Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
January 6 Panel Up For Next Round After Explosive Primetime Hearing; Uvalde School District Police Chief Breaks Silence; Parkland Survivors X Gonzalez And Jaclyn Corin Speak Out; Anti-Abortion Clinic In Upstate New York Allegedly Firebombed. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired June 10, 2022 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Crime Stoppers and he has met with the Collins family. He says Lopez was a convicted murderer serving a life sentence, a member of a Mexican drug cartel, and should never have been allowed on the bus.
ANDY KAHAN, HOUSTON CRIME STOPPERS: This was well thought out methodical and planned in a cartel-like fashion. This was almost like watching an El Chapo escape scenario in real life that resulted in the massacre of five people.
LAVANDERA (voice over): Ed Lavandera, CNN, Centerville, Texas.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Thanks so much for joining us.
AC 360 starts now.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: After making headlines and getting eyeballs, the question now after a powerful primetime opening night comes down to this: What's next? What will come of the house January 6th hearings?
John Berman here in for Anderson.
The answer to that will depend on the answers to a string of other questions. Can the Committee in the coming weeks make the ambitious case it laid out last night? What will the Justice Department, which has already brought hundreds of charges in connection with the Capitol assault do with information the Select Committee has uncovered? And will these hearings generate the kind of political consensus that might be needed before the Attorney General decides to aim as high as the Select Committee is already suggesting might be necessary?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.
You will also hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on January 6th, a crime defined in our laws as conspiring to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States or to oppose by force the authority thereof. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: When Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney said those words, plot to commit seditious conspiracy, while putting the former President at the pinnacle of what she called a seven-part plan to overturn the election and prevent the transfer of presidential power, the implication was hard to miss.
Prior to the proceedings, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he intended to watch the hearings and he apparently wasn't the only one. According to early estimates, despite efforts by some to ignore or distract from them, belittle or counter program against them, the hearing last night drew more than 20 million viewers, in short, a lot, and we'll talk about the impact and all the questions we just raised.
We begin though with a question we already have the answer to: How is the former President handling being accused of masterminding the greatest assault on democracy this country has ever seen? The answer: He is lashing out at his favorite child, and one time White House adviser, Ivanka Trump.
Here is what she told the Committee about then Attorney General Bill Barr's conclusion that her father's election fraud claims were unfounded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?
IVANKA TRUMP, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he said -- was saying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Okay, so here's how the former President reacted today on his social network, quoting now, "Ivanka Trump was not involved in looking at or studying election results. She had long since checked out and it was in my opinion, only trying to be respectful to Bill Barr and his position as Attorney General." Parenthetically, "He sucked."
Call it Ivanka meets bus under carriage.
I want to bring in CNN's Kaitlan Collins for the perspective she gained from her extensive tour of duty covering the Trump White House. Kaitlan, even by Trump's standards, does it surprise you that the former President was unable to resist throwing shade at his own daughter?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think it's a yes and no, because of course, this is a tactic we've seen the former President employ so many times with so many people that were certainly central to his orbit. Secretaries of State, Chiefs of Staff, his own attorneys that had worked for him for decades. But to see him do it with his own daughter, to put that space in
between the two of them the way he is doing so today after that hearing, after seeing her testimony, which was you know, kind of one of the most riveting parts of the entire hearing, seeing his own daughter talk about how she did not believe his election lies and she took the Attorney General at his word.
And of course, that was a time when the relationship between former President Trump and then Attorney General Bill Barr had really soured because he wouldn't back up his claims, even if he wasn't being as public about that as he is now acting as he was. It's still notable to see the former President coming out and trying to dismiss his own daughter's testimony about what was happening inside the White House by arguing that she was checked out.
And I should remind people, she testified for about eight hours. So, the idea that this is the end of the testimony we're going to see from his daughter is very unlikely.
BERMAN: Yes, it does leave the question: Is there more there? How does what Ivanka Trump told the Committee that she accepted Bill Barr saying there was no widespread election fraud square with what she was actually doing and saying in the days and weeks after the election?
COLLINS: Well, we've seen her messages were she was urging people to keep up the fight, telling people to keep fighting back against the fact that it was becoming clearer and clearer by the day that President Trump had not won the election.
But this idea that she was checked out and she wasn't really involved also doesn't line up with our own reporting, because obviously she was there until the end, you saw her exiting the White House with former President Trump the day of President Biden's Inauguration. But Bennie Thompson, who is the Chairman of the January 6th Committee was just talking about the proof that they have of what she actually knew about what was expected to happen on January 6.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): We have proof about Ivanka's participation with her daddy on a regular basis about what was going on. On January 6th, she was there in the White House.
And so what or who better, could have access to what was going on than one's own daughter? And for him to somehow insinuate that his daughter had checked out, is disingenuous on his part as a father. Daughters normally know what their fathers are doing, especially when there is a close relationship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And it certainly was a close relationship, still is a close relationship. The day of January 6th, there were very few people, John, who wanted to go into the Oval Office and speak with Trump that day. It was something that we had heard in real time as it was going on, a lot of people were avoiding the Oval Office, but the people who were going in, including Ivanka were trying to get former President Trump to call off his supporters, to tell them to go home, to leave the Capitol.
She was someone who had gone into the Oval Office many times. Keith Kellogg, who was Pence, his National Security Adviser, testified to the Committee about how tenacious she was going in there and talking to her father.
So the idea that she wasn't involved, or she wasn't really closely related to what was going on that day and the response that was coming out of the White House is obviously just divorced from reality.
And I should note, she went and testified for about eight hours to this Committee and Trump told "The Washington Post," he basically gave Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner his blessing to go in there. They did not have to do so under subpoena. They didn't want to end up in a situation that Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro has ended up in.
And so they went in there willingly and testified and it was for hours. And I think that's what's a really notable aspect of seeing Trump come out and dismiss her and try to put some distance between her is surprising, but not really that shocking, given of course, it's something he's done before.
It does speak to the levels that he'll go to, to try to explain away what was happening on that day -- John.
BERMAN: And again, as you say, Kaitlan, it begs the question, what else did she say? And also maybe for future discussion, what's the nature of her current relationship with her father?
Kaitlan Collins, thank you so much for being with us.
More now on the larger what's next questions? For that, we're joined by CNN legal analyst, Norm Eisen, he served as special counsel on the first Trump impeachment as White House Ethics czar in the Obama administration before that, as Ambassador to the Czech Republic; also CNN contributor and former Watergate hearing star witness, John Dean.
John, I'm going to start with you. Obviously, these hearings are not a Court of law, but if you are Attorney General Merrick Garland tonight, and you're processing what you've seen, and what you expect to see next week, what's going through your mind?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You're watching these hearings very closely. To use the Watergate analogy, Archibald Cox, by this time had taken place or become a special prosecutor when the hearing started, and he tried to stop the hearings. He didn't want them televised for fear they would result in corrupting the trials or not being able to get a good jury.
So Attorneys General and prosecutors watch these very closely for what they can have implications on any investigation or later trial or indictment that they might bring. So, they're paying very close attention.
BERMAN: So Norm, according to CNN's reporting, Justice Department officials were watching for what kind of possible crimes the Committee believes it has uncovered. What evidence does Attorney General Garland need for possible prosecutions in your opinion, and what does it seem that the Committee has and doesn't have so far?
NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: John, thanks for having me back, and always wonderful to be on with the other John.
I think we need to ask the question a little differently, because it's not just Attorney General Garland, John, it's also the Fulton County, Georgia, the Atlanta DA, Fani Willis, who is moving even more quickly with her special grand jury to possible criminal charges.
So what do these two sets of prosecutors need? They need sufficient proof to bring a case. We already have a Federal Judge that says Trump likely committed to Federal crimes, John. Obstruction of Congress, that's 18 USC 1512 by trying to blow up the hearings, the recognition of his certification of his electors on January 6th, and conspiracy to defraud the United States, and that's where we get into the seven-part plan that was laid out yesterday.
I think there was already substantial evidence. That's why a Federal Judge said it is likely Trump committed these crimes and we heard more last night. The most important, number one was Bill Barr; number two was Ivanka Trump. They showed Trump knew he had lost this election, so all of his activity was corrupt.
And finally, for the Georgia prosecutor, we got reports, perhaps Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State. He of the infamous Trump telling him in a tape recorded call, John, "Just find 11,780 votes. So the evidence is accumulating.
BERMAN: So John, is there any risk of the DOJ should pursue a criminal case against high-level people involved in the insurrection leaning too heavily on the roadmap put forth by the Committee? Could a defense lawyer argue that politics and criminal cases are not supposed to overlap?
DEAN: They won't rely exclusively on what the Congress is doing. They'll have their own grand jury, they'll collect their own evidence. I think they are collecting their own evidence right at this time.
They have witnesses that the committee may or may not know of. Justice does not need the Hill to help them.
BERMAN: So Norm, in terms of what's to come, Jake Tapper asked Chairman Bennie Thompson if there are going to be witnesses that describe actual conversations between extremist groups and anyone in Trump's orbit. The answer was, yes, there will be. Legally speaking, how damning could that evidence be?
EISEN: Depending on how you define orbit, John. It could be very damning. If Trump can be shown to have been a part of the planning of the violence where he is on notice of the violence, the more dangerous that evidence is to him, so we'll see.
BERMAN: All right, Norm Eisen and John Dean, thank you both, so much for being with us.
On a related note, the former President's attorney and a man once known as America's mayor is now facing the possibility of losing his license to practice law in the nation's capital.
A new filing from the D.C. Bar accuses Rudy Giuliani of violating Pennsylvania's Rules of Professional Conduct. According to the filing, Giuliani pushed unsubstantiated election fraud accusations in a Pennsylvania Federal Court on behalf of the former President.
CNN asked Giuliani's attorney for comment, but got no response. Giuliani has already been suspended from practicing law by the New York Bar.
Next for us tonight, a look ahead to what we can expect to see in Monday's televised January 6th hearing. Abby Phillip and Carl Bernstein join us for that.
And later, Uvalde, for the first time, the Police Chief who was supposed to be in charge is speaking out. For starters, he seems to be saying he actually wasn't in charge, that he actually didn't issue any orders, and it gets even harder to believe than that.
BERMAN: Looking ahead to Monday's installment, daytime this time of the January 6th hearings. Last night, Vice Chair Liz Cheney said it will focus on the idea that the former President knew he had lost the election, but still engaged in what she called a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information.
Joining us now with more on what to expect, CNN's Ryan Nobles.
Ryan, what else are we expecting to hear from the Committee on Monday and beyond?
RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, what we saw last night was really just a tease for a months' long worth of hearings where the Committee is going to lay out in great detail and specificity all the evidence that they have that they believe points to the fact that Donald Trump was part of a conspiracy to undermine the election results and prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and they believe that happened in seven steps and that's why they've scheduled seven hearings to cover each one of those topics.
You mentioned, the topic on Monday is going to deal with Trump peddling the false claims about the election. The key there is that they're going to show that he knew that he didn't win the election, but kept pushing in that respect. Then Wednesday, they plan to focus on the idea that he put a pressure
campaign on the members of the Department of Justice and even attempted to install his own Attorney General to try and get them to investigate claims of fraud in other ways to interrupt the election results.
Now, this is all part of a pattern by the Committee. They want to demonstrate that this isn't just words, this isn't just theater, that they actually have substance to back it up.
And, for instance, one of the things that they claim, John, that points to this idea that some of the people involved in this knew they were doing the wrong thing is that they say that there were Members of Congress that actually asked for pardons. And one of them in particular is Congressman Scott Perry.
Perry putting a statement out today saying that these claims are absolutely false, said he never attempted to do that. He never lobbied on behalf of other Members of Congress as well. But what's important here, John, is that Representative Cheney said that they have specific evidence that proves this claim. And they also say that Perry wasn't the only one. CNN has reported the names of three other congressmen as well.
The Committee will now have that responsibility of showing that evidence and proving that point, and it is something that they promised to do over these next six hearings that will take place over the next two weeks -- John.
BERMAN: On several fronts, they did set a bar and now, we will see how they meet it. Ryan Nobles, thank you very much for being with us.
Joining us now for their take on what to expect, CNN senior political correspondent and "Inside Politics" Sunday anchor, Abby Phillip; also with us, CNN political analyst, investigative reporter, and Watergate legend, Carl Bernstein. Carl has a great memoir, "Chasing History: A Kid in the Newsroom" and is coauthor with Bob Woodward of "All the President's Men" just out in a 50th Anniversary Edition.
Abby, I want to start with you. On Night One obviously, so much of the compelling moments came from these taped depositions from people inside Trump's inner circle. Ivanka Trump, Bill Barr, Jason Miller -- how do you think the Committee will balance that in their presentation going forward with live witnesses?
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think these taped depositions really are actually going to be the backbone of the impeachment presentation because they paint the picture behind the scenes, the people, some of whom were compelled by subpoena to come before the Committee and talk to them, who paint the picture of what was going on with President Trump on that day and in the months leading up to it.
There is no question that watching Ivanka Trump answer that question about whether or not she believed Bill Barr when he said the election wasn't stolen was a bombshell moment, and I'm sure that there are many other moments like that, watching Jared Kushner acknowledge that other members of the Trump administration threatened to resign because of what was going on. These are going to be significant moments, and there are others.
Now, the live testimony I think can be important, but I don't think that we should rule out just the power of these depositions. They are crisp, they're kind of lawyerly, and I think they're going to be very important in painting a chronological narrative, a fact narrative about what happened in the lead up to and on the day of January 6th.
BERMAN: And the Committee has complete control over the videotape versus a live witness. Carl, you've often talked about it was actually Republicans, President Nixon's own party, who ultimately pushed him out. Obviously, times are very different now.
Still, do you think the case being made by Liz Cheney, a Republican and ultimately her colleague, Adam Kinzinger, is landing on any Republican ears? Are you hearing any Republican say that they are beginning to hear and wonder about what else will be presented?
CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Not yet. We've got a ways to go, but I think we've got to say to ourselves, this is a pivotal moment in the history of the Republican Party, and a pivotal moment in the history of the United States. Because we now have the narrative that Abby just referred to, we now have in our building an airtight narrative by this Committee, which has done its work already.
They have the goods on a seditious President of the United States, a President who staged the coup to stay in office, the kind of thing that happens in banana republics, in authoritarian regimes around the world and now has happened in that Capitol that we see on the screen there.
It's extraordinary. It's audacious. He is a conspirator. He is a criminal. He is a constitutional criminal. And he is a President like no other in our history.
And so the Republican Party has to decide what does it do with a knowingly obvious criminal, seditious President? And that's what the Republicans have to do, but there's a bigger question about the people of this country and how they react.
Donald Trump said in response to this, to last night's hearing, the most patriotic thing I've ever seen describing the January 6 insurrection, and anyone who disagrees is, quote, "an enemy of the nation." I think we need to pause and say to Americans, to Republicans, "Who is this man? What does he represent?" Why are continuing leaders of this country throwing in their lot with this criminal, seditious conspirator?
Why are so many people in this country following his every turn? Because I think part of it is, people are looking for information all over the web, all over the media to reinforce what they already believe, and I just don't think this is Republicans only. I think it's a general trend in our culture. But if people are open minded, and hopefully they are, including a few
members of the Senate of the United States, you know, I did a story on this air, naming 21 Republican senators who actually disdain Donald Trump and have said so to people all around them. There weren't denials of that story.
I got a call a couple of days later from another former senator who had left a couple of years earlier and said, "Carl, the number is really 40." Forty Senators, U.S. Republican senators who despise Donald Trump, are afraid of Donald Trump, have been craven and now, what happens in this country rests partly on their shoulders in how they respond to these stunning hearings.
BERMAN: Well, Abby law one thing is clear, which is that the case as it is being made, at least last night, had an audience, a big audience, 20 million people. It was primetime, which obviously helped that, but I do wonder what you think the level of interest might be and how sustainable it is going forward.
PHILLIP: Yes, an audience about the size, I guess of, Sunday Night Football, I mean, a pretty major event. And look, the Committee knows that they don't have a lot of primetimes. That is a very rare space, and they're using it judiciously.
They are not -- they knew that this was their opportunity to speak directly to probably what will be their largest audience in this entire presentation and so that's why you saw Liz Cheney and Bennie Thompson laying out not just the evidence that they wanted to present on that day, but also an overview of what people would hear over the course of the next few weeks.
I don't think that they're going to have this kind of audience going forward. A lot of the details that we're going to get in the next few hearings are going to be for a smaller and smaller group of people.
But they have promised evidence, they have promised proof of the things that they are saying, and I think people are going to be looking for that. And then when it's all over, you could probably expect people will come back to see how it is wrapped up in a bow.
So the Committee understands, they're not going to have everybody's attention for all of this. But last night was a big night, it was in primetime and they knew that they had to really -- they had to bring it. And that's why I think what you saw was so poignant. It was designed to be very emotional in nature and it was also designed to give people a sense of just the scope and the depth of what they have in terms of evidence.
BERMAN: Abby Phillip, Carl Bernstein, thank you both so much.
Coming up, the Uvalde School District Police Chief who has come under intense criticism is breaking his silence. He is now saying he didn't keep officers from breaching the scene and he was not the one in charge. We have details, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: Uvalde School District Police Chief Pedro Pete Arrendondo has spent weeks avoiding questions about law enforcement response to the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School and specifically why it took 70 plus minutes to breach that classroom door and take out the shooter. Earlier this month, he told our Shimon Prokupecz, he'd released more information when quote, the families quit grieving.
Well, he has broken his silence to the Texas Tribune and among the revelations despite being identified as the incident commander by Texas DPS. He didn't consider himself the one in charge. Arrendondo says he never stopped anyone from breaching the door quote, I didn't issue any orders in that because it was locked and reinforced with a steel jam. Officers were unable to kick it in. And Arrendondo says he left both of his radios outside the school because he thought they'd slow him down.
CNN has reached out to DPS and the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District for comment. Here with more is Omar Jimenez in Uvalde.
Omar, in addition to what we're learning from the Texas Tribune, you sat down with the parents of an injured student. What did they tell you?
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, for starters, they say he's just not the same as he was before this shooting happened. He actually came to this memorial site with his parents but just saw the faces of his teachers, his classmates, his friends, looking back at them all part of the invisible scars for this 10-year-old survivor who embodies what many in this community are dealing with that it's not just about what happened more than two weeks ago at this point, it's about the feelings that have persisted day in and day out.
JIMENEZ (voice-over): In the chaotic moments after the shooting, they grabbed their injured 10-year-old son get a better Gilberto Mata through a bus window and students were being evacuated.
MICHAEL MARTINEZ, PARENT OF CHILD INJURED IN ROBB ELEMENTARY SHOOTING: Me and my brother and I were trying to get out of the window because he came to the back of the window, get out of the window and he just he hopped out.
JIMENEZ (voice-over): He was then rushed to the hospital, a bullet and ricocheted into his leg. Not long beforehand. He was in class when according to his FBI interview transcript summarize by his attorney, the gunman walked in with what Mata described as creepy music blaring from his phone and said it's time to die. You guys are mine.
His two teachers, Irma Garcia, and Eva Mireles were killed many of his classmates too, including his best friend, Jailah Silguero. According to his family, he would always tell Silguero's mom, he would protect Jailah.
CORINA CAMACHO, PARENT OF CHILD INJURED IN ROBB ELEMENTARY SHOOTING: We had told her I'll protect her. That day and he told her I'm sorry. I couldn't protect her.
JIMENEZ (on-camera): Did he see her get killed his best friend? He watched his best friend get killed right in front of him.
Silguero is among the 21 faces now living on in memorials and then the hearts of this community. Camacho and Martinez say their son has visited the memorial sites a different person than who he was before the shooting.
MARTINEZ: He don't like big crowds no more. He used to be like, let's go do this. Go, go do this.
CAMACHO: It makes me so mad. Or makes me sad too.
JIMENEZ (on-camera): (INAUDIBLE).
CAMACHO: Because it's not him. I just miss him like dancing around, picking on his little brother. Yes.
JIMENEZ (voice-over): It's part of why they're now exploring legal action, potential civil suits against law enforcement, the school district or even Daniel Defense the manufacturer of the gun used in the attack.
STEPHANIE SHERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR GILBERTO MATA, CHILD INJURED IN ROBB ELEMENTARY SHOOTING: Yes, this is the right to bear arms. But we also live in a society. We have a pattern and practice of 18 year olds during mass shootings. Yes, I believe I can make a products liability argument that you make a dangerous product and put it into the wrong hands just like anything else.
JIMENEZ (voice-over): Martinez and Camacho now face a difficult question with their son.
(on-camera): How is he ever going to be able to walk into a school again?
MARTINEZ: I don't know. I don't know if --
CAMACHO: Honestly we (INAUDIBLE) what we're going to do, but.
MARTINEZ: He's enough to face his fears. He's never going to put it behind them. They put a grown ass man they go to war they have PTSD can't even handle it. And I imagined what the little mind like that, a young mind what he has to go through. I'm never -- I'm never going to know, she's never going to know, you're never going to know and what he's what he's really going through.
BERMAN: Omar, in terms of legal action, you mentioned your piece. Are the family's heard from the gunmakers?
JIMENEZ: We haven't heard that up to this point. We've reached out to Daniel Defense multiple times at this point, but we haven't heard back the only thing they've posted is on their site calling what happened in evil act, John.
But I should also mention, of course, because of what Gilberto is struggling with and so many are struggling with here. There have been a number of mental health resources that had been available and places all across this community. We were just down at the local library earlier and people literally drove into town to see how they could offer their mental health services. The school district is also making sure there are trauma trained counselors as they describe them on their summer school campuses as well as available to parents, families and staff as well.
Earlier this week, we also spoke to a law enforcement chaplain who has told us a little bit about what he has had to deal with on that side speaking to some of the first responders who walked into rooms where presumably they would have seen the bodies of children or even just having to respond to something of this magnitude. John, this is something that is going to take a long time for this community to get passed, and they ever do.
BERMAN: No question, Omar. I know you've seen it firsthand. They're dealing with so, so much.
Omar Jimenez, thank you very much.
Coming up, in the wake of Uvalde, a renewed sense of urgency and momentum for the gun safety movement. And with that, a second March For Our Lives in Washington. The first came in the wake of the Parkland Florida massacre.
Up next, we'll talk to two Parkland survivors and co-founders of the march about why they hope this time is different.
BERMAN: As negotiations continue over an agreement on new gun safety measures at the federal level, activists are planning a second March For Our Lives tomorrow in Washington. The first march four years ago was organized in the wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, 17 students and faculty were killed and another 17 people injured, and a teen gunman opened fire with an AR-15 style rifle. It was the deadliest high school shooting in U.S. history.
Three days after the massacre, one of my guests tonight delivered a speech and became one of the most recognizable faces of the gun safety movement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) X GONZALEZ, CO-FOUNDER, MARCH FOR OUR LIVES: They say that no lies could have been able to prevent the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. We call BS that us kids don't know what we're talking about, that we're too young to understand how the government works. We call BS.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: X Gonzalez joins me now along with Jaclyn Corin, both are survivors of the Parkland shooting, and co-founders of March For Our Lives.
X four years ago, you helped reignite the gun safety movement. And yet there was little done at the federal level. Now people are saying this time is different. Do you agree?
GONZALEZ: Yes, honestly, I do. I think that, first of all, we have a different president now. And we have a very different organization of elected officials in terms of political leanings. And I think that the leaf has turned a little bit in the more positive direction, people are much more open to listening about the facts and are not as keen to make political jabs and score political points against each other.
BERMAN: Jaclyn, as you know, the Senate is in negotiations right now, for some sort of legislative action, a federal ban on assault weapons does not seem to be on the table. But lawmakers are talking about a ways to increase school safety, more money for mental health, maybe providing incentives for states to put in place red flag laws and incentives for states to broaden background checks to include juvenile records. And that might include some kind of a waiting period. Would that be enough?
JACLYN CORIN, CO-FOUNDER, MARCH FOR OUR LIVES: You know, it wouldn't be enough. But what we need to see right now is something. So if it's universal background checks, and money towards extreme risk protection orders or red flag laws, then we'll take it. But moving forward, we need to see more. We need to see, you know, federal waiting periods, we need to see a ban on assault rifles, we need to see a ban on high capacity magazines, because there are so many policies that need to work together to collectively end gun violence in this country. But yes, we're going to take what we can get now. Because if it's going to save one, two, three lives in the process, that's something.
BERMAN: I think people forget that you helped win some of these changes in the state of Florida, after Parkland.
X, what do you want to see happen then now at the national level?
GONZALEZ: Yes, some of the same stuff. For those of you who don't know, in Florida, we did manage to pass the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School Safety Act, which was the first time the NRA did not get what they were looking for in a Florida legislative process, which is a pretty big ego boost for us kids over here. But honestly, yes, anything, as Jackie said, anything is better than nothing. And it is a huge change, a huge positive change, that the law in Florida has managed to produce. There already instances of gun violence that have been stopped.
And it's proven that it's because of that law. And if we get a lot more of that on the federal level on the national level, it's only going to get better. There's it's really not that hard to do. It's right there.
BERMAN: Jaclyn, what can the country expect to see at the march tomorrow?
CORIN: I think the march will serve as a reminder to everyday Americans and politicians alike that there is serious momentum within the gun violence prevention movement, though the march in 2018 was four years ago now. We're going to come out just as strong in every corner of this country. You know we've seen a lot of social media activism during COVID. And I think sharing information via social media is very helpful. But taking to the streets in person, for everyone to visualize how widespread the support is for this movement across the country is going to be very powerful.
BERMAN: So X, we just saw a piece of the previous segment about a child who saw his best friends murdered, and his parents are wondering how he'll get through something like this. Can you just talk about how you dealt with what happened in your school?
GONZALEZ: Honestly, I didn't, you know, I'm in therapy now, I'm on antidepressants, I use medical marijuana, there's literally I do anything that I can to help myself get better. But at the end of the day, it's not like it didn't happen. And the only thing that I know, that could have stopped it is, you know, at the very least, the laws that we got put in place in Florida. If not, including other laws on a federal level.
And so, I think that it's vitally important for survivors everywhere for future victims, for people who have been impacted in any way. We need these laws to be passed. We need these laws to be thought of put on the table, you know, talked about and then passed, because at this point, it's ridiculous and incredibly embarrassing for the Senate to continually just deny that anything is anything is wrong, and for anything to be voted on.
BERMAN: Look, I get it. This doesn't end for either of you. I spoke to a survivor from Newtown who told me she still sleeps with the light on and that was 10 years ago.
Jaclyn, just how you get one bit of advice for the families in Uvalde tonight?
CORIN: I would say that I know what your community is going through because we went through it in Parkland. But there is light and there is hope. We've seen so much change since 2018. I mean, though we've not seen anything really done on the federal level. There has been over 150 state laws passed since 2018 that collectively have saved thousands of lives. So there is so much to be done and there is hope to be had. It just requires everyone in this country coming together and taking a stand.
BERMAN: X Gonzalez --
GONZALEZ: Yes, it really depends on people who understand the victims and will empathize with them even though they haven't gone through those experiences, because it shouldn't just be on the victims to make that change.
BERMAN: Well, X Gonzalez and Jaclyn Corin, you both have made such a difference. We all benefit from your energy. Thank you so much.
GONZALEZ: Thank you.
CORIN: Thank you.
BERMAN: Coming up, and anti-abortion clinic in Buffalo allegedly firebombed ahead of an expected Supreme Court decision on abortion rights. Our Randi Kaye has more on the mysterious attack, next.
BERMAN: This week, just hours before the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin warning of potential violence surrounding the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights. An anti-abortion clinic was allegedly firebombed by someone in upstate New York. Beyond that we don't know much there are a lot of unanswered questions.
"360's" Randi Kaye has more on the mystery.
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is all that's left of a women's clinic in Buffalo, New York after someone allegedly firebombed it this week.
JIM HARDIN, CEO, COMPASSCARE: All the glass is broken. Many of the doors are going to have to be replaced. First, all the floors. There's, you know, there's flood damage, because of you know, they had to put the fire out.
KAYE (voice-over): Jim Hardin is the CEO of CompassCare. He says their clinic was set on fire Tuesday around 2:30 a.m.
HARDIN: We're not exactly sure how they lit the fires.
KAYE (voice-over): Amherst Police, which is near Buffalo and looking into this case told me they are investigating this as an arson fire. But that's where the mystery begins. Like who did it and why. Hardin says he believes CompassCare was targeted because of the services they provide. It's an anti-abortion clinic, which offers what Harding calls ethical medical care to women considering abortion.
HARDIN: You'll see a sign over here with graffiti saying Jane was here. That represents Jane's Revenge. It's an abortion terrorist group.
KAYE (voice-over): At a press conference earlier this week, Hardin blamed the damage on a group called Jane's Revenge sort of.
HARDIN: They have said that they would strike again in different parts of the state on the lead up to the potential of Roe vs. Wade being overturned. And they have done that here. Apparently, we're not sure exactly who's done it.
KAYE (on-camera): What makes you think it was this group Jane's Revenge that attacked your facility?
HARDIN: They left their signature calling card number one with their spray painted message on the side of our buildings saying Jane was here.
KAYE (voice-over): Who exactly Jane's Revenge is still unclear. The group if they're a group at all remains anonymous. They've allegedly taken responsibility for a similar attack last month on a conservative organization that lobbies against abortion in Madison, Wisconsin. There a message spray painted on the building's wall read, if abortions aren't safe, then you aren't either.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm standing here in front of a sign that is threatening my life.
KAYE (voice-over): Madison Police tweeted that they are aware of a group claiming responsibility for the arson at Wisconsin Family Action and are working with federal partners to determine the veracity of that claim. And there have been other similar cases. A Florida doctor tweeted about damage to the South Broward Pregnancy Help Center where she volunteers. The spray painted message reads, if abortions aren't safe, then neither are you. Along with the words Jane's Revenge. And the same threat was also spray painted on this pregnancy center in Maryland. No suspects have been named or arrests made in any of these cases around the country.
Back in Buffalo, Jim Hardin says there were multiple security cameras at his clinic and the video is now in the hands of authorities.
(on-camera): Do you know what's on the video surveillance?
HARDIN: I have not personally reviewed the videos tapes.
KAYE (on-camera): Do you have any proof from law enforcement that it was Jane's Revenge? Any confirmation?
HARDIN: Law enforcement is by virtue -- by virtue of the nature of terrorism, that it's difficult to kind of hone in on the cells.
KAYE (on-camera): But just to be clear, at this point, you don't have any answers confirmed on who exactly did this to your facility?
HARDIN: If we did, they'd be arrested. KAYE (on-camera): Did you hear specifically from anyone who said they were Jane's Revenge or part of Jane's Revenge?
HARDIN: I can't comment on that right now. Less I don't want to interfere with the investigation.
KAYE: And John, the CEO tells me that his team has been threatened both online and in person. He said those threats do track with threats that he says he's seen from the so called group Jane's Revenge. He said he told the FBI and the local police about these threats. He also was able to confirm that there were multiple people seen on this surveillance video. He says that's now in the hands of authorities and he's waiting for more information.
But John once again, police here telling me they are looking at this as an arson investigation. They have not said anything about investigating this group Jane's Revenge. John.
BERMAN: Randi Kaye, thank you very much.
We'll be right back.
BERMAN: The news continues. So, let's hand it over to Laura Coates in "CNN TONIGHT." Laura.