Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Judge Declares Mistrial in Freddie Gray Case; Republicans Look to Build Momentum from Debate. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired December 17, 2015 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A mistrial in the first trial of a police officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray.

[05:57:58] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The judge determined that it was a hung jury.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We ask the public to remain calm. We are calm. You should be calm.

MAYOR STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE, BALTIMORE: If we believe in justice, we must have respect for the outcome of the judicial process.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Senator Rubio's campaign is very, very nervous.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Everyone on that stage talks tough.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Bush is a person who has just not been able to carry it forward.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Donald doesn't talk about anything serious. He doesn't have any ideas about how to keep America safe.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nothing in the investigation so far has shown that the U.S. government missed any red flags.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: There were no public postings, only private messages.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota and Michaela Pereira.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Vegas, baby. Wait a minute. Good morning. I'm back? All right.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, you're back.

CUOMO: Welcome to NEW DAY. It is Thursday, December 17, 6 a.m. in the east. Serious news this morning: Protesters taking to the streets in

Baltimore, demanding to know why a jury failed to reach a verdict against the first of six officers being charged with the death of Freddie Gray.

The judge declared a mistrial after the jury said they were deadlocked on all charges. Baltimore's mayor urging calm, hoping to avoid a repeat of the rioting and looting that followed Gray's funeral in April.

CAMEROTA: So the big question this morning: Will the state retry the case against Officer William Porter? And what impact will that one have on the other officers' trial?

Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Jean Casarez. She's live in Baltimore for us with the latest.

Good morning, Jean.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

And also a big question is when would they have that retrial? Because there are five other officers waiting in line to be tried. Yesterday, when the judge was announcing that there was a hung jury, the community began to form around the courthouse, and there was even someone with a megaphone that was announcing there has been a mistrial.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do we want?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Justice!

CASAREZ (voice-over): Protesters outraged over the mistrial in the death of Freddie Gray.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will fight for Freddie Gray. All night, all day!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will fight for Freddie Gray. All night, all day!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will fight for Freddie Gray. All night, all day!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are calm. You should be calm, too.

CASAREZ: Officer William Porter could be facing the possibility of a second trial after a jury of seven blacks and five whites failed to reach a unanimous decision on any of the charges against him. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are hopeful that Ms. Mosby will retry Officer

Porter as soon as possible and that his next jury will reach a verdict.

CASAREZ: Porter is the first of six officers facing charges in the case that brought the city to a standstill last spring. Baltimore erupted in days of unrest back in April after Gray was loaded in the back of a police van and later died from a spinal cord injury.

Prosecutors argue that, even though Porter did not make the arrest or drive the van, he failed to secure Gray's seatbelt and call a medic quickly enough. He faces charges of involuntary manslaughter, second- degree assault, and reckless endangerment.

Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby's decision to try the officers was met with sharp criticism, some saying the charges were too strong and hard to prove.

Frustration outside the courthouse for what this could mean for the other officers involved.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm terrified. Are we going to have five more mistrials?

CASAREZ: In a city already on edge.

RAWLINGS-BLAKE: They also want to be very, very clear about any potential disturbances in our city. We are prepared to respond.

CASAREZ: But last night Gray's family attorney was hopeful.

WILLIAM MURPHY JR., GRAY FAMILY ATTORNEY: In 70 percent of the trials that are brought again on the same evidence, the prosecution wins.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CASAREZ: And regarding that retrial, we are told officially that this afternoon the judge will meet with attorneys in his chambers to announce a possible date for that retrial.

But Chris, here's one of the main challenges. This officer was tried first, because William Porter was the one that spoke with Freddie Gray in that van, asking him how he was, asking him if he needed a medic; and prosecutors want that statement and even William Porter to testify against some of the other officers, because he told them that Freddie Gray needed that medic. And now William Porter still has that Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself -- Chris.

CUOMO: Jean Casarez, strong points. They did start off with him, because they felt it was a good case. Understood. Appreciate the reporting.

All right. Let's discuss what happened here, what are the implications going forward. CNN legal analysts, Joey Jackson, Danny Cevallos. Early Christmas wishes to both of you. This is very troubling. People take to the streets, because, what? They wanted justice. They feel this is justice denied. How true a reflection of the process is that? I start with you, Joey Jackson.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Chris, I think this is a process at work. There were many who believed that he could not get a fair trial and that Baltimore is so inflamed that they would be so prejudicial against him that they potentially would base their decision upon what the public would do, what the community would do. WE have to convict. And it shows our process, look, that you can argue that it's incomplete. And it is.

But a necessary part and function of our process is to have unanimous decisions. And think about what you're asking a jury to do. You're asking multiple people up to 12, different backgrounds, and we can group them: African-American and white, and women and, you know, men, but ultimately, people from different perspectives have to come to the same conclusion. They didn't because they heard the evidence. They digested the evidence, and they perceived the evidence differently. It will be a retrial.

CUOMO: Let's exercise the skepticism. How did they blow this case? We thought it was a no-brainer. Freddie Gray was OK; then he wasn't. The only thing that came in between those two points was police action. How did they not hook this guy?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, wait a second. There are a lot of people that didn't think it was a no-brainer. A lot of people felt this was a strong case for the defense.

Look, the prosecution's theory was this, that something happened in that van, and when he came out, just like you said, Freddie Gray was mortally wounded.

But on the other hand, the defense's theory -- and the defense put on a very good case here. The defense's theory was they put Baltimore procedure on trial.

They said instead, "Yes, you may have all these rules in your handbooks, but the way we do it and the way it's practiced in the street, this is how it's done. And we don't seat belt people in. I've made 150 arrests." This is how Officer Porter testified. "And I've never belted anybody in."

CUOMO: Porter taking the stand, by the way. Accent that.

JACKSON: Four hours.

CUOMO: Right.

JACKSON: Four hours of testimony. And he testified in the prosecution's case, you can argue, because they introduced his testimony with the investigative deal, who is the lead investigator.

CEVALLOS: You don't normally see a defendant testify normally. But if you are going to have a defendant testify, this is the one to do it. Because remember, Porter, like all police officers, is probably more comfortable on that witness stand than he was sitting at the defendant's table, because officers testify. They're professional witnesses. They're very good at what they do and very good at being cross-examined.

CUOMO: True or false: key point during the testimony was Porter saying, Joey Jackson, "I was never trained in any of this stuff. They're making it seem like I blew protocol. I didn't know what protocol was. I didn't know what to do. I was never told what to do."

JACKSON: It's a big point, Chris, because you're dealing with a reasonable officer standard. And the jury has to conclude that he acted in such a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in his position would do.

[06:05:12] And to Danny's point, in terms of putting procedure on trial, how do we do it? We know, and the prosecution was attempting to say that this whole buckling thing, that's mandatory. You have to do it. And if you don't do it, it is the gross deviation. He's negligent grossly.

But of course, the facts saying, "Wait a second. That is protocol, but that's advisory. And we have a great deal of discretion." And so I think it's common for jurors to disagree. Was he acting reasonably or was he not? And a bigger point, I think, is when the injuries occurred.

How do we know that? Because it goes to the issue of what Porter knew and when he knew it. Was he feigning injury? That is, Freddie Gray? Or was he really injured? And you know what? I don't care. Stay injured. You know, I don't care about you.

Big point. Because if a jury concludes that, you know what? He just ignored him, and he was so callous, then you get your conviction.

CEVALLOS: Joey brings up a very good point. Officer Porter testified to this at trial. It puts out in the public view the fact that, in reality, many suspects complain of injuries. They have what Porter called, I think it was, jailitis. Right. Which means -- and I think police officers would agree that a lot of suspects say, "Oh, I'm hurt. I want to go to the hospital," because the hospital is preferable to jail.

The problem is -- and we have a broader problem -- is that when this happens in the field, how do police officers address it practically. Not what's in the books. But how do they deal with it in the field when this happens?

CUOMO: People are in the streets. This is odd to have you two agree so much. I know that's setting up the proposition. People are in the streets because they say this was a no-brainer. Freddie was complaining the whole time through. They did this to his back. There's no other way it could have happened. And now there will be no justice for this. What do you say to them? JACKSON: I say that, look, we have a process. And this is justice

delayed. And justice means different things to different people. Let's be fair about it.

To the police union, justice means that he should be acquitted, that he acted in accordance with what his training was and that he did what a reasonable officer would do.

If you're from the prosecution position, justice -- justice is a conviction. Justice is accountability. There's a person dead, because you didn't do two things. One, click his seat belt; and No. 2, call for medical assistance.

CUOMO: What happened in this jury box? Was this about common people too ignorant for a case like this? Was this something tricky? Was something misapplied during the process?

JACKSON: Chris, I would never say that. You have 12 jurors. And the fact is, you know, look, people have to agree. It's better -- and this is a very -- this is the byproduct of our system. It's better we let 100 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person. And that means that everybody from different perspectives of life have to come to the same conclusion. And it's very difficult to get everybody on the same page. They'll try again.

CUOMO: Jean Casarez made a point coming into this discussion, Danny. They said, hey, you know, they went after him first. They wanted him to testify against others. Of course, he has his right against self- incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.

But what does it mean to, what we will see from this point that Porter got a mistrial. They're going to retry the case. By the way, I'm going to ask you about that in a second, but what does that mean going forward?

CEVALLOS: It's easy for us to second-guess the prosecution's strategy after a mistrial. But I have to expect the idea behind trying Porter first was he was the one officer that gave a statement. If you convict him or if you acquit him, either way, he no longer has a First -- Fifth Amendment issue so you can make him testify against his brother officers.

However, with a mistrial, he remains a charged defendant, and you cannot use him in the same way you would if he was acquitted or convicted. So if nothing else, this has -- this changes the prosecution strategy, because this is a domino effect as to all of the subsequent prosecutions.

CUOMO: Key point, last key point. Joey, what do they do different in the next one? What did you see in this one that has to change in order for the prosecution, in order for the defense to get desired outcome?

JACKSON: Well, first, certainly, they don't need any advice from me. These prosecutors are very skilled, as is the defense. But I think the critical point is what Porter knew and when he knew it. And I think the jury was hung up.

Remember what jurors do. Jurors determine facts. Factually, it's up to a jury to conclude who's lying, who's not. A judge is just about a referee talking about the law. And so remember the key point. Was Freddie Gray injured -- at what point was he injured?

And if the jury concludes that he's injured early on, and Porter checks on him and says, "I don't care about you," then you have your conviction.

But I think the major point is to establish when in time was he injured and did Officer Porter not take that injury seriously? And was he just so callous or did he really think he was feigning injury? That's what it comes to.

CUOMO: Joey Jackson, Danny Cevallos, thank you for helping us understand something. Early Christmas wishes for both of you.

JACKSON: Thank you very much.

CUOMO: Alisyn, you've got to remember, at trial, you only know what you show. What is obvious outside of it not always obvious during the process.

CAMEROTA: That is a good reminder. We'll be exploring more in this case with the family's attorney, coming up later in the program.

[06:10:04] Meanwhile, to politics, Republicans looking to build on momentum from Tuesday's debate. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both defending their positions and Donald Trump taking to late night, again targeting Jeb Bush and even showing a touch of humility.

CNN's Sara Murray is live for us in Washington. Sara, what's happened in the past few hours?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Alisyn. We're seeing a more introspective Donald Trump, someone who's coming out, saying he wants to unite the Republican Party. But of course, that is not stopping him from taking swipes at his own GOP rivals.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MURRAY (voice-over): A change in tone for Donald Trump. On Jimmy Kimmel overnight, a bit of self-reflection.

TRUMP: I would like to see the Republican Party come together, and I've been a little bit divisive in the sense that I've been hitting people pretty hard.

JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, ABC'S "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE!": A little bit, yes.

MURRAY: The magnanimity stopped when it came to debate rival Jeb Bush.

KIMMEL: Do you think Jeb Bush is scared of you or just scared in general? TRUMP: I think he's scared.

KIMMEL: The frontrunner continuing to call Bush low-energy and too nice to be tough.

KIMMEL: Do you think he wants to run for president?

TRUMP: No. He was a happy warrior, but he's never been a happy warrior.

KIMMEL: Do you think he would kill baby Hitler?

TRUMP: No, he's too nice.

MURRAY: Just hours earlier on the campaign trail in Arizona, Trump was decidedly unfriendly.

TRUMP: Rand Paul, who doesn't have a chance. I mean, what's he doing? By the way, what is Rand Paul doing?

I don't care anymore. We have to get the right people. I don't care. I don't care anymore. We can't have a continuation of this stupidity, of this incompetence. We can't do it. We want do that when we have Caroline Kennedy negotiating trade pacts with Japan.

MURRAY: This as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz continue battling it out.

RUBIO: And everyone on that stage talks tough.

MURRAY: After going head to head in Tuesday night's debate, the two first-term senators defending their tough talk.

CRUZ: If someone launches attacks, and if the attacks are false, and they're knowingly false, then I'm going to tell the truth.

MURRAY: While Rubio focuses his fire on the Democrats.

RUBIO: We had a debate last night that was actually substantive. It got into the guts of some of these issues. And there are some differences between the candidates.

Look, I like everybody that's running for president on the Republican side. I really do. None of them is a socialist. None of them are being investigated by the FBI.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MURRAY: Now, the one battle that does not seem to be brewing is between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the two guys who are leading the field in Iowa.

As for that emerging rivalry between Rubio and Cruz, they will both be on the campaign trail today, Rubio in Iowa, Cruz in Minnesota. We will see if sparks continue to fly between the two of them -- Michaela.

PEREIRA: There is a little bit of time before, you know, things have to be decided.

MURRAY: Yes.

PEREIRA: So I feel maybe some more rivalries could emerge. All right, Sara. Thank you so much for that.

Meanwhile, President Obama is resuming his role as consoler in chief. He will head to San Bernardino tomorrow. The president will hold private meetings with some family members of the terror attack victims. As you'll recall, 14 people were killed, 22 others wounded. First, though, the president receives his traditional pre-holiday briefing today from his counterterrorism team. He will make a statement this afternoon.

CUOMO: A new level of the national terrorism alert system is called bulletin. And it was activated for the first time Wednesday. It's designed to warn the public about, quote, "self-radicalized actors who could attack without notice," just like the terrorists in San Bernardino.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson says, while he's concerned about attacks like that, his department is tracking no specific threat.

CAMEROTA: Defense Secretary Ash Carter conducted official Pentagon business using his personal e-mail account. Carter's press secretary, Peter Cook, called his use, quote, "a mistake" and says the defense secretary is no longer using this email account.

This happened during Carter's first few months on the job but after It was publicly revealed that Hillary Clinton used personal e-mail as secretary of state. A former aide tells "The New York Times" that Carter used his personal account so much that friends worried he might get hacked or in trouble for not following the rules.

PEREIRA: All right. Back to politics. They went toe to toe in the CNN debate in Vegas this week. Now Jeb Bush and Donald Trump are taking that battle to the campaign trail. How ugly is this going to get? Will it pay off for Bush?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[06:18:10] KIMMEL: You saying Jeb Bush is scared of you or just scared in general?

TRUMP: I think he's scared. he's having a hard time.

KIMMEL: Do you -- do you think he wants to run for president?

TRUMP: No. He was a happy warrior, but he's never been a happy warrior. And he's having a hard time running.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CAMEROTA: That was Donald Trump, taking yet another swipe at Jeb Bush, this after the CNN GOP debate. So who benefits most from this fight? Trump or Bush?

Here to discuss, CNN political commentator and political anchor at Time Warner cable news, Errol Louis; and CNN political analyst and presidential campaign correspondent for "The New York Times," Maggie Haberman. Great to see you guys.

Maggie, let me start with you. So other candidates have decided it's not wise to go at Donald Trump. It seems that Ted Cruz in some ways, Ben Carson have had hands off approach, but Jeb Bush is taking the opposite approach and going after Donald Trump. Is that wise?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: What choice does he have at this point? Donald Trump has been going right at him for months and months and months, and that has not been very helpful to Jeb Bush.

I think Jeb Bush had to do something. And I think there's two reasons why. I think Jeb Bush genuinely has been sort of pummeled and left on the ropes by Donald Trump after many of these debates, and then, you know, it's not just what Donald Trump will do with the debate. It's what he will then do for subsequent days afterwards in interviews. He will just use the megaphone he has.

But for Jeb Bush, I do think Jeb Bush genuinely believes that Donald Trump is bad for the Republican Party, and he sees himself as one of the only people who is willing to stand up to him.

Now, I think what matters is what does that extend to? Does that extend to carpet bombing him with television ads by the super PAC? We don't know yet. Does that extend to saying more than just he's not a serious candidate?

Jeb Bush had a very, very good debate performance, and his advisers will bristle when people say it's too late for it to matter. They have a point. It is not actually that late. There's still six weeks left.

But Jeb Bush is a very defined quantity in the minds of voters. So I'm not sure how much he can do to move the needle. We're going to find out.

CUOMO: And Maggie's making the point. Defined quantity is a nice way of saying very high built-in negative. He's had a high built-in negative from the beginning. It's even higher now. Some would say prohibitively high.

But again, we don't normally cover elections until right about now. You know, there has been an artificiality to this. So Errol, feel free to shoot down this proposition, although I'm going to make it with great enthusiasm.

The moment -- the moment when Trump says to Bush -- yes, I'm fixating on this again. Where he says, "Who's talking, Jeb? You?"

And Jeb says, "I'm talking. I'm talking right now."

I believe that that was a moment in the "Rocky" movie where Rocky's getting pummeled, and he looks at the guy at the end of the round and says, "That's all you got." And the guy kind of looks at him, Apollo Creed, and walks away. I felt like that was potentially that moment for Jeb Bush. Trump was like, "Oh, look at this," and it changed things for him. Yes or no?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think so. I think so. I mean, and I think the overall sort of bringing forth of some things that we talked about at this table very often. And I think everybody knows. What nobody was saying is what Jeb Bush sort of brought to the debate. The notion that the petty personal insults, which are just out of place in anything as serious as...

CUOMO: You will not insult your way to the presidency, Bush said.

LOUIS: That's been true from day one. Why didn't anyone say it so clearly and forcefully up until now? Why was Bush the only one who said it? Well, you know, that's what we call leadership. That's, you know, sort of putting some things forward. Will it work to his benefit politically? We don't know.

But I was relieved just to hear somebody say it. Because it's been true all along.

For him also, just to sort of point out that some of what Donald Trump says is not serious. For him to say, "I get ideas about foreign policy from watching generals and commentators, you know, on the weekends on television." I thought it was perfect for him to puncture that and say, "Are you talking about Sunday morning or Saturday morning?" This is serious stuff.

There's, you know, over a million people in the armed forces. There are serious issues at stake. There's public safety at stake. You cannot treat this as a reality television show where you're insulting people or you're watching TV and you're sort of winging it as you go along.

And so Jeb Bush, I think, did a great service for not just the Republican Party, not just for his own campaign, but really for all of us. And I think he will probably be rewarded politically for doing that.

CAMEROTA: But Maggie, the election is a bit of a reality show. I mean, it just has become that. We don't necessarily like it, but it has become that.

And we interviewed Jeb Bush yesterday morning. And it was a great moment, I thought, of sort of self-reflection, where he admitted to us that he doesn't like the performance aspect of it. He's not comfortable with it. He's never been comfortable with it. He doesn't know why he has to do it.

So late to the game, right before this debate, he decided, "I guess I have to do it." And he worked on that, and you saw the results. HABERMAN: You did. You also actually saw him thinking on his feet in

that debate, which you don't always see. You know, he said to you that he had thought of the Saturday morning line impromptu. That was a level of agility that we have not seen him have in these debates so far.

I do think voters tend to reward honesty. One of the reasons that people like Donald Trump is they think that he is authentic. They see him -- whether that is true or not, that is how they see him.

Jeb Bush has seemed uncomfortable in his own skin, and so being able to say, "This is not something that I particularly enjoy, but here is why I will be a good president" could very well work for him.

What I was very struck by in this debate was two things. No. 1, the degree to which Jeb Bush is really defending -- and not defending in terms of saying "my brother, my father, my brother, my father," but talking about the George W. Bush presidency and policies as opposed to any familial terms. He was really the only person talking about the ban on Muslim immigrants that Donald Trump has proposed.

This dominated coverage for days and days and days, and yet, it was barely a factor at the debate, except for when Jeb Bush was talking about the need to have a coalition of Muslim support. I was very intrigued by that.

I think that he had a multidimensional performance in a way he has not before. But again, I don't know what that means. You have a parallel fight going on between senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and that is where a lot of action is shifting.

CAMEROTA: And we're going to talk about that momentarily, if you guys will stick around. We'll see you shortly.

What's your take on the Trump/Bush feud? You can tweet us, @NewDay, or post your comment on Facebook.com/NewDay -- Michaela.

PEREIRA: All right, guys. There's new details emerging in the Paris terror attacks. How the terrorists communicated before they carried out those attacks. Is there anything law enforcement can do to get ahead of those kind of acts? We'll take a look.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:28:24] PEREIRA: We have breaking news in the Paris terror investigation. New evidence that some of the terrorists plotted attacks using tough-to-crack encryption apps. Our justice reporter, Evan Perez, is here now with the breaking details.

What are we learning, Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Michaela, you know, one of the big questions that investigators have in the Paris attacks has been -- they've been trying to answer is how did eight terrorists plot their coordinated attacks without being noticed by security services? Well, at least part of the answer, investigators believe, is that the

terrorists were using popular encrypted cell-phone apps to communicate while they plotted. Two of those encrypted apps are What's App and Telegram. And these are known for protecting privacy of users and for being difficult to decrypt.

Officials tell CNN that both apps were used by the Paris attackers for a period before the attacks. And it's important to note that the Paris investigators have also found unencrypted communications on at least one cell phone recovered from the crime scenes. And they've also found indications that the terrorists used other methods to hide their tracks, including changing sim cards for cell phones. And some of these were French and Belgian citizens who apparently used fake passports to get back to Europe undetected from ISIS territory in Syria.

The problem remains for investigators, Michaela, that they may never know the content of these encrypted communications. And we reached out to What's App and Telegram, and they have not gotten back to us.

PEREIRA: So much coming to light in the course of the investigation. In fact, we've learned that, in San Bernardino, the attackers in that horrifying attack there, they were using direct messaging to communicate. What more can you tell us?

PEREZ: That's right. FBI Director James Comey was here in New York City Police headquarters. And, you know, he addressed some new information about the terrorist couple. He says that they were private messaging to discuss their vow to carry out jihad.