Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Tonight

Mark Meadows Testified To Federal Grand Jury In Special Counsel Probe; Chris Christie Announced Presidential Bid; Ukraine Dam Break Threatens Nearby Towns; Owner Of Two SF Hotels Giving Up the Properties; DNA Led To Arrest of Serial Rapist; CNN Reporters Share Unscripted Live TV Stories. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 06, 2023 - 23:00   ET




ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Thanks for tuning in to this hour where we bring you "Tomorrow's News Tonight." We have our great lineup of reporters here. Sara Fischer is with us, Miguel Marquez, Vanessa Yurkevich, and Jason Carroll. Also joining us with her D.C. reporting, Paula Reid.

So, two big headlines in the news tonight. First, Mark Meadows testified to a grand jury in the special counsel probe. Of course, the investigation into Donald Trump. And also, Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor, announcing he is running for president, saying that he wants to stop his old pal, Donald Trump, from becoming the nominee.

So, Paula and Sara are here with their reporting. Let us know with Paula. Okay, so, Paula, tell us what we know about Mark Meadows's testimony. Which investigation was he testifying for? Do we know?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It is unclear at this point, Alisyn, which investigation he testified in. It is also impossible that he testified in both. This has been one of the biggest questions in the ongoing special counsel investigation. What is going on with Mark Meadows?

Even the Trump legal team has conceded that, yes, they had been in communication with Meadows's attorneys. It is unclear if he was cooperating. The former president tried, quite a while back, to block Meadows from testifying before the grand jury, arguing executive privilege. He lost that battle.

We knew at some point Meadows would be testifying but it has literally just been a complete black hole in terms of reporting on what exactly what's going on. So, this was a huge deal today. This is a very significant development because he could be an incredibly useful witness in either investigation. He is at the center of everything on January 6th, and he appears increasingly significant in the Mar-a-Lago documents probe as well.

CAMEROTA: And Paula, wasn't he tasked with handling presidential records at the end of the administration? REID: He was one of several people who would likely have insight into how exactly how this happened, sort of insight at what was going on at the end of the administration. You are aware that classified documents were being packed up and presidential records were not being returned to the archives. We have always known that that could potentially be significant.

But just last week, CNN, in this bombshell report on this audio recording where Trump is revealing himself to allegedly have a classified document and even acknowledged the limit of his ability to classify, undercutting every defense he has put forward. Where does this recording come from? Mark Meadows's autobiographers.

So, the questions are, all right, what are other things did they record as they were preparing this book? What else does Mark Meadows know? I mean, he is not just a witness, he is the witness. So, this is incredibly significant and really does suggest that at this point, particularly the Mar-a-Lago probe, they are just ramping up loose ends at this point.

CAMEROTA: Okay. So, you have question for Paula?

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, it is Miguel here. I just -- if Mark Meadows's lawyers are not speaking to Donald Trump's lawyers or vice versa, that must not be a very good sign for the Trump team.

REID: Yeah, absolutely. I have asked them. I have asked that many times on camera and off camera. In some of my conversations off camera with sources close to the legal team, I've been like, look, if you do not know what he is doing -- I mean, this guy knows everything. Aren't they a little bit nervous? Some of them have conceded that yeah, they were a little concerned about that.

I mean, he is someone who is as close to the former president as could possibly be and also someone with potential legal jeopardy, so someone who would be likely to strike a deal. At this point, though, it is unclear exactly the nature of his testimony, the extent to which he cooperated --


REID: Or the biggest question of all, did he get immunity?


CAMEROTA: Okay. So, let us move on to other big political news at least today and that's Chris Christie announcing that he is going to run in the 2024 presidential race. So, he seems to be, Sara, a different guy that when he ran last in 2015 and '16.

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, and you are asking the Jersey girl --


FISCHER: -- of course.


MARQUEZ: You -- you would know.

FISCHER: So, in 2015, Chris Christie announced his run for the candidacy in his high school alma mater in Livingston, New Jersey. And the message was that he is a guy who is hometown values but he is a traditional Republican. And it is a year after Bridgegate. You will remember it is time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee. That was what propelled Chris Christie at the time for the national stage.

So, now, let's fast forward eight years. He is trying to run as a totally different person. Remember, in the first years of the Trump administration, Chris Christie backed Donald Trump, but it reversed after January 6th.

And so, his message is interesting for two reasons. One, where he announced. He announced in New Hampshire, not his hometown in New Jersey. You will recall that in the last time he ran for the presidency, that was a really hard state for him to win. He backed out after the New Hampshire caucus.

But then, two, his message was very anti-Trump, which is not what we saw last time. And so, I think Chris Christie is using this as an opportunity to try a different strategy ahead of this next election. The one thing that I will note, though, of course, any time anyone enters a presidential race, it's to win, obviously. But I think for Chris Christie, it's also to beat Donald Trump. This is a two-prong race for him.

CAMEROTA: Hasn't he said as much? Hasn't he said that one of his goals or his priorities is to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't win?

FISCHER: Yes, but I also think that is a part of his campaign strategy, right? If he frames this as, I am doing something good for the country by silencing this guy, that, he knows, is good for him politically. There is some tension and bad blood. You know, he put Jared Kushner's father in jail, et cetera. You know, just some of those things that have been.

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But also, I mean, is it the question, how effective can he be? We know he can get under Trump's skin --


CARROLL: -- but in the long run, how effective is it going to be going after Trump in this way?

FISCHER: Good question. He's not the only one willing that is going to do it. I think he is going to be much more forthcoming than a lot of the other candidates. I don't expect Mike Pence to come out swinging against Donald Trump. But what I think he will do is he will pull some of those anti-Trump voters away from Donald Trump in critical states, New Hampshire, of course, being one of them. The question is, is that enough to actually bring you to the nomination? You know, polling suggests likely not.

MARQUEZ: Yeah. He is so disliked by so many Republicans. I can't imagine that he's the right vessel to carry that message against Donald Trump. I don't see it.

FISCHER: You know, interestingly enough, not just Republicans, but I think people from his home state have been frustrated, too. After Sandy Hook, you will remember those helicopter photos of him sitting on the beach.

MARQUEZ: Oh, yeah.

FISCHER: If you don't have the hometown support, I actually think that hits you in a large way. It's very symbolic that he did not announce in his home state this time.

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Do you think that he has to re-introduce himself to people both in his home state but also across the U.S.? You know, he has really kind of been out of the spotlight for a little while. I wonder if this is like a reintroduction, a refreshing of himself to the public.

FISCHER: Totally. He hasn't held public office for five years. He hasn't been in the political game for a while. I will say, Chris Christie, more than some of these other candidates, has been pounding the Sunday show

circuit. He is somebody who makes himself very visible and has been very opinionated around Donald Trump.

So, he does not have so much to explain in terms of his positioning, but what I think, to your point, he needs to do is focus now on likability. How can he become somebody that people want to root for in 2024?

CAMEROTA: Well, I am rooting for him, not politically, but I'm certainly rooting for him as a journalist because he makes the race spicier.

MARQUEZ: Oh, yeah.

CAMEROTA: I think that he is somebody who -- as we have been playing some of his clips, he does speak in quips, he speaks in soundbites.

MARQUEZ: He's good at that. He's very good at that.

CAMEROTA: He is -- he is -- I am also a Jersey girl. He's very Jersey. I think --

YURKEVICH: I am a Jersey girl, too.

MARQUEZ: Oh, wow!


MARQUEZ: A lot of Jersey in the House.

CAMEROTA: A lot of Jersey. And it only makes things better --

FISCHER: It does.

CAMEROTA: -- as I think we all know. And so, I think that it is going to make the race more exciting with him.

MARQUEZ: As long as he lasts.

FISCHER: As long as he lasts. But also, Alisyn, to your point, I think a lot of candidates are entering the race and they have to test their message. They have to figure out to what extent can we be pro or anti- Trump, to what extent can we be somebody who is with mainstream Republican traditional party or can we be pulled to the far-right.

Chris Christie tested every single message. So, he can come out unafraid. To your point, I think that is not only going to be interesting for us as journalists to cover him, but there might be a shot that American people like that, too. I think that is what he is going to have to right on.

CAMEROTA: Really interesting. Thank you very much for all of that reporting, Sara.

Okay, coming up, there has been a major dam collapse in Ukraine, prompting flooding and mass evacuations. Who is responsible for this? Which side? We are going to get a report from Ukraine, next.




CAMEROTA: We have some new video to show you of a building being swept away after a critical Ukrainian dam was destroyed. Ukraine claims that Russia is responsible for this. Russia says it was Ukraine. The dam supplies drinking water to large areas of Ukraine and cools the reactors at the nearby Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

Miguel is going to break some of this down for us. But first, we want to go to CNN's Fred Pleitgen, who is on the ground in Ukraine.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Alisyn. This is a massive disaster that is obviously affecting a lot of people here in this part of Ukraine. Folks that we are speaking to are saying that all this happened extremely quickly. They say, in the morning, they were basically sitting in the drive, there was nothing going on, and then the water came in to their homes, came into their neighborhoods, and it rose so quickly that many of them did not manage to get to safety. Here is what we are learning.


PLEITGEN (voice-over): Masses of water gushing from the gaping hole in the destroyed Nova Kakhovka Dam in Russian-controlled territory here in South Ukraine. Massive flooding quickly inundating villages on both shores of the mighty Dnipro River, impacting areas controlled by Ukrainians and by the Russians.


(On camera): As you can see, there's a massive rescue effort going on here. Local authorities are using boats and also heavy trucks to get as many people out of the zone as they can.

(Voice-over): Sixty-five-year-old (INAUDIBLE) was stranded in her home with her cat, Sonia, for hours fearing for her life.

Now, I'm not scared, she says, but there, it was scary. Why, I asked? Because of the water. The water came and you don't know from where it comes and where it will go.

The authorities here say they've evacuated hundreds of people throughout the day, at times under Russian fire, the head of Kherson's military administration tells me.

We have the water, he says. Mines, mines are floating to here. And this district is constantly being shelled. Two policemen were injured while evacuating people.

Kyiv blames Moscow for allegedly blowing up the dam. An angry Ukrainian president saying the Russians are trying to derail Ukraine's current battlefield gain.

It was mine by the Russian occupiers, he says, and they blew it up. This once again demonstrates the cynicism with which Russia treats the people whose land it has captured.

The destruction of the dam comes as Ukrainian forces have been making gains on the battlefield, what some believe maybe the early stages of Kyiv's long-awaited counteroffensive even though the Ukrainians haven't confirmed that. Russia's army denies blowing up the dam, instead blaming the Ukrainians.

Aiming to prevent the offensive operations by the Russian army on the section of the frontline, the Kyiv regime committed an act of sabotage or rather terrorist act, the defense minister said.

While the floodwaters are affecting ever more areas around Kherson, upstream, the levels are critically low. Around the Zaporizhzhia power plant, the biggest in all of Europe, which relies on a pond connected to the river for cooling. The international Atomic Energy Agency says so far there, is no danger, but that could change.

RAFAEL GROSSI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: It is, therefore, vital that this cooling pond, this cooling pond remains intact. Nothing must be done to potentially undermine its integrity.

PLEITGEN: So, as you can see there, Alisyn, an extremely dangerous situation for this part of Ukraine. Two things really stood out for us today. On the one hand, it was just how fast the water is still rising here in this area, but then also how much shelling is still going on. There is one Ukrainian official who came out today and said that he believes that more than a thousand houses are still underwater just in the Ukrainian-held area of the flood zone. Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: Fred, thank you very much for all of the reporting from the ground there. Okay, Miguel, you've been filing the story very closely. Who stands to win more from blowing up this dam? Who do we think is responsible?

MARQUEZ: Certainly, the Russians probably stand to gain more. This is an economic disaster, it is an ecological disaster, it is a humanitarian disaster literally right in the middle of the battlefield. The Dnipro River in this area separates the two sides. Russians on the east side, Ukrainians on the west side. The land on the west side is a little bit higher. So, Russian position, defense position on the eastern bank have been flooded.

Our Sam Kiley spoke to one Ukrainian who said that they could see Russians running. They could see their trenches flooded. There apparently landmines floating around.

CAMEROTA: So maybe Ukraine is behind it.

MARQUEZ: So, it could be, but it's not very clear yet. There are a lot of experts talking about the dam itself. It has been contested for many, many months, if not years. There was talk on both sides that they were going to do something. The dam is not in great repair. But, it is a very, very sturdy dam, built in the 1950s, '58, I think. It's meant to withstand a very big missile hit.

A Ukrainian missile actually hit it last year and didn't do a lot of damage. Most experts seem to think that if it was an explosion, it would have to come from the inside of the dam. Packing a ton of explosives in there in a very tight area, and they will have to blow the dam out.

The thing that this does for the Russians, though, it creates essentially a moat along that part of Ukraine because Crimea is just to the south of that. That is what the Ukrainians want to liberate more than anything. The Russians took that in 2014. And that area will be heavily contested.

Ukrainians say, we are not going to go there anyway. They have to cross. Dnipro is a big river to begin with. They have to cross Dnipro. There is not a lot of crossings. They don't have the amphibious ability to cross that river very easily.

So, it's not clear who stands to gain the most. This will be -- whoever -- however this thing settles out, the disaster of this dam will be there for years and years to come.


CAMEROTA: I mean, not to mention the nuclear power plant that is cooled by the river, the Zaporizhzhia plant. MARQUEZ: Interestingly, that power plant is powered down. All the reactors are cold right now. It doesn't need a lot of water to keep things operational.

CAMEROTA: So, it's not an imminent crisis.

MARQUEZ: There's a cooling pond there that they can draw water from for now. So, they're okay for now. But, yeah, that is a concern. Interestingly, dams in this area twice have been destroyed by invading or retreating forces.

In 1941, the Soviets destroyed it when the Germans were coming in. It was farther, upriver. And then in 1943, the Germans took over, fixed the dam. In 1943, when they were evacuated, they blew off the dam to stop the Russians from coming to the same area. So, this is something they have seen in this area. The difference now, though, blowing up dams is a war crime, an international criminal --

CARROLL: And there is still a major outstanding question, right? How this will affect the Ukrainian counteroffensive? Still an outstanding question. How the people there are going to be able to now deal with this latest tragedy?

I mean, we spent some time overseas last summer. I was in Ukraine last summer. I remember then, everyone was talking about -- they were worried about the winter. Freezing out the Ukrainian people in the winter. And the Ukrainian people survived.

And the one thing that I came away from that experience was just the resiliency of the Ukrainian people. They've seen so many disasters. They are now faced with another one. And if there's one thing to come away with this, it's just how strong the Ukrainian people are at seeing and facing adversity.

MARQUEZ: This is going to affect their agriculture for years to come.


MARQUEZ: Their drinking water. This is --

YURKEVICH: It's too much. How much can people withstand? So, you're trying to get out of all flood situation but then you are worried about being hit by gunfire or shelling. I mean, I just -- the resiliency is otherworldly. I don't know how people are surviving emotionally, physically, mentally there. Just to see that river sweep through is so devastating.

MARQUEZ: Tens of thousands of people being evacuated on both sides.

YURKEVICH: And how? How do they get people out? Where are the books coming from?

MARQUEZ: Well, the Ukrainians, on their side, there is about two dozen villages or populations that are affected by this so far. There's maybe about 20,000 people affected in total. They're trying to move people out. YURKEVICH: It is significant.

MARQUEZ: It's not clear on the Russian-occupied side whether they have the resources or the ability to move people out or they're just leaving them on their own. It's heartbreaking.

CAMEROTA: I wonder why somebody wouldn't claim responsibility for this. If this was a tactical, you know, move in a war, why aren't they claiming it?

MARQUEZ: It's literally a war crime. A war crime to bomb a dam, dikes or electrical -- not electrical -- nuclear substations --


MARQUEZ: -- nuclear facilities. Anything that could cause damage beyond the actual destruction of the objects because this is flooding enormous areas and killing people and destroying (INAUDIBLE).

YURKEVICH: Do you think we will find out? Because I know that other countries are looking into this. Do you think we will ever find out?

MARQUEZ: Presumably, they will be able to collect forensic data and information from the damage. It's disintegrated over with time. I was watching this last night, before the show last night, because that's when the first report started to come out, and there was more dam there. And over the day, the dam has disintegrated.

But they'll still be able to get in there. They'll be able to gather information, forensic information. I think figure out if there was a bomb placed on the inside or if the dam just failed. It is possible it just failed, but it seems a very faint possibility.

FISCHER: And what are the repercussions if they found out who did it?

MARQUEZ: Well, if it was the Russians, then Putin himself or others could be held liable for war crimes. It's another -- it's another turn of the screw in this conflict that seems to have no end. The Russians have bombed the electrical grid and tried to take out so much infrastructure in Ukrain. This might be another level of that.

If the Ukrainians did it, then this may be the indication of what they plan to do with it. It may be a fate, it may be a fake, it may be something that they wanted to do to make them think that they were closed off from down there and they have a whole other plan at the ready.

CAMEROTA: Thank you very much for explaining all that. Really helpful context. Okay, back here, two of the largest hotels in San Francisco are closing. What is happening in San Francisco? That's next.



(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CAMEROTA: Downtown San Francisco dealing with another blow to its economy. Today, Park Hotels and Resorts announcing that it will stop making loan payments of two of its hotels there, Hilton San Francisco Union Square and Parc 55 hotels. These hotels have nearly 3,000 rooms combined. They are expected to remain open but ultimately under new owners.

Since 2020, a number of storms have left San Francisco or announced plans to leave, including Office Depot, Nordstrom and Whole Foods. Vanessa is following the story. Okay, so, why are these hotel groups giving up on these primo hotels?

YURKEVICH: They are losing money. They're not making money. The people are not coming. They put up a statement today. They listed a couple of reasons why they are sort of turning these hotels over hopefully to new owners who will operate them. One is low occupancy in offices, right?


There is not as many people coming in to the office. There is less foot traffic, less tourists. They also talk about street conditions, which I think is code for crime in the area. That's been a lot of concern amongst a lot of people. Also, the projection for conventions in the area is down. There's going to be fewer conventions over the next couple of years going into 2027.

And part of the statement, they were just pretty much blatant about it. They said, now more than ever, we believe San Francisco's path to recovery remains clouded and elongated by major challenges. I just discussed some of those challenges.

And they said that because of this, it will negatively impact business and leisure demand, and will likely significantly reduce compression in the city for the foreseeable future. So, they have major concerns about whether or not people are going to continue to come to San Francisco. Because of these reasons, many have been there for a while but have been exacerbated by the pandemic.

CAMEROTA: So, what is happening in San Francisco? I mean, you've laid out some of the things. But there is also -- It is not just businesses. Are there fewer people living in San Francisco? Is there crime? I know that here on the East Coast, we have this impression, oh, San Francisco is in complete crisis.


CAMEROTA: Sometimes, when you live in a place, you see it differently. Is there a way to get a real read from the data and what's happening?

YURKEVICH: If you look at it in terms of residents, so people who are there and who are looking to leave. San Francisco does lead the way in terms of people leaving major cities. So, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Washington, and Boston. That's the list. So, you have the most amount of people leaving San Francisco, looking to move somewhere else. That is down from April of 2022, so around last year. The numbers that we are seeing right now are actually in line with pre-pandemic levels. So, they spiked, they have come down, but San Francisco, for some reason, maybe it is a bunch of the factors that I have discussed.

People are looking to leave, move somewhere else. A lot of the things could be about jobs. Sara knows more than anyone about the tech industry there. People are working from home. A lot of companies are leaving, moving to other states. So, it could be also people just kind of wanting to change their lifestyle. Maybe the jobs are not there like they used to be.

FISCHER: Does the city have a plan to bring people back and bring momentum back? And if they don't, are people of San Francisco lobbying them? Are they frustrated? What is that dialogue like?

YURKEVICH: I think that there has been a concerted effort for a long time to tackle housing in the area. Bringing in affordable housing for people. We know that homelessness for many, many years has been a big issue. Trying to figure out what to do with the homeless population. How to take care of them.

But there hasn't been sort of this gold standard or gold star that people have looked towards and said yes, that is the answer, that is what is going to fix it.

I think what you are seeing is a ripple effect right now. You're seeing not as many people coming in to the office. So, you're seeing occupancy in buildings go down. You're seeing less tourists coming in. So, you're not seeing as many conventions. That's ultimately affecting the hotels. And then I think you have residents looking around at everything saying, is this where I want to be right now?

MARQUEZ: It's also one industry. A lot of cities are experiencing similar things after the pandemic. I mean, I would be sitting at home in my underwear if I could and not to be at work.

CAMEROTA: Thank you for that.

MARQUEZ: You're very welcome. But because it's a one-industry town, it has really been hit hard. Tech has been hit after the pandemic. People aren't coming to the office, people are working from home, people have re-prioritized their lives.

In San Francisco, because it was expensive to begin with, people are just moving. I don't see absent A.I. or something really taking over that space and powering the economy.


MARQUEZ: I'm not sure what the moves are. I

YURKEVICH: I think about Detroit. I know that San Francisco is not filing for bankruptcy. But I think about Detroit and the years that that city really struggled and tried to figure out a way to come back. I was in Detroit a couple of years ago. I was just so impressed with the city. What the business community has been able to do for that city has been so impressive. I just would not count San Francisco out at all. I think that there is so much still there.

But, you know, as you mentioned, you have Nordstrom, huge, 300,000 square feet of space there. Gone. Those jobs will be moving elsewhere. I mean, you're just seeing a lot of vacant space and that then starts to breed uncertainty among people, residents, but also businesses.

Do I want to bring my business there if everyone else is leaving? Do I want to live there if there is nothing around me? But crime is a big question that I think a lot of people point to. Although there is much crime in San Francisco, crime rates are actually what they were pre- pandemic.

So, yes, they spiked in a lot of other cities in the United States. They did spike. However, it's what it was pre-pandemic.


So, I don't think we can point to crime as the major issue here.

CARROLL: You know what? Being from California, Southern California, the discussion that we always have is, what is the answer?


CARROLL: That is the thing that --

YURKEVICH: We do not have it.

CARROLL: Right It is what Californians have been struggling. It is not just San Francisco. Let us be honest. It is L.A., too. It's Los Angeles. They are dealing with some of the same problems, some of the same


MARQUEZ: The drugs and the homelessness.

CARROLL: Correct. And when you sit around and you're talking about it and you're driving on the 101 freeway and you see this tent encampment and then another and another one, you realized that these are people -- some of these people who need help but you also realized this is doing a lot to really hurt some of these communities and everyone is looking for an answer.

FISCHER: That kind of brings me quickly to the state of California. How much of this do you think is -- businesses are fed up with high taxes in California. They can go to the states where they can operate their businesses cheaper. Is that part of this at all?

YURKEVICH: I think we have seen a migration both of home owners, people living there, and businesses who are looking for better tax breaks, who are looking for cheaper real estate. I think people have reevaluated their lives, their livelihoods during the pandemic. I think some of that is people just saying, I can actually be happy somewhere else, too.

MARQUEZ: It's easier after the pandemic as well because not just Detroit but Pittsburgh, Columbus, and all these cities, they have gotten a piece of the tech pie now.

YURKEVICH: And they're paying people!

FISCHER: Silicon prairie is what they're calling it.

YURKEVICH: They're paying people to come into the state. They are paying for people's moves.

CAMEROTA: Maybe San Francisco will have to lower its real estate prices.


You're welcome, San Francisco!


Okay, thank you very much for all of that. Meanwhile, this is a fascinating story. Boston police charging a suspect in for rape and sexual assault cases from more than a decade ago. Jason is going to explain how they will practice the cold cases.




CAMEROTA: A New Jersey man is under arrest and charged with sexually assaulting four women in Boston more than a decade ago. These cases have gone cold until investigators used DNA analysis to identify the suspect. Jason has the story. Okay, how did the investigators figure this out after more than 10 years?

CARROLL: It is really an incredible story. What had happened was back in Boston, some 15 years ago, you have these rapes that were occurring in this neighborhood. Case went cold. So, last year, you have some detectives, these investigators, who say, look, we've got this DNA, let us take this DNA and do what some other folks have done, you put it into this DNA genealogical database and see what comes back. And they did and it worked.

Now, what happened was they were able to get some samples back, saying, okay, this is who we believe, any number of these people, it could be from this particular family. Investigators say, okay, now we can look at this family. And then they do regular detective work. Who's the right age? Who lived in the area at that time?

Once they have narrowed it down to their suspect, a man by the name of Matthew Nilo, 35 years old, they said, okay, what we now need is another DNA sample to match. So, they put him under surveillance. They followed him, he is now an attorney, to a corporate function. He took a glass, was drinking out of the glass, using utensils. They were watching him. He puts the glass down, he puts the utensils down. They take the glass, they take the utensils, they get their sample, they get their match, they make their arrest.

So, this is incredible only because you see how something as innocuous as drinking out of a glass can eventually lead you, theoretically, to finding your suspect, right? But it also opens the door for so many other cases, so many other situations where they can do this.

So, this man, Matthew Nilo, now responsible, according to prosecutors, for raping three women, in the attempted rape of a fourth women. You could see him there in court. He faces three counts of aggravated rape, two counts of kidnapping, one count of assault with intent to rape, and one account of an indecent assault.

CAMEROTA: Just to be clear, he was basically a serial rapist, and then he went dark for 15 years? They don't think that he didn't have any crimes in between there?

CARROLL: Very good question. Unclear at this point. What we can say is, according to prosecutors, they are linking him to these cases of these unsolved rapes in Boston during that period.

MARQUEZ: This also came from a rape kit that they finally got to. How long did that rape kit sits there or rape kits sit there before they got the initial DNA?

CARROLL: Some 15 years.

MARQUEZ: So, 15 years (INAUDIBLE)?



CARROLL: And it's not just this case. I mean, we were talking about this earlier. You think about the case of the golden state killer caught back in 2018.


CARROLL: Caught in the same way. Caught in the same way. You know, using these genealogical databases, putting that in there, linking it eventually to some of these alleged criminals. It's really fascinating because it does open the door for so many other potential cases that might be out there, unsolved cases, where they have DNA, whether it be a rape kit or other forms of DNA. In this case, it wasn't just a rape kit.


It was also a glove where one of the victims have tried to scratch out his eyes. They still had some of that material on some sort of a glove.

YURKEVICH: So, is this new? Because it's so effective, it seems. Is it new? Is that why more cases aren't being solved in this way?

CARROLL: It is new in some ways. It is new in terms of now that we are seeing more -- you know, the FBI, other law enforcement agencies realizing that this is a source that they can use at their disposal. And remember, these are public. These are --

MARQUEZ: But they can't get access to all databases?

CARROLL: Not all because some of these databases, you know, don't -- aren't going to allow themselves to be open to something like this. But the ones that are, look what we have seen happened here.

CAMEROTA: So, what is the suspect's attorney is saying about all of this?

CARROLL: Well, couple of things. First of all, denying the allegations and really raising questions. He is going to fight in terms of how they were able to get this DNA. That is interesting, Alisyn, because there is a question about whether or not this will hold up in court.

It's held up in court many, many times before because it's called an abandonment sample. Let's say you smoke a cigarette, throw it away. Chew some gum, throw it away. Throw something out in your trash. It's no longer yours, so to speak. I mean, one man's trash is another man's evidence in some cases.

CAMEROTA: So, basically, in other cases, that has been deemed constitutional and legal. They confessed --

CARROLL: That is correct.

CAMEROTA: -- out of the --

CARROLL: Many scores of cases.

CAMEROTA: -- and hold it against you. But the lawyers here are saying that that is not --

CARROLL: You got to do something. You have to have something for the defense. You have to do something.

YURKEVICH: Didn't the lawyers said, we also want you to hear his side of the story?

CARROLL: That's correct.


CARROLL: Everyone --

YURKEVICH: -- what is that side of the story?

CARROLL: Everyone is entitled to have their side of the story. But DNA does not lie.

YURKEVICH: Yeah. FISCHER: So, what is that going to look like? Is he going to tell it in court? How long this is going to go on? When can we expect some sort of verdict?

CARROLL: Well, we are just in the beginning stages of this. He was arraigned last week. He has another sort of procedural hearing. That's going to happen next week. This could go on for quite some time.

But it should be very interesting to hear if this does happen. I mean, sometimes, defensive attorneys will say all sorts of things, and then their client never ends up testifying. I mean, we've seen that in many, many cases. It would be very interesting to see what his defense would be in this case other than, you know, they collected this material illegally.

CAMEROTA: Yeah, DNA has changed the face of policing. I mean, it has considerably --

CARROLL: Without question.

MARQUEZ: I did some stuff on the golden state killer. You know, they -- one of the investigators says that they will be able to take DNA from the crime scene and know who was in the vicinity of that person within three or four days before too long. Plus, golden state, they were digging through paper files.


MARQUEZ: Yeah. And this is all becoming much faster. It is all computerized.

FISCHER: Quickly, is there room for error then?


FISCHER: Let us say Miguel commits a crime and my hair is on the scene, do I get the call 15 years later?

CARROLL: You might get the call 15 years later. But again, I think what they're going to be doing is, they're going to be looking at a lot of different elements as well. I mean, when you're dealing with certain types of DNA, it would be more specific to Miguel rather than you.

CAMEROTA: Delicately put. I like that.

MARQUEZ: I like the way you threw me under the bus, though. Thank you very much.

CAMEROTA: Very much.


Thank you. All right, so, as reporters, we can tell you some crazy things happen on live TV. Up next, we're going to show you how one reporter dealt with an obnoxious onlooker and then we'll share some of our stories.




CAMEROTA: The next time you watch the news, just think about what reporters in the field are dealing with, like this woman.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SAMANTHA RIVERA, SPORTS REPORTER: A very loud crowd here at T-Mobile Arena. Obviously, Vegas fans enjoying the (INAUDIBLE) want to be, right?


CAMEROTA: Just a little multitasking by CBS. Miami sports reporter Samantha Rivera all while maintaining her composure and handling that unruly hockey fan at the Stanley Cup finals.

Rivera tweeted late Monday night -- quote -- "Listen, I don't give a damn what team you're rooting for. Get the hell out of my face when I'm working and respect that I'm here to do my job. Excited to get back home to some classy Panthers fans for game 3!

MARQUEZ: Oh, my gosh.

CAMEROTA: That is awesome. We're back with our panel of reporters. Okay, let's hear about your unscripted, embarrassing moments on live shots.

CARROLL: I swallowed a bug.

CAMEROTA: You did?

CARROLL: I did. Local news. Swallowed a bug. It flew right into my mouth.

CAMEROTA: And how did you handle that?

CARROLL: I coughed.


CARROLL: I coughed and I left. I just kept going. I was a little shocked that I swallowed a bug.

CAMEROTA: Oh, my gosh. Did the anchor notice it or say anything?

CARROLL: They all noticed it. They replayed it on the 11:00 broadcast.


CAMEROTA: I wish we had that. We do have one of Vanessa. You had a bug incident? YURKEVICH: Speaking of bugs --

MARQUEZ: Oh, dear.

YURKEVICH: -- this is a live shot that I did with you in 2019.

CAMEROTA: I can't wait.

YURKEVICH: I think we have some video of it, just to play it. I am doing this live shot with you. Here I am in Iowa, 6:00 a.m., in the morning, and I am talking to probably about, I don't know, the election or something. As I'm doing this live shot, I feel something crawling up my leg.

MARQUEZ: Oh, dear.

YURKEVICH: You can't see it here, but crawling up my leg is a huge bug under my pants.


CAMEROTA: Look at how composed you are.

YURKEVICH: And I'm like there is something on my leg, there is something on my leg. The minute this live shot finished --



YURKEVICH: -- I was like a hot potato, jumping around, shaking it off. Finally, I reached like under my pant leg --


YURKEVICH: -- grabbed it, threw it across the parking lot, and did not go look at it.

CAMEROTA: But look at how professional you are.


CAMEROTA: You are not even moving a muscle.

YURKEVICH: Tickle, tickle, tickle.

CAMEROTA: Oh, my gosh! I would never have known.

YURKEVICH: I have to keep it composed for you because you --


CAMEROTA: So impressive.

YURKEVICH: It was probably two to three inches. CAMEROTA: Impressive. I remember reporting and like under one of those tents that they set up for us, at one point, the (INAUDIBLE) just like collapsed down on to my shoulder, and I kept reporting and people were impressed. But that's not as good as the bug. That is not as good as keeping your composure while a bug is crawling up your pant leg.

MARQUEZ: That is tough.

YURKEVICH: -- inside on my skin.

MARQUEZ: Well, the most obvious one, I guess, was during the Freddie Gray coverage. We were covering a protest. Somebody -- we were walking along with the protesters. They were angry. One or two of them tried to grab the mic from me and we had a pulling contest.

Now, I held on to the mic. He and I actually became friends later on. Because everybody in the neighborhood saw that and that I didn't overreact to it, I became everyone's friend after that as well. I love Baltimore.

CAMEROTA: We are going to end on that happy ending. Very well done. Very well done. All right, thank you, guys, very much for sharing all of those.

Tomorrow, on "CNN This Morning," the new scientific discovery that could change our understanding of evolution. Evidence of a mysterious human species discovered 100,000 years before modern humans. Thanks so much for watching tonight. Our coverage continues now.