Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Remembering The Two Students, Two Teachers Killed At Apalachee High School; Trump, Harris Campaigns Agree To Rules For Tuesday's Debate; White House "In Touch" With Venezuela Over Detained U.S. Navy Sailor. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired September 05, 2024 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:31:13]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Four lives cut far too short. This morning the community of Winder, Georgia is mourning the deaths of two students and two teachers who were shot by a teenage gunman at Apalachee High School.

Fourteen-year-old Mason Schermerhorn. Family and friends told The New York Times Mason enjoyed reading and telling jokes. He liked playing video games. And he was looking forward to an upcoming family trip to Disney World before he was shot and killed in school.

Fourteen-year-old Christian Angulo's older sister tells local media her brother was sweet, he was caring.

One of his friends who happened to miss school yesterday was absolutely devastated that he had lost his life and been killed by a shooter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CATHERINE MALDONADO, STUDENT AT APALACHEE HIGH SCHOOL: When I found out I started crying and I just got mad because why would you just shoot innocent people that you didn't even know? And he was actually like a sweet person. You know, like a class clown. He was one of those, and he was funny. I don't believe it. Like, I don't believe that it's true that he's dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: A horrible thing for these students to have to go through, and their families.

Then we have Christina Irimie. She was one of the two adults killed. She was a 53-year-old math teacher, and she was killed there at the school.

Thirty-nine-year-old Richard Aspinwall also taught math and was an assistant football coach as well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL GORDON, STUDENT AT APALACHEE HIGH SCHOOL: I knew that coach. He was a good guy. I had him -- I'm in tenth grade so I had him for a whole year. He was -- and he taught me a lot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Richard's colleagues describe him as a well-respected guy, a great husband and a father. One friend called him "one hell of a guy."

All of them lost to gun violence at school -- John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, with us now, former Philadelphia police commissioner and CNN senior law enforcement analyst Charles Ramsey. Commissioner, thank you so much for being with us.

What questions do you think are the most pressing to answer this morning?

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER PHILADELPHIA POLICE COMMISSIONER (via Webex by Cisco): Well, I mean, there are a lot of questions. We're finding out more and more as time goes on. You know, previous interactions with both the FBI as well as the sheriff's office.

We now know he had an AR-15-type assault weapon. How did he get his hands on that weapon? You know, what -- where were the family members -- the father, in particular? You know, how much did they know? What were they doing to secure weapons? Were there any warning signs from school?

I mean, there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. He is alive so they're able to interview him and they're able to get some information.

But this is just one more tragedy that has occurred. And again, my condolences to the families that lost people yesterday. It's just senseless. It makes absolutely no sense.

They'll be taking a deep dive into this, obviously looking at his social media footprint and other things like that to see what if anything they can find out. But who knew what is really the key question --

BERMAN: And --

RAMSEY: -- and that this could have been prevented perhaps.

BERMAN: And the reason you're bringing that up is because we now know that starting with the FBI -- the FBI were concerned about some social media posts. They went and talked to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement went to this child's house, we are reporting, and spoke to the parents. This is a year ago. And we're told yes, that's our son. Yes, we have weapons in the house be he cannot get them.

Now, we don't know necessarily at this point where he got the AR-15- style weapon that he used. But is there really anything more than law enforcement can do when they go to a house like that if they don't have enough to press charges and the parents say the weapons can't get to the kid? Is there anything more that the cops can do?

[07:35:00]

RAMSEY: From what I know now the answer to that is no, and it puts law enforcement in a very difficult position.

First of all, you're talking about a 13-year-old kid at the time. You had no probable cause to take him into custody. Georgia has some of the weakest gun laws in the country. So there's not a whole lot that law enforcement could do.

And that's why I think now you turn toward the family. What did they know? How accessible were those weapons to the individual? Where did he get the AR-15? Who else may have known of his plans -- friends, anyone?

I mean, there's a lot that still has to be done in this investigation. But as far as law enforcement's concerned, they got the threat, they followed up. They interviewed people. They didn't have any probable cause to take this individual into custody at that time, from what I have learned so far. So it puts police in a very difficult situation, but I can't see where they did anything wrong in that case.

BERMAN: Charles Ramsey, thank you so much for helping us understand the details that we know so far and what we still need to learn. I appreciate it -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. We are now just five days away from the second presidential debate of the year. The first one between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Both campaigns have formally accepted the rules for Tuesday's debate now on ABC despite that Trump took an opportunity at a Fox News town hall to plant seeds of doubt yet again, falsely claiming that Harris will get the questions in advance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: A lot of people are going to be watching to see how nasty they are, how unfair they are. I agreed to do it because they wouldn't do any other network. She only -- the other thing is her best friend is the head of the network. Her husband's best friend is married to the head of the network. And they're going to get the questions. I've already heard they're going to get the questions in advance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: They're not getting the questions.

CNN's Steve Contorno joins us now. What do we know? We're less than a week out before this debate happens and it is another -- potentially the most consequential debate -- maybe the only debate that Americans get to see.

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN REPORTER: Well, Sara, these kind of remarks from the former president are standard operating procedure for him at this point, especially going into large events like this.

We saw this exact same kind of comments going into his debate with Joe Biden where he went from saying that he would debate anyone, any time, any place to complaining about the rules, the network. And then even at one point suggesting that the campaign believed that Joe Biden would perform well. That he was a seasoned politician and had been doing this for decades. And so they expected him to show up that night.

So this kind of expectation setting, and playing with the media, and working the rafts (PH) is just kind of how Trump operates.

So let's take a moment to step back and remind our viewers what the actual rules for this debate are.

Each candidate will get two-minute answers, two-minute rebuttals, and one-minute follow-ups. It's going to be a 90-minute debate with two commercial breaks.

There will be no prewritten notes allowed. Trump has repeatedly said that is something the Harris campaign wants, which they have denied.

Microphones will be muted when individuals are not speaking. This is something that the Trump campaign has pushed for. The Harris campaign would like it to be open season on the microphones.

And then, obviously, the topics will not be shared in advance, directly rebutting what Trump just said there.

SIDNER: All right, Steve Contorno. Everybody's waiting. We only have five days left to see what will probably be a bit of a spectacle as well as, hopefully, informative.

Joining us now, Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky. And also the founder and principal of Bluestack Strategies and former press adviser to then-House Speaker John Boehner, Maura Gillespie. Thank you both for being here.

First to you, Maura. Reactions to the attacks that we saw Donald Trump make. He was on "HANNITY" last night during the town hall and he sort of went after Kamala Harris on all the things that you'd expect -- immigration but also personality, et cetera, et cetera, including Walz.

What do you anticipate is going to play out on the stage between the two of them? Will it look something similar to what we saw last night?

MAURA GILLESPIE, FOUNDER AND PRINCIPAL, BLUESTACK STRATEGIES, FORMER PRESS ADVISER TO THEN-HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: It's his M.O. It's what he's -- like, his comfort zone is to attack, attack, attack and not actually talk about what he plans to do if he were to be elected president. And I think the American people at this point have to be a little bit tired of the same old show that we saw in 2016. It's not funny when somebody who is running to be the leader of the free world and we have to take this seriously.

And I think that there's an opportunity here for Kamala Harris to be the adult in the room and to stay calm and not engage with him because it's not worth it I don't think. I think not getting flustered by him is going to be her best strategy.

But yeah, I do think that he is just going to continue on the same way he has been carrying on because that's all he knows how to do. He can't talk policy. He can't talk about plans for the future because he doesn't have any. And that's the unfortunate reality that Republicans need to separate themselves from when it comes to Donald Trump.

[07:40:00]

SIDNER: Um, I do want to ask you about Harris' team. They've officially agreed to the debate rules. There was some dissention over the mics being muted. The muted mics are going to happen.

CNN is reporting on each team's preparations now. And one thing that's kind of changed about Trump's prep includes the addition of Tulsi Gabbard.

How might she make a -- I don't know, a dent in this or maybe change what he might do? Because his advisers have been asking him to stop doing these attacks and focus on policy but he -- but he hasn't done that. And he's said look, that -- it works for me to be on the attack.

JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CO-FOUNDER, LIFT OUR VOICES: Well look, I mean, Tusli Gabbard -- they had to bring her in because they needed a woman somewhere in his orbit to play Kamala Harris or to at least be in the room. I don't think they're actually doing real debate prep.

Real debate prep actually requires reinforcing and reenacting the debate. What he's doing is having consultations with people, including Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard has debated Kamala Harris, so she does know how to do that.

On the other hand, this is not how you run a debate prep. I mean, having run so many debate preps in my life you actually -- it's a very, very disciplined -- probably the most disciplined thing you can do in the course of a campaign. And yet, that is completely contrary to Donald Trump's personality.

So Maura is absolutely right. He's going to go revert back to what he's comfortable with, which is attacking Kamala Harris. The problem for him is that she's a woman and a woman of color, something that he doesn't know how to deal with and somebody that he has never really been around.

And so, I don't know that his M.O. -- the way it worked for him with Hillary Clinton potentially is going to work with Kamala Harris. Hillary Clinton's negatives were baked in with people. People knew about Hillary Clinton. They're not so much baked in for Kamala Harris.

And I think just the notion of him trying to use his physical presence the way he did with Hillary Clinton to try to muscle Kamala Harris out or to try to make her uncomfortable, it's going to backfire on him. He's going to do it because he can't help himself. If I were advising him I would tell him to not, but I think we're going to see that regardless because he doesn't listen to anybody but himself.

SIDNER: And she is, to be fair, a prosecutor, so she's been in battle --

ROGINSKY: Correct.

SIDNER: -- before with very strong opponents on the other side.

I do want to ask you about Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney coming out and telling people in swing states, in particular, because that's where this race is going to be won according to all the polling that we've been looking at. She's telling them vote for Kamala Harris because she is also voting for her.

Does she help? Does she get -- because obviously, people that are Donald Trump supporters don't even think about Liz Cheney anymore as a conservative even though she is a bona fide --

GILLESPIE: Absolutely.

SIDNER: -- looking at her votes, conservative.

Will she make a dent? Will she make a difference with this?

GILLESPIE: I think the way that she did it actually does benefit some of those moderate Republicans and bring them over because she didn't do it on this, like, I'm doing an announcement -- this prep.

She was asked about it during a conversation at Duke University on stage. And they were pretty casually talking about what's at stake in this election and said not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I really thought long and hard about this. And again, it wasn't some formal speech, some formal announcement.

And I think by doing it that way she's not trying to galvanize you; she's more or less explaining here's where I'm at and here's where people who are in swing states need to really consider. It's not just enough to do a write-in and to say no to Donald Trump. If you're in a swing state you've got to -- you know, here's the choice we have.

And I do think that will move some people over, especially in Pennsylvania and different places where it really is important. And I think in the style that she did it actually spoke volumes.

SIDNER: Yeah. And some of the polling is showing and John was reporting yesterday that Pennsylvania is the key here.

GILLESPIE: Yeah.

ROGINSKY: It is.

SIDNER: And then there's a couple of other states. She needs to win one of those states he needs to win. But Pennsylvania is ground zero --

ROGINSKY: Yes.

SIDNER: -- of trying to. Whoever wins needs to win Pennsylvania at this point.

I do want to ask you, Julie, about this idea of raising taxes on the wealthy. The Democrats -- when Joe Biden was running and now when Kamala Harris is running -- hound him on this. Like, you are only helping the rich. We are going to do something different.

But Kamala Harris has sort of changed her tact on a very specific issue that has to do with capital gains. And she's saying a rate of 28 percent and not higher than that for those making over a million.

What do you make of this change? Is she leaning a different way because it's certainly not far to the left?

ROGINSKY: It's definitely not far to the left. I think she's trying to establish herself as a centrist moderate candidate. And I think this Liz Cheney endorsement actually benefits her in that sense as well. She's trying to basically create a governing coalition not just of the far left who -- you know, the AOCs of the world and the Bernie Sanders of the world who've endorsed her, but also the Liz Cheneys of the world who could be comfortable with somebody like this.

And so what she's trying to do is expand her base, for lack of a better word, to include not just the painting of her by Donald Trump, which is that she's this far-left communist Kamala, but to basically say look, if you're a Wall Street Republican you can work with me. If you're a Bernie Sanders, you can work with me. I am trying to expand my coalition.

Donald Trump has a very small, relatively speaking, MAGA base. He's not trying to expand his base whatsoever.

So that's -- you were speaking about Pennsylvania. If you're a suburban voter in Bucks County, Pennsylvania who is typically Republican or of Northampton County, Pennsylvania who is typically Republican, you can be comfortable voting for me because I'm not the communist Kamala, as he calls her. I'm somebody who can actually work with you as well.

SIDNER: She's trying to sort of get into that moderate realm --

ROGINSKY: Right.

SIDNER: -- to say that I can -- I can do all things.

ROGINSKY: Right.

SIDNER: Although sometimes you can't do all things for all people. [07:45:00]

Um, Maura, when you look at Donald Trump's plan, he has talked about tariffs a lot.

GILLESPIE: Um-hum.

SIDNER: Economists have sort of freaked out about this and said yikes, this could cause a real problem. But this appeals to his base. Does it appeal to other people saying, like, yeah, we should be worrying about the stuff that's in this country and taxing those who are trying to bring things into this country?

GILLESPIE: If he could stay on message I'm sure it would appeal to his base, but he can't. And the problem is, too, is that the plan that he put out and as he was railing on what Harris proposed as her economic plan, his plan that he proposed then showed to be five times more expensive than what her plan would do.

And so that's the real problem he gets into, and he knows that, is that he starts talking policy to -- it just depends on the group he's talking to. If it makes a Tulsi Gabbard feel better that she says IVF for all and then backtracks that same day, he'll do that because he really does believe that his MAGA base will stay with him no matter what he says, and that should be a concern.

And again, next week, I think at the debate, it's really important that he gets hit on some of his policy issues and has to say it right there in front of the entire country but also the world. Where do you stand on X, Y, Z? Say it here. Because in these rallies he's able to kind of flip-flop back and forth but then hit on Kamala Harris for being flip-flopping on policy positions.

And I think to Julie's point it's really important that she is reaching out into the middle because Trump has largely abandoned an opportunity for the middle of the Republican Party and the middle of the country, and most people aren't on the fringes. They're somewhere in the middle.

And he decided to neglect that entire opportunity he had, especially after the shooting, and it's up for grabs. And Kamala Harris is taking an opportunity here to try and get those votes.

SIDNER: Well, we've got a debate in five days.

GILLESPIE: Um-hum.

SIDNER: I know you guys will be glued to the TV.

ROGINSKY: Oh, yeah.

SIDNER: I know we will be glued as well.

Maura Gillespie, Julie Roginsky, thank you so much for being here.

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, as we just said, share the stage for the debate everyone has been waiting for, If you care anything about politics follow CNN for complete coverage and exclusive analysis before and after the debate. The "ABC NEWS PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE" simulcast Tuesday at 9:00 Eastern right here on CNN -- John.

BERMAN: All right. This morning, the U.S. Open is way more American than usual. For the first time in 21 years, two American men and two American women are in the semis.

Jessica Pegula and Emma Navarro both play in tonight's women's semifinals. If they both win they could meet in the final on Saturday.

Pegula was overjoyed to say the least.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JESSICA PEGULA, ADVANCES TO FIRST CAREER MAJOR SEMIFINAL: I have been so many freaking times, and I just kept losing -- but to great players. I mean, to girls that went on to win the tournament. So, I mean, I know everyone keeps asking me about it, but I was, like, I don't know what else to do. I just need to get there again and, like, win the match. So thank God I was able to do it and finally I can say semifinalist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: On the men's side, Frances Tiafoe and Taylor Fritz play each other on Friday in the semis, so they'll be an American in the finals either way.

An American has not won on the men's side since Andy Roddick in 2003.

All right. We are standing by for the possibility of major rulings this morning in the federal election subversion case against Donald Trump.

And Pope Francis kind of taking a page out of the J.D. Vance playbook weighing in on people who have pets instead of children.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:52:35]

SIDNER: This morning, Donald Trump's legal team and prosecutors will be back in court over election interference charges against the former president. For the first time in months, federal Judge Tanya Chutkan will consider where the case goes from here after the Supreme Court's decision that gave Trump a broad bout of immunity as president.

CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson joins us now for more -- I've got to say it like -- Joey Jackson -- here to entertain and inform.

First of all, this case is -- we are 60 days, about, to the election. Donald Trump's team is saying you can't go forward with this. This is -- the timing is wrong. Do they have -- do they have an argument there?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So I think with that, Sara -- good morning. Good to be with you. I think with that they do, right? We want to always have a system that's looked about to be fair, to be just, and to be really locked in on the issues.

Now, to that point, this is locking in on the issues to the extent that you are getting into the merits and arguments as to what's official and what's unofficial, immunity, et cetera. However, because of the backdrop of the election you have to be careful. They are going to be those elements that say oh, what suspicious timing.

And it's interesting because it's hard to have these discussions about law and make them strictly about law. There's a political element that comes into it, particularly this close to the election. So you really want to make sure the American public has confidence. In doing that, the proximity is a little bit troubling.

SIDNER: Ultimately, the argument politically is that the voters will decide on this in some ways.

JACKSON: Yes.

SIDNER: And -- but the courts have their own -- they have their own track and they must -- they must be separate.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

SIDNER: So, Jack Smith brings up this new indictment or this superceding indictment. How different is it because there's a lot of information that has been taken out and a little bit of new things sort of put in?

JACKSON: So, without question, I think what he wanted to do was really focus an indictment to take it out of the actual presidential realm and put it into the campaign realm.

What am I speaking about, Sara? I'm speaking about the notion that you want to couch and present any argument relating to the president as he was campaigning, right? This was in efforts to campaign -- to forward his campaign and to really elect him as president, not presidential acts.

And so I think the essence of it when you look at the new indictment from the old one is the manner in which they take out issues relating to the official activities and really making it relating to the campaign. And that's really a one-on-one dynamic, and I think that is what they're going to press forward.

[07:55:00]

What I think the similarity is, and let's be clear about this, is that the charges remain the same.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: And so there are many ways to get to the same result in terms of interfering with the election and what you're doing. And so, factually, I think the facts and the meat on the bone are there. I think the way it's structured is still there.

One interesting thing and that is that --

SIDNER: But the witnesses, right?

JACKSON: Yes.

SIDNER: This is the issue.

JACKSON: Very true. But they still have, Sara, the issue relating to the vice president. Many thought that he would pivot from that because of the presumptive immunity in terms of the conversation.

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: You don't see anything about the Department of Justice in there --

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: -- because the Supreme Court very clearly said that is not fair game.

But as it relates to Pence -- hey, you know what? That's still in there. I think it was bold and it certainly was appropriate given, right, the dynamic of the vice president on that day. "Hang Mike Pence," right?

SIDNER: And you could see this really strange and unusual and awkward situation with the vice president, if this goes to trial, testifying against the person that he served under.

I do want to quickly ask you about Hunter Biden back in the legal headlines today because he also has court today --

JACKSON: Yeah.

BIDEN: -- when it comes to his tax case.

What do you see happening here?

JACKSON: So, you know, Sara, it's interesting. I'll go full-circle where I talked about the politics.

Remember that Biden, although he said that he's not going to pardon him, there's a different dynamic. The last time we've had discussions about this it related to Biden running, right --

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: -- for president and now he's out of the mix. Now -- so that's something that's very important.

So no matter what happens -- and that's the reason I start there and not end there -- no matter what happens you could see a pardon, and this could be actually nothing.

In terms of the significance of this, it's big. I don't see that it really even should go forward.

Remember, this is essentially a paper case. What am I referring to? You have documents, if you're the government, that you introduce.

Did you pay your taxes in 2016, '17, '18, '19, right? And if you didn't pay them, why didn't you --

SIDNER: Right.

JACKSON: -- OK?

And then you have the issue of when you did file, were they false and fraudulent? That all can be established through documentation and it's rather embarrassing as well because you have all of this stuff that's going to come out against him.

Real, real quickly, and that's this. Remember what the defense is now allowed to do. They are limited in terms of using addiction as an argument. That's going to be a big problem. And they are limited in terms of saying well, he paid them now. That's a big problem, too. So that's really hampers the defense that's going to be used in this case.

SIDNER: It will be interesting to see how it all pans out in the end.

Joey Jackson, always great to have you on this morning.

JACKSON: Thank you, Sara.

SIDNER: Thank you -- appreciate it.

JACKSON: Thank you.

SIDNER: John.

BERMAN: All right. Opening statements scheduled to begin today after a jury was selected in the trial of the man accused of killing 10 people at the King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, Colorado in 2021. He faces 93 charges and was initially ruled incompetent to stand trial. But last year he was ruled mentally fit.

Two animal rights groups are calling for a criminal investigation after claiming that a Beluga whale was found shot and killed off of southern Norway. The whale became a celebrity of sorts after speculation that Russia trained it as a spy. It allegedly had a harness strapped to it with mounts that could be used for cameras. Now, CNN has not been able to independently confirm that the whale was shot.

Pope Francis making waves with new comments on families, parenthood, and pets. He praised birth rates in Indonesia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE FRANCIS (through translator): And your country, on the other hand, has families with three, four, or five children that keep moving forward. And this is reflected in the age levels of the country. Keep it up. You are an example for everyone -- for all the countries that maybe -- and this might sound funny -- these families prefer to have a cat or a little dog instead of a child. This is not right, is it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So in case you're wondering if this is the J.D. Vance thing, the Pope has hit on this theme before.

All right. New this morning, the White House and State Department say they are monitoring the situation out of Venezuela where a U.S. Navy sailor is in detention. He was detained in Caracas on August 30. Authorities have not said why.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand has the latest. Natasha, what are you learning here?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, John. So we're learning that this U.S. service member -- he is a Navy sailor -- he was detained according to one official by Venezuelan intelligence in Caracas on August 30.

And we don't know exactly why he traveled to Venezuela. We're told by officials that he was not on official travel there. He basically took a personal leave to go to Caracas. And so right now, officials are trying to piece together what brought him there and, of course, why he was detained.

We are told that the White House and the State Department -- they are in touch with Venezuelan authorities about this, trying to get more information. But it's really important to note here that the State Department has repeatedly warned Americans against traveling to Venezuela because of the significant unrest there and the possibility of arbitrary detention.

According to a State Department travel advisory, the U.S. government says, "Do not travel to Venezuela due to crime, civil unrest, kidnapping, and the arbitrary enforcement of local laws. Reconsider travel due to wrongful detentions, terrorism, and poor health infrastructure."

Now, the advisory also notes, interestingly, that the U.S. government is not generally given a heads up or notified by the Venezuelan government when U.S. citizens are detained. So it's also unclear here just how the U.S. government found out about this service member's detention.