Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Final Preparations Underway For Coronation Of King Charles; Wagner Chief Threatens Bakhmut Pullout, Blames Russian Defense Chiefs For "Tens Of Thousands" Of Wagner Killed And Wounded; Parallels Between Subway Chokehold Death, Bernie Goetz. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired May 05, 2023 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[20:00:00]
PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: So be sure to watch my full special report, this investigation on "The Whole Story" with Anderson Cooper. That's this Sunday night at 8:00 PM Eastern and 5:00 PM Pacific.
Thanks so much for joining us. AC 360 starts now.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Again, from London, and take a look on the left, Buckingham Palace; on the right Westminster Abbey.
Tomorrow morning, King Charles III and Queen Camilla, their steps guided by ritual and part of a history dating back centuries will leave the Palace into the Abbey and make history of their own, a moment last seen here before most Londoners were even born, 70 years ago.
As for King Charles, it was a busy day. He spent some of that greeting people outside the palace along with Prince William and Princess Kate. The King, William, Kate accompanied by the King's sister, Princess Anne also lunched with Britain's Prime Minister and other visiting dignitaries.
Meantime, back at the Palace, some of the Windsor great horses pulling the Royal coach tomorrow got a bit of a workout in rehearsal today making their way accompanied by footmen through Hyde Park.
In Hampshire, southwest of the city, members of the Household Division rehearsed for their role tomorrow. Like the Royals, this is a family business. Some of the soldiers here are following in the footsteps of parents and grandparents who marched for Queen Elizabeth and George VI.
At Westminster Abbey today, a look at the coronation chair where the King will sit and be anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury behind a three-sided screen.
And you've heard the phrase, "the crown jewels." Well, here they are, the St. Edward's crown which the King will wear then and only then along with other items used in the ceremony. And of course, here for all the Royal pageantry, thousands of his subjects, Britons from all over London in the UK, the Commonwealth, and even some of us colonials waiting for the moment when all their camping out pays off with a glimpse of Royalty and a brush with history.
Joining us now CNN's Richard Quest who is down among some of those people who are camping out tonight hoping to get a great view tomorrow.
What are people there in the crowd telling you -- Richard.
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST, "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Well, I've got to keep my voice down a bit because it is after one o'clock in the morning here and people are trying to get a little bit of sleep, but just look at the sheer number of people who are here.
Well, that woke up anybody who wasn't here. Now, where do you come from?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Torquay.
QUEST: Torquay, that's in the South. Why did you come here?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's the King's coronation. It is the best history moment of our generation.
QUEST: Now, as you see, this is interesting, different people of different ages all saying that. Wherever you come from?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Maryland in the USA.
QUEST: Please, did come here for this?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
QUEST: You've come all the way from Maryland to sleep on the street tonight?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I did it.
QUEST: What's the reason?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's something historical. I'm a Royalist. I love the Royal family.
QUEST: Excellent. So you're here to do that. And over there, where are from, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Grimsby.
QUEST: From Grimsby, that's in northern England.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
QUEST: Well done. Now all ages, it is a family occasion this.
Hello, good evening, sir. Welcome on board. Now. Hello.
UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Hi.
QUEST: Where are you from?
UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Wales.
QUEST: You're from Wales. Really, it was the Prince of Wales. How old are you?
UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Ten.
QUEST: Ten. Why did you decide it was important to bring a 10-year-old tonight?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, it is a bit of history, and it's a lovely memory for her to share with us.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We just got here, so it wasn't quite the three- day campout, but --
QUEST: You got here and that's important. Finally, back over -- and good to see you. Stay warm tonight. You'll remember this for the rest of your life.
I remember the night that I slept on the mall. It was for Diana's funeral and for Charles' first wedding.
Now over here. All right, good morning to you, sir. Good morning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning.
QUEST: Yes. Sorry to wake you up. I noticed, you've got a few more hours. How are you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not so well, but I feel --
QUEST: Is this at all comfortable?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was not long enough, from the start.
QUEST: You really are doing this on the cheap, aren't you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You could say that. Yes.
QUEST: You're enjoying it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very much so. I'll enjoy it more tomorrow.
QUEST: When it's over.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When it is over. When it starts, but still.
QUEST: Well, have a good night's sleep everybody. Enjoy.
Anderson, the mood is absolutely extraordinary. It's just one of friendship. It's one of yes, national, it is patriotic, yes. But it's just people.
I'm surprised at this stage. I mean, look how deep it is. It's 10 to 12 people deep. And what will happen is in the morning, bad news for you, because I've done this before at about five or six o'clock in the morning, they will wake everybody up and they will start moving them to the front so that they can get more people in here by the time the ceremony starts.
But the atmosphere, keep your voice down, there are people sleeping at the front. Oh, come on in. Yes, from television.
COOPER: You know, Richard --
QUEST: He wants to be on television, yes, go on.
[20:05:10]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello.
QUEST: Go ahead, Anderson.
COOPER: Richard, it is fascinating. I mean, you were saying that you camped out there for Charles' first marriage to Diana, also for her funeral. There are generations of people who have camped out there and come back with each sort of milestone that this family goes through.
It is sort of -- I feel like we have seen these interviews, you know, time and time again, at every event, you know, I was here a few months ago for the Queen's funeral and people camping out and some of those people will be camping out tonight as well.
QUEST: Yes. And for good reason, because it is a national moment. If I wasn't working, I probably would have garnered a few friends together and we'd be sleeping somewhere over there because you don't forget it. You remember the night.
Look, an X number of years ago, 19 whatever, I stood over there on the mall and watch the four princes as they walked behind the coffin, never forget it. I stood on Ludgate Hill and watched Charles and Diana in the carriage go past. You never forget it.
These people, particularly the youngsters, well, not you, sir, no, not yet. You'll be lucky if you're still awake. But most of the people here will never forget the night they spent, and they'll see the gold state coach and they'll see the imperial coach and the crown. It's going to be magnificent.
COOPER: Richard Quest.
QUEST: Shh. Keep it down. There are people sleeping.
COOPER: But it's also interesting, Richard, because, you know, a lot of people have said, well, you know, I'm not as interested in this one. It doesn't maybe -- you know, I'm not going to pay attention to it like I did the funeral or some other big event and yet on the day --
(PEOPLE singing "God Save the King.")
QUEST: Does that answer your question, Anderson. That does answer your question?
COOPER: Yes, it does. Yes, it does. Richard Quest, thank you. We'll come back to you a little bit later.
Joining us again tonight, CNN Royal correspondent, Max Foster and our Royal historian, Kate Williams.
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: We never pretended to be a singing nation.
COOPER: Well, that was quite lovely, actually. It was actually quite moving.
But it is, I mean, we were talking about this the other day. People you know, when you go up to the street with a microphone in the last couple of weeks, they'll say, oh, I'm not really that interested in this. And yet, on the day, in a few hours, there's going to be tens of thousands of people here and people are going to be tuning in.
FOSTER: Yes, I mean, what is Britishness? I mean, it's an absolute, we don't have a written constitution like America. It's built, isn't it through all of these rituals and ceremonies that we've had over the centuries, and we're sort of drawn to it.
It is our continuity, it is the thing that we turn to when we try to figure out who we are, and you know less about Charles, perhaps tomorrow, more about the ritual and the ceremony, the pomp and the pageantry, which we feel belongs to us and it is how he fits into that, I think tomorrow.
COOPER: Kate, what are you going to be looking for tomorrow?
KATE WILLIAMS, CNN ROYAL HISTORIAN: Well, just as those people were saying, it was fascinating to hear Richard talking to the people on the streets who are saying, I want to be here because of history. It's a historical moment. It is steeped in history, and that little girl coming all the way from Wales to watch it.
And that to me is so exciting to see this coronation that goes right back to William the Conqueror in 1066 and before to the Anglo-Saxon Kings, all of those ceremonies you were earlier showing, the coronation chair dates back to the 13th century, to house the Stone of Scone that was taken from Scotland, incredible piece of furniture, and the crown, the actual use of the crown because the St. Edward's crown, it's so important. It's a holy relic. It can't leave Westminster Abbey.
And essentially, the coronation chair, they're looking fantastic. The Stone of Destiny, which lives in Scotland, it was sent back to Scotland rightly because Britain took -- England took it, and Scotland lends it back to us. That chair actually is graffiti 'ed by schoolboys in the 18th century, could you believe it?
COOPER: Is that right? Really?
WILLIAMS: You can still see "P. Abbott slept here" if you look very closely, and the imperial state crown with pearls that we think might have been Elizabeth I, incredible moment of history and all of that history, I'm so excited to see it and also how it's altered.
I think if you look in the history of coronations, the three most significant are when Henry VIII breaks from the Church of Rome, so then it becomes the Church of England ceremony, then in the 17th century William and Mary when the oath about -- it becomes about governing according to laws that there's no more divine right of Kings. You keep within the constitutional monarchy.
And then when Elizabeth II, televised it, what a wow moment.
[20:10:00]
And let's see what is the big historic moment? What's significant stories of the future we'll talk about for this one.
COOPER: There were some changes to the liturgy, which was made, I believe, just in the last several hours, is that right?
FOSTER: Well, they released the liturgy earlier in the week, which is the -- how do you describe it? The clergy language within the order of service, and they've just in the last few minutes released the order of service and there is an adjustment to this section, which was new, where they were inviting people, the wider public to pledge allegiance to the King.
That caused a huge furor and a very influential journalist went on the radio this morning saying, he thought it is completely inappropriate. We've had the order of service out and there is a change in the language, still inviting people to pledge allegiance, but giving them the option of just to say, "God save the King" and making it very clear, this is just an invitation, not a request.
COOPER: Interesting. So a bit of change, even now, even at this last minute, but much of what we will see in the coming hours we're starting to broadcast 5:00 AM live Eastern Time on the East Coast, will it -- has it been in this ceremony from time immemorial?
WILLIAMS: Time immemorial, and the whole principle of electing -- of choosing a chief and putting them on a raised stage and putting a hat on them goes back to the earliest forms of human history. The earliest crown we've got is 4,000 BC, found in the Dead Sea. I mean, that's amazing.
And this is -- so it's a 21st century ceremony that is going to be on TikTok and social media and memes, but it is also so steeped in history. And this very significant moment when Charles is anointed, we won't see it but that moment when he is anointed with the Holy oil, which really has a spiritual aspect, it is the Holy Ghost is going to be guiding him and then of course, we'll see Camilla being crowned as well, which we haven't seen since 1937. There is a lot for the history fan to watch.
COOPER: Yes. Kate Williams, thank you. Max Foster, as well. Much more on the Royal coronation tonight including why the Britons believe the monarchy is still relevant. Certainly, you've met some tonight who do.
Also tonight, breaking news on the Georgia investigation to the former president. We will tell you who struck immunity deals with prosecutors investigating the attempt to overturn the election.
Plus, frank and sometimes jaw dropping comments by the former president and newly released video footage from his deposition last year in a rape allegation case. We will discuss what effect these remarks could have on the case.
Also, a major Russian mercenary group turns on top Russian defense officials just as Ukraine is believed to be preparing its counteroffensive.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:16:01]
COOPER: We are live in London. We'll have more on the coronation of King Charles III later in the broadcast.
Right now, several other major stories we want to bring you including breaking news on the Georgia investigation into the former president's attempt to overturn the election.
Tonight, we've learned that at least eight of the fake electors involved have accepted immunity deals. That's according to a new court filing. It means they'll be able to offer insight into the efforts to block certification and the role the former president's allies played in organizing that effort.
That news came hours after the release of some stunning video footage of the former president's taped deposition in another case, the battery and defamation civil lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, who says in the mid-90s, the former president raped her in a department store dressing room.
The edited deposition was recorded in October of last year. Its release comes a day after both sides rested their respective cases.
Jean Casarez has details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She is accusing me and so you have rape, and it never took place and I will tell you, I made that statement. And I said, Well, it's politically incorrect. She's not my type. And that's a hundred percent true. She is not my type.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Former President Donald Trump sitting for a deposition in October 2022, which is now front and center as jurors think about who is telling the truth in his New York City civil battery and defamation trial.
Trump initially had been asked if he ever shopped in Bergdorf Goodman, where E. Jean Carroll alleges he raped her.
TRUMP: It's possible that one or both of my wives shopped there a little bit, but I don't remember ever buying something for myself at Bergdorf.
I went there very seldom if almost, if ever.
CASAREZ (voice over): Asked if he or his staff contacted the department store before denying the incident in 2019.
TRUMP: I didn't have to reach out to anybody because it didn't happen. And by the way, if it did happen, it would have been reported within minutes. It's the most ridiculous disgusting story. It is just made up.
CASAREZ (voice over): Trump also testifying he remembers seeing a photo of Carroll.
TRUMP: I saw her in a picture. I didn't know what you look like. And I said it and I say it with as much respect as I can, but she is not my type.
CASAREZ (voice over): Earlier, Trump had been asked to identify people in a photo from a receiving line.
TRUMP: I guess her husband, John Johnson, who was an anchor for ABC, nice guy. I thought, I mean, I don't know him, but I thought he was pretty good at what he did. I don't even know who the woman -- let's see, I don't know who. That's Marla.
CASAREZ (voice over): He repeats it.
TRUMP: That's Marla. Yes, that's my wife.
CASAREZ (voice over): The attorney tells him that's E. Jean Carroll.
TRUMP: Because it's very blurry.
CASAREZ (voice over): Trump then went on to mischaracterize what E. Jean Carroll told Anderson Cooper in an interview back in 2019.
TRUMP: She actually indicated that she loved it. Okay, she loved it until commercial break. In fact, I think she said it was sexy, didn't she? It was very sexy to be raped. Didn't she say that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did she say in that interview that she loved being sexually assaulted you?
TRUMP: Well, she said something to that effect. I mean, you'll have to take a look at the interviews. I believe she said rape was sexy.
CASAREZ (voice over): Never did Carol indicate she enjoyed being sexually assaulted or raped. Trump is then asked to watch the "Access Hollywood" tape. At one point, adjusts himself in his seat, as he listens to himself declare he can sexually assault women.
TRUMP: Historically that's true with stars.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is true with stars that they can grab women by the [bleep].
TRUMP: Well, that's what -- if you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true, not always, but largely true. Unfortunately, or fortunately.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you consider yourself to be a star?
TRUMP: I think you can say that, yes.
[20:20:07]
CASAREZ (voice over): And then is asked to respond to the accusation of a sexual assault on a plane by another woman in the late 1970s, which he has also denied.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you said in that video that Miss Leeds would not be your first choice, you are referring to her physical looks, correct?
TRUMP: Just the overall. I look at her, I see her. I hear what she says, whatever, you wouldn't be a choice of mine either to be honest with you. I hope you're not insulted. I would not, under any circumstances have any interest in you. I'm being -- I am honest when I say it.
CASAREZ (voice over): Jean Casarez, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: I just want to get some more perspective on this deposition from CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers, a lecturer at Columbia University Law School and CNN's Kara Scannell who has been reporting on the case.
Jennifer, how is the jury likely to react to the former president saying stars are historically able to get away with sexually assaulting women, unfortunately, or fortunately?
JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Anderson, I think this deposition testimony was disastrous for the former president and that's just one of the reasons why. But that's particularly bad, because, you know, all he had to do with this "Access Hollywood" tape is to say it was locker room talk. I mean, that's what his campaign folks told him to say at the time. He could have continued with that theme.
I didn't mean it. I don't think that's true. I was just saying that, you know, let's move on. Instead, he doubles down and says, stars can do it and I'm a star, which leads to the conclusion that he can do it. So, I think it was just a terrible mistake on his part and I think it's not going to play well with the jury at all. COOPER: Kara, did the defense team tried to spin or explain away anything the foreign president said during that deposition, or did they just let it speak for itself?
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, at this point, Anderson, they just let it speak for itself. The deposition was played almost, you know, 48 minutes of it before the jury, but they were trying to make their case here through cross examination of witnesses.
So a lot of this is going to come down to their closing argument, which is scheduled for Monday, in which they are going to try to tie different pieces together of this and one argument that they may make here is why the former President seems agitated and irritated in some parts of this deposition, is they are going to say that he believes he was falsely accused.
But you know, without him not testifying and not taking the stand in this case, you know, that would be one thing if it was -- if that was it, but because a jury gets to see the former president's deposition and him answering these questions, they don't have a chance to try to even ask him questions based on things that have already come up in trial testimony. So, this will be what the jury sees from the former president.
COOPER: And Jennifer, it was fascinating to see the former president look at a photo and think that E. Jean Carroll was his ex-wife, Marla Maples. He has also claimed that Carroll isn't "his type."
Obviously, Marla Maples, I guess, was his type, but he thought E. Jean Carroll was Marla Maples. Logically, I don't know how a jury might interpret that.
RODGERS: Now, this was another unforced error on his part, Anderson, because, you know, obviously, you'd expect anyone in his shoes to say that he didn't do it. And then most people would back that up by saying, you know, listen, I'm not the type of person who does this sort of thing. Let me bring in character witnesses to tell you why I'm not that kind of person.
Trump can't do that here. Because if you open the door to that, there would be dozens lined up on the other side to talk about what kind of character he does have and the fact that he has done this allegedly to so many women.
So instead, he goes with, she's not my type, and then even bungles that one because by identifying E. Jean Carroll in the photo as his wife, he undercuts the only reason that he tells the jury to believe that he didn't do it.
So, you know, it really was just a disastrous performance for Trump and because the jury doesn't have anything else to look to, as Kara said, like his own testimony, or other witnesses appearing on his behalf, it's pretty one sided.
COOPER: And Jennifer, as far as attorneys advising people on how to behave during a deposition, it seems like the former president, for somebody who has been deposed and sued as many times as he has, it seems like this may be -- it sounds like this is his first deposition because he seems to be violating every piece of advice any decent attorney would have told him before that deposition in terms of just answer a question yes or no or straightforward. He -- he's just like playing jazz. He's just riffing.
ROGERS: Yes, so he is famous for not listening to his lawyers, of course. You really can't give him any advice, apparently. But you're right, Anderson. Not only does he answer questions beyond where he probably should, but his tone. I mean, he comes across as arrogant, petulant. He insults E. Jean Carroll, he insults her attorney.
He just really, really is a terrible witness, which is why you know, he has to sit for this deposition. He didn't have a choice. I don't think we will voluntarily ever see him testify because he's such a bad witness and because the cross examination impeachment evidence is so vast he really would get clobbered.
[20:25:10]
So he really is a terrible witness. I don't envy any of his lawyers having to defend him.
COOPER: Jennifer Rodgers, appreciate it. Kara Scannell as well, thank you.
Next, signs of splits between Russia's military commanders and the mercenary army doing much of the fighting for Russia in Ukraine. What the Wagner Group leader announced today and why it may just alter the course of the war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Even as Britons here get ready for a weekend of national celebration, Russia prepares for its Victory Day holiday next week, and for a second straight year, the day which marks the defeat of Nazi Germany comes with no sign of victory in Ukraine. Instead, there are signs that Kremlin's military effort is fracturing.
The Wagner Group mercenaries who had done much of the fighting in places like Bakhmut have apparently had enough. Case in point, two videos today and yesterday, and a warning, the video is graphic.
They show Wagner leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin surrounded by dead fighters in one clip cursing Russian defense chiefs whom he blames for withholding ammunition from his forces and announcing action that could be decisive in the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(YEVGENY PRIGOZHIN speaking in foreign language.)
TRANSLATION: You think you are the masters of this life? You think you can dispose of their lives? You think because you have warehouses full of ammunition that you have that right? I am officially informing the defense minister, chief of the general staff, and the supreme commander in chief that my guys will not be taking useless unjustified losses in Bakhmut without ammunition.
So on May 10th, 2023, we are pulling out of Bakhmut. We have only two or so kilometers left to capture out of 45.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:30:15]
COOPER: CNN Senior International Correspondent Matthew Chance is with me here in London tonight. He's, of course, has covered this war from both inside Russia and on the ground in Ukraine. Also, joining us, CNN National Security Analyst and former CIA Director of Russia Operations. Steve Hall.
Matthew, can -- it's stunning to hear this guy say this. How can he get away with saying this? I mean, and -- or just put in context what Wagner has done and who Prigozhin is.
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. It is absolutely stunning in a country where dissent criticism of the authorities is just not tolerated. That you can see this man, Yevgeny Prigozhin, you know, stand there and swear about the defense minister, swear about the commander of the military, you know, basically criticize, you know, in the harshest terms how the war in Ukraine, what Russia calls the special military operation is being conducted and get away with it.
I mean, you have to assume that he's been given the green light by the Kremlin because the alternative is, you know, if he really is expressing this anger and this frustration genuinely, and he's being allowed to do it in Russia, it speaks volumes about, you know, the weak state that the Kremlin's in right now. So I assume it's the former that he's being allowed to do it.
COOPER: Steve Hall, you with the CIA, you spend a lot of time trying to figure out what's -- what is the message the Kremlin is trying to send or what's going on. What do you make of this? I mean, is this with the permission of Vladimir Putin? If it's not, why doesn't Putin just crush this person?
STEVE HALL, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, it's really interesting to see how much Putin has allowed Prigozhin to run with this. But there is this tradition in Russia whereby the czar, in this case, Putin, who is effectively the czar, kind of gets a break. And Russian -- the Russian people have a tendency to be much more negative and much more critical of those lieutenants and subordinates that are around Mozart largely because they can say, well, he's a good guy, and if he were just surrounded with better people.
My suspicion is Putin is playing that for all it's worth. He's essentially letting these guys go at each other in the hope of resolving some sort of power tensions that are going on, very likely behind closed doors that we don't see all of. And it's just sort of sitting back and watching how it's going to play out. Who's going to be the stronger person, who's going to handle it better, who's going to be more loyal to Putin? All of those things are at play as we watch how Putin tries to manipulate this situation. I think that's what's going on essentially, Anderson.
COOPER: I mean, Matthew, if Wagner group pulled out a Bakhmut, what would that mean?
CHANCE: Well, I mean, they've been fighting for control of Bakhmut for months now, throwing, well, thousands if not tens of thousands of people.
COOPER: Right. These are where the -- these waves of conscripts and convicts --
CHANCE: Yes.
COOPER: -- have been used as cannon fodder.
CHANCE: Yes, I mean, exactly. I mean, proportionally, Wagner is the organization that's been leading that push into Bakhmut, even though it's not particularly strategically important. And so it's been a massive sacrificial altar on which thousands upon thousands of Russians in, you know, people who have been members of Wagner have died.
If they were to pull out, that sacrifice would have been for nothing, and it would be politically, you know, very damaging indeed. You know, even if Wagner says that Prigozhin says that Russian army units would backfill the position, nevertheless, it would be a massive setback for him. Because he's staked a lot on sort of gaining control of this one city, which he's so far failed to do.
COOPER: And Steve, I mean, could someone like Prigozhin ever actually threatened Vladimir Putin's hold on power? And does he have any actual military experience or is he just dressing up?
HALL: No, a lot of these guys don't have any previous military experience. Prigozhin and Shoigu, the defense minister, you know, not having, you know, really any real military experience. But I think what's going on -- one of the things that's going on, because there's a lot of subplots here, is that Prigozhin is saying, OK, just how far can I go? How far can I get?
He understands that as an oligarch, which is kind of how he came up through the ranks. He's got to be really careful if he crosses into politics. He's already clearly done that. Yet he has yet to suffer as far as any of us can tell, any negative implications from it. So is he thinking, OK, I might be able to make myself go all the way to the top here or close to the top.
I think he's still trying to gauge that, but really aside from that, it's difficult to try to explain why it is that he's taking these risks unless he thinks he's going to get something big out of it.
COOPER: Yes. Steve Hall, Matthew Chance, appreciate it. Thank you.
Coming up, the latest on the subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely and why it's drawing comparisons to a deadly subway incident almost 40 years ago.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:38:27]
COOPER: There's more breaking news tonight. Moments ago in a new statement to CNN released by attorneys for the subway rider who placed Jordan Neely in a chokehold before he died Monday, the attorneys identified the rider for the first time. Daniel Penny is his name. They say he and other passengers, quote, "acted to protect themselves until help arrived." And then Neely had been, "aggressively threatening Daniel Penny and the other passengers."
Also that Mr. Penny, "never intended to harm Mr. Neely," unquote. Law enforcement source tell CNN that New York police have interviewed at least four of the passengers who were on the train car when Neely, who had been a Michael Jackson impersonator, was put into a chokehold and died.
This happened according to a witness after Jordan Neely began actively -- acting aggressively on the train using violent language, talking about how he didn't have food, didn't care if he went to jail. A witness also told CNN that Jordan Neely did not attack anyone. CNN has not been able to independently confirm what happened leading up to the incident or how long Neely was restrained for.
The law enforcement source also told CNN the police are still seeking more witnesses on the train. The case has certainly split New Yorkers and many Americans are reminded -- many New Yorkers -- of another deadly train incident almost 40 years ago.
Athena Jones has that story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The newspapers have dubbed him the subway vigilante. Bernie Goetz, a white man catapulted into the national spotlight in 1984 when he shot four black teenagers he said, were trying to rob him in a New York City subway car. The teens who survived the shooting said they were only panhandling for cash for video game.
The city then facing a crime wave with some 600,000 serious crimes reported that year, more than four times current rates. The graffiti scarred subway system sparking fear and dread in commuters like Goetz, who said New York was a disaster and a lawless place.
[20:40:15]
He said he'd been mugged a short while before and said he purchased a handgun without a license to protect himself. The case prompting protests and accusations of racism. Years later, Goetz admitted to making racial slurs three years before the shooting.
REV. AL SHARPTON: I think that Mr. Goetz was seriously psychologically damaged by former muggings. And that in his mind, that young blacks are the stereotypical type muggers. I'm firmly convinced if those four boys had been white, he would've not have assumed they were out to mug him until they had actually tried to mug him.
JONES (voice-over): Goetz confessed to shooting the teens and even to going back and shooting one of them again, saying he told the teen, "You seem to be doing all right. Here's another."
BERNHARD GOETZ, SHOT FOUR PEOPLE IN NYC SUBWAY IN 1984: And I was a monster. I don't deny it. But I wasn't a monster until several years ago in New York.
JONES (voice-over): Goetz insisted he was acting in self-defense.
GOETZ: If I had more bullets, I would've shot them all again and again. The only -- my problem was I ran out of bullets. You can't understand this. I know you can't understand this.
JONES (voice-over): Public opinion at the time was mixed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well I could understand the motivation of the individual. There are times when I felt like shooting somebody as well, but you know?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not supposed to take the law in your own hands. That's dangerous too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Actually, all he did was defend his own life.
JONES (voice-over): And while then Mayor Ed Koch condemned the shooting --
ED KOCH, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: The vigilante is not a synonym for hero. No one can, with impunity, take the law into their own hands and give instant justice. We will not permit it.
JONES (voice-over): Some New Yorkers at the time praised Goetz, saying he deserved a medal, others offering to pay his legal fees. Before a jury acquitted Goetz of attempted murder in 1987, his attorney appeared certain he would prevail.
BARRY SLOTNICK, ATTORNEY FOR BERNHARD GOETZ: I've always been confident. There's no reason not to be confident. I'm not sure I understand why Mr. Goetz is the defendant. That's the basic problem.
JONES (voice-over): And even a lawyer for one of the four teenagers said --
WILLIAM KUNSTLER, ATTORNEY FOR DARRELL CABEY: I am feeling now internally that maybe Mr. Goetz has at least been punished somewhat, maybe as much as the system can do for this crazy act he did on the subway train more than two years ago.
JONES (voice-over): Goetz served eight and a half months for possession of an illegal weapon,. And in 1996, a jury awarded 43 million to one of the teens he shot, Darrell Cabey, who was paralyzed in the incident, though it remains unclear if Cabey has received any of that money.
Athena Jones, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: I'm joined now by CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson. So I wonder what you make of the statement that we got from the attorneys of the man in the subway who they name as Daniel Penny. They say he and other passengers, quote, acted to protect themselves until help arrived and then nearly had been, quote, "aggressively threatening Daniel Penny and the other passengers." Also that Penny never, quote, "intended to harm Mr. Neely."
What stands out to you in that statement?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So there's going to be two narratives, obviously, Anderson, with respect to this incident. The narrative is going to be, if you support what happened here, that this individual, Jordan Neely, now dead was acting in an aggressive fashion based upon that aggression and based upon what they perceived to be a threat, he acted -- that is the person who put him in the chokehold to protect third parties, which is allowed by law.
And based upon that, did not know or could not foresee the fact that he would actually kill him and was thinking he was doing a service to the public by restraining him. That's the one defense narrative, and that's what stands out to me, that they're protecting their client.
On the other hand, you're going to have the narrative that you can't take the law to your own hands. The fact that someone may be verbally aggressive is not suggestive of the fact that they mean any harm at all. You have a mental health component where there was no weapon here that was recovered at all, just a person acting out and wanting food who did not deserve to die, and certainly there needs to be justice impacted or upon him.
And so those narratives will battle together. Ultimately, it'll be up to the district attorney to assess the case, factually, interview the witnesses, bring the matter, Anderson, before a grand jury, and make an assessment as to whether there's criminality. And if so, there should be a prosecution. And if not, then there will not be. But it can't be predicated upon public opinion, politicians or anything else, it has to be supported by the facts.
COOPER: Can there be a division between -- what if, you know, witnesses on the train said they felt threatened and this person says he felt threatened and, you know, that's why he acted? Could there be a division between people thinking he did the right thing in trying to subdue this person if witnesses on the train say he was threatening, but then there'd be a question of, well, how long should he have been held in a chokehold and was there other action he could have been subsequently taken?
[20:45:03]
JACKSON: So not only could there be a division, but I suspect there will be. There's generally in cases, you're going to have different witnesses who have different perceptions. They have different points of view with respect to what they felt, what they believe, what they thought, what they saw. So that's certainly something that I think can be anticipated.
The real question is going to come down to the following. Did the person who put Mr. Neely in a chokehold, did he act reasonably under the circumstances? Number one. Number two, was the chokehold that he put him in, proportionate or disproportionate to any threat that was posed?
Number three, ultimately, was there imminent fear by anyone on that train that they would indeed die in the event that Mr. Neely was not restrained and subsequent lost his life? And so, at the end of the day, what the law looks to, and it says the issue of objective reasonableness. Did you act reasonably under the circumstances? And was anyone an immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury?
If the answer to that question is no, then I think the defendant, who could be a defendant, not yet a defendant, would have a problem. If the answer is yes, he was protecting and other people really felt that they were in serious danger, then I think there would be none.
But that's the purpose of a grand jury. Bring all the evidence in, bring the parties in, bring everyone who saw anything in. Let the grand jury of 23 people make an assessment, not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But is there reasonable cause to believe a crime occurred? And if so, let's have a trial and let's then have a jury of his peers make a decision about whether he acted appropriately, lawfully, and reasonably under these circumstances.
COOPER: Joey Jackson, I appreciate it. Thank you.
We're just hours away from the coordination of King Charles III. But as the Commonwealth officially welcomes Charles as their new king, many are questioning the relevancy of the monarchy in a modern world. We'll have more in that here live from London ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:46]
COOPER: As we await tomorrow's historic coronation of King Charles III, there's been many questions about what this moment and what the monarchy means in today's world. Most Britons say they'll take part in at least one event related to the coronation this weekend. But it comes as Britons are also more likely to say that their views of the monarchy have worsened. According to a CNN poll released today, more than one third of adults in the U.K. say their opinion of the royal family has become more negative than it was just a decade ago. And only 21 percent say it's gotten more positive.
CNN's Bianca Nobilo looks at the monarchy's relevance today. Here she is.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And happy indeed by the revelers who welcomed Britain's coronation year in Piccadilly.
BIANCA NOBILO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The longest interlude between two coronations in British history. Decades of demographic, religious and societal change raising questions about the relevance of the monarchy today.
1953 was full of postwar Joie de Vivre and excitement about a new young queen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They come to seek work in Britain.
NOBILO (voice-over): Despite waves of historic migration, Britain in the 1950s was overwhelmingly White, Christian and divided along class lines in society and the halls of power.
Today, three of the four great offices of state, including the Prime Minister, are from minority backgrounds. 20 percent of the population today are from ethnic minority backgrounds too and rising. Many from countries subject to exploitation in the former British empire.
BIDISHA MAMATA, COLUMNIST: The monarchy itself has to find a respectful and humble place for itself without pretending that it doesn't have all of its privilege, all of its history and all of its baggage.
NOBILO (voice-over): Though crumbling slowly after the second world war, Britain was still stratified along class lines in the 1950s.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The ermine tales denote rank (ph). A Duchess for example wears four rows.
NOBILO (on-camera): Modern Britain is, in many ways, allergic to the idea of inherited privilege. Society at least strives to be egalitarian. But a recent poll commissioned by the BBC -- Britain's national broadcaster -- suggests that King Charles might have a problem appealing to young people.
38 percent of whom said that they would support an elected head of state. And indifference might be a problem too. 78 percent said that they weren't interested in the royal family.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's definitely time to rethink and I know a lot of people who loved Queen Elizabeth and I don't think that that same fondness is there for King Charles. NOBILO (on-camera): The monarch since the 16th century is also titular head of the Church of England. In 1953, the majority of the country was Christian.
(voice-over): Today it is half that with a number of nonreligious and non-Christian faiths rising each year, with multi-faith leaders playing a role in the coronation for the first time.
(on-camera): King Charles who has declared himself to be defender of all faiths was honored here at Britain's largest mosque ahead of the coronation. So, could this be an opportunity for all the communities in Britain to come together?
SABAH AHMEDI, IMAM: With Islam, we're taught a part of your faith is lauded to a nation and we also know that coronation is a part history of this nation. And our citizens will respect that history.
NOBILO (voice-over): The coronation is a litmus test to how King Charles will be received by 2023 Britain and whether enthusiasm, apathy or opposition to the monarchy will shape his reign.
Bianca Nobilo, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Joining me again is CNN Business -- Editor-At-Large and host of Quest Means Business, Richard Quest. And also with me is author and playwright and former deputy chair of the British Museum, Bonnie Greer.
Bonnie, do you think the monarchy is still relevant? I mean, when you see those polls, you hear what young people are saying?
BONNIE GREER, FORMER DEPUTY CHAIR, BRITISH MUSEUM: Well, we have to define what relevant means. You know, I mean, this is certainly not a republic. So where the monarchy fits is an interesting question. But this is not a republic, and we shouldn't -- I mean, Richard may disagree with me, but I don't feel all the time I've lived here, there isn't any sort of real strong Republican sense here.
I don't think it -- it's just not a republic. So whatever the monarchy becomes will have to fit into whatever the nation decides. The other thing I want to say to a little pushback, people shouldn't assume, because a person is a person of color, that they have a problem with the monarchy. I mean, au contraire.
COOPER: Right.
[20:55:06]
GREER: So, I mean, it's a lot more complex than that.
COOPER: Yes.
GREER: A lot more complex.
COOPER: Richard, how do you see it?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS ANCHOR, QUEST, MEANS BUSINESS: Well, I think it's a great question to ask, and you'll get a very different answer when the vote actually happens. People in the comfort of their own home can sort of say, well, you know, waste of time. All the money we spend on that lot.
And then, but if the question was actually put, would you want to get rid of the monarch? I think you find it would not be in the slightest those sort of numbers.
COOPER: Does it matter whether a particular monarch is --
QUEST: You don't pick and choose your monarchs. That's the whole point of the system, Anderson. You don't pick and choose. You take whoever's next in line. And are the people here who would have been delighted if Charles had done the graceful thing and retired to Highgrove and handed over to William? Absolutely. And it would probably have done quite well in places like Australia and Canada. But that's not the system.
GREER: But the British value consistency, that's very important in this culture. And so, the monarchy represents consistency. And in that sense, I think that they'll endure on some level. It's going to be different because each monarchy is different.
I would be surprised if the Commonwealth existed pretty much longer, and I mean longer, maybe five or six years, but the monarchy itself will carry on --
COOPER: It's interesting, though, to see, you know, the -- people say they like the Royal Family less than before. It's -- nobody can survive -- I mean, there was a mystery before. There was less information out there in the public sphere about members of the Royal Family --
GREER: Absolutely.
COOPER: -- you know, generations ago. And it's very hard to survive when -- it's very hard to survive in popularity when people know everything about you.
GREER: Well, you know, every -- I mean, I have to laugh, because this Royal Family is a piece of cake compared to their ancestors. I mean, the Hanoverians, the stewards, the tutors, these are wild people.
COOPER: They could not have held up with social media.
GREER: So, no, no, no, they would not. No, they couldn't have made it. So these people are much more sedate in comparison. But what the Royal Family has to adjust, I think, to the people is one way that they exist to a certain extent.
QUEST: Right, buddy. But you adjust when you really feel there's something to adjust.
GREER: Exactly, exactly.
QUEST: You don't blow in the wind --
GREER: No, exactly.
QUEST: -- because of what's the popularity --
GREER: And that's what I mean by the consistency.
QUEST: Yes. I -- now, for the first time, I carry two passports.
GREER: So do I.
QUEST: A U.K. and the U.S.
GREER: So do I.
QUEST: And I can see the merits of both systems. I sort of started U.K., went U.S. You probably maybe went in the opposite direction.
GREER: Of course.
QUEST: And so you get an understanding of, I can certainly see why, in American view, people looks like I think this is barking mad, and I can certainly see why in the British point of view.
GREER: But they don't. They love this.
QUEST: They love the pageantry.
GREER: They love the pageantry.
QUEST: Yes.
GREER: And also, I think as an American, we're passionately engaged with the presidency all the time. And people -- I think people here are passionately engaged with the small bits of the royal family, not it itself, but the everyday housekeeping bits of it, I think.
The one thing that there is an advantage of monarchy over presidency, particularly in the U.S. system, is that they don't get caught up in the individual party political. So you can, you know, you can have to respect a president that you loathe politically. And this doesn't happen here because he is above the fray in that sense.
GREER: Well, he's supposed to be above the fray.
QUEST: Well, yes.
GREER: Well, you know, I mean, you know, he's supposed to be above the fray. But in America, of course, it's supposed to be government by the people of the people, la la la. So the president does become a visceral part of the politic. Here, the monarch becomes the consistent ship that guides the country through.
COOPER: Bonnie Greer, thank you so much. Richard Quest as well. A lot more ahead, more royal coverage. Legendary actress Joan Collins -- Dame Joan Collins joins us to talk about King Charles III. Also, why tomorrow isn't just a big moment for the King, but for everyone in the royal line of succession. More ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
