tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN December 5, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
widgets, parts, hundreds of parts from abroad. they come in and out of the country if every time something that is made in china or the ukraine or wherever is coming into the u.s. and being taxed, that raises the price of u.s. goods. that hurts u.s. companies and could hurt u.s. consumers. that would actually not be a popular thing to do back here at home. >> thank you for your expertise and weighing in. top of the hour. i'm ana cabrera in for brooke baldwin. thank you for being here. the white house just acknowledged donald trump's latest war of words with china could damage the progress the united states has made with the asian power house. trump went on a twitter tirade today after chinese officials lodged a complaint with the u.s. over trump's phone call with the president of taiwan. he tweeted this, did china ask us if it was okay to devalue their currency making it harder for our companies to compete, heavily tax our products going into their country? the u.s. doesn't tax them.
or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the south china sea? i don't think so. now, let me point out the u.s. does impose a small tax on chinese goods. so, earlier, white house press secretary josh earnest said, u.s. officials did speak with their chinese counterparts after that trump phone call. listen. >> some of the progress we have made in our relationship with china could be undermined by this issue flaring up. it's also unclear how the people who live in taiwan benefit from this issue flaring up. the response from the chinese government in the aftermath of this call has primarily been to ratchet up the rhetoric against taiwan. >> joining me now, washington post staff writer anne gearan. i know you just wrote a piece about this phone call, vice president-elect saying, it was just a courtesy call. we shouldn't read too much into
it. but you write this call may have been planned weeks ago. you say it was intentionally provocative. what are your sources telling you? >> thank you, ana. they're telling us a number of interesting things, including that the groundwork for this contact was laid months and months ago, even before donald trump -- >> months ago? >> yeah, even before trump had secured the presidential nomination. there was an effort to insert some very strong language into the republican platform that was approved in july when he was given the nomination, but, of course, that language had been written earlier than that. that kind of drew a line, a new line, on taiwan and china, a tougher line against china and included very supportive language that was slightly -- about taiwan that was slightly different than previous republican platforms. some people involved in that effort are some of the people who have been advising trump directly or at arm's length in
the month since. and he's now surrounded by a number of republican foreign policy specialists for whom taiwan is a very major priority. they've been talking to him and talking among themselves for weeks now about how to make -- send a strong signal on taiwan and kind of make a splash with this issue, which is how the call friday came about. >> now, has china responded as expected? >> you know, china -- china is one of the toughest countries to predict and to understand what they are saying and why and how they're going to respond to things. certainly the initial response, which was a stern note of rebuke and irritation was expected. that was directed first at the white house, which is sort of a classic chinese move to
essentially blame the government in power now, even though, of course, president obama didn't have anything to do with this call. but the chinese response was to basically say to obama, hey, dude, like, why can't you keep things in order over there. and that may be part of the reason that you heard josh earnest speak with considerable irritation today. but what's happened in the days since friday on the chinese side is really interesting. we're starting to get some indications that the chinese are rethinking their initial judgment of trump as a businessman without strong ideology and questioning whether, in fact, he really is going to be an idealog on china and how china deals with him. >> it will be interesting to see how this plays out. one thing we know about trump is he's very unpredictable and he likes he has power in his unpredictable. thanks for filling in on some
questions surrounding that phone call. i want to turn to someone who supports trump's phone call with the president of taiwan. joining me is republican congressman from arizona, matt salmon, used to be a missionary in taiwan. congressman, thank you so much for joining us. what's your take on this phone call with trump, the taiwanese president. is it a blunder or is this something more strategic? >> i actually find it quite ironic that the same people raising the red flags about this phone call from the taiwan president to president-elect trump are the same folks that he praised on mrb when he started unlateral negotiations with the sponsor of terrorism in the world, iran. and the same thing when he started negotiating with the brutal killer fidel castro in cuba without talking to
congress, without reaching out to really anybody else. de that alone. i think it's quite ironic the same people are raising the red flag about trump taking a call from a good friend and strong supporter of democracy. i lived in taiwan when we severed relations with them in 1979, when president carter severed all diplomatic ties with taiwan. and i think i have a pretty good take on them and china. i've been to china over 50 times. and as the chairman of the asia-pacific subcommittee on foreign affairs, i think i have a pretty good read on what motivates them. i think this is no -- or this is nothing but a tempest in a teapot. >> if it's not a tempest in a teapot, i want to ask you about the long-standing one china policy that we've heard so much about in the last few days. do you see any risk or danger in
trump's actions? >> no, i don't see any risk in the decades' old one china policy. i think trump is trying to get into a position of strength in negotiating with china. the -- i heard one of the pundits this morning, one of the former ambassadors say, you know, it's a decades' old policy f it ain't broke, don't fix it. the next analyst came on and raised appropriate points. what you do you mean, ain't broke? they haven't lifted a finger in stopping china from their nuclear ambitions, they haven't done anything to come to the table on that. they're also building military installations in the south china sea and manipulating their currency. i could go on and on and on. the fact is that this is not a policy that is without its problems as it currently stands. and i think china needs to understand that the united states is not just going to sit by idly while they flout some of our international rules and
norms. i think trump is trying to get into a position of strength. i actually applaud him for it. >> is there any risk of military intervention becoming involved in this situation. >> not at all. i think that the chinese understand how important we are to their economic success. in fact, they hold 100 billion plus surplus -- trade surplus with the united states. also, taiwan is the number one investor in their economy. they understand the goose and the golden egg and they're not going to do anything to disrupt that. >> is this a power play by donald trump? and how effective do you anticipate it is, given not only the phone call but also his tweets? >> i think that the president-elect understands a lot better than i think people give him credit for. i think that he understands that for a long, long time, china's been dictating a lot of the terms of the multi -- or excuse me, the bilateral agreement
between us and them and deciding which things they want to adhere to and which they don't. i think for him to send a clear message to them in the future, it's going to -- it's going to take a relationship that involves both of us. >> congressman matt salmon, thank you for your opinion. we appreciate you join, us. >> thank you. now for some analysis. joining me cnn's global affairs analyst kimberly dozier and jeff zeleny. kimberly, to you first, because we've also been discussing in recent days the secretary of state position. obviously, whoever ends up filling that seat is going to have to deal with what's become a very controversial situation involving china and taiwan and the united states. what kind of headache is there for trump's next secretary of state? a headache and what we're seeing is a familiar pattern where the president-elect, just as when he was campaigning, seems to get
out front with something his staff wasn't prepared to explain. there was that first tweet out there then where he sounded very defensive. and then china in turn said, well, this call really shouldn't have been made but maybe it's his inexperience and then he fought back with more tweets. now we're hearing from his staff. oh, you know, we planned this all along. it certainly didn't unfold like something that had been planned for a long time those taking the secretary of state position are wondering, will he back me up or is that something i'll have to explain and defend? that's something we won't know until we see his own team around him and the interplay. >> jeff, we're hearing there are more secretary of state candidates also entering the mix here. what do you read into that?
>> last week they said it's down to four people. now it's not the situation here. john bolton, former ambassador s one name that's been talked about a lot. he's had a lot of meetings with the trump officials. david petraeus also in the mix. the ceo of exxon also in the mix, jon huntsman also in the mix and mitt romney and rudy giuliani, we believe, are also still in the mix here. there seems to not be -- this seems to be a final spot as opposed to one of the earlier spots which we thought would happen a lot of mitt romney intimates and advisers are very sort of nervous by what's been happening because they say mitt romney has gone through this process. he essentially walked back everything he said, you know, during the campaign and he may look foolish here at the end of the day, they believe. they're still not sure who he'll
pick. >> in the meantime, he's picking other cabinet positions, tweeting on china and meeting with al gore, apparently, today. a guy who has made climate change his platform and now donald trump seems to be extending an olive branch. >> of all the people we've seen walk into trump tower, i think al gore is the most interesting in the last month. >> why? >> he campaigned so aggressively against donald trump. he has one issue that's climate change. donald trump is very friendly and familiar to florida. i'm told by one adviser this is a very florida-specific conversation that donald trump had an open mind to this. so, i think it's going to drive some of his supporters on the -- on the other side of climate change absolutely crazy he's sitting down with al gore. this is so interesting. we'll see if it's a one-off or one of several meetings. he was supposed to meet with ivanka trump. he ended up in a long meeting with donald trump. so interesting. >> the idea that ivanka trump would have been meeting with al
gore has also raised questions about conflict of interest of his children, perhaps, joining donald trump in some of these meetings that are regarding u.s. policy and then yet maybe taking over his businesses. do you see a conflict of interest in this dynamic? >> at this point you can't but help be concerned when his children, who are going to be running his business and have been conducting business with some of the -- some of these countries are now in a meeting with president-elect and those leaders. but, remember, he's not sworn in yet. so, i think what you may see is if this kind of meeting continues after he's become president, probably you're going to see american citizens, aclu, some sort of action group look for a case where they can sue and bring this to the courts and really test out this conflict. >> all right. thank you so much.
up next, they are two of trump's closest advisers. we're going to talk more about his daughter and son-in-law. now moving from new york to d.c. are they planning to do more at the white house? plus, a gunman walks into a pizza restaurant, fires a shot. why? because he was, quote, self-investigating a fake news story involving hillary clinton. you'll hear from someone who was inside. and at least 36 people are now dead in this tragic warehouse fire in oakland. new details about where the fire may have started. what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple.
get the recipes at walnuts.org. so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hing, even a rodent ride-along. [dad] alright, buddy, don't forget anything! [kid] i won't, dad... [captain rod] happy tuesday morning! captain rod here. it's pretty hairy out on the interstate.traffic is literally crawling, but there is some movement on the eastside overpass. getting word of another collision. [burke] it happened. december 14th, 2015. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two
that terrific fire in oakland, california, is still rising. 36 people have been confirmed dead and officials say that number could go up. flames raced through the building late friday during an electronic music show, we're told. a criminal investigation has been opened and oakland police officials just finished a briefing saying crewings are back inside the building after they had to retreat because it was unsafe. further evans will require turning off the power for about 12 hours. >> because they were able to go
back in, they have been able to shore up and stabilize to the point they felt it was safe to go back in. now, our second challenge is the crane, the position of the crane and the telephone -- or the power lines. >> i want to bring in fire inspector robert rowe. so, crews are turning off the power, as we've just heard, in this area to make room for a large crane, robert. what does that tell you about the scene and some of the challenges investigators might be facing. >> well, with most fire scenes, it can be very dangerous, so, you have to take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety of the rescuers and the invest ers. so, by bringing in cranes, they're taking a step back and moving forward safely and methodically. they have to be careful about removing the debris and make sure they don't disturb any evidence or, basically, harm the fire scene at all in any way, so they can have a pure investigation.
>> when we look at the pictures, you see just how widespread the flames are in this really big building. we're also learning that fire crews discovered steel that was twisted and wrapped in the back of the building. could that be a clue into the fire's origin, perhaps? >> you know, it's very difficult to determine that early in the stages of this fire. they're going to have to again methodically disassemble the fire scene to be able to get a clear picture of exactly what occurred. they'll look at burn patterns, fire patterns, they'll look at everything when necessithey go . so it's hard in this early stage of the investigation to make a determination at that point. >> let's listen to what a former resident of this warehouse told us. >> i expected it to be shut down a long time ago. i called the police three times myself. they escorted me out of that place when i was living there. they were in there to escort me out. the police were there like every
single week when i was there. more than one time in a week. i called them three times in one week myself. there were several police there, derek, michael, i knew thome a first name basis. they were there on a regular basis. i called and explained everything when i was leaving. >> so, she brings up safety concerns. robert, we do know property records say this warehouse -- or the owner there had received notifications from the city, some violations of code, issues regarding hazardous debris and trash. your thoughts given what we just heard from this former resident? >> well, whenever you have a facility of any type, fire codes and building codes are definitely something that must be adhered to in order to maintain a safe environment for people to live and work. so, by having those phenomenfor violations or current violations that still need to be addressed, that's an indication that maybe the health of the building in itself for some time is a factor in this fire.
so -- >> why would there have been so many people and victims in this fire? i know, like you said, we can't speculate. we have to let the investigation unfold. but your experience, as an investigator, the fact that so many people did not escape, does that raise any red flags to you? >> it does. number one, the first thing that comes to mind is use of the building. the use of the building, as i understand it, was a warehouse at one time, and still is. until there's an official change of use basically assigned to that building by the building department. they have to go in, examine this building and determine what use it is. in this case, they're using it for residential. that's why you have a high fatality rate. >> it's all so sad. robert rowe, thank you for lending your ear and your mind to it. we really do appreciate it. >> my heart goes out to those
generosity is its oyou can handle being a mom for half an hour. i'm in all the way. is that understood? i don't know what she's up to, but it's not good. can't the world be my noodles and butter? get your mind out of the gutter. mornings are for coffee and contemplation. that was a really profound observation. you got a mean case of the detox blues. don't start a war you know you're going to lose. finally you can now find all of netflix in the same place as all your other entertainment. on xfinity x1. cnn house speaker paul ryan apparently downplaying expectations on how long it might take to replace obamacare. of course, that was something laid out in trump's 100 days in office plan, what he wanted to really prioritize. the republican told his local paper now he wants to make sure
no one is worse off after congress votes to repeal the program. he told the milwaukee journal sentinel today this, quote, it will clearly take time. it will take them about six years to stand up obamacare. it's not going to be replaced come next football season. cnn senior political reporter manu raju has been following the fight over obamacare. he joins me from capitol hill. what else can you tell us about speaker ryan's comments and where they are coming from. i understand the speaker and donald trump have been in close communication. >> reporter: indeed they have, ana. also, paul ryan also speaking to the legislative and political realities on capitol hill. it takes a really long time to get legislation through. now, they can actually pass a repeal of obamacare right away. they can repeal most of the law come january when they move through the budget in january and they can actually fast-track it and avoid a senate filibuster. meaning they can pass a repeal on a party line vote. now, replacement of obamacare,
they need democratic support in order to get that done. that means in the senate eight democrats need to cooperate with 52 republicans to get that done. that is a very difficult, given how polarizing of an issue health care is. now, paul ryan when speaking to the milwaukee journal sentinel today said, clearly,there will be a transition and bridge so no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off. the purpose here, he said, is to bring relief to people who are suffering from obamacare so they can get something better. i can tell you, ana, even if there is a two or three-year transition period, which is what republicans are talking about now, some insurers could pull out of the market right away, as soon as that repeal is enacted, and that could throw the system into chaos, meaning may haveo move on replacement quicker in order to bring stability to the market, ana. >> that raises the question, what does happen to those people who are on obamacare, those people who have pre-existing conditions, those who are 25 or 24 years old, right at the cutoff, being on their parents' health insurance.
manu raju, this is clearly now something that has opened up a whole new can of worms as we continue the discussion. i know you'll continue to work on getting more answers for us. manu raju, thank you so much. just days after the election, one of the incoming president's closest confidantes said she wanted to play no role in her father's administration. >> people think you're going to be part of the administration, ivanka. >> i'm -- no, i'm going to be a daughter, but i've said throughout the campaign that i am very passionate about certain issues and that i want to fight for them. >> but you won't be -- >> wage equality, child care, these are things that are very important for me. i'm very passionate about education. really promoting more opportunities for women. so, you know, there are a lot of things that i feel deeply, strongly about but not in a formal administrative capacity. >> could she be having a change of heart? cnn has learned ivanka and her husband, jared kushner, are
house hunting in washington, d.c., as they look to move from new york to d.c. on top of that, today ivanka and her father met with al gore to talk climate change. now, these moves are increasing speculation that ivanka will, in fact, take a policy role in her father's presidency. her husband, jared, also expected to be involved in some decision-making in the trump administration. so, let's talk more about this with the man who knows the trump family well. michael dantonio, donald trump biographer and author of the book "the truth about trump." thank you for surprising me. would it surprise you if jared and ivanka were part of the trump administration? >> not one bit. i think we're dealing with completely uncharitied territory here. the trumps really don't feel they're beholden in any way. they can say one thing at the moment of the election and then another a week later and then another thing two weeks later. so, i would not be surprised to
see that even a formal role is in store for ivanka and definitely for jared kushner. >> given how much you know about the family, your closeness to the family, let's say both of them are a part of the administration. no doubt there would be questions about nepotism and conflicts of interest, but what would each of these two people bring to the administration. ivanka and kushner, their strengths. >> well, they're very bright young people. and i think one of the things that a lot of people who are concerned about donald trump might feel good about is that they'd bring a more modern, younger sensibility. if you hear ivanka talking about child care and equal rights in employment for women, these are things that a lot of younger, moderate merns really want, so i think this is encourage.
in jared kushner's case, there's a very intelligent guy who knows technology. so far we only know donald trump understands technology enough to tweet. and i think someone who understands how technology fits into the economy and how the government can be informed by technology would be a real asset to his circle of advisers. >> now, you don't think ivanka trump could have one foot in the administration and one foot in donald trump's businesses still, right? >> well, this remains to be seen. i think he said he's going to have an announcement on december 15th about his businesses. if he says that he's divesting and that the whole enterprise is being liquidated, then i think people could have confidence there would be no conflict of interest. but if he he retains ownership or the family retains ownership, we're going to have to take them at their word that there's not
some self-dealing going on. and americans are not accustomed to that. i think there would be serious questions. and then you wonder, who would come up against jared kushner or ivanka trump within the administration? say, there's a disagreement. are other advisers going to feel confident challenging them, knowing they're related to the president? this is a serious thing to work out. and i think americans are going to want to have some straight answers about it. >> all right. michael, thank you. >> thank you. coming up, they have been deliberating now for more than 20 hours. is the jury any closer to a verdict in the case of a former south carolina police officer michael slager. he shot and killed an unarmed man as he was running away. it was caught on camera. more on the lone juror who says he can't convict the defendant. we'll discuss next.
you tell your inthey made a mistake. the check they sent isn't enough to replace your totaled new car. the guy says they didn't make the mistake. you made the mistake. i beg your pardon? he says, you should have chosen full-car replacement. excuse me? let me be frank, he says. you picked the wrong insurance plan. no. i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car plus depreciation. call
breaking news just into our cnn news room right now. getting word of a major moment in the trial of a former police officer from south carolina charged with murder in the 2015 shooting death of walter scott. let's listen to the judge. >> might be discriminated against in jury selection or in jury service. and to reach a unanimous verdict. and there's no unanimous verdict, then we're back to square one. that's where we are in this case. so, i want to thank you and want to give the parties an opportunity to thank you as
well. i would say to you that you're about to be released from jury duty, which means that all the restrictions that you are under with regard to discussing the case and consulting the media and social media and watching tv and all those things, you're released from all those restrictions. can you discuss the case with anyone you might want to, but you're not obligated to speak with anyone concerning the case. and if anyone boers you or interferes with you with regard to this case, you can notify the court, we will address the issue. we are already addressing issues raised with regard to media attempts to photograph -- suspected media attempts to photograph you. and all those issues will be addressed. but i want to thank you for your
service. you've given this case a good, long deliberation. and the longest that i've ever been involved in. and it is what it is. madame? >> thank you, judge. we're not going to do closing arguments. when i say to you in closing, i want you folks to know, y'all have been remarkable. and i really wish that y'all had something to compare it to to know how remarkable you have been. your service has been exemplary. you have put in, i believe, more than any trial we've ever had. i know more than any criminal trial we've ever had, at least civil trial. y'all have worked harder and longer than any jury we've had, and were more responsive and responsible. we could tell that by the way
you were acting during testimony, by your promptness, by your alertness. you name it -- >> we're going to break away from the courtroom. we just heard the judge declare a mistrial, saying there was not a unanimous decision reached by the jury in the trial of former police officer slager who did shoot and kill walter scott as he was running away. we saw it on video. again, no unanimous decision. that ends in a mistrial. let's bring in nick valencia, joining us from the scene there in south carolina. nick, what more can you tell us? >> this is what we anticipated. friday we heard there was a lone juror who said against his good conscience he could not convicted michael slager, that north charleston police officer. today the headline being a majority of the jurors were still undecided as to whether or not they would convict the officer with first-degree murder. the day started with a series of questions from the jurors. some of them asking, what is
imminent danger? what is malice? why consider this voluntary manslaughter charge? those series of questions were presented to not just the state but also the defense to instruct the jurors to go back and deliberate. this being the fourth day of deliberations. at least five hours spent by the jurors today. we were called into the courtroom a short time ago. andy savage, defense attorney for michael slager, asking for them to be an alternative charge. the judge did not issue that. it was minutes after that that the jurors spilled into the courtroom, handing a note to the judge saying they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. it was because of that, a mistrial would be declared in this case. we should remind our viewers that michael slager is not totally off the hook just yet. he's facing a federal civil rights charge. that case to be presented some time later next year. we were in that courtroom. i was sitting about a row behind his wife, who throughout the whole day was biting her nails, sitting in the same row was scott's family. many of the family members for both sides, slager and scott
were present in the courtroom. we saw mrs. scott clapgs her hands in prayer throughout the day. very tense and emotional scene inside that courtroom. now we are hearing in this case a mistrial has been declared by the judge. the jurors unable to reach a unanimous verdict. >> a lot of people watching this trial closely, given just the conversation that we're having around the country regarding use of force, incidents involving police, involving people of color. so, nick valencia, this is a significant development. thank you for joining us and filling us in on that latest information out from the judge. i want to bring in our two legal minds here, joey jackson and john coleman jr. thank you for being here to weigh in on this situation. we just heard from nick valencia. i think a key piece of information and that is, that the majority of the jurors apparently were undecided, hence, the not a unanimous verdict. >> we don't know undecided on what. just to reset, the jurors had to consider two different things. one was murder and murder, of course, is the element of
malice. did he do it with ill will? the second thing there was to consider was if it wasn't with ill will, that is the killing, then did he do it out of the heat of passion? was there some other provocation involved? that's what the jury was considering. when you talk about a hung jury, of course, he's not out of the clear at all because the state has the ability to retry him on this particular case. so, we know that. that there's going to be a retrial. in addition to the federal charges that you heard nick valencia talk about. but whenever you have a hung jury, as charles has had, right, and i have certainly had, the fact is is that it's a disheartening thing because when the judge gave what's called the allen charge last week, the dooim dynamite charge to say, look, there's no juror more qualified than you. there's no set of jurors more qualified than you. they're going to hear the same things. they're going to hear the same witnesses. they'll listen to the same arguments. you can do it. go back and try it again. he attempted with that allen charge to get them to talk again. then, of course, we get the note
from the juror that said, i've considered it and i'm sorry to the family, but i'm not convicting. >> i want to jump in right there when you start talking about the note because that's particularly troubling when you're thinking about these jurors being -- going through the process of voir dire, where the judge interviews them in different courtrooms, attorneys have the opportunity to interview prospective jurors and find out -- and i've asked this so many times as a prosecutor. if i'm able to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, can you convict? will you convict? and these are things that are standard questions for prosecutors. even in many cases for judges during criminal trials as part of the voir dire process. i'll be frank with you, i have a hard time believing -- when i read that note on friday, that the juror sent to the judge, i had a hard time believing that juror had not previously decide that they were not going to convict even before they had sat down and been sworn in. i think this was a case where we had a stalled juror who had already made up their mind there was no way they were going to convict michael slager.
>> that's one part of it, and that certainly could be true. on the alternative side, it's difficult to convict a police officer. now, you look at this case, and charles and i were talking about it, there's very few clearer cases you see someone running away -- >> because it's on video. that's what gets me. he's running away. he was shot on the back based on the evidence that came out of the autopsy. given that you can't have a conviction in this case, what does that send in terms of a message regarding police and use of force? >> that's exactly what is most troubling about this decision, about the fact that we had a mistrial. this is as clear a case as you are going to find when you talk about deadly use of force and misuse of force with respect to law enforcement. you're bringing up concepts like imminent danger and the threat to someone's life. this is a man who was running away. and here's the thing i said to joey during the break. when you're talking about the defense being able to advance this theory, they had to do so primarily, even though there were a number of witnesses called, in terms of accounting
for the events that took place, primarily through the testimony of michael slager himself. >> joey, what about -- >> that witness doesn't have credibility. >> what about the race and makeup of the jury. we know it was predominantly white people, one african-american man, who was the foreman. everybody else was kcaucasian. >> i can't blame it on that. even in the event there's one african-american juror, this was a lone holdout. nick valencia gave the indication there were a number of jurors undecided, maybe that was to murder. maybe the note all 11 felt it was manslaughter and one holdout. i can't equate or otherwise contribute the fact there's one holdout to the issue of race. now, is it a stalled juror, a juror who was there, who had his mind predetermined or a person, consistent with what we've seen in terms of not being able to return indictments against police or otherwise prosecute police in many cases, was it the juror who said, i was in fear, we had this fight, he ran away,
i shot until the threat was stopped. that's why i discharged my gun eight times, hitting him five. it could have been this juror simply felt he couldn't do it based on the evidence. why? you might think it unreasonable. charles coleman may think it unreasonable. i might think it unreasonable. this juror, we also when we select jurors say, stick to your guns. in the event you have an opinion, it's different from everyone else's, you're the lone juror, i ask you on voir dire, if you're the lone juror and you have an opinion as to something, would you let someone change your mind? you're going to tell me no and i'll say, i want on you that jury. >> to your question about race, it is critically important to remember. this is a county that has a 28% african-american population and there was only one african-american juror on the jury. what that tells me is, quite frankly, folks have to show up to jury duty. that's something we can't ignore. yes, joey, you're absolutely right that that one holdout could have made a difference if it was ten african-americans and
one white person on that juror. that tells me there were a >> and the jury is not representative of the broader population, necessarily. >> it's not the end of the story, though. >> no, it's not. we heard them talk about the federal charges in the trial, there, and we could see another trial at the local level. thank you both. good to talk to you. much more on this breaking news coming up, and we're back in a moment. "or something." and we don't just pull smoked chicken, bake fresh foccacia and hand-slice avocado. there's nothing "or something" about it. will your business be ready when growth presents itself?
rampant, fake new stories could be having real consequences. just last night an armed gunman stormed a pizza place in washington, d.c. known as comet ping-pong. he pointed an assault rifle at an employee. he began firing after that worker ran away. investigators say the 28-year-old, edgar walsh of north carolina, claimed he was there to investigate the so-called pizzagate. this is a totally false, bogus conspiracy theory claiming
hillary clinton is actually involved in a child sex ring run from this pizza restaurant. but again, this is not true. the owner of the restaurant says they have been targeted for weeks over this fake news story. >> so essentially, they would go into our social media accounts and they would take photographs that were on my instagram of my friend's children or my associate's children and post them around thousands and thousands of fake news sites and on reddits and on youtube and use these images of happy playing, innocent children as proof of some kind of human trafficking scheme led by the clintons. >> the restaurant's owner says what happened shows promoting these false ideas, these false stories, conspiracy theories, has real consequences. he talks about the threat that he and his family have felt. how do you combat this? >> i hold the people who are
distributing this, who are disseminating it, responsible. you're talking about sites that are kind of shadowy with no real ownership most of the time, no one knows who is running them, et cetera, and u peopyou have p putting them out on twitter r, s facebook, et cetera, and first of all, it's people's responsibility when their friends are putting this stuff out, saying, wait a minute. are you sure this is true? shame your friends. also the public figures, say, i'm not sure this is true, i'm just saying. send out certain stories that say, i'm not the one judging whether it's true or not, i'm just putting it out there. what does that mean? you're just going to put out there a story that may very well not be true and you're just saying -- >> i'm just saying. people are saying this. i don't know if it's true. >> what does that mean? shame on you and shame on the people who aren't holding their friends accountable when they
send out this nonsense. >> here's what's concerning to me, lieutenant general mike flynn who we now know is the national security adviser who trump has picked for his secretary of defense. many might forget the pedestrian e-mails and many coincidences tied to it. he is suggesting unless you prove something false, it could be true. what do you do to break through? >> first of all, i think my dad would say please don't hold the son responsible for -- don't hold the dad responsible for what the son says. >> his dad has also been laced to these conspiracy theories. >> with that said, that's crazy, right? i'm going to put something out there that has no batsis in fac. now it's you, the world's responsibility, to disprove this story. what? the notion that we now have to prove something is false, and if you can't do that, therefore, it
may be true, is a mix-up alyice in wonderland world. the bottom line is don't put something out there -- let's say you're not 100% it's true, but let's say you're 99% certain. okay, go ahead. when we say on twitter that retweets don't mean endorsements, i think we have to take that seriously again which is to say, you know what? if you're going to retweet something, you have to think about the fact you're endorsing it to some degree. you can't just say, you know what? retweets don't mean endorsements, therefore, i'm not responsible for what anyone else says. this is crazy stuff, and this stuff really matters. do i think that the reason this guy went into the pizza place is because people were purveying false news? maybe. but it's a larger problem, it's not about the pizza guy. >> it is important. we as the media have a responsibility to try to point out the fake news when it comes up. thank you, dan abrams, for
lending your thoughts. we appreciate it. back to our breaking news now, to south carolina where this video you've seen over and over and over again, but a judge just declared a mistrial in the case of the former police officer who fired those shots, killing this unarmed black man as he ran away. we're live at the courthouse. don and i met because i'm a
volunteer for meals on wheels. we had an instant connection. what was that? i said, "delivering to you is always a special treat." oh. company, companionship, food... we all need those things. when we get in that spot in life, it's kind of nice to have 'em there. (avo) through the subaru share the love event, we've helped deliver over one point four million meals to those in need. get a new subaru, and we'll donate two hundred and fifty dollars more. ♪put a little love in your heart.♪
. voting is under way right now for the cnn hero of the dwree year, and one nominee left her career in the west to bring medical care to kenya. >> if you look, one of the biggest challenges in health care are professionals, health care professionals. we have about six villages that have absolutely zero access to health care. to come back to where i'm born, it was kind of a sense of responsibility. we see birth defects in at least 10 of the villages, going in with a medical officer making sure drugs in each facility are available. being here, being close to home, to be able to fill some of the gaps in accessing health care, it's been an iv drip for life
and purpose. you can see the impact in 0.1 seconds. i have absolutely zero regrets toward taking the leap of faith. i wouldn't trade it for anything in the world right now. >> talk about making a difference. vote for your favorite heroes now at cnnheroes.com. that's going to do it for me. thank you for joining me. i'm anna cabrera. "the lead" with jake tapper starts now. >> thanks, anna. i guess the big question is did president-elect donald trump check the caller id from that leader in taiwan? simply picking up the phone to take a call from taiwan, did it throw the already kind of frosty relationship into deeper disarray? a man self-investigating ludicrous lies, walking into a d.c. pizza parlor with two guns. he fires one of them. what are the