Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Trump Department Of Justice Subpoenaed Apple For Data From Accounts Of Democrats; Don Interviews Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL); Race for New York City Mayor: Candidates Debate Before Primary Voting Begins; Arkansas State Trooper Sued for Allegedly Causing Pregnant Woman's Car to Flip During Traffic Stop. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 10, 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: So, here's our breaking news. The Trump Justice Department seized records from Apple for data from the accounts of Democrats on the House Intel Committee, including Congressman Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell as prosecutors investigated leaks of classified information. I spoke with Congressman Swalwell just a few minutes ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): I was notified, Don, by Apple that they did seize my records. It's wrong. This is what they do. They smear and they try and clear. We've seen this through the Justice Department by Donald Trump, whether it was the reason he was impeached for trying to go after Vice President Biden at the time, or just other efforts, you know, through the Mueller investigation.

And I support Chairman Schiff's call for an inspector general report into not only this conduct but other conduct that was corrupt by Donald Trump and those who work for him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Also tonight, a big development on Capitol Hill, a bipartisan group of 10 Senators announcing that they have reached an agreement on an infrastructure deal. The White House wants to take a look at it. And President Joe Biden meets with key allies at the G-7 meeting ahead of his crucial summit next week with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

So there's a lot to get to. But I want to get to this bombshell breaking news with our two senior legal analysts, Laura Coates, Elie Honig both former federal prosecutors. Good evening, boy, oh, boy, here we go. Elie, this is what CNN is learning that the FBI sought metadata on more than 100 accounts, one request for data in 2018. The DOJ went after Democratic lawmakers, their aides, their family members, and you say this is a massive abuse of power. Put it into context, please.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It really is, Don. It is just a staggering abuse of prosecutorial powers. When you work at the Justice Department as Laura did, as I did, you are given enormous power, enormous discretion. And the depths that DOJ sunk to here are really not just a disgraceful, but alarming.

I mean, DOJ used its prosecutorial investigative subpoena power to pull private phone records, we learned a few weeks ago of members of the media and now we're learning of perceived political enemies of the opposite Party of the president. Bill Barr enabled this. Bill Barr brought DOJ to its lowest point in many, many years and it is a black mark and it's a shame for DOJ.

LEMON: Laura, these investigators started under Jeff Sessions and when investigators hit a dead end, no evidence of leaks, they talked about closing the inquiry. But Bill Barr revived the investigation. Why do that if there is no evidence?

LAURA COATES, CNN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it is ironic here that the person who is appointed by a man who said there were witch hunts against him then tried to initiate them against others and go on fishing expeditions with the hopes of having some result to, I guess, confirm the suspicions of a paranoid person. Why this is so egregious, of course, when the Department of Justice walks into a courtroom, they have the automatic credibility and rapport with judges across this country.

There is a great deal of deference that is extended to a federal prosecutor. Why? Because they believe that there is honor and integrity. What it sounds like, in the Department of Justice became suddenly Department and Justice LLP. They're not intended to be the private contracting attorneys for one particular person. They're supposed to think about the long-term implications of what it is like to go into a court and ask a judge to not only get these records, to have the subpoena but then have a gag order and do the opposite of transparency.

And of course, this reminds you of when you have kids, you tell them to go clean their room and you go in and you see a clean area and you open a closet, and everything is falling out. I suspect this is going to be the very tip of the iceberg. We have no idea what else will be uncovered. But if this is the start within the first six months to this point, Elie Honig, I hope with your new book that's coming out, you have time for one more chapter on what has happened to the Department of Justice.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Yes, Elie, you may have to update and revise that book before it even -- because I mean, this is really stunning. And look, and let's talk more about this Elie, because the DOJ secured a gag order on Apple which was renewed three times so lawmakers didn't know that they were even being investigated. Would this have been a judge or a grand jury? Because at this point our understanding is that they went to a grand jury subpoena.

[23:05:00] HONIG: Yeah. So, Don, there's a couple steps that's would have been --

had to have been complied with here. First of all, it would have had to have been approved within the highest levels of the Justice Department. They have their policies on the books, but those policies are only as good as the people who are enforcing them. Otherwise, they're just as valuable as the paper they're written on. So, the highest level of DOJ would have had to approve not only the subpoena but then going to a judge and saying, judge, we need a gag order.

Meaning we need a court order telling Apple and the other provider you can't tell anybody about this. You can't tell Adam Schiff about this. You can't tell Eric Swalwell about this until a certain time in the future. And what that does is it makes this a completely one-sided fight. It doesn't allow Adam Schiff or Eric Swalwell to contest the subpoenas to try to stand up for their own rights.

And the effect of all this is, by the time we're learning about this, hearing in June of 2021, Donald Trump is long gone. Bill Barr is long gone. That doesn't mean they're out of harm's way. Congress has a job to do here. Congress needs to subpoena these people and bring them in and get answers from them.

LEMON: So Apple had to comply, Elie, right? Because of the court order?

HONIG: Yes.

LEMON: They had to comply.

HONIG: Yes, correct.

LEMON: OK. And another question. So, the executive branch was trying to investigate the legislative branch, multiple members of Congress, and now we need to know a lot more about that, correct? Elie? That's for you.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: Yes. Look. There is a couple entities here. DOJ has an inspector general. That inspector general needs to do an investigation and Congress needs to do an investigation, as I'm sure Laura is familiar with. They need to get answers here as well.

LEMON: Go ahead, Laura.

COATES: I was going to say, absolutely. Remember, just to give it full circle here. Remember this prior administration was so vehemently opposed to the notion of privacy interests being implicated that were not factually predicated they believe about different (inaudible) that was with the FISA, The FISA courts about intruding on the privacy rights of individual American citizens in this country.

And now we have got the Department of Justice as you talked about earlier. We think -- it is very much projecting what they were complaining about in other contexts now happening. This is also a part of the attack on the free press. Because remember, they're trying to identify in part the sources to figure out who the leaks were. It doesn't appear to be it right now. But it was because they thought there was some violation of the law. But instead, that there was a violation of being able to disclose information they did not want to get out.

They didn't say they have the national security implication. We're also waiting to find that information out, of course. But here, you're thinking about the idea, we're only learning now that it concluded what back in May. We have no idea how many different iterations of the investigation took place. What else might come out? The investigation is crucial for transparency.

But again, you're also talking about what will Attorney General Merrick Garland do now? He has largely inherited all of these dilemmas. But what he does moving forward will be the clear distinction between what happened under Barr and Trump and what will happen to the Department of Justice under Garland and under the administration of President Biden.

LEMON: Well, this makes, this is interesting, Elie, considering what has transpired this week. And you're feeling on how Merrick Garland has conducted himself when by actually going into court and allowing the lawsuit, (inaudible) or at least, defending the former president against that lawsuit. But you think that it's going to be interesting to see how Merrick Garland responds to this particular information.

HONIG: Yeah, it's going to be so important to see that. Merrick Garland has not impressed me, or I think you this week. I think he has shown a passivity in correcting some of the abuses under Bill Barr. But this one, he needs to get this right. And look. To his credit, to the administration's credit, they took steps on the subpoenaing of media and reporters' records. They need to do the same thing.

The administration DOJ needs to take a direct stand that we will not intrude on the privacy rights of members of Congress unless there is a grave and imminent national emergency. Merrick Garland needs to step up and he needs to handle this one appropriately.

LEMON: Yes. Laura, do you think that will happen? Do you think we'll see Merrick Garland act on this?

COATES: I think he must. And I think it will happen. And part of the reason is a lot of this could be (inaudible) this is with what he has been criticized this week, the idea of having an eye toward a long- term implications of the institutions of the Department of Justice and about the accountability or the protection for public officials generally.

A lot of what we saw in terms of his decision to continue to and the defense against the defamation case in (inaudible), it seems that the reason they thought chose to do so was because they wanted to ensure that as long as someone was acting in the scope of their employment as a public official, they would be protected from against suits or any sort of allegations such as this.

Well, that would be consistent now, we are trying to ensure the protection of Adam Schiff or Eric Swalwell or on colleague Barbara Starr. People doing things within the realm of their public duties in the case of elected officials to conform these investigations and perform them. So, if they are not going to protect those people against these privacy violations or against other acts against them. That would be inconsistent and have to answer to that.

[23:10:16]

LEMON: Alright. Thank you both. Make sure you buy Elie's new book is out today, Hatchet man. And you can look for it in stores or wherever you buy books. I appreciate both of you.

I want to bring in now Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, who is now on the Intel Committee. Congressman, thank you, I appreciate you joining us. The scope of what Trump's Justice Department was trying to do is astounding. In addition to Chairman Schiff, Congressman Swalwell told me just last hour that his records were seized. Do you know how many other members got their data seized?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): I don't. What we do know is that apparently Bill Barr, I guess, reinstituted his investigation of House committee members. Democrats, mind you, after he came into office in 2019, I believe.

LEMON: So, can you clarify something for us. Clarify if the committee knows that more than two members have data seized or was it just Congressman Schiff and Swalwell?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't know. And I have not heard any more information. At this point, we need a full investigation. It's got to be transparent. Obviously, there's going to be -- there has to be a DOJ inspector general investigation at the least. It should have started right away, if it hasn't already.

And then probably, they're going to be called for an investigation on the part of Congress perhaps in a classified setting. The second thing that has to happen is people have to be held accountable. Especially for violation of potential laws that were broken. And then third, we have to prevent this from happening again. We have to put guardrails so nothing like this could happen again.

LEMON: Can you put into context how you feel about the egregiousness of this particular incident?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: This is unprecedented. Outside of corruption cases involving certain members of the Congress in the past, or specific cases. I think a few years ago there was a Senate staffer who was convicted of leaking certain important national security secrets. I have not heard of anything like this. And I think this goes to show that we knew that Trump was politicizing the DOJ, but now we know he was weaponizing it against his political enemies.

You know, if they were really interested potentially in leaks from the House Intelligence Committee, they would have thought perhaps they would have looked into records of people on both sides. But no. They only chose Democrats. But there are a number of other questions disturbing questions that come up. You know, how could this grand jury process have allowed for this type of investigation of a co-equal branch of government? And the second question is, does the DOJ have too much discretion to prosecute? This is long been a question for many. And I think this one shows you the extent to which that they can go and in the process, abuse their power.

LEMON: Well, you said, you know, that the Justice Department, the nature of this investigation and what they were allowed to get. I mean, they were able to get these gag orders in their investigations into reporters, and members of Congress. How are they able to get such restrictive orders like that?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Honestly, I don't know. I don't understand -- one of the questions that has crossed my mind is, with regard to Apple, how they were able to institute these gag orders with regard to the investigation of members of Congress. And how long that timeline has elapsed before these members would be informed of the investigation.

It is just completely egregious. And you know, I think a lot of people have explaining to do, including at least four members of the DOJ who are still there today working for Merrick Garland, Don. They worked for Bill Barr and pursued this investigation. They have a lot of explaining to do, including this gentleman, Mr. Ben (inaudible), who was a gang prosecutor brought in from New Jersey by Bill Barr to basically investigate House Democrats on the intelligence committee.

LEMON: Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your time.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.

LEMON: We've got a lot more to come on our breaking news. The Trump DOJ took the extraordinary step of seizing records from Apple, targeting Democrats on the House Intel Committee, including Congressman Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:15:00]

LEMON: So we are back now with our breaking news and it is huge. The Trump DOJ subpoenaed Apple for data from the accounts of Democrats on the House Intel Committee including Congressman Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. I want to you listen to then President Trump. This is in February of 2020. This is where he accuses Congressman Schiff of leaking information about Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2020 election. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: And frankly, I think it is disgraceful and I think it was leaks from the intelligence committee, the House version. And I think that they leaked it. I think probably Schiff leaked it. But some people within that. And Schiff leaked it in my opinion. And he shouldn't be leaking things like that. They have to stop the leaking from the intelligence committee. And if they don't stop it, I can't imagine that people are not going to go after them and find out what's happening.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:20:03]

LEMON: So I want to bring in now CNN's senior political analyst, John Avlon and CNN political commentator, Amanda Carpenter. So there you go. He just said it. Good evening to both of you. He just said it, right, John? I mean --

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah.

LEMON: Yeah.

AVLON: Not complicated. He just said it out loud as he often did. And we just see that this is an administration that was corrupt to its core because tone comes from the top. And people folded on basic Democratic norms, trying to advance this one man's paranoid world of power.

LEMON: Yeah. Listen. Have you ever seen anything like this that is out of bounds? I've been asking people to put this into perspective, John? How does this rank? How do you categorize this? What is this?

AVLON: This makes Nixon look like minor league ball. People need to understand this. Part of what Donald Trump does, part of what all leaders of his style try to do is normalize behavior that is fundamentally abnormal.

Remember when he was asked whether Putin was a killer, and he said no, you know, everyone is a killer. You know, it's the normalization of extreme behavior. And there's this attitude some people might hear this news and say well, other administrations have gone after political opponents with open-ended fishing expeditions through the Department of Justice.

Not like this. Not to this extent. When he talked about journalist being enemies of the people, when he talks about demonizing Democrats in Congress who are doing their jobs to investigate him, he followed through with his administration through fear and people followed it. It means, we need to strengthen the guardrails of our democracy fast. Because the assumption that too many people made is that you would have people of character at the top. That is not always the case.

LEMON: Well, we knew he wasn't a person of character when he ran. I mean --

AVLON: Yeah. But the founders -- the checks and balances the founders put in place didn't hold this time. Not sufficient. We got through this. But we have got to strengthen these guardrails fundamentally and fast. Because what is coming out is incredibly dangerously how close we came to a complete upended.

LEMON: Amanda, you look very calm, but I know you. I know you. Look, let me put this into context for everyone. This is coming after we learned that the Trump DOJ was going after reporters at CNN, at The New York Times, the Washington Post. It seems like a full-on assault against Trump's political enemies played out completely in the dark.

AMANDA CARPENTER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, they can say it was about leaks. I think any reasonable person knows that Adam Schiff was clearly one of Donald Trump's political targets. And here's what I think happened. Donald Trump said, he always said, he wanted a (inaudible), people thought it would be Michael Cohen. It was Bill Barr. It was Bill Barr. OK.

I mean, this is a Trumpian pattern. This is what he does. He calls for investigations to manufacture dirt on his political enemies to smear them. That's what birtherism was about. It's what the Ukraine investigation was about. It is what these ongoing fraud-its in Arizona are about. And if the matter Republican gives their way, it will be coming to a swing state near you.

Bill Barr is a bad figure in this administration. I mean, his first act as Attorney General was to mischaracterize the findings of the Mueller report. He fully defended the clearing of protesters in Lafayette Square, and he help stoke, you know, these mail-in ballot conspiracies last fall and even on his way out the door with his resignation letter, he promised Donald Trump that, you know, your election integrity concerns will be fully addressed.

I mean, he is a very bad actor. And I do hope, you know, I understand that the DOJ under Merrick Garland is reluctant to get into politics but there does need to be a Housecleaning. It can be done in a dignified way, because -- the foot happened here was clearly not on the up and up.

LEMON: So, let me ask you this, Amanda. The central -- what I really want to know is how much more can people take? How much more will they continue to support? Because --the conversation that Chris and I were having at the top of the 10:00 show. Chris says he wanted change agent. OK, change agent. I disagree with them. I'll give him that. That's he's perspective and people may have believed that.

But is this the change that they wanted? Someone who breaks the rules. Someone who investigates their political enemies. Someone who -- I believe it was exploiting the worst of human nature. Not a change agent. So how much more will people take?

CARPENTER: I listened to conversation you and Chris had. And it was interesting. You know, I don't think a lot of people voted for this in 2016 when they voted for Trump. They had no idea that could have been coming.

[23:25:02]

But what has morphed among the hard-core Republican base that decides primaries that does get out the votes, that does the fundraising is political vengeance.

I mean, that's what all these voting restrictions are about. It's vengeance for the 2020 election. Because they cannot -- because Donald Trump could never admit, he lost the election. So, he's just doubling down in constant grievance and retribution. I mean, that's emanating a lot of the far-right Republican politics right now.

LEMON: So, Chairman Schiff wants an investigation. How do you think Joe Biden's DOJ should proceed here? Because they've been pretty pragmatic so far. You know, not seeking retribution. They really haven't gone hard against the former president and the former administration. So, how do you think they should proceed here?

AVLON: By the book. Enforce the law. Look, what the Biden administration is doing, what Merrick Garland -- the Justice Department is doing is actually what needs to be done, which is depoliticizing the Justice Department. It never should have been politicized in the first place. It clearly was.

But at the same time there needs to be accountability for this behavior. That's the only way many people learned their lesson. So, the laws need to be enforced, the guilty need to be prosecuted. And we need strengthen the guardrails of our democracy fundamentally. And Democratic crook is just as bad as the Republican crook. That's a principle that the Justice Department needs to enforce again. But they also have to go back and investigate everything that occurred before, because this is just the tip of the iceberg.

LEMON: Real quick, before I go. Before you guys go. More to come, do you think, John?

AVLON: Yes.

LEMON: Amanda?

CARPENTER: Yeah, always. Not just on this front but probably many more fronts and with other major departments.

LEMON: Yeah, thank you both. I appreciate it.

CARPENTER: Thanks.

LEMON: Less than two weeks to New York's mayoral primary and tonight's final debate starting off with whether one candidate, even one of the candidates even lives in the city.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The top five candidates for New York's democratic mayoral primary taking the stage -- to stage tonight in the final debate before early voting starts. Less than two weeks to Election Day, they are battling it out. So here is CNN's Alexandra Field.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Do you believe Mr. Adams lives in the city?

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the homestretch of the democratic primary for mayor, Brooklyn Borough president, Eric Adams, again, under fire over his home address.

ERIC ADAMS, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I live in Brooklyn. I live in Bedford-Stuyvesant.

FIELD (voice-over): His rivals, piling on, following questions raised earlier this week over whether Adams lives in the basement apartment of a Brooklyn townhouse he owns or with his partner in New Jersey.

SCOTT STRINGER, NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: The only time I go to New Jersey is by accident.

KATHRYN GARCIA, NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Is this a where is Waldo moment?

ANDREW YANG, NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: We've been on dozens of forums together, and I've never seen that basement apartment in my life. And I think the other candidates here would agree. But we have seen the New Jersey background.

FIELD (voice-over): Adams turning the attack back on Andrew Yang for leaving the city and heading to his Hudson Valley home during the pandemic.

ADAMS: I don't live in New Faltz (ph), I live in Brooklyn.

FIELD (voice-over): But, as mayor, Yang pledging he won't leave the city during his first term.

YANG: New Yorkers are going to be sick of me. They'll be, like, Yang, go away, because I'm going to be here all the time just trying to solve problems and get our city working again for us and our families.

FIELD (voice-over): All of the candidates onstage saying they work toward a more effective relationship with Governor Cuomo when asked about the notoriously icy one between Cuomo and current mayor, Bill de Blasio.

GARCIA: We all saw how the toxic relationship between the governor and the mayor hurt us during the height of the pandemic.

MAYA WILEY, NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: Having served in the senior cabinet of city hall, I've actually done this.

YANG: I can work with anyone who is going to help us deliver for the people of New York.

FIELD (voice-over): That, prompting city comptroller, Scott Stringer, to come back with this pointed attack.

STRINGER: I just want to, I guess, say to Andrew, your approach is naive. This is not how Albany works. It is not enough to say, we are all going to be friends, kumbaya. We need a mayor with experience.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Thank you.

YANG: The state needs the city, Scott. The city needs the state.

STRINGER: This is de Blasio 2.0, my friend.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): We are going to move on.

YANG: De Blasio is the opposite of what I've just described.

FIELD (voice-over): The city's former Sanitation Department commissioner, Kathryn Garcia, largely staying away from the fray, arguing she is the one who can clean up the city.

GARCIA: I'm the person who can deliver on impossible problems.

FIELD (voice-over): While Yang took another swipe at Adams, questioning his tough on crime stance.

YANG: You are concerned about crime. I used to be a cop 20 years ago. I should be mayor. But the fact is when Eric talks to some audiences, he said the cops love him, and then to other audiences, the cops can't stand him.

ADAMS: No one on this stage can tell you that they have put their life on the line to save New Yorkers. No one else can do that. I can say that.

FIELD (voice-over): Each of the candidates also asked about a key issue in the race, the rise in violence in the city and the future of policing.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Will you take the guns away from the NYPD?

WILEY: I am not prepared to make that decision in a debate.

FIELD (voice-over): The civil rights attorney, Maya Wiley, appearing to solidify her place as the most progressive candidate onstage, the only one who didn't commit to keeping police armed.

Alexandra Field, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

LEMON: Thank you, Alex. I appreciate that. I want to bring in now CNN political commentator Errol Louis. Errol, good evening. Thanks for joining. Overall, what is the state of this wacky race after tonight's debate?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, the state of the race is more or less as it was, Don, meaning you've got a bunch of candidates who have a lot of experience in government.

[23:35:01]

LOUIS: You have Andrew Yang, who has never served in government. And they are each appealing to different constituencies and they're trying to stitch together some kind of a coalition to take them over the top. We're coming down from the closing hours before early voting starts. And I think -- look, the real problem for most of the candidates other than Eric Adams is that crime and public safety are the number one issue for New York voters. We polled this at the spectrum news. It came back very solidly in favor of putting more cops on the streets and in the subways and dealing with public safety.

The fact that Eric Adams was a cop for 22 years really works very heavily in his favor and the other candidates are trying to figure out a way to sort of take some of the shine off of that or knock him off that pedestal or, you know, bring up sort of non-issues about where he spends his evenings. It has really been a tough go for the rest of the candidates.

LEMON: Yeah. That was, I think, the first question, one of the first questions. They went right at him about whether he lives in the city or not. Does that resonate? Does that stick with voters?

LOUIS: Listen, everybody in the city has some kind of a crazy arrangement, right, if you ask enough of your friends. Here is what we do know for sure. There's been a lot of good reporting on this. The fact is that Eric Adams owns several apartments. He has one in New Jersey. He has a couple in Brooklyn. He has the ability to go from one place to another.

He spends a lot of the pandemic actually sleeping in his office. Brought in the cameras, I interviewed him from there, and made a big show of sort of being on call and being on duty, as if he was a cop again back at the precinct, being on duty 24 hours a day.

And so, again, you know, all of this stuff was known, for weeks, if not months. For the candidates to bring it up and try and make a big issue of it in the final days before voting starts is, again, a sign that he has been pretty consistently ahead in the polls. He has a connection to an issue that we know the voters care about. They got to try and find a way to either disqualify him or change the subject.

LEMON: All right. I'm glad you say that. I'm glad you pointed out about the crime. You know, I had Eric Adams on last night, and I said, you know, New York needs -- New Yorkers want someone who is tough on crime right now. And you hear from people, what do you mean by that? You want people who are tough on crime? Overall, crime is down.

If you live in the city, you know what is up, right? So on the other side, you have Maya Wiley, who says that New Yorkers want fewer cops, but refuses to answer if she would take guns away from police. She is the only one who wouldn't give an answer. She has got a lot of big endorsements from progressives, the progressive wing of the party like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But, do you think her take on crime is what most New Yorkers want?

LOUIS: Well, no. I mean, our polling shows that it is not at all what most New Yorkers want. In fact, it's very unusual to see this in a poll. Something close to three quarters of the people that we polled said that they want a specific policy, which is, you know, more cops.

Now, it is debatable whether that's the right way to go. There are certainly number of problems that involve people with mental illness or people who just happened to be homeless, and a person with a gun is not necessarily the right way to deal with those particular challenges.

But people are clear. They want a solution. They want their government to do something for them. They want to make this problem go away. You can give a 20-minute explanation about how more social workers and different violence interrupters, you know, increasing the general wage level so that people have more money and there would be less desperation, how you can sort of deal with the underlying causes of crime.

But right now, people just want to be able to get to and from work. I mean, listen, I woke up this morning and one of our headlines in our news was that someone was murdered across the street from where I have to go and broadcast every night. That's not a good feeling.

You know, I got a whole shelf of books behind me, Don, about underlying causes of crime. But the reality is you want your family, you want your co-workers and your neighbors to be safe. That is, in the end, very much what this race for mayor has turned into.

LEMON: Yeah, I agree. Listen, I know people who have lived here for decades. I have friends who have been attacked or mugged on the streets. It has never happened to them, except for within the last year or so. That's real. Thank you. I appreciate it, Errol.

LOUIS: You've got it. Thanks.

LEMON: An Arkansas woman suing after a traffic stop ended in her car, flipping the car over. And she is a pregnant. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the Republicans negotiating the bill to policing reforms, saying talks with Democrats have gotten off track after saying he was optimistic just a few days ago.

But one of his Democratic counterparts, Senator Corey Booker, pushing back, saying both sides are working out their differences, that as we are learning an Arkansas woman is suing a state trooper for allegedly causing her car to flip during a traffic stop when she was pregnant. The incident caught on dash cam video.

CNN's Amara Walker has more.

[23:45:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

AMARA WALKER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): A traffic stop in Arkansas turning dangerous in minutes. The driver, Janice Harper, was allegedly speeding in a 70-mile-per-hour zone on Highway 67 in Pulaski County when state trooper Rodney Dunn activated his emergency lights.

You can see from his dash cam video, Harper turning on her blinkers, slowing down, and then moving into the right travel lane. Then, Dunn appears to bump her SUV, causing her to lose control.

Harper's car flipped over. You can hear the distress in her voice, telling the trooper she's pregnant.

JANICE HARPER, PREGNANT WOMAN WHOSE CAR FLIPPED AT TRAFFIC STOP: I'm pregnant!

RODNEY DUNN, STATE TROOPER: Well, ma'am, you've got to pull over when we stop.

HARPER: I had my flashes on.

DUNN: It doesn't matter, ma'am.

WALKER (voice-over): Last month, Harper, who was two months pregnant at the time of the wreck, sued the Arkansas state trooper, his supervisor, and the director of the Arkansas State Police, calling Dunn's PIT maneuver a reckless attempt to engage in conduct that created substantial risk of physical injury to her.

The lawsuit also points out what the dash cam video appears to show. There were no exits or shoulder for Harper to safely exit the highway before defendant Dunn negligently executed a PIT maneuver on plaintiff's vehicle two minutes and second seconds after defendant Dunn initiated his overhead lights.

DUNN: Why didn't you stop?

HARPER: Because I didn't feel like it was safe.

DUNN: Well, this is where you ended up.

WALKER (voice-over): And it appears Harper acted in accordance with the Arkansas driver license guide. It instructs drivers to activate their turn signal or emergency flashers when being stopped by police to indicate they're seeking a safe place to stop and pull over to the right side of the road.

Arkansas State Police declined to comment on the case to CNN because of the pending lawsuit.

(On camera): Harper's lawyers tell CNN that she was injured during that encounter last summer and had to seek medical treatment for it, but she did deliver a healthy baby this past February. Now, according to the lawsuit, she is seeking at least $100,000 in damages. And Don, CNN did reach out to Trooper Dunn, and we are still waiting to hear back. Don?

(END VIDEO TAPE)

LEMON: Amara Walker, thank you so much. I appreciate that. I want to bring in now Captain Ron Johnson who was with the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Captain, good evening to you. I mean, it's outrageous. It looks like she followed the rules. Harper is calling the trooper's actions reckless and negligent. He said that she was fleeing. What do you see in that video?

RON JOHNSON, FORMER INCIDENT COMMANDER IN FERGUSON, MISSOURI: Well, I definitely don't see fleeing. We don't see shoulder for her to pull over. Actually, her trying to find a safer place was actually making it safer not only for her, but for the officer also.

LEMON: Yeah. I don't understand that at all. I mean, whenever, you know, if there is an occasion where I am pulled over, I try to go to a safer place. I don't like pulling over on the side of a highway. I try to go to an exit. Many people do that. That's not so unusual, is it?

JOHNSON: It's not. We've instructed citizens to find a safe place for themselves. And as we know throughout our country, traffic stops create the biggest risk for officers. And so it is good for both sides when we can find a safe place. It looked like she was slowing down. She had her flashers on. There's nothing there that would say that she was trying to elude or flee.

LEMON: So walk me through what exactly this PIT maneuver is, you know, short for precision immobilization technique. How is it supposed to be used?

JOHNSON: Well, it should be used to spin out a vehicle. We really saw it come into play in California. We are having a lot of high-speed pursuits. They were using it there to make a vehicle spin out. And you have to do it in a safe manner. You should be in a safe location. And it is not to cause crashes. It is to stop the behavior.

LEMON: Hmm. According to a Washington Post investigation, at least 30 people have died and hundreds more injured since 2016 from police using this maneuver. We don't know the total number of people killed, though. Police departments aren't really required to keep track. Should police even be using the PIT maneuver at this point?

JOHNSON: Well, we've seen it used in some effective ways. But it has to be used in proper trained. We've seen it used in ways that were not proper. And so I think when it is used in a proper, there are circumstances that it provides safety to the public. But, you know, we see it used throughout the country and we have to make sure that the training is correct before we begin to use that kind of maneuver.

LEMON: Captain Johnson, thank you. I appreciate your expertise and your time. Thank you so much.

JOHNSON: Thank you.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: I want to make sure you know a new season of my podcast. "Silence is Not an Option" is out right now. We are digging deep into the realities of being Black and brown in America. In this episode, I am talking to CNN's Abby Phillip about the teenager who refused to give up her seat on a bus nine months before Rosa Parks did. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Why wasn't it Claudette? I think it was potentially a lot of things. I think the nature of her arrest is part of it.

[23:54:58]

PHILLIP (voice-over): I think her age was a big part of it, as well. I think her class was part of it. She was, you know, a poor young woman. You know, she even mentioned to me the tone of her skin. She was a darker-skinned Black woman.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: You can find it anywhere you listen to podcasts. And thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Two big stories breaking tonight. John Berman here, in for Anderson. One is on the question of kids and COVID vaccines, namely, whether to grant emergency use authorization for children under 12 just yet. That's what an FDA panel is discussing. And today, the talk was contentious. At least 314 children have died of COVID, but one panel member is counselling caution.