Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

A Key Putin Ally's Daughter Killed In Car Bomb; Sen. Lindsey Graham Gets Temporary Reprieve From Testifying; More Legal Peril For Donald Trump On Unsealed Legal Documents; Bungled Alabama Death Row Victim Suffered Long Death; People Evacuated At A National Park In New Mexico; August Gains In The Stock Market; E.coli Outbreak In Four States Linked To Wendy's; Sean Connery's Aston Martin Sold At An Auction. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired August 21, 2022 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington. Twenty-four hours after a brazen car bomb attack in Moscow the world braces for Vladimir Putin's response. Russian authorities have now opened a murder investigation after the daughter of influential Putin ally, Alexander Dugin, was killed when the car she was driving exploded Saturday.

Investigators in Moscow revealing that TNT had been attached to the vehicle under the driver side. One Kremlin official implies Ukraine was behind the bombing. Ukrainian officials have denied that. And CNN senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen is in Moscow with more on this deepening mystery.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): A car engulfed in a massive fireball on a highway outside Moscow. Police say the vehicle exploded and then crashed. The driver dead on the scene. That driver was Darya Dugina, a well-known commentator and supporter of Russia's invasion of Ukraine who was sanctioned by the United States and by the U.K. She was also the daughter of prominent right-wing ideolog Alexander Dugin who promotes Russian expansionism.

According to Russian state media, an explosive device detonated Saturday night setting the vehicle on fire. Russia has opened a criminal investigation. The investigative committee says they believe Dugina was murdered.

"Taking into account the data already obtained, the investigation believes that the crime was pre-planned and of an ordered nature," a statement said. While forensic work continued, the foreign ministry implied that Ukraine may be behind the attack. If the Ukrainian trace is confirmed, foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, wrote on Telegram, "then we should talk about the policy of state terrorism implemented by the Kyiv regime." The Ukrainians deny any involvement. MYKHAILO PODOLIAK, ADVISER TO THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OF UKRAINE (through translation): I emphasize that Ukraine definitely has nothing to do with this because we are not a criminal state, which the Russian federation is. And even more so, we are not a terrorist state.

PLEITGEN (voice-over): But some in Russia believe Darya Dugina wasn't the actual target of the explosion, but rather her father. Alexander Dugin sanctioned by the U.S. remains highly influential in Russia as he calls for the annexation of large parts of Ukraine. An ultra- conservative philosopher and T.V. personality with roots in the Orthodox Church, he's a champion of Russian expansionism, some claiming he may have influenced Vladimir Putin's decision to further invade Ukraine.

In 2014, Dugin said Russia must, quote, "kill, kill and kill the people running Ukraine and that there should be no more discussion." Darya Dugina was 29 years old when she was killed. Russian investigators say they are frantically working to find those responsible.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PLEITGEN (on camera): So, as you can see, Jim, very little in the way of information coming from that investigative committee. One of the things they have said, though, is that they believe that the explosive yield of that improvised explosive device would have been the equivalent of about 400 grams of TNT. They also say that they found parts of that device and they have sent those in for forensic investigation. So far, what we have not heard is anything from Vladimir Putin though. Jim?

ACOSTA: Alright, thanks to Fred Pleitgen for that report. For more on this, I'm joined by former CIA chief of Russia operations, CNN national security analyst Steve Hall. Steve, right now we don't know who is responsible for this attack. There's that stunning footage of a distraught Alexander Dugin at the scene. There's one report his daughter was driving his car. I guess, what is your initial read? Do you think this was an assassination attempt? What do you think is happening?

STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: There's a couple of things here, Jim. I think it's a fair bet that the actual target of this explosive device was not Dugina, it was not the daughter, but was Alexander Dugin himself. Alexander Dugin, of course, is a pseudo political philosopher. He's more of a mouthpiece or ann ideological supporter of the Kremlin. He's essentially a propagandist who does believe that Russia should extend as far as it possibly can to include in Ukraine.

So, in that sense, he is very supportive of Putin. But then that takes us to the sort of the whodunnit piece. And I think it's safe to say that we'll probably never know for sure because, of course, these investigations in Russia will never be made actually public. But what will be done is there will be a lot of propaganda. But if you look at it, it's two different possibilities or two groups of possibilities. The first is an external group. So, Ukraine certainly falls into that

category. You know, they certainly have reason to be upset with the Kremlin. No doubt about that.

[17:04:58]

But the idea that they would mount some sort of paramilitary operation and only go after Dugin, I think if you're going to do a car bomb, you're going to go for somebody that is much closer to Putin and the Kremlin. Undoubtedly, what's going to happen at some point is the Russians are going to say, well, the United States or western allies were involved. You're going to see, you know, dollars on the floor of some safe house or some staged event that the (inaudible) is going to try to do.

But I don't think that the external option is a good one. I think it's much more interesting to look at the internal possibilities. One, is that the (inaudible), these are Putin's, you know, close advisers, may not be happy about how the war is going and may want to let Putin know, but in a not direct fashion.

This will sort of shake things up if they can -- especially if they can say, look, Russians across Russia are unhappy with this war and this is what's going to happen, more of this is going to happen if you don't sort of somehow make the war in Ukraine better. So, I think it's much more likely there's an internal explanation not an external.

ACOSTA: That's fascinating. Alright, we'll have to find out. I see, you know, as this investigation develops. And Steve, in recent days an incredibly volatile situation has developed in Ukraine at Europe's biggest nuclear power plant. We saw this alarming video of Russian military trucks inside a turbine hall just a few hundred feet -- turbine hall from the -- just a few hundred feet from the nuclear reactor. We don't know when this was taken. But, why would they be there and how concerned were you when you saw this video?

HALL: Well, I think anybody who sees, you know, you put Russian and you put Ukraine and you put nuclear stuff together and everybody thinks its Chernobyl. While this might not be quite as bad as Chernobyl, an actual explosion at a nuclear power plant, I mean, things could go very badly very, very quickly.

Why are the Russians there? Any number of reasons. First of all, I think it is a military objective. They would like to control the power and the infrastructure of Ukraine and perhaps redirect it back to Russia. And also, of course, if you put troops in that general area, you're going to make the opposing forces, the Ukrainians, think twice before they actually start firing, you know, high explosives and munitions at a nuclear reactor and they are also able to blame the Ukrainians if something goes wrong. So, I think that's the kind of thing that's going through the Russians' mind right now.

ACOSTA: And there's very little international visibility, I mean, this is a worrisome development into what actually is going on at the Zaporizhzhia plant ever since it was occupied by Russia. Both countries are accusing the other side of escalating the situation and attacking the area. I mean, how realistic is it the fog of war here is going to let -- lead to some kind of disaster there, do you think?

HALL: You know, I think it's possible and that's what the scary thing is. I mean, you know, disasters come in different, you know, sort of calibers, if you will. And you know, the nuclear one is a particularly bad one. There is absolutely no reason, no rational commonsensical reason that the Russian government shouldn't say, yeah, we'll let the IAEA folks in. We'll let other inspectors, international, you know, inspectors in to make sure that things like the electricity is not cut off to the plant, which could cause it to melt down.

So, you know, if they say no to that, then it's more evidence that they are simply, you know, not good actors which has already been pretty well established I think vis-a-vis Ukraine.

ACOSTA: Right. Alright. Well, Steve Hall, thanks as always for those insights. We appreciate it.

HALL: Sure.

ACOSTA: Alright. New today, a federal appeals court says Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't have to comply for now with a subpoena from a Georgia grand jury investigating efforts to pressure officials in the state to change the results of the 2020 election. Graham has acknowledged calling Georgia election officials about the process of counting absentee ballots, but says it was part of his duties as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and that his position in Congress protects him from appearing before the grand jury.

Joining me now to talk about this is CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig. Elie, great to see you. I guess this is a win for Senator Lindsey Graham. What do you think? Do you see it in another way?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jim, it certainly is a temporary win for Lindsey Graham with more to come. The dispute here centers on this sort of obscure provision in the Constitution called the speech and debate clause. It rarely comes up. It basically says that any sitting member of the U.S. Senate or House cannot be forced to answer questions in any other context that have to do with their legislative duties.

And so, the dispute here is, were Lindsey Graham's actions towards the Georgia election somehow related to his job, as you said, as Chair of Judiciary or were they outside that scope? Now, the district court judge, the trial court judge denied Lindsey Graham's motion and said you do have to testify, but didn't really squarely take on the speech and debate question.

So now the Court of Appeals has said, hold up, Lindsey Graham, you do not have to testify this week. Trial court, you have to decide the speech and debate question and then we, as the Court of Appeals, will review that. So, keep in mind though, Jim, this Court of Appeals is the 11th Circuit. It's one of the most conservative circuits in the country. So, there's more to come here, but it is a temporary win for Lindsey Graham. ACOSTA: And Elie, former President Trump is said to be pushing for the

full unredacted release of the affidavit that led to the search warrant for his Mar-a-Lago resort. Is that something that his legal team would actually want to see happen? What do you think?

HONIG: So, we don't know, Jim, but really more than the point, Donald Trump and his legal team don't know because they don't have this document.

[17:10:02]

This is a document that only prosecutors and the judge have seen. It doesn't go over to any suspect or defendant until after there's an indictment. So, clearly, there is some either guess work or sort of showmanship here in this position that we want it outed.

The only thing we know for sure is this is the document that prosecutors used to establish probable cause that federal crimes were committed. We've now seen those three federal crimes, what they are, this violation of the Espionage Act, destruction of government documents and obstruction.

Si, given that you would assume there's not really good news in there for Donald Trump, but perhaps he wants it out there so he can pick it apart. But the key thing to know is he doesn't know what's in it right now.

ACOSTA: No, certainly not. And what do we make of the fact that according to Department of Justice, part of this investigation is about the, quote, "willful retention of national defense information." That one still stands out to me. I mean, does it sound like Trump himself could be the focus of this particular investigation? Does that kind of narrow things down?

HONIG: So, we did learn this week that that was the specific subsection of the Espionage Act that DOJ is looking at. The key word here is willful. Willful means that somebody acted intentionally and with aware -- an awareness that what they were doing was wrong. And so, if you think about it, when you do a search warrant, by the way, you don't specify any particular person.

You don't say we hereby allege that Donald Trump or any individual committed the crime. You say we allege that these crimes were committed. But if you think about who could have had the ability to say, hey, move those documents from the White House down to Florida, have some knowledge of what's in there, then sure. I think, logically, Donald Trump would be the first person you would think of, could be others as well.

ACOSTA: And Elie, what about this latest iteration from Trump world about why he could have these classified documents at Mar-a-Lago? This is what Rudy Giuliani has to say.

(BEGIN VIDE CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP 2020 CAMPAIGN ATTORNEY: And now, they want to make him responsible for having taken classified documents and preserve them. Really, if you look at the Espionage Act, it's not really about taking the documents, it's about destroying them or hiding them or giving them to the enemy.

UNKNOWN: Right.

GUILIANI: It's not about taking them and putting them in a place that's roughly as safe as they were in in the first place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Elie, is it possible to successfully argue that keeping classified documents at Mar-a-Lago is just as safe as the West Wing? We had Stephanie Grisham, the former White House press secretary on yesterday who said, no, this is not a safe place to keep these kinds of documents.

HONIG: It's hard to even know where to begin with that response from Rudy. First of all, obviously, it's not breaking news to say that a private home, a basement in a private home with a padlock on it is not as safe as retaining something in the White House. Rudy is also just wrong on the law here.

Yes, of course it is the sort of ultimate manifestation of that crime to sell documents or give documents to a foreign enemy. But the crime covers much more than that including the taking of the document. It's not a defense to say, well, we stored them in a secure location. You can't take them in the first place. So, Rudy is quite off base here when it comes to the law.

ACOSTA: Alright, Elie Honig, great to see you. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

HONIG: Alright, Jim. Thank you.

ACOSTA: Up next -- thank you. And up next, I asked Trump's acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf if the former president held any responsibility for what happened on January 6th. His answer is next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

ACOSTA: Chad Wolf who served as acting secretary of Homeland Security under President Trump joined me right here live on set last hour. We hit on a number of topics from immigration to the current threats being faced by the FBI in the wake of the dangerous rhetoric following the search at Mar-a-Lago.

Chad Wolf was also questioned by the January 6th Committee and I wanted to know what he thought of President Trump's action at the time during those 187 minutes of inaction on that day of the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ACOSTA: What about Trump not doing anything for 187 minutes while this was going on, failing to make any effort to tell the rioters to leave? What's your response to that?

CHAD WOLF, FORMER ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURIY: Well, I know -- I know the president --

ACOSTA: Was that a dereliction of duty on his part?

WOLF: I don't think so. I know the president talked about wanting to go to the Capitol in a peaceful way. Look, at the time of January 6th, I think I was one of the first cabinet official who is came out and said, look, the president needs to talk about this more. I continue, you know, I believed that at the time, but I think he addressed it. Look, at the end of the day we've got to hold individuals --

ACOSTA: Do you support the way he handled it that day?

WOLF: -- who decided to go to the capitol. Individuals made their own choice when they decided to go to the Capitol and then when they decided to enter the Capitol to make certain decisions and I think you got to hold those individuals accountable. Holding other individuals accountable --

ACOSTA: Trump saying you got to fight like hell, all of those things that he was saying on January 6th. You don't hold him accountable in any way?

WOLF: Well, I think it's also interesting, you know, he mentions peacefully, doing that peacefully, several times during that speech. You didn't mention that. So, I think it's important to keep in context the full flavor of, again, how he was addressing that crowd.

ACOSTA: Let me show you this picture of something from your former Instagram account. This is a picture of you back in September of 2020 working with your cyber security infrastructure, security agency Director Chris Krebs at the time. And it shows you talking about how you were hoping for a secure election in 2020. He has since said obviously, and you know this, that it was a secure and free and fair election. Do you agree with him on that?

WOLF: Well, I certainly --

ACOSTA: And that Joe Biden won the election fair and square?

WOLF: Yes. Well, let me address the photo that you showed. Obviously working with the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency, what we call CISA at the department, their mission is very tailored, which is to make sure that elections are free from any cyber security threats and certainly during 2020 we were focused on foreign threats because of the intel that we had seen at the time.

What DHS does not do, what CISA does not do is talk about election fraud. We don't have that jurisdiction. We don't have those authorities. That's the Department of Justice. And so, I --

ACOSTA: Do you think there was election fraud?

WOLF: I think there's a number of election irregularities, illegalities and fraud and I think that's been widely reported on both the right and the left.

[17:20:01]

ACOSTA: But enough to -- but enough to alter the outcome of the 2020 election? Are you an election denier?

WOLF: I would say any type of fraud, any type of election fraud -- no, no this is important. Any type -- I don't want to just bypass was it a little or a lot, right? Any election fraud should be addressed and I don't think we would say, hey, there's a little fraud so that's okay --

ACOSTA: Who won --

WOLF: -- at the end of the day.

ACOSTA: Who won the 20 -- Chad, let me --

WOLF: I think that's a very, very important.

ACOSTA: I git you. Who won the 2020 election?

WOLF: Obviously Joe Biden is president.

ACOSTA: No, no.

WOLF: I mean, there is -- no, no, I just answered your question.

ACOSTA: But he -- no. But he is the president obviously.

WOLF: He is the president.

ACOSTA: I've seen folks from Trump world parse this out and say, okay, Joe Biden is president. We know that. Okay. That is a matter of fact. Do you believe that he won that election fair and square?

WOLF: I believe -- I just answered the question, first. Let me answer it in two parts. One, Joe Biden is president. Two, a number of irregularities, illegalities and fraud occurred during 2020.

ACOSTA: But not sufficient to throw the election of Joe Biden.

WOLF: Again, I don't -- I don't have all of that evidence. I think there has been a number of reporting --

ACOSTA: You sound like a conspiracy theorist. You sound like an election denier.

WOLF: How is that a conspiracy theorist? Let's look at -- let's look at Wisconsin.

ACOSTA: Chad, you know full well that Joe Biden won the election. You know he won the election.

WOLF: Let's look at Wisconsin. Wisconsin's Supreme Court says that the way they used drop boxes --

ACOSTA: The U.S. Supreme Court did not want to have anything to do with any of these challenges.

WOLF: The way they used drop boxes were illegal in the state of Wisconsin.

ACOSTA: Yes.

WOLF: So, how do you sit there and say that is a conspiracy theory when that happens to be the facts?

ACOSTA: The supreme court wanted nothing to do with anything, any of these challenges.

WOLF: Well, okay. That's fine. That's fine.

ACOSTA: Trump lost over and over and over again. Why not accept that? Why not move on?

WOLF: I have moved on. And so, what we're doing at the America First Policy Institute through our Center for Election Integrity is actually --

ACOSTA: You had Donald Trump speak in your -- you had Donald Trump speak in your organizations --

WOLF: -- talking about a lot of these issues at the state level where we talk about voter I.D., we talk about scrubbing voter rolls (ph). We talk about same day election voting. We -- I -- look, you asked me the question so I'm answering it. If you want to look back to 2020, I'm focused on looking forward. We've got midterms and obviously we have a presidential --

ACOSTA: Should Donald Trump still be out there peddling the election lies that he (inaudible) everyday?

WOLF: I think -- look, I'm happy to continue to answer questions about President Trump, but I think polling every single day --

ACOSTA: Do you think he's lying about the 2020 election?

WOLF: Polling will say both folks on the left and the right do not have confidence in our election system and that's a problem. And I think that's what we should be focused on. How do we solve these problems so that when we have the midterms --

ACOSTA: Our elections are fine.

WOLF: Jim --

ACOSTA: Chad.

WOLF: -- there is fraud in our election system and if people don't acknowledge that, then that becomes part of the problem.

ACOSTA: You are the former acting --

WOLF: Absolutely.

ACOSTA: -- acting secretary of Homeland Security and you're spreading doubt and fear --

WOLF: It's not doubt.

ACOSTA: -- about our election process.

WOLF: These happen to be facts. These are simply facts.

ACOSTA: No. These are alternative facts.

WOLF: Jim. You are saying there's no fraud --

ACOSTA: Joe Biden won the election fair and square.

WOLF: Are you saying there's no fraud in our election system?

ACOSTA: Of course, there are some episodes of fraud.

WOLF: Absolutely and that's what I'm talking about. Let's talk about.

ACOSTA: Bill Barr, the attorney general, said this was BS. Why not accept it? Move on.

WOLF: Jim this is what I'm talking about. There are a number of irregularities, illegalities and fraud when we talk about our election system.

ACOSTA: Not sufficient to alter the outcome of the election. I think it's just simple as that

WOLF: Look, I don't -- I certainly don't know that. I'm not in charge of that, but what I would say if there's -- even if there's a small amount, that is worth coming together and trying to solve that at a national level and at a state level so that we can get past this so that we have some integrity in our elections.

ACOSTA: Well, we need to have integrity, but we also need to have integrity among officials who work in the government and who have left the government who will tell the American people the truth that the election was decided fair and square.

WOLF: And I think we need to have -- we certainly we need to have some integrity by those reporting the news as well. Okay.

ACOSTA: And we do have that integrity, but we expect that of our elected leaders and people who work under them because you can't continue to sow these seeds of doubt about American democracy. It's simply failing the American people to continue to lead them down this path of lies. WOLF: So, it's not lies, Jim. I'm happy to go through everything that

I just said and to go into detail. I think when you deny the facts, when you deny the facts that there has been some amount of fraud -- now, I can't tell you how much. Obvious, there has been some fraud. There have been illegalities. We see it state after state after state. We haven't even talked about Zuckerberg. We haven't even talked about the number of things that occurred --

ACOSTA: But Chad, it sounds like you've watched one too many conspiracy films about the 2020 election.

WOLF: No, I'm actually reading the news.

ACOSTA: That's all the time we have.

WOLF: And reading the facts.

ACOSTA: Alright. That's all the time that we have. Chad Wolf, thank you very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: And coming up, a journalist uncovered signs of a botched execution of an Alabama inmate. She joins us live next. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

ACOSTA: Oklahoma will begin executing death row inmates at a rate of about one a month after the state updated its scheduled execution timetable to put 25 prisoners to death over the next two years. Experts and advocates say Oklahoma has a history of botched and disturbing executions.

In 2014, an Oklahoma inmate writhed and moaned for 43 minutes during his execution by lethal injection before suffering a heart attack. Following that, the state briefly put executions on hold, but restarted them after finding what it called a reliable supply of the drugs used for lethal injection. Last year in the first lethal injection after that pause, the inmate convulsed and vomited as he was put to death by injection.

Now to Alabama where a journalist uncovered signs of a botched execution. In July, Joe Nathan James was killed by a lethal injection for the 1994 murder of Faith Hall, a mother of two he had dated.

[17:30:01]

According to court filings, James stalked and harassed her after their relationship ended and then followed her to a friend's home and shot her three times.

In a new article in "The Atlantic," a deeper look into the execution reveal some disturbing details including a three-hour gap between when James arrived to be executed and his official time of death. And with me now is the author of that article, Elizabeth Bruenig. Elizabeth, thanks so much for the story. It's fascinating.

You were not at James' execution, but you say there were red flags about this from the beginning including that three-hour period. Can you explain what happened leading up to the execution?

ELIZABETH BRUENIG, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Sure. So, during that three-hour delay local reporters on scene were asking the Department of Corrections what's taking so long. Joe Nathan James had been scheduled to be executed at 6:00 p.m., put to death at 6:00 p.m. In reality he was declared dead at 9:27 p.m. that night.

Media witnesses who had come to be present for his 6:00 p.m. execution were kept on vans for almost that entire time waiting to enter the execution witness room where they would observe him being put to death. When they entered the witness room and the curtain went up, I have witnessed other executions before, I just didn't witness Joe Nathan James.

I never heard back from the Alabama Department of Corrections. I contacted them repeatedly in hopes of witnessing Joe Nathan James' execution and had contacted them about Matthew Reeves' execution in January, but I never heard back. When the curtain went up, the witnesses saw a person who they couldn't even confirm was conscious and the execution took less than a minute after that.

ACOSTA: And CNN has reached out to the Department of Corrections and has not heard back, but it wrote to members of the media, I'm sure you saw this, "The Alabama Department of Corrections execution team, strictly followed the established protocol. The protocol states that if the veins are such that intravenous access cannot be provided the team will perform a central line procedure. Fortunately, this was not necessary and with adequate time, intravenous access was established."

You worked to get an independent autopsy of James and you were there. Does that explanation line up with what you saw?

BRUENIG: I'm not even sure what that explanation means. I don't know why they would say a central line could be attempted but that it wasn't necessary. Does that mean they attempted one, or does that mean it wasn't necessary to even attempt one at all? It's an unclear statement. But what I did see on Joe Nathan James' body was not an attempt at a central line, which would have been an I.V. placed in the neck or groin.

What I saw was what doctors have called a cutdown, which is an attempt to reveal a vein visibly by opening up the skin on the inner arm where an I.V. would normally be placed. So, Joe Nathan James had bleeding and bruising, hemorrhaging. The doctors who reviewed the photographs and one who was on scene with me, Dr. (inaudible), referred to it as hemorrhaging here, here, you know, normal places to try to attempt I.V.'s because doctors can typically, or in this case, an execution I.V. team, as the protocol calls them, can see veins.

Those appeared to have failed based on how much bleeding there was and the fact there were multiple of them. They kept going. And then, you know, further up the arm, in the inner arm here, is where it appeared there was a surgical cut made into Joe Nathan James' arm, evidently while he was still awake because he then appeared to, based on the evidence on his body, struggle against the gurney strap which then cut into his arm creating further lacerations that were open and had likely bled.

These were all confirmed to be pre mortem, before death, by a pathologist at the Mayo Clinic who reviewed the photos. So, essentially, Joe Nathan James appeared to have had someone on the execution team perform, you know, kind of surgery on him whim he was awake. They attempted to cut into his arm looking for a vein and then he struggled. Then we suspect, I suspect, he was sedated.

ACOSTA: And in your piece, you write, "In a little green storefront funeral parlor in Birmingham lay the visual record of everything the government can do to you provided that you, like James in his final hours, have no counsel present, no wealth to your name and no contact with the outside world. James, it appeared, suffered a long death." Did he not ask to have his counsel present? What about that?

BRUENIG: So, in his final hours, Joe Nathan James, was acting pro se, he was representing himself in several until before federal courts. His counsel had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. He had contacted Joe Nathan James during that final day of his life, in fact, to talk to him about his appeals. But Joe Nathan James asked that his attorney not witness. He didn't have any family present.

[17:34:57]

An interesting point in his case is that the victim's family, the families of Joe Nathan James' victim, Faith Hall (ph), are and have been against this execution. They didn't want it. They campaigned against it from the beginning. The family of the victim, you know, begged the governor and the attorney general, Kay Ivey and Steve Marshall, respectively, not to execute this man.

They weren't present. The execution went on anyway. They are now demanding an apology. But therefore, Joe was alone. He didn't know when he was, you know, given his notification that his execution was scheduled that he had signed up for the botched kind. They don't tell you that ahead of time.

ACOSTA: Wow. Alright. Well, some incredible reporting, Elizabeth. Elizabeth Bruenig, thanks very much for joining us. We appreciate it. Fascinating story.

Coming up, the growing threat of anti-Semitism as part of a new special report. We hear from people held hostage for 11 hours inside of a Texas synagogue. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:00]

ACOSTA: Flash floods triggering an emergency evacuation at a national park in New Mexico. Officials say up to 160 park visitors were stranded for hours at Carlsbad Caverns National Park due to flash flooding. They were eventually rescued, but the park remains closed today. CNN's Nick -- Mike Valerio joins us now with the latest. Mike, a pretty severe situation. Is the flooding threat over?

MIKE VALERIO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. Well, the flooding threat has subsided at this hour. This is certainly the good news. And you know, we've been on the phone here talking to parents and family members who were stuck in these caverns and then are evacuated out orderly to a visitor center and then said that there were some pretty tense moments, Jim.

But this is certainly the good news, that all 160 people who were in this area affected and among the most beautiful caverns in the world were able to get to the visitor's center as these flash floodwaters are raining down in and around state route (inaudible), which, Jim, is really the only way to get in and out of Carlsbad.

And they stayed there for about eight, nine hours. The floodwaters subside, and then a lot of these people come from nearby El Paso. It's about a two, two-and-a-half-hour drive away. And they were able to get back to the safety of their homes by 2:00, 2:30 at night. That is the good news, Jim. But the certainly unsettling part of the storyline, what we're watching here at this hour, there's still a 29-year-old jogger, Jetal Agnihotri, who is missing about 800 miles away in Zion National Park in Utah.

The storyline as far as we know about her, Jim, she was declared missing Friday afternoon, the same flash floodwaters from the same system essentially swept her off of her feet. That's what has been described from people who were on the scene. About several dozen others are also caught in the floodwaters in the Virgin River, and she hasn't been found since.

Other people who were swept away were found. We had a search party yesterday of several dozen people who went up and down the Virgin River looking for her, family members from across the country are now flying in. But still, Jim, we're about two days later, she has not been seen. The desperation, you know, officials who we've been interviewing as part of our coverage are trying to remain optimistic,

But still when you have these ferocious floodwaters that, again, caught people so off guard in this pristine national park, they're just holding out for the best as they try to intensify their efforts now that the weather is improving here in this part of the country, Jim.

ACOSTA: Yes, such a scary situation. Alright, Mike Valerio, thank you very much for that report.

Conspiracies about Jewish people are some of the oldest on the planet. And in 2022 are still some of the most pervasive around the globe even in America. In her new documentary, "Rising Hate: Anti-Semitism in America," Dana Bash looks at how these hateful age-old anti-Semitic tropes can become dangerous and deadly. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNKNOWN: I thought I heard a click, the click of a gun. I went to the back of the room and that's when he pulled the gun on me.

UNKNOWN: And within a few seconds, he got up and started yelling. I've got a bomb.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Jeff Cohen came to pray and became a hostage.

UNKNOWN: My phone was sitting next to me and I quickly dialed 911.

BASH (voice-over): People watching the live stream could hear the gunman.

UNKNOWN: Hostages are surrounding me. And I'm going to die. I'm going to die at the of this, alright?

UNKNOWN: People (inaudible) there to be one individual that is holding people hostage inside Beth Israel Congregation.

BASH (voice-over): The hostage standoff lasted for nearly 11 hours. While FBI special agent in charge Matthew DeSarno's team negotiated with the gunman.

MATTHEW DESARNO, FBI AGENT: He was demanding the release of a convicted Al Qaeda terrorist who was housed nearby.

UNKNOWN: He believed that coming in here and attacking Jews, that the Jews controlled everything, so they would make it happen. Jews control the government, Jews control the banks, Jews control the media. He truly believed this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: And CNN's Dana Bash joins us now. Dana, thank you so much for doing this. It's such an important topic. What was it like sitting down with people who had been held at gunpoint just because of their beliefs?

BASH (on camera): It was tough sitting down with them and sitting down in the same sanctuary where they were held hostage just in January, Jim. You know, we have, unfortunately, become much more familiar with the notion of conspiracy theories and how they really can permeate sectors of society.

And this is a conspiracy theory that has permeated various parts of society for thousands of years, and it's kind of remarkable that it is still around. And you just heard Jeff Cohen who was one of the hostages in Colleyville, Texas talking about why this gunman came in there.

[17:45:03]

It's because he truly believed that Jews controlled the world, controlled the banks. Even asked to speak to a rabbi in New York who he thought was the head rabbi. His goal was to get a convicted terrorist, who was in federal prison nearby in Texas released. And so, this was sort of the goal there.

What was really, really interesting, sad, necessary, but fascinating, I didn't know that this existed, but what the congregants there including the rabbi had done ahead of time, the reason why they were able to escape is because they took some lessons. They took some classes from an organization called the Secure Community Network, and there are others like it, where they go around to synagogues and they explain and they teach them survival skills. What happens if somebody comes in? How do you survive? How do you escape? And they used it successfully.

ACOSTA: It's so unsettling that that kind of information, that kind of, you know, presentation is necessary, but it is absolutely necessary. And, Dana, you talked with experts about this surge in anti-Semitism, but you also explored some of the history of it. Why has it prevailed for so long?

BASH: Well, it's prevailed for so long because in a sense the Jewish people have kind of always been there. The Jews were sent out of the Middle East thousands and thousands of years ago and have kind of hopped around various parts of the globe and in all of these -- most of these times in history and in societies there have been -- there's been a need for a scapegoat, whether it's disease, whether it is the economy turning down, you name it, it has happened.

And Jews, because of these age-old conspiracies that we just talked about, the Jewish people have been, sort of -- it's been easy to blame them. And that has happened in 2021 and 2022 going back to those old conspiracies about disease.

Some of the spike in anti-Semitism attacks and even just sort of things online has been because of COVID not just because people have been in front of their computers, but also because there has been a conspiracy that Jews were responsible for COVID, for the creation of COVID, for the spread of COVID.

Even a conspiracy that the Jews were behind the vaccines and that there was something nefarious about vaccines. This is real stuff that's happening and it is contributing to the spike in anti-Semitic action as we speak.

ACOSTA: Yes, and it's so unnerving, but such an important topic. Dana Bash --

BASH: Thank you, Jim.

ACOSTA: -- so glad you're tackling it. Can't wait to watch. Thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it. And make sure to watch tonight the special report "Rising Hate: Anti-Semitism in America." That's Dana Bash's very special documentary tonight at 9:00 right here on CNN.

And now here is Christine Romans with your "Before the Bell Report." CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Jim. The

summer doldrums on Wall Street have been anything but. Major stock market averages have gained in August. They are still down for the year as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to try to cool runaway inflation.

Critical clues this week on whether the Fed's medicine is working. The Fed's favorite inflation gauge is due Thursday in a week full of important economic reports including new home sales, durable goods orders and, most important, an updated estimate on second quarter GDP. That first read was negative 0.9 percent. The economy shrinking for the second quarter in a row.

It stoked big debate over whether the economy is in a recession. But so far, the job market remains strong, consumer spending is holding up. And by the end of last week, gas prices had tumbled $1.10 from their record high in June. The Fed is expected to raise interest rates again when it meets next month in September.

The question is, Jim, by how much? A speech by Federal Reserve Chief Jerome Powell Friday may yield clues. In New York, I'm Christine Romans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

ACOSTA: An outbreak of E. coli has been traced back to Wendy's restaurants in four states. At least 37 people have gotten sick, 10 of them had to go to the hospital. The CDC is investigating. They say no specific food item has been confirmed as the cause of the outbreak but they are looking at Romain lettuce as a strong possibility.

Most of those who got sick ate Wendy's sandwiches with lettuce on them in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. One other case did pop up in Indiana.

Now, how much money would you fork over for one of the coolest and most iconic cars ever seen in a movie?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: You'll be using this Aston Martin DB5 with modifications. Now, pay attention, please. Wind screen, bullet proof as are the side and the rear windows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Yes, that is Bond, James Bond in the movie "Goldfinger" and that's his 1964 Aston Martin DB5 tricked out with the standard 007 guns and gadgets and ejection seat.

[17:55:03]

Sean Connery, you should note, he loved that car so much he bought one just like it and owned it until he died two years ago. That Aston Martin just sold at auction for $2.4 million. The buyer remains anonymous but whoever has it right now is hopefully having a martini, shaken of course, not stirred. That's how I like it as well. I should get that car. Maybe I will.

That's the news. Reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. See you back here next Saturday at 3:00 p.m. eastern .007 here at CNN. Phil Mattingly takes over the CNN NEWSROOM live after a quick break. Good night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:59:59]