Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Manhunt Intensifies For The Mass Shooter In Cleveland, Texas; Two Dead, Four Wounded In A House Party Shooting In Mississippi; Second U.S.-Led Evacuation Convoy Is Now At Port Of Sudan; Frist Republic Bank Auctioned Off; Calls For U.S. Supreme Court Code Of Ethics; Update On The Trump Investigations; Animation And Social Justice Issues; Countdown To King Charles' Coronation. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 30, 2023 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:02]

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: An incredible mentor and friend to so many athletes, students, scholars, business people, and Olympians, from gold medalist Roger Kingdom to Edwin Moses, who you've seen in some of the pictures behind me, from last year's big 100th birthday celebration in which I also had the great privilege of attending. So, this week, we will gather again, this time for Herb P. Douglas' homegoing to celebrate his life, legacy, and the love he shared with so many.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington. We begin this hour with a warning from law enforcement. We do not know where he is. Those chilling words minutes ago from the top FBI agent in San Jacinto County, Texas, about this man, 38-year- old Francisco Oropesa. He has been the focus of a desperate manhunt since Friday night.

That's when neighbors asked him to stop firing his rifle in his front yard because they were trying to get a baby to go to sleep. Police say Oropesa entered their home and began shooting. An 8-year-old boy was among the five neighbors slaughtered almost execution-style in the words of the sheriff. CNN's Ed Lavandera is in Cleveland, Texas for us. The sheriff and FBI just held a news briefing. What did you learn there?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we learned that clearly investigators here, what they are saying publicly is that they essentially have no idea where this 38-year-old murder suspect is, Francisco Oropesa, not seen since Friday night. However, investigators did say that they have -- he has spoken with several friends. They believe that he has.

But so far, those communications and those connections have not led investigators to his whereabouts. He is a Mexican national, so there is some concern that the suspect is trying to get back to Mexico. But investigators say that at this point, they have no idea where he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES SMITH, FBI HOUSTON SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: Right now, we just don't know because if we did, we would have him in custody right now. We do not know where he is. We don't have any tips right now to where he may be. And that's why we've come up with this reward so that hopefully somebody out there can call us. I pretty much can guarantee you he's contacted some of his friends. Right now, we're just running into dead ends. Right now, we have zero leads.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAVANDERA: Jim, you heard the officers there referring to reward money. $80,000 of reward money has been pooled together from various entities to hopefully gather information as to where 38-year-old Francisco Oropesa might be. And investigators also say they have roughly 250 officers from various law enforcement agencies combing through neighborhoods and the area, trying to dig up any kind of leads that might point to where he is.

But as of now, no breakthrough on that front. And all of this stemming from this violent attack on Friday night where, as you mentioned off the top, Oropesa is accused of murdering five people inside a home where there were 10 people. Three of the women who died, died while shielding their young children from the gunfire.

And the sheriff told us a little while ago that those three children that the women had saved were covered in their blood when they were taken away from the crime scene and taken to the hospital, Jim.

ACOTA: Just a horrific shooting. All right, Ed Lavandera, thanks so much. If you get any new details, please get back in touch with us. We appreciate it. Let's get -- let's continue this discussion now. Steve Moore is a CNN law enforcement contributor. He's also a retired FBI supervisory special agent.

Steve, thanks very much for joining us. Let's begin with this Texas mass shooting. You know, the suspect has been on the run, it seems now, about 40 hours. How important is this reward of $80,000, and are you surprised by what law enforcement is saying, that they just don't know where he is? It sounds as though, for the moment, he's vanished.

STEVE MOORE, CNN LAW ENFORECEMENT CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. I think the $80,000 isn't going to hurt anything. But I think people are going to be motivated simply by the grotesque crime that he committed. I'm not surprised at 40 hours that they have come to this conclusion. The first 24 are very important when you've got a fugitive because you can actually time how far they could have walked, whether or not they could have gotten to another vehicle. But after 24 hours, it actually does grow a little bit cold.

[17:05:01]

And the concern now is obviously that he needs food, water, transportation, money, and he's obviously somebody who will do anything to get what he wants.

ACOTA: And how much more difficult is this manhunt now compared to the first hours after a crime? I mean, do you have to assume if you're an FBI agent on the hunt for this man, that he is now out of that area? That he could really be just about anywhere at this point?

MOORE: Yeah, Jim. You have to at least make that your operating consideration. You're not going to say that he didn't just hunker down and hide somewhere, but you have to -- every hour that goes by, you have to widen the circle. And right now, what you're looking at, up to say 48 hours, you want to know if cars were stolen in the area. You want to know if people are not communicating with their families. You want all of this going on, and that is at the same time that the FBI is sending out leads to probably every office south of Houston right now, letting them know he might be on the way.

ACOTA: And the suspect is said to be a Mexican national. I suppose that means they're looking for him at ports of entry between the U.S. and Mexico. You have to assume at this point that, I mean, this manhunt, the information is being shared with all sorts of law enforcement agencies, including those at the border.

MOORE: Yeah. Yeah, and being a Mexican national, once he gets across the border, if he does, they won't extradite for a capital crime. So, we would have to, as a nation, decide that we're not going to seek a death penalty in order to get him back. So, the Mexican government would actually have some kind of influence on the penalty phase of our trial if they did extradite him.

But right now, the FBI is probably coming up with a list of everybody he communicated with. They've probably got his phone records. Anybody he talks to, anybody he's friends with, anybody who he thinks might shield him or give him aid, the FBI is probably on them right now.

ACOTA: And what clues at this point are FBI agents and law enforcement personnel looking for? I mean, I suppose they're trying to find out, you know, cars being rented in the area, cars stolen in the area. I mean, he can't get that far on foot. I mean, I suppose he could just be laying low until the coast is clear, he thinks, and then a few days later, tries to bolt from the area. I mean, what goes through your mind thinking about this, thinking this through?

MOORE: Well, I've seen both. I've seen somebody hunker down for 24, 48 hours, hoping that the search will widen out, and they -- all of a sudden nobody is looking in the immediate vicinity. The FBI is going to want to know when he was last seen. Did he have shoes on? Did he have a wallet with him? Did -- you know, they're going to be looking for all these things in his house.

If they find his wallet there, then they know of certain things that he's going to need -- money, cash specifically. If they find his gun missing, that's really troubling also because it means that's his means of getting the things he needs. So, there's agents in all sorts of different facets of this. There are agents in his house right now saying, what do we have? What do we not have? What does he have? And so, they're trying to create a scenario where they can say if, you know, we were him, what would he be doing, and what would he need the most?

ACOTA: Right. All right. It's certainly a very important manhunt for the FBI that they find this man after what happened this past weekend. It's just a terrible, terrible crime that occurred there in Cleveland, Texas. All right. Steve Moore, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it.

The Cleveland, Texas shooting is not the only horrific one we've seen this week. In Mississippi, two teens are dead and four more wounded after another teen opened fire at a house party last night in that area. Local police have the alleged gunman in custody and CNN's Ryan Young has the story.

RYAN YOUNG, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Jim, another mass shooting overnight, this time involving teens at a house party in Mississippi. Six teens shot in total, two now dead. Four others recovering this afternoon after being shot at that house party. Police have arrested Cameron Everett Brand. They charged him with homicide and several counts of aggravated assault. He's 19. He was arrested at his home.

According to police, the victims are 16 and 18 years old. This happened in a house party in Bay St. Louis. It's a small town in Mississippi, a little less than 10,000 people. And at that party apparently, this young man pulled a gun according to police, opened fire. Some of the victims were driven to the hospital.

[17:10:00]

Others -- other victims needed to be airlifted to area hospitals where they could receive care. At this point, this has been devastating for that community. We're still trying to figure out what the motive was in this shooting and how this all got to a point where this gun was pulled, six kids were shot, two dead. It's another troubling instance of gun violence in America. Jim.

ACOSTA: It certainly is. All right, Ryan, thank you very much.

Breaking news to tell you about out of Sudan. The second U.S.-led evacuation convoy has arrived in Port Sudan. From there, Americans who have been trapped in the conflict zone will head to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Sudan's violence is now in its third week, but the warring parties in that country have agreed to extend the cease-fire for 72 hours. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez joins us now from the White House. Priscilla, what more are we learning about these evacuations?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Jim, this is the latest development in the ongoing effort to evacuate U.S. citizens from Sudan whereas you mentioned, there has been ongoing fighting. So, we know that the second convoy has reached Port Sudan. The first convoy reached Prot Sudan yesterday.

Now, the State Department has said that nearly 1,000 citizens have been evacuated from Sudan with the cooperation of global allies. They have also detailed some of the organization and protection that they are using. For example, military surveillance overwatch, coordination with other nations on flights and convoys, as well as diplomatic outreach to U.S. citizens in Sudan.

Now, the State Department also says that fewer than 5,000 citizens have sought guidance from the U.S. government. But this is an issue that has been forefront for the White House. They have been under pressure to help U.S. citizens. We have been hearing from the relatives of some who are dual citizens in Sudan, who are trying to evacuate. SO, this has been something that the White House has been having to answer to. They are under pressure to get these U.S. citizens out of Sudan.

Now, we are seeing and hearing about the second convoy and waiting for the latest developments of what is to come for those who are still there. Jim?

ACOSTA: All right. They're very busy over there with these evacuations. All right, Priscilla Alvarez, thank you very much.

Now to a major developing story. Right now, a source telling CNN at this hour that San Francisco-based First Republic Bank is being auctioned by the FDIC. Final bids were due just an hour ago. Half a dozen banks are reportedly interested and a deal is expected to be announced tonight. This follows a staggering 97 percent drop in First Republic's stock price since March 1st and comes despite a $30 billion lifeline that apparently was not enough to save it.

Joining us now to talk about this is CNN's Matt Egan. Matt, you know, this is a -- these are some tense moments. What do you think? Do you think a resolution will be coming by tomorrow morning because obviously there are going to be some jittery investors on Wall Street. They don't want to see this kind of a deal fall through. They want to see this happen tonight.

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Yeah, Jim. We do expect something to get announced tonight. You know, in the past, U.S. officials, they've tried to come up with solutions during crises before Asian markets open, and that's happening next hour, certainly before U.S. markets open tomorrow morning. Now, the best-case scenario here would be a white knight emerges, a big bank comes to the rescue of First Republic Bank.

A more concerning development would be that the FDIC seizes First Republic and ends up having to own and control this bank for a certain amount of time. Now, this bank, First Republic, it's been teetering really for weeks. The stock price is down by 97 percent since early March. On March 1, it was trading at $122 apiece. Now it's below $4. It's really a breathtaking drop.

Now, in case you're not familiar with First Republic, this bank is sitting on $233 billion in assets. That means if it were seized by the FDIC, it would be the second biggest bank failure in American history. Now, it's based in San Francisco, has 82 branches across eight states and really for the longest time, it was the envy of the banking industry because it caters to wealthy clients.

But two-thirds of its deposits are uninsured as of the end of last year, and that is a problem because of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse of last month made uninsured depositors, those above $250,000, very nervous. First Republic said that it lost 41 percent of its deposits during the first quarter alone. That equates to a loss of $72 billion in deposits, and that's despite the $30 billion injection from big banks that came up with this lifeline. Now, Jim, the question is whether or not big banks are going to step up with another rescue here for First Republic.

ACOSTA: And, you know, if this doesn't go through, how big of a jolt might this be for the market and for folks at home who are wondering, you know, might my bank be next? Is this something that folks need to start worrying about?

[17:15:00]

EGAN: Well, I think we need to remind everyone that the FDIC insures up to $250,000 per bank, per borrower. And that happens no matter what the bank's stock is doing. So as long as you don't have more than $250,000, that money is being insured by the FDIC. I think the bigger question here is what this means for the broader economy, right, because credit is really the lifeblood of the economy. It makes the whole economy run.

And the more nervous bankers get, the less likely they are to extend credit to all of us, right? So, that could mean more expensive mortgages, more expensive credit cards, harder to get car loans and small business loans. And obviously that has an economic impact. So, U.S. officials, for the last seven weeks, they've been scrambling to try to prevent a full-blown credit crunch because that is something that would really slow the economy or, Jim, could even cause a recession.

ACOSTA: Right. They don't want to see one bank following another down this path. Not where any of us want to see this go. All right, Matt Egan, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

Coming up, growing demands for a real code of ethics for Supreme Court justices after controversial financial dealings among some of those justices on the high court.

And later, the United Kingdom gearing up for its first coronation in almost 70 years. King Charles on his way. We'll be breaking down what's to be expected here in the coming days. You're live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:00]

ACOSTA: It is the highest court in the land, so shouldn't there be high ethical standards for the Supreme Court? Of all the countries, state and federal courts, it is the Supreme Court that lacks an official code of conduct. Amid a series of recent catastrophes about the financial dealings of Justices Clarence Thomas, and now Neil Gorsuch, Senate Democrats invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify in front of the judiciary committee about ethics standards.

Roberts respectfully declined and all nine justices released a joint statement saying they're fine with the current system by which they voluntarily follow ethics guidelines. Joining us now to talk about this, CNN's legal analyst, Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics czar. You know, Norm, great to see you. You know, the Chief Justice cited separation of powers -- separation of powers concerns for not speaking before the Judiciary Committee. Do you buy that?

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jim, I think given the emergency nature of this constant drumbeat of ethics scandal at the Supreme Court, the separation of powers concerns important, must yield to an even more important consideration, which is we need to be confident that our Supreme Court justices are not being influenced by things like these hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed luxury travel gifts that Justice Thomas got from Harlan Crow. So, separation of powers is important. Ethics is even more important.

ACOSTA: And the Senate Judiciary Chairman, Dick Durbin, had this to say about Roberts declining the invitation. Let's listen and talk about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court, maybe the only federal agency that doesn't have an enforceable code of ethics.

What we received yesterday was not just a letter saying, I respectfully decline the invitation, but what appeared to be a defense of the status quo of the current system, whatever it is, in the Supreme Court is inadequate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: I mean, what do you think? Is the Supreme Court capable of policing itself?

EISEN: Well, the key word in Senator Durbin's remarks was enforceable code of ethics.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

EISEN: Every ethics authority -- and I administered these ethics laws for the White House, every ethics authority needs to have some kind of independent review. They need to have transparency, and they need to have accountability if they go awry. I meant it can't be that one governmental body, one judicial body in all the land, that if a Justice Thomas takes hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed luxury travel gifts, Jim, that he decides if he did wrong or not.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

EISEN: And respectfully, some of those justices are my friends, but respectfully, even if all nine of them agree that Justice Thomas should make those calls or Justice Gorsuch was a law school classmate of mine -- no, that's not the American idea.

We started out talking about separations of powers. You know another thing we have? Checks and balances. Well, where is the checks, and where are the balances if Justice Thomas is deciding his own ethics violations?

ACOSTA: Seems out of balance. And we've seen the ProPublica reporting that this GOP mega donor, Harlan Crow, gave Justice Clarence Thomas free luxury trips and these personal gifts. And this week, "Politico" reported -- we just talked about this moments ago, that Justice Neil Gorsuch was part owner in a property that was purchased by the head of a major law firm that has a lot of business in front of the high court, and Gorsuch, apparently, never disclosed the name of the buyer, later sat on almost two dozen cases involving clients of this law firm. It makes you wonder how much of this is going on that we just don't know about. How troubling is this?

EISEN: Well, it is concerning. We do have to distinguish between the Thomas issues and the Gorsuch issues. There is a legitimate debate about whether or not Justice Gorsuch should have disclosed the identity of the buyer, and there are ethics experts who say, well, it's not really required.

Now, we should have a code that mandates that, okay? But Justice Thomas, there is no argument that he did not have to disclose those massive gifts. So, the Gorsuch example shows we need tougher rules. The Thomas example shows we need some kind of an enforcement system.

[17:25:03]

ACOSTA: And whistle-blower documents also show that the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts made more than $10 million in commissions from some of these elite law firms that do business here in the country. And at least one of those firms later argued a case before Roberts at the Supreme Court. C

Now, as the spouse of the chief justice, what should be the rules be? I mean we've talked about wives of other justices on the Supreme Court. But what about in this case?

EISEN: Well, again, the spousal problem, it's something I dealt with a lot when I worked in the White House. You know, this is WASHINGTON, D.C. So, you are going to have spouses who are involved in the business of the capitol.

ACOSTA: Sure.

EISEN: Placing people at law firms, that is a legitimate activity. Again, you have to distinguish between that, where it would have been good to have clear rules, more disclosure, and we shouldn't be finding out about this through whistle-blowers. But that is totally different than the Clarence Thomas situation, again, where his wife was involved in the January 6th investigation as a witness, and he's sitting on January 6th cases. It's a conflict of interest.

Any other judge in the land would have to recuse. He says, I'm not recusing. Well, there's nothing to be done. We need that enforceability. We need those clear rules. And we need that transparency. It's a three-legged stool. All three are deficient at the Supreme Court. ACOSTA: All right. Norm, thanks so much. I like the energy after this

long weekend here. This court (inaudible). You've got a lot of energy tonight. We appreciate it.

EISEN: We saw each other all weekend so we could prepare.

ACOSTA: We did, yes. Yeah, I need some of your energy right now. All right, Norm, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

EISEN: Thanks, Jim.

ACOSTA: Coming up, are Trump's legal challenges finally catching up to him? Will they make a difference in 2024? George Conway is here to break it all down next. You're live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:00]

ACOSTA: This past week, former Vice President Mike Pence testified more than five hours before a federal grand jury investigating the aftermath of the 2020 election. Pence is the highest-ranking government official to take part in Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation, and conservative lawyer George Conway joins us to talk about this.

George, great to see you as always. What do you think? I mean what is your sense of pence spending five hours before this federal grand jury? I mean, you know how some of these cases may play out. Could it have been just, I'm not commenting, I take the fifth the whole time? This sounds as though he did offer some information.

GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE LAWYER: I doubt he did that for five hours, not answer questions. I mean, it was litigated all the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit, and it's clear that he had testimony to give. It's just a remarkable thing historically as well because I don't think we've ever seen a circumstance where a vice president, a former vice president, is being called to testify before a federal grand jury in a criminal investigation against the former president under which he served.

It's simply a remarkable thing. And obviously the court of appeals rejected, given what we can see from the sealed -- from the docket, although most of the -- all the papers are sealed and the opinion is sealed, it's pretty clear that the Court of Appeals rejected any effort by Trump to block the testimony.

And I think -- I hope that Mike Pence was cooperative and testified as to all his conversations which -- with the president, which aren't subject to executive privilege because they weren't in furtherance of Trump's executive duties. They were actually in derogation of his duty to support and defend the Constitution.

ACOSTA: Now, I want to ask you about some of the other legal issues facing the former president, but you know, I have to ask you about this. Trump was photographed this past week hugging a woman who was sentenced to jail for rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, calling for Pence to be executed. You know, he continues -- Trump continues to escalate his support for people charged in the capitol riot. He's talked about pardoning some of them. What was your reaction to that when you saw that?

CONWAY: Well, I'm really at a loss for words whenever he does things like this because it just continually -- you think he's reached the bottom, and yet he seems somehow to dig himself deeper into the muck. I mean, this is just an absolute positive disgrace. He signed the woman's backpack like it was some kind of souvenir, the backpack she took to the insurrection at the capitol.

He's promising -- he's been promising for months that he's going to pardon all these people, these people -- hundreds of people who committed, you know, real crimes that they're being convicted for and being sentenced for in the District of Columbia, in the federal courts there.

It's a complete and utter disgrace, and a disgrace that anybody could support a man who swore was -- who swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, who is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States in effect because he's charged with executing the laws, praising and rewarding and promising to help these people who basically tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

It is -- it is beyond disgraceful, and it is beyond disgraceful that more Republicans don't call him out for this. And I'm just at a loss for words that really adequately capture how disgusting this all is.

[17:34:59]

ACOSTA: And let me ask you about what's been happening down in Georgia because it sounds like we might be reaching some sort of resolution soon for the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis. Apparently, she plans to announce this summer whether she will bring racketeering and conspiracy charges against former President Donald Trump, allies of his, for their attempts to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results.

Anda apparently now, one of Georgia's so-called fake electors is joining Trump in this motion to get rid of the special grand jury or quash the grand jury report. What are your thoughts on that Georgia case? Is there some peril for Trump potentially in this Georgia case or does he have to worry more about what the special counsel is doing here in Washington?

CONWAY: Well, I think he has to worry what -- about what the special counsel is doing in Washington and worry a great deal about the Fani Willis, Fulton County investigation. I mean, remember, there he is caught on tape essentially trying to coerce the Secretary of State of the state of Georgia into finding precisely the number of votes he needed to win the election.

He, you know, he participated, I think -- the January 6th committee evidence showed in a very broad conspiracy to have people fraudulently submit fake electoral votes to the Congress of the United States. And those fake electors, you know, apparently some of them are -- appear to be, based on some of the papers that have been filed in court, testifying, giving helpful testimony to the prosecutors. And this is going to be a very, very, very significant case.

And there was this other development where Ms. Willis wrote a letter to local law enforcement authorities, telling them that, you know, be prepared for something to happen between the June -- July 11, I think, and September 1st. I don't remember the precise dates, which coincide with when a grand jury could return an indictment in that case.

And it's pretty clear you would not send that letter saying, you know, be prepared for civil disorder if, you know, it was just Rudy Giuliani or Mark Meadows who was going to be in the dock.

ACOSTA: Let me ask you about the E. Jean Carroll case in New York, the writer who accuses Trump of raping her back in the mid-1990s. She faced two days of very aggressive questioning from Trump's attorney, Joe Tacopina. I want to ask you about something. Apparently, George, you and I have talked about this in the past, that you urged E. Jean Carroll to get an attorney in the first place when, I guess, this was something that was relayed to you. Can you tell us about that? And what do you think --

CONWAY: Yeah.

ACOSTA: -- what do you think the outcome of this case might be?

CONWAY: Well, it's a pretty simple story. I mean, after Jean Carroll came forward with her allegations, I wrote an op-ed piece in "The Washington Post," basically pointing out that all of the Republicans who supported the charges that Juanita Broaddrick had made against Bill Clinton back in the '90s should be equally concerned about -- if not more concerned about the charges that Jean Carroll had made against Donald Trump because there was actually corroboration by contemporaneous witnesses who Jean Carroll told the story to within days of it happening.

And it just so happened that I think the week after I wrote that op- ed, I attended a party in Manhattan, just a dinner party, where Jean Carroll was a guest. And she walked up to me and introduced herself, and I think she thanked me for the piece that I had written. And somehow or rather, she mentioned that, you know, she had been kicking around the idea of the possibility of bringing a lawsuit, or some people were suggesting it to her.

And I gave it about a millisecond's worth of thought and said, well, there's a potential defamation claim there. In fact, there could be a substantial defamation claim there because if he's lying about you by saying that you are lying, that is defamatory. So -- and I said it probably would make sense if you have any interest in pursuing this, you probably should -- you should consult counsel.

And then a moment later, it popped into my head who that lawyer ought to be, who the exact right lawyer would be, a woman named Robbie Kaplan, who is a good friend of mine, who is famous for having litigated the Defense of Marriage Act case and having won it in the Supreme Court.

She's just a tremendously talented litigator, and I just thought, well, no one is going to give Ms. Carroll better advice than Robbie Kaplan, and no one's going to be able to suss out the details of this case and figure out, you know, whether it's a case that should be brought than Robbie.

[17:40:01]

And the next day, I somehow -- I connected them together, and then the next, you know, months later, apparently, you know, they determined to bring suit, and they did.

ACOSTA: And you think --

CONWAY: And that's where we are today.

ACOSTA: And you think this could be a serious trouble for Donald Trump?

CONWAY: I mean, it could be. I mean, you know, look, I don't want to predict what juries will do. I believe E. Jean Carroll. I believe -- I've gotten to know her. I think she's a truthful and wonderful person, a kind person. She's somebody who doesn't say a nasty -- doesn't have a nasty word to say about anybody.

And I find particularly compelling, as in the other "Me Too" cases, the fact that two independent people will testify that Jean Carroll, E. Jean Carroll told me this story about what happened at the department store, you know, within a day or two after it happened. I mean, that's always been, I mean, if you've read the work of Ronan Farrow in "The New Yorker" and Jodi Kantor in "The New York Times," those are the -- that kind of evidence is extremely important in establishing something that would otherwise be he said versus she said.

In addition, the pattern evidence is very, very substantial here. I mean, the number of women who have come forward with allegations of Donald Trump that are very, very similar. And there are going to be, the judge has already held that under rule 415 of the federal rules of evidence, two of those victims who's had similar incidents occur to them will be allowed to testify, including another -- a woman who I got to know, who I also think is just going to be a tremendously wonderful witness, Natasha Stoynoff, who was assaulted by Trump at Mar-a-Lago when she was trying to do a magazine report for "People" magazine on then-mogul, not yet president.

ACOSTA: Well, we'll see how these allegations play out in this case. George Conway, thanks so much for your time. Again, we appreciate it. Good talking to you.

CONWAY: Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:45:00]

ACOSTA: Some California students are using animation to bring awareness to the fight for social justice. They held a short film premiere in San Diego last night. The students walked the red carpet after completing a course asking them to reflect not on what they want to be when they grow up, but what they want to change. And CNN's Camila Bernal has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CAMILA BERNAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The day begins for these fifth graders with the usual subjects -- math, science, reading, and even P.E. Those may appear easy in comparison to talking about gun violence, global warming, bullying, racism.

CHRISTIAN LOPEZ, FIFT GRADE STUDENT: I chose racism because for me, racism is something really something that I see often and something that happens, and I feel like all people should be treated the same way, not just because they're different because inside we're all the same.

BERNAL (voice-over): Christian Lopez is just one of the more than 500 fifth grade students tackling these issues at the National School District just south side of San Diego. The students choose a topic --

AXEL VIVEROS, FIFTH GRADE STUDENT: I really like world hunger. I feel bad. I really feel bad about it. They don't have the life I have.

UNKNOWN: We can donate to help them get food and fresh water.

BERNAL (voice-over): And then use animation --

UNKNOWN: Do you think guns should be allowed? Well, I don't.

BERNAL (voice-over): -- to explain their thoughts.

UNKNOWN: Immigration is a problem for everyone. They separate individuals from one another. That's a form of injustice.

SHARMILLA KRAFT, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT: If these are the issues, these are the components that these young people will face as they become adults, then I believe that it is our responsibility to support them in learning how to maneuver some of the nuances.

BERNAL (voice-over): But maneuvering wasn't always easy according to animator David Heredia, who created this five-week program.

DAVID HEREDIA, FOUNDER, HEROES OF COLOR: It makes people uncomfortable when you put them in a situation to talk about something that is not their lived experience. And because of that, I think it's unfair to put a muzzle on a child who wants to express what they're feeling.

BERNAL (voice-over): So instead, you allow them to talk through their art. LOPEZ: Just because they're different race doesn't mean you have to be

rude or to like -- not to be nice to them because it's really hurtful for those people.

BERNAL (voice-over): They found ways to help solve or highlight the issues.

UNKNOWN: No matter what color we are, we all are humans.

BERNAL (voice-over): And then they got to feel like celebrities as they shared their animations with the world.

HEREDIA: It allows us to actually stop and listen to what's going on in the world of a child and have them offer a potential solution to that problem.

UNKNOWN: When you are kind to someone, they're going to be kind to someone else or you. You should always be kind.

BERNAL (voice-over): The students feel heard and say they will continue to explore these social justice issues.

LOPEZ: We could still keep working on and progress to make it better.

BERNAL (on camera): And the goal is to continue these conversations. The creator of the program says he wants to take it all over the country so that children have a space not only to talk about these issues, but also to find solutions. Jim?

ACOSTA: Such a wonderful story, and those kids are just beautiful. I mean it's amazing how they're able to put that kind of creativity into action like that. Camila Bernal, thank you so much for that report. We appreciate it. We'll be right back.

BERNAL: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

ACOSTA: It is coronation week, and along with all the pageantry that will be on display during the official crowning of King Charles III on Saturday, there's a lot of family drama that could also unfold. We have a lot to discuss with CNN royal commentator Sarah Bedell Smith. Her latest book is "The Marriage that Saved the Monarchy: George VI and Elizabeth." It's so great to see you, Sally.

SALLY BEDELL SMITH, CNN ROYAL COMMENTATOR: Great to see you, Jim.

ACOSTA: Of course, a lot of the talk will be about Harry and his wife, Meghan. That discussion will be ongoing. Harry will be there and Meghan will not. But what else should we be looking for in this coming week? I mean, this is going to be something else.

SMITH: Well, I think we should -- we should recognize that Harry is just only part of the congregation. ACOSTA: Yeah.

SMITH: Neither he nor his uncles, Edward and Andrew, nor his aunt, Princess Anne are going to have any role. The only one who is going to have a role other than the king and queen is Prince William, who will do his homage to his father. But it's going to -- it's going to look different. I think there would be very few tiaras, if any, which will be a huge difference. And the Princess of Wales is evidently going to wear a crown of flowers, which is sort of a democratic thing to do, but it also reflects it's part of the theme of the coronation, which is an emphasis on nature and all the flowers on the invitation.

[17:55:07]

There are going to be lots of flowers embroidered into their -- into their robes.

ACOSTA: And how big of a deal is this going to be? I mean, this is something we haven't seen in 70 years.

SMITH: Right. And before that, in 86 years. That was the last time we had a king and a queen. Seventy years ago, we had a queen. And so, times have changed. This is the 21st century.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

SMITH: There will be many more different kinds of people. These were always fairly aristocratic gatherings. We're not going to see hundreds of peers of the realm in scarlet (ph) capes with ermine -- (inaudible) robes with ermine capes. And there are just not -- maybe there will be a few of them, but they'll be representatives of the king's and the queen's charities.

And most important, although this is a profoundly Christian and a profoundly church of England ceremony, it's a ceremony of church and state. But Charles has, for his adult life, been an advocate of interfaith dialogue, recognizing and preserving, protecting other faiths. So, at the end of the service, we're going to see representatives of what are called neighboring faiths.

And also, during the coronation service itself, there will be a reading from Rishi Sunak, the British Prime Minister, who is a practice in Hindu. And so, there are going to be all sorts of elements that will be --

ACOSTA: This is not the coronation that we saw 70 years ago.

SMITH: No. And so, it will be fascinating to sort of compare and contrast. More than I thought actually would happen.

ACOSTA: Well, we know you're going to be part of our coverage coming up in about a week from now. But Sally Bedell Smith, thank you so much as always for these insights. We're all going to be watching, everywhere, all around the world.

SMITH: I think it's going to be spectacular. ACOSTA: It will be -- it will be spectacular. No question about it.

The pomp, the circumstance, it's all coming. And by the way, Anderson Cooper explores what King Charles' coronation means in the modern world. That's going to be a fascinating discussion coming up later on this evening. That's tonight at 8:00 on "The Whole Story." We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:59:59]