Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Mark Meadows Sues Jan. 6 Committee to Block Subpoenas; Biden Touts Economic Agenda; House Progressives Move to Strip GOP's Boebert of Committee Assignments Over Anti-Muslim Remarks; Instagram CEO Grilled by Congress About App's Impact on Teens; Manslaughter Trial Begins for Ex-Officer Who Shot Daunte Wright; Black Couple Suing for Housing Discrimination. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired December 08, 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, Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff, suing the January 6th Committee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seeking to block enforcement of the subpoenas issued to him and for his phone records. That as the committee appears ready to refer Meadows for criminal contempt to refusing to sit for a deposition.

Congress grilling the head of Instagram after a whistleblower leaked internal document showing that the company knows the social media platform can harm the mental health of young people, especially teenage girls.

And emotional testimony as a manslaughter trial begins in Minnesota for a former police officer who shot and killed Daunte Wright during a traffic stop, claiming she accidentally mistook her gun for her taser.

I want to bring in now CNN political commentator and former GOP Congressman Charlie Dent and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. He is a former federal prosecutor. Gentlemen, good evening to both of you.

Elie, so now, Meadows is suing the committee. Is he afraid of Trump or is this another stalling tactic or both?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a stun -- it's a delay tactic. It's a distraction tactic, Don. This lawsuit has next to no chance of succeeding. What he is basically doing is just taking a firecracker, lighting it, tossing it into the January 6th Committee room and saying, deal with this, here's one more distraction, here's one more thing you're going to have to deal with.

His executive privilege claim has so many problems. We are talking about executive privilege invoked by a former president, we are talking about something Meadows has been bragging about in his book, we are talking about a topic that Meadows has already turned over documents on, and we are talking about communications that don't have to do with any legitimate policy discussion but rather with an attempt to steal an election. So, the lawsuit is doomed to fail. The question really is, is the committee going to be able to play through it and keep their eye on the ball?

LEMON: Elie, you said that this breakdown in cooperation was predictable. It comes after Meadows turned over some key email and text conversations, including a text exchange with an unnamed member of Congress where Meadows writes, I love it, in a discussion about appointing alternate electors in certain states, and a January 5th, 2021 email with a 38-page PowerPoint briefing titled "election fraud, foreign interference, and options for 6th January to be provided on the Hill."

So, how can you argue now that he can't testify about these documents after he turned them over himself?

HONIG: That's exactly the question. He's had quite a change of heart very suddenly. The problem is, as you say, Don, he has already turned these documents over. And by the way, these are just sort of yellow lights. These are glaring red lights to the committee. I mean, think about these documents talking about -- and I quote -- "direct and collateral attacks on the election," talking about plans for January 6th, taking about seeding alternate slates of electors.

And this isn't just coming from some fringy right-wing conspiracy theorist. This isn't coming from Steve Bannon or Alex Jones and their podcast. This is coming from Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, the heart of power.

So, the committee has to be focused on those documents. That is exactly why it is so important that they question Mark Meadows.

LEMON: Charlie, there's also an early January 2021 text exchange here to talk about between Mark Meadows and the organizer of the January 6th rally, a January 5th email about having the National Guard on standby, and text messages about the need for Trump to issue some kind of public statement to stop the January 6th attack at the Capitol.

Now, Meadows clearly has key information for the committee that doesn't seem to involve direct policy or national security conversations with the former president.

CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA REPRESENTATIVE: That's correct. And it just seems to -- and I think Elie nailed this pretty good -- that he has chosen not to cooperate at this point, I suspect, because Donald Trump is upset about the book and wants him to walk it back. He is not happy about Meadows's cooperation.

I don't know how Meadows thinks he is going to be able to, you know, recall all those documents he dumped to the committee. The committee is not sending them back.

So, this is a rather odd situation as far as I'm concerned. I tell you Mark Meadows is one of the senior Republicans on the House Oversight Committee and he had gone apoplectic. He had, you know, people defied subpoenas when he was in the majority.

[23:05:03]

And so, I think this is all about Donald Trump being in a snit over the book and Meadows is trying to placate the former president.

LEMON: Congressman Adam Schiff, Elie, telling Wolf Blitzer this tonight about Meadows's lawsuit against the committee. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): He claims what accounts for his about-face, his purported desire to cooperate, and then his change of heart was a committee decision to subpoena phone records.

That suggests that perhaps he was concerned that the phone records might contradict what he was telling the committee, or maybe it was the president who got upset with his book or upset with -- the former president was upset that he was cooperating. I don't know. But the reality is something led him to abandon cooperation with the committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Meadows certainly seems concerned about the phone records the committee might have, including his own. Why do you think he's worried about that?

HONIG: Yeah, I mean, look, this is a complete pretext by Mark Meadows. Obviously, he's worried. And by the way, his whole argument here is, well, I'm not going cooperate anymore because how dare you subpoena my phone records? I mean, that is the most normal routine investigative subpoena in the world.

These service providers have entire branches that do nothing but respond to the subpoenas all day. All the committee will get is a list of who called who and when. You don't get the substance of the conversation.

There's obviously something in there that Mark Meadows does not want the committee to see, who Mark Meadows was speaking to perhaps in the days leading up to January 6th, perhaps on January 6th. If I'm on the committee, like Adam Schiff just said, that's picking my interest even more.

LEMON: Charlie, we know at least one top Pence aide is cooperating with the committee and the former VP was in New Hampshire today, a signal that he is thinking about 2024. But what chance does he have, really, in this Trump GOP? Is that even at all realistic for him?

DENT: Look, I think the former vice president has a real uphill climb in this presidential bid. Clearly, Marc Short, his former chief of staff, is cooperating because I think Mike Pence has a pretty good story to tell. He was, in fact, a victim of this attack.

In the end, he did the right thing. He is trying to draw a little bit of a contrast, a little bit of separation between himself and the former president. He thinks this might help, my suspect, in his presidential bid. But still, it's Trump's party at the moment.

LEMON: Yeah.

DENT: And so, this may not help Mike Pence as much politically as he would like, even though he did do the right thing in the end.

LEMON: Yeah. Good luck if you're thinking about 2024, Mike Pence. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it.

Joining me now, CNN chief White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Wow, we have Kaitlan at 11:00. I'm so excited.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: In studio, not at the White House.

LEMON: Ah, well, we're glad to have you in studio or at the White House. Kaitlan, thank you for joining us. So, listen, President Biden was in Kansas City touting his economic message today on the heels of some really good economic news, including drop in gas prices. What do we hear today?

COLLINS (on camera): Yeah, you see how the average has gone down there. This is something that is welcome news to this White House because they have been plagued by this for several weeks, Don, talking about these prices and where they were. And so, as the president was there, he was talking about this and he was himself in part giving himself some credit for a move that he made recently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Two weeks ago, I announced the largest-ever release of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase the supply of oil to help bring down prices. And I met with our friends around the world; other countries joined us. And those savings are starting to reach drivers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS (on camera): Now, Don, a few things we should know, by the time the president did announce that, which was the biggest ever release from the Strategic Reserve, the oil prices were about 10 percent than what their peak was, what we had seen, what people are paying at the pump, paying for their energy costs.

But the president did want to take a move to show people that he was listening, that he understood the pain that they were feeling at the pump. And the White House had predicted it would take until about right now, because remember when he announced that, it was around Thanksgiving, people were getting on the road.

And so, this is something the White House is happy about. They have been dealing with this. It's been a constant issue that they were hearing not just from the lawmakers but from voters as well. So, they are happy to see these prices go down. In part, we do believe it's also because that was right around when the Omicron variant emerged and it started to spook some people about, of course, what that could mean for the future.

LEMON: The criticism has been that, you know, they -- Americans did not know what the Biden ministration was accomplishing, even though they were accomplishing things, that he didn't tout it enough. So, he has been going on this tour around the country now promoting his infrastructure bill and push for his 'build back better' bill. But how likely is it to get his economic agenda -- to get his economic agenda passed by the end of the year, Kaitlan?

COLLINS: Well, that's the deadline that they're shooting for. You heard House Speaker Pelosi said yesterday that is still what she would like to accomplish, getting it done by Christmas.

[23:09:59]

COLLINS: Of course, Don, right now, that does seem to be a long shot, given what you are hearing from people like Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema. Of course, those are two key votes that they have to get on board to get this passed.

What you've heard from Senator Manchin, even as of today, he said the White House isn't really lobbying him on this right now. They're not having those intensive negotiations that they were having around the infrastructure bill. And he is someone who has made pretty clear he is not eager to get this done anytime soon. He is not trying to pass it by tomorrow.

Whether or not they could get it done by the end of the year, publicly, they say that they are optimistic, but if you talk to Democrats, if you talk to people inside the White House privately, they do concede that this could be something that slips into 2022.

LEMON: Well, let's hope it's fast, okay, because folks need it. Listen, Kaitlan, as of today, 200 million Americans are fully vaccinated. It's a huge success in a year. But there are still significant vaccine resistance and now the need for boosters. What is the White House doing right now?

COLLINS: I think the boosters is the biggest push that you are seeing from them right now. It's something that they are talking about every chance they get.

There is reason you're seeing so many health officials on television, including the CDC director today, Dr. Fauci also on television, talking about how important this is because they are right now in a holding period, kind of waiting to see more definitive data around the Omicron variant. What does that look like? Are these vaccines and boosters effective?

They're feeling pretty good about it so far. But they also realize there are about 100 million Americans who still need to get that booster shot, who have not done so yet. And so, you saw that today. That's the push that they are still continuing.

One other interesting thing Dr. Fauci said today, quoting his own personal opinion, he does think that the definition of fully vaccinated can change from those two shots -- of course, if you have an MRNA vaccine -- to potentially three shots, which of course would include the booster that they are encouraging people to get. That has not officially happened yet.

LEMON: Kaitlan Collins in Washington.

COLLINS: It's so good to be back with you.

LEMON: Not at the White House. I know. We need to take this on the road.

(LAUGHTER)

COLLINS: It would be sold out in every city that we went to.

(LAUGHTER)

COLLINS: Alabama, Louisiana.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Something else, a Beyonce song. Let's call it like that. Alabama, Louisiana. So, there you go. Thank you.

COLLINS: Let me know when you want to do.

LEMON: Kaitlan is from Alabama. I'm from Louisiana. I'm not a big fan of the Roll Tide. I'm an LSU Tiger. I still like Kaitlan, though.

COLLINS: We'll see how our new coach does.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Great. I know he's got a great accent, too.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON (on camera): Inside joke. Google it. Thank you. Thank you, Kaitlan. I'll see you soon. So, we've got some real work to do in this country, but the wing nut wing of the GOP is trying to distract us with endless trolling. We are going to discuss that next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I don't feel like talking about what the Republicans aren't doing or are doing about the disgraceful, unacceptable behavior of their members.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): Outrage growing over the GOP's failure to punish far-right Congresswoman Lauren Boebert for her increasingly unhinged behavior. Progressive Democrats now moving to strip Boebert of her committee assignments, citing her recent anti-Muslim comments toward Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. AYANNA PRESSLEY (D-MA): It is shameful that we have had to wait this long for meaningful action, for meaningful accountability, but here we are. For a member of Congress to repeatedly and unapologetically use hateful, racist, and Islamophobic tropes towards a Muslim colleague is dangerous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): The resolution coming the day after Boebert put out this Christmas photo showing her four children holding semiautomatic-style weapons.

So, joining me now, CNN political commentators Ana Navarro and Scott Jennings. Good evening to both of you. So, Ana, look, this is getting out of control. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy nowhere to be found. The leadership void and the GOP is really absolutely astounding.

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It is. Obviously, Kevin McCarthy wants to be the speaker of the House should the Republicans win, he knows that he has got a problem on his right flank, and he's trying not to rile them up. What is being shown is a lack of leadership, a lack of morality, a lack of moral compass. It should not be hard. It should not be hard --

LEMON: But --

NAVARRO: -- to admonish somebody for making discriminatory, racist, Islamophobic statements.

LEMON: Let me just put this out there and get both of you to respond to this. When you have people who do this wackiness, do you have to respond to -- do you to respond to the craziness, because doesn't it just pull you down into -- can't you just let them be crazy on their own?

NAVARRO: I think that's a very legitimate question because obviously, Lauren Boebert likes to go from outrage to outrage and offense to offense because it's click bait.

LEMON: Yeah.

NAVARRO: And she fundraises out of it and she gets higher profile out of it and we're talking about it. That being said, how do you not respond to an Islamophobic attempt? Do you just stay quiet? What message does that send --

LEMON: I don't know --

NAVARRO: -- to little Muslim girls and little Muslim boys all over this country?

LEMON: I understand. Maybe you can put out a statement. I just don't know. I just think at some point, you have to be above the craziness and let them spin and toil and look bad, and you take the high road. Scott, I don't know. Am I wrong? It's just -- what do you think of that?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDNET TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think as a strategic matter, you raised exactly the point. I mean, the reason someone would tell this kind of a joke, the reason someone would fabricate this kind of story is because they're trying to attract attention.

And when you elevate it to the extent that it has been elevated in our public discourse, we've obviously been discussing it now for days and days and days, this is what they want.

[23:20:02]

JENNINGS: And, you know, the idea that we are going to strip someone of their committee hearings, I mean, do we think Lauren Boebert wakes up every day desperate to get over to a committee meeting? I mean, of course not.

And so, this is no punishment for them. This is the desired outcome. I think, actually, Don, you raised the exact correct strategic point, which is when you deprive an attention hound of oxygen, you deprive them of the attention that they want. That's their oxygen. It actually is probably a smarter play.

LEMON: Yeah. That's what I do.

NAVARRO: It might be smarter, but I just -- we did this with Donald Trump, right? We faced this same question with Donald Trump for four years and we followed up on all the offensive, ridiculous, outrageous things he said, because not doing so is normalizing it, and there is no way that we can stay quiet in the face of racism.

This was -- listen, if she was saying these things about Latinos, I would be outraged and I would want people to be talking about it.

LEMON (on camera): This is the thing, though. I think that -- I'm not sure that the Democrats are the ones who should be responding. It should be on the republican -- look, Dan Crenshaw, a Republican. This is Dan Crenshaw. He spoke out about what is going on in his party. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): There are two types of members of Congress. There are performance artists. There are legislators. The performance artists are the ones that get all the attention. The ones you think are more conservative because they know how to say slogans really well and know how to recite the lines that they know that our voters want to hear. We have grifters in our midst.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): That's who the pressure should be put on to speak up. I'm not necessarily sure that it actually helps Democrats to, you know, lie down to get fleas. Let's put it that way. Do you see my point, Scott?

JENNINGS: Yeah, look, I think Dan in that specific case, Representative Crenshaw, I should say, was responding to a specific issue where they were voting on a bill and some of the people that he was commenting on were circulating this crazy idea that there was something in the bill that really wasn't in the bill. And I think he was irritated with it.

The idea that he would go and vote away and have it described by people in his own conference in a way that just wasn't true and it is always the same people. And so, he was bold enough and I think courageous enough to say, this is B.S.

And by the way, he has credibility not just as a Republican and as a conservative but as someone who sacrificed and served this country. And so, I was grateful Dan Crenshaw did that because his unique voice is exactly the kind that could potentially put a stop to this.

But, look, there is always going to be a market for people who are in the performance business rather than being in the member of Congress business.

LEMON: Same sentiment, Ana, even if we're talking about something specifically and something -- an idea of something that wasn't true and wasn't there. That's what we're talking about, the big lie and so on, right? It is the same sentiment.

NAVARRO: Yeah. Listen, I think it's great that there is a voice like Dan Crenshaw saying that or Liz Cheney. These are people who nobody can accuse of being rhinos or not being conservative enough. These are people who got a record of service.

I also think donors need to speak up. If you're a Republican donor who is unhappy with this, you need to speak up. If you're a Republicans former elected official, if you're a former president, if you're a former governor who feels offended by the way that the party is going and this lack of moral leadership, you need to speak up.

I think too many people have stayed quiet for thinking this too shall pass and for fear of being in the crosshairs. And it's enough. The question for the Republican Party is, just how low can you go? This cannot be a party that is the slogan for limbo rock.

LEMON: Yeah.

NAVARRO: Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, how low can they go? They have no bottom. And they use it to fundraise. And it is getting worse and worse. If affects society. It affects all of us.

Yesterday, I was at the funeral of Carrie Meek, former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, lived to be 95 years old, first African-American woman elected from Florida after reconstruction. There were Republicans sitting there.

LEMON: Yeah.

NAVARRO: Republican colleagues of her. Lincoln Diaz-Balart was one of the people who spoke poignantly because it used to not be this way. It actually used to be where there was some respect for the institution and people didn't go there to troll each other on Twitter or offend each other from the floor of the House.

LEMON: Look, all I'm saying is that at some point, you have to be above it. You need to take the high road. You have to lead by example. I'm not sure if it is. I'm just saying -- I could be wrong. I'm not sure if it is responding to every single idiotic thing that someone like Lauren Boebert or Matt Gaetz or whomever says in the party.

[23:25:00]

LEMON: I think a better strategy is to push the leaders of the party to do something about it, tell them they need to do something about the folks in their party rather than giving in.

JENNINGS: Don, your point on this, Don, they are desirous of the so- called establishment or the leadership or the swamp or whatever. They are desirous of a situation where that group comes down on them. And so, when you respond to everything they do --

LEMON: Yeah.

JENNINGS: -- this is the desired outcome.

LEMON: Yeah.

JENNINGS: And so, the demand for leaders to come down on people like this, that's what they want, and then the cycle starts over again.

LEMON: All over again.

JENNINGS: And then we had the same conversation again. I think you're on to something, Don.

NAVARRO: I do hear you guys, but I got to tell you -- look, I hear you and I hear both of you and I understand the strategy part, but I can tell you this, I will never get tired and I will never normalize and I will never be silent in the face of racism and islamophobia and the kind of offensive actions that are happening from --

LEMON: And you're right about that.

NAVARRO: I'm not going to stay quiet when a Paul Gosar tweets out --

LEMON: You're right about that but not every single time. NAVARRO: -- killing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

LEMON: Ana, you're right.

NAVARRO: No. Every single time, Don. I don't agree with you. Every single time.

LEMON: I think you have to look at the big picture. You have to take each one on its merit. Sometimes, the best response is no response.

NAVARRO: Absolutely not. Maybe you can do that at other times, but not when you talk about a co-equal chain branch of government.

LEMON: Ignorance and craziness is no response.

NAVARRO: Well, you all can be silent. I'll just be a hero all by myself.

LEMON: It is not being silence. You know what they say? Silence speaks volumes.

NAVARRO: Well --

LEMON: We'll be right back.

NAVARRO: Words speak volumes.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): The trust is gone. That is what one senator said as Instagram CEO was grilled on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers asking, pointing questions after months of -- scrutiny, excuse me, over what social media giant is doing to kids.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Do you view the kids as a theater way for people to get into your product? Have you not done things to get more teenagers interested in your product? Are you not worried about losing them to other platforms? You better tell the truth, you're under oath.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): So, joining me now, CNN correspondent Donie O'Sullivan. Donie, thank you for joining us. The impact of social media on children is front and center in this hearing today, particularly the influence Instagram has on teenage girls. What were senators most concerned about here?

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN REPORTER: Yeah, I mean, they were pretty peeved off with the --

LEMON: I can see.

O'SULLIVAN: -- Instagram CEO today. They were sort of saying that they weren't getting the transparency, they weren't getting the commitments from him to be transparent about data.

But Senator Richard Blumenthal, who has been pretty sharp on this issue for the most part, asked a very good question, which was, even when parents see things or even just when any users see content on the platform that could be dangerous and when they reported to Instagram, Facebook, Meta, whatever you want to call it today, that Instagram doesn't do anything. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Shouldn't children and parents have the right to report dangerous material and get a response? Get some action? Because we've heard harrowing stories from parents who tried to report and have heard no response. My office made a report and got no response until CNN made the report to press relations. Shouldn't there be an obligation that Instagram will respond?

ADAM MOSSERI, CEO, INSTAGRAM: Senator, yes, I believe we try and respond to all reports. And if we ever fail to do so, that's a mistake that we should correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Donie, it's not just Instagram. I've made complaints, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, all of them. That's why I don't go on social media.

O'SULLIVAN: Yeah, I mean, they all say they have these rules and they make very -- they get good press when they announce new rules. But you heard Blumenthal there. He mentioned that there was a CNN report which we reported on how Blumenthal's own staff had set up a fake Instagram account as a 13-year-old girl. She followed a few accounts about dieting, about eating disorders. And within a few days, Instagram's algorithm was recommending to her exclusively content telling her to glorifying eating disorders.

That's supposed to be against Instagram rules, to have those accounts there. But Instagram didn't detect them, of course. And even when they report it to them through the regular way or a regular user could report them, Instagram did nothing.

It wasn't until we asked Instagram about them that Instagram did anything. They said, oh, yeah, those accounts, they're against our rules, they shouldn't be on our platform. But clearly, there is a major, major issue when they're doing nothing about it on their own.

LEMON: Keep following. Keep reporting. Thank you, Donie O'Sullivan.

O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: Always a pleasure.

So, he was shot and killed by a police officer who said that she thought she was tasing him. The trial over the death of Daunte Wright starts today, and his mother takes the stand.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Opening statements and courtroom testimony beginning today in Minnesota in the trial of an ex-police officer charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of Daunte Wright. Kim Potter shot and killed Wright during a traffic stop, claiming she mistook her gun for her taser. The deadly incident was caught on video. The first prosecution witness, Daunte Wright's mother.

More tonight from CNN Adrienne Broaddus. And a warning, some of the video is disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Katie Bryant, shaken, as she describes her final conversation with her son, Daunte Wright.

[23:40:02]

BROADDUS (voice-over): Bryant was the first witness called in a manslaughter trial of former Police Officer Kim Potter. Potter is accused of shooting and killing Wright after she says she mistakenly pulled her gun instead of her taser.

KATIE BRYANT, MOTHER OF DAUNTE WRIGHT: He called me to tell me that he has been pulled over. He asked, you know, if he was in trouble and he just sounded really nervous. But I reassured him that it would be okay.

BROADDUS (voice-over): But what Bryant heard next still haunts her.

BRYANT: I could hear the phone being put down. I heard them say -- somebody tell somebody to hang up the phone. And then that's all I heard.

BROADDUS: On the stand, Bryant revealing what she saw on FaceTime. She said that they shot him. And she faced the phone towards the driver's seat. And my son was laying there. He was unresponsive, and he looked dead.

BROADDUS: Bryant testified a neighbor then drove her to the scene about 10 miles outside Minneapolis. She identified her son in the middle of a street by his sneakers.

BRYANT: It was the worst day of my life.

BROADDUS: Defense attorneys arguing there was a warrant for Wright's arrest and he resisted.

PAUL ENGH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He had to be arrested on the warrant. A court of law directed him to arrest him.

BROADDUS: Both sides focusing on Potter pulling her gun instead of the taser.

KIM POTTER, EX-POLICE OFFICER (voice-over): Taser, taser, taser!

ENGH: A key issue in the case for you is, what was her conscious thought, as to whether or not she had a taser in her arm or whether or not she had a gun. That's why she said taser, taser, taser. She didn't say gun, gun, gun.

ERIN ELDRIDGE, MINNESOTA ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: We trust them to know wrong from right, and left from right. This case is about an officer who knew not to get it dead wrong. But she failed.

BROADDUS: Wright was initially pulled over in April for an expired tag and an air freshener. Potter then tells Wright he has an outstanding warrant. And another officer attempts to arrest him. Body camera footage shows the shooting.

POTTER (voice-over): Taser, taser, taser! I just shot him!

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Oh.

BROADDUS: The prosecutor using Potter's own words against her.

POTTER: (INAUDIBLE).

BROADDUS (voice-over): Adrienne Broaddus, CNN, Minneapolis.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: Adrienne, thank you so much.

I want to bring in now Antonio Romanucci, the attorney for Daunte Wright's family. Attorney Romanucci, thank you so much. I appreciate you joining us this evening.

ANTONIO ROMANUCCI, ATTORNEY FOR DAUNTE WRIGHT'S FAMILY: Good evening, Don. Thank you so much.

LEMON: You just -- you know, we just heard some of Daunte's mother. A really emotional testimony today. How is she doing?

ROMANUCCI: I got the tell you, Don, I mean, Today, I was sitting in the courtroom, the overflow courtroom with the family watching Katie's testimony, and it was some of the most gut-wrenching, heart-wrenching. It was the worst punch I've ever taken in the gut watching someone testify today.

You know, Katie, I'm glad that her testimony went 30 minutes, 35 minutes. I don't know how much longer she could have done it. And certainly, you know, family watching, they couldn't have done it anymore either because it was so emotional in that room today. And she's doing probably as well as she could given the circumstances.

LEMON: Have you been in touch with the prosecution at all in negotiating her testimony? What do you think of the job they are doing?

ROMANUCCI: Well, I think they're doing a terrific job. This case unfortunately has a lot of noise around it. But when you look at the core of what they're trying to do, the charges that are filed and how they presented the evidence so far and the arguments they've made in opening statements, everything fits.

They have multiple lanes in which they can obtain a conviction here, as long as they can explain those jury instructions to the jury. They're doing a very good job so far because those charges that are against Potter right now, there are, like I said, multiple ways in which the jury can find the path for conviction.

LEMON: How is the family taking the defense arguing that Potter is just a human being who made a mistake? I mean, they're blaming Wright for his death by saying that he should have just surrendered.

ROMANUCCI: Don, first of all, this was not a mistake. She intentionally -- she knew that she was grabbing her gun. I watched that video today and I watched it very closely. And before she yelled taser, taser, taser, she had been gun-ready for about 20 to 25 seconds.

[23:45:04]

ROMANUCCI: I saw her put her hand on the gun and remove her hand from her gun on her strong side at least three times. So, what does that tell me? That she was ready to use gun on somebody that had, what, no insurance card? Registration was expired on the car? Where was her de- escalation at all here, when she was gun ready and she was going to still use a taser on somebody who was unarmed and not a threat?

I mean, it was really ridiculous. This case is about Kim Potter. It's not about Daunte Wright. Kim Potter was the one who pulled the trigger on the gun.

LEMON: She -- listen, she does sound distraught after making that fatal mistake. You don't think that will play with the jury?

ROMANUCCI: Look, she does sound distraught, but on the other hand, did she or any of her fellow officers do anything to assist Daunte, who they know she had just shot? She knew that she had shot somebody right in the chest and they're concerned about her. They needed to call medical emergency right away and they failed to do that. Now, she knew that she made a mistake. Clearly.

LEMON: Yeah. Antonio Romanucci, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thanks for joining us.

ROMANUCCI: Thank you, Don. Good night.

LEMON: By the way, let me tell you, Kim Potter faces first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter charges.

A Black couple lowballed on the value of their house by an appraiser and when a white friend showed the same house, it shot up almost half a million. Now they're suing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): So, a Black couple in California suing an appraiser over housing discrimination after their home was valued significantly under what they expected it to be. Their suspicions were confirmed after they got their white friend to show the home to another appraiser and the value went up by nearly $500,000.

Here's CNN's Joe Johns.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Tenisha and Paul Austin bought their home in the Marin City area of Northern California in 2016. It came with a coveted view of the bay but a long to-do list.

PAUL AUSTIN, HOMEOWNER: It just needed a lot of work. But we were up to the task.

JOHNS (voice-over): And their work paid off or so they thought. According to court documents, the Austins added a deck, a gas fireplace, and additional living space.

In January of 2020, with the buildout almost finished, they decided to refinance and take some cash out of the property. They got an appraisal.

TENISHA AUSTIN, HOMEOWNER: It was right before COVID hit. So, the rates were extremely low. So, we were trying to refinance to take advantage of the low rates.

JOHNS (voice-over): And to their surprise, the appraiser wrote in her report that the house was only worth $995,000.

P. AUSTIN: We were sick. Sick to our stomach. We were upset. We were angered.

T. AUSTIN: I was disappointed because one, I knew that the house was worth more than that. And secondly, because we needed the house to appraise for a certain amount in order for us to be able to pull out the capital in it. And when it didn't come in at that, it was devastating.

JOHNS (voice-over): They suspected that the seeming lowball valuation from an appraiser who happened to be a white woman may have had something to do with their race or their location or both. Marin City has a sizable African-American population, unlike Marin County, which is mostly white.

T. AUSTIN: She considered us living in Marin City and devalued our home based off of that.

P. AUSTIN: And saw a Black face.

JOHNS (voice-over): So, they decided to put their suspicions to a test. They requested yet another appraisal and got a female friend who was white to come to the house to meet the appraiser to make it look like this was her house.

T. AUSTIN: I contacted her, and I said, we have another -- our appraisal came in low. We have another appraiser coming. Can you come and be me?

JOHNS (voice-over): But that's not all they did. They also removed any evidence that Black people even lived there. A process that's been called whitewashing.

P. AUSTIN: Took out everything that resembled that this home belonged to us.

T. AUSTIN: Yeah, or to an African-American family.

P. AUSTIN: Art, pictures.

T. AUSTIN: Even, I would say, even my hair products, I put them away, so that someone would be tipped off by them.

JOHNS (voice-over): A different appraiser, also a white woman, according to the Austins, who visited the house in February of 2020, came back with a valuation of more than $1,482,500, an appraisal 49 percent higher than the previous one. In dollars, that's a $487,500 difference between two appraisals that came about three weeks apart.

In federal court, the Austins have sued the appraiser, Janette Miller, who gave them the lower estimate, alleging housing discrimination. Miller did not respond to several requests to either make a statement, grant an interview or put us in contact with her lawyer.

Devaluation of the property values and rights of African-Americans and Hispanics is a deeply rooted American tradition that's starting to attract more attention in Washington. And it's not always about million-dollar homes. Andre Perry, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, writes about it.

[23:54:59]

ANDRE PERRY, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE: We find that homes in black neighborhoods are underpriced by 23 percent, about 48,000 cumulatively, about $156 billion in lost equity in black neighborhoods, $156 billion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): And Joe Johns joins me now. Joe, thanks for joining us. The Austins are suing. What are they expecting to get out of the suit?

JOHNS: Well, they say they want an order about discrimination, but there's also the issue of damages. They lost the interest rate that they were trying to get. And I did ask the lawyers, in terms of damages, what are you asking for because how do you calculate that? They haven't figured it out yet. Still, it's a huge problem, and people can lose tens of thousands of dollars if they get a bad appraisal, Don.

LEMON: All right. Joe Johns, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

And thank you for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)