Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Medical Examiner Testifies George Floyd's Death Was a Homicide; Gaetz Investigation: GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz Denies Allegations; Britain's Prince Philip Dies at 99; Trump Endorses Congressman Who Endorses the Big Lie. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired April 09, 2021 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Tonight, embattled GOP Congressman Matt Gaetz takes to the stage at Mar-a-Lago -- in Florida to try to save his career, telling supporters in Florida that the sex trafficking allegations against him are smears and distortions, but he is taking them seriously enough that he is hiring two high-powered New York lawyers. Now, the House Ethics Committee is opening an investigation into the allegations.

And the second week of testimony in Derek Chauvin's murder trial is wrapping up with the medical examiner telling jurors that George Floyd's death was a homicide caused by police officers restraining him on the ground and Chauvin kneeling on his neck. A forensic pathologist is also testifying that Floyd died from a lack of oxygen, not from drugs or heart problems.

I want to get right now to the dramatic testimony today in the trial of Derek Chauvin. CNN's Omar Jimenez is on the ground in Minneapolis for us this evening. Good evening, Omar. Today, we heard from the medical examiner who conducted George Floyd's autopsy and ruled his death a homicide. Tell me about his testimony.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Don. So today was all about maybe arguably the most important part of this trial. That comes down to George Floyd's cause of death. Now, this was a highly anticipated day because we heard from Dr. Andrew Baker. He is the chief medical examiner here in Hennepin County and critically the one who conducted George Floyd's autopsy. He ruled George Floyd's death a homicide, which he stuck to today.

But a lot of today was going back and forth over what it means to be a factor in someone's death and what it means to be the cause of death, specifically when it came to a pillar of the defenses argument that George Floyd died from fentanyl and medical history. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW BAKER, HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER: The other significant conditions are things that played a role in the death but didn't directly cause the death. So, for example, you know, Mr. Floyd's use of fentanyl did not cause the subdural or neck restraint. His heart disease did not cause the subdural or the neck restraint.

ERIC NELSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR DEREK CHAUVIN: And so in your opinion both the heart disease as well as the history of hypertension and the drug -- the drugs that were in his system played a role in Mr. Floyd's death?

BAKER: In my opinion, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: And again, it goes back to that relationship between playing a role in the death versus actually causing the death. And we do know drugs were in George Floyd system, but as the medical examiner said, there were no pills found in George Floyd stomach or pill fragments.

You might be able to hear, I should mention, a little bit of a protest going behind me. But, also, we heard from a forensic pathologist who testified over the course of today, she ruled out overdose as a cause of death and went even further to say that George Floyd would be alive if not for this interaction with law enforcement.

LEMON: Omar, I know there is a protest going on. We certainly understand. It has been the site of many protests, right, as well as a makeshift memorial and people come to scene to actually speak out about injustice. So we certainly understand that you have some noise and a protest going on behind you. But if I can ask you, how did the jury respond to what they heard today?

JIMENEZ: The jury was incredibly engaged over the course of the day, specifically when you talked about that first witness today, Dr. Lindsey Thomas. She was the forensic pathologist, former assistant medical examiner. She testified that she believed the main mechanism in George Floyd's death was a lack of oxygen or asphyxia and nearly all the jurors wrote that down.

There is even at one point where one juror seemed to take issue with the defenses line of questioning for Dr. Baker. He was squinting his eyes. He was shaking his head. But then conversely, there was a moment where nearly all jurors took notes as Dr. Baker testified that he believed that George Floyd was found in a locked home. Without any other factors, he would have classified this as an overdose. Again, without any other factors.

And these are the dynamics that really matter at this point. How these jurors are interpreting these types of exchanges, of course, on that ever important question of George Floyd's cause of death.

LEMON: Thank you very much. Omar Jimenez in Minneapolis where there is a protest happening right near him.

I want to bring in now criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson and former federal prosecutor Laura Coates. Good evening to both of you. Thank you for joining so much. What a week in this trial.

Laura, you're a former prosecutor, so let's look at the prosecution's case. Medical examiner testifying that heart disease and drugs may have been factors but it was Chauvin's use of restraint and neck compression that caused him to rule George Floyd's death a homicide. Does this make the case here?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This is extraordinarily compelling. It is not just this in a vacuum. We're talking about the accumulation of all the evidence over the weeks in this trial. Yesterday, you had the very compelling testimony of a pulmonologist.

[23:05:00]

COATES: People didn't know one of those were before then. They certainly know now. They used as a prosecution strategy. They built up on every particular witness. They've corroborated. They have complemented. They allowed the medical examiner, who actually performed the autopsy, for his testimony to be all the more clear, to clarify what is meant by cardiac arrest, that it is not this anonymous term with a heart attack, to demonstrate how the last minute of George Floyd's life actually looked.

And they had the benefit, Don. They normally don't have. Usually an ME only has the process of elimination to figure out what happened or didn't happen. Now you have the star witness in this case, the nine- minute and 29-second video, not only helping the jurors to understand the scene and what happened, but now to inform and guide the actual forensic pathology and the autopsy. It's valuable.

LEMON: Joey, good to see you. I want you to take the role of the defense council here, OK? You just need to raise doubt in the mind of one juror, right? How do you do that?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Don, good evening to you. Good evening, Laura. Listen, this is about the rules of engagement, right? We have to understand that and recognize that you have a system where 12 jurors have to be in a court, right?

And any one of those jurors who for perhaps any reason really is sympathetic to the police, thinks that police should not out there looking to do anything that is untoward or inappropriate, certainly illegal, you play for that audience of one, you get the audience of one, you have a mistrial.

I think what the defense is doing here and is a strategy admittedly because the other rule of engagement is that you have to just demonstrate that the neck compression is a substantial cause, not the sole cause. So, you can have all these contributing factors.

So, the defense is looking at fentanyl and they're making really headway with respect to the level of the fentanyl in George Floyd system. They are looking at meth in his system. They are looking at heart disease. They are looking at this 90 percent blockage in his system. They are looking at hypertension. They are looking at COVID. They are looking at everything, right? So they are trying to raise these doubts by blaming right -- really like a brew of activity that was going on in the body.

Now, you can also remember and recall this debate that was had between I ate the drugs or I ain't have any drugs, right? And the reason the defense raised that issue was again, to raise the specter of doubt. Maybe there was a point that George Floyd ingested a significant amount of drugs and that might have led to his demise.

And so, again, these are all issues which the defense is raising in order to bring that doubt, to have the jury say, hmm, you know what, I know there were a lot of things amiss in George Floyd system. Was is that or was it the neck compression? And that is what the defense is trying to do here.

LEMON: OK. So, now, let's talk about the prosecution. At this point, you've already called eight medical witnesses, 11 law enforcement witnesses to make your case. Laura, at what point do you think more testimony could potentially hurt? Is that possible?

COATES: Well, you know, you are always balancing as a prosecutor, whether the juice is actually worth the squeeze, and you have to run up against sometimes the law of diminishing returns.

Remember, for the reason that Joey talked about, you have to be exhaustive because you cannot assume that because you think how it is going, you've heard the testimony as a prosecution, you're saying I know I've got this element checked off, I know I've got this one, that's why I wanted to come in.

But you have to make sure you realize you are playing to a series of laymen and a series of wildcards who may need to have -- it pre-empted whatever seeds of doubts are actually raised. You have to be comprehensive and holistic.

Another thing is, once you have actually been admonished by the judge already as they have been about the number of law enforcement agent, that was a moment that they had to then turn towards the second causal, the causal factor of death here. That's why you've seen the shift.

I think they have enough in terms of being able to substantiate the element that this was a substantial causal factor of death. A lot have been made up until now about these dueling medical experts and the family had one report and the Hennepin County ME had a different one.

We are seeing, however, that it is not so different. There was not this combativeness. There wasn't this contradiction. Instead, it complemented the very thing that we have seen through the unreasonable use of force.

Now, the jury, though, has to be sure. And if you see that we are not in the courtroom, we don't see the jurors' faces, we don't see them nodding or being irritated, you have to make sure that you are able to comprehensively allow them, when they go in that verdict room, that there is no stone left unturned. No room for a seed of doubt to actually germinate.

LEMON: Joey, the prosecution has been effectively making the case that Chauvin cause Floyd's death, right? So, would you argue that Chauvin believed in the moment that his actions were reasonable? Is that --

JACKSON: You know, Don, that is where they have to go. They, being the defense, has to make this argument.

[23:09:58]

JACKSON: You may have recall that they argued about this case called Graham versus Connor --

LEMON: Right.

JACKSON: -- that defines a standard of what we call objective reasonableness. What does that mean in English? It means that the court looks at really three things. One is the severity of the crime at issue here. We're talking about a counterfeit 20-dollar bill. Not so significant at all.

And then the other issue is the immediacy of the threat, right? I think you can argue that initially, perhaps, there was some justification for the force, but there is this issue of reassessment. And an officer has an obligation to reassess, re-evaluate, determine, whether you are in control such that I can let go and stop, right? Not let go in the general sense of letting you go, but just letting up on the force.

And then the other component of that test is the component of the resistance. What level of resistance, if any, are you getting? And so where the defense has to go and the pillar of this case is they have to argue that the force is justifiable, number one, because it meets the standard of objective reasonableness.

And then they have to argue and pivoting to the medical issue that the cause of death were all the host of factors I just mentioned to you. And those are the pillars of the case.

Finally, Don, I think that is what we are going to see next week, right? When the defense has its turn, they're going to put up these expert witnesses to really enunciate their theory of the case, the theory about reasonableness on self-defense, the theory about it was all these other things in the system as to the medical cause of death. You know, to the extent that they do that effectively is the extent to which we will see what happens.

Final point, Don, that's this, we have to remember these three different options the jury has. The first option, of course, the most significant, they establish and assault, the death is result of the assault, you get that second degree murder, 40 years.

Say the jury is not convinced, but you have this element of depravity because we've heard a lot about the prone position, face down, restricting of airway, he had his knee on his neck for three minutes more after he was dead, that's depravity. That gets you to the next count which is the third degree murder.

And then finally, if you can establish that there was negligence because there are these policies and protocols and procedures, all of which were violated, now you get to the manslaughter. So the defense has multiple bites at the apple here. I think they're presenting their case in a pretty compelling way. And I think that, you know, certainly, a conviction is likely on one of those three counts.

LEMON: What do you say to that, Laura?

COATES: I think that the idea of having that bevy of choices for the jurors is a key, which is why they wanted to have all those options available. And it gives the jurors, especially given that most jurors still are questioned on whether they are going to give officers a benefit of the doubt.

Remember, this is still a big psychological hurdle for so many jurors in this country to be able to convict somebody who was at the time an officer because no one wants to believe that an officer gets up in the morning, puts on his or her uniform, and intends to commit murder.

Jurors have to be able to overcome the hurdle, which is why you spend so much time as a prosecution in this case distancing law enforcement from Derek Chauvin. Why you have actual law enforcement witnesses there to suggest, look, this was a cop in name only. He knew better, he was trained better, he chose not to do better, even in the face of so much imploring by the bystanders.

So, they are prepared for that hurdle. They are prepared for those bevies of choices. But again, there are 12 human beings, 12 wildcards, and no prosecutor who is worth his or her way to insult would ever, ever believe it's a foregone conclusion, even with the strongest of cases. So manage expectations. They've got to be thorough, they've got to be comprehensive, and they may have to respond to whatever presentation of evidence the defense puts on.

LEMON: Joey, you could start presenting your case as early as next week, right? Who is the most important prosecution witness that you need to undermine?

JACKSON: I think you have to undermine -- there's two really, Don, right, because there are two different pillars of the case. The first pillar being use of force, so you really have to undermine -- remember the compelling evidence. You have the chief who goes there and says sanctity of life. Those are the values of our department.

You have Lieutenant Zimmerman, senior most officer, 40 years, right, and he is telling you this is not what we do. You have a sergeant, 27 years, saying not today, not now, not us. And so you have to undermine that from a defense perspective, all of the issues concerning self- defense.

Then you have to pivot to the medical issue and you have to undermine all of the medical testimony that we heard, that was so compelling, with respect to the critical question. Yes, he may have had hypertension. Yes, he may have had blockage. Yes, he may have had meth. Yes, he may have had any other substance like fentanyl. But guess what? The substantial cause, and that is what the jury instruction will be, was the neck compression. That's it. So, you undermine those two things. You can make headway, but I think it's an uphill battle indeed.

LEMON: I know this is a tough one for you, Joey, because, you know? You're an attorney.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Do you call Chauvin to the stand, yes or no?

JACKSON: I say at this point I would not do it. My (INAUDIBLE) co- counsel --

LEMON: I said, yes or no? I said, yes or no?

JACKSON: My (INAUDIBLE) co-counsel Laura --

[23:15:00]

LEMON: You're proving my point. I said, yes or no?

JACKSON: Yes.

LEMON: You're proving my point. So, you don't call him?

JACKSON: I say it's too risky, Don.

LEMON: Laura, what do you say?

COATES: You ask a lawyer a yes or no question. Are you kidding me?

LEMON: OK.

COATES: You're always going to get all these different caveats. I would call him to the stand if I am the defense counsel because he is all that he has left.

LEMON: OK.

COATES: He is a persona non grata to every law enforcement. What does he got to lose besides 40 years in prison?

JACKSON: A vicious cross-examination where he will fold as to his past prior bad acts, as to what he did, as to, sir, you knew you should have reassessed. You knew what the rules, you knew the regulations, you were on force for 19 years, you were trained every year, and you still did it. He would be shredded. So I would be really thinking twice, three times and four times before I put him on the stand.

COATES: Yeah --

JACKSON: Yes or no?

COATES: -- Joey, you got to think yourself. If you're the jurors out there, you might be looking. I'm not saying that Chauvin is going to be the ideal witness. I do think that he will inflict a lot of self- inflicted wounds.

However, hear the jurors. The question that has been lingering this entire time is why didn't you? Why didn't you? Please give me some reason to see that there is the human connection that wasn't there when the mixed martial arts fighter spoke to you or tried to get you to do the right thing. They may be looking for something, anything.

You know, sometimes, sometimes people can feel empathetic in ways that go against common sense --

LEMON: Got it.

COATES: -- or the instructions of a jury. And so he has got to gamble.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: That is what is known as a yes or no answer from lawyers.

JACKSON: But Don, real quick, I think these the conversations that are being had. I bet you there's a war room --

LEMON: That's why I let you guys go on with it.

JACKSON: Yeah. This is a war room and I bet you there's a Laura Coates in there saying get him on and someone, you know, on my side saying --

LEMON: A Joey Jackson.

JACKSON: -- don't ever do it. Exactly.

LEMON: A Joey Jackson. Thank you both.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

LEMON: I appreciate it. I'll see you soon.

JACKSON: Thank you.

LEMON: So, you had to see it coming. Matt Gaetz is complaining tonight about being cancelled. Too many Republicans seemed to be grasping at straws, yelling about cancel culture, but will that be enough to save them from themselves? One former GOP leader is calling some members political terrorists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: You called some of these members political terrorists.

JOHN BOEHNER, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Oh, yeah. Jim Jordan, especially, my colleague from Ohio. I just never saw a guy who spent more time tearing things apart and never building anything, never putting anything together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Congressman Matt Gaetz at Trump's Miami Doral property tonight giving his first public speech since the revelation that he is under investigation by the Justice Department.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): This past week has been full of encouragement from President Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan to the MAGA nation that shares so much love. So let me assure you, I have not yet begun to fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Well, earlier today, the House Ethics Committee announcing they are launching their own investigation into the allegations surrounding Gaetz and the latest blow to the embattled congressman.

So joining me now to discuss is CNN political commentator and former U.S. Senator Doug Jones, and CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein. He is also the author of The New York Times bestseller, "Rock Me On The Water." It is a new book. Congratulations. Thank you, sir. Thank you both for joining us.

Although you're bestseller, I'm going to start with Doug. So Doug, let's talk about Gaetz. He was defiant, praising the former president while speaking at that event hosted by Women for America First. That's the same group, by the way, that hosted the January 6th rally that turned into the insurrection. He's playing the cultural warrior for all it's worth, right?

DOUG JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, absolutely doing that, Don. It's stunning, the brashness of folks who are facing the kind of problem that Matt Gaetz got right now, not just with the House Ethics Committee.

This guy has got a colleague where there is serious evidence. I mean, he is looking at jail time. He is looking at an indictment down the road. And the brashness is just stunning, but not unexpected from somebody like Matt Gaetz.

LEMON: Ron, he says he's the victim of the deep state. But Gaetz lost another staffer over his legal troubles. Fellow Republican Adam Kinzinger now calling for his resignation. Do you think he can survive this politically? If so, how long? If not, how long?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Don, first of all, thanks (INAUDIBLE) book. It's a neighborhood you know well, The New York Times bestseller list. Look, he is beyond spin (ph) here, right, as Senator Jones noted. I mean, he is looking at serious legal allegations.

If the evidence develops against him along the lines that it seems to be, you know, going, there's no -- you can yell deep state all you want, you can yell cancel culture all you want, and it will not change the realities that he faces.

So, I mean, this was, I think, the most inevitable play of inevitable plays that he was going to claim that he was being targeted because he's a conservative. But he, I think, is way beyond the point where he can affect his fate very much by trying to frame or spin this.

LEMON: Yeah, it is interesting because the very people who were supposed to unseat or uproot the deep state, that is Justice Department that started out there, which was Donald Trump's Justice Department under Bill Barr, who carried the water for Donald Trump.

Doug, we have so much to talk about. I want to move on now because Senator Joe Manchin is insisting that bipartisanship is the only way to move forward. Given what we've seen so far, were Republicans going to the table on good faith for any part of Joe Biden's -- the president's agenda?

JONES: Sure. They -- I think they can and I think they will. But it is going to take some work. Clearly what you're seeing is that there is an obstructionist view. It goes all the way back to what Senator McConnell did with President Obama.

[23:24:59]

JONES: But at the same time, there is a group of senators that are meeting regularly to talk about areas of common ground. And is it possible? Absolutely it's possible. It is going to --

LEMON: Is it probable though?

JONES: We have come so far --

LEMON: Is it probable?

JONES: You know --

LEMON: Because we just don't see -- I mean is it the Senate that you left shortly just a short time ago or has it moved on light years since you've been there?

JONES: That's kind of like asking a yes or no question that you just asked previously --

(LAUGHTER)

JONES: Probable versus likely. It is going to be difficult. There is no question.

LEMON: OK.

JONES: But I do believe, Don, I really believe that on voting rights and some other things, there is some common ground. But Democrats are going to have to take out some of the poison pills as well. If they are willing to do some of that, to do the good things as possible, the progressive things that are out there with some common ground, I think they can get something done, but it is going to be tough.

LEMON: Yeah. I'm glad. Thank you for your honesty with that. Possible, yes. Probable, that's tough. I think that is the perfect answer. Ron, you are shaking your head. Do you want to say something?

BROWNSTEIN: I'm much more dubious that there are 10 Republican votes for anything meaningful that Joe Biden wants to do. I mean, first of all, there are only three Republican senators in states that he won. I think Mitch McConnell has made it clear that in 2009, 2010, behind the scenes, that he has been putting a lot of pressure on them to avoid allowing Democrats to claim that anything is bipartisan.

I think on voting rights, he's made very clear that his goal is to provide errant cover in Washington to the ground offensive in the states that Republicans are undertaking to make it tougher to vote. I don't think he will accept anything that establishes a nationwide framework, a baseline of voting rights.

And even on infrastructure, when you think that it could be possible, the fact is Republicans are arguing that any attempt to pay for it by reconsidering the Trump tax cut is inherently, you know, a deal killer. I mean, the Trump tax cut reconsider democratic tax policy from before. The idea that you are going to go back and kind of look at tax policy, that (INAUDIBLE) a lot of room.

I do think he wants to test whether Republicans are willing to work. The question is going to be, what do him and Kyrsten Sinema do at the end of the road when they find they can't get 10 Republican votes for almost anything they care about? Do they say at that point, we let the issue die? Or do they say at that point, I am going to negotiate with other Democrats?

LEMON: Yeah.

BROWNSTEIN: Find a way forward.

LEMON: That was a yes or no from a political expert right there. That was a yes or no answer.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: I'm kidding. I think you get when I'm talking about the lawyer thing. Doug, I want to ask you. The White House is announcing a commission to study the Supreme Court and look at possible reform. Biden has been facing pressure from the left to add seats to the court. He was cagey about the issue on the campaign trail. Should he be considering adding seats?

JONES: Well, you know, Joe is doing exactly what he promised to do on the campaign trail. He wasn't just cagey, he was basically saying, I believe in the institutions of government. I believe in the Supreme Court, the way it is composed right now. He promised, though, that he would take a look. That is what exactly what he has done. He is delivering on his promises again, Don.

If you look at the commission and their charge, it's not just the number on the court. It's the history of the court. It's how they get their cases. It's the rules. There's any number of things that could come out of his that may or may not get enacted. But he is doing what he said he would do on the campaign trail. I think that is the most important part of this.

LEMON: Ron, let's talk about your new book. It is called "Rock Me On The Water; 1974 - The Year Los Angeles Transformed Movies, Music, Television, and Politics." I want to know what drew you to this moment in our history and give us some lessons that you have learned, that you can share with us today.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks. Look, I mean, at one level, it is just an incredible -- excuse me -- confluence and constellation of talent that came together in L.A. in the early 1970s. In music: Joni Mitchell, Linda Ronstadt, Jackson Browne, the Eagles. Movies: Warren Beaty, Jack Nicholson, Jane Fonda. Great directors like Robert Altman and Arthur Penn and Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese. And then, of course, TV: Norman Lear, Carroll O'Connor, James L. Brooks and Mary Tyler Moore.

So on one level, it is like the literary world in Paris in the 20s or the art world in New York in the 50s is an incredible constellation of talents but at the deeper level, Don, where it really as residents were today, this was the moment when the 60s critique of American life was hammered in a popular culture, never to be dislodged.

Ideas like more suspicion of authority, changing relations between men and women, greater autonomy for women, more inclusion of marginalized groups -- this was really the moment when those ideas took root. They took root in popular culture, even as Richard Nixon was winning two elections by mobilizing his silent majority of voters most uneasy about them.

That is the real parallel today. Trump showed that there is a big constituency that can be mobilized against the way that younger generations, particularly the increased diversity of younger generations is changing America.

I think my story from the early 70s tells us that while you can kind of find a delaying action in politics, the future always gets the last word and the culture is often ahead of the politics in predicting what the country will become.

[23:30:06]

LEMON: Great reading and great coffee table book. It's great. Thank you. And climbing up the bestseller list, so we're happy about that. "Rock Me On The Water."

BROWNSTEIN: We are neighbors.

LEMON: Yeah. Yeah. "Rock Me On The Water" by Ron Brownstein. Thank you both. Thank you, Ron. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I appreciate it, Doug.

Britain's Prince Philip is dying at the age of 99. We're live in Windsor right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

LEMON: Sometime tomorrow, Buckingham Palace is expected to announce the full funeral arrangements for the queen's husband, Prince Philip, who died today at the age of 99.

He was in poor health, but the palace says that he passed away peacefully at Windsor Castle. Philip's death is another blow to the royal family, which is still reeling from accusations of racism made by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan.

I want to bring in now CNN royal correspondent Max Foster. Max, hello to you. Thanks so much for joining. Reactions around the globe to the death of Prince Philip, what is the latest there tonight, which is tomorrow morning where you are?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the queen having to deal with what happened yesterday and then also sign off on the funeral arrangements. Prince Philip was very involved in his funeral arrangements. He didn't want a lot of fuss. He did want the charities and the causes and the military associations that he built up over his lifetime to be reflected in that.

A lot of that won't be able to happen because of the pandemic and the restrictions around that, so there won't be any procession. So, what we expect to hear on Saturday after the queen has signed everything off is that everything will be contained within the castle walls behind me.

Perhaps a funeral next weekend, but it will be limited to 30 people under the current restrictions, unless some sort of exemptions have been made here. So, we're waiting to hear the details.

The queen would have wanted Prince Philip to have bigger fanfare, really. She feels he made a very big contribution, not just the marriage, but the monarchy and also the commonwealth.

LEMON: You know, Max, Meghan and Prince Harry put out a short statement on the front page of their foundation website following the news of the death and it says, in loving memory of his royal highness, the duke of Edinburgh, 1921 to 2021, thank you for your service, you will be greatly missed.

Prince Harry was very close to his grandfather. Do you expect him to attend his grandfather's funeral?

FOSTER: Well, as you say, he was close. And after the Oprah interview, he went out of his way to say to Oprah that Philip and the queen were not the people he was referring to in reference to the conversation about race of his unborn child at that time.

So, he was protecting Philip to that extent and he did that because he does look up to the person. He was the patriarch of the family. I think he would want to come. I think they would expect him to want to come. The duchess, not so sure, she is pregnant, of course, and the numbers will also be restricted. So, it will depend as well who the queen signs off on the guest list as well.

I think he would want to come. If he does want to come, there is a quarantine process. He would have to be in quarantine for at least five days. He would be able to do that if he left soon. We will wait to hear on that.

LEMON: Former President Barack Obama posting a beautiful tribute to Prince Philip, sharing a photo of him and the former first lady Michelle Obama, posing with the queen and the duke at the queen side or trailing the customary two steps behind.

Prince Philip showed the world that it meant to be supportive husband -- what it meant to be a supportive husband to a powerful woman, yet he also found a way to lead without demanding the spotlight, is what is written there. So what will Prince Philip's legacy be, Max?

FOSTER: Well, it is interesting, isn't it, because we will know him as the person who supported the queen, always by her side. She will remember him as a husband but also the one person she had been normal with, which is hugely important when you're a member of the royal family. Even her own children bow and curtsy her when they first see her.

Philip was the one person who could be himself with her. He was very honest with her. She would take his advice. She described him as a strength and stay. You will hear people who them very closely talking about how she couldn't have done it without him. He had a huge contribution to her monarchy, which is one of the great monarchies in British history. Some would argue the greatest monarchy.

So, she's lost her closest advisor. I think that is the key part of what has happened today. So his legacy will be what he did for the crown. Also, what he did for the family behind the scenes. He was the head of the family. He would make all the key decisions. There was some sort of deal between him and the queen on that. He was very much a leader behind the scenes. He made a lot of compromise, I think, over the years, but he did that for his wife.

LEMON: Max Foster, thank you for staying up late or waking up early, whichever it is. Thank you. We appreciate it.

He fired up Trump supporters just hours before the Capitol insurrection. His lies are so bad that his own party thought about removing him from committees. But Congressman Mo Brooks could become Senator Mo Brooks soon. Stay with us. We'll talk about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: One of Donald Trump's staunchest allies now running for an open Senate seat in Alabama, and he could win, another example of Trump's grip on the GOP and how far right politics are now mainstream in the Republican Party.

Here is CNN's Manu Raju.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

CROWD: USA!

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He was one of the architects behind the big lie, that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, firing up Trump supporters at the Stop the Steal rally that preceded the deadly damage of the riot at the Capitol.

[23:45:02]

REP. MO BROOKS (R-AL): Today is the day Americans patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.

RAJU (voice-over): And now six-term Congressman Mo Brooks is being rewarded with an endorsement from the former president as Brooks now seeks the Alabama senate seat being vacated by retiring senator, Richard Shelby.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): He saw the crooked election, what happened, and he was willing to speak up.

RAJU (voice-over): Trump choosing Brooks over his former ambassador to Slovenia, Lynda Blanchard, and before others could jump in. Though Trump's 2017 picks in the Alabama senate primary and general election both lost, this time, it could be different with Republicans seeing Brooks as a clear front-runner, all thanks to Trump.

Appearing last month with Trump adviser, Stephen Miller, at his kickoff rally, Brooks repeated the falsehoods about the election and compared it to his 1982 bid for a seat in the Alabama legislature, where he contended that machines would not allow votes to be cast for him. He won that race. What exactly happened then was never fully resolved.

BROOKS: When I saw what happened last year with Donald Trump, I recognized it pretty quick because I had seen it before.

RAJU (voice-over): As one of the staunchest House conservatives who elected in the 2010 Tea Party wave, Brooks has emerged as one of Trump's biggest defenders. During Trump's first impeachment proceeding in 2019, Brooks and other House conservatives stormed the closed hearing about whether Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine as he pushed for an investigation into the Bidens.

Asked by CNN at the time about a key witness's testimony, Brooks erupted.

RAJU: Mr. Brooks, Mr. Brooks, the opening statement says very clearly this is not -- this is -- BROOKS: The opening statement doesn't make any difference --

RAJU: Let me finish what I'm saying. Let me finish my question. He says very clearly --

BROOKS: You should not be relying on it.

RAJU: I'm asking about the substance of what he said. He said --

BROOK: It doesn't make any difference. We don't know whether what he said is true or not because of the sham process that is being used.

RAJU (voice-over): He has also refused to take any responsibility for inflaming the January 6 rally goers and for giving them false hope that Congress could change the electoral outcome, repeating the big lie just hours after the pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.

BROOKS: Noncitizens overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden in exchange for the promised amnesty and citizenship, and in so doing, helped steal the election from Donald Trump.

RAJU (voice-over): His actions alarmed colleagues from both parties, with CNN learning that Republicans privately considered stripping him from his committee assignments. Republican Steve Womack told CNN he played Brooks's rally remarks to his GOP colleagues.

REP. STEVE WOMACK (R-AR) (voice-over): There were jaws dropping.

RAJU (voice-over): Do you think he incited the rioters?

WOMACK (voice-over): I'm not going to get into that. He offended me, I'll tell you that.

RAJU (voice-over): But Brooks has remained defiant.

Do you regret speaking at that rally last week?

BROOKS (voice-over): I did my duty for my country.

RAJU: Even though some Republicans were concerned about what Mo Brooks did in the run up to January 6th, he received no punishment. He is still serving on his committees and he could very well be a United States senator next year. One reason why is Donald Trump still popular in the state of Alabama. He won that state by more than 25 points. And Republicans believe that there is very little chance that Democrats could pull off an upset in that very red state as they did in 2017.

So whoever wins that primary could very well be the winner and could become the next United States senator from Alabama. At the moment, Mo Brooks appears to be the favorite. Don?

(END VIDEO TAPE)

LEMON: Manu Raju, thank you very much for that. I want to make sure you know about the new CNN Original Series, the People Versus the Klan. It tells the story of Beulah May Donald, a Black mother who took down the Ku Klux Klan after the brutal lynching of her son, Michael. Watch back-to-back episodes, Sunday at 9:00 Eastern, right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Every day, people are changing the world. And since 2007, CNN Heroes has celebrated hundreds of these amazing individuals. They are all around us. And you can help shine a light on their efforts by nominating them as a CNN hero. Here is Anderson with more.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): It's been a time of challenges and change. But it's also a time for hope.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COOPER (voice-over): This year, CNN Heroes celebrates our 15th year of honoring everyday people doing extraordinary things.

[23:55:05]

COOPER (voice-over): From frontline workers fighting against the coronavirus pandemic to those battling for racial equity and social justice, those spontaneous acts of courage to those who dedicated their lives to making a difference.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

UNKNOWN: We need to see the world differently.

UNKNOWN: Anyone can have an impact, no matter their age.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

COOPER (voice-over): Every day heroes are all around us. Do you know a hero? Tell us about them. Nomination for 2021 CNN Heroes are now open at CNNheroes.com. Now, more than ever, the world needs heroes.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

LEMON: And remember this, you don't need to personally know your hero to nominate them. It only takes a few minutes. You can do it right now at CNNheroes.com.

Thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)