Return to Transcripts main page


Jared Kushner, Trump's Son-In-Law And One Of His Top Aides, Is Under Investigation By The Special Counsel; Bill Cosby's Jury Still Unable To Reach A Verdict After Four Days Of Deliberations. Aired 11p- 12mn ET

Aired June 15, 2017 - 23:00   ET



[23:00:21] DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

There's breaking news to tell you about a report that Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and one of his top aides is under investigation by the special counsel.

And Bill Cosby's jury still unable to reach a verdict after four days of deliberations.

We have got lots to talk about tonight. I want to get to my panel immediately. David Swerdlick is here, Laura Coates, Matt Lewis and Mike Shields. Also Symone Sanders, Kevin Madden and Maria Cardona.

It is so good to have all of you on. Mike Shields pulling double duty. I appreciate that. But I'm going to start with David Swerlick tonight.

David, we are going to get to the ball game in a moment. And, you know, this bipartisanship that at least Washington is talking about doing. Let's hope they do. But I want to talk about the business of Jared Kushner, his business dealings now, and his finances are being investigated by the special counsel. This, on top of the reporting that the President is under investigation for obstruction of justice. This investigation is expanding quickly. Talk to me about it.

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So to use a phrase that Sean Spicer has found out "the Washington Post" reporting, speaks for itself, Don.

Look. As a part of this ongoing cloud of smoke, this gathering cloud of smoke that involves Jared Kushner meeting with Sergey Gorkov from one of the Russia banks that is under sanctions by the U.S. government, his role in the White House, his role in the transition, his role in the campaign, we don't know if he is guilty of anything yet. He hasn't been charged with anything yet. But it would be standard procedure, and a special counsel investigation, to look into any financial --

LEMON: Here's what Jared Kushner's lawyer, Jamie Gorelick, is saying - she is saying in a statement tonight. We do not know what this report refers to. It could be standard practice for the special counsel to examine financial records to look for anything related to Russia. Mr. Kushner previously volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about Russia related matters. He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry.

What's your reaction to that?

SWERDLICK: Right. It may turn up nothing. But this is part and parcel of this long drawn-out investigation that we are in for. You know, the idea that any one of these little new additions of information is going to be the body blow that, you know, unravels this whole mystery or takes down the administration, that's not going to happen.

On the other hand, the idea that any one of these stories on its own is going to vindicate Kushner or President Trump on their own is not going to happen. We are going to find out one way or the other, if there's any collusion, maybe there is, maybe there is not. We are going to find out one way or the other if there's any obstruction of justice, maybe there is, maybe there is not.

LEMON: Laura, speak to us for a moment about the significance of this. Listen. We spoke last hour that this doesn't necessarily mean guilt. But, you know, within less than 150 days in office, the President is reportedly under investigation. His son-in-law, and the finances being looked at. How much trouble is this for the administration?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a great deal of trouble. Politically speaking, of course, not the legally, it's no picnic to have the FBI have a devoted person whose singular focus is to determine whether or not you have violated the law. Yes, it could ultimately come up that they are completely exonerated in some way and vindicated. But realistically speaking, this is an indication this is going to be a thorough and very wide sweeping dragnet. It includes people who are now closer and closer to the President's immediate orbit.

And reminder - mind you, with Michael Flynn, he, too, is under investigation for his financial dealings. Decided of the prosecutors in this case, the special counsel are saying to themselves, let's follow the money trail. That's the lowest hanging fruit you will have for collusion, for figure out if someone was either unwittingly or wittingly somebody who is engage in that practice.

The low hanging fruit is the financial trail. This is telling you a very clear indication, obstruction is not the only goal here to actually figure out that it actually happened. It's really the end game of figuring out what was the collusion in the counterintelligence probe.

LEMON: All right. I need to get your response to this as well. I'm just getting this. This is just coming in. Robert Mueller expands a special counsel office. Special counsel Robert Mueller has brought in 13 lawyers onboard with more to be hired according to spokesman Peter Carr. What does that tell you? COATS: Well, that tells you even a wider dragnet. Remember, this is

not where you have one or two people who can do the full comprehensive investigation. A counterintelligence probe is designed to figure out whether or not there was any witting or unwitting people who were involved with the foreign entity to the demise of the United States. In doing so, you can't have one person who is pushing a lot of paper around, one bureaucrat in D.C. who is active. You have to have people taking very different angles, the obstruction angle, the collusion, the finances, whether there was more. That's why investigators who are interviewing Coates and Rogers and (INAUDIBLE) and everyone else, because they have to take a very wide approach.

What this tells you as good news, however, for the President of the United States is, there's not a narrow focus here. While he is now part of the probe and now has by his own actions brought the magnifying glass right above his head, it tells you they are trying to be very comprehensive and anything is game which tells you, of course, the focus, if it's not narrow. They don't know yet what they are looking for. It could be anything.

So that can in a way, that's not going to appease the President or make him feel comfortable, but it's a way of saying, look, we do not know yet what we have which is why we cannot be presumptuous about who may be incriminated.

[23:05:43] LEMON: OK, Kevin Madden, you have been around Washington for a while. I'm not saying anything about your age or anything.


KEVIN MADDEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I earned all these gray hairs.

LEMON: You are a Republican. And if you are in the White House, if you are part of the administration, and you could, you know, hire 13 attorneys and you are the finances, what are you thinking?

MADDEN: Well, I think Laura's right. I think talking to the history of how these special counsel investigations work. I think this is an indication right now that it's a very thorough investigation. That it is potentially much wider. But I think the main worry I would have is, and this goes to the politics of it is that it may take potentially longer.

And right now, one of the big challenges this White House has is that it has a very ambitious agenda. It has control of both houses of Congress. And has a lot of things it wants to get done. But this continues to really pull them away from their central core focus on things like the economy and national security and other big ticket items. And again, just serves as a distraction.

Every day that the White House is on offense talking about what they want to do on the big issues that really motivated voters to support Donald Trump in the first place is really a lost day. And so every single day we see that the President and the White House staff having to litigate this makes it potentially more -- MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I would be really nervous

about this if I worked for Donald Trump. Because, you know --

MADDEN: The wider part of it, yes.

LEWIS: Right. Because, you know, there is some theory that I don't know if it's true, that a theory that we all commit three felonies a day. If you followed me around all day, you could put pretty much --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know about you, OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'll steer clear.

LEMON: What are you doing?

LEWIS: My point is, you know, starts off as a land deal in Arkansas, an insult for the President, you know, perjuring himself or it starts off with the Valerie Plame leak and it ends up with Scooter Libby.

So I think that, you know, it could be that there is no collusion, that there is no like fundamental problem. But if you lie to the FBI, you go to jail, you know. There could be a lot of people who did some things that, you know, weren't quite on the up-and-up. Somebody is probably going to go down at some point I would think.

SYMONE SANDERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, there is something that Laura said that I -- I really think that Donald Trump and his administration, but mainly Donald Trump brought this upon himself, you know. It is his tweets. It is the things that he said, he know. He specifically said about James Comey. He tweeted, you know, James Comey better hope that there aren't any tapes.

LEMON: And then that forced James Comey to talk about the notes.

SANDERS: And that cause James Comey to dropped the memo, well, actually I have a tweet. So I think it is really important to note here that perhaps this investigation would not have become so extensive had Donald Trump exercised some level of restraint.


COATS: And the vice President himself is now nervous as well. I mean, it expands --.

LEMON: He is hiring his outside counsel.

COATS: Everyone's nervous, even proactively before the noose is closer to them, they get nervous as well.

LEMON: All right, Mike Shields? No, we won't let you say anything. Now, go.


MIKE SHIELDS, CNN DELEGATE ANALYST: Yes. And I'm going to. Look, and what you hear the tone of what we were talking about it. Kushner hasn't been charged yet. The walls are closing in. This is what Washington does with one of these things. And it sort of creates this air of guilty by just coverage. Coverage makes you guilty. And the fact of the matter is, there's been scores of investigators looking at this Russia thing for months now. They haven't found anything. There's literally the only thing that we have seen has been illegal. (INAUDIBLE) on about leaks tonight. The only thing we know that has been illegal, that has been associated with any of this are illegal leaks. Otherwise, no one has been found guilty of anything.

LEMON: You have the point about the language, but we don't know what --.

SANDERS: But now we are talking about --.


SHIELDS: Maybe we should be careful to say, you know, people are innocent, all of them, until proven guilty. Just because someone is being interviewed by someone doesn't mean they are part of a grand jury investigation. They are being looked at. So nothing has happened to them yet. That kind of tone tells people watching or there are probably something - there is probably something there. And I think a lot of people, if you pull them aside he had, that is kind of what I mean --

LEMON: I think we can all be a little bit more careful with our language, but I think that's just the vernacular that people --

SHIELDS: Well, that's why the President's pushing back so hard on this.


SHIELDS: You might understand why he gets so aggressively pushing back when he watches this kind of --


SHIELDS: Well, something probably happened.

[23:10:04] CARDONA: Is he under investigation when he started crooked Hillary? I mean, he is the one who started about talking about people being guilty when nothing had been found. So I'm sorry, if this kind of language bothers him, he brought it upon himself, just like every single thing that has happened up to now. You could point back and say, geez, if he just stopped his twitter fingers from going happily on his phone, he wouldn't be in half of the hot water as he is right now.

And to your point, Kevin, I agree with you that he could easily try to distract us from all of this Russia collusion, perhaps treason, obstruction of justice if he focused on his agenda which I'm sure the Republicans would love.

SHIELDS: Right. Perhaps treason. This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. CARDONA: But let me --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That actually dovetails from the previous --

COATS: Let me be quite precise on this point. Because I think that you are harping on an issue that really kind of avoids the forest and the trees. And the point is this, one person who is to blame for this language that talks about very ominous and looming is James Comey. Because it has been a long-standing tradition that people don't comment on acting investigations for the very reasons you spoke of.

The tar and feathering that happens in the court of public opinion and public square is precisely why people condemn James Comey. And now that he has started the pendulum in motion toward that arena, people are talking about things in the ominous tone you are talking about. It's not just the media who does it. It was the former director of the FBI. And in doing so, it points out this particular point.

You cannot discuss an active investigation because it makes the public believe that there is far more to it that may happen. Ultimately there are actually may be exoneration here. But the problem here is what they're talking about. The President of the United States by not recognizing the fact that it's an active ongoing investigation is commenting on it in a way and making proactive steps where he has inserted himself into an investigation and creating a greater issue.

LEMON: And wen will be right back. We will be right back after this.


[23:15:56] LEMON: Leaders of both parties calling for unity tonight and calling for people on both sides of the political aisle to tone down harsh language.

Back with my panel.

And speaking of that, let me just to put these tweets up. I want to talk about scripted or teleprompter Trump versus twitter Trump.

He said, this was -- he said they made up a phony collusion with Russia. The Russia story today found zero proof. And now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice.

He said you are witnessing the single greatest witch hunt in American history led by some very bad and conflicted people.

And then also, he talked about, I think there was a crooked Hillary tweet today as well.

And my question is, do you think he grasps the severity of it. But not only that, but do you think he understands the difference between when he does something like when he sent out the video message today to the congressmen and people who were playing ball, and when he talks about David Bailey and Crystal Griner and say they should be commended, that that resonates and the other things may not resonate?

SHIELDS: Of course, he does. And look, not only the statement at the baseball game today, but the statement he gave yesterday.


SHIELDS: These tweets are about pushing back on a political investigation of him. And he is using politics to push back on it and he is using his twitter account as he has done since he started running for office because it goes right past Washington, D.C., right past the media out to the American people. And that's the way he wants to communicate with people. He has been pretty successful in doing that.


SHIELDS: Right. But then we show it on the screen and it gets to the American people.

LEMON: But my point and I want David to respond to this, if you are fighting something legally, right, does the court of public opinion matter? Shouldn't he be doing -- having that fight with his attorneys and doing it in a smarter way than maybe contradicting himself? Something that attorneys can use? Or even people on the other side of the political aisle can use?

SWERDLICK: Right. The court of public opinion matters and the legal fight matters if you are President Trump and if you are the White House. But I think to your point, Don, he is working at cross- purposes to a degree in this.

Yes, Mike is right. He is communicating over the heads of the media, over the heads of who everybody else to his core supporters. But at the same time that he is sort of rallying the troops, he is also signaling to the rest of America the -- not the 38 percent of people who have the favorable view of him, but everybody else, that he is not taking the legal fight seriously. And that he is not approaching it in a way that we would typically describe as Presidential.

And I just take this opportunity just to address one thing from what we were talking about before. You made a good point before about talking about when we say there is an investigation using the word "yet." Let's get that out of the way. You are right. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. You are right, we shouldn't say yet.

Now that that's out of the way, all the other issues still apply, right. We need answers to the question, why the President has been so solicitous of Russia. We need answers to the question, why during a transition Jared Kushner is meeting with the head of a Russian bank. We need answer to the question why was James Comey fired. All those things still exist.


SHIELDS: Very, very quickly, first of all, this was already -- this story was already out before. So it's interesting that it's suddenly news again. He was a transition official, now he is a White House official who has taken on a foreign policy portfolio. So it shouldn't be shocking that he is meeting with people. And so, look --

SWERDLICK: It's not shocking.

SHIELDS: No. But why don't we add that context? When we say breathlessly, oh, my God, there is a leak. Jared Kushner is under investigation for carrying out things as a transition official that may have been part of his duties as a transition official. That's not a hard --.

LEMON: That's a long thing to --

SHIELDS: Apparently too long for a lot of people in Washington.

LEMON: But to say that Jared Kushner is under investigation is not false.

SANDERS: You know what? At the press part, when we say, when you are explaining, you are losing. And there are so many things that we have to explain. We have to put context to them when we talk about Jared Kushner, the President. There are so many things. And so, we shouldn't have to add all that context.

[23:20:00] SHIELDS: I think the media does have to add. The media should have a responsibility to add the context to make sure they don't alter the context. Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think they're offering it, though.

LEWIS: Let's assume the media is not giving Donald Trump a fair shake. Isn't it incumbent upon a politician to try to get good press? And if they get continuously, if they have their agenda derailed, is it the onus on them to say we have to figure out how to control the message. We have to develop relationships with the press? Like if (INAUDIBLE) got bad press for Reagan, I don't think they would say it is the liberal media. They would say like we are not doing a good job.

SHIELDS: Look. I don't understand why you or others, every time that I'm here, and I try to criticize the way the media has covered Donald Trump, it immediately comes back to it is Donald Trump's fault. I have been working in politics for 20 years and I have seen conservatives not get a fair shake from the media. The media, if you look at the data, where media members give money to, who they vote for in primaries, they lean to the left. This is something that's been going on for years and years.


SHIELDS: Why don't we try to hold them a little bit more accountable? Have to be a little bit more self-reflective of their own --

LEMON: For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. And they are the worst people on earth. They are the crooked media. They're not -- (CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Do you want the media to say --?

SHIELDS: No. The media --.

SANDERS: I would like the President of the United States to be better. Why is the bar so low when Donald Trump is president?

SHIELDS: It performs a vital role in American politics. I want the media to actually be self-reflective and ask themselves why the public is losing faith in them.

LEMON: But here is what the media hears when you say that. We want positive stories about Donald Trump. And that's not the media's job. The media's job is to report. The reporting is not always positive.


SWERDLICK: How about asking the media if something is right or wrong, right? Anytime we push back, anytime the Trump campaign pushes back on us as newspapers or TV networks, the pushback is fake news. It's not about the fact -- look at Rob Rosenstein's statement that came out tonight. He didn't say that the story in the "Washington Post" was wrong. He said, beware of anonymous leaks. That's not the same as saying the story is wrong. So if the idea is to hold the media accountable, the way to hold the media accountable is to say, if we get it wrong, point it out. Not to say we are liberal or that we are fake news because that's not true.


LEMON: When we come right back, this could be awkward.


LEMON: Kind of a conversation we were just having. That's the Australian prime minister mocking President Trump. How the President is responding next.


[23:27:37] LEMON: The story of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and President Trump did not exactly get off to a great start. And now it seems the Australian leader was caught mocking the President.

Back now with my panel. I'm going to give this one to Kevin.

Kevin, you have been awfully quiet.

MADDEN: I'm enjoying this. I'm learning a lot.

CARDONA: He is taking notes.

LEMON: I want to play this clip from the Australian prime minister mocking the President. It is at the mid-winter ball, which is like the White House correspondent dinner in an Australian capital. Again, basically their White House correspondent dinner. Watch this.


MALCOLM TURNBULL, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: Donald and I, we are winning in the polls. We are winning so much. We are winning like we have never won before. We are winning in the polls. We are! We are. Not the fake polls. Not the fake polls. They are the ones we are not winning. We are winning in the real polls. You know, the online polls. They are so easy to win. I didn't know that. Did you know that? I kind of know that. How do you know that? They are so easy to win. I have this Russian guy. Believe me, it is true. It is true.


LEMON: Well, what do you think?

MADDEN: Well, you know, traditionally, so many of our allies are very cognizant about how important their relationship with the United States is to their standing on the international stage. And so many of our allies that are leaders, like Prime Minister Turnbull, have gone to great lengths to actually build up Presidents' profiles domestically inside their own country.

So I think that this is certainly a challenge right now that he believes that, you know, he can get away with this type of mockery of our President. And, you know, our relationships around the globe have changed since President Obama has come into office. Now, I think we ought not to read too much into this --.

LEMON: Just going to say, it is like the White House correspondent dinner.

MADDEN: Right. We ought not to read too much into it. But I think we would be hard pressed to find that type of mockery in the past. So this is certainly a challenge that I hope the White House takes seriously because they need these type of relationships to be very strong.

[23:30:02] LEMON: I was a little uncomfortable watching it. Then I remembered, like, look at what we do at the White House correspondents dinner. We make fun of ourselves. And very mocking tones. And self- deprecating and insulting sometimes and everyone is OK with it.

CARDONA: Right. But you know, I think Kevin brought up a good point, which is, I don't think we have seen this before. And I think there is a theme tonight which is that a lot of what President Trump's White House is going through, he brought it upon himself. He kind of brought this upon himself. Can we remember, like with the phone call with the Australian Prime Minister? And how he was insulted by it?

And there's an irony to this because one of the big pitches for Trump during the campaign is that when he became President, the whole world was going to respect America again. That nobody was going to make fun of us ever again.

LEMON: OK, stand by. Play this clip. Play this clip.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us? We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won't be. They won't be.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is so ironic.

SANDERS: Thank you, Don. They were laughing at him about two weeks before when he was giving that egregious speech when he was at the G-7 meeting. So, you know, I just --

LEWIS: You know what, though, I don't doubt they are laughing at him in Syria right now. I don't think Assad is laughing at him. I don't even think - I don't know why the North Koreans gave back a hostage, but they did. You know, I have been very critical of Donald Trump.

LEMON: They are very bad conditions, by the way.

LEWIS: Yes, true. True. I have been very critical of Donald Trump and I think fairly so. But the one area where I think we are better off in terms of -- I think people are a little more afraid of us than they used to be. And I think that's a pretty good thing when there are bad actors.


CARDONA: But our allies think we're giving up global leadership.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, listen, on specifically the Australia issue --

CARDONA: They are saying that we are leaving a void on the global stage of --

LEWIS: I think that President Obama -- I think President Obama's weakness invited a lot of provocation, including Putin and Russia. And I actually think - I have been very critical of Donald Trump. But I actually think some of the stuff other countries tried to get away with when Obama was President, they would think twice.


SWERDLICK: In 2014, Obama got Australia, the EU, the UK, et cetera, together and put the sanctions regime in place against Putin that remains today. That was Obama. President Trump has talked tough. He hasn't done anything on that --

SHIELDS: But to that point with Obama. The reason the first (INAUDIBLE) came up, President Obama and the prime minister of Australia struck a deal on refugees that Trump he expected that Trump would just accept as soon as he came into office. The reason they got into a dustup which I think President Trump would say, yes, absolutely, what I said was, I'm not accepting that deal. And if you don't like it, I'm going to hang the phone up on you even if we are allies. And so you know what, they are not laughing at him when they are trying to make the policy on refugees. They may make a joke at a dinner, but to Matt's point, they are not laughing at him when it comes to let's get one over on him --

LEWIS: The Iranians who, you know, got one of our boats and our sailors with their hands, I don't think that happens with Donald Trump as President. For all the bad thing about Trump, I don't think that happen.

SANDERS: You all have to be kidding me. You all have to be kidding me.

LEWIS: I don't think Iran -- no, I don't think our sailors --

SANDERS: What I'm hearing is that America is safer -- what I'm hearing from you all is that - what I'm hearing that you think America is safer, in better position in the world standing with Donald Trump as President.

SHIELDS: Absolutely right. Absolutely right.

SANDERS: Absolutely?


LEMON: Why do you -- you disagree? Why?

SANDERS: North Korea, Putin, but when you have Angela Merkel --


SHIELDS: That's exactly why they're doing that.

SANDERS: I say that, because I absolutely disagree. Because we have Angela Merkel standing on a stage saying we are in this thing by ourselves. We have to defend for ourselves. We can no longer count on the United States as an ally. I absolutely agree that many people would say we are advocating our responsibility as the leader of the free world.

LEMON: OK. But they think we are being tough because people won't try things that they --

SANDERS: Because our President is unhinged and crazy.

LEMON: All right. We have got to go.

When we come back, tensions building outside the Cosby trial. His alleged victims confronting protesters outside the court. Inside the jury is deadlocked. The latest on the case next.


[23:39:10] LEMON: They have been deliberating for four days. The jurors in Bill Cosby's trial say they are deadlocked and can't come to a unanimous decision on any of the three charges against the legendary comedian.

I want to discuss this now with CNN legal contributor Areva Martin and Wendy Murphy, a former prosecutor.

Good evening to both of you. It has been fascinating watching what's happening both inside and outside of the courtroom.

Areva, the jury has deliberated now for about 40 hours. You say this is clearly not a slam dunk case. And there is obviously something that's keeping them from a verdict. Explain.

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely, Don. Anything could happen. Tomorrow morning these jurors are going to start over again at 9:00. They could decide that, you know, an acquittal or conviction, but it's not likely.

I think from the beginning, the jurors were torn when they started asking the judge to read back testimony. They wanted to hear the testimony from Constand. They wanted the deposition of Bill Cosby read back to them. That all signaled to me that they had really serious doubts about the credibility of the witnesses.

And people think that trials are about defendants proving their innocence and it's not. A trial -- a criminal trial is about the state proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilty of the defendant. And the defense lawyer put it best when he did his summation. He said if you have more questions than answers, that's reasonable doubt. And I think this jury has more questions than answers. And that's why after 40 hours they have not come back with a guilty or acquittal. And I think it could be a hung jury tomorrow.

[23:40:41] LEMON: Interesting. Wendy, let's see. You say -- let's look at the jury makeup. Let's put it up there. Seven men, six white, one black, five women, four white, one black. You say the jury's makeup is mainly why they are deadlocked. How so?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I think it's one of the issues. The law in Pennsylvania is the reason he is never going to be convicted at least on two of the charges. It's not possible. And let me just quickly explain. For the drugging charge, for example, you can only find someone guilty if they drug you for the purpose of raping you, without your knowledge. And even Andrea Constand said she knew he drugged her. So that charge is never going to end with a guilty, ever. And I predicted that a year ago.

The other drugging related charge pertains to her state of intoxication or incapacitation when the sexual assaults happened. Under Pennsylvania law, you have to be asleep or unconscious. And Andrea Constand testified she was frozen, she was paralyzed, but she wasn't unconscious or asleep. That charge is never going to end with a guilty, ever, no matter how many times you try this case.

But here's what I think about the jury. It has nothing to do with race at all. The reason the jury may be filled with a kind of bias that will not be good for the victim, in addition to all the problems with the law, is that there are men, seven of them, who were not allowed to be asked by the prosecution when they are being selected, whether they have ever done anything like this to a woman. They or someone close to them. And when you allow men who have done bad things to women, to sit on juries, in any state, and it's allowed in lots of states, they are looking at Cosby going that could have been me. I'm not voting guilty for that guy.

LEMON: You're making a lot of presumptions about the jurors. We don't know if the men --.

MURPHY: I'm just saying you are not allow to screen. No, I know. But if you are not allow to screen out jurors who have sexually assaulted women, and remember, nine out of ten rapes are never reported. I'm not talking about convicted rapists, I'm talking about men who sexually assault women and it never gets reported. Nine out of ten rapes are never reported. So there is a chance that the people showing up for jury duty, the men, you know, we got this percentages that some of them will have done something like this at some point in their life. Seven men on a jury, you are not allowed to exclude the one who have committed sexual assault. They are identifying with Cosby. They are going to protect him.

LEMON: Areva, I need your respond to that. What do you think?

MARTIN: Well, I think that's a lot of assumptions. And I don't think we shouldn't gloss over the ratio issue here because there are also studies that show that when you have an all-white jury pool, the chances of conviction for an African-American defendant is in the 70, 75 percent. That's why the defense team fought so hard to have African-Americans on this jury. And there were huge fights about the exclusion of a couple of women that the defense argued were on the basis of race. But the judge determined there were other grounds for the exclusion of them. I think the presence of the two African- American jurors on this jury pool may also be a big reason as to why these jurors, these 12, cannot come to a consensus with respect to --

MURPHY: But she is a woman of color, too. She is a woman of color, too.

MARTIN: She is not an African-American woman. And so to say that a Canadian woman is a woman of color, the studies are very clear that when you have African-American jurors on a jury pool, you have an African-American defendant, the chances of conviction go down substantially.

MURPHY: Not when you are a rich, not when you are Bill Cosby or O.J. Simpson.

MARTIN: To say Constand is a black woman. That's just not happening.

LEMON: OK. Let me ask you. Do you think he will be tried somewhere else? First Areva then Wendy. Quickly, because I'm running out of time? Do you think he will tried tomorrow?

MARTIN: I don't think so. I know that Wendy thinks there will be another criminal prosecution. I don't think so. I think people are going to be so disappointed. I think you are going see, you know, protests. We have already seen some protesters confronting people on the courtroom steps. I don't think there is going to be another criminal prosecution.

MURPHY: If he is acquitted there will be clambering in the streets. There will be huge protests for him to be prosecuted in some of the other jurisdictions. There are at least five other states where the clock has not yet run out. And women, especially in this country, will rise up and demand that he face justice, someplace, somehow.

[23:45:11] LEMON: Thank you, both. That's going to have to be the last word.

MARTIN: It doesn't mean it's going to be a criminal prosecution.

LEMON: Thank you both. I appreciate that.

When we come back, an amazing new CNN series showcasing people who are changing the world.


[23:49:48] LEMON: This week's CNN presenting a special series called "Champions for Change." A dozen CNN and HLN anchors headed out to spend time working alongside the people whose causes are close to our hearts.

Tonight my colleague Erin Burnett introduces us to her champions for change, Meals on Wheels, a program that feeds homeless homebound, I should say homebound senior citizens.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good morning. How are you? Hi, thank you. The meals for you.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST, OUTFRONT (voice-over): A midday food delivery to a small apartment in New York City, a place Connie Pierce has called home for more than 40 years.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today, it's pork.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks very much.

BURNETT: Connie pierce is 94 years old and fiercely independent. She is also a World War II Navy vet who is now outlived her 11 brothers and sisters.

What did you do, bunk beds?

CONNIE PIERCE, 94-YEARS-OLD: We slept three to a bed. I remember. And I said when I grow up I'm going to get a job and I'm going to get my own little bed.

BURNETT: Connie's first job in a cigar factory paid $13 a week. And she got her own little bed. Joining the Navy during the war and then moving to New York to live with one of her sisters.

A lot of young women when but you were born didn't get to have jobs. They would get married, have children and stay home.


BURNETT: But you knew you never wanted that to be you. Did you always know you wanted to be different?

PIERCE: Yes, I did. I wanted to be adventurous.

BURNETT: Connie is widowed now and her two stepsons live abroad. Her crippling arthritis is forcing her to make changes. She can't shop anymore. She can't cook for herself. And she rarely leaves home. What now are your biggest frustrations?

PIERCE: I used to love to just go shopping and I used to do my own thing and I can't.

BURNETT: Forty-six million Americans are 65 or older. One in six of them struggle with hunger.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good morning, guys.

CROWD: Good morning.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who has done this before?

BURNETT: That's where city Meals on Wheels comes in. I learned about Meals on Wheels one holiday when I got a flyer in the mail. I saw that even the smallest donation can enable someone who lives completely alone to have a special holiday meal. And the reality is, this is about much more than providing hot food.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If there's no one at home, do not leave the meal. You are not just delivering a meal today. You are checking in on our seniors.

BURNETT: Beth Shapiro is the executive director of New York's City Meals on Wheels.

People are so afraid, we are all so afraid of losing what we hold near and dear. And yet you see that every day.

BETH SHAPIRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITY MEALS ON WHEELS: I see it every day. And to me it's beautiful. You know, to look at someone who has the wrinkles of a life well lived is something to celebrate.

BURNETT: In New York City alone, the program serves more than 18,000 people. Two-thirds of them are women. Nationwide, more than 5,000 local meals on wheels programs help 2.5 million seniors. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you go to deliver today, our seniors can be

very chatty. OK? Please talk to them. Have a conversation. You are the only person they are going to see today. OK?

BURNETT: What gives you the most joy now?

PIERCE: I guess I have to just say, be grateful that you are fairly well. Learning to accept what is. That's what -- I'm at that point.

BURNETT: On average, City Meals on Wheels costs $7 a meal in New York.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How you feel today?

PIERCE: Fairly well. You know, this arthritis.

BURNETT: May has been delivering Meals on Wheels to Connie for almost two years. How much has it changed your life?

PIERCE: Well, I guess completely because I can't cook.

BURNETT: Connie is able to live at home, thanks to meals on wheels. And meals on wheels exists thanks to individual donations.

SHAPIRO: Ten percent of the city meals funding comes from the government. We privately raise the remaining 90 percent.

BURNETT: Every dollar donated goes to meals, not overhead. And the financial need is growing quickly.

SHAPIRO: The senior population is the fastest growing population in this country. It will be doubled across the country by the year 2050. The program needs to grow.


BURNETT: There was outrage after the Trump administration announced it may make cuts to programs like Meals on Wheels.

MULVANEY: We can't spend money on programs just because they sound good. And great Meals on Wheels sounds great. We are going to spend money. We are going to spend a lot of money but we are not going to spend it on programs that cannot show they actually deliver the promise we have made to people.

BURNETT: It's unclear if the program ultimately will face any cuts. But Shapiro says meals can't afford even the smallest cut-back.

SHAPIRO: It will have a devastating effect on the lifeline and infrastructure that Meals on Wheels programs provide across the country.

BURNETT: When the politicians make the final budget decisions, it is worth remembering, they are talking about people. People like Connie Pierce. (END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: And up next on "Champions for Change," learn about the cause that's closest to Poppy Harlow's heart, tomorrow morning in the 8:00 a.m. hour of "New Day." And to see more of our anchors, go to

Plus, don't miss the one-hour "Champions for Change special," it's hosted by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Saturday night, 9:00 eastern. It features highlights from the whole week. Champions for change, a week-long CNN special event, is brought to you by Charles Schwab.

I want to show you one of the most emotional parts of tonight's congressional baseball game. A capitol police officer who risked his life responding to Wednesday's attack on Republican baseball program threw out the first pitch.


[23:55:52] LEMON: Pretty good pitch, I thought. David Bailey walking onto the field on crutches to very loud applause. Although he did not suffer a gunshot wound, capitol police said Wednesday that Bailey was treated for a minor injury. The other capitol police agent who was on sight yesterday when shots were fired is crystal Griner. She was shot in the ankle and remains hospitalized on Thursday. And we are wishing her the best. Both of them, the best. They are truly heroes. And we wanted to honor them tonight on this program.

That's it for us tonight. Thank you so much for watching. I will see you right back here tomorrow night. Good night.