Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Tonight

Trump Expects To Be Indicted In Connection With The Investigation Into Hush Money Scheme; School Workers Go On Strike; Panel Discusses What's On The Minds Of American Kids; Gwyneth Paltrow Is In Court For Ski Crash Trial; Dentist Is Accused Of Murdering His Own Wife. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired March 21, 2023 - 23:00   ET




ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: No one knows if or when exactly it will happen, but it is possible the 23 jurors could decide whether to indict Donald Trump over alleged hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

We have a lot to talk about, so let's bring in our panel. We have with us Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also former Trump campaign adviser David Urban, our new friend, columnist Linette Lopez, resident attorney Jennifer Rodgers, and pollster Frank Luntz joins us because he just wrapped up a focus group with Republican voters today.

Frank, tell us the headlines. Tell us what they're thinking about former President Trump and about the possible indictment of him.

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: So, I want to be clear about this. If the president is indicted, his numbers will go up among Republicans, that they feel that he is the victim of partisan attack, they will feel that he is being unfairly treated, and they are more likely to rally around him than to abandon him.

We saw the same thing in Mar-a-Lago a few months ago. I don't think that his opponents really grasp the idea that Donald Trump is the best victim in politics that I've ever seen in the 35 years that I've been working. That's number one.

Number two is that Governor DeSantis is a legitimate opponent of his. And what really matters is states that really matter for all of this: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. I don't care what the national numbers show. They only care what these four states show because that's what kicks it off.

And third, I hate to say this and it's wrong, but in the end, perception is reality. It doesn't matter what the president did. It doesn't really matter what he said. It's what we think he did and what we think he said that matters.

And there is a segment, as David Wilk (ph) I'm sure confirmed, there's a segment of the Republican Party, perhaps a third, that is prepared to believe whatever Donald Trump says and agree with whatever he does. So, do not expect the collapse of his candidacy if he's indicted. In fact, expect the support to grow.

CAMEROTA: And Frank, just let me dive into that a little bit sooner, a little bit deeper, which is, do they draw any distinction between an indictment for, say, the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels or the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago or the what's going on in Georgia with the finding extra votes or is it all sort of the same to the voters you spoke to?

LUNTZ: It is all the same. It all equals the same. It's one of the reasons why Trump has been so buoyant. Now I want to make this also clear, he has collapsed among independents and he's nowhere among Democrats. So, at the very moment that he is more likely than he was a few months ago to win the republican nomination, he's actually less likely than he was a few months ago to be eventually elected president.

Among his base, he can do no wrong. Among his opponents, he can do no right. Among the people in the middle, they're starting to wonder, have we had enough of this? They appreciate his presidency. They appreciate his leadership. But frankly, they want him to go away.

CAMEROTA: Okay, Frank, stand by. I want to bring in the panel now. Let me start with you, congresswoman. Does everything frank just said give you pause about hoping perhaps as many Democrats are that Donald Trump will be indicted?

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): Well, I think an additional thing that collapses, based on what Frank just described, is Republicans in Congress ability to actually talk about what they want to do. I mean, they're -- they're retreat -- they've been in a retreat since Sunday and there is not anything else they've been able to talk about except reacting to whether Trump is going to get indicted, what's he going to get indicted for, how do you feel about his indictment.

And it means like, from our perspective, we're going to talk about President Biden's ability to reduce prescription drug cost, the fact that we're continuing to invest in infrastructure, creating millions of jobs, and they're talking about when and whether Trump is going to jail.

DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISER: Frank makes a good point, right, in his point number three about independent voters, right? That's what we need to win, right? We're going to win the base. We're going to win in Alabama. The president is going to do very well. President Trump would do very well in general election.

But as we saw in these most recent midterms, the reason that there was no right way that Republicans got shellacked was because people were tired of the Trumpiness, the Trump's drama. As you heard Frank allude to, you know, he's creator. He maybe ascendant. You know, I think there'll be some polls coming out shortly. It'll show Trump, you know, ahead of Biden, right, this next couple of weeks. (LAUGHTER)

And then, you know, go off a cliff.


And, you know, I think that, as the congresswoman talks about specifically, if you're running for Congress, you're running for Senate, you're running for governor in '24 and Trump is on the ticket, you're going to be asked, what do you think about each one of these indictments? Specifically, do you support this indictment? Would you think about that?

And, you know, while we're talking about this, we're not talking about other things Republicans like to talk about.

CAMEROTA: So, why haven't the voters that Frank is talking to, the Republican voters who were the Trump voters and are the primary -- and are the primary base, why haven't they learned that?

URBAN: They are -- it is like religion. I mean, it really is. It's like, um, the folks who are on the Trump base, right, the 30 some plus percent, you know, my friends in Western Pennsylvania and across the state of Florida and other places, they love Donald Trump. They feel the heat no matter what. He's fighting for me. He's got their back. Right? It doesn't matter -- one else fights for them like Donald Trump fights for them.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Near close to a cult. I mean, really --

URBAN: They love the guy. They feel like -- they feel like nobody else hears them. He gets them.

LINETTE LOPEZ, COLUMNIST, INSIDER: That means the GOP is a fossil. It's impossible for the GOP to actually come up with any kind of philosophy. In the last gathering they had, their philosophy was Donald Trump. So, if Donald Trump is under attack, no one has the space to come up with ideas or actually do anything.

I noticed this covering the whole bank (INAUDIBLE) of the last week. you know, Republicans are not supposed to like bailouts. They're supposed to decry irresponsibility from anybody, whether they're poor or rich.

But the GOP couldn't really figure out what to do in this situation because they didn't have a signal from Trump and all these rich guys or their donors. So, it was almost like a mass confusion, especially among the house GOP because there is no real intellectual fabric there. There's no ideology to hold it all together.

So, if Trump, the thing that keeps the GOP together now falls apart, well, I don't when you all are going to win elections, but not --

URBAN: You know, our governor in Florida, right, has a thing to say about this, right? He's on with -- out in the media today saying, look, I'm going make an example, I'm governing, here is my record we do tough things in Florida. So, I think he's going to try to break through the cacophony.

CAMEROTA: At first, he mentioned --

URBAN: Yeah.

CAMEROTA: -- what Donald Trump was being investigated for --

URBAN: About five times.

CAMEROTA: He cleverly --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And now he is going to --

CAMEROTA: -- slipped in the hush money payments to --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: By the way, he also blamed the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices until he got slammed for that and had to backpedal.

CAMEROTA: Jennifer, legally speaking, do you think -- I know that prosecutors aren't supposed to take any of this, what's happening in the zeitgeist into consideration when they're considering prosecuting a crime, but do you think that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, is here thinking about any of this as he decides tonight whether or not he's going to indict Donald Trump?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, I don't think he's thinking about what are the voters think, what are the political implications. I think he's thinking about what is the reaction going to be on the street. I mean, they have security issues. I mean, the former president called for protesters to go and protest his indictment.


RODGERS: So, they are concerned about, you know, working with the NYPD. Of course, they are concerned about public safety, they are concerned about the safety of the attorneys in the office who are working on this case and other folk who are there. So, he's thinking about those issues.

And certainly, as this goes along and he's going to trial and they're thinking about their jury pool and what the jurors are hearing and thinking, obviously, that comes into play then as well, but not in terms of the overall political piece of it.

CAMEROTA: Frank, I don't know if you had a chance to talk to any of your voter panels about vice president -- former Vice President Mike Pence, but there was an interesting piece in "The Atlantic" by McKay Coppins who sat in on a panel of Trump voters, and he was watching their reaction when Mike Pence's name came up, and he was pretty stunned.

Well, first of all, the headline is "Nobody likes Mike Pence." And again, these are big Trump supporters and what he heard was just, um -- truly, nobody has a kind thing to say. I mean, here are a couple of quotes from the article. "He is only going to get the vote from his family, and I'm not sure even they like him." That's one quote. "He just needs to go away" is another.

It went on and on like that across four different focus groups. Of the 34 Republicans who participated, I heard only four people say that consider Pence for president and two of them immediately started talking themselves out of it after indicating interests. Your thoughts, Frank?

LUNTZ: Mike Pence is a great debater. Mike Pence is a good communicator. When they focus rather than what happened to him on January 6th and they focus on what he believes, his philosophy, how he communicates it, you're going see him rise in the polls.

The problem with Pence or the challenge for Pence is that he is Donald Trump's shadow, and there's no way to get out of that. And either it's he's too Trumpian or he's not Trumpian enough, obviously, the former president started to attack him.

In the end, you're going to have to be your own person, you're going to have to have your own identity, your own philosophy, your own plans for the future, and it cannot just be against Donald Trump or in favor of Donald Trump.


In the end, the Republican nominee is going to be that person best articulates an alternative to the current administration, and it cannot just be negative. This is my warning to all the political people watching right now: Just because Donald Trump got away with the most negative campaign in 2016 and 2020 that we've seen in modern times, just because he got away with it doesn't mean that will work in 2024.

Our sessions, people are upset about conditions in the country, they are upset over inflation, they are upset over the chaos at the border, and they're desperate for someone to give them not just answers but solutions and can prove results. Mike Pence has got a decent record. Remember, Congress and governor. He's just not had a chance to talk about that.

CAMEROTA: David, does Mike Pence had a chance?

URBAN: Mike Pence is an eminently decent man. Great -- you know, very, very nice guy. But, as Frank points out, as long as it's about, you know, January 6th and those 34 people in that focus group probably were all chanting, hang Mike Pence, right, he's going have a tough time breaking through. He's going have to get on the stage with a big crowd and define his lane, tell everybody who he is --

CAMEROTA: What is his lane?

URBAN: I don't know. That's the question, right? So --

LOPEZ: Who beats Trump the insult comic like who has the timing, who has the one liners or who -- when I think of somebody who will be able to kind of soften Trump on the debate stage, the only person I can think of is Nikki Haley but only because he seems to have less of a propensity to insult women directly to their faces unless, you know, they're Hillary Clinton.

URBAN: You know, what Frank was saying is about grievances, right? So, Trump's brand is a grievance candidate, right? It was about everyone's grievances. Your grievance. Recently, it is about his grievances, right? And so, if he can switch that back around and project, you know, a vision of how to fix these things, then I think voter will be open to it. If it's about 2020 election, relitigating that, I think he'll be -- he'll be rejected even by the Republican electorates. So, we have to wait and see.

LUNTZ: Alisyn, can I jump in?

CAMEROTA: Yeah, quickly.

LUNTZ: If this is about a debate, and I know this because we did all the debates testing for a -- for different networks back in 2016, if this is about debate and there is no one better on this stage, inform New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.


LUNTZ: He will wipe the floor out of Donald Trump. He will do the same of Governor DeSantis. I've never seen a better debater in my professional life. I don't know if that's going to be the requirement. I don't know if that's going be the deciding factor. But I promise you, Donald Trump will not get on the stage if Chris Christie is also on the stage.

CAMEROTA: Go ahead.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Chris Christie was on the stage in 2016, and it didn't go so well for him. I mean --

CAMEROTA: What about that, Frank?

LUNTZ: In terms of debating. In terms of that actual confrontation. Marco Rubio lost his candidacy because of Chris Christie. There are other candidates who had more money than the former governor and had a message. But the governor is so powerful and so quick on his feet --

CAMEROTA: Frank --

LUNTZ: I got to tell you, of all the things I could do, I love the Super Bowl, I love of World Series, I love the NHL, the NBA, there is nothing I would love more than to watch a debate between Chris Christie and Donald Trump. That's awesome. That's interesting.

CAMEROTA: (INAUDIBLE), congresswoman.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I don't know. Maybe you were watching different debates. But the debates I saw with the cast of characters on the republican debate stage were food fights. I mean, there was no substance.

I mean, you've got team normal, which are the Democratic candidates. And now, we have a Democrat, the king of normal, our Democratic president, Joe Biden, who got us back on track, who is focused on making sure that we can continue to create jobs and, you know, get roofs over people's heads and invest in infrastructure.

And you have the king of name calling on the stage. And these guys are going to have to go on with bulletproof vest to try to fend off all that's going to be the incoming coming from him.


URBAN: Frank makes a good point about, you know, does retail matters? Is retail going to matter? He talks about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, early states where normally retail matters, right? Back in the day, you go to 99 counties in Iowa, right? You shake hands, sit in diners. It's not going to matter this time. Is Trump going to do it? Is DeSantis going to do it? Are candidates going do it? The electorate expect --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: DeSantis is going to do it with bicycle racks between him and voters.

URBAN: Yeah. Stay tuned.


CAMEROTA: Alright, panel, thank you very much. Lots of food for thought. Thank you, Frank. I really appreciate that.

Okay, now to this, 30,000 Los Angeles school custodians, cafeteria workers, and bus drivers are on strike, which effectively stops classes for more than half a million students there. We are going to tell you what the workers want and how much they make right now.




CAMEROTA: A union representing 30,000, workers for the Los Angeles School District hit the picket lines today. Cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and custodians beginning a three-day strike against the nation's second largest school district after last-minute negotiations between the union and the district failed. These workers want more hours, respectful treatment, and salary increases.


ADRIAN ALVEREZ, LAUSD WORKER: We need to make a living wage. We lived this weird paradox as workers that help feed children, and yet we struggle to feed our own children. So, anybody who has kids in school, anybody that really cares about the quality of education, you have to care about the people that guarantee that quality of education and that is us.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CAMEROTA: I'm back with my panel now. Linette, their average salary is $25,000 a year. That is poverty level. The people who are driving our kids and serving food in cafeteria, they make $25,000 a year.


What they're asking for is 30% pay raise, plus an additional $2 an hour over the next four years. So, that brings them up to what? Thirty-two thousand?

LOPEZ: And this is Los Angeles we're talking about. It's not the cheapest place in the United States of America. I don't know how people are expected to survive.

I think a lot about the economy right now and how there are people who got to spend a lot of the pandemic indoors, working from home, and lucky. But then there are people like these people who are worse. Central workers got no thank you, got paid like crap the entire pandemic, and had to deal with, you know, kids who didn't necessarily get sick themselves but passed around COVID pretty easily.

And now, you have this, like, you know, people are saying the struggle is over, the pandemic is ending, but it doesn't feel over to them. The struggle doesn't feel over.

I think everyone needs to kind of put themselves into that psychological frame of mind where it's not now that they're just feeling this squeeze, it was the whole pandemic. The country seems to be getting over it, but nothing has changed for them. They worked so hard to keep things together.

CAMEROTA: And I would say even the pandemic because one of the things that the school district is saying is that we rely on these workers because kids get their meals at school. So, a lot of the kids in this district are also at the poverty level and they get their meals at school.

So, if they're not going to school for these next few days, they're not going to be having three square meals. Will these bus drivers -- these bus drivers said that they're having a hard time feeding their own kids.

RODGERS: Yeah. So, this is a huge disaster for all of these reasons. You have to think about it from the government's perspective. You cannot have these thousands of children out of school. You just cannot. And this is going to be resolved. Right? It's not like school is ending now.

So, fast forward, two days, three days, a week, whatever it is, it's going to be resolved. So, just do it now. I mean, you just can't have all of this going on. The government, the city of Los Angeles, the state of California, they just need to get this done.

URBAN: So, the tough part here is budgetary constraints. If you listen to that gentleman speak and you feel for me, that shouldn't take place. But the flip side is that a school district is not like the federal government. They can't print more money. They've got a budget they have to work within. Legally, they are constrained by the statutes that say you have to balance your budget, you can't overspend, you can't go into deficit spend.

So, from what I understand is that the demands by these employees would put them over that threshold. So, the school district is offering, I think, 23%. They want 30%. So hopefully, as you say, you know, we can get to yes, we get to 25%, 26%, something that doesn't bust the budget and that everyone goes back to school, the kids can get back, people get some decent money and move forward.

CAMEROTA: How can (INAUDIBLE) break the bank, congresswoman?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Come on, in nearly every state, you can't deficit spend. You have to balance budget in states. I know Alberto Carvalho. He was the school -- the school superintendent in Miami Dade County, one of my two counties for years. He is a decent man. He understands that the workers have to get paid a living wage and be able to afford to feed their families and send their kids to college.

You've got custodians who are the part of the backbone and cafeteria workers part of the backbone of the school. They're helping kids in that school be able to learn enough to go to college, and they can't even send their own kids to college. That's the kind of thing they're talking about.

CAMEROTA: What is the answer?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The answer is to sit down at the bargaining table, make sure that the unions are putting a real offer on the table, you know, counter with a real offer, stay in the room together until it gets done.

But, I mean, for the school district to say, we're pulling back, we can't do that and forcing them out on strike, what choice do they have? You can't have a school open without cafeteria workers and custodians. These are essential workers. These are the power professionals that make it all work like clockwork. They're going to see very quickly how everything falls apart without them, and they just need to come back together and get it done.

CAMEROTA: I mean, I hear you that obviously everybody has a budget, but they have to be able to -- you have to steal from Peter to pay Paul somewhere.

URBAN: I'm not sure of their finances. I'm not sure how it works. I just know that that's what I've read it. It says -- look, the school would like to be able to do this. They just can't find a way. So, if Gavin Newsom, I don't know where they get their money to --


URBAN: I don't know. What I know is that --

RODGERS: I don't understand. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: They do have to operate with balanced budget. They only get so much from the state. They get so much from property taxes. They have to put it all in the mix and sorted out.

URBAN: That is what makes it tough.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I mean, there is a path forward. They don't seem terribly far apart. But using the excuse respectfully that, you know, they're going to debt into bankruptcy if they go a little bit further, I think that's questionable.

CAMEROTA: Alright, panel, thank you very much. Stay with me if you would because what's on the mind of America's adolescence? "The New York Times" article conducted a focus group of young people aged 11 to 14, and they asked them about their views on things like family, school, social media, what their goals are, what their fears are.


It's really educational. We're going to look at their answers, next.


CHURCH: So, what it is like to be an adolescent today? "The New York Times" invited a dozen kids aged 11 to 14 from across the country to find out.

My panel is back. We also want to bring in pollster Margie Omero who conducted this hours-long focus group. Margie, thanks so much for being here. This was really instructive, to read the responses of this focus group. So, having spent hours with these adolescents, what was your biggest takeaway after talking to them?


MARGIE OMERO, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER, GBAO: Well, first, as a moderator, and I do, you know, hundreds of focus groups a year, usually about political candidates and organizations, it was a relief.

Unlike the focus groups you were talking about before, nobody talked about Trump, nobody is talking about Mike Pence, nobody is talking about the debates in 2016. None of that is happening. They are really just talking about friendship, their families, what it's like to be in school, what they use their phones for, the things they're excited about.

And what struck me was how, generally speaking, these young teens really liked being a kid. We asked the question would you rather be a kid your age or a grown up? Overwhelmingly, they said, no, I want to stay my age. It's more fun. I get to hang out with my friends. I'm really exploring. And being a grown up, that is about, you know, worrying about bills and the mortgage. Yeah, you got plenty of time for that.

CAMEROTA: Yes. In fact, I want to show the results of that because I thought that that was really interesting, how much they are focused on just kind of the bummer of being an adult and particularly the finances. So, let's read some of their responses.

Andrew who was 11 -- so you asked, if you could be an adult now, would you? And Andrew who is 11 says, basically, they have to pay their rent and feed their kids, but I just have to really do nothing. And then Trinity whose 12 says, I'd stay my current age because your childhood is something you'll never get back, and I feel like you're an adult for a long time, way longer than your childhood. True.

And then Nate, 14 says, being an adult, you have to go to a job every day and work, and then you have to spend the money on the rent and food and all that stuff. And then Sophie, 13, says, I'm going to be my current age because then the amount of responsibilities I have doesn't change.

I want to bring in my panel and Margie, stay with us, because I want you to be part of the conversation. But from the mouth of babes, congresswoman, I mean, they understand that things get, you know, particularly finances. I was struck by how many of them talked about rent and money and bills, and that that's what adulthood means to them.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And you know that that's probably what their ears are hearing their parents talk about. So, they hear the worries that adults have and they say, mm hmm, I want to skip through the park and play with my friends and enjoy life as they should. You don't want them absorbing, you know, so much angst that they don't want to actually get to adulthood.

CAMEROTA: Yeah. My son says this, too. He's 16. He often says to me, is it hard to pay taxes? I'm like, yes.


LOPEZ: Is it hard? No. But does it feel hard? Yeah. It's feels really hard. I don't know, I don't have kids, but I recently spent time with a 14-year-old. She was teaching me some (INAUDIBLE). She said, um, the (INAUDIBLE). That's when somebody has charisma.


So, maybe some of these presidential candidates in the GOP need to get some more of the (INAUDIBLE) --


-- if they want to face Donald Trump. And also, I heard that Zah is what the kids are using for marijuana.

CAMEROTA: Oh, Zah is marijuana.

LOPEZ: Yeah.

URBAN: I thought it's pizza.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (ph): Yeah, I thought it is pizza, too.


CAMEROTA: -- marijuana.


CAMEROTA: Okay, so let's look at some more because I thought this was, Margie, interesting, too, in terms of what impact they thought they could have on the world. And you hear again repetitive refrain. Matthew, 13, says, I feel like kids my age can't really have a big impact on the world because most adults nowadays don't listen to kids.

Trinity, 12, says, adults are not listening to kids. They're like, they're just kids, they don't know anything. And then you said, Margie, to them, is there a message that you want to send to adults? And they said, listen to us. Winter said that, 14.

So, I guess we have to listen to them.

URBAN: Yeah.

RODGERS: Yeah. I mean, listen, I'm so glad that they want to stay kids, but I don't like that they don't feel listened to. You know, it makes me feel like -- I have a 12-year-old, so it feels like when I go home instead of just, you know, what do you want for dinner and what time do you want to go to volleyball, maybe I should ask my daughter what she thinks about what's going on in the world. So nice lesson for all of us.

LOPEZ (ph): I see a lot of pushback, though, whatever.

OMERO: To be honest, it's something that we hear in every focus group. No matter the audience, kids or adults, lots of people say, I just wish that people would listen to us. It's a pretty human thing. I did groups earlier tonight, which is why I'm still up this late. Those groups of people said, I just wish they would listen to us. So, it is pretty common.

CAMEROTA: Really interesting (ph).

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: We probably all grew up more around our family dinner table where there was more conversation and you can get kids' opinions and hear what they had to say. And now, we're all running around so much.

So, slowing down as parents and really being able to try to carve out some time, we have Sunday night family dinner in our family for years and years and years with my parents and our kids, and that was the time, like, sometimes the only time that we really got to talk about things that we wouldn't have heard through the rest of the week or maybe at all.

CAMEROTA: That's really valuable.


And then last, what makes them feel stressed out or anxious? They all said basically homework.


CAMEROTA: They said the amount of work and how much time I have to do it. That was a 14-year-old. Another 14-year-old said, I get stressed out about school work. Another 14-year-old said, school work mainly, sports sometimes. And then Trinity said, school and sports and our environment, I guess.

URBAN: Here is a newsflash, teenagers. Adulting sucks even worse.



URBAN: It is worse than homework.

CAMEROTA: You think you don't like schoolwork? Try real work.


CAMEROTA: That's awesome. Margie, thanks so much for sharing that with us. It's a good teachable moment for all of us to listen to each other more and to our kids. Thank you. Thanks so much.

OMERO: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Up next, Gwyneth Paltrow is in court in Park City, Utah today over a skiing accident. We'll show you what happened and explain the story.




CAMEROTA: Gwyneth Paltrow was in court today facing a $300,000 lawsuit over a skiing accident. The plaintiff, Terry Sanderson, is suing Paltrow, accusing her of skiing -- quote -- "out of control" on a run in Park City, Utah. Sanderson says that Paltrow crashed into him, causing him to suffer a traumatic brain injury, four broken ribs, and other injuries.

Paltrow is countersuing, saying that Sanderson ran into her. She alleges he's using her fame as a money grab. She wants Sanderson to pay her legal fees.

Joining me now is CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates and KUTV2News reporter Lincoln Graves who was in the courtroom today. Lincoln, tell us what happened in the courtroom today.

LINCOLN GRAVES, REPORTER, KUTV2NEWS: Yeah, I think this trial is certainly anticipated. A lot of people are looking forward to see what this would be like. The first time we were able to see Gwyneth Paltrow in court, and this man, Terry Sanderson. Opening statements, of course, happened today from both sides.

Really, it's just a case of he said, she said at this point. He says she ran into him. She says he ran into her. And so, I guess that's what we're hoping the jury will determine in this case. See who's responsible.

CAMEROTA: Lincoln, this happened in 2016. Did it come out why this has taken so long to come to court?

GRAVES: You know, that is one of the issues that Gwyneth Paltrow's attorneys brought up, wondering why this took so long. Why it took so long for Terry Sanderson to, I guess, bring up some of the medical records that he's talking about to bring up some of the issues. He claims he's suffering because of this collision.

They're saying, you know, pay attention to what he says after some of these medical reports have come out as opposed to before. So, it is kind of an open-ended question as to why it has taken so long, that it has been a long time coming.

CAMEROTA: And how did Gwyneth Paltrow appear or seen in court? There is a moment where we see her sort of blocking her face. Was she open? Was she sort of hiding from the paparazzi? What was the mood there?

GRAVES: A little bit of hiding from the paparazzi. There were some pretty strict rules inside the courthouse. No taking photos of her inside except one still photographer. She was really hiding her face from that still photographer. I would assume that she knew that there were cameras inside the courtroom showing a full head on shot of her.

Otherwise, besides how she was acting towards photographers, she was fine. She was stoic. She was nodding her head a little bit when things were said that she agreed with and, of course, shaking her head when things she didn't agree with were spoken about in court. So, she didn't say a whole lot, didn't show too much emotion, but, yeah, she did a fine job in there.

CAMEROTA: And what happens next?

GRAVES: Yeah, so, we're going to see how long this trial actually takes. Of course, they set aside a certain amount of time. We're looking at a week to two weeks here, but you never know exactly how long a trial will take. We want to see if she takes the stand. We've been told that she will. We've been told that some of her family members will.

But again, as the trial goes forward, you never know what could happen, what sort of developments we will see in the days and weeks or a couple of weeks to come. But we'll be back. They're coming up tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. to see the second day of the of testimony.

CAMEROTA: Okay, Lincoln Graves, thank you very much for giving us all of the atmosphere inside the courtroom. I want to turn to Laura now. Laura, first of all, great to see you.


CAMEROTA: Hello! Great to have you here. So, I don't understand, how from a 2016 ski accident on a mountain, how are you going to prove who ran into whom?

COATES: Well, memories fade normally when you have that length of time. One of the things they open mentioned in the opening statements today on Gwyneth Paltrow side was the plaintiff's memory seems to be getting better as time goes on, so drawing instantly into a credibility and a memory issue.

But also, here you've got the not only the he said, she said, you've got the idea of whether celebrities weighing into this, whether wealth, whether this is the alleged shakedown that the attorneys (INAUDIBLE) going to be. But also, think about this, you may be thinking, how is ski law somehow part of this whole thing?

You know, there is a code of etiquette in skiing. But also, there is the law that says, if you are the person who is downhill, further down the mountain, then you are the one who could be the victim. If you are higher --

CAMEROTA: That is a Utah law?

COATES: That is the Utah, the ski law about this, not just a courtesy. If you are down the mountain, someone coming behind you could be responsible. But how do you prove that all this time later when she is saying he was the person lower down the mountain or she was, and vice versa. So, that's going be part of the issue here.

CAMEROTA: He says that she was skiing out of control, knocked him down hard, knocked him out, caused a brain injury, four broken ribs, and other serious interests.


That sounds like there would be a record of that. I mean, that sounds like, you know, what you see on a ski mountain where somebody is going down in a stretcher, and I believe that she was also on a ski lesson. She was with a ski instructor.

COATES: Yes, on a beginner slope. And so, the problem here is they say that he took some pretty, you know, jovial photos, apparently, following this accident as he was (INAUDIBLE) down the slope.

Then you also have the idea of his people say that she never even bothered to stop and check on it. It was a ski and run, so to speak, that she owed a duty of care and was negligent and not being a conservative skier, prudent about who was around her.

For her take, they're saying, no, no, my team did stop for you, you assured them that you were okay and everyone were on their way, until maybe you realized I was Gwyneth Paltrow, and then something else took place.

And so, they're also playing with the medical injuries happened beforehand, perhaps some of the brain injuries or things that were present conditions of some kind. A lot is in this particular case. It's really, really full.

It feels very odd to many people because when we have duty of care cases like a doctor owing to a patient or somebody who's in your custody, you owe a duty of care to. What duty of care do you owe if you are somebody involved in a sport that has inherent risks, right? The mountain itself, the weather conditions. Normally, the law protects the ski operator who owns the slope, not too much about what happens between skiers on it.

CAMEROTA: All right, well, we'll be watching this closely.

COATES: And I won't be skiing.


COATES: That's the way to do that.

CAMEROTA: Is that what we --


COATES: Snowboarding down a mountain sideways? Nope, I'm good. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Fantastic.

COATES: Thanks.

CAMEROTA: Laura, thanks so much.

COATES: Nice seeing you.

CAMEROTA: You, too. All right, just ahead, a Colorado dentist accused of murdering his wife by putting arsenic in her protein shakes. Police say he left a trail of clues online, including searching for ways to make poison. We'll explain.




CAMEROTA: Tonight. A Colorado dentist is under arrest, accused of murdering his wife by adding arsenic to her protein shakes. Police say 45-year-old James Craig ordered the poison online and made a series of internet searches that now seem like, well, dead giveaways.

Forty-three-year-old Angela Craig was hospitalized three times last month. This month, I should say. She died last Wednesday. She was a mother of six.

I want to bring in Larry Kobilinsky. He's a professor emeritus of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Larry, nice to see you. This dentist, his internet searches, um, are damning. Let me just read to you some of them.

He googled, how many grams of pure arsenic will kill a human. Then he looked on YouTube, top five undetectable poisons that show no signs of foul play. Then, how to make poison. And then the top 10 deadliest plants that can kill you. He's -- he does not seem to be a very bright criminal but, obviously, police say, a lethal one.

LARRY KOBILINSKY, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF FORENSIC SCIENCE, JOHN JAY COLLEGE: I fully agree with you. You know, it's funny. This case is very similar to a case we read about recently in Massachusetts. Brian Walshe, married to Ana Walshe, and he was arrested and charged with dismembering his wife and dumping body parts in dumpster. He, too, used the internet to look up, how do you get rid of a body that's 115 pounds.

They just don't understand that law enforcement is going to go to their computers, going to go to their cell phones, and they're going to look for records of searches that they do. And this is very, very incriminating.

Of course, it's not the only piece that needs to be found put together to make the case. We have a person who is, unfortunately, deceased and with symptoms while she was alive of arsenic poisoning. So clearly, there's a great need for an autopsy.

Now, I understand that James Craig did not want an autopsy done, and now we understand why he didn't want that done. But I can tell you that postmortem, you can detect and even quantitate the amount of arsenic that you find in the body. There is very sophisticated instrumentation. We just haven't seen an autopsy report yet, but the toxicology is going to be part of that. And so that is the other piece that we need.

We know he ordered the arsenic. Apparently, he also ordered cyanide, potassium cyanide, which is a very, very potent poison, very rapidly acting poison. He had it sent to his medical office. One of his colleagues found the package and said, we don't need this here, what's it doing here, told his nurse, and the nurse then called the police. The police are using that in this case.


KOBILINSKY: So, here we have a guy who rather than get divorce, decides he's going to get rid of his wife, and do it through the internet, figuring out how to poison her to death. And unfortunately, she suffered from this and even thought she was being drugged, and asked him about it in a text message.

CAMEROTA: Yes, and I have that. Yes. I want to read this because this is remarkable. So, this had happened before. He had drugged her before. And so, on this day, March 6, she, as you say, texts him, I feel drugged.


And he was responds, given our history, I know that must be triggering. Just for the record, I didn't drug you. I'm super worried, though. You really looked pale before I left. Like in your lips even.

I mean, the level of impunity that he thinks he can operate with is, I guess, a narcissistic personality disorder or something.

KOBILINSKY: It's extraordinary, but there isn't going to be no question about whether it's a first-degree case, first-degree murder or second-degree murder. Clearly, it was premeditated, planned, thoughtful. You know, he put a lot of thought into this, how he's going to do it and how he's going to get away with it.

Remember, all his internet searches were basically, how do I get away with it? How do I poison and get away with it? He didn't want to be detected. But believe me, the forensic people nowadays, the toxicology people, they will put it all together, they will find the levels of arsenic.

Arsenic is a big problem. It's ubiquitous. It's in the water we drink, it is in the air we breathe, it is in the soil, it is over the place, but low levels and those are safe.


KOBILINSKY: But this is the kind of level that will kill. They'll find it.

CAMEROTA: That's comforting. All right, Larry, I really appreciate all of that. I got to let you go. Larry Kobilinsky, thank you very much.

KOBILINSKY: Thanks, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: And before we go, tomorrow on "CNN THIS MORNING," a new look at how water has become a hot commodity for Wall Street. You can see this report at 6:00 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

Thanks so much for watching tonight. Our coverage continues now.