Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Supreme Court Decision To Not Rule On Trump's Immunity Puts His Legal Calendar In Question; Biden Had "Long" Call With PM Netanyahu; IDF: Ground Operations Expanded In Southern & Northern Gaza; Migrant Crossings Spike Along US-Mexico Border; College Football Lawsuits; Inside Rikers Island. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired December 23, 2023 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:09]

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

We begin the hour with the Supreme Court declining for now to decide if Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed in office. In a one-sentence unanimous order, the Supreme Court denied special counsel Jack Smith's request to fast track the ruling which will ultimately return the matter to the nine justices. The former president wasted no time looking to profit off the short- term delay asking for money from supporters in a fundraising e-mail.

The Supreme Court decision punts the ruling back to the D.C. Circuit Court, which will hear oral arguments on January 9th. That might make the current March trial date for Trump's criminal election subversion case untenable, putting his entire 2024 legal calendar in question. So voters may not have a ruling on whether Donald Trump plotted to overturn the 2020 election until after they cast their ballots in 2024.

We should note, if Trump wins a second term in the White House, he could and likely would try to pardon himself and then all federal criminal charges might not -- not ever see the light of day in a court of law.

Let's discuss with Shan Wu, defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.

Shan, great to see you. Happy holidays. Extra points for coming in on a holiday weekend, so we appreciate that.

I guess, to some extent, that might be a little bit of a doomsday scenario to say, well, this election subversion case may not happen at all in 2024. But what do you think? What are the consequences of this Supreme Court decision that we heard? Is it just going to end up back in their laps in a couple months from now anyway? What do you think?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: The scenario you painted isn't necessarily a doomsday scenario in terms of realism. I mean, that could easily happen if the D.C. rules. Trump asked to go en banc for the whole circuit to hear. And then he'll have something like 90 days to petition again the Supreme Court.

So if he plays that right, obviously, it's a big problem in terms of that start date for the trial. From the Supreme Court's standpoint, though, Jim, I think it's kind of a win-win for them, which is they don't have to weight into this yet. And there could be legitimate reasons they would like to have the D.C. Circuit's analysis and ruling before they weigh in.

So it is not really something you can ascribe a bad motive to. I mean, it makes sense from a jurisprudence standpoint for them to do that. It unquestionably causes timing problems. But honestly, Jack Smith was in that box right from the get go.

ACOSTA: Well, that's true. I guess, to some extent, one could understand why the Supreme Court would do what they're doing, because it allows them to see what these lower courts decide and what the rationale is that goes into these decisions. I'm wondering how much -- I guess there is the Bush versus Gore 2000 election sort of hanging all over this.

This current Supreme Court I suppose does not want to be perceived as meddling or getting involved in the election cycle. But the longer this gets delayed, the more likely that we are going to see some of these cases just play out right smack in the middle in the -- of the election cycle.

WU: That's exactly right. And there are scenarios that we don't even have on the table yet where if there is the election that there is a lot of talk about how Trump may challenge whatever the results are there. I think, you know, they are in a situation, the Supreme Court, of where they're really having a huge problem with their credibility.

So it makes sense they don't want to appear too anxious to reach out to decide this very volatile and historic case. Whichever way it comes out, they want to wait on that. From a policy standpoint, they like policy issues. Something that's a real policy issue to them, they will be aggressive and reach out for -- particularly this conservative majority.

This is more of a traditional legal question, more of a traditional constitutional analysis. And to them, it may be there is no rush to jump on this.

ACOSTA: And these trials are piling up. The legal calendar is like a minefield, I suppose, to some extent for the former president. But -- you know, and then there's the it's not an October surprise. Maybe it's bit of a December surprise. The situation that has emerged out of Michigan, that story where now we may get another audiotape of Trump pressuring election workers, how might that figure into all of this?

WU: Yeah. That's really an extraordinary audiotape, Jim. And, you know, it comes earlier than the Georgia one. It's actually quite distinct from the Georgia one. In the Georgia one, he's really just pressuring that secretary of state to find him these votes. Here, there is arguably a concrete offer or something of value, which is you do this official act, which is don't certify. We'll take care of you by paying for lawyers.

[19:05:02]

And, you know, sadly, the chair of the RNC weighs in on that, too, Ronna McDaniel.

ACOSTA: Right.

WU: That certainly has a different feel to it. And it smells like the offer of a quid pro quo there.

ACOSTA: Well, and I was going to ask you, Shan, because you've been on both sides of the courtroom in all this. What would your advice be to the RNC chair Ronna McDaniel right now, given what we now know apparently is on that audiotape where there is an apparent offer of legal services, attorneys to these local election workers? We've heard it described by some folks. We had the Michigan secretary of state on -- earlier on this program who said -- it sounds like a potential bribe issue to her.

What would your advice be to the RNC chair?

WU: My advice would be lawyer up and shut up. Meaning, don't talk about it anymore.

You know, there is nothing wrong with an offer to pay for someone else's legal service. That's not illegal. The problem here is how they have joined it with this request for them to do something in their official capacity. That's what puts her in that kind of legal jeopardy.

Holding aside the incredible optics of the president of the United States and the chair of the RNC reaching down to the county level to talk to these election officials, which is, you know, just incredible to see, and the amount of pressure that those people must have felt.

ACOSTA: And if you are the special counsel, if you are Jack Smith, I suppose you want that audio.

WU: Oh, very much so. I mean, I don't know if they have that or not. But it's really excellent evidence of Trump's state of mind and the efforts that were made to overturn.

Again, this is happening after the vote has happened. And it's very early on. It shows that right away, he's looking to try and improperly change those results. I think that could be very valuable evidence for them.

ACOSTA: And, you know, there are all these scenarios that folks are talking about. One, of course, is that if Trump somehow gets back into the White House, he would try to pardon himself if he's able to push all these court cases and if there is a conviction, he would pardon himself.

Shan, what is you -- I think we've talked about this before. But what is your sense of whether or not that is -- I mean, constitutionally sound for the president to pardon himself.

WU: Well, constitutionally it probably is sound. I mean, it is such an odd scenario. Obviously, it hasn't come up before.

But there wouldn't seem to be something in the Constitution that prohibits the president from doing that. Politically there could be reasons for that. I would add, Jim, on the federal cases he wouldn't have to venture into those waters. That could be a safety that he could order his Justice Department with a wink and a nod to just dismiss the federal cases and that would be a much easier solution to it, assuming they hadn't gone to trial. I mean, if he had gone to trial in something and got convicted, then he would pardon himself.

These state cases are going on, but there certainly would be arguments, some sort of supremacy clause argument that they can't do this to him while he's the president. So, that's why it's so important for him to put everything in one basket of getting re-elected, because that could solve a lot of his problems.

ACOSTA: And, Shan, Rudy Giuliani filed for bankruptcy this past week. But he's still repeating the same false election claims that got him into trouble in the first place.

Are defamation laws just too weak? Can you just -- it sounds as though he's going to try to get away with this by declaring bankruptcy. What's your sense of it?

WU: Well, I think the defamation laws as written aren't necessarily weak. I mean, they're not as strong as other countries. But historically, this country has been very slow in terms of really using those laws. I think something has changed recently in this cycle where there is more accountability.

The problem really here is what can be done to somebody civilly for this. And he may just keep defaming them to get judgment after judgment. And the bankruptcy law theoretically doesn't shield him because it won't protect him from intentional or malicious acts. And this certainly seemed to fall squarely into that.

Even if he can't protect himself with bankruptcy, though, there is still a simple question of how to extract the money from him. You have to make him disclose his accounts, and there could be consequences for refusing to do so. But when they find the money, then they'll try to get added. And there is a question of how much he has.

It does raise the fascinating question of why he originally refused in discovery to disclose his accounts. This will be speculation. But if he had more money, he could have been trying to move it before all this happened.

ACOSTA: Very interesting. Yeah, I mean -- I mean, I suppose if he can't use bankruptcy as a shield in all of this, those two Georgia election workers, they may not get $148 million. But one has to think if his assets are liquidated and dolled out by the bankruptcy court through that kind of process.

[19:10:05]

Typically, people get pennies on the dollar on that sort of thing. But those two election workers might get something out of this.

WU: Oh, I think so. I think they will get something, just not the bulk of that award.

ACOSTA: Yeah. All right. Shan Wu, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

WU: Good to see you.

ACOSTA: Good to see you, sir.

All right. A quick programming note, speaking of Rudy Giuliani, he's buried in debt, facing multiple lawsuits. How did that happen? Next hour go inside Rudy Giuliani's rise and dramatic fall in the scene original series "GIULIANI: WHAT HAPPENED TO AMERICA'S MAYOR". The four-part series airs tonight at 9:00 on CNN.

In the meantime, there has been talk of a crisis at the U.S. border for years. But some say it's different this time. We'll explain. That's coming up.

Plus this --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't have to be what everybody is expecting. Everybody is expecting bad out of me. Everything is expecting me to be ruthless. But I don't got to be like that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: A new program giving hope to some people inside one of the country's most notorious prisons, Rikers Island.

And later, the heartwarming and fascinating story of twins born to a woman with an unusual medical condition. We'll explain that in just a little while from now.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:15:30]

ACOSTA: President Biden says he spoke with the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu today, adding he had a long conversation but did not ask for a ceasefire. The Hamas controlled ministry of health says more than 20,000 Palestinians have died since the war began in October. This comes as the Israeli military warned civilians to evacuate parts of central Gaza as it expands its operations in the north and the south.

CNN senior international correspondent Will Ripley has the latest from Tel Aviv. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Jim.

Well, the problem is, is that people are getting these relocation orders telling them they need to go somewhere safe. But some people at the U.N. are saying there is no safe place in Gaza right now. In fact, 18 people were killed earlier in the day on Saturday in central Gaza, which is one of the areas that Israel will now be concentrating its military efforts.

So, people, they need to relocate, can they go to the south? Is it safe there? And will there be military activity happening there as well?

And, of course, the north where the IDF says it has essentially operational control at this stage, a huge portion of northern Gaza is now uninhabitable. Buildings are destroyed, some of them completely leveled by those hundreds of massive 2,000-pound bombs made in the United States that Israel deployed according to CNN analysis of satellite imagery using A.I. and the assistance of a think tank basically concluding that these bombs created such a massive area of destruction that it is going to take literally decades for these communities to recover.

People, even when they are allowed to technically go home, they just want to have a home to go home to. I'd like to read for you a quote from Thomas White at the United Nations talking about this criticism of the Israeli Defense Forces for the fact that, yes, they do give advance notice when they're going to start engaging in these air strikes that killed upwards of 20,000 people now according to two different health ministries in Ramallah and Gaza. The Hamas controlled health ministry saying it surpassed 20,000 quite a bit.

But this quote from Thomas White says essentially this: People in Gaza are people. They're not pieces on a checker board. Many have already been displaced several times. The Israeli army just orders people to move into areas where there are ongoing airstrikes. No place is safe, nowhere to go.

But the IDF, Jim, would counter that argument and say that it is actually Hamas that is choosing to conceal itself beneath places where civilians are sheltering, knowing that there will be collateral damage, human shields is where Israel accused Hamas of doing, and they say the only way they can target the Hamas leadership, it does come at the cost of civilian lives.

But the big question, Jim, how many civilians will it take? Thousands of children, thousands of innocent people, when will the killing of civilians stop and when will Israel be able to achieve its objective of taking out Hamas leader -- Jim.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: Our Will Ripley, thank you very much. It's been 11 weeks since Hamas stormed into Israel and committed heinous acts of violence against the Israel people.

Right now more than 100 hostages are still held captive inside Gaza. 21 of those hostages are believed to be dead according to the Israeli prime minister's office. Nearly three months later, many families are still left wondering if they will ever see their loved ones again.

And joining me now is Ahal Besorai. His sister was killed during the October 7th attacks while her husband and two of their kids were kidnapped by Hamas. The two teens have since been released.

But, Hal, have you heard any news about your brother-in-law? What can you tell us?

AHAL BESORAI, BROTHER-IN-LAW, NIECE & NEPHEW WERE KIDNAPPED BY HAMAS: We just understand that he's a hostage. We have no further information to know about his well-being or where he's at or any other information. Just we were informed that he's a hostage.

ACOSTA: And, so, you don't know if he's even alive at this point?

BESORAI: No, we don't know it with certainty, no.

ACOSTA: Yeah. Of course you have to hope. What has this been like for your family?

BESORAI: I think it's a very difficult ordeal, and it is a very -- first, you know, the murder of my sister on October 7th, then the children, now by brother-in-law. So it is very, very, I think, difficult for us as a family.

But I think for all Israelis, it is a very, very difficult situation. You woke up from some sort of a dream that this is possible, that Hamas could be contained. They care more for the people and destruction of Israel.

[19:20:03]

And I think October 7th proved that, you know, their charter or the constitution, it calls for the destruction of Israelis, not just words, but it is something we need to act upon.

Further, if they have the opportunity, they will do it again and again and again. Kazir Mohammad (ph), deputy foreign minister I think said it out loud in an interview.

So we woke up from this dream. And, as a result, they portrayed this war for the destruction of Hamas because it is not acceptable for Israel to have a terrorist organization on its border that attacks and threats and destruction. It's very, very unfortunate. What happens in Gaza, to the Gazan civilians, it breaks my heart that we are put in this position that we need to take such severe objection.

But for me, it's akin to World War II. You, the Americans had two atomic bombs in Japan for them to change their narrative and believe that imperialism right forward. And it took the Nazis the flattening of Berlin to understood that the Nazis are not the ideology to follow. So, I think it will take here the same sort of effort, unfortunately.

ACOSTA: And, Hal, what did your niece and nephew go through while in captivity? What can you share about that?

BESORAI: They didn't have a pleasant time.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

BESORAI: But, really, I don't feel it's my place to go into details of that. It is not my story. It is a story where families with hostages held in Gaza and it wouldn't be fair on them to start sharing horror stories about the fate of my own niece and nephew.

ACOSTA: And I'm very sorry for what your family has gone through.

What -- can you tell us about what took place on October 7th? What was it like waiting to get this information as to what happened to your sister, what happened to your brother-in-law, what happened to their children? Just must have been agonizing.

BESORAI: Yeah. So, we initially thought that they were all kidnapped together, and really believed for the first six weeks that my sister was alive and held hostage. Only two weeks later, we were informed her body was pulled out of kibbutz Be'eri and that she was murdered. So this obviously broke our hearts. And, you know, we had the burial. We waited for the burial, although it is against tradition, just to understand if any of the other bodies pulled out of area. I think there were 120 of them.

We got some confirmation that they are the hostages, the kids and the father, my sister's husband. Then we allowed ourselves to bury my sister. Obviously, then the worry and the heart break towards bringing back the children and the father.

ACOSTA: Of course.

BESORAI: And it was successful through the second tranche of the hostage exchange. They were returned. It will take them time to overcome and heal from everything that they have been through, maybe a lifetime struggle. I'm not sure. I'm not a psychologist.

ACOSTA: Yeah, I'm sure.

BESORAI: And we are waiting for the father to be released and come back to join them. These are the only parents that are in existence now for them.

ACOSTA: Yeah. We really need him to come home. There is no question about it. And finally, Ahal, how would you like your sister to be considered? We were just showing pictures of her a few moments ago. Obviously, she was a beautiful human being. But how do you want to see her remembered?

BESORAI: That's a very tough question.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

BESORAI: She was a wonderful woman, loved her children dearly. And she was an entrepreneur in nature. She ran a furniture business in the kibbutz. Although kibbutz is socialist, she was in entrepreneurial spirit, within this environment and created a very beautiful small furniture business which I hope carries her name or nickname, Ayuna, that I hope, you know, can be revived and can be continued, despite the main soul and heart of it, which is my sister, not being around anymore.

[19:25:20]

So, this in a way is one way I would like her to be remembered, through the roles that she did and through the business that she created in the kibbutz.

ACOSTA: Well, Hal, thank you very much for your time. Our hearts go out to you and your family. And we will certainly keep you in our prayers that your brother-in-law comes home so their kids can have a dad. But thank you so much for your time.

BESORAI: Thank you. Thank you very much, Jim. I really appreciate it.

ACOSTA: Thank you. Appreciate it.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:29:57]

ACOSTA: At the U.S. southern border with Mexico, federal authorities reported a seven-day average of about 6,800 migrant even encounters on November 28. But in December, that seven-day average jumped by about 40 percent to more than 9,600 encounters per day.

The surge presenting logistical, humanitarian, and political concerns as we approach the next election cycle. CNN senior writer Catherine Shoichet joins us now.

Catherine, you've written a piece for cnn.com that lays out reasons to pay attention to what is happening at the border. What can you tell us?

CATHERINE SHOICHET, CNN SENIOR WRITER: Well, Jim, I think it's really important that we think about what is different and what is significant about this moment at the border, and one thing that I think is really notable is what we've been seeing happen recently at ports of entry.

We've seen authorities choose to basically shut down pedestrian and vehicle traffic at several ports of entry along the border. This, they say allows them to divert resources to process migrants, but it also has a big economic impact in communities where people are used to being able to cross the border really easily and local leaders in these communities are not happy that this has happened. ACOSTA: And the president has signaled a willingness to implement some major restrictions that in some cases, even echo those pushed by the Trump administration. Obviously, he is not going to implement everything that was done during the Trump years, but how will that affect things?

SHOICHET: Yes, that is another thing that I think is really different and notable about this moment at the border is that we are starting to hear about the Biden administration being open to considering some much harsher restrictions.

One thing is something that -- a policy that we've heard from sources they are open to which would be basically sending migrants back to Mexico without even having the opportunity to seek asylum in the United States. This is the kind of policy that President Biden when he was on the campaign trail in 2020, was very critical of, and we're hearing now from lawmakers, some lawmakers and from immigrant rights groups that if he goes down this road, he could stand to lose support from some key allies in 2024 because they frankly are outraged that as they see it, the president would even consider basically trading away the rights of vulnerable asylum seekers to seek asylum in the United States in order to secure more funding and aid for Ukraine.

ACOSTA: And what about this new law in Texas, making entering the state illegally a crime? What do you think of the impact of these states taking, like Texas trying to take matters into their own hands?

SHOICHET: So this new law in Texas would basically give local law enforcement the ability to arrest and detain migrants who they suspect of entering the state illegally. It is already sparking a lot of concern in Latino communities in Texas, even though it's not scheduled to go into effect until March, and we've already seen some civil rights groups filing a lawsuit to try to block the law.

They argue that it's unconstitutional. They say that immigration enforcement is something that the federal government is responsible for. It's not something that the states can or should be involved in.

ACOSTA: All right. Yes, that's going to be a major storyline to follow to see what comes of that state law. That is going to be a fascinating storyline to watch.

All right, CNN senior writer, Catherine Shoichet. Thank you very much for your time this evening. We appreciate it.

SHOICHET: Thanks for having me.

ACOSTA: All right, in the meantime, Florida State University won its conference championship this year, but was left out of the college football playoff. Now the school is suing the conference. We'll explain why, that's coming up next here in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:37:55]

ACOSTA: A legal battle is brewing in college football.

Florida State University is suing the Atlantic Coast Conference for what the school says is years of mismanagement over media rights. This comes after the undefeated Seminoles were not included in the college football playoffs, a decision the school said crystalized years of ACC failures.

FSU also slammed the ACC's draconian withdrawal penalties saying it would cost more than $570 million to leave the conference. For its part, the ACC preemptively sued FSU on Thursday saying the school cannot challenge the binding agreement which extends through 2036.

"Bleacher Report's" college football reporter, Morgan Moriarty joins me now.

Morgan, this is getting some -- there are going to be some rough stuff here between FSU and the ACC. I mean, I know FSU wants more money for the media rights to its games, but a lot of this seems to be some bad blood stemming from FSU being denied a role, a placement in the college football playoff. What can you tell us?

MORGAN MORIARTY, COLLEGE FOOTBALL REPORTER, "BLEACHER REPORT": Yes, you're absolutely right, Jim.

So the fact of the matter is Florida State has been unhappy in the ACC for some time. You are correct.

The Florida State being left out as a power five ACC champion, kind of preempted this filing to be done a little bit earlier than usual. They were, according to various reports, planning on filing this at some point in 2024. Being left out was kind of the last straw.

As you mentioned, it is a lot of bad blood. The biggest thing is revenue, which is at the heart of conference realignment in general. Florida State has not been happy for some time, like I mentioned. It's ironic because back in 2012, Florida State was very open about trying to join the Big 12. It didn't really make sense for them at the time financially to do so.

But as you mentioned, it is going to be a really ugly fight, and the biggest thing is, Florida State is going to be on the hook for $572 million, that's because the grant of rights that the ACC sign goes through 2034.

[19:40:10]

And it's pretty interesting because that does go through 2034. But ESPN has rights with the ACC only extends to 2027. It does not go through 2034.

So ESPN could possibly walk away from that deal, and essentially, if that happens, the grant of rights, then it's kind of a question mark of does the grant of rights that they signed even still exist? Because you can't really have a grant of rights deal without a TV deal in place. And what it does is essentially, instead of respective schools owning their own TV rights, the ACC owns them outright. This is in response to 2013 Maryland, a longtime ACC member left the ACC, the Big 10.

ACOSTA: Right.

MORIARTY: So the ACC members just kind of came together and said, you know what? We don't really want our members to be able to leave, you know, whenever they please. So, we are going to sign --

ACOSTA: Yes, that was a big deal when that happened.

MORIARTY: It was a huge deal.

ACOSTA: That was a huge -- I remember that.

MORIARTY: So they signed this kind of rights deal to make it harder for schools to just up and leave. So, it's really interesting to see kind of how it plays out. And then the biggest question is, where does Florida State go? Because --

ACOSTA: Yes, well, I was talking to Sarah, they are going to go to the SEC.

MORIARTY: For now, yes.

ACOSTA: I mean, it sounds like I mean, you know, Alabama kind of got their slot. And, you know, the SEC gets, you know, please don't at me, but they kind of get some preferential treatment in the world of college football, I can imagine Florida State wanting to go there.

MORIARTY: You're absolutely right, and that's kind of the other interesting piece about this because the playoffs is expanding to 12 teams next year.

For Florida State, they are still in a great spot to win the ACC pretty much every year. I'd say Clemson, Miami, you can throw UNC and Louisville in there as potential threats to kind of win the title every year.

But for Florida State, if you make it to the ACC title game undefeated, even if you lose that game, presumably you're still going to be one of the top 12 teams in the country to get it.

ACOSTA: Interesting. I don't know if Florida State wants to go to the SEC and play the likes of Alabama, Georgia. Oh, now Texas and Oklahoma which are joining the SEC next year, every single year. There is also --

ACOSTA: Yes, they -- well, it sounds like they might be cutting off their nose to spite their face and, and kind of emotionally going into something that they might regret down the road.

Very interesting stuff.

Well, Morgan, we are a little tight on time, but thanks as always, we appreciate it. I wanted to talk about my JMU Dukes, but they lost and I'm very sad about that. But they had a great season.

MORIARTY: At least, they made a ball, that's all that matters, right, Jim?

ACOSTA: Exactly. That's right. We'll take it.

All right, we'll be right back. Thanks, Morgan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:47:23]

ACOSTA: New York's Rikers Island is one of the most notorious prisons in the country. It is extremely rare for journalists or anyone else to get a look inside. Here is CNN's Laura Coates.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Today, I'm outside of Rikers Island. It is a detention facility. We are in an area that holds young adults, specifically.

Now, I've never been inside before. Most people have never been inside of this building. So, I'm going to take you inside and show you a little bit about what's going on inside the facility.

But also, oftentimes we hear about Rikers Island for all the wrong reasons. Today, I'm going to highlight a particular program that is hoping to help people who are detained inside, transition out when they get out.

Come with me.

COATES (voice over): The program is called 360.

LA LA ANTHONY, ACTRESS AND ACTIVIST: This is my family.

COATES (voice over): Led by actress and activist La La Anthony and it aims to provide mentorship and reentry skills to young men behind bars.

ANTHONY: This is what makes me happy, and also seeing the changes that are happening, the beautiful thing, seeing that when they do come out into society, the changed individuals they become, how they become assets to our community.

COATES: Those men aged 18 to 21 make up almost 10 percent of the incarcerated population at Rikers.

COATES (on camera): I'm just really intrigued as to what made you begin to do this?

ANTHONY: You know, growing up and having different experiences with people that I cared about being incarcerated and always feeling like, what can I do? Like, I can visit maybe put -- I couldn't even put money on somebody's books. I just felt helpless. And I finally got in a position where I felt like, now, I can really make a change. I can really do something.

All of our children are one bad decision away from being here, being with the wrong crowd, being led the wrong way. Any of them could be here and I would hope that there will be someone that would treat my own child with the same love and compassion that I treat these young men with.

COATES: How important is that when you have that space?

DARRIUS LEWIS, INMATE: Everybody needs something like that. It's like a safe haven for us, like where you could be honest, open and be you.

COATES (voice over): Young men like Darrius Lewis. He's been in Rikers since June and is charged with first degree robbery. Lewis says the 360 program has helped him change the way he sees himself and his future.

LEWIS: It's not just because I'm in jail, because even when I first got here, I was very -- I just lash out and I didn't know I've got that in me. But it was a program that really showed me like, I don't have to be what everybody is expecting. Everybody is expecting that. I mean, everybody is expecting me to be ruthless, but I don't got to be like that.

ANTHONY: Raise your hand if you felt like at some point in your life that you were going to end up in jail.

Got to tell them this is a chapter in your life. This is not your entire life and what you do with this chapter will determine the rest of your life, so use this time wisely to become a better person to make change. I never make excuses for them.

[19:50:12]

I tell them that they have to have accountability, they have to own up to what -- whatever it is they did, and they have to pay whatever price it is for what they did. But during that, understanding, having compassion for others --

And we're honored to have you with us today.

COATES (voice over): On this day, La La led a discussion group where participants examined life circumstances that led them to Rikers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've come down here. We express what we're going through. I mean, whether it's good or bad, I mean, and we make the best out of bad situations.

COATES (on camera): Were you surprised that there was the buy-in from Rikers to do a program like this?

ANTHONY: Prior to this, you just only hear the negative, you only hear the negative, and it took me really being here to see so many people that care so much about the population here, care so much about wanting these young men to change and do better with their lives.

COATES: You know, for a lot of people, they know Rikers for notorious reasons.

ANTHONY: It is difficult. I know what I'm capable of doing. I'm glad that the kids in my program have me as a resource to talk to when dealing with mental health or dealing with struggles. This is jail. This is jail. There's nothing great about being in jail, and they need outlets to express their frustration and their emotions.

But I can't change the world. I can't change every single person, I can't change every bad thing that's ever happened. I can only do my part.

COATES: Looking to bring solutions to a place better known for its history of problems, a monitor appointed by a federal judge highlighted safety concerns at the complex back in October, writing in a report that: "High levels of violence and fear among people in custody and staff remain a fact of daily living."

And just last week, the Department of Correction was held in civil contempt for failing to tell the monitor about the opening of a restrictive housing unit for inmates accused of setting fires.

In response, the department's new commissioner said: "While the court found us in contempt, there is an opportunity to purge and we remain committed to ensuring people are safe and secure in our facilities."

I spoke to the commissioner during my visit to Rikers.

COATES (on camera): How are you trying to guard against or to inform the public, when there are moments when the department does not live up to something that you want it to live up to?

LYNELLE MAGINLEY-LIDDIE, NYC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER: You know, I was recently named commissioner here. And one of the things I really pride myself on is transparency. And I think that if there's something that you know, doesn't fall in line with what we should be doing, we're very -- we're going to be very transparent about that.

ANTHONY: Everybody come down. Come down.

COATES (voice over): It's not just about putting in the work, but also celebrating the progress they've made so far.

LEWIS: Wow.

ANTHONY: You're slowly opening up. It's taken a while, but you're slowly starting to trust me.

COATES (voice over): Gathering for a special holiday meal --

ANTHONY: How are we feeling about the food? How are we feeling about the food?

COATES: Brought in from the outside.

LEWIS: Thank you for blessing us with his meal. Thank you for blessing us with La La and everybody that came through. And just coming together as a family and showing us that family is here.

MAGINLEY-LIDDIE: I think a lot of times people don't realize all the good work that's being done here.

From this program, we've seen a lot of people transform. They're excited about the future. They are eager to go to school. They're eager to get a job. They're just eager to just do better.

I want them to be in a mindset to understand that there is a future and so you have to plan for that.

COATES (voice over): Lewis is already looking towards that future.

LEWIS: Before this program, I didn't know what was in store for me on life, like I never could see myself doing anything.

COATES (on camera): You really couldn't?

LEWIS: I see myself doing nothing at all like --

COATES: Do you feel like the community that you left and the family that is waiting for you can relate to you as you are now?

LEWIS: They are going to be surprised.

COATES: Really?

LEWIS: Yes. They will definitely be surprised because I'm definitely not leaving in the same way I came. Definitely, not at all.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:58:44]

ACOSTA: Finally tonight, the story of an unusual birth this holiday season. Here's Emma Owen of CNN affiliate, WVTM.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELSEY HATCHER, MOTHER: Everybody was cheering. Everybody was excited.

EMMA OWEN, REPORTER, CNN AFFILIATE, WVTM: Following a combined 20 hours of labor, Kelsey Hatcher delivered two healthy girls this week. The high risk and extremely rare pregnancy ending with the birth of Roxy on Tuesday, and Rebel on Wednesday.

As for how rare this pregnancy was, one doctor assisting with Hatcher's delivery says only about three in a thousand women are born with two uteri and the chances of being pregnant in both at least one in a million. Hatcher's obstetrician, Shweta Patel said her team planned for the many different ways the births could go, but ultimately --

DR. SHWETA PATEL, OBSTETRICIAN: She had a vaginal delivery with her first baby that came from the right uterus and had a C-section for the baby that came from the left uterus.

HATCHER: Everybody got super emotional when Roxy was born, because it was like, we did it, like we successfully did this.

Lots of tears, lots of clapping. It was -- it was fun.

But then the reality hit that, okay, well we have another one. We've got to take care of, too.

OWEN: And they did with the support of husband, Caleb and baby Roxy.

HATCHER: They asked me what I would have preferred. Caleb was either going to stay back with her and I said no, I would like him to be with me. And they were like, well, I don't see why she couldn't come in, because if we delivered twins like this, they'd both be in the room and that was our first moment of just us four together and really getting to breathe that in, be in the moment and look at the girls together.

OWEN (on camera): A priceless moment, the parents and now, five children were able to share.

Now, I am told the Hatchers actually FaceTimed their other children from the hospital after the deliveries and told me, they were very excited and now, they are all looking forward to being reunited very soon.

In Birmingham, Emma Owen, WVTM 13.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: A very notable birth during this holiday season. Thank you very much for joining me this evening. I'm Jim Acosta.

See you tomorrow starting at 2:00 PM Eastern. Merry Christmas, almost. Santa is watching.

Have a good night.