main event, hopefully here. Now the additional threat my goodness, we're still talking about that right, we've got rain on the way and so what this does is the ash that's still on the mountainside mixes with the water and turns into some nasty stuff, a mudflow called Lahar and that will also come down the mountainside, not at 700 kilometers per hour, but I think it will still be bad enough and the reason for the rain, well we're in that season now of Guatemala, every afternoon you get the heating of the day, we'll have temperatures into the 20's and that will be enough for thunderstorm activity and we could have some high rainfall tallies here as well so that I think will be what I'll be watching the next few days as far as the additional threat, oh and of course, Kilauea as well, it seems it has been volcano season in the last couple of months, Rosemary.

CHURCH: Yes unbelievable thank you so much Ivan for keeping a very close eye on that, we appreciate it.


CABRERA: You're welcome.

CHURCH: Well a trade truce between China and the U.S. could be in trouble. Ahead we will look at Beijing's warning to Washington about the threat of U.S. tariffs. Plus in eight days Singapore hosts a momentous meeting, the high stakes summit between the U.S. President and North Korea's leader, but just how did Singapore get picked as host? We will explore that when we come back.


[03:30:00] CHURCH: A very warm welcome back to our viewers here in the United States and of course, all around the world. You're watching CNN Newsroom. I'm Rosemary Church. Let's check the (inaudible). Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, says the U.S. president does not intend to pardon himself in the Russia investigation. But probably has the power to do so.

Giuliani also told Huff Post that the pals (ph) of the presidency are so vast, Mr. Trump could have shot former FBI director James Comey in the Oval Office and still wouldn't be indicted. Days before U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are said to meet in the Singapore, North Koreas top three military officials have been ousted.

All three appear to have been replaced by younger Kim loyalists, part of an ongoing transformation of the country's political and military establishment as Kim took power in 2011. Melania is expected to take part in an event Monday honoring families of U.S. service members killed in action.

The U.S. first lady has not been seen in public since May 10th, shortly was treated for what the White House called a benign kidney condition. Monday, the event will be closed to the press. The finance ministers from six countries are speaking with one voice against the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

The officials from the Group of Seven sent a rare message to President Trump expressing unanimous concern and disappointment in the trade action. The U.S. insists the imports are a national security threat.


JUSTIN THEROUX, CANADIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: The idea that the Canadian steel that's in military -- military vehicles in the United States, the Canadian aluminum that makes your fighter jets, is somehow now a threat. The idea that we are somehow a national security threat to the United States is quite frankly insulting and unacceptable.

LARRY KUDLOW, U.S. ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: Mr. Theroux, I think he's overreacting. I don't want to get in the middle of that, as a fine friend and ally of the United States, nobody denies that, but the point is, we have to protect ourselves.


CHURCH: And Beijing is warning Washington that all the progress that's being made in recent trade talks will be wiped out if the president follows through on his latest tariff threat on Chinese exports. The White House isn't backing down.


UNKNOWN: They take our technology Maria. Everybody knows they steal it. But they also force the transfer of it. They evade our export controls. And they're coming over here, the Chinese state owned enterprise, are coming over here with bags full of money and buying up places like Silicon Valley. So that's a relationship with China that structurally needs to change. We'd love to have a peaceful and friendly relationship with China, but we also are standing firm on the idea that the president is the leader on this and he's been doing this for decades.


CHURCH: And CNNs Matt Rivers joins me now from Beijing with more on the trade talks. So Matt, what is happening here? How close are China and the U.S. to a trade war right now or are we just witnesses some blaster (ph) here?

MATT RIVERS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well we didn't get any closer to avoiding a trade war in seems, Rosemary, over the weekend. Really, they spent two days, the American negotiators and the Chinese negotiators here in Beijing spent two days and they don't seem to have a lot to show for it at least publically. We haven't heard anything substantive from the U.S. side since they left on Sunday night here from Beijing heading back to Washington.

We did hear something from the Chinese side, they put out a statement for Shenwa (ph), the state media outlet here, basically saying that there was some substantive progress made. They didn't go into details on what that progress was. But the big take away from what they said is that any negotiations, any agreements there are come to in those negotiations, they -- the Chinese will not be held to them, if the United States moves forward with its tariffs.

The Chinese have said, look, if you put these tariffs on the table, if they are implemented, we will not abide by any agreements that were taken place here in Beijing or perhaps during the last round negotiations in Washington. And so it begs the question here Rosemary, if the United States is going ahead with these tariffs, which publicly, it seems like they are, and the Chinese has said, well we will not negotiate under the threat of tariffs, what exactly did Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross accomplish here, if anything. Publicly, they haven't said they've accomplished much at all.


CHURCH: Yes it is a question worth asking. And of course, how worried is China about U.S. tariffs, realistically? How much of its GDP would be impacted?

RIVERS: Look, these $50 billion in tariffs might sound like a lot, they wouldn't really hurt China in any real substantive way when you're talking about the GDP. I think if there is worry in Beijing, it's what happens next. Does this escalate? Is it a tit for tat kind of thing where 50 billion here, 50 billion from this, 100 billion, 100 billion and where does it end?

That's where it could really have a dent in China's economy. But there is also some resolve here in Beijing. There is a willingness in every single public statement China has made, they have said we don't want to fight a trade war, but we will. Who comes out on top in a trade war? You have a lot of economists who

will tell you that everybody loses in a trade war and the kind of -- it's split to see, you know, if you talk certain analysts, some people say the U.S. could deal with it better, some people say China could deal with it better, but in the end, it will hurt both sides.

CHURCH: Yes. And global markets do not like it at all. Matt Rivers, joining us from Beijing, where it is 3:36 in the afternoon, many thanks. Well, President Trump heads to Quebec on Friday for the G7 summit where the issues of trade and tariffs will likely take center stage.

And then it will be on to Singapore for his summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un. CNN's Will Ripley takes a closer look at how the small city state was picked to host this historic meeting.

WILL RIPLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to Singapore. Known for its mythical mascot, the Merlion (ph), half fish, half lion. And soon, something even more surreal. Some are calling it, the meeting of this century. The first ever summit between a sitting U.S. President Donald Trump, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Teams from Washington and Pyongyang are on the ground with only days to figure out a long list of logistical challenges. Everything from venue, infrastructure and security to who will the costs given North Korea is a cash-strapped country. Of all the sites officials floated, Singapore is not the most adventurous, like (inaudible) Mongolia, nor the most diplomatic like Geneva or Stockholm. It's not even the most symbolic place considered, like (inaudible) on the Korean demilitarized zone.

So why choose this small city state for one of the biggest geopolitical meetings of our time? For one, location. Singapore is just close enough for North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to fly relatively easily from Pyongyang. It's also one of Washington's closest Asian security and trading partners, making it friendly turf for President Trump. The U.S. and North Korea both have embassies here. In fact, North Korea moved to this new building a couple of years ago.

They also both trade here, although North Korean trade is currently suspended over sanctions. Singapore also has a growing reputation as a hub for regional diplomacy, and hosted this major security forum over the weekend. Perhaps attractive to both Kim and Trump, Singapore does not tolerate rowdy protests that disrupt public order.

Rowdy press conferences don't happen here either. Singapore is a tourism hotspot known for chili crap and a striking skyline. But most importantly for the U.S., it's neutral ground, all of it making Singapore perhaps the most conventional choice for two of the world's most unconventional leaders. Will Ripley, CNN, Singapore.

CHURCH: And we'll take a short break here. But still to come, more protests in Jordan as and the stability of the crucial U.S. ally is on the line. Why anger is reaching a new high over austerity measures. We're back with that in just a moment. (COMMERICAL BREAK)


CHURCH: This has been the scene in Jordan for the last five days. Thousands of protesters taking to the streets to show their anger over austerity measures recommended by the International Monetary Fund. Demonstrators are demanding the prime minister's resignation after the government proposed raising income taxes for some workers. King Abdullah has asked to meet with the prime minister on Monday.

And CNN's Jomana Karadsheh is following the protests in Jordan from her vantage point in Istanbul, Turkey. Good to see you, Jomana. So what is the latest on these protests and how likely is it that King Abdullah will ask his prime minister to resign?

JOMANA KARADSHEH, TURKEY CORRESPONDENT, CNN: Well, that's the speculation right now, Rosemary, that we heard late last night that the king had asked for the -- he has summoned the prime minister for a meeting today and the speculation has been that he is going to ask him to resign. The ball is in the court of the ultimate decision-maker in Jordan and that is King Abdullah.

Is he going to move in the direction of meeting the demands of these protesters? You know, there have been several demand but the two key calls from the protest have been for the sacking of the prime minister in this current government and also for withdrawing this income tax law bill. You know, this tax law, Rosemary, they want to widen the tax -- they want to increase the tax bracket and they're going to penalize people who do not pay tax in Jordan.

And just to put this into context, right now according to the government, only about three percent of Jordanians do pay income tax. But this tax bill has really been, you know, what has triggered these protests with (ph) anger and frustration, with the economic situation, it's something that has been building for a long time. You know, this is a country where the cost of living has continued to go up over recent years.

You know, wages of the people have not really changed. This is a country of very few resources. It is very reliant on foreign aid, aid from Gulf countries for example. And they've seen a drop in that foreign aid recently. In 2016, Jordan did get this three year credit line from the IMF but with that came these terms and conditions that they have had to -- there have been (ph) to meet in order to reform the economy.

And these include austerity measures that have already been enforced, like, you know, scrapping bread (ph) subsidies, for example, introducing more sales tax. But right now, the most controversial has been this income tax law bill that is being -- you know, that was referred to parliament and parliament is not even touching.

The Jordanian government, Rosemary, is in a very, very tough position. They have to meet these terms from the IMF and at the same time, they're facing anger on the streets that we have not seen in a very long time.

CHURCH: Yes. And we will be watching to see what King Abdullah does in the end, once he meets with his prime minister. Jomana Karadsheh joining us here from Istanbul in Turkey. Many thanks to you. Well there are new fears of more hostilities along the volatile border between Gaza and Israel. The Israeli military says this video shows the moment Israel struck militant targets in Gaza on Sunday.

Israel says that was in retaliation after Gaza militants fired projectiles at Israel. And this confrontation ended an unofficial and brief ceasefire agreed to by Hama and Islamic Jihad (ph) but not confirmed by Israel. Also in Gaza, we are learning more about a young Palestinian nurse killed on Friday while trying to help injured protesters. Her body was carried through the street Saturday and thousands honored the woman who dedicated her life to saving others.

She is the latest victim of Israeli gunfire, which has killed in recent weeks more than 100 Palestinian protesters who are demanding the right to return to lands now inside Israel. Our Ian Lee has more.


IAN LEE, CNN CORRESPODENT: A young medic's final moments. Razan al- Najjar races to help an injured Palestinian protester, hands raised in the air. International law protects medics. But minutes later, an Israeli sniper killed the 21 year old east of (inaudible). Her friends struggled but failed to save her life. A bullet wound to the chest. She died just hundreds of meters from her neighborhood, now adorned with her smiling image.

We meet Razan's father Ashraf. He takes us inside their home. Her mother Sabreen clutches her daughter's blood-soaked vest. The sorrow weighs heavily. She tells me they were scared for Razan but that she alleviated their fears, telling them she felt obliged to help and was clearly wearing a medical vest. Ashraf and Sabreen now want accountability for their daughter's death.

"I was justice for Razan. Here is her weapon. I want the world to know this is the weapon of Razan al-Najjar."

Razan worked the front lines during the weekly protests near the Israel-Gaza border fence. Just last month she explained to the New York Times why she risked her life.


[03:45:00] LEE: Israel's military is saying it's investigating al- Najjar's death, adding the IDF constantly works to draw operational lessons and reduce the number of casualties in the area of the Gaza Strip security fence. Medical workers protested outside a U.N. office in Gaza City. All believe Israeli snipers are deliberately targeting them, a charge the Israeli military denies.

Razan al-Najjar is the second medic killed by an Israeli sniper according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, more than 200 were also injured, many wearing vests like this. Rasha and Abdulaziz (ph) were with Razan when she died. They tell me they'll remember her for her bravery while (ph) more than ever, continue where she left off. Ian Lee. CNN, Gaza.


CHURCH: Truly heartbreaking story there. And a human rights group says 110 people have been killed in antigovernment protests in Nicaragua since April. The unrest began over proposed social security reforms. But as the government cracked down on demonstrators, the protest expanded to calls for President Daniel Ortega to resign. Reports say five protesters were killed Saturday.

On Sunday, Pope Francis called for an end to the violence. It is a game-changer. A new medical study is offering some truly good news to women with breast cancer across the globe. The details coming up.




CHURCH: And now to some revolutionary news for breast patients - - breast cancer patients across the globe. A new study says some 70 percent of women who have a common form or early stage breast cancer may not have to go through chemotherapy. The study shows that a genetic test can tell doctors whether those patients would benefit from hormone therapy alone. CNN's senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen spoke to Ana Cabrera.


ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- that actually is game changing. What this study found is that about 85,000 women a year in the United States are getting chemo who don't need it and so what the scientists did is they used a genetic test that's already out there and in use and they figured out hey wait a second when the test says this, a woman needs chemo, but when it says that, a woman doesn't. This doesn't work for all forms of breast cancer, but it does work for tens of thousands of women and avoiding chemo, Ana, I don't know if you know anyone who's ever had it, but it of course great to avoid the hair loss, the nausea.

[03:55:00] But in addition, chemo puts you at a higher chance of getting leukemia later in life and heart failure so to avoid that is huge.

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Is this some then women in the future are going to be able to do or can people benefit right now?

COHEN: You know what, they can benefit really in their doctor's offices starting tomorrow because the test is out there. Two to three - - two out of three women with breast cancer are getting the test so the test is there and now doctors know how to use it better. Now you might be wondering what about that third woman, well it's interesting because sometimes women - - their insurance doesn't cover it because it does cost thousands of dollars or sometimes doctors don't know to use it so this is going to really up the ante that this test needs to be used more often than it is.


CHURCH: This is great news and doctors say they are delighted to be able to spare patients any unnecessary treatments. An off-duty FBI agent could face charges after someone was shot while the agent was showing off his dance moves. The agent was dancing at a bar in Denver, Colorado when he does a back flip and a gun falls out of his waistband. He goes to pick it up, but accidentally fires it, shooting one person in the leg. Here's how a witness described the scene.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was a breakdown (ph) circle, a quintessential breakdown (ph) circle; there was one man who was doing flips and then he left and the FBI agent I guess - - we didn't know that, he came on the scene and he did a back flip and he was dancing and then right as he did that back flip, his gun fell out and it hit the ground. It shot off.


CHURCH: Denver police say the person shot is expected to survive and the District Attorney's office will determine whether to bring charges against the agent. Don't dance with a gun. Thanks for your company, I'm Rosemary Church, remember to connect with me anytime on Twitter, Early Start is next for our viewers here in the United States and for everyone else, stay tuned for more news with our Max Arthur (ph) in London, have a great day.