Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Civil War Era Abortion Ban; Trump's Hush Money Trial: How Will Jurors Be Selected?; McCarthy Defends Visiting Trump At Mar-A-Lago After Jan 6; Body Cam Video Shows Chaos Of Deadly Police Shooting. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 21:00   ET



OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Cook County State's Attorney here says they are investigating for a potential criminal prosecution. But they are not there at this point. And look, as people watch this and react to this, Reed did fire his weapon first. And so that initial response from police is not necessarily what is under question here, those initial shots. It is really why this stuff happened in the first place and why the shots continue for as long as they did, Anderson.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Omar Jimenez, thanks so much. The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from The Source tonight, the Arizona Supreme Court putting a near total abortion ban from the Civil War era back in effect. No exceptions for rape or incest, as many Republicans who wanted Roe versus Wade overturned, are now disavowing today's decision. Also tonight, picking Trump's jury. With the former president's first criminal trial just six days away from now, the lawyers are set for a critical showdown, one that could affect the outcome of this case. But how do you know who to pick? One of our best legal sources is here tonight.

And also 96 shots were fired in just 41 seconds. This newly released video shows how a deadly police shooting spiraled so quickly. I'm Kaitlan Collins, and this is The Source.

So much for the U.S. Supreme Court rolling abortion rights back 50 years, Arizona just punched the flux capacitor and time traveled back to 1864. Not 1964, 1864. Yes, during the Civil War, a year before - before slavery was even abolished with the 13th amendment. It's also before the discovery of penicillin, X-rays or antibiotics.

But the Arizona Supreme Court ruled today a 160-year old law banning abortions at any point in a pregnancy can be enforced. That means that in two weeks from now, abortion - abortions in that state in Arizona will be illegal. There are no exceptions for rape or incest in this 1864 law, the only exception is if the mother's life is in danger. Even that is not a black or white decision. And it often comes with its own complications as we know. Keep in mind that when this law was written, women could not vote. The idea of women even owning their own home was still a novel concept in some states. And speaking of states, Arizona wasn't one yet. Less than 10,000 people lived in what was then known as the Arizona Territory. Today, more than 7 million people do. That includes Republican Senate candidate and a contender to be Donald Trump's vice president, if he's the president and the Republican nominee, Kari Lake.

She rushed out a statement and it reads in quote, in part, and I'm quoting her now, I oppose today's ruling. But that statement requires a lot of context given it wasn't that long ago that she said this, about the very law that is set to go into effect.


KARI LAKE, (R) U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE: We have a great law on the books right now. If that happens, we will be a state where we will not be taking the lives of our unborn anymore.

I'm incredibly thrilled that we are going to have a great law that's already on the books. I believe it's ARS 13-3603. So it will prohibit abortion in Arizona except to save the life of a mother. And I think we're going to be setting the - paving the way and setting course for other states to follow.


COLLINS: She even cited exactly which law it was. Lake though of course is far from being the only Arizona Republican who is trying to distance themselves from today's ruling. Republican Congressman wants Ciscomani has gone from saying quote, I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe versus. Wade, to calling today's ruling a disaster for women.

Of course, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade paved the way for what happened today. At the state level, Republican State Representative Matt Gress says today's quote, ruling cannot stand. But it was just last year that he was pushing a bill to declare fetuses as people which obviously would make abortion illegal.

Here's also something that's interesting. In light of today's decision, Arizona's former Republican Governor Doug Ducey added two seats in a successful effort to stack the state Supreme Court. In all he appointed five of the seven justices who ruled today. Doug Ducey said what happened today is not his preferred outcome. But remember this, the 15 week law that he did sign which he said today, he believed it would be a better option included this specific language.

Not to repeal by implication or otherwise, the very 1864 law that will soon go into effect. There's a simple reason that so many Republicans are racing to revise their previous positions. The state's 11 electoral votes. A number that could very well decide who the next President will be.

[21:05:00] Especially now that Arizona could soon be the first swing state with abortion on the ballot this fall, given abortion rights advocates say that they do have the signatures to give voters a direct say on this issue, come November. My source tonight on what happens now. And what this means is Nancy Northup, the President and the CEO for the Center for Reproductive Rights. It's great to have you here, because I think, you know, just looking at this and from people are trying to kind of grasp that an 1864 law is soon going to be the law of the land. What does this mean for women in Arizona in two weeks?

NANCY NORTHRUP, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: Well, that's the most important point. It could be very devastating once it goes into effect and we don't actually know exactly when that's going to be, but very devastating. I mean, we've seen it in other states like Texas, and the other states that have banned abortion, that it makes it dangerous for anyone to be pregnant in the state of Arizona. It means if you have a pregnancy complication, your doctor is going to be worried about criminal prosecution, not how can they give you the best of care? So it is very, very, very significant. A horrible decision today from the Supreme Court of Arizona.

COLLINS: I mean, is there any other - just the idea that it is from the 1800s, before penicillin was a thing, before antibiotics were a thing, before women could even vote and really have a say in something like this, I think it kind of just blows your mind to think that that that is going to be the law, whether it's in two weeks, in 45 days, whenever the actual enforcement goes into place. I just think it's the premise of a law from the 1800s being what's going to govern this is kind of mind blowing?

NORTHRUP: Well, exactly. Neither the practice of medicine nor the rights of women in 1864 are what they should be today. So it is really problematic. But as you mentioned, Arizonans are going to have an opportunity, they should to be able to vote for abortion rights in November this year on the ballot. And that's absolutely huge. So everyone who's outraged by today's decision, should go to Arizonans for abortion access, and see what they can do to help get the rights back in Arizona.

COLLINS: Well, what does it mean in the practical term, though? Because the Attorney General for the state was saying, you know, that we're not going to prosecute doctors under this law. But I wonder realistically, what that means, because it could be challenged at the county level, I think when doctors are trying to make a decision about is the life of the mother at risk here, you know, if they delay care, you know, that can often lead to damaging, you know, consequences for these women, maybe potentially infertility even.

NORTHRUP: Yeah, I mean, it's an important statement by the Attorney General of Arizona, that she doesn't believe it should be prosecuted. But that doesn't allow for doctors and nurses and all the people that help with abortion care, be off the hook. Remember, this is a practice of medicine, medical malpractice insurance, your insurance has to be covered all of that. So it is deeply problematic if this law stays on the books. Again, which is why it's so important that everyone start focusing on what to do in November to get the right to abortion back in the state of Arizona.

COLLINS: Nancy Northup, I want you to stay with us because obviously this decision also was a massive political earthquake today and for the consequences of that what that could mean. We also have joining us, CNN Anchor and the host of the CNN podcast, The Assignment, Audie Cornish, and Irin Carmon, a senior correspondent for New York Magazine, and the author of the upcoming book, "Unbearable: Being pregnant in America."

And Audie, you know, we were just starting the show last night, with Donald Trump's vague statement about how he feels about abortions. He kind of thought that that took this issue off the table a lot for him. But - but I mean, I wonder what you make of how today's decision alters that?

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR & CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think one of the things you heard him say, a, he did allude to elections specifically. So he knows the stakes. And he knows that he doesn't think it's a winning issue for Republicans. But also the idea of leaving it to states is sort of a Roe era political decision in a post Dobbs political atmosphere, which means nobody is content to leave well enough alone at the state level, right?

If you are an anti-abortion activist, you want to go a little bit further, you want that restriction a little bit tighter all the way out, right. And if you are for abortion rights, you see the opportunity in the window to put this in front of voters. And finally make good on what you've been saying publicly, which is that people do support abortion rights to some degree and in many ways, and so no one has any incentive to back down here. I don't know how you feel about it, Irin?

COLLINS: Well, I mean, we're seeing you know, Arizona is now joining all these other states that have these really restrictive bans put in place where basically abortion is just not an option for women. And we've seen the political ramifications for that. I mean, there's a reason Republicans are freaking out today is because they know it is rewarded Democrats for the last few years.

IRIN CARMON, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I mean, if it isn't the consequences of their actions. For years, they have used this as a political ploy without fully grappling with the fact one that poll after poll even before any vote was taken shows that abortion rights are enormously popular in the United States.


And two, that the ramifications of these laws go from people who just want to not be pregnant, which was a constitutional right until Dobbs, all the way to people who very much wanted to be pregnant and need medical care. You mentioned, both of you talked about how doctors have to make this decision whether to put their career, their institutions, their lives on the line.

You know, imprisonment is at stake in the Arizona law. So I think we've people have actually seen in the last two years almost what these actually mean in practice before they were political, talking points that Republicans never actually had to suffer the real life ramifications of.

Now you have cases like those brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights in which women became septic, were bleeding out in parking lots, were denied even exceptions that would have qualified under the law. And people understand that. I mean, there's - there's a research showing that many individuals actually directly know someone who has been affected by these laws when we leave it to the states.

From a political standpoint, it also means that leaving it to the states becomes defined by the most extreme states such as Texas, and if this goes into effect, now in Arizona.

COLLINS: And I wonder how that works for Donald Trump Audie, because, you know, yesterday, he didn't make a mention, he was saying it should be left up to the states or that it will be left up to the states. But he did make a mention of the states that you know, what Arizona is going to have now, which is no exceptions for rape and incest.

CORNISH: Yeah, I mean, the list of things left out of that statement is actually quite long, right? It's not like he was talking about well, what about transferring medical abortion pills across state lines? What about state sovereignty laws? Does Texas's state or Arizona's state trump somebody else's if they crossed their lines?

What about enforcement? What about - what about - what about, that list doesn't end? And the truth is if there is a Trump second term, would the Chief of his FDA be for abortion rights, right? Like will the Chief of DOJ going after one state or another somehow, all of a sudden before abortion rights? I think the answer is no. And so it does kind of greenlight a whole pipeline of other decisions because he didn't really say what he won't or will do. Right?

It was just a vague sense of like, you know, this will take care of itself, when we know there is an active movement to supply his administration, a potential administration with people who do support these kinds of laws.

COLLINS: Well, I mean, is this something that you think we could see healthcare providers not wanting to practice in Arizona because of a law like this, if it stays in -

NORTHRUP: Absolutely, we've already seen it. In Idaho, they've lost half of their maternal fetal specialists have left the state. People are choosing not to practice obstetric care in states where there are abortion bans, because they cannot care for their patients, for all the needs of their patients. And so it is going to impact all of these states. It's also impacting everything in states like who wants to go there to work to begin with, because it's hard to live in a state where your decisions about your reproductive autonomy are not guaranteed.

COLLINS: Nancy Northrup, Audie Cornish, Irin Carmon, thank you all for being here tonight to talk about an incredibly important ruling from the Arizona Supreme Court. After the break we're going to go back to straight to The Source with the group that is fighting to restore the right to an abortion in Arizona. They have a ballot measure this November. Plus we'll have a reporter with today's scoop of a state's marquee Senate race. Covering it for months now. This decision today has just totally upended that race.




COLLINS: When Arizona enacted the near total abortion ban that is about to go into effect, women did not have a say, they couldn't even vote. But if our next source tonight achieves her goal, women will have their say on the ballot this November. Dawn Penich is helping lead the charge to get an abortion rights measure on the ballot. And she joins me now. And Dawn, it's great to have you especially on a day like today. And I know your group said that it had enough signatures to get on the ballot before today's ruling. But what has been the response that you've heard since then?

DAWN PENICH, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS: Well, I can tell you that the phones have been ringing off the hook of people who have certainly known about our measure for the last few months, but now with the news of this ruling, are newly energized, enraged and motivated to come out and sign petitions volunteer with our campaign. So this has definitely made ripples across the state.

COLLINS: And can you walk me through why you're waiting until July to turn the signatures in if you believe that you have enough now to get this on the ballot?

PENICH: In Arizona citizens initiatives go through a lot of legal challenges that happens to every type and we certainly anticipate that it will happen to ours where anti-abortion extremists, the opposition tried to throw out voter signatures. So for that reason, we want to collect about double what is required to really make sure that we leave no risk of not being on the November ballot.

COLLINS: OK, so you want to make sure that you have enough. I mean, do expect there to be a lot of challenges when it comes to you know, we've seen this happen in Ohio where it's the actual language that's in the measure on the ballot that sometimes you know, we heard critics say it's meant to confuse voters. I mean, what do you expect that to look like when it comes to November given what we're seeing, you know the difference in the importance of that measure by today's ruling?


PENICH: We have been prepared for lawsuits litigation from anti- abortion extremists since day one so we anticipate they will challenge our language, they will challenge our signatures, we feel very confident in both of those things. But that said, we don't want to leave any chances. And so we will be laser focused on succeeding in all of these legal steps and in signature collection, so that Arizona voters get to right this wrong. COLLINS: For you personally. I mean, you obviously believe that women should have this option given the fight to get this on the ballot. But I wonder how today changed your calculation in the sense of - of your drive to get this done?

PENICH: Well, we were always preparing for the worst, hoping for the best and today the worst happened. So we have always been motivated. But this definitely, yes, it ramps it up. It really drives it home. I've seen tears today, hugs. But after all of that, I've also seen people saying now I'm getting out there even harder than before, even more frequently collecting double the signatures I set out to collect. So people are very motivated.

COLLINS: Dawn Penich, it's great to hear from you and get that perspective tonight. We'll obviously be paying very close attention to this going forward. Thank you for your time.

PENICH: Thanks.

COLLINS: And this historic decision by the Supreme Court has just fundamentally altered the stakes of the state's Senate race. That race was already important. It could be one of the most important contests in determining control of that chamber. And I'm joined tonight by the Washington correspondent for New York Magazine, Olivia Nuzzi, who did some fantastic reporting on the ground for the last several months on this very race for her new article out today, Arizona's Split Reality and Olivia joins me now.

And you know, obviously, this was going to determine potentially the balance of power in the Senate anyway. You've spent months with Kari Lake who is the Republican candidate and Ruben Gallego, the Democrat. You know, how much do you think this blows up with that race was looking like? Did you ever hear them even talk about abortion when you were -

OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: No, they were mostly talking about the border and talking about immigration, the economy is a close second in terms of what Arizona voters say that they care most about next to the border. So those were the two major issues and abortion didn't really come up too much. But that will obviously change now.

COLLINS: Yeah, I mean, Ruben Gallego, you know, after Kari Lake was distancing herself from the decision saying she opposes it. He claimed that she's this extremist politician forcing herself into the doctor's office, ripping away the right for women to make their own healthcare decisions. I mean, just based on - on what you witnessed, what you saw, how will it change the race?

NUZZI: Well, I mean, the whole race is really Ruben Gallego saying, I'm a reasonable person. And Kari Lake is not a reasonable person. She's an extremist, as he said today, and Kari Lake saying basically the same thing about Ruben Gallego saying that Joe Biden and Ruben Gallego are one and the same, that they are responsible for any number of ills plaguing America from crime to the crisis at the border, and that everything is their fault.

So it's really just these two oppositional realities that they're both sort of proxies for.

COLLINS: And what did you hear, you know, when you go to their events, and you speak to voters and see how they're kind of taking in those oppositional realities.

NUZZI: The people that show up to events for politicians are typically, you know, leaning towards that politician. They're - they're not like your average voter. Most normal people don't go to a politician speech in the middle of a workday or something, which is when they're often held.

But it was interesting. I was with Kari Lake in Green Valley, which is about 40 miles from the border. And she was speaking to Matt Schlapp and Mercedes Schlapp, Matt Schlapp from CPAC. And they both worked for the Trump campaign. They're trying to get her elected. And I didn't think too much of this at the time, but it made me think of it today when I heard Kari Lake say during her governor's race, that they had a great law on the books.

And she was asked a question about inflation. And it wasn't that she couldn't answer it, it was like she did not want to have to talk about it. And she kept nudging Matt Schlapp to take the question for her. And eventually he seemed to get the point. And he answered the question. And I just thought today, it seemed like a remarkable shallowness to her understanding of policy.

And she's been able to get away so far being this sort of mega celebrity, being a very shallow campaigner, and it's all about optics, and it's all about how much she is like Donald Trump. And I don't know if that's going to work now.

COLLINS: Well, there was that interesting moment where Steve Bannon was kind of watching her give a speech and she's been moderating her behavior or language to a degree, I would say and I mean, we're seeing that happen today with now how she's totally reversing how she feels about it. But you kind of had this way that you summed up speaking with her as you always have a way with words. You said talking to Kari Lake feels like performing open heart surgery on a balloon animal.

NUZZI: It's not easy.

COLLINS: What - I mean what is it that for people who are well versed and maybe haven't seen her, what makes it so hard?

NUZZI: She's got - they've got a camera over your shoulder the whole time. Her husband is her cinematographer and in fairness you're recording the interview as a reporter so they want to record it as well. By all means.


You don't really have a good argument against it. It's just a little awkward. And the threat is that if it doesn't go well, in their words, they will release the tape and you will sort of be party to this active -

COLLINS: I mean she also did a search on you before you interviewed her. She printed out everything that you had.

NUZZI: She does do some research.

COLLINS: She said about Donald Trump.

NUZZI: Yeah, she did. It was - it was - I've been in that situation before, as you can imagine, precisely that situation. So it wasn't that surprising. And I was sort of expecting, she wants to draw you into a fight so that she can sort of present that Kari Lake just like Donald Trump is under attack by the liberal media. And so the whole game when you're interviewing her not totally dissimilar to what Trump is, you're trying not to activate her and set her off and allow her to kind of drag you into a back and forth that will make for good content.

COLLINS: Olivia Nuzzi, it's great reporting and very timely with what happened today. Thank you for joining us tonight.

Speaking of Donald Trump, his fate is soon going to be in the hands of 12 everyday New Yorkers here. How will they be chosen and why? My next guest says that the jury selection process is not pickleball. It's warfare.




COLLINS: Donald Trump's attempts to delay his criminal hush money case here in New York have now been denied twice in two days which mean right now barring any other delay tactics that could be successful, this historic trial is set to kick off next week, next Monday. And it all is going to start with jury selection. Maybe that doesn't sound like it's going to be a fundamental part of this process.

But it will, because 12 people are going to be picked out of a pool of hundreds of New Yorkers. And those 12 people will eventually determine the innocence or the guilt of the first former U.S. president to ever face a criminal prosecution, making it a jury selection like no other or in the words of my next guest, this is not some casual game of pickleball This is warfare. Elie Honig is here. He is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

So he knows a thing or two about juries. And I mean, you know, just the idea that there are hundreds of potential jurors, they're all people that have, I would say pretty probably well-formed opinions of Donald Trump. How do you pick a jury for Donald Trump?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So Kaitlan, a grizzled old tough defense lawyer said to me when I was a brand new prosecutor, he said jury selections, the whole ballgame. And I later learned he's right. So here's how this is going to work. We're going to start with a panel of several 100 potential jurors.

The judges said he's going to ask them first of all, do any of you have hardships? And I don't just mean do you have a job? But do you have some reason you cannot serve over the next several weeks, and the judges said he's going to essentially let them all go, then we're going to get into the questionnaire. And at this point, the lawyers are going to start their strategy games, trying to figure out who's who.

After the questionnaires are filled out, you're going to see some jurors removed by the judge what we call for cause meaning, they're just too biased. They can't put aside their strong feelings for or against Donald Trump. And then the real strategy game is each side gets 10 what we call peremptory strikes, meaning you can remove up to 10 people for almost any reason, not racially discriminatory reason, but almost any reason and you have to be so careful with those because those peremptory challenges are like gold. That is the best way you can protect your jury.

COLLINS: And you only get 10 of those?

HONIG: Yes, 10 each.

COLLINS: OK, so you're looking through this. I mean, jurors aren't stupid. They know why you're asking them these questions. What if they just say, no, I don't have strong opinions about this. Feasibly they could, right?

HONIG: So much of this is a game of instincts and your gut, what your gut tells you. I mean, first of all, you got to start with a questionnaire, right? You need to see what their responses are. And if I'm looking at this questionnaire, there's a question on there, the number 34 that basically says, do you have any biases that are so strong that you cannot possibly be a fair juror in this case, either way?

Now, if anyone answers yes to that, they're gone. But plenty of people are going to answer no to that, because they're going to think, well, maybe I have biases, but I can still be fair, but I'd be very skeptical of that. And so there are other questions on the questionnaire that I think are telling.


HONIG: What media sources did you have? Are you a member of any organizations? And I will tell you, you just look at the person, what are they wearing? Are they holding a book? What are they reading? You're trying to read into everything you can about this person to get some read on them?

COLLINS: Did you ever get to the end of a trial and kind of want to kick yourself because that one person was the one juror that upended your efforts?

HONIG: You are bringing back a memory. I had one specific case.

COLLINS: I'm just asking. I don't actually know the answer.

HONIG: This is good. You're tapping in here. Yeah. I did one case. It was of John Gotti. I can say John Gotti Jr. and the jury ended up hanging and we had a juror who was a teacher. And we thought it was great for us. We thought she was leading the charge towards conviction. She was nodding when I gave my closing argument. It turned out she was dead set against us the whole way and she was sort of the reason the jury hung.

So yeah, it's not easy. And I made a mistake there. Here we are years later, I still remember that. But that's the stakes in this case. You make one mistake, you'll be talking about a six years from now.

COLLINS: She was nodding and you thought you had her. She knew what she was doing.

HONIG: I don't know what she meant. Why was she nodding? I don't know. I still can't believe it.

COLLINS: Will you follow it up with her? Well, we'll bring her on next. Elie Honig, thank you.

We do have some breaking news this hour as the former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is defending his role and bringing back Donald Trump from the political wilderness after January 6. This is at a Georgetown University event that we've been monitoring tonight. It was focused on American democracy. But McCarthy pushed back out an audience member who asked if he felt to any degree that he had turned his back on democracy because as the way this questioner put it, McCarthy went to Mar-a-Lago and quote, stood beside a person who after many frivolous lawsuits were thrown out.


You said this is still the guy who should be leading our party.


KEVIN MCCARTHY, (R) FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Did I go to Mar-a-Lago? Yes. But that hadn't - I didn't say that at Mar-a-Lago for that basis, right? So that's not true. I also have another philosophy. Whether I like you or dislike you, if something bad happens in your life, I want to be the first person to call you.

Now you can play anything you want into me going to Mar-a-Lago, but I simply got a phone call. And I was down there doing a fundraiser, when I come by and see the president.


COLLINS: I'm joined now by Adam Kinzinger, who served on the congressional January 6 committee and is a senior political commentator here at CNN, and Congressman, when you listen to that, where he was saying, you know, he's the kind of person who just goes to check on friends. How do you hear that? ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's pathetic. It's

pathetic. I mean, look, I'm not saying this for sympathy. But during the January 6 stuff, my family and I were getting death threats. Do you know how many times I heard as a former friend of Kevin McCarthy from Kevin McCarthy? None. Instead he called Liz Cheney and I, Pelosi Republicans. You know, Kevin McCarthy went to Mar-a-Lago, Kaitlan, for one reason.

He needed to become speaker. And he knew that he didn't have time to take out the MAGA. And if he wanted to when he needed him, so he went down to enlist the help of Donald Trump for fundraising, which Donald Trump helped him with, and to get Donald Trump on his side as a political player so he could become speaker. That's it.

And in that process, it was like an ambulance showing up to a person in cardiac arrest. He took the paddles to Donald Trump and brought him back to political life. And this, by the way, is just a few weeks after he said that Donald Trump was responsible for January 6, after a Capitol police officer died on January 6, after numerous Capitol police officers were assaulted and beat up on January 6.

But he has no choice because he made his bed. Now we has to lay in it. And he is lying to himself in the American people by saying that's why he went.

COLLINS: Well, there was also you know, the photo that came out. I mean, that was how so many of us knew about this meeting was there was the photo of the two of them together that we're showing it right now, that really kind of seemed to also resurrect Trump at a time when a lot of Republicans were turning their backs on him.

KINZINGER: Look, I'm going to tell you in the conference, so in the Republican House members, at least I know this, there was shock when that photo appeared. I was on several text chains with members of Congress, including those that voted to impeach, shocked that Kevin went to Mar-a-Lago.

Liz Cheney writes about this in her book, where she then called Kevin, and he said he went down because Trump wasn't eating. He told the rest of us that he went down because he just happened to be there on a fundraiser and he wanted to see a friend. But we know now because just after he visited Donald Trump, there was a fundraising website that came up that Kevin McCarthy launched, called Trump's Majority, focused on getting the Republican majority, not the Republican majority, Trump's Majority.

He knew exactly what he was doing. And now he's trying - you got to have a much bigger pen to rewrite this history than standing in front of Georgetown students lying to them because they can see right through this.

COLLINS: I forgot about that. Liz Cheney, the Liz Cheney quote in her book that he told her it was because Trump wasn't eating. Adam Kinzinger, thank you for hopping on with us so quickly on this breaking news.


COLLINS: Another story we're covering here tonight at The Source is this new and disturbing police body camera video that came out today. It shows the chaos leading up to that deadly shooting that has been in the news. A police sergeant is here to break it down with us. Even if the suspect did fire first, as police are now saying 96 shots and 41 seconds, is that too much? We'll talk about it right after a quick break.



COLLINS: 96 shots in 41 seconds. That's how many times Chicago police fired during a deadly traffic stop. Tonight new body cam video shows the moment that officers encountered Dexter Reed, a 26 year old black man. Police say that he was pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt. And as you'll see on the body cam video the situation quickly escalates. I do want to warn you that what you're about to see is difficult to watch.

But we're showing it to you because there are growing questions tonight over what actually happened in the amount of firepower that is coming from these officers.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Roll the windows down.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roll the window down, man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Roll the window down. What are you doing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh this will not -

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Roll that one down too. Hey, don't roll the window up. Don't roll the window up.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do not roll the window up. Unlock the doors now. Unlock the doors now. Unlock the doors now. Open the door now. Open the door now. Open the door now. (GUNSHOTS) (inaudible) Shots fired. Shots fired. (inaudible) neighbors. 10-1-10-1. (GUNSHOTS) (GUNSHOTS) Shots fired. Let me see your hands. Let me see your hands. Hands. Hey, is everyone good?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need an ambulance. An officer is hit.


COLLINS: Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability says the officers were returning fire after Reed fired the first shot - first shot. But from CNN's review of the footage, it is not immediately clear who fired first here. What we do know is that Reed was found face down behind his car and had been struck multiple times. He was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

Police found a gun inside of his car in the front passenger seat. Joining me tonight to talk about what we just saw there is retired LAPD Police Sergeant Cheryl Dorsey and Sergeant Dorsey, you know, when you hear the 96 shots that were fired in those 41 seconds, what questions does it raise for you, given what we are told by police tonight that this was all just over a traffic stop of someone they say who wasn't wearing a seatbelt?

SGT. CHERYL DORSEY (RET), LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, listen, as a patrol supervisor, myself and someone who's had to evaluate uses of force, what I hear is overkill. I hear officers who are seemingly didn't have a tactical plan, number one.

Number two, weren't assessing whether or not there was even a threat and does it still exist. We're told that they fired 96 Shots. And so I don't know how many rounds each officer carries. But let's just do the math and say each officer has the ability to carry 15 rounds in a magazine in their duty weapon and they fire all 15 rounds. That means somebody reloaded their weapon and continued to fire. So where was the threat?

What was the exigent circumstance that caused this initial gunfire to erupt in the first place? Now we know officer said he shot first. They were creating an audio record. We don't know that to be true. But if you are concerned about a guy who's not wearing his seatbelt in a car with tinted black windows, why not get a position of cover and concealment officer and order him out the car?

What's the exigent circumstance where there had to be an OIS to begin with?

COLLINS: Yeah, and I should note that these officers that you see there, they're on an administrative - administrative leave right now, while this is all being investigated, and there are - it's 30 days right now as this investigation is going at away. And we're hearing from Dexter Reed's family, including his mom today, and they believe that charges should be brought. This is what she had to say.


NICOLE BANKS, DEXTER REED'S MOTHER: He was just rattling around in his car. He's said mom, look where we're at and they killed him. They killed him.


COLLINS: You know, when you hear from the mother, but you also know that multiple agencies are investigating this. I mean, what does this investigation look like? And how do they decide if those actions were warranted or whether or not charges are warranted here? DORSEY: Officers are taught to use only that force necessary to

overcome resistance. And I don't know what resistance they were overcoming as we can hear a pause in the gunfire, and then we hear them continue to shoot again. So that's problematic. But it's also problematic that this individual had a gun in his car.

I mean, that doesn't help the scenario. Why is he running around with a gun in his car to begin with, because now it looks like there's culpability on both sides to go around. So I don't know what this investigation is ultimately going to glean. I don't know if it's going to be a training issue for the officers who are assigned to this tactical unit. It sounds like a specialized unit.

Did they have a plan? Did they have a designated shooter? Should they get into a shoot-don't shoot scenario? Why were all five officers shooting their guns to almost barrel meltdown in this situation? over someone not wearing a seatbelt? It's all over the top for me.

COLLINS: Yeah, we do know an officer was shot, injured. I mean, there are just still so many questions around this entire police video tonight. Sergeant Dorsey, we will obviously continue to have this conversation. Thank you for joining us tonight.

DORSEY: Thank you.

COLLINS: There was a message from the families of American hostages after meeting with the Vice President today. We need results, they said. We're going to take you inside that meeting with a parent and someone who was there to speak with the Vice President and other top officials right after a quick break.




COLLINS: (inaudible) comments out of the White House tonight as President Biden is offering really his sharpest criticism yet of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the way that he is handling the war in Gaza, including after the killings of those seven world Central Kitchen Aid workers by Israeli airstrikes.


JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think what he's doing is a mistake. I don't agree with his - I think it's outrageous that those four - three vehicles were hit by drones and taken out on a highway where it wasn't like, it was along the shore. It wasn't like it was a convoy moving or et cetera.


COLLINS: That interview was released today is the families of hostages who are still being held by Hamas met with Vice President Kamala Harris at the White House. They have been tirelessly demanding results and their efforts to secure the release of all of the hostages. Joining me here tonight is Ruby Chen who was at that White House meeting. His 19 year old son, Itay, an Israeli American was killed by Hamas on October 7, something we've recently learned from the IDF.

And Ruby it's great to have you back here and I want to talk about your - your son. But first off when you hear these comments from President Biden today saying that that he thinks is Prime Minister Netanyahu has made mistakes, I wonder what you make of that.


RUBY CHEN, MET WITH VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS AT THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY: First of all, evening 186. 186 days of hell that we've been going through And I met the Vice President with other families and we heard from the vice president unwavering commitment, and the administration to the release of the hostages. And I think that's where we are focused on in our discussions with the administration.

COLLINS: Do you - is there any hope you know on that? Because you know, now we are at that six month mark. And I wonder when you have those conversations, like you did in the room with the vice president today, if there is anything, that they can update you, anything of substance that they have on, on the progress these talks have been making.

CHEN: Yeah, so we also had the opportunity to meet Mr. Jake Sullivan, yesterday. And he gave us more or less an update where, at least to our understanding, the offer that the U.S. put on the table with the components that were updated, the Israeli side accepted almost all of the components and Egypt and Qatar, also believe that this is a fair deal. And now, it's on Hamas.

And if Sinwar wants to stop the war that is going on, it's very simple. To stop the fact that people are getting still killed every day in Gaza. That is - is very, very disappointing. And we feel for the Palestinian people. He needs to accept the deal. It's pretty simple.

COLLINS: I wonder what you think when you - you know, he's one of the leaders of Hamas, he's the one you know, who kind of has this offer in his hands. We were talking to Dan Senor, the other day, and he was saying that, that what they have heard and their sense of things is that Hamas actually feels like they have momentum on their side, because of all of the international criticism of Israel and the pressure on Netanyahu and how this war is being conducted.

They were actually arguing that they feel like Hamas maybe feels like they have the, I guess the upper hand is how you would put it.

CHEN: I think that's really unfortunate that that is the analysis. This is one of the things that we the families reiterated to the administration that let's not forget how they started. Let's not forget the fact that they have 15 different nationalities being held in captivity for over six months. It's not an Israel issue, it's not even a U.S. issue. It's an international community issue. And I think the international community needs to come together and

remember that fact and put all the pressure that it can on Hamas, to end this madness, and to end this humanitarian crisis that is going on in Gaza, including the fact that there have been over six months, 133 hostages that were abducted, kidnapped, with no visitation rights, no doctors seeing them.

This needs to end. And that's one simple way to - to make it end and to get a ceasefire. Sinwar and Hamas, ISIS need to release all the hostages, the living and the deceased. What type of savages take bodies and hold them as negotiation chips? Is that, you know, Islam? Does that the type of thing that people do? I find it hard to find anyone that believes that's - no way to respect the dead, that will take in as negotiation chips.

COLLINS: And I mean, it's been six months now that we've now learned that that your son was killed by Hamas, and I know you were so fiercely proud of him. I remember the first time that you and I met when we were talking about him. And I know that getting his body back is very important to you. Have you gotten any updates on that effort?

CHEN: I met today with some law enforcement agencies here in Washington that gave me an update. And they are relentless. And they claim that the U.S. has long (inaudible) and Itay unfortunately joined 43 additional U.S. citizens that were killed on October 7, and I would hope that the U.S. public numbers, the fact that 44 citizens were killed by Hamas, ISIS, and justice needs to be seen on that point.

COLLINS: Ruby, I mean, I just there's no words, and there's not really much that we can - we can say but I am grateful that you're able to come on and talk about this and also of course to talk about your son in his memory.

CHEN: Thank you. Good evening.

COLLINS: Just one last note, Ruby also reminded us he's always carrying around an hourglass he's been carrying it around since October Seven.