Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump and Haley Intensify Attacks Against Each Other Ahead Of New Hampshire Primary; Trump Claims U.S. Presidents Should Be Given Total Immunity; Some In GOP To Former Trump Aides: It's Time To Speak Out; Reports; Special Grand Jury To Examine Uvalde Response; Alec Baldwin Charged for Second Time in Fatal Movie Set Shooting. Aired 7- 8p ET

Aired January 20, 2024 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:00:41]

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

We begin the hour just three days away from the New Hampshire primary. And on the campaign trail, the battle between Donald Trump and Nikki Haley is getting personal. The South Carolina governor who once hesitated to directly criticize the frontrunner is now attacking his mental fitness after this moment in New Hampshire.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: By the way, they never report the crowd on January 6th. You know, Nikki Haley -- Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guards, whatever they want. They turned it down.

NIKKI HALEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm not saying anything derogatory. But when you're dealing with the pressures of a presidency, we can't have someone else that we question whether they're mentally fit to do this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Haley taking aim at Trump mixing up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi in those remarks that Trump made at a rally. And while she has once stirred questions about eventually running with the former president, Haley is now outright rejecting the possibility saying being anyone's vice president is, quote, "off the table." That did not seem to bother the former president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: She is not presidential timber. Now when I say that, that probably means that she's not going to be chosen as a vice president. But when you say certain things, it takes them out of play, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Now the certain things that Haley is saying about Trump include her bluntly rejecting his claims of total immunity, which Trump this week argued include actions that, quote, "cross the line." You can see right there in that post that Trump put on his Truth Social Web site.

Let's discuss now with former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.

Governor Dean, great to see you. Thanks for coming on the program. And correct me if I'm wrong, are we 20 years from the New Hampshire primary that you were in back in 2004?

HOWARD DEAN (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We certainly are. I came in second but Nikki Haley has got to come in first in this one.

ACOSTA: Yes. Well, let me ask you about a different candidate just to start us off. Ron DeSantis pulling out of the Sunday show appearances tomorrow. He was supposed to be on CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION," supposed to be on NBC's "Meet the Press." He has scrapped both of those appearances. His campaign says it's a scheduling conflict. They have an event in New Hampshire tomorrow.

You ran for president. What do you think? Is that a good sign that he's canceling the Sunday show appearances right before the New Hampshire primary?

H. DEAN: No, it's a terrible sign. He's done. Because of Trump, there is no chance that he can win the South Carolina primary, and most likely he's not going to. He barely squeaked into second in Iowa. And he came in third in New Hampshire. So his campaign is essentially over.

ACOSTA: And I guess what do you make of Nikki Haley escalating these attacks on former president Donald Trump questioning his mental fitness. And I guess what was your reaction when you saw Trump mixing up Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi?

H. DEAN: Look, Trump is going to be 78 in June. And he's complaining about Biden's age. He's got a few problems himself. I've never thought that Donald Trump was mentally fit to be president. He's clearly got what is called narcissism, and it interferes with his judgement, cozying up to Kim Jong-un, cozying up to Vladimir Putin. The largest deficit in the history of the United States.

This is Donald Trump's gift. Leaving aside all the threat to democracy and things people worry about which is worth worrying about, I don't think this guy is playing with a full deck and I don't think he's ever played with a full deck.

ACOSTA: Just to ask you, though, I guess maybe an inside baseball type of question because you ran for president. Did Nikki Haley just wait too long to escalate these attacks, to go after Trump? I mean it was only within the last couple of weeks when she was saying I'm not going to do this, I'm not going to go after Trump. Did she simply wait too long? Did DeSantis do the same thing?

H. DEAN: Well, I can't speak -- I think DeSantis just started off with a losing hand. He's not a nice guy. It shows. You know, book burning is not all that popular, even among most Republicans, moderate Republicans, and broader Republicans what makes up the New Hampshire electorate. As far as Nikki waiting too long, that's a hard judgement call to make. People don't like the negativity, although Republicans do see who basically running out -- play a platform of hate and anger do seem to like negativity.

[19:05:05]

But, you know, it's easy to make judgments. She knows what the polling is. She has a good team around her. I'm not going to second-guess what she's doing at this point. But I do know that if Trump hits you, you've got to smack him back.

ACOSTA: Right. And I'm just curious, Governor, I mean, we also mentioned this in the open to this hour. Donald Trump going on Truth Social, saying that a president of the United States must have total immunity even for, quote, events that cross the line. Obviously he's crossed the line on many occasions. What was your reaction to that when you saw that?

H. DEAN: Look, I'm used to this craziness. We've had four years of this lying and nonsense and making things up and all this kind of stuff. Here he is criticizing the prosecutor in Georgia for having an affair. How many affairs has Donald Trump had and been found in court to have had an affair, which cost him $5 million with his writer in New York? That wasn't an affair, that was rape, of course.

I mean how Trump gets away with this I do not know. But it's not good for the country to have somebody who's running for president or who has been president, who is as all of these things, he just can't tell the truth no matter what. It's just astonishing to me.

ACOSTA: And what is your sense of it? You know, there's a new poll that shows that 65 percent of New Hampshire voters disagree with the former South Carolina governor saying that she's out of step with her party. The polls seem to show that people in the Republican Party believe that Trump should have immunity for his actions as president. What are the stakes if you have a president of the United States who just has immunity no matter what he does or she does?

H. DEAN: Well, he doesn't have immunity. That's to be litigated. And that's going to be litigated. I don't know what kind of poll that was. But I can assure you that 65 percent of New Hampshire voters are not going to vote for Trump under any circumstances. So who knows? Maybe they just -- you know, the New Hampshire party in -- I mean the Republican Party in New Hampshire is very interesting. It's basically split pretty evenly in two.

You've got Sununu who's a moderate. You've got a significant number of Republican legislators who are moderates. But they're terrified of the right-wing leadership in the legislature which passes all kinds of outrageous things at least in the House. So it's a divided party. I think the reason that Haley is doing well is there are a lot of independents are going to vote and some Democrats are going to vote in the Republican primary. And that has actually good for Haley, not just because she's going to

win, or if she wins, but because in order to bring the country together, you've got to have a wide amount of support in the middle. You can't be getting support by people who hate everybody that's worth hating which is all Trump talks about all the time is the people that he hates.

ACOSTA: And I'm sure you saw this, lawyers for Trump argue in this filing this past week that barring him from the ballot is related to the Colorado Supreme Court, barring Trump from the ballot in that state. But his lawyers arguing that barring him from the ballot would unleash, quote, "chaos and bedlam." That sounds like a warning coming from lawyers for the former president. What's your response to that?

H. DEAN: Yes. Look, lawyers for the president have been in all kinds of trouble and a lot of them quit because that's a little overreach. I'm not a lawyer. And I'm not going to comment on what the 14th Amendment means. But it's a legitimate argument if you believe as I do that Trump insighted insurrection on January 6th of 2021, then the 14th Amendment does come into play. There's plenty of good legal opinions, not only paid legal opinions which is what Trump got. I mean, good legal opinions on both sides of this issue and we'll just let the court sort it out.

ACOSTA: And Governor, I mean, you were the chair of the DNC. I do want to ask you about the president, his upcoming campaign against what appears to be his rival in 2020, Donald Trump. But the Biden campaign is hoping to return to retail politics soon enough. Your sense of things so far. Has the president been out there enough? Does he need to be out there to draw the contrast a bit more with Donald Trump?

We saw those events that he had in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, and in South Carolina recently where he was really tearing the bark off the former president. Would you like to see more of that? Does he need to do more of that?

H. DEAN: Yes. He's doing plenty of that. Look, this guy -- this is a guy who I don't particularly know well, unlike some previous Democratic presidents. I would have to say that he has the best domestic policy record of any president since Lyndon Johnson. He's extraordinary on what he's done on climate change issues, on racial issues. He's appointed more people of color and women to the bench and other significant policy positions than even President Obama did.

He's got a tremendous record, especially in creating jobs in rural America, which is why the Republicans got upset with the Democrats in the first place and some of them converted to becoming Republicans from Democrats.

[19:10:08]

So Biden has done a great job. What you're seeing is, in some ways, what I saw in my campaign, packed journalism that the story of the day is Trump, Trump, Trump. He's very, very good at that. He always wants -- they have him showing up at his own trials where he doesn't have to just because he knows it's a good media event. And so the media in many ways is complicit with this. And they'll go cover Biden. But, you know, good news is they always run out of the headlines by bad news. And that's what the media is doing.

When this becomes a two-person race, I think Biden will have a chance to talk about his record a lot more than he is. But one thing Trump is really good at is being the center of attention. It's part of his disease. That's what narcissism is. You have to be -- your only affirmation is the attention of others. It's a very dangerous kind of person to have in the presidency.

ACOSTA: And just to stick up for my profession a little bit, I mean, is it just the media's fault though? I mean, there are folks inside the president's team, his advisers, people at the White House, talk to Democratic operatives from time to time, they say the president is not connecting with the voters in selling his record, you called it a record of accomplishment, as well as he could be. Could he be doing a better job in that regard? Could the White House --

H. DEAN: I'm sure --

ACOSTA: Could his team be doing better in that regard?

H. DEAN: I think his team is very, very good. And I'm sure you can always do better than you're doing. But I saw this firsthand when I was running for president. You know, it's not the American media. Media all over the world does this. They go to the negative news first. And the problem is it's amplified now by social media which we didn't really have. We had it. It was developed when I was running. But we didn't have it before that.

But amplified by social -- by social media and the negativity of the packed journalism and the mainstream press, this is what you get.

ACOSTA: Yes.

H. DEAN: They don't like to -- there is no ratings in good news. And so they don't get -- it doesn't get covered much. But I do think it'll be better when it comes a two-person race. And you see Biden versus Trump. For whatever their faults, both are, I think you want somebody who is not half crazy in the presidency.

ACOSTA: All right. Former presidential candidate Howard Dean, thanks very much for your time tonight, sir. Appreciate it.

H. DEAN: Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. Coming up, a special grand jury is being called in Uvalde, Texas, to investigate the Robb Elementary School mass shooting. Can some of those involved in the disgraceful response there soon face charges? And Scott Peterson, the man convicted of killing his wife and their unborn son nearly 20 years ago is getting new support in his claims of innocence. We'll have that story just ahead.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [19:16:53]

ACOSTA: Donald Trump is once again doubling down on his definition of presidential immunity, declaring in a Truth Social post that presidents should have total immunity from prosecution even if they, quote, "cross the line."

Joining me now to talk about this, more insight on all of this is CNN contributor John Dean. He was the Nixon White House counsel during Watergate.

John, I mean, I guess -- I guess I shudder to think what would have happened if Nixon had social media back in those days. But when Trump is declaring on social media that, you know, he should have total immunity even for events that cross the line, I guess he's admitting there that he has crossed the line. What was your thought on all of that when you saw that?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: That was certainly one of my reactions, Jim, that he indeed is acknowledging that he crossed the line because he indeed knows he has at this point. But the whole request is so absurd and pushes the issue to an extreme that it's never been pushed. Richard Nixon famously or infamously said, you know, in our interview with David Frost, if the president does it, that means it's not illegal.

But he was in a very specific context of national security. And about 10 days later, Keith Olbermann recently reminded me he did a separate piece just addressing the issue where he clarified that he did not think a president was above the law. In other words, it would be offered as an affirmative defense.

ACOSTA: Very interesting. And I guess what does that mean if a president has total immunity and is able to cross the line? It means you could you do whatever you want.

J. DEAN: That means we have -- it means we have a dictator. That means we have a king or a queen. You know, it applies across the board to the office. And that's exactly what our whole government tried to get away from and its founding was we didn't want to have a sovereign in the office that can take over and do anything. He doesn't have to pay any attention to any law.

ACOSTA: I mean, surely he has lawyers who are telling him that he does not have total immunity. But I suppose this goes back to what one of his own lawyers was arguing in court just last week saying that, you know, a president could go take SEAL Team 6 and go after a political opponent. And unless the president is impeached and convicted in a Senate conviction hearing process, that he does have total immunity.

I mean, all of this seems to be heading towards the Supreme Court, wouldn't you say, rejecting all of this. What are your thoughts?

J. DEAN: Well, of course the issue was presented on an accelerated basis to the Supreme Court. They said they didn't want to take it. They wanted a court of appeals to proceed as they are. I'm a little bit surprised the court of appeals has not already issued its ruling. I was kind of expecting it yesterday.

ACOSTA: Right.

J. DEAN: It's been a couple of weeks now. But it's a difficult issue. And they may well be trying to cross every T and dot every I knowing this is an issue that actually could end up staying at this level, at the D.C. Circuit level.

[19:20:02]

Many, many rulings, the Supreme Court has left that as the governing law in very complex areas of criminal law. So, you know, obviously they're working it out. It's a three-judge panel, three women, two Democrats and one Republican. They all seem to be on the same page of not being very interested in the concept of a president who was above the law and are questioning. So I, you know, it's a tough decision to write. And they're obviously working that out. But I think -- I don't think there is a chance that they would grant immunity. Not a chance.

ACOSTA: And John, the Attorney General Merrick Garland, I'm sure you saw this, he weighed in on the federal election subversion case against Trump. Here's what he told CNN, our Evan Perez.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The cases were brought last year. The prosecutor has urged speedy trials with which I agree. And it's now in the hands of the judicial system, not in our hands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Yes, John, I mean, a lot of different questions I want to ask you about this. I mean, how significant, I guess, first of all, that the attorney general even weighed in on this and used the words speedy trial? And I guess the other part of that question, if I could ask a two-part question is, I mean, if the attorney general wanted a speedy trial, shouldn't the Department of Justice move on this sooner? Did it wait too long?

J. DEAN: Well, as he said, once they did file it, it was no longer their question of interfering with an election because they were filing it so well before the election. I don't think there's any question that they did drag their feet by starting with the bottom up, and starting with the rioters themselves, bringing those cases. But yet when they brought the actual action against Trump, it was not from the bottom up. It was from the top and the side and what have you.

They didn't have any bottom witnesses that were flipping and saying, oh, I talked to Trump about this. The Trump White House brought us in. Yes, many of them said they had responded to the president's question. You know, he is urging them to go fight. But it was not a bottom-up sort of operation. So the attorney general could have brought it earlier.

I think the Department of Justice got embarrassed by the January 6th congressional committee that brought powerful testimony to the American people and how could they not be taking action, it became clear. That's not unlike what happened in Watergate, Jim.

ACOSTA: Interesting. And John, I did want to ask you about this as well. Trump's legal team filed this briefing with the Supreme Court this week warning the justices that, quote, "chaos and bedlam" will occur if the high court does not reverse the Colorado ruling that took him off the state's primary ballot. Is that appropriate for Trump's legal team to be issuing a warning to the Supreme Court? I would have to think that the nine justices on the Supreme Court would understand, yes, there are consequences.

There are going to be, you know, major consequences, I suppose, whichever way they rule. But to tell them chaos and bedlam might result from what they decide? Is that appropriate?

J. DEAN: Given the fact that -- given the fact that this is one of Trump's clear modus operandi, where he will indeed provoke chaos and bedlam, I think it's very inappropriate. It's not going to play well with, I would think, virtually everybody on that court. You don't threaten the court. You don't tell them if they don't rule the way the moving party wants you're going have a tantrum and stir up a riot somewhere.

That is just very inappropriate. It's thinly veiled here. But it's Trump's -- it's the way he operates. It's what he probably has in mind. He's tried to do it with the indictments when the indictment came down in Manhattan. He tried that. His crowd did not respond. I'm sure he is thinking again that, you know, what can I do to stir this up? Many of the people who might have taken action are now in jail as a result of January 6th.

ACOSTA: And, John, I did want to ask you about what's going on in Georgia. The judge overseeing that case down there has set a date to hear the motion to disqualify the Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis on these allegations that she had this improper relationship with the special prosecutor Nathan Wade. What's your sense of all of that?

J. DEAN: It's very troubling. Fani Willis has not responded yet. So we don't have the facts. She responded in a generic kind of fashion at her church and tried to explain a little bit of it and the overriding racism of it.

[19:25:07]

She has also indicated that the way she perceived it, there might be some collusion between the person filing the complaint, one of the defendants, defendant Roman, who has something of a notorious reputation that precedes, and so everybody is taking it with grain of salt, his charges, that are implicit in his motion against the D.A. And he's trying to get his case dismissed based on this.

But the fact that Trump has not joined that motion, that his lawyer has not joined that motion suggests to me, Jim, that they're very leery of it. They're not sure of the facts. So, if they were, or if he thought he could stir something up, you know he would. But this is not the most reliable source who's bringing this motion. So, as I said, we don't know the facts. If they are as being pushed, I think that the D.A. Fani Willis I hope will do the right thing.

She'll not get her whole office dismissed from the case. She would somehow step aside and let the case go forward. There are certainly other people, Wade himself would probably step aside, because there's a bigger issue in this case being properly handled by that office than anything that -- any mistakes they might have made.

ACOSTA: All right, John Dean, thanks so much for your time. We covered a lot of ground. Really appreciate the time.

J. DEAN: Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. Thanks, John.

Coming up, prosecutors in Uvalde, Texas, are reportedly launching a special grand jury to investigate the 2022 Robb Elementary School shooting that left 19 children and two teachers dead. We'll talk about that in just a few moments. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:31:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: As Donald Trump marches toward the Republican nomination, some in the GOP say it is time for former President Trump's allies to break their silence and be straight with voters about what they saw during his administration.

Joining us to discuss is Republican strategist, Sarah Longwell. She's the publisher of "The Bulwark," and the founder of the Republican Accountability Project, which is very active on social media as you are as well. Sarah, great to have you on the program. Really appreciate it.

You're one of these Republicans who had been encouraging former Trump Cabinet officials and aides to speak out. You wrote a piece about this in "The New York Times" documenting what some of them have said. I saw this. It was sort of a multimedia presentation of what a lot of these officials have been saying. The ones who have been speaking out, what they've been saying.

But you know, Sarah, one of the things that -- and we're showing it on screen to our viewers right now -- I have a lot of these folks on my show from time to time, people like Olivia Troye and Myles Taylor. We had Mark Esper on a couple of weeks ago.

But you don't hear from like the Jim Mattises of the world and the Rex Tillersons of the world and there are just some you don't hear about as much.

Do you know why that is? And what benefit would the public have in hearing from them?

SARAH LONGWELL, PUBLISHER, "THE BULWARK": You know, I'm not sure why it is, I presume, and I have seen them say publicly things like, well, you know, military generals shouldn't speak out about politics or shouldn't interfere in politics, but I find that to be a hollow defense from people who joined Trump's administration.

And I believe they joined Trump's administration for good reasons. I think they thought there needed to be adults in the room, but they saw a lot of things that troubled them deeply, which they have spoken about either anonymously and you know, quoted blindly in people's books, or they've gone on the record, like John Kelly has, and Jim Mattis has said things from time to time on the record.

But what they haven't done and what I asked for them to do in this "New York Times" piece, is to speak out constantly, together with one voice to do it relentlessly, and I believe that when it comes down to it, they're going to have to say what I believe they think is the truth, that Joe Biden is going to be a better president because Donald Trump is such a threat to our country.

You know, there's a saying I'm sure you've heard it, that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men of goodwill to stay silent.

ASMAN: Right.

LONGWELL: And the Republican Party has been defined by its silence over these past five years. So many people have refused to speak up that I think people are intimidated about saying what they saw.

But we know now that this is a president who will not abide the peaceful transition of power, who when he last was willing to unleash his mob on the country, on our elected officials, on the Constitution.

And so this is the time that they have to come together. He is going to be the nominee, they've been waiting for somebody else to stop him. It's not going to happen. It's going to need to be them.

ACOSTA: And one person who has spoken out is former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Here is what he told me on the anniversary of January 6th just a couple of weeks ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Do you view Donald Trump as a threat to American democracy?

MARK ESPER, FORMER US SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Yes, I do, regarding him as a threat to democracy. Democracy as we know it, our institutions, our political culture, all of those things that make America great.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Yes, and Sarah, when I looked at that multimedia presentation you put together of "The New York Times," it's very much in the same vein of what Mark Esper was talking about, and this is, you know, Donald Trump, he has, he really no defense against this.

He used to say, I only hire the best people. Well, we hired all of these people and when they work with them, they all essentially came out and said the same thing, that he is not fit to be president. He's a threat to democracy and so on. LONGWELL: Yes, and I really appreciate Mark Esper speaking out. He has been one of the best on this.

[19:35:01]

I think one of the things we did is we compiled that list for "The New York Times" though, it was actually to show the breadth of the number of Trump officials who have said publicly that Trump is either unfit or that he calls January 6th or that he's a threat to democracy.

Many -- I mean, it is unprecedented to have so many people from your own Cabinet talk like this. The problem is, is a lot of them said those things right after January 6, and they're not willing to speak consistently, and I think together, to talk about the dangers of a second Trump term.

And right now, what we're watching with Tim Scott coming out and endorsing Trump today, lots of other Republicans are falling in line. Marco Rubio --

ACOSTA: Yes.

LONGWELL: Everybody who used to represent the party, people who told us Trump was a threat, the first time around, they're all falling in line.

The only people, our last line of defense, are these people who saw Trump up close, who know what a danger he is. They cannot stay silent as we go into this general election.

ACOSTA: And are Tim Scott -- the likes of Tim Scott and Marco Rubio falling in line because they have a sense as to that's what the Republican Party by and large wants at this point?

Sarah, you talk to Republican voters in focus groups. I know that from time to time. Are you hearing this evolution when it comes to what Republicans are saying to you? I guess if you contrast that, with what you heard in the days after January 6, with what you're hearing now, are people coming home to Donald Trump inside the Republican Party? Is that kind of a roundabout way of putting it?

LONGWELL: Yes, absolutely. And I'd go further than that. I think the Republican Party has changed. I mean, I was a Republican my entire life. The party is unrecognizable.

It no longer stands for limited government, free markets, you know, American leadership in the world, all the things that I valued as a younger conservative. It now stands for really one thing, and that's Donald Trump.

And so you see these people coming out and endorsing Trump, because that's what the voters in the Republican Party want. They don't want limited government, they want big government that's enforcing their values.

They want isolationism. They don't want us to support Ukraine, and other democracies, which used to be a hallmark of the Republican Party. The party that I knew is gone.

And I think that these folks who worked for Donald Trump, who thought that the old party might come back eventually, they have to understand that it's gone, and that the voters don't want the Republican Party that they joined you know, twenty, thirty years ago, the party of Ronald Reagan. Voters don't want that anymore.

And so we have to stop what is happening because it is dangerous, and that's why I think a lot of these people, they're bone deep Republicans, and so they sort of don't know how to get out of that. But this is bigger than politics, it is bigger than the tribalism of political parties.

They have to speak out because it is what's best for the country. Many of these people defended the country as soldiers, as military people. They need to defend it now, too.

ACOSTA: Yes, all right, Sarah Longwell thank you so much. A very patriotic message. Appreciate the time.

We'll be right back.

LONGWELL: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:42:25]

ACOSTA: Local reports say officials in Uvalde, Texas have selected a grand jury to investigate the botched police response to the 2022 school shooting at Robb Elementary, this, after a scathing report by the Justice Department pointing out that it took police 77 minutes to confront the killer. By then, he had 19 children -- he had killed 19 children and two teachers. It could mark the first time that police involved in a school shooting might face criminal charges.

Let's talk more about this with Texas State Senator Roland Gutierrez, who represents Uvalde. I guess, Roland, what's your -- Senator, what's your response to this historic news that a special grand jury has been seated and might actually look at this response, this failed response by the local police.

ROLAND GUTIERREZ (D), TEXAS STATE SENATOR: Well, Jim, I'm pleased by the news, but I'm also sufficiently concerned. Many of the parents and many people in Uvalde think that there may be some potential conflicts of interest within the local district attorney's office, and some of those law enforcement officers.

Many of the same parents, there's been a tremendous division in Uvalde itself over this entire incident and the treatment of some of those families that have lost their children, and so perhaps, a change of venue would be appropriate.

That said, we're at least heading to a place that we're talking about this and going after police that were horribly negligent and whether that leads to criminal conduct, we have to figure out from that grand jury.

To this date, we don't know who she is considering charging, she, the district attorney. My hope that it is more than just the two cops that constantly get mentioned which is Pete Arredondo and Mariano Pargas, the acting police chief.

Many of the DPS heads that were on the scene, the Department of Public Safety were willfully negligent that day, and because of that negligence, children died. It's just a shame what's going on, Jim, but we can move forward.

ACOSTA: Yes, Senator, I mean, the people and Uvalde are still crying out for justice after what took place and the Department of Justice Report gave them some semblance of an understanding as to, I guess, the enormity of the failure that occurred in Uvalde.

But I was speaking with a father just the other day, Miguel Cerrillo and he was saying that, you know, he has noticed that people are being harassed. Family members of school shooting survivors there at Robb Elementary, people are being harassed by the local police being mistreated by the local police because sometimes they do speak out.

I mean people just -- it just sounds like the suffering has continued.

GUTIERREZ: It absolutely has, Jim, and for these families that have lost children, the only thing that they have to look forward to is some dollar sense of pain, and you would think that their fellow townspeople would kind of coalesce around them and understand what they're going through, but there have been deep divisions.

And that is what concerns me when you impanel -- when you send out 300 subpoenas for grand jurors, you only get 67 in return. The other bit that concerns me is just simply going after a few cops. We'll see what the breadth of this thing looks like over the next several months, we'll see if she is going to go after DPS troopers that were very much at fault in my mind.

I really think that they should be moving this to some other venue, some other county, but it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I just thank the Justice Department for doing their job, and finally, putting everything that your network has broken, and putting the things that we've been talking about in black and white and putting that seal on it, telling the truth about what happened on that fateful day.

ACOSTA: Yes. And just follow up on that, so are you concerned, Senator, that this grand jury investigation might be a whitewash? I mean, because I think the way it was received outside of Uvalde, that okay, this might be a sign of some significant progress, that this investigation might actually bring some justice to the situation. It sounds like what you're saying is, the reverse could happen as a result or do I have that wrong?

GUTIERREZ: No, we've been waiting for so long for this, Jim, for a significant amount of time. She has had all the evidence available to her. She didn't need the Justice Department to move forward on this. She had all of this evidence.

And so I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt, but if I were a district attorney, and as you know, I'm a lawyer, amidst all of the controversy, amidst her having some friends that were within that scene themselves, some law enforcement officers, you would think that someone would be looking at conflicts of interests, and you would think that someone would be looking at a change of venue because of the tremendous division.

As a matter of fact, many of the families have asked Christina Mitchell to have a change of venue, and heretofore, there's just -- she is not considering that at all.

ACOSTA: Yes. Well, the suffering that is going on in that community, it is just unconscionable, and State Senator Gutierrez, appreciate you always staying on top of it. Thanks for coming on and sharing your thoughts on this. We'll stay on top of it as well as CNN has throughout all of this with colleagues like Shimon Prokupecz and others who have been following that story diligently.

Senator Gutierrez, thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Jim. I appreciate you.

ACOSTA: All right, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:52:15]

ACOSTA: Actor, Alec Baldwin was indicted Friday by a New Mexico grand jury. It's the second time he has been charged in connection with the fatal onset shooting of a member of the production team for the film "Rust."

CNN's Brian Todd has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The famed 65-year-old actor charged for the second time in the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie, "Rust."

Alec Baldwin tonight faces two new involuntary manslaughter charges, negligent use of a firearm, and involuntary manslaughter without due caution or circumspection, which is detailed in court documents as an act committed with the total disregard or indifference to the safety of others. The new charges brought by a New Mexico grand jury.

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: This case is really unique because it's been a very, very long road.

TODD (voice over): In October 2021, Hutchins was killed and director, Joel Souza was injured when a gun that Baldwin was holding fired a live round during a rehearsal.

In a previous interview with CNN, Baldwin denied pulling the trigger.

ALEC BALDWIN, ACTOR: So when the guy hands me the gun and says we have a cold gun on the set, that means the gun is empty. I pulled the hammer all the way back without locking it, and the gun went off.

TODD (voice over): Last year, previous involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin were dropped. A law enforcement source told CNN at the time, that decision was made after authorities learned the gun used in the shooting may have been modified. But prosecutors said the case could be re-filed at a later date.

Last October, prosecutors said additional facts had come to light that they believed showed Baldwin "has criminal culpability in the death of Halyna Hutchins."

MARRIS: Now that we see these charges being resurrected, I anticipate in those documents, we will find that the evidence indicates that the gun had not been manipulated or altered, and so all of those arguments relating to negligence are ripe to go to a jury.

TODD (voice over): But other analysts say prosecutors will have definite challenges.

AREVA MARTIN, LEGAL ANALYST: The prosecutors will have to prove willful disregard, not only have the investigators or prosecutors not been able to determine how live bullets or live ammunition ended up in the gun, they don't even know how live ammunition ended up on the set.

TODD (voice over): The footage obtained by NBC shows Baldwin rehearsing on the set of Rust.

BALDWIN: Now wait a second, if I'm going to shoot right. You want to go on the other side of the camera? I don't want to shoot toward you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everyone needs to be right here, like in the path of the gun. Could you please move?

TODD (voice over): Baldwin has always maintained his innocence. His lawyers issuing a short statement to CNN today saying: "We look forward to our day in court."

The actor previously telling CNN he often replayed those moments in his head.

BALDWIN: That hurts me every day. You know, every day of my life, I think about that. It's horrible.

TODD (on camera): If convicted, Alec Baldwin faces up to 18 months in prison and a $5,000.00 fine.

The armorer on the set of "Rust," Hannah Gutierrez-Reed also faces involuntary manslaughter charges in the case.

[19:55:09]

She is slated for trial next month and she has pleaded not guilty. Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: Coming up, the final push to the New Hampshire primary. Tonight, Nikki Haley openly questioning whether Trump is mentally fit for office. This as, Ron DeSantis abruptly cancels two Sunday show appearances amid questions about the future of his candidacy.

We will take you live to New Hampshire, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington. We begin the hour three days from the New Hampshire primary with Donald Trump touting his intellectual prowess, bragging that he aced a cognitive test and despite his grandiose claims, he is making a number of concerning cognitive blunders out on the campaign trail.