Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Calls For Protests, Says He Expects Tuesday Arrest; International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant For Vladimir Putin; Gershun Freeman's Family Demands Action After Deadly Jail Beating; Seven Deputies, Three Hospital Workers Charged In Death Of Irvo Otieno; Wyoming First State To Ban Abortion Pills Specifically; TX Judge Set To Rule On Pivotal Case On Medication Abortion; DJ David Guetta Uses AI To Mimic Eminem's Voice, Create New Song. Aired 4-5p E

Aired March 18, 2023 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

PAULA REID, CNN HOST: You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Paula Reid. Jim Acosta is off.

Former President Donald Trump is calling on supporters to protest. He claims he expects to be indicted by the Manhattan district attorney on Tuesday. On his Truth Social page today the former president urged supporters to, quote, "take back our nation," ahead of what he says is his expected arrest days from now. He went on to say, "They're killing our nation as we sit back and watch. We must save America and protest."

But he appears to be speculating. The prosecutors are wrapping up the investigation into hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels. We have learned that there is at least one witness still expected to testify on Monday.

Sources tell my colleague Kristin Holmes and I that Trump's legal team has gotten no word from the Manhattan DA's office of any timing of a potential indictment. If he is indicted, though, the Trump defense team would be notified and then likely negotiate any surrender and an initial court appearance.

Now another source says the former president has been pushing his team to get the base riled up over the idea of a possible indictment because he believes it would help him politically.

We're covering all angles of this story from the Manhattan criminal courthouse where Trump could possibly be indicted, to Washington, D.C., where the political fallout from any arrest could impact the 2020 race for the White House.

All right. Katelyn Polantz, our senior crime and justice reporter, is here with me.

Katelyn, I want to start with you. What we know right now is that the former president's legal team has not been notified of any indictment. We know there's at least one more witness expected to go before the grand jury on Monday. So it appears he's speculating, but we also know in the past few weeks this investigation has suddenly heated up.

Remind us what's going on in this case. Where are we?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Paula, we're clearly in an investigation that's been going on for a long time and is now in the end game, the end stage. That is most evident because Trump was invited to testify to the grand jury, declined to. He's the person that's clearly targeted here. That doesn't happen under New York law until the very end.

Of course, there is another grand jury witness. Your reporting is -- that person is coming in tomorrow, but it does look like we are headed to the point in time where the grand jury would be asked to approve the indictment.

Now at this time, we don't know when that indictment will be approved and we also don't know what exactly would be in the charges. Trump doesn't either and his spokespeople are admitting that, but this is the type of case that actually is going to sound familiar to a lot of people because we've been talking about it now for several years.

Michael Cohen previously admitted in federal court to campaign finance violations that are very much in line with what's being investigated here, these payments to Stormy Daniels back in the 2016 campaign.

Now this is a state case so it's about state law, not federal, but at the time it was shocking that Donald Trump was named as individual one in that case. This would be an unprecedented scenario just like that if the grand jury does return this indictment.

REID: Thank you for bringing us up to speed on this case because the investigation has been going on for four or five years for conduct that's about seven years old.

Now Polo Sandoval is outside the Manhattan criminal court.

Polo, we've heard from our colleagues that city, state and federal law enforcement agencies, they're discussing how to prepare for a possible indictment and arrest of a former president. Like Katelyn just said, this would be unprecedented. So what are you seeing where you are?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Paula, things are quiet at this point outside of state court facilities here in Lower Manhattan. And the hope is that it will certainly remain that way. But there are no guarantees obviously as we get closer to that decision, as to whether or not those charges will be filed. And that's why multiple law enforcement officials here in New York City at the local, state and federal level have been holding this sort of behind-the-scenes discussions we're told about what they would do, how they would implement certain measures to make sure that these facilities remain safe.

That's according to information from our colleague John Miller. In terms of what they could potentially see if any charges are filed, the concern is that they would see Trump supporters that would respond to the former president's call for protests, which we saw earlier today, and the potential for any anti-Trump demonstrators also to clash with them. So they have these multiple potential scenarios that they're playing out here in New York City in order to respond to it as they happen, should they happen.

[16:05:00]

And then also the choreography that's involved. Secret Service agents on the former president's detail and here in New York coordinating with the Manhattan district attorney to be able to orchestrate or at least to be able to properly carry out this process incident free if it's needed.

So there are multiple moving parts here. Certainly a lot of ifs, as you very well know. In the meantime, the law enforcement officials here in New York are keeping a very close eye on the situation and in a post-January 6th world are very familiar with the potential should some of the former president's base members basically turn out and respond to that call that we heard earlier today, to respond with protests.

REID: It's a great point, Polo. A lot of echoes of the calls prior to January 6th.

All right, Kristen Holmes, you're here to help us unpack with all your sources the political ramifications here because, as Katelyn and I noted, the former president is really speculating, but he's speculating in part in an effort to rile up the base. So what have you learned?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. So, you know, we heard from Lindsey Graham. And I want to actually read to you what he said because I feel like this is what I'm hearing from so many Trump allies, and really the former president himself and his advisers. So the prosecutor in New York has done more to help Donald Trump get elected president than each single person in America today.

And that is what they really believe. They believe that this is going to help him politically. And we're already starting to see these Republicans rally around the former president. We heard from Speaker McCarthy who said it was outrageous, this potential indictment. He went on to say that these committees should be investigating whether federal funds were used in this New York probe. And we also heard from someone else, someone else who is considering their own 2024 run, Mike Pence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is what the Manhattan D.A. says is their top priority. It's just -- it reeks of the kind of political prosecution that we endured back in the days of the Russia hoax and the whole impeachment over a phone call. And the one thing I know is I know that former President Trump can take care of himself.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HOLMES: And of course, it was just one week ago that we were talking about how former Vice President Pence was talking at a closed-door dinner and he gave his sharpest rebuke of the former president, talking about his actions on January 6th, and clearly trying to distance himself from Trump.

That's also clearly not the case today. And if you have any indication of where he or his allies believe, and that's Trump, this stands politically, he sent out a fundraising e-mail about 10 minutes ago, fundraising off of this particular indictment -- Paula.

REID: That's remarkable. What's so interesting, though, is there is a difference, right, between January 6th, what happened on January 6th, and what's going on in Manhattan. I think intelligent minds, intelligent reporters can disagree about how strong the case is in Manhattan, but here Trump is kind of mudding the waters by once again calling for people to protest on his behalf. Do you think that could back fire?

HOLMES: Well, look, I think that's what Donald Trump is good at, muddying the waters. And this is one of the things that we seeing --

REID: He's muddying his own waters.

HOLMES: -- for years is that he gets in there and he jumbles it all around. There's also the documents case. It was clearly that the Biden and Trump documents case were different, however, Trump muddied the waters and made it seem as though these two things were the same.

This is what he does. And, look, whether or not it will backfire like is yet to be seen, but we do know that this is somebody who when he is put in these situations, when he is backed into a corner, when he is in legal trouble, he actually does succeed. He does actually rile up the base and he does get that political support -- Paula.

REID: That's a great point. I want to turn back to Katelyn, because she and I -- we cover all of the many investigations into former President Trump for quite some time now. Really comparatively, the Manhattan case is not one they've been worried about because it's not one of the stronger ones, right, as compared to Georgia or of course the special counsel.

POLANTZ: Yes. I mean, politics is one thing. So he's going to attack any of these investigations. Very similarly, we keep seeing the rhetoric very similar toward -- you know, he's calling it witch hunt, I think that was in his statement today. We've been hearing that since the Mueller investigation. But this is a little bit different in that it is something that the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutors had looked at.

They decided not to charge him. The Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, took this over after Cy Vance, his predecessor also didn't bring the case. And so this really has been one of those cases that the facts are there, it's had quite an arc as an investigation. It's gone up and down, will they, won't they, is not the same thing as January 6th that it's like a train that has moved ahead at a steady clip. The House bringing in witnesses. Federal investigators bringing in

witnesses. The Georgia grand jury action. This is a much more up and down thing, and so what happens with this case, a lot of people, a lot of the lawyers that I've talked to are wondering, OK, if they bring this, can they win it if it goes to trial? Can they convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump himself would be guilty if he is charged?

REID: Likely the big next question. Katelyn Polantz, Kristen Holmes, ladies, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

And that -- Polo, thank you as well. Forgot about you at the courthouse. Thank you for your reporting.

[16:10:05]

But this really tees up a great question for our next guest, which is senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Elie, I think the big question here, and more so than even will Trump be indicted is why now. We're talking about conduct that occurred around seven years ago. This investigation has been going on for four or five years, as Katelyn noted. Other investigations have looked into this, not charged. What do you make of this question? Why is this suddenly heating up over the past few weeks?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It's a great question, Paula, and I think it's a fair one to ask. And just to set the timeline here, these payments were made in mid to late 2016, that's before the 2016 election. Then in 2018 when Donald Trump was president, that's when the feds picked it up, the Southern District of New York. But they could not indict Donald Trump at the time because he was the sitting president.

The next important moment in the timeline is January of 2021. That's when Donald Trump left office and as I've reported, the Southern District of New York had a series of meetings at that point deciding, should we charge him with this criminally or not? We know the decision there was no. And then as Katelyn just said, there was about a year or so after that when Cy Vance was the Manhattan D.A. He did not charge this.

And now here we are 6 1/2 to seven years later, and Alvin Bragg has made the decision to charge this. I think it's a fair point. And I think it in some sense undermines the seriousness of the case and I think it will be an issue at trial.

REID: You make a great point because there are a lot of questions from the Trump legal team, for example, about whether locally elected prosecutors should be able to investigate the former president. And as you and I have talked about, there's such a difference between Manhattan, where it doesn't appear that they have any new evidence or new witnesses, though they might, we could learn about that in the future.

But down in Georgia, for example, there even though there are the same questions about locally elected prosecutors, there appears to be so much evidence. So, again, outstanding question, why now? Maybe the district attorney will answer that sometime soon. But even if they bring an indictment, how likely is it that that would go to trial? And if it goes to trial, how likely are they to get a conviction?

HONIG: So I think it's highly likely that if there's an indictment it goes to trial because Donald Trump does not strike me as the pleading guilty type. In order to plead guilty, he'd have to go into court and say, yes, I committed a crime. How likely is it to result in a conviction, that'll depend of course on the strength of the evidence and the witnesses.

Based on what we know, though, Paula, I think it's an absolute mistake to say this is some sort of slam dunk or smoking gun. We know there are checks, we know that the hush money was paid. But it's important to understand, paying hush money is not a crime. And it would not be a crime here. The crime is in how Donald Trump's people, his campaign logged that payment. If they falsely claimed it was attorney's fees, which they did, that could be a crime.

But you have to tie that to Donald Trump himself directly, and really as far as we know, the only person who directly does that is Michael Cohen, who has all sorts of credibility issues.

REID: And let's talk about these issues. Michael Cohen, on the stand. As a former prosecutor, how would you try to use him to bolster your case? And what are the risks there? What are his vulnerabilities?

HONIG: And so it is completely normal, common for prosecutors to make cases by calling cooperating witnesses who've pled guilty to being part of that criminal activity. I think on the one hand Michael Cohen certainly had access to what was happening. He was right in the middle of this. He will be able to tell the jury what in his testimony exactly happened blow by blow and there's an argument that ever since he pled guilty he has come clean and he has been truthful.

On the other hand, the cross examination of him is going to be blistering. You can count on Donald Trump's lawyers, if we ever get to this moment, cross examining Michael Cohen on the fact that he's been convicted of perjury, he's been convicted of financial fraud and tax fraud, having nothing to do with Donald Trump. That he has previously said that these payments were perfectly legal and had nothing to do with the campaign.

And the fact, Paula, that Michael Cohen, with every fiber in his being, despises Donald Trump. He can't open his mouth without disparaging Donald Trump personally. We can argue about whether that's justified or not but it absolutely means that he's not going to be an impartial witness. So he's going to be a dynamic witness. He could be very important for the prosecution but he's going to get banged up on cross examination, you can bet on that.

REID: And it will be really interesting to see who this other witness is will be on Monday. We're trying to report that out. But then it'll be really interesting to see and maybe give us an indication of how close we are to a possible indictment. I also want to ask you about this, back when the Stormy Daniels case

first broke back in 2018, months before the scandal was really acknowledged, the former president, he was asked about this. And his first comments came in response to a reporter. They were on board Air Force One in April. They were asked about the payments made to Stormy Daniel. This was a month before the 2016 election that these payments were made and this is what he said aboard the plane. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?

TRUMP: No, no. What else?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Then why did Michael Cohen make this if there was no truth to her allegations?

[16:15:02]

TRUMP: Well, you'll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney. And you'll have to ask Michael Cohen.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?

TRUMP: No, I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: All right. Clearly not a crime to lie or give false statements to reporters, but how might those comments potentially impact any possible prosecution?

HONIG: So, Paula, you can bet prosecutors are going to use that video. It will be admissible evidence because the argument will be he's lying here. Why is he lying, you would argue as a prosecutor? He's lying because he knows he has done wrong and he's trying to cover up. But I think the response from the Trump team, and people can decide what's more persuasive, is the reason he was lying there is the same reason he made the hush money payments in the first place, to try to avoid personal humiliation to himself and his family.

And if that's the reason, why made a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, that's not going to be a campaign finance crime because then it would not count as a campaign donation. So that's the back and forth that you should expect to see in court if and when this ever gets there.

REID: Elie Honig, thank you so much.

HONIG: Thanks, Paula. Talk to you soon.

REID: And more to come tonight in the CNN NEWSROOM including limited travel options for Russian President Vladimir Putin if he wants to leave the country. We'll talk about the arrest warrant he now faces.

Plus, medication induced abortion is now against the law in yet another state, all while a Texas federal judge considers cutting off one of the drugs used in the procedure nationwide.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:50]

REID: Russian Vladimir Putin can be taken into custody in 123 different countries now that the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. He and the Russian official in this photo are accused of scheming to deport thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia. White House national security aide John Kirby says it's critical that all evidence against Putin be preserved.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: We're going to stay committed to helping Ukraine as they document and analyze and preserve the kinds of evidence of the war crimes, the atrocities, the crimes against humanity that have occurred inside Ukraine at the hands of Russian forces and, number two, that we are not going to back off our belief that accountability for these war crimes has got to be had, however long that takes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: One place Putin won't be arrested, Crimea. He's in the annexed region today for the nine-year anniversary of Russia's takeover.

CNN national security analyst Steve Hall joins us now. He's also the former CIA chief of Russian Operations.

Steve, what do you make of this? I mean, could he ever actually be arrested? It seems at this point improbable.

STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: You know, it is improbable right now. So this action has a lot of different ramifications, I think. First, it does send a strong message to Putin and to, you know, the Russians in general, Russians on the streets, senior Russian leadership, and of course Putin himself that they're increasingly isolated from basically the entire international community.

And although, you know, I will say it's unlikely that he'll be arrested, but, remember, we also said it was unlikely that we'd get guys like, you know, Milosevic, you know, from the Serbian -- Ratko Mladic, his military commander, and yet they both ended up in the Hague eventually. It took time but it did happen.

So I'm sure that Putin is remembering those things and remembering that this is not a temporary thing that goes away after a year or two. It stays with you forever. And it'll be interesting to see how that impacts upon him, if at all, in his decision making. REID: It's a long game. Now of course the U.S. is not an ICC

signatory, and neither is Russia. Does that have any effect on diplomatic relations between Washington and Moscow?

HALL: I really don't think it does. I mean, this is certainly, you know, a bad day for Vladimir Putin, or yesterday was, and for Russians. So that's not going to, you know, increase any sort of connectivity or negotiations wither with the United States or any of our Western allies or Ukraine for that matter.

But just because that the United States is not a signatory to this particular treaty doesn't mean that it can't assist in obtaining information, which is I think what Admiral Kirby was talking about there, the importance of preserving any information, any data, any proof or evidence that Putin was involved in what he's been accused of. And in that, anybody in the world can help with that, to include the United States. You don't have to be a signatory to help with the process.

REID: Of course next week Putin is scheduled to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss the war in Ukraine. Do you think this warrant will have any effect on Chinese-Russian relations?

HALL: Probably not at the level that we can see it. But I can tell you that I think one of the impacts that this will have, this condemnation and this, you know, arrest warrant for Putin is going to have is if you're a world leader and you want to be taken seriously, do you want to be on camera publicly meeting with somebody that has been officially designated as a war criminal? That is, I think, going to be in the back of a lot of people's minds especially if they're contemplating meeting with Russia.

Now granted the countries that Russia and that Putin usually meet with are usually not friendly to the West, but China is very concerned over the long run as to what its role is going to be in the future, wants to be a significant, you know, global super power and it wants to dominate things 25, 30 years from now. And so if somebody has got those ideas about where their country is going to go, is it really in their best interests to meet with a designated war criminal? We'll see.

REID: We'll see. And Putin is also of course scheduled to attend a summit in South Africa later this year. They are a signatory to the ICC. Any chance he may be asked to attend that remotely? Or do you think he'll attend and they could bring him?

[16:25:02]

HALL: That's very interesting. I mean, if I were the South Africans, you know, I would have to treat this very, very carefully. They're trying to walk sort of a -- you know, sort of a middle ground. They've been supportive of Russia on certain things, but, remember, the South Africans a number of years ago failed to capture an individual who was designated the same way that Putin has been designated, an arrest warrant out for him, and the South Africans received considerable criticism for not picking up that person. So this is again something that internationally countries and

governments are going to have to take into consideration before they, you know, have contact or have warm ties with Russia.

REID: Steve Hall, thank you.

HALL: Sure.

REID: And still ahead, the growing calls for justice in the case of a man in Tennessee who died after a violent jailhouse encounter with law enforcement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They go home every night to their family, whereas, for me and my granddaughter, we have to see my son, her father, in a box.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:12]

REID: The family of a man who died in a Memphis jail is appealing for justice.

Now, a warning. You may find what we're about to show you disturbing.

This is video surveillance from October 5th of last year inside the Shelby County Jail. It shows Gershun Freeman coming out of the cell and getting into a violent encounter with correctional officers.

The 34-year-old was beaten, kicked, and apparently pepper sprayed. At some point, the officers subdued Freeman and he went limp. An autopsy found he suffered cardiac arrest and died by homicide.

The edited video footage was released by the Nashville the district attorney.

CNN's Isabel Rosales joins me now.

Isabel, what do we know about the officers involved and what the family is now seeking.

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Paula, in answering the question about what we know about the officers, the answer is not much. And that is because the Shelby County sheriff's office has not identified these officers who had contact with Freeman inside of that jailhouse.

Now according to the latest statement that we received from the sheriff's office, their response to that is that all of the officers who had contact with Freeman, they have been relieved of duty since day one and they remain in that status to this day.

But this lack of identifying information, this lack of names is really adding to the frustration of Gershun Freeman's parents, who want to know those names. They want accountability. They want answers. They want jail reform.

Now this is really a case that is drawing national attention because this goes back to the city still grappling with the police beating death of Tyre Nichols earlier this year.

Paula, I want to jump back in on that the autopsy we received from our CNN affiliate, WHBQ. It's a 19-page autopsy. In it, it found that Freeman was covered in cuts and bruises. It found that his cause of death was cardiovascular disease that was made worse because of a physical altercation that he had.

And it also found that Freeman had a past history of psychosis disorder and that that likely led to his cause of death.

It did classify his death as a homicide, but this is an important note, too, in that report that it is, quote, "not meant to definitively indicate criminal intent."

Now back to that jailhouse video, Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney, is calling the video alarming.

The family attorneys for Freeman's parents, they're claiming that the Shelby County Jail has a serious lack of mental health resources for the inmates there.

And this is what Freeman's own mother had to say. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIMBERLY FREEMAN, MOTHER OF GERSHUN FREEMAN: They go home every night to their family. Whereas, for me and my granddaughter, we have to see my son, her father, in a box.

We want answers. Bring those people to the front of the courthouse. We want to see them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROSALES: And back to that Shelby County sheriff's office statement, they do also say they took immediate action following protocol, notifying the district attorney's office and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

And also saying decisions about jail health care and the number of health care professionals in jail are determined by the mayor's administration, not the sheriff.

Meanwhile, here is what the Sheriff Floyd Bonner Jr said in a statement: "It is unfortunate this case is being tried in the media before the review is complete" - Paula.

REID: Isabel Rosales, thank you.

ROSALES: Thank you. REID: Another disturbing case. This one out of Virginia. And 28-year-

old Irvo Otieno died after being arrested and taken to a mental health facility earlier this month. Prosecutors say he died of suffocation after being physically restrained.

Seven sheriff's deputies now face charges of second-degree murder. Three hospital security guards are also charged.

There is video footage of the incident but it has not been released. But Otieno's family says they have seen and they say it is shocking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEON OCHIENG, BROTHER OF IRVO OTIENO: Words can't describe what I just saw today.

ANN CABELL BASKETVILL, DINWIDDIE COUNTY COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY: It is 12 minutes of him being splayed out on the ground, with all seven, and ultimately other people as well on top of him. They smothered him and they smothered him to death.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Law enforcement consultant and former NYPD detective, Tom Verni, joins me now.

Tom, let's start with this case out of Virginia. Seven sheriff's deputies, three hospital security guards now all facing second degree murder charges.

Are you surprised that they've all been charged?

TOM VERNI, LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSULTANT & FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE: Good afternoon, Paula.

No, I'm not - I'm not surprised that they've been charged. Like anyone else who's been charged with any sort of crime, these officers, you know, are innocent until they're proven guilty.

[16:35:04]

And it's - you know, they're going to have to prove that they went out of bounds of their training and out of the confines of, you know, the criminal procedural law and penal law of the state, you know, at the end of the day, right?

They're going to have to show they did not form their actions by the law and by the way they were trained and we'll have to see how that unfolds.

REID: Both of these incidents involve victims who allegedly were suffering from severe, potentially violent mental health crises.

How difficult is it for law enforcement to deal with people when they're in the middle of a mental health crisis? VERNI: So what we would describe as someone who's in distress due to a

mental illness or some other form of rage is we will call this like an EDP case, an emotionally disturbed person.

It's one of the most dangerous jobs that police respond to, other than being shot at and car stops.

And because the thing is, you are a rational police officer trying to deal with someone who is irrational for some unknown reason, and so you are trying to play this tug of war where you're trying to get them to see reason and they are just, you know, flipping out.

It could be maybe they were on drugs, alcohol, or drugs and alcohol or suffering from a mental illness, maybe not on medication. They're completely amped up.

I've had emotionally disturbed people who were half my size who had the strength of 10 people. So it's very dangerous. You're going into a lot of question marks, a lot of unknowns.

And ultimately, the objective is to get that person to a mental health facility, to a hospital, right, so they can be emotionally and psychologically evaluated as well as medically evaluated.

If they did commit some sort of crime, then be brought up on charges once we know what we're dealing with.

REID: In the case of Gershun Freeman, that surveillance video footage from the jail, his family has seen that. They're calling for officers to be held accountable.

Do you think they will face charges based on what you've seen in that video?

VERNI: Well, this may be a similar situation where they may decide to charge all the people involved and then decide who had the most to do with this scenario.

What's interesting is, in the video, if you look at the beginning of the video, you see him come out of the - charging out of the cell. He throws something. He gets into a physical confrontation with the correction officers.

Working in the jail is not the most-safest profession. You know, you have people who are in there for numerous reasons. And, you know, correctional officers are injured and killed all the time.

That's another extremely dangerous job, you know, vocation to be working in this.

So he starts fighting with them and, you know, in - one thing I've seen in correction facilities, once you, you know, start fighting with the correction officers, they're going to call for backup.

And the odds are going to be it's going to be you verses a dozen or half a dozen people, and those aren't good odds, right? When you have - you know, emotions are high. If people are being

injured, especially the correctional officers being injured, they're going to use whatever force is necessary to bring that situation to an end.

An end, meaning that this person has now been re-handcuffed, brought into some sort of hold, and no longer a threat to the correction officers' safety.

REID: Tom Verni, thank you.

VERNI: Any time.

REID: And still ahead, Wyoming is the first state to ban abortion pills outright, as we wait for a federal judge in Texas who could ban one of them nationwide. We'll discuss.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:54]

REID: Overnight, Wyoming's governor signed a bill banning the use of abortion pills in the state.

Wyoming is the first state in the country to specifically prohibit the use of these pills. Thirteen other states have enacted blanket abortion bans that include abortion medication.

But Wyoming's move comes as a federal judge in Texas is set to rule in a case that could rescind federal approval of the widely used abortion drug.

This week, we got our first indication of how that Amarillo-based federal judge may rule.

During four hours of arguments, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk indicated that he is seriously considering rolling back the FDA's approval of that medication and may target regulatory changes that made abortion medication more accessible.

Joining me now is Caroline Kitchener, who is reporting on this for "The Washington Post.

Caroline, thank you for joining us.

You were in that Texas courtroom. And like the rest of us, you've been focused on those proceedings and the Wyoming ban.

Did this ban in Wyoming on Friday, did it surprise you based on all of your reporting?

CAROLINE KITCHENER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Not at all, Paula. I mean, I think what's really clear here is that abortion pills are posing a challenge to these abortion bans that a lot of people on the anti-abortion side just weren't ready for.

It's a real difference from the last time that abortion was illegal across much of this country, before Roe v. Wade. Now there are pills. They're very easy to distribute. They're easy to send in the mail.

And a lot of people on the anti-abortion side are just scrambling to try to figure out, how do we deal with this? How can we crack down on this effectively? And let me tell you, I mean, they're having a hard time.

REID: Wyoming's law makes it illegal to prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell, or even use abortion pills.

Is there any significance that Wyoming is doing this and not even waiting for what happens in Amarillo? They're just going forward and doing it? Is that politics?

Because, legally, this could happen through the federal courts any day now.

[16:45:04]

KITCHENER: Well, like you said, I mean, many states already do have these blanket bans that do include abortion pills. But many of those have been challenged in the courts.

I think there is some thinking here that maybe if we narrow - on the anti-abortion side, if we narrow the scope of the ban to just pills, then those might have a better chance at holding up in the courts.

But, you know, we really - we don't know what's going to happen with the case in Texas. And that really could change the whole game. I mean, not just in Republican states but across the entire country.

REID: That's interesting, the idea of making a more-narrow ban that could successfully go through legal challenges.

Thirteen states have, of course, enacted total bans on abortion, which includes the use of abortion pills. Fifteen states are already limiting access to those pills.

What states are you watching right now?

KITCHENER: Well, I mean, I'm really interested in what's going to happen in this Texas ruling. Because, you know, there are so many states in this country where abortion is not just legal but protected.

Protected in the constitution, protected in additional laws that have been passed and - but those laws, you know, potentially not just going to hold up to a ruling from the federal judge.

For the first time in my work, I really focus on Kentucky, on Texas, on Oklahoma, on these states where there have been abortion bans.

But for the first time, I'm really looking at very closely New York, California, Connecticut. Because, you know, Mifepristone - that's the drug that's at issue here

- if that's taken off the market, that completely upends what happens in clinics in Democrat-led states as well as Republican-led ones.

REID: Let's talk about the hearing that you were at in Amarillo, Texas.

What was the atmosphere like in that courtroom? It's a tiny district in Texas. But all eyes were on this courtroom as a judge heard arguments about whether or not to do this nationwide ban on abortion medication.

What stood out to you?

KITCHENER: Well, first of all, it was very hard to get in. Very few people actually heard these arguments.

There were just a few spaces in the courtroom. We had to line up at, you know, 5:00 in the morning to hear what the judge had to say.

And what he had to say was, you know, I think really significant. He did ask, you know, clarifying questions of both sides.

But it became clearer and clearer as the hearing was going on, he was seriously considering the arguments that the anti-abortion groups were making.

Arguments that Mifepristone is unsafe, arguments that the approval process was rushed.

We know Mifepristone has been on the market for 22 years, approved by the FDA. It is very safe. Leading medical organizations widely agree.

So the fact that he really seemed to be seriously entertaining these arguments I think is extremely significant.

REID: Caroline Kitchener, thank you so much for your reporting.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:41]

REID: Renowned DJ David Guetta treating lucky fans at a show to a new song with Eminem. It was a hit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING)

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: That's not actually Eminem. It's artificial intelligence. A deep fake like this creates a lot of copywrite and ethical questions.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich sat down with David and asked him what the future holds for A.I. in music.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: How did this all happen?

DAVID GUETTA, DJ USES AI TO MIMIC EMINEM'S VOICE, CREATE NEW SONG: I just got curious about the A.I. so I did right reverse in the style of him.

(SINGING)

GUETTA: And then I put it in another A.I. Web site. I said, use rapper's voice, Eminem. And finally I got something I liked.

YURKEVICH: How long did that process take you?

GUETTA: One hour.

YURKEVICH: Was it a reaction beyond maybe some of your own songs that you have put out?

GUETTA: People were screaming, yes. The reaction was very big.

YURKEVICH: Technically, you created this song with the A.I. Technically, you own the copyright?

GUETTA: There's a bit of an ethical problem because, when I'm using Eminem's voice, I don't think there's a law right now about this.

YURKEVICH: Do you think there needs to be federal regulation around artificial intelligence?

GUETTA: I think maybe not yet. I like that it's very free and open right now. But at some point, yes, the question is going to - has to be raised.

I think A.I. is going to be a huge influence on music. Being an artist is having a certain view on the world and it doesn't matter what the tools are.

Many years ago, you needed to study music theory. You needed to go to a big studio. Now kids are making huge hit records in the bedrooms on their laptop.

YURKEVICH: You're saying it's so easy for new artists to make a hit record. But in some instances, they could be a competitor to you.

[16:55:03]

GUETTA: That's not the way I look at it. I don't want to fight it. I want to embrace it. What makes me who I am is the creative process. And the machine will never have the taste the way the human can have the taste.

YURKEVICH: Do you think other artists, other people in the music industry feel the way you feel about this?

GUETTA: I think a lot of people are going to be mad at me. And I think a lot of people are going to be mad at the A.I. Because they're going to fear competition.

I remember the reaction of the people when D.J.s started to be so big. Musicians saying, oh, this is ridiculous, you're not even playing an instrument on stage.

YURKEVICH: Do you feel like maybe you could ultimately release an entire record using just A.I. creation?

GUETTA: Absolutely. I want to work more with A.I. People don't like what's new. But I love what's new.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

REID: Thanks to Vanessa Yurkevich for that report.

Still ahead, as a possible indictment for Donald Trump looms in Manhattan, what's the political consequence for the man who once said this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that, where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and won't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: We'll discuss.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.