Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Parkland Families Share Pain In Court Before Gunman Sentenced; Secret Service Spokesman Speaks With Jan. 6 Cmte; Jan. 6 Cmte "In Discussions" With Trump Lawyers Over Testifying; Trump Attorney's Ask Judge To Pause New York AG's Lawsuit; Study: Travel Times To Abortion Facilities More Than Tripled Post-Roe; FDA Concerned About Advance Prescription Of Abortion Meds. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired November 02, 2022 - 10:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:31:33]

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: In just a few hours, more families of the Parkland School shooting victims will have their chance to speak in court to share what they are feeling, what they've been through. After the judge is expected to hand down a sentence for the gunman, that sentence life in prison without parole, some of the parents did address the court yesterday. Among them Patricia Oliver, whose son Joaquin was killed in the 2018 massacre. She spent much of that time admonishing the legal team for arguing to spare the shooter, the death penalty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICIA OLIVER, MOTHER OF PARKLAND SHOOTING VICTIM JOAQUIN "GUAC" OLIVER: I have emptiness. I have sadness and I have grief. I am broken. I am broken. All of us. Now, we are broken. Me, our family and friends are shattered for ever. Victimizing and pleading mercy for this defender, it's on you. On you, on you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: And Patricia and Manuel Oliver join me now. It was an incredibly powerful, 10 minutes, watching what you had to say in court yesterday. And you did spend a lot of that time directly addressing the defense team. Did they react at all to your words?

P. OLIVER: They reacted through their boss. Well, to me directly, no, they were complaining after I left the court. And they were trying just to minimize the comments from the families. They just want us to say whatever we feel about the defendant.

HILL: You were really restricted in terms of what could be said, the families of the victims and survivors are severely restricted in terms of what could be said in court. This was an opportunity for you to say whatever you wanted. Do you feel that you were able to say everything you wanted to? P. OLIVER: Yes, I did. I did whatever it was inside of me. There were three long months that we were just listening with patient. They were very disrespectful, no empathetic with all of us in their comments, in their way they were communicating with the killer. And that was very noxious.

So I took my time. And that's why I needed to do to direct my feelings and to take it off and leave it there yesterday. So that was my only chance because we were absolutely restricted to even show any emotions there. Because anything that we can say or show good cause a mistrial.

HILL: And that's something that I've heard from a number of the parents how difficult that was. And I think any parent can relate to that, to have to sit in court to be there and to not be able to express how you feel, to fully talk about your son Joaquin, and what his murder has done to you and your family.

Manuel, you weren't there. How come?

MANUEL OLIVER, FATHER OF PARKLAND SHOOTING VICTIM JOAQUIN OLIVER: Exactly, because of what you just said. I don't see myself sitting down listening to all these details about how things happen that day because my reactions will be different. I know myself.

[10:35:13]

So it's -- it will be an extra punishing that I don't need. But I have a great representation. I was thinking about going today, even going yesterday. And after I've heard Patricia, no need to. She made it so clear. And I'm not only proud of you for what you did, but thank you for saving that time for me.

HILL: Was it difficult?

P. OLIVER: To put everything together is difficult. The difficult was to be there for such a long time. Difficult was to be listening every single detail that we ignore at all. So it was relieved to be there and finally can see them in front, because that was one of my concerns -- in the position that I will be the stand that I can be able to see them because I need to see their faces.

So when I came to court, and I saw the stand in the place that he was, I said, OK. Now is my time and that's how I began my talk. Because he wasn't speech, I will call that a speech. It was my thought to them. And I could see face to face each of them, including the defendant. And that's why we are paying a lot of attention to him. And I hope that, you know, from today and on, we forget about him. He doesn't even exist. And that's what I treated him in that way.

HILL: Being in that room, being with the other families, being with the survivors, did it feel different yesterday than it did during those three months?

P. OLIVER: I felt that when I finished my speech, my talk, I felt the relief from the families that were behind there. They needed. What I said was inside of every single heart and head from every single parent, and families and related families that were there yesterday. So I was their voice.

When I turned back, I went to my -- to the bench, they were just looking at me and say, thank you. They were about to applaud me. Because I was, you know, it's a feeling that you have inside that you have to carry it, carry it, carry it every day. You have no idea, the comments, the discussions that they were there and we were just able to be looking at each other and say, really?

They are saying these kinds of stuff about this guy. So there were so many situations that you going to take it off you because the only one who's going to be suffering and damaging your body and your state of mind is you. So you are very already damaged. You're already in pain because I lost Joaquin. And that's the pain I have to reserve. I don't have to carry extra one. I don't have to carry an extra burden. And that's what my intention of yesterday was.

HILL: You also at the very end. I know we're out of time, but at the very end. You reminded everyone who your son was, who he will always be, kind, humble. And you carry on that legacy with your work. And thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for continuing to speak with us and thanks for everything that you're doing. Really appreciate it.

M. OLIVER: Thank you.

P. OLIVER: Thank you.

HILL: Just in, attorneys for Donald Trump are now asking a judge to pause the New York Attorney General's lawsuit against the Trump Organization. We'll tell you what else they're asking for. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:43:24]

HILL: CNN has learned the January 6 committee interviewed Secret Service spokesman -- the Secret Service spokesman on Monday. Now it's important to note here he was not at the agency at the time of the Capitol attack but has been handling the agency's response to some key developments coming out of witness testimony from the committee including issuing statements that rebut testimony from former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, about a heated altercation between Trump and his agents in his presidential SUV on January 6.

Here's just a reminder of that testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson in June.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AIDE: President reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We're going back to the West Wing. We're not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel and when Mr. Ornato had recounted the story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Joining me now to discuss, former Federal Prosecutor and CNN Legal Analyst Jennifer Rodgers. So the fact that the committee is interviewing the current spokesperson, and according to the Washington Post, there was some specific questioning about some of the statements that came out after in regards to Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. What should we read into that, in terms of what the committee is trying to get at?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's great that they're continuing to pursue these witnesses. I mean, as time runs out on the committee, they're still trying to get to the truth of what happened here. You know, listen, he wasn't there for the events of January 6, but he came out right after her testimony and cast doubt on it.

[10:45:03]

So it's fair to ask him, where did you learn, you know, what you base those comments on. Who was talking to you about what happened? And then, obviously, they can go speak to those witnesses and kind of compare those stories.

HILL: In terms of the committee continuing its work, according to Liz Cheney, there are negotiations happening between the committee and the former president's legal team in regard to this subpoena, which they had accepted potential testimony, whether it would be under oath over several days, how much good faith do you think is involved in those negotiations?

RODGERS: I'm a skeptic when it comes to the president ever testifying. And listen, they have to negotiate as part of the deal. The former president doesn't want to be seen right in front of the midterms as flouting the subpoena. Maybe they think he has something to hide, that sort of thing. So there are negotiations going on. But I don't think either side ever expects this to happen.

I mean, even once you get past the fact that time is going to run out, he has a legitimate Fifth Amendment problem here. He's being actively investigated for criminal matters by DOJ on these exact sets of facts. So there's no question in my mind that even if they actually got all of these to happen in whatever form it would take, he's just going to assert the Fifth Amendment.

HILL: And is that what you would -- I mean, if you were representing him, is that what you would recommend as his attorney?

RODGERS: Any lawyer in America would recommend that. And I will say, you think what you wanted to the former president, he's not foolish when it comes to self-preservation. He would take the fifth without question.

HILL: Speaking of the former president, we've just learned that there's been a motion filed when it comes to the fraud case. And there's a lot to keep track here with all the cases, so bear with me. This is New York State, the New York Attorney General rather, who -- in terms of the lawsuit about fraud involving the Trump Organization, there is now a motion that this needs to be paused because the Trumps who are involved would like this move to a different court?

RODGERS: From what I've seen, they've made a motion to move it into the commercial part, saying that statutorily it actually should be there instead of the part of New York State court system where it is now. This is the second time this request has been made. So I suspect it's just retreading old ground and it likely will be denied. But we'll have to see. It will depend on the language of the statute that relates to which cases go to what part.

HILL: So could be, once again, an effort to run out the clock?

RODGERS: Well --

HILL: Or maybe just to lay things because this isn't a clock, obviously --

RODGERS: Yes.

HILL: -- like what we're seeing with the committee because the committee, once it's disbanded, right, once there's a new Congress, that's a different situation. This is an actual legal case.

RODGERS: I think it's more about the judge. They don't like the judge that they have now because that judge has ruled mostly in favor of the Attorney General against the Trump Organization and the individual defendants. So I think it's more about trying to roll the dice to get a judge who might view them more favorably.

HILL: Got it. Jennifer Rodgers, always appreciate it. Thank you.

RODGERS: Thanks.

HILL: The impact of overturning Roe v. Wade being felt across the country. How -- well, just ahead, we're going to show you how far women now need to travel to find those abortion health care services, and how that could ultimately affect their care.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:52:35]

HILL: In the months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, patients seeking abortion care are just struggling to find a facility. In many instances, they're also finding just how much longer it can take to finally travel to an access those facilities.

CNN Health Reporter Jacqueline Howard joining us now. So, these are the fine, Jacqueline, from a report from the Journal of the American Medical Association about what has changed. What did they find?

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: That's right, Erica. And this report really puts in perspective the aftermath and real time impacts of the Dobbs decision. And in this report, they looked specifically at the time on average that it takes for women here in the U.S. to access abortion facilities, and how the time changed from before the Dobbs decision to after the Dobbs decision.

And here's what they found, the average travel time to get an abortion more than tripled following Dobbs. You see here before Dobbs, it was about 28 minutes on average. Now it's more than an 1.5 at 100 minutes. And another interesting finding in this report, Erica, the researchers also looked at how many women lived more than an hour away from an abortion facility.

And here's what that finding was. Before Dobbs, 14.6 percent of women of reproductive age lived more than an hour from abortion facilities. After a Dobbs decision, it jumped to 33.3 percent. So we're talking about a third of women of reproductive age now live more than an hour away from having that access to abortion health care services, Erica.

HILL: That is really something. There's also been some attention paid to one way that providers have found to get around the reversal of Roe, prescribing abortion medication to people who are not yet pregnant. Now the FDA is saying this is not the thing to do. What specifically is the agency concerned about?

HOWARD: The FDA's concerned here, Erica, is that medication abortion administered in the form of pills is really supposed to be under a provider's supervision and care. So by providers really giving these medications to women before they're pregnant since, as we saw in that previous report that access to services has been impacted right now, but that means that that medication might be used without a provider supervision and that's where the FDA concern is here.

The FDA says that medication abortion was approved to be used to end pregnancy at 10 weeks or less and your provider is supposed to help you with that timing and your providers really supposed to oversee everything and to provide care during that process. So that's the FDA's response to this.

[10:55:15]

But I think the takeaway here, Erica, as you mentioned, this is another impact that we're seeing right now, following the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

HILL: Jacqueline Howard, really important. Appreciate it. Thank you.

CVS and Walgreens both confirming to CNN this morning, they will pay around $5 billion each over the next decade. This is to settle a host of opioid lawsuits. Now according to other reports that have not yet been confirmed by CNN, they're joining Walmart in a total settlement that would amount to $12 billion. Bloomberg reports that agreement that won't be final until enough states, counties, and cities agree to the terms.

Thank you so much for joining us today. I'm Erica Hill. Stay tuned, the coverage continues. At This Hour with Kate Bolduan picks up after a quick break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]