Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

House Ethics Committee to Meet on Wednesday; Biden Lets Ukraine Use Long-Range U.S. Weapons Against Russia; Now, Day 2 in Trial of Man Accused of Killing Laken Riley. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired November 18, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Pressure is building on the House Ethics Committee to release the findings from its investigation into Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump's pick for attorney general. How a civil case involving Gaetz could offer some new insights.

Plus, throwing oil on fire, that's a quote from the Kremlin, responding to President Biden's decision to let Ukraine use long-range American made missiles against Russia.

And, oh, how the mighty have fallen, the Kansas City Chiefs undefeated no more.

Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

All right, some breaking news into CNN just a few moments ago, we've learned that the House Ethics Committee will meet on Wednesday. This comes as pressure is building for them to release their findings on President-elect Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, and we're getting a fresh look at some of the evidence in the hands of House Ethics investigators. That evidence stems from some salacious allegations against now former congressman as part of a Florida civil court battle.

And CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid is with me now. Paula, what more do we know about this case?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, this is a case that was brought by an associate of Gates and this associate sued their friend, a former friend, Joel Greenberg, and also the underage victim at the center of the criminal investigation against the former congressman. And as part of filing this lawsuit, they opened the door for discovery. So, there are depositions and additional evidence and they created this whole record.

Well, the former Congressman is not a party of this lawsuit. Not surprisingly, his name comes up a lot. Now, they did take the depositions of several women involved in this case. They also collected some affidavits. The deposition of the underage victim is under seal, but the lawyers in the case, when they deposed Geatz's associate, they quoted some parts of her depositions and her way to get her story into the public record. For example, the attorneys recounted how the underage girl had testified to having sex with Gaetz on an air hockey table.

They also introduced the fact that a friend of the underage woman who brought her to the party testified that she too had Gaetz -- had sex with Gaetz at the same gathering. Of course, having sex with multiple people at a party is not a crime, but the former congressman was under federal investigation for, in part, allegations of possibly having sex with someone who is under 18, questions about obstruction of justice. He was never charged, and the former congressman has always denied wrongdoing.

But the reason the civil is because it's believed that the House Ethics Committee has a lot of the evidence that was gathered in this civil litigation. They've talked to many of the same people. So, it gives you a flavor. Of the kind of evidence that they've gathered in their investigation and what could be in that report.

ACOSTA: Well, yes, and we were just mentioning the breaking news a few moments ago. The House Ethics Committee is expected to meet on Wednesday, as this committee is weighing whether to release this final report on Matt Gaetz. I suppose we don't know exactly whether or not that is what they're going to tackle at this meeting, but we saw over the weekend is that there is some mounting pressure to have this information come out, including from some Republican senators. What are the odds that we ever see this report?

REID: Look, it may come out through formal channels. I think possibly even releasing a redacted version is a possibility to kind of appease people. I will tell you that the House Ethics Committee, I've broken more stories than anybody on this ethics investigation, it doesn't leak. They're not terribly cooperative. There are certain some people, perhaps a former House speaker who may have an incentive, right, to want to leak this, to damage the former congressman, but there were also legitimate request for this information as they weigh his nomination as attorney general.

I will also say in this civil litigation, those depositions that are under seal, there have been moves to try to unseal those. So, that is another way that additional evidence that the Ethics Committee has could come to light even if the Ethics Committee does not release its report.

ACOSTA: So, if the committee doesn't do it, it could come out of a courthouse in Florida. It could come out --

REID: Pieces of it, because they likely a lot more that we don't even know about. They've obviously tried the same ground that the Justice Department did, but they've likely explored other avenues, and it's not clear what else they gathered.

ACOSTA: All right. Paula Reid, thank you very much. Let's talk about this more now with a member of the House Ethics Committee, Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey of Maryland. Congressman, thanks for joining us.

I hate to put let me put you on the spot, but let me put you on the spot. Can you tell us what is going to be tackled at this House Ethics Committee meeting on Wednesday?

[10:05:01]

Is it possible you'll be discussing this report and whether or not some or all of it will be made public?

REP. GLENN IVEY (D-MD): You know, there's going to be a variety of matters potentially that are covered on Wednesday. I can't say for sure what will or will not be addressed, certainly with respect to the Gaetz matter. I can't go beyond the scope of what we've said on that already.

ACOSTA: I understand. But let me try one more time. There were some comments that came from some Republican senators, even over the weekend, saying that they would like to see some of the information in this report. Obviously, they have to vote to confirm whether Matt Gaetz would become the attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of this country. Your response to what you're hearing from even some Republicans over in the Senate.

IVEY: Well, I certainly understand why the Senate would want to have this information and all related information in connection with this nomination of Mr. Gaetz. They've got a constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent during the nomination confirmation process. And I'm sure they want to have all the information available certainly that's relevant to this nominee before they cast a vote. And I think that's what the Constitution requires, frankly. And I think that's what the founders intended. And I think it would be appropriate here,

ACOSTA: Based on what you know about Congressman Gaetz would you would you vote to confirm him as the attorney general?

IVEY: Yes, I'll have to leave that to the Senate. I think, you know, we served on the House Judiciary Committee before together. And, you know, I do recall him making statements during hearings where he wanted to, for example, abolish the Department of Justice or the FBI or the ATF and the like. And I think I've said publicly that I thought those were irresponsible statements and a wrongheaded approach.

If you've got concerns about what's going on at the Department of Justice and you want to reform it, target your efforts towards that. But totally abolishing the Department Justice, A, is impossible, B, doesn't make any sense. They provide critical legal representation for the United States in civil cases, criminal cases, spy cases, national security matters. Eliminating 110,000 employees who do, I think, pretty much outstanding work across the board would be the wrong way to a terrible disservice to the American people.

ACOSTA: And based on what you know about Matt Gaetz, and I'm not talking about what has been uncovered in the House Ethics Committee investigation, do you think he has the temperament and experience to be the attorney general?

IVEY: Well, I think, you know, the experience issue is pretty clear cut. You know, as far as I know, I don't think he has any prosecutorial experience at all, much less at the Department of Justice. So, you're talking about someone taking over, you know, one of the most important agencies in the United States of America, becoming the chief law enforcement officer for the United States at a very critical time.

You know, during the campaign, there were a lot of concerns expressed about the border and immigration issues. The Department of Justice would play a key role there. The Republicans complained a lot about the FBI and called for the need for reform. Certainly, the attorney general should play a key role there. But it helps to, you know, have the experience to do that. I mean, if you got a car that's broken down, I think you want to have a mechanic who knows how to fix the car as opposed to someone who's never even seen one before.

So, you know, if they want to find somebody who can do the type of reform that they have in mind, there are a lot of Republicans out there who've worked at the Department of Justice or currently at the Department of Justice or just have, you know, experience going up against the Department of Justice. They probably have the type of experience that would be better suited for this role.

ACOSTA: And I do want to ask you about President-elect Donald Trump and a post on social media that he put out this morning. He confirmed this morning, and we can show this to our viewers, that he will declare a national emergency to carry out his mass deportation plans and use the military to round up undocumented migrants. And I just want to ask you, we should also note Trump was posting this at 4:00 in the morning. But what is your reaction to this?

IVEY: I think he should have gone back to sleep before he sent something out like that. I mean, you know, to say this would be illegal and an abuse of what the military's proper role should be would be a significant understatement. And he knows that. You know, his prior military leaders and secretary of defense, Esper, Milley, who I think was joint chiefs, you know, express concerns along these lines about him not fully understanding the appropriate role the military should play.

[10:10:00]

And using it for domestic purposes like this I think is frankly illegal and across the line.

So, I don't know if there are going to be Republicans, whether in the Senate or the House that push back on this and try and get him back on track. This might be one of those scenarios where we'll really regret the Supreme Court immunizing the president for all of his actions, but we'll have to see how it plays out. But I don't think there's anything this president-elect won't do unless he's reined in by some key players here in, you know, the Senate, the House or hopefully the Supreme Court.

ACOSTA: All right. Congressman Glenn Ivey, thank you very much for your time this morning. We appreciate it.

IVEY: Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. Coming up, deadly retaliation by Russia as President Biden's last second policy change on long-range missiles used by Ukraine means a new wrinkle potentially for Donald Trump as he returns to the White House. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

ACOSTA: For the first time since the war began, the U.S. is allowing Ukraine to fire American-made long-range missiles into Russia. Ukraine's president is applauding the decision but the Kremlin is warning the move, quote, throws oil on the fire of the conflict. Moscow responded to the move by launching attacks on the port city of Odessa.

Jill Daugherty joins us now. She's a CNN Contributor, former CNN Moscow Bureau chief.

Jill, you know, you and I both know Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been asking to use these missiles for a very long time. President Biden has refused to do that up until this point. What do you make of the decision? What kind of impact could this have on the battlefield?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, if you look at what the administration is saying, they point to about 10,000, maybe 12,000 North Korean troops who are currently in Russia, and they're fighting alongside Russian forces. And it appears that they are going to join forces in order to attack the Ukrainians in that Kursk area that Ukraine went into in August. And this is very concerning. It's concerning to the United States and to its European allies. So, that's one factor I think that at least the administration says is very important.

And then also, the administration is looking at really these, you know, barbarous attacks right now by Russia on Ukraine. Pretty obvious that Moscow is intent on just attacking and destroying literally the energy structure, heating, et cetera, especially as we go into winter, Jim.

ACOSTA: Yes. And what does this mean with -- I mean, for the president to change this policy right before the end of his term and right before Donald Trump comes into office? Is he -- I mean, I suppose we can only speculate here that he is giving Zelenskyy, a window of opportunity here to try to get the upper hand and perhaps make it a little difficult for Trump to undo some of these policies to support the Ukrainians. What do you think?

DOUGHERTY: Yes, I do think that's the case. Because if you look at it kind of big picture right now, you have both Russia and Ukraine pushing to either take over or to hold as much territory as they can. Because the writing seems to be on the wall, if you look at what incoming President Trump is saying, that there will be pressure to come to some type of agreement.

Now, it could be, you know, peace agreement, freezing lines, whatever it is. Each side needs to grab and hold as much territory as possible. So, I think that's also part of the administration, the Biden administration's calculus here to help Ukraine pull out all the stops, do what you can in these two months that are left. Because when Trump comes in, we already know what he's been saying and also his team has been saying about this.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, and, Jill, let's get into that. Because, I mean, to me, that's the big question that is looming over everything. And what changes when a President Trump comes back into office, can the Ukrainians hold on and keep fighting the Russians without really much support coming out of Washington, or even more than that, a push from the new administration to end this war and to give Russia some Ukrainian territory?

DOUGHERTY: Oh, well, I mean, if the United States pulls out, stops aid or, in some case, you know, even pulls out or tries to out of NATO, this is a disaster for Ukraine. There's no question.

So, right now, I think, you know, the timing is really extraordinary. I mean, you know, you have the incoming administration, outgoing administration in the United States. Putin over here, by the way, saying that giving the green light to use those ATACMS on the territory of Russia is a red line. And, essentially, and I think that we should pay attention to this, essentially what he's saying is, okay, this means that the United States is part of the war. Therefore we can do something to the United States, retaliate.

Now, they're not going to probably start a big war, obviously, but they can do things like, you know, arm the Houthis. Remember that group that is -- the terrorist group that's carrying out attacks in the Red Sea? So, this is a really fraught situation right now. The timing is incredible.

ACOSTA: No shortage of places where the Russians can make mischief around the world.

[10:20:01]

There's no question about that.

All right, Jill Dougherty, as always, thank you so much. We're going to keep our eyes on all of this. I know you will as well. We appreciate it.

All right, coming up, day two of the Laken Riley trial is underway. What we're learning from one of the officers who spoke to the defendant in the case, that's next,

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) ACOSTA: Happening now, day two in the murder trial of the man accused of killing nursing student Laken Riley earlier this year on the University of Georgia campus. Just last hour, footage of the suspect, Jose Ibarra, discussing his injuries with police was played.

[10:25:00]

CNN's Rafael Romo is outside the courthouse in Athens, Georgia for us. Rafael, catch us up on today's testimony.

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: CNN's Rafael Romo is outside the courthouse in Athens, Georgia for us. Rafael, catch us up on today's testimony. Jim. Good morning. The trial started promptly at 8:30 this morning, as expected. In the last hour, the prosecution called to the stand an officer with the University of Georgia Police Department who went to the suspect's apartment the morning after the murder of Laken Riley. That's on the 23rd of February.

And one of the things that he said was that he actually woke up the suspect shortly before 9:00 in the morning. And he also testified that he noticed a series of injuries in the suspect's body, including scratches at the suspect's hand in different parts of his body, including hands, forearms and lips.

This is what Officer Epps testified a few moments ago. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SGT. JOSHUA EPPS, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA POLICE: While speaking to him, I noticed on his right arm, his bicep, there was a scratch which identified as a potential defensive wound. On his left arm, he had a forearm scratch that was very similar, which, in my mind, looked like fingernail scratches to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: So, after that testimony, Jim, the big question was why did Ibarra had all those injuries that morning? They brought in another officer, a bilingual officer, Corporal Rafael Sayan, who spoke Spanish, and who asked the suspect directly, why did he have all those injuries? Corporal Sayan said, quote, he did not give me a clear answer at all.

This is the second day in the trial. The first day was full of very powerful testimony, including a heartbreaking moment, Jim, when an officer showed a body camera video of the moment where he found the body of Laken Riley. A total of five people testified on day one, including two roommates of Laken Riley's. On the second day, we also expect to hear from more witnesses. And as you may remember, Jose Ibarra, a 26-year-old undocumented immigrant from Venezuela, faces a total of ten counts, including murder and aggravated assault with the intent to rape. Jim, now back to you.

ACOSTA: All right. Rafael Romo, thank you very much. For some analysis, let's bring in CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson. Joey, good to see, as always. Your reaction to some of the testimony we heard this morning and what we're hearing so far in this case?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Jim, good morning to you. My reaction is that it's damning and it's very compelling. You can argue that scratches standing alone are not significant. However, the scratches don't stand alone. Any case, you have to evaluate it in the context of other evidence. And what is that other evidence? We know that his DNA is under the fingernails of Laken Riley. Well, how did it get there? And now you see that there are scratches on him. Now we know specifically how.

You look at it in the context of the actual smart phone data, which showed Lincoln Riley running and then, of course, her stopping in the trail, according to that watch data, her being pulled into several minutes later, the woods, according to that data, her roommates, Laken Riley's roommates, alerting authorities after going to the trail and seeing her ear bud there. And then you have the jacket that he's wearing. He's seen on a really surveillance video, discarding the jacket, that jacket, having blood and hair fibers of Laken Riley as well. And you hear on the smart phone back to the scene itself some words in Spanish. He happens to be Spanish speaking. And so all in all, the reaction is that, wow, it seems to be very compelling evidence.

Everyone, Jim, of course, deserves the presumption of innocence. You're not guilty until that's established beyond a reasonable doubt. But the prosecutors are really getting to it with respect to establishing just that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to this point.

ACOSTA: And the forensic evidence is key in all of this.

JACKSON: It really is, because we live, of course, in a DNA society, people want to see that. And you have the DNA here. You know, you have it everywhere, you know, as we look there, sadly, to the trail and they're putting that together. Putting what together? Putting the pieces of the puzzle to establish how this happened, to establish the issues in terms of her injuries, the suffocation, the issue with the devastating injuries to her head with the rock, the gloves that had blood on it too, the thumbprint that's on the phone when she attempted, that is Laken Riley, to call 911. Apparently, he stopped that by putting his thumbprint there. So, all of that goes to establish that, you know, he certainly was there because his DNA was there.

And then while you don't have -- and the defense's claim, Jim, is that it's a circumstantial evidence case. What does that mean? It means there's no one directly to say I saw him do it, in very few cases do you have that. So, what you have to do, as prosecutors, just piece things together that are indirect, that circumstances would be suggestive of.

[10:30:05]