Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

No Officers Charged Directly With Breonna Taylor's Death; Interview with Cindy McCain. Aired 4-4:30p ET

Aired September 23, 2020 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN CNN HOST: And their statement is: "Make no mistake. We will keep fighting this fight in Breonna's memory. We will never stop saying her name."

Charles, thank you so much for being with me this hour. I really appreciate it.

And thank you all. We're continuing to follow this breaking news.

"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" picks up right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

And we're going to start with breaking news in our national lead.

Right now, there is a very heated face-off going on between protesters and police in Kentucky, where a grand jury this afternoon indicted and the state attorney general charged one police officer after the deadly police shooting of Breonna Taylor in Louisville back in March.

But Taylor's family and those protesting are angry that no officers have been charged with killing Breonna Taylor. Their lawyer is calling the decision by the Kentucky attorney general -- quote -- "outrageous and offensive."

The scene in Louisville is very tense. In the last few minutes, it has escalated, with large crowds of demonstrators filling the streets and facing off against law enforcement officials, police using batons on the crowd, even appearing to push down some protesters. There's some reports of pepper balls as well.

The city will go under a curfew at 9:00 p.m. this evening, we're told, with the National Guard on standby.

The grand jury did indict former Detective Brett Hankison on three charges of wanton endangerment. That means he endangered people in other apartments when he fired 10 shots. It's an action that got him fired back in June. The other two officers who fired shots have not been charged. And the attorney general says his investigation found that their use of force was justified.

CNN's Shimon Prokupecz is on the ground in Louisville, Kentucky.

And, Shimon, a lot of disappointment among individuals who thought that there would be harsher penalties for the officers who killed Breonna Taylor, who had done nothing wrong. What's going on where you are?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: OK, so yes, absolutely.

And we're seeing that anger expressed here. We have been -- the crowd here has been marching for well over an hour, maybe an hour-and-a-half year. And police in -- this is the Highlands section of Louisville -- decided to cut them off.

And as we approached about a block up from here, the police just -- they built a line. And they didn't allow the protesters to walk past it. And so there was a confrontation. And, as you can see, Jake, it's still continuing, with many of the people in the officers' faces.

And then the police moved in. They made several arrests. And, as you said, I did see the officers firing those pepper balls at some of the protesters as they were trying to push them back.

Some of the protesters were throwing things at the police, water bottles. Other items were being thrown at the police. But, for the most part -- and this is important -- they have been marching very peacefully. The confrontation, Jake, didn't start until the police cut off the road here.

We don't know why the police chose at that time to cut off the road. But you can see here in front of me there are people still milling about. And they're trying to figure out if the police are going to let them continue past this way.

But, right now, the police are not. They moved in aggressively. They pushed a lot of the protesters back and, as I said, made several arrests. But, again, this didn't start until the police decided to move in and close off this area, preventing many of the protesters from continuing to march through the streets here, Jake.

TAPPER: Shimon, is there anything in particular that the police might be guarding? Are they guarding a police station? Was there some indication that the marchers were going somewhere to cause any sort of violence?

I mean, why would they just stop them from marching?

PROKUPECZ: Yes, that's a great question, Jake, and I don't know, because we didn't -- we didn't know where they were marching to.

I didn't know. Our team didn't know. We just kept walking. And I could see the protesters started saying, everyone, move to the front. They had seen the officers here lined up. But I don't know what it is that's ahead of us here that would cause the officers any kind of concern where they just decided, OK, it was time to stop the marchers from protesting. And it was peaceful. And you can see behind me here there's -- some of the arrests that they made here. There are some of the people here on the sidewalk there. They're handcuffed. There's some signs that they were carrying. Those were here on the floor.

And, again, as you can see, there's this officer here with this orange long gun. They were firing at the protesters as they were dispersing the crowd, as they were telling them to move back. Some of the officers were firing those pepper balls.

I should note that the police chief said yesterday in a press conference that he wouldn't -- he would be the one to authorize, ultimately, if tear gas would be used, that if any of the officers decided to use tear gas, it would be up to him or his second in command.

[16:05:15]

We're being pushed back here some more.

But here, as you can see, Jake, they're trying to clear more people out.

TAPPER: All right, Shimon.

PROKUPECZ: Again, I don't know why...

TAPPER: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

PROKUPECZ: ... why they're doing this. The curfew doesn't start until 9:00, Jake.

TAPPER: Yes, Shimon, just -- OK, just get somewhere safe. We don't want you being fired -- shot with any pepper balls either. And continue to monitor the situation for us. Really appreciate it.

As we continue to monitor and watch what's going on in the streets of Louisville, I want to bring in CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Laura Coates and Major Neill Franklin, who worked in the Maryland State and Baltimore police departments to talk about what we're seeing.

Neill, when you're looking at these protests right now, what's the protocol here? How should law enforcement officers be handling it?

NEILL FRANKLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION: Well, first of all, listening to Shimon, I think he said that the protests were peaceful.

TAPPER: Yes.

FRANKLIN: And so, beginning with that, if the protests are peaceful, why are we taking any police action whatsoever? What we should be doing is assisting the protesters, right? What do

you need? What do you need? So, where are you going to walk? What do you need? Who's organizing the protests? Can we communicate with them?

By helping the protesters and by supporting the protesters, first of all, you're doing your job, because you have taken an oath to protect the rights, constitutional rights, First Amendment, freedom of speech, right? You have taken an oath to protect those rights of the protesters.

So offer your assistance to the protesters, so that it can remain peaceful. But when you show opposition by interfering with a peaceful protest, you're kind of asking for it.

TAPPER: Yes, I mean, de-escalation seems to be something that we don't see enough of when it comes to these marches.

Laura, let's talk about the decision by the grand jury and by the attorney general of Kentucky. I have to say, I find it a bit surprising that this officer has been indicted and charged with causing wanton disregard for other people by firing 10 shots into the apartment, but not for any crime related to Breonna Taylor actually being killed.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I mean, it is surprising and very hard to reconcile, isn't it, Jake, the notion that you could prosecute somebody for acting with indifference and reckless disregard for the prospective lives that could be lost, but no officer charged for the actual life that was lost, in Breonna Taylor.

And what we heard from the attorney general was, the real litmus test here and the reason for is because they could not conclude that that particular officer, the one that was charged with firing shots blindly and indiscriminately into a neighboring apartment that held three other occupants, that he -- there was an indication that a bullet from his gun was actually one that was shot into Breonna Taylor.

And they were not able to conclude which of the other remaining officers actually fired a fatal shot, one of six into Breonna Taylor.

But they also noted this very important thing that the A.G. kept harping on, and that was the notion that they believe it didn't really matter which of those two officers fired, because they were justified, he believed, in using lethal force because they had first been shot upon.

And so that was essentially the criteria they used to go forward. But it boggles the mind and, frankly, the soul to think that we're in the business of prosecuting the loss of a prospective life, but we ignore the loss of a life actually taken.

And, by the way, it wasn't that it was Breonna Taylor who even fired the shots.

TAPPER: Right. COATES: She was somebody who was in the apartment. It was her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who believed that they were going to be victimized by a home invasion.

And so the fact that her -- her life was lost, it seemed as though they were implying it seemed to be collateral damage. And the idea of collateral damage not evoking a visceral reaction talking about justice is just -- it's so hurtful to think about, but that's what it largely came down to, the disregard for what happened to her.

TAPPER: Neill, they say that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. And yet this prosecutor did not get a grand jury to indict the officer for anything having to do with the death of Breonna Taylor. Does it surprise you? Is this what you expected?

FRANKLIN: No, it doesn't surprise me. We see different things all across the country coming from prosecutors.

And you're right. If a prosecutor really wants to get an indictment, especially for a case like this, they can do it. I heard just a few seconds ago that they couldn't determine whose -- who actually fired the fatal shot for Ms. Taylor.

And I find that hard to believe, unless the rounds were so disfigured that they couldn't get ballistics on it. And I really find that difficult to believe, especially all the guns that a typical police department, especially the size of Louisville, they have already done ballistics on the actual guns that we carry, the firearms that we, the police, carry.

[16:10:20]

They do that typically before they're even assigned to you. So, if you can recover the round, if it's in any fair condition, you can get ballistics off of it.

But you're right.

I just have to say something, Jake. Walking back, beginning with the raid, this was so wrong from beginning to end. And this is one of the reasons why Chief Andy Mills in Santa Cruz has put forth policy that no no-knock warrant is going to be approved to his department without his review and signature on it.

And that's the kind of reform that we need to see. Judges need to be looking at these warrants very closely. But, then again, the foundation of these botched grades that we're seeing all across this country, less -- a little less than 50,000 a year, is the failed war on drugs that we're not properly dealing with in this country.

The militarization of our police, whether it's a raid or whether it's what we're seeing now with protests, it's all because of this failed, unaddressed, faulty piece of public policy, the war on drugs.

TAPPER: And, Laura, the attorney general is starting up a task force to review the process for securing and executing search warrants in Kentucky, the attorney general of Kentucky, I should say.

So it appears that he's acknowledging, at least to a degree, that something may have gone wrong. But, based on the charges, no one is actually being held accountable for the death of Breonna Taylor.

COATES: That's correct.

And the task force looks at how they can take actions prospectively, not necessarily retroactively, which, of course, does nothing for the family or Breonna Taylor or Kenneth Walker or the three occupants of the adjacent apartment.

But it also is -- it's notable that none of the three officers, I believe, who actually executed the warrant were those to actually draft or apply for the warrant. So there's already a disconnect between those who carry it out and those who apply.

What they're looking for is to figure out -- most notably, there's this theory going around that perhaps they already had the intended suspect who was a part of whatever drug ring they thought was a part of this case, they already had that suspect either in custody or knew about his whereabouts, and then, at some later time, there's a discussion of whether the warrant at the time of execution was somehow changed or altered to reflect that they happened simultaneously.

And so there's a question now about not only the drafting and application for a warrant, but whether there was anything or any shenanigans going on that would undermine the public's confidence in the way in which it was applied for, carried out or later addressed.

So, all that's going to be fair game. And I would note that that's part of the issues with the civil litigation and civil settlement with the family to address how they could move forward and try to prevent these tragedies from going forward and hurting anyone else.

TAPPER: And, Neill, the ACLU reacted to today's decision, saying, in part -- quote -- "Today's charging decision is the manifestation of what the millions of people who have taken to the streets to protest police violence already know. Modern policing and our criminal legal system are rotten to the core" -- unquote.

Now, you are a former police officer. What's your reaction to that? Do you agree that modern policing and law enforcement is rotten to the core?

FRANKLIN: Well, you have to understanding -- have to understand something about the history of policing, especially when it comes to black and brown people in this country.

When you look at the history of policing in this country and where it was born from, what it was born out of, which is slave patrols in the South and protection of property in the North, the model of policing in this country has never, ever been for the benefit of black and brown people in this country.

We need a new model, we need a new paradigm. And this is -- this is no sleight against the men and women who work hard every day. And I'm talking about those police officers who are really -- who really sign up to do good work in their communities.

And, believe me, we have our problem eggs. What I'm talking about is a system, a system that has never been right in this country for the benefit of not just black and brown people, but poor people as well. So we have got to figure this out.

And there are a number of police chiefs and sheriffs across this country that are looking forward to creating a new policing paradigm, a new model of policing in this country.

And we should never, ever consider doing such a thing without the input of the community, the people that we are serving. We're supposed to be one, in and of the same. So the people have to dictate what that new model of policing is going to look like and how we're going to serve them going forward.

TAPPER: Laura, I'm being told that, actually, it's an Officer Cosgrove that fired -- that was determined to have fired the fatal shot.

[16:15:08]

So, just --

COATES: So, the correction to be made, and I want to clarify that. The attorney general did not say that he was not aware of which of the officers were firing on Breonna Taylor. The question was because only one of the shots was actually fatal, one of the six contributed immediately to their death, they said. They weren't able to determine which of those particular -- as opposed to the other officer, but in and of itself, it was irrelevant to the overall inquiry.

The most disturbing aspect of it, and that is the idea that because they found the officers justified in using lethal force, ultimately did not matter to them legally speaking who delivered the fatal shot, because they were justified in the use of force anyway.

And so, that's why it did not lead to a prosecution, they say. But you're right, they are able to determine which particular bullet. But in the idea of whether it was relevant legally to a prosecution, it was not.

TAPPER: Neil, I want to --

MAJOR NEILL FRANKLIN (RET.), FORMER OFFICER, MARYLAND STATE & BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENTS: Jake, can I say something real quick --

TAPPER: Well, I want to -- I want to push back on something -- not pushback, I'll just ask you about something, and then go on and make your point. But that is I heard an interview with Congresswoman Val Demings of Florida, former police chief, I believe, from Orlando, or at least the surrounding area. And she said that she does not support de-funding the police because the minority communities are the ones who depend upon police more than any other community and that diverting funds from police would end up hurting minority communities, black and brown people.

This is obviously a black woman, a former police officer, a member of Congress, police chief, member of Congress, saying that.

How does that square with what you said?

FRANKLIN: So, it's not just that simple. We're not just talking about taking money away from the police and doing nothing with it, is what de-funding the police sounds like. What we're talking about is divesting to invest -- divestment, investment. Investing in those services, those needed services within our neighborhoods and communities, mental health, nutrition, education, housing, dealing with our homeless population, and all those things that contribute to crime.

If we want to solve crime long term, improving public safety for the long term in this country, we've got to start shifting resources from public safety, from corrections, from policing, to those things within our community that I just talked about that work for improving the economic conditions, improving the health, the environmental health. And so on within those communities. That's what we're talking about here.

TAPPER: So, Major Neill Franklin and Laura Coates, stick around. I'm going to come right back to you. And we're going to continue to cover what's going on in Louisville.

But I want to also note that coming up from the wife of the Republican presidential nominee to endorsing Joe Biden for president, what a difference a decade makes. Cindy McCain will join us live to talk about her decision.

Plus, we're continuing to follow the breaking news. Tense protests in Louisville. Demonstrators reacting to the charges in the Breonna Taylor case.

We're going to squeeze in a quick break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:22:46]

TAPPER: We are following breaking news. There is a chaotic scene unfolding in Louisville, Kentucky, where protesters are facing off with police after the announcement of some charges in the Breonna Taylor case for wanton endangerment. But not for manslaughter or murder of Breonna Taylor. We're going to have much more of that breaking news in just minutes.

But I want to turn now to an unprecedented endorsement for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Cindy McCain, widow of the late Senator John McCain, is now backing Biden. Her endorsement comes 12 years after her husband was the Republican nominee for president.

But now, Mrs. McCain is rebuking the Republican Party's nominee, President Trump. She joins us now. Cindy, thanks so much for joining us. I appreciate it.

CINDY MCCAIN, WIDOW OF LATE SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: Thank you.

TAPPER: I have to say I've known you -- I've known you for 21 years. I've covered you and your family over two --

MCCAIN: A long time, yeah.

TAPPER: -- two John McCain presidential campaigns.

In 1999, if someone had told me that you would be endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate, I would not have believed them.

(LAUGHTER)

MCCAIN: I certainly understand that. I wouldn't have believed it. So, I'm just glad to be a part of this campaign and glad to be, you know, obviously listening and able to be helpful within this -- within this issue of electing Joe Biden.

But let me say, if I may, first. I pray for the community of Louisville right now. This is a perfect example of why it's so necessary to listen to our communities, listen to people of color, of different people that are different, people that are the same.

We have got to -- we have to sit down now and really try to mend this. And Joe Biden's the one person that can do that.

TAPPER: In announcing your endorsement of Biden, you wrote, quote: There's only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is Joe Biden.

So, what values are you talking about? Because, obviously, you're a longtime Republican. I know you disagree with Joe Biden on a number of things. What values does he stand up for that you support?

MCCAIN: Well, integrity, character, courage, empathy, and -- you know, things that make a person a good president.

[16:25:04]

It's been -- it's been -- for me, it's been very tragic to watch this -- the year 2020 unfold for the obvious reasons. But also for the ones that aren't so obvious. And Joe -- Joe is the one person that, as you know, worked across the aisle with my husband on numerous issues, and did it civilly.

There was no discourse or no, you know, hatred spewed. It was -- he did it civilly and he did it with the respect of the people involved and, of course, respect for our country.

And so, Joe is the one person I know, because I know him. I've known him for 40 years. I know he's the one that can do this and that will do it. TAPPER: One of the things you've talked about when you -- in

endorsing Biden is that you both have had sons who served in the military. Obviously, Beau Biden, his late son, served in the military. Your sons Jack and Jimmy serve.

None of the president's children have served, and then, of course, there's that story in "The Atlantic" where the president is said to have referred to those who have served as suckers.

What's your take on that? Is that -- did that factor into your decision?

MCCAIN: Well, it didn't help it. I mean, it -- for obvious reasons, I do not believe that the young men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice are losers and suckers. And I do not believe my sons in all of the other sons and daughters around the country are losers and suckers. I happen to respect them and want to make sure that they're safe and secure. So it did -- I did resent that a little bit.

But that's why we need Joe because Joe has walked the shoes of this. He's a Blue Star parent like I am. He understands the military, and he understands the young men and women and the families, more importantly, that are sacrificing.

TAPPER: President Trump is about to make another nomination to the Supreme Court. I have to say I think that if your husband were still alive, and I wish he were, he would be supporting for, voting for President Trump's nominee, in all likelihood.

What's your message to Republicans who say, look, I don't like everything the president does, but he appoints conservative judges and justices, and they further the agenda, I believe and that's enough for me?

MCCAIN: Well, the people I'm hoping to reach out to are certainly everywhere across the board. but particularly women. And I know many, many women are on the fence about they are not comfortable with everything -- with everything that's going on right now, but they also are not sure they want to support Vice President Biden.

I hope that they will follow me and listen to me and know that stepping outside your comfort zone might be the right thing to do in this race. And so, I'm hoping that I can lead people, you know, to help with a victory for Joe Biden in November.

TAPPER: You said you're staying a Republican. You're not changing your registration. Are you concerned that the Trump presidency will do long-lasting damage to the Republican Party?

MCCAIN: Well, I think there has been damage done, but I believe in the great spirit of the United States of America. And I think those things can be mended and healed.

What -- what we -- what has been missing here is this divisive attitude towards right and wrong on Capitol Hill. In many cases, nobody's right or wrong. It's just -- it's just a matter of opinion. And working together civilly is the only way we can handle this.

I remember John as a young congressman working across the aisle with Tip O'Neill. And Tip -- you know, they didn't agree on much of anything at all, but the two of them remained friends because they respected each other and believed they were doing it for the good of the country. And that's the same with Joe Biden.

TAPPER: You have a big Senate race in Arizona between Republican Senator Martha McSally. She was appointed to fill your husband's seat, and former astronaut and husband of Gabby Gifford's, Mark Kelly. Are you going to vote for Mark Kelly?

MCCAIN: I'm not going to talk about that right now. I'm here to talk about Joe Biden. I wish both candidates well and -- in this race. I know it's a tense time.

But I'm here to give you the reasons why I believe Mark -- or I believe Biden is the person that to do -- to -- that we should support and believe in for the next -- for the next four years.

TAPPER: Last question for you, Cindy, because I know you have to go. In my last interview with your husband for whom you know I had -- I had great regard, I asked him how he -- how he wanted to be remembered. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: How do you want the American people to remember you?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): He served his country.

[16:30:00]