Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump's Legal Team Calls Articles A Dangerous Attack; 5pm Et: Deadline For House Managers To Submit Arguments; House Dems Make Their Case For Removing Trump From Office. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired January 18, 2020 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: You're live in the CNN newsroom. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York and right now on an unusually busy weekend evening for Washington DC. We have the first official look at how President Trump's newly assembled legal team plans to attack the charges that led to his impeachment.

Two things happened in just the past couple of hours and I want to talk a little bit more about those things right now. Let me bring in Joe Johns. Lot of development this evening, Joe. We heard about the President's mood. He's also detailing how he assembled his legal team, a team he wanted to be sure could perform well on television.

Tell us more about the doc--

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: You - didn't we today what it could be like here in the United States Senate over the next couple weeks with the House managers releasing and filing with the clerk of the senate, the document that is essentially the trial brief that is a road map for how they plan to proceed over the next couple of weeks.

And a lot of this is information we've heard before. Some of it is about the facts, some of it is about the procedures relating to impeachment and some of it is about the guidance from the framers of the United States constitution, the House Democrats summing it all up, essentially saying that this is a situation that is a nightmare or would have been a nightmare for the United States framers of the constitution.

There is a lot of information we've heard before throughout the impeachment of the President but there's also some reference to new information. As a matter of fact one of the things that House Democrats talk about in their brief filed today is about that report just last week from the GAO, indicating that GAOs view, the Trump administration broke the law by withholding that almost $400 million in aid from Ukraine.

Now that's important, the House impeachment managers and the lawyers working with him say because this is a clear indication that someone has said in plain language, if there was a violation of law, the administration has said there hasn't been a violation of law.

In fact in their response to the managers' brief, they put that in plain language that there had not been a violation of law. Overall, this is more as I said back and forth, one thing that's very interesting Ana, is that the President's response to the House Democrats impeachment brief is much more political and accuses the Democrats essentially of trying to overthrow or overturn the 2016 election. Back to you.

CABRERA: OK, Joe Johns, thank you for laying it out there for us. Let's bring in our analysts to talk more about this and impeachment trial and other political questions that are top of mind, tonight. We have to get a political commentator and host of S. E. Cupp Unfiltered, S.E. Cupp and CNN legal analyst, Paul Callan.

Paul, Trump's legal team is arguing in the first article of impeachment and their argument against that abuse of power, that it "alleges no crime at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors." And they actually cite as evidence Ukrainian President Zelensky's repeated denials that he felt any pressure from Trump or the administration. Your reaction.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this goes to the so called quid pro quo and that is that Zelensky, the President of Ukraine would have understood that if he didn't investigate the Bidens, he wasn't getting the military aid.

Now Zelensky has said that's not true, he didn't feel any pressure. However there have been many other documents that have been revealed since that one conversation that would indicate that Zelensky knew this is exactly what the President wanted and as a matter of fact, there were explicit instructions that the President wanted him to announce an investigation of Biden.

So I think we're seeing what the approach will be here on both sides but the President doesn't really contradict the known facts.

CABRERA: And S.E., I know you've got a chance to read through the documents, that's a six-page brief that was filed by the President's legal team. Is that what you expected them to be making as far as the arguments?

S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Yes and no. I think there are some interesting points in here. One graph that I found interesting they say the President's actions on that July 25 phone call as well as the April 21 phone call and in all surrounding and related events were constitutional, perfectly legal completely appropriate and taken in furtherance of our national interests.

Now that can sound like a lot of bluster but our national interest is a very interesting point to make. That is making a substantive point that what President Trump was asking Zelensky to do was somehow in advancement of our national interest.

[19:05:00] I think that's interesting. Another interesting point, they call this impeachment effort by the Democrats, a legitimate and a one sided process as we all know. The White House stonewalled this investigative process.

CABRERA: That plus the White House chose not to participate.

CUPP: Well, exactly. It became one-sided by design and by desire and so they're pointing out a lot of problems that will fly back I think in the face of Trump and the White House for actually creating the conditions that the White House is now complaining about.

CALLAN: Can I just add also just adding to what S.E. just said because I agree with her completely. This whole dispute what we're seeing here in the papers, I think is that there's not a big factual dispute about what the President did. I mean - it was obvious from that first telephone call transcript which was released that he was putting pressure on Zelensky to do an investigation of Hunter Biden's involvement in the Ukrainian company.

And one side is saying that's clearly a crime, that's illegal, that's what the Democrats are saying and the President is saying no, that's perfectly legal. I have a right as President United States to pursue this element of American foreign policy, fighting corruption in other governments.

CABRERA: And in fact they are saying and arguing that Democrats from the House are trying to basically take him out at the knees, his ability to conduct foreign policy.

CALLAN: That's exactly right and I think strangely enough at the end of this impeachment process, we may have both Democrats and Republicans agreeing factually with what happened but having a big disagreement about whether it's an impeachable offense or criminal in anyway.

CABRERA: So S.E., what's your reaction to what we have now from the House Democrats in their brief that was filed saying President Trump conduct is the framer's worst nightmare.

CUPP: Well, I think there's lots of evidence backing that up that this is exactly what they were concerned about. What's really interesting is this abuse of power discussion in this, in the President's response because it's exactly what Ken Starr alleged Bill Clinton had done.

Now that was dismissed and they didn't get to do the abuse of power but it's what Democrats are now suggesting Republicans, Donald Trump did as well and Donald Trump is trying to insist that shouldn't be part of it but I think Democrats are right.

It's that abuse of power that the framers were really concerned with and I've asked people on my show, I'm sure you have too. I've asked Republican lawmakers, if a Democrat does this down the line, if a Democratic President does this in you know, the next 4-8 whatever however many years, are you going to defend him? Are you going to think it's OK? And of course they all say, sure. I don't - I'm sure that's not true. I'm sure that won't be true when a Democrat does it but because Trump did it, it's OK. I think that's a really dangerous precedent.

CABRERA: Paul, S.E. mentioned one of the lawyers who is part of course, the impeachment saga is now a member of the President's legal team. Ken Starr. I just wonder about the reason he put this team together. Is it all about being made for T.V. because if it is made for T.V. courtroom dramas are one thing, arguing in a Senate chamber in an impeachment trial is another. No?

CALLAN: Well, that's very true but I think the President has focused on these lawyers for more than that reason. Starr was the Solicitor General of the United States. Of course, he was the prosecutor in the Clinton matter. The Clinton impeachment matter so he's got a lot of television experience and a lot of in court experience.

Alan Dershowitz, who's on the team is a respected constitutional lawyer, a lifelong professor at Harvard Law School and of course everybody knows who he is so maybe he makes for good television unlike maybe some of the Democratic lawyers who nobody's ever heard of.

So it's like he's putting together a reality television show about impeachment with characters that everybody will want to see on television. This is the way the President operates. He got elected President using this strategy and he may think you can beat these impeachment charges by doing what has worked for him in the past.

CABRERA: Real quickly, S.E., I do want to get this extra reporting and we have a source close to the White House saying President Trump has appeared distracted by the impeachment trial, telling people around him at Mar-a-Lago, he can't understand why he was impeached.

Why are they doing this to me? The source quoted Trump as saying repeatedly. What's your reaction?

CUPP: Well, I think to Paul's point you know, he sees himself as a character in these melodramas and the character he most you know likes to play is the victim and he is the victim of this 'Witch-hunt.' And if he's not playing the victim, he's playing the bully.

It's one or the other and so in this one, he takes turns. He's played the bully in this - in this saga and right now, he's playing the victim.

[19:10:00]

And I'd be alarmed if he weren't distracted by this. It's the biggest thing that can happen to a President, other than taking the country to war. So he should be distracted. He should take this seriously. Just because he might be acquitted does not make this meaningless. It's meaningful and so I hope, he's taking this as seriously as we all are.

CABRERA: Yes indeed. OK, S.E. Cupp and Paul Callan, great have you both here. Let's talk more about the process and regardless of what the President says or does at this point, a Senate trial officially gets under way on Tuesday.

Joining us for more what to expect CNN contributor Alan Frumin, Senate parliamentarian emeritus and a hands on participant in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Alan, when we think of Clinton's impeachment trial, we think of two names Monica Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr.

Well, Kenneth Starr is back. Monica Lewinsky couldn't help weighing in on Twitter and I'll clean things up a bit. She writes this is definitely an are f****** kidding me kind of day. Have you been having flashbacks as well?

ALAN FRUMIN, SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN EMERITUS & CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's nice to be here Ana. Yes, I've been having flashbacks. The impeachment of the President of the United States is about the most solemn thing that can happen under our constitution. The Senate is attempting to treat this this trial at least, I hope the Senate treats this trial with the seriousness, the solemnity and the dignity that it deserves. We will not have a Monica Lewinsky but we do have a Kenneth Starr.

The Kenneth Starr is a very competent attorney and so I see no problem whatsoever in adding him to the President's defense team. He certainly knows his way around. Go ahead.

CABRERA: Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I want to ask you more about the legal team that he's assembled because again, as we were just discussing, he wants a legal team, we've been told. A T.V. legal team but as courtroom dramas go, it's a court room, it's quite different in terms of the setting that they'll be facing. It's not a court room, it's the Senate, right.

FRUMIN: Yes, it is.

CABRERA: So give us a sense of what that should be like?

FRUMIN: All the senators who are seldom in attendance when the Senate is in session are required to be there and for the most part they will be there. This is the Senate in a very different setting from its usual, somewhat casual approach to legislation.

Again, this is a very solemn situation. Senators are listeners. They are both jury and court and they are there to listen to the arguments, both by the House managers and then by the President's council. And I believe that the dignity of the proceedings will be enhanced by the presence of the Chief Justice of the United States.

I am - I know that the Senate is on trial. I believe the Senate will acquit itself well. I make no predictions for the accused here but the Senate, I believe will take this very seriously.

CABRERA: And walk us through a little bit more about what we can expect and how it's different than the hearings we saw in the House on impeachment?

FRUMIN: Senators are there to listen. The case will be made first by the House managers and they may really not be interrupted by senators. The House managers make their case. They are followed by the President's council and under the impeachment rules, the House managers get the last say.

Throughout all of this, senators usually remain silent, the oath, the proclamation made by the Senate sergeant-in-arms commands everybody to remain silent on pain of imprisonment. In the Clinton trial, each side, the prosecutors, the House managers and then the President's council were accorded 24 hours to make their arguments and then the order provided for 16 hours of questions by senators.

Under the impeachment rules, senators submit their questions in writing, they submit them to the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice reads the questions so even when senators get to participate, their voices aren't heard.

Now one could argue whether not hearing senator's voices adds to the dignity of the proceedings. You could get people arguing on both sides of that.

CABRERA: Right.

FRUMIN: But for the most part. This - the senators are not the stars.

CABRERA: Also on procedure, senators aren't allowed to speak during testimony which you just mentioned but electronic devices will be barred from the Senate chamber and restricted in other areas of the capital, that includes for journalists inside the Senate chamber.

Journalists will also be prohibited from approaching centers for interviews in the halls around the Senate chamber.

[19:15:00]

The ACLU and other groups are protesting some of these new rules. What do you make of the restrictions that have been put into place for this impeachment trial?

FRUMIN: I do find the restriction somewhat curious. I know, I worked at the Senate in the advent of the iPhone, iPad era when cell phones and iPads were prohibited on the floor of the Senate and will be on to the Senate staffer, who had to go up to a senator who is on his or her iPad.

So I saw the supposed restrictions and I thought to myself, there's one thing that both parties can probably agree upon that they don't want to follow these restrictions.

CABRERA: That's so interesting. So who's making these restrictions? Why would they be made if both parties agree that they are bogus?

FRUMIN: Well, we'll wait and see.

CABRERA: We'll see. OK, Alan Frumin, thank you very much. We appreciate your expertise and insight on this historic moment--

FRUMIN: Glad to help.

CABRERA: - we're about to engage upon. Meanwhile, we have breaking news across the pond. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are giving up their royal titles and going without government funding. We have details on the deal they made with the queen. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:20:00]

CABRERA: After expressing a desire to step back from their royal duties, it has been decided that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will leave their royal lives almost completely. The Queen announcing today that the Duke and Duchess will no longer use their royal titles, His and Her Highness or carry out royal duties on behalf of the queen after this spring.

Her full statement reads, "Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family. I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.

I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country. The Commonwealth and beyond and I'm particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family. It is my whole family's hope that today's agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life."

Here are the exact terms. In addition to surrendering their titles and stepping back from their duties, they will no longer receive public funds. Instead Prince Charles plans to finance them. They will also repay the multimillion dollar renovation of their residence Frogmore cottage and start paying rent.

They will keep their private patronages and associations. However Harry's Sentebale Charity and Invictus games, that doesn't count. Royal expert and CNN Royal commentator, Victoria Arbiter joins us here in New York. Now Victoria, I want to go back to the statement from the Queen today. What stands out most to you about that?

VICTORIA ARBITER, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: I think really was, it was the deeply personal nature of the statement. You know, the British monarchy is an institution dripping in formality and so we normally see the kind of verbal signs of that in such statements.

This was very much about reiterating that the Queen is acting as Head of State but also as a grandmother. She needed to find a solution that was going to we satisfy the wishes of Harry and Meghan but also something that was going to be acceptable to the British public and I think this statement really hit all the right marks.

CABRERA: I want also bring in Royal commentator and historian, Kate Williams. Kate, the queen mentions that intense scrutiny the pair had been under and she had such warm words to say about Meghan, saying how quickly she's become part of the family. Is there a sense at all from some that perhaps the Queen could have put out a supportive statement like this over the last couple of years when the couple was under that scrutiny, she mentions.

KATE WILLIAMS, ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, well, I think that's a really important point Ana, because as you say this is a very personal, very warm statement. The Queen complimenting Meghan, how quick she had been part of the family, talking about the scrutiny which I have to say really jumped out to me because the royals normally don't talk about press scrutiny and intrusion.

They just ignore it. So here is a moment in which the Queen is actually saying they have been under scrutiny and we see this very personal statement from this Queen last week and I do think that actually going forward, the monarchy are going to have to realize that sometimes ignoring it, it's too much.

There was a survey done today actually in the United Kingdom about newspaper coverage and it found out that huge amounts of the coverage, 72 percent of the coverage of Meghan was usually negative and this is a really high amounts of you know, it's incredible really.

So I do actually think that the palace perhaps, they hoped it would go away. They thought if they ignored it, it would go away and actually perhaps, it might have been helpful at some point to backup some of Prince Harry's statements about the press intrusion.

But this statement really jumped out to me, it really is the Queen saying everyone, this is part of my family, stop the speculation, stop saying all these things. There happen to be some very cruel things said. Stop saying all these things. We love them, we want them to be happy and you know, everyone pull together and try and give them this happiness.

CABRERA: You know, it's interesting you talk about things going away. We know in this case, their titles go away but it doesn't change the fact that Prince Harry is still Prince Harry. He's still a member you know, blood member of the royal family. Do you think Kate, that the press will change the way it covers this couple? At least, the press there in the U.K.?

WILLIAMS: You are quite right Ana so he's choosing not to keep his title. He's choosing not to use his title. He has got it and lots of people have been saying to me last week, is the queen going to take away their titles as of course happened to Princess Diana.

But you know she was divorced. It's different. Harry will always be a Prince. So he still has his title. But he will be called Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan will be Duchess of Sussex.

People have been asking me, is he out of the succession. No, he's still exactly in the same place as the succession.

[19:25:00]

He is number 6. Archie is number 7 always at it was but certainly going forward, it is going to be different and there are certain amounts of restraint such are applied to members of the royal family and they may get more privacy. They - obviously they've chosen Canada, they've chosen North America because they feel there will be more privacy.

They've suffered under this press invasion, the speculation, the comments but certainly I think it would be a different kind of press scrutiny, it will be more of a celebrity kind of press scrutiny because they are not as the Queen says working members of the royal family.

They're really much more like international very famous people and Harry and Meghan are mega-voltage celebrities. The whole world wants them. They'll be everywhere.

CABRERA: The fact that they're no longer working royals, Victoria, does that mean we won't see them at some of these your traditional events, the tripping of the colors or things of that nature?

ARBITER: I think it's highly probable we will see them tripping the color in particular, that's the Queen's annual birthday celebration and that's really where we see all hands on deck with the royal family. I think Harry and Meghan will likely follow the model by Peter Philip, the son of Princess Anne where he appears on the balcony, his children always front and center (inaudible) Prince George.

But Harry and Meghan then wouldn't ride in the carriage procession. I think one of the trickier ones perhaps is Remembrance Sunday. Now of course, Harry has devoted himself to the welfare of veterans. He is a committed former military man himself. But I think if he wished to show up at Remembrance Sunday, he would need to be on the balcony.

He wouldn't be laying a wreath at the--

CABRERA: Well, because he loses his military role, right?

ARBITER: He loses his celebratory military role but the thing is that is that if Harry were to be on the balcony, that would be such an enormous distractions this year anyway from the veterans that they are honoring.

So I'd be surprised to see Harry at Remembrance Sunday this year. Who's to say he wouldn't be that next year and moving on when people have got used to this sort of new normal. Christmas, Easter, absolutely, I think the Queen's invitation will extend Harry and Meghan.

CABRERA: Kate, some have placed blame on Meghan for this decision but Harry gave a telling statement in 2017. According to Newsweek, he said, "Is there any one of the royal family who wants to be king or queen? I don't think so but we will carry out our duties at the right time."

I mean looking back is this decision to step away all that surprising?

WILLIAMS: You are white. There's been some you know, people blaming Meghan. I just have to keep saying, no, no, they can't blame Meghan. I think this is Harry's choice. It's not - it's really - he's always found the royal role very confining, very restricting. He's always found it very difficult. He's struggled under the scrutiny. He never liked it and the only place he really felt happy was serving

in the army and doing act of service in the army but much to his distress, his position in Afghanistan was reviewed by a magazine in Australia and that was the end of that.

So we always has felt struggling to find his role. He's not the future king like William. It's different and so you do - when you start looking at it see earlier moments in which he said you know, I'm not happy. I'm not happy - here in that interview that you're referring to there, Ana, absolutely saying, who would be Monarch, who would be in the royal family.

So simply I think, definitely Britain need to take a big hard look at itself because a woman of color has married into the royal family and frankly, she's being chased out. The speculation, the scrutiny, sexism, racism but also at the same time of this, I think that Harry really has felt as if he couldn't struggle - he's struggling to find a role when his wife is made so desperately unhappy.

I think he really feels why should I stay for this.

CABRERA: Our thanks to Victoria Arbiter and Kate Williams there. Don't forget to watch our Special Royal Rebellion: Harry and Meghan. That's tonight at 9:00 PM eastern. Coming up, President Trump tries to awe his donors with minute by minute details of that strike that took out Iran's top military commander.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sir, they have approximately 1 minute to live sir. 30 seconds, 10, 9, 8 - then all of sudden boom. They're gone sir. Cutting off. I said, where is this guy?

[19:33:45]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: New details today about the U.S. military strike that killed top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. Audio obtained by CNN shows President Trump recounting minute by minute details of that strike during a fundraiser last night at his Florida estate.

President Trump described watching remotely as Soleimani arrived at Baghdad International Airport, and as military officials counted down the final moments of the Iranian General's life.

CNN's Boris Sanchez joins us now from West Palm Beach, Florida near the President's Mar-a-Lago resort. Boris, what else are you learning?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Ana, President Trump revealing details about this strike against Qasem Soleimani that we hadn't learned before going into detail in a way that administration officials had previously not.

The President telling these high-dollar donors at his Mar-a-Lago Estate that Soleimani was a terrorist. He did not go into detail, though, about the justification for the timing of this strike that we'd heard from administration officials previously that there was an imminent and impending attack on U.S. interest in the region by Iran.

The President instead simply saying that Soleimani spoke negatively of the United States that he was a terrorist on a list saying, asking rhetorically, "How much are we going to listen to him about his criticism of the United States?"

[19:35:05]

SANCHEZ: And then as you said, the President went into excruciating detail about watching this drone surveillance footage and listening to a military official describe the final moments of Soleimani's life. Listen to more of what the President told supporters last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They said, sir, and this is from, you know, cameras that are miles in the sky. They're together, sir. So they have two minutes and 11 seconds, no motion. They have two min minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the car. They're in an armored vehicle going. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. Thirty seconds, ten, nine, eight -- then all of a sudden, boom.

They're gone, sir. Cutting off. I said, where is this guy? That was a last I heard from them, and you know, we have breaking news for this. But he got hit hard and he deserved to be hit hard because he was bad. He killed many, many thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, but thousands of Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: You hear the President there are sort of making light of this strike. The President also referred to the strike against the former ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the President saying that Al Baghdadi died screaming and ranting something that military officials have yet to corroborate with any evidence, and the President joked about that too, about the dog Conan that was involved in the strike, saying that Conan got more credit for that than he did -- Ana.

CABRERA: Boris Sanchez at West Palm Beach, Florida. Thanks. Coming up, thousands of people marching for women, including the wife of presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, who made a disturbing allegation this week. We have new details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:40:55]

CABRERA: Today, at the Women's March in New York, Evelyn Yang, the wife of democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang spoke openly about being sexually assaulted in 2012 by her own doctor. She called it a privilege to share her story.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EVELYN YANG, WIFE OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ANDREW YANG: It is a

great, great privilege to have a public voice, and I didn't want to waste it.

So you see, for me, the theme of this march to rise and to roar, it is very personal.

[CHEERING]

YANG: As terrifying as it was to share my story on a national stage, I had to believe that coming forward would help me reclaim my voice and help others reclaim theirs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: For Evelyn Yang, the personal has indeed become political, speaking out about sexual assault is often the only way victims can push back against the system that too often looks the other way.

CNN's Drew Griffin has more on the doctor who allegedly assaulted Evelyn Yang while she was his patient and while she was pregnant, and how he allegedly got away with abusing other patients for years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The indictment reads likes the acts of a serial sexual predator, six victims, nine counts, criminal sexual abuse, women who were forcibly touched, orally violated.

The alleged perpetrator, a respected OB-GYN at New York Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center, accused of assaulting his own patients.

But Dr. Robert Hadden served no jail time for his crimes. He cut a deal with the D.A.'s office in New York and pleaded guilty to just two charges. He lost his medical license but doesn't even appear on the public sex offender registry.

To his accusers, a sweetheart deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARISSA HOECHSTETTER, SAYS SHE WAS ASSAULTED BY SAME DOCTOR AS EVELYN YANG: There's a clear pattern of bad behavior by the doctor, a lack of institutional courage by his employer, Columbia University and a lack of willingness to take the case seriously by the Manhattan District Attorney. Everyone did the best they could to make it go away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN (voice over): Marissa Hoechstetter is one of dozens of accuser now suing Hadden and his former hospital network. The lawsuit alleges Columbia allowed Dr. Robert Hadden unfettered access to female patients, many of them as young as 15 or 16 and that he had been assaulting women for decades, while some staff, coworkers and even patient chaperones looked the other way.

A nurse tried to send out a warning in the early 90s, but was told to be quiet. Hadden was known as a shark around the office because he knew how to outmaneuver patient chaperones.

And one patient told another doctor in the practice, Hadden said she had a medical condition requiring her vagina to be examined every three months. It wasn't true.

Hoechstetter's attorney is Anthony DiPietro, he represents 32 women and counting, who say they too were victims of Dr. Hadden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN (on camera): Not a day in prison.

ANTHONY DIPIETRO, ACCUSERS' ATTORNEY: Nothing.

GRIFFIN: Does that make sense to you?

DIPIETRO: No community service, no fine, no jail time. He received what seems to be the equivalent of an early paid retirement.

GRIFFIN: Why?

DIPIETRO: He worked at Columbia University.

GRIFFIN: Got away with it.

DIPIETRO: Got away with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YANG: It like getting, you know, slapped in the face and punched in the gut. The D.A.'s office is meant to protect us, it's meant to serve justice. And there was no justice here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN (voice-over): Evelyn Yang, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, described her own experience to CNN's Dana Bash. She says her assault could have been prevented because Hadden had been arrested before and Columbia University knew it.

In June 2012, police were called to his clinic after a woman reported being assaulted in an exam room. Despite the arrest, Hadden went back to work.

GRIFFIN (on camera): Patients weren't told the OB-GYN they were seeing had been accused of sex crimes.

[19:45:09] GRIFFIN: And in the weeks that followed, two of those patients would

become his next alleged victims.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): Evelyn Yang was one of them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YANG: Can you imagine the audacity of a man who does this, continues to do this after being arrested? It like he knew that he wouldn't face any repercussions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN (voice over): The doctor's arrest was voided. He wouldn't be charged with any crime for another two years while the D.A.'s office investigated.

Hadden hired a powerful attorney, Isabel Kirshner, a former colleague of Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance. Kirshner had donated to Vance's political campaign and worked on his transition team.

Both she and the New York District Attorney's Office claimed the relationship had nothing to do with the plea deal, but the original recommendation for Hadden to serve as least four years behind bars would be reduced to nothing.

The D.A.'s office agreed to lower Hadden's sex offender status, he wouldn't appear on the public registry, though he was convicted of a felony.

Kirshner told CNN Hadden had great lawyering and even brags about the win on her web site.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YANG: He was getting off with a slap on the wrist basically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN (voice over): It's yet another case raising questions about the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, already under scrutiny for failing to prosecute Harvey Weinstein in 2015 and asking a judge to lower Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender status.

Marissa Hoechstetter says it's a pattern of white, powerful, connected men getting sweetheart deals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOECHSTETTER: I don't see it any other way, when you see a lack of willingness to do an investigation, look at the employer, you look at the details of the plea agreement; they're painful. It's very painful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN (voice over): Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance declined CNN's request for an interview, instead sending a statement saying, "Our primary concern was holding him accountable and making sure he could never do this again. We regret that this resolution has caused survivors pain."

GRIFFIN (on camera): Robert Hadden remains a free man. His attorney says he will not talk and in court filings, he is fighting the allegations being made against him.

As for Columbia University Medical Center, not a single answer to any of CNN's detailed questions about the possible cover-up in this case, only a statement saying the allegations are abhorrent and they deeply apologize to those whose trust was violated.

Drew Griffin, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Wow. A state of emergency is in effect this hour in Virginia after a number of suspected white supremacist are under arrest ahead of a planned gun rights rally there Monday.

Why the F.B.I. is now saying there is a "fair sense of worry" about that rally, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:52:28]

CABRERA: Tensions are rising in Richmond, Virginia tonight as sources tell CNN, there's been an increase over just the past 24 hours of threats against law enforcement there.

This, as the city is already under a state of emergency ahead of a planned gun rights rally on Monday. The Governor put a weapons ban in place for the State Capitol grounds. So far, seven suspected white supremacists are under arrest in multiple states and police say three of them were planning to go to that rally in Virginia on Martin Luther King Day.

Let's go live to CNN's Nick Valencia in Richmond for us. What are you hearing about these latest threats -- Nick.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, some very troubling news, Ana. I spoke with a source at the Virginia State Police Department who tells me that over the course of the last 24 hours, there has been an increase in threats towards law enforcement, specifically on the social media pages of the Richmond Police Department, as well as that of the Virginia State Police.

It is very troubling considering just how anxious people are here ahead of Monday's Lobby Day by the Virginia Citizens Defense League. They're worried that this event could be hijacked or a magnet at the very least for extremist groups.

We've already seen stepped up security measures taking place. You see this wrought iron fence behind me, a gate just beyond that fence. It was earlier this morning that I saw a woman with a toddler who was going through some very thorough screening. They're being very serious about this because of what the Governor calls credible threats of violence on Monday, which is why earlier this week, we saw him announced a state of emergency, announcing a temporary weapons ban on State Capitol grounds.

This has really angered a lot of pro-gun rights supporters who saw MLK Day. They do this year after year, Ana. They come here to lobby their representatives for pro-gun rights. After the Virginia State Senate, though came into office in this democratically-controlled state legislature, the first time in about a quarter century that it's been controlled by Democrats.

They passed three gun control bills which angered gun rights supporters. They call them a threat towards law-abiding citizens. It included background checks for all firearms, things like limited gun purchase to one every 30 days, as well as allowing localities to ban guns in public areas.

That's why they're showing up here Monday to rally, but as I mentioned, F.B.I. even expressing some concern. You had reported earlier about the suspected Neo-Nazis that have been arrested this week. They don't want what happened in Charlottesville to happen here -- Ana.

CABRERA: Right. Exactly. Nick Valencia. Thank you for that reporting. There's a new mysterious and fatal respiratory illness spreading around China and East Asia that now threatens to reach around the world. We have details on the steps being taken here in the U.S. to prevent its spread. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:59:37]

CABRERA: Right now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control is taking extreme steps to stop a deadly mysterious virus from entering the country. The CDC is deploying experts to three U.S. airports to screen airline passengers entering the U.S. from the Chinese city of Wuhan.

An outbreak of a previously unseen virus already has killed two people and -- that's in China -- also sickened at least 45 others. Passengers are being checked for symptoms of fever, coughing and difficulty breathing. The screenings are underway at airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York's, JFK.

[20:00:09]