Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Trump Lashes Out At State Department Employee Ahead Of Public Testimony; Bloomberg Apologizes To Black Voters For Stop And Frisk; Who Is Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), The Man Leading Historic Impeachment Inquiry?; The Week That Was In Impeachment Hearings; Hong Kong Police Clash With Protesters; Boston Marathon Bomber Allegedly Involved In 2011 Triple Homicide; Texas Appeals Court Blocks Death Row Inmate's Execution. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired November 17, 2019 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[18:00:01]
ANA CABRERA, CNN NEWSROOM: He has now attacked four of the people who have testified and what they were concerned about, what they saw happening with Ukraine.
A security official, a decorated combat Army officers, and just a short time ago now, a woman who works in the vice president's office. He has a special nickname for all of them together.
The president's tweet today is this. Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read both transcripts of the presidential calls and see the just released statement with Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other never Trumpers who I don't know and mostly never even heard of and work out a better presidential attack.
These are the men and women scheduled to testify publicly on Capitol Hill in the coming days and what they personally heard about, what they saw, what they know about President Trump's alleged pressure on the government of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son. Some of these names are familiar.
They've already testified but not on live television. The current U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland is among them. He is scheduled to testify on Wednesday. And at least one witness said under oath that Sondland personally spoke to the president several times about how willing the Ukrainian government was to do whatever was asked of them.
Let's discuss with former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers and National Politics Reporter at "The Wall Street Journal," Sabrina Siddiqui.
Jennifer this latest Trump tweet going after Jennifer Williams who already testified behind closed doors, her transcript was released this weekend, she's set to testify publicly on Tuesday. Is that witness tampering?
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I don't think so. He's disparaging them, no question, calling them never Trumpers, saying they don't know what they're talking about. But witness tampering and intimidation has to actually be that, intending to intimidate them, dissuade them from coming. So he's not saying, don't come or you'll lose your job. It's not like that. So I don't think it's going quite as far as a criminal case would be. But he is intimidating and he is using his platform in an inappropriate way for sure.
CABRERA: And, Sabrina, Trump also attacked ousted Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch as she testified on Friday. I mean, clearly he didn't learn his lesson from the backlash from that tweet, backlash that was bipartisan.
SABRINA SIDDIQUI, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think that you're seeing the president use a similar play book with respect to the impeachment inquiry as he attempted to with the Russia investigation, which is when the facts don't look good for the president or his top aides, he tries to undermine the integrity of the witnesses and discredit their testimony. And so you're seeing him try and undercut what Marie Yovanovitch and others have said to investigators on Capitol Hill.
Now, of course, what they're saying, as members of the American public are watching at home, I think, to Jennifer's point, it might not go as far as witness tampering but some Democrats on Capitol Hill argue that the president's attacks could have a chilling effect. They could perhaps prevent others from appearing on Capitol Hill to testify because they may fear backlash from the president. And so Democrats are considering whether or not to add some of the president's attacks on these career officials to a potential article of impeachment.
But, again, it doesn't change the facts, which are that the broader picture we've gotten from all these witnesses is of a quid pro quo at the direction of the president of the United States.
CABRERA: And one man who comes up a lot in discussion of that is Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the E.U. He already revised his initial testimony. And now we're learning about this phone call he had with the president on July 26th, the one in which he was in a Ukrainian restaurant and people who were at the table could actually hear both sides of the conversation because the president was speaking so loud. Could we see perjury charges against Sondland?
RODGERS: Well, I think a lot of it depends on what happens next. If he shows up on Wednesday and testifies truthfully, then probably he wouldn't be charged. It's not that he couldn't technically be charged but I think that they would give it a pass given that he actually came forward.
CABRERA: So even if his testimony on Wednesday, when testifies, is different than what he told them behind closed doors, you think that people would say, okay, he gets a pass?
RODGERS: I think so. I mean, this is -- it could technically be charged. But I think given that this is still part of the same proceeding, I think he came in, he would get a pass. But that's still a big question mark. And he may decide, what he's facing now, to take the fifth, in which case I think he probably would see a perjury charge but he'd be in a position to protect the president, which at least up until now has seemed to be his primary goal. So we'll see what he does.
CABRERA: Sabrina, talk more about just how much is on the line for his testimony on Wednesday.
SIDDIQUI: Well, Gordon Sondland is really at the center of this investigation, because he appeared to be, by all accounts, the president's point person when it came to this sustained and escalating pressure campaign against the Ukrainian government where a meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump, as well as key military assistance to Ukraine, was effectively withheld in the pursuit of political investigations sought by the president.\
[18:05:02]
And Sondland is someone who, it seems, repeatedly spoke directly to the president, so he is a firsthand witness. And there's also been questions about why he was even in charge of this policy, if you want to call it policy, toward Ukraine, because he's an ambassador to the European Union. Ukraine is not even part of the E.U. He's someone who had donated heavily to the president's inaugural committee and was seen as a loyalist. So that also might tells us a little bit about how he will approach this hearing, how far he might go to undercut the president.
What was key, of course, is that he did amend his initial testimony to say that, yes, there was in fact a quid pro quo. What you might see is him try and suggest that it's not an impeachable offense. But he has now corroborated what is at the heart of this inquiry.
CABRERA: Jennifer, as the White House continues to tell people not to testify, especially those who are closest to the president, who may know the most about exactly what transpired, and we also know the State Department continues to withhold documents from the committees that have requested them, how does congress conduct oversight if the executive branch can just blow them off?
RODGERS: Well, that's a great question, and that's exactly what the House Democrats are saying. How can we do our jobs if you are not cooperating at all. And the answer is they can up to a degree with witnesses who are willing to come in, but they really are hamstrung. And it would be up to the courts to resolve this roadblock for them. And the problem is the courts take a long time.
So if they get in there quickly enough, we have a December 10 date to decide on the lawsuit that Kupperman filed with Bolton to see if they have to testify or not. Maybe we'll get some resolution there. But it's really up to the courts to resolve those disputes. And the problem with the courts is just the amount of time it takes is so long.
CABRERA: Do you think articles of impeachment could include obstruction of Congress?
RODGERS: Definitely, definitely. I mean, there's no question that obstruction has been in bad faith. They've been way, way broader than any possible privilege that they have. So they definitely could do that. And I think we'll see that.
CABRERA: All right. Jennifer Rodgers, Sabrina Siddiqui, thank you both. Good to have you both hear.
The impeachment inquiry, the witnesses, the testimony, the latest evidence. Join Chris Cuomo for a CNN special, The White House in Crisis, the Impeachment Inquiry. That's tonight starting at 8:00 Eastern here on CNN.
Critics are calling it a politically expedient 180 after former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg apologizes for his controversial stop and frisk policy ahead of a possible run for the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: However, today, I want you to know that I realize back then I was wrong and I'm sorry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:10:00]
CABRERA: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offering an apology today for the controversial stop and frisk policies of his administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLOOMBERG: I got something important really wrong. I didn't understand that back then the full impact that stops we're having on the black and Latino communities. Now, hindsight is 20/20, but as crime continues to come down as we reduced stops and as it continued to come down to the next administration, to its credit, I now see that we could have and should have acted sooner and acted faster to cut the stops. I wish we had and I'm sorry that we didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Those remarks at an African-American church in Brooklyn come as Bloomberg toys with the possibility of launching a Democratic presidential bid. And he's getting a lot of pushback on his timing. Former 2020 candidate and current mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, who will join me live next hour, tweeted this. This is long overdue and the timing is transparent and cynical. With all due respect to my predecessor, we've spent six years undoing the damage he created with this bankrupt policy. We ended stop and frisk and drove down crime. Actions speak louder than words.
Steve Benjamin is the mayor of Columbia, South Carolina and was there as Bloomberg made that announcement today. He has know Michael Bloomberg for years and will a campaign co-chair if he decides to run for president in 2020. Welcome. MAYOR STEPHEN BENJAMIN (D), COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA: Thank you, Ana.
CABRERA: Thanks for being here.
Speak to the timing. Why is he making this apology now? Can you see why some may think it's insincere?
BENJAMIN: Absolutely. I mean, I can only speak to what I saw today and the reaction from the members at CCC in Brooklyn. I saw contrition. I saw -- I'm a big believer there's strength in humility. And I saw a man admitting that he's wrong and the incredible disparate effects. I ran a law enforcement agency 20 years ago early in my career.
What we know now about the systemic challenges of the law enforcement and whatever you thought a policy was and how it might help to lower crime, that being deployed it could cause some major problems. So I understand the concerns.
CABRERA: Sure. But why now? I mean, why now? If not for votes, why make it now? He was defending this policy back in January.
BENJAMIN: Well, I think it's so important to understand that this is -- today is a threshold day, that there are a number of people who saw the great work that Mike Bloomberg did not just in crime reduction but education, on making sure that young men who got out of that kind of mainstream before they finished puberty got a chance back into school and reducing incarceration rates, people saying the great work he's done on guns and climate.
CABRERA: With all due respect, you're not answering my question.
BENJMAIN: Oh, I'm going to answer your question. I always answer questions.
So the important thing is for people who want to talk about work on climate and guns and economic development, it's important that they were able to get past this threshold issue.
So why now? That's a discussion to have with Mike Bloomberg. But a whole lot of folks who tell me, I see at Mike Bloomberg someone I can see in the president of the United States, but the stop and frisk was threshold issue for them.
CABRERA: Let me read you the statement from the New York Police Benevolent Association. Mayor Bloomberg could have saved himself the apology if he had just listened to the police officers on the street. We said in the early 2000s that the quota-driven emphasis street stops was polluting the relationship between cops and our communities. His administration's misguided policy inspired an anti-police movement that has made the cops the target of hatred and violence and stripped away many of the tools we use to keep New Yorkers safe.
[18:15:02]
The apology is too little, too late. Is the idea to maybe come out, make this apology, test the waters to see what the reaction will be before making a final decision on whether he runs for president?
BENJAMIN: First of all, I can't speak to the PBA. I've read things from the PBA I've agreed with in the past, and some I've disagreed with them. I've worn a badge, I've worn a gun and I've worked aggressively to make sure we build a system of transparency and trust and accountability with law enforcement agencies, not just in my city, but all across the country.
I can tell you this. I think he's uniquely qualified not just as a businessman who's built a business, who's run probably the most complex and consequential city in this country but also as a philanthropist who will probably die as maybe the most consequential philanthropist the world has ever seen too.
This issue is an issue that so many people have struggled with. They've struggled with in a deeply heartfelt way. And I've talked to a number of people at CCC, at Christian Culture Center today, as to how this might have affected them and affected their families over time. So It's important at the very least that the mayor stepped up, had this conversation and put it on the table. And I believe it's the first in a number of conversations that needs to be had with people not just here in New York but across the country.
CABRERA: So is he running?
BENJAMIN: I don't know. That's up to him. He has to make that call.
CABRERA: When will he make his decision?
BENJAMIN: You'll have to ask Mike Bloomberg that.
CABRERA: You're ready to be his campaign co-chair. Certainly, you guys have had conversations about this.
BENJAMIN: I'm ready to rock and roll. I mean, I think -- I believe that right now, we are facing existential threats to this republic as we know it. And until you have a man or woman who's willing and ready and able to take the bull by the horns and drive this country forward bringing people together, then I think we're going to have some dark times ahead.
CABRERA: You're ready to rock and roll? We'll see?
BENJAMIN: I hope so. I hope so.
CABRERA: You don't know?
BENJAMIN: I hope so.
CABRERA: Let me ask you, because if he does get into the race, and you're from South Carolina -- thank you for coming to New York today to be on set with us. Obviously, it was just after that event.
BENJAMIN: I went to a funeral today, actually.
CABRERA: I'm sorry. Sorry for your loss.
South Carolina, obviously, the African-American vote is crucial. And right now, that key voting bloc in South Carolina is very loyal to Joe Biden. All of the polling is showing this.
BENJAMIN: Sure.
CABRERA: What would you do for Bloomberg or what is the strategy to get those African-American voters behind Bloomberg if he gets into the race?
BENJAMIN: Well, first of all, I represent all the people of my city. I don't represent a majority black city. I represent a city that's actually a majority white. So I represent all the citizens of Columbia, whether black, white, Republican, Democrat or from one of the 194 sovereign nations in the world. So it's important to note that.
I believe that the issues that are important to every citizen are the same ones that are important to all citizens, how you create economic opportunity, how you make sure your children have a chance to do better than you do. And if you speak to those core issues that are important to all Americans, indeed, all people in the world, and you'll be able to pull support.
Vice President Biden is a good man, has deep and abiding relationships in South Carolina he's built over decades. And it shows in the polls. And that's a real relationship. Whoever seeks to run this campaign has to make sure that you're not just spending time in the blue bubble. You've got to get off of cable, you've got to get in to the neighborhoods, you've got to get into our churches, you've got to have fish fries, you've got to actually go and meet people not just across the Sixth District represented by my friend, Jim Clyburn, but all across the state. That's where you run a campaign, speaking to the hopes and dreams and values of all Americans, not just African- American voters.
CABRERA: Right. Thank you so much for coming in.
BENJAMIN: Thank you.
CABRERA: Good to see you.
Next hour, by the way, current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio will join us live with his response.
As the public impeachment hearings enter a second week and the president ramps up his attacks on Democrats and even the witnesses testifying, we'll take a look at the man leading the impeachment charge, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00] CABRERA: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff did not mince words this weekend describing President Trump at the California Democratic Convention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): We will send that charlatan in the White House back to the golden throne he came from. And you know why? Because we vote. How do we build another big, beautiful wave? We vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Schiff is also emerging as a central figure in this impeachment inquiry as the man leading the charge for House Democrats. Schiff is a ten-term California Congressman. He sat down with CNN's Chief Political Analyst, Gloria Borger and she asked him what this historic moment feels like.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIFF: Well, it feels at times like being in the eye of the hurricane. You can never tell when you're going to step out of the eye into gale force winds.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is at the center of the storm leading a historic public inquiry on impeachment.
SCHIFF: I now recognize myself to give an opening statement in the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States.
It's of course much more intense now than ever before.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Shifty Schiff is --
BORGER: Anyone not living under a rock knows that Schiff is one of President Trump's favorite targets.
TRUMP: Little pencil neck.
BORGER: And he's not subtle about it on camera.
TRUMP: He should resign from office in disgrace. And, frankly, they should look at him for treason.
BORGER: And on Twitter.
SCHIFF: I can't even keep up with the president's Twitter attacks on me. My staff has stopped sending them to me. They're too numerous.
BORGER: You don't follow him on Twitter?
SCHIFF: I don't follow, no. I have more important things to do.
BORGER: Just months ago, Schiff was in the camp that believed impeachment was not a good idea.
FMR. REP. STEVE ISRAEL (D-NY): We've talked in depth about this.
BORGER: Steve Israel is a close Schiff friend and former Democratic colleague.
ISRAEL: Impeachment might have some consequences that would be harmful to the country, to the Democratic Party, to members of Congress.
[18:25:08]
But when the president engaged in this phone call with President Zelensky, that was a bridge too far for him.
SCHIFF: What made this a necessity for me and so many of my colleagues is that if the president believes that he can abuse his office, the power of that office, he can fail to defend our national security and there is no accountability, even if the accountability is only in the House, that's too dangerous a prospect to persist.
BORGER: Schiff came to Congress from his Los Angeles county district almost 20 years ago, a moderate Democrat who beat the Republican incumbent, a leader of the impeachment fight against Bill Clinton. How's that for irony?
SCHIFF: Mr. Rogan's priority has always been in engaging in these national partisan ideological crusades and ignoring the business at home in the district. And I don't think people value that.
BORGER: Schiff's Harvard Law classmate Karl Thurmond remembers a friend who knew where he wanted to go and how to get there.
KARL THURMOND, LAW SCHOOL CLASSMATE OF ADAM SCHIFF: I played quarterback. Adam played on the line for his team. And in one play, Adam literally ripped jersey off my back. And that's Adam.
And so, yes, he is very ambitious, he is very competitive, but not in a cut throat or a back stabbing way. He knew back then he wanted to get involved in politics.
BORGER: Schiff served in the state Senate, but his greatest impact came as an assistant U.S. attorney when he prosecuted an FBI agent for selling secrets to the Russians.
SCHIFF: Well, it does feel at times like my life has come full circle.
BORGER: From a major role in the Republican-led 2014 Benghazi investigation to becoming chairman of the Intelligence Committee this year.
ISRAEL: What people don't understand about Adam is that he wanted to go on the Intelligence Committee for two principal reasons. Number one, it was bipartisan, and number two, it was quiet.
And so I often say to him, how did that work out for you, buddy?
BORGER: Not as expected.
Just weeks ago House Republicans tried to censure him.
How did that feel? You have Republican friends or you used to.
SCHIFF: Well, I think my Republican colleagues finding they lacked the courage to stand up to this unethical president have consoled themselves by attacking those who do. And that's a sad reality, but it is where the House GOP is. Kevin McCarthy will do whatever Donald Trump asks him to do. He'll merely ask how high he wants McCarthy to jump and then McCarthy will jump.
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): It's behind closed doors with a chairman who has lied three times to the American public looking them in the eye. And somehow we're supposed to trust what comes out of that.
BORGER: It's ugly and very personal. Illegitimate hearings, Republicans say, run by a partisan.
REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA): It is a Soviet-style impeachment process.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Chairman Schiff is unfit to chair the Intelligence Committee.
BORGER: The chairman is having none of it.
SCHIFF: For this president, they're going to destroy what America stands for in the world? They're going to countenance holding up aid or meetings or whatever to get help in the next election campaign, they're going to normalize that, rationalize that. They're going to honker down, put their heads in the sand about it. Where is people's sense of duty?
BORGER: If that sounds like a line out of a screen play, it could be. Schiff has written a few of his own and took some dramatic and controversial liberties in describing the president's phone call with the Ukrainian president.
SCHIFF: And I'm going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand lots of it.
BORGER: The performance turned into a political opening for Republicans, one in particular.
TRUMP: Shifty Schiff is a double corrupt politician. He took my words on the phone call, and they were so good, he totally changed them.
BORGER: Do you regret that way?
SCHIFF: No. I made it clear I was mocking the president. And just as clearly, the president doesn't like being mocked. But it was a mafia kind of organized crime shakedown. But I'm not surprised if the president wasn't attacking me about this, he'd be attacking me about something else.
BORGER: What's his mood like these days? How would you describe it?
ISRAEL: He's got some overwhelming responsibilities and they are on his shoulders. But he is excellent at relieving that burden with his humor. Look, he's got a goofy sense of humor that people don't see.
BORGER: Goofy is not a word people would use about.
ISRAEL: Well, he loves funny movies. Everybody knows that he can take you from the first word of the Big Lebowski to the final scene of the Big Lebowski.
THE DUDE: I'm the dude, so that's what you call me, you know?
BORGER: Are there any words from the Dude that would apply to your life?
SCHIFF: I've been asked in the past. I'm not sure whether you can air this or not is another question.
[18:30:00]
What line from "The Big Lebowski" comes up most in political life, and I have to say, it's the line, no, you're not wrong, you're just an (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BORGER: Now that's a side of Adam Schiff you don't normally see -- Ana.
CABRERA: OK. That's very true.
Gloria Borger, thank you.
There have been a lot of revelations in the impeachment inquiry in just the last 48 hours. And this past week has also seen a deluge of blockbuster testimony. But next week could be even more consequential for President Trump.
Elie Honig joins us live to answer your questions on the inquiry next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: We're all gearing up for what could be the most consequential hearings yet in the impeachment inquiry. Pivotal testimony last week brought questions about witness tampering and harassment front and center. And former U.S. ambassador of Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, told lawmakers on Friday about the smear campaign against her and even as she was testifying, President Trump hurled insults at her on Twitter, as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff pointed out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[18:35:15]
SCHIFF: Now the president in real time is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?
MARIE YOVANOVITCH, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE: Well, it's very intimidating.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Time now for cross exams. CNN Legal |Analyst, Elie Honig is here to answer your questions on impeachment. And Elie is a former federal and state prosecutor.
Elie, everybody is, you know, looking at that and was really kind of a jaw-dropping moment there. Are tweets admissible in court, one viewer asked, and could Trump's tweets about Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during her testimony be a crime?
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, Ana, it was a dramatic week of testimony, and I think that clip that we just saw was really one of the most indelible moments. You've got to see Marie Yovanovitch's visceral human reaction to Trump's tweets. So first of all, tweets are statements and statements can be used against the speaker in a could of law.
We know that from a common warning the police give. Anything you say can and will be used against you. We might need to update that to say, and anything you tweet can and will be used against you. They are one and the same. So those tweets are in play.
Now there is some room for disagreement here but I believe what we saw was witness tampering and retaliation. When you look at the timing, it happened during her testimony. When you look at the nature of the tweet, that was a personal attack. That was not some constructive distant criticism. And look at the pattern. Donald Trump has gone after everybody who's testified about him in any negative way.
In the Mueller investigation and this investigation, he just tweeted about one of the upcoming witnesses Jennifer Williams. So the question is, will this become a potential Article of Impeachment. I believe it can and will. Perhaps as a part of a larger over-arching obstruction of Congress Article of Impeachment but I think Congress has taken this very seriously because we're talking about the integrity of the witnesses and the process here.
CABRERA: Just yesterday House Intel chairman Adam Schiff called out again for Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, to come out and testify, to comply with a subpoena. Again he has refused to do so. One viewer asks, will we ever hear testimony from Mulvaney? And how important could his testimony be?
HONIG: We probably won't hear from him but his testimony could be crucial. So Mulvaney got subpoenaed by the House. Then he tried to join this lawsuit asking a court, well, do I have to testify or not. Then he withdrew from that and now he's just saying, I'm not testifying, I'm following the White House's orders.
Now we learned last week that Mulvaney was centrally involved in that hold on foreign aid. Both George Kent and Bill Taylor said we were told, we believed, that the order went from the president to Mulvaney to hold that aid. Now, that's secondhand information and the White House has made a big deal about these witnesses that we heard last week only had secondhand information. But who has the firsthand information? Mick Mulvaney, yet they're blocking him.
So there's some real hypocrisy there. If they're not afraid of the truth and want this all to come out, they would clear him to testify. And by the way, Mulvaney can testify if he wants. Look at the witnesses last week and this week. So there's some real hypocrisy there and we're being denied all the facts.
CABRERA: I mean, speaking of how Republicans to this impeachment inquiry, you have Republican Senator Lindsey Graham stating he is refusing to watch the hearings on this impeachment inquiry. If a trial juror said he would refer -- refuse to consider the evidence, I mean, he would be disqualified. One viewer wants to know, does the same apply in impeachment?
HONIG: Yes, so the U.S. Senate will be the jury in an impeachment trial. It will take two-thirds of the senators, 67 in order to impeach. But that word jurors, you have to put in quotation marks because they are not doing the same thing that your normal trial jurors do. If a trial juror, the kind of cases I used to do said I'm not going to even consider this type of evidence, they'd be bounced immediately.
Also normal trial jurors have to show that they're impartial. Here we have jurors on both sides of the aisle already essentially announced where they're learning or where they're going to come out ultimately. In a real trial, they'd be out, too. But this is different. There's also no mechanism to disqualify, to throw out a juror. That just does not exist. So those 100 senators will be the jury and ultimately without really any restrictions on what they do and say beforehand.
CABRERA: What are your top questions for this week?
HONIG: Oh, boy. I have about a thousand this week but I'll keep --
CABRERA: Don't we all.
HONIG: Yes. First of all, will more surprise witnesses emerge? Any time an investigation is ongoing, and this is ongoing, you never know what twists and turns. Last week we saw the new revelation about David Holmes and this -- who observed the restaurant conversation between Trump and Sondland. Number two, will Gordon Sondland testify about and admit that conversation in the restaurant with Donald Trump about investigations? He has not mentioned it yet in his prior testimony. So it'll be interesting to see what he does now.
And finally, will Kurt Volker become the White House's star witness? They've already given indication, they've said, listen to Kurt Volker. He says no quid pro quo. But there are some things in his testimony that are really damaging for Donald Trump and the White House. I think it's a big risk to put too much stock on him.
CABRERA: OK, Elie Honig.
HONIG: All right.
CABRERA: There's so much to keep track off. Thank you for helping us.
HONIG: Yes.
CABRERA: As we go.
HONIG: Looking forward to it.
CABRERA: Make sure you read Elie's column, by the way, on CNN.com/opinion. That's also where you can submit your own questions.
We're following breaking news this hour out of Hong Kong.
[18:40:00]
Back to live pictures from a university there where students are barricading themselves and they're shooting Molotov cocktails and arrows at heavily armed police. We will go there live next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: We continue to follow breaking news out of Hong Kong where police and protesters have been engaged in a dramatic standoff. This is at a university and this includes everything from gasoline bombs to bricks to arrows and water cannons and tear gas. I mean, to put it simply, it's been absolute chaos there.
Let's get right to CNN's Paula Hancocks.
Paul, what is the latest?
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, we know that there are at least hundreds of protesters that's still holed up inside this campus. This is really the culmination of six months of protests here in Hong Kong calling for more democracy. But the protest we saw at the beginning in June is very different today. This is far more violent, far more physical.
Now we have seen that police have taken the main road outside this campus. We heard from one of the student union presidents that they believed that the police have gone inside and carried out some arrests. The police deny that. They said they haven't raided inside yet.
[18:45:03]
But they say that the president did try to negotiate a deal within this campus that if the protesters weren't violent, the police wouldn't be violent. But since that happened, we have seen fires being started by some of the protesters. We have seen them from live video trying to barricade themselves in to make sure that the police can't get inside. Now we understand from the head of the student union there have been a number of injuries inside. They claim that the police have arrested some of the first aiders so it's more difficult to be able to treat them -- Ana.
CABRERA: OK, Paula Hancocks, in Hong Kong. Thank you for that update.
One of the Boston marathon bombers is now linked to a triple murder in 2011. We'll have details in a live report, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: In a gruesome and horrific turn of events, new details are emerging of the alleged involvement of one of the Boston marathon bombers in a triple homicide in 2011. That's two years before the terror attack that killed three people and injured at least 264. According to newly-released documents, in 2013 a friend of the late Tamerlan Tsarnaev told officials that they bound, beat and slit the throats of three men in Massachusetts.
CNN's Natasha Chen joins us now.
Natasha, what more can you tell us about this shocking development?
NATASHA CHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, Ana, you remember that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older Tsarnaev brother, was killed in a police firefight shortly after the Boston marathon bombing.
[18:50:06]
And after that it was his friend named Ibrahim Todashev, who gave investigators an interview. Now what he said in that interview is what we're learning now from the search warrant that was just unsealed this week.
Now a lot of it is actually redacted. I can see plenty of pages that are completely blacked out here, but from what we can read, Todashev told investigators that he and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, two years before the Boston marathon bombing, committed a triple murder. He told investigators it was supposed to be a robbery, that Tamerlan was armed with a gun. They went in there and stole thousands of dollars.
He said Tamerlan then said that he wanted to eliminate any witnesses to the crime and here's where it gets very graphic. Here's a quote from what the agent wrote down in this report. He said, "The murders were particular grisly, that the victims were bound, beaten and had their throats cut. In addition, the victims were covered with marijuana."
Now Todashev then continues to tell investigators saying that they spent more than an hour trying to clean up, trying to erase fingerprints, and one of these three victims was allegedly a good friend of Tsarnaev. Now, in a twist to this story, Todashev was shot and killed during the course of giving this interview because U.S. officials said that he attacked an FBI agent in the room. Now the reason that we know all of this and are reading these details
is that the search warrant document was made available this week. As part of a court filing for the younger surviving Tsarnaev brothers, Dzhokhar, he is appealing his death sentence. The oral arguments for that case will happen next month.
And, Ana, the district attorney tells us that this triple murder from 2011 that happened to be on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, that investigation is still ongoing.
CABRERA: Wow, what a story. Natasha Chen, thank you.
CHEN: Thank you.
CABRERA: Rodney Reed was set to be executed just a few days from now. But after more than 20 years on death row his case is now getting a second look. Details on what's next in his fight to prove his innocence.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:55:43]
CABRERA: A Texas appeal court has halted the execution of death row inmate Rodney Reed whose attorneys claim to have evidence that exonerates him. His case has united lawmakers, celebrities and millions of people who signed on online petition asking the state's governor to spare his life.
CNN's Ed Lavandera reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just days before Rodney Reed's scheduled execution the calls to stop it were heard. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Reed's lawyers that new evidence and witness statements that could prove his innocence must be looked at closer.
RODRICK REED, DEATH ROW INMATE'S BROTHER: The fight right now for Rodney's life is not over.
LAVANDERA: Before the court ruling Rodney Reed's mother and brother sat down with CNN.
SANDRA REED, DEATH ROW INMATE'S MOTHER: If they take my son's life, it would be pure murder.
LAVANDERA (on camera): Why does your son deserve a new trial?
S. REED: He never got a fair trial. It was a horrible thing.
RODRICK REED: All we have to do is get justice off the street and back into the courtroom.
S. REED: That's right. RODRICK REED: Where it needs to be, and Rodney Reed will be free and
exonerated.
LAVANDERA (voice-over): In 1998 Rodney Reed was convicted of raping and murdering Stacey Stites in Bastrop, Texas. A year after the murder Reed was interviewed by investigators. In this rarely seen video of that interrogation Reed repeatedly denied knowing Stites.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know this girl?
RODNEY REED, DEATH ROW INMATE: No, I don't.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This girl is Stacey Stites.
RODNEY REED: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you ever seen her before?
RODNEY REED: No, I haven't.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ever dated her?
RODNEY REED: No, I haven't.
LAVANDERA: But the investigators knew what Reed did not know at the time, that his DNA was found on Stacey Stites. This made Reed the prime suspect. Reed has long said he was having a consensual affair with the 19-year-old. In a death row interview Reed said he lied because Stites was engaged to a small town white police officer named Jimmy Fennell.
RODNEY REED: It came up that she was seeing an officer, and that's why we mainly tried to be as discreet as possible. She said that if he -- that if Jimmy found out that we were together that he would kill me.
LAVANDERA: Jimmy Fennell's lawyer says Reed's lie matches a pattern of deception seen in other sexual assault cases where Reed was a suspect, denying first then admitting to knowing the victims.
ROBERT PHILLIPS, JIMMY FENNELL'S LAWYER: Oh, that's Stacey Stites, I'm having a torrid sexual affair with her. Just in that little capsule of the life and times of Rodney Reed, you can see what a liar, what a rapist, what a dangerous human being he is.
LAVANDERA: Reed's supporters say he's never been convicted of those other crimes and the allegations are being wrongly used to justify the execution.
ANTHONY GRAVES, DEATH ROW EXONEREE: A young white woman was murdered, and a black man was convicted of it. That is their case. And they're taking it all the way to the execution table.
LAVANDERA (on camera): Stacey Stites' body was found in these woods about seven miles outside Bastrop, Texas. Her family hasn't said much in the weeks leading up to the scheduled execution of Rodney Reed, but one of her sisters tells CNN that Rodney Reed is not only a rapist and a murderer, he's also a liar and that her family has had to endure and relive this crime now for 23 years.
(Voice-over): The Innocence Project says it has uncovered evidence and new witness statements that dismantle the case against Reed. Reed's lawyers say the murder weapon was never treated for DNA. The apartment where Stites lived with her fiance was never searched. There are also seven new witnesses who the lawyers say exonerate Reed and implicate Fennell.
S. REED: This truth should set him free. This truth should give him a new trial.
RODRICK REED: And they just did everything they could do to ensure that my brother was the murderer of this crime whether he was innocent or guilty. They just ran with it.
LAVANDERA: But the road to death row started in this interview room 22 years ago.
RODNEY REED: Am I being charged with something? Or is that what this is all this is going around? Am I being charged with something?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll visit with you later.
LAVANDERA: Hours later Reed was charged with capital murder. But for now Reed's life has been spared.
RODNEY REED: This is crazy.
LAVANDERA: Ed Lavandera, CNN, Bastrop, Texas.
