Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Jury Deliberating Sentence for Ahmaud Arbery's Killers; Closing Arguments in Trial of Three Officers for George Floyd's Death; CNN Team Near Ukraine's Border Sees Large Number of Russian Military Vehicles; U.S. Diplomats Return to Ukraine from Poland after Relocating "For Security Reasons"; U.S. Soccer Settles Equal Pay Lawsuit for $24 Million; Supreme Court to Consider Suit of Homophobic Web Designer. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired February 22, 2022 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What do we know about that that question was?

NADIA ROMERO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, good morning, Bianna. I want to look down to make sure I get this right. So forgive me here.

The question was, "Which part of the verdict form do I need to read?"

So this is the verdict form. And it basically shows them all of the charges and the defendants and what is being asked of them. So they asked that question.

The judge told attorneys that she planned to respond, "The clerk of court will read your unanimous verdict."

So from that, you can potentially speculate that they're close to releasing a verdict or they could just be asking a question for clarification's sake. But we could get that verdict now at any moment.

We know that the jury is back, deliberating inside the courthouse, starting at about 9:00 Eastern this morning. They had about two hours of deliberations yesterday before being dismissed.

And they were given really strict instructions: don't talk to each other about the trial. Don't talk to anyone else. Don't look up anything on social media. Don't do your own research and leave your notes inside the courthouse until this morning when you come back together. And you can deliberate all together, all at once.

Now the last thing that the jurors were able to hear were the closing arguments from the defense and the prosecution, their last chance to pitch to them why they believe they should acquit or commit these three defendants to being guilty on all of these charges.

The prosecution says this is all about race, that the men targeted and killed Ahmaud Arbery because he was Black. They equated his Black skin to being a criminal. The defense says they were simply trying to protect their

neighborhood. They believed that Ahmaud Arbery was committing crimes in their neighborhood and they were trying to do a citizen's arrest. When he resisted, they shot him in self-defense.

So the jury now has to decide which way to go, what they will do on all of these charges. Meanwhile, the families are waiting anxiously for the verdict.

On one side, we saw Lee McMichael, the mother of Travis, the wife of Gregory, sitting behind those two defendants, supporting them throughout closing arguments, sharing nods and smiles, reaching out to touch their hands.

On the other side of the courtroom, Ahmaud Arbery's mother and father and aunt and other supporters, who became emotional during the trial. As they wait for that verdict, listen to Ahmaud Arbery's aunt talk about this moment, right now, as they wait.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANE ARBERY-JACKSON, AHMAUD'S AUNT: It is hard. It's hard. You can't sleep. You can't hardly eat. Until all this is over with, our family, her family, we -- it's a rough ride.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMERO: "It's a rough ride" and this is their second go-around, right, because they already had the state trial, where all three men were convicted, found guilty of murdering Ahmaud Arbery. They all face life in prison.

But this trial, Bianna, they tell me, is still very important to their family, because they want to send a message to the entire world that, if you're racist, you act on that, you commit a hate crime, that you will be held accountable. And tomorrow marks two years since the murder of Ahmaud Arbery -- Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Nadia Romero, keep us posted, please, on any developments and we'll come back to you. We appreciate it.

Closing arguments begin in the next hour in another high-profile case, the federal trial of three former Minneapolis police officers charged with violating George Floyd's civil rights.

During four days of testimony, defense attorneys called more than 10 witnesses, including the three former officers, Thomas Lane, Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao. CNN's Omar Jimenez is live in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Omar, what can we expect to hear today?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Bianna, as part of these closing arguments, we'll hear from the prosecution and then we'll hear individually from each of these former officers' attorneys.

But as you mentioned, over the past few days, we've heard from these former officers, for first time, as part of any trial. And for the first time we got their point of view on what happened on May 25th, 2020.

For starters, Tou Thao testified that he assumed the officers were taking care of George Floyd while he was dealing mostly with the growing crowd at the time, his back for the most part to these officers.

Alex Kueng, who was on Floyd's midsection that day, testified he also deferred to Derek Chauvin, the senior officer on the scene, and that he had no idea Floyd had stopped breathing while he was under their restraint.

Thomas Lane, who was holding Floyd's feet that day, testified that he asked Chauvin twice to reposition him during the restraint. And that's likely why he doesn't face one of the charges that Kueng and Thao faces, that he did nothing to intervene and stop Derek Chauvin in this.

But they all face a charge that they violated George Floyd's civil rights by showing indifference to his medical needs. And I should also note that they also face state charges tied to the killing of George Floyd, to be litigated at a later date.

But in this trial, we are expecting closing arguments to begin in about an hour or so. And based on what we've heard from the judge and his conversations with attorneys --

[09:35:00]

JIMENEZ: -- we are expected to get through all of it in about six hours or so. And then, of course, it will be sent to the jury to make a final decision in this federal trial -- Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Omar Jimenez, thank you. We appreciate it.

Well, Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian troops into Eastern Ukraine.

Now the world is wondering, what is his next move?

We'll discuss and take a look at his military capabilities.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

SCIUTTO: Russia appears to be ramping up its military presence, once again, along the Ukrainian border.

Our CNN team in southern Russia reports seeing large numbers of military vehicles in the area, including several columns of armored vehicles and trucks, personnel carriers. CNN's Tom Foreman joins us now.

Tom, give us a sense of what Russia's military capabilities are, that are now arrayed around Ukraine. I reported this weekend it is three- quarters of Russia's conventional forces now postured against Ukraine.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, if you want a sense of it, in one word, immense. That is the term here.

Look at all these forces out here. We're talking about a relatively small area here, in Ukraine, which is about the size of Texas, a little bit smaller.

So this area here, why do you need all these people here?

In part, because this allows Russia to project so much force into that region, their troops can simply walk in. They don't have to rush in. And it fits their narrative of claiming that they're peacekeepers, while they're actually an invading force. They have simply to walk in.

What is the force they bring to it?

Among other things, they have the Su-34, the Fullback bombers. These are planes that are supersonic. They're capable of firing on a whole range of missiles that can break up communication centers, that can pierce concrete into headquarters. They can do tremendous damage.

And, by the way, all of its weapons are capable of firing from actually outside the borders of Ukraine and raining down, not only on this area but far, far further inland.

The Russians have always been huge fans of artillery. It is very much the way their military operates, according to military strategists. They like artillery that they can fire into a region from beyond.

They also like things like this short-range ballistic missile system, the Iskander-M. Take a note of this: the range on the Iskander-M, 310 miles. Ukraine says that they have 36 of these near the border.

So again, these could be actually in Russia and they can reach almost halfway across Ukraine with their weapons.

This is important, just like it is with the airplanes, because, bear in mind, if you're attacking in this fashion and Ukraine responds and strikes any of these units in Russia, then that gives Russia the pretext it needs to say, ah, you see; they're trying invade us. Now we have the full green light to simply take over the whole country.

Beyond that, there are other weapons out there. Tanks are used a little bit differently in Russia than they are in a lot of other places. They tend to use them to support the troops on the ground.

And, of course, they have the BUK system, which we've talked about before, some anti-and air defense system, an antiaircraft system. This is what was used to shoot down that Malaysian passenger jet back in 2014. And these make the airspace above this one of the most dangerous

airspaces in the world, making it all very hard for Ukraine to come in. All of this adds up in a simple way, Jim.

When you look at this amount of force, Ukraine is put into a very difficult position, even if they want to fight back. Again, if they fire across the border to try to stop what Russia could do here, if they were to go after Black Sea fleet down here, supporting what is going on, they could be -- then Russia will say, oh, you're attacking us.

But likewise, if the forces of Ukraine try to stop it here, one of the fears that I hear from many military leaders is that Russia then sweeps in behind them and simply says, we have to keep the peace here. And then much of Ukraine's army gets trapped and wiped out. And again Russia says, we get half the country. And that's just the way it is.

SCIUTTO: Yes, listen, there is a reason why so many airlines are not flying over Ukraine anymore now, given all those weapons arrayed there. Tom Foreman, thank you so much for lining it all up for us.

Well, American diplomats, they're now returning here to Lviv, Ukraine, this after spending the night across the border, just across the border, nearby in Poland, because of what we are told are security reasons.

This due to the threat of further Russian military action. Remember, all those weapons still arrayed along the border, as Tom was describing there. CNN's Kylie Atwood joins us now from the State Department.

So, Kylie, do we know anything more specific about the threat that led the diplomats to leave, at least temporarily, and whether that's -- was specific to that night or it's an ongoing one?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Jim, I think it is an ongoing threat. They spoke about security concerns generally speaking. The State Department didn't say there was a specific concern about Lviv.

But they did get these diplomats out of the country overnight, in case anything happened. They're moving them back into the country today. We'll continue to watch that, because it is an indication of where the United States believes Russia could be going with a further invasion into Ukraine, of course.

And then the other thing we're keeping an eye on is this planned meeting between secretary of state Tony Blinken and foreign minister Lavrov that is supposed to take place on Thursday in Geneva.

[09:45:00]

ATWOOD: As of now, the State Department has not canceled that meeting. But the prospects for diplomacy are growing dimmer by the hour. Listen to what the deputy national security adviser said about this earlier today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON FINER, U.S. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I think what Russia has done has made a diplomatic path much harder to walk down and much less likely.

Frankly, I will leave it to the State Department to determine whether that meeting goes forward. We have been in close consultation with our partners and allies about what the next diplomatic step should be. But they have closed the door even further to diplomacy by the way that they have conducted their business yesterday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ATWOOD: It is clear that the United States wants to keep diplomacy on the table here, from those remarks there. But it is also clear that they are looking at a situation that could escalate quickly that would take diplomacy off the table.

As of now, it appears that, because the administration isn't casting this as a full-blown invasion, an invasion but not a full-blown invasion, they're trying to keep diplomacy on the table for as long as they can. But that could change, just by the hour here.

SCIUTTO: No question they're trying to keep their options open to escalate, it seems, as well. Kylie Atwood at the State Department, thanks so much.

GOLODRYGA: In other news here at home, big news in the world of sports. After a long legal battle, members of the U.S. women's national soccer team will finally get the same pay as their male counterparts. We'll bring you the details straight ahead.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:50:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

GOLODRYGA: Breaking news this morning: members of the women's national soccer team have reached a $24 million settlement with U.S. Soccer over their equal pay lawsuit.

It's a massive win for the women's team, who have been underpaid significantly for years, compared to the men's team. Here with me now is CNN's Brynn Gingras.

Brynn, this brings a six-year legal battle to an end but a major victory.

(CROSSTALK)

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is just incredible for women in sports, not just the female soccer team but, going forward, other women's teams as well, hopefully opening the door to equal pay.

So what this agreement means is that they are essentially going to get the U.S. women's soccer team back pay in the amount of $22 million split among 28 women, who filed that lawsuit back in 2019.

And $2 million is also going to go and be able to -- in a fund, essentially be able to use for charitable foundations and post-career, anything they want, as they can apply for it essentially.

So an incredible amount of money going to these women in a fight that really dates all the way back to 2017, when it started with five players from the U.S. women's soccer team, essentially filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, saying they were facing wage discrimination.

That got bumped up to 28 players filing this lawsuit back in 2017. They actually lost between -- I'm getting all my dates mixed up -- but they actually lost this lawsuit. The court rejected it. And then they were going to file an appeal.

So this really just cancels out all of that more legal drama that they were about to face. But more important to that than money is the fact that, again, this is going to open doors.

This says, in this agreement, that there needs to be equal pay with the men and with the women's teams. Of course, these women have been fighting for this because, let's face it, they've been winning a lot of World Cups. We haven't been seeing the men do the same and yet they're getting paid more.

I want you to see Megan Rapinoe, one of the plaintiffs, react to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGAN RAPINOE, U.S. WOMEN'S SOCCER: I think pride comes to mind. Just incredibly proud of the women on this team and all the women who this lawsuit represents.

You know, the justice comes in the next generation never having to go through what we went through. It's equal pay across the board from here on out and I'm looking forward to continuing to grow the sport and to have this be a moment we look back on, that signals a new U.S. Soccer that we can all be extremely proud of.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRAS: As you can see, that is just what's so important to them, that the generations moving forward. And in a joint statement, I do want to quickly say, U.S. Soccer and the women say, "We recognize the legacy of the past USWNT leaders, who helped to make this day possible, as well as all of the women and girls who will follow."

So that's what it's all about, opening all these doors for women, the players, not just in soccer but hopefully other sports.

GOLODRYGA: Hats off to Megan, her teammates in fighting for what's right and just. Great to see you, Brynn, thank you.

Also just breaking in to CNN: the Supreme Court agreeing to take up a case involving a web designer, who refuses to work with same-sex couples, based on religious objections.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

GOLODRYGA: We have more breaking news to bring you just now. After deliberating for over three hours, the jury has reached a verdict in the federal hate crimes trial of the McMichaels and Bryant, announced Judge Wood at 9:45 am. McMichaels, father and son, we should say.

This morning the court will reconvene at 10:30 am for the verdict to be read. We'll have a live update in a moment for you there.

But also breaking this morning, the Supreme Court will take up the case of a Colorado graphic designer, who creates wedding websites but does not want to work with same-sex couples because of religious objections. CNN Justice correspondent Jessica Schneider is following the story.

Jessica, this sets up another high court battle between a business owner and a state law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

What more do we know?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It does, Bianna. We saw this the last time at the Supreme Court four years ago, where they decided a case based on a Colorado baker who didn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

The court there only ruled on a very narrow issue. But this time, they will take up a case involving that Colorado web designer and maybe get to the broader issue here of whether businesses, if they have objections to same-sex marriage on the basis of their religion, whether they can issue statements saying that they won't provide services for those same-sex couples.

This web designer put up a statement on her website, saying she would not provide services. The lower courts found that to be in violation of a Colorado law that prohibits any statements from businesses saying that they will discriminate, in a sense, against same-sex couples.

So this case will go before the court some time after October in their next term.

[10:00:00]