Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Jury Deliberates in Church Massacre Trial; Roof To Represent Himself in Sentencing Phase; Russian Involved in Election Hack; Trump Hits White House over Hack Reports; Trump Kids Take Part in Transition Work; Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired December 15, 2016 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:21] BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington.

And we begin this hour in Charleston, South Carolina, in the murder trial for the man who shot and killed nine people during Bible study in Emmanuel AME Church last year. Closing arguments just wrapped up last hour. And soon a federal jury will decide if Dylann Roof is a murderer guilty of hate crimes. If he is convicted, that same jury will be faced with another decision, whether he lives or dies.

Nick Valencia joining me now from outside of the courthouse there in Charleston, South Carolina.

And, Nick, tell us what struck you most about what was said in court during these closing arguments.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, it goes without saying, it was a very sad day inside the courtroom. I just got out from being in there listening to the closing arguments of the prosecution and the defense. Today started with an impassioned plea by federal prosecutor to hold Dylann Roof accountable for every action, every single bullet that he fired that day inside Mother Emmanuel Church. He highlighted the writings of the manifesto, the journal that outlined and was fueled by his white supremacy and his belief that he was better than black people simply because he was white. He talked about his meticulous planning over the months leading up to the shooting and also his actions inside the church that day.

I was just a couple of rows back from Dylann Roof, sitting directly behind his grandmother, who was flanked by a priest, and I looked at Dylann Roof as he was listening to these closing arguments by the prosecution, painting him as a cold-blooded, calculated killer. And, Brianna, he was motionless, and without emotion, much like he has been throughout the course of this trial. The only noticeable difference being that he wasn't dressed in his prison issued jump suit, but in a blue sweater and gray pants.

He wasn't showing much emotion, but the family members of the victims were certainly, especially when the bloody crime scene photos of what happened that day last summer were shown in court. There were audible gasps, audible cries, sobs, family members tearing up.

Also, I was looking at the jury as that photo was being shown to the courtroom and there was at least one jury with tears in her eyes. Another one noticeably grimacing while looking at the bodies of those worshipers who laid after being shot and killed by Dylann Roof.

It was just about 40 minutes ago that the defense started their closing arguments. We believe they're around this time starting to wrap up. One of the interesting things that was said by Dylann Roof's defense attorney is that his client might be delusional and that this is something that the jurors had to consider before going into deliberation. The defense attorney, David Bruck (ph), saying that what happened and who did it is not a question, but what is the question is why. Why Dylann Roof did this. And that's something that he thought -- he thought the jury should consider before going into deliberations later today.

Brianna.

KEILAR: Nick, are we expecting a verdict today?

VALENCIA: We are. We're anticipating a verdict. We're anticipating this to be relatively quick deliberation by the jury, especially when you consider that Dylann Roof has already confessed to this. He has said that he's very proud of this. And that he chose those people because they were the most vulnerable. He wanted to choose good people, he said, to highlight what his actions were, to show just how cruel and vicious his actions were and he wanted to start a race war. We expect this verdict to happen relatively quickly. It goes without saying. We don't know whether or not this penalty phase, the sentencing, will be quick. That is expected sometime in early January.

Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Nick Valencia, thank you so much.

And as we have mentioned, Polly Sheppard was one of three people who survived the attack. We want to play her 911 call for you so that you can hear her story in her own words. I'm going to tell you, this will be difficult for many of you to hear, but it's important and there have been no cameras in court since this is a federal case, but this 911 call speaks volumes about the suffering that she and other church members have endured. And again, before we play it for you, I want to warn you, it's extremely upsetting and inappropriate for children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POLLY SHEPPARD: Please answer. Oh, God.

OPERATOR: 911, what's the address of the emergency?

SHEPPARD: Please, Emmanuel Church. There's plenty people shot down here. Please send somebody right away.

OPERATOR: Emmanuel Church?

SHEPPARD: Emmanuel AME, 110 Calhoun.

OPERATOR: And there's people shot?

SHEPPARD: Yes, he shot the pastor. He shot all the men in the church. Please come right away.

OPERATOR: OK, my partner's going to be getting some help on the way while I get a little more information from you, OK? Stay on the line with me. Are you safe? Are --

SHEPPARD: He's still in -- he's still in here. I'm afraid. He's still in here.

OPERATOR: Where are you?

SHEPPARD: I'm in Emanuel AME Church on 110 Calhoun.

OPERATOR: Yes, ma'am, but where are you inside the church?

SHEPPARD: In the lower level.

OPERATOR: You're in the lower level? Where is the shooter?

SHEPPARD: He's in the -- in the office. Please send somebody right away.

[12:05:04] OPERATOR: OK. Yes, ma'am, I've got officers en route to you. Don't hang up with me. I want you to stay on the line with me. You stay as quiet as possible, do you hear me?

SHEPPARD: Yes, I'm under the table.

OPERATOR: What is -- what is your name, ma'am?

SHEPPARD: Polly Sheppard.

OPERATOR: All right, Miss Polly. Like I said, my partner's getting some help on the way while I get this information from you, OK? You stay on the line with me. And --

SHEPPARD: He's come, he's coming, he's coming, please.

OPERATOR: OK, did you see him at all?

SHEPPARD: Yes, he's a young 21-year-old white dude.

OPERATOR: OK.

SHEPPARD: Please. I mean, we've got some people very hurt, please.

OPERATOR: Yes, ma'am. And you said that -- were you able to see the gun? Do you know what kind of gun it was?

SHEPPARD: No, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know anything about guns.

OPERATOR: OK. That's OK. And where are the weapons now?

SHEPPARD: He's got it in his hand. He's reloading.

OPERATOR: How many shots has he fired?

SHEPPARD: I don't know, there's so many. Three different rounds. Oh, God -- God, please help me.

OPERATOR: OK.

SHEPPARD: Please help us, Lord.

OPERATOR: OK.

SHEPPARD: Help us, Lord, please. Help us, Lord, please. Jesus, help us. There's so many people dead I think. Oh, my God.

OPERATOR: You said there's so many people dead?

SHEPPARD: I think they're dead, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Nine people were killed that day on June 17th last year. And you do know the name of the shooter. You may not know the names of the people who lost their lives, so we want to remember them. Cynthia Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lance, Reverend Depayne Middleton-Doctor, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, Tywanza Sanders, Reverend Daniel Simmons Jr., Reverend Sharonda Singleton and Myra Thomason.

I want to bring in our legal panel now to talk about this. CNN legal analyst Laura Coates, a former federal prosecutor, and CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Danny Cevallos.

So I want to -- you heard the tape. I mean it's a struggle to speak after it. And I wonder, as the jury has heard this, there's no question about whether Dylann Roof did this. He seems -- he has no remorse. What are his chances for avoiding after what we would expect almost to be an open and shut verdict here of guilty for avoiding a death penalty?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I agree, Brianna. The fact that you could hear that woman's fear and being so palpable with Miss Polly Sheppard was just heartbreaking to hear. And I think one of the things Nick Valencia pointed out was that you had jurors who were tearing up and grimacing when they saw pictures of the damage that was done of the massacre.

And while that is one thing we're talking about, it's also very, very key to the death penalty phase because it only takes one juror in a federal trial to say they do not want the person to get the death penalty. It must be unanimous. And when you have people on the jury, who although they've already been screened to figure out if they are willing to consider both life without parole and also the death penalty, you will find a huge population of people who have such a visceral reaction to death that they will -- may not actually find death penalty appropriate even in this case.

KEILAR: Now we don't, of course, Danny Cevallos, want to say that this is a foregone conclusion, but as far as cases go, it is in a way because this is not a who done it. We know who did this. It's not about whether he's going -- it's not about whether or not he did this. It's about whether he's going to get the death penalty. And Dylann Roof wants to represent himself during the sentencing phase. How does that play out? What impact does that have?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: What impact -- it's going to be really, really bad for this defendant. And while I wouldn't normally make a prediction, I think we can safely, at least I would safely say, we can expect a guilty verdict. And for that reason, you know, his defense attorneys have to be realistic for that exact reason. When it comes to jury selection, this is the same jury in the liability phase that will be sentencing him. So they have to look ahead to that probably sentencing phase and choose jurors who they hope would be likely to be that one holdout. And the reason that Dylann Roof representing himself in the sentencing phase may be even more damaging to him than having counsel, than switching if he had done it during the liability phase, is because sentencing mitigation, these things are so critical during the sentencing phase. The rules of evidence don't apply. It's so critical to get in as much information and investigation about this defendant's life to convince one juror that his life is worth saving. This is not the phase to go without counsel.

KEILAR: He doesn't want to die, though. That is what is -- at least not now, right? When he was going through this process, he and his attorneys took steps to try to get the death penalty off the table.

COATES: Right. And how ironic that Dylann Roof, a man who went and executed these nine people at a Bible study, and as he talked about in his confession, was prepared to kill himself in a shootout with police after he left the church and was in awe that no one was outside to kill him or try to kill him, has repeatedly asked for a plea offer that did not include the death penalty because he himself does not want to die.

[12:10:17] But, in this case, and Danny is right about this, the verdict is kind of a foregone conclusion of actual guilt. But the one holdout we're all talking about is, you've got to bank on the fact that there is one person who had that visceral reaction to seeing death in front of their eyes or in the trial, will not want to impose that on somebody else. And the attorney's already planted a seed, Brianna. They've already said, ask yourselves why he did this, not whether, but why. They want to plant the seed that there's something wrong, obviously, with Dylann Roof that will actually be mitigating enough then to say he, even though he did this horrible act, does not meet the standard for a death penalty in this case.

KEILAR: How -- can -- how is he convincing in that way, though, Danny? How -- someone who doesn't have remorse, how will he convince jurors that they should spare his life?

CEVALLOS: Mitigation at the capital sentencing phase is very complex. Often just as complex as the liability phase. You have to hire experts. You have to have investigators dig into your life as a defendant and find all of the horrible things that happened to you to garner any kind of sympathy. This person had a bad family life. He had an awful experience. And that's what may have contributed to this person you see today. And you should have sympathy for him and spare him this ultimate punishment. It's such an important phase that it usually requires the assistance of not only attorneys but investigators and specialists in mitigation.

KEILAR: So that's the case he would have to make. He'll be representing himself. And the jury in this case is death penalty qualified, Laura.

COATES: Right.

KEILAR: What does that mean?

COATES: It means that at the onset of the case, when they chose jurors for -- to find they're actually impartial and can be fair, they look ahead to figure out, are you somebody who could consider the death penalty as a possibility, not a foregone conclusion. And both the prosecution and the defense had interest in making sure that people are very centrist in their viewpoints and say that they will not always impose death penalty or that they would never impose. They want somebody in the middle ground. But studies have shown what often happens in any death qualified jury panel is that they're often pro- prosecution and content to be very much less like the impartial jury you will see of a community of your peers and much more somebody who would think seriously about imposing the death penalty. So I think you do have that expectation.

But, remember, Brianna, people that are on death penalty and death row for years, decades. It goes through appeals. It's not an automatic sentence that actually gets imposed instantly. And this will be heartbreaking even if he gets the death penalty. They'll have to relive this through appeals.

KEILAR: For the families, how long this will continue.

All right, Laura Coates, Danny Cevallos, thank you so much to both of you.

COATES: Thank you.

KEILAR: Up next, Donald Trump trading barbs with the White House over, let's see, what, when, in this escalating hacking scandal. We'll talk about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:16:28] KEILAR: If you were wondering whether the president-elect has come around to the views of the U.S. intelligence community that Russian hackers interfered in this year's election, the answer is a big no, he has not. And in a burst of new tweets, Donald Trump also seems to be done playing nice with team Obama. "If Russia or some other entity was hacking," Trump says, "why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?" In his press briefing yesterday, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest suggested Trump, quote, "obviously knew what was happening," and that he, as a candidate, was benefiting. Then later, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told CNN that his campaign e-mail account was also hacked. Graham says the U.S. should hit back with sanctions.

And that brings me to CNN national security correspondent Jim Sciutto and senior political reporter Manu Raju.

Manu, I want to talk to you about this -- actually, we're listening to Josh Earnest in the White House briefing talk about this.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And conclusion of all 17 intelligence agencies and they reported publicly that Russia was engaged in malicious cyber activity to erode public confidence in our democracy. They included another sentence that I believe is worth repeating, so let me just read it here. That statement included, in part, "we believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior most officials could have authorized these activities." That is a statement from the intelligence community that was made public on October 7th. At the risk of editorializing, when I read that statement for the first time in early October, I didn't think it was particularly subtle.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)

EARNEST: It was particularly subtle.

QUESTION: Oh. So are you confirming that that --

EARNEST: I'm --

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) --

EARNEST: I've seen those reports. I'm not in a position to confirm them. I defer you to the intelligence community for their assessment. But their assessment that they reported publicly on October 7th may give you some insight into what they may be thinking.

QUESTION: And since you mentioned (INAUDIBLE) to talk to the media, are you worried about leaks on this issue?

EARNEST: Well, listen, I -- you know, one of the challenges of any White House press secretary, regardless of which administration they're serving in, is that they have a responsibility of coming out here in public and answering questions from all of you on camera and on the record. Others are allowed to offer their opinion anonymously.

It's a free country. And that's certainly what people are to some extent allowed to do. In the past, you've heard me express some concern about that habit. It's particularly concerning in those circumstances when people are sharing information that's classified or sensitive. But this is not a new phenomenon. It's one that previous press secretaries have had to deal with. It's certainly something that's come up in the context of my tenure here. And I suspect that future White House press secretaries will have -- will encounter the same thing.

QUESTION: OK. And then on a different topic. We're hearing a little bit about how Donald Trump might -- and his daughter Ivanka -- (INAUDIBLE) different arrangement in the White House, that she may live in the East Wing and be something (INAUDIBLE) -- take on some of the first lady role and also an advisory role.

[14:19:58] KEILAR: All right, we are listening to the White House press briefing. A very interesting answer there from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who was asked about this report that what we saw over the last more than a year we now know was going on, hacking by a Russian entity tied to Russian intelligence. And there had been a report that this went all the way up to the senior most levels of the Russian government. Josh Earnest there quoting from a report by the intelligence community, all of the intelligence agencies in the U.S., that they concluded October 7th that only the senior most officials in the Russian government could have authorized such an attack. He was asked if he was saying that was Vladimir Putin. He wouldn't go that far. But he did say, when he read this report in early October, he didn't think it was subtle. So Josh Earnest clearly communicating what he thinks, that this did perhaps go all the way to the top of the Russian government.

I want to go now to Manu Raju. He is on The Hill for us.

And I want to know, Manu, how are lawmakers reacting to these Russian hack revelations? We heard Lindsey Graham talking about how his campaign e-mail attack was hacked.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes, and we're going to expect several inquiries early next year by committees in both the Senate and the House to dig in further about what -- exactly what happened. But Republican leaders don't want to create a separate investigatory body to dig deep into this. They want to do it through the existing committees in Congress.

Now, I had a chance to ask Harry Reid, the outgoing minority leader, at a press conference earlier today about those allegations that Vladimir Putin was directly involved in meddling in the elections. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D), MINORITY LEADER: I understand the answer is clearly yes. And his having been former head of the KGB, does that surprise you? And does it surprise anybody today when he denied it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, Harry Reid, of course, is a member of the so-called "Gang of Eight." That's members of Congress, leadership who get this top secret intelligence briefing from senior most officials in the intelligence community. So it's unclear if he's basing that assessment today or his statement today on what he heard privately behind closed doors or if he's simply asserting what is being publicly reported, as well as his interpretation of that October 7th assessment that Josh Earnest just referenced at the White House, that this went up to the most -- senior most level in the Russian government who authorized this hacking during the U.S. elections. But a lot of questions that those investigations could answer early next year on Capitol Hill, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, early next year. We'll be looking at that.

Jim Sciutto also with us.

Jim, you heard what Josh Earnest said there. What do you make of this point that he is -- he said it wasn't subtle when he read the report. This was not a subtle point that he was making.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, this has been the view of White House administration officials I've talk to some time. Even without the intelligence community saying, we know with high confidence that Putin ordered this attack, it's been their view for weeks and there was that reference in the October 7th report that this would have had to have been approved at the senior most levels of the Russian government. Russia's a top heavy government. That means Vladimir Putin.

And the White House view for some time, perhaps going a step beyond the intelligence community for an assessment, has been, listen, we know how Russia operates, and as Josh Earnest was saying there, you know, I -- he would have gone further to say it's pretty obvious that Putin would have had to approved this. I mean that's on that issue.

But I really got to draw your attention, Brianna, to what Donald Trump just tweeted again about Russian hacking. He said, "if Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary Clinton lost?"

So, again, you have the president-elect of the United States, who has been briefed -- I know I've been told, on the intelligence, showing the U.S. that Russia was behind this hacking. He's been briefed on it now. He's the president-elect of the United States. Continuing to raise doubts about whether Russia did the hacking. And to be clear, there is no dispute in the U.S. intelligence or law enforcement community about who did the hacking. They all say Russia. There is some difference of opinion as to what the goal was. Was it to help Trump? Was it just to undermine the process? On that, there is difference of opinion. There is no difference of opinion on who's behind the hacking. And yet you have the president of the United States, he's going to be president in just over 30 days, in effect throwing the entire U.S. intelligence community under the bus, dismissing their assessment. Intelligence that he's seen, which is really remarkable.

KEILAR: Yes.

SCIUTTO: I just don't think we can underestimate that. And I know, and I know my colleagues as well, have talked to people in the intelligence community, I've talked to them face to face, who are alarmed by this. You know, career spies and intelligence analysts who are watching their future commander in chief saying that the work they're doing, and many are risking their lives to do the work, let's be honest, there are assets in the field, telling them and saying to the American people, that's all B.S. It's remarkable.

[12:25:04] KEILAR: Yes. No, it is.

SCIUTTO: I've never seen anything like it.

KEILAR: I haven't either. It's extraordinary. And this is the very intel community that he will, I'm sure at some point, be relying on to make a case for something --

SCIUTTO: Yes.

KEILAR: Undercutting himself before he even gets to the White House.

Jim Sciutto, Manu Raju, thank you to both of you.

We have a lot to talk about. For my blue ribbon panel here, Gloria Borger is CNN's chief political analyst, Edward-Isaac Dovere joining us from Politico, and Noah Bookbinder is the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

We're going to talk a lot about some of the conflicts of interest, but I do want to pose a question to you, Gloria, and it's actually Donald Trump's question. He said, "why did they only complain after Hillary lost?" Where's --

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think they're asking themselves that question now, Brianna. And there were clearly internal --

KEILAR: Just to be -- just to be clear, the federal government knew this was going on for months and months and months.

BORGER: Well, at least the date that was mentioned by Josh Earnest is in October, that he saw this intelligence assessment.

KEILAR: This assessment, yes.

BORGER: So I think there are a few things going on here.

First of all, the White House was worried -- and there were discussions about this. The White House was worried that publicly outing Russia at that point would appear to be putting their thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton. They believed at that point that Hillary Clinton was going to win. They didn't want to put their thumb on the scale because then they felt that if Donald Trump were to lose, they would be giving him ammunition to use on the rigged election front --

KEILAR: To question her legitimacy, sure.

BORGER: To question her. So this was -- these were the ongoing, complicated discussions that were going on in the White House and they made the decision to hang back. There are people I've spoken with who worked for Hillary Clinton who think now, of course, that was a really wrong and bad decision to make, but it is what it is. And so now we have, as Jim Sciutto was talking about, this extraordinary problem between the president-elect and his own intelligence community. And if there is a war that breaks out between these two things while he's in office, it is not going to be pretty.

KEILAR: No.

BORGER: It really isn't. They will undermine him every step of the way.

KEILAR: Sure, because they can leak, right?

BORGER: Yes.

KEILAR: OK, I want to talk -- I want to talk now a little bit about something else that Donald Trump tweeted. He said that his move to the White House isn't complex at all. He said the media is sort of making this up. And, of course, he was supposed to have a press conference today to explain how he was going to reconfigure his businesses, get things in line so he could come to the White House. What's your read on this tweet and if it's correct?

EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, if we're going to take it at face value, then I guess the media would have to include his former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway who said it was very complex and that was why things needed to done -- be done this way.

KEILAR: You make a good point there, (INAUDIBLE).

DOVERE: And we'd also have to include other people on the Trump transition staff who have also said these are complex questions and that's why it's taking so long to sort out. Don Mcgann (ph), who is the White House counsel incoming, is working on this as a major project of his. If it were a simple matter, it would seem that it would not take up so much of his time. But it is taking up a lot of his time.

This is a complicated thing. It is -- we don't know, of course, the extent of the financial situation that the Trump organization might be in, in all of its different properties because we don't have those tax returns. That's one of those things that the tax returns would tell us. And we don't know what role his children actually have in terms of ownership within the organization. We also don't know where the lines are between what they're doing for the company and what they're doing for the transition. What role they're going to play in the administration.

KEILAR: And to that point, Noah, yesterday you had all three of his eldest children, Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka, and they were at this tech summit that the president-elect had. Don Jr. and Eric are supposed -- this is what he says, they're going to be running his empire. Why is that such a concern from your perspective?

NOAH BOOKBINDER, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON: Sure. Right now we don't seem to have any meaningful separation between the businesses and the presidency. That those -- Donald Trump's children, including the ones who are apparently going to be running the businesses, are still very much involved in transition issues.

KEILAR: And pardon me for interrupting you because this is, I guess, what I really want to get at is, yes, we don't have any separation, but I wonder sometimes if people care.

BOOKBINDER: Sure.

KEILAR: And so my question is, why should they care? Because we keep saying there's a conflict, there's a conflict, it's so clear, and yet what does that lead to down the road that should actually alarm Americans?

[12:29:48] BOOKBINDER: Sure, and that really is the key question because people need to care about this. And the reason why it matters is because the president of the United States needs to be making decision based on what's in the best interest of the country, what's in the strategic interest, economic interest, not in the interest of what's going to help his companies. And so if you have the same people who are trying to make the Trump Organization as profitable as possible.