Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Jury Begins Day 3 of Deliberations in Weinstein's Trial; Trump Names Staunch Loyalist as Acting Intelligence Chief; Elizabeth Warren Unleashes Attacks on Bloomberg. Aired 9:30-10a ET
Aired February 20, 2020 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:30:00]
JIM SCIUTTO, CO-ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Harvey Weinstein arrived at court just moments ago as the third day of deliberations in his sex crimes trial begins. Jurors getting back to work after peppering the court with a series of questions about the charges against the disgraced Hollywood movie producer. They had some questions.
POPPY HARLOW, CO-ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Let's go to our Jean Casarez, she's joining us again this morning outside the court house. Jennifer Rodgers; our legal analyst is also here with us in the studio. But Jean, let me begin with you. Is there any sign that they could be close to a decision? And talk about what these questions that they have handed in actually mean?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Poppy, you never know about a jury, right? I mean, this is the third day of deliberations. We can tell from these notes and the questions they seem to be methodically going through the counts. They sent out five notes so far. They've deliberated for 12 hours.
And yesterday, the notes were very interesting because there was one on Mimi Haley. She's one of the main accusers in this case because two of the charges, predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual act in the first degree, they are from the facts that she has alleged that she was raped, sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein in 2006.
Now, the dates they were really interested in on hearing the direct examination and cross-examination were dates of July 10th and July 26th. The 10th is when she alleges that very violent assault in Harvey Weinstein's apartment in Soho. On the 26th is when she admitted on cross-examination that she had sex with Harvey Weinstein, and that it was not forced.
She had to admit that on cross-examination. Now, the other thing they wanted are all the e-mail exchanges between the two, and that lasted for years afterwards. They also wanted any e-mail exchanges from the Weinstein company that mentioned Mimi Haley. And that has to do with tickets that he got for her premieres he invited -- and he would have his assistants to get those things in orders for her.
The flights he paid for her. Also yesterday, the jury heard read-back from Rosie Perez, actress Rosie Perez. Now, Rosie was very good friends with Annabella Sciorra, also an actress who was one of the six accusers. And she testified that not long after it happened that Annabella told Rosie, I think I was just raped. She didn't give a name, but that's an outcry witness. Someone you tell immediately that something happened to you.
SCIUTTO: Jennifer, so there were five counts here, but he can only be convicted of it, at most, two charges -- that's some complicated law in there. I'm just curious, based on the questions you're seeing coming from the jurors and that structure, does that make a not guilty verdict or a hung jury more possible here more likely?
JENNIFER RODGERS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, the more time that goes on, right, during deliberations, the more likely that the jury will hang or will not be able to reach a verdict. But juries are often compromising. You know, they're looking at two different charges in this case, a more serious charge of forcible rape versus a less serious charge of assault. You know, which way are they going to go? What does the evidence show? That's why you see them asking for testimony back, they're just trying to figure out which way they think it should go or of course, you know, neither of the --
SCIUTTO: Right --
RODGERS: Above.
HARLOW: And Jean, to Jennifer's point about how likely a hung jury mistrial could be in this, there's a question about juror 11 who we know is writing a book about predatory older men and younger women. Not about Weinstein, but about this issue. And I think three attempts that the judge has denied by Weinstein's lawyers to have that juror dismissed? What is that all indicating --
CASAREZ: This is very interesting, Poppy --
HARLOW: Yes --
[09:35:00]
CASAREZ: Because on jury selection, the defense asked her about this. She admitted she was writing that book to be published in July. But she said she had not done any research for the book on predatory older men and younger women, and that she was not following the Weinstein case. So she got on the jury. Now the defense has launched an argument that they have realized that during the course of this trial, she was reading a book on predatory older men and consent and actually wrote a review of it online.
Prosecutors said, your honor, she's not forbidden from reading books and writing reviews during this trial, but the defense countered that by saying, it's the exact subject matter of this case. And now it appears there are two books, one that she did write a review on, both about predatory older men and consent, younger women. One she has yet to write a review on. But she was questioned before the judge and she said that she was just reading the books, hadn't written a review yet. The judge said it's fine, she stays on the jury. SCIUTTO: OK, another question, Jean Casarez, Jennifer Rodgers, thanks
to both of you. The president's new acting director of National Intelligence has no intelligence experience. But he is a long-time Trump loyalist. More on the president's pick to lead all 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:40:00]
HARLOW: So, the president has a pick, a new pick to lead all 17 different arms of the Intelligence community, and yet, has no intelligence experience. But Richard Grenell; the current U.S. ambassador to Germany is a staunch supporter of the president.
SCIUTTO: Grenell will take over from Joseph McGuire who has to leave the position next month. We'll discuss with CNN National Security analyst Samantha Vinograd; she's a former senior adviser to the National Security adviser under Obama. Good to have you on this morning. As you know well, this position was created after 9/11 to prevent another 9/11.
And we could look at our window here, see the sight of the former World Trade Center here. And I'm going to read from the Act of 2004 that created this position. "Any individual nominated for appointment as the director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security experience." Richard Grenell does not. Does that make the country less safe?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER UNDER OBAMA: It certainly does, Jim. When you think about the role of the DNI or the director of National Intelligence, you want someone experienced because there're so many component parts from a management perspective. You're talking about 17 different organizations and departments that the DNI is responsible for integrating.
The integration of intelligence with something that was sorely lacking ahead of 9/11, and that was one of the key reasons why this position was created. But it is not just a management function that relies on a DNI's experience. It's also his or his -- his or her ability to prioritize intelligence and what he or she brings to the president.
A DNI should not just tell the president what he wants to hear. A DNI should tell the president what he needs to hear, and that takes a level of experience.
SCIUTTO: Yes --
VINOGRAD: And finally, Jim, we also need to remember the DNI is responsible for protecting whistle-blowers within the intelligence community. Sure that comes with experience, but that's a major responsibility that Grenell will be faced with, that unfortunately, I think we have reason to believe he may not be comfortable pursuing in light of what were likely the qualifications that President Trump was looking for in the DNI. HARLOW: So Mark Warner, of course, who is the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Intelligence Committee, you know, up in arms about this appointment. And I wonder if you think it's telling that the Republican chairman of the committee, Richard Burr, spokesperson for him, had no comment on this, Sam.
VINOGRAD: I think that it's quite telling, but at this point, it's something that we likely should have assumed. Republican members of Congress have stayed silent, whenever the president has made a poor personnel pick -- part of the reason that Grenell is going to be an acting DNI and not a nominated DNI is because our reporting shows that many Republican members of Congress likely would not have agreed --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
VINOGRAD: With his nomination if he had to go forward --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
VINOGRAD: With a confirmation. But the truth is that, at this point, we have to consider that from Trump's perspective, inexperience is a virtue when it comes with his cabinet picks. As a DNI, you are responsible for upholding the ethics of the intelligence community, including speaking truth to power. And we know that something that President Trump does not like from his cabinet officials or from members of Congress or anyone else.
SCIUTTO: OK, so let's look at the experience of the previous holders of this position. So, you get a sense of a contrast here. Joseph Maguire most recent, he was a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral. He led the NCTC, that's a principal agency for countering terrorism. Dan Coats; he served in the Intelligence Committee as a senator. Mike Dempsey, 30 years in the CIA. Dennis Blair; commanded U.S. forces in the Pacific. We can go on.
James Clapper; he led two of the 17 agencies before becoming the DNI. McConnell; he was a Navy vice admiral, he led the NSA and of course, Negroponte, he was an ambassador to the United Nations, he served under a national security adviser. Why does that matter? Why does that experience matter? Again, a position created to coordinate all the intelligence agencies so they're sharing information intelligence honestly among each other and with the president to prevent other attacks.
VINOGRAD: Well, to say that the learning curve for Grenell is going to be steep is a massive understatement. Coming into this position with no relevant intelligence experience means that he's going to have to spend time understanding how these different 17 component parts work together. Who they are? What functions they perform?
[09:45:00]
He's going to have to understand how to take all of the information that they collect from various sources, signals intelligences, human intelligence and otherwise, and then decide how to appropriately present that to the president. He has no experience doing that. And so that learning curve is going to be quite significant. In addition to again figuring out how to appropriately communicate with the president when it comes to intelligence matters.
And let's be clear, President Trump has relegated this position to an extracurricular activity. Grenell is not only inexperienced, he's also continuing to wear his other hat as ambassador to Germany and special envoy for Kosovo. So, he's going to have a steep learning curve while fulfilling these other functions, and unfortunately --
SCIUTTO: Yes --
VINOGRAD: His primary qualification at this point is loyalty to the president.
SCIUTTO: Yes.
HARLOW: Sam Vinograd, thank you.
VINOGRAD: Thanks Poppy and Jim --
HARLOW: I think you laid it out there very well. So ahead for us, the way that our colleague, Van Jones put it last night, Bloomberg was the titanic, Warren was the iceberg. After the break, I'm asking a lawmaker who is endorsing Bloomberg if the former New York City mayor sank during the debate.
SCIUTTO: Plus, King George VI, he never wanted the throne, but he must lead England through its darkest hour. Watch the new episode of "THE WINDSORS: INSIDE THE ROYAL DYNASTY" Sunday night at 10:00 Eastern only on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:50:00]
HARLOW: All right, it was his first debate. We're talking about Mayor Michael Bloomberg and it was vicious. With me now, Congressman Max Rose of New York, he has of course endorsed Bloomberg for president. Good to have you here.
REP. MAX ROSE (D-NY): Thanks for having me.
HARLOW: Before we dive in, grade him, A, B, C, D --
ROSE: Well, look, I'm not a school teacher. But here is what I will say. I was proud to endorse Mike Bloomberg now months ago. And the reasons why I endorsed him stay the same. I think back to 9/11, you were in New York, I was in New York, and in the immediate months afterward, we didn't know if this city would ever get back to where it once was, let alone move forward.
Mike Bloomberg built a team. He was a leader. Built a team that really was incredibly functional and got things done. America's at a similar --
HARLOW: OK -- ROSE: Fork in the road.
HARLOW: So, there is a question here about getting things done and how you get them done. Listen to this last night from Elizabeth Warren --
ROSE: Sure --
HARLOW: On treatment of employees and women. Here she was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): I want to talk about who we're running against. A billionaire who calls women fat broads, and horse-faced lesbians. And, no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: And then she and others pressed him on the nondisclosure --
ROSE: Sure --
HARLOW: Agreements with those women.
ROSE: Sure.
HARLOW: Do you believe, congressman, that Mayor Bloomberg should release them, those women, if they want --
ROSE: Yes --
HARLOW: From the nondisclosure agreements?
ROSE: So, let me first say this, when you think about what Mike Bloomberg has said, going forward, he has said that he significantly and sincerely rejects or regrets the statements that he made, they're not reflective of his values. He has gone on to elevate women to the highest levels of leadership in both --
HARLOW: Some women --
ROSE: The party sector and the --
HARLOW: Some women.
ROSE: Indeed, of course. Indeed, of course. And I'm not trying to say it's an either/or situation. But I am trying to point to the fact that I do believe Mike Bloomberg has been an inclusive leader and does regret the things that he has said --
HARLOW: Should he let them talk, it's an easy yes or no?
ROSE: Oh, no, of course, I think going forward, this is an evolving situation, these are legal matters --
HARLOW: Yes --
ROSE: That it is difficult, it's difficult to speak.
HARLOW: It's not difficult to lift an NDA. Pete Buttigieg --
ROSE: Sure --
HARLOW: Did it with McKenzie and said, you can like -- let my list of clients out. So, you're saying --
ROSE: Sure --
HARLOW: Yes, he should. Last night, Bloomberg said he wouldn't lift NDAs, we'll see if this evolves. On the issue of stop and frisk, he continues, and he said it last night to say, look, I reduced stop and frisk in New York City by 95 percent. What he omitted from that answer is the fact that, that reduction happened only in the last two years of his 12 years over three terms as mayor following a 605 --
ROSE: Sure --
HARLOW: Percent increase --
ROSE: Absolutely --
HARLOW: In the use of the tactic without proven results.
ROSE: Right.
HARLOW: Is he misleading the American people by omitting that?
ROSE: So, first of all, he apologized for the excessive use of stop and frisk. Something that I have been on the record for years now of saying was the wrong thing to do. I take his apology at his word, in the same manner that when Senator Sanders apologizes for at one point voting to against the assault weapon ban at one point of voting against gun violence prevention measures, we take him at his word, too.
We're at one point or another have to talk about moving forward. We're at one point or another --
HARLOW: I'm just saying --
ROSE: Are talking about how we're going to solve these problems --
HARLOW: He's talking about it now -- you know why I like having you on, really, truly, because you're straight in your answers --
ROSE: Sure, absolutely --
HARLOW: With us. Is he being straight enough in his answers including last night on stop and frisk?
ROSE: So, he is being straight in the sense that it started to go down. Was his -- he's being straight in the sense that he apologized. Now, again, I have been on the record saying that stop and frisk was excessively used as was a quota-based --
HARLOW: Yes --
ROSE: Policing system. So, and you'll have A.R. Bernard on later on to discuss this further. So, that is as straight as one can be --
HARLOW: Well, no --
ROSE: As straight as one could be --
HARLOW: He could also say, look it went up over 600 percent, and the reduction was only at the end --
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: Oh, no, I'm not -- I'm not -- wait, let me point this out, OK. At no point am I arguing those stats --
HARLOW: OK --
ROSE: Those stats don't --
HARLOW: Yes --
ROSE: Lie.
HARLOW: He just doesn't talk about them. But, all right, let me -- finally, on tax returns --
ROSE: Yes, please --
HARLOW: Because this has been actually a big issue for you, he has not yet released -- Bloomberg has not --
ROSE: Sure --
[09:55:00]
HARLOW: Yet released his tax returns since he started this campaign for president. He has not filed financial disclosure forms required of candidates yet, with the FEC. Should he release what he can right now before Super Tuesday instead of saying, I can't use turbo tax, it's going to take a long time?
ROSE: Yes, I mean, look, it's hypocritical of me to say that Donald Trump should release his tax returns and not Mike Bloomberg. I mean, I --
HARLOW: You also actually have legislation --
ROSE: Sure --
HARLOW: Along with another member of Congress called the Transparency and Executive Branch Official Finances Act.
ROSE: Absolutely, I think the -- HARLOW: This is your thing --
ROSE: I think that this is something that should be legislatively mandated. You know, you want straight talk, I think it should be legislatively mandated.
HARLOW: Do you want -- do the American people deserve Bloomberg's tax returns before Super Tuesday or what --
ROSE: No --
HARLOW: He can put out there.
ROSE: This is possible it will put things out absolutely.
HARLOW: OK --
ROSE: Absolutely, how can you -- how can one say that Donald Trump should do it and not Mike Bloomberg? I mean, that seems to me -- I apologize for the simple answer, but that seems hard to say otherwise --
HARLOW: Well, we appreciate the straight answer --
ROSE: You know --
HARLOW: We'll see if we get the numbers from the campaign.
ROSE: Yes --
HARLOW: Thank you, congressman --
ROSE: Thank you for having me --
HARLOW: We'll have you back.
ROSE: Absolutely.
HARLOW: OK.
SCIUTTO: Important interview for sure. Moments from now, a major test, federal judge will sentence President Trump's long-time ally, Roger Stone. So will the president intervene and use his pardon power soon after?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:00:00]
