Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Tonight

Three Children, Three Adults Killed In Nashville Elementary School Shooting; Israeli Prime Minister Announces Delay To Judicial Overhaul Amid Huge Protests; Federal Judge Order Pence To Testify About Trump Conversation; Adnan Syed's Conviction Reinstated; How To Have A Good Sleep. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired March 28, 2023 - 22:00   ET




PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: New developments and yet another legal case against former President Trump, a federal judge tonight rejected Trump's effort to throw out a defamation claim brought by Writer E. Jean Carroll, related to comments he made in October ridiculing her. The case is set to go to trial next month.

Well, thank you so much for watching tonight. CNN TONIGHT with Alisyn Camerota starts now.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to CNN TONIGHT.

We're learning more about the latest deadly school shooting. We've gotten the police body cam video. We're going to show that to you, and we're going to try to have a different conversation about guns with a longtime gun enthusiast about what he thinks the solution could be.

Plus, another legal defeat for Donald Trump and a big win for Special Counsel Jack Smith, a federal judge ruling today that former Vice President Mike Pence must testify to a grand jury about what he -- what the then-president told him leading up to January 6th.


MIKE PENCE, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: We're currently reviewing. But, look, let me be clear, I have nothing to hide.


CAMEROTA: Well, obviously, this would be historic, a former vice president forced to give what could be damaging testimony against the president he served. What will it mean for the investigation?

And students protesting their commencement speaker, parents complaining about what their children are taught. Why are we suddenly so uncomfortable with being uncomfortable? We'll talk about that.

But let's begin with the Nashville shooting. I want to bring in my panel. We have Dan Harris, host of the mental health podcast, Ten Percent Happier, Coleman Hughes of the Conversations with Coleman Podcast, we have Jennifer Rodgers, former Assistant U. S Attorney of the Southern District of New York and the Los Angeles Times' L.Z. Granderson.

So, here's what we have learned today. Let me bring everybody up to speed. Police say the 28-year old who killed three children and three adults at a school in Nashville bought seven guns legally and hid them at home. The shooter was also reportedly under a doctor's care for, quote, an emotional disorder. The shooter message to former classmate minutes before the attack, saying, quote something bad is about to happen. Some people say the problem here is not guns. It's mental health. So what's the solution? We're going to talk about all of that with our panel.

But, first, I want to bring in Firearms Safety Advisor and Safety Expert and Gun Enthusiast Steve Wolf. Steve, great to see you, as always, and I'm sorry that it's always I always call upon you during these horrible tragedies. But I do like to talk to you as somebody who for so many decades has been a gun enthusiast, taught me the safety of guns on one of my shoots. So, I always like relying on you.

This shooter, Steve, bought the guns legally, okay, seven guns, which suggests to some people that we need better and more specific laws to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unhinged people. I know you think that the new laws would not make a difference. How can that be, Steve?

STEVE WOLF, FIREARMS SAFETY/SAFETY EXPERT: Well, murder is already illegal. Taking guns into school is already illegal. There's nothing that the Nashville shooter or any other shooter has done that's not already covered by one or more laws.

CAMEROTA: But, Steve, hold on, let me just interrupt you there because they don't have red flag, but they don't have red flag laws in this state. So, wouldn't that have helped? I mean, then the shooter wouldn't have been able to get a gun had there been red flag laws.

WOLF: The shooter would not have been able to get a gun if there had been a red flag law and if people had called in their tips, as well as, you know, ignoring the fact that people can buy guns other than from gun stores and they can avoid the NIC check entirely. But, yes, having the red fly flag laws as well as having people make the call, like they say in New York City, if you see something, say something.

CAMEROTA: Yes. So, in other words, new laws would have helped in that in that situation.

But one more thing I want to ask you about, Steve, because this is what I don't understand. Why we don't talk more about the point of purchase? Why do we let gun sellers off the hook? I think rather easily, can't they be -- I mean, in other words, should they be perhaps asking a few screening questions to try to determine, you know, who they should be selling lethal weapons to?

WOLF: Alisyn, they do ask -- they asked a lot of questions on the firearms purchase sale but the problem is that they're asking those questions of a person who might be lying or might be mentally unstable. So, this is why you have the NICS check system and the red flag system, is that other people can weigh in and then, through due process, someone can lose their right to purchase a gun lawfully.


CAMEROTA: So, explain that to me, Steve. So, just explain that to me what kinds of questions are gun people who want to buy guns? What are they asked?

WOLF: They're asked, are you a fugitive from justice? Are you an illegal alien? Were you discharged from the military under dishonorable circumstances? Are you an unlawful user of drugs? So, a lot of these things are covered. But, of course, if someone has criminal intent or is mentally ill, they're obviously going to lie on this form. And there's only so far that a gun dealer can go. This maybe like asking a car dealer, you know, to ask people what their drinking habits are before they're allowed to purchase an automobile.

CAMEROTA: Sort of, except that look, TSA, asked did you pack your bags yourself, and sometimes they say, are you carrying explosives?

WOLF: Not anymore.

CAMEROTA: I mean, sometimes they do at some airports, they do, and they're allowed to do that. And sometimes, guess what, they find people who say actually, no, I didn't, or yes, maybe I did forget, I left something in my bag. Sometimes that happens.

But would you be -- well, let me ask you this, Steve, would you object to a question of, in addition to all of those you just laid out, are you depressed, have you considered hurting yourself in the past 30 days, yourself or anyone else, would that be -- would those be good questions?

WOLF: Those are fine screening questions if people would answer them honestly, but you'll get more honest answers from people who know that person and then call the authorities and let them know that this person has exhibited some unstable behavior or has expressed harm towards others or self harm.

The people in their lives are more likely to give honest answers and to report to the authorities than the individual themselves would do.

CAMEROTA: So, Steve, what in your mind, is the solution here?

WOLF: Well, in my mind, the solution is based on the idea that anyone who proposes something that's going to be objected to by the other half of the country isn't going to get legislation passed. So, we should really focus on the things that we could all agree on.

I believe that we could all agree that we'd like to see less of these insane shootings. We could all agree that mentally ill people shouldn't have access to firearms. And I think we could all agree that people who own firearms should store them responsibly, so they're not accessible to children or mentally ill people.

If we start there and add red flag laws, I think these are things that we could all agree on, and, therefore, legislation could get past. But I think if we talk about banning some particular type of gun or magazine capacities are all these other things, we're going to get a lot of friction and there's going to be no forward progress the way we've seen for the last 15 years.

CAMEROTA: Well, I like what you're saying, except that only 19 states have red flag laws. So, why isn't that universal? Why nationally haven't we all settle on that?

WOLF: So, I think that these should be federally mandated and federally subsidized. Because one of the reasons that states often object to legislation is because Washington is telling them what to do but not telling them how to pay for it.

So if, as a nation, we value the idea of a red flag law, then the federal government should mandated and then they should absorb the costs of implementing it, as well as maintaining national tip lines so that people who are mentally or emotionally unstable can get the help they need and all that.

So, I think it's really sad that so many people are, you know, suffering from mental illness in this country and yet we pay them no attention until they represent a violent threat to someone else. But if they're suffering on their own, nobody gives a crap.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, look, obviously, we have a mental health crisis for sure. But this person was under a doctor's care. I don't know exactly what that meant but that's what we've learned today.

WOLF: Yes.

CAMEROTA: But, Steve Wolf, always great to talk to you. I really appreciate your perspective. Thanks so much for coming on.

WOLF: Alisyn, thanks so much for having me on tonight.

CAMEROTA: I want to bring in my panel right now. L.Z., your thoughts?

L.Z. GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Yes. I wanted to ask, Steve, because I was soon as he said, this remark, I was just like, what are you talking about? And that's the merchant code, which is something that just developed recently within the banking world.

When you go back and you look at the Patriot Act, one of the things that requires banks to do is to keep track of your purchases. And if you make any purchases that are sort of unusual or if you're doing this sort of money learning to terrorist organizations, you would be flagged. That is a federal law that's already in place. The gun industry, for some reason, I'm not going to accuse him of doing it purposefully, but for some reason, they were able to avoid having a gun merchant code for years after 9/11, for years.

CAMEROTA: Meaning, if somebody were to buy seven guns within the space of a month, it should be flagged?

GRANDERSON: Exactly, and that's already through the Patriot Act. So, what Steve is talking about is unnecessary because it's already something in place that's already been passed through Congress and signed into law that if it was actually you utilized, would have flagged those seven purchases because they would have been unusual.

But the gun industry has worked really hard not to have a gun merchant code. They just got one assigned and there're several GOP attorney generals who are not trying to fight that with the Biden administration saying this is unconstitutional.

CAMEROTA: Jennifer, you are a lawyer here. Any thoughts on that?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I mean, the thing that disturbs me about all of this, it's not just that the NRA controls the lawmakers so that they won't pass background checks and other -- you know, put in the right merchant code and do all those things, they also passed legislation that thwarts people from suing gun manufacturers.


So, the way you would normally see this taken care of in society is that people would sue like crazy, right? They would start killing them in the pocketbook and then everyone would change their tune. But that can't happen here because they've been so good about giving money to the politicians to get legislation through that basically completely stops all of these --

CAMEROTA: Although, somehow the Newtown parents found a loophole. They sued Remington and some -- I just need more information on what happened, but somehow they found a loophole and I know that was seen as unprecedented and a huge success for them, but not everybody has been able to do that.

RODGERS: I think I would need to look into this more, but I think it has to do with the manufacturer, of where the gun is manufactured. If you sue in a place where there're gun manufacturers or non-gun manufacturers, it's a different standard, and most states, they're different.

CAMEROTA: Yes. But both of these are great suggestions. I mean, again, if we're looking for solutions and trying not to have the same circular conversation that we have after every one of these tragedies, you know, I try to find solutions. So, I feel like we're already naming some but somehow, Coleman, this eludes Capitol Hill.

COLEMAN HUGHES, HOST, CONVERSATIONS WITH COLEMAN PODCAST: Yes. Well, I think part of the problem is that Democrats have been misled into thinking an assault weapons ban is going to be the cure all here, but the truth is even a handgun can do this kind of damage, right?

So, the problem is mentally ill people being able to get a gun of any kind, right? It's easier to get a gun, then to get a driver's license in some states, and that seems backwards to me, right? There should be mental health checks. There should be character references, and that's the path forward, not the assault weapons ban.


DAN HARRIS, HOST, TEN PERCENT HAPPIER PODCAST: I just -- you know, I look at this story, and I think a little bit about how do we as human beings and consumers of the news survive this continuous parade of horribles, these continuous parade of murders that are playing out with the most vulnerable people in our society.

And, you know, I think there's a temptation to lapse back into rage or fear or helplessness or apathy, but I would recommend and I'm going to get a little meditative on you all now, that we lapse back instead into compassion. Because I think that is the attitude, the attitude of feeling people's feelings of empathy and then having the desire to help on top of it, that's the attitude from which we can achieve solutions.

CAMEROTA: Compassion for the shooter?

HARRIS: Compassion for everybody. I wouldn't start with the shooter because that's very hard, but definitely compassion for the people who are suffering right now.

CAMEROTA: Yes. And I think that we do -- I mean, it's very, very hard to think about the parents and to think about that moment where their kids they're not going to be reunited with their kids. And we see it time and again and it's so painful to go there that I think that a lot of us just can't even imagine -- try to avoid imagining here.

HARRIS: Here's what I do. When I find myself scrolling by these stories, and I feel the temptation to numb out, because it's there, because it's just I'm a parent, it's hard to take this in. I was one of the first reporters on the ground in Newtown. I've covered a lot of these shootings. I try to stop, look at the picture, and in my head, silently send the wish for whoever suffering to be at least have an alleviation or a reduction in that suffering.

And that is a training that science shows is successful, that you can train your brain toward compassion instead of overwhelm and fear and rage. And how do you want to act, because we should take action. This isn't about thoughts and prayers. But do you want your action to come out of a place of rage or fear or resignation or out of a desire to help?

CAMEROTA: That's beautiful. Thank you all very much for all those perspectives.

Stick around, everyone. When we come back, have you noticed that people seem to be really uncomfortable with being uncomfortable? Whether the argument is about DEI and the workplace or who speaks at a school commencement on a college campus or what movie plays in classroom, we don't know how to tolerate discomfort. We're going to discuss that, next.



CAMEROTA: That was Disney's 1998 film about the life of Civil Rights Icon Ruby Bridges. She was just six years old and in first grade when she made her way through that hateful crowd. The movie has been shown in Florida classrooms for years but is now under review after one Florida parent filed a complaint saying that the movie could teach children that white people hate black people.

This trend is happening from elementary schools to college campuses to the workplace. When did we all get so uncomfortable with being uncomfortable and can we legislate and protest away discomfort? I'm back now with my panel.

Okay. So, Coleman, this is interesting. I think this is an interesting case. Let's start with elementary schools before we get to college campuses and the workplace. So, that's Ruby Bridges. That movie had been shown in these classrooms in Florida for years. And what's interesting to me is that the school had sent out permission slips two weeks earlier to the parents because it's a P.G. movie, and I think it could be a little heavy for some second graders, frankly. So, they sent permission slips and each parent had to sign it and say whether or not their kid could watch it.

Two parents didn't sign it. 60 did, two didn't, and that's their prerogative. That's fine. What where I think the problem comes in is that one of the people who signed -- who didn't sign the permission slip, who didn't want her child to see it because she feared that it could teach that white people hate black people, then doesn't want the school to show it?

HUGHES: Right.

CAMEROTA: So, how are we to address that?

HUGHES: So, look, she has every right to pull her kid out of class. Her reason doesn't make sense given American history because that is a historically accurate portrayal of the way white southerners at that time viewed black people, but --

CAMEROTA: But is it right for second graders?

HUGHES: Here's the thing about that. If you drop the F bomb and in the movie, that's P.G. 13 movie, yet a movie that drops the N word twice is somehow P.G. Are we saying the F word is not as bad as the N word? That's a bit of a strange double standard there and that was actually the other parents complained. The other parents said, movie is fine, it should just be showed to eighth graders because this has profanity in it and has threats of violence. I think that's a reasonable take.

CAMEROTA: Yes. Dan, your thoughts?


HARRIS: I have no comment on the specifics of this, but I do want to say a word for open mindedness, generally. Because I think what we're seeing here is a little bit of across the board in many of the cases that we're going to discuss tonight are as you said, a refusal or lack of desire to be uncomfortable, and the studies show that people with an open mind are more resistant to depression and anxiety, have higher life satisfaction. And there was one study of American presidents that showed the single biggest terminus of a successful presidency is a president who is open to new ideas.

So, I think if you just use that as a framework for moving through the world, you are likely to be more successful. As the great Ian Bremmer, the international relations expert, said on Twitter, if you're only following people on this site who you agree with, you're doing it wrong.

CAMEROTA: Yes. Thank you for all of that, because we're certainly in that place. That's the place we've come to. So, do you want to talk about Ruby Bridges or are you going to move on to college campus?

GRANDERSON: Well, listen, how old was she?

CAMEROTA: So, she was six. Okay. So, Ruby herself was six and in first grade, and this is about second graders.

GRANDERSON: So, if your student, if your child is six years old, they can find out about Ruby Bridges. Why, because she experienced it. She lived it. She survived it. So, stop being so damn fragile and allow yourself to find out what the history actually was. Because there was a little black girl that actually had experienced the history in real- time, where as your children get to do in the safety of the classroom and educate themselves without having grownups yell at them and spit at them and call them horrific names. That's my feelings on it.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Let's talk about what's going on college campuses. So, right now, at Jim George Mason University, the commencement speaker has been announced and it's Governor Glenn Youngkin, who is the governor of that state.

Many governors of Virginia have been invited to be the commencement speaker at George Mason, but there are 6,700 signatures from students who don't want him to come because they don't like what he stands for.

Now, part of me says, the college, they're going to protest, that's their job. But he is the governor. Maybe they could protest at the polls or they could protest in a different way and not say they don't want to hear what he stands for.

RODGERS: You know, it's interesting, because on the one hand you feel like it's their commencement speaker. You want to have some voice in that maybe. I mean, if you don't want it, send the note to the administration and they'll make a decision. If he comes, sit and listen. You can hold a sign or whatever. If you protest too loudly, then you're in the situation of the Stanford Law incident with Judge Kyle Duncan of the fifth circuit, where the students went really -- got very loud and chaotic protesting him.

And, you know, listen. This is not a First Amendment issue. These are private universities. No one has a right to go in there and say what they want to say. Protesters don't have a First Amendment right to be loud and chaotic and disruptive. It's more an issue about college and law school being about being open to ideas and having a marketplace of ideas, a place where you can listen to people from the other side, ask pointed questions if you want, disagree if you want, hold up a sign. But, you know, let's at least hear some voices that are different from our own.

GRANDERSON: But sometimes, though, I will say that the discomfort isn't because you don't want to be uncomfortable, it's because you're tired of being silent. So, I think it's important that we don't have this conversation with a broad brush and just say that everyone is uncomfortable.

Sometimes the uprising is because we've been signing for too long, and we're not going to do it anymore. So, it's not uncomfortable in terms of I don't feel good about myself, I'm uncomfortable because I no longer want this untruth to go untouched.

CAMEROTA: And, in fact, what the students' take on is the reason that they're protesting him is selecting a speaker that has passed anti- trans legislation, promoted the abolishment of racial equity curriculum and restricted the ability of literature in public schools is an intentional target towards historically marginalized communities.

HUGHES: Look, I think we've been seeing this kind of thing on campuses for the past ten years. And, you know, the problem is it used to be normal for a Democrat to be married to a Republican. You wouldn't even comment on it. Now you see people's Tinder bios. They won't even go on a first date with someone on the other side.

You know, they're having interactions with strangers on social media but they're not really hanging out with people as much as we used to in real life, and, therefore, the younger generation has not, to the same extent, acquired the skills and habits necessary to really have a pointed but respectful disagreement and tell someone why they are wrong, right?

We've -- these skills are atrophying by under use and that's why you see people just expressing raw anger without the ability or inclination to go up there and ask him the pointed questions if you have disagreements.

CAMEROTA: And then to the workplace example, and this is in Montana, they have basically passed legislation that for, DEI training, any DEI training for any public employees is prohibited. That would make them feel, quote, guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress. Where can I go to get my distress legislated away?


Why doesn't my state have this?

GRANDERSON: Why don't you just tell the truth and just say you don't want to be uncomfortable finding out the real history about how this country started. CAMEROTA: We don't want to feel bad.

GRANDERSON: You don't want to feel bad. And I get it, no one wants to feel bad. But you know when I feel the worst, when I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Wouldn't it be better for our electorate if it was informed before we actually went to the polls instead of just being guided by emotions that are based upon anything other than anecdotal fears?

HUGHES: People are responding to a real issue, though, right? I don't think the law is the right way to deal with this, but there's a trend of people going into their workplaces and being told by people, like best-selling Author Robin DiAngelo, that, you know, white people shouldn't cry around black people because we're so fragile or all of these insane, hyper progressive notions about race that make race, you know, subsume everything in a person's identity. And they want some way to fight back against that without being the next person that's canceled online for being a racist.

So, they reach for these laws that I think are ineffective, hard to define and end up being too broad. But there's a real cultural problem of like these DEI -- fake DEI experts going into the workplace and telling you that you're a racist based on nothing.

CAMEROTA: And what do you think the answer is?

HUGHES: The answer is for us to have really open and honest conversations that are not based in bullying but are based in some of the -- maybe the practices that someone like a Dan Harris might promote and to have -- to be able to have these honest conversations in a tone that is not simply demarcating typical people as good versus evil.

GRANDERSON: Well, can't you see, though, how if you're too respectful of the good versus evil that you end up sanitizing what actually happened? I mean, sometimes you just have to sit there and take it. Because there was a lot of openness here that happened. There's a lot of infrastructure that was built around the ugliness. And trying to avoid people being upset or feeling guilty about the ugliness doesn't help us get past the ugliness and more importantly it doesn't help us resolve the issues that the ugliness cost and it's still being prevalent today.

HUGHES: If we're talking about history, I agree with you. If we're talking about a DEI seminar at my, you know, corporate America job, I don't know that that's the venue for my racial identity and its meaning throughout all of American history to be sort of cast on.

GRANDERSON: But what if that company has never had a person of color in a leadership position, do you think that's an accident? Or what if that company never had a female in position of leadership, do you think that's an accident or (INAUDIBLE) history?

HUGHES: How does it help to blame all of the male --

GRANDERSON: I don't say blame. I said inform. HUGHES: Okay. But what a lot of these DEI -- I don't doubt you would do a good job, but a lot of these DEI experts, they're not informing they are -- you know, it's like Richard Carranza in New York City is like white supremacy culture is about worship of the written word and all of this insane and objectivity is a white thing. All of this insane things that the radical DEI people have been pushing and people really reject this but they're afraid to talk about it.

CAMEROTA: But I think you're both fascinating on something that I think is really interesting, which is there does feel to be a blame component, and that's where people are trying to resist, whereas some things happened organically when you learn and sometimes you have to force the issue, and so we just have not figured out that balance yet. But thank you all very much for that conversation.

Meanwhile former Vice President Mike Pence ordered to testify to a grand jury about his conversations with then-President Trump leading up to January 6th. What's Mike Pence's next move? That's next.



CAMEROTA: A federal judge ordering former Vice President Mike Pence to testify about conversations he had with President Trump in the lead up to the insurrection. I'm back with Dan Coleman, Jennifer and L.Z. Okay, let's listen to what Mike Pence said on cable news today about what he's going to do next.


MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, we're evaluating the court's decision, how they sorted that out, and what other testimony might be required. We're currently reviewing, but look, let me be clear. I have nothing to hide. I have a constitution to uphold. I upheld the Constitution on January 6th. We're currently speaking to our attorneys about other proper way forward, and as I said, we'll have a decision in the coming days.


CAMEROTA: So, Jennifer what are his options now?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, his options are to go ahead and go in and testify as he's been ordered to do. We don't know the exact parameters of what the judge told him. He could hold back, but he certainly can go in and testify about a lot of it, or he can appeal. So, it was Trump's lawsuit that was the executive privilege one. His piece is, the speech and debate clause issue, which just covers his actions as president of the Senate when he was overseeing (inaudible).

CAMEROTA: So, he doesn't have to tell the January 6th grand jury anything about January 6th?

RODGERS: If it relates to his role as presiding over the Senate in the certification --

CAMEROTA: That moment where he was presiding over.

RODGERS: -- I think so, but it's not entirely clear. And what likely is actually going to happen here, Alisyn, when it's all said and done, and he was actually sitting in the grand jury, he may refuse to answer a question and they literally will get Judge Boasberg on the phone to sort through whether that's a legitimate invocation or not. I mean, it can go question by question.

CAMEROTA: Is that right? So, he -- why can't he just say I plead the fifth?

RODGERS: Well, he can plead the fifth if he thinks he has criminal exposure himself, but that both suggest that he thinks he has criminal exposure, and they might question it. They might say you don't so it's not a proper invocation of the fifth or we're giving you immunity so you have to testify.

CAMEROTA: LZ, what do you think, that they want out of him and what -- will this be an effective exercise?

LZ GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST, LOS ANGELES TIMES: I have never seen a person blow so many uncontested layups before in his life as much as Mike Pence.

CAMEROTA: Meaning?

GRANDERSON: Meaning he's been positioned so many times, and it's just like it's easy. Just do this and you will be celebrated. Just do this and you will be viewed in a higher light. And he never does it because there's a piece of him that can't let go either of the Trump base or Trump himself.


I don't know why he's doing the humming and hollering (ph) of, well, we got to check and see and there was -- dude, tell the truth. If you have nothing to hide, then just tell the truth. You wrote the book. You've gone on tour. You're making these comments about Trump. You've made these comments about Secretary Buttigieg trying to get attention.

You're trying to run for president. Here is your freaking moment, and you're up there still, oh, I don't know. We got to go to see. I got to protect the Constitution. But you know, I don't know. It's like, dude, make up your mind.

CAMEROTA: Gentlemen

DAN HARRIS, HOST, TEN PERCENT HAPPIER PODCAST: So, you're saying he's bad at basketball.

GRANDERSON: He's -- so many blown layoffs. It's March Madness (inaudible).

HARRIS: Fair enough. Jennifer, I asked you this in the break. What more can he add? We know from other people who have testified, I believe, that there was a pressure campaign on him to overturn the results of the election. So, if he's on the stand, what does he add beyond just saying, yeah, it's true.

RODGERS: Well, there's at least one conversation we know about that was between the two of them that no one else heard both sides of --

HARRIS: Him and Trump.

RODGERS: Correct. So that conversation we haven't heard about. Special counsel hasn't heard about. And listen, you're entitled to the actual content. I mean, it's not enough to just say we know that Mike Pence was pressured by former President Trump. We need to know what was said. The jury is entitled to hear what was said. I mean, you can call him as a witness and subpoena him to court and testify. He has no legitimate basis to refuse to testify in that situation.

CAMEROTA: Coleman, thoughts?

COLEMAN HUGHES, HOST, CONVERSATIONS WITH COLEMAN PODCAST: I have another question for the legal expert. Like what different kind of threats could he have made in that phone call which would have actual implications, like one level of threat may have one implication and a lesser level of threat, like what rides on the contents of that private phone call?

RODGERS: Well, it depends on what they're trying to prove. So, if they ultimately charged the former president with a crime, we'll see what they charge. If they charge him with trying to overturn the election, those sorts of offenses, you need to know that he intended to do that and he knowingly did that.

So, if they talked about, listen, I know I didn't have the votes, I know I lost, but you are the one who can help me turn this around. You're the one who can make me succeed in stealing this election, Mike Pence. That's pretty good knowledge and intent evidence.

CAMEROTA: But you know how Trump speaks. It's -- I know you're going to do the right thing, Mike. Does that rise to the level of proving something --

RODGERS: So, you elicit that testimony and then you have folks explain how he speaks to the jury, and you have people come in and say this is how he speaks, and this is what he means when he says that in all of my experience with him. You can make that happen. You can definitely explain how people talk and what it means and Mike Pence is maybe someone who could do that for the jury, but first you have to get the actual content of what was said, and that's why they're trying to get Mike Pence.

HARRIS: Of the three investigations that are going on right now, January 6th, Georgia, Stormy, which one poses the most danger and threat to the former president?

RODGERS: The one that you didn't mention, which is the classified government documents investigation. HARRIS: And that's also -- but that's wrapped up in January 6th, right (inaudible).

RODGERS: No, it's a separate investigation also being done by jack Smith, but completely separate charges, separate facts, separate everything, and that to me is the one.

HARRIS: And the fact that classified documents were found at the current president's house doesn't reduce the threat there?

RODGERS: So, there's been a separate special counsel appointed to take a look at that one, but it doesn't seem to me with the number of documents that were found, the intentionality that's been shown, and the fact that he cooperated from the get go that that is likely to be charged, although I guess we'll see. Trump's in a whole different boat.

GRANDERSON: I would happily disagree with you.

CAMEROTA: Quickly.

GRANDERSON: I think the Stormy Daniels one is more dangerous because she calls him tiny.


GRANDERSON: It hits right to the core.

CAMEROTA: I know you just were excited to get that in there.

GRNADERSON: I'm just telling you.


CAMEROTA: Yeah, that's right. Great questions, guys. Thank you. That was excellent. Thanks so much. All right. His prison sentence was vacated after two decades behind bars for a murder conviction. Now, a Maryland court has reinstated Adnan Syed's conviction. We'll tell you why next.



CAMEROTA: A Maryland appellate court reinstating the murder conviction of Adnan Syed, the subject of a wildly popular Serial Podcast. This is just the latest turn in a tragic saga dating back more than 20 years. In 1999, Syed's 18-year-old ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, was found strangled and buried in a Baltimore park. Authorities arrested then 17-year-old Syed for the murder, but he maintained his innocence.

The following year, a jury found Syed guilty and sentenced him to life in prison. Fourteen years later, the Serial Podcast brought widespread attention to the case.


UNKNOWN: The case was like a Shakespearean mashup, young lovers from different worlds, thwarting their families, secret assignations, jealousy, suspicion and honor besmirched, the villain, not a Moor exactly but a Muslim all the same. And a final act of murderous revenge."


CAMEROTA: Two years later in 2016, a judge granted Syed a new trial. Then last September after serving more than 20 years in prison, a Baltimore judge vacated Syed's conviction. But today, six months after Syed walked free, a Maryland appellate court reinstated his murder conviction, saying that the lower court violated the rights of victim, Hae Min Lee's brother to attend a key hearing in person.

My panel is back. Huh? Jennifer, why does Adnan Syed have to pay the price for a prosecutor's technical mistake or the court's technical mistake? Why is he suddenly guilty of murder again?

RODGERS: So, he probably is not. A lot of states have laws that are very protective of victim's families' rights to be present for proceedings, to be notified about what's going on in the case. Maryland does as well. That brother should have been notified sooner so that he could get to the hearing.

What the appellate court has said, is that they need to do the hearing again.


The judge will be the same. The facts are the same. Presumably the judge will reach the same results. But the victim's brother can now be there. So likely. It's just a redo with the same result.

CAMEROTA: Okay. So not another trial, just the very same hearing with the same judge who decided to vacate the guilty conviction.

RODGERS: That's right. And Syed could appeal. I mean, he could appeal this ruling to the higher court, saying we don't need to redo it. And then the highest court in Maryland could consider that issue.

CAMEROTA: Dan I turn to you. Talk about mindfulness and how you live with 20 years of your life lost --


CAMEROTA: -- being convicted of something that now they've decided you were not guilty of.

HARRIS: When I've interviewed people who were wrongly convicted and spent decades in prison, the refrain I often hear from these folks is if you get into anger mode, you'll never get out. And so, you really have to be incredibly diligent and vigilant about your mind states. And I have not interviewed Adnan Syed, but I would imagine, or I hope for his sake that he's able to stay out of the anger. CAMEROTA: It seems like it because when he was released, he seemed to

be generous of spirit, gracious, happy, you know, not railing against the system. And I think the podcast revisited him, I think, a couple -- once he was in prison. And he was still sort of more sanguine. I always thought then I would have been able to be, but that it's just an incredible story and the fact that he's still going through this.

GRANDERSON: It's just heartbreaking. I'm going to assume because it tends to happen a lot, but faith is helping to anchor him emotionally and spiritually as well. I just think that it's just so heartbreaking that he's being re-traumatized in a lot of ways because even though it's not a new trial, still everything is being talked about again. He's been reminded again the 20 years, the ex-girlfriend.

Whatever happened to him in prison during those 20 years that, obviously, it may have changed him and his perspective about life in a lot of ways. It's heartbreaking to think because of this mistake, he is going to have to go through this again, in addition to the victim's family.

CAMEROTA: Yes, and of course, we do have to talk about the victim, Hae Min Lee, because I applaud the court for wanting her family to be there and for victim's rights. That is a huge step forward for victims who have often felt sort of shunted aside in these cases. But they made a mistake by not having her brother here, and I guess I hope that he's satisfied now by being physically present at this hearing.

HUGHES: Sure. And it looks like this may be more of a formality than something that will actually tip the case in the other way, but I think one thing to note here is the power of podcast to actually influence real life, right? Podcasts have been viewed in the past as sort of the ugly stepsister of television and cable news, frankly.

But look at the power that true crime podcast, which are enormously popular, especially among women, as it turns out, to actually influence real life events.

HARRIS: I mean, Coleman does have a podcast so --

HUGHES: So, I may be slightly biased.

CAMEROTA: Thank you for that context.

HARRIS: (Inaudible) and so do I.

CAMEROTA: So, do you.


CAMEROTA: Okay, well, Jennifer and I are feeling very left out.

RODGERS: We're going to start one now.

CAMEROTA: Yes, we are.

GRANDERSON: Oh, we're left out. CAMEROTA: Fantastic. Thank you for that. All right. Meanwhile, do you

need more sleep? If so, we're about to share the secrets to napping and what the bedroom should really be used for. That's next.



CAMEROTA: Okay, so let's say you did not get the recommended 7 to 8 hours of sleep and you're starting to feel a little groggy. Will a nap help? Our friends at "The New York Times" asked an expert that question and the answer is yes. It will up your energy, but it will not negate the other health downsides of not sleeping enough. Oh, and do not take a three-hour long nap, Dan. Try and limit your naps to 20 to 30 minutes. Okay, so let's bring in my panel. How many of you get eight hours of sleep?

RODGERS: Sometimes, mostly.

CAMEROTA: LZ, how much?

GRANDERSON: Between six and seven.

CAMEROTA: That's not enough. How many of you -- how many of you are nappers?


CAMEROTA: Okay. So, Dan, what are the secrets to -- you were a morning show anchor like I was a morning show anchor. It is really arduous work.

HARRIS: There is a reason I don't do it anymore.

CAMEROTA: Me, too. Me, too. It was really, really physically demanding. So, what are your secrets to napping and sleep?

HARRIS: Well, napping is great. I mean, but there are some people like if you have insomnia, as I actually sometimes do, for some people, as I understand it, napping is perhaps something you should be careful about because it can interrupt that evening sleep. So, you do want to be careful. You want to listen to your body. Some people can really get a lot of a nap. Some people, it's trickier. Other tips, you want other tips for a very good night sleep?

CAMEROTA: Yeah. I would love tips for sleeping, yeah.

HARRIS: So, I've got a bunch of interviews on my podcast about -- yeah, I have a podcast (inaudible) -- about how to get a good night's sleep, and some of the good tips are keep the room cold and dark. Use your bedroom just for sleeping or sex, nothing else.


HARRIS: So, and I know you work out of (inaudible).

CAMEROTA: I have global bed quarters as I call it.

HARRIS: Yes. Yes. So, barely not some bad idea.

CAMEROTA: And from then, I do tons of work. It doesn't stop my sleeping.

HARRIS: You want your brain -- okay, so it works for you, but for most of us, you want your brain to know this as the place to sleep, not as the place to be awake and do lots of other stuff. So that's very important.

CAMEROTA: Oh, yeah. I'm e-mailing, I'm working there. But come on, okay. Move on.

HARRIS: What else? Stop using your devices an hour or two before bedtime. Have a consistent bedtime. And there's some disagreement on this because you can have a consistent bedtime or a consistent wake up time. Some experts say one is more important than the other, but consistency seems to be important.


Try to get some sunlight early in the day, which is good for your body clock. Exercise is really helpful, especially the cardio early in the day. And here's my other big tip having spent quite a bit of time obsessing about sleep because everybody says it's the apex predator of healthy habits. Obsessing about sleep is not great because it can stop you from sleeping. So, I think you should take sleep seriously, but not too seriously.

CAMEROTA: Okay. I don't do any of those things that you just said, and I'm a world class sleeper. But L.Z., can you take any pointers from that and change and get more sleep?

GARANDERSON: Maybe not using devices.


GRANDERSON: You know, I like to read when I'm in bed. Typically, I use my device, a Kindle to do that. But I will bring a book with me from time to time. I know the screen. The light from the screen can create this activity, it makes it harder to sleep. So, I'm trying to get better about reading in bed actually having the paper in my hand, but I still use my device.

But as far as like the other things, I used to be the guy who would say I sleep when I'm dead, right. Like I'm hustling and grinding (inaudible) and I'm just like I'm just going to keep working, keep working, keep working. And then, like I turned 40, I was like, what the hell am I doing? Sleep when you're dead. No. Sleep when you're sleepy, right?

CAMEROTA: Good. That's a very good start. That's a good transition. All right. Thank you all very much. We'll be right back.