Return to Transcripts main page
COVID-Era Immigration Rules End In Under Two Hours; Will Trump's Controversial Claims Backfire In Court; WVU Coach Apologizes Over His On-Air Homophobic Comments; Manhattan D.A. Charged Daniel Penny And His Manslaughter In Jordan Neely's Death; Prime Suspect Behind Natalee Holloway's Disappearance Set To Extradite In The U.S. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 11, 2023 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks so much for watching tonight. CNN TONIGHT with Alisyn Camerota starts now. Hi, Alisyn.
ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Kaitlan. How are you recovering?
COLLINS: It's been quite the 24 hours, I should say.
CAMEROTA: I bet it has. Well, you are fantastic. Great job last night, great job tonight and thanks so much. I'll see you soon.
Good evening, everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to CNN TONIGHT.
In less than two hours, the Trump-era policy that quickly turned away many migrants at the southern border will expire and thousands of desperate men, women and children who have already made a dangerous journey over hundreds of miles will attempt to enter the U.S. Border Patrol are bracing for a surge.
And the effects are spreading to cities as far away as Denver and New York. CNN is live at the southern border in just a moment.
Plus, the things Donald Trump said to Kaitlan Collins last night and to the CNN town hall audience. Some could get him into some legal trouble and why E. Jean Carroll may sue him again. Our panel has thoughts on this.
And the man who put Jordan Neely in a failed chokehold on a New York City subway is expected to be charged with manslaughter tomorrow. We'll tell you what's next in that case.
But let's begin with what's happening on the southern border tonight. You're about to look at El Paso, Texas. That's where about 1,500 migrants have been processed in the last 48 hours. The chief of Border Patrol says roughly 1,000 people, including families, are still waiting. The mayor of El Paso says, quote, we can't continue to do this for eternity. Let's bring in my panel. We have Caitlin Dickerson from The Atlantic, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on the Trump family separation policy, also L.Z. Granderson is back from the Los Angeles Times, we have the former Senate Candidate Joe Pinion back with us and attorney Raul Reyes, who writes with CNN Opinion. Also joining us from El Paso is CNN's Ed Lavandera. Let's start there, Ed.
So, we're less than two hours away from this policy ending. What are you seeing on the ground at this hour?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, if anyone is expecting like this big dramatic moment, we're at 10:00 Mountain Time, almost midnight Eastern, where things dramatically change or look incredibly different on the ground, I don't think that's what we're going to see unfold. So, the question is what is this going to look like, not just tonight and into the morning but also, over the course of the next few days.
But right now, here in El Paso, what we have seen is a number -- I think the number was about 2,500 migrants or so just here in this area that had come across the river. And they're essentially waiting in that space between the Rio Grande and the border fence. And that is where they have been kept for several days now. And those people are being processed by Border Patrol officials here on the ground.
We heard from the chief of the Border Patrol today saying that number was about 2,500. So far, they've processed about 1,500. So, there're still about 1,000 left to go that are in there. But there are still a number of people and it is very hard to quantify just how many are on the other side of the border trying to get here. And that's the question, the real question about how this will look like in the coming days.
CAMEROTA: And, Ed, because of -- so, Title 42 is ending, and that's what we expect will cause this surge. However, the Biden administration is now starting this new policy whereby people can be turned away if they haven't applied for asylum in the country they've transited through to get to the U.S., in other words, Mexico. So, what will happen? Since most people won't have done that, will they be turned away quickly?
LAVANDERA: I think the real question here is just how this kind of information is being communicated to the migrants that are essentially coming up through Mexico or are already there. Remember, you're dealing with an insane amount of misinformation that many of these migrants receive.
So, as we sit here and talk about the things and the policies that the Biden administration is trying to roll out here in the last 24 hours or so, it's not exactly clear that that information is getting to the migrants themselves in a clear, honest fashion. Many of them depend on social media and messages from family and that sort of thing. So, the amount of misinformation is really staggering.
So, how they will react to this and what kind of decisions migrants will make on whether to cross or not, I think it kind of depends on what information they're getting and how they perceive and interpret that information, that will determine how they make their decisions to cross and where they make the decisions to cross, because that plays a big factor into this.
Are they trying to set up appointments and come through the CBP app and come through ports of entry or are they doing it between ports of entry, which really complicates things for them in the future?
CAMEROTA: Yes, really helpful context, Ed. Thank you. Stand by, obviously, for us throughout the evening and we will check back with you.
Raul, let me start there because -- let me just put up for everybody this new Biden asylum rule, okay? So, this is different and it sounds like something that, you know, President Trump might have wanted to try. So, it presumes that migrants are ineligible for asylum in the U.S. if they did not first seek lm in a country they passed through like Mexico, if found ineligible, they could be removed through expedited removal and barred from re-entering the U.S. for five years. So, won't that be a game-changer?
RAUL REYES, ATTORNEY: I'm not sure, because this policy is very similar to the Trump-era policy, which was struck down repeatedly in the courts. The Biden administration likes to say that this policy, that their policy is different because it does contain certain exceptions and loop holes, but those are very small. Those are small. It's not a huge difference.
Why that policy is so problematic is because he's basically -- the administration is basically trying to outsource our asylum problem, our problem at the border, to Mexico and other countries in Central America. And if we can't handle this large influx of people at the border, what makes anyone think that, say, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, any of these countries along the way can do it and it is also very legally problematic. Because a president can set immigration policy but no policy can change immigration law and asylum is written into the laws established by Congress, and it requires physical presence in the United States just to make the application.
So, he's trying to outsource the problem to Central America. That is sort of an executive overreach into something that needs to be settled by Congress.
CAMEROTA: But isn't it all of our problems, I mean, in terms of Mexico and these other countries? I mean, don't we all have an issue and a desire to want to solve this problem?
JOE PINION, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, absolutely. And I think when you look at what's happening, I think it should be both sadness and outrage of what is occurring. I think irrespective of your political sensibilities, this is an administration that came in and said that they wanted to get rid of the remaining Mexico policy. They said that they wanted to see Title 42 overturned. And they said that the border was completely under control. They had a DOJ that sued the state of Arizona for erecting those temporary barriers with shipping containers to try to stem this tide of immigration.
And now what do we have? We have the mayor of New York City declaring a state of emergency for the migrant crisis, the mayor of Chicago declaring a state of emergency. Those are not Republican bastions. That is a direct result of a Biden administration that went out of their way to contravene Trump policies without actually having a plan that recognized the human lives that would be destroyed if they didn't actually implement a sound blueprint for how to actually keep people on the road to their American dreams or in the safety as they flee oppression abroad.
CAMEROTA: Caitlin, you've done so much reporting on this. How do you see what's happening tonight?
CAITLIN DICKERSON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I think that Title 42, more than anything, reinforced the dysfunctional dynamics that already existed at the border. It is a band-aid solution. And I think to Raul's point, replacing it with another band-aid isn't going to make a difference.
I've seen this time and time and time again, literally stemming back to 9/11. And here's the latest example. Prior the Title 42, actually, illegal crossings were very low. Most people crossing the border were turning themselves over to agents, requesting asylum. Title 42 took asylum off the table. Now, you see illegal crossings increasing. Why is that? In part it's because of a massive demand for labor in the United States that we're not acknowledging.
And so to your point, I just want to add a little bit additional context. In New York City, where I live, where a lot of us live, very busy now, very overwhelmed, certainly. At the same time, sources of mine who are running these shelters where people are living say every single one of them are employed. They're going to work every single day in jobs in New York. So, these band-aid solutions are not going to be more powerful than the forces that are pushing people to the United States, instability abroad, climate change, conflict, lack of safety, nor are these band-aids going to change the powerful, powerful draws and the vast number of jobs that are unfilled and that these migrants are very eager to fill.
CAMEROTA: L.Z., last night, former President Trump was asked about this by Kaitlan.
Let me just play for you his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: If the family hears that they're going to be separated, they love their family, they don't come. So, I know it sounds harsh, but if you remember, remember they said I was building prisons for children, it turned out that it was Obama that was building the prisons for their.
COLLINS: But are you going to re-implement if you're re-elected? Is that what you're saying?
TRUMP: We have to save our country, all right? We can't afford --
COLLINS: So, that sounds like that's a yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Your thoughts on this?
L.Z. GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST, LOS ANGELES TIMES: You know, I can see at the history that he tries to disregard was like a long time ago. But like the great migration was literally the heartbeat that sent African-Americans out of the south, throughout the entire country because of what, dire situations at home and jobs. We literally just went through this, which we reshaped the entire country. So, for him to say that if they really love their family, they wouldn't leave, it's just more of what we expected of him when he was offered the position of sitting there in the first place.
CAMEROTA: And you, of course, just won the Pulitzer Prize for the family separation. So, what did you think when you heard that, Caitlin?
DICKERSON: Thank you. I was going to say, please let me jump in here, as I've spent so much time on this issue. A couple of things, one, I've reported on this. I've asked members of Congress. So, the moment when family separation was the biggest, really, story globally on immigration in the United States, was one where Republicans and Democrats in Congress, for once, were saying the exact same thing. The House Freedom Caucus and Nancy Pelosi, everybody in between was saying that family separation needs to be outlawed.
And yet what I've reported since then on why family separation hasn't been outlawed, what I've heard is, well, no president would ever bring that back. Someone actually just asked me that in the hallway moments ago. There's no way family separation would come back, is there? Former President Trump just said on national television that he would be willing to bring family separations back. And if you call any of his top White House aides from when he was in office, they'll tell you the exact same thing.
So, the threat of family separations returning is very real and it has not been taken seriously for some reason. And people ask about whether the Biden administration would turn to family separations. I don't think so based on the language that you've heard from the Biden administration, both during family separation prior to Biden taking office and then now.
But almost all the restrictions that the Trump administration imposed short of family separation are either in place now or have been debated under President Biden. So, we're a very, very far cry from the summer of 2018 when Biden, who wasn't president at the time, talked about this as a crime against humanity. They've really come a long way here.
REYES: The asylum ban that Biden is implementing right now, that is something, as a candidate, he denounced it. And I think when we see these pictures of people at the border, so much suffering, it did not have to be this way for a couple reasons. One is DHS has continually asked Congress for additional resources and funding and Congress has said no. And, second of all, the Biden plan, when Title 42 was phased out in December, they wanted to do a gradual phase, sort of wind it down maybe by sectors or across the span of a few months. The GOP, Arizona, Texas, and several Republican attorneys general, they got a federal judge to agree to prevent any type of gradual phasing out of this and got him to insist that it happen all at once, therefore, causing more chaos, more confusion. And in the meantime, asylum is a humanitarian right.
CAMEROTA: I'm sorry, we have to go but we'll be covering it all night.
PINION: Just quickly, because we have to understand why you have attorneys general and you have governors hopping in. They're hopping in because it hasn't been dealt with at the national level. And I think, again, you have 1.2 million gotaways coming into this country who have evaded capture. That was real people, that's real suffering. And as top of these people who don't seem to want to drill down on the issue, it's not a Republican or a Democratic thing, it's just the fact that both parties have failed but this administration, I think, in particular, has refused to actually deal with the seriousness of the matter.
CAMEROTA: As I said, we'll be watching for the next two hours-plus what happens there at the border. Thank you very much for all of your reporting, your perspective.
Next, what Donald Trump said in the CNN town hall that could put him in more legal jeopardy, that's next.
CAMEROTA: Former President Trump had a lot to say last night in CNN's town hall. But today lawyers say that some of his statements could put him in further legal jeopardy.
My panel is back and joining us is CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson. Joey, great to have you here.
Okay, everybody, let's go through the four statements that former President Trump made last night that lawyers -- that raised the eyebrows of many lawyers, and, Joey, I'll start with you. The first one was about E. Jean Carroll. He had just been found liable of sexual abuse and defamation of E. Jean Carroll on Tuesday of this week, two days ago, when he said this last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They said he didn't rape her and I didn't do anything else either, you know what, because I have no idea who the hell she is.
COLLINS: But, Mr. President, can I --
TRUMP: They said, sir, don't do it. This is a fake story and you don't want to give it credibility. That's why I didn't go.
COLLINS: One thing you did do in this --
TRUMP: And I swear. And I've never done that and I swear I have no idea who the hell -- she's a whack job.
COLLINS: You did not testify --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Joey, does she have a new case for him calling her on national television a whack job?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think so. I mean, it is troubling and it's problematic. You have to respect some of the judicial process. I mean, come on, Mr. President, Mr. Former President. The reality is that a jury spoke. And whether you love what the jury had to say or you didn't like what the jury say, the jury found Ms. Carroll credible, the jury found that she was sexually assaulted, the jury found that he defamed her.
And so to then suggest, first of all, that he had no opportunity to defend himself at the trial when indeed the judge, in fact, kept the trial open for purposes of his testimony, and then, two, to say she's a whack job and go on and say other things, that's what you call defamation, false statements which defame, impugn, impair reputations and cause damages. And so let's see what he has coming, if anything, as a result of this.
CAMEROTA: But Is it worth it for her to go back through this long process?
JACKSON: It's not. I mean, look, the bottom line is that she, in large measure, has been vindicated in all respects and she's waited such a long time. And I think that's what she wanted. That's what she got. I can't explain the president's temperament, tone, demeanor or statement.
CAMEROTA: And, obviously, It was troubling to hear the laugh line, I mean, to hear the audience applaud and laugh as well at that.
DICKERSON: It was. Do you want to take that one?
GRANDERSON: I don't mean -- but we knew they would, right? I mean, that's why it was created, right? When you fill up a space with his supporters and you allow him to speak, they're going to applaud when he says things, and he has a history of saying very disturbing things. So, in some regard, we knew he was going to say disturbing things about sensitive topics because that's been his history.
CAMEROTA: Yes, I guess I had it erased from my mind that people would laugh about --
GRANDERSON: Remember the military guy who -- I remember, I think it was during a debate, in which someone from the military said they were openly gay and the audience like kind of booed them. And this is an officer of the military. This is supposed to be the party of the military. But the man said he was gay and so the crowd booed him. So, I guess I'm just not shocked anymore to hear the rudeness because we've been unfortunately sort of conditioned to know that it is there.
CAMEROTA: All right. Let's move on to the next thing that he said that lawyers made them do a double take, and this is the January 6th. So, he's being investigated for January 6th. And it was interesting. Joey, you'll tell us if this has any legal merit to hear him say that he did have power over his supporters that day. So, listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When it was clear to you that they were not being peaceful, you saw them rushing the Capitol breaking windows, they were hitting officers with flag poles, tasing them, beating them up, when it was clear they weren't being peaceful. Why did you wait three hours to tell them to leave the Capitol? They listened to you like no one else. You know that.
TRUMP: They do. I agree with that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Why is that legally precarious?
JACKSON: Well, it is precarious, because if they listened to him, these are people who stormed the Capitol and you can spin it the way you want to spin it, that was a hellish day. It was a tough day in the memory of the country. It was a tough day with respect to what they exactly did upon the Capitol, how they put lives in jeopardy, how they went after the vice president, how senators and others were just in danger. And so to give the indication, well, that's true, I do control them, how about controlling them by saying, you know what, this is not right, this is not proper, how about we don't do this? That didn't happen and that's troubling.
CAMEROTA: Joe, I heard some attorneys say that they had never heard President Trump before that explicitly say, yes, I could have controlled -- like acknowledged that his word goes a long way with them.
PINION: Well, look, I think we get too cute by half with some of this. I think that there is this notion that, yes, you have people that support you in politics and on that basis alone, you have some sway over them. I think in some regards, it was a missed opportunity for the president to stand up there and say that anyone who use the flag of this nation to break glass at the people's house, to assault law enforcement doesn't understand MAGA, doesn't understand the Republican Party. And so I think that, in many ways, was one of the missed opportunities for the president. But I do think on this issue and many other issues, the cake is fully baked for about 80 percent of Americans. Really, I think, again, many people have talked about it. There are other issues that are more pressing for that remaining sliver of voters.
CAMEROTA: Let me quickly go to this next one, and this is about the Georgia investigation. I mean, he's still being investigated in Georgia for his call to the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. Here is how that came up last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Given the fact that there are indictments expected to come in that case this summer, is that a call you would make again today?
TRUMP: Yes. I called, questioning the election. I thought it was a rigged election. I thought it had a lot of problems. I had every -- I guess he's secretary of state. I called -- listen to this. There are like seven lawyers on the call, many of them from there, we're having a call, we're having normal call. Nobody said, oh, gee, he shouldn't have said that. If this call was bad, I question the election. If this call is bad --
COLLINS: You asked him to find these votes.
TRUMP: I didn't ask him to find anything.
COLLINS: We've heard the audiotape, Mr. President. There's an audio of you asking him to find you 11,000-something votes.
TRUMP: I said you owe me votes because the election was rigged.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: So, Caitlin, the you owe me votes, we've lawyers say, is evidence of corrupt intent.
DICKERSON: Well, it is not a comment that was supported by fact. I think that again and again, it's like we can parse each of these responses that we heard last night and there was both a lot of news elicited in the town hall and then at the same time very predictable answers.
I think they give us a clear view of what a Trump 2024 candidacy will look like. It is everything that we saw in 2020 but amped up even more intensely. No more of a desire to stick to fact-based rhetoric. No more of a desire to tamp things down and appeal to moderates. It is 2020 on steroids. And remember going into 2016, there were endless conversations about whether Trump really meant what he said on the campaign trail. He proved in his first administration that he did and he's tripling down now.
So, I think we really know who Trump is. And the other important thing to keep in mind, that you're probably right, the vast majority of voters know where they stand on Trump. But important to note that what I continuously heard and still hear from top Trump aides is that they learned a lot in the first four years in terms of how to be more efficient, how to impose his will more quickly with even less restrictions in their way. And so all those things we can anticipate.
GRANDERSON: Well, yes. He's also spinning the Constitution. Of course, he's thinking of ways of being faster.
CAMEROTA: That's important reporting. Thank you very much for all of your perspectives.
All right, a hall of fame college basketball coach is facing consequences for using an anti-gay slur. He has a suspension. He's having his pay docked but he was not fired. So, has something just changed in cancel culture? Our panel is going to explore that.
CAMEROTA: West Virginia University men's basketball team coach Bob Huggins is apologizing for ugly homophobic comments he made on a radio show this week. We're going to play you these comments so that you can hear them but we warn you they are offensive.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BOB HUGGINS, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COACH: I tell you what any -- any school that can throw rubber penises on the floor and then say they didn't do it. My God, they can get away with anything.
BILL CUNNINGHAM, HOST, BILL CUNNINGHAM SHOW: Rubber penis? I think that was at the crosstown shootout. It was transgender night wasn't it? What was that?
HUGGINS: It was a crosstown shootout. Yeah, no, what it was all those (BLEEP), those Catholic (BLEEP), I think.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Okay, so in response, the university is docking his salary a million dollars per year, and suspending him for the first three games of the season. They're also requiring Huggins to get sensitivity training. But they are not firing him.
My panel is here and also joining us is Jennifer Kingson from Axios. So, Elsie, I think this is interesting. Well, let me -- he's apologized, okay? So he made these anti-gay statements publicly on the radio and then he put out a very full-throated apology.
So let me just read you a portion of it. He says here, as soon as I find it. I have reflected on the awful words that I shared on a radio program earlier this week. I deeply regret my actions, the hurt they unfairly caused others, and the negative attention my words have brought to West Virginia University. I have no excuse for the language I used, and I take full responsibility. I will abide with the actions outlined by the university and athletics leadership to learn from this incident.
He also went on to say, I also regret the embarrassment and disappointment it has caused our athletics family, members of the campus community, the State of West Virginia.
LZ GRANDERSON, OP-ED COLUMNIST, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Did Olivia Pope write that?
CAMEROTA: Why do you not find it sincere?
GRANDERSON: Do you?
CAMEROTA: Yeah, I do.
GRANDERSON: You do?
CAMEROTA: Because he doesn't say if anybody was offended, I apologize.
GRANDERSON: Because Olivia Pope wrote it, so it's correct, but it doesn't mean it's sincere. And judging from the tone that we all heard, it doesn't sound as if he reflected as much as he was corrected. That someone grabbed him and said you need to fix this before it spirals into something more. Not like, on second thought, maybe I shouldn't make these anti, you know, gay slurs on radio for kicks, in the year 2023.
JENNIFER KINGSON, JOURNALIST, AXIOS: His comments were clearly heinous, but he did take responsibility for his actions. He apologized for causing pain. He used those words. And public opinion seems to be shifting ever so slightly away from cancel culture and its cousin toxic tribalism.
A Pew Center poll, they polled people about their attitudes towards cancel culture in 2020 and then the following year, and found a marked decline in the percentage of respondents who felt that it was okay to call out people on social media and hold them accountable for everything that they said. And an increase in people who said, you know, maybe this isn't okay. We need to back off.
CAMEROTA: That's what I was wondering. I was just wondering if this is an inflection point of some kind. I mean, do you think he should have been fired?
GRANDERSON: I believe he should have been fired based upon the body of work. You know, this isn't his first rodeo in terms of getting in trouble. This is someone who has a long time university presence who's in charge of raising boys --
CAMEROTA: And he's said other things like that?
GRANDERSON: He has been problematic in the NCAA for a variety of reasons, which is why he's bounced around from time to time to time. I will say this about the coach. He is a very, very good coach. So if you ask yourself why wouldn't a university fire them? If you go back and look at the universities that do tend to fire people who do bad, look at their win-loss records, compared to the ones who survive, look at their win-loss records.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So are we looking at someone who's a good coach or good person, right? What distinction do we make?
GRANDERSON: And a famous -- I believe also a famous alum as well.
JACKSON: Yeah, I think what, there's no question else in that the statement, the comment, inflammatory, improper and wrong. The issue is what should the penalty be, and I think that's appropriate for debate. Is it appropriate to just get rid of someone because they make a mistake or do you have them atone for that mistake by having a significant penalty that gets them to realize and understand that this isn't right and perhaps they can change?
I think a million dollars might do that. I think in addition to the million dollars, other things certainly that he has to do as a result of saying that, saying what he said.
CAMEROTA: And do you think that his apology goes -- plays into that somehow?
JACKSON: I think it does. It's important to -- it's important I think for people to be accountable for what they say and do. It's important for people to accept responsibility. It's a difficult question though for us to get into the minds and know if something's sincere, is it not sincere?
The bigger issue for me is what's appropriate? Is firing and canceling disproportionate or is it proportionate?
CAMEROTA: And what's the answer?
GRANDERSON: What is this canceling though? Whatever happened to the word accountability? Why is the word cancel all of a sudden used in order to make it be a bad thing, when someone crosses a line and being held accountable for it?
JACKSON: I think the reason is because we've seen where people have done things and then they're just wiped from the planet, you're just done.
JACKSON: And so, then the issue is there's a long litany of people even in media who, you know, may have done things and they're just wiped from the planet. So the issue is do they get another opportunity?
KINGSON: One example that comes to mind for me, former Senator Al Franken resigned over accusations of inappropriate touching and well, I'm not here to defend him. He later said that he regretted stepping down so soon before there was a Senate inquiry. He felt that other people had been treated differently. We have more recent examples of J.K. Rowling and Dave Chappelle. You know, opinions may differ about their status in society.
JOE PINION, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think this is different though, right? I just don't think that -- I don't think we can put the comments of Huggins into Dave Chappelle, who prefaced his statement by saying his sole purpose of having the conversation was to have more inclusive.
CAMEROTA: But, Joe, what do you think? Do you think he should be fired?
PINION: I think it was certainly a fireable offense. I think when you think of the West Virginia as a state institution where he is an employee of the state and he's responsible for molding young men, that certainly it was fireable. I think that we've seen people suspended for entire seasons for much less. So I think that perhaps the notion that it is assumed he keeps the job, in my estimation, was the problem, the fact that it was just three games. I think was effectively a slap on the wrist.
And I think even beyond that, I think to your point, you know, back when he was at Cincinnati there was a period in time when he had a graduation rate of zero. Now he currently is at West Virginia where we ended up, we're a period, we had a graduation rate of 100. So it does show that people can change from one place to the next. Yes, accountability is necessary. Sincerity is necessary. Sincerity does not preclude you from being held accountable.
CAMEROTA: Sure, understood.
PINION: I think that's where we have to stand here.
CAMEROTA: Thank you for your perspectives.
Meanwhile, pressure building for days on the man who allegedly held Jordan Neely in that fatal chokehold on the New York City subway. So now we're learning the district attorney is expected to charge tomorrow. We're going to tell you what charges next.
CAMEROTA: A major development in the New York City subway chokehold case. The Manhattan D.A. says 24-year old Daniel Penny will be arrested tomorrow and charged with second-degree manslaughter for using a fatal chokehold on 30-year old Jordan Neely.
My panel is back with me. So Joey what does second-degree manslaughter mean and what will Penny the suspect now have to prove that he did this in self-defense or in the defense of others on that subway car?
JACKSON: Correct. So manslaughter. Manslaughter is when you engage in an action that is reckless. What is reckless means? It means you consciously disregard that your actions could cause something like death, and I think the argument will be that with the sustained hold that was clearly reckless because you knew or should have known that that could occur.
I think the defense will be one of justification. You were permitted in the event that you're defending yourself or others to use, you know, lethal force then the question will be for prosecutors - Really? Did you really think that you could sustain a hold like that for that period of time without killing someone? Do you think there could have been other alternatives that might have been more appropriate? Do you think that that force under those circumstances was proportionate to any threat that was posed? Did you really think there was an eminence of fear or danger? So there'd be a lot of questions around that and how they're answered will be how this trial goes if it goes that far.
CAMEROTA: I mean, Joe, I assume they'll have to find, and for his defense, witnesses who say, yes, I felt my life was in danger, but we've not heard from any of those people. I mean, we don't know. They haven't come public yet.
PINION: Yeah, look, I think, again, it's just, it's a sad case. But I think to Joey's point, the issue becomes at what point in time was Jordan Yile no longer a threat to others or himself. What is the video actually going to show when he suddenly stopped moving? Obviously he was moving at the beginning of the encounter. At some point he stopped moving. At some point he stopped breathing.
So those are going to be the issues. I think that is something that needs to be brought to court. I think that's why we're seeing this arrest happen and I don't think it's an unreasonable conversation for the justice system to be trying to parse.
CAMEROTA: We don't have video, as far as we know, maybe we do, of what happened before that chokehold.
GRANDERSON: Right. But we don't have any reports of violence. This is an awful story. It's just an awful story. And I don't know what the evidence is. I don't think any of us know what the outcome is going to be. But I do know we know what to blame is. And that's our mental health system. It failed Mr. Neely. Multiple times. Over and over again, in the biggest city in the most powerful nation.
So when we look back on this case, on this situation, yes, someone may ultimately end up paying the price for his death, but there were multiple times in which the system could have saved Mr. Neely and it failed him.
KINGSON: The governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, called his case a wake-up call for mental health professionals and on Monday she allocated an additional billion dollars towards mental health enhancements in the state of New York, which sounds great.
The problem is that Jordan Neely had been in the system. He had taken a plea bargain and agreed to go into outpatient treatment, but he walked away from it days later, a decision or an action that his family faulted the city with not doing more to prevent.
It's a very difficult and practical, intractable problem and this case really points to how hard it is to solve.
CAMEROTA: Such a great point. I just want to read his attorney's statement. So this is Daniel Penny's attorney's statement today.
Where Mr. Penny, a decorated Marine veteran, stepped in to protect himself and his fellow New Yorkers, his well-being was not assured. He risked his own life and safety for the good of his fellow passengers. The unfortunate result was the unintended and unforeseen death of Mr. Neely. We're confident that once all the facts and circumstances surrounding this tragic incident are brought to bear, Mr. Penny will be fully absolved of any wrongdoing.
PINION: We know that Jordan Neely will still be dead, right? And so I think that's the unforced reality of all of this. And I think to LZ's point, yes, the governor can get on TV and talk about a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, it's bigger than that. It's bigger than just the money the system is broken. And when you look at the despair from public housing, $40 billion behind in repairs, a New York City mayor talking about $5 billion from migrants. We don't have the resources to deal with the people here today. It's a complete collapse of government. We are a house of cars falling on top of ourselves.
CAMEROTA: We have to leave it there. Thank you all very much. Next, the Natalee Holloway case. There's an update.
CAMEROTA: It was the mystery that dominated headlines for years and left a family in mourning. 18-year old Natalee Holloway disappeared on a high school graduation trip to Aruba in 2005.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BETH HOLLOWAY, MOTHER OF NATALEE HOLLOWAY: Natalee, you can reach me on your cell phone. I have it and it's set up for international use now and I will stay here until I find you Natalee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: This case has been going on for 18 years. That's as long as Natalee was alive. CNN covered the arrest of the prime suspect, Joran van der Sloot, 13 years ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The disappearance of an American teenager, Joran van der Sloot, the prime suspect in that case in which Natalee Holloway went missing five years ago, now sits in a Peruvian jail. He is suspected of killing 21-year-old business student Stephanie Flores in a hotel room. The Flores case in Peru has again sparked interest over Holloway's disappearance five years ago in Aruba.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: van der Sloot was one of the last people to see Holloway alive. Seven years later, he was convicted of murdering 21-year-old Stephanie Flores in his Lima hotel room and sentenced to 28 years in prison.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: There's two cases. That's Natalee Holloway and that's the Florist woman in Peru. The only relation that's face value between the cases, of course, is Joran van der Sloot.
REPORTER: A name that conjures harsh opinions from many here in Aruba.
UNKNOWN: He just disgraced Aruba real bad. So I just want to know the truth, what happened to Natalee Holloway, so they can erase our name and bring it back to how it was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Well, now Natalie Holloway's family may finally see some form of justice as van der Sloot is extradited to the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The U.S. government has sought to extradite him to stand trial here for extortion. He is accused of taking money from the Holloway family on a promise to lead them to their daughter's body. She has still never been found. And authorities believe he used the money to travel to Peru where he met Stephanie Flores.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAMEROTA: Okay, now I want to bring in Callahan Walsh, co-host with his father of Investigation Discovery's "In Pursuit with John Walsh," streaming on our corporate sibling Discovery Plus.
Callahan, great to see you. Look, you know as well as any family in America that families never give up. And the fact that it's been 18 years still, Natalee Holloway's mother has never given up and has wanted some measure of justice.
CALLAHAN WALSH, CO-HOST, INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY'S IN PURSUIT WITH JOHN WALSH: It breaks my heart that she still has to deal with this, but it's -- I'm so thankful that the U.S. Justice Department and State Department never gave up.
And this temporary extradition, which we don't see a lot of, is a great sign that they're continuing to fight for Natalee. And while this might not be charges of murder, I know her family is seeking any justice in any form that they can get. And so while justice doesn't provide closure, so closure is not a word that we use, it does provide answers and those answers can help in that healing process.
CAMEROTA: But let's talk about this, why it isn't a murder charge and it's extortion. And so what does that mean for Natalee's family?
WALSH: Well, the murder occurred not on U.S. property. However, when he tried to extort the family, which is just despicable -- I mean, here's this family grieving over the loss of their young child, of their teenage daughter, and here he is trying to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from this family. So they were able to bring him up on extortion and wire charges because of -- wire fraud because of this.
And so it's just, again, a testament to the fact that we're never going to give up, that the State Department, her family, they're continuing to fight back and they're making sure that this -- this guy pays for what he's done in whichever form they can get justice in.
CAMEROTA: As you and your father know so well, there are patterns that sociopaths or psychopaths exhibit. And so should people be surprised that years later, Joran van der Sloot found himself guilty of murder in Peru for Stephanie Flores?
WALSH: You know, I was not surprised. Here's a rich kid who's probably never been in trouble a day in his life, got away with murder the first time, extorted the family for more money, saying that he's going to lead them to her body, uses that money to flee the country, and goes to another country and murders again.
Not surprising, these creeps do this because that's what they want to do. And he exacted whatever hatred he had in his heart on Stephanie that night in that hotel room. And I'm just glad he's serving time for that murder, but at least he's getting, and Natalee Holloway's family is getting some justice in the fact that he's being extradited.
Now, I'll believe it when I see him here on U.S. soil, because we've extradited a lot of guys from "America's Most Wanted" to the show my father and I co-host from Mexico, Belize, Brazil, all over South and Central America. I'll believe it when I see him on U.S. soil, but I think that's going to happen.
CAMEROTA: Callahan Walsh, thank you for your time tonight.
WALSH: Thank you.
CAMEROTA: Coming up, some of our top reporters are here to talk about the stories that they're working on, including the expiration of a critical immigration policy that is sparking a potential crisis at the border tonight. They're here to explain what's going to happen in the next hour.