Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Video Appears to Show Officers Punching, Kicking Suspect on the Ground; Car Bomb Kills Daughter of Putin Ally in Moscow; Judge Agrees DOJ Has Substantial Reasons to Protect Witness Details in Affidavit. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired August 22, 2022 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Monday morning to you. I'm Jim Sciutto.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Poppy Harlow.

We are glad you're with us as we follow two significant stories developing this morning. Right now, an investigation is under way in Arkansas after the violent arrest of a 27-year-old man, this video that was posted to social media yesterday. Before we play it for you, we want to warn you it is very disturbing. It shows two deputies and an officers appearing to punch and knee a suspect during an arrest. All three officers have been taken of duty. They are under investigation. We do have a full report on this ahead.

SCIUTTO: Plus, Russia claiming new details this morning about an apparent car bomb outside of Moscow. Law enforcement in Russia say the blast, which killed Russian television commentator Darya Dugina, was detonated remotely. Darya's father, an influential Russian public figure, has been described as one of Vladimir Putin's most vocal supporter. We are going to have the latest from Moscow in just a moment.

Let's begin this hour though with the latest on that violent arrest in Arkansas caught on camera. CNN Correspondent Omar Jimenez has been following all of this. As Poppy said, the images contained are disturbing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Three Arkansas law enforcement officers have been removed from duty after this video showing them hitting a man outside a store in Mulberry, Arkansas, was posted to social media. The officers are seen punching and kneeing the suspect repeatedly and, later, arresting him.

In the video, a woman not seen can be heard screaming to stop beating him, telling the officers he needs his medicine. An officer points and yells at her to back up. The person who posted the video says her sister witnessed the altercation. The two Crawford County deputies were suspended and the Mulberry police officer placed on administrative leave while the incident is investigated.

Police say the man in the video is 27-year-old Randall Worcester of Goose Creek, South Carolina. They accuse him of threatening and spitting on a gas station attendant in a nearby town. The clerk then called the police.

Worcester rode a bike to the County Express Convenience Store in Mulberry where he was arrested outside the store. One witness tells CNN affiliate KHBS it looked like the man got up to run away to avoid an arrest but the sheriff claims he got up to attack an officer.

Worcester is being held in county jail on multiple charges, including first-degree assault and second-degree battery. It's unclear whether he has an attorney. The Crawford County Sheriff's Office released this statement writing, I hold all my employees accountable for their actions and will take appropriate measures in this matter. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchison tweeted, the local arrest incident in Crawford County will be investigated pursuant to the video evidence and the request of the prosecuting attorney.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ (on camera): Now, there is still a lot we don't know here, including if there is any other video, including potential body camera video that really could show what led up to what we have seen play out on the video that we have.

Now, the local sheriff's office says a state investigation has been opened into this, but will focus really on just the physical use of force that we saw play out here. From there, once that investigation is done, the prosecuting attorney could make a decision on any charges. But the central question at the heart of all of this is was that amount of force necessary, especially with three law enforcement officers there?

HARLOW: Omar, thank you for the reporting. I know there are still a lot of unanswered questions. So, please bring them to us as you get some answers here.

Let's talk about what we know so far with retired NYPD Detective Tom Vern. He is also a law enforcement consultant.

I think that Omar hit on the central question. Was that necessary? Is that ever necessary?

TOM VERNI, RETIRED NYPD DETECTIVE: Good morning, Poppy and Jim. Good to be with you again. So, I mean, look, at the outset, when you look at the video, just based on the video clip, it seems as if the amount of force that was being used may have been excessive. Police across the United States are trained in the use of force and what level of force is appropriate for the incident at hand.

Now, as was reported, you know, we don't see what happened leading up to that and in the video itself, you can see that the suspect is not complying with the officers. He is moving around. He is not allowing them to place handcuffs on him to secure him to be able to be transported. So, playing devil's advocate, when someone is resisting arrest and they are refusing to comply with the police, what happens is that escalates that situation to where now police have to amp up their level of force from verbal commands to some level or varying levels of physical force or other levels.

[10:05:16]

SCIUTTO: Forgive me, because when I watch that video, and I've watched it a number of times, some of the suspect I see the suspect doing is to cover his head. And I wonder, as you know better than us, there is training, not just in level of force but tactics, what specific means of force officers can and should use to subdue a suspect. And I'm asking you see the multiple punches to the head and then -- and I'm going to let this continue, as disturbing as it is, there is a point at which one of the officers appears to be banging his head on the pavement. Is that tactic taught -- right there -- is that tactic taught in any police training to subdue a suspect?

VERNI: That specific tactic of bending someone's head in the ground, no. If you're in a fight for your life, you use whatever force necessary to make sure that you can escape from that incident unscathed as possible. They have to use whatever the level of force is necessary to restrain and/or, you know, secure that individual and able to transport that individual to the station house or to a jail, whatever it is that they may be, or maybe -- it may be a hospital.

In the video, as a matter of fact, they mentioned there is a woman screaming that he needs his medication, he is not on his medication. That would seem to indicate that he may need some sort of maybe anti- psychotic medication or some other medication to control himself. And when people are supposed to be on medication and they are not, they many times will have the strength of ten men and it's hard to subdue someone like that.

Again, the video itself is disturbing. I'm not saying that. And I'll be the first one to advocate for police officers if they are correct in what they have done, but I'll also be the first to say that if what they have done is outside the parameters of their training or unlawful in any way, then they can be held accountable for. And they have to also be able to temper their response or emotional response, E.Q., their emotional quotient, with their I.Q. and with their training. It all has to be tempered for that specific incident. In a specific incident, it seems as if the force that they are using is somewhat excessive.

SCIUTTO: Well, listen. There is an investigation under way right now. We know those officers have been suspended as that investigation begins. Tom Verni, thanks so much for sharing your experience with us.

VERNI: Sure, any time.

HARLOW: Tom, thank you.

Now to a weekend car bombing outside of a Moscow that killed the daughter of an influential and prominent supporter of Vladimir Putin, Russian law enforcement says the explosive device believed to have been installed in the car that she was driving was detonated remotely.

SCIUTTO: CNN Senior International Correspondent Frederik Pleitgen joins us now from Moscow. Fred, tell us what Russian officials at this point are saying about their investigation.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Jim. Yes, and, of course, all this could have massive repercussions as the Russians now blaming the Ukrainians for all of this. Again, this comes from the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, which claims to have solved all of this.

Of course, Darya Dugina, her car was blown up on Saturday night as she was leaving a festival. And the Russians are saying that a Ukrainian woman working on behalf of the Ukraine intelligence services was responsible for it. Now, they claim that this woman came to Russia together with her 12-year-old daughter, blew up the car and then escaped to Estonia.

The Ukrainians, of course, from the very beginning, have denied having any involvement in all of this, but all of this is already, really, looking as though it could escalate the situation between Russia and Ukraine. You already have Russian people who are very high in state- run media who are calling for retribution against Ukraine.

And what we have now was actually the father of Darya Dugina, Alexander Dugin, who, of course, is an ideologue and a philosopher here in Russia, said to be very close to Vladimir Putin's thinking, especially as far as Ukraine is concerned. And he says, our hearts yearn for more than just revenge or retribution. My daughter laid her maiden life on her altar so please win, talking about, of course, Russia's special military operation, the war in Ukraine. So, you can see how this is escalating things.

The Ukrainians, by the way, Jim, have also come out now and said that all of this shows that Russia is living in a fictional world. Of course, the Ukrainians continue to say that they were not behind all of this. But we can see things really escalating as the Russians now laying blame squarely at the feet of the Ukrainians and the Ukrainians simply saying it wasn't them, guys.

HARLOW: And obviously the context in which this all happened is critical, the ongoing war in Ukraine.

[10:10:00]

Fred, how do you see this potentially further escalating the situation, changing, you know, Russia's actions specifically?

PLEITGEN: Yes. I mean, I think it's something that certainly has the potential to do that. And if you look at the reactions, and we have been monitoring this very closely since all this happened late on Saturday night, and, immediately, you had people who were very high up in Russian state-controlled media claiming that the Ukrainians were behind this and then calling for tougher actions against the Ukrainians. Also, if you look at, for instance, the head of the Donbas -- the Donetsk People's Republic, which, of course, is involved in the war in Ukraine, also calling for tougher actions against the Ukrainians as well, the Ukrainians coming out very quickly and saying that it wasn't them. This is certainly something that really has the potential to futher inflame that massive fire that, of course, is already going on, on the territory of Ukraine. Again, a very, very dangerous situation as this investigation was going on and now the FSB coming out and very clearly blaming the Ukrainians, guys.

SCIUTTO: Fred Pleitgen in Moscow, thanks so much.

Joining me now to discuss, former CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty. Jill, you've covered Russia for years, for decades. In a span 48 hours, Russia claims to have solved this. They are now pointing the finger at not just Ukraine but also Estonian involvement here, because the story they're putting out is that this -- the assailant then fled to Estonia, two countries, of course, which Putin denies deserve their independence.

Does the speed, does the level of rhetoric and granted as well what we know about Russian intelligence services and their track record for both accuracy and honesty, does that raise questions for you about this story?

JILL DOUGHERTY, FORMER CNN MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF: Jim, this raises a whole lot of questions for me. I think it's a very important moment because, you know, people talk about Dugan as kind of Putin's brain. I did not think that he is Putin's brain but he is representative of a group of people who are -- it's hard to exaggerate how far-right he is.

And so this idea that Ukraine shouldn't exist, that is part of his ideology. And that ideology, and there are other people who espouse this, has grown over the past few years. Right now, if you look at the people that they could potentially get back at, it could be Ukraine, it could be Estonia and it also the Russian opposition, people inside Russia who are opposed to this war and are opposed to Putin. And the level of rhetoric that I've been following, Jim, is really extreme right now. I mean, I just think we are on the verge of something that could be very big.

SCIUTTO: Early in this invasion, we are about six months in, Russia attempted, according to U.S. and western intelligence, sort of known as false flag operations, that is carry out an attack, blame the other side. For instance, there were quote/unquote, terror attacks in territory in the east, which Russia claimed were Ukrainian bombs and the view of U.S. intelligence and they declassified a lot of this intelligence at the time that this was actually a Russian false flag event. Does this potentially have the markings of a false flag event or at least is that a possibility that should be considered here?

DOUGHERTY: I think we have to look at a lot of different theories because this is very convoluted and, right now, you're getting a lot of people who are trying to interpret this, especially within Russia. So, yes, it has signs that it could be a false flag. In other words, you know, blaming the Ukrainians or blaming this woman who happen ran away 12 hours to Estonia.

But I think, to me, the significance of is that it happened in the first place in the country that is supposed to be secure and protected by Vladimir Putin. And it happens in the place where all of the rich people hang out. These are all the elite live out in (INAUDIBLE), the street that goes right from the Kremlin out to those suburbs. So, the fact that it could happen to people who are considered elite, I think, strikes terror in the hearts of people who are part of the elite. They come this close. And don't forget in Ukraine, we have had attacks in Crimea by apparently Ukrainians. So, the war is coming closer to Russia.

And then, also, I think this could be symbolic and this is a lot of thinking, who ultimately knows, but there's a lot of infighting is going on right now in Russia, people who think that Putin is mismanaging the war and isn't hard enough.

[10:15:00]

And so they are pushing for him. People like Dugan, people who say, you know, Putin really has to kill, kill, kill, the Ukrainians. So, it's a very fraught, internally fraught situation. Putin, I think, is losing some control over what the results of this invasion have been.

SCIUTTO: Just setting aside the facts of this for a moment, the effects. Let's talk about the effects just quickly here. You got a victory day celebration coming up for Ukraine. You have Russia on its back foot, arguably. Does this portend an escalation in this conflict?

DOUGHERTY: Well, could they escalate? I mean, I'm not a military expert but, right now, it feels like it's kind of at a standstill. There's not -- you know, what can they do? Sure, there has to be some answer. If they believe or posthumous that this is Ukraine, they have to get back at Ukraine. So, in some way, they will do something.

They would love to get back at Estonia. I think Estonians rightly should be concerned. And it would not necessarily be anything like a big military attack (ph). We are talking about small, significant destabilization things that could happen.

And then, domestically in Russia, I think all of the gloves are off in terms of going after the opposition. I mean, you look at some of what is happening in the Russian media right now. They are talking about the enemy within. They are shopping in the same stores you are shopping in and then they are -- this is all in quotes, and then we are going to plan the bomb in your car. So, that is what we are talking about, totally destabilizing.

SCIUTTO: Yes. And already a difficult environment for them, hard to imagine it's getting even worse. Jill Dougherty, good to share your expertise. Thanks so much.

And new this morning, an order from a judge who is deciding whether the public will get to see the affidavit behind the search warrant for Trump's Mar-a-Lago home. And he agrees the DOJ may have good reason to at least redact parts of it. Plus, a huge majority of U.S. economists say the country could be headed towards a recession. How likely is that? How could the country prepare for it? That's still ahead.

HARLOW: And water, we will give you an update on the little league player who fractured his skull after falling out of that bunk bed. He hit his head again over the weekend. We will have the latest on his progress ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

HARLOW: All right. So, this morning, the judge in the debate over what documents to release from the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago further articulated where he stands on transparency. In an order written today, Judge Bruce Reinhart agreed that the Justice Department does have substantial reasons to protect details, especially those concerning witnesses in the affidavit itself.

SCIUTTO: The judge gave the DOJ until Thursday to provide a redacted version of that affidavit after the judge indicated he was willing to unseal at least part of it.

Joining us now to discuss, Criminal Defense and Constitutional Law Attorney Page Pate and former CIA Intelligence Officer David Priess, he is also the author of the President's Book of Secrets, which focuses on the relationships between presidents and top secret intelligence. You might say fitting for the current news environment. Good to have you both on here.

David, you worked in intel for a number of years. You literally wrote a book about this. I just -- we have seen a lot of political debates about this, which is fair given those involved and a lot of theories about, well, Trump might have wanted it for his memoirs, did he tend to have them there or to expose them. I just want to know what the regulations are. What is required? Can you clarify for people at home whether it's former officials, current officials or former or current presidents? What are the rules about handling documents such as these?

DAVID PRIESS, FORMER CIA INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: The rules are pretty simple. Former presidents, just like any other former government officials, can't simply keep classified documents when they have left office. Not only that, they can't keep any government documents when they have left office. And in the case of the president, you have the Presidential Records Act, which shows that all presidential papers are the property of the U.S. government held in trust for the U.S. people after the president leaves office.

Now, that is not to say they can't access them. There is a long tradition of former presidents and other former senior government officials having access to the official papers, even classified ones, during the time they were in time to help them prepare memoirs and to answer questions for things like testimony in various cases. That can happen. There is a process for doing that. What is odd about this case is it appears that there was no such process. There was simply these boxes that went to Mar-a-Lago, and with a very long process, finally ended up with the search and seizure.

HARLOW: Let me ask you, Pate. I was struck by the response that we got last hour from Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California, when I asked him, well, what do you think about this argument from many, frankly, on the right who say, look, show us the affidavit, transparency is necessary here, especially in such an unprecedented case, a search of a former president's home.

The judge, who is making this decision in the order just handed down this morning writes, it's foundational principle of American law. The judicial proceeding should be open to the public. But then he goes to say, despite the First Amendment right of access a document can be sealed if there is a compelling government interest.

[10:25:02]

This is what they are weighing, right? What do you think?

PAGE PATE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: That is exactly right, Poppy. I mean, that is what is at issue here. Yes, the public has a right to know what is going on in the courthouse. Anything relating to testimony, witnesses, criminal prosecutions, that should be available to the public. But in a criminal investigation, and that's what the judge pointed out here, there is very sensitive information, witness identification, practices and protocols, the type of tools and techniques they are using in the investigation.

What I think is important to notice here, this rarely, if ever comes up, you know, 90 percent of the time, a search warrant will be filed under seal. Nobody is going to challenge that. The defendant doesn't want it out in the open because he wants to keep all of that secret and not public. The government doesn't want it out in the open. So, this is that rare occasion where this judge is going to have to make that balance. And I think at the end of the day, he is going to side mostly with the government and we're not going to see much, if any, detail in this affidavit.

SCIUTTO: We should note that the initial demand was for the warrant to be released and for the public comment from the attorney general, which has happened, and now the latest demand is for the affidavit as well.

Page, just one question on the law behind this, CNN reached out to a number of former Trump administration officials who say this idea that there was a standing order to declassify documents was simply not true. They had no knowledge or experience of that. But I wonder, legally, is that a path to a potential defense? In other words, the president could claim or his lawyers could claim for him that he believed he had declassified them and, therefore, did not have intent to treat them illegally or improperly?

PATE: Well, Jim, I don't think so. I mean, we have talked before about the fact that these documents don't have to be, quote, classified to still be sensitive government information. And, obviously, whether they are classified or not classified, you can't destroy them. You can't conceal them and keep them from investigators who are working for the federal government when they request those documents be returned.

So, I don't think the issue of classification is going to be a strong defense and even if it was, no, I don't think you can simply wave a magic wand and say I say they are declassified whenever I take them home. That is not supported by the --

HARLOW: And, David, just as a former intelligence officer, Dan Crenshaw, a Texas Republican congressman, was on CNN yesterday. And part of what he said about this is he said, quote, if you're going to use the Espionage Act, if you're going to pursue criminal investigation on that front, you have to prove intent. I mean, that is always such a high bar. I wonder what your take is on that in the context of anything potentially related to the Espionage Act.

PRIESS: Yes. There is an element of truth there, that intent is a matter in the Espionage Act. But we need to be clear, the Espionage Act is horribly named because it does not involve what you would expect it to involve, which means intents of committing espionage. There are provisions in the Espionage Act that have to do with the willful retention of government documents and the unwillingness to disclose those documents when asked. That is not technical espionage but those are criminal provisions within the Espionage Act.

So, if there is an intent to keep these documents from getting back into government possession, which it seems like that's what we are seeing, right, because you had a case where there were discussions between the government and Trump and his lawyers. Then you had an actual meeting. You had time after time some boxes were returned. Then, finally, you had more material was discovered. It certainly seems like there was knowledge of the fact that there was government material there and that material was not provided, which sure does start to look like willful retention of government information.

SCIUTTO: And we should note that Dan Crenshaw also said it was wrong to carry such documents outside of a secure facility.

Page Pate, David Priess, good to have you on.

PRIESS: Thanks.

HARLOW: Thanks, gentlemen.

So, how likely is it that Democrats will hold on to the very slim majority in the Senate in November? We will take a look at the numbers, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]