Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Judge Rejects Trump's Effort To Toss Out Felony Conviction; Mike Johnson Holds Onto Speakership By Slimmest Of Margins; Sources: New Orleans Attacker Used Rare Compound Not Seen In U.S. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 03, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JONATHAN TENEDORIO, BROTHER OF BOURBON STREET ATTACK VICTIM MATTHEW TENEDORIO: Kept trying -- keeps trying to get in the --just looking for him.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: How are your parents facing this?
TENEDORIO: Devastated.
COOPER: I mean, comprehended?
TENEDORIO: My mom is trying to talk about it as much as she can. Where we're all kind of the opposite, just.
COOPER: Yes.
TENEDORIO: Yes, ignoring it, pretending it didn't happen, hoping that he's just going to come home. We're all waiting for him to just walk through that door.
COOPER: All right. Well, thank you guys. I'm so sorry. This really sucks.
TENEDORIO: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Matthew Tenedorio was just 25-years-old.
That's it for us. The news continues. THE SOURCE starts now.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE, tonight.
Judge Juan Merchan ruling Donald Trump will be sentenced for his hush money conviction, just 10 days before he takes the Oath of Office, as a convicted felon. But there's a twist about this particular crime and punishment. Trump just posting about this, moments ago. Also, Mike Johnson wins in the battle to remain Speaker, but only after fending off some last-minute drama that could spell trouble for ahead, for getting Trump's ambitious plans through Congress, even though both chambers are now controlled by Republicans.
And some new details, tonight, inside the attack in New Orleans, including these chilling recordings that authorities say were made by the killer in advance, far in advance of the attack.
I'm Pamela Brown in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Well tonight, we now know Donald Trump will be the first convicted felon sworn in as President of the United States. Judge Juan Merchan ruling today that sentencing for the President-elect will be a week from today. So, that's 10 days before Trump returns to power. No amount of posts on Truth Social or statements by a Trump spokesperson can change that. But this is no ordinary case, and of course, no ordinary defendant, right?
Judge Merchan says that President-elect will not face any legal punishment for scheming to essentially cook the books, to cover up payments to a porn star. Judge Merchan also indicated in today's filing, the case is essentially over. The judge writing that not punishing Trump, quote, "Appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality."
Trump's spokesperson insists, quote, "President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process and to execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this or... remnants of the Witch Hunts."
Now, as for the transition, Trump won't even have to be in the court. The judge says, he'll let Trump appear virtually, citing exactly the quote, Mental and physical demands during this transition period.
And just moments ago, just before we got on this show, Trump posted on Truth Social, saying in part, quote, "This illegitimate political attack is nothing but a Rigged Charade. 'Acting' Justice Merchan, who is a radical partisan, just issued another order that is knowingly unlawful, goes against our Constitution and, if allowed to stand, would be the end of the Presidency as we know it."
My lead source is a former attorney for Donald Trump, Tim Parlatore.
All right, so Tim, in that post, Trump doesn't say what he's going to do. So, do you think the President-elect lets this be the end of it?
TIM PARLATORE, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Well, I mean, I do think that he's going to attend this hearing. And it's going to be a very short hearing, because the judge has already said, what he's going to do here. And really, the sentencing is what is required to be able to start the appellate process.
So, while I certainly understand that the President is upset by this, in a lot of ways, this does help him to at least go forward with that process, to be able to challenge some of the underlying rulings. P. BROWN: I mean, you've gone in front of Judge Merchan, with another case, right?
PARLATORE: Sure.
P. BROWN: You see Trump, in this post, attacking the judge. What do you think about that?
PARLATORE: That's something that -- that's communications decision that he makes. Yes, obviously, as lawyers, we don't generally attack judges. But I can understand his frustration in this case, particularly given some of the surrounding circumstances.
Yes, my personal experience with Judge Merchan is very different. I tried a case in front of him, a few years before. And he -- I thought he was very fair, in front of the jury. He beat me up pretty badly. I was very pro-prosecution, when the jury wasn't in the room. But during -- in front of the jury, he was very fair, and he let us try the case.
P. BROWN: So, Judge Merchan said that throwing out Trump's conviction would, quote, "Undermine the Rule of Law in immeasurable ways."
[21:05:00]
So, short of how the judge ruled here, Tim, did he make the right call, given the fact that a jury of Trump's peers did find him guilty of 34 felony counts?
PARLATORE: I think that, based on these particular motion papers, this is probably the best decision he could have come to.
Because while there certainly were some issues, I think, with the rulings that he made during the trial, particularly allowing certain testimony, disallowing other testimony from the defense, and not really properly addressing the issues of the campaign finance law. I think that those are good issues for an appeal.
But this particular motion was one to try to push the sentencing out past the presidency, or cancel sentencing entirely, or to rely upon the presidential immunity. And none of those arguments, I think, were really applicable. So, I personally do think it's a good decision, based on what was in front of him, right here.
P. BROWN: So, it's interesting, you don't think the immunity issue would make for a good appeal. Because as you read, the judge's finding said that, While the Supreme Court ruled the sitting president has immunity, President-elect immunity does not exist. So, it sounds like you actually agree with him here?
PARLATORE: Well, that's a little bit of a different situation.
P. BROWN: OK.
PARLATORE: As to whether he has immunity, while he's -- while he's in the presidency versus before. But then also, does that apply to the underlying facts of the case, of whether some of these things happened, while he was president, or before he was president?
And so, yes, certainly there's no immunity for a President-elect. It is an immunity that attaches to what you do while in office that is part of your presidential functions. And so, that is not something that the Supreme Court decision would extend to, prior to being sworn in.
P. BROWN: How unusual is it for this to be virtual, like on Zoom?
PARLATORE: That's something that certainly has happened, during the pandemic.
But for a time like this, to have a sentencing on Zoom, particularly in New York State court, that's -- that is fairly uncommon. And I think that it is, you know, it's also very uncommon for a judge to telegraph in a written decision ahead of time, what sentence he's likely to give.
And so, I do think that by having it by Zoom, that really does put the nail in the coffin that this is going to be an unconditional discharge, which is essentially a punishment of no punishment, because normally, if somebody is facing jail time, they have to be in the courtroom, so that they can be led out the back by the court officers.
P. BROWN: How much, just big picture, I mean, how much does it matter that the incoming President will be the first, to be the first convicted felon to serve as Commander-in-Chief?
PARLATORE: Well, legally, it doesn't make any difference at all.
P. BROWN: How much does it matter--
PARLATORE: Yes, it doesn't make any legal difference whatsoever, whether he does or not.
Politically, I don't think that that necessarily makes much difference either. Because he had already been convicted at the time of the election, and the American people voted for him. So, I don't really think it's going to have that much impact at all, the fact that he happens to be the first president with a conviction.
P. BROWN: All right. Tim Parlatore, thank you so much for coming on to share your analysis. Also, as Trump's former attorney. We appreciate it.
And I want to turn now to retired New York State Supreme Court Justice Jill Konviser.
Thank you so much for coming on. I'm looking forward to hearing your perspective on this.
What other options did Judge Merchan have here? You just heard Tim Parlatore say, he felt like this was the best option he had. Do you agree?
JILL KONVISER, FORMER NY STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I do. I do think this was the best option. In fact, months ago, on CNN, I said that.
He did have other sentencing options at his fingertips, so to speak. He had state prison. He had local jail. He had probation. He had split sentence, intermittent sentence, conditional discharge, fines, he had all of that.
But what we do as judges, when you're sentencing someone, is that you look at the totality of the situation, to make the best decision, based on the facts presented to you, the facts of the case, the conviction that it is, and all the other intervening and other underlying issues. And that's what he did here.
And what Judge Merchan did was really weigh the concept that no one is above the law and the sanctity of a jury verdict with the enormity of the role of the President of the United States. And he -- judges balance things every single day, in almost every decision. This was a big decision. He balanced it appropriately. And I think he did the right thing.
[21:10:00]
P. BROWN: So, Trump in his post talked about the legal scholars, including our own Elie Honig, a CNN contributor, who didn't think that this case really should ever have been brought, and that he shouldn't have been convicted here. And there are several legal scholars, who do believe that.
But the bottom line is that the jury did find him guilty, right, of these 34 counts. And so, just as an extension to the point you made, I mean, do you see this as Judge Merchan just sort of, look, he has to show some deference, right, to the fact that a jury of his peers convicted him, but also recognize the extraordinary circumstances at play here.
KONVISER: I think you're absolutely right. These circumstances are extraordinary. Unique is almost too weak a word here.
But at the end of the day, there was a fairly-obtained conviction. And unless and until an appellate court says otherwise, that will be the case. The defendant is a convicted felon. So again, I'm back to balancing where this judge had to take all of that into consideration.
Whether the case should have been brought in the first instance is a charging decision. That's up to the district attorney. So, I don't really have an opinion, in that regard.
P. BROWN: You do have to ask the question, though, how different would this have been if Trump had not won reelection?
KONVISER: Well, I guess we'll never know the answer to that.
Although, I will say that the defendant's concerns about a crooked judge or a judge that was bending over backwards to hurt him, and it would affect the election. I mean, it shows you that that wasn't correct, because he won. So that argument fell on deaf ears, and for good reason. P. BROWN: And just to kind of wrap this up for our viewers, or who are trying to process this, like, Wait a second, he's not going to be legally punished, but he has a sentencing.
Help our viewers just make sense of that.
KONVISER: OK. So, the legislature gives judges a wide array of sentencing, depending upon the crime for which you are convicted.
This, as CNN has reported many times, has been, is the lowest-level felony that one can commit in the State of New York. And, as a result, it carries everything, as I said, from a fine, to state prison. And so, you have -- you have all of this at your -- at the ready, to make a decision in terms of that.
But here, you're faced -- the judge was faced with this significant -- significantly unique situation. What was he going to do? And in doing what he did do, made a whole, to me, a whole lot of sense, in terms of what should be the -- you know, what should be imposed here.
If you look at this particular crime, a Class A non-violent felony offense, whether it should have been brought or not. Certainly, there are other people in the state who have been convicted of that crime. As I've said before, there are precious few people who have gone to jail or prison for this particular offense.
From my perspective, if I were the judge, the only reason why the defendant would have ever, or I would have ever entertained jail, had to do much more with the contempt proceedings than with the underlying offense.
And Judge Merchan, who bent over backwards to make sure, the defendant was not incarcerated for the contemptuous conduct, for which he was found responsible. That should be recognized too. Instead of calling him corrupt, I think the former President should probably be thanking him in that regard.
P. BROWN: Judge Jill Konviser, thank you so much.
KONVISER: Thank you.
P. BROWN: Coming up. Donald Trump helps Mike Johnson keep his job, as House Speaker. How he got two Republicans to flip their votes, last minute?
Plus, new reporting just out on the rare material the New Orleans attacker used, to make his explosive devices, leaving investigators to wonder, where did he get it, how did he get it?
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
P. BROWN: Well, tonight, after a day of drama, Congressman Mike Johnson is still holding the speaker's gavel. Last night, we weren't sure what was going to happen. Today, he won back his gavel. That despite, quote, Sincere reservations by some of the people who just voted for him.
The fact that the Republican Party is celebrating the one thing Congress must do, to even get themselves sworn in, tells you how hard it may be to get anything done. This is in a chamber that just set a new standard for getting the least amount done, in modern history. Johnson begins with, in the words of GOP hardliners, quote, "Zero room for error."
A process that for more than 100 years existed as mere formality, played out in dramatic fashion today. Two of the three Republican holdouts, Ralph Norman and Keith Self, took to the floor and flipped their votes to Johnson, giving him the 218 required for the speakership.
And that, of course, is after there was a call from Trump, and talking to Johnson, then they flipped to change, that they themselves attributed to one man, and not the one they wound up voting for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RALPH NORMAN (R-SC): We had a talk with President Trump when we got in there. We, we, you know, I never know how this stuff's going to come out.
REP. KEITH SELF (R-TX): Well, he's going to tackle what we know the Trump agenda is, and we talked about that. I think it's the big, beautiful reconciliation package.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
P. BROWN: And it took the full weight of the President-elect to get the House to even take their seats. On the floor of Congress, members' cellphones were ringing as Trump's inner circle, including his incoming Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, were keeping tabs on the vote.
My political sources know the inner workings of the Republican Party.
T.W. Arrighi worked for Lindsey Graham in the Senate, and Mike Pompeo in the House.
Former Congressman Joe Walsh was a proud right-wing Republican, known for making the speaker's life tough.
I feel like I just totally botched your last name, and I'm really sorry.
T.W. ARRIGHI, FMR AIDE TO SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM & REP. MIKE POMPEO, VP, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP: Arrighi. It happens. Don't worry about it.
P. BROWN: Arrighi.
ARRIGHI: Don't worry about it.
P. BROWN: Please forgive me, OK?
ARRIGHI: No, no, you're forgiven. P. BROWN: It's been a long day, long week, and--
JOE WALSH, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: All good. It's all good. Long day.
[21:20:00]
P. BROWN: OK. Arrighi. All right.
But I'm going to start with you, Congressman Walsh. I want to get your take on this. Because I want you to explain how what you and the Tea Party did to John Boehner--
WALSH: Led to all of this.
P. BROWN: Led. It's all your fault. How is it different from what we're seeing from the Freedom Caucus?
WALSH: It's not different. It's exactly the same. If I were still in Congress now, I'd be making life miserable for Mike Johnson. It's just, Pamela, it's just much more magnified now.
Johnson has no margin for error, none. And there are nine to 10 to 11 members of the Freedom Caucus -- I'd be one of them -- who are going to be breathing down his neck for the next two years.
P. BROWN: I don't even what -- I mean, I know--
WALSH: Well that's I just--
ARRIGHI: I'm going to give you--
WALSH: It's been a long week.
ARRIGHI: I'm going to give you more credit than that.
P. BROWN: OK.
ARRIGHI: This is a vanity grift by the never-happy caucus.
WALSH: Yes.
ARRIGHI: Look, Thomas Massie has never--
WALSH: Yes. Yes.
ARRIGHI: --missed an opportunity to obstruct for zero reason. Ralph Norman is completely out to lunch. He's out of tune with South Carolina by a mile. And Keith Self, I didn't even -- I've never heard of him until today.
Look, these people were willing to put the certification of Donald Trump's election in limbo, and slow down the implementation of his first 100 days. That is unforgivable. And it stands in stark contrast to the mandate that was given to Congress, and to the Executive branch, with Donald Trump's victory. They had no demands. They just wanted to be involved.
WALSH: Yes.
ARRIGHI: They had no alternative, who could get the votes.
To me, it's unacceptable. And I hope Donald Trump learns a lesson from this, and really puts the hammer down when he goes in these first 100 days.
WALSH: Anyway, T.W. makes a great point. The difference is the Tea Party, we were fighting over ideas and principles.
ARRIGHI: Yes.
WALSH: These guys now are all free agents. All of these people. They want their attention. They want to increase their profile. That makes it much more difficult to corral them.
P. BROWN: And some of them say, Look, they want spending cuts. If you're going to spend more, it needs to be offset by spending cuts. And then others may--
WALSH: Yes.
P. BROWN: --might fit more into that narrative that you just laid out.
And now, and some have said they're not happy with this rule change that makes it harder to essentially to remove the speaker. I think Congresswoman Boebert and others have spoken out about that.
But even after the vote, listen to what different Republicans say, the lesson was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): The Speaker realizes that he needs to listen to the conservative folks, to the base.
REP. DUSTY JOHNSON (R-SD): We want to make sure that this is honestly a collaborative environment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
P. BROWN: So, who's right? Does this show the need to work together, or the need to just bend to the base? Like, where do we go from here?
ARRIGHI: Well, for the amount of people that are in the base, or the Freedom Caucus, there's also guys in New York--
WALSH: Yes.
ARRIGHI: --who have to straddle the line in a more moderate stance.
Look, there are a ton of things that unite the Republican Party right now. We can come to a great agreement on immigration, on the economy, on taxes. Those are some of the first-agenda items Donald Trump has in his first 100 days.
And again, this underscores the problem with this whole exercise and vanity that we saw today, which is they were willing to throw it all into limbo, and put all these wins in flux, for literally no reason other than to get more press attention on themselves.
WALSH: I'm no fan of Donald Trump's. But today just reinforced this is his party. He made Mike Johnson be confirmed today.
ARRIGHI: And look--
WALSH: This is Trump's party.
ARRIGHI: And look, Mike Johnson has been a good Speaker. There have been wins for every single element of the Republican Party, during his time there. And he's the only one who could have achieved that vote total. And he's a really good man, and no one has a bad word to say about him.
WALSH: And he's in a tough spot. He has no margin.
ARRIGHI: Yes.
WALSH: He's going to need Democratic support to get stuff done.
P. BROWN: And you make the point. Yes, it is Trump's party. But are you surprised that it did come down to the wire in the way it did? Does it show some--
WALSH: No. No. No.
P. BROWN: --small cracks -- cracks?
WALSH: Because there's no margin. He's got to -- he could only lose one or two Republicans. And it's a -- it's a very divided caucus. But no. Trump owns this party right now. I think that this solidified it.
P. BROWN: I want to listen to what Steve Bannon said, during the funding fight that started all of this. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP ADVISER: If you think the last 48 hours has been unique, every day coming in, when President Trump takes over, is going to be like this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
P. BROWN: Is Bannon right? Is this the new reality of what governing is going to look like in the House?
ARRIGHI: Well, in such a slim majority, it's not going to be smooth- sailing all the time. And there's going to be a lot of times that Mike Johnson's going to really regret having this job.
But look, Steve Bannon finds himself, right now, on the opposite side of Donald Trump on work visas, right? So, we have a big party that is debating a number of issues that we're having a philosophical argument on.
But look, again, first 100 days should be focused on the common areas that we all want to see fixed. And we need to keep that focus there. And any day, time, minute, wasted, is a problem.
WALSH: And MAGA has to prove they can govern. I don't think they can govern. Steve Bannon couldn't govern. They're great, Pam, when they're in the opposition. I expect two years of utter chaos.
[21:25:00]
ARRIGHI: Give them a chance. Give them a chance.
P. BROWN: All right, I got to go to this. OK. So just five days ago, right? President-elect Trump declared, quote, The extension of the Debt Ceiling by a previous Speaker of the House, a good man and a friend of mine, will go down as one of the dumbest political decisions made in years.
And, drum roll, here he is tonight, spending quality time with that former Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump has this remarkable ability to just shred you, and then see you come calling, like nothing happened. Is this in Mike Johnson's future?
ARRIGHI: I hope not. But I think there's definitely going to be some disagreements that percolate. We just saw it with the CR, right? I think obviously Elon Musk put the president, backed him into a corner a bit on that. But that's going to happen again until they figure out a way to work together.
I think a lot of these problems started with the Kevin McCarthy fiasco. And another reason why this today was so perplexing, is why any Republican would want to even flirt with going down that road again, is so--
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: By the way, what was one of the biggest applause lines, today? When someone announced that Matt Gaetz is not in the chamber, and everybody on the floor just went crazy, because he was one of the guys that -- he led the thing against McCarthy.
ARRIGHI: Oddly enough, was supportive of Speaker Johnson.
WALSH: Yes.
P. BROWN: Yes.
WALSH: Yes.
ARRIGHI: For what it's worth.
P. BROWN: Yes. ARRIGHI: Nothing. Nothing.
P. BROWN: Whiplash with all of this, right?
ARRIGHI: Yes.
P. BROWN: All right. T.W. Arrighi.
ARRIGHI: Yes.
P. BROWN: And former Congressman Joe Walsh.
WALSH: Thanks.
P. BROWN: Thank you all for that discussion.
ARRIGHI: Thank you very much.
P. BROWN: Have a great weekend.
Up next. The new recordings on religion and Satan, giving investigators a window into the mind of the New Orleans attacker.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
P. BROWN: Breaking tonight. Federal investigators say that they have discovered the suspect, in the Bourbon Street attack, set a fire at a rental house, in an attempt to destroy evidence, evidence that they say includes bomb-making materials and a silencer for a rifle.
And it comes as investigators have also uncovered three audio files from an account, bearing terror suspect Shamsud-Din Jabbar's name. Officials say they were recorded about a year before the deadly New Year -- New Year's attack, which killed 14 and injured dozens more.
Now, in the audio recordings, a voice is heard saying, quote, "Satan's voice is also the misleading of people from Allah's way, they really go hand in hand. And we see what this gradually drives a person to. It is a gentle, gradual luring into the things that God has made forbidden to us, the intoxicants like marijuana, alcohol, sedatives, opioids, stimulants and others."
Now, I should note, the voice heard on the recordings appears to match other videos of Jabbar that CNN has authenticated, offering the clearest view yet, into Jabbar's potential path to radicalization.
My sources tonight.
Former senior FBI profiler and Special Agent, Mary Ellen O'Toole.
And retired NYPD Captain, and Author of "The Guns of Antwerp," John Monaghan.
Thank you both for coming on. So John, to start with you, what does the fire, first off, tell you about the suspect's plans for this attack? Do attackers, like this, usually care about evidence left behind?
JOHN MONAGHAN, RETIRED NYPD CAPTAIN: Right, that's a very good question. I'm surprised, because he -- well, you know what? It tells us, maybe he wasn't planning on suicide. Maybe he thought he would survive it. These bombs he had weren't dressed as a suicide vest. I mean, he did essentially commit suicide by cop when he got out of that truck in the end.
But you're right. That's a very good question. He was trying to burn up his evidence, which he didn't do a very good job, I understand. They did recover a lot of evidence. But maybe he was expected to survive this, or to be caught and prosecuted. So, he wasn't intent on suicide, apparently. That's one thing I would say about the fire.
P. BROWN: These audio recordings are such a key piece of investigation -- investigative evidence here. Because the FBI had said that he was inspired by ISIS, joined ISIS before the summer. These audio recordings are from a year prior to this attack.
And when they were recorded, what did they tell you, Mary Ellen O'Toole, about the mindset of the Bourbon Street suspect. How helpful are they to investigators?
MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER SENIOR FBI PROFILER, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Those audios are going to be extremely helpful to investigators, because they timestamp it for, number one, which gives them an idea of how long he's been involved in this kind of thinking, this kind of ideology. But it also gives us a snapshot into how he is almost training himself to think in terms of a us-against-them mentality.
These people who engage in drugs or drinking or listening to music are so bad, they are devil influence.
And that really is an important part of developing this ideology, to the extent that eventually -- and it doesn't work with everybody, that's important to underscore. But when it is successful, it enables the person to look at all the other people, in the world, that don't subscribe to what you do, and you can say, These are terrible people. They're objects. They're not even people anymore, and they need to be destroyed. So, it makes killing strangers much easier.
P. BROWN: John, law enforcement officials tell CNN that the suspect used this very rare organic compound, and the two explosives that were placed in the French Quarter, prior to the attack. And thankfully, they didn't go off. But it's a compound so rare that it had not been seen before in the United States.
How crucial is it for investigators to pin down how he managed to get something like this? What kind of questions does that raise for you?
[21:35:00] MONAGHAN: Well, it raises a lot of questions. And coupled with the audio that the other guest just mentioned, that you asked about, it changes my whole perspective, on this guy. I thought he was just a man, like Luigi Mangione, that went off the rails, and chose ISIS as his cause. Apparently, I was wrong on that.
He was inspired by ISIS. He was spouting this stuff out a year ago. And now, we got this explosive that is not readily available in the U.S. or Europe. That couples with that year-old audio. It really does. And it is vital.
Before this, I thought, I want to know where he got the flag. We need to know where he got everything, who he dealt with, who helped him, may not have helped him.
But where he got those explosive, that is a vital link, it is. Because he's been on this track for a year now. It wasn't like he had his mental break, based on personal problems, and then suddenly decided to, be inspired by ISIS. No. This has been going on for a while, apparently.
P. BROWN: Yes, and it does raise questions. Now, law enforcement says they believe that he acted alone. But it does raise questions. Where did he get the flag? Where did he get this rare ingredient, this compound?
And John, I want to follow up by asking about this, the crime scene video. You've been analyzing it. And something stuck out to your trained eyes. Tell us about that.
MONAGHAN: Well, a lot of things did. I mean, the bollards and the truck and the Archer barriers.
But what really, really stood out is this. When I -- when I present evidence in court as an expert witness, my field of expertise is use of force, deadly force used by the police.
And there's a rule, and it's a standard throughout the industry. And the rule says, you cannot shoot at a moving vehicle. And I mean, unless they're shooting at you, but then that's a separate category. They're shooting at you. You cannot shoot at a moving vehicle when a moving vehicle is the deadly weapon. That's a standard throughout the industry, except in a few jurisdictions.
In New York City, that rule was written in 1972. They were the first ones implement it. It dropped police shootings. Other departments nationwide caught on, implemented the same rule. It's a very strict rule.
2016, we had Nice, France. 2016, we had the German market in Berlin.
2017, in May of 2017, the NYPD changed its decades-long rule. They didn't actually change the rule. They added a caveat that said, OK, you're in violation for firing at a moving vehicle. However, the fires discharge review board will take into consideration the totality of the circumstances, if it was a vehicle-ramming attack, by a terrorist, intent on mass casualties.
In 2022, as part of this handcuff the police, defund the police movement in New York City, the City Council remove that caveat, went back to the 1972 restrictive rule.
Now, I got to tell you, I looked it up. New Orleans Police Department, they have the same rule in place.
P. BROWN: Where they can't shoot a moving vehicle.
MONAGHAN: Now, what I'm about to tell you what we--
P. BROWN: Because this is a lot, right? You're saying that they -- the rule's in place, where they shouldn't shoot.
MONAGHAN: It's huge. This is--
P. BROWN: But you think they did, is the bottom line.
MONAGHAN: Yes, it's a very big rule.
P. BROWN: You think from what you've analyzed in the video--
MONAGHAN: Well, you know what?
P. BROWN: --that they may have, to save lives. Right?
MONAGHAN: To save lives. I take exception not with what the cops did. I take exception to this rule.
P. BROWN: Yes, of course, I hear--
MONAGHAN: Listen, those cops, first of all, they came--
P. BROWN: --I hear what you're saying.
MONAGHAN: They came face to face with this guy, shot it out with him, toe to toe, and won. All right? That's a victory. What the cops did leading up to that is a good shooting.
But now, let's -- can we bring up that picture? I can't see our screen.
P. BROWN: It's up. Yes, we're showing it on the screen here.
MONAGHAN: OK. So, the truck is crashed into the crane. And when you look to the left, there's room for him to continue his rampage. He was not on, we discussed this a minute ago, on a suicide mission. He did not choose to crash into that crane. Something incapacitated him to the extent that he lost control and crashed into that crane.
Why did he not continue down Bourbon Street? He had three or four more blocks on Bourbon Street. Listen, the guy had places to go and things to do, right? He had detonators in that truck. He had a machine gun in that truck. He didn't crash into that crane of his own accord.
P. BROWN: Interesting. That's an interesting insight.
MONAGHAN: We don't have a full account of this.
P. BROWN: I want to get your take on this, Mary Ellen, and also, something else that was raised to me, in just in terms of the premeditation.
A security official I was speaking to, on the phone before the show, said it seemed as though he knew where to turn, and that he would be able to turn from Canal into Bourbon Street, and that there would be nothing obstructing the truck right there. I mean, this person seemed to suggest, it was clear he scouted out the area beforehand.
Is that what you would expect in a situation like this?
ELLEN O'TOOLE: Yes, I'd absolutely expect that he did a recon of Bourbon Street, prior to making the decision to even target New Orleans.
It's very possible that he had several locations in mind, and that he also did some kind of a recon, to make sure, New Orleans is the place, that's where I'm going to be most successful, that's where a lot of the -- most of the people are going to be.
[21:40:00]
But the recon itself would be something that I would definitely expect, and he would have done it several days before, so he knew even where to place the IEDs. If you noticed, he put them several blocks apart. So, if one didn't go off and do the damage he wanted, another would be far enough away, so that it would. But the recon would be extremely important to his game plan.
P. BROWN: Mary Ellen O'Toole. John Monaghan. This story continues. There's still a lot we haven't learned yet. Thank you so much.
MONAGHAN: Thank you.
P. BROWN: Still ahead. Could the City of New Orleans have prevented the attack by better-protecting one of the most famous streets in the country? A local official, now investigating that question, joins us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
P. BROWN: In New Orleans, the City Council is now pushing for the creation of a fact-finding committee, to review the New Year's Day Bourbon Street terror attack. This, as pressure grows, on local leaders, to get to the bottom of what was missed in the lead-up to the deadly ISIS-inspired massacre, that left 14 people dead.
[21:45:00]
Let's get straight to THE SOURCE tonight, with the New Orleans City Council Member, Joseph Giarrusso.
Thank you for coming on.
So, I'm sure you've now heard, seen, perhaps, this 2019 security assessment, warning Bourbon Street was particularly vulnerable to a terrorist attack by a vehicle.
I spoke to the CEO of the company behind that report. He says, it strongly recommended bollards be improved immediately and put on sidewalks as well. And he said, the recommendations from that report weren't used, and could have prevented this attack.
Do you know why more wasn't done to heed those warnings from 2019, Council Member?
JOSEPH GIARRUSSO III, NEW ORLEANS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: No, and I think that's part of the reason why we're going to start this investigation, and see what happened, and try and put everything into perspective.
Let me just also say this, though. I think it's really important to remember, as your guests right before me were saying, the ultimate cause here is the assailant, the terrorist who attacked the city. And now, as we're backing out from the fact that we know that he did that, what are the things that can be done, particularly knowing that we have the Super Bowl and Mardi Gras coming up, that can be done better.
Number one, putting bollards in places that they ought to be. Number two, talked about earlier, placing IEDs places. Well, how long were those coolers waiting on the street, before anybody noticed them and they were detonated? Number three, making sure that we don't advertise, that the bollards are out of commission, as was reported, last night, by a local affiliate.
So, there's definitely things, I think, that we can look at. And clearly, this 2019 report is a place to start.
P. BROWN: You were a Council Member at the time the report was released. Were members of the City Council even aware of that security assessment about one of the biggest soft targets in your city?
GIARRUSSO III: That was one of the questions we were all asking, as we saw the reports coming out, last night, about that.
P. BROWN: So, you didn't know about it?
GIARRUSSO III: I went back through my--
P. BROWN: You and your fellow council members--
GIARRUSSO III: Yes, no--
P. BROWN: --did not know about it?
GIARRUSSO III: We did not. And--
P. BROWN: Do you know why?
GIARRUSSO III: No, I don't know why. I don't -- I can't answer that. All I can assume is that for security reasons, people wanted to be careful. Obviously, the larger that you create a pool, the more people who know.
But at the same time, I think it's probably a good priority for people to have discussions, writ large, about measures that are involving safety. And we are going to look into, and that's part of the reason why we're going to have this committee with our legislators, about what needs to be done, going forward.
P. BROWN: I want to ask you about something else. And that's the Department of Homeland Security, last month, issuing this bulletin about the threat of lone offenders around the holidays, and the potential use of vehicles in attacks.
Were local officials aware of that bulletin? Do you know, was it discussed ahead of these massive celebrations and events?
GIARRUSSO III: Well, again, I can't speak to what was happening inside the administration.
I've asked my staff, because there were some high-level meetings about what was going on. And obviously, as we're digging in, I want to make sure that we didn't know anything. And A, I haven't heard anything about the bulletin. B, specifically, I was checking about the bollards, to see what people knew. So, I can't say that we were aware of those.
Although, I would say this. Generally, I think we know that in a city, where you have so many different events, that cars, trucks can be used. Remember, years ago, we passed an ordinance too, to keep portalets further away from Mardi Gras routes, because those became a potential issue as well.
So, I know that obviously being safe is something that's on people's mind. And I think now the question is, how do we re-examine all of that?
P. BROWN: And I'm just curious, as you look back -- and of course, hindsight is 20/20. And you're absolutely right, the assailant is the one to blame. But unfortunately, oftentimes when this happens, you look back, and you see where there may have been lapses.
There was that police car there. As you learn more, does it seem like the focus was more on making sure traffic wasn't going down Bourbon Street, versus keeping out any offender who could have been in a car, I mean? Because you look at what other cities do, like NYPD, they put big garbage trucks, and they make sure that the sidewalks are blocked.
GIARRUSSO III: Yes, and look, it's a perfectly fair question. Should there have been a garbage truck, a big sand truck, a huge utility vehicle? All really fair, good questions to be asking. And look, the next couple days, after the accident, that's exactly what happened, on Bourbon Street.
[21:50:00] And I think that all presages the questions about, Do we need to do something like that? Should parts of Bourbon Street be more pedestrian? How we re-route traffic? How we make sure that the sidewalk can't be used again? Because obviously, what happened is the terrorist went around the car, the unit that was parked on Canal and Bourbon Street. And all of those things are going to have to be re- examined and made sure that we're bearing down, in preparation for our next events.
P. BROWN: Well, New Orleans City Council Member, Joseph Giarrusso, we are thinking about your city, as it continues to heal, the great City of New Orleans. Thank you so much.
GIARRUSSO III: Thank you.
P. BROWN: Up next. The government warns about a new leading cause of cancer that might make you reconsider your Friday night cocktail, if you're drinking one, watching this show right now. You may want to set it down for a little bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00]
P. BROWN: Well the U.S. Surgeon General is out with a new warning today, and it's about drinking alcohol, even in moderation, and a link to cancer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. VIVEK MURTHY, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL: Even drinking within the current guideline limits, one drink a day for women, two drinks a day for men, we see a increased risk of cancer. And it's why I've called for a revision of those guideline limits, because they now need to be updated to include and reflect the fact that there is cancer risk at those levels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
P. BROWN: The Surgeon General is so alarmed that he says he's also calling for warning labels, similar to the ones on cigarettes, to show that drinking increases the risk of developing several different kinds of cancer, including breast, colon and liver cancer.
A study show Americans were already cutting back on booze. But for years, we've also heard about the benefits of, say, a glass of wine a day, which is what I always prefer to focus on. So what gives?
Here with me now, Derek Brown, Co-founder of Mindful Drinking Fest, Certified Wellness Coach, and the Author of "Mindful Mixology."
All right. So, you've done a lot of work in this space.
DEREK BROWN, CO-FOUNDER OF MINDFUL DRINKING FEST, NASM CERTIFIED WELLNESS COACH: Right, yes.
P. BROWN: You were telling me before that you used to drink a lot. You kind of -- from 16 on, you said, you were?
D. BROWN: Yes, I started working in the hospitality industry, when I was 16-years-old. So, that's where I learned how to drink alcohol. And I got to be honest, it's not the healthiest group of people to learn from. One in five people, in the hospitality industry, have a substance use issue, according to SAMHSA. So the fact is that that's how I learned to drink.
And at some point, when I was in my 30s, I really had to address that, because it had become normalized to drink, at all hours of the night into the morning. And I really changed my relationship with alcohol.
And at first, it was a really scary moment for me, because I had worked in this industry, and I had talked to people about these great cocktails and great spirits. I said, What am I going to do now? You know?
P. BROWN: Right.
D. BROWN: And so, I realized it didn't have to change much, in a way. Because instead of focusing on spirits and cocktails with alcohol, I could focus on no- and low-alcohol cocktails.
So, that's when I wrote my book, "Mindful Mixology: A Comprehensive Guide to No- and Low-Alcohol Cocktails." And I started to work on programs to consult on them, to teach people about how they can make great no- and low-alcohol cocktails.
P. BROWN: So, given the book you wrote and everything, what do you make of this warning from the Surgeon General, or the fact that the Surgeon General wants a warning label to be on alcoholic beverages?
D. BROWN: Well, happy Dry January.
P. BROWN: Yes.
D. BROWN: So, I mean, it is -- couldn't come at a better time in the sense that there are already people who are changing their relationship to alcohol, during the month of January, whether they're doing dry-ish January and drinking less, or they're deciding during the whole month that they're going to not drink alcohol. So, in that sense, it's good.
But certainly, overall, it's good to have that information, right? Like, we need to know this. And alcohol is highly correlated with cancer, and the ones that you mentioned, especially the seven different types of cancer. If you read the report, it's all there. It's all really good information to know.
And I think that that's what I preach, is mindful drinking. And I think that that's what is at the heart of Mindful Drinking, is people knowing and having the information, to make good decisions, and also having optionality, having choices.
P. BROWN: All right, so before you go, I want to go back to your book, "Mindful Mixology." D. BROWN: Yes.
P. BROWN: Can you really make a good cocktail with no alcohol or little alcohol? I believe we have some -- some props here.
D. BROWN: Yes, that's right. My bar is coming.
P. BROWN: We're going to put you to work right now.
D. BROWN: Bring it.
P. BROWN: And I will -- I will let you know. Because I think that is the question, like when I -- you know, for example -- you know what? You do you, and I'll just--
D. BROWN: I'm going to stand and shake here, if that's OK.
P. BROWN: You stand and shake.
D. BROWN: Yes.
P. BROWN: And I'll talk.
D. BROWN: So, yes, I mean, you have these syrupy mocktails of the past, right?
P. BROWN: Yes.
D. BROWN: Or multi-non-alcoholic beers. And that's changed. There's all of these sophisticated like non-alcoholic spirits, wines and beers. We have an entire festival, January 10th through 12th in Washington, D.C., that is essentially called Mindful Drinking Fest, and where you can taste all of these, and have parties, and really learn about mindful drinking.
P. BROWN: So basically, these are drinks that are either very little alcohol or no alcohol.
And you're making a margarita, right? Or what is this?
D. BROWN: So, this is a margarita variation.
P. BROWN: OK.
D. BROWN: So, it has a distilled spirit that is distilled with agave, just like tequila. But it's a little different.
P. BROWN: Oh, lovely.
D. BROWN: And I've used some other delicious ingredients in it--
P. BROWN: Oh my gosh, that does look agave.
D. BROWN: --including fresh lemon juice and chickpea water.
P. BROWN: Where were you in my life, when I was pregnant? D. BROWN: Well I'm here--
P. BROWN: With pregnancy, I could have--
D. BROWN: I'm here now during Dry January, which is what--
P. BROWN: There you go.
D. BROWN: --I think a lot of people -- so a lot of people are adopting this Dry January, and this is an option for them.
P. BROWN: Right.
D. BROWN: So, here you go.
P. BROWN: All right. Oh my gosh. I'm so excited to try this.
Wow. Cheers.
D. BROWN: Cheers.
[22:00:00]
P. BROWN: I probably should have cheered you first. But I was really excited to try it.
D. BROWN: That's OK.
P. BROWN: And it's so good.
D. BROWN: Thanks.
P. BROWN: And there's no alcohol in this, right?
D. BROWN: There's no alcohol at all.
P. BROWN: OK. This is delicious. And you can find the recipe for this? You're welcome.
D. BROWN: So you can go to my website at positivedamageinc I-N-C.com. Or check out mindfuldrinkingfest.com.
P. BROWN: Wow.
D. BROWN: Where we're going to have this entire festival.
P. BROWN: Amazing. Derek Brown, thank you so much.
D. BROWN: Yes.
P. BROWN: I will be finishing that.
D. BROWN: My pleasure.
P. BROWN: Thank you for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
