Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Extreme Civil War Era Abortion Ban; Trump Loses Another Attempt To Delay Hush Money Trial; Trump Just Days Away From Start Of First Criminal Trial; Trump Keeps Calling For Release Of January 6 Defendants; Pennsylvania Judge Overturns Murder Convictions Of "Chester Trio" After Nearly 25 Years In Prison. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:40]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Arizona, going back to the civil war era for their abortion laws.

THE LEAD starts right now.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruling the state must comply with a 160- year-old law barring all abortions. The only exception to save a while pregnant woman's life, but no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest -- just the latest example of the abortion rights battle, heating up since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Reaction this hour, including Arizona Senator Mark Kelly.

Plus, Donald Trump rejected again in yet another attempt to delay the New York hush money trial, which is set to start in just six days. Can his legal team attempt another Hail Mary? We'll ask a former Trump attorney about those potential conversations.

And a traffic stop to turn deadly in Chicago, killing Dexter Reed. Police weapons fired 96 times and just 41 seconds. What does the body camera footage of this tragic case show? We'll show you.

(MUSIC)

TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

And we start with big news and our health lead. Early access to abortion in Arizona has been effectively wiped out. Today, the state Supreme Court upheld the law from the 1800s, which bans abortion in all cases, including rape, including incest, except when it's, quote, necessary to save a person's life. In addition, the civil war era law punishes providers who perform abortion procedures with two to five years in prison.

This is all a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court eliminating the constitutional right to abortion nearly two years ago, when the court overturned Roe v. Wade with its decision in Dobbs versus Jackson Women's health organization. The word Dobbs in fact, appears 22 times in the Arizona Supreme Court's 47-page opinion. Now, the law they refer to dates back to 1864, a time in our nation's

history when women in the United States were not allowed to vote, women in some states were not alone to own property Arizona itself was not even a state until 1912. And while there is a temporary hold on this Arizona decision, women in Arizona are now living in complete uncertainty, according to Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, who just spoke after the ruling this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. KATIE HOBBS (D), ARIZONA: It is a dark day in Arizona. We are 14 days away from this extreme ban coming back to life. It must be repealed immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, Democrats, including Governor Hobbs say this will energize and motivate voters come November already, abortion rights activists are saying they have enough signatures to add abortion to the 2024 ballot in hope of enshrining the right to abortion in Arizona's constitution.

Arizona, of course, is a swing state that President Biden flipped blue in 2020 by just over 10,000 votes. It's also sure to affect the consequential race for Arizona's pendingly empty Senate seat.

CNN's Natasha Chen is following all this closely.

So, Natasha, how was the Arizona Supreme Court able to resurrect this law? Kind of an ancient law, and especially with -- given the fact that in 2020, Republican Governor Ducey, who was the governor then, he signed a law that banned abortion after 15 weeks. Why -- why is that not now the law of the land?

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You can imagine that and that's why this court was supposed to, quote, harmonize these two seemingly different laws here. Why that is based on the court's logic today? In 2022, when that 15-week ban was passed, that was contingent on Roe versus Wade, and without Roe versus Wade, since it's been overturned, now, the state of Arizona and federal law, there's no independent right to access an abortion that would serve as the basis for that 15-week ban.

So it's the court's logic that the older law dating back to 1864, as you said was technically always on the books, except on hiatus while Roe versus Wade was in effect for about 49 years.

And so when Roe versus Wade was overturned, the court's logic is that, that older law is now back in effect. So you can imagine this is highly confusing. This is not the only state that's dealt with a lot of these similar types of issues.

You can see there on the map, how many states in orange there have banned or severely restricted abortion? Nearly all abortion is banned in Arizona where you see the star there. That's been because this ruling it will not be enforced for 14 days. That gives the parties some time here, the opportunity to raise

additional issues at a lower court if they want to. Now, no one who provided an abortion prior to this ruling will be subject to the penalty, which is between two to five years. In prison for the abortion provider and -- but at the same time, this is super confusing for a lot of people. Planned Parenthood saying that they are going to continue abiding by that 15-week ban for a short period of time, Jake.

TAPPER: But just to be clear, if this law does stand, a doctor who performs an abortion on, let's say, a 14-year-old girl who was raped by her brother, that doctor goes to jail for two to five years.

CHEN: If there is no reason that that 14 would have to have her life saved, that that is how the law reads. I should mention that there is a citizen effort right now trying to gathered ballot signatures for an initiative to put on the November ballot, asking voters to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution.

TAPPER: Natasha Chen, thanks so much.

Joining us now to discuss, senator from Arizona, Democrat Mark Kelly.

Senator, first of all, what's your reaction to the ruling? And for folks who don't live in Arizona, can you explain why the Arizona Supreme Court would roll this way?

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Well, Jake, let me start by saying this is a disaster for women in Arizona. Arizona women deserve the right to make their own decision about abortion and now they can't because of Donald Trump. So let's be clear about that.

Why did the Arizona Supreme Court do this? It's because Dobbs -- the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. It's the law of the land since 1973. And now, women have lost a fundamental right in their state.

TAPPER: Let's take a listen to Arizona State Senator Eva Burch today right after the rolling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EVA BURCH (D), ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: Somebody gave me a procedure so I wouldn't have to experience another miscarriage, the pain, the mess, the discomfort. And now, we're talking about whether or not we should put that doctor in jail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Abortion rights advocates say that they have the signatures to try and enshrine the right into Arizona's constitution, but that wouldn't happen until November and it wouldn't happen unless it passes.

Let's assume that they're successful in November. What happens for women and girls and abortion providers in Arizona from April until November? KELLY: Well, I think what happens is what's going to happen in 14 days, which means their lives our little are literally at risk. I mean, there will be women in Arizona that could die because of this ruling by the Supreme Court.

You know, let's be clear about this. This is what the former prime president wanted. He ended Roe v. Wade as we knew it, as it's existed for decades and put women across the country in a really terrible position. I've got a daughter and granddaughter in Arizona. I'd never thought I would see this happen. This is a law from 160 years ago, 48 years before Arizona was a state.

And now, as the state representative said, we're going to throw doctors into jail in Arizona for conducting a procedure that a woman needs.

TAPPER: So, you -- in addition to just saying it on my show, you said on Twitter or X earlier today, quote, this is the biggest step backward since the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Make no mistake. This is happening because of Donald Trump.

Do you think that this might energize voters to turn out to enshrine it into the constitution, to vote for Joe Biden, to vote for the Democratic Senate candidate for your open Senate seat?

KELLY: Well, I think voters, people in Arizona are obviously going to be really upset about this. But what matters the most is the health care of women. And I think they know who is responsible for this. I mean, they may realize that Donald Trumps specifically put justices under, the Supreme Court, to end Roe v. Wade, to take away a fundamental right to women. And I think because of that, you know, I think women get that also men who support women in this right to make their own decisions. I think they get that, too.

TAPPER: Research public -- published by the Economic Policy Institute last year suggests that women earn less money and stay in poverty longer when they don't have access to abortion rights. Is their beyond that fact? Were -- are you worried at all about how this might affect your state not because of what I just mentioned, but because of protect perhaps 18-year-old girls not wanting to go to the University of Arizona or Arizona state in the fall because of this or perhaps businesses that want a boycott, Arizona because of this.

[16:10:16]

Are you worried at all about that?

KELLY: Yeah, of course. Jake, but I think what a more worried about is what's next. I mean, if Donald Trump, I don't believe he's going to be reelected, but his, his next thing on his agenda to take away other rights. I mean, is it to take away the right to contraception from women -- not having heard a lot of that an Arizona yet, but maybe that is the plan of the former president, and others to go after the next right. We see, you know, IVF going away in Alabama could that be something that occurs in Arizona? I mean, this is an enormous step backwards for women's rights in the

state of Arizona. And we've got to figure out a way the forward here, you know, a national right to have this procedure, you know, it makes sense. It's something I support. I am a co-sponsor legislation to do that.

But what we could see from the former president and others as a national abortion ban.

TAPPER: He didn't rule it out when he gave his statement yesterday. He didn't rule it out.

KELLY: Well, and he also bragged about being responsible for the Dobbs decision for this right going away, and bragging that he's responsible for that means that he is responsible for what happened today in the Arizona legis -- in the Arizona Supreme Court.

TAPPER: Well, there's certainly nobody more responsible for those three justices being on the court or other than maybe Republican Leader Mitch McConnell?

KELLY: Yeah yes, certainly, right? And this court has been in favor of taking away this rights -- that this right, they've also talked about other rights like marriage, equality, and contraception, no ruling on that yet. But that could be the next step.

TAPPER: Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. Thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it.

This Arizona ruling comes just one day after Donald Trump suggested that abortion is being currently going to be decided by the states, although it's unclear if he would sign a national ban if one came across his desk.

Well, let's discuss more how today's decision and other battles over abortion could play out at the ballot box in November and later, three men in Pennsylvania who insisted they were in prison for a murder they did not commit. The evidence, DNA evidence that convinced passionate attorneys these men were right. Well talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:16:32]

TAPPER: In our politics lead Donald Trump just yesterday said abortion will be left to the states and today in Arizona, that means going back 160 years for its abortion law, which bans all abortion, except in cases when the life of the mother is at stake.

Let's talk about this with our panel.

Brianna, some statistics show that almost one in four women in the United States will have an abortion by the time they reach age 45. Before we get to the politics of this all, this is a very intense personal decision for women and girls all over the country, but specifically in Arizona today. What are you hearing from the medical community in Arizona on what this means for people?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I spoke to the medical director for Planned Parenthood in Arizona today and she said that already they have patients who are getting abortion care and they're wondering if they're able to get it already. Now this is going to be two weeks before this goes into effect, but people are incredibly concerned and those are just the ones who are looking for care here immediately. So that doesn't even speak to the folks who might be looking for it, obviously farther out.

And to be clear, this will go into effect in two weeks. The medical director said there'll be providing abortions to the last day that they can. But after that, they're not going to, even though the attorney general in Arizona making it clear, they're not planning to prosecute providers no one's hanging their hat on that because you have counties that might have different ideas about another going to prosecute and you also -- who's the attorney general going to be in the future? They might retroactively prosecute someone who violates this.

TAPPER: Oh, that's interesting. Hadn't thought about that.

Kristen, Donald Trump yesterday was trying to pretend that he had some moderate position on this, even though Senator Kelly accurately states this is because of Donald Trump pointing the justices that overturned Roe v. Wade paving the path to this today.

Does this upset politically the Trump people, the Trump campaign?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They expected this. I mean, national abortion ban would do the exact same thing. When I talked to senior advisers about why they landed on the states after these extensive conversations that Trump had had with these social conservatives were really encouraging him to back a national abortion ban, and then these more moderate conservatives who were saying that's a really bad idea politically, the argument of the more moderate conservatives who wanted him to say that this was the states decision, leave it up to the states, is that no matter what, because Donald Trump is the modern-day architect of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, he's going get blamed for all of these individually state actions anyway.

So if he's going to get blamed anyway, why not take the less or more popular decision which was deposited to the states or at least help most helpful politically than go to this national abortion ban, which they believe would be more detrimental to him across the country.

TAPPER: So, obviously, Republicans are concerned about the politics of this. And when you look at the map, Eva, let's take a look. We've seen voters since the Dobbs decision, since Roe v. Wade was overturned, voters in Ohio, California, Michigan, Vermont, Kansas, Kentucky and Montana all voted to either in trying or protect abortion rights.

And today, we saw President Biden immediately blame Trump and Republicans for what happened in Arizona. Here's part of the statement, quote. This ruling is a result of the extreme agenda of Republican elected officials who are committed to ripping away women's freedom.

This is an issue that Democrats feel confident they are on the right side of the American people on, in terms of popular support for their position.

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Jake, and listen, they are going to continue to lean on this issue to drive turnout. What we have seen, I covered the Kentucky's governors race last year, is that Democrats are really focused on making this a conversation about health care, about personal freedom and then arguing Republicans are a threat to both. And what they're doing is elevating women's personal stories. They don't have to talk so much about the threat of what's to come.

We have seen in states that already have restrictions in place, women have these really harrowing stories and what Democrats are doing. There was a recent house field hearing in Florida not too long ago. They're bringing these women out there directly and having them share their own stories and say, this is emblematic of what could happen nationwide.

TAPPER: Let me put that map up again about the recent votes since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Now you can say, of course, California is going to do that, but you don't win in Montana, in Kansas, in Kentucky, and Ohio, Briana, without Republicans and independents voting in favor of abortion rights. That's not a groundswell of Democrats and Kentucky and Montana and Kansas turning out.

KEILAR: Yeah, that's exactly right. And that's how you know that this is such a visceral issue. And I think that we saw at the midterms, a lot of folks wondering how motivating this was going to be and now it's very clear and it's very clear as we look at these ballot initiatives.

Something I do think is interesting though, is how is this going to plan states. I was talking to one Democratic lawmaker from your state, Pennsylvania, who said --

TAPPER: Commonwealth.

KEILAR: Pardon?

TAPPER: Commonwealth.

KEILAR: I know oh, I fell right --

TAPPER: I'm sorry. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

KEILAR: The point being this lawmaker was saying unless there is some motivating issue like we're seeing in Arizona --

TAPPER: Yeah. KEILAR: -- or unless there is a restrictive abortion policy like there is in Wisconsin, it may not motivate Democratic voters as much as you might expect, we're seeing something pretty amazing in Wisconsin where the Senate candidate, Eric Hovde, who is taking on Tammy Baldwin, is trying to -- or really changing his point of view just on Friday, said something really interesting that he thinks that women should have the right to make a choice and that they should be able to do it early before a baby can be born healthy.

Okay, well, that's pretty much the law everywhere.

TAPPER: Right, 20 weeks.

KEILAR: Twenty-four weeks. It's generally, this sort of accepted viability. But that is such a change from where he was before. It's pretty stunning.

But maybe it's not going to help Democrats so much in Pennsylvania, the commonwealth.

TAPPER: We've seen -- we've seen Republican -- other Republicans come out. Surprisingly against what the Arizona Supreme Court did today, including Kari Lake, who is a rather extreme MAGA election-denying Republican, but she put out a statement saying, I opposed today's ruling, and I'm calling on Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs and the state legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support.

I have no idea what her personal view on this, but this is a very political statement.

HOLMES: Yeah, it's almost as though she saw this come out and realized that this could cost her the Senate race. And Arizona is expected to be a very tight race and they are pouring a lot of money into it. Republicans want to win Arizona and they do believe there's a sliver of hope. They're not if there is something like this going on in the state.

They know how politically toxic something like this can be. We have seen it.

I would expect to hear something from former President Donald Trump, who we have not heard from yet, that talks about exceptions. Maybe not actually talking about this particularly in Arizona, are talking about how states should have exceptions, how they should be allowing women to have some time here. They are really, as you said changing their tune and trying to come up with a solution, even though again, he was responsible for overthrowing Roe v. Wade.

TAPPER: He's responsible for it and has not said that he would not sign an abortion ban nationwide into law, would he be president, would one come across his desk.

Thanks, one and all, for being here.

The first criminal trial against Donald property set to start next Monday. That is less than one week away. His legal team's latest attempt to delay the case is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:28:30]

TAPPER: In our law and justice lead today, Donald Trump is just a few days away from his very first criminal trial after losing yet another attempt at a delay. Today, that means jury selection is expected to move forward on Monday in Manhattan, where the former president is accused of waging a hush money scheme involving a payoff to porn star and director Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election, so as to keep their alleged affair secret.

Ahead of jury selection, CNN has obtained the list of questions that all potential jurors will be asked. And the list includes whether they've ever been to a Trump rally where they get their news. If they've ever been a member of an extremist groups such as the Proud Boys or Antifa.

Lets' get straight to CNN's Paula Reid.

Paula, is there any other option left for Donald Trump to delay this case?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Oh, yeah. Certainly there are options. Look, there's clearly a will and there might be a way.

Remember, this is supposed to be the second week of that criminal trial. None of us saw federal prosecutors dumping a bunch of evidence. That's what caused this trial, sort of the trial delay. There's all the things that we can't foresee.

We also know its possible he could try to take this question of presidential immunity, whether the trial judge has denied his efforts to delay the case on that.

He could try to take it to the Supreme Court. I don't know that they'll take it up or that they would be willing to fold it into their arguments in two weeks on a different case, the January 6 case and presidential immunity. But that's an option.

There's also more extreme things he could try to do like fire his lawyers. I don't know if the judge would go for it, but if that were to happen, the judge would have to take time to contemplate that because you have the right to the counsel of your choosing.

[16:30:07]

So there are absolutely things he could do to try to delay this.

TAPPER: So walk us through how this jury selection process will work because obviously in all likelihood, were going to be covering the bejesus out of this on Monday, right?

REID: Yes. I'll be outside on the sidewalk because I've been for this case and others. Look, this is a daunting task. They need to select 12 people and six alternates to serve on this historic case. Now, they're going to ask people a lot of different questions. You laid out some of them.

Where do you live? A simple question, though more complicated. Where do you get your news? Are you a member of an extremist group? Some people may say, wait, why are you asking that?

Well, we know they also asked that in the E. Jean Carroll case. They'll also ask about you, or anyone, you know, work for the Trump organization. How do you feel about Trump? How do you feel about this case? That's part of this effort to whittle down this jury pool.

Now, then the two sides, they can ask questions. The judge will ask questions as well, and they will have the ability to strike people for cause. For example, if you don't speak English or you don't live in the district, you could get bumps. There's also preemptive challenges. Each side will have ten.

But this take, Jake, this is going to take time. We only have 40 weeks in this trial. There's no court on Wednesday, the next week, we have Passover as we expect, there'll be a couple of days off. So we could take a few weeks to actually seat this jury before the trial gets underway.

TAPPER: All right. Paula Reid, fascinating stuff. Thanks so much.

Let's bring in former Trump attorney Jim Trustee, who left the Trump legal team after the former president was indicted in the federal classified documents case.

Jim, good to see you. Thanks for joining.

Do you think it's sunk in yet for Donald Trump that his first criminal trial is in all likelihood going to start on Monday?

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Oh, sure. I mean, look, he's living this stuff on kind of a level of adrenaline that the rest of his probably don't share. So I think it's getting pretty real.

I think Paul did a nice job laying out potential options, but they're increasingly unlikely. And the more it's obvious that you're just trying to find a tool for delay. The less likely you're going to be greeted with any sort of sympathy when you file that next motion, whether it's with the appellate court or with the trial judge.

TAPPER: If you were still representing Donald Trump, what advice would you be giving him right now about how this is all likely going to go and how he should behave in court?

TRUSTY: Well, you know, it's interesting and I don't want to get too far afield in terms of the prior representation, but I think the bottom line is at some point, you really have to shift into the mode of trial and tactical and not worrying as much about the politics. That's difficult for someone who's running for president, right now. But as a lawyer, I think you're obligation is to say, look, we've got to focus on the task at hand because this is a tribal case, and this is going to be a case where a jury selection that Paula just laid out is incredibly important because there's going to be a real incentive for people to want to be celebrity jurors, to be -- to find a way to answer the questions in a way perhaps dishonestly, that its a minute that magic number of 12 jurors.

So there's a lot at stake. There's a lot to be focusing on, I think in terms of courtroom decorum, courtroom behavior, because it's such a -- I think creative, which really means weak case, relying so heavily on the credibility of Michael Cohen, that even in New York, President Trump has a shot.

So I think the lawyers in to focus on trying the case on cross- examination, on the right arguments to make. And they want to have a client who's respectful in the courtroom so that the jury doesn't have any risk of being alienated by any of that kind of political atmosphere.

TAPPER: Paula just suggested that one idea that Trump could contemplate to delay this case even further as to fire his attorneys. Do you think he'd go that far?

TRUSTY: Yeah. I hope not. I mean, you talk about a spectacle that'll be crazy. And what would happen is I assume is the judge would number one, not delay the case and say, this is obviously, you know, a bend of your own making. And number two, they did point standby council that might be the same lawyers that are on the case right now, it would make a farcical situation even more farcical, I suspect.

So I hope that they don't try to pull that card. It's not going to get them to delay. I don't think there's any real likelihood at this hour the judge is going to say, okay, fine. You broke up with your lawyers, we'll see you in June. It's going to happen short of a more traditional motion, it's going to happen soon.

And really, the focus I think should have been on that huge avalanche of paperwork that they just received. If you can find things there, that are legitimate causes for concern like, judge, we have to follow up on this exculpatory information. They just dumped on us, if you had concrete evidence from that discovery dump, you might have something to play with, but otherwise, it's kind of a Hail Mary without rosary beads.

TAPPER: When you look at all the cases Donald Trump is facing, obviously, there's the classified documents case in Florida that's federal. The January 6 case in D.C. that's federal. You have the Georgia case having to do with the election subversion attempt there you have this case.

Which one do you think he should be most concerned about?

[16:35:04]

TRUSTY: Yeah. I don't know -- I mean, if we have a two-hour show, we can go through it, but otherwise --

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: I do have two-hour show but we don't have two hours just for you, but yes now. Go ahead. Okay.

TRUSTY: Yeah. Now, I mean look, federal prosecutors and they abstract tend to have long investigations and are supported by a lot of evidence. That's the reason why in federal court, you have well over 90 percent and pleading guilty. So those tend to be very tough charges defend against.

Of course, all of the atmosphere is different. When you talk about these kind of unique prosecutions of President Trump. So I think, you know, you can get lost in the academia of wondering which is the worst case for you if you're defending him, but the bottom line is you've got one on the table right now that you have to focus all your attention to, and that's in New York.

And I think that even with the difficulty of picking a jury in New York, that if you get a jury that's relatively fair you've got a shot because Michael Cohen's credibility is not exactly something to write home about.

TAPPER: Jim Trusty, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

As rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, military combat veteran and Congressman Jason Crow was one of many huddled up in the House chamber trying to protect his colleagues, we'll talk to him about his reaction to Donald Trump, who keeps inaccurate really calling rioters who have been criminally charged "hostages".

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:46]

TAPPER: In today's law and justice lead, we continue our series taking a closer look at the men and women whom Donald Trump refers to as his J6 hostages. They are not hostages. They are defendants and criminals convicted of crimes from the Capitol attack, often violent crimes, often committed against police officers, such as Matthew de Silva.

Matthew DaSilva is a Navy veteran from Lavon, Texas, just outside Dallas. He was convicted did last year of assaulting police on January 6 at the Capitol. Prosecutors say that with a flag pole in hand, DaSilva worked with other writers to forcefully push against police trying to defend the lower west terrorist tunnel of the Capitol. Prosecutors say video from that day shows DaSilva grabbing a police riot shield and pulling it away from at least one police officer.

About a month after the Capitol attack, a witness notice DaSilva from an FBI wanted photo. Ultimately, it was that long bushy beard that gave him a way not to mention the blue and gray camouflage navy jacket and his distinctive black and yellow scarf. A second witnessed also recognized DaSilva noting the red hat, adding that he wore that yellow scarf almost every day. The second witness also said DaSilva had the long beard for years.

But after the riot, DaSilva shaved it off and cut his hair and stopped wearing that scarf. Curious time for fashion change.

In a bench trial last year, a judge found DaSilva silver guilty of two felony and four misdemeanor counts for his actions at the Capitol. He is currently in the D.C. jail waiting to learn his prison sentence.

Again, no matter how many times Mr. Trump calls them hostages, they're not hostages. This one, and a long list of others are convicted violent criminals.

Let's bring in Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. He's a combat vet who served as an Army Ranger before his days in Congress and he spent more than 30 minutes on January 6, hiding in the house chamber, crouch down between the seeds helping colleagues while the rioters attack.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

Last Monday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, one of his first acts as president would be to, quote, free January 6 hostages wrongfully imprisoned, unquote. What's your response?

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, that's abhorrent. There's no doubt about that, but we also shouldn't be surprised as one of the many abhorrent things that Donald Trump always does. He doesn't respect our democracy. He doesn't respect rule of law, and he certainly doesn't respect American voters, right?

If you call these -- these criminals, these insurrection as hostages, you very clearly, were trying to undermine the election, overturn the election and have no respect for our Democratic government. That's situation we're dealing with here, but, you know, we're not going to let Donald Trump rewrite history. We're going to call it like it is. This was a violent insurrection that killed a police officer, several others took their own lives because of the trauma after the fact and over 160 were brutally beaten that day

TAPPER: I just -- as somebody who served, you have a unique understanding of what it means to put yourself in a job where your life is at risk. And I'm just wondering, you see these Capitol police officers all the time. Many of them at least statistically according the law enforcement and many of them are conservative, many of them are Republican. It doesn't really matter.

But what -- what goes through your mind when you think about these insurrectionists beating the crap out of these cops. And then Donald Trump calling them hostages as if, you know, they're in a tunnel in Gaza being held by Hamas?

CROW: Yeah, it makes me really mad, Jake, is what it does, right? These are young men and women who come from all different backgrounds, all political affiliations. You're right, it shouldn't matter whether they're Democrat, Republican. They are putting their lives on the line to protect our capital, to protect our democratic system in that day. They put it but all on the line to do that and they tried to save our democracy and to save both Republican and Democratic members of Congress.

And they did so with great courage and great valor. So, it's disparaging, you know, those folks who many of whom still have terrible wounds, you know, both visible and invisible wounds from that day into call the violent criminals who beat these officers hostages is just abhorrent in my view.

[16:45:01]

TAPPER: Let's discuss some other news because the top Democrat on the House foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks told CNN that he's not ready to sign off on the sale of American made F-15 fighter jets to Israel. He wants assurances on how those fighter jets would be used.

You're also on the foreign affairs committee. What do you think? Should the U.S. be supplying Israel with more weapons for the war against Hamas in Gaza, given the fact that so many innocent lives are in the line of fire? And let's also underline here, they're in the line of fire because Hamas embeds within the population still, Israel is killing a lot of innocent people.

CROW: Yeah, that's right. I adjoin with Mr. Meeks and calling for a drastic change in the approach here and for us to reassess our military aid to Israel. And I've been a longtime supporter of Israel. Israel unequivocally has a right to defend itself in the proper way, but what we've scene in the last couple of months is not the way, right? You do not achieve national security either for Israel or for the United States by killing tens of thousands because of civilians putting over a million at risk of famine. That doesn't serve anybody's interests, in addition to being a very big moral travesty.

So, there has to be changed and there has to be changed now, for everybody's interests. You know, I fought the war on terror and I know that you cannot defeat a terror organization with military force alone. You have to go to the hopelessness, to fear, the starvation, the conditions that are furthering these terror movements, in addition to military force and right now, they're not doing that.

TAPPER: Democratic Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, thank you, sir. I appreciate it as always. Thank you for your service.

Coming up next, the murder conviction that a group of passionate attorney says was full of red flags at the time, and the convincing DNA evidence that led them to take this case on.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:50:44]

TAPPER: In our law and justice lead, for more than two decades, three men known as the Chester Trio in Chester County, Pennsylvania, have denied involvement in the murder of a 70-year-old woman in 1997. After nearly 25 years in prison, new DNA evidence has led a Pennsylvania judge to overturn their murder convictions but the Chester Trio remain in prison.

CNN's Danny Freeman tells us how we got here and about the likelihood of a new trial.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VANESSA POTKIN, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL LITIGATION, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT: We are inundated with requests for assistance, but his just screamed out as a wrongful conviction.

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These attorneys felt it immediately.

NILAM SANGHVI, LEGAL DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA INNOCENCE PROJECT: This one had the red flags.

PAUL CASTELEIRO, LEGAL DIRECTOR, CENTURION: I actually jumped at the opportunity to take it.

FREEMAN: But still when they took the case, these lawyers and their exoneration teams knew this would be a hard fight.

POTKIN: It's a nightmare, and it's so insane.

FREEMAN: More than 20 years ago, three Pennsylvanians, Derrick Chappell, Morton Johnson, and Sam Grasty were all sentenced to life in prison for a gruesome murder that happened here in the city of Chester just outside of Philadelphia.

The victim was 70 year-old Henrietta Nickens. She was beaten to death and semen had been found inside of her. All along the three convicted men dubbed the Chester Trio, maintained their innocence.

SANGHVI: When you're offered to get out of jail and just a few years versus facing a potential life without parole sentence to have that moral strength to push forward, I think is so impressive.

FREEMAN: The prosecution's key witness was a 15-year-old who claimed he was the lookout and traded his testimony for a plea deal.

SANGHVI: He was young. He was cognitively impaired. He was under pressure from police with other charges.

FREEMAN: Also, DNA from the semen found at the scene did not match any of the three men, according to court filings.

CASTELEIRO: And other DNA was found, none of their DNA was there. They never ever were -- they weren't in the apartment as alleged by the state.

FREEMAN: So when 2021, the attorneys tried to new tactic, using modern DNA testing techniques to tell this jacket left behind at the crime scene, which prosecutors tried to link to the men. Once again, the attorney say the DNA did not match the Chester Trio.

POTKIN: All of the DNA comes back to a genetic profile that has been labeled unknown male number one law enforcement should be dedicating their resources to finding who unknown male number one is and bringing true justice to the victim in this case.

FREEMAN: The prosecution argued they never tried to connect the semen to the defendants in the original trials. So the new evidence was moot, writing in recent court filings, the totality of the evidence, including the post-conviction DNA evidence is just as consistent, if not more consistent with Ms. Nickens having consensual intercourse prior to the assault as it is with an unknown perpetrator committing both a rape and an assault.

CASTELEIRO: Their explanation did not hold water.

FREEMAN: But last month, a Pennsylvania judge vacated each of their convictions and order new trial. Vanessa Potkin of the Innocence Project described the moment Chappell and Johnson found out. They just went inside and they hugged and they cried and just, you know, this has been the moment that they've been fighting for.

SANGHVI: I'm looking forward to going to see him in a couple of days and giving them that big hug because this is just a huge step forward.

FREEMAN: The three men are still behind bars today waiting now to see if the district attorneys office decides to appeal or retry the case.

CASTELEIRO: To take it all of that 20s away from them, and their 30s, and now, they're on in their 40s. And the idea that you would continue it its just such an injustice and it has -- it has to stop. It has to stop.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FREEMAN (voice-over): Jake, the Delaware County D.A.'s office did not comment on these convictions being overturned, but they did say that they have but until April 27th to make a decision and there have been no planned announcements at this time.

And, Jake, I'll just note, you've covered these stories before. It's very much bittersweet right now. These attorney are so optimistic that their clients, these men, will get freedom from these crimes. They say they did not commit. But on the other hand, a family of the victim here, Henrietta Nickens they thought they had closure. And now that's been very much uprooted.

Again, will still wait to see what the de ultimately decides to do here, but the story not quite over yet -- Jake.

[16:55:03]

TAPPER: Yeah, but for every innocent man in prison, there's a guilty man who got away with it.

Danny Freeman in Philadelphia, thanks so much. Coming up, shots fired, 96 times and just 41 seconds in a traffic stop, then ended in the death of Dexter Reed, a young man in Chicago. The dramatic new body camera footage just released in this case. And what investigators have to say about police using that much force.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, a whistleblower's frightening claim that Boeing took shortcuts, making two kinds of passenger plane, shortcuts that could eventually lead to catastrophes. A former top transportation official weighs in on whether you should be worried about booking that next flight.