Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Secret Service Staffers Back Up Part Of Explosive Jan. 6 Testimony; Key Moments From January 6th Hearings; Bipartisan Effort Underway In Oklahoma To Stop Inmate's Execution; Officials: Large Sharks A "Constant Presence" On Cape Cod Until Fall; "Third Eye Blind" Among Bands Featured In CNN's July 4th Celebration. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired July 02, 2022 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:59:41]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: All right. Get a load of this, a baby bear in a pickle. This week a cub was spotted in a tree near a North Carolina home with a plastic container stuck on its head. The state wildlife biologist was called to the scene and helped free it. The baby bear was able to rejoin its mother a short time later, unharmed.

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

Today, sources within the Secret Service are backing up the bomb shell testimony from a former Trump White House aide that an irate President Trump demanded to go to the Capitol on January 6th.

Since Cassidy Hutchinson went under oath, there has been an ongoing campaign to discredit her testimony about what she saw and heard on that day.

CNN has now spoken with two Secret Service employees who both say they also heard about a confrontation in the presidential SUV that day, a story they say spread widely around the agency in the weeks and months that followed January 6th. They say Trump indeed demanded to be taken to the Capitol, and when the Secret Service said no to the trip, Trump berated his security detail saying something to the effect of, quote, "I'm the effing president of the United States, you can't tell me what to do."

The other concerning development is the new information about who may have been pressuring Hutchinson ahead of her sworn testimony. A source tells CNN one person who may have tried to influence her did so at the behest of then White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. The January 6th committee giving us a taste of that pressure campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): This is a call received by one of our witnesses, quote, "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." (END VIDEO CLIP)

CNN's Ryan Nobles is here with the latest.

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim, we are getting more information about the concerns the January 6th Select Committee has about some of their witnesses being intimidated by the former President Donald Trump or some of his closest allies. And we're learning that those examples that they provided at the end of their hearing on Tuesday were both directed at their star witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, and that at least one of them, the belief is that it was sent to her through an intermediary on behalf of the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Now a spokesperson for Mark Meadows, Ben Williamson strongly denies that Meadows or anyone in his orbit has put pressure on any witnesses or Cassidy Hutchinson herself, but it does show that the committee is very concerned about witness intimidation, and it's something they're continuing to keep a close eye on.

Now, speaking of Hutchinson, we did learn a little bit more about that piece of controversy that came from her hearing on Tuesday. The story that she told was relayed to her about an incident inside the presidential SUV on January 6th.

If you recall, Hutchinson said that she was told the story by Tony Ornato who's the deputy chief of staff that the former president lunged at his Secret Service detail demanding that they take him to the Capitol and that he was angry that they refused to do so.

The Secret Service initially at that point when the story first came out had said that they had individuals that were prepared to refute that story, saying that it didn't happen the way that Hutchinson described it.

Well, now we're learning that Secret Service agents and people within the Secret Service in the months after January 6th were hearing versions of this story, that it was something that was being passed around amongst the agents and the people within the department.

And at least one source that talked to CNN told us that they heard the story directly from the driver of the SUV at that time. And everyone seems to be in agreement that Donald Trump was angry on that day, and that he was demanding to be taken to the Capitol.

Now, where there seems to be a bit of discrepancy is just how serious he was when he lunged towards the driver and whether or not he ever actually got his hands on the steering wheel.

Hutchinson seemed to allude to that in her testimony on Tuesday, but according to the accounts from both of the individuals that CNN talked to, there was never any talk of him actually getting ahold of the steering wheel or getting into a physical altercation with either of the agents.

Now, this is something the committee's still looking into. They say they are willing to get any more information that could be available. And the Secret Service has said that the two agents in question, Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel will be willing to testify under oath about their experience. Regardless, the one thing that no one disputes is that Donald Trump was mad and that he wanted to go to the Capitol on that day, which may be among the most serious things the committee is looking into, Jim.

ACOSTA: Ryan, thanks so much.

Joining me now is CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. for the southern district of New York, Elie Honig.

Elie, we now know that the committee believes someone working on behalf of Mark Meadows applied pressure on Cassidy Hutchinson or at least attempted to apply pressure on her ahead of her testimony using phrases like "he knows you're loyal, do the right thing, you're on the team".

[17:04:57]

ACOSTA: A Meadows spokesman denies this. But of course if they had nothing to worry about in all of this, if they didn't think Cassidy Hutchinson was very important in the grand scheme of things and didn't see anything -- her story doesn't add up, why are they putting pressure on her?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jim. Well, first of all, in my view those statements that you just read are witness tampering.

You don't have to say "I hereby tamper with thee" in order to be witness tampering. We're allowed to look at the words and use common sense. And I think any common sense to those readings it's quite clear.

Also important to note, under the law it's a crime not only to try to intimidate somebody, but even to try to influence their testimony even in some minor way, try to get them to tweak it maybe or shade it a little bit. That too is a crime.

Now, who could be liable? Obviously, the person who conveyed that message to Cassidy Hutchinson. As Ryan reported, we don't yet know who that person is. That's the person we're calling the intermediary. And if it can be proven that that person was acting at some other person's instruction or behest that could be Mark Meadows, then that person would be responsible too.

It's harder to prove that the person who's one step removed was involved. But if that proof is there, then yes, that would apply to him.

And Jim, I just want to note one other thing. Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony in the committee is over now. But it is also a federal crime to retaliate against a witness after the fact, to take certain harmful actions in response to somebody testifying. So if anybody has any ideas, they ought to lose them right now. ACOSTA: Yes, no question about that. And everyone has been talking

about the story of this irate, you know, Trump demanding to go to the Capitol that day on January 6th. Cassidy Hutchinson says she was told about it by Tony Ornato who is now a Secret Service agent directing the Secret Service training facility.

But back then he was Trump's deputy chief of staff, and he was the deputy chief of staff there after being in the Secret Service and working close to Trump.

Ornato apparently denies having this conversation, but now our sources in the Secret Service are saying that this story was known inside the agency for months and months. They were talking about this.

How does this play into the investigation, do you think?

HONIG: Well, it's one more indicator of Cassidy Hutchinson's credibility in my view. If we take the broader view here, Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, the heart of it, about Donald Trump knowing the crowd was armed, wanting to go down to the Capitol. That remains a, heavily corroborated by other evidence, and b, uncontested. I think it's notable that no one's really attacking that part of the testimony.

We're left with this credibility battle between Cassidy Hutchinson and Tony Ornato about whether there was this lunge or not. Hutchinson testified to it under oath despite enormous pressure. Ornato has denied it through spokespeople not under oath. So who are you going to credit.

And Ornato seems to be -- well, Cassidy Hutchinson made this thing up out of whole cloth, now we're learning from Ryan's reporting and others' reporting that there is such a story circulating through the Secret Service. It's not exactly word for word as Cassidy Hutchinson said it, but it's darn close. And I think it proves beyond really any question in my mind that she's not making things up. And it's yet one more chip in her favor on the credibility question.

ACOSTA: And of course, if any of these officials want to come in and testify under oath and tell their side of the story, they're perfectly, you know, fine to do so. I'm sure the committee would love to hear from them. We'll see if that happens.

And Elie, this week the committee issued a subpoena to former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, one of the figures who was really sounding the alarm on January 6th. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning, and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don't go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ACOSTA: And sources say Cipollone may agree to a limited transcribed interview because of issues with attorney/client privilege. What would you say to Pat Cipollone, Elie?

HONIG: Well, I would say, Pat, to be in role here, look, if you want to avoid testifying here, you probably can. You don't have really the strongest executive privilege argument, but the reality is the committee doesn't have time to take you to court to challenge it.

However, Mr. Cipollone you might want to think about doing the right thing. You might want to think about ending up on the right side of history because clearly his testimony is important here. We need to know, even if he wants to siphon off what he said to Donald Trump.

What did you say to Mark Meadows that day? What did you say to other important White House personnel? If he said the same thing that he said to Cassidy Hutchinson, "we're committing every crime imaginable," that's enormously important.

And the other thing I would point out to Pat Cipollone is if there comes a day where the Justice Department comes around with a subpoena, then you're not going to be able to hide. Then you're going to have to go into a grand jury and testify. So might as well do it now and give the American people the information that we need.

ACOSTA: And I want to switch gears just a little bit because there have been so many just, I mean, just incredible decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.

[17:09:51]

ACOSTA: I want to ask you about the Supreme Court agreeing to take up a case that could have steep repercussions for 2024. At issue is a legal theory that would give state legislatures complete authority to set the rules for federal elections without supervision by the state courts or state constitutions.

Elie, what do you think the potential impact of that could be, and how could that fundamentally change how America votes?

HONIG: So this is a big deal, Jim. It's flying a little bit under the radar because it's up for next term now. Now, the United States Constitution, our federal constitution says that it's up to state legislatures how they will cast their votes for president and congress.

However, that has always been interpreted to mean state legislatures get to set the ways, but then the state courts can review those methods and if they're unconstitutional, state courts can say sorry state legislatures, can't do it that way. It's unconstitutional.

This case could wind up in a scenario where state legislatures can do whatever they want, constitutional or not, and the state courts have no say. They can't even review it. And so if you think about some of the things we've been learning that Donald Trump and others were trying to pressure state legislatures and state officials to do in 2020, this will make it easier for them to get away with that in 2024.

ACOSTA: And when you say get away with, I mean, what we're talking about here is a super partisan, hyper-partisan state legislature in whichever battleground state, you know what, we don't really believe these election results that have come in, we're going to throw those out, and we're going to send our own electors to the Capitol for January 6th in 2025, that potentially could happen.

HONIG: Exactly. This would make it easier. Hopefully we will have faithful public officials like the Republican Rusty Bowers who we saw testify from Arizona who refused to go along with that kind of nonsense. But yes, Jim, this does make that much more possible.

ACOSTA: All right, Elie Honig. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We'll have to keep an eye on that one.

HONIG: All right, Jim. Yes.

ACOSTA: Coming up, have the January 6th hearings moved the needle with the American people? We'll look back at some key moments coming up.

[17:11:51]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Heading into this Fourth of July weekend, a big question is whether any of the testimony revealed during the January 6th hearings will convince some Trump supporters to declare their independence from the former president. If you missed some of the hearings, let's get you caught up.

There was new footage of the attack on the Capitol and dramatic accounts of what police officers encountered as they battled to defend the peaceful transfer of power.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAROLINE EDWARDS, CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER INJURED ON January 6th: What I saw was just a war scene. It was something like I had seen out of the movies. I couldn't believe my eyes. There were officers on the ground, you know, they were bleeding, they were throwing up. They were, you know, they had -- I mean, I saw friends with blood all over their faces. I was slipping in people's blood.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: For all the cries that these hearings would be a partisan witch hunt, it's worth noting nearly all of the top witnesses have been Republican, including in a few instances members of the Trump family.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was bullshit. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did that affect your perspective about the

election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?

IVANKA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S DAUGHTER: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr. So I accepted what he was saying.

BILL STEPHEN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: : I didn't mind being categorized. There were two groups of men. We called them kind of my team and Rudy's team. I didn't mind being characterized as being part of Team Normal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has, you know, lost contact with -- he's become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: There was the intense pressure Trump and his team put on Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VP MIKE PENCE: As I was dropping off the note, my memory, I remember hearing the word "wimp", either he called him a wimp. I don't remember if he said you are a wimp, you'll be a wimp. "Wimp" is the word I remember.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like you're not tough enough to make the call.

TRUMP: It was a different tone than I'd heard him take with the vice president before.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Something to the effect with the word he's wrong, I made the wrong decision four or five years ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the word that she relates is that the president called the vice president, I apologize for being impolite, but do you remember what she said, your father called him?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The p word.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: According to the testimony, Trump and his team of election deniers ramped up the pressure on Republican state officials.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): At some point did one of them make a comment that they didn't have evidence but they had a lot of theories.

RUSTY BOWERS, ARIZONA HOUSE SPEAKER: That was Mr. Giuliani.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what exactly did he say and how'd that come up?

BOWERS: My recollection he said we've got lots of theories. We just don't have the evidence, and I don't know if that was a gaffe, or maybe he didn't think through what he said, but both myself and others in my group, the three in my group and my counsel both remembered that specifically and afterwards we kind of laughed about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Justice Department officials told the committee Trump tried to pressure them as well, revealing their own notes of alarming orders from the president to declare the election corrupt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): The president said just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen. So Mr. Donoghue, that's a direct quote from President Trump, correct?

RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: That's an exact quote from the president, yes. Early on, the president said what do I have to lose, and it was actually a good opening because I said, Mr. President, you have a great deal to lose.

You're going to lose your entire department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you, your entire department of leadership will walk out within hours.

[17:19:52]

DONOGHUE: You could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Then there was the bombshell testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, the top aide to Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows. She revealed how Trump said he didn't care whether Trump supporters had weapons at his rally on January 6.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: (INAUDIBLE) I was part of a conversation, I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, I don't care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here, let the people in, take the effing mags away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And she revealed how other aides like White House counsel Pat Cipollone were well aware of the danger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning, and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don't go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Time and again, all of these Trump loyalists and lifelong Republicans pointed the finger at him, at Trump. The revelations raise a key question for Trump's followers who still believe he did nothing wrong.

How large can his bogus conspiracy theories get? How big can they get before they collapse under their own weight?

When the hearings resume in July, the committee will make its closing arguments and present more evidence, but it's hard to deny what already has been presented to the American people. Why are so many conservative Republicans pointing the finger at Trump. It's a reminder the truth is not partisan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: Tonight I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone but your dishonor will remain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: CNN senior political analyst and senior editor for "The Atlantic" Ron Brownstein joins me now to discuss. Ron, I guess we needed to go down memory lane.

Just in case anybody missed any of this.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: What a recap.

ACOSTA: And yes, absolutely. It's hard to believe we witnessed all of this, but we did, and we heard some explosive testimony during this week's surprise hearing by the committee.

Do you think this is the moment that the Republican Party declares independence from Donald Trump?

BROWNSTEIN: Not as an institution, right? I mean, the reality is that Donald Trump's share of the Republican Party, probably two-thirds to three-quarters of the voters view him as their battering ram and their voice against a changing America. He expresses the alienation and hostility they feel about so many of the ways America is changing that I don't see them abandoning him.

And you have Republican-elected officials making the calculation that they can't -- that they can't abandon him because so much of the base is with him. But that's not to say, Jim, that this has no effect. I mean, I think both in terms of internal Republican politics for 2024, it is going to make it easier for other candidates to build support for a possible campaign with donors and activists who are -- who will be worried about whether Trump can win.

And I also think that even if it doesn't crater his support, I think it is highly likely that it takes a bite out of his potential support if he is the Republican nominee in 2024.

There will be voters, I am pretty confident, who will look at what has been displayed and reveal in the last few weeks and say do we want to entrust this person again with all the powers of the presidency.

ACOSTA: You know, Ron, I remember back in 2016, you know, he had all of these 16 different candidates running against him -- something along those lines. The Republican Party was against him as an institution.

I mean you talk to people inside the RNC, they didn't want him to be the nominee. And so I suppose some of these same forces may gather against him again.

But you know, we've been reporting that Trump is weighing whether he should announce a 2024 run as early as this month. Maybe it will be later on this summer, but do you think this is from the Trump playbook to try to change the conversation. And why do you suppose he's moving up that time line or at least considering it?

BROWNSTEIN: I think he is -- I think the pretty clear indication is he would want to move up the time line to make it tougher for the Justice Department to indict him. I mean the argument would be is that as an active candidate for president, it would be easier for him to betray any eventual indictment as political retaliation, rather than legal fact-finding.

Now, I think Democrats would welcome with open arms a Trump announcement for 2024 before the midterm election because I do think -- you know, if you think of all the headwinds the Democrats are facing in the midterm -- high inflation, low approval for Biden, the gas prices, the grocery prices, anxiety about the endless COVID epidemic, pandemic.

[17:24:48]

BROWNSTEIN: Trump overtly, you know, stepping into the field really does provide them the best opportunity to galvanize their own voters around the idea that if you hand Republicans control of the House and the Senate, you are going to be paving the way for Trump style policies and potentially for a Trump restoration itself, whether or not he actually wins in 2024.

ACOSTA: And voting rights advocates -- we have to talk about this -- are raising the alarm after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving a conservative legal theory. I was talking about it with Elie a few moments ago, that could give state legislatures virtually unchecked power over elections for Congress and the White House. What could this mean for 2024?

I mean we've already seen all of these vulnerabilities in our system exposed in the last election and what happened in the lead up to January 6th. Now we potentially could have more?

BROWNSTEIN: It's a potential nuclear bomb. I mean, I think the Supreme Court in general is underestimating how much their decisions are destabilizing the fundamental cohesion of the country and increasing the centrifugal pressure, the widening divide between red and blue.

I mean you read the story over the weekend about a 10-year-old girl, victim of rape who had to travel outside of the state in Ohio to get an abortion.

I think as these laws diverge, there's just more pressure on the basic cohesion of the country, and if the Supreme Court goes ahead on another party line partisan decision and says that legislatures, state legislatures which this court has already allowed to gerrymander themselves into perpetual majorities regardless of the vote in their state in places like Wisconsin and North Carolina and Texas, you're saying that they can then substitute their opinion for the will of the voters in allocating electoral college vote, not to mention controlling the gerrymandering. The drawing of electoral districts, acting out state Supreme Courts and as well as the state executive branch -- governors, secretaries of state.

I just think that is obviously a recipe for enormous mischief and misbehavior in 2024. But even deeper is just another pressure on the basic bonds holding together the country.

I just don't think blue America, the blue states would stand idly by with an election stolen on those grounds in 2024. I mean, like where is this going, Jim?

ACOSTA: Yes, I mean, it sounds as though the folks who cry "rigged elections" may be trying to rig elections. But I want to play you a clip from Arizona's Republican gubernatorial debate this week. Let's watch.

BROWNSTEIN: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd actually like to ask everybody on this stage if they would agree we had a corrupt stolen election, raise your hand? Did we have -- did we have --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would like to -- I'm not going to play your stunt. Why not get high-tech people that are going to be on the machines that are Republicans. A Democrat, Republican, get supervisors, equal amounts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That happens. We have parties looking over election results.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right. They're doing it now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, they've always --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They have not --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen, I haven't been on a stage with this many women since I've been to a baby shower.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're going to show up and vote in droves. They're going to have to cheat even harder in order to try to win this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can change a psy-op.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why can't we treat human life in the same way that we would treat alien life that we discovered on an alien planet?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The only kind of drag I've ever dressed in is a business suit or construction work clothes. I've never aspired to be Elvis Presley.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: My goodness, Ron. This is what's passing for political discourse out in Arizona.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, look, I mean, here's the situation. If there is one blind spot in the January 6th committee, it's the same blind spot that Biden had in his 2020 campaign. It's that personalizing the threat to democracy in the person of Donald Trump.

Lots of understandable reasons why they're doing that and showing the Republicans who stood up to him. But in fact, what you see on that debate stage is what's happening across the country, which is the lies about the election and policies flowing out of those lies in terms of laws making it harder to vote and laws making it easier for partisan manipulation of the tabulation of the vote and election deniers (INAUDIBLE).

That has spread widely throughout the Republican Party. It's become in many ways an (INAUDIBLE) for participation. Now, there are some states like Georgia and Colorado where Republican primary voters have rejected candidates pushing that big lie about the election. But there are plenty of others -- Minnesota, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania where they are advancing.

And the risk is that in this midterm election when voters are discontented understandably about inflation and, you know, other issues of the pandemic, some of these candidates are going to win without much analysis or understanding of their views, and you will see people who are fundamentally hostile to free and fair elections in control of the 2024 election around the country.

[17:29:48]

BROWNSTEIN: And again, all of this is pointing us toward a bigger crisis potentially than I think we are kind of emotionally adapting to because it is, I think, a mistake to assume that, if parts of red America overtly steal the 2024 election, that the blue states are simply going to say, oh, well, you got us, well played.

I think we are heading potentially for just unpredictable levels of internal strives and strains on our cohesion if this is allowed to go forward.

ACOSTA: All right, Ron Brownstein, let's continue this conversation. It's a vital one for everything that we hold dear in this country. Ron, thank you so much. We appreciate it.

Coming up --

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me, Jim.

ACOSTA: Thank you.

-- a death penalty case that has both Republicans and Democrats claiming the sentence needs to be overturned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:02]

ACOSTA: Now to Oklahoma and the case of a high-profile death row inmate. Richard Glossip, is scheduled to be put to death in September in a murder-for-hire plot that claimed the life of his boss.

Glossip has always maintained his innocence. And there are a lot of people in Oklahoma, Democrats and Republicans, who believe him and are trying to free him from death row.

CNN's Brynn Gingras has more from Oklahoma City.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Oklahoma death row inmate, Richard Glossip, has eaten his last meal three times and each time --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The governor issued a stay.

GINGRAS: -- he's been spared execution over various legal challenges. But a fourth execution date is now set for as soon as September 22nd.

STATE REP. KEVIN MCDUGLE (R-OK): Somebody needs to fight for Richard.

GINGRAS: Kevin McDugle, a Republican state representative and capital punishment supporter, is going against party lines, trying to save Glossip's life.

MCDUGLE: I will fight to end the death penalty in Oklahoma if they put Richard to death.

GINGRAS: Glossip, a former hotel manager, now 59 years old, has spent 25 years in prison, twice convicted of concocting a murder-for-hire plan in the killing of his boss, Barry Van Treese, in 1997.

Prosecutors say it was another hotel employee who physically killed Van Treese. That man received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony pointing the finger at Glossip.

RICHARD GLOSSIP, OKLAHOMA DEATH ROW INMATE: I want people to know that I didn't kill this man. I didn't participate in the plan. GINGRAS: Don Knight, his attorney, took on the case in 2015, after Glossip had exhausted all chances for an appeal, including one that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

DON KNIGHT, ATTORNEY FOR RICHARD GLOSSIP: I recognized pretty quickly that there were real problems with this case. And it appeared to me quite possibly that Oklahoma was about to execute an innocent man.

GINGRAS: The state of Oklahoma continues to stand by the conviction.

Friday, Knight will file a petition with the state court of appeals, asking for a hearing based on new findings.

It's a Hail Mary, one that comes after the release of an independent investigation bringing to light evidence favoring Glossip's innocents.

KNIGHT: They can say ignore this thing and let's set an execution date for this man, or they can say, you know, boy, there's something here.

GINGRAS: The more than 300-page report done by international law firm Reed Smith points to an inadequate police investigation and states, quote, "Our conclusion is that no reasonable juror hearing the complete record would have convicted Richard Glossip of first-degree murder."

The report found prosecutors intentionally destroyed evidence and uncovered evidence that never went before a jury, calling it, quote, "A complete breakdown in our criminal justice system."

The original lead prosecutor did not respond to CNN's request for comment. Investigators say the attorney general's office did not respond to requests for access to records and evidence.

MCDUGLE: They talked to people who have never been talked to before. They found paperwork that had never been found before.

GINGRAS: The report was commissioned by a bipartisan group of 34 state lawmakers, including 28 Republicans, led by McDugle.

MCDUGLE: If we put an asset manager, that means we can do it again in the future, and so why have the death penalty.

GINGRAS: Oklahoma is second in the country behind Texas for carrying out the most executions.

Since his involvement with the Glossip case, McDugle has filed three bills in the state House to reform capital punishment. None have moved forward.

But there's hope Glossip's case and the report will create change.

MCDUGLE: When you're Republican standing up for somebody that needs to be exonerated, it's difficult because some may call you soft on crime. You may lose your next election based off of it.

But to me, I always go back to this, this is a man's life. GINGRAS (on camera): The attorney general didn't comment on the report to us. And the current district attorney didn't return our calls for comment.

But the fact that this execution date has been set is really a bit of a gut punch for Glossup and his team, including Representative McDugle, because they all say now the clock is ticking.

So that report, the new evidence, along with a request to stay the execution, is now in the hands of the court of appeals. And it will be up to that court to decide if it will listen.

Back to you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[17:39:21]

ACOSTA: Coming up, an urgent warning about sharks off of Cape Cod. Check out this incredible video shot by Billingsgate Charters of a shark lurking in the waters.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Just into CNN, the city of Uvalde, Texas, has confirmed they have received the resignation letter of the embattled school district police chief from the city council.

Pete Arredondo has faced mounting criticism amid revelations that officers waited in the school's hallways for 80 minutes before they breached the classroom door and confronted the gunman.

Nineteen children and two teachers were killed. And relatives of the victims said they believe some lives could have been saved had officers acted sooner.

Meanwhile, tourists on Cape Cod are being warned sharks are in the water.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Holy smokes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, there it is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That thing is huge, dude.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's like 15 feet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: This incredible video coming to us from Billingsgate Charters and captain Dave Stamattis (ph), from off of Cape Cod. Multiple great white sharks have been spotted there.

And researchers from Atlantic White Shark Conservancy warned they will be, quote, "a constant presence on the east coast from now until the fall."

Earlier today, I spoke to Jeff Corwin, a renowned biologist and host of the new show "Wildlife Nation with Jeff Corwin."

Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF CORWIN, BIOLOGIST & CONSERVATIONIST & HOST, "WILDLIFE NATION WITH JEFF CORWIN": I've had a number of times getting ready to go into the water where a shark has been right in that location. I've marked sharks and I've seen them in the water.

[17:44:59]

I actually have an app I can follow sharks. We have over 200 white sharks that have transmitters on them. And when they go under water, they go past these receivers, these transponders, so we can actually get a visual data point of where these creatures are all the time.

It's June when they start arriving to the waters of New England. They'll be here through October. And they're here to feast on this incredible Cape Cod buffet of unlimited seals and other creatures for them to eat.

Very rarely -- I don't let it stop me --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: I was going to say, we don't want to be part of the buffet.

CORWIN: We don't, Jim. And I promise you, if I ever take you out there scuba diving for lobsters, I feel very confident I will not be bitten by a shark.

Because I know I can't out-swim that shark. But as long as I can out- swim you, Jim, I will be fine.

(LAUGHTER)

CORWIN: I'm only joking.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: That's not going to be a problem. Yes. Well, I was going to say, I'll be watching from the boat, Jeff.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And our thanks again to Jeff Corwin for joining us.

If you don't have plans for the Fourth of July, CNN has got you covered with a concert special featuring everyone from Def Leppard to Santana, Avril Lavigne and our next guest, the lead singer of Third Eye Blind. There he is.

We're going to get a preview coming up next. Third Eye Blind in the house, coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:51:00]

ACOSTA: The nation's birthday is just two days away. CNN is hosting a big party. "THE FOURTH IN AMERICA" starts Monday night at 7:00 and features coast-to-coast fireworks displays and musical performances from Gloria Stephan, Avril Lavigne and Third Eye Blind."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: I feel like I'm back in the '90s and 2000s. It's a good place to be.

Stephan Jenkins of Third Eye Blind joins me now from Milwaukee.

Stephan, great to have you on. We appreciate it.

STEPHAN JENKINS, LEAD SINGER, THIRD EYE BLIND: Thank, Jim. I like you.

ACOSTA: I like you.

JENKINS: I like you because you actually ask questions.

(LAUGHTER)

JENKINS: But I'm right here. I'm not in the '90s. I'm right here, right now. This moment is now, my friend. Right now.

ACOSTA: Well, tell me

JENKINS: I just heard your last segment talking about sharks. It's like such a perfect -- it's such that I think for like, sharks for Fourth of July.

Sharks are something we need to protect. I'm a surfer. Right now, our oceans are under attack by the Supreme Court of the United States. They have a six-person majority.

They undid protections for the EPA, which is the Environmental Protection Agency, something set up under Republicans, strengthened by Nixon, to keep our environment safe.

The biggest threat to our environment is carbon. They undid the protections not because of precedent but because they could. The oceans are the thing that protects our environment. Carbon effects

oceans. Sharks are part of healthy oceans.

I want to see people look at the oceans as something that we protect and not something that we fear. Just my opinion there.

ACOSTA: Stephan, I'm glad you brought it up. You're right. As we go out and go on vacation this summer, we have to be thankful for this beautiful world that we have. Our national parks, ocean, everything around us.

Let me ask you --

JENKINS: Absolutely.

Can I respond to that?

ACOSTA: Please.

JENKINS: We can be mindful but we can also take action. We can take action. On this tour, we're taking actual action. We're taking all the carbon footprint that we have. I can see our big semi-trucks and the tour buses and also the fans that drive to and from our concerts.

We're taking their carbon footprint and we're putting that into sequestering carbon through kelp trees and we're saving an entire kelp reef off the California coast that seeks to sequester the carbon that we put out into the atmosphere making it even.

You can figure out your own ways to do that. But the biggest way you can do it is vote. And it doesn't matter, doesn't matter if you are on the left or you are on the right.

ACOSTA: Yes.

JENKINS: Vote for climate action. That's what you can do. Be thankful all you want but figure out how you, individually, can take action.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: No, no. You're absolutely right. I'm so glad you're bringing this up.

I was talking to my teenage daughter about this. The one thing she cares about and wanted to ask me about was the Supreme Court and what it was doing with the EPA. This is something young people care about.

JENKINS: This is not just a change in judicial philosophy. This is an actual big government overreach where a court is legislating. It's a very, very dangerous thing.

[17:55:02]

And your daughter and everybody's daughter should be concerned about all kinds of rights, including climate. That's for sure.

Can I tell your daughter why I like your dad? I'm going to tell you why. I like you because you actually ask the question.

And the press, right now, this is a very dangerous time in this society. And if the producers are watching this, you guys need to stand by each other.

When you're in that White House press office and somebody gives you a bullshit answer, you need to stand up for each other, you need to say, you know what, I'm going to let go of my question and you need to answer this one.

In Europe, when you watch people talking to the press, the press stands up for each other and say, you have to answer the question.

(CROSSTALK)

JENKINS: It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican. You have to answer the question.

And you and the press have got to do your job. You have to do a better job of saying, the question I asked is the one that you have to answer. You do that and you're going to make things better.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: Amen, my brother.

Stephan Jenkins, thank you so much. Love the music and love the message this Fourth of July weekend.

Thank you so much.

CNN's concert special, "THE FOURTH IN AMERICA," airs Monday at 7:00 p.m.

That's the news. Reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta, along with Third Eye Blind.

Phil Mattingly takes the NEWSROOM over live after a quick break.

Have a good night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)