Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Gov. Abbott Orders Arrest Of State Democrats Who Fled State Over Redistricting; Two Epstein Victims Condemn DOJ's Request To Unseal Testimony; Trump DOJ Launching Grand Jury Probe Into 2016 Russia Investigation; Active Manhunts for Alleged Killers in Tennessee and Montana; Diddy's Ex Advocates for His Release After Dropping Out of Trial. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired August 04, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Don't miss the all new CNN Original Series "American Prince: JFK Jr." It dives with the remarkable life of John F. Kennedy, Jr. and his lasting legacy. It premieres Saturday at 9 p.m. right here on CNN.
That's it for us tonight here. I will say I'm back tomorrow morning, in just a few hours from now, 7 a.m. on CNN News Central. Be sure to watch. In the meantime, I turn over to "Laura Coates Live" which starts right now.
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Tonight, a Texas showdown goes national. Governor Greg Abbott orders arrest warrants for Democratic lawmakers as governors in blue states threaten a power play of their own. Plus, a Jeffrey Epstein victim speaks out against what they call political warfare, who they're accusing the DOJ and FBI of protecting. And two major manhunts in two different states. The search for suspected murders on the loose in Montana and Tennessee. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
BLACKWELL: Welcome to the show. I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura. A political showdown in Texas just got a lot uglier and it's now threatening to spread to other states. Governor Greg Abbott is ordering the arrest of dozens of state Democrats. They fled the state to block what they're calling a power grab, a Trump-backed redistricting plan that could decide the balance of power on Capitol Hill. Now, this would give Republicans as many as five more U.S. House seats in the midterms. And tonight, Texas Republicans say they're ready to force those Democrats back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DUSTIN BURROWS (R-TX): While our work may be delayed, whether it's tomorrow or next week, the House will complete its required duties. I have signed the civil arrest warrants. We will work with DPS to locate members.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: DPS is the Texas Department of Public Safety, that state's top law enforcement agency. The lawmakers who left say they're not worried. They argue that Abbott has no power to haul them back across state lines. But the governor is still escalating, and he's threatening to investigate them over bribery allegations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): The reports are these legislators have been both -- they sought money and they offered money to skip the vote, to leave the legislature, to take a legislative act. That would be bribery. They face a possibility of facing bribery charges, which is a second-degree felony in the state of Texas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Texas Democrats deny those obligations. They say this is about more than politics. They're telling the governor they're not pulling a stunt, they're taking a stand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BUCY (D-TX): The governor can lie only once. But we're not running away, we're running into the fight. Texas Democrats are standing up for one of our most basic American principles.
JAMES TALARICO (D-TX): If law enforcement arrests me, I will go peacefully. But I am doing this because I'm fighting for my constituents and their right to elect leaders of their choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: The Democrats who left are now scattered across the country. They're huddled in cities like Chicago and Boston, New York's capital of Albany. Governor Abbott is calling them hypocritical.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBOTT: To run to states like New York and Illinois to protest redistricting is kind of like running to Wisconsin to protest cheese. It's just kind of outrageous. Those are New York and Illinois, two hallmark states. They've already done redistricting to eliminate Republicans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: But Democrats are crying foul. They say Texas is playing by a very different set of rules.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LINDA GARCIA (D-TX): Our Texas Constitution calls for redistricting every 10 years based on the census. We are not at the 10-year mark. We are halfway through the 10-year mark. And so not only are we redistricting from data that is incorrect, but we are also watering down the voices.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BLACKWELL: One thing is clear here. Texas may have just lit the fuse of a coast to coast redistricting arms race. Democratic governors say if Republicans want to fight over the congressional map, two can play that game.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. KATHY HOCHUL (D-NY): All is fair in love and war. That's why I'm exploring with our leaders every option to redraw our state congressional lines as soon as possible.
GOV. JB PRITZKER (D-IL): All bets are off. Everything got to be on the table.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): They've triggered this response. We're not going to roll over, and we're going to fight fire with fire.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Starting off tonight is former Texas congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke. Mr. O'Rourke, to have you on the show.
Let's sit the arrest warrants to the side for just a moment because they're largely symbolic. DPS is not going to New York to bring back these members of the state legislature. But the governor now saying that lawmakers could face bribery charges.
[23:05:00]
And they forfeited their right to be in office. What's your reaction?
BETO O'ROURKE, FORMER TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: These Texas Democrats are doing exactly what their constituents, the people that they were elected to serve and represent, they're doing exactly what they want them to do, which is to defend democracy in our state, stop this naked power grab by Donald Trump, who in broad daylight said, go find me five congressional seats in Texas to Greg Abbott and to the Texas Republicans. And thick as thieves, they are doing his bidding right now, trying to steal the 2026 election right now in the summer of 2025.
These Texas Democrats are not just fighting for their constituents, though. They're not just fighting for the people of Texas. They are fighting for all of us because if Trump succeeds in this, then there will be no check on his lawlessness, no accountability for his corruption and crimes. And you know that a Republican majority Congress, this is the only way he'd be able to hold the Congress, will roll out the red carpet for a Trump third term. So, these Texas Democrats are fighting for all of us right now at this moment of truth.
And picture on these bribery charges, that's rich coming from the governor who took $6 million from an out-of-state billionaire to defund local schools and turn that money over to private schools through vouchers, or our attorney general who, I'm sure, you know has vowed to hunt down these Democrats. He was actually impeached by a Republican majority legislature in Texas on bribery charges.
So, I think they're trying to deflect from their own crimes and problems, and they're going after these Democrats who are really trying to serve and save all of us, Republican, Democrat, independent alike, Americans.
BLACKWELL: So, Democrats say that this is about principle that taking a stand. They did this a few years ago in 2021. They did it in 2003. And both times, uh, they had to eventually come back. Republicans passed the legislation. Why do this again? Why do this now?
O'ROURKE: Everything is -- is on the line. If we fail, it means a Republican majority won only through theft in Texas that will allow more mass plain clothes, federal agents without warrants or badges sweeping our fellow Americans off the streets, more billions of dollars being transferred from working Americans to the very wealthiest 1% in this country, and it may mean the consolidation of authoritarian power in this country.
I mean, think everything is on the line. And I just want to say thank you to Governor Pritzker, Governor Hochul, Governor Newsom for seizing the initiative, not -- not awaiting the punch to be thrown by these would be fascists, but throwing our punch first and throwing it harder. We must redraw these districts in those three states to democratic advantage.
Victor, I wish it were otherwise. I wish members of Congress were not choosing their own voters. But -- but we did not choose this fight. Donald Trump has brought it to us. We're going to bring it right back to him. And we are going to win, fighting fire with fire.
BLACKWELL: Okay. So, let's talk about that because the argument that you're making and the argument that these Texas Democrats are making, it's -- it's principle. Yes. And you're saying that the principle of this is that you are now engaging to, in your words, rig the 2026 elections, the -- the districts for -- for Republicans. If it's a principled argument, your suggestion is that Democrats should now sit those principles aside. Am I hearing that right?
O'ROURKE: You're hearing that exactly right. IK think Democrats for far too long have been far too concerned about being right or principled instead of being in power, while the other side, led by Donald Trump, has cared only about being in power, regardless of what is right, what is moral, what is legal, what is ethical.
We have to be ruthlessly focused on winning power right now. If we don't -- I'm trying to make the case to your viewers right now. That if we fail in this task, it's the 2026 election really being decided right now in the summer of 2025, then what Lincoln called the last best hope of earth might be lost to us. And it won't just be lost to this generation, it will be lost to every generation going forward.
It was the folks who fought for independence in 1776, who brought the Confederacy to its knees in 1865, who landed on those beaches in 1944 in Normandy to defeat fascism overseas to protect democracy at home. It was the freedom marchers and freedom riders who won civil rights and voting rights and political rights. It's now up to our generation to do our part to save this country. We've inherited all that sacrifice --
BLACKWELL: Yeah.
O'ROURKE: -- and service and struggle. Now, we got to show up, we got to stand up, and we got to be counted. We got to fight back, and we got to win. Victor, that's all that matters at this point, is winning, winning power and using it to restore everybody's rights in America and to set this country straight.
BLACKWELL: That's a stark statement, that all that matters now is winning. Let me ask you about the money here because the governor again suggested these bribery charges. Who's paying for this? Who's paying for the flights and the hotels and the food for all these members of -- of the state legislature?
[23:10:03]
O'ROURKE: Thousands of people have texted "fight" to 20377. We are sending those donations, 100 cents on the dollar, to pay for the flights, the food, the lodging, whatever these legislators need to prevail in this fight because they absolutely have to win.
And as you pointed out at the opening, they've got state troopers following them. I would expect that Donald Trump will use a long arm of federal law enforcement to pursue them and try to hunt them down as well. This isn't easy and this is very expensive. And we're grateful to every American who has stepped up to have their backs.
BLACKWELL: Beto O'Rourke, thank you for being on the show tonight.
I want to bring in now senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, Josh Gerstein. Josh, thank you for being here as well.
To hear from the congressman, the former congressman, who says that all now it is, is to win, how do we get here? Take me back to 2019 and how the Supreme Court set this up potentially.
JOSH GERSTEIN, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, we did have this big showdown at the Supreme Court over what was called at the time partisan gerrymandering back in 2019. It was a case out of North Carolina and also out of Maryland. In North Carolina, Republicans had drawn some pretty egregious districts in order to try to boost their numbers there. And in Maryland, Democrats had done much the same, and it went to the Supreme Court for a resolution.
This issue had been kicking around for quite a while, and it came out with a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts that basically said that the courts were not going to step in to stop partisan gerrymandering, that it was just too hard because, remember, we're talking about state legislatures, Victor. So, Roberts's view was these are politicians. To ask them to do their job in the area of redistricting, uh, without politics getting involved is next to impossible. BLACKWELL: Yeah. Is there any way to get out of this, what looks now to be the start of a cycle, that if it happens in Texas, it'll happen then in New York and California, who knows if Florida and Ohio will get in, and back and forth, to change this without changing the law?
GERSTEIN: Well, it's very difficult. I mean, we've seen a bunch of states like California, for example, try to move towards -- Arizona also -- move towards redistricting commissions that were designed to take this out of the hands of state legislators and give it to independent commissions that tried to draw what they thought were more reasonable boundaries, less politically biased boundaries.
And the Supreme Court did uphold that in an Arizona case. Now, whether the Supreme Court we have now, which is more conservative than the one even back in 2019, would uphold that at this point, I think, is an open question.
BLACKWELL: Hmm.
GERSTEIN: We saw one justice who was on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy. He is someone who had said he could imagine a case where a partisan gerrymander was so significant that the courts would have to strike it down. Of course, Kennedy is no longer on the court, replaced by President Donald Trump with Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh voted with Roberts and the majority in that 2019 case.
BLACKWELL: Texas Governor Greg Abbott has now called for these arrest warrants for these Democratic members. Is there any way that he can force them to come back to Texas?
GERSTEIN: I don't think he can sort of legally force them and arrest them in other states. But there are things he can threaten to do in Texas that could be very complicated. There's one maneuver that he's apparently considering that would try to strip them of office. That could be a problem because if they lose their seats, then the fact that they're not present in the legislature would be less of an obstacle for the Republicans to try to overcome there.
And I think, as Beto O'Rourke was saying, there is some concern that some way, the Justice Department or federal law enforcement could be involved in this dispute. I'm not sure what the mechanism for that would be but, certainly, it's something that Trump administration would be eager to take part in if they could figure out a way to do it.
BLACKWELL: Yeah. All right, Josh Gerstein, thank you.
GERSTEIN: Thank you.
BLACKWELL: Next -- quote -- "I am not some pawn in your political warfare." Jeffrey Epstein's victims are speaking out tonight, accusing the DOJ of seeking the opposite of justice as more Republican lawmakers face questions at home over the scandal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Next question. Why are you covering up the Epstein files?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: An anonymous Jeffrey Epstein victim wrote a letter to the court with her words here, disdain, disgust, and fear. The alleged victim blasted the Trump administration and the Department of Justice for how they've handled the promise to release information in the case.
Here's part of the letter. Dear United States, I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole Epstein files with more respect towards and for the victims. I'm not some pawn in your political warfare. What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely. Why not be completely transparent? Show us all the files with only the necessary redactions. Be done with it and allow me, us, to heal.
Another unnamed victim wrote this. It appears that the DOJ and FBI's priority is to protect wealthy men.
Well, tonight, Republican Congressman Mike Flood pressed on the lack of transparency at a town hall. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Why are you covering up the Epstein files?
[23:19:58]
REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): At the next pro forma session of the Congress, you'll find my name as a sponsor on a resolution from the House Rules Committee to release the Epstein files, to protect the victims and not re-victimize them again. I am for the release of those records.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: With me now, CNN political commentator Karen Finney and Republican strategist Lance Trover. Welcome to you both.
Lance, let me start with you. President Trump campaigned in part on releasing these files. Right? When asked, he said, yes, I'd do that. Pam Bondi handed out these binders with phase one and had the influence come out of the White House and hold them up. Has he failed the victims by playing this the way that he has?
LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: I don't think he has failed the victims. I suspect we're going to hear -- look, you saw the crowd, we saw what just happened at that town hall that you just saw. I think there is a movement among people who want to see the files come out. I think when the necessary redactions are made, I got to believe that this administration will follow through and keep the promises that were made and put the files out there.
BLACKWELL: Hmm.
K0AREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He failed the victims the moment he utilized this as a way to lean into conspiracy theories during the elections. He had no thought about what this would mean for these women.
And one of the things I found was so moving, Kaitlan Collins did an interview last week with Virginia Giuffre's family --
BLACKWELL: Yeah.
FINNEY: -- and one of her brothers said, you have to understand this has been 10 years for us. They have been re-victimized over and over and over again, these individuals. You know, the conspiracy theorists are focused on the gotcha game. But these women want justice.
And if the president actually cared about them, he would have said from day one, let's release the files, let's redact all of their names and make sure they're protected, let's, you know, do that in a timely fashion. Instead, he has been dangling it out there and they're making political theater out of it, not remembering that, at the end of the day, this is a human story about girls, little girls. At least a thousand of whom weren't just trafficked, they were sexually assaulted and raped, all around the world.
TROVER: Hold on. Who has made political theater out of this over the last three weeks? Democrats didn't give a damn about this issue until they thought it might hurt Donald Trump.
FINNEY: Actually --
TROVER: There's only one side that has been creating political theater, it's the Democratic Party. It was --
FINNEY: Actually, the binder --
TROVER: -- Chuck Schumer and everybody -- everybody in Congress has made this into political theater. That is just -- that is just --
FINNEY: No.
TROVER: I can't let you say that.
FINNEY: Democrats in Congress have said, we're going to hold you to your word. You said you're going to release the information.
TROVER: You guys didn't even care about this issue until you thought --
FINNEY: That's actually not true. The case was prosecuted --
TROVER: -- it was a problem for Donald Trump. FINNEY: Under Joe Biden, actually, the case was prosecuted. Ghislaine Maxwell actually was sentenced in 2022. She has had an appeal, so it has actually been an active case. Donald Trump is the one who, on the campaign trail, made the promise --
TROVER: Yeah.
FINNEY: -- and actually utilized their pain for his own political gain, and then had them show up -- had them show up --
TROVER: What are you talking about?
FINNEY: -- at the White House for this meeting with Pam Bondi and the binders that Victor was just -- are you -- I mean, come on.
TROVER: No --
FINNEY: You have to at least acknowledge.
TROVER: You're saying political theater. The political theater has come from the Democratic Party over the last month.
FINNEY: So, you're saying the binders wasn't political theater.
TROVER: No. What I'm saying --
FINNEY: When you saw picture of Laura Loomer coming out of the West Wing with those -- right there's the picture.
TROVER: Yeah.
FINNEY: You're saying that's not political theater?
TROVER: I'm saying you are saying that there's one side doing political theater. That's just not true. The Democrats have instigated political theater now for a month because they think it would hurt Donald Trump.
BLACKWELL: But Karen, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this because Ro Khanna is co-sponsoring this bill, now standing, saying that we want the transparency for the victims, we want to learn more about this file. How much attention should Democrats be paying to this because people want to talk about or learn more about the changes to Medicaid --
FINNEY: Yup.
BLACKWELL: -- to social security potentially, the economy, the cost of beef. Can they overplay their hands?
FINNEY: Well, Democrats have actually been talking about all of that. I mean, during the August recess, there's a whole schedule of events. The Democrats are talking about the anniversary of the founding of Medicaid, the creation of Medicaid. They've actually been talking about these economic kitchen table issues. However, when it comes to this, and I will remind you, it was a Democrat, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who actually got legislation passed after Alex Acosta did that sweetheart deal with Jeffrey Epstein that the victims didn't even know about. She's the one who actually got a law passed that says you can't do that anymore.
That's part of what the victims are asking for. They're saying, you know what? Let us see what was in this conversation that President Trump's former attorney and now deputy at the Department of Justice -- what was in that conversation? Because it was about them and their lives.
BLACKWELL: Yeah. Let me talk to you about Lara Trump having on Charlamagne Tha God on her show. There was this exchange in which he said that this is going to be an opportunity, this fight over the Epstein files, for traditional Republicans, as he calls them, to make a move. Let's watch.
[23:25:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD, RADIO HOST: I think there's a political --
LARA TRUMP, FORMER RNC CO-CHAIR: Hmm.
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: -- coup going on right now in the Republican Party that people aren't paying attention to. This Epstein thing is going to be a way for traditional conservatives to take their party back. I really do. ui I think that -- I think that, um -- I think that they know this is the issue that has gotten the base riled up. The base -- the MAGA base isn't letting this issue go. And for the first time, they know they can, you know, probably take their party back and not piss off the MAGA base.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: What do you think?
TROVER: Has he seen a poll lately? Donald Trump is the Republican Party. It's 95% approval rate among Republicans. So, I don't know what traditional conservatives he's talking about. The Republican Party is as unified as it has been in probably 25 years.
BLACKWELL: But --
TROVER: I'm not sure who he's talking about.
BLACKWELL: There are certainly members of the president's base who are dissatisfied. Marjorie Taylor Greene today tweeted out a checklist of don't talk about it unless you're to do something about it. Jeffrey Epstein arrest, zero. January 6th, zero. So, they are some members that are very close to the president disappointed with the lack of action or progress on some of these issues.
FINNEY: Oh, and just today, we learned he's not going to keep his word on IVF.
TROVER: I'm not --
FINNEY: So --
TROVER: I don't think that has been reported. I mean, they said there have been legal issues.
FINNEY: Yes, it has. It has been all over the news.
TROVER: They would need to pass -- they would need to pass a bill.
FINNEY: All over the news all day.
TROVER: There would need to be a congressional action on that.
FINNEY: Oh, that's where we're going to go for congressional action. We're not going to go to Congress for anything that has to do with money or budget.
TROVER: The issue is a legal issue, then we need to go through a bill in Congress to get done.
FINNEY: Come on. Either you keep your promises or you don't.
TROVER: Anyway, to your point about Charlemagne, I mean, he was saying traditional conservatives. I'm not sure what he's talking about. Conservatives and Republicans are united in a line with Donald Trump. So, I'm just -- I'm confused by even what he's talking about there because the party is united behind Donald Trump.
FINNEY: Well, actually, we're seeing polls where some traditional conservatives are leaving, don't agree with the way the president is handling any number of issues. But I think that was a great gimmick for him to go on.
BLACKWELL: He also referred to it as a racist sleazebag. Charlamagne Tha God didn't bring up race once during that interview with Lara Trump. Why invoke race and call him a racist?
TROVER: I mean, you need to ask the president about that. But you're stepping into the line of fire with the president of the United States. You know how he is. He's going to fire back at will. So, I mean --
BLACKWELL: With racism. All right, Lance, Karen, thank you.
FINNEY: Thanks.
BLACKWELL: All right, ahead, it is one of Trump's favorite phrases, Russia, Russia, Russia. And now, Attorney General Pam Bondi is directing the DOJ to open a grand jury investigation into Obama officials over the Russia investigation. Is this a distraction? Who's at risk? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: The Department of Justice is turning its attention to another investigation. A source tells CNN Attorney General Pam Bondi is directing prosecutors to start a grand jury probe into the origins of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation.
The move follows a referral by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who recently declassified documents that she insists prove Obama-era officials conspired to smear then-candidate Donald Trump by falsely claiming his campaign was colluding with the Russian government.
So, what could possibly be the charges here? Who might be targeted? That's unclear.
Let's get into it. Josh Gerstein is back. Also joining now, former federal prosecutor Alyse Adamson. Welcome to you both. Josh, let me start with you. Is this a distraction?
GERSTEIN: I mean, I think there's no question it's very convenient for the Trump Justice Department to have this announcement come out. I think it's a big tell, Victor, that all the reports that have come out about this say Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered this to happen. Well, she's the one that has been in the hot seat over the Epstein file. So, I think there's no question, like I said, that it's something that the Justice Department is pleased to have as a distraction from the Epstein mess that they've been, the soup they've been in for three weeks now.
BLACKWELL: And Gabbard was in the hot seat over her assessment of Iran and disagreed with the president as well. So, this may benefit both of them if that is indeed what it is, a distraction. Alyse, let me come to you. Walk us through what happens now.
ALYSE ADAMSON, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah. I mean, this is a significant escalation, if you will, before we had Tulsi Gabbard saying that she had made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. A lot of times, those referrals don't go anywhere. It's up to the Department of Justice. It's within their discretion to open a grand jury investigation.
What this means now is a grand jury has been impaneled. And now, the grand jury has subpoena power, which means they can request documents to further investigate these claims. Even more significantly, they can bring witnesses into the grand jury, ask them questions.
I mean, will they actually bring in these high-level witnesses like a Brennan, a Comey? I mean, we talked about this before we came on air. And the Epstein files, we hear, they only brought witnesses in, law enforcement personnel. So, we don't know what they will do, but that is a power the prosecutors will have now.
I think it's going to be very uncomfortable for a few Obama-era officials going forward because a grand jury investigation definitely has consequences. And it seems Attorney General Bondi is serious about this, and I know is also going to be answering to the president.
[23:35:03]
So, I think the next steps is going to be additional evidence gap for the other ring.
BLACKWELL: Subpoenaing documents coming in for interviews with the grand jury. We could see some of those top officials pulled in.
ADAMSON: Potentially. Potentially. Again, uh, that isn't always the department's practice. There are a variety of reasons. We don't need to get into the weeds.
BLACKWELL: Uh-hmm.
ADAMSON: Just, you know, the grand jury -- we talked about this as well. The grand jury can ask questions to witnesses. It is -- it is not always department's practice to bring in the high-level targets of an investigation. These are folks that the grand jury could ultimately issue charges against But, again, it is possible. So, those would be the next steps. And then the last step, if the evidence suggests, allows it, the standard for a grand jury is probable cause.
BLACKWELL: Yeah.
ADAMSON: The grand jury could then issue something that's called an indictment. That is a formal charging document. That is how they charge individuals. But that standard probable cause, that's much lower than when you take a case to trial, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. There used to be a joke that you could indict a ham sandwich, and that's because the standard of evidence is much lower.
BLACKWELL: Let's talk about the evidence because the Trump-Russia investigation scandal was investigated how many ways? I mean, congressional investigations, two special councils. Do you think it's possible that there is something new? That she has found something new?
GERSTEIN: I think it's unlikely. I mean, they may have -- they may have found a document somewhere that's different than something some prior prosecutor saw. But the chances that that would really tip the balance here towards bringing criminal charges against someone, I think, is unlikely. I mean, Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed specifically to look into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, which sounds almost exactly like what they're talking about this investigation being --
BLACKWELL: Yeah.
GERSTEIN: -- he looked really, really hard to try to find potential charges here, so hard that he bought a total of three cases, and he lost two of them. In one case the person pled guilty. The other two, they lost at trial. So, he was not someone that was, you know, wary about taking a case that might not be successful, that was on the borderline. They did that twice and lost. So, it seems very unlikely to me that there were a lot of rocks that that special counsel's office decided not to turn over.
BLACKWELL: Statute of limitations. I mean, for most federal crimes, it's five years. It's now 2025. We are talking about investigating, uh, several years ago. Is it plausible that there will be charges filed based on that window?
ADAMSON: Well, first of all, I don't even see the basis for charges. Let's just be clear with the evidence, as we understand it. And again, this has been well investigated for almost a decade. I don't even understand what charges they would bring. But just assuming, maybe they're bringing an obstruction charge, a perjury charge like they tried to in the first place.
You're right, five years is a statute of limitations. There are ways to revive charges. And if someone has -- conduct is more recent, then they can bring those charges back, they can revive them. But once again, we haven't heard any allegation to make that possible.
So, as it stands now, which what we know, I don't know how they could possibly bring charges. That's not to say that some enterprising prosecutor isn't trying to. I mean, that they would argue that's the purpose of the grand jury investigation. That's why they're investigating.
GERSTEIN: But the process can be the punishment also, Victor. Right? I mean, if they call several prominent individuals from the Obama administration in front of a grand jury and those people feel like they have no choice or their lawyers advise them that they should take the Fifth Amendment, which they have the right to do, that will be a big story and a big scene.
And as much as we think this is a distraction now, that will be a continuing distraction. That might be, you know, as we say, punishment in the eyes of some for whatever transgression might have taken place here.
And from the point of view of someone like President Trump, he might regard that as a tit for tat, appropriate kind of retaliation through the legal system for what the wrongs that he thinks were committed against him during the years before he came back in --
BLACKWELL: Time, money, reputational damage, all of it could go on for some time.
GERSTEIN: Right.
BLACKWELL: Josh, Alyse, thank you. Two quadruple murders, two active manhunts. Communities in Montana and Tennessee on high alert tonight as two alleged killers are on the loose. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: At this hour, two massive manhunts have intensified. They stem from two separate quadruple murders. Let's start in Montana. Authorities are looking for 45-year-old Michael Paul Brown for allegedly shooting and killing four people at a bar on Friday morning. Now, in Tennessee, there's an intensive search to find 28-year-old Austin Robert Drummond. He has been charged in the killings of four family members and the kidnapping of their seven-month-old baby and leaving her in a car seat 40 miles away.
This is just in to CNN, two new surveillance videos from Sunday. In one, showing the suspect in a camouflage jacket. The other, of him carries a -- he's carrying a rifle here, jiggling the handle of a door. You see him there.
[23:44:58]
Joining me now is retired FBI supervisory special agent and co-founder and president of Brunner Sierra Group, Daniel Brunner. Daniel, good evening to you. Let's start in Montana and the search for this suspect in this bar shooting. The terrain here is such an important variable, where they're searching. Talk to me about that.
DANIEL BRUNNER, RETIRED FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF BRUNNER SIERRA GROUP: Thanks for having me on tonight. So, one of the biggest factors that is making it difficult for law enforcement here in Montana, which is right down the road for me, this search is -- it's so vast and so huge. We're talking 5,000 acres of land where there's lots of different areas to hide. There's lots of different crevices to be able to abscond himself and be away from it.
And there isn't the available resources to bring the needed law enforcement in here to do a manhunt that is needed to cover that territory. Then at night, if they have helicopters or drones overhead with forward-looking infrared, you're now competing with other animals in the area, cougars, buffalo.
So, there's a lot of different factors that make this search very difficult up here in Montana.
BLACKWELL: There's also the knowledge, potentially, of this suspect who is a veteran, so that may play into the survival skills there. Also, there's the mention of maybe some PTSD, some mental health issues. How does that play in?
BRUNNER: I think it all factors in to the overall operation that they're going be doing. I've been involved in numerous manhunts like this in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and then Maryland, where you have to take the factor in that this individual is armed and dangerous. We know he is violent. We know he's prone to take lives.
So, everybody in line, for every person that's out there right now working this investigation, has to be prepared for worst-case scenario, that this individual is not going to be taken alive, he has already taken lives, and assuming that he can take another person's life has to be the priority of law enforcement. BLACKWELL: Let's talk about the suspect in Tennessee, Austin Drummond. It has been nearly a week since this seven-month-old was just left in a car seat on the front lawn of a home. The TBI, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, has released little information about a motive here, connection to the victims. What stands out in this investigation?
BRUNNER: I think this one is different. And this one, for me, is much more dangerous. They're both extremely dangerous to the communities, anaconda, uh, here in Montana. But this one is of a little bit more concerning to me because you can see him in camouflage, walking around with the rifle or -- that it -- that made the -- the weapon that was used, and he's attempting to find different areas. So, he's more self- aware.
Whereas it's believed that the other individual in Montana has some mental difficulties, this individual is self-aware. He is making attempt to hide himself, and he's making attempt to continue this operation. We know that he's allegedly part of a gang there in Tennessee. So, these are -- is quite different but also just as dangerous.
BLACKWELL: We're so glad that he did, the alleged suspect here. But what do you think informed the decision to spare the baby?
BRUNNER: Well, that's a -- that goes in the lines of questions of the same thing that happened in other investigations where children are spared. And you really have to sit down. Hopefully, he's taken alive so the FBI can sit down and talk to him and understand this individual and understand what was the motivation to going through this pathway to violence. Why, where did he decide to go off in this this this shooting spree? Why did he decide to do this? What was the motivation?
The innocent child maybe wasn't -- he didn't consider it a threat. Maybe he was doing it for the child. Those are all speculations. Hopefully, we're able to get him into custody and understand where he was coming from and where he was pushing. But getting him in custody, hopefully, without anybody else's life in danger of being taken in custody is ultimate goal.
BLACKWELL: Yeah. Two communities on high alert. One suspect isolated into potentially the woods. Another one jiggling door handles in a community. Daniel Brunner, thanks so much.
Ahead, she was supposed to testify against Diddy. But now, his ex- girlfriend is writing a letter to the judge, asking him to let Diddy out on bail. Joey Jackson is here to make sense of that for us after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLACKWELL: Sean "Diddy" Combs's latest request for bail was denied again by a federal judge today. Diddy's attorney petitioned to have him released on bail until his sentencing in October after jury convicted him on charges of transportation to engage in prostitution.
One of Diddy's ex-girlfriends even wrote a letter to the judge on his behalf, saying that he should be released now on bail. The catch is that Diddy's ex-girlfriend, Gina Huynh, was originally set to testify against him. She was referenced in the indictment as victim number three. Gina later dropped out of the case and did not testify. In a 2019 interview, though, Gina recalled incidents of physical abuse during their five-year relationship. Watch.
[23:55:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINA HUYNH, SEAN COMB'S EX-GIRLFRIEND: He started like punching me like this. Like he avoided my face, but he like started punching me, like on the side of my head, and I was just like covering my face. And he did that -- he did that. And then -- and then after he got done doing that, he like -- because he was standing -- his legs were like stay in between me. So, he like -- he like stomped on my stomach, like really hard, and I like took the wind out of my breath. I couldn't even -- I couldn't breathe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: All right, with me now, Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst. Joey, good to see you this evening. Let's start with this bail denial. You surprised?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, I'm not surprised, Victor. But there a short game and a long game. Right? The short game is, should he go home? That is Diddy pending his sentence on October 3rd. The long game is, what will he be sentenced to? And that, I think, long game is really even more important because the fact is that he's in jail, he's going to get the credit for the time he has already served.
So, at sentencing, whatever sentence the judge pronounces, Victor, will incorporate that sentence. And so, it seems to me that the judge will either keep him in or keep him in for an elongated time. And so, leaving him in is really something that I think the judge believes to be appropriate based on his sentencing.
In terms of whether the judge could release him, I think, legally speaking, he could have. There's a couple of things you look at. Is he a danger to the community? Is he a flight risk? If those things are satisfied, you let him go. But, according to this judge, he is a danger to the community and he is a risk of flight. As a result of that and other circumstances, Victor, the judge decided to keep him.
BLACKWELL: Yeah, the judge says that the violence happens behind closed doors, how do you mitigate that and keep everybody safe? Let's talk now about this letter from Gina Huynh. I'll read a portion of it here. She writes, by the time our relationship ended, he embodied an energy of love, patience, and gentleness that was markedly different from his past behavior. To my knowledge, he has not been violent for many years, and he has been committed to being a father first. I am writing because I do not Mr. Combs as a danger to me or to the community.
Again, you heard what she said there in 2019. She was initially going to testify against him. Is she -- is this credible?
JACKSON: So, a couple of things, Victor. What everyone needs to understand is that if the government wanted her to testify, she would testify. What you do as a prosecutor is you get a material witness order, and that witness comes to court in cuffs in order to state the narrative of the prosecution.
It's clear to me that the reason she did not testify is that the government did not feel convinced that she would further the narrative of their case with regard to her being coerced into sex trafficking, with regard to her being forced into these threesomes of freak-offs, etcetera.
So, putting that question aside, look, she, apparently, had a change of heart. She knows him, having been in a relationship with Diddy for five years. No abuse should be tolerated ever. But, apparently, she reached the conclusion that he was a rehabilitated person, wanted to convey that to the judge with the hopes that that would change the judge's mind. Apparently, based on the judge's decision to keep him in, it did not.
BLACKWELL: Okay. So that ends with the question of credibility. But what's the value of these letters in this process if you're judging off of threat to the community and flight risk, what Gina Huynh says? How valuable is that variable?
JACKSON: So, it's valuable. I mean, it's someone who's familiar with him, who was in a multi-year relationship with him, five years, knows his demeanor, knows his comportment, knows his modus operandi, and after all, one of the considerations is indeed whether you're a danger to the community. Evaluating that depends upon whether you're a danger to a specific individual.
This person, of course, describing a relationship that had some difficulties and even talking about some physical abuse, but ultimately saying that she feels he's rehabilitated, she feels that he's really about his family, she feels he has developed and moved on.
And look, redemption is important, rehabilitation is important. And you always get these notes to the judge, letters to the judge, indicating whether someone's character is something that's redeemable or whether someone's character is beyond the pale. And, apparently, the judge weighed this and made a consideration that the defense didn't establish, this is the standard, by clear and convincing evidence that either one, he was not a danger to the community, or two, that he would really risk -- be a risk of leaving the jurisdiction.
And final point, Victor, and that is that, look, you can, if you're going to be released, have certain conditions.
BLACKWELL: Yeah.
JACKSON: He put up $50 million in bail, surrendered his passport, etcetera.
[00:00:01]
The judge could have said, hey, you know what? I'm going to release you because of the fact that you're not in the public. Right? Even home detention could have been an option. But this judge didn't feel it appropriate. And, of course, again, it's about the long game. What will he be sentenced to?
BLACKWELL: Yeah.
JACKSON: That, ultimately, is the question. Prosecution saying five years, maybe hopping that to eight now --
BLACKWELL: Yeah.
JACKSON: -- and the defense saying only two. We'll see what the judge does.
BLACKWELL: Joey Jackson, thank you, as always. And thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is up next.
