Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Eric Holder Talks About Threats To Democracy; The Ongoing Abortion Battle; CDC: Most Omicron Cases In U.S. Have Been Mild But Most Were Vaccinated; 3rd Officer At Deadly Traffic Stop Testifies; Prosecution Rest In Ghislaine Maxwell Trial After Fourth And Final Accuser Testifies. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 10, 2021 - 20:00   ET


RYAN YOUNG, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Chris Harris says he has seen more guns on the street, leading to not just violent, but deadly consequences.

CHRIS HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF POLICY, AUSTIN JUSTICE COALITION: Guns are just more accessible across our country and across our community and across our state in particular.

YOUNG: Austin PD is working to turn the tide using it's real time crime center and new Office of Violence Prevention.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If these guys were fighting, we can watch exactly what's going on.

YOUNG: Other cities are also looking into violence reduction strategies to combat violent crime.

MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT (D), BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND: We have a problem that is much deeper than Baltimore City.

YOUNG: In Baltimore, the mayor there says they've taken 2,000 guns off the streets this year, but the city's homicide rate has remained steady in recent years. Mayor Scott says it's something many mayors around the country are dealing with.

SCOTT: We still have the historical things that are happening, the drugs, the gangs, and the money, but so many more people are dying with smaller interpersonal disputes.

MICHAEL HARRISON, COMMISSIONER, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: They are using gun violence to solve petty beefs. It is a culture. It's a way of thinking.

YOUNG (voice over): As the country grapples with a historic increase in the homicide rate, and a reimagining of police departments, back in Austin, they are looking for solutions as fast as they can.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to get ahead of that problem and as a community, as a city, that is what we're doing.


ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And that was Ryan Young reporting.

Thanks for watching. AC 360 starts now.



If all news is ultimately about the difference and the distance between then and now, then this is the biggest news night.

Funeral Services in Washington for the late Senator Bob Dole, in which the contrast between then and now was a stark and as sad as the moment.

Today, was a reminder of a place and a way of doing politics with a set of values in a country that now exist only in words, paying tribute to those who once embodied it.


JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He came into the arena, with certain guiding principles to begin with, devotion to country, to fair play, to decency, to dignity, to honor, to literally attempting to find the common good. That's how he worked with George McGovern to fight hunger in America, particularly as it affected children and around the world.

He worked with Teddy Kennedy and Tom Harkin to bring down the barriers from Americans living with disabilities, a profound change and a profound act of grace.

He worked with Daniel Patrick Moynihan to literally save Social Security because Bob believed every American deserves to grow old with their basic dignity -- basic dignity intact.


COOPER: "We disagreed," the President went on to say about his Senate colleague of 25 years, "But we were never disagreeable with one another."

By contrast, if only a minor contrast, one of his Republican descendants today, Senator Ted Cruz, being conspicuously and dangerously disagreeable not wearing a mask at the funeral, which goes against the policy of the National Cathedral where the ceremony was held, not to mention the fact he was surrounded by hundreds of people, many of them elderly.

Yes, of course, it was performative and potentially dangerous, but that is where we are.

Where we once were, it was embodied by a senator who fought to liberate a continent suffering lifelong wounds while trying to carry a buddy to safety. That's where we were. Where we are is a far cry from storming the Beaches of Normandy. Now, it's Americans, egged on by Republican senators and Congress members and the President at the time storming the Capitol.

Late today, the House Select Committee investigating that day issued subpoenas for six more people. One a congressional candidate, backed by the former President is campaigning on a promise to disband the Committee if elected, so much for the Dole era notion of country over party that sent a delegation of senior Republicans during Watergate to the White House demanding Richard Nixon, a Republican President resign.

Now, not even a coup attempt could stop Republican leaders from marching straight to Mar-a-Lago to lick the ring of the man who incited a violent mob to attack them.

During Watergate, a single moment on the so-called smoking gun tape shocked Republicans into no longer supporting Nixon. We are far less shockable now, too many of our elected leaders and others in public life have no sense of shame whatsoever.

Just recently, a memo from the former President's lawyer laying out step by step how to overturn the election caused barely a ripple in the party. Now, according to the Select Committee Chairman, Bennie Thompson, a batch of documents handed over by former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows includes a January 5th e-mail containing a PowerPoint briefing titled "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference and Options for 6th January."

If in fact that also turns out to be step-by-step instructions for coup, will Republicans see that the same way that Bob Dole's fellow Republicans did with the Nixon smoking gun tape?


COOPER: It is doubtful -- considering they can't even stand up to racist freshmen party members.


REP. LAUREN BOEBERT (R-CO): One of my staffers, on his first day with me got into an elevator in the Capitol, and in that -- and in the elevator, we were joined by Ilhan Omar.

Well, it was just us three in there and I looked over and I said, well, lookey there, it's the Jihad Squad.

I do have to say, she doesn't have a backpack.


COOPER: This is where we are, and the difference between then and now is measured in light years.

Make no mistake, Bob Dole was no one's idea of what the former President will call a RINO. He was not a Republican in name only. As Gerald Ford's running mate in 1976, he played the partisan heavy.

In 1996, when he ran for President against Bill Clinton, he certainly pulled no punches, but when he lost, he conceded graciously.


BOB DOLE (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I've said repeatedly-- I have said repeatedly in this campaign that the president was my opponent not my enemy. And I wish him well and I pledge my support in whatever advances the cause of a better America, because that's what the race was about in the first place, a better America as we go into the next century.


COOPER: "My opponent," he said, "Not my enemy."

By contrast, the leader of the Republican Party today, the man stewing and sweating in Mar-a-Lago waiting for his future to begin is now feuding with perhaps his greatest foreign booster at the time, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"F him," he recently told journalist, Barak Ravid, during a book interview.

Now why you might ask, would he say that to the former Israeli Prime Minister? Why would a former President of the United States say that about a former Israeli Prime Minister that he embraced so closely and praised so lavishly? Well, because Benjamin Netanyahu called President-elect Biden to congratulate Biden, like Hillary Clinton did when she lost to the former President signifying that her opponent was not her enemy.

But it is not just one man's bottomless vanity and vitriol that distinguishes Bob Dole's America from today, nor is it just the shamelessness of certain Republicans or the party's tolerance for it. Nor is it simply the fealty with some exceptions to the Big Lie.

It is how all those sentiments and attitudes and dangerous impulses are now being turned into policy and turned into law, something another senior statesman cannot help but notice.


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you have tilted, skewed, politically gerrymandered, uncompetitive districts, that's going to attract candidates who are more extreme and only care about firing up their base, which means compromise becomes more difficult, which means a lot of voters simply get ignored, and that is bad for our democracy.

Rather than argue based on their ideas, they are trying to tilt the playing field and they are not even waiting for Election Day to do it. Their plan is to control State Legislatures and congressional delegations before a single vote is cast.

That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: "That is not how democracy is supposed to work" says former

President Obama. Let's get more perspective on all this.

Joining us tonight, Eric Holder, former Attorney General in the Obama administration.

Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate you joining us. You hear former President Obama as he campaigns against gerrymandering, which I want to talk specifically about with you in a moment. You hear him bemoan what is happening to democracy in this country, and I'm wondering, on this day, when the vestiges of, I guess, a bygone Washington what many thought was maybe a more decent Washington gathering for the funeral of Bob Dole.

What goes through your mind as you see the nation's capital, particularly Congress descend into further political extremism?

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Yes, I think about, you know, Senator Dole and the Washington that were he was such a force, I came to this city back in the late 1970s and it is a fundamentally different place than it is now.

We are far more polarized. We have at least one party that is focused on using the mechanisms of power to perpetuate their power, and it is something that I think is extremely concerning, not only because of what it means in the short term, but what is going to be the long term impact on the strength and vitality of our of our democracy.

COOPER: You and President Obama had been making a big push against gerrymandering. It is one of those things that people know the word don't necessarily know the details of it and it can get kind of in the weeds very quickly.

Why is this so important? And what is, you know, what's your message to people who kind of roll their when they hear about it?


HOLDER: Well, here is the deal. I mean, gerrymandering, you know redistricting can get kind of opaque and I can see people's eyes clouding over, but if you care about a woman's right to choose, if you care about healthcare, the expansion of Medicaid, if you care about, you know, gun safety measures, if you care about climate, if you care about protecting voting rights, all of these things are decided by State Legislatures, also by the United States House of Representatives.

And if you have gerrymandered legislatures, that means that one side will decide an issue without the power and without the support of the people.

COOPER: I want to play something else that former President Obama said earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I know voting rights legislation in Congress hasn't moved as

quickly as any of us would have liked, and when democracy is being threatened by one party, it is frustrating to see the world's greatest deliberative body deliberating rather than voting, but for those of us who want to shore up democracy, the task at hand is simple.


COOPER: When he says the task at hand is simple, because obviously -- what does he mean? I mean, obviously, Republicans continue to support the Big Lie, the former President's grip on his party is only strengthened, President Trump -- and the Democrats don't have big enough majorities to get voting rights passed. What happens next? And is it simple?

HOLDER: Well, I think what he was saying there is expressing some degree of frustration. I mean, certainly people focus on what Democrats have and have not done. We tend to give Republicans a pass here. They are not doing anything with regard to passing some sane, you know, voting protection measures.

But given the situation where we are now, we've deliberated enough. We have talked about this enough. It is time for a vote. It is time for Democratic senators, it's going to have to be the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party -- it is time for Democratic senators decide. Do you want to be John Lewis? Or do you want to be John Stennis?

The measures that are before the Senate, the John Lewis Advancement -- Voting Rights Advancement bill, the Freedom to Vote Act, which is authored by Senator Manchin are both really good pieces of legislation that deserve a vote, that deserves support, that deserve to be put into place.

And if you pass the Freedom to Vote Act, you will outlaw, you will ban partisan gerrymandering, which will wipe it out and me make that something not -- that the American people have to be concerned with.

COOPER: In states though, like Illinois, Oregon, Maryland, Democrats are also engaged in gerrymandering congressional districts, and it is something Karl Rove recently wrote about criticized your push for fair redistricting writing, "This isn't about fairness, democracy or ending gerrymandering and redistricting. Democrats want to elect more of their partisans to advance their agenda. So do Republicans. The only difference that Misters Obama and Holder are hypocrites about a claiming a higher purpose."

I mean, this is something that Democrats have engaged in and are engaging in as well, no?

HOLDER: Well, certainly have engaged in what Democrats are potentially, you know, guilty of in this cycle pales in comparison to what Republicans are doing.

And here's the deal, I'll ask Karl Rove, will he stand for the creation of these independent commissions, which takes the power out of the hands of State Legislatures altogether and let the lines be drawn by independent commissions? I support that. I support the Freedom to Vote Act, which would ban partisan gerrymandering.

Well, they say they support that. You know, they say that we're doing all these terrible things, and you look at Texas, 95 percent of the increase in population in Texas, which got them two additional seats, came as a result of increases in communities of color with what the population of there, and yet, what they did was create an additional majority white district.

They have reduced the number of competitive districts in Texas, all the way down to one. So they're, like 37 to 38 congressional seats in Texas. There is only one that is competitive.

So if you're a Republican in one of those Democratic safe places, your vote really doesn't matter. Conversely, if you are a Democrat in one of those Republican safe spots, your Democratic vote doesn't matter.

And so I'm against all of that. I say, let's just have a system where we have a whole bunch of competitive seats and let this be a contest of ideas, and not who's got the best line drawing capabilities.

COOPER: But the legislation you are pushing and the legislation that the Senate could pass. I mean, it's not going to be able to be passed without some sort of change to the filibuster. No?

HOLDER: I think that's right. I mean, the filibuster has to be modified or it has to be done away with. It's an arcane Senate procedure. And again, those Democratic senators are going to have to decide what is more important to you. The preservation of this arcane Senate procedure or ensuring that our democracy works in the way that it is intended.

I mean, people need to understand, this is not a partisan fight that we are engaged in. It's not some petty partisan fight. We're talking about the future of our democracy.

When you couple gerrymandering with voter suppression and the subversion of our electoral infrastructure, which is going on throughout the country under the auspices of Republican governors and legislators, the future of our democracy is at stake.

I'm not being alarmist. I'm not being hyperbolic. This is simply a fact.


COOPER: I mean, it is an interesting argument that you and President Obama are making, which is that gerrymandering, it encourages extremism. I mean, we all look at the extreme candidates, you know, on both sides of the aisle and think, well, gosh, how did this person get in? And often, it is -- because the district is so manipulated, and I mean, it looks like, you know, a modern art painting and I think a politician once used that term about the district that he gerrymandered -- that it encourages extremism.

HOLDER: That's exactly right. If you're in one of these safe seats, you're not concerned about a General Election. You're only concerned about being challenged in a primary.

And so, if you are in the Republican Party that drives you further and further to the right, to be fair, if you're in the Democratic Party that potentially drives you further and further to the left, you want to make sure that you don't get you primaried within your own party and compromise in that kind of situation, working with the other side, reaching across the aisle is seen as a sign of weakness, and encourages a primary challenge.

And as a result, you don't see compromise, you see people taking more and more extreme positions and that is not good for our democracy, and you end up with positions that are inconsistent with the desires of the American people. You end up with minority rule, as opposed to the majority of people having a say in the direction of the nation.

COOPER: Attorney General Eric Holder, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

HOLDER: Thanks for having me.

COOPER: Up next, the Supreme Court today keeping the Texas abortion ban in place, but allowing legal challenges against it. What does it mean for the future Roe v. Wade? Wendy Davis and Jeffrey Toobin coming up with that.

And breaking news, the prosecution rests in the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell, one time associate of Jeffrey Epstein. How the prosecution made their case and why some of the details are being withheld from the public.



COOPER: The White House's President Biden is very concerned, their words, by today's Supreme Court decision on the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The Court is allowing Texas to maintain its near total ban on abortions after about the first six weeks of pregnancy, but today's ruling also allows abortion providers to continue their legal challenges of the law.

Now, the case has major implications obviously for abortion rights across the country. Here is what Vice President Kamala Harris said this afternoon.


KAMALA HARRIS (D), VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The ruling today is an attempt to undo in terms of what's happening in Texas, Mississippi, and around the country, is an attempt to undo 50 years of precedent.

And as far as I'm concerned, and as far as our administration is concerned, a woman's right to make decisions about her own body is non-negotiable.


COOPER: Well, CNN chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, joins us. Also former Democratic Texas State Senator, Wendy Davis, who blocked in 2013 an anti-abortion bill of the state during a 13-hour filibuster.

Senator Davis, I last spoke with you after you heard the arguments in the case before the Supreme Court challenging Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortions. You came out of that saying you thought the Court was positioning yourself to overturn Roe v. Wade. Did you hear anything in today's decision to change your mind?

WENDY DAVIS (D), FORMER TEXAS STATE SENATOR: I didn't hear anything to change my mind in that regard. And of course, what's happened now, Anderson is that this law continues to be in effect in Texas. It has now been in effect for more than 100 days, and the Court left no opening whatsoever today for statewide injunctive relief.

And instead, it's like it put us right back at square one, where essentially the only way to challenge the law is for there to be some kind of a breaking of the law in order to move it into the Court system and allow it to be adjudicated.

That injunctive relief and the ability for these clinics to begin operating while the law is being challenged is non-existent.

COOPER: Jeff, what stood out to you in the decision?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there were a lot of technicalities and a lot of procedure, but the substance is what mattered. I mean, this law remains in effect. And what jumped out at me was Chief Justice Roberts, who is nobody's idea of a liberal, who has voted against abortion rights, almost entirely throughout his career.

And he said, look, you know, we fought a Civil War over the issue of whether States could nullify acts under the Constitution. This is the State of Texas, passing a law that everybody acknowledges is contrary to Roe v. Wade.

And here, for a second time, the Supreme Court, five to four, is saying, it is okay. Leave this law in effect. That is something that I've never seen before. It's something that Roberts apparently had never seen before. But I think, it is indicative of how aggressive the conservative majority is going to be on the Court on this issue, and perhaps others.

COOPER: Senator Davis, the Court did allow a potential avenue for abortion rights providers for challenge enforcement of the law, but it has always seemed like the point of the law was to make providing abortion so expensive and legally difficult, it is essentially impossible for them to operate in Texas.

Is there anything about today's decision change that?

DAVIS: No, nothing does, and the only thing that court really opened in terms of a window today is to prevent state licensing authorities from basically taking the license of doctors away under Senate Bill 8, but it completely left in place the vigilante piece of this law.

And what Roberts was expressing his concern about today, it was almost as though you could see him with his head in his hands wondering how these five Justices are allowing something to go forward that essentially says the Supreme Court's decision making and authority absolutely does not matter in this country anymore.


DAVIS: And if this can happen in this constitutional right, it can happen for any constitutional right. And unfortunately, Kavanaugh and Barrett seem to express these same concerns during the oral argument a few weeks ago, and yet they joined this opinion today that completely disregarded what this is going to do to Supreme Court authority going forward.

TOOBIN: But remember, too, you know, you can't see this case in isolation from the Mississippi case, which was argued last week, where the court, the same five Justices who were in the majority here were jumping out of their seats trying to overrule Roe versus Wade.

So I think the subtext of today's decision is, you know, this law doesn't really -- this procedure stuff doesn't matter, because in a couple of months, we're going to get rid of all restrictions on abortion, so that is really where things appear to be heading and the procedural niceties here will be forgotten by that point.

COOPER: Senator Davis, I mean, if what you said is, you know, true about -- then this baseline could impact States ignoring Federal laws, ignoring the Constitution, and making up their own rules. Could you see this decision backfiring on this conservative court, for example, a state like New York passing or some liberal state passing a similar law on gun rights?

DAVIS: If there was consistency with these five Justices, I could see that this would create a problem.

My concern is when you read this opinion, it is so contorted that I can see them wiggling around it, and allowing some sort of interference when another constitutional law is being intruded upon. And I think that Jeffrey is right. This is all about just drawing out this procedural playing field in order to litigate this fully here in the State of Texas.

We're probably going to be right up against June when the decision in the Mississippi case is going to come out. We already know what it looks like to basically gut Roe in Texas, and I'm afraid that other states across the country are about to see it as well, and I hope that America will wake up to the reality that Roe is going away, women's liberty is going away, and this is going to have a huge impact on women's ability to participate fully in society and in the economy in this country if we don't do something about it in the political spectrum.

COOPER: Wendy Davis, Jeff Toobin, I appreciate it. Thank you. There is new information tonight on the omicron variant from one of

the first studies done in the United States. We will tell you what it says and talk about it with Michael Osterholm. He predicted accurately the impact of the delta variant, where he now thinks we're headed next.



COOPER: New CDC report shows that most of the 43 COVID cases caused by the Omicron variant identified in the U.S. so far were in people fully vaccinated, and a third of them had booster shots. Most had mild cases. The Delta variant is still the biggest worry right now. New infections in the U.S. are up more than 50% in a month.

As we showed you last night hospitals are on the brink in some hard hit states including Michigan. That's where CNN's Miguel Marquez focus among vaccinated COVID patients.


CLIVE ELLIS, COVID PATIENT: Suppose second round, this is way worse.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (on-camera): And this was worse than the first?

ELLIS: Yes. The first one was bad.

MARQUEZ (on-camera): Would you encourage others to get vaccinated now though?


MARQUEZ (on-camera): How important is it? I mean, how bad is COVID?

ELLIS: It's terrible. You don't want it?


MARQUEZ (on-camera): You did not want to be vaccinated?


MARQUEZ (on-camera): Do you think you'll get vaccinated after this?


MARQUEZ (on-camera): Why?

LAROCHE: I should be OK now.

MARQUEZ (on-camera): You think?


COOPER: She's wrong, she should speak to the other guy who's in the hospital for the second time. The other patient -- well, anyway, a lot to discuss.

Michael Osterholm, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He's also a former member of the Biden transition COVID-19 Advisory Board.

Professor Osterholm you say, you know less about this virus now than you did a year ago I understand. Why is that?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM, DIRECTOR CIDRAP, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Well, at this point, we have a number of different situations unfolding both the ever increasing number of cases with Delta. And then on top of that now, as we all know, we have this new variant, the Omicron variant, which is surely much, much more transmissible even than delta but we may be able to actually skirt a disaster in the sunset, it may actually produce much less serious illness across the board. That's still to be determined.

But, so these are both playing out against each other right now, as we watch that unfold.

COOPER: You heard this unvaccinated -- yes, both on vaccinated patients in Miguel's piece, 60% of eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, only 25% received a booster dose. How concerning is that? And do you think the definition of fully vaccinated needs to change to include a booster?

OSTERHOLM: Well, let me just answer the last question. First, I think absolutely, we should be talking about three doses of the mRNA vaccines to be fully vaccinated, two doses for the J&J vaccine. You know, when we think in this country, we've done a pretty good job getting people vaccinated. And in fact, we look at the state of Vermont that has the highest level of vaccination in the high 70s, low 80% level. And yet last week, they had the highest number of hospitalizations that they've had since the beginning of the pandemic. Still largely led by unvaccinated individuals.

If we look at Europe, right now, Western Europe is really under siege with Delta. And they have number of countries there that have vaccine levels well into the 80% level, much higher than ours. So I think it shouldn't be a surprise that what we're seeing right now here, is this ever growing situation a Delta. And I can only say that if you look at the last several weeks, as you noted, the introduction, case numbers are continuing to increase substantially and I see that the situation unfolding for at least the next six to 10 weeks.

COOPER: And in Europe, is it also -- it's just among the unvaccinated as well?


OSTERHOLM: Is largely among the unvaccinated but as you pointed out also we only have 25% of those who are eligible for a booster right now to get that. You know I've never liked the term booster. I've said all along and shared with you the fact that we really should have thought of these as three prime vaccines to begin with, just like we do other vaccines series, or two prime for the J&J, you really do need that extra shot, and it surely can give you a big boost in protection.

So, that's part of the challenge right now, as we're seeing more and more breakthrough infections. Fortunately, on a whole, they're not nearly as severe. If you're in an intensive care unit, you still have about a 15 times higher risk of being there if you're not vaccinated than if you are vaccinated.

COOPER: Back in August, you -- I mean, you predict the Delta variant would cause new daily cases to go back up over 100,000 a day. The country is currently averaging 117,000 new cases every day and the holiday seasons only just begun. Is it going to get worse you think?

OSTERHOLM: Oh, absolutely is going to get worse. You know, Anderson, we have a very interesting thing happening in this country, much like we've see around the world. If you look at India, India had a major surge last April, May, that went up very high and then came down relatively quickly back to baseline. That's what we saw on the south this past summer, the southern sunbelt states very high up quickly down. But then you saw a situation in United Kingdom, where the surge started in July, went up high, came down a little bit and then went back up and stayed there. That's exactly what we're seeing right now in the northern tier of states.

If you actually draw lines for the Great Plains, across Minnesota, Wisconsin, right now, across all the way to the northeast, those are states that are actually seeing these prolonged surges. What's also now emerging is if you follow the southern border of the Great Lakes states, and start looking out Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, you're seeing now the emergence of a new surge, which is kind of merging with this existing surge. And I think this really spells a real troubles for the country.

COOPER: Yes. Michael Osterholm, I appreciate it. Thank you.

OSTERHOLM: Thank you.

COOPER: Day three of the Kim Potter trial providing new insight into the fatal traffic stop shooting of Daunte Wright. CNN's Josh Campbell has details, ahead.



COOPER: There was new video shown today in day three of the manslaughter trial former police officer Kim Potter reminder the case centers around the fatal Daunte Wright during -- the fatal shooting of Daunte Wright during a traffic stop. There were also three witnesses who testified including Potter's former supervisor Major Mychal Johnson, who was the third officer to arrive at the scene. Johnson's testimony in the new video shed more perspective on the incident. We want to warn you video is disturbing.

Our security correspondent Josh Campbell has the story.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're under arrest Daunte.

KIM POTTER, EX-COP: I just shot him!



JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): New police video shown in court Friday during the manslaughter trial of former police officer Kim Potter. The video captures the moment Daunte Wright jumped back into the car as officers were trying to place him under arrest and the crash that follow.

POTTER: Oh my god.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to need additional minutes.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): More video showing the moments before Potter says she mistook her gun for her taser when she shot and killed Wright during an attempt to arrest him for an outstanding warrant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Warrant is for the weapons violation.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): Testifying Friday a police major who arrived just before the shooting and then tried to comfort Potter at the scene.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kim, that guy was trying to take off with me in the car.

POTTER: Oh my god!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kim, take a breath OK.

POTTER: Oh my god!

CAMPBELL (voice-over): Describing his reactions that day.

MAJ. MYCHAL JOHNSON, ON SCENE WHEN DAUNTE WRIGHT WAS SHOT: I heard the verbal command of taser, taser, taser, and then I heard a loud pop. I thought at the time that it was a taser.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): And testifying that he tried to grab the car keys to keep Wright from fleeing.

JOHNSON: I saw him going for the shift knob. And I started backing out of the vehicle.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): The defense seizing on Wright's attempt to resist arrest. EARL GRAY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And what's an officer supposed to do when you're executing a an arrest warrant for weapons violation and trying to find out who the lady is when somebody does that. Are you supposed to learn goal?


GRAY: What are you supposed to do?

JOHNSON: Put them under arrest.

GRAY: Yes, if they try to get away, use force, correct?


GRAY: During that time period, did Daunte Wright at any time show any sign of stopping, going up saying OK, I'm done?


CAMPBELL (voice-over): The defense also asking about a state law regarding the police use of service weapons.

GRAY: And if he had taken off with you in that car halfway, what would have happened to you?

JOHNSON: Probably dragged?

GRAY: Would it be fair for that officer to use a firearm to stop them?

JOHNSON: By state statute, yes.

GRAY: There's a statute that says to avoid death or great bodily harm, you have a right to use deadly force, correct?


CAMPBELL (voice-over): And hammering that point home for the jury.

GRAY: As far as you're concerned and you were there, Kimberly Potter would have a right to use a firearm, right?


CAMPBELL (voice-over): The major's body cam footage then shows the moments after the crash confusion, another officer stopping to help. As officers we're dealing with two crime scenes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Driver stop breathing.

POTTER: Oh my god! Oh my god!

CAMPBELL (voice-over): And growing concerns about Potter's mental state.

POTTER: Just let me kill myself. CAMPBELL (voice-over): The major testifying he removed her guns so it can be seized as evidence and replaced her gun with his own. Later going back to remove the ammunition.

JOHNSON: Another officer was concerned that she may harm herself. Discreetly asked if I could see my firearm that was in her holster, I was able to turn away from her with my firearm, remove the magazine from it and the one round that was in the chamber. She was not able to see.

CAMPBELL (voice-over): That moment caught on police video.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Give me my gun. OK. I'm just going to hold on yours.

POTTER: I don't know what happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kim, can I see my gun real quick?

POTTER: This is my mine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to get it read back to you. OK.


COOPER: That's Josh Campbell report. I want to bring in criminal defense attorney Sara Azari.

Sara, you representing both officers and civilians and you support cases. Why do you think the prosecution called Kim Potter's patrols your visor as a witness?

SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think that was a horrible choice Anderson, because this witness became the defense's use of force expert. And this case really is not about whether use of deadly force was justified although that is usually the issue in these cases. Here we're looking at whether she acted with criminal matter negligence and whether she mishandled her weapon.


And so, the idea is that, you know, right from wrong did she know yellow from black. That she know what's on her left side versus her right side. And now they open up the door for the defense as we saw to come in and get him to admit on cross examination, that you know what, good on, good on Potter to shoot, even if she did make a mistake, she was justified in that mistake, because this guy could have died.

COOPER: So you -- it's, what is -- how can the prosecution recover them and how does that -- I mean that certainly could impact the jury very strongly. Why do you think the prosecution seems so unprepared for his testimony?

AZARI: I mean, I think a part of it Anderson, I'm not sure if it's lack of preparation. I'm -- I just think it's a bad choice. You know, when we put up witnesses, when we select witnesses, we don't have -- we don't need to put up every damn person or officer that was at the scene. We got to choose and look and balance what they can say that might hurt us, what they can say that might help us. And in this case, I think it was just a bad choice. You know, they went for the overkill. He was the supervisor. He was there. We'll bring him in. And I think what they need to do is they should have come back right on redirect and cleaned this up, but they did it. And I think it was just like, let bad be.

But I think in closing argument and through other witnesses, they need to clean this up and really hammer in that she meant to use her taser. This is not about her gun. She kept saying taser, taser, taser. So that's the real issue. And in closing argument, they need to say ladies and gentlemen, the jury, you know, all this chatter about the gun and then this guy dangling from the car, ignore it. It's kind of embarrassing, because it's their own witness. But ignore that because you're not here to decide, that you're here to decide whether she act of the criminal negligence or she mishandled her weapon.

COOPER: And so that's the difference. I mean, if she meant to use your taser and she said taser, taser, taser, she just made a mistake on that, a deadly mistake, that would be mishandling a weapon.

AZARI: Right. Under Minnesota law of first degree manslaughter is mishandling a weapon. It's a lesser offence, but that exposes her to the manslaughter in first degree. Second degree as if she acted with criminal negligence. And so, of course the defense is saying she's a human being but she's an officer with 26 years of experience. So that's really what the dispute is not that she meant to use a taser.

COOPER: Sara Azari, appreciate it. Thank you.

We have a breaking news and another --

AZARI: Thanks, Anderson.

COOPER: -- court case the prosecution rest in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial not before some graphic allegations from an accuser, will bring you that. Now, look at the questions over the transparency of some evidence submitted in the trial.



COOPER: There's breaking news in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking trial the prosecution has rested after 10 days of testimony and 24 witnesses. The fourth and final accuser took the stand today and testify that Epstein sexually abused her and Maxwell groomed her and gave an unsolicited massage. Defense attorneys also moved for an acquittal but was denied by the judge. The court will resume on Thursday when the defense presents their case. Questions are still traveling (ph) the trial after a flight log submitted by one of Epstein's former pilots were heavily redacted.

Here's "360s" Randi Kaye has details.


RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Frustration and grumbling as flight logs from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's private planes appear in court. Many of the names redacted blacked out, but to protect whom. In some cases, alleged victims names were hidden. But who are the others on board? And why haven't they been named publicly? Defense lawyer Christian Everdell raising the issue during testimony by one of Epstein's longtime pilots saying quote, counsel for the government was referring to certain flights and noting that Epstein and/or Maxwell were on the flights and then would say and others without naming those individuals.

Judge Allison Nathan responded in agreement also wondering why so many names have been kept from view, calling the flight logs quote, overly redacted. Prosecutor Maureen Comey tried to explain saying, there was no particular reason why she obscured some of the names. Adding, she didn't think they were relevant to the question she was asking.

The judge seemed to have had enough and insisted that more of the flight logs be shared in court. The prosecutors citing how time intensive that will be asking to be given the long weekend break to work it. But that didn't stop some in the courts overflow room from reportedly suggesting the case had been rigged to keep some people out of the spotlight. And this isn't the first time prosecutors in the government's case appear to be operating under cloak and dagger. When an alleged victim named Carolyn (ph) testified this week, she told the court she had been to Epstein's Palm Beach home more than 100 times, usually two to three times a week.

But the question is, who else was there? Carolyn said Maxwell and Epstein were often there, but also testified that Epstein brought two male friends on different occasions into the massage room. She never said who they were nor was she asked by the prosecution to elaborate. She also shared how at other times older women joined in and how a different woman came another time.

And there was more apparent secrecy last week, this time in the form of a video. In court prosecutor showed a 40-minute video taken back in 2005 during a search of Epstein's mansion. The video was hidden from public view and just shown to the jury. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney argued it sent the impression his home was quote, a domicile of debauchery. Arguing 39 minutes of the video should have been in the public domain. The judge agreed with the defense ruling that several photos from inside the home and a redacted version of the Epstein Palm Beach house walkthrough video can be published for the public despite originally being fired under seal.



COOPER: Randi, why would the flight logs be redacted at all there's so many conspiracy theories about who was on those flights. Why not just publish the whole thing?

KAYE: Absolutely. Now, we know that the prosecutors are going to work through the weekend, they've asked for some extra time to try and clear some of those names. So we should hopefully find out who some of these other people who might have been on these flights were maybe even as early as next week. But as you said Anderson, the question is why haven't those names been released already?

There's a few theories about that, perhaps, the prosecution is trying to keep a very narrow focus for the jury. They don't want them distracted by some of these high profile names, if indeed that's what's in these flight logs floating around the courtroom. They want them hyper focused on Ghislaine Maxwell and the allegations against her.

Another theory might be that the prosecution is trying to protect some of these people who might be high profile, who might be in these flight logs, who didn't ask to remain anonymous, like some of these alleged victims.

So, we just don't know. But we do know some of the people who weren't listed in these flight logs from a couple of the pilots who already testified in the trial. We know Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, the actor Kevin Spacey, they've been on these flights but I should note that there isn't any wrongdoing connected to any of those people in court as related to this case, Anderson.

COOPER: Yes. Randi, appreciate it. Thanks.

We'll be right back.



COOPER: The news continues. Let's hand over to Michael Smerconish in "CNN TONIGHT."