Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Arizona Upholds Near-Total Abortion Ban From Civil War Era; Retired Generals Say, Trump Immunity Claim Would Inject Chaos; Biden Says, Netanyahu Making Mistake On Gaza War Handling; Running Mate For RFK, Jr. Publicly Reveals She Received A Letter From Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna; Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Sees A.I. Porn Images Of Herself. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 22:00   ET



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, good evening.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Just one last note, Ruby also reminded us, he was always carrying around an hourglass. He's been carrying it around since October 7th. He said that on their way back to Israel, their last trip, that it broke, that the sand leaked out of it. And it was a few hours later that they got that call, that knock on the door from the IDF, telling them about their son.

Of course, we hope that his memory is always a blessing. We'll continue to follow this very important story.

Thank you so much for joining us tonight. CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillips starts now.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: The GOP is once again the dog that caught the car, and the consequences could be far-reaching for millions of women. That's tonight on NewsNight.

Good evening, I'm Abby Phillip in New York.

Tonight, you might just get what you ask for. Republicans are relearning that lesson today. Arizona Supreme Court, a court made up of all Republican appointees, have ruled in a 4-2 decision that physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman's life, are illegal.

That decision and the timing is truly stranger than fiction. It happened just a day after Donald Trump said, leave it to the states to make up their minds on abortion. Now, the country has firsthand evidence of what exactly a 50-state patchwork approach to abortion would actually look like.

The GOP spent 50 years trying to eradicate Roe vs. Wade, but now that they have, the aftermath isn't pleasant. And only now that the electoral consequences of all of this are becoming more clear. Republicans are acknowledging that laws like the one on the books in Arizona simply are not good ones. That Arizona law, it's not just decades-old. It is generations-old. It is nearly 160 years old. Lawmakers wrote it in 1864, when Arizona was not even a state, when Abraham Lincoln was still alive, when professional baseball did not exist, when Jules Verne wrote Journey to the Center of the Earth, when Monet painted one of his most famous works.

That law is a literal antique. But Republicans, worried about what a total ban means for their electoral futures, they're now refurbishing their positions. Look no further than Kari Lake. She's the Republican nominee for the Senate in Arizona. Lake tonight says, I oppose today's ruling. Lake, back in 2022, says the law was great.


KARI LAKE, ARIZONA REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE: I'm incredibly thrilled that we are going to have a great law that's already on the books. I believe it's ARS 13-3603. So, it will prohibit abortion in Arizona except to save the life of a mother.


PHILLIP: Republicans realize that there are very real ramifications for what Arizona's court just did because they have seen this movie before in other places on the map. When abortion was on the ballot, Republicans lose, even in places where they otherwise might win, places like Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, places where they ended up losing in 2023.

And it's going to be on the ballot again this November in 2024. Already, voters will decide directly on abortion in Florida, in Maryland, in New York, and in eight other states, activists want to put it on the ballot, including right there in Arizona.

The point here, after five decades of pining for a decision, like Dobbs, Republicans got the girl of their dreams, and now it's turned into a bad romance, one that may ultimately cost them their jobs and put the lives of millions of women in limbo.

Joining us now is Arizona Democratic Senator Eva Burch. She is a nurse practitioner as well. And last month, you may remember, she appeared right here on this show to talk about this floor speech that was heard all around the country. She explained that she wanted a pregnancy, but it would not progress and that she would need to get an abortion, which she has since received. Listen.


STATE SEN. EVA BURCH (D-AZ): I don't think people should have to justify their abortions, but I'm choosing to talk about why I made this decision, because I want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world.


PHILLIP: State Senator Burch, thanks for joining us again.

When this law goes into effect, no abortion is going to be allowed except to save the life of a mother, but the penalty of fines, even jail times for the provider. You are a nurse practitioner.


You've seen both sides of this. What does this mean practically for health care providers in your state?

BURCH: Well, it's really upsetting and confusing for healthcare providers who obviously have to now make impossible decisions. Because what we really do in these situations is muddy the waters. And is this patient close enough to death that we can consider administering this type of care and giving this kind of procedure? And that's a ridiculous question for a provider to have to answer.

And if we look at just my own situation, I would not have been able to get the treatment that I had. Only less than three weeks ago I had that procedure. But this is the same thing that we're seeing again. This happened two years ago, where abortion clinics shut down all across the state of Arizona and our Republican lawmakers have had plenty of time and opportunity to repeal this ban from the 1800s and have chosen not to act.

PHILLIP: And as we just heard, some of them just a couple years ago were saying that it was a great law. The Democratic state attorney general, Kris Mayes, has the full power to enforce abortion laws thanks to an executive order from your state's governor, Katie Hobbs, but Mayes has vowed not to enforce any abortion law, especially not this one. But couldn't that decision essentially be challenged by local attorneys and basically create chaos in your state?

BURCH: Well, I will tell you, I'm not a lawyer, but I am certain that there are going to be a number of challenges that we're going to see in the coming weeks. We only have a two-week stay on this 1800s ban before it goes into effect. But we have been talking about this ban and this ban has been litigated for much longer than two weeks. And so any effort by the courts to try to reverse or to alter this decision is going to take longer than that.

And so we really need to have some sort of legislative action now in order to be able to protect this right for patients in Arizona.

PHILLIP: And to your point, I mean, this is going to be something that will affect women very, very soon if it's allowed to go into effect. But you've also been urging your state to support a potential ballot measure for later in November.

The advocates who are working on this ballot measure say they have more than 500,000 signatures. That's well over the threshold that they would need to get on the ballot. How confident are you that this will make it onto the ballot and that, ultimately, voters will side in favor of abortion rights?

BURCH: I feel really confident. I have a lot of security and I have a lot of peace in my heart that this is a measure that's going to make its way to the ballot. I think that the reason though that this is necessary in the first place and why it's so important for people to really get politically engaged, people to come out and for people to vote is that even if the legislature does take some kind of action, they have been slowly eroding these rights for decades.

And we cannot trust that anything that we do in the next two weeks and the legislature is going to hold for any significant period of time. What we need to do is elect Democrats up and down the ticket from the presidency down to our state legislatures. And what we need to do is come and vote in November and make sure that this ballot initiative gets the attention it deserves and passes.

PHILLIP: You heard there Kari Lake's switch on this issue. She's not the only Republican Arizonan expressing suddenly dismay over this court decision. Why do you think that they're saying that after years, really, of trying to restrict abortion access, where this was pretty much the explicit goal?

BURCH: So, this is an obvious, transparent, politically expedient act of desperation. When we see these Republicans who are flip-flopping on their position and now suddenly they're horrified, what we need to keep in mind is that the legislature has been in session for months and at any time, the legislature could have repealed this ban.

And as a matter of fact, Representative Stahl Hamilton in the Arizona House had put forward a bill to repeal the ban and they wouldn't even give it a committee hearing. And when we tried to bring legislation forward to talk about the right of contraception, they wouldn't even give it a committee hearing and they wouldn't let us vote on it on the floor. So, we know what they're coming for next.

So, I think that while we might see some politicians trying to turn around because of the political consequences that they're experiencing, we have decades of history and of voting records and of statements to back up the fact that we can't trust them in any action that they take and that we really have to take this into our own hands. We have to take this to the ballot box. It's our only option.

PHILLIP: All right. State Senator Eva Burch, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

BURCH: Thanks for having me.

PHILLIP: And tonight, country Constitution, the high court, and the service members who might be caught in the middle, former generals and admirals are taking the dramatic step of submitting a brief to the justices outlining how making presidents absolutely immune would, quote, threaten the military's role in American society.


The dozen-plus officials say that if the court sides with the former president, they will forever alter the meaning of the oath that every single service member takes to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, by obeying potentially illegal orders from a president of the United States.

The former high-ranking officials envision a future where service members will be placed in the impossible position of having to choose between following their commander-in-chief and obeying the laws that were enacted by Congress.

The list of notable names attached to this briefing is not short, several retired generals, a retired admiral, a former CIA director, and also my next guest, Louis Caldera. He served as the secretary of the army under President Clinton. Sir, thank you very much for staying up with us tonight.

It is highly unusual to see these kinds of officials, military officers and others, former ones, weighing in on a politically charged issue like this. Why did you decide to do it?

LOUIS CALDERA, FORMER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Abby, thank you for having me. It is very unusual, and the reason is because the stakes are so high for our national security and for our military. If they weren't, I don't think you would see this kind of brief. But a brief like this is a brief to the court, as an amicus brief means a friend of the court, bringing to the justices' attention matters that they may not be expert in. No member of the Supreme Court served in the military.

And so to increase their understanding of the nature of our military, its foundations, how it operates, and what the implications of finding that a president would be immune from criminal actions. And we think it would have a disastrous effect on our national security, including for the reasons you mentioned. It would put military personnel in a terrible position.

PHILLIP: Look, the -- I mean, the reality is that there's a possibility the next president of the United States could be Donald Trump. If that's the case, what are you most afraid of?

CALDERA: Well, it's not just about Donald Trump, because if the justices say that this is the law of the land, that the president can violate criminal laws, as long as he has, you know, some rationalization of why he thinks it's in the country's best interests, and one thing we know about former President Trump is that he can rationalize everything as perfect and in the country's best interests when it's really about his own political interests or personal financial interests.

If that's all it takes for a president to be able to violate the laws of the United States, and his own lawyers in the argument before the Court of Appeals were asked, does this mean that he could order the military to assassinate his political rivals? And their answer in the end was yes.

Well, the president's not the one who's going to pull the trigger. He's going to order the military to do such an action, or he might order the military to quash the constitutional rights of Americans who are protesting, as they have a right to do, whether they're protesting for racial equality or whether they're protesting against abortion rights, Americans have the right to protest. And yet he wanted to use the military to quash these protests. That's a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which says you cannot use the military for civilian law enforcement purposes.

And we have these laws for a reason.

PHILLIP: Yes, exactly. I mean, I think that's such an important point, but I do want to play for you what former Defense Secretary Mark Esper said about this on CNN earlier today.


MARK ESPER, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would prefer her to see retired animals and generals not get involved in these issues.

It's not even worth kind of talking about. It's just ridiculous.


PHILLIP: He called it just ridiculous. What's your reaction to that?

CALDERA: Well, I think he's just wrong. And, in fact, his situation really illustrates our point is that to have -- in our country, we have civilian control of the military. That is the military is responsive to the president's commander-in-chief and to the civilians, like Mark Esper, who are appointed to run the Department of Defense, but they have to work hand in glove with military leaders, some of whom have spent 30, 40 years in uniform, steeped in military affairs, dedicated their lives to defending our country. And they ultimately follow the directions of the civilians, because that's the way our Constitution was set up.

But that only works if you have deep trust between the civilians and the military leaders that we have one purpose, to defend the Constitution, to defend the country, to be apolitical, to stand up for the rule of law. And if the president transmits orders that, say, violate the law, and then expects the military to violate the law when they've sworn to uphold the Constitution, and when they can be prosecuted for violating the law.


So, maybe the president would be immune, not subject to prosecution, but the military wouldn't, from the generals down to the soldiers, would not be immune from prosecution.

You put them in a terrible bind. You destroy the trust that has to exist between civilian and military leaders. You put military service members in jeopardy. That can do nothing but destroy the bedrock principles on which our military operates, cause Americans to wonder why they should support our military or ask their sons and daughters to serve when it's being used for political ends.

It can cheer our enemies in foreign countries that would do us harm because they're sitting there saying, you know, this democracy that they keep talking about is a figment of imagination. Their president can order the military to do illegal things just like ours can. That's not what the founders had in mind when they created our Constitution. That's what we're worried about.

And because this is such a serious subject is why people overcome their hesitancy to involve themselves in these kinds of matters and say, wait, this is just wrong for our country. It's wrong for our military. It's wrong for the role that our country should play in the world, defending democracy, defending the rule of law, not violating the rule of law.

PHILLIP: And if you've spent any time around people who were at the highest levels of the military, you understand how hesitant, as you put it, they are to weigh in on matters like this. So, it is extraordinary that they have.

Former Army Secretary Caldera, thank you very much for speaking with us tonight.

CALDERA: Thank you, Abby.

PHILLIP: And breaking tonight, President Biden, with his most direct criticism of Israel yet since the war started, but he's calling a mistake an outrageous.

And I'll speak live with a Jewish war reporter who says Israel is committing crimes.

Plus, just in, RFK's running mate says that she received a letter from a Democratic congressman calling on her to quit the ticket because it hurts Biden. That congressman will join me to respond.

This is NewsNight.



PHILLIP: Tonight, it seems very much that President Biden has had enough, at least enough of Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu. In one of his most forceful criticisms yet of the Prime Minister, Biden calls Netanyahu's approach to this war on Hamas a mistake. He calls the deadly strike on the aid convoy outrageous, and he calls for Israel to accept a six-week ceasefire to get more food and medicine into Gaza. In fact, he says there is no excuse now.

This, of course, comes as more civilians die by Israel's bombings and outrage from around the world grows. In fact, one American senator is now saying that Israel's actions amount to genocide.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you want to do it as an application of law, I believe they will find that it is genocide. And they have ample evidence to do so.


PHILLIP: Today, before Congress, the secretary of defense, though, he dismissed that claim.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza?

LLOYD AUSTIN, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Senator Cotton, we don't have any evidence of genocide being created.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, that's a no, Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza?

AUSTIN: We don't have evidence of that, to my knowledge, yes.



PHILLIP: My next guest is a veteran war correspondent who has seen his share of horrors on the frontline. Peter Maass covered the genocide in Bosnia for The Washington Post. He wrote a book called, Love Thy Neighbor, A Story of War, about that conflict. He also reported from Iraq and Afghanistan and other war-torn countries.

Peter Maass also has this unique perspective of being an ancestor to key funders of Jewish immigration to then British-controlled Palestine, that area that ultimately would become the state of Israel.

Now, all of that combined makes the opinion piece that he wrote for today's Washington Post incredibly timely and interesting. Quote, I'm Jewish and I've covered wars. I know war crimes when I see them. Even more provocative than that is what he says potentially about this charge of war crimes.

Peter Maass joins us. Now, Peter, you've said that you think Israel is guilty of crimes. But on the charge of genocide, do you consider it genocide?

PETER MAASS, AUTHOR, LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, A STORY OF WAR: I don't know for sure. I don't think anybody can say for sure. I mean, what I can say, having covered the war at Bosnia, genocide in Bosnia, as adjudicated and decided by International Tribunals, is that there's a lot of evidence that suggests that this does reach the level of genocide legally, which is defined as an attempt to destroy in whole or in part a group of people, ethnic, racial, religious.

But I'm not a lawyer.

PHILLIP: But what do you think is the strongest evidence, broadly speaking?

MAASS: Broadly speaking, I think it is the vast number of civilian casualties. I mean, there have been, you know, so far, I think 30,000 civilians killed in six months, more than 13,000 children killed in six months. And this is a toll that actually, when you're looking at just children killed, is several times higher than what I saw and reported on in Bosnia, which was a four-year-long war, and there were somewhere around 5,000, 6,000, 8,000 children killed in those four years.


So, it's civilian casualties. It's the, what appears to be, lack of regard for protecting them, which is actually the duty in wartime of a military.

PHILLIP: So, I just want to clarify one thing, because the 30-plus -- it's more than 30,000 at this point, but that number is not differentiating between Hamas war fighters and civilians. And we should be clear about that. That's a generally agreed upon number from the Gaza Health Ministry.

But just on this question here of that definition of war crimes that you summarized, Eitay Mack, he's an Israeli human rights lawyer who represents Palestinians actually who were harmed by Israeli security forces, here's what he wrote in a piece about this idea of genocide. He says civilians in Gaza are killed not because Israel specifically targets them, but because of the extensive Hamas military infrastructures that are located near inside civilian buildings and in the tunnels beneath them.

He makes that point and also notes that the standard isn't just the number of killed, but the intent. Do you think that there is an intent on the part of the Israeli government to eradicate the Palestinian people?

MAASS: I think it's not clear yet, but what I think is that there is enough evidence to justify investigations by prosecutors, by kind of duly authorized prosecutors, to look into this question, to determine, yes, is there intent?

I mean, we, of course, have heard various different speeches from different Israeli government officials, from Israeli soldiers, et cetera, that are very chilling with respect to intent. But does that reach the threshold that's necessary?

Again, this should be in the hands of prosecutors. Let them decide. And the people who debate about it, I guess I'm one of them, that's all fine and good, but it's not for us to decide. And it does seem like there's enough evidence to justify real investigations.

PHILLIP: You mentioned in your piece this incredibly disturbing video that we had reported on here at CNN of a Palestinian grandmother who was walking with her grandson. In that video, you can see there, we'll play it for you. She's walking. That child who I think is maybe five years old is holding a white flag and is waving it. As she walks, she is eventually shot by Israeli -- apparently by Israeli forces.

Now, what's notable about this is that this was a very public incident. It was supposed to have been investigated. But you also compare it to kind of sniper fire that you witnessed in the conflicts that you've covered, I think, in Bosnia. What is the difference between perhaps a rogue -- you know, maybe this is the argument could be this is a rogue IDF officer who made that call, and something that rises to the level of genocide, a targeted attack or repeated targeted attacks on civilians.

MAASS: That is what a full investigation with participation of the Israeli side would hopefully establish. The video that you saw, very similar to things that I saw myself in Bosnia. I mean, I stayed in a frontline hotel in Sarajevo where there was constant sniper fire. And I saw somebody get shot right underneath my window, wrote about it, a civilian, no doubt about it.

And this was a regular, regular occurrence. And we have a sufficient number of videos of not just that incident, but other incidents that indicate that civilians are getting targeted in ways that are frankly, obviously disturbing.

Is this systemic? Is this something that rises to the level of intent on the Israeli government's part? That's what the International Tribunals has established in Bosnia. And it was necessary for them to exist and to go through this very long process of investigating these cases.

And so to answer your question, I mean, that's something that I can give an opinion about, anybody can give an opinion about, but to get to the bottom of it, I think everybody should support the idea of actually handing this over and having everybody cooperate, not just with investigating Israeli war crimes, but also on October 7th, the war crimes committed by Hamas as well.

PHILLIP: You understand that there are many people who describe this as a blood libel. And you're Jewish yourself. When you hear that, what do you think?

MAASS: I don't understand how that could be addressed to me. I'm somebody who has -- I know about war crimes. I've covered war crimes. I've seen war crimes. I don't speak about war crimes lightly. And I don't have any interest in saying that Israel has committed war crimes without there being a sufficient factual basis to it.

I am Jewish. I have relatives who are there. My family participated very actively in the foundation of Israel. So, people can say that. And I've gotten pushback on social media about that. To me, it discredits them, not me.

PHILLIP: All right. Peter Maass, thank you very much, interesting conversation.

MAASS: Thank you.

PHILLIP: And next, our RFK Jr.'s running mate is accusing a Democratic congressman of privately supporting her run and then telling her to quit the ticket. We'll speak with that congressman, Ro Khanna, about the accusations next.


PHILLIP: Just in tonight, a surreal story from the world of politics. The running mate for RFK Jr. is publicly revealing that she received a letter from Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna. Nicole Shanahan says that Khanna is asking her to step down from the ticket because his candidacy hurts President Biden's chances. Shanahan says, in part, "Ro encouraged me to run, that it's wrong for anyone to threaten me against running."


She goes on to say, "Clearly, Ro has changed his stance based on pressure from his party, that it's anti-Democratic. I'm very disappointed that he has been pressured into issuing this letter to me publicly. He could have called me privately." Now, the Congressman is here with us tonight, and he joins me to respond in a moment.

But first, remember, a campaign official for RFK said that her number one priority is to prevent Biden from winning. And tonight, CNN's K- File reports that Rita Palmer attended a Stop the Steal rally, including the rally that preceded the Capitol insurrection.

She also has posted praise for Trump, including the hope that he wins in 2024 and that he's her favorite President, she says. Congressman Ro Khanna joins me now. Congressman, we have this letter. We just received it that you sent to Nicole Shanahan. What did you say to her?

RO KHANNA (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, look, I've known Nicole Shanahan for years. She's been a supporter. I would say she's an acquaintance. And we've shared common issues around the climate, common issues around reproductive rights. And when she called me to say that she was going to join Robert Kennedy's ticket, I said, well, Nicole, why don't you join the Democratic coalition, support President Biden? He will better advance climate.

I understand you have disagreements with the President. I do, too, on certain issues like Gaza, but join the coalition. And then I texted her that always respectfully. But I was hoping to make the case that her issues would be better served joining the coalition.

PHILLIP: So, she says that you changed your position, that you actually told her that anyone should run and shouldn't be threatened for doing so. She posted your -- this exchange on X and then you responded to her with a text that you sent her afterwards. What's your response to her claiming that you're not telling the truth?

KHANNA: Well, I don't think she's saying that. I did say that anyone has the right to run and that no one should threaten her or no one should engage in character assassination of her. And I stand by that. And even in the text I sent her, I said, look, she has absolutely the right to run and I will never disparage her personally.

But I will make the case so I'm making the case tonight, that given the stakes, given her own view in regenerative agriculture, on climate, on reproductive rights, how could she aid a candidacy that's simply going to help re-elect Donald Trump? And I want to make the case for her that she'd be better served supporting Joe Biden. So, by all of this, are you saying that you are worried that an RFK candidacy will end up costing President Biden the election?

KHANNA: I think the President can win regardless, but will it make it harder for the President? Absolutely. I mean, I don't think that is revealing any unique math. I mean, the reality is that any third party candidates help Donald Trump because he cannot get to 50 percent.

And so, if we lower the ceiling of what he needs to get, it makes it harder for the President to win. Do I think the President can overcome that? We can overcome that and win. Yes. But why diminish the odds and help tilt any advantage to Donald Trump?

PHILLIP: Do you think that Nicole Shanahan is aware of what you are saying there, that this could end up resulting in a Trump presidency yet again?

KHANNA: I don't know. I'd love to have that conversation with her publicly, maybe on your show. I mean, the reality is she's been extraordinary in funding regenerative agriculture in places like Iowa State. She has worked on big climate issues.

And so, I was perplexed, baffled, why she would choose to enter at this time, given the stakes that it's a binary choice. Ordinarily, I understand you want to get your views out. You want to push for reform. But I hope she understands that what she is doing really could put Trump back in the White House and undermine the goals that she believes in.

PHILLIP: I mentioned in tonight's reporting that the New York-based RFK, Jr. campaign official, she previously promoted these false claims that the 2020 election was rigged. And she actually attended the January 6th rally. What's your reaction to that?

KHANNA: Well, it's appalling. Look, I used to admire Robert Kennedy's environmental activism, and I just don't understand what he's doing. I mean, denying that January 6th that the people who beat police officers vandalized the building and were attacking colleagues of mine while I was in the complex that that is somehow just a form of protest, which is what he has said, and people shouldn't be prosecuted.

And then being more to the right, but way more to the right than either Donald Trump or Joe Biden on this unconditional support for Netanyahu.


I mean, I just don't understand what he's trying to achieve.

PHILLIP: Very interesting, indeed. Congressman Ro Khanna, we would love to have you back on with Nicole Shanahan if the two of you would like to have that debate here on the air. Thanks for joining us tonight.

KHANNA: Thank you, Abby.

PHILLIP: And next, outrage tonight over body camera footage of Chicago police firing as many as 96 bullets. A man is now dead after a tragic traffic stop. I'll speak to the state's attorney here. Plus, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a serious warning after discovering deepfake pornography of herself online. We'll discuss that.




PHILLIP: Tonight, another black man in America has been killed by police and the nation is seeing those disturbing images. Chicago police have released this video of a deadly traffic stop that occurred last month when Dexter Reed was killed after police fired 96 shots in just 41 seconds at him and his vehicle.

Now, before I play you this video, I want to note that the police say that Reed fired those first shots. But an investigation into what exactly happened has not been completed. And I also have to warn you that this is difficult to watch.

UNKNOWN: Roll the window down. What are you doing? Roll that one down, too. Hey, don't roll the window up. Don't roll the window up. Do not roll the window up. Unlock the doors now. Unlock the doors now. Unlock the doors now.

UNKNOWN: Okay, okay.

UNKNOWN: Open the door now. Open the door now. Open the door now. Shots fired. Ferdinand and Avers, Ferdinand and Avers, 10-1, 10-1.


PHILLIP: Reed's body was later found lying face down behind that vehicle. A chaotic scene that left quite a lot of questions. And Cook County's State Attorney, Kim Foxx, joins me right now. State Attorney Foxx, thank you very much for joining us. Your office, I know, is investigating this incident for potential prosecution. It is ongoing, but what can you tell us at this point?

KIM FOXX, COOK COUNTY'S STATE ATTORNEY: You know, at this point, Abby, it is, as you said, an ongoing investigation that is very early. This incident happened 19 days ago, the video having been released today.

And so, what we do know is that this was a traffic stop, a stop for not wearing a seatbelt that led to the death of Dexter Reed, an injury to a Chicago police officer, and many questions that need to be answered about the use of force in this case.

PHILLIP: Nineteen days ago, you say this occurred. When do you think you can expect to update the public on a charging decision? FOXX: You know, certainly we're in the preliminary stages. We have to

look at all of the body cam video that has been released. There are pod cameras in the neighborhood, videos that we will be looking at, videos from doorbells in the area.

We're also going to be interviewing officers who have been involved, witnesses. There's ballistics and DNA and forensics. And so, realistically, it's going to take us time. We want to be thorough. We want to be complete in the interest of justice for Dexter Reed and his family, as well as for the officers who were involved that day. It requires us to be swift and thorough.

PHILLIP: Absolutely. Just quickly on, I know you can't say a whole lot about the case, but were you able to confirm that that officer was -- was shot from a weapon that was used by Dexter Reed?

FOXX: You know, again, what we are able to confirm is that there was a shot fired by Dexter Reed in that vehicle. The rest of who shot the officer, how many shots came from the car, those questions will be answered during the course of our investigation.

PHILLIP: Okay, so a shot was fired from his weapon is what you're saying here. Meanwhile, while this is ongoing, family members are obviously devastated and they're calling for charges. As you're saying, the investigation needs to play out. What is your message to Chicago residents that are really worried about the process not simply playing out fairly?

FOXX: You know, I think Chicago residents are all too familiar with incidents of police violence. Laquan McDonald comes to mind for many folks here in the Chicagoland area. Part of the reason that we stood together at the press conference with the mayor, the head of our civilian office of police accountability in my office, is to from the very beginning talk about what is happening, to be transparent with the public so that we don't see a repeat in history.

Some people may not ultimately like whatever outcome comes to play, but we believe that the legitimacy of the outcome requires us to be transparent throughout this process. And so, I understand the fear. I understand the distrust. There has been a history with policing in Chicago. We have a consent decree as a result of the Laquan McDonald shooting and a finding of unconstitutional policing.


And so, we have an obligation to do this investigation thoroughly and complete so that everyone, those who are in law enforcement and those who have lost a loved one in our communities, trust the legitimacy of this investigation.

PHILLIP: Kim Foxx, Cook County State's Attorney, thank you very much for joining us.

FOXX: Thank you very much. PHILLIP: And a dire warning from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-

Cortez. She has seen A.I. porn images of herself. We'll discuss the real consequences of all of that.




PHILLIP: She's one of the most high profile politicians in the United States, but even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has now become the target of an alarming and graphic online phenomenon. In a new interview with "Rolling Stone", the Democratic congresswoman is sharing the nightmare of discovering A.I. generated pornographic images of herself on X.

She says, "As a survivor of physical sexual assault, it adds a level of dysregulation. There are certain images that don't leave a person. It's not as imaginary as people want to make it seem. It has real effects, not just on the people who are victimized by it, but on the people who see it and consume it."

Unfortunately, AOC is not alone. She says that one study shows 96 percent of deepfake videos or A.I. generated images using people's real faces and identities are nonconsensual and sexually explicit. And by the way, all of them are aimed at women. Joining me now is a veteran of tech reporter Laurie Segall. She is also the CEO of Mostly Human, a media company that focuses on artificial intelligence.

Laurie, good to see you on this horrible topic. This deepfake porn phenomenon, it's becoming more popular online, but it's also easier to make than ever before. Some sites are even offering tutorials on how to create this pornography. You're actively investigating some of these sites behind this technology. What can you tell us about them?

LAURIE SEGALL, CEO OF MOSTLY HUMAN MEDIA: Yeah, I'm -- I'm currently out here on an investigation into the anonymous person behind one of the largest deepfake pornography sites. And what I'll say is, Abby, it's not just about X and having an image come out on X. You look at AOC and she -- it's horrific. She found this image of herself on X.

But there are these sites that are operating in plain sight where millions, not hundreds, not thousands, millions of people are going every month to these sites to learn how to do this type of thing. And then what's happening, it's trickling out into the real world. We're seeing this in high schools.

You now have apps just as easy as it is to order an Uber or order groceries. Now, there are apps that encourage young men to digitally undress their classmates with generative A.I. And, you know, I think we're just scratching the surface on this. It's a -- it's a huge problem.

PHILLIP: Are these things I mean, obviously they're operating in plain sight. How is that even legal? SEGALL: Yeah, I think it's funny, years ago, I covered non-consensual

pornography and the rise of this type of abuse online. And I remember just saying, well, how is a lot of this legal? And in short, the laws hadn't caught up yet, right?

And I think that's what we're looking at right now. You have a wild west of artificial intelligence, right? You have these new unintended consequences, these new use cases that are mainly being used to harm women, right?

We're seeing it now with politicians, with figures like Taylor Swift and Bobbi Althoff. Who were victims of deepfake pornography. And now we're seeing it, you know, with our children as a type of abuse. And as -- and I think we kind of know this already. It takes a while for the laws to catch up.

But, you know, I think the most frustrating part of this, if I can be honest, is this is happening. We don't need to warn people anymore like this is actually happening. And so, right now you do have a handful of state laws that are looking at protecting victims and all of them vary in scope.

Some are civil, some are criminal, some are both. You know, you have AOC spearheading the House version of the Defiance Act. So, the laws hopefully will catch up. But we need to know that this isn't even just reserved for politicians, which, by the way, it's happening to many female politicians.

I spoke to a journalist today who said he spoke to a politician in the Netherlands, a female, a woman who said basically this felt like digital rape when it happened to her. And those are such strong words.


SEGALL: But I think it's really important that we listen.

PHILLIP: Yeah. AOC called it violent humiliation. But, you know, as a parent, I know actually a lot of parents who don't even put their kids' faces on social media. It almost makes you think that that might not be the wrong decision, considering that this is possibly out there for not just their classmates, but just really horrible people out in the world.

SEGALL: Yeah, I mean, I think about it when I look at it through the lens of parents, right, this is a really scary type of abuse. And I think the biggest thing I would say to parents is it's important to sit down with your sons and tell them that this is actually digital abuse, that if these types of apps come up in high school, that it's not okay to, you know, gamify or point a camera at someone and, quote, digitally undress them using A.I.

It's almost hard because parents don't even know that we need to have these conversations. But these conversations need to happen because not only are we creating a new generation of victims, but this type of technology, when misused, is creating a new generation of abusers.


PHILLIP: Yeah, it's a new form of a talk that you might have to have with both your sons and your daughters. Hopefully the laws will catch up soon because it's here now. It's not in the future.


PHILLIP: Laurie Segall, thank you very much. Looking forward to seeing the results of this investigation.

SEGALL: Thanks.

PHILLIP: And thank you so much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.