Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Former WH Counsel Cipollone Testifies Before Jan 6 Committee For Nearly Eight Hours; North Dakota's Sole Abortion Clinic Sues To Block State's Trigger Law; Grieving Highland Park Community Comes Together To Honor Victims; San Antonio Jewish Federation Urges Synagogues And Organizations To Cancel Events Based On FBI Warning; Report: Man Suspected Of Killing Former PM Made Multiple Types Of Guns With Lead Pipes; Elon Musk Abandons Twitter Deal, Company Promises To Sue. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired July 09, 2022 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:00:27]
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Phil Mattingly in Washington, in today for Jim Acosta.
The January 6th Committee securing nearly eight hours of testimony from one of the few people who witnessed Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election from beginning to end. Now, multiple sources saying Friday's testimony from former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone is, quote, "very important and extremely helpful". Some of it could even be featured in Tuesday's public hearing.
Here's why the January 6th Committee pushed so hard to question Cipollone under oath. According to sworn testimony from previous hearings, Cipollone was in the Oval Office on January 3rd hoping to shoot down Trump's plan to replace the acting attorney general with an election denying DOJ lawyer.
Cipollone repeatedly warned about the legal pitfalls of Trump going to the Capitol with his supporters. On January 6th, two sources say he was with Trump watching the riot unfold on television. He demanded that chief of staff Mark Meadows intervene. And the next day the White House counsel told Trump to call for the prosecution of the rioters.
Trump, of course, never did that, still referring to them as, quote, "peaceful". CNN's Ryan Nobles is on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Pat Cipollone may be the most important witness that has come before the January 6th Select Committee up until this point, and he spent a lot of time with the committee on Friday, gave testimony for more than seven hours. And according to committee sources, they asked him a lot of very specific questions about his view of how the former president conducted himself on January 6th and the decisions that were made on that day, including Trump's desire to go to the Capitol on January 6th.
Now, sources close to Cipollone do say that he was cooperative, but they do take issue with some of the characterization by the committee. Zoe Lofgren who was a member of the committee said that he didn't contradict anything that previous witnesses have said. That would include Cassidy Hutchinson.
And sources close to Cipollone specifically say that he was ever asked about one key detail that Cassidy Hutchinson provided, and that was that Cipollone warned members of the Trump administration including specifically her that if they went to the Capitol on January 6th, that if Trump went to the Capitol on January 6th, that there could be legal consequences.
They say that he was never asked about that. And if he had been asked about it, he would have said that that conversation never took place. Now regardless, the committee points out that no one has refuted a single thing that Cassidy Hutchinson has said under oath. And they believe that's important.
And they also believe it's more important the general information that Cipollone provided to them in this lengthy deposition. They say that we will see much of it in the coming days ahead.
Of course, the committee does have a hearing scheduled for next Tuesday. There are more hearings planned for the future. So there is a lot more that we're going to hear from Pat Cipollone after this lengthy testimony that took place on Friday.
Ryan Nobles, CNN on Capitol Hill.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTINGLY: And joining me now, former 2020 Trump campaign director of strategic communications, Marc Lotter. Marc, thanks so much for coming in.
MARC LOTTER, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS: Thanks for having me.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTINGLY: It's good to see you again.
Pat Cipollone is one of just a handful of people that was very much seeing everything firsthand look on that day, January 6 and the lead up to it.
Do you think eight hours behind closed doors under oath with Pat Cipollone is something that should concern the former president at this point?
LOTTER: I'm not sure if it will concern him. I think he's obviously got the ability to corroborate or to refute various aspects of things that might have been told. He's also the lead lawyer for the White House, for the presidency. And I know that's something that he takes very seriously.
And so, you know, he will -- there will be areas of things he probably can't discuss because of that advice. But the one thing that really concerns me and I've seen it read, and I think it was referred to in the report you just had is that some of the questions didn't -- weren't even about refuting things that had been said in public. The "New York Times" is also reporting that he wasn't asked about Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony to refute that, when he was directly referenced by that.
And so there's some things right now that already we're starting to see, ok, you know, are we trying to continue a narrative that's already been baked, or are we actually trying to find out what actually happened. Because it would seem to me if you had him in there for eight hours, you'd have at least asked him about the testimony that was just shown a week or two prior.
MATTINGLY: Yes. And it will be interesting to see what the committee plays from what happened behind closed doors in the days or weeks ahead.
[17:04:50]
MATTINGLY: But I guess that actually brings the question, you know, in terms of what Cassidy Hutchinson testified to firsthand knowledge, versus secondhand knowledge, which are two different things that I think were clarified during that hearing itself. What, based on the firsthand knowledge that she testified to, do you believe is in question right now?
LOTTER: Well, I think some of the things that she overheard. And you know, one of the things I would even ask is -- ok, is the committee going to bring the Secret Service agents in to corroborate or to refute, you know, those stories and they've obviously been reportedly willing to do that, but we haven't seen that happen.
And so just little things like this is being used to undermine the credibility when they're not even asking that follow-up question. And I think that's something when we start to see these committee hearings continue to play out, are we just filling in the blanks of a pre- written script, or are we actually seeing where the evidence goes and where it leads?
MATTINGLY: What's your -- what's the pre-written script here to some degree? Like whether or not Cassidy Hutchinson overheard a specific story being told secondhand by Secret Service agents does not necessarily get to the core of what actually happened on January 6th, what the president was doing on January 6th, which has been corroborated both by Cassidy Hutchinson but also by people like Bill Barr, Ivanka Trump, siding with Bill Barr, many people around the president in the lead up to January 6th, at a very different place than the president was.
What do you think --
LOTTER: I think more about the conclusion, about where things are going at the end. I mean I've even, I think it was referenced again in the New York Times story that they're trying to figure out where this testimony from Friday fits into the script for Tuesday's hearings already. I mean if this is a preproduced production, and you're now trying to fit that sound bite or a soundbite into the script, then you have to wonder where are we actually going here? Can you just give us the script and we'll read all the way through the end.
MATTINGLY: Can I ask you, based on what you've seen thus far, and I think the committee's kind of rolled things out in a pretty strategic manner over the course of the last several months, is there anything in particular that either stunned you, shocked you, or moved the needle for you on you perspective of the events that transpired, either in the lead up to January 6th or on January 6th?
LOTTER: Nothing that shocked me. I mean I was as horrified as everyone else, you know, when January 6th occurred. And I draw a very clear distinction. If you were there at the ellipse, if you were there at the rally, you were exercising your First Amendment right whether what you believed was right or wrong, you had a right to be there. If you crossed the police line, if you entered the Capitol, then you committed a crime.
And I think we've got to get back to a time when we're taking these kinds of things seriously, but on all sides of the aisle, whether it's assassination attempts against the Supreme Court justice, attacks on federal office buildings in Portland -- all of these kinds of political extremism, is really a damaging thing for our country on both sides. And I think both sides -- we've got to get to the bottom of it on both sides.
MATTINGLY: And I have no argument broadly, I mean overthrowing the country's government is pretty big deal to some degree, I think when you look at what happened on January 6th and what the effort was, I think one of the things you said nothing really shocked or stunned you.
The idea -- you're from Pence world, you worked for Vice President Pence. The president according to testimony not being upset about people chanting "hang Mike Pence", saying to paraphrase here that he deserved it. That wasn't surprising to you? That wasn't off-putting?
LOTTER: I mean I -- since I was more closely -- and obviously I was not on the vice president's team at the time, obviously since I was close to the vice president's team at them time --
MATTINGLY: Right.
LOTTER: -- but obviously since I was close to the vice president's team, I wasn't surprised. To hear the words, yes, but obviously having, you know, know people who were there, know people who were close to the vice president through all of those times, and to see his commitment to make sure that Congress did its job, that the protest did not win, that the certification of the electoral vote was going to happen as it was scheduled.
It was Mike Pence, the man that I had known for decades now and his family. And so I try to -- I try to kind of closet those things away. You know how they are. You know where they are, and it's in your memory, and when you see it again come out, maybe with the words "shocking" is not what I would say, but obviously to see it is to feel that, because I know the man so well.
MATTINGLY: The committee zeroed in on the Trump campaign's role in coordinating a fake elector scheme to the extent that there was one, and they highlight a statement that Trump put out through his campaign falsely claiming that Pence had agreed to refuse to certify the election.
Were you involved, in your role in the campaign in any of those types of statements or any of those types of conversations?
LOTTER: No. My role with the campaign ended on November 15th, and so I had moved on from then, was watching like everybody else on TV.
MATTINGLY: What's your sense right now? Look, you knew that campaign team. And again, I think one of the hard parts and it's hard to describe this to people as somebody from the Hill but covering the White House, you know, it was so diffuse, there are so many different players and they're dependent on the day who was walking into the Oval Office who the President -- who had the ear of the president.
It wasn't necessarily the normal senior advisers of the White House counsel. It was 24 and 25-year-olds at times. What's your sense -- you knew that campaign, you knew the people on the campaign -- of their willingness to go along with something that very clearly was not reality?
[17:09:52]
LOTTER: Well, and also too, I think it's important. So many of the people had already transitioned out, whether it was at the end of November, or --
(CROSSTALK)
MATTINGLY: Do you think that made it more likely that the people that were left would be willing to do whatever the president said?
LOTTER: And -- no, obviously I know some of them. I don't ever talk -- we don't talk about those kinds of things. You know, some of the folks there, obviously they were very dedicated to getting the president reelected and thought we had done a great job running that campaign up until the votes, you know, finally came in.
But also as you start to see some of the other folks, other names that have been mentioned in these things were being moved over into the campaign, coordinating with the campaign, then obviously, you know, it would make sense that those kinds of actions would happen.
MATTINGLY: Yes, one of the I think hottest topics in town right now if you're a Democrat, it's about whether President Biden's going to run in 2024. if you're a Republican, it's whether or not President Trump is going to run. And there's been a lot of talk and speculation and stories about the possibility he could be announcing soon.
Do you want to see him run again? Do you think he should run again for the Party?
LOTTER: Well, I work for the America First Policy Institute, which is basically the think tank from the Trump administration. And so we're setting the --
MATTINGLY: The policy side of the Trump administration.
LOTTER: -- the policy side the policy.
MATTINGLY: No, no, no. It's an important point to clarify.
(CROSSTALK)
LOTTER: We're preparing the groundwork for whomever because I could -- the one thing I can say, I don't know if the president will run or the former vice president, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley. The one thing I can tell you is whoever is going to run will run on the same policy platforms. And so that's what we're focused on.
And then the voters, whether it's -- you know, whether it's the former president, the vice president, whomever, Ron DeSantis -- they'll have their say in that. We'll have the policies ready to go.
MATTINGLY: But policies aside, nothing you've seen over the course of the last several weeks has made you think, maybe the former president shouldn't run again.
LOTTER: Well, I think that's for the voters to decide. I really -- I firmly believe that, you know, no matter who you are, obviously if you're qualified to run for office, then put your name out there. If you're willing to take that heat, that scrutiny.
And if you've got the best idea and the best message, and you connect with the voters, you'll likely get the nomination. We'll see how that plays out. But I wouldn't predispose to say that we shouldn't have this person or should have that person. I'll leave that to the voters.
MATTINGLY: Yes. There's a lot of people that are eyeing it right now, whether they'll admit it publicly or not.
Marc Lotter, I really appreciate you coming in. Thanks so much for your time.
All right. Coming up, it's been two weeks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade. In North Dakota, the only abortion clinic there is fighting to stay open. We'll speak to the director of that clinic coming up next.
You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
[17:12:15]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTINGLY: Abortion rights advocates are making their voices heard. Protesters gathered in Washington today demanding more action be taken after the overturning of Roe versus Wade. Activists marched to the White House where some tied themselves to gates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Whose house? Our house.
Whose house? Our house.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: That protest comes just a day after President Biden issued an executive order aimed at protecting abortion rights. With abortion laws varying state by state, one clinic in North Dakota is suing to block a trigger law there that would ban almost all abortions except in rare cases. It's set to go into effect on July 28th.
Joining me now is Tammi Kromenaker, the director of the clinic fighting that trigger ban.
Tammi, your clinic was the last place for people in North Dakota to seek abortion care. I guess to start off, can you share the status of the clinic right now? What has changed, if anything, since the Supreme Court decision?
TAMMI KROMENAKER, DIRECTOR, RED RIVER WOMEN'S CLINIC: Well, nothing's changed. We continue to provide abortions for patients who need them from North Dakota, South Dakota, and Northwestern Minnesota. And we are committed to continue to provide abortions as long as we legally can in our state.
MATTINGLY: And what happens, you know, if the trigger law goes into effect, what happens to the clinic? What happens, I guess, in particular to the patients who are either scheduled to seek care there or would want to seek care there in the future?
KROMENAKER: Well, we filed a lawsuit to try to get us some more time, but we were very fortunate that we are right next door to the politically-protected state of Minnesota, and so we have secured a space over the river in Morehead, Minnesota because we want the patients that we have served for the last 20 years to still have access to abortion in their region.
Those patients in South Dakota where abortion is already illegal, they've already called us and said will I be prosecuted for leaving my state? Is it ok for me to come there? And then when it does become illegal in North Dakota, those patients will face those same fears. We had a patient just last week say -- asking if she was going to be retroactively prosecuted for receiving that health care today.
So there's a lot of fear and confusion. Patients already think it's illegal. They're already calling us asking, you know, if they're going to get in trouble. Can they cross state lines. It's just -- it's a really sad situation. MATTINGLY: You know, you mentioned the confusion, and I think that's
been one of the under-appreciated elements of this. It wasn't just a decision that completely changed everything with 50 different states. There's a patchwork of different laws here, different times when laws are going into effect, what people can and can't do, what different state legislatures are targeting and not.
And to your point, you said there were a lot of confusion -- part of the reason President Biden issued an executive order yesterday, the idea that it would be to protect access to medication abortion, emergency contraceptives but also once again reiterate that the Justice Department would be looking to protect anybody who's trying to travel.
I guess I would start with this. Do you feel like enough is being done, particularly on the issue of travel right now, which the administration has made one of their kind of primary points of things that they can do to reassure individuals who want to travel.
KROMENAKER: I don't know. I think time's going to tell. We already have patients who have come to us from Minnesota and South Dakota always over the last 20 years.
[17:19:52]
KROMENAKER: But you've got state legislatures, you know, North Dakota has a legislature where they have a super majority of conservatives.
And so as we've seen the Supreme Court has turned this back to states, and it's going to take legal wrangling, and it's going to create even more confusion for these patients and even for providers.
We've heard from other physicians in North Dakota asking what does the ruling mean for them? How do they care for patients.
And we had a patient who was past our gestational limit recently, and we were scrambling to find her a place where she could receive abortion care and she expressed the same concern. Will I be ok? Will someone be tracking me.
And so it's frustrating, and I think with this patchwork right now, there's so much just kind of unknown for everybody that even though things seem to be happening, it doesn't seem like it's reality for the patients on the ground.
MATTINGLY: Can I ask you, you know, you mentioned Minnesota and its role compared to North Dakota or neighboring South Dakota. You know, conservatives who support the overturning of Roe versus Wade or this decision, specifically say look, this is a great example. States have their own ways of doing things.
It's up to the states, and you can get an abortion in Minnesota if you want to, if you -- obviously the travel issue is a primary issue right now, but why is that not a workable concept to you as you look at this issue. KROMENAKER: Well, if you look at a map, you know, Minnesota is going
to become an island and surrounded by states where abortion is illegal. It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be patchwork. Yes, Minnesota's politically protected. And yes, it's in their constitution, but you've got Minnesota legislators saying they want to make it illegal in Minnesota. Things can change at any point.
And what this really does, is it leaves those people who are in western North Dakota, who already have difficulty getting to our clinic in Fargo. Black, indigenous, people of color -- we serve a large indigenous population in North and South Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.
Patients shouldn't have to leave their state to receive this basic health care. And it could change at any time.
MATTINGLY: You know, you mentioned this and I just want to kind of go back to it, the neighboring state of South Dakota was one of the states where the trigger laws immediately banned abortions. Do you have -- what kind of numbers are you seeing in terms of patients coming from South Dakota in this window before your ban may be implemented, traveling perhaps from other states in the wake of the decision?
KROMENAKER: Well, we've always served patients from South Dakota, but for a time during COVID, the clinic there wasn't able to see people because of their doctors having difficulty traveling there.
We did have a patient from Sioux Falls, South Dakota just this last week, and that's where the clinic was. But we've also been seeing patients from actually the Twin Cities metro area where abortion is still legal but because of staffing shortages, the clinics there even before Roe v Wade was overturned were having difficulty keeping up with the demand.
So I don't think that we've quite yet seen people from other states further away starting to travel to Minnesota. Some people haven't missed periods. Some people haven't taken a pregnancy test and known they have to face this decision, but we've always served patients from the Dakotas.
But from even further away, we had patients from far western South Dakota traveling to see us recently. And it's, you know, an eight-hour drive for many of these patients one way just to get to Fargo.
MATTINGLY: Yes, there's certainly a lot of confusion. That is one thing that is very clear still in this moment.
Tammi Kromenaker, I really appreciate you taking the time, thanks so much. :
And this just in to CNN. The Jewish Federation of San Antonio urging synagogues and community centers to cancel all events after receiving a warning from the FBI about a potential threat.
More details on that coming up next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. [17:24:05]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTINGLY: We're learning new details about the Highland Park shooter who killed seven people and injured dozens at a July 4th parade. CNN investigation reveals police made frequent visits to the shooter's home in recent years over domestic disputes. During one visit in 2019 police confiscated more than a dozen knives after the then 18-year-old threatened to, quote, "kill everyone". Just three months later, the shooter's father signed his son's application for a firearms owner's ID card. That enabled his son to get a permit to purchase multiple guns before he turned 21 last year.
Today the Highland Park community is gathering for a rally to honor the victims of the attack.
CNN's Camila Bernal is there. And you know, what are you hearing from people there on the ground?
CAMILA BERNAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Phil. So first of all, I'm just going to keep my voice a little bit lower to be respectful of the moment. And look, there are dozens and dozens of people here, members of this community who have told me that they're here to honor and remember the lives lost but also to take back their community.
That was the exact wording I got from one of the residents here. She says she wants to remember her community in a different way, not the way it was on the Fourth of July.
I mean, she says she was at the parade with her toddler and her husband. Her husband ran with her toddler while she stayed behind trying to help the elderly people who couldn't run.
[17:30:00]
BERNAL: And what she told me when I asked her about healing, she said she didn't want to talk about healing. She told me, look, I'm not healing. I'm evolving.
She says the injury doesn't go away. But instead, when she talked about evolving, she says she now wants to be a lot more outspoken about gun violence and everything that that causes.
So it's a lot of people here who are dealing with this differently.
This memorial and rally just began. We had eight moments of silence. Seven for the victims, the people who were killed on the Fourth of July, and then another one for those that were injured or traumatized or have been affected by this overall.
Which when you talk to the people here, pretty much everyone tells you that they feel affected by this. And they deal with it in a different way.
I talked to a business owner, who owns seven different stores right in the area where that shooting happened. Her stores are all closed. She's expecting to go back there tonight.
But she also says she goes through so many emotions. Here's what she told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALY PEDOWITZ, HIGHLAND PARK BUSINESS OWNER: You go through these waves where you're like numb for a little bit, and you're just -- and then you get angry, and then you feel guilty. Ad then overwhelming sadness, and then you go back to feeling numb, and like this isn't what happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERNAL: And of course, people here just are demanding change. They want to see action because they have had enough.
They saw it in their neighborhood. And even though they did not expect it, they say that this could happen anywhere, and they want to prevent it -- Phil?
MATTINGLY: Camila Bernal, thank you for bringing us that reporting. Very important message.
Just into CNN, a potential threat has the Jewish community in San Antonio on high alert right now. The FBI is investigating a potential threat against an unidentified Texas synagogue.
The Jewish Federation of San Antonio has urged all formal Jewish gatherings be suspended until further notice.
CNN's Nadia Romero is tracking this for us.
Nadia, it's a very unsettling moment. What do we know about this threat and the security precautions that are being implemented?
NADIA ROMERO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Phil, we just got an update from the Jewish Federation of San Antonio. They say they just heard from the FBI telling them that there's no known imminent threat for the San Antonio Jewish community as of right now.
We do know that the FBI is working with local authorities to really look into the credibility of this potential threat that was made, as you mentioned, against an unidentified Jewish synagogue.
This would be the time where you would see a lot of Jewish people gathering in the synagogue because of Shabbat services that happened on Friday evening and Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon.
Those services canceled at Temple Bethel in San Antonio online and in person, likely out of an abundance of precaution.
And we also heard from the Anti-Defamation League, who has been working for many years to fight against these attacks.
I want to show you what they said. "The ADL has been in close contact with federal, state, and local law enforcement in Texas for more than 72 hours, a series of threats targeting a Texas synagogue."
"In the past 24 hours, we received notice of a more specific and credible threat. We will continue to closely monitor and share relevant updates with all our Jewish communal partners".
We also heard from the FBI director himself. Christopher Wray was interviewed on Friday, just a few days ago, and had this to say about growing potential threats and attacks against the Jewish community.
Take a listen.
Well, what he said in that was that there are growing threats and that the FBI was working to do more against those attacks to stop them from happening.
Following the mass shooting that happened in Buffalo, New York -- you remember then black Americans were targeted in a grocery store. We saw the U.S. House of Representatives passing a bill to combat domestic terrorism, but Senate Republicans then blocked that bill.
And, Phil, it was just last month that the Biden administration, the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland coming out saying they were going to have new initiatives to fight domestic terrorism.
We are seeing lawmakers work on that. But the threat to these communities continues -- Phil?
MATTINGLY: Yes, it certainly does. And so no imminent threat. Very clearly still a threat being considered right now.
What are local and federal authorities trying to do at this moment to try and get a better handle on whatever it is they're dealing with right now?
ROMERO: They're looking at all their factors that could be coming in. Was this threat made on social media? Is it a credible threat? Specifically, what synagogue was targeted?
And that's why you saw people in those communities canceling their services because this would be a time when they would all get together for these Shabbat services for prayer. This is a very important moment and a very important day in the week.
And so this is a time for all authorities to really figure out if this was a credible threat and where it came from -- Phil?
MATTINGLY: Yes, no question about it.
Nadia Romero, thanks so much for the reporting.
I want to bring in Joel Mosbacher, senior rabbi of New York City's Temple Shaaray Tefila.
Rabbi, first, what's your message to the Jewish people of San Antonio right now who without question must be pretty unsettled?
[17:35:07]
JOEL MOSBACHER, SENIOR RABBI, TEMPLE SHAARAY TEFILA: Well, thank you, Phil, for having me.
And I was relieved to hear there's no specific threat. And we pray, of course, for our brothers and sisters in San Antonio that this turns out to be nothing more than a very scary threat. Our hearts are with them.
And unfortunately we, Jews, are all too familiar with these kinds of threats through our history and unfortunately in our modern day here in America. So my thoughts and prayers are with them.
And the reality is that threats like these to the Jewish communities are threats to minority communities across this country and threats to freedom of religion in general in our nation.
MATTINGLY: Can I ask you about the first point? You know, it's obviously over the history of the faith, it's always been a reality.
But this moment, in particular, over the course of the last several years, the threat has become more acute, more numerous.
Is this just dealing with added security measures, dealing with threats coming in? Is this just the sad reality now? What is your sense of what can be done to try and shift this dynamic?
MOSBACHER: Unfortunately, issues like these and anti-Semitic attacks that we thought were perhaps in the past, we've seen all too real, are a part of modern Jewish life and a part of the modern Jewish experience. So we raise our security profile, of course.
We also seek to build bridges across lines of difference because the Jewish community doesn't have to be alone and isn't alone in moments like this in America. And we are lucky for that.
But we need to combat hate in all of its forms. And today, we're feeling it as a Jewish community in particular.
MATTINGLY: My colleague, Nadia, referenced the FBI director who told our colleague, Evan Perez, that they're seeing an increase of threats against the Jewish community.
What's your sense of what's driving it? Why is this happening right now?
MOSBACHER: You know, there's threats to minority communities of all sorts in our nation unfortunately, and the Jewish community is no different in that way.
The rise of white supremacy, that was really hidden in the shadows it seems for a long time, has come to the fore. And the Jewish community has been victims just like many other faith communities.
There's so much, you know, division in our nation. And, unfortunately, we've seen the rise of hatred against all manner of communities in recent years.
And it's very -- very difficult for Jews today. In other times, it's been difficult for other communities. And it seems like it's an increasing phenomenon here in our nation and something that we have to continue to combat.
It's not what it means to be an American. And it needs to stop for us and for all communities as well.
MATTINGLY: How do you address this to the people that you oversee, that you speak to at temple, that you work on their faith with on a weekly basis, on a daily basis, on an hourly basis in some cases.
How do you address this issue specifically?
MOSBACHER: Firstly, I need to listen. People are in pain. And incidents like these raise our fears. And so like a pastor, the pastor that I was raised and trained to be, I start with listening.
And in moments like these, our adults afraid and our kids are afraid and worried about their immediate safety. So we try first to assure them that we're doing everything we need to do and everything we're being advised to do to keep us safe.
We built relationships and connections with, in our case, the NYPD who helps to keep us safe.
So first is making sure that our security stance is safe and that our people feel that they can talk and be honest about how they're feeling.
And then we invest and double down, like I said, in our relationships with other faith communities and with other communities across our city and across our country.
Because we know that we can't stand alone. And we shouldn't stand alone. And there's strength in building those kinds of relationships.
So that we can call upon each other in moments of joy and share each other's joy, and also share each other's pains and stand with each other in moments of challenge and difficulty like this one.
That's really my message to my community whenever these kinds of incidents come up.
MATTINGLY: Yes, can't stand alone, aren't standing alone.
Rabbi Joel Mosbacher, thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it, sir.
MOSBACHER: Thank you. Thank you.
MATTINGLY: All right, coming up, gun violence is extremely rare in Japan. And now investigators are trying to find out what motivated a gunman to assassinate the nation's longest-serving prime minister, and how it was able it to happen in the first place. We have a live report coming up next.
[17:40:00]
Plus, Elon Musk wants out of his deal to buy Twitter. So what happens now? We'll tell you.
You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTINGLY: Developing right now, the private home of Sri Lanka's prime minister has gone up in flames after protesters breached the home and set it on fire. You can see it right there. The prime minister was not inside.
Sri Lanka's president was also not in his official residence when an estimated 100,000 protesters surrounded it earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SHOUTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Those demonstrators stormed the residence after breaking through security corridors. And some even took a dip in the pool while others went inside rooms at the home and hung banners from balconies.
The Sri Lankan people have suffering through the worst crisis in recent history. The president said he'll step down next week. And the prime minister says he's willing to do the same.
[17:45:05]
New details in the shocking assassination of Japan's former prime minister. Police are releasing more information about the handgun allegedly used by the suspect to shoot and kill Shinzo Abe during a campaign speech on Friday.
Japan's national police say they will be reviewing the security arrangements that were put in place ahead of Abe's speech to find out what went wrong.
I want to bring in CNN's Paula Hancocks in Tokyo.
Paula, what are the police saying right now at this point?
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, just to recap what we know about the weapon that the suspect used, police have said that it was a handmade gun. They say it's effectively two iron pipes taped together with black tape.
And then when they went on Friday afternoon to search his apartment, they did find what they called multiple handmade guns. They say that the iron pipes, there were three in some of the devices. There were five pipes, even six used as barrels. They believe, according to public broadcaster, NHK, that all the parts
used in this handmade gun were purchased online. They also believe the suspect used his most powerful weapon to carry out this attack.
When it comes to motive for this assassination, what we've heard so far is that investigators say that he said he had hatred for a certain group, which he believed that Shinzo Abe was affiliated with.
We don't know at this point what that group is or whether or not Abe was affiliated. But that is the closest we have at this point to any kind of motive for Friday's attack.
Now, of course the security detail is in great investigation at this point. The fact that this happened in broad daylight on Friday, 11:30 in the morning.
The prefecture chief says he takes full responsibility and there clearly was something wrong with security -- Phil?
MATTINGLY: No question about that.
I guess one of the biggest questions obviously that's the investigation side of things. But this was also probably the most transformational politician at least in the last 90 years for Japan.
What about Abe's funeral arrangements?
HANCOCKS: So what we're expecting at this point, Abe's office says on Monday they will have a wake, on Tuesday a memorial service, which will be led by his widow in a Tokyo temple believed just to be for family and close friends -- Phil?
MATTINGLY: Paula Hancocks, reporting in Tokyo, thanks so much.
Elon Musk is backing out of his $44 billion promise to buy Twitter. After weeks of back and forth, the world's richest man has notified Twitter he won't be following through with the very high-profile purchase. But Twitter saying not so fast.
Brian Stelter, of CNN, has the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT & CNN HOST, "RELIABLE SOURCES": Elon Musk says this deal is off, but this is the ultimate example of easier said than done.
Musk agreed, in writing, he signed a contract to take over Twitter. That was back several months ago. Market conditions have changed. A lot has changed.
Maybe Musk's point of view about Twitter has changed. And he is now trying to back out of the deal. But Twitter's not going to make it easy for him.
And the stakes are so high here. We're talking about one of the most important communications platforms in the world. Whether you love Twitter, you hate Twitter, somewhere in between, it is an incredibly influential platform.
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, has lots of ideas about how to change the platform. He wanted to loosen up the rules on Twitter, make it what he says is a better place for freedom of expression.
Some politicians, especially Republican politicians in the United States, have been cheering him on. There have been many around the world watching to see what would happen.
Musk now saying he wants out of the deal is a very big deal. It's only the beginning of the process.
Here's what the Twitter board chair is saying about this.
Quote, "The Twitter board is committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon by Mr. Musk and plans to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement."
In other words, show us the money, pay up. You agreed to buy Twitter, Mr. Musk, so we expect you to follow through.
The Twitter board clearly believes it can't get a better offer or a higher bid from elsewhere.
The Twitter board and shareholders are trying to cash out by taking Twitter private and putting it in Musk's hands.
But Musk claims, in a lengthy filing on Friday night, that Twitter has misrepresented itself, has basically misled him about the company.
He has many complaints about the proliferation of spam and bots on the platform. But he had lots of time to look into that before agreeing to buy Twitter.
So that's why this battle is now heading to the courts. And there's going to be a lot of uncertainty about the future of the social network.
Back to you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTINGLY: No question about it.
Brian Stelter, thanks so much.
[17:49:57]
And we'll be right back with an unbelievable shot by NBA superstar, Steph Curry. No, not the kind of shot you're thinking about. That's next live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MATTINGLY: Steph Curry is proving his skills aren't limited to just draining threes on the basketball court. The NBA star pulled out an incredible golf shot from 97 yards out. You are looking at it right now.
Curry was competing in the American Century Championship in Lake Tahoe yesterday.
Second shot, par four, a wedge, struck the green, spun back in, an eagle. I hate people that are good at everything. Despite that insane shot, Curry finished the day tied for 10th place.
[17:55:01]
A quick programing note, a brand-new season of "UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA" with W. Kamau Bell is back.
Here is a preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
W. KAMAU BELL, CNN HOST, "UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA": What is Woke?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know what that means. I can't answer either way.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I feel old just hearing that word. Honestly, I know --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you say you feel old just hearing that word?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am only 16. Yet I don't really understand like some of the slang terms nowadays.
BELL: It is not a word that you are using? I would be shocked if it was.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
BELL: But it's not a word you all are using?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. It is a word used against us. It is a word that, like, I am like I am sorry I am not woke enough to know what non-binary means, or any of that means.
You can use your pronouns. I identify as an attack helicopter. I use its pronouns.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: "UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA" appears tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.
That's going to do it for me. I'm Phil Mattingly in Washington. I will see you back here tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. Eastern.
My good pal, Pamela Brown, takes over the CNN NEWSROOM live after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
