Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Trump Admitting Mistakes?; Chicago Police Shooting. Aired 15- 15:30p ET

Aired August 5, 2016 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[15:00:03]

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Tough story to watch. Amazing video. Glad he's OK.

NEWSROOM continues right now.

Top of the hour. We're back with breaking news.

Sources telling CNN Donald Trump will endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan after all, and it will reportedly happen tonight at a rally in Wisconsin. It all comes after Trump initially refused to throw his support behind Ryan for his reelection bid. That was earlier this week, causing lots of drama. News.

Plus, we're following more breaking news. She hasn't given a press conference in months, but moments ago Hillary Clinton took questions from reporters about Donald Trump, her trust problems and the economy. And now it is the answer on her controversial e-mail server making more headlines.

This week, she claimed twice in two different interviews that the FBI declared her public remarks on the scandal were -- quote -- "truthful." The problem is they weren't, according to the FBI director. Clinton said all the classified information stored on the system were retroactively classified, but Bureau Director James Comey says some were not.

Clinton's admission today, she simply short-circuited her answers. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. So, I may have short-circuited it, and for that, I will try to clarify, because I think Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other, because, of course, he could only talk to what I had told the FBI.

And I appreciated that. Now, I have acknowledged repeatedly that using two e-mail accounts was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that. But I do think having him say that my answers to the FBI were truthful, and then I should quickly add, what I said was consistent with what I had said publicly. And that's really sort of, in my view, trying to tie both ends

together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Let's bring in David Chalian, CNN political director.

David, she says she short-circuited her comments in recent days. But give our viewers some context. Was she misrepresenting what FBI Director James Comey said?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, in the answers, she was, because in her answers to Chris Wallace, she was suggesting that James Comey, by her language, it was suggesting that James Comey sort of validated all of her public statements in addition to saying what she told the FBI is truthful.

That's not true. As you know, the video of Trey Gowdy and others at the committee hearing with Director Comey, it was quite clear that he said some of the things that Secretary Clinton had said were not true, some of the public things she said.

What you heard her do today was, hey, guys, two different thoughts. Let me try to clarify. I thank Director Comey for saying everything I said to the FBI when I met with him for my interview is truthful. And, by the way, what I told the FBI is what I have been saying publicly. She's just trying to separate those two thoughts now, trying not to suggest that Director Comey was validating her public comments.

But here's the thing. When Hillary Clinton is talking about this and breaking up sentences and parsing language and pointing to the facts of only three e-mails bore classification markings, she's already in a place that isn't politically helpful to her. I think that when she does, as she does -- and she did today -- say, I made a mistake, I wouldn't do it this way again with my e-mails if I had the chance to do it all over again, that should be the sum of her remarks at this point, I would imagine, because every time she gets into the details, it just creates more oxygen for us to be talking about her e-mails again.

CABRERA: Let me turn to our other breaking news about Paul Ryan and Donald Trump reportedly expected to endorse Paul Ryan now after all that he said earlier this week, I'm not quite there yet, not quite ready to endorse. Tonight, there is an event in Wisconsin. Apparently, that's when he's going to make his endorsement.

What are we to make of that?

CHALIAN: Well, first, let's note, he moved a lot quicker from not quite ready to endorsement than Paul Ryan did for Donald Trump, which took a little more than a month for him to move not quite ready to endorse Donald Trump to actually endorsing him.

But, listen, clearly Donald Trump has heard from a lot of people in the party. We have reported how deeply upset Reince Priebus, the chairman of the party was, over his refusal to endorse Paul Ryan. And we have seen his running mate make the case for Paul Ryan to get out there, endorse, with Donald Trump's blessing to do so.

If indeed he get on that stage tonight and gives this endorsement for Paul Ryan, he's clearly trying to move beyond this and no longer sort of upset the apple cart within the Republican Party.

[15:05:00]

I still have a hard time believing that Paul Ryan and Donald Trump are going to be out there campaigning from now through Tuesday's primary day together to get Paul Ryan reelected. I don't think we will see that kind of image. But no doubt Paul Ryan will welcome the endorsement if it comes his way.

CABRERA: OK, lots to talk about with our panel now.

David Chalian, our thanks to you.

CHALIAN: Thank you.

CABRERA: Lot of questions about Clinton's trustworthiness about her comments. It's something that she has certainly struggled with along the campaign trail and really throughout the last several months of this campaign.

Let's bring in our panel now, as we have Kayleigh McEnany. She of course is a Trump supporter, a CNN political commentator. Also joining me, Kent Haeffner, treasurer for the Harvard Republican Club, and David Morey, Democratic strategist and vice chairman for the Core Strategy Group.

Our thanks to all of you for being here.

Kayleigh, first your reaction to those Hillary Clinton comments we played.

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I'm pleased to see her taking questions from the press. It had been 243-odd days, so it is about time.

With regard to her comments, I find them to be a bit striking because she said -- what she said to the FBI director was truthful and then what she said to the American public was the same as those comments.

We know what she was saying to the American public was not truthful. They were contradicted on several accounts that she used multiple devices, she hadn't turned over all work-related e-mails, she did have classified documents.

So if she gave those answers to the FBI, that's very troubling that she would not be truthful with the FBI. But we know that Comey said she was truthful with the FBI, which means what she is telling us is not what she was telling the FBI.

It is a convoluted way to look at it, what she said. But it wasn't truthful. Bottom line, she told the American public a mistruth. I hope she didn't tell the FBI a mistruth.

CABRERA: David, that is the bottom line. Do you feel like Hillary Clinton helped or hurt herself with her comments today?

DAVID MOREY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think that David's point at the beginning of the show really does sum it up accurately. She's saying, number one, she's echoing what Director Comey said, that her testimony to the FBI was truthful.

Number two, she had no intention to be deceptive or to do anything wrong. That was the reason he didn't bring an indictment, a case, remember. There was no intention, he found.

(CROSSTALK)

MOREY: Hang on one second. Hang on one second. Let me finish. Let me finish. He used the word extremely careless.

Hillary Clinton is agreeing with the first two. And on the third, she's saying, look, it was a mistake and I'm never going to do it again. And she was talking about -- and I'm not sure this is the right topic for her to be on, by the way, in a bigger sense.

But she was talking about the unclarity in terms of classification of three out of 30,000 e-mails. She was making her case.

But this is not the right topic for her to be on, I think. And this is probably one of the last times we will hear about this until there is new news on this, which the Clinton campaigns hopes there is not.

CABRERA: The e-mail situation just doesn't seem like it is going away.

But, Kent, you are part of a group of Republicans at Harvard who have now publicly come out and said you will not support Donald Trump, although you're still deciding who you might support, whether it be Hillary Clinton or perhaps the Libertarian ticket. Where does this latest development put you now?

KENT HAEFFNER, HARVARD REPUBLICAN CLUB: Well, I think this latest development is just another sign that both candidates are just simply unacceptable to the American people.

We came out forcefully against Donald Trump because we feel that he does not have the correct policies nor the temperament to be president of the United States. But we also reiterate the fact that Hillary Clinton has been criminally negligent with these e-mails. Hearing these stories and he said this and she said that, I think most Americans at this point are just fed up with both of them.

CABRERA: Let's talk about Donald Trump because he's had a rough week, Kayleigh.

This whole Hillary thing must make you take a deep breath and say, finally, a little bit of relief. But Donald Trump back in the news. He is getting him back in, going to make an endorsement of Paul Ryan tonight. Are you happy to see this?

MCENANY: You know, the non-endorsement did not bother me. Some of the other things this week, yes, they did bother me, they were mistakes. But the non-endorsement didn't bother me, because, look, Paul Ryan is in a Republican primary.

I think we need to get back to the basics of how electoral politics works, where the voters get to pick them who represents them in their party. I didn't have a problem with Donald Trump saying, wait, he has a Republican challenger, I'm not going to take a side in the Republican race.

CABRERA: Is he turning a corner here now, though?

MCENANY: I think this shows that he is really listening to his advisers to make this endorsement tonight, number one, number two, to send out the tweet this morning that basically said I mistaken about the video.

These are two things we haven't really seen. He's really autocorrecting, which suggests to me that people like Newt Gingrich have gotten through to him and his advisers have gotten through to him. That's a good thing for the party.

CABRERA: Are you worried, David?

MOREY: Well, I think that I agree with Kayleigh. He needs a reboot. You don't have to be for or against Donald Trump to agree with that. He needs a reboot after all of the last two weeks, from Judge Curiel, to the Khan family, Russia, Paul Ryan, the whole -- sort of he's gotten off the message for him of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton.

Remember, 84 percent of the American people are angry. They say the country's on the wrong track -- 82 percent. Excuse me. We had 1.2 percent GDP growth on Friday announced.

[15:10:05]

This is an election for Donald Trump to lose, and he has to work at not losing it. He's got to find the right psychology and the right sort of message discipline, to use Newt Gingrich's phrase, to win this election and get back in the election and win it eventually.

CABRERA: Kent, is there anything Donald Trump could do at this point that would bring you back into his side, I guess?

HAEFFNER: I think that Donald Trump's track record speaks for itself.

You look at his statements denigrating women, looking down on people with -- minorities. And I think most recently the one that was really most poignant for us in the Harvard Republican Club was his utter lack of respect for the family of a fallen U.S. soldier.

For us at this point, we have seen enough of Donald Trump, we have heard enough of him, and we will not be changing our withdrawal of support for him. CABRERA: All right. Kent, David and Kayleigh, thanks to all of you.

Up next, the former chief of the CIA says he's voting for Clinton, that Donald Trump is a national security risk -- why he says Trump is Russia's -- quote -- "unwitting agent."

Plus, some breaking news out of Chicago this hour, police releasing disturbing new video of officers chasing an unarmed black man before shooting and killing him. See the moments that led up to this man's death.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:30]

CABRERA: We're following breaking news out of Chicago right now, where authorities have just released graphic body-cam and dash-cam video of an officer-involved shooting where an unarmed black teenager was ultimately killed by police.

This is 18-year-old Paul O'Neal. He was shot dead just eight days ago after leading police on a car chase through Chicago's South Side. The chase began when officers tried to pull over O'Neal at first. He was allegedly driving a stolen vehicle. O'Neal crashed head-on into a police car and then tried to flee on foot.

Watch this. OK. That was just one of multiple videos released today. What you're about to see next is a timeline of the shooting beginning with the initial chase.

And I have to warn you, some of what you are about to see might be disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(GUNSHOTS)

(SHOUTING)

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is everybody OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Everybody all right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: OK, moments ago, O'Neal's sister just spoke out. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN ADAMS, SISTER OF PAUL O'NEAL: I would like to start off by saying that that is my first little brother. I'm very hurt. Words can't describe how I feel at this moment and how I felt when it happened.

But I really want everybody to know that Paul was loved by my mother, his family, me, that -- was everybody's best friend. He loved to keep smiles on everybody's face, joking, playing basketball. He got out of school. Graduated. Got his diploma, everything. We were trying to make the next step be going to Dawson, so he can pick up a trade, which is for the alleged coal company comment.

But I want everybody to know that Paul had goals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: CNN's Rosa Flores is joining me now from Chicago.

OK, Rosa, we just showed a trove of video there, but there is a piece missing, a key piece of this investigation, which was the body-cam video of the officer who fired the fatal shot. All we see are the officers who are running trying to respond to the scene. You hear the shooting, but we don't see it. Why?

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, police give us a few explanations. First of all, they do say that all of this is under investigation.

But they do point out a few things. They say that, first of all, this police officer is part of a pilot program for police officer body-cams and so they have only had the body cameras for eight to 10 days. And they don't know exactly how many times this officer has actually used the body camera, if he knew how to operate it properly.

Then the other thing that they point out is that this police officer who fired that fatal shot -- and, like you said, it is not caught on camera -- they say that the officer was in the vehicle that collided with the black Jaguar that Paul O'Neal was in.

And so they don't know if, in that collision, with that car crash, if something happened to the body camera, if it was deactivated, if it was somehow blocked or turned off by accident.

[15:20:05]

And so they point out to those things. But, Ana, like you said, it is a critical piece of evidence, because while we see all of the chatter that's going on around before and after the shooting, you can only hear the fatal gunshot. You don't see the fatal gunshot actually happen.

CABRERA: Right. Rosa Flores, thank you for your report.

Let's talk more about this now with law enforcement expert David Katz and CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson.

First, David, based on what we just watched, what we just heard in that video, from an objective standpoint in your law enforcement expertise, what stands out? Did those police officers make any wrong moves that you can see? DAVID KATZ, FOUNDER AND CEO, GLOBAL SECURITY GROUP: OK.

Well, it is important to understand, number one, when they describe Mr. O'Neal as being unarmed, at the moment the shots was fired, he was armed. He was driving a car. In most departments, in fact, all of the jurisprudence allows you to fire at the driver of a vehicle if your life is endangered.

During those initial seconds where he's bearing down -- there's one police officer bailing out of the car. At that moment, use of force is legally justified. Where the problem comes in once the officers are no longer in the way, they're clear, they have to stop firing.

You have adrenalin coursing through your body. You start firing. You're defending yourself. And that kind of lingers for a couple of seconds. But that's really going to be the issue. At what point should the officers have stopped firing because they were no longer at risk?

There were other officers were down the street. Perhaps that was a justification, but typically is if your life is in danger, whether it's by an armed suspect or person driving a car, you can fire in defense of your life or a fellow officer or a member of the community. Once that threat is removed, you have to stop.

CABRERA: And when you look at the video, we already know the officers are on the move, Joey, when they're shooting, that they are chasing this suspect. The reports are the suspect was shot in the back. Is there enough that we know so far to lead to a prosecution?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Ana, we don't know just yet.

But from what I see, I can tell you it's very disturbing. Let's talk about the legal, and then let's talk about the practical. From a legal perspective, you look at three things. Where is the immediacy of the danger? David Katz speaks to the issue of if you feel your life is in danger, you are in a police car or stepping out of it. Is the driver looking to run you over? And is it necessary or otherwise appropriate to move up to the level of lethal force at that point, particularly when departmental regulations in Chicago forbid shooting at a car that's moving?

And so the issue immediately will become, did you think you were going to die? That's the standard. And if it the answer is no, it's troubling. Then you move to the question of the proportionality of the force, Ana. Why were there repeated shots, repeated shots, repeated shots? The car is driving away.

You cannot reasonably argue, whether you're a prosecutor or a defense attorney, when a car's moving away from you, that there is any type of danger. So why are you shooting? And then you get to the point of reasonableness. Is your conduct reasonableness? Is it reasonable?

Now, looking at all those three factors, again, it is under investigation. I get it, I understand. But to this point, it is quite troubling. Now we move to the issue of he's out of the car and he's now moving, that is, Mr. O'Neal, the teenager who's shot.

What would give the officers the justification at the time that the fatal shot was fired, which we don't see, to fire the shot in the first instance? A person is running away. Were you being shot upon? Were you being attacked? Were you otherwise endangered? That's the analysis that has to come.

Will there be a prosecution? I do not yet know. It obviously needs to be vetted and looked at more closely. But from what I see here, I have to tell you that it is significantly troubling that someone's dead and you have to ask yourself, did that have to happen? Should there not be some use of force continuum where lethal force is the last resort, not the first?

CABRERA: And activists are also upset not just about the lethal force, but what happened after the shooting, and that portion that we do see in the video. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He shot back, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: So you hear a lot of swear words. They're kind of nonchalantly, it looks like, going up to the scene there. We don't know exactly which officer said what.

But, David, what's your reaction to that?

KATZ: Which part?

CABRERA: Just what happened afterwards, their response.

KATZ: Well, look...

CABRERA: They seem kind of callous, according to activists that are out there.

KATZ: Frankly, the perspective of the activists really isn't the issue.

The issue is, as Joey mentioned, what was in the state of mind of the police officer during the shots?

And, Joey, although you're usually brilliant, and a lot of on point, a couple things I need to just tweak a little bit. You don't have to be in fear necessarily of your life. It is also in fear of being seriously injured. That's number one.

[15:25:00]

Number two, you don't have to delve into the mind of the person who is driving towards you. If you are at risk, that's enough. The question is, as Joe mentioned, once that reason to defend yourself disappears, where is the justification?

Did he lunge, did he reach in an area commonly used to secrete a weapon? We don't know that because the camera's absent. So that's the question. But as it appears now, there is no justification, based on the typical self-defense, even in a law enforcement self-defense scenario, to support that. But we have to wait until at least we know a little more.

CABRERA: Joey, how big a deal is that missing link, that piece of video which would be the officer's body-cam, the officer who fired the fatal shots?

JACKSON: Obviously, you want to evaluate all the information that's before you.

But in looking at everything, you have to question why there was being shots -- why were shots fired to begin with? And I beg to differ on the issue of whether you feel you're going to die. You're in a car. The car's stolen. It does not appear to me that the officer is -- serious injury. Where is the serious injury coming from? Where?

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: And so why would you fire? And so that's going to be questioned.

And then moving to why in fact a shot was -- why were they shot and killed at the scene? Of course, we don't see that. It would be important to know. But then you look. And medical evidence is important, too. Where is the trajectory of the bullet? If it is in the back, as reports suggest, it becomes further problematic.

And then, just talking about one other thing, Ana, if I can, I think now what you have to look to is the transparency of any type of investigation. I certainly applaud them for allowing the videotapes to be released so the public can see.

But now to the hard question of rolling up sleeves and finding out what happened, I think across country you need independent investigations so the community can rely upon the actual result. You don't need a particular entity that works with the police, that oversees the police to actually be looking and viewing this. I think you need some outside entity to do it. It will foster and engender a greater trust within the community.

CABRERA: All right, Joey Jackson, David Katz, thank you both.

Up next, Hillary Clinton seizes on a positive jobs report to make her case on the economy. That's the other part of her press conference this morning.

Donald Trump sees the numbers in a much different light. We will sort out fact from the spin with an economist.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)