Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Donald Trump Speaks Out; Federal Charges Announced in South Carolina Massacre. Aired 3-3:32p ET

Aired July 22, 2015 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:18]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, here we go, hour two. You're watching CNN.

Beginning with breaking news here in the Charleston church massacre that left those nine African-American churchgoers shot and killed, we are expecting to hear from the Department of Justice, specifically from Loretta Lynch, our attorney general, any moment now from Washington. We will take that live, but we're expected to hear that the suspect here in the shootings, the massacre, Dylann Roof, will be charged with a federal hate crime.

So we will bring that as soon as that happens, but just to tee it up, I have senior CNN legal editor Jeff Toobin. He's on the phone. Also with me, CNN contributor and former South Carolina Representative Bakari Sellers.

But first to Victor Blackwell. If I may, I would like to go to you here.

Again, just so we're all crystal clear, he faces nine counts, nine state counts, and so this would be obviously at the federal level, federal indictments, specifically a hate crime.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brooke, this comes after a roughly month-long investigation as it was articulated through a statement by the Department of Justice soon after Roof's arrest, after these nine killings.

And to both the hate crime angle and boast domestic terror, there will be some people who are disappointed today if domestic terror charges are not filed as well, but our expectation is that hate crime charges will be filed.

That's, of course, connected to of the discovery of this online manifesto, that Last Rhodesian Web site. We are not going to go into too many details about that because frankly we have talked about his views quite enough, but he articulated white superiority and feeling there aren't strong enough white supremacy groups in the state of South Carolina, so he would go to Charleston because of the high population of blacks and take it to the real world, in his words. Now, as you mentioned, there are these counts on the state level. Initially, soon after his arrest, he was charged with nine counts of murder and that one weapons charge. As it was taken to the grand jury on the state level, three additional counts of attempted murder were added for the three who survived.

Now, we know, if he is convicted, he's not entered a plea, but reportedly to CNN he has confessed to the killings, he could face the death penalty. The state has not said that they will or will not go after the death penalty, but Governor Nikki Haley says this should be a death penalty case. Also, the mayor said that if ever there were a need for the death penalty, this case would merit it -- Brooke.

BALDWIN: On legalities of all of this, Jeff Toobin, let me just bring you in, because as were just talking to our justice correspondent Evan Perez sort of underscoring the fact that this would be a hate crime charge and not, as Victor pointed out, domestic terrorism, and there's been criticism and likely, if she takes questions, she will be questioned on this, Jeff Toobin.

Why not bring about the terrorism charge?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Brooke, just for starters, I think it's important to point out how unusual it is for the United States Department of Justice to file any sort of charges in a case where the state is just beginning its own criminal charges, because usually the federal government defers to a state when the person has already been charged, but I think it's an indication of how seriously the Department of Justice takes this case and that they are bringing any sort of case at all this early after the crime.

As for whether it is terrorism or hate crimes, you know, this decision announced today will not be final. The Department of Justice can always do what's called a superseding indictment and add further charges if they want, so I think the appropriate way to view today is the beginning of the federal case against Dylann Roof. It is by no means the end.

BALDWIN: OK, OK. That said, and, again, we're anticipating Loretta Lynch to step behind the podium and speak, specifically making the news announcing this federal indictment against Dylann Roof.

Bakari, to you, you know, South Carolina, you know, you -- this is where you come from, you know, represented people there for a number of years. Does it matter to you -- I mean, bottom line, and Victor pointed out, this is somebody who faces nine counts and could very likely get the death penalty.

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Brooke, verbiage matters, and we have been calling this domestic terror and I hope she uses those words.

I know Jeffrey was so eloquently talking about the distinctions. but I hope that she calls it as such, but verbiage matters. This is a hate crime. There's no doubt about it.

[15:05:02]

But what the federal government does do by bringing these hate crime charges is that they do bring justice to these families much quicker. Just the state charges will last and meander on years and years and years, but these charges are going to move very quickly. So, these nine families will the justice that they deserve and that's important. That's an important fact in this message.

BALDWIN: But let me stay with you. As Jeff was pointing out, it's unusual. Usually, the feds defer to the state. Would it be the state who would prosecute first, or would it be the federal government?

SELLERS: Well, in this case, I would assume that the federal government is going to move a lot quicker than the state. I practice law here in South Carolina here every day, was in court this morning.

And this is very, very rare for the federal government to bring any charges. Let me say that. But we also know that the United States attorney Bill Nettles, in this state, they have a prosecution or a conviction percentage in the high 90s. When they shoot, they don't miss.

And we anticipate that they must know, and we all know, that they have a solid case against Dylann Roof, but for us in South Carolina, we want to scream with joy again today. This is another step in the right direction, because at the end of the day this is about justice, Brooke.

And these families deserve some closure. And this gentleman, Dylann Roof, he's seen us take the flag down. He's seen us hold hands. He's seen us chant in joy. Now he will have to face a court of justice, and we're excited about the fact that he will have to face the fact that he committed a hate crime.

And, Loretta Lynch, thank you so much for prosecuting it as such.

BALDWIN: Gentlemen, stand by.

Again, U.S. Attorney General Loretta lynch will be taking that podium in Washington any moment. We will take it live.

Also ahead, Anderson Cooper has just returned with another sit-down with a presidential contender who has everyone talking, this man, Donald Trump. He asks him about the new polls, Quinnipiac polls, to be precise, in which Donald Trump is not polling as favorably. Also, he's asked about the death of Sandra Bland in her jail cell in Texas, Donald Trump's take on that, and also his personal attacks against rivals this week, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, and in addition the fact that he gave out Lindsey Graham's personal cell phone. You will hear it all.

Anderson Cooper joins me live coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:11:38] BALDWIN: One thing we know for sure, if you lash out at presidential

candidate Donald Trump, be prepared. He will hit back.

And right now, a tit for tat essentially is going on between Trump and several Republican candidates. One of them, Senator Lindsey Graham, and he has again spoken about it in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, but just a quick reminder here of how it all started.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What he said about John I think was offensive. He's becoming a jackass, at a time when he need to have a serious debate about the future of the party and the country. And all we're talking about is Donald Trump and everybody he insults. But he's crossed a line here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Well, we will talk to Anderson Cooper here in just a moment, but he just returned from an interview with Donald Trump, where he asked him about a number of things, asked specifically the Quinnipiac polls, and also Trump's reaction to that swift and pretty painful.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: -- to help him with "FOX & Friends."

So, I say, OK, and I will mention your name. He said, could you mention my name? I said, yes, I will mention. And he gave me his number. And I found the card. I wrote the number down. I don't know if it's the right number. Let's try it, 202 (NUMBERS DELETED).

I don't know. Maybe it's -- you know, it's three four years ago, so maybe it's an old number.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Well, it wasn't, and Senator Graham responded like this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: All right. So the senator has a sense of humor.

Let me bring back Anderson Cooper, who just returned from this latest sit-down with Donald Trump.

And you asked him specifically about these very personal jabs --

(CROSSTALK)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. BALDWIN: -- a number of people this week, including Senator Graham.

COOPER: Yes.

And Jeb Bush just yesterday had called this kind of rhetoric divisive. And I wanted to find out if Donald Trump thinks this is actually presidential behavior and if he would change his behavior as president.

Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I get called all these horrible names by Lindsey Graham, who I don't even know. I didn't start it with Lindsey Graham.

I couldn't care less about Lindsey Graham. He's registered at, I think, zero in the polls, by Rick Perry from Texas, who was up in my office a few years ago. I just posted a picture of him shaking my hand, looking for money and looking for support. And he was up -- people will say, I call it hypocrite, but they are saying horrible things.

Like, I don't even know these people and they are saying these things. Now, am I supposed to, you know, just say, oh, it's OK to for them to say -- one guy -- I guess it was Lindsey Graham -- called me a jackass. Am I supposed to say, oh, it's OK if I'm called a -- I'm called a jackass. You have to fight back. The country has to fight back. Everyone is pushing our country around. We can't allow that, Anderson.

COOPER: Is it presidential, though?

TRUMP: I think it's presidential --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: To give out somebody's phone -- to give out a personal phone number --

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Well, that was a long story.

You have to see the whole story the way it morphed. OK? That was a whole story, where he wanted to get on "FOX & Friends," and he called me up out of the blue. I never met the guy. Then he wanted to come in for campaign contributions.

He gave me his -- and then he starts hitting me years later. And I happen to have this crazy phone number. And I held it up. I said, this guy was over here. And, actually, as you probably know, the room was packed. It was standing room only. In fact, they had --

[15:15:01]

COOPER: Overflow.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: -- theaters. There was overflow crowds. They had all sorts of closed-circuit television into other rooms. The place went wild. We all had a good time.

COOPER: But is that presidential?

TRUMP: I think so. I think it's fine.

COOPER: Is that something, as president -- when you're president, like somebody in Congress, you would give out their personal phone number?

TRUMP: I was hit by somebody unfairly. I was called names by somebody.

So, he was up -- somebody that is hitting you, saying what a bad guy I am, was up in my office asking for money and asking if I can get him on television.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, when -- if you're president of the United States, you are going to be hit by half the country.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: That's true. That's true.

COOPER: Are you going to call them dump and stupid?

TRUMP: No, I think it's a little bit different. Right now, I'm trying to do something to make the country great again. Politicians will never make this country great again. Now --

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: As president, you would change your tone?

TRUMP: Oh, I think so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Changing tone.

COOPER: Yes. He talks more about what his tone would be like as president.

I also talked to him about the case you have been following a lot, the case of Sandra Bland, and he actually said that he watched the video. I wasn't sure if he had or not. He said he watched the video last night.

(CROSSTALK) BALDWIN: The dash cam video.

COOPER: The dash cam video, he watched it, he says on CNN, and he thought the officer was actually very rude to her.

He had a lot to say about that. And in general, I asked him about the treatment of African-Americans in this country by police officers, whether he thinks it is different than he or I would be treated.

We talked about -- a little bit about that, and we will play that also later tonight.

BALDWIN: We will look for it, "A.C. 360" 8:00 Eastern here. Anderson Cooper, thank you very much.

Let's pivot quickly to Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch speaking specifically on this federal indictment she is about to announce coming down against the gunman in Charleston, South Carolina.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: -- attempting to kill African-American parishioners at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, because of their race and in order to interfere with their exercise of their religion.

As set forth in the indictment, several months prior to the tragic events of June 17, Roof conceived of his goal of increasing racial tensions throughout the nation and seeking retribution for perceived wrongs that he believed African-Americans had committed against white people.

To carry out these twin goals of fanning racial flames and exacting revenge, Roof further decided to seek out and murder African-Americans because of their race. An essential element of his plan, however, was to find his victims inside of a church, specifically an African- American church, to ensure the greatest notoriety and attention to his actions.

As alleged, Roof set out the evening of June 17, 2015, to carry out this plan And drove to the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, known as Mother Emanuel.

Mother Emanuel was his destination specifically because it was an historically African-American church of significance to the people of Charleston, of South Carolina and to the nation. On that summer evening, Dylann Roof found his targets, African-Americans engaged in worship.

Met with welcome by the ministers of the church and its parishioners, he joined them in their Bible study group. The parishioners had Bibles. Dylann Roof had his .45-caliber Glock pistol and eight magazines loaded with hollow-point bullets.

And, as set forth in the indictment, while the parishioners of Mother Emanuel were engaged in religious worship and Bible study, Dylann Roof drew his pistol and opened fire on them, ultimately killing nine church members.

Now, as you know, the state of South Carolina is also prosecuting Roof for the murders, attempted murders and firearms offenses that he's alleged to have committed. We commend the South Carolina state authorities for their tremendous work and their quick response.

It is important to note, however, that South Carolina does not have a hate crimes statute, and, as a result, the state charges do not reflect the alleged hate crimes offenses presented in the federal indictment returned today.

Specifically, the federal indictment returned today charges Roof with nine murders and three attempted murders under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This federal hate crimes law prohibits using a dangerous weapon to cause bodily injury or attempting to do so on the basis of race or color.

The Shepard-Byrd Act was enacted specifically to vindicate the unique harm caused by racially motivated violence. Roof is also charged with nine murders and three attempted murders under a second federal hate crimes statute that prohibits the use or threat of force to obstruct any persons' free exercise of their religious beliefs.

Finally, Roof has been federally charged with multiple counts of using a firearm in the commission of these racially motivated murders and attempted murders.

For these crimes, Roof faces federal penalties up to life imprisonment or the death penalty. I note that no decision has been made on whether to seek the death penalty in this case.

[15:20:08]

The department will follow our usual rigorous protocol to thoroughly consider all the factual and legal issues relevant to that decision, which will necessarily involve counsel for the defendant, Roof.

In addition, consultation with the victims' families is an important and vital part of this decision-making process, and no decision will be made prior to conferring with them. The family members of those killed at Emanuel AME and the survivors were informed of these federal charges earlier today.

I would also note that this indictment contains allegations. It's not evidence of the defendant's guilt. Now, as you will recall, this federal grand jury indictment follows an announcement that I made on June 18 of 2015 that the Department of Justice was conducting a hate crimes investigation into the shooting at Emanuel AME.

Immediately following that shooting, the experienced prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina, along with experienced attorneys from our Civil Rights Division, began working closely with the FBI, ATF, state and local law enforcement officials, including the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, or SLED, the Charleston police and the solicitor's office for the 9th Circuit of South Carolina, in thoroughly investigating these crimes. I would like to thank the many state and federal and local law enforcement officials for their dedication, for their hard work to ensure that this investigation was conducted thoroughly and expeditiously. I would also like to thank South Carolina U.S. attorney Bill Nettles for his and his office's tremendous efforts on this case, as well as the dedicated attorneys from the Department's Civil Rights Division.

In particular, I would also like to extend my thanks to Charleston Solicitor Scarlett Wilson for being a cooperative and effective partner in this manner. We have a strong working relationship with Solicitor Wilson and her office, and we look forward to our continued collaboration at these parallel state and federal prosecutions work their way through their respective court systems.

Thank you for your attention.

Any questions?

Yes.

QUESTION: Who will go first, South Carolina or the federal government?

LYNCH: That hasn't been determined yet. We're working cooperatively with Solicitor Wilson. Both cases will proceed through the court system. We will both work, however, to reduce any unnecessary burden to the families.

QUESTION: What factors will go into that kind of decision? What factors go into deciding who goes first? Beside burdens on the families, what other factors go into deciding?

LYNCH: There are any number of factors.

We will consider how the cases are progressing through each system and essentially how the judge is reviewing the case, state of motion practice. Both cases are in their early stages, have yet to have motions, so at this point it's difficult to say how that will impact on the schedule.

QUESTION: This would certainly seem to fit the definition of domestic terrorism. Were domestic terrorism charges considered in this case, and can you elaborate on that deliberation and what some of those calls could have been with bringing such charges?

LYNCH: Well, as you know, there is no domestic terrorism statute.

However, hate crimes, as I have stated before, are the original domestic terrorism. And we feel that the behavior that is alleged to have occurred here is archetypal behavior that fits the federal hate crimes statutes and vindicates their purpose.

We have here a defendant who is alleged to have harbored discriminatory views towards African-Americans, to have sought out an African-American house of worship, one that was particularly noted because of its age and significance, and he also sought out African- American parishioners at worship, implicating several hate crime statues.

And we think that this is exactly the type of case that the federal hate crimes statutes were in fact conceived of to cover. Racially motivated violence such as this is the original domestic terrorism.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) 2015, if you look at essence of the cases brought forth in the indictment, the fact that these people are dead today because of their race, that's primarily what you alleged in the indictment. Can you just speak to where we stand and what that says, that this still exists?

LYNCH: Well, I think that this is obviously a tragic situation. This is obviously a troubling situation, as the allegations in the indictment reflect the mind-set of this young man and his specific purpose to target individuals for death because of their race, but also to target individuals for death who were engaged in religious worship as well.

So I think that we have to remain vigilant about these matters. We certainly at this point don't know much more about the defendant. The investigation is ongoing into a host of matters, including those motivations, but I think that the message that should be clear to this is that the federal government and our state partners are committed to investigating these matters fully and thoroughly and, where we have racially motivated violence, committed to acting.

[15:25:05]

In the back.

QUESTION: Hi, ma'am. It says in the indictment that he targeted Mother Emanuel specifically because of it was a historically African- American church of significance to people of Charleston, of South Carolina and the nation.

How do you know? How do you know that's why he chose that church, as opposed to any African-American church? How do you know it was the significant -- the national significance of the church?

LYNCH: So, I'm not going to comment specifically on the evidence that will come forth at a trial, except to note that we believe that the evidence will support the allegation that Roof chose Mother Emanuel because it was an old church, historic church and that it was historically significant as one of the oldest African-American churches, not just in South Carolina, but in the nation, and that he was looking for the type of church and the type of parishioners whose death would in fact draw a great notoriety for his religious views and -- I'm sorry -- his racist views, I should say.

QUESTION: I know that in your remarks, you used the language because of, and I'm wondering, as you present a case like this, to what extent must all other factors be precluded, such as mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction? If a defense lawyer gets up and says actually he hates everyone in the world, he hates his mother, he hates gays, tomorrow, he was going to kill many more people who weren't black, what impact does that have?

LYNCH: Well, hopefully, we would not be receiving information like that, although we would certainly act on it if we did.

You know, wherever you have the possibility of multiple motivations, you also have the possibility of multiple charges. As you will note, the charges here specifically allege racially motivated violence in the murder and attempted murder of the victims of Mother Emanuel, but also the federal hate crimes statute that prohibits using violence to essentially prevent anyone from exercising their religion.

That's not tied to race. That's tied to the exercise of religion. So we see here, for example, activity that supports allegations of more than one intent as well. Now, with respect to issues that you raise about the defendant's state of mind, of course, all of that will be taken into consideration as this case goes forward. I'm not able to speculate now as to what impact any other factors would have on the case.

QUESTION: You have suggested that this was a seven-month plan. Can you elaborate a little bit about how detailed this plan was, whether he made trips to the church prior to that night, June 17?

LYNCH: Well, OK. Thank you for the question.

While I'm not able to go into how many months he was planning, it was several months prior to the June 17 incident, and I'm not able to go into the evidence right now that would show his actions surrounding that at this point.

QUESTION: Following up on Ryan's point, should there be a federal domestic terrorism law, because for your average person who sees the way people in law enforcement talk about different types of killings with different words, what distinctions should they make when they hear talk about a shooting in Chattanooga as terrorism, but a shooting here as hate crime? Does it matter and should there be a domestic terrorism law?

LYNCH: Well, as to what laws should or should not come out as a result of this investigation, I'm not going to speculate at this point in time.

As to the nature of the case, though, I think you touch on the issue that people may feel that, because we have such a strong emphasis on terrorism matters since 9/11, that when we talk about matters and don't use that terminology, that somehow we don't consider those crimes as serious.

And I want to be clear. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. This type of crime in particular, racially motivated violence, for which a federal law was specifically enacted to cover, is of grave importance to the federal government.

We have devoted considerable resources from the beginning of this case to make sure that this interest was explored and that if, in fact, the evidence supported it that the allegations were brought, because this is, in fact, the archetype of the original domestic terrorism.

And I think sometimes people do focus on the terminology, because, as I have mentioned, since 9/11, there has been a great focus on that type of base, but that in should no way, in absolutely no way, signify that this particular murder or any federal crime is of any lesser significance.

QUESTION: How will you determine whether or not he is a candidate for the death penalty?

LYNCH: The Department of Justice has a process by which we consider death-eligible defendants in determining whether or not to seek that penalty.

It is a very detailed and thorough review process. It involves submissions from defense counsel. It involves consultation with the victims' families and it involves a review of all the various factors that we would utilize to seek the death penalty to determine whether or not we

[15:30:00] could prevail on those factors at a trial.

Ultimately, after this review process, which is both at the U.S. attorney's office level, it is then also here in main Justice and ultimately it comes to my desk or I make the ultimate decision whether or not to seek the death penalty in any death-eligible case.

As I've said before, I do want to be clear that no decision has been made at this point in time as to whether or not to seek that penalty, but we do have an obligation to place the defendant on notice that the penalty is an option and to allow his counsel the time to begin to prepare to make those submissions. QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about what your office in doing

in conjunction with the FBI?

Can you talk a little bit about what your office is doing in conjunction with the FBI to sort of close some of the issues that came up with him getting the gun in the first place?

LYNCH: Well, as Director Comey announced, I think about 10 days ago, he has initiated a review into the procedures that allowed us to -- that unfortunately led to us missing the fact that Mr. Roof had applied to purchase that gun. This is a matter of grave importance. It's something that was very disturbing and frankly heartbreaking to all of us who were reviewing this matter.

So that investigation is ongoing. And I look forward to receiving the results from it.

Yes?

QUESTION: On a slightly different topic, yesterday you said you were looking at the Brand case.

Can you expand on that?

Are you officially monitoring?

Will you open an investigation?

LYNCH: You're referring to Miss. Bland, who died in Texas while in police custody. As noted, that matter is actually under investigation local authorities. The FBI is monitoring that case, as we often do in many situations. And we are awaiting the results of local investigations, as well.

QUESTION: Ma'am, could -- could you talk a little bit about what your views are on the -- the Planned Parenthood that have been out?

I know you've received some letters from members of Congress. You know, there is a -- an applicable federal law here.

And is that something that you are going to open an investigation?

LYNCH: Well, I'm aware of those -- of those matters, generally from the media and from some inquiries that have been made to the Department of Justice. And again, at this point, we're going to review all the information and determine what steps, if any, to take at the appropriate time.