Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Will Not Fast-Track Trump Immunity Case; Trump Continues To Double Down On his Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric; Hamas-Run Ministry Of Health Says More Than 20,000 Killed In Gaza; CNN Analysis: Israel Dropped Hundreds Of 2,000-Lb Bombs On Gaza; NYT: Putin Quietly Signals He Is Open To A Ceasefire In Ukraine; Video Reveals Maine Officials Were Concerned Over Gunman's Weapons Before Attack; Diversity Efforts Targeted By Stephen Miller's Legal Group. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired December 23, 2023 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:01:45]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington. Good evening.

And this just in to CNN.

Law enforcement officials in Florida say multiple people have been injured in the Paddock Mall after police responded to an active shooting situation earlier today.

Officials report the mall has been evacuated, but add there is no longer a threat at this time. Authorities also said the suspect has fled the scene. Police did not say how many people were injured or -- they did not comment, we should also note, on the severity of the injuries. But this is something we're following closely at this hour.

It's a continuing, developing story, and as more information comes in we'll bring that to you, as it develops. So stay with us for all of that.

In the meantime, we begin the hour, as well, with justice potentially on hold for Donald Trump with the nation's highest court refusing for now to decide whether the former president is protected from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed in office.

Special Counsel Jack Smith argued that the court has a singular role to safeguard the Constitution when it comes to presidential wrongdoing.

Meantime, Trump's lawyers argued without any evidence that Smith's request for urgency would, quote, "tarnish the court's procedures with partisanship".

The court's decision to not expedite the legal wrangling could delay Trump's criminal election subversion trial and upend his entire 2024 legal calendar. That means voters may not have a ruling on whether Trump plotted to overturn the 2020 election until after they cast ballots in the 2024 election.

And CNN contributor John Dean joins us now, he is the White House counsel to President Nixon. John, great to see you, as always.

What did you make of how the Supreme Court ruled on all of this? We are getting some legal experts throwing some cold water and saying, maybe this is not such a big deal. The special counsel did have some precedent for his argument, according to the justices early intervention in the 1974 case, U.S. versus Nixon, which you are familiar with. What do you think?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's -- I don't think it was a big deal. It was an expedited procedure. When, at the time it was filed, the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia really hadn't started its expedited proceedings, which are now well under way, and unfolding literally every day.

So they're going to have oral arguments there within a couple of weeks, within less than a couple weeks, actually, January 9th.

So anyway, I -- I think it's a sign that the court isn't anxious to get into this. I think the fact that it was not really heavily and harshly and aggressively briefed by the special counsel on the political issue, which is really the issue, is interesting.

He didn't want to say, listen, court, we need an answer before the election. He didn't go there. It's all by implication. And that's what the Trump team responded to, oh, well, that would be wrong if he did that.

[17:04:51]

DEAN: And I think everyone's trying to stay away from the politics of the case, and so, Trump got a win. He got a delay.

ACOSTA: Do you think Trump may have gotten a little over his skis, though, in declaring victory? I mean, this hasn't -- this hasn't pushed the matter until 2025 or something like that. I mean, it's a slight delay.

DEAN: Trump is always over his skis, Jim. He doesn't have any skis, that's the reason. And he's flying. But anyway, I think, yes, he did get -- he is claiming more than he got. It is not a real serious win, it is not going to delay things.

I think the trial will still go on before the election. I think that there's going to be a concerted effort by the prosecutor and the -- certainly the D.C. circuit is showing that that. So he's got to look for every kind of obvious and conspicuous effort to stall the proceedings, and that's going to get tougher and tougher.

ACOSTA: And I wonder if a delay may not work in Trump's favor to some extent where there's this new information coming out in "The Detroit News". They have reviewed a tape of Trump pressuring Michigan county officials to overturn election results in 2020. And, you know, instances of Trump interfering with election results

are piling up. And I suppose you could imagine a possibility, John, where maybe this election subversion trial in Judge Chutkan's court doesn't get started right away, but maybe that allows for some time for some more of this information on what took place in Michigan to develop to the point where the special counsel might be armed with more information in that case.

DEAN: That's very true. They were aware of the conversation, they were apparently unaware of the fact it had been recorded. It was a conversation that took place in a parking lot and several people jumped in a car and -- in the front seat to take the call from Trump, some people jumped in the back seat and turned on, apparently, their recorders.

So, that's the quality may not be the best, but apparently it's very clear what Trump said. He's telling these canvassers, it would be a terrible thing if you, you know, you agree with this certification, they had already voted for certification.

But what they did do is they didn't go back in and willingly sign or, they tried to unravel what they had done, and it was too late.

ACOSTA: And John, what do you make of this other piece of information that emerged in this "Detroit News" story that the RNC chair Ronna McDaniel was apparently also suggesting that lawyers would be provided to the election workers on this phone call. "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it, we'll get you attorneys."

There's the quote right there. Trump: "We'll take care of it."

We were talking with the secretary of state for Michigan Jocelyn Benson in the last hour, and she was saying, well, that, you know, that sounds a little bit like a bribery attempt. What do you think?

DEAN: It sounds a lot like a bribery attempt, actually. It also sounds like entering, making sure you're in the middle of a conspiracy to obstruct the proceedings by throwing sand right in the gears.

And it's just phenomenal that we have two recordings now of the president of the United States reaching down to local officials, if you will, a secretary of state in Georgia, and now canvassers in Michigan, and trying to gum up the works.

And that is potentially, a part of the grander conspiracy to obstruct the election. Interfere with the election.

ACOSTA: Yes. And John, the Trump campaign responded to the report. I'm sure you saw this quote. It says, "Trump's actions were taken in furtherance of his duty as president of the United States to faithfully take care of the laws and ensure election integrity.

John, you were a White House counsel. Is it Trump's job to run the elections in this country?

DEAN: It is not. That shows, though, where they're going with their defense. They're sort of telegraphing the kind of defense they're going to put onto this, to try to claim, first of all, in the immunity area, if it's something in the outer parameters of the president's responsibilities, they can theoretically argue for an extension of what was a civil immunity. It was granted to Nixon from civil lawsuits.

They're trying to take it the next step and say, well, he's in the outer parameter, this was -- he was fulfilling his duties. The problem he has with that is, he's already had the circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia rule on that very issue, that he -- this was not part of his duties as president.

So, it's uphill. He doesn't have any factual basis to say this, to take in front of either the court of appeals or the Supreme Court. So, it's a loser. But that's his PR argument at this point, anyway.

[17:09:52]

ACOSTA: And John, looking into 2024, what is your sense of what we're going to see next year legally for Donald Trump? Is he going to be able to successfully execute the Trump playbook of delay, delay, delay and push everything until after the election? Or do you think justice is coming? What's your sense of it?

DEAN: I think we're going to have a split screen next year, and we're going to see his legal proceedings paralleling, if not influencing his political undertakings.

So, I don't think he can push it off the screen and have it just to campaign. These are not going to go away. These are not civil cases. These are criminal trials. And if one doesn't go forward, the other one will.

Alvin Bragg is ready to go, he's told the world he's ready to go the end of March, so if for some reason the D.C. proceedings don't start, I'm sure the judges will coordinate it, and the New York proceeding will start.

The Georgia date is not really set yet. She's ready to go, too. So it's just not going to go away, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. John Dean, thank you very much for your time. Great to talk to you as always. And happy holidays.

DEAN: Thank you. Same to you.

ACOSTA: Appreciate it. Thank you.

In the meantime, despite his busy legal calendar, the former president is still finding time to hit the campaign trail, but his words are taking a more vicious tone lately echoing the ideas of people like Adolf Hitler.

Coming up next, how that message is sitting with his supporters.

And the man behind the worst mass shooting in our country this year apparently got a visit from police weeks before his attack. The reason authorities decided not to confront him at the time. We'll talk about that in a few moments.

Stay with us. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

[17:11:39]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: Last week, Donald Trump ramped up the racist rhetoric in a campaign speech in New Hampshire, accusing migrants of poisoning the blood of our country. It's not the first time he has echoed Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

He's also used the loaded term "vermin". Yet Trump insists he's not quoting Hitler deliberately.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First of all, I know nothing about Hitler. I'm not a student of Hitler. I've never read his works.

They say that he said something about blood, he didn't say it the way I said it, either, by the way. It's a very different kind of a statement. What I'm saying, when I talk about people coming into our country, they are destroying our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Ruth Ben-Ghiat joins us now with more. She's a history professor at NYU and the author of "Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present". Welcome back, Ruth. We had a really interesting conversation with you last week, and since then, Trump has now denied this to Hugh Hewitt, the conservative radio talk show host. But he is also doubling down at the same time.

And we should note that this is despite a resurfaced interview, a story that featured some reporting about his first wife, Ivana Trump, who said that Trump used to have a book of Hitler's collected speeches kept in a cabinet by his bed, that according to reporter Marie Brenner, reporting in "Vanity Fair" back in September of 1990.

What do you think of all this, and what do you think of these denials that he's putting out there?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Yes, I've known about this Ivana -- she said he had two books that he read the most. One was a book of Hitler's speeches, not "Mein Kampf" but a book of Hitler's speeches. The other was his own "Art of the Deal". And both of those things make a lot of sense.

You know, Trump has been using racist language since 2015 to signal to white supremacists, he used to retweet white supremacist speech. So, using this language now is continuing to tell all the extremists -- I mean, this is somebody, Jim, who kicked off his campaign at Waco, Texas sending a very strong extremist message.

So, you know, he can deny that he's, you know, doesn't know who Hitler is, or doesn't know that speech, but that's -- that's incorrect.

Those who are around him, Stephen Miller, his spokesperson Stephen Chung, who is threatening people who call them out on this. I was told by his -- by Stephen Chung, his campaign spokesperson, that I would find my existence, quote, "crushed", for making comments that link his speech to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

So, they know what they're doing. Trump is a very skilled propagandist, and he's teaching Americans to desire authoritarian leadership and all the racism and violence that comes with that.

ACOSTA: Well, and if you have to deny it, I mean, that's the other aspect of this, too. I mean, a presidential candidate having to deny that he's read "Mein Kampf" or having to deny that he's parroting Adolf Hitler.

But in the meantime, Ruth, I wanted to ask you about this, because I thought this was also a very interesting development since our conversation last weekend. "The Des Moines Register" has a poll of Iowa Republicans, asking, does Trump using the statement immigrants who enter the U.S. Illegally are poisoning the blood of America, make you more likely to support him, 42 percent said yes, 28 percent said no, 29 percent said it didn't matter.

42 percent saying more likely. What do you think about that?

BEN-GHIAT: Yes, this -- you know, Trump is a very skilled propagandist, and he has been educating people to think that such language is not only acceptable, but necessary. Necessary to save the nation.

[17:19:52]

BEN-GHIAT: And, you know, Trump has been demonizing, because look, this is language that dehumanize immigrants. And he's, you know, doing this now so he can get people to accept the repression that is coming, that his campaign is very clear about, you know, mass deportations, putting people in camps.

But the whole focus of the GOP with immigration and the border is to actually support this kind of extremist language and get people to think that whatever Trump is saying is -- is necessary.

And this is a country where, you know, you had Jim Crow laws, you had institutionalized, you know, racism, and so there's a long history of -- of this kind of fear of blood pollution. And Trump and the GOP, you know, congresspeople who are supporting him in this language, because they're all coming out and supporting him, they know this very well.

So, when a charismatic demagogue intersects with important racist strains in national history, it can be very potent.

ACOSTA: Well, and that's what I wanted to ask you about, because you've studied this so much, Ruth. Is it -- and I hate to put the question this way, is it that fascism works with people? Doesn't matter which country, which time in our history. This kind of language just pushes buttons in people in a way that works. Is that kind of it?

BEN-GHIAT: Well, you know, my research and that of others shows that these -- this kind of language and these kinds of charismatic demagogues like Trump, they have the most appeal when a society has been through a lot of change.

It could be a lot of racial equity, it could be gender equity. We had eight years of an African-American president that some people never accepted. And so, all of this sense of grievance that the whole theme that Stephen Miller and all of the Trump campaign, that White Christian civilization is threatened. And that was a mainstay of his first time in office.

And so, people have been educated to think that there is a crisis, and only extreme measures right now can solve this crisis. All the great replacement theory that Tucker Carlson peddled over 400 times on Fox, so all of this comes into making, unfortunately, America the latest case study of this syndrome that has been going on since the original fascist years.

ACOSTA: All right. Well, we're going to continue this conversation, Ruth. Always appreciate having your expertise on.

We'll see what he says in the coming days and we'll have you back to talk about that, as well. But in the meantime, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, thanks as always for your insights. Really appreciate it.

BEN-GHIAT: Always a pleasure.

ACOSTA: All right. Good to see you. And we'll be right back.

[17:22:53]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: President Biden says he did not ask for a ceasefire during what he described as a long call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this afternoon. This comes as the Israeli military warned civilians to evacuate parts of central Gaza. The IDF now says it is expanding its ground operations in the north and south. A U.N. official says more than 15,000 will be forced to seek shelter, but many have already had to flee their homes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: there is nowhere safe in the whole of the Gaza strip. My whole family is gone. We are only four people left out of family of eight.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was at my aunt's house and we WERE playing. We saw A big and fast airplane flying over and suddenly it bombed or place. And stones fell on me and then people removed me from the rubble. (END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: The Hamas-controlled ministry of health says more than 20,000 Palestinians have died since the war began in October, that's ten times more than any Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the last 15 years.

CNN's Nima Elbagir takes a closer look at why the casualties are climbing so high. And we want to warn you, some of the images you're about to see are graphic.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIMA ELBAGIR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE CRPED: Even at a distance, the devastation wrought on Gaza is unmistakable.

We are a few hundred meters here from the boundary with Gaza, but even here, you get a sense of the degree of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. The sheer intensity and scale.

This is what that looks like up close. Scenes of destruction have become all too familiar. Here, the aftermath of another Israeli air strike. This time, in late October at the Jabalia refugee camp, one of the most densely populated residential areas in Gaza.

The bomb that caused this damage is a 2,000-pound bomb, likely made in the U.S.A., dropped by the Israeli air force. At least four times as powerful as the vast majority of the bombs used by the U.S. in its the fight against ISIS.

In densely-populated Gaza, the human cost is incomparable. Whole families wiped out in one blow.

Jabalia refugee camp is one of the epicenters of Israel's bombing campaign. To understand the complete picture and scale of the destruction in Gaza, you need to look from above.

In coordination with artificial intelligence company Synthetic (ph), CNN was able to locate over 1,900 craters left behind by bombardment in just the first month of the war. Using A.I., we analyzed the diameter of these craters. Over 500 of which were greater than 40 feet in diameter, consistent with American-made 2,000-pound bombs used by the Israeli air force.

[17:29:58]

ELBAGIR: Our analysis covers the one-month period to November 6th, in which a staggering 10,000 people are believed to have died. The U.S.' most senior Middle East diplomat testified on November 9th the number of dead could be even higher.

BARBARA LEAF, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS: In this period of conflict and conditions of war, it is very difficult for any of us to assess what the rate of casualties are.

We think they are very high, frankly. And it could be that they are even higher than are being cited. ELBAGIR: Yet the U.S. continues to back Israel's bombardment.

So why is the death toll so staggering? Because it's not just about the point of impact.

This is a crater caused by 2,000-pound bomb. The potential kill zone from that crater could spread up to 365 meters. That's 1,200 feet, an area equivalent to roughly 60 soccer pitches or around 90 American football fields.

The IDF told CNN, "In stark contrast to Hamas's intentional attacks on Israeli men, women, and children, the IDF followed international law and takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm."

But is that true?

This is just north of the Shati Refugee Camp along the main coastal road. When you go in closer, you can see, in just this small neighborhood, at least nine creators consisting with 2,000-pound bombs, which means the potential kill zone could encompass this entire area.

CNN and Synthetic's analysis of the devastation of Gaza shows extensive bombardment. In an area this densely populated, and using these bombs, it is inherently indiscriminate.

And the human cost continues to soar, surpassing 20,000. Many of the dead still unburied, still under the rubble, with no end in sight.

Nima Elbagir, CNN, Sderot.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: And joining me now is CNN military analyst, Colonel Cedric Leighton.

Colonel Leighton, great to see you.

The IDF is expanding its ground offensive in the south. And I'm just curious what we're going to see over the coming days, where you have folks in Gaza saying they have no safe place to evacuate to.

And your reaction to Nima Elbagir's reporting that we just heard a few moments ago, that when you have bombardment of this scale, that it's -- I think the words that she used is it is "inherently indiscriminate" because the bombs are just so powerful.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: That's the thing, Jim, and that's one of the key elements here. And Nima did a really great job pointing this out.

When you use very powerful bombs like these 2,000-pound bombs, which are allegedly the ones that the Israelis have used for the most part in this offensive of theirs against Hamas, there is no way that you can avoid "collateral damage."

And, you know, the euphemism, that famous euphemism for "civilian casualties."

And what you're seeing here is the use of these types of weapons in a very populated area, a densely populated area, and that compounds the issue.

Plus, we've always talked about -- you and I, you know, have talked about this for, you know, for the last few months, where we have gone through this and said, you know, this is such a densely populated area, that there's no wonder that there are such civilian casualties here.

When you use powerful weapons, you are going to get results like this. And that's going to really impact the way in which the Israeli war effort is perceived, not only here, but around the world.

ACOSTA: And so, Colonel Leighton, should these types of bombs be used in this conflict, in what the Israelis are trying to do in Gaza, because it's so densely populated? I mean, is there an argument to be made that they should not be used?

LEIGHTON: Yes, there definitely is an argument to be made that they should not be used, because they are so powerful, and because of the impact, or the potential impact on the civilian population.

When you are engaged in this kind of conflict, you have a duty to make sure that you limit the type of impact that you have on the civilian population.

Unfortunately, civilian deaths are not completely avoidable, but they have to be minimized.

And that is something, in spite of IDF's protestations to the contrary, I don't believe they have done enough to do this. Now, they might not have the right kind of weapons in abundant supply to do a more precise, more compact job, if you will.

But that is something that they should have thought about beforehand, when they were, you know, looking at what types of weapons to arm themselves with.

ACOSTA: And, Colonel, I did want to ask you about Ukraine. "The New York Times" is reporting that Russian President Vladimir Putin is quietly signaling he is open to a ceasefire in Ukraine, as long as Russia can still declare a victory.

[17:35:10]

That's all according to anonymous sources close to the Kremlin that talked to "The New York Times." Is that realistic?

And isn't that -- isn't that kind of giving Putin an out here, to have a -- a ceasefire in Ukraine, along those lines, along those terms?

LEIGHTON: Yes. For one thing, Jim, it would solidify the gains that the Russians have made, not only since 2022, when they, you know, invaded Ukraine for this time, but also since 2014. Those gains are not internationally recognized.

And this kind of effort by Putin, if it were to be accepted by Ukraine and by the West, by extension, that would in essence give him the benefit of having gained those territories and international recognition that they control -- that the Russians control those territories. So I don't think this is going to go anywhere.

But it is also ironic that this is all happening -- at least in the back-channel world of diplomacy, this is happening at the same time that the Russians are actually achieving small -- very small gains in places along the eastern and southeastern fronts in Ukraine.

So it's interesting to note that they are making some gains. But I think what that also means is that those Russian gains are perhaps not as sustainable as we are being led to believe.

Both sides are trying to run out the clock here. The Ukrainians are worried they might not have enough ammunition on their side.

The Russians are worried they're not going to be able to keep up the momentum in spite of their greater population and their greater military resources.

ACOSTA: Well, I mean, just to quickly follow up, I mean, it almost sounds as though this is a signal that Putin is not so sure how much longer he can continue to do this.

And maybe I'm misreading that, feel free to correct me, but that does not project a lot of strength from Vladimir Putin.

LEIGHTON: That's correct. And, in fact, I read it basically the same way, Jim.

I think what the Russians are telling us here, you know, if this is to be believed, that they are also kind of achieving the limits of what their capacities are, and it shows a great deal of Russian weakness, in spite of what we've been able to, you know, see on the battlefield in some areas.

But we also have to remember, the Ukrainians have kept their territory and they've done so under really incredibly bad odds for them.

They've still been able to maintain most of their territory. And they've been able to conduct offensive operations in places like Crimea and even in Russia proper.

So, that's a major -- you know, major difference in the types of activities that both sides can conduct.

ACOSTA: Yes, so far, I mean, it's been one of the more remarkable military feats that we've seen in many, many years.

All right, Colonel -- especially for a country of that size in comparison to the Russians.

Colonel Leighton, as always, thanks so much. Really appreciate it. And thank you so much for being with us almost every weekend, whenever we call you. Just want to say happy holidays to you and thanks for all you do.

LEIGHTON: Thank you so much, Jim. Happy holidays to you and yours. And really appreciate being able to join you.

ACOSTA: All right, appreciate it. Thanks so much.

In the meantime, the man who carried out one of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history apparently had the attention of law enforcement more than a month before the massacre.

What new body camera video is revealing about the information police had and why they say they did not act. We'll talk about that in just a few moments.

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:42:56]

ACOSTA: New details about the deadly mass shooting in southern Maine we told you about earlier this year. New dash cam footage shows police trying to carry out a wellness check on the shooter in September, a month before his attacks killed 18 people and hurt 13 more.

On the tape, a local deputy and a U.S. Army Reserve captain talk about gunman Robert Card's mental state. The deputy says Card's family is worried about him carrying out a mass shooting.

And CNN's Polo Sandoval joins us now.

Polo, this is pretty disturbing information. What else are you learning?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We continue to learn more about this, Jim. And to be clear for viewers, a lot of what we've learned in the past, we've already reported, according to authorities, and what they knew and when.

But now, with this dash cam video is essentially putting us in the driver's seat of one of the local sheriff's deputies there in Maine, who were actually responding to a welfare check in the weeks before that deadly shooting to check in on the suspect, Robert Card.

I want to play a portion of it for you in a moment.

But a quick reminder of what actually transpired. It was initially Robert Card's family that reached out to authorities, said that his mental health had declined that the Army Reservist had access to firearms.

A short time after that, it was actually the Army Reserve unit that reached out to authorities and asked them to conduct a welfare check. And that's what's seen in this video.

As you can tell, it has been blurred by authorities, the video.

But you can clearly hear that phone conversation that was playing out between a sheriff's deputy and that Army Reserve captain that actually tells investigators what he thought was actually happening, to remove the weapons from the home of the suspect.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAPT. JIMMY REAMER, U.S. ARMY RESERVES: In terms of all the weapons, this is kind of how it went down as far as I know. There was no real court order to take his weapons or anything like that.

So what was required was when he went to the institution over there, they -- part of the thing is -- which I wasn't even a part of, mind you, they didn't keep me in the loop on any of this because of HIPAA -- but the family was supposed to take care of the weapons and move it.

[17:45:11]

SGT. AARON SKOLFIELD, SAGADAHOC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: OK.

REAMER: Obviously, I lived in New Hampshire, so I was unable to verify any of it.

SKOLFIELD: Right.

REAMER: So as far as I know, his weapons -- I was told his weapons had been moved out into a family member's place --

SKOLFIELD: OK.

REAMER: Whether he has access to those at the family member's, I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANDOVAL: I listened to the whole thing. Sergeant Reamer also telling that sheriff's deputy, quote, "I don't think this is going to get any better," referring to Card's mental health.

Of course, it was just weeks later that he would go on that shooting rampage, shooting and killing 18 people and injuring 13 others.

Clearly going to bring about even more questions for the families of those who were affected, Jim.

We have -- I should mention that we have reached out to Robert Card's family but also the captain of this Army National Guard for comment.

Back to you.

ACOSTA: All right, Polo Sandoval, thank you very much for that update. Really appreciate it.

In the meantime, the phrase "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" has become part of the American corporate lexicon in recent years.

Next, the mounting pressure large corporations are feeling to tone down their DEI efforts and their options for walking a cultural tight rope. We'll talk to somebody who is in the middle of it just ahead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:48]

ACOSTA: A top Trump aide who helped shape the administration's hardline immigration policies now has Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs in his sights.

A conservative nonprofit run by Stephen Miller is taking some of the country's largest companies to court over their DEI initiatives, saying they discriminate against Americans based on race and sex.

Miller's America First Legal is suing Target, claiming the retailer failed to anticipate the backlash to LGBTQ Pride-themed merchandise sold its stores earlier this year. Target has asked the judge to dismiss that lawsuit.

Joining us now to talk about this is Scott Curran. He's the CEO of Beyond Advisers, and his group works with companies on their social impact work.

Scott, great to talk to you. Thanks so much for being here.

Why are these DEI programs that are meant to increase diversity within companies coming under attack? And what's going on with Stephen Miller?

SCOTT CURRAN, CEO, BEYOND ADVISERS: Yes, thanks for having me, Jim.

I think it's clear, and we can take Stephen Miller at his word, America First Legal says that they are going to create relentless litigation to go after these.

And so, I think you see both the strategy, which is to go after these DEI initiatives with the hope of stopping them, and you see the tactic, which is the litigation that gets you there.

And, you know, litigation involves actual legal claims that have to be decided according to the law. So, there's a very real issue in each of the complaints that has to be addressed and will be addressed.

And may well create new boundaries that -- (INAUDIBLE) -- others will have to follow.

But I think we're seeing Stephen take a page out of Steve Bannon's playbook, which is to flood the zone, which is why we're receiving dozens and dozens of these claims and suits being brought against the biggest name brands, as well as colleges, universities, even law firms.

ACOSTA: Yes, I mean, what are the implications of all this? Miller's group has filed two dozen complaints against companies this year. He's previously said DEI programs are illegal and embrace what he calls "reverse discrimination."

I mean, this is some of the same language that we hear Trump use. We heard this during the Trump administration when they would go after certain things.

What's your response to all that? And what -- what does the future hold for these kinds of programs?

CURRAN: Yes, I think, you know, we're going to find out how these cases get resolved and how the complaints are responded to by the EEOC, and real issues will be resolved.

And they seem to be focused, the targets that are most in the crosshairs, seem to be those that are focused more on equity versus equality.

Stephen Miller says that his focus is on equality, that everybody should be treated the same, which ignores historic and systemic problems that equity focuses on.

What we're seeing are businesses with very specific metrics and very specific actions around hiring, promotion and financial rewards, tied to increased metrics tied to race. And so, that seems to be the focus.

And the impact that's already having is that we're seeing businesses and others with DEI initiatives becoming a little bit more general in their approach to their initiatives.

I think the hope might be that they will stop these programs altogether. I don't think that is what we will see happen in the future.

I think we're going to see -- diversity has always been a bedrock of America. It will always be one.

So, I don't think we're going to see DEI initiatives in whatever form they may take go away, because it's already part of what makes America great.

ACOSTA: Yes.

CURRAN: And so, I think you're going to see businesses follow these along, see what happens with them, revise their approaches as necessary, and as the law may require. But I think they're going to continue to do them.

So, if 2022 is any indication, we're going to see more of this in 2024. But I also think you're going to see a lot of smart people figure out a way to continue to do this important work.

ACOSTA: Yes, well, that's what I was going to ask you, because you said, well, diversity is a bedrock of America, it's what makes America great.

Obviously, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, they don't believe those things. So there is going to be a bit of a clash going on here.

And maybe you've answered this question, but do you think these lawsuits might make some of these companies a little skittish? They might make them reluctant to have DEI programs?

[17:54:59]

I mean, this might take some courage in the corporate board rooms, it sounds like.

CURRAN: Yes, I think it's already made them skittish. I think the goal has been to have a chilling effect.

I think when they talk about flooding the zone, they know exactly what they're doing. They're trying to create a chilling effect. To a degree, it's had that.

But I also think we've seen the private sector, including but not limited to law firms, create committees and defense initiatives that will allow businesses to equip themselves with what's necessary to be able to withstand the attacks, to support each other in the process.

And to continue to highlight and promote maybe wider dimensions of diversity within their ranks. But it's not going to go away. It's going to continue.

And smart, good people are going to find ways to continue to foster these important programs in the private sector and beyond.

ACOSTA: All right. Scott Curran, thank you very much for your time. Very important issue. Glad we could have you on that talk about it. Thanks so much and happy holidays.

CURRAN: Thank you, Jim.

ACOSTA: Appreciate it.

CURRAN: Likewise, same to you.

ACOSTA: All right. And just ahead, we are live from the southern border, where communities along the U.S./Mexico border are struggling to handle a record number of migrant crossings. We'll talk about that in just a short while from now. Stay with us.

You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)