Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

156 Baltimore Catholic Clergy, Others Accused Of Abusing 600- Plus Children; Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown Discusses Report On Catholic Clergy; ProPublica: Justice Thomas Accepted Luxury Trips From GOP Donor; Hugh Jackman Urges Fans To Use Sunscreen After Skin Cancer Scare. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 06, 2023 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:30:40]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Betrayal of trust. Today, the Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is reeling from a horrific report from the Maryland attorney general.

It revealed 60 years of sexual abuse and coverups of more than 600 children abused. And more than 150 priests and other employees are accused in that report.

CNN's Jean Casarez has been reading through this massive report.

So, Jean, can you walk us through some of these findings here?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you're -- you're right. It's six decades, is what they looked at, of abuse in the Catholic Church that was covered up -- and I think that's an important point -- in the Baltimore Archdiocese.

Now the clergy involved, there are listed in the report names of at least 156. There are a few that are redacted. But I looked at those names, and it involves everyone, from priests -- male priests are the main alleged offenders in all of this.

I did see some sisters, some nuns that were in there, along with other clergy and personnel and deacons.

But the report goes into great detail that the victims were plied with alcohol and with drugs. So they were not able to do anything. And then they were coerced to engage in these sexual acts.

I want to read a portion from the attorney general's report because it says it very, very strongly.

Quote, "From the 1940s through 2000, over 100 priests and other Archdiocese personnel engaged in horrific and repeated abuse of the most vulnerable children in their communities, while Archdiocese leadership looked the other way."

"Time and again, members of the church's hierarchy resolutely refused to acknowledge allegations of child sexual abuse for as long as possible."

And to date, $13.8 million has been given to victims. There's been an issue with the statute of limitations.

But yesterday, both Houses have passed, in Maryland, the Child Abuse Act of 19 - 2023 -- It's going to the governor for signature -- which would eliminate any statute of limitations for the victims, child victims of sexual abuse -- Abby?

PHILLIP: All right, Jean Casarez, thank you very much for breaking all of that down for us.

And joining me now is Anthony Brown, the Maryland attorney general who oversaw and released this report.

Attorney General Brown, thank you for joining us.

This report really is shocking, almost nauseating really when you read the details.

I want to start, though, where Jean left off about what happens now. The statute of limitations is likely to now be extended on the civil side. But is there any criminal recourse for any individuals accused here who might still be alive?

ANTHONY BROWN, MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL: Let me just start first, Abby, by thanking the survivors for their courage and their candor in coming forward. For many of the survivors we interviewed, they've told their stories over and over again, never believed, certainly by the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

And for some survivors, it was the first time they told their stories. So we tried to document and to reveal as much detail as possible, the horrid, horrible trauma that they suffered.

Your question about criminal prosecutions, there is one person who we indicted and is facing criminal prosecution. The trial date is set for some time in June.

The sad reality is that Maryland law has tied my hands. The -- these offenses back in the '40s, '50s through the '90s were misdemeanors, and the statute of limitations has run so I'm unable to bring a criminal case against them.

In some situations, the abuser agreed to a plea deal with the local prosecutor. So I'm unable to take further action.

And in some cases, that the abusers have died, they're deceased.

So we -- without further information, I don't -- I'm not looking at right now the ability to bring criminal action against individuals or even the Archdiocese at this time.

PHILLIP: And just to be clear, you said Maryland law ties your hands. Is that something that you think can or should be changed?

[13:35:04]

BROWN: Well, when it comes to criminal law, you can't change the law today to apply retroactively.

But what is happening today in the Maryland General Assembly, and about an hour after we released our report yesterday, the General Assembly basically eliminated the statute of limitations on civil actions.

So survivors are able to bring cases against their abusers and against the Archdiocese of Baltimore. It's a -- it's a long road ahead.

And my office has stated to the General Assembly that we will defend the constitutionality of that law, if and when it's challenged.

PHILLIP: Many of the abusers in this report, as Jean was saying, they are named, but there are several who are not. I wonder if you can tell us why those names are not redacted.

And you know, are you looking into those individuals? Perhaps they are still alive. Maybe they're not in clergy anymore but they're elsewhere in the country.

Why are those names not -- not -- why are those names not revealed in the report?

BROWN: Sure. The names and a lot of the information we got that went into the report was gained through a grand jury subpoena. And that information is always confidential unless a court orders their release.

So in this case, the judge in the Baltimore City Circuit Court said, for those number -- I think there are 10 to 12 names that are redacted -- notify them, like in the context in which they are included in the report. They'll have an opportunity to file objections with the court.

My office also will weigh in, arguing that they should be revealed. And the court will ultimately make a decision. So that will happen over time.

But we wanted to make sure that we got the 450-plus pages out as soon as we could so that the survivors finally could have their story heard by the public.

PHILLIP: And notable there that you're saying you do want those names to be revealed lawfully if they are able to be.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, thank you so much for joining us on this story.

And our hearts go out to all the victims of these horrible crimes over the years.

But still ahead, luxury trips, sometimes on a super yacht, sometimes on a private jet. What a new report alleges about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his ties to a GOP mega donor. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:42:10]

PHILLIP: A brand-new report is raising some serious questions about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the lavish gifts that he reportedly accepted from a GOP mega donor.

ProPublica says that the luxury vacations from billionaire, Harlan Crow, were never disclosed.

And according to these - this probe by ProPublica, these are photos of Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni Thomas, with Crow and others during a trip to Indonesia back in 2019.

The report says that the Thomas' flew on Crow's private jet to Indonesia for the nine-day luxury vacation, one that they say is valued at more than $500,000.

ProPublica goes on to say that the extent and frequency of Crow's apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the United States Supreme Court.

And just minutes ago, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin had this to say, quote, "The ProPublica report is a call to action and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act."

CNN Supreme Court reporter, Ariane De Vogue, is joining us now with more on this very eyebrow raising story.

So, Ariane, how unprecedented is this really?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: It's unheard of at the Supreme Court. This ProPublica report really detailing these lavish trips that Justice Clarence Thomas took and were paid for by this mega donor.

And trips, like you said, New Zealand, Indonesia, on private jets, on private yachts, at private resorts.

But what's really important here is to put this into context. Because it comes as the Supreme Court right now is under this white-hot spotlight where more and more people are thinking that the court has become more political, less a judicial branch, more like just another political branch.

And you see Congress right now, it's moving. It wants more ethics disclosure.

He himself, Thomas, is arguably the most conservative member of the court. And, of course, his wife, Ginni Thomas, came under fire several months ago for a text that she sent to members of Trump's team in an effort to overturn election results.

So this is all coming when the Supreme Court is in the middle of this swirling controversy. And it -- it causes trouble for Clarence Thomas. And of course, what they're saying now is Harlan Crow, this Dallas businessman, he was the one who paid for this. It was never disclosed. And he has given more, according to ProPublica, than $10 million in political contributions over the years.

PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, that's really stunning.

So, Ariane, what has Harlan Crow said about all of this?

DE VOGUE: Well, he did release a statement that we got a copy of.

He said, "We have never asked about a pending or lower-court case. And Justice Thomas has never discussed one. And we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue."

[13:45:07]

He says he's "unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas."

But the thing is, it really does put a spotlight on ethics at the Supreme Court. Because the judicial conference just recently amended its own rules.

And it would cover things like staying in a private resort, private jets, it said that those things have to be disclosed.

So maybe, arguably, Thomas could say, look, before that, they didn't need to be disclosed, so I didn't have to disclose it.

But there's also federal law in place, and it says that members of the judiciary should not accept anything of value from a person whose interests may be substantially affected.

Again, language that might suggest that this kind of trip, this kind of money should have been disclosed.

Now Clarence Thomas or -- neither Clarence Thomas or the Supreme Court has decided to give any kind of statement right now. But it comes as all eyes are on the Supreme Court.

PHILLIP: Yes, absolutely. And as you said, the federal law talks about anything of value that -- these are a lot of very valuable things. I think most people would agree with that.

Ariane De Vogue, thank you very much.

And still ahead for us, the skin cancer scare for Actor Hugh Jackman and his message to others. Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:51:11]

PHILLIP: We have some new economic data that the Fed is surely watching. The weekly jobless claims ticked up higher than experts expected. Now those first-time unemployment claims hit 228,000, which is slightly above the pre-pandemic average in 2019.

And a key piece of the Fed's war on inflation is to cool the extremely hot jobs market, which, so far, has proven to be pretty resilient in the face of Jerome Powell's aggressive rate hikes.

And now to another story. Hugh Jackman says that he is in the clear after his latest skin cancer scare. The good news comes just one day after he shared that he had undergone two biopsies on his nose.

Now Jackman, who was first diagnosed with skin cancer back in 2013, is also issuing this plea to his fans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUGH JACKSON, ACTOR: Put some sunscreen on. You'll still have an incredible time out there. All right? Please be safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, is joining me now.

Sanjay, I, too, am a sunscreen evangelizer. So how important are the warnings like the one that he just issued to a lot of people who love him as an actor?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is critically important. It's kind of amazing how few people use sunscreen, Abby, I think people just don't think about it. They don't worry about it as much as, you know, maybe they should.

When we talk about these types of skin cancers -- and what was what Hugh Jackman was referring to something known as basal cell skin cancer.

In the United States, you get about roughly 5.5 6 million people who are diagnosed every year. Eight out of 10 are those basil cell cancers, which --which he was talking about.

Now to be clear, death is not common with this, but they can spread. And they can require sometimes significant procedures to remove.

Let me show you quickly, Abby. We have this graphic here just to show you.

When you think about your skin, you have your epidermis, you have your dermis. Most people know these layers. The epidermis is about the thickness of a credit card, for example. It's that layer that we're talking about.

You have squamous cells, you have these basal cells and you also have melanocytes, and any of those can be mutated by the sun, by U.V. light exposure, and potentially turn into a cancer.

So the basil cells -- you can see there on the right side of the screen -- that's what Hugh Jackman was talking about. That's what was of concern for him.

And as he also pointed out in that Instagram video you just showed, it was about 25 years ago that he had a lot of sun exposure. You can accumulate that risk over time, which is why you have to be careful even from a very young age.

PHILLIP: Yes, yes. You think about your kids as well outside in the sun.

So how often should people get screened for skin cancer? And what do the warning signs look like?

GUPTA: So if you've had a history of any kind of skin cancer, you should be getting screened regularly.

But you can do a lot of this yourself. And I just take this through this with you quickly.

Doctors medical people they like acronyms. So A, B, C, D, E. If you have a skin lesion or a mole, is it asymmetric? Is the border changing? Is the color changing? Is it getting bigger, smaller in diameter? And is it evolving in some way?

If that's happening, that's when you should get it checked out.

PHILLIP: And one other thing -- I mean, as a person of color myself, I think a lot of people of color don't think that they need to wear sunscreen. They do.

And what do people need to know about how to wear sunscreen properly?

GUPTA: Yes, I mean, I totally hear you on that. And anybody can be at risk.

First of all, just a couple of quick things. SPF of 30 or more. Also think about UVA and UVB protection. I'll show you why, here in a second. Make sure that it's "broad spectrum." Wear it on sunny or cool days.

Let's put up that graphic really quick. UVA and UVB. The UVB, you can see that's the one that hits the epidermis, increases your risk of cancer.

[13:55:04]

But UVA is the one that sort of ages you because it's hitting those layers underneath the epidermis. That can be a problem as well. You want to protect against both.

Really quickly, to our point, Abby, 12.3 percent of men wear sunscreen on a sunny day, 29 percent of women. Those numbers are way too low.

This is easy. And you can protect yourself against something that could be a real nuisance later in life.

PHILLIP: Yes, it's so important. And it's so readily available. Dr Sanjay Gupta, thank you so much. Always good to have you on here.

GUPTA: You got it. Thank you.

PHILLIP: And that does it for me here on CNN NEWSROOM. But don't go anywhere. We've got much more news straight ahead right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)