Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Ohio Man Charged in Rape of 10-Year-Old; January 6 Committee Set to Focus on Trump Inaction; Deadly Russian Missile Attack in Ukraine. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 14, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:55]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello. And thank you so much for joining us. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

We start with a developing story out of Ukraine, a horrific attack nowhere near the front line that left at least 22 people dead, including three children. Russian missiles slammed the heart of Vinnytsia in Central Ukraine around midday as the streets were filled with people.

Ukrainian officials describe it as a precision strike aimed at a particular civilian target far from the actual fighting.

CNN's Scott McLean is on site for us.

Scott, walk us through what you are seeing there right now.

SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Sure, Ana.

So I just want to quickly point out to you, this is across the street from one of the blast sites. This is a streetcar that would have been running at the time around 10:00, quarter to 11:00 this morning, when this went off. And all of the windows were blown out.

So let me take you over this way and show you this is the actual building that was hit. This is called the House of Officers. Despite the name, it's actually a concert hall, a really ornate concert hall from the Soviet era. It's quite old, quite historic. And you can see the firefighters are actually still putting water on this.

And it might be difficult to see just against the sky, but there's actually still a bit of steam, a little bit of smoke coming off the building. And now we're nine hours or so later.

So I will take you over this way quickly, and show you, this is an office building right across the street. And you can see maybe nine stories high, and I maybe see two or three windows that are not completely blown out from the force of this blast.

So keep in mind that the air raid sirens went off at about 10:15 in the morning. The actual blast, the two missile strikes were 30 minutes later. And so a lot of people probably perhaps had come out of shelter, perhaps hadn't even gotten into shelter yet. Remember, we're a long way from the front line. So a lot of people weren't expecting it at all.

This sight here, where you can see people have put down flowers and some teddy bears, because, earlier today, there was actually a stroller that was here, a pram, and the foreign minister had put out a picture showing a child's lifeless body there.

I saw the original photo unblurred. And, frankly, I wish that I hadn't of. It's awful. There's still a little bit of blood that you can see on the ground there. And this is, again, a long time. Many hours have passed. They took the stroller while we were here. They put it in a plastic bag as evidence, surely, of what's gone on here.

I want to show you a couple of other things while we have the time, if we can, Ana. So, as I mentioned, there was about 30 minutes or so between when the sirens went off and when the actual missiles, the two of them, came down.

We understand one or two of them were shot down by the air defense systems. But then the other two actually struck in this area. And so I spoke to one gentleman who was right here outside of this building. And you can see those two cash machines, those two ATM machines. He was taking money out when one of the missiles came through.

And he actually sheltered himself on just the cover of this ATM machine. And he said -- sorry. They're just asking you to go back. They have been asking us to move back only lately because they're sort of starting to dismantle the building already.

But, other than that, they have actually given us the run of this entire place, which is odd for -- certainly for any U.S. crime scene like this, but it's very clear that the Ukrainians, they want the world to see this. They want the world to see exactly what's happening here.

Just be careful coming down this hill.

So, the gentleman with the ATM machine, he said that that was probably the only safe space that he could have been in because he was outside of the actual building. He says he's incredibly lucky. He had one small cut on him, but that was it.

[13:05:03]

Clearly, here, what took the brunt of this blast is this part of this building, this blackened part of the building, which obviously caught fire, because, if you can just come over here, this is the site of where the second missile actually hit the ground.

Remember, this is asphalt. This is -- or concrete. It would take a heck of a lot of force to cause a crater like that. You can see just the scarring on the pavement as the shrapnel came over toward this building.

And if I can, Ana, I just want to show you one other thing here at this site. And I apologize. It's very loud because, obviously, they're just trying to dismantle everything.

Earlier on today, there were cars in this parking lot that were completely charred, completely unrecognizable. If it was your car, you certainly wouldn't have known it. This is the epicenter of the other missile strike here on this concert hall.

And you can see, it went right through the roof of the building. It went right through the first floor, right down to the basement, and then surely it would have detonated. And this is the kind of damage that we're left with. And, again, you have to wonder what exactly the target was in a place like this.

CABRERA: Right.

Scott, you are doing an incredible job walking us through there and taking us so close to the destruction and giving our viewers a real sense of the reality of this tragedy. Again, the city is so far from the front line. Hard for anyone to see this coming.

Is there any reason strategically Russia would strike this city?

MCLEAN: I mean, obviously, we don't know where Ukrainian troops were.

But, as you said, we're very far from the front lines, that there wouldn't be a really great military reason to have a large concentration of troops here. This here is a monument to the Ukrainian air force. It looks like it's been here for a few decades. This is the only piece of evidence that I can tell that there was any kind of military anything here.

But, obviously, a statue to the air force I don't think qualifies as a legitimate military target, Ana. This is a city where people took shelter from other parts of the country, from Kyiv when it was seeing fighting, from the eastern part of the country and from the south. They're still obviously seeing a lot of fighting.

And so people have come to places like Vinnytsia, where it is still relatively safe, where life goes on, by and large, as normal, with the exception of those air raid sirens, which, given where we are, so far from the front lines, people just simply do not expect a missile to fall in the central part of the city.

CABRERA: Our hearts are with those people in that city.

Scott McLean, thank you to you and your whole crew for being there for us.

Let's discuss this attack now with CNN military analyst retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.

Colonel, this was a guided missile attack, we're told, by the Ukrainians, on a civilian area away from the eastern front lines. What does all that signify to you?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: So, Ana, what it signifies to me is really the fact that the Russians are going after civilian targets.

Now, to be fair, Vinnytsia is the headquarters of the Ukrainian air force that was struck, as Scott mentioned in his report, earlier in the war, and it was something that was hit at the airport, which is where the air force headquarters is.

But what was it today, because it has a guidance system, this missile has a guidance system, was very clearly a series of civilian targets. And that is something that is just not allowable under the rules of war. And that's what we're dealing with here. It's a very blatant violation of the rules of war.

CABRERA: The Ukrainian president called this an open act of terrorism.

How can Ukraine crane counter these attacks on civilians that are coming from these cruise missiles out at sea?

LEIGHTON: So, this is really difficult on several levels, Ana.

The fact that the missiles are coming out from submarines out at sea in this particular case makes it almost impossible for the Ukrainians to track them. They don't have the capability to track the missiles from a submarine-launched platform. They also have difficulty tracking air-launched cruise missiles, and that compounds the problem that they have.

And, in fact, the systems that are used, even in the United States, for air defense purposes, especially against cruise missiles, are inadequate to the task.

And that's something that's going to be a major deal for not only Ukraine, but for the U.S. and the entire NATO alliance.

CABRERA: Retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you so much for offering us your expertise.

And now to the January 6 investigation. What was he doing? That is the focus of the next hearing former President Trump's inaction over 187 minutes as a crowd of supporters marched and took over the Capitol after his inflammatory speech at the Ellipse.

[13:10:00]

And as the Select Committee works on laying out what it has uncovered, CNN is learning more information about the person cooperating with the committee who Trump apparently tried to contact. Remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: CNN's Ryan Nobles joins us on Capitol Hill.

Ryan, you broke this story. What more do you know about this person and this call?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is someone, Ana, that we're told has unique insight into Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony.

And it was the timing of this phone call and the relationship that this person has with the former president which caused not only this person, their lawyer, but also the January 6 Select Committee, to be concerned about that outreach.

This is an individual that we're told as a member of the White House support staff. So this isn't a politician or someone that was a member of the Trump administration. It was also someone that was not routinely contacted by the former president. So this call came out of the blue.

And he was -- the person, I should say, was concerned when Trump called because the timing of it came shortly after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony, and this person may have been able to corroborate portions of Hutchinson's testimony.

Now, the committee has had conversations with this individual. They have had a level of communication between this person and their attorney, but they have not formally deposed this person. And the chairman, Bennie Thompson, told us yesterday that they don't expect to depose this person or even call them in front of the panel for a public hearing.

But what this shows is that the committee is taking seriously any even potential threat of witness intimidation. There's obviously a lot we don't know about this phone call. But there -- it is clear that the committee is not messing around and they're taking it very seriously, Ana.

CABRERA: Getting back to the call, though, if the person didn't answer Trump's call or didn't respond, has the committee said how they know it was Trump who was calling?

NOBLES: Yes, that's a good point, Ana. They have not.

And, in fact, they didn't even tell us this information about how -- who this person was. That was something that we were able to figure out through our own reporting. So there is a lot we don't know, for instance, how the individual knew that it was the former president that was calling.

Was there some sort of an intermediary ahead of time that gave this person a heads-up? We don't know that. Did the former president leave a voice-mail? That's a possibility. Bennie Thompson told me yesterday not that he was aware of, but that doesn't necessarily rule it out.

So there are a lot of things on the periphery of this that could give us more information into why they were so concerned. But what we do know, Ana, is that the committee has handed this information all over to the Department of Justice. They're the ones who will determine if a crime was committed -- Ana.

CABRERA: Ryan Nobles, thank you for that update and your reporting.

I want to bring in Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsberg now.

Ben, what do you make of those details Ryan just reported, the idea that Trump called somebody he doesn't normally talk to or didn't usually have much interaction with and that it was somebody who could potentially corroborate Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony? What strikes you?

BEN GINSBERG, FORMER BUSH-CHENEY CAMPAIGN ATTORNEY: Strikes me is that's the first step towards a charge of witness tampering if all that checks out.

One thing a principal cannot do is call up and threaten someone who's about to testify. And I use the term threaten even by calling and not using specific words to get them to testify in a certain way. That was a bad judgment call by former President Trump to pick up the phone.

CABRERA: Let's talk about the next hearing, which is expected next week. It's supposed to dive into what then-President Trump did and did not do during the attack itself.

This could be the final hearing. What critical evidence do you hope to see? What hasn't been shown yet?

GINSBERG: Well, the missing link in the testimony is Donald Trump's specific actions while the insurrection was taking place, and communications he may have had with people in groups who organized or were part of or led movement on January 6 into the Capitol.

So it's a combination of those contacts with groups, and then his actions, what he said, who he was talking to as the break-in to the Capitol was occurring.

CABRERA: How high is the bar for the committee in this hearing?

GINSBERG: I think this is, as I said, the missing link in what they need to do.

It is the final chapter to state or show evidence once and for all about the president's precise role in what took place on January 6.

CABRERA: This all goes back to the goal of overturning a fair and free election and the lies about election fraud that fueled those who attacked the Capitol.

And so I want to ask you about this new report you and a group of prominent conservative lawyers did, including retired federal judges. And you went back. You looked at all the legal challenges, all 64 of them that Trump's team filed in the wake of the 2020 election prior to January 6, and you confirmed there was no "there" there, right?

[13:15:13]

GINSBERG: That's right.

We wanted to go back and take a dispassionate look at what was presented in the court cases to see if, in fact, there was any credible evidence of fraud that could have changed the election result. And going back to the six battleground states, there just is no evidence of systematic fraud.

And, Ana, that ties right into Stephen Ayres, the witness in last Tuesday's January 6 hearing, who said, gee, if I had known there was no evidence, no real evidence that the election was stolen, I wouldn't have done that.

And so we, as conservatives and Republicans, look at the 30 percent of the population who don't have faith in election results, believe that is not sustainable in a democracy, and so wanted to say, as conservatives speaking to conservatives, that there just is no evidence there to substantiate that the election was fraudulent or stolen.

CABRERA: The facts are the facts are the facts.

And I want to highlight this quote, just to double down on that, from your report that just came out today. You found -- quote -- "absolutely no evidence of fraud on the magnitude necessary to shift the results in any state, let alone the nation as a whole. In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct."

Why do this now? I mean, it seems like all this time has passed. The lie continues to grow. It feels a little too little too late, no?

GINSBERG: Well, we didn't think so.

We were animated by the 30 percent of the population who still doesn't believe in the elections. We wanted to be really careful and thorough in examining all 64 cases. And so we released the report when it got done. It is clearly still an ongoing issue, when 30 percent of the population says they don't believe in elections, and people like Stephen Ayres come forward and say, well, gee, the reason -- I just didn't realize there was no evidence to support that claim.

So it remains an important statement to make today, especially given the preeminence of the three conservative retired Republican judges, former solicitor general of the United States, two former Republican senators, all of whom had ties to the Republican Party, and even hacks like me.

CABRERA: Do you think the January 6 hearings are changing anything?

GINSBERG: Well, I think they may be.

Certainly, the more evidence that comes out that there was no evidence to back up the claim of a stolen election, then people like the witnesses you heard on Tuesday, I think, are reflective of the country.

And so the hope is that people will actually look at the facts involved and see that there is no evidence to substantiate that the election was stolen.

CABRERA: I do think it's so important to highlight the reality and to provide those details. I'm glad you went into those 64 cases.

Thank you, Ben Ginsberg, for offering your expertise. Thank you for doing the research and coming and sharing it with us.

GINSBERG: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: It's a tragic story that got national attention and some officials flat out called it fake, but, today, a big update on the case of a 10-year-old girl who was raped and forced to travel to another state to get an abortion.

Plus, if you're one of the tens of millions on Social Security, rising prices probably have you on edge, but a bigger check could be on the way. We will have more on that straight ahead in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:23:26]

CABRERA: It's a disturbing case out of Ohio that sparked national outrage in the battle over abortion rights.

Now a 27-year-old man is in custody, charged with raping a 10-year-old girl. This is the girl who traveled to Indiana to get an abortion because there are no exceptions for rape in Ohio. It's also a story that some top officials claimed was a lie.

CNN's Jean Casarez and Jessica Dean are both joining us now.

Jean, let's start with you. There were people doubting the story was even true. And then came this arrest.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right.

And, first, let's establish, in Ohio at this point, you can get an abortion up to six weeks. And the OB-GYN that helped facilitate the procedure in Ohio -- in Indiana is telling CNN that it was six weeks and three days of this young girl.

Well, we now know that it was actually her mother that originally went to the Franklin County, Ohio, Children's Services to report this. That led to a complaint to police. Now let's look at the timeline that has come out from the arraignment yesterday, also from the official legal complaint that has now been filed.

May 12 is when the complaint is stating that the actual rape occurred. June 22 is when police generated a report for the rape of a child. Then, on June 30 is when she went and had a medically induced abortion in Indiana. ' Now, following that, on July 6, law enforcement obtained the victim's DNA, OK? And then she, the victim, actually I.D.ed Fuentes. Then, beyond that, we get to this Tuesday, this last Tuesday. Search warrant was executed to collect Fuentes' DNA.

[13:25:10]

Fuentes was taken to the police station, and Fuentes confessed to raping the victim on at least two occasions.

CABRERA: It's just so sickening, Jean, and yet some Republicans, including at least one sitting member of Congress, tried to cast doubt on this story, some calling it a lie.

So, Jessica, what are these officials, these lawmakers saying now that there's been an arrest?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ana, this is not just any House Republican. This is Jim Jordan, the congressman from Ohio, who is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee over in the House.

And when this was going on, he -- it all started when he retweeted a tweet from the Ohio attorney general, who was saying that they had found no evidence of this case, that he -- there was no whisper of evidence. And you see there that Jordan wrote above it: "Another lie. Anyone surprised?" again insinuating this whole thing was made up.

Our colleague Manu Raju caught up with him earlier today to ask him about this, because he has since deleted the tweet. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Why did you delete the tweet?

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Well, because we learned that this illegal alien did this heinous crime.

So, we deleted the tweet.

RAJU: Do you apologize for the -- to the girl on the family for suggesting it was a lie?

JORDAN: Never doubted the child. I was -- I was responding to a headline from your profession, the news profession, which happens all the time on Twitter.

Doubted Joe Biden, which is usually a smart thing to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Again, Ana, essentially saying that the media and President Joe Biden made this up, that that's what he thought. Of course, we now know there is evidence and that this allegation -- that there is actual evidence in this case, Ana. CABRERA: And, Jean, Indiana's A.G. is now speaking out about the

doctor who helped this girl have an abortion. What's he saying?

CASAREZ: So, this is another layer.

You have got the legal issues, you have got the political issues and now you have this. The attorney general of Indiana and -- I want you to listen to him yourself -- he is saying that there may be an issue in regard to the mandatory reporting that the OB-GYN was -- had to do legally in Indiana, that maybe she didn't comply with the standards. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD ROKITA (R), INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report. So we're gathering the information. We're gathering the evidence as we speak, and we're going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report.

In Indiana, it's a crime for -- to not report -- intentionally not report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: And CNN has reached out to Dr. Caitlin Bernard. She has not responded back to comment.

CABRERA: Jean Casarez and Jessica Dean, thank you both, ladies.

President Biden talks tough on Iran, but will he be just as tough on Saudi Arabia? Anticipation and controversy building just one day before that high-stakes meeting.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:30:00]