Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TONIGHT

New Questions About President Trump's Son-in-Law Jared Kushner; Jury Acquits the Officer who Killed Philando Castile. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 21, 2017 - 23:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:00:16] DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Our breaking news not exactly something the President wants to hear.

This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

New questions about President Trump's son in-law, Jared Kushner, and why he still has his security clearance and demands for more information from disgraced national security advisor, Michael Flynn.

Plus we have seen it with our own eyes so why did the jury acquit the officer who killed Philando Castille? Is there a different standard when a police is the one pulling the trigger?

I want to get right to our CNN political commentators Matt Lewis and David Swerdlick with the political news of the day.

Good evening, gentlemen.

David, you first. The President was in front of a crowd tonight, gleeful about the republican victory in the Georgia sixth. Take a listen to him attacking the Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And their plan isn't working because they thought they were going to win last night in Atlanta. They thought they were going to win. And they have been unbelievably nasty, really nasty. And they thought they spent close to $30 million on this kid, who forgot to live in the community that he was in. I mean, you know. We are 5-0. And they thought they were going to win at least like three, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So the President is crawling but the Democrats did take a big hit. What's the fallout, David?

DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, and the President should be crawling, right? I mean, if you are the Republican President and Republicans have won the specials in Montana, Kansas in Georgia and South Carolina, then you are entitled to take a victory lap. On the other hand the Democrats can and probably should point out that

the previous Republican office holders in those Republican districts won their districts by double digits in all of these races Montana, Kansas and Georgia last night. They were single digit victories for the Republican candidate. And Democrats did pick up the one special that was in a Democratic district. No one has mentioned, Jimmy Gomez in East Los Angeles who won California's 34th district, a solemnly Democratic district.

So right now each party has held serve. It happens to be the case that for Republicans most of the specials have been Republican districts and you wouldn't expect President Trump to do anything else other than reinforce the narrative that he's in control and his party remains firmly in control.

LEMON: Matt Lewis, President also talked about the health care bill which we expect to see tomorrow. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If we went and got the single greatest health care plan in the history of the world, we would not get one Democrat vote because they are obstructionists. They are obstructionists. We wouldn't get one Democrat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: He is blaming Democrats but of course it's Republican votes that he actually needs, right?

MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. Look, I think he is right in the sense that, yes, he is not going to get any Democratic votes. And they have decided to be obstructionists. But he didn't ask for their votes. He didn't seek their votes. I mean, they are trying to pass this health care bill through reconciliation which means just be damn with the party line vote and just Republicans. But even Republican senators don't even know what is going to (INAUDIBLE). Not only is- or Democrats be kept on guard.

LEMON: Well, that was my question. He needs Republican votes so he is saying the Democrats but he needs his own party to get on board.

LEWIS: And he may not have that, you know. I mean, he can only afford to lose, you know, one or two and then it's over. So it's going to be tight.

LEMON: David, to Matt's point, next to no one has even seen this bill. But there's some indication money for Planned Parenthood will be stripped. Will that kill the bill?

SWERDLICK: I think certainly if there was any chance of getting democratic votes as you were just talking about, that would certainly kill that chance if there was any chance of that at all. It will make it tougher for some moderate Republicans to vote for the bill but I think Republicans -- both parties are locking arms and staying in lock step with pushing forward with their versions of health care. Democrats are not going to support this. And Republicans I think are going to come under tremendous pressure to support the bill even though you have some moderates out there who will not want to put any more pressure on Planned Parenthood funding. Right now, the party is facing litmus tests from their bases in both directions.

LEMON: There's something curious that he said about rich people in his cabinet. I want to play and get your response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have the legendary Wall Street genius, Wilbur Ross here. He is our secretary of commerce. We have Gary Cohen, who the President of Goldman Sachs. So somebody said why did you appoint the rich person to be in charge of the economy? I said -- no, it's true. And Wilbur is a very rich person in charge of commerce. I said because that's the kind of thinking we want.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:28] LEMON: David, what's wrong with poor people?

SWERDLICK: Nothing's wrong with poor people, Don. But I will just say this about the President's messaging here that I think Democrats should think a little bit about which is this. Yes, there was a ton of talk about income and equality in the election on both sides. President Trump went out of his way to criticize Goldman Sachs types when he was campaigning for President. But he understands something which is that American's fundamentally identify with wealthy people.

I wrote a column when I was at "the Root" before I was at the "Washington Post" where I said President Obama should remind people that he is a millionaire. Americans, for better or worse, like millionaires and it resonates with all of us this idea of people who have money understand something about money and economy whether or not there's any substance to that. President Trump knows that. He is playing to it. And I'm not saying Democrats should emulate him, but they really ought to understand that's what's working for the President.

LEMON: Go ahead, Matt. What do you think?

LEWIS: Yes. OK, so I agree that there is an aspiration thing that Americans, we all want to believe that we are going to be millionaires someday so we don't have this class warfare that other countries have. But I would say I disagree slightly. Mitt Romney was attacked and I think was hurt by the fact that he came across as this rich out of touch guy. That's why Donald Trump's strategy is so much better. You own it. Don't run away from it. Own it. And that is what Trump is doing. I think that is what is brilliant about it. Of course we have money. We rich. Of course, we want to make America rich too.

LEMON: Yes.

SWERDLICK: Don, Mitt Romney was seen as aloof. That is right. Mitt Romney was seen as aloof, was seen as trying to down play the fact that he had been was very successful, likewise with President Obama. Whereas as Matt is saying, President Trump is sort of the people's billionaire or at least that's what he wants people to think about him. Again, that doesn't mean it's going to put money on the average person's pocket or create jobs. But it is a message that has worked and I think will continue to work.

LEMON: Well, some of the smartest people I know I have to say are not millionaires and their aspiration is not to be a millionaire. So it just struck me as a little bit odd for saying that. It so happen I don't see anything wrong with being a working class person. I just don't.

OK, gentlemen. Thank you. I appreciate it.

SWERDLICK: Thank you.

LEWIS: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: Joining me now is a Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Senator, thank you so much for joining us. Some of your colleagues tonight are asking that President's son in law and Jared Kushner's security clearance be suspended because he failed to report dozens of meetings with foreign leaders on his security application, including four with the Russians. You agree with that?

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: I have actually read that letter joined by two of my colleagues, (INAUDIBLE) calling on the federal intelligence committee to review that security clearance. Why? Because Jared Kushner had clandestine meetings with a man named Gorkov, Sergey Gorkov, who is head of the Russian bank with close ties to Russian intelligence as well as Putin. And second, his request for back channel communications with the Russians through their own diplomatic facilities. And so I have joined with my colleagues as well Elijah Cummings on a House to say his security clearance, Jared Kushner's clearance ought to be reviewed.

LEMON: So speaking of that Elijah Cummings, you guys are also seeking documents relating to why Michael Flynn was allowed to keep his security clearance, even though the White House was warned that he could be blackmailed. Should he have been allowed to go to top secret briefings?

BLUMENTHAL: There is no way that he should have been permitted in the same room with the President of the United States when the President was briefed by the CIA director about classified or clandestine or secret activities by the United States. And the risk was that he would be blackmailed by the Russians because they knew of discussion and other connections that he had denied on security clearance core that subjected him to possible criminal penalties. They had him in the palm of their hand and yet he was meeting with the

President, receiving classified information. And also, the President's reactions to that classified information.

You know, going back to December, I warned about my Michael Flynn and asked for a security clearance review of him as well because there were public information and other indications that were clear warnings, as well as then behind the scenes, Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general warning the administration 18 days before he --.

[23:10:20] LEMON: Do you think you will get those documents at your request?

BLUMENTHAL: Maybe not right away. But eventually this administration is go having to come clean with the American people. And as difficult as it may be to say I think there are increasing indications of an obstruction of justice, a thickening cloud over this administration and possible conspiracy involving others at the White House, more than just the people who were dealing with Michael Flynn but others who may have been involved in this conspiracy who obstruct that just because remember, here is the really important point, the President of the United States went to director Comey and asked him to let Flynn go. And the big question is what did Flynn have on the President? What information could he provide if he is cooperating and I think likelihood is he is cooperating?

LEMON: What gives you that sort of certainty?

BLUMENTHAL: Certainty, no, but likelihood, yes. And the reason is that the silence of Flynn, the fact that certain subpoenas were issued in certain ways to certain people in the eastern district of Virginia, the main fact is his mounting potential culpability and a serious penalties of the cases. He lied to the government on a number of occasions about his contacts with the Russians, payments by the Russians to him and by other foreign powers and those denials and false hoods create serious criminal culpability and potential imprisonment. And so it's in his interest to be cooperative if he is fully forthcoming and truthful.

LEMON: The special counsel, Robert Mueller was up on the Hill today coordinating with the leadership of the senate judiciary committee about how to avoid potential conflicts. What can you tell us? I know you can't tell us, you know, a lot. And you can't share a lot. But what can you tell us about that? Are there going to be conflicts, you think?

BLUMENTHAL: These potential conflicts can be avoided. That was the purpose of the meeting that took place in the capitol. And I think not only can they be avoided, they must be avoided and the judiciary committee has an absolutely essential role in overseeing the department of justice to look into obstruction of justice in the firing of Jim Comey. It's really that bluntly simple. The firing of Jim Comey raised questions about potential obstruction of justice, interference, political intrusion in a lawful investigation.

LEMON: So you think that it's going to include obstruction of justice as part of this probe.

BLUMENTHAL: I think, as the chairman said today, everything is on the table. And I think it will be included whether it's call back at the outset or simply political interference with an investigation, it has to be included. LEMON: All right. Let me ask you about this -- the health care bill.

Details will be released by tomorrow. That is what we are hearing. What did you expect? And what do you think of how Republicans have handled the process?

BLUMENTHAL: The process has been an absolute disgrace. A shameful combination of secrecy and speed, which is a toxic recipe and it has refused to hear from ordinary Americans. I heard an emergency field hearing on health care in my state capital. And we had hundreds of people come on very short notice, couldn't even fit all of them in a room and I presented their testimony on the floor of the Senate today. That's the kind of listening that should be done.

And from what we are learning about this bill, it reflects that atrocity of process because it will throw millions of Americans under the bus. It stripped them of potential Medicaid coverage. And it is really a disgraceful term for the greatest country in the history of the planet.

LEMON: Senator Blumenthal, thank you.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.

LEMON: When we come back the President saying tonight he hopes Senate Republicans' health care bill will have heart. But will it? We will have some new details on what is in this House secret legislation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:18:06] LEMON: Picture we showed you the speech from Iowa tonight. This is Joint-Base Andrews air force one landing just a short time ago. There are the steps the President should be departing soon. So it usually takes a minute to get off the plane. We just want to show you that President now back returning to Washington and the White House.

White House staffers briefed on Capitol Hill tonight on the Senate's health care bill which is set to be unveiled tomorrow. But we all know how the last GOP health care worked out.

Let's discuss. Scott Jennings is here. He is a former special assistant to former President George W. Bush. And Karine Jean-Pierre, national spokesperson for moveon.org.

Good evening to both of you.

Karine, we know President Trump called the House pass bill mean. And a son of a bitch, and that is his words, the president said that the Senate version needed heart. But tonight we learn in the Senate GOP that there is a three year phase-out of the Medicaid expansion program that starts in 2021. Also as in the house bill, Planned Parenthood will be defunded for a year. Doesn't seem like a lot of heart.

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON FOR MOVEON.ORG: That's exactly right, Don. I think if the house bill was mean, the Senate bill seems to be very cruel. You are talking about gutting Medicaid to give wealthy people taxes. That is - I mean, tax cuts? That's what he was talking about here. And Senate Republicans are going to have to decide which side of history do they want to be on? Do they want to the side of history that raises health care for our most vulnerable? Is that what they're talking about here? And to do it in secret on top of that with Mitch McConnell leading the way, 13 men behind closed doors? This is not the way to do this. This is unusual and not normal.

LEMON: Yes. While the President taking a victory lap tonight and was really happy about the victory down in Georgia in the sixth and now he is back in Washington to face the reality of what he is got to do with health care and also on the Russia investigation.

Let's a little bit more about what supposedly in this bill that no one has seen, Scott Jennings. Other details we know tonight include a repeal of the individual mandate of the affordable care act and the (INAUDIBLE) taxes that form the funding for Obamacare. Is that heart?

[23:20:25] SCOTT JENNINGS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, heart is a nebulous thing to try to define and to quantify. But here is some things you can't quantify. You have got state governments who are seeing huge budgetary problems all over this country to cover the Medicaid expansion. That's why they are having to deal with that.

They have governors who are screaming about this. They don't know how to pay for what was left behind for them. We are dealing here in Kentucky where I sit tonight. The Medicaid expansion made up about 85 percent of everybody who got covered under Obamacare. And the state is about to be on the hook for this. And there is no money to pay for it. So that is an issue.

They are also wrestling with the fact that in addition to the people who are worried about the expansion, you have got people whose premiums have sky rocketed and with deductibles have gone up so they can't really afford the health issuance plan they have. And it doesn't even feel at times like insurance at all because their deductibles are so high.

So I don't know how you measure heart, but I know how you measured dollars and cents. And there is a lot of working families hurting in this country because their premiums have sky rocketed and there is a lot of taxpayers at the state level who are hurting as well.

LEMON: I spoke with Ohio Democrat, Representative Tim Ryan earlier this evening and he said some very interesting things about the party and about Nancy Pelosi. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: You think Nancy Pelosi is more toxic than Donald Trump?

REP. TIM RYAN (D), OHIO: You know what the honest answer is in some areas of the country, yes, she is. That's the honest answer.

LEMON: Why so? RYAN: I just think first, as unfair as it is, there have been a lot

of people that have spent a lot of money running negative ads against her. And I think that in certain areas like in some of these special election districts, it doesn't benefit our candidates to be tied to her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Karine, that was just a small part of what the congressman said about the Democratic Party and ABOUT Nancy Pelosi as well. What do you make of his remarks? Does he have a point?

JEAN-PIERRE: Well, look. What he is talking about is an old play book that Republicans have been doing for a long time. There is nothing new here. I think what Democrats need to do is find a better play book. They need define themselves can this or going to have to figure out who - what their message is, who they are. It can't just be attacking Trump. You have to have hope at the same time and figure out how to walk and chew gum and define yourself before the Republicans do.

LEMON: But do you think Nancy Pelosi is toxic to the party because down in Georgia and in some parts they are running against Nancy Pelosi and it is working.

JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, but Georgia - but Don, Georgia was a deep red state. It wasn't a state for Democrats in the first place. It was a Republican plus eight district. It was a gerrymandered district that was meant for Republicans to hold on to. So that is not the same for us - that is not even a district for us that we would be normally playing in.

When you look at 2018, there are 93 other districts that are actually better for us that Democrats can compete in, in 2018. So I just -- to me the comparison is just not there.

LEMON: Scott Jennings, are Democrats listening to their brethren or should they be listening more because Karine said it's an old Republican play book and, you know, that's is her warning there? Don't put so much in --.

JENNINGS: Where I come from there's an old saying it is called it might be an oldie but it's a goody. In the end, the old play book of tying Nancy Pelosi to these Democratic candidates has work time and again. It works every cycle and it is because Nancy Pelosi's values are way out of line with virtually every other congressional district in this country except the one she represents.

And so, as long as she is setting the agenda for the Democratic conference in the House, that is going to be great because most people in this country are well inside of her, you know, when it comes to being on the political spectrum. She has weighed to the left. Most people are center/center right and they don't share Pelosi's values.

I find it amazing the Democrats today are saying, we should have won this (INAUDIBLE). It is not meant for us to compete there. Then why in the heck did they spend $30 million trying to win this district. That is a convenient excuse today. But that wasn't the tune they were singing a week ago. And for them to take back the house, they are go to have to compete in some districts that Republicans currently hold. That excuse is not going to hold water and if I were Democrat donor and hearing that excuse today, I would be hopping mad.

LEMON: I will give you the last word but I got less than 20 seconds, Karine.

JEAN-PIERRE: Republicans spent $18 million in that district as well in Georgia. Just to be clear here, everybody spent money on both sides. Look, it's not going to be the same in 2018. Special elections are just a snap shot in the moment. And I think what we do learn, what Democrats did learn from this is that we are going to have a lot of places to play in, in 2018.

[23:25:06] LEMON: Karine and Scott, thank you so much.

JEAN-PIERRE: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: When we come back the police dash camvideo of Philando Castile shooting released. We are going to show that disturbing video along with the Facebook footage stream lived from inside the car during the shooting so you can see exactly what happened from both points of view.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:29:49] LEMON: I wants you to sit down and watch this because it is shocking, a shocking dash cam video. It's been released of the fatal police shooting of Philando Castile last year.

Few people had seen the video. It was shown in court during the trial of Officer Jeronimo Yanez who was acquitted at the killing of Castile.

You probably remember the Facebook live video taken inside the car by Philando Castile's girlfriend. Well tonight, we have edited those two videos together showing you ever angle so you can judge for yourself what happened. But I have to warn you this is very graphic and it is difficult to watch. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[23:30:31] OFFICER JERONIMO YANEZ, ACQUITTED IN KILLING PHILADO CASTILE: Don't move, don't move.

PHILANDO CASTILE, VICTIM: How are you?

YANEZ: Good. The reason I pulled you over it your brake lights are on so you only have one active brake light. That's your passenger side one. Your third brake light which is up here on top and then this one back here, that is going to be out. You have a license sir?

CASTILE: Sir, have to tell you I do have a firearm in me.

YANEZ: OK. Don't reach for it then. CASTILE: I'm not pulling it out.

YANEZ: Don't pull it out.

DIAMOND REYNOLDS, CASTILE'S GIRLFRIEND: You just killed my boyfriend.

CASTILE: I wasn't reaching.

YANEZ: Don't pull it out.

REYNOLDS: He wasn't.

YANEZ: Don't move.

REYNOLDS: Oh man, I can't believe you just did that.

YANEZ: YANEZ: Don't move.

REYNOLDS: Oh, my God. I'm shaking.

YANEZ: Don't move.

REYNOLDS: Don't move, baby.

YANEZ: Code three! Get the baby girl out here.

REYNOLDS: We got pulled over for a busted tail light in the back and the police, he is covered. He killed my boyfriend. He is licensed to carry. He was trying to get out his ID and his wallet out his pocket and he let the officer know that he was where he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet. And the officer just shot him in his arm. We are waiting for back up. I will, sir. No worries. He just shot him arm off. We got pulled over.

YANEZ: I told him not to reach for it.

REYNOLDS: You told him to get his ID, sir and his driver's license. Oh, my God, please don't tell me he is dead. Please don't tell me my boyfriend just went like that?

YANEZ: Just keep your hands where they are please.

REYNOLDS: Yes, I will, sir. I'll keep my hands where they are. Please don't tell me this, Lord. Please, Jesus, don't tell me that he is gone. Please, don't tell me that he is gone. Please, officer don't tell me you did this to him. You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir.

YANEZ: Get the female passenger out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma'am, exit the car right now with your hands up. Let me see your hands. Exit now. Keep them up, keep them up.

REYNOLDS: Where is my daughter? You got my daughter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Face away from me and walk backwards. Keep walking. Keep walking.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: We bring Harry Houck. Harry Houck is a CNN law enforcement analyst and retired detective in New York police department. And also David Klinger. And David is a former LAPD officer, criminology professor University of Missouri and the author of "Into the Kill."

What do you think, David?

DAVID KLINGER, FORMER LAPD OFFICER: It's very, very rough to watch as you noted at the outset. And while I think I understand why he was acquitted, it is a terrible shooting and never should have happened. And the officer -- my understanding he has been released from the department. I believe that's a proper decision based upon what I have seen. And it's a human tragedy. And the only question now in terms of the civil litigation is what's the number going to be in front of the six zeroes?

HARRY HOUCK, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I have to tell you I don't agree with David at all here in this case. You say you need to look at these videos. Remember, a jury had looked at both these videos and all the other evidence that we know-nothing about and acquitted this officer. Now, the fact is that that officer, you can see approaching the vehicle, he was calm, he was cool, he is collected and he is talking to this gentleman, alright. Now, the gentleman says that he has a gun. Doesn't say he has a permit for a gun? He says he has a gun. And the officer says to him, OK, don't reach for it.

Now, the autopsy report in this case indicated that Mr. Castile was intoxicated with THC. Meaning he had smoked so much marijuana that his body was completely intoxicated with it. Now, maybe when the officer asked him not to reach, he may have been so intoxicated maybe he didn't hear it. But the fact is that officer told him several times not reach. Don't reach. And then what the officer could see then was that he was in danger and then he had a fire shots. That's the only thing that officer could have done at that time and --

[23:35:15] KLINGER: I disagree with Harry.

HOUCK: I don't even see it happening. I don't see them winning nothing at all unless the city just wants to settle and not fight it.

LEMON: David?

But Harry the question is why in the world did it get to that point? If you and I are on patrol, and we somebody and he says they have a firearm, we don't tell them anything other than stop. Don't move. Put your hands on the steering wheel. You freeze the situation. Find out more information. Why do you have a gun, sir? Where is gun's permit? OK, where is your gun? No, he didn't. He didn't freeze it. He just told him don't do something after he had told him to get his documentation. And so when he said don't reach for it, don't reach for what? He should have frozen it.

HOUCK: When you get this permit to carry, the first thing they teach you is that when you are pulled over by a police officer, you keep your hands where you can see them. The police officer then going to take you out of the vehicle and he is going to disarm you and then take your bullets out of the weapon.

LEMON: Harry, why didn't he ask him to exit the vehicle then?

KLINGER: And I think the other thing, Don --

HOUCK: Well, probably because he didn't have the time.

KLINGER: If you look at the position of this officer, he is too far forward. He should have been behind the b pillar instead between the b pillar and the a pillar. That is between the where front door swings from him, just the a pillar, the b pillar is where it closes and locks. So when you got the back door he is in a bad position.

The argument they tried to make is they thought they were looking for a robbery suspect. You don't walk up on a robbery suspect. You stay back. You get him out of the car. I mean, there's so much we could go into this point by point. But this was just a complete failure and ended in someone's death.

LEMON: OK. Hold your thoughts. One of the most shocking thing is off that video is that it took just 40 seconds for an ordinary traffic stop that turned deadly. You saw it with your eyes. So why did the jury acquit the officer who killed Philando Castile? Is there a different standard when a police office is the one pulling the trigger? We are going to be joined jury consultant and attorney and Harry and David will join us again as well.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:41:56] LEMON: So we are back. You saw the video of the fatal police shooting of Philando Castile, but what led the jury to acquit the officer who killed him?

Joining me now is Mark Calzaretta. He is a director of litigation consulting with Magna Legal Services. CNN legal contributor Areva Martin. CNN law enforcement analyst Harry Houck who is back with us. And also along with him is a former LAPD officer David Klinger, author of "into the kill zone."

So, good evening. Welcome to the panel, you two.

So, Mark, you are a jury consultant. Based on what you just watched, explain to us how the jury acquitted this officer of second degree manslaughter.

MARK CALZARETTA, DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION CONSULTING, MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES: Sure. So I think, you know, I think that the standard is not a higher standard, it's a different standard that jurors hold officers to and it's because of the way that laws are set up. They literally are boxed in, in a sense that they are told what they are evaluating is simply at that exact moment he decided to pull the trigger, did he fear for his life or not? And if he did, it's almost a trigger.

It's such a narrow, narrow scope. I really think the jurors in these cases feel boxed in, in a way. They are deferential to police officers. They give them the benefit of the doubt. And they don't want to question their judgment in that exact moment and it might not be fair. There might be a whole bunch that would go into it. It certainly does when you look at that video. But the perspective that the jurors and the legal standard and the so-to-speak the narrowing of that for them, their focus is so narrowed to such a narrowed question that's essentially what happens in these cases. And if you are prosecuting the case, it's almost like the finish line, it's like you start the race and think the finish line is here and it continually moves.

LEMON: The goal post --

CALZARETTA: The goal post keeps moving and shifting.

LEMON: I want you to watch this again, Areva. And I want you to respond to this and I have to remind you it is really disturbing. I have to remind everyone who is watching it's very disturbing. We'll play part of it, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASTILE: Sir, have to tell you I do have a firearm in me.

YANEZ: OK. Don't reach for it then.

CASTILE: I'm not pulling it out.

YANEZ: Don't pull it out.

REYNOLDS: You just killed my boyfriend.

CASTILE: I wasn't reaching.

YANEZ: Don't pull it out.

REYNOLDS: He wasn't.

YANEZ: Don't move.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So escalate really fast. And what is that sound like - what does it sound like he is trying to saving him?

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: I'm not pulling it out.

LEMON: But he also say it sounds to me like he is trying to say I have a license or something to carry. But he gets cut off and he says don't pull it out. And he has to response and then saying I'm not pulling it out.

MARTIN: Everything happened so quickly, Don. And it is just shocking to me that people try to, you know, reinterpret what we saw with our eyes and we heard with our ears. Clearly, the police officer approaches Mr. Castile. He is very calm. He is complying. He is doing everything we are told that motorists should do. And we have seen these cases over and over again where a routine traffic stop escalates so quickly into a fatality. And that's what happened here.

He tells Mr. Castile show me your license and your proof of insurance. How can you do that without using your hands? Mr. Castile says that he has a gun. And David said, he could have asked Mr. Castile, put your hands on the steering wheel, sir. I need you to step out of the vehicle. I need to see where the gun is. There's so many other things that he could have done in that situation that would have prevented Mr. Castile from being killed.

[23:45:31] LEMON: David, officer Yanez testified and this is a quote, "I didn't want to shoot Mr. Castile. That wasn't my intention. I thought I was going to die," he said. What should the officer have done after Castile said he had a firearm?

KLINGER: If you get so scare with someone says I got a firearm that you panic and you shoot, you shouldn't be a cop. I'm sorry. And as I indicated before, you know, Harry pointed out that CCW permit holders are trained in the methodology of getting stopped. That is true but police officers are also trained. And the bottom line is as soon as you know have an (INAUDIBLE) that this individual has a gun, you have to go ahead and freeze the situation, as I indicated. And the simplest thing to do is say put your hands on the steering wheel and then you can go through whatever other points of information you believe you need to collect so can safely execute that traffic stop.

And so, there is so many things that wept wrong with this. And I don't know if we have time to get into it, but the tactics the officer used. If you look at the past leader officer or back up officer, the back up officer is very relaxed. If they believe they were dealing with a robbery suspect, that's not how you deal it.

LEMON: He doesn't reach for his weapon.

HOUCK: How do you know what he sees, David? I mean how do you know?

KLINGER: I don't know, but Harry, here is the deal.

HOUCK: You know. And how do you know he wasn't going for a gun? How do you know? We know now that he might not have been going for a gun. But the fact is that officer looking inside that vehicle saw the hand movement going towards what he thought was a gun and he is telling him not to go for it, then the officer fired. How can you question that? I mean, really?

LEMON: Let him answer, Harry.

KLINGER: Here's the deal. Why is he so far forward? He has no business being that far forward. We both know that in a traffic stop you are supposed to be back behind the b pillar so you put the driver at a (INAUDIBLE) advantage so he or she has the turn to look at you. So right of the bad, he is in the wrong position. Secondly, the argument --

(CROSSTALK)

KLINGER: The argument being made was supposedly we believe we are dealing with a robbery suspect. As soon as I believe I have a robbery suspect who says I have a gun. I'm immediately going to freeze. I'm not going to tell him what not to do. I'm going to tell him what to do. Stop, freeze, then put your hands on the steering wheel. And so, the officer is the one that did not behave in the way that he should have behaved in terms of the pre-stop.

Now, the next question becomes if it's my understanding the gun was in Castile's right pocket. I have got a couple of seconds to figure out as he is reaching for something, what is he or she reaching for? In this case it is the he. I'm going to take a look. I'm not going to kill a guy because he reaches towards something because I'm not go having to him reaching because I tell him stop, put your hands on the steering wheel. That's why, Harry.

LEMON: All right. Let's pause right here. We will take a break and we will be right back.

HOUCK: And maybe you are dead, David.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:52:46] LEMON: All right. So we are back now.

And Harry, you said, you know, maybe David is dead after that, but you know, Philando Castile is dead and his daughter was in the car. Here is what she said right after the shooting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's OK, I'm right here with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: That's his fiancee's daughter. And then said, I don't want you to be shooted, mommy. So --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: t is terrible.

LEMON: And this -- the guy, he sounded pretty calm to me. Listen, I'm not a police officer. I wasn't there. He sounded calm to me. Sounds to me like he was trying to tell the officer, I have a license to carry. The officer cut him off so don't reach for it, he says.

HOUCK: He didn't say that.

LEMON: Harry, if you listen --

HOUCK: David --

LEMON: This is Don. It doesn't sound like the officer gave him time. Can we play that part, please? We are going to go a little over. Play that part.

HOUCK: Because his hands --

LEMON: Play the part. Play the part, please.

HOUCK: That's what happened.

LEMON: Hold on. We're going to play it then let you talk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's OK, I'm right here with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: OK. I'll wait.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASTILE: Sir, have to tell you I do have a firearm in me.

YANEZ: OK. Don't reach for it then.

CASTILE: I'm not pulling it out.

YANEZ: Don't pull it out.

REYNOLDS: You just killed my boyfriend.

CASTILE: I wasn't reaching.

YANEZ: Don't pull it out.

REYNOLDS: He wasn't.

YANEZ: Don't move.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: So my point is that it happened so fast, he didn't even give the guy time to get all of his words, out, Harry, to even explain what was going on.

HOUCK: His hands were moving.

LEMON: Are you listening to what David are saying? David are saying -.

HOUCK: Yes.

LEMON: David is saying if the officer was trained properly --

HOUCK: I was a police officer for 25 years.

LEMON: Harry, I know. That's why we have you on here.

HOUCK: OK?

LEMON: But I want you to listen to me.

And I have had a ton of experience.

LEMON: Harry, listen to me first. OK, Harry. Stop, stop, please. What David is saying is that the officer in his training did not go by his training and because if he had, he would have been calmer about listening to what the suspect said or he would have put the suspect in a different position by telling him what to do, put his hands on the steering wheel or hands on the dashboard or outside instead of asking him for his identification. And number two, he was too close to the car. What he is saying is that he was -- he did not do whatever his training told him to do.

[23:55:14] HOUCK: His position had nothing to do with it, Don. Nothing at all. No matter where he was, although his tactics might have been not what I would have done, but it still is the fact a car stop, and something like this here, that officer probably felt he was in a good position at that time. That -- it is not against the law and it's not against the department of regulation to have bad tactics. Police officers have bad tactics all the time. All right? They don't follow the training all the time.

MARTIN: This is not bad tactics. Someone is dead.

LEMON: Do you hear what you're saying?

HOUCK: These situations --

LEMON: It's not OK to have bad tactics when it's life or death.

David, is it OK to have bad tactics?

HOUCK: It's not.

KLINGER: No.

HOUCK: I didn't say it was OK.

LEMON: You just said that.

HOUCK: Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say --

LEMON: I wish we could run the tape back. You just said --

HOUCK: Play the tape back. I didn't say it was OK. I said it happens.

LEMON: OK.

HOUCK: I said it happens.

KLINGER: And one of the things that we need to do --

LEMON: You said it's not against the law. HOUCK: His tactic's got nothing to do with this shooting. All right?

The tactics had nothing to do with him perceiving a threat.

HOUCK: It didn't.

KLINGER: I disagree with Harry because the tactics set up (INAUDIBLE) events that led to a dead man that didn't need to be killed. And another thing --.

HOUCK: And a man who made an overt move toward his weapon.

KLINGER: Harry, we don't know that.

HOUCK: The officer --

HOUCK: The officer didn't know if he was going toward his weapon or not. Right, we don't know that.

KLINGER: But hang on a second, sir --

HOUCK: Exactly. We have to wait until the officer is dead until we know that, David?

KLINGER: No, sir.

HOUCK: Come on.

KLINGER: I opened my statement saying that I think I understand why the officer was acquitted. I believe he was acquitted because the jury looks at the video and they can't see what's going on and they believe that perhaps he reached for the gun. Creating reasonable doubt. That's the legal issue.

LEMON: I got to go. I'm so over. I'm going to get in trouble. I'm sorry, everyone. Thank you. I wish we could continue this conversation. Unfortunately we cannot.

That's it for us tonight. Thanks for watching. I will see you right back here tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)