Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Heavy Security In D.C. Around Pro-Insurrectionist Rally; Trump Special Counsel On Trump-Russia Investigation Ends Up With Two Minor Cases In Two Years; Pentagon Admits Deadly Kabul Drone Strike Was "Horrible Mistake"; France Recalls Its Ambassador To U.S. Over National Security Deal; Robert Durst Convicted Of Killing Friend After Decades Of Suspicion; Soon: SpaceX Civilian Crew Mission Returns To Earth. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired September 18, 2021 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:07]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

Fired up right-wingers still believing the big lie and trying to keep their movement alive. But they didn't do much to further their BS message today. A massive January 6th support rally planned for Washington, D.C. turned out to be a relatively quiet gathering without any major security incidents. Thank goodness.

So far the few hundred people who did show up found a very large law enforcement presence waiting for them to make sure the rally did not descend into another insurrection. It was really more insignificant if anything else.

Let's go to CNN's Shimon Prokupecz who is live up on Capitol Hill for us right now.

Shimon, you got the opportunity to speak to members in that crowd. And there were some very interesting moments. Is that right? What can you tell us?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: No. Certainly, Jim, some very, very interesting moments. Certainly people who believe that this insurrection just didn't exist, that this was just people trespassing, people who just don't believe what they have seen before their very eyes.

I had the opportunity to talk to one of the attendees, and he was talking about how no officers were assaulted, how this was a bunch of people who were just trying to go in and essentially protest. And, you know, and asking him all sorts of questions, you just could tell he was living in his own kind of reality. Take a listen to some of what I asked him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a public building. I mean people have been held all this time, I think the most severe charge any of them has is trespassing.

PROKUPECZ: But there are some who are charged with assaulting officers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those are lies.

PROKUPECZ: And so you don't believe the video? On video, they're seen assaulting police officers. You don't think that happened? You think that's made up?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Show me that video.

PROKUPECZ: You haven't seen the video?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

PROKUPECZ: You haven't seen officers being dragged on the ground?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

PROKUPECZ: You haven't seen that video?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Please show me if it exists.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PROKUPECZ: And so we did, Jim. You know, my producer Matt Freedman and I, we pulled up the video on our phones and we showed it to him. We showed that video of that officer that everyone has seen, in the doorway, as protesters were pulling at him, pulling him inside, brutally assaulted. That was just one of the incidents. You know, and even though we showed him that video, he still didn't believe it. Take a listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's pushing back with an open hand. He's not even moving his hand quickly. That's not assault. No.

PROKUPECZ: So you don't think what they're doing here was an assault?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He could easily back up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a police officer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, he could easily back up.

PROKUPECZ: So it's the officer's fault?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. This is not assault.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PROKUPECZ: And Jim, I even said to him, you know how ridiculous this sounds? You know, he just kind of just kept doing his own thing. And I have to tell you, so for me, I've covered rallies, I've covered protests, never, this is my first time covering any situation like this, where so many people who just believe their own thing, nothing is based on fact, on truth, reality. It's just people who just want to believe what they want to believe whether it's real or not.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, Shimon, you really took us down the rabbit hole there, and it may have been a rabbit on his head for all we know, but all right, Shimon Prokupecz, thanks so much for that. We appreciate it.

I'm joined now by Olivia Troye. She is the former Homeland Security counterterrorism and COVID task force adviser to Vice President Mike Pence.

Olivia, great to see you. I hate to poke fun because I mean it's such a serious subject and thank God nothing bad happened today up on Capitol Hill. But I just have to ask you a few moments ago, Shimon was talking to this person who clearly just was not willing to deal with the reality of the situation.

As somebody who has had to, you know, follow this for so long and witness some of the issues with disinformation inside the White House, and saw how it all unfolded so violently on January 6th, it just breaks your heart to see something like that.

OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER ADVISER TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: Yes, I think it's just such a disturbing thing to watch, to see someone so far down the rabbit hole, that they are living in a complete alternate universe. You know, I think, you know, it makes me think of Mark Zuckerberg who is trying to, you know, advance (INAUDIBLE), and I'm like, we don't really actually need to do that because there is a whole segment of the population out there that is actually living in an echo chamber on the right through these networks that push these messages to them.

And they're living in a complete different reality than the rest of Americans who watched what happened on January 6th. And a totally different reality from the law enforcement who got hurt that day, who lived that day, who are there again on duty today at this rally, making sure to keep people safe.

ACOSTA: Right. And Olivia, let's talk about your former boss, the former vice president, Mike Pence. He was in the Capitol on January 6th and fled to safety as a violent mob stormed the building, calling for his execution.

[16:05:04]

Did you ever think people from his own party would be throwing their support behind some of those same insurrectionists eight months later, calling them political prisoners, and so on? It's just unbelievable.

TROYE: It is. And it's a dangerous message to be sending to people across America. You're saying that, you know, these people support insurrectionists. They support domestic terrorism. That is the message of today's rally, that is being broadcasted. And look, I'm glad that it was basically a big flop and I'm glad

people were safe, but I think it just shows strikingly where we are in terms of a country and society, especially with what's happening within the Republican Party.

What was also striking to me about today, though, is the difference between today's rally and what happened on January 6th was that you had Republican officials in the lead up to January 6th telling people the big lie and rallying them to take charge and to fight.

And right now, they wouldn't want anything to do with today's rally, right? Because they don't want violence to ensue again because it reflects poorly on them when they're actually trying to whitewash what happened on January 6th.

So it's an inconvenient narrative for them now. And so they, you know, I think it's striking and I think, you know, it leads to the investigation on January the 6th and the complicitness of some of these Republican officials and the striking contrast of what happens when they're the ones spreading the misinformation and driving it forward.

ACOSTA: Well, that's a perfect segue, because on the day of the insurrection, there was a lot of talk about how Mike Pence had stood up to Trump and did the right thing. We heard this in the weeks that followed when it came to certifying the election results, but according to this new book, "Peril" by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, apparently Mike Pence was looking around for options to help Trump.

That's according to the authors of this book and that Pence went to of all people former Vice President Dan Quayle for advice, and I can just share a bit of the -- from the book for you. It says, "Over and over, Pence asked if there was anything he could do. Quayle says to him, Mike, you have no flexibility on this, none, zero, forget it.

Put it away. Pence pressed again, you don't know the position I'm in, Pence said," according to the authors. "I do know the position you're in, Quayle responded. I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian, that's all you do. You have no power."

That's pretty staggering stuff, Olivia. I mean, it sounds like Dan Quayle survived democracy or something. It's incredible.

TROYE: Yes, well, thank you, Dan Quayle. And I think it just speaks to the disappointment of Mike Pence. You know, he carried out his role, thank goodness. He did certify the election results at the end of the day, after they called for his hanging, but I think, you know, it goes to show the extent of the Trump circle and the extent of the bullying that went on and the extent to which people enabled the whole situation and how close we came.

ACOSTA: There were so many enablers along the way. And I have to think that the former vice president is going to have to come out and address this at some point.

Olivia Troye, thanks so much for your time this afternoon. We appreciate it. Thanks for your insights.

Coming up, the Pentagon admits that a drone strike meant to ward off a terrorist attack was, in fact, the worst mistake imaginable in wartime.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:12:29]

ACOSTA: Another day, another lackluster outcome to an investigation that former President Trump hoped would vindicate him. In early 2019, then Attorney General William Barr tapped John Durham to pursue Trump's suspicion that U.S. intelligence agencies committed wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia investigation, appointing him as special counsel last year.

The probe now is winding down with only two relatively minor cases. The latest being an indictment of Michael Sussman, a low-profile cybersecurity lawyer who is accused of lying to the FBI general counsel. Sussman has pleaded not guilty. The Sussman angle ultimately fizzled in the larger Russia investigation, which of course established that the Trump campaign welcomed Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.

Joining me now staff writer for "The Atlantic," David Frum. His books include "Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy." And also joining us, CNN political analyst and Washington bureau chief for "TheGrio," my good friend April Ryan.

David, let me start with you. This turned out to be a near-total bust despite the right-wing media promising so much.

DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Durham was appointed in an act of vindictiveness by the Trump administration, an effort to punish those who tried to tell the American people something important about their government. The case, the investigation proceeded all the way through in a very, very strange way. Durham tried to get foreign nationals to talk to him and tried to use the diplomatic apparatus of the United States in ways that were irregular.

And of course, we bump up against the core fact of all of this, which is, we -- there is obviously something improper in the Trump-Russia relationship. We know many details, but we still don't know the why. And we are going to go into history with this mystery still in many ways looming over the memory of the past five years.

ACOSTA: That's so true. That mystery has not been solved by any means.

And April, I want to turn to the deadly and tragic U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan. This is the strike where we were originally told that an ISIS-K member was taken out. Now the U.S. Military admitting they targeted the wrong vehicle. Ten civilians killed instead, including an aid worker and seven children.

Let me ask you, April. What is your understanding of this situation and how is the Biden White House handling this, do you think? I mean, this is -- this is a bad way to go out in Afghanistan.

APRIL RYAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It really is. Afghanistan right now is a wound that they hope will heal. And at the moment, it is not with this drone strike.

[16:15:02]

And at the end of the day, there's tragedy, there's loss of life, there's civilian loss. And that is something that you don't want. And I talked to a former national intelligence official who said, over the years, when it comes to our intelligence, (INAUDIBLE), when it comes to our intelligence, over the years (INAUDIBLE). And we are at that point. (INAUDIBLE) from Afghanistan is a problem that we would actually have to hesitate the next time we need to make a move.

ACOSTA: And David, I want -- we have a lot of subjects to tackle today. I want to talk about France. France recalled its ambassador to the U.S. in what appears to be a deepening diplomatic rift between France and the U.S. over this U.S.-announced national security partnership with the U.K. and Australia. While in office, former president Trump called Macron, quote, "very, very nasty." There was an icy relationship.

It started off warm, got very icy between those two. And now this could not be a worse -- well, it could be a worse situation, but this is undoubtedly a very, I guess, just strange in how bad things have gotten between the U.S. and France. What's going on?

FRUM: Well, I'm optimistic about -- that we are going to resolve this. What's going on is the French and the Australians had a contract. A lot of money was at stake, a lot of jobs. Very important to French political leadership, as President Macron faces re-election. I mean, this is dynamically familiar to anybody in any political system. This contract was important to Macron.

The problem was the contract was running behind schedule. It was costing too much. And as China's capabilities kept advancing, the submarines were not sophisticated enough to meet the needs of Pacific defense for Australia, which lives in the neighborhood.

It's a reflection, obviously the French should have been put into the loop earlier. They should have been more informed. They should have been allowed to break the news to their own voters in a way that would not be injurious to President Macron. That just seems a courtesy, but the Biden administration is building a stronger naval capability in the Pacific.

I want to take advantage of this moment to say one thing because I know this show is watched also in my native Canada. I think Canadian viewers of your show need to reflect, why isn't Canada, also a Pacific nation, in this U.S.-U.K.-Australia consortium of the most intimate military allies to put a restraint on China?

ACOSTA: Yes. April, what do you make of this diplomatic situation? I mean, this is just stunning that the U.S. and France would be in a situation like this. I understand that the ambassador to the U.S. from France was over at the White House yesterday, meeting with the National Security adviser on his way, leaving the country. I mean, that is just -- that's just bad.

RYAN: Right. It's bad. For this president and Macron, I mean, this president came wanting to heal all of the divides that were, I guess, around the world. And the French-American relationship has been one of the strongest and at this point they are working to rebuild. They are working to mend fences. There is a diplomatic effort underway to fix this. We cannot, we cannot lose our relationship with France.

This administration understands that. We cannot have any kind of divide with France or any of our allies that they're trying to work to rebuild with since the Trump administration. So this will be an effort that they will work tirelessly. It's not a day, it's not two days. It might be throughout this administration to heal the rift of this moment.

ACOSTA: Right. I mean, this seems like a situation where President Biden is going to have to get engaged at the principal level with President Macron in order to heal this rift.

All right, April Ryan, David Frum, thanks so much, as always. We appreciate it. Nice talking to both of you.

And after decades of suspicion, millionaire Robert Durst has been found guilty of first-degree murder. We'll talk to the filmmaker who captured what may be the most unforgettable moment in true crime history. Durst himself on tape confessing to the killing. That's next.

Plus, mass shooting gun violence and the NRA's role in U.S. law. What's the cost of the war on gun control? A new CNN Film "THE PRICE OF FREEDOM" airs tomorrow night at 9:00 right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:23:47]

ACOSTA: Millionaire real estate mogul Robert Durst, the subject of the hit HBO crime documentary, "The Jinx," is now a convicted killer. A Los Angeles jury found him guilty of first-degree murder for killing his best friend, Susan Berman, over 20 years ago hours before she was set to talk to investigators about the mysterious disappearance of Durst's first wife, Kathy.

CNN's Jean Casarez has the details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This was a highly unusual verdict because Robert Durst was not in the courtroom. He is in isolation because he's been exposed to COVID. The person that drives him to court has contracted COVID-19 and so because of that, he couldn't be in the courtroom.

Now that was a big issue because a defendant has a right to be in the courtroom when the verdict is read in his criminal trial. And so they looked at California case law and the judge determined there are exceptions to that. And there was one here, he said, because juror 12, who is the foreperson, was about to go on vacation next week, so they would have to wait to the following week to come back and read the verdict. They could lose the verdict, so the judge read it.

Now this trial involved nine female jurors, three male jurors.

[16:25:04]

They deliberated for a little over seven hours, which isn't very long at all. The trial began March of last year. COVID hit. It was interrupted. It was brought back again in May of this year, with the very same jury. And this trial was -- obviously, the charges were against Durst in regard to Susan Berman in California, but it was three murder trials in one in a sense because there were so many witnesses that focused in on Kathy Durst, his first wife's disappearance in 1982 right here in New York City.

And then, Durst was never charged, but he was paranoid he was going to be charged. And so he fled to Galveston, Texas, in time. Donned a wig, became a mute woman, and nobody knew where he was, really, until he killed a man in Galveston. He said self-defense. A jury believed that in Galveston.

But then he found out the case was actually going to be reopened against Kathy Durst. And the jury has now conclusively determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Durst went to California, not to spend Christmas 2000 with his good friend Susan Berman, but to murder her.

And he was convicted of first-degree murder, elimination of a witness, and also lying-in wait. All because, and you don't have to prove motive, but the theory was that he thought that Susan was about to talk to authorities because it's believed she knew that he had murdered Kathy Durst. He's never been charged in that case. The penalty here is life without the possibility of parole. There's really no wiggle room because of those special circumstances. Sentencing will be October 18th.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: All right. Thanks to Jean for that. Durst's conviction comes six years after a remarkable HBO documentary series, "The Jinx," in which the filmmakers were able to connect him to an anonymous note that had directed police to Susan Berman's body.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW JARECKI, DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER, "THE JINX: THE LIFE AND DEATHS OF ROBERT DURST": So what do you think about this -- about this note? I mean, does this note mean anything to you?

ROBERT DURST, SUBJECT OF HBO'S "THE JINK", FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER: I mean, that's her address. Block letters, if somebody's hiding their signature, and they spell "Beverly" wrong.

JARECKI: Can you think of a reason why somebody might write a note like that?

DURST: I can't imagine. Can't imagine.

JARECKI: One of the speculations is that if it was somebody that liked her, they wouldn't want it lying around in her house, you know, if she had to die --

DURST: If somebody liked her, why kill her? And now you're taking this big risk.

JARECKI: Which big risk?

DURST: You're writing a note to the police, that only the killer could have written.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And that all led to this climatic moment, probably the most stunning in true crime documentary history where Durst stepped off camera and muttered to himself on a live microphone. If you've never seen this before, you have to watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DURST: Killed them all, of course.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Just stunning. Robert Durst was literally arrested the weekend of the premiere of the finale, where America heard Durst utter those words. And joining me now is Andrew Jarecki. He is the director and producer of the HBO miniseries, "The Jinx."

Andrew, it's fascinating to go back and watch that video again. I believe prosecutors said that's exactly what the jury concluded, that Durst killed them all. What is your reaction to this verdict, Robert Durst, guilty of first-degree murder?

JARECKI: Yes, I mean, it was oddly stunning. I mean, I guess we predicted it because it was hard to imagine after seeing the trial that the jury would have had any other conclusion, but, you know, after -- I've worked on this case for 16 years, and the victims in one case, Bob's wife's family has been waiting for 40 years for justice. So we still can't help but be kind of pleasantly amazed when we get a verdict like that.

ACOSTA: No question. It's unbelievable that it took all this time. Now your documentary included famously being able to confront Durst with new evidence in Berman's killing. If Durst knew that he had gotten away with yet another murder, what could possibly have been his motivation for speaking with you, time and again, on camera and walking right into this?

JARECKI: You know, I ended up doing about 24 hours' worth of interviews with Bob. And I thought a lot about why, you know, at one point, I remember getting together with Bob and his lawyer and sitting at breakfast and his lawyer said, you know, I just want, as we work out the details of this interview, I just want it to be clearly understood that I think that this is the worst idea I've ever heard. And I'm going to oppose it in whatever way I can.

[16:30:00]

And Bob interrupted him and said, Steve, let him do what he wants. I don't care if he puts it in a billboard in Times Square.

To Bob's credit, he was willing to speak and speak very openly. And of course, he spoke more openly than anyone could have imagined.

But I do have a theory about why he did it, if you have a moment for me to tell you.

ACOSTA: Yes, sure, absolutely. Please.

JARECKI: I think that it was a combination of things. You know, Bob is a very wealthy guy. He's a very confident guy. He's kind of a loner.

And it's clear, during the course of Bob's life, that he gets bored easily and he likes to be in the limelight. Even though he has an uncertain relationship with being out there.

And I think he doesn't feel entirely happy unless he's putting himself at risk.

And I think he's shown time and time again that he plays with the rules and puts himself in situations that could put himself or other people in jeopardy.

So I think it was exciting for Bob. I think he comes from this incredibly wealthy family and has spent his life in the shadow of a very powerful father, a successful brother.

And I think this was an opportunity for him to say, hey, I've probably done something better than all of you have done. I've committed three murders over 30 years and gotten away with it.

So I do think that people have a compulsion to confess. I think that you carry that around inside of you.

And I think that's what Bob was expressing when he agreed to sit down with me. In fact, volunteered to sit down with me.

ACOSTA: It's like the words wanted to come out. That was my sense of it when we finally saw that aha moment.

And when you started making "Jinx," was any part of your motivation to have Robert Durst finally held to account and wind up in prison?

JARECKI: To address your first point, the first thing he says when he goes into the bathroom -- I've just confronted him with this evidence. He hasn't seen it in many, many years.

He knew, somehow, in the back of his mind, he had written a letter that was going to be incriminating to him. But I think he figured, well, that's a long time ago and it's been lost to the sands of time.

But I think he was so keen and so simultaneously titillated by being in that moment and seeing that letter and realizing that it was possible that that was going to cause him a huge problem that he was sort of dying to just say it.

And he got up out of the chair, finished the interview, goes in the bathroom and closes the door. And the first thing he says is, there it is, you're caught.

So I think that compulsion that you're describing, it was almost bursting out of him.

To answer your other question, I never expected that we would have this kind of evidence. I did believe that Bob had probably killed three people, but I didn't know that.

And I always feel like I have to give my subject the benefit of the doubt. And I have to let him express himself.

And for sure, in this film, we let him talk a tremendous amount from his perspective about what he remembers about his life.

So he certainly had a chance to express all of that and perhaps express even more than what he or his lawyer would have liked.

ACOSTA: Was there ever a moment where you were scared to be with Robert Durst? I mean, just scared that he knew who you were?

JARECKI: Well, with you know, Bob is a very -- like a lot of people who commit complex and hard-to-solve crimes, he's extremely charming.

When you're with Bob, you feel like you're with a bright, engaging, funny, wry, clever person. Certainly, well-bred, who has had a tremendous amount of life experience. You never feel that way in the moment.

But I will say, after I showed him that evidence, which was deep into the many-year relationship I had with him, after that, I knew that I was at risk and that this was a person who kills witnesses.

And he knew that I had this document that was going to be very damaging. He didn't know that I was going to be in touch with the district attorney in Los Angeles pretty soon after that.

And so I think he -- it changed a bit for me and I got a little more concerned. And for a while, I did have security.

And I remember I said to my daughter one night, you know, honey -- it was like right before the fifth or the sixth episode of "The Jinx" aired.

And I said, you know what, tomorrow, when I take you to school, there's going to be just a couple of guys with us. And she immediately started to cry. So I realized that, you know, this had had an impact on my family. And of course, it is the kind of thing that you have to take

seriously.

ACOSTA: Well, thanks very much for your pursuit for truth and justice. And it is a testament to the fact that hard work pays off. All that hard work you put in this documentary. What a conclusion to all of that.

Andrew Karecki, excellent work. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

JARECKI: Thanks so much.

ACOSTA: Take care.

[16:34:49]

Coming up, two murderers, a hit man, and a dead housekeeper. The prominent South Carolina lawyer at the center of a deepening mystery.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: A prominent South Carolina lawyer is out on bond after a stunning plot that involved everything from a hitman to insurance fraud and now questions about the death of a housekeeper.

CNN's Martin Savidge has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): His life in a scandalous spiral. Prominent South Carolina attorney, Alex Murdaugh, surrendering to law enforcement to face charges in an alleged murder- for-hire scheme in which he was the target.

A warrant for his arrest detailed the botched murder attempt that was meant to provide his son millions of dollars of life insurance money, attorneys say.

[16:40:05]

According to court documents, Murdaugh arranged for Curtis Smith, a former client, to shoot and kill him. But the plan failed because the shot wasn't fatal.

Smith has been charged with assisted suicide, assault, and battery, pointing and presenting a firearm, insurance fraud, and conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.

So far, he's not entered a plea and has asked for a court-appointed attorney.

And now another twist. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division announcing the opening of another investigation involving the Murdaughs. The 2018 death of the family's longtime housekeeper, Gloria

Satterfield, who died in what was described as a trip and fall accident on the Murdaugh property.

ERIC BLAND, ATTORNEY FOR SATTERFIELD FAMILY: It was Alex Murdaugh who told the story that she had tripped and fell down the stairs over his dogs. And so they trusted him.

SAVIDGE: At the time, her death was said due to natural causes. But Hampton County corner, Angela Topper, told investigators in a letter that the death was not reported to the coroner at the time, nor was it called an autopsy performed.

On the death certificate, the manner of death of rule natural, which is consistent with injuries sustained in a trip and fall accident.

In court filing, the Satterfield family say they reached a partial settlement with Murdaugh for wrongful death. But they say they never received the money they say they were due.

Eric Bland is their Satterfield family attorney.

ERIC BLAND, SATTERFIELD FAMILY ATTORNEY: He hand walked into his best friend and college roommate to bring a lawsuit against himself on behalf of the estate.

Now, you know, as a lawyer of 33 years, I've never heard that, where you encourage somebody and take them to a lawyer who you hand pick and that lawyer bring claims against you.

SAVIDGE: This new development in Satterfield's death as Alex Murdaugh was already struggling with the unsolved murders of his wife and son in June. Allegations that he stole money from his family's law firm and his own admission of decades-long opioid addiction.

All of this playing out in a very public downfall.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: And joining me now, CNN legal analyst and former state and federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.

Elie, you can't take your eyes of this story. It's just incredible. It seems like there's a different twist over day.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jim, all of the adjectives apply to this case.

The big question on a lot of people's minds now is. will Alex Murdaugh be ever charged, held responsible for the other deaths around him?

That's a really tricky question for prosecutors. I've seen cases, I tried a murder case once 17 years after the murder happened, but it gets harder and harder with each passing day. Physical evidence disappears, crime scenes are no longer intact.

So I think that's sort of the big question that's animating a lot of the interest here.

ACOSTA: And Alex Murdaugh claims to be addicted to opioids. Is that a viable defense? Can you just claim, I was on drugs, and not be held responsible?

HONIG: No, that's not going to help him at all, especially in South Carolina.

In South Carolina, voluntary intoxication, meaning if you took drugs or alcohol yourself, is not a defense. Only involuntary intoxication. If somebody else drugged you.

Now, that varies a bit state by state, but this is going to get him nowhere in South Carolina.

ACOSTA: And what about the defense that he was out of his mind with grief about his wife and his son' death?

HONIG: Yes, that's not going to work either. Emotional distress, generally speaking, is not a defense, especially here.

When you think about the self-hit plot that Martin just laid out, where Murdaugh went out and got one of his former clients, this guy, Curtis Smith to shoot him, to try to defraud the insurance company, that's not a spur-of-the-moment crime.

That's not what lawyers call a heat-of-the-moment crime. That's something that takes real planning and premeditation.

So ultimately, no, that's not going to be a defense either.

ACOSTA: And even thought the world is watching, this is being handled at state of South Carolina level. Any reason for the FBI to get involved?

HONIG: Well, the FBI needs a federal hook. They need some federal connection in order to get involved.

Now most murders are actually not federal crimes unless they happen on federal property or part of a racketeering enterprise. So the murders themselves wouldn't get the FBI a reason to get involved.

However, remember, there's this insurance fraud angle now. That could be a federal crime. And the FBI may have reason to think about getting involved here.

Because part of the problem, part of the reason that this is all so suspicious is that there have been real questions about the way local authorities have handled this case, because the Murdaugh family is very well connected in South Carolina legal and law enforcement circles.

So the FBI may have a role to play here moving forward.

ACOSTA: And we saw Martin Savidge's report that no autopsy or coroner report was done after the Murdaugh family housekeeper died. That's unusual, isn't it?

HONIG: That's absolutely bizarre. When there's a death, there's four ways to classify the manner of death. There's homicide, suicide, accident and natural.

A trip and fall is not natural. So this was misclassified as a natural death.

[16:45:00]

Now, the effect of that is, if it's classified as accidental, which it should have been if it was a trip and fall, then it will go to the coroner or medical examiner and you would do an autopsy.

Here, as the coroner pointed out, something was done wrong, because there should have been an autopsy, but it was misclassified. As a result, no autopsy was done. So that leaves open an awful lot of questions.

An example, about some of the problems here with the way that local authorities have handled this.

ACOSTA: Right.

And speaking of that, Alex Murdaugh turned himself in and was given a $20,000 bond.

Why would a judge let him out on bond? Just a few days ago, he allegedly hired a hit man to kill him!

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: I mean, so he took $20,000 and he's out?

HONIG: I am as confounded as you are here, Jim. It makes no sense.

The two reasons that you can hold somebody, not give them bail as a judge are, one, the person's a flight risk and might take off and become a fugitive. Two, he's a danger.

Who knows if he's a flight risk? He's certainly unstable. But danger? What could be more dangerous to the community? Does anyone feel safe having him out there?

So I was really shocked that the judge agreed to bail him out and on $20,000.

ACOSTA: Very strange, indeed. But I suspect that this is not the last strange thing to happen in this case.

Elie Honig, thanks so much for that. We appreciate it.

HONIG: Thanks, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. A SpaceX crew made up entirely of civilians set to return to earth after three days in orbit. Is this the beginning of a new chapter in space tourism?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:51:12]

ACOSTA: Crews are working to protect California's ancient sequoia trees from yet another devastating wildfire.

The biggest tree in the world, affectionately called General Sherman, is wrapped in protective foil as fires threaten the giant forest. Officials are hoping to avoid a repeat of last year when thousands of sequoias were lost in an especially bad fire season.

In just hours, the first-ever all-tourist space crew comes back to earth after three days orbiting the planet. The SpaceX Dragon is set to set down in the Atlantic off the coast of Florida.

While in space, the all-civilian crew, a cold pizza, raised money for children's cancer research and conducted some scientific experiments of their own.

Their return will mark the end of the first flight to earth's orbit flown entirely by people who aren't astronauts.

The lucky group includes a billionaire, a cancer survivor, a community college professor, and a Lockheed Martin employee who won the trip in a raffle. What a great trip that is.

In this week's "MISSION AHEAD," CNN's Rachel Crane introduces us to the startup trying to sail into the eye of the next hurricane.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RACHEL CRANE, CNN INNOVATION & SPACE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The climate crisis is driving hurricanes to grow faster and stronger than ever before.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This storm in no way will be weakening. Time is not on our side.

CRANE: Hurricane Ida grew from a category 1 to a category 4 hurricane in less than a day. This effect, known as rapid intensification, leaves emergency planners little time to react.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your window of time is closing.

CRANE: To help make better forecasts, the company Saildrone, believes its autonomous research vessels are up to the challenge of finding out what conditions cause storms to intensify so quickly.

RICHARD JENKINS, FOUNDER & CEO, SAILDRONE, INC: We're trying to sail into the eye of a hurricane where no one has managed to get before. CRANE: Traditionally, scientists capture hurricane data by flying

planes directly through them dropping probes into the sky along the way.

But in order to completely understand a storm, scientists say more data needs to be collected from the surface of the ocean.

JENKINS: What drives a hurricane's strength is a transfer of heat and moisture from the ocean to the atmosphere. We don't quite understand the dynamics of how that works.

CRANE: In order to find out, Saildrone deployed five ships into the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean, areas where lots of hurricanes develop and are likely to hit land.

They're powered by the sun and wind, can stay out at sea for months at a time, and are built to take a beating.

JENKINS: It's really designed to get hit by waves, tumble, submerge and come back up and carry on sailing.

CRANE (on camera): I see something up top.

JENKINS: It's hurricane conditions. It is key to understand the spray, the foam on the water. So we're hoping we can see with the camera what the water looks like.

CRANE (voice-over): The drone's sensors and cameras can send data and images in real time back to Saildrone's headquarters.

CHRIS MEINIG, DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, NOAA PME: These are measurements of wind, temperature, humidity at that interface level that may help the modelers understand the fundamentals better. That's never been done before.

CRANE: And more accurate models could allow emergency planners to give better direction to residents back on land.

JENKINS: We're hoping to get really precise measurement to predict the future strength of hurricanes and enable people to make preparations or move out of the way with ample town.

[16:54:21]

CRANE: Rachel Crane, CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

New details into CNN today on the U.S. drone strike that killed 10 innocent people in the chaotic final days of the Kabul evacuations.

Sources telling CNN, as the Pentagon launched the strike, the CIA sent out an urgent warning saying civilians were likely in the area and children were possibly inside the target vehicle. That CIA alert was too late.

Seconds later, the missile, which the Pentagon thought was targeting an ISIS-K terrorist hauling explosives, struck the courtyard of a family home killing seven children, an Afghan aid worker and two other adults.

[17:00:02]

CNN senior national security correspondent, Alex Marquardt, joins me now.

Alex, walk us through this warning and how it gives us a fuller picture of what went wrong. This is just not the way it's supposed to go.