Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Congress Set to Vote Next Week to Impeach Donald Trump; Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) is Interviewed About Congress' Impending Impeachment Vote; James Comey Admits He was Wrong; Elie Honig Answers Legal Question on "Cross-Exam"; U.S. Officials Misled Public on the War in Afghanistan; Off-Duty Cop Ambushed in Police Parking Lot; Caught on Camera, Child Slammed to the Floor by a School Deputy; Ring Security Camera Breached; Hallmark Channel Boycott as it Pulls Out Same-Sex Marriage Ad; Lori Loughlin and Husband Claims the Government is Withholding Documents; "Cats" Film Gets Backlash Over Their Trailer. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired December 15, 2019 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[17:00:00]
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN HOST: Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Martin Savidge. We have much more just ahead of the Newsroom with Ana Cabrera and it all starts right now.
ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You are live in the "CNN Newsroom." Thank you for joining me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. It is now just the last few days before President Trump's very likely impeachment and all that's left essentially is the House vote.
People close to Democratic leaders say that will probably happen on Wednesday. It's clear how lawmakers in Congress feel about impeaching and removing President Trump from office, but what about the American people?
A new poll released a few hours ago shows a country divided. The poll was done by Fox News, to the question do you think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office? Fifty percent of voters said yes. Forty-six percent said no.
Not a huge change since six weeks ago. Same question, some pollsters, basically the same opinion that was in October. What people think of the president's job performance also hasn't changed much. The poll today finds 45 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing and if you look all the way back to January, that is statistically holding steady.
Our senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny is with us now. Jeff, you've seen these new polls. Is either side of the impeachment effort happy with how the country is split?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, good afternoon. It really is extraordinary when you think about all of the hearings, all of the, you know, the dramatic moments on Capitol Hill. For all we talk about, you know, how historic this moment is, the country has not really moved at all on this over the last six weeks or so or two months or so.
And this is not the position that Speaker Pelosi wanted to be in really on the eve of impeachment. She said she wanted this to be a bipartisan effort. She wanted, you know, to explain this to the American people, well, the reality is the partisan divide is hardening.
That is led be the White House and they, you know, certainly are giving no ground here. So what is striking to me is that, you know, there really has been no movement, but we have heard so much more information about this over the last couple of months or so.
The Trump campaign, the president's advisers, they tell me that they believe impeachment is good for him. They believe that it fires up his base. Of course Democrats believe, you know, that it is doing the same for them.
But it is those voters in the middle here who are watching this, but are not necessarily moved by this, but we are keeping our eye on, you know, the handful of moderate members of Congress who still have to decide how they are going to vote on this.
Of course, the Democrats are expected to have a majority there. Expected to vote to impeach on Wednesday but will all Democrats join in voting with the speaker, we'll see about that. There are some that are weighing this very difficult vote because they know the politics of this are very consequential.
CABRERA: That's right. There are 31 Democratic representatives who were elected in Trump supporting districts.
ZELENY: Right.
CABRERA: Jeff, if impeachment however goes as expected in this vote that will be held this week, there will be a trial in the Senate and there's been some back and forth about how that will go. Either a speedy process or more drawn out with lots of witnesses called. What is the more likely scenario?
ZELENY: Right. Well that -- it's very much an open scenario here, an open question here, because most of the president's defenders and allies want this to be a short proceeding.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others, you know, very much prefer this to be a short proceeding without a lot of witnesses, without a lot of drama if you will because they are uncertain of the politics as well.
The president has been more open to a longer hearing. He, you know, has been open to calling a variety of witnesses. Some people say that Joe Biden should be called. Hunter Biden should be called as a witness. Speaker Pelosi should be called as a witness.
Even the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, who of course, the president has often is sparring with. He had this to say about the prospect of him being called as a witness. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): In terms of whether I'm a witness, I'm not a fact witness in any way, Chris, and the president knows that. He also wants to call the speaker as a witness. This is merely his common tactic. And that is he can't defend his gross misconduct.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: So, for all the facts that, you know, we think we know where this is going, that a vote is likely to come on Wednesday in the House. After that, we enter a very uncertain period with Republicans in control of the Senate.
We do not know the size or scope o the trial and we don't know the politics of this in the aftermath of that. So largely, this will be guided by the president, his wishes. He is working hand in glove with leader McConnell here. So January is going to be a very unscripted month, Ana.
CABRERA: It's going to be like a busy start to the year. Jeff Zeleny, thank you for your reporting.
ZELENY: Sure.
CABRERA: Now, earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said impeachment must be bipartisan, but not a single Republican in the House has said they will vote aye to impeaching President Trump.
[17:04:58]
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee. Congressman, good to have you here.
REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): Thank you.
CABRERA: This vote by the full House is expected on Wednesday. Can you say with 100 percent confidence that it will happen that day and how are you feeling about it right now?
COHEN: Well, I guess 95 percent confidence. There's always a chance something could happen, but that's the plan. And I feel very confident that it will have sufficient votes to pass and he will be impeached.
CABRERA: Impeachment has put pressure on Democrats in pro-Trump districts as we were just discussing with Jeff and yesterday we learned that New Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew is planning to switch parties and actually become a Republican -- news that was welcomed by House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): I want to tell Jeff Van Drew that he is welcome in the Republican Party. Not just by me, but by our conference and we would support him and welcome him to join, and any of your viewers out there who are independents or Democrats who are frustrated with what's happening with the rule of law, they're welcome to join us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: If no Republicans break with their party and at least a couple of Democrats do, are you prepared for a scenario where the only show of bipartisanship on this issue is a vote against impeaching the president?
COHEN: Well, the fist person to try to be bipartisan was Justin Amash. You saw what happened to Justin. He was a Republican and he said he was going to be for impeaching Trump. They kicked him out of the caucus and they stripped him of his committee positions.
So that scared I think some of the Republicans even the ones not running for re-election because they've got another year to remain in that caucus, and that would hurt their potential to help their districts in the next year.
I think Jeff Van Drew is making a serious mistake. I understand that he feels if he votes against impeachment, he'll lose in a Democratic primary, he could, but he got elected with Democratic votes under a Democratic banner which he ran under for 30 years or so.
I think he was a senator and a mayor and a representative and all, and he got Democratic money including Democratic Congressional campaign committee money. And to turn and go to be a Republican, it's kind of strange. It's kind of, you know, I've heard of rats jumping off a sinking ship but very few of them jump on to a sinking ship.
The Republicans are in the minority. For his district, instead of having a Congressman who's in the majority and he gets something done for his district, they're going to have a Congressman in the minority who can't get anything done. The lowest thing that there is in the Congress is somebody in the minority side who is a traitor to the majority. So, this is not good for his district.
CABRERA: So let me ask you, beyond Van Drew and putting him aside, I mean, he may not be the only person who votes no on impeachment. As you know, there were two Democrats previously who voted against even doing the impeachment inquiry. So again, same question. If the only bipartisan vote on impeachment is against impeachment, are you prepared for that?
COHEN: I'm prepared for it, but I think what that says is how bad the Republicans have become, that they can't recognize what are simple facts that the president has admitted to, that he asked a foreign power to get involved in our elections. That is simply verbatim.
It's wrong. He sacrificed our national security for his personal interest and he's jeopardized our elections. He betrayed his oath. That's a fact and they continue to deny him, but that's a fact and the public knows it. And so the shocking thing is, that there isn't any bipartisanship. There's several people retiring who you think would want to at least
be in the history books as being somebody who saw this president for what he is and he's going to be seen in the future as a corrupt president because that's what he is, lying Donald.
He's told more lies than any president in history, of any human being in history and he can't even be on a charitable board, $2 million fine in New York State for having disregarded his oath and duty to abide by his trust in a proper fashion. He took money from a charity --
CABRERA: Regarding the Trump Foundation. Let me ask you though because the president's --
COHEN: Yes, hook money for politics. He took money for business.
CABRERA: -- the president's approval rating is actually going up according to this latest fox news poll compared to, you know, the month before. The approval rating is also higher than Congress' approval rating. How do you explain that?
COHEN: Well, I think the reason it's a little higher is because the stock market is up to a hotspot and the market has gone up. I've been amazed it's continued to go up, but if he can get the China deals, tariff deals done, it will help him, it will help the market.
But the market I think is at a sugar high and has been in a sugar high and it's going to, I think, come down. But that's why his numbers are up, is because of the stock market and certainly not for anything else.
CABRERA: Let's look ahead to the Senate trial. This morning, the chairman of your committee, Jerry Nadler, blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for coordinating with the White House when it comes to the Senate trial. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): The Constitution prescribes a special oath for the senators when they sit as a trial in impeachment.
[17:10:01]
They have to pledge to do impartial justice. And here you have the majority leader of the Senate, in effect, the foreman of the jury saying he's going to work hand in glove with the defense attorney.
Now that's a violation of the oath they're about to take and it's a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Now congressman, in the Clinton impeachment, Tom Daschle who was the Democratic leader in the Senate at the time said his staff was in constant coordination with senior White House officials. Is this different? COHEN: I've heard that, but I haven't read that so I'm not sure. I've
seen people say that wasn't accurate and what they could coordinated on was simply some kind of timing, but Clinton did cooperate with the House in the impeachment inquiry which Trump didn't and I'm not sure what the connections are with Daschle and McConnell.
But the Republicans are saying and Lindsey Graham is saying in the frontend is it's going to be dismissed immediately. There's not going to be a conviction. It's going to be over and done quick. They're not even giving a fig leaf to justice and they're basically saying we've got the vote, we're going to stick together.
I guess Mitt Romney's the only hope for an independent voice over there. We'll see what Senator Romney does. But the facts are clear. He has violated his oath of office and he has jeopardized the election and it's an ongoing enterprise. He told Stephanopoulos --
CABRERA: What if he keeps doing it? What if he keeps doing it? If he is acquitted in the Senate after being impeached in the House, what are Democrats going to do?
COHEN: Well, I hope we just -- I hope we get together our convention and come up with the best nominee that can win and we get together, put our shoulders together and support our nominee and don't get lost on any rabbit trials voting for any Jill Steins or Gary Johnsons and we vote for the Democrat knowing how important it is for the future of the country, the future of the rule of law and democracy, which it is. This is a seminal election.
CABRERA: Okay, Congressman Steve Cohen, I really appreciate you joining us. Thank you and good luck in the week ahead.
COHEN: You're welcome.
CABRERA: Just ahead in the newsroom for us, former FBI director, James Comey, facing tough questions about serious mistakes laid out in the inspector general's report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I'm responsible for this so I'm telling you, I was wrong, I was overconfident as director in our procedures. And it's important that a leader be accountable and transparent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:15:00]
CABRERA: Former FBI Director James Comey now admits he was wrong to defend the process agents used to apply for foreign intelligence surveillance warrants also known as FISA warrants against a former Trump campaign aide. This admission follows the release of a report from the Justice
Department's independent inspector general which found no less than 17 significant errors and omissions in the FISA warrant applications against this man, Carter Page.
The same report did not find, however, any evidence to support President Trump's more sensational claims like accusations his campaign was illegally spied on, wiretapped or investigated due to political bias and Comey emphasizes that point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COMEY: The FBI was accused of treason, of illegal spying, of tapping Mr. Trump's wires illegally, of opening an investigation without justification of being a criminal conspiracy to unseat, defeat and then unseat a president.
All of that was nonsense. I think it's really important that the inspector general looked at that and that the American people, your viewers and all viewers understand that's true.
But he also found things that we were never accused of which is real sloppiness and that's concerning, as I've said all along, it has to be focused on. If I were director, I'd be very concerned about it and diving into it.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS HOST: Significant errors in the FISA process and you say that it was handled in a thoughtful and appropriate way.
COMEY: Yes, he's right, I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough. It's incredibly hard to get a FISA.
I was overconfident in those because he's right, there was real sloppiness, 17 things that either should have been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable. And so he's right, I was wrong.
WALLACE: But you make it sound like you're a bystander, an eyewitness. You were the director of the FBI while a lot of this was going on, sir.
COMEY: Sure. I'm responsible for this so I'm telling you I was wrong. I was overconfident as director in our procedures. And it's important that a leader be accountable and transparent.
If I were still director, I'd be saying exactly the same thing that Chris Wray is saying, which is we are going to get to the bottom of this, because the most important question is it systemic. Are there problems in other cases?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: With us now, former FBI supervisory special agent, Josh Campbell. He served as a special assistant to James Comey and former FBI senor intelligence adviser and CIA counterterrorism official Phil Mudd. Good to have both of you here. Josh, first, because of your connection to Comey, what is your reaction to hearing him say I was wrong in terms of the FISA application?
JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN ANALYST: Well, it's interesting. We've talked to a lot of people inside and outside government as part of our reporting following the release of this report and there seems to be a theme here. They are surprised and there's not surprised.
They are -- is not surprised as it relates to this political narrative that the president has engaged in for over two years now, saying that the FBI was weaponized by President Obama to go after the Trump people.
People who know these agencies knew that that was nonsense and here we have the I.G., an independent entity saying that they found no political bias. So again, that is not surprising.
It is surprising to Comey's point that there were so many errors as it relates to something that maybe systemic as far as the problem and how the FBI collects intelligence and obviously, that has to be looked into.
Director Wray, the current FBI director has talked about a number of sweeping reforms that the FBI will be engaged in, in order to ensure that that type of action doesn't happen again.
But again, this larger narrative that the president and his allies have been, you know, portraying over two years that the FBI somehow was acting politically simply did not bear out with this I.G. report.
CABRERA: Right. But Phil, Comey had held up the I.G. report initially as vindication. Now, he's saying he was wrong and he repeated that multiple times. Your thoughts.
PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I think there's two pieces of this story. The first piece is for the American people. Look, if I were an American citizen in Middle America, I'd say look, let me focus on something else. NFL games today.
If I were the FBI director, I'd say as Comey said, this is a significant problem for the FBI, the sloppiness in one of the most intrusive techniques you can use, that is reading for example somebody's e-mails, the sloppiness was significant.
[17:20:003]
So again, if you're in Middle America, I'd say let me move on to something else. If you're in the FBI, I'm with Director Comey. I'm ready to trash him, but not today. I'd say yes, you got to look at this. This is significant internally within the FBI.
CABRERA: Josh, help us understand the work flow. Why, you know, the head of the FBI would not have tight control on the ins and outs and the details of an investigation as big as one that could impact the presidency? CAMPBELL: You know, it's a great question. And what's interesting,
and Phil know this as well having served under Robert Mueller and obviously I worked for James Comey, is that the FBI director every single morning walks into his or her office to a stack of FISA wiretap applications.
And the director has to sign each one certifying two things. First, that the purpose is to collect foreign intelligence and secondly, that this is the least intrusive method possible. And that director, you know, counts on his people to ensure that the information in that report is factually accurate.
I mean, down to every FBI agent that's at the line level. They are providing incredible powers to do investigations to attest to certain facts. By the time that gets up to the director, again, the director is certifying those two things and trusting that everyone down the chain of command is doing what they should have done.
That said, that doesn't let someone to the position off the hook. Every director is accountable for their people. And as Comey said, if he was director right now, if he hadn't been, you know, fired obviously by President Trump, I'm sure that he would be looking into ensuring that this didn't happen again and probably holding accountable people who were engaged in this type of activity.
CABRERA: And the president blasted Fox News just for having Comey as a guest. And then you heard Chris Wallace really grilled him. Phil, did Comey help or hurt the integrity of the organization in this interview?
MUDD: I'm going to offer you a neutral position on that. Look,if I were in the FBI, I'd say Director Comey did not perform well in my judgment during the Hillary Clinton investigation. I think he made some profound mistakes.
That said, if you're within the FBI, the attacks by the president of the United States have got to leave you sitting back saying if we ever want to conduct another investigation of somebody in political office, what are we going to do? Do we go forward or do we worry that we'll be sort of let out to dry by politicians down the road?
I think if I were on the FBI, this one is a neutral. People in Middle America I don't think will worry too much. If you're in the FBI, you worry about political investigations going forward, Ana.
CABRERA: Phil Mudd and Josh Campbell, good to have both of you here to put your voices to discuss this story. Thanks.
As the House prepares for historic impeachment vote, we're taking your questions, questions from you about what happens next. Stay right there, "Cross-Exam" with Elie Honig is coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAKING)
[17:25:00] CABRERA: The stage is set for a historic week on Capitol Hill as the
impeachment process against President Trump moves full steam ahead. The House is expected to vote on the two articles of impeachment as early as Wednesday.
And here to break it down for us is CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, who will be here every hour tonight to get a special extra Elie edition to answer your questions about impeachment.
So Elie, let's start with this question from a viewer asking if House Democrats made a mistake by bringing in article of impeachment for abuse of power, but not specifically on a crime like bribery.
ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Very common question from our viewers this week, Ana. Legally, no. No mistake whatsoever. I've said this before. You do not need a crime to impeach. We have this phrase in our Constitution, high crimes and misdemeanors.
But our history and our precedent made clear that abuse of power is enough. Now, tactically I think there can be second guessing here. I think what House Democrats decided when they decided to charge it as abuse of power is it's broader.
It's easier to prove than having to get into the legal weeds and nuances and semantics of bribery and extortion and quid pro quo. And I also believe House Democrats thought abuse of power really captures what Donald Trump did.
He used the office of the presidency for his own personal gain. The problem though is its left Democrats open to a pretty strong counterattack by Republicans who are saying they haven't even charged a crime. Donald Trump called it impeachment light.
So, now, I do think there's a way Democrats could have sort of had it both ways. They could have charged it as abuse of power and then had subsections for bribery and extortion. I think they could have proven that as well. But as it stands, when the vote happens probably Wednesday, it will be on abuse of power. There is no legal problem for that.
CABRERA: Another viewer asks is it a crime to ask for help in an election from a foreign government?
HONIG: So, there is federal crime on the books. It's section 30121. If anyone wants to look it up at home -- can you tell I've looked that up a couple of times?
So, let's break it down. There's three main parts. First of all, to solicit, accept or -- to solicit, accept -- excuse me -- or receive so that just means ask, from a foreign national. That could be from a foreign government or an individual.
Here we're talking about the president of Ukraine. Any contribution or thing of value relating to a campaign, there is a legal debate about whether opposition research on an opponent counts as a thing of value. Bill Barr has said he does not believe so. That's one of the reasons
he didn't even open a case here. Now, there is no established law on this. I would gladly argue the other side on that.
Of course, campaign research, opposition research is a thing of value. It's one of the most important things that political campaigns go after. So let's keep in mind, there really could be criminal exposure here for people around the president as well.
CABRERA: There's only been two other times in the history of this country where the full House has voted on articles of impeachment. Of course, there are questions about the process here. One viewer wants to know if Congress will vote on each article of impeachment separately or if there will be one vote for both articles.
HONIG: So yes, this is important. When the House votes this week and eventually when the Senate votes after a trial, there are two pending articles. Each of them will be voted on separately. We have the abuse of power and then we have obstruction of Congress.
So it is possible, not likely, but possible, that one passes and the other one fails or gets fewer votes. That actually happened in the Clinton impeachment.
The House Judiciary Committee approved four separate articles of impeachment. And when it went to the full House, two of them were approved and two of them were rejected. So keep an eye on that on Wednesday.
The House Democrats have about a 14-member cushion right now. So they can lose some votes.
[17:30:00]
But if they lose more than 14, they could theoretically lose one or both of those articles when it goes to the full House for a vote.
CABRERA: All right. Elie Honig, thank you and stick around because we know you are back next hour with more of our viewer questions. You can submit your own questions on impeachment at "Cross-Exam" at cnn.com/opinion.
As the Trump administration gets ready to announce a long anticipated troop drawdown in Afghanistan, a major investigation uncovers something troubling about America's longest war. Did U.S. officials mislead the public about the likelihood of success?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: CNN has learned that President Trump could announce the drawdown of some 4,000 troops from Afghanistan as early as next week. The news follows a series of investigative reports in the "Washington Post" exposing heartbreaking truths about the U.S. war in Afghanistan which has claimed some 2,400 U.S. lives and cost nearly a trillion dollars.
[17:34:58]
The "Post" says over three administrations, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump, the U.S. failed to deliver on its promises and officials lied to the public. CNN's Jim Sciutto reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A massive new trove of confidential documents obtained by the "Washington Post" reveals U.S. officials systemically lied to the American public about the Afghan war, virtually since the beginning, 18 years ago.
The objective, to conceal widespread fears that America was losing. The "Post" says it has obtained more than 2,000 pages of documents, some part of a lengthy government report called lessons learned.
And it quote, "several of those interviewed described explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public. They said it was common at military headquarters in Kabul and at the White House the distort statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case."
The report includes interviews with more than 600 people with firsthand war experience. And includes memos from former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld who wrote in April 2002, six months after the war began, "I know I'm a bit impatient but the fact that Iran and Russia have plans for Afghanistan and we don't concerns me."He ends the note with, "Help!"
General Douglas Luet who served as the White House Afghan war czar for Presidents Bush and Security Adviser to Obama is quoted in a report saying in 2015, "we were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan. We didn't know what we were doing."
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: What we're looking at here is something that calls into question not only our military operations, but also is a dishonor to the sacrifices that have been made by the servicemen and women in Afghanistan over these years. This is an inexcusable way to run things.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): The revelations are reminiscent of the Pentagon papers. A top secret Defense Department study of the Vietnam War which were first made public in 1971 when they were published by the "New York Times."
LEIGHTON: It's very similar to what happened with the pentagon papers because again, a strategy is being called into question. A rosy picture that's being painted by our political and military leadership is not the real picture on the ground.
SCIUTTO (voice-over): To date, the U.S. has not carried out a comprehensive accounting of how much it has spent on the war in Afghanistan. Since 2001, the government has spent or appropriated between $934 billion and $978 billion according to an inflation adjusted estimates cited in the "Post." In the report, one unnamed executive with USAID estimated that 90 percent of what the U.S. spent was overkill. The "Post" says it obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act after a three-year quest.
In response to the piece, Defense Department's spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Campbell said Monday, "There has been no intent by DOD to mislead Congress or the public. Most of the individuals interviewed spoke with the benefit of hindsight."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CABRERA: Again, that was our Jim Sciutto reporting.
Coming up, it's happened again. A family relaxing at home gets harassed by the voice of a stranger through their home security camera.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Taking pictures of the baby. Aw, sweet. That tree is looking really, really good guys. Hello.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're having some communication issues. Sit the (BLEEP) down.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:40:00]
CABRERA: Newly released surveillance video captures the chilling moment, an off duty police officer was ambushed earlier this month in Arkansas. And I have to warn you, this may be hard to watch. The shooter is spotted walking down the street before turning the corner and opening fire.
The suspect creeps behind a parked police car at a station house parking lot and then fires several shots. The officer died at the scene after he was shot in the head 10 times. The suspect who had expressed anti-police sentiments online was killed in a shootout with responding officers. Officer Stephen Carr was just 27 years old and a two-year veteran of the force.
Meanwhile, what was caught on camera in North Carolina may result in a school resource officer behind bars. Disturbing surveillance video shows him picking up a middle school student and violently slamming him to the ground, not once, but multiple times. CNN national correspondent Natasha Chen joins us now. Natasha, what charges could the officer face?
NATASHA CHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, it really depends on a couple of factors. One, is that the child is under 12 years old. The other factor is whether the child has any severe or long lasting injuries. Right now, the sheriff's office says that the boy has a bump to the
head but was not hospitalized. And I'm told by an official with knowledge of the investigation that if the school resource officer is charged and because he doesn't have a prior record, he could be looking at minimum at a misdemeanor with possibly up to 60 days in jail.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHEN (voice-over): In this surveillance video inside a middle school hallway in Vance County, North Carolina, you can see a child in a red sweatshirt walking down the hallway with a school resource officer. The next part can be very hard to watch.
The school resource officer is seen grabbing and slamming the child to the ground then picks up the child and does it again before yanking the student up and continuing down the hall.
CURTIS BRAME, SHERIFF, VANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA: I was stunned. I was shocked.
CHEN (voice-over): Sheriff Curtis Brame told CNN affiliate WRAL, the school resource officer was put on paid leave pending an investigation. He said the officer had worked for the department for two years had no prior incidents causing concern.
BRAME: Seeing a child that small (inaudible) one of my grandchildren.
CHEN (voice-over): The sheriff says this child is under 12. The district attorney in the area told CNN it does not appear from the video that this was an appropriate tactic or police use of force considering the child's age and the school environment.
[17:44:57]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a use of force case and the sheriff appropriately has called in an outside agency to investigate and I can just assure -- I've been able to assure the family that this is being conducted appropriately.
CHEN (voice-over): The school district released a statement saying in part, "We are deeply concerned by the actions that took place. School and district officials are working closely and in full cooperation with the local authorities to address this matter consistent with school board policy and state laws. The safety of our students has been and continues to be of the utmost importance to our district."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHEN (on camera): And, Ana, we are attempting to identify and reach out to the school resource officer for comment.
CABRERA: Okay, Natasha Chen, thank you.
CHEN: Thank you. CABRERA: Tonight, we have another frightening case of hackers breaching a ring security camera to tell you about. This one involves a Kansas family. They were relaxing at home when suddenly a stranger's voice began commenting on every single move they made.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Taking pictures of the baby. Aw, sweet. That tree is looking really, really good guys. Hello.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're having some communication issues. Sit the (BLEEP) back down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Wow. Once they realized what was happening, they quickly moved to disconnect the cameras and here's what happened next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, put me down. Put me down. I have feelings.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My daughter is still creeped out. She couldn't fall asleep that night and I've slept with her every night since because she's so scared.
CABRERA: They said the hacker even sent them a pizza to prove to them he knew where they lived. Ring has responded issuing this statement saying in part, "Customer trust is important to us and we take the security of our devices seriously. Our security team has investigated this incident and we have no evidence of an unauthorized intrusion or compromise of Ring's system or network."
Ring says weak account security could be to blame. It recommends user enable a two-factor authentication on their accounts and make sure they don't recycle their passwords. Yikes.
Bride backlash under pressure. Hallmark says I don't to ads with a same sex couple at the altar. Their explanation and the fallout over the decision, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:50:00]
CABRERA: The Hallmark Channel is in the hot seat right now and facing calls for a boycott after it yanked ads for a wedding planning website featuring two brides kissing. The move came after Hallmark faced pressure from a conservative group known as One Million Moms and now #boycottHallmark is trending on Twitter. If you haven't seen the ad, here's a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think Zola could have made planning your perfect wedding easier?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALES: We do.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've helped a million couples plan their wedding.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CABRERA: Michael Musto joins us now. He's a columnist with the celebrity and pop culture site NewNowNext.com. Michael, good to have you here.
MICHAEL MUSTO, COLUMNIST, NEWNOWNEXT.COM: Thank you.
CABRERA: So, a spokesperson for the Hallmark Channel says this, "The Hallmark brand is never going to be divisive. We don't want to generate controversy. We've tried very hard to stay out of it. We just felt it was in the best interest of the brand to pull them and not continue to generate controversy." But isn't pulling the ad now generated controversy?
MUSTO: Irony is alive, Ana. Yes, by pulling the ad they've stepped into drama and controversy. It's their worst nightmare. Gays like myself now never want to watch Hallmark again and they have "Golden Girls" reruns, mind you.
We used to only watch those horrible Christmas movies as a joke. They're sort of so hokey, straight them white that we've watched them as kids (ph). We're not going to even do that anymore.
So, the hate agenda, and it really is a hate agenda because the Bible might be against same-sex marriage, but it's against a lot of things that these people ignore.
And by the way, if they want to protect our kids, our kids already know. Same-sex marriage was approved by the Supreme Court. These kids are savvy. And it's just love.
CABRERA: So, if it's about the brand, what message are they sending?
MUSTO: So the hate agenda has led to a reverse liberal boycott and I think they're really in big trouble now. They're sending a terrible divisive message. And around Christmas time, which is what Hallmark is all about. Christmas is a time welcoming the outsider. That's what all religion is based on.
CABRERA: Let me ask you about this new development in the college admission scandal. Attorneys for actress Lori Loughlin and her husband say the U.S. government is hiding evidence that would help the couple's defense. What more can you tell us about this?
MUSTO: Well, Lori and her husband feel that the government documents that would help somehow save them are being withheld. And I do agree that they should be provided because Lori claims she thought it was USC directly that she was dealing with.
In other words, how she thought this I don't know, but she thought they were paying USC, the school, to give her daughters higher SAT scores and out them on athletic teams that they weren't really on.
CABRERA: Well, that's at a piece, the piece about athletic teams. I don't understand her --
MUSTO: It's all very shady. It's all based on lies, but she seemed to think it was some kind of authorized thing and she was giving the money to the scam artist who was going to funnel it then directly to the school.
There were some people in the school that were involved like the coach, but obviously the whole university wasn't in on this whole scam. I don't think it's going to help her but I do agree with her that the documents should be provided.
CABRERA: Okay. So let's also talk about "Cats," this new movie that's also generated a bit of controversy. Apparently, the first trailer a lot of people weren't happy about it. It has caused a bit of, I guess kerfuffle internally. They've tried to quickly make some changes. What do you know?
MUSTO: Well, first of all, I never miss a Taylor Swift-Judi Dench musical. Do you? In any case, trailers can be deceiving. Remember Renee Zellweger as Judy Garland? Everyone complained. Now, she might win the Oscar.
But there were certain things in the "Cats" trailer that people objected to. It was a little creepy. It's a mixture of humans and CGI. And I think people found that the cats were too small, they had breasts of the human features weren't strong enough.
And Tom Hooper, the director, is actually being big enough to listen to the controversy and the reaction. They spent a ton of money to redo the design of "Cats," make the faces more visible. I don't know what they're going to do with the press.
CABRERA: Wow. They changed the costumes and everything.
MUSTO: Well, the CGI is going to change. It's already filmed. I'm not offended by cats with breasts. I saw the Broadway show. But in any case, I think it's very cool of them to listen to the reaction and try to fix it. And as a result, "Cats" missed some awards deadlines. But I'm seeing it on Tuesday. It is ready.
CABRERA: And you'll have the report.
MUSTO: Meow. I'm allergic but I like that show.
CABRERA: I love it. Michael Musto -- it was not one of my favorite Broadway musicals but I am a little bit curious.
[17:55:01]
MUSTO: Makes me a little itchy.
CABRERA: Me too now that you say that. Good to have you.
MUSTO: Thank you.
CABRERA: Thank you.
All right. As we head to break, I want to remind you that if you don't have plans on New Year's Eve, this should definitely be part of yours. Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen, two bestfriends, one epic night. New Year's Eve live begins at 8:00 eastern right here on CNN. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CABRERA: "Grease" fans rejoice. Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta have stepped back in time and right into their iconic roles as Sandy and Danny 41 years later.
It all happened at a sing-along event in West Palm Beach friday night. The duo donned their classic outfits, Newton-John wearing both her good girl outfit, the yellow skirt and the matching cardigan and her bad girl ensembles, skin tight black leggings, leather coat.
Meanwhile, Travolta slicked back his hair and he slipped into that black leather jacket. The throwback comes just days after a fan purchased Newton-John's leather jacket at a charity auction for nearly $250,000 and then gifted it back to the actress.
And oh boy, do I love that song. A little fun fact about me, Grease is one of my all-time favorite movies. Eat it up.
[17:59:59]
(MOVIE PLAYING)
JOHN TRAVOLTA, ACTOR: Sandy.
OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN, ACTERSS: Tell me about it, stud.
