Return to Transcripts main page


Mnangagwa Declared President of Zimbabwe; Refugee Camps in Bangladesh Face Floods and Landslides; Assam Is India's Only State To Have A Citizenship Register; Apple is First U.S. Company Valued at $1 Trillion. Aired 12m-1a ET

Aired August 3, 2018 - 00:00   ET



JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN "Newsroom," live from Los Angeles. Ahead this hour, a new president for Zimbabwe make concerns, the country is falling is falling back into the old, dark ways of the Mugabe era. (inaudible) U.S. intelligence and security teams (ph) warning, American democracy is in the crosshairs of a Russian attack.

Hours later, the U.S. president complained again about what he said was the Russian hoax. And Indians push for an all Hindu country, driving out Rohingya refugees and other Muslims. One politician suggesting if they don't leave on their own, they should be shot.

Hello, welcome to our view, it's all around the world (ph). Great to have you with us. I'm John Vause, "Newsroom," L.A. That's right. For four days and a deadly protest later, by Thursday, Emmerson Mnangagwa was declared the winner of Zimbabwe's first presidential election since Robert Mugabe was forced from office last year.

His challenger, Nelson Chamisa, is also declaring victory. The delay in announcing the results has sparked accusations of vote rigging from Chamisa and is supporters, but when the opposition filled the streets to protest on Wednesday, they were met with a military crackdown. At least six people died in the bloodshed. Here's CNN's David Mckenzie with late details reporting from Harare.


DAVID MCKENZIE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The ruling party supporters are celebrating outside the building behind me, where just moments ago, they announced the president elect of Zimbabwe after this highly contentious vote process, winning with more than 50 percent - just more than 50 percent of the vote, according to the electoral commission.

Emmerson Mnangagwa, the current president of Zimbabwe, now the president elect, after these violent few days here in Harare, the capital. Now the opposition has said it will not accept this outcome. Nelson Chamisa is telling me that they will use legal means possible to contest the decision of the electoral commission, to announce this verdict that Mnangagwa is, again, the president of Zimbabwe.

Throughout the day, there were military and police on the streets. Earlier, they were telling people to leave the central business district, closing up their shops, a virtual ghost town. The police also raided the opposition headquarters and arrested more than a dozen people. The question will be, now, is, how will the electoral observe admissions (ph) react to this - win this narrow win in terms of being just over the threshold of not having a runoff, that Emmer Mnangagwa is now the president elect of Zimbabwe. David Mckenize, CNN, Harare.


VAUSE: Dewa Mavhinga is with Human Rights Watch and joins us now from Harare. So, Dewa, shortly after the results were announced, President Elect Mnangagwa tweeted, "This is just a new beginning. Let us join hands in peace, unity and love, and together, build a Zimbabwe for all. So is this a new beginning? Can he build a new Zimbabwe on the back of an election which many seem to dispute?


VAUSE: Dewa, I think we might have to leave it there, because we're having a bit of trouble with your audio. We may try and get back to you a little bit later in the hour for an update with everything that's happening in Harare. So we'll work on that problem. Stay with us. We'll move on, now, to U.S. politics. So thank you.

There was a united front at the White House, on Thursday, with a dire warning on Russian election interference. The nation's top intelligence says security officials, all on the same page, Russia is still trying to interfere in the U.S. political system and still trying to divide the country.

The director of national intelligence says President Trump specifically directed him to make the issue a top priority.


DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The intelligence community continues to be concerned about the threats of upcoming U.S. elections, both the midterms and the presidential elections of 2020.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our democracy itself is in the crosshairs.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FBI: Make no mistake, the scope of this foreign influence threat is both broad and deep.


VAUSE: Is there anyone who doesn't seem to be on board, at least publically, that would be the president. To our political panel now and Strategist Mac Zilber, a democrat, and CNN political commentator and republican strategist, John Thomas, with us. Good to see you guys here.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good to be here (ph). VAUSE: Oh, your audio sounds great. We can hear you guys, that's awesome. OK, so here we have it. At 1:17, Thursday afternoon, watching the time, the intelligence chiefs reassumed an anxious nation that everything possible is being done to secure the integrity of the election system in a democratic process of the United States before the midterm elections (inaudible), at the same time, indulging the scope and the danger the threat coming form Russia. And then, just six hours later, President Trump, in front of his supporters, in Pennsylvania, here he is.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In Helsinki, I had a great meeting with Putin. We discussed everything. I had a great meeting. I had a great meeting. We got along really well. By the way, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. That's a really good thing. Now, we're hindered by the Russian hoax, it's a hoax, OK.


VAUSE: Just in case you couldn't hear it, he said, "We're being hindered in our relationship with Vladimir Putin in Russia by the Russia hoax." OK, so what is it? Is - is - which is basically Mueller's investigation into interference in the - in the president election and possibly, the midterms as well.

Is it a hoax, is it nothing, is it a witch hunt, as the president continues to say, or is it a deep and broad threat coming from the Kremlin?

JOHN THOMAS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's conflated is what it is. The president's conflating the Russian hoax with this attempt by Mueller and the democrats to say that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, to rig the election. That's what he's saying.

It's clear that he wouldn't give the green light to Dan Coats and others to talk about protecting our elections and admit that Russia, in fact, is attempting to undermine our election system, although, they said, not to nearly the extent that they did in 2016. But it's clear that Trump agrees with that, but he's conflating the issues, as he does. Look at all these rallies, he over simplifies everything.

VAUSE: But he says that all the time. Doesn't he, Mac? I mean, this - this - when was the last time he came down and said, "Russia was a real threat. They're a danger. We need to secure our election systems. You know, this is a threat to our democracy?"

MAC ZILBER, POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely never. I mean, it's - you know, he stands next to Putin, he doesn't bring up the election interference at all, I mean, one of the biggest geopolitical issues between the countries. I mean, a few days ago, he tweets about the Russia hoax. Today, he talks about the Russia hoax. I mean, it's this notion that somehow, because he's claiming his innocence, he has to claim that the whole thing doesn't exist. VAUSE: So, clearly, if you listen to what the president said there in Pennsylvania, he has a very different understanding of the definition of the word "great," when used to describe his meeting with Vladimir Putin. Here's the director of national intelligence on what he knows about that one-on-one. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're saying, today, that the president has directed you to make the issue of election meddling a priority. How do explain the disconnect between what you are saying, his advisors, and what the president has said about this issue?

COATS: I'm not in the position to either understand fully or talk about what happened at Helsinki.


VAUSE: So, John, more than two weeks after that meeting Helsinki, Dan Coats, director of national intelligence for the United States of America, still doesn't know what happened between Trump and Putin during their alone time.

THOMAS: Well, look, we know John Bolton came on before that and talked about the order in which they discussed things, so I think they're leading on. They know more than what they're saying publically, they're just being guarded with what they say publically.

VAUSE: Well, couldn't of they just said that, we know it (ph) happened but we can't raise it (ph) because it's top secret, it's classified work?


THOMAS: I can kind of suppose they should've of said - I mean, do we think there was something nefarious going on in the meeting -


ZILBER: - the director of national intelligence know what happens when the president meets with, you know, one of his top geopolitical rivals?

THOMAS: Well, John - John Bolton seemed very confidant when he talks about the order of the questions that the two men discussed, so it seems like they had an understanding of that.

VAUSE: OK. You know, so, just a few months ago, testifying before Congress, the leaders of the intelligence agencies are asked about any specific directions coming the president (inaudible) Russia election interference at the midterm elections in November, this is what they said.


WRAY: We're taking a lot of specific efforts to blunt Russian -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that directed by the President?

WRAY: Not as specifically directed by the president.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, Director Pompeo, have you received this specific presidential direction to take steps to disrupt these activities?

MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: I'm not sure how specific.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't say I've been explicitly directed to, quote, "blunt or actively stop."


VAUSE: OK, that was February. Go forward now, to Thursday, six months later. And these guys are saying, "The president, he's out there. He's calling the shots." Listen to this.


COATS: The president has specifically directed us to make the matter of the election meddling and securing our election process a top priority.

JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: The president has made it very clear, I think, what his priority is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I appreciate the leadership and support from the president.


VAUSE: You know, John, the only problem with that is he hasn't said that publicly, and he's only guised (ph) that in private, which seems a bit, you know, dodgy when you consider what they said just a few months earlier. Why won't the president say something similar publicly?

THOMAS: Well, the president did have a meeting - we - press wasn't in this meeting, but he did have a all-hands-on-deck meeting -

VAUSE: On Friday, that lasted 30 minutes -

THOMAS: OK, but he -

VAUSE: He went one with Putin for two hours.

THOMAS: All right. So he did have a meeting, and then low and behold these guys have directions to go solve it. I think - look. I don't think the president hasn't done enough on this issue and I think one of the big conversations we're going to be having is honestly things of ways to secure our elections that my democrat friends aren't going to like, like voter ID laws, paper ballots, you know, things that we should do tangibly to make sure that Russians can't hack out election system. And by the way, to date, our National Security Director says not one vote was hacked. We're they meddling around? Sure, but not one vote was ever changed that we've discovered so far.

VAUSE: That we know of at this point. I mean -

THOMAS: Yes, right.

ZILBER: There's a big difference between hacking and interference. I mean, a large scale propaganda operation from a sophisticated foreign power can change a lot of votes without actually hacking and change one from yay to nay.

But I think the bigger issue on whether or not Trump was directed to do this is that Trump has made it clear that something is only cannoned from the White House when he says it. I mean, until he's said it out loud or until he's tweeted it, then he's not taking it serious.

VAUSE: And then something that comes with the authority of the process and when he's out there publically leading the charge, out of the, you know, glorified photo up in the White House briefing room, the president, he went out on Twitter.

Mac, there wasn't a word about the election interference. He tweeted about his approval ratings, and I'm counting (ph) rally in Pennsylvania, the farm bill, and his support for an Ohio congressional candidate. So again, if he wanted to back these guys up, that was the perfect chance to do it, 120 characters, 280 maybe?

THOMAS: Yes, he tweets about Russia all the time. I mean, a few days ago, he said that they were trying to help the Democrats, which is preposterous given that Putin himself said that he wanted Trump to win the other day.

VAUSE: OK. At that rally, there was no shortage of attacks, not on Russia, no criticisms of Russia, a lot of criticism of the media.


TRUMP: What ever happened to fair press? What ever happened to honest reporting? They don't report it! They only make up stories, but they can make anything bad because they are the fake, fake, disgusting news.


VAUSE: That hurts. That hurts, Mr. President. OK. Just hours earlier, though, experts at the U.N. condemn the president for his ongoing attacks. This is part of their statement. "His attacks are strategic, designed to undermine confidence in reporting and raise doubts about verifiable facts. These attacks run counter (ph) to the country's obligation to respect press, freedom, and international human rights law." The experts said, expressing concern that, "the attacks risk increasing targeted violence against journalists."

So John, if a Trump supporter injures or kills a reporter, will the president take responsibility?

THOMAS: I'm sure he'll something to say about it, but look. This is -

VAUSE: That's not responsibility (inaudible) -

THOMAS: - but here's the deal. Where's the outrage when people wearing Make America Great Again hats get punched? Where's the outrage when -

VAUSE: Well, there's always say that (ph). We've gone through this -

THOMAS: Well, there's not the same level of outrage -

VAUSE: You know, whenever there's - we've done this on this show. We've gone through whenever there's been a mistake or an outrage -

THOMAS: I know. I've been here.

VAUSE: - you know, against the president or presidential supporters, it's usually followed by someone being disemboweled (ph) or an apology or something else. There's never anything coming from this White House when, you know, there is the opposite done to the media or somebody else or, you know, an unjustified attack.

THOMAS: Well -

VAUSE: I mean, this is a White House that takes no prisoners.

THOMAS: - the news coverage, not the opinion coverage, but the -

VAUSE: Right.

THOMAS: - news coverage of this president has been 91 percent negative. So I think he's looking not -

VAUSE: Well, maybe he's says 91 percent negative things. Did you ever think about that?

THOMAS: Well, that's your opinion. I don't believe -


- that that is, in fact, the case.

ZILBER: The press is not entitled to be fair or does not have to have a 50/50 balance -


THOMAS: There is no point, counterpoint. And look, as much as I do like Jim Acosta, it's now the Jim Acosta show and he's weighing in with his opinion on how hurt his feelings are and how - look. Rather than just saying, "this is what happened," -

VAUSE: Yes. THOMAS: - and here's the bigger problem is that members of the press then make it worse because after people yell at Jim Acosta, a political reporter talks about how there's - you know, no one has any teeth in the crowd and how there are a bunch of hits to hicks and rednecks -

VAUSE: Right.

ZILBER: Well, but -

THOMAS: - and just inflames the situation. This is something I deal with as a talking head on this network all the time.

VAUSE: John -

ZILBER: Look -

THOMAS: He's brutal.

ZILBER: But let's take a step back because this is authoritarian language when we talk about the press being an enemy of the people. I mean, you know who popularized the phrase "the enemy of the people"?

VAUSE: It was Stalin, wasn't it?

ZILBER: It was Stalin and Goebbels.

THOMAS: Look, there are members -


THOMAS: - of Congress like Maxine Waters that are saying incite violence and push back on anyone -

ZILBER: This is very different.

THOMAS: - who possibly even works for President Trump -

VAUSE: That's -

ZILBER: That's the difference between a back bencher and the president -

VAUSE: A very thing we'll get (ph) -

ZILBER: - member of Congress -

VAUSE: On this topic, Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter, White House Advisor, was specifically asked about her opinion.


TRUMP: A few days ago, I called the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are. They are the enemy of the people.

IVANKA TRUMP, WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: No, I do not feel that the media is the enemy of the people.


VAUSE: Little scratchy, losing her voice there a bit -


VAUSE: - but she basically said she doesn't believe they're the enemy of the people. But, you know, matched (ph) for Ivanka Trump, the lone senior official was in this administration willing to say that.


But for those words have any meaning, they need to be backed up with some kind of action. Where's the action?

ZILBER: Right. Well - and that's been the consistent trend, not just from Ivanka who, one might argue, gets a little bit of a pass, as his daughter -

VAUSE: A little?

ZILBER: - but basically, almost every republican, who publically disagrees with or condemns things that Trump says, doesn't take any action to do anything about it. And that's the bigger problem, is that there's plenty of people willing to talk and condemn or disagree with certain statements, but at some point, there has to be action.

THOMAS: In politics, we always look for a 60-40 issue, this is an 80- 20 issue. I mean, when you check the mainstream media's approval and trustworthy ratings, you know, they're in the teens, OK.


THOMAS: No, no, no, I said media, in general, and so, using it as a punching bag to talk about the fake media is not just a applause line (ph), it's good for Trump and it's for politics.

VAUSE: And it's bad for the country.

THOMAS: Well, look, I think - I think, finally, reporters are getting pushed - there are a lot of great reports, but there are a lot of ones that are opinion reporters posing as reporters.

VAUSE: You mean those ones on Fox (ph)?

THOMAS: No, they - you know, Laura Ingraham was on tonight, and she was talking about this, of course, sticking it to the media, and she said, "Look, I am an opinion journalist -

VAUSE: That's a cop out.

THOMAS: "I'm not a journalist. I'm an opinion -

VAUSE: That's a cop out. I mean, that basically (inaudible). They had like three hours of (inaudible). ZILBER: As an opinion journalist, you still have to trade in fact.

VAUSE: You can't make stuff up -


THOMAS: She does. She just drives her narrative.

ZILBER: Who trades in opinion.

VAUSE: OK. (inaudible), we've only just begun. Appreciate it, Mac and John, thank you. OK. Iran, putting up a show of force in opposing Gulf, here's officials saying naval exercises are now underway, and there is concern Iran might be using these drills to - to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic passage to global oil supplies. Usually, these types of exercises happen later in the year, but U.S. officials say (ph) the timing could be tied to the escalating tensions with Washington.

CNN's international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson, is on his way to the Persian Gulf. He joins me now on the line. So, Nic, I guess the issue here is, essentially, the timing, why now, and of course, the fact (ph) that the U.S. only has one warship in Gulf at the moment.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN, INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): Sure. And this is a very strategic water weight (ph), 20 percent of the world's oil passes through there. It's about 30 miles wide, going from the tip of Gulf countries (ph) to the Iranian Coastline. So this is quite a - quite a narrow constriction point that, where - where all this oil passes through, and that (inaudible) can a have potentially large economic impact if something was to happen there.

What U.S. officials are saying is that there are dozens and dozens of small boats involved in what they describe as major military exit (ph) right now. So far, the Iranians themselves haven't admitted that they're having to (inaudible), but neither, has there been a response from any of the neighboring Gulf countries at this time (ph).

It does appear to be a case where no one wants to ratchet up or visibly be seen to be ratcheting up the tensions, but undoubtedly, the (inaudible) has been ratcheting in the past two weeks, maybe past the month or so.

In just a couple of days, President Trump - the impact of President Trump pulling out of that Iran nuclear deal with JCPOA, the concern of the 6th of August (ph), that's when sanctions will begin to affect the purchase of oil or the purchase of gold or the purchase of U.S. dollars, these sorts of things.

It'll be another 90 days before it has an impact on shipping and before it has an impact on oil. However, Iranian officials have said, "If the result of these sanctions, Iran is not able export its oil through the Gulf of Hormuz then nobody will."

And that was said by the president of Iran, by the supreme leader of Iran, by the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council. And it is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council, the IRGC, who are believed (ph) to be behind these current military exercises.

But at the moment, the impact of them isn't clear, the physical impact on shipping in the area, but the concern of (inaudible) hide intentions (ph), as you say, important strategic water weight (ph), what would happen next, and is this a message to Washington.

VAUSE: OK, Nic, we'll check in with you next hour, find out what's happening. Thank you. Nic Robertson is the national diplomatic editor there, on his way to the Persian Gulf. A short break here. We'll be coming back here, Europe may experience its hottest day in history, the record smashing forecast is next. Also, a new Trump proposal on car emissions and the dire consequences you could have could impact that (ph).



VAUSE: While Europe continues to smolder in a summer heat wave, the temperature is soaring on the Iberian Peninsula, and they're set to break the European record high of 48 degrees. From Spain to Portugal and across much of Europe, there will be a surge of summer heat, come Friday.

Meteorologist Ivan Cabrera joins us now with more of this at the CNN International Weather Center. How hot will it get?

IVAN CABRERA, CNN, METEOROLOGIST: Most folks look like they were having good time, though, you know. Yes, that what you do. You dip in the pool. (Audio Gap) in the mid and upper 40s. We'll see if we can get to that record.

By the way, this is not just happening in Europe, this is a whole planet-wide thing. Once again - now, (ph) last year, 2017, hottest year on the record. But what John was talking about there, in 1977, in Athens, Greece, we had 48 degrees.

That is record for the entire continent of Europe. I don't think we're going to quite there, as far as 48, but this is close enough, right. I mean, look at Thursday, in Cordova, at 43 degrees, you get the idea. You have Madrid at 40 degrees. It's a dry heat, but it's still going to be very uncomfortable heading into the weekend. (inaudible).

Look at the temperatures there. Look, I think we're going to peak out here on Saturday, so that'll be the hottest of the - both weekend days, with lower 40s. My goodness, look at the pattern change here. Are you ready for Tuesday and Wednesday? This is going to feel fantastic. You can break out the sweaters there, attempts at a mid- 20s by then (ph0), but we have to get through that.

And by the way, the record extreme's, again, all over the place here, including the United States and in to Canada as well. We've been hitting dozens of records highs, and this is just going to continue, planet-wide. Look at this now, in the last, what, 10 years, some of our hottest years on record. So this just going to continue at little bit, 2016, up there, but now, John, we have added 2017, and Europe, for 2018, is going to contribute, I think, to another top one as well.

VAUSE: That temperature graph right there, that's the beginning of the year (ph), that's how hot it is.

CABRERA: Well, it doesn't take much for it to be -



VAUSE: See you next hour.


VAUSE: Well, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back national emissions and fuel efficiency standards, and cars in California would be included in that because they currently sets its own more stringent requirements for emissions. The Trump administration argues that current regulations impose significant costs on consumer and eliminate jobs.

California governor, Joe Brown, says his state will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible. Well, joining me now to discuss these new proposals and the impact on the environment as well as the economy, science and technology analyst, Jacob Ward. Jacob, it's been a while, good to have you back.


VAUSE: OK. Vehicle emissions account for about a third of greenhouses produced in the U.S. If you look at California, that number's closer to 40 percent. So when it comes to slowing and trying to minimize the impact of climate change, is there any other policy currently in practice in the U.S. which is more affective than this Obama era rule about, you know, better fuel efficiency from auto makers?

WARD: Well, you know, it's really an incredibly powerful tool for reversing this - this global trend - reversing's not even the right word - just trying to hold it under some sort of control.

And California, specifically, was given this waiver because we, here in this state, had such air quality problems for so long. I mean, even all the way back to Reagan, there was the recognition that we needed to do something about it.


And California specifically was given this waiver because we here in this state had such air quality problems for so long, I mean, even all the way back to Reagan there was the recognition that we needed to -- to do something about it. And so California was given the right to regulate the sale of cars and require them to hold themselves to higher standards than they have to in the rest of the country.

And so between those two things, it was really an amazing sort of bludgeon for forcing automakers to create more efficient fuel standards and suddenly now we're going to see ourselves rolled back to something, you know, pre-Reagan sort of thinking about -- about this kind of stuff. It's really unbelievable.

VAUSE: OK, let's talk about that. The -- the issue with California, because California and other states are predicting this mother of all legal battles. We heard from the former Republican Governor of California, that was Arnold Schwarzenegger. He tweeted that it was a stupid fake conservative policy announcement that no one asked for. But in his statement, he also talks about that exemption which California got from Ronald Reagan...

WARD: Yes.

VAUSE: ...implied (ph) air pollution.

So over the years, this state has been very successful at reducing what were almost toxic levels of pollution.

WARD: That's right, and not only did we manage to reduce those levels here in California, because California is such a heavyweight, you know, it accounts for such a huge proportion of auto sales in the United States, it essentially became sort of the national standard because automakers do not want to have to make two sets of cars to two sets of standards. They would rather make one set of cars that meets all these standards.

And now, more and more states -- I believe it's 13 going on 14, Colorado's about to join -- are following in California's footsteps and are going to join this sort of consortium that follows California's standards. All of those states together account for about 40 percent of car sales in the United States, and so automakers basically had no choice but to go along with creating more and more efficient cars, and now the Trump administration has just decided that they're going to try to -- to roll that back in a way that I think automakers don't even really want.


WARD: They've been -- you know, they sort of asked for one thing and got way more than they would ever have bargained for, this real -- so -- a really blundering set of policies here that could be bad for the automakers in terms of how they sell cars and certainly horrible for the environment at a time when we should really be thinking about it in a very different way.

VAUSE: And it's hard to work out who actually wins out of this. The Union of Concerned Scientists believes if the standards are rolled back, as proposed, the U.S. will pump out an extra 2.2 billion metric tons of global warming emissions and consume 200 billion...

WARD: Right.

VAUSE: ...more gallons of fuel by 2040. What...

WARD: That's right.

VAUSE: ..impact will that have on the a warming planet?

WARD: I mean, you know, the -- the timing of this -- I guess you couldn't have released any sort of news about rolling back prior emission standards and not have it seem like an ironic news day to choose, but this one's particularly nuts.

You know, the -- the -- a study came out today from MIT that showed that -- that in Central China, in the most populous region of the most populist county in the world, they believe that the -- the temperatures there are going to become inhabitable within our lifetimes. They're talking about -- about average temperatures in the summer of over 95 degrees, which is the -- the temperature at which scientists know a farmer can no longer work outside.

You know, we saw Death Valley setting heat records for the world this -- this month -- this past month in July. You know, you had four days where there was -- it was over 125 degrees on the surface. These are not random events, this is a thing that's happening. What the -- what we've always said about climate change is as soon as we begin to feel it, it'll be all over us.

And so the fact that -- that we're talking about saving consumers, like, $1,900 on a new car in the face of the news that we're seeing here is really just unbelievable.

VAUSE: Yes. We're out of time, but there was another point in all of this, which basically carmakers could lose up to $250 billion in revenue over you know...

WARD: Right.

VAUSE: ...the next decade or so, which again, who wins? That's the question. Now Jacob, it is always good to see you.

WARD: Who wins? Who indeed?

VAUSE: But everyone's a loser. Thanks, man (ph).

A short break. When we come back, millions in India fear they will lose everything if they are stripped of their citizenship, and now they face violent threats from lawmakers as well. Details in just a moment.


[00:30:00] JOHN VAUSE, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Welcome back, everybody, you're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles, I'm John Vause. We'll check the headlines this hour.

Emmerson Mnangagwa has been declared the official winner of Zimbabwe's presidential election. The opposition continues to allege the outcome was rigged. But, the military has prevented public protests after six people have died in post-election violence on Wednesday.

U.S. intelligence and security chiefs say Russia is still trying to interfere with the U.S. political system. They put on a united front during a White House briefing on Thursday. The director of National Intelligence says President Trump has specifically directed him to make the issue a top priority.

Pope Francis has officially changed the Vatican's stance on the death penalty, declaring it inadmissible in all circumstances. The Catholic Church now teaches that the death penalty is an attack on human dignity and will work towards abolishing it worldwide. They previously allowed the death penalty in certain cases.

Well, to India now, where a politician has made violent threats against millions living in the country. A state lawmaker told media outlet ANI that Rohingya and Bangladeshi immigrants should leave or be shot. He's talking about nearly 4 million people, many of them Bangladeshi Muslims who basically found themselves stateless this week.

The names were left off a draft of what's called the National Register of Citizens in Assam State. It's always Bangladesh, and has been a hot spot over illegal immigration for some time. More of this now from CNN's New Delhi Bureau Chief, Nikhil Kumar, so this opinion, from this controversial Conservative politician, is he an outlier? Is it possible to know how many there in India actually agree with him?

NIKHIL KUMAR, CNN NEW DELHI BUREAU CHIEF: Well, John, I mean, it is true that he is a minor state--level lawmaker. You know, he doesn't have, as an individual, a lot of purchase, nationally.

But what's also important to remember is that he belongs to the part, the Janata Party, the Hindu Nationalists political party in this country, which has its roots in the majoritarian movement in this country.

And that's the Party, of course, that's in power in New Delhi -- excuse me -- Prime Minister Narendra Modi's political party which ever since it came to power, in 2014, ever since then, there have been these concerns about that government's stance when it comes to India's minority, very sizable minorities, principally, Indian Muslims.

And, you know, this also comes, as you said, against the backdrop of the publication of the latest draft of the citizenship register in eastern Assam State, where, as you say, 4 million people, their status has effectively been left in limbo after they were left off this list.

And they're now going to have to go through an appeals process to prove that they are -- that they are Indians, that they can stay in this country.

So, the rhetoric of this individual, you know, while this individual may not matter much, it's coming against the backdrop of concerns about majoritarianism in this country. Concerns that have been there, as they say, for years and years, now have been sharpened, again, this week, following the publication of this register. Following the rhetoric that have seen in the aftermath of that

publication from much senior politicians who have said that look, this is happening because we need to determine who is Indian and who is not, to which many critics have asked.

Well, hold on a second, how exactly are you going to do that with people who've been here for decades in many cases, who, you know, who are now being asked to effectively stand up and say, well, hold on, are you actually allowed to be here? Very complicated, very complex, and very concerning for many. John?

VAUSE: You know, the Modi government has taken a pretty hard line on immigration. But in many ways, at the moment, these Muslims are being singled out. Local media reports quoting a provincial politician, you know, who is blaming Muslims for terrorism and rape.

[00:35:08] Combine that with the National Register of Citizens, you know, which identifies who is and who isn't a legitimate Indian citizen. There's a belief out there that -- you know, this is an attempt to create an all--Hindu India.

KUMAR: Well, this is the -- this is exactly the concern that many critics of the BJP and the broader Hindu Right--wing movement in this country -- this is the main concern that

they've had for many, many, many years. And as I say, concerns that were sharpened when Mr. Modi arrived on New Delhi, became prime minister at the head of this Hindu Nationalist government.

And all of these actions, the rhetoric, and the aftermath of the publication of this draft Citizenship Register, the rhetoric, when it comes to other things. You know, look at the case, for example, of Rohingya Muslims.

There has been a push in the central government in this country to come up with a policy to deport the Rohingyas who were in this country, the exact numbers, you know, unclear, but we do know that from 2017, there were about 40,000 of Rohingya people who have fled Myanmar in this country.

And there's a court case currently under way in India's top court, in the Supreme Court here, where the government is arguing before the court, to allow it to frame policy to deport these people. It's saying they present a security threat earlier this week, the interior minister of India, again, a very senior member of Mr. Modi's government.

He made a statement in parliament where he said the borders were being -- border security was being tightened to make sure that Rohingyas cannot enter this country, to which, again, critics say we'll the reason they're doing this, is because they happen to be Muslim.

The government says no, we're not doing it for that reason, but that's exactly what the government's critics are saying. John?

VAUSE: Very quickly, it wasn't always like this. Shortly after petition, Jawaharlal Nehru, from the National Congress Party, which was pushing for independency, declared this, there is no doubt, of course, that those displaced persons who have come to settle in India are bound to have their citizenship. If the law is inadequate in this respect, the law should be changed.

Clearly, that was a long time ago. So, what's driving, you know, this push for a much harder line?

KUMAR: So, this particular Citizenship Register and this issue of what to do with people who came to this country, along that very porous border with Bangladesh, as you mentioned earlier, issue, has been an issue which, in fact, pre--date (INAUDIBLE) so it's been a controversial issue for decades now and previous governments that said, look, yes, something has to be done. Something has to be done.

And, in fact, the courts stepped in and said that you should set up this register and you should do an audit. But as I say, it's, you know, that one, the question of the audit itself, whether it should be done. But it's this rhetoric which, you know, has been worrying a lot of people.

That the rhetoric is about the othering of people who thought they were Indian, who thought they belonged in this country, but are now being cast as outsiders within what they think is their own country by the government of the day. And that's the criticism.

The government, of course, as I say, says that's not the case. All they're doing is, you know, trying to determine who can legally be here and not be here. But that's the concern. And there's larger issue here, right? There's a larger issue that if you go to large parts of this country, not just along the border, but you're going to rural India, anywhere in this country.

You will walk into villages and you will come across people, many of whom will be hard--pressed to show you documentation that they are legal citizens, you know, because they live in rural settings where they don't necessarily have passport or I.D. cards and so on.

So, people are saying (INAUDIBLE) singling these people out? Is it because they happen to be Muslim? As I say, the government says no. The critics insist, otherwise. John?

VAUSE: OK, Nikhil, thank you so much. We appreciate the update. We'd like to head to DACA now, where we're joined by Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch, he just returned from Rohingya refugee camps in Cox's Bazar.

So, Bill, monsoon season there in Bangladesh, the rain, of course, some landslides and flooding. There have been a number of fatalities in all of these. So, what is life like right now for the Rohingya refugees who are living in these camps?

BILL FRELICK, DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Precarious. They are living on the edge, literally. I talked to people whose huts that shelters -- makeshift shelters made out of bamboo and tarp. We're right on the precipice of areas that had just slid, where their neighbors' huts had disappeared, basically. These are people who really need to be relocated. There's still an estimated 22,000 at high risk that need to be brought to safer ground. But, somewhere around a quarter of a million, 215,000 estimated that are at risk of flooding and landslides in a camp of over 600,000 people at this point.

VAUSE: So, if we look at the timeline here, how much longer are the rains expected to last? How much longer do you expect the risk to, you know, the people in the camps to continue for?

FRELICK: I mean, the immediate risk, probably, goes through September, but there's going to be an on-going risk. I mean, this is something that has to be addressed. Part of the problem is this -- that high density of the population, people that are packed in like sardines.

And so, while their current risk is one of flooding and landslides, there's a risk of fire, of contagious disease, of all kinds of social dysfunction that you get when people are packed in so closely together, and if they begin to lose hope about the prospects of repatriation.

[00:40:25] VAUSE: So, what do you do about that right now? What can you do and what should you be doing?

FRELICK: Well, right now, you need, you know, strong evacuation plans for immediate disaster relief, and they have been drilling, and they have been giving people instructions about what to do. Unfortunately, they didn't build sturdy cyclone shelters.

They didn't build sturdy huts for that matter because the government insisted that this is a temporary camp, and they didn't want anything that looked like a permanent structure. But what desperately is needed is safer land, and it has to be land, I think, that will be in close proximity to the main camp.

One of the reasons people have been able to function after being highly traumatized from the ethnic cleansing that they've experienced in Myanmar, is that they made every effort to stay together in community groups, keeps their villages intact.

And if they are to be relocated, they need to be relocated as villagers, not simply as individuals, because that really is their support system and essential to them to maintain that. So, they need informed consent. They need to go to safer ground. And no ground in Bangladesh is going to be perfect for them, but I think there are areas within this same sub district where the major camp is located that they could find additional land.

VAUSE: We're out of time, Bill, but I guess that's such an important point. That support system within the village and, you know, the community that they know is pretty much all they have left at this point. It's important to keep it together. Thanks for the update, Bill. Good luck.

FRELICK: OK, thank you. VAUSE: Well, Apple, is now the first U.S. publicly traded company worth more than $1 trillion. And everyone will get a free iPhone. No, just kidding. But we will have details in a moment.


VAUSE: One trillion dollars, well, it's a lot of money. The surge and value of Apple stock pushed the company beyond that magic number in valuation. CNN's Sam Burke explains why it's a big deal.


SAMUEL BURKE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This record is more than just a psychological mile--marker. It's a major milestone for Apple, really for Silicon Valley and American innovation. But more than anything is a tribute to the vision Steve Jobs had (INAUDIBLE) and design when he co-founded Apple, 42 years ago.

It's also a testament to the American economy. Apple is now up more than 20 percent this year, and President Trump's tax reforms have fuelled the stock market higher, as well as Apple shareholder capital returns to investors.

[00:45:00] For Apple, well, now, it's on to the next trillion dollars. They've signed Oprah Winfrey for what appears to be a streaming video service to compete with Netflix. And now they have to contend with newcomers like China's Huawei which just dethroned Apple to become the second largest smartphone maker in the world. Samsung is number one.

Plus, President Trump's trade war also looms large over Apple. Nearly 20 percent of the company's sales are from China, so they have major exposure to possible retaliatory measures, which could bring that trillion--dollar valuation, right back down.


VAUSE: Thanks to Samuel Burke for that report and thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles, I'm John Vause, stay with us. "WORLD SPORT" is next. You're watching CNN.