Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Unveils Executive Order On Policing Amid U.S. Unrest; Key Model Projects Over 200,000 Americans Will Die By October; Vigilante Militia Suspected Of Instigating Violence At Protest. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 16, 2020 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: I'm Brianna Keilar and I want to welcome to our viewers here in the U.S. and around the world. We are following breaking news from the White House.

President Trump just signed an executive order to reform policing in this country. And this comes after weeks of nationwide protests against racial injustice in law enforcement. The president said that he will create new incentives for best practices within departments, while offering a full-throated defense of officers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I strongly oppose the radical and dangerous efforts to defend, dismantle and dissolve our police departments, especially now when we've achieved the lowest recorded crime rates in recent history.

Americans know the truth. Without police, there is chaos. Without law, there is anarchy. And without, safety there is catastrophe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Abby Philips is live in Tulsa, Oklahoma ahead of the president's rally there this weekend. And, Abby, the president has been pressured to address what is happening across the country. So what is he going to offer?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: He has, Brianna. This is part of the effort of the White House to show that he is engaged on this issue, that he is listening to what is happening out in the streets. He met with some families of victims of police violence at the White House before coming out to the rose garden.

This executive order, and it's being described by some as modest, because, by and large, it provides recommendations, it establishes standards for police officers or in police departments to follow that are aimed at reducing these kinds of use of force but it does not necessarily mandate it. And it tries to incentivize those standards by tying it to prioritizing those departments for federal funding. So, among those standards would be, you know, trying to create standards for how force is used in those departments but also this national database of so-called bad cops. Again, the questions about whether or not this database would actually really be effective or to come into existence in part because this E.O. does not actually fund it, but it does encourage departments to put data into this database.

Now, one of the things about this is that activists have been saying that these sorts of recommendations at the federal level are good but they are not what is needed in this moment because there are so many different standards all over the country. And departments basically can decide whether they want to participate in it or not.

The president also addressed chokeholds. He said he was going to be banning chokeholds as part of this executive order but that is not exactly what's going to happen. The issue on chokeholds is going to be, again, incentivized by federal funding but not mandated. So it's one of those things where it's going to be up to individual departments, up to individual states as to whether or not they actually engage with the recommendations that are put in place by this executive order.

KEILAR: Yes, he's been incredibly murky, for instance, on chokeholds.

And tell us about this -- something else that he said, Abby. He also claimed that President Obama never worked on police reform.

PHILLIP: Right, which is clearly not true. The Obama administration did work on police reform. And it was notable that while President Trump tried repeatedly to take credit for what has been done, whether it is the First Step Act or this executive order, he did not acknowledge that one of the main obstacles for police reform in the past has been the Republican Party, by and large. These reforms are not necessarily popular among his own party and it's, in some ways, reflected in how modest this executive order is.

The president is moving forward on certain things by offering recommendations but it will still be left up to Congress and up to a bipartisan effort, which will involve Republicans and Democrats to see where there can be common ground on these tough issues. And already there is a sense that Republicans are not willing to do as far as some Democrats are.

The Obama administration did spend quite a lot of time on this. They did put in measures at the Department of Justice that were rolled back by the Trump administration. So, that part of the president's remarks were clearly not true.

[13:05:02]

KEILAR: All right. There's some other stuff too we're going to sort out in this hour. Abby Phillip from Tulsa, thank you.

And joining me now is David Henderson, he's a civil rights attorney and former prosecutor, and Joe Ested, he is a former police officer in Richmond, Virginia, for us. Joe, what kind of impact will this executive order actually have?

JOE ESTED, FORMER RICHMOND, VIRGINIA POLICE OFFICER: Absolutely nothing, it will not do anything to correct police brutality, which is the real issue. You can't have a recommendation to fixing police. That's not going to work. Police entities operate within their own culture. They have been doing it for many, many years. We need real legislation that's going to stop, that's going to punish.

In my book, Police Brutality Matters, I gave recommendations. And if people in Congress really want to stop this police brutality issue, I'll be more than happy to volunteer my services. What we need to do is we need to understand the root of the problem. A lot of these recommendations, a lot of the departments already have that in policy.

We could take Officer Pantaleo, who choked up Eric Garner. There is a policy that says you don't do that. But the problem is they are not being punished, they are not being held accountable when they violate policy. So, since the police department don't want to hold them accountable, then we need legislation that's going to prosecute, that's going to convict officers when they don't follow procedures and don't follow policies.

I drafted a whole list of recommendations that I know working from the inside/out in the culture of policing that would just wipe away police brutality. We got to stop playing games and understand what the real issue is.

KEILAR: David, what did you think about what you heard the president announced?

DAVID HENDERSON, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY, ELLWANGER LAW: I haven't had the chance to take a look at the executive order on paper yet. But based on what I heard, I am disappointed. I think it is a slap in the face of everyone who has been out protesting around the world for the past several weeks.

I think it's a slap in the face of those who have lost their lives where they were talking about Minneapolis, Atlanta or right here in Dallas, Texas. And I think it's a slap in the face of those who mourn the loved ones they have lost.

I base that on ten years working daily with law enforcement. This executive order will not change anything and, right now, the public is asking for meaningful change. This is not it.

KEILAR: And then what does it say, David, where, for instance, we had initial reporting that the president might include guidelines that would limit the use of chokeholds and then we don't hear him talk about that. What does that signal?

And, look, I think there are a number of policies where we've heard President Trump, even sometimes on foreign policy, he'll essentially have a policy and then he doesn't quite describe it the same way as he is messaging it. But what is the effect of there even perhaps being a discrepancy there? HENDERSON: The effect is a complete lack of any meaningful change. In order to change the culture of policing in our country, we are going to have to change the way we assess police conduct. Right now, it always turns on what the officer believes is reasonable and not what is actually reasonable. I didn't hear any discussion about that at all.

But I think that idea is really hard for people to understand sometimes. I'd like to use a common sense example. There is a notorious story in my family of me kicking a soccer ball through a church window. When my mom showed up, she said what happened, and I said I didn't mean to.

Her response was, you didn't mean to but you should have known better. And if you look at qualified immunity and we put it in that language, I would have told my mom, I thought the way I kicked the soccer ball was reasonable. And my mom would say, it doesn't matter, it wasn't actually reasonable.

And qualified immunity prevents us from having that full discussion. As soon as the police officer says, I thought what I did was reasonable, even though someone is dead, the conversation stops. That's why we need measures that are going to actually hold officers accountable when they use excessive force.

KEILAR: Can we talk, Joe, just to this idea of incentivizing? Basically, that is not having negative consequences but emphasizing the positive consequences for doing things correctly but not as much the negative consequences for doing things incorrectly. And, look, lives hang in the balance here. So, what do you think about that?

ESTED: I think that's ineffective. It's not going to work. If you allow the police department to pretty much do what it's been doing, policing itself, and trying to incentivize (ph) with good behavior, that's not going to work. The police culture is always going to do exactly what it is going to do until we implement something that is going to say, you know what, if you don't follow policy, you don't follow training, we will hold you accountable.

And holding you accountable means you commit a crime, you get prosecuted, you go to jail, you go to prison. All it takes is one officer, like Officer Panateleo, who violated a policy, you send a strong message, look, we're not playing, we're not playing with you guys. We provide you training, we provide policy and give you all these tools and measures to go out and serve a community.

[13:10:03]

And when you violate it, there are repercussions from it. I guarantee you, that will change the whole mindset of law enforcement.

KEILAR: Yes. And just a reminder, you mentioned Pantaleo. It took five years before he was fired. So I just want to remind people of that. David Henderson, Joe Ested, thank you so much to both of you for the conversation.

Armed militia members arrested in New Mexico after shots rang out while protesters tried to pull down a statue. See what happened.

Plus, hear why more officers are resigning across America as the unrest continues.

And as a new model projects a second wave of coronavirus will hit America sooner than expected, airlines are starting to ban passengers who refuse to wear masks.

This is CNN's special live coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:15:00]

KEILAR: It is quite a chilling projection, a closely watched model estimates the U.S. could see more than 200,000 deaths from coronavirus by October 1st. And this is coming as a new study shows just how susceptible different age groups are to the virus.

CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen is joining me now.

We learn something new, it seems, like every few weeks, right? And doctors are there on the frontlines learning just as they go. There is something very interesting here about people who are under 20 years old, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Brianna, we have heard from the beginning that young people were not as affected by this illness as older people, and now, it's nice to sort of have some numbers to put on it.

So this was a study that was done out of the United Kingdom. It looked at numbers in various countries, not the U.S. but in many other countries. And what they found is if you look at 10 to 19-year-olds, 21 percent of them show symptoms of coronavirus. If you look at people 70 and older, 69 percent of them have symptoms.

So, in a way, we kind of knew this as sort of a general concept, but to see those numbers, it shows you how much of a higher risk you're at if you are older.

KEILAR: And tell us about this preliminary study that is showing a commonly used steroid could actually reduce the risk of dying of coronavirus.

COHEN: Actually, this is sort of interesting. It falls in the same category of we kind of knew this but it's good to see the data. So, hospitals, especially in places like New York City that have seen a lot of COVID patients, they have been treating patients who are very sick on ventilators with steroids.

Steroids are used in the hospital all the time, often for illnesses like COVID where there is inflammation involved. And so they said, you know what, these are very sick people, they are on ventilators. We are going to try the tools in our arsenal that have worked in similar situations. And the doctors that I've talked to said they always sort of

instinctively knew that this might work. And in their own experience, it did. But now, there is data that shows that it actually does work, that it can cut these rates by about a third.

So that's super important. I mean, anything we can do to get the mortality rate down in COVID is important. So, doctors who have not been using steroids should certainly take a look at that.

KEILAR: And what is this that we are learning that people are contract coronavirus from a toilet? How does that happen?

COHEN: People, you can contract coronavirus in so many different ways. I mean, basically, are you getting the germ from -- into your nose, into your eyes? And so if you touch certain surfaces and then touch your face, you know, that can certainly happen.

Still when infectious disease doctors talk about the risk of getting COVID, they are much more focused on what's going on person-to-person. Person-to-person is, you know, still the leading way that people are getting coronavirus.

KEILAR: All right. Be more afraid of people than toilets and services, right? It's very important to remind people of that.

So just moments ago, Elizabeth, at this White House event, this was not on coronavirus but we noticed that there that there was a lack of socially distancing and masks among the leaders who are essentially in charge of controlling messaging. What do you think about this?

COHEN: It sounds like theater to me more than anything else, Brianna. I'm going to assume that they have enough space at the White House that they can socially distance. So if they choose not to socially distance and if they choose not to wear masks, it's because they are trying to send a signal, hey, everything is fine, what are all you people worried about?

Everything is just fine. Look how normal we are. That is such an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible statement or sort of symbol or to put out there. That is not the case. Hundreds of Americans are dying every day of coronavirus.

So for the White House to put anything out that shows no social distancing or that doesn't show masks, that is very dangerous. It's the opposite of the message they should be putting out.

KEILAR: They are also testing everyone who comes close to the president, right? They are not mentioning that, Elizabeth. But there are precautions they are taking that they are not maybe as public about as not wearing masks. And so it sort of sends actually this message of, we are doing it this way, we are very cavalier. And, actually, they are not quite as cavalier as they are giving off there.

Elizabeth Cohen, thank you, as always, for updating us on all things coronavirus. Now, we know wearing masks cuts down on the risk of contracting coronavirus massively. But as we have seen so many people, including the president, they just won't wear one. And this is forcing people in industries to make hard decisions. We're learning that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may consider making it a requirement for lawmakers to wear masks at committee meetings.

Many airlines already mandate passengers to wear masks. It hasn't been enough though, they say. And now, the airlines are upping the penalties.

[13:20:00]

CNN Aviation Correspondent Pete Muntean will join me now. What are these changes that the airlines are putting in place and why are they doing this now?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, airlines are banding together. They say that they have to put some teeth behind these rules that they've had in place for a few months. Now, if you refuse to wear a mask while on board a commercial airliner, then you will be banned potentially from flying on that airline again.

seven airlines have banded together to do this. It's an industry announcement, not something that is coming from the federal government. They have not instituted any requirements for masks. The DOT says it does support this but it stopped short of creating rules for things like it does for seat belts and cigarettes.

United's policy goes into effect on Thursday and it says, in part, quote, any passenger that does not imply will be placed on an internal travel restriction list and then put up for review.

Now, passengers have to ignore a lot of instructions in order to be banned. Flight attendants have been trying to de-escalate situations like this. They will offer you a mask if you refuse to wear one and then you will be written up. The goal here is to not have to remove passengers from flights or have to turn a flight around.

This is a really critical time for commercial airlines. Passenger counts are trending up a little bit but they are still very low. Airlines are trying to prove that flying again is safe and they want those passengers back.

The DOT says this is the way to keep passengers safe on board a small environment like a commercial airliner. Airlines say that they cannot continue to block out middle seats, keeping seats empty and still remain profitable. So they see this as the way forward. Brianna?

KEILAR: All right. Pete, thank you for that report.

And, ahead, the FBI is now investigating the hanging deaths of two black men in California. These occurred very close to one another in time and proximity.

Plus, a White House adviser, again, denies systemic racism exists and he says it's because Barack Obama was elected.

And Rapper Jeezy will join me live on what he saw leading the protests in Atlanta and what he wants to happen to officers involved in the killing of Rayshard Brooks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:25:00]

KEILAR: In Albuquerque, it began with a simple chant, tear it down, referring to a monument of Spanish conquistador Juan de Onate, and that chant was soon placed with the ringing of gunshots. Those gunshots left one man in critical condition and they were fired by a man surrounded by a group of vigilantes, heavily armed vigilantes wear camo and they were wearing vests.

You can see just how decked they were in all of this. And, Josh, Josh Campbell is joining me now from Minneapolis with more on this.

I mean, at first glance, you almost wonder if this is law enforcement or military. Tell us about this group and also about the gunman in this case and if the gunman is part of the group.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's a good question. And we have been covering these protests around the country and one question has always been, are there other elements at play? Now, obviously, there have been violent protesters, rioters that have been engaged in conflict with police departments. But, again, the question has been, are there other elements out here, these vigilantes, so to speak, that might be upset with what they are seeing and trying to take the law into their hair own hands.

Now, what we're hearing, and it's important to caveat this, that this is coming from elected officials there in New Mexico, and especially the governor who is saying that there was this armed group that showed up at this protest that essentially tried to instigate some type of incident with these protesters.

Now, again, we haven't heard from members of the group. But the claim being possibly that they were upset with what they were seeing, the tearing down of the statue and then possibly trying to take the law in their own hands and stop these protests, which is obviously a crime. You have the police there for a reason.

But there was violence at this incident, there was one person was shot, taken to the hospital. Police later arrested a 31-year-old male who has been charged with aggravated battery. And what we're trying to sort out now with police officials is whether they believe this person was actually associated with one of these groups.

But, really, just a dramatic incident playing there in New Mexico, a lot of unanswered questions. Also, to your point, when you have people showing up to a protest or any kind of incident with riot gear, with these tactical vests, it can be hard to discern them from police departments. And this is why and this actually harkens back to Washington, D.C.,

the protests we saw there, with a lot of police officials that weren't wearing badges, that weren't wearing an insignia, that were basically dressed in tactical uniforms, that was the question. Are these people that are here that are acting outside the purview of the law or are they law enforcement issues?

A very complicated situation there. Obviously, the officials taking it very seriously. A senator in New Mexico now calling on the U.S. Justice Department to investigate this incident in New Mexico to try to determine whether this was, in fact, a vigilante group that was acting outside the law. A lot of unanswered questions, a lot of investigative work to be done there in New Mexico. Brianna?

KEILAR: And what, Josh, is permissible when you're talking about vigilante group members?