Return to Transcripts main page


Rudy Giuliani Made A Stunning Remark About President Donald Trump; Police In Arizona Are Investigating Four Deadly Shootings That They Believe May Be Linked To One Man; An Immigrant Family From Ohio Says U.S. Customs Seized Their Life Savings, a $58,100; MS-13 Has Been Called The Most Dangerous Gang In The World; Aired 7-8p ET

Aired June 3, 2018 - 19:00   ET


[19:00:00] ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Rudy Giuliani actually telling a reporter today that President Trump could have shot someone in the oval office and not be indicted. Read this with me what Rudy Giuliani told "the Huffington Post" about his client President Trump.

In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted. I don't know how you can indict while he is in office, no matter what it is. If he shot James Comey, he would be impeached the next day, impeach him and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.

Our correspondent Boris Sanchez is at the White House.

Now Boris, we are still trying to process this, what Rudy Giuliani reportedly just told "the Huffington Post" this hypothetical about the President shooting James Comey in the oval office. Putting aside that for just a minute, what he's factually -- whether he's factually right or wrong, is there any reaction from the White House about what Giuliani is saying?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Ana, not yet. Frankly I would be surprised if there was any response other than referring to us to outside counsel which in this case is Rudy Giuliani. Perhaps not the most tactful way to describe his position to draw this image of the President shooting the former FBI director in the oval office, but essentially what he is arguing is what we have heard the President's legal team argue over and over again, that the President cannot be indicted by virtue of his position.

Further, Giuliani tried to clarify today some of the key points in that letter that we sent by the White House legal team to the special counsel in January. That letter, of course, published yesterday in the "New York Times." And in that letter, the Trump legal team tried to argue that the President because he is the top law enforcement officer in the country could end any investigation, so if he show chooses, thereby making it impossible for him to obstruct justice. One of the things that we know that the special counsel is investigating.

Further, Giuliani tried to make the case that in theory the President could pardon himself, that is, to essentially if there were any charges brought against him or any potential indictment in the future that the President could essentially wipe that away. Giuliani on both counts made the case that it is highly unlikely that the President would do that. He is arguing that it is not something that they are interested in pursuing. But speaking in theory, it is something that the President could do. He says he won't do that because they don't have to. He does not believe that the President is in any sort of legal trouble. In fact, he went as far as to say that he believes that the political uproar that that would cause would lead to more danger for this President and the threat of impeachment -- Ana.

CABRERA: All right. Boris Sanchez at the White House.

Lots to talk about, potential impeachment. It is interesting. Let's get to our panel and discuss. Joining us CNN White House reporter Stephen Collinson, CNN political analyst and "New York Times" political editor Patrick Healy and CNN politics senior writer and analyst Harry Enten.

So Stephen, this claim from Giuliani that the President could shoot James Comey and not be indicted is similar to we have heard from President Trump himself as a candidate. Let's listen.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?


CABRERA: Who do you think Giuliani is really making this argument to?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: I think what this is all about, Ana, is a series of arguments that the President's legal team is making because they cannot afford for the President to go before special counsel Robert Mueller and give an interview because there are clearly going to be doubts about whether he will be truthful during that testimony and that would lead him into all sorts of political problems, legal problems and the idea that he could obstruct justice.

The question of whether a President could be indicted, a sitting President has never really been answered completely just because it's never really come up, so it's -- it's the litigation hasn't taken place, but most people believe that a sitting President probably can't be indicted but the remedy, for instance, if the President were to commit a murder would be impeachment. And that's the political remedy that sort of covers what, you know, wrongdoing by a President.

But this all fits into the broader trend of this administration, the idea that the President cannot obstruct justice. The idea that the President cannot be indicted. What the President and his lawyers are arguing is a broad and sweeping interpretation of Presidential power which seems to come up, you know, right against the idea that the constitution and norms have limited the scope of the presidency for the last more than two centuries.

CABRERA: So at the same time they are saying no indictment Giuliani and others are also arguing though that the President would be impeached for hypothetically murdering James Comey or pardoning himself. Listen.


RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER: The President of the United States pardoning himself would just be unthinkable, and it would be -- it would lead to probably an immediate impeachment.

[19:05:07] CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), FORMER TRUMP ADVISOR: There's no way that will happen. And the reason it won't is because then becomes a political problem, George. If the President were to pardon himself he would get impeached.

PREET BHARARA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: If the President decided that he was going to himself, I think that's almost self-executing impeachment.


CABRERA: So, Harry, I guess, the other question then is why even put this out there that he can't be indicted. Why even argue that to Mueller if they are so certain he could be impeached?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER/ANALYST: You know, I think you asked the question earlier, who is he talking to? Who was Rudy Giuliani talking to when he gave that interview? And I believe he was almost talking to the President of the United States himself who sees himself above the fray oftentimes, right.

And so, I think that Rudy Giuliani had an audience of one in that because I don't think anyone really thinks that the President is going to pardon himself. In fact, Rudy Giuliani said himself that's not going to happen. I don't think anyone thinks that he is going to go out and shoot James Comey. But Rudy Giuliani is acting on behalf of the President and he wants to make sure he keeps his job because as we have seen many times attorneys for the President often go adios, amigos after a little bit of time.

CABRERA: Adios, amigos.

Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, Patrick, and he commented on that and sort of in present day terms and the scenario we are finding ourselves in right now with this Russia investigation. Listen to what he said today.


BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think if the roles were reversed, now this is me just talking and based on my experience, if there were a Democratic President and the facts were present, most people in Washington believe impeachment hearings would have begun already.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there were a Democrat in power?



CABRERA: Patrick, do you think that's the case?

PATRICK HEALY, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that's a bit of a stretch because I think that both sides want an investigation to play out just like in the '90s, there was a desire for Ken Starr to do the work that he need to do, even though it was dragging on for years. The impeachment proceedings didn't really begin until that was decided.

But I think impeachment is an interesting focus here and it's because of the midterm elections that are underway right now. What Rudy Giuliani and President Trump and others are trying to do is they are trying to come up with a strategy to get the Republicans determined to reelect a Republican Congress and they are using this sort of scare tactic about impeachment to really energize the base. They are saying indictments are off the table. Well, he could pardon himself but he probably won't. It's really going to be about impeachment. So you have got to reelect a Republican Congress in order to protect, you know, the President who you put in office.

The problem here is that what they are describing and the kind of some of the language that they are using, the President is above an investigation. He can fire anyone. He can shoot, you know, the FBI director.

CABRERA: Sounds like we have a king in the office.

HEALY: This sounds like a dictatorship, Ana.


HEALY: It sounds more like a dictatorship what they are describing that basically a president -- why investigate if he can fire the investigators? He can pardon himself. It sounds more like a dictatorship than a country governed by the rule of law.

CABRERA: Patrick brought up Republicans and their perhaps political maneuvering. And it's interesting when you take a look at the lives current Republicans who voted for impeachment of Bill Clinton and yet, I mean, here they are right there.


CABRERA: And yet, Harry, they are silent right now most of them as the President continues his attacks on the justice department.

ENTEN: Yes. They are silent. Now, let's see what happens if he were actually to make a movement, you know, if he were to try say and get rid of the special counsel or say he actually tried to pardon himself.

Right now, there's a lot of talk from the President. Republicans have done a very good job of trying to ignore the noise per se, but if there's actual action that occurs, that's when I think I'm going to be more interested in what Republicans do. But I should point out when they fired James Comey back last year, you

saw the President's approval rate take a dip. That one of the few times in his administration where you actually saw movement in his approval ratings so if the President took action I think Republicans would run for cover and that's when I think you would probably see them begin to abandon the President.

CABRERA: And the President -- go ahead.

HEALY: Could I just add to that point. This is such -- those faces that you showed on the screen gets entirely to how much President Trump has taken over the Republican party, I mean, how much they are so dependent on this President. As much as the media and other sort to say, oh, my God, his approval rating is no good and he says these things on twitter that are outrageous.

The reality is that they are so loyal to him at this point. And the reality -- and they know that the base is so much with the President and not necessarily with them.

ENTEN: Eighty-five percent of Republicans approve of the President of the United States. That's the second highest approval among his observe party of any Republican President since polling began. So yes, they are very afraid of their own voters even if the center of the electorate isn't necessary lit biggest fan of the President.

CABRERA: And Stephen, the other thing we noticed in the recent polling is that more and more Republicans are siding with the President on his version of Mueller, and he continuing to call it a witch-hunt. But there's been radio silence from the special counsel's office. Nobody is fighting back. It's just the President and his team who have that loud microphone right now. We even find out that Mueller hasn't responded, according to Giuliani, to the letter that they sent to him in January. Should Mueller or somebody from the special counsel team be defending their integrity and this investigation?

COLLINSON: Well, this silence of Robert Mueller is completely consistent with everything we know from the way he has conducted himself during his long career in law enforcement. And I don't think you would expect anything else. The danger for him to engage here is that he gets -- would be that he gets pulled down into this political vortex and most people that engage with Donald Trump from positions of authority end up having their images tarnished.

Having said that, as you say, it does open this opportunity for the President and his allies to basically take shots at Mueller knowing that there's going to be no consequences for that. And I think what we have seen by the President is the campaign orchestrated with certain conservative media figures is really being quite successful in roughing up Mueller.

Now, the question is what happens when the special counsel makes his report? Does he have information about the President and his campaign and his associates that is so damning that it changes the political atmosphere around this, or has the President been so successful that whatever Mueller eventually reports doesn't make any impression on Republicans and conservative voters, and that lessens the pressure then on Republican lawmakers to act against the President in any kind of impeachment process or anything else. So it's going to take a while to see how the politics play out. A lot, I think, does depend on weak exactly Robert Mueller has, and as has opinion shown, you know, when we have had these indictments that have taken place periodically, he has a -- knows a lot of things that we don't know that he knows and that's the central question.

CABRERA: Patrick, real quickly. I want to get your take on this argument. We heard from Giuliani saying that the President shouldn't sit down with Mueller because his recollection keeps changing.

HEALY: Right. I remember interviewing Donald Trump as a candidate, and a couple of times he talked about how 9/11, the attacks on the world trade center happened during dinner. He -- he -- we know this. He has these moments of what he says, whether they are exaggerations or falsehoods or lies or just memory issues, or the way he talks faster than his brain moves sometimes.

I mean, the reality is that's one thing in politics. That's another thing when you are speaking either under oath or to a grand jury or to investigators for the special counsel. And Rudy Giuliani, they have reason to be worried. President Trump likes to -- you know. He got elected in part because some voters thought he shot his mouths off in ways that sounded like a real person, but that can be very dangerous with stakes this high.

CABRERA: Gentlemen, thank you all. Patrick Healy, Harry Enten and Stephen Collinson.

And coming up, the tale of two dictators. A new report that Kim Jong- un plans to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as negotiations continue for a historic summit with President Trump. So what's going on here?

Plus, on the hunt for a killer. Police link a string of murders in Arizona, and among victims a psychiatrist famous for his work in the Jonbenet Ramsey case.

And dance floor shocker. An off-duty FBI agent accidentally fires a gun and shoots someone while doing a backflip in a negotiate club.


[19:017:46] CABRERA: North Korea's leader has another ground breaking meeting on his agenda. The country's state news agency says Kim Jong- un will soon welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for an official visit. No date has been set but it would mark the first time Kim has ever hosted a foreign head of state.

As for his upcoming summit in Singapore with President Trump, the White House says U.S. will not be paying the North Korean delegation hotel bill. Now that statement follows the "Washington Post" reports suggesting the White House was open to that idea. In terms of the framework for this upcoming meeting nine days from

now, the U.S. defense secretary may have just outlined one important parameter.


JAMES MATTIS, DEFENSE SECRETARY: North Korea will receive relief only when it demonstrates verifiable and irreversible steps to denuclearization.


CABRERA: And that brings us to our weekly Presidential brief, a segment we bring you every Sunday night highlighting some of the most pressing national security information the President will need when he wakes up tomorrow.

Joining us now CNN national security analyst and former national security council adviser Sam Vinograd. She spent two years in the Obama administration helping prep for the President's daily brief.

So Sam, the President isn't just preparing for this one upcoming summit, historic however it may be. It's a season for them, really.

SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It is summit season. And we have eight days to go until the President is the supposed to travel to Singapore. He is laser focused on keeping the summit on track while his team works on the logistical details and the substantive ones like what North Korea has to give to get relief from us. \

Kim Jong-un threw what should have been a wrench into the process earlier. North Korea announced Bashar al-Assad is going to travel to Pyongyang. Imagine the North Koreans went ballistics when Pence and Bolton talked about the Libya model. Here Kim is inviting a war criminal to North Korea and probably expecting Donald Trump to keep quiet because the President so badly wants the summit to go ahead. I think that puts Kim in the driver's seat ahead of Singapore.

CABRERA: Now before Singapore we also have another battle perhaps for the President.

VINOGRAD: Unfortunately.

CABRERA: The G-7 summit in Canada.


And this is going to be a battle with our friends. The other G-7 countries, the G-6, if you will, are preparing for battles on multiple fronts. U.S. tariff policy, U.S.-Iran policy, U.S. climate change policy. And Canada had prepared a real substantive agenda centered around themes like gender equality and women empowerment, but that's going to be overshadowed by all of these fights.

The fact of the matter is these meetings, I have traveled to some of them in the past, are supposed to be about building consensus. The G- 6 did achieve consensus against us yesterday. They issued a unanimous statement condemning our tariff policy and China and Russia, our enemies, are echoing those same messages which is bringing them all closer together.

CABRERA: Russia used to be part of this group and was suspended in 2014 when it annexed Crimea. What do you think it the intel community is telling President Trump about a potential summit with Putin?

VINOGRAD: Right. There is a potential summit. I think they are probably telling him not to do it because imagine how easily Putin manipulates President Trump from Moscow. What do we think is going to happen if they are in the same room together?

Now, the President should meet with enemies as well as friends, but this President has a really tough time staying on message and sticking to his talking points. At the same time if he does this summit at the White House, he is literally and figuratively opening the front door to it the man who is still attacking us. We are under live attack. It's like opening your door to the burglar while you are being robbed. It is not something anyone would recommend.

So I think the ISIS (ph) probably saying President Trump, if you are going to meet with him, meet with him in a third country and make sure you stay on message this time.

CABRERA: Sam Vinograd, thank you so much.

And coming up in the NEWSROOM, fears that a serial killer is on the loose in Arizona after they link the psychiatrist who worked the Jonbenet Ramsey case to several other murders in the area. We will get a live report straight ahead.


[19:26:15] CABRERA: Police in Arizona are investigating four deadly shootings that they believe may be linked to one man, and in the most recent case a 72-year-old mental health counsellor was found death dead in his Scottsdale office just yesterday and it follows the killings of two paralegals and a well-known forensic psychiatrist who worked on several high-profile cases including the killing of Jonbenet Ramsey.

Our Nick Watt is following this story in Arizona.

Nick, what are police saying about these cases and how they may be connected?

NICK WATT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they are right now still trying to connect that fourth murder to the previous three which they say they have definitively connected through evidence. Now, they won't tell us what that evidence is, but I just want to actually describe these killings and really give you a sense of why the legal community here is scared that this guy could hit again.

Now Thursday evening at 5:30 as Steven Pitt, that renowned forensic psychiatrist was leaving his office. He, according to witnesses got no an argument with somebody on the street. There were raised voices then gunshots and Pitt died on the sidewalk. Those two paralegals, it was the following afternoon Friday, one of them who had been shot in the head managed to stumble out of the office into the street and tried to get help from people on the bus stop to an intersection. Police followed a trail of blood back into the office and found the second woman.

So they are saying that those -- that the murders of those two paralegals and the murder of Steven Pitt are definitely connected. And they believe that the fourth one is connected and they are still trying to confirm that -- Ana.

CABRERA: We are looking at a sketch right now, Nick, of the possible suspect. Of course, no one has been identified as the suspect. What do we know about the killer?

WATT: Well, we know basically that that is roughly what he looks like, that artist sketch which was taken from witness testimony from the killing of Steven Pitt Thursday night. Beyond that we do not know very much. We do not know a motive. Police told us just about an hour ago that they are chasing multiple leads at this point.

Now, obviously they will be looking into the possible legal connections. I mentioned Pitt could we will have been used as an expert witness by the firm that those two paralegals worked at. That's one connection that they are trying to figure now. But Marshall Lavigne, he was 72-year-old man, he was kind of a hypnotherapist. Like a life coach is. Less clear how he may have been connect. But these thoughts that the police are try to join right now.

Those three killings, all in Scottsdale in a ten-mile radius. And they say over three but it is really a little over 24 hours, the first killing Thursday evening and the last body found very early Saturday morning. So police right now furiously trying to figure out who this guy is so they can catch him and also in case he may strike again, Ana.

CABRERA: Serious murder mystery on their hands.

Nick Watt in Scottsdale, Arizona, thank you.

It was DNA from a tissue and a car door that finally led to the arrest of the suspected golden state killer. Newly unsealed arrest warrants and search warrant documents detailed how detectives pieced together their case against Joseph D'Angelo, a former police officer.

According to the documents in mid-April investigators followed D'Angelo to a hobby lobby in Roseville, California, and while he shopped, police gathered DNA from his car door handle in the parking lot. Days later investigators collected another sample of his DNA from a discarded tissue at a trash can outside his home. The new samples were tested and matched crime scene DNA from decades ago. The 72-year-old is suspected of committing at least a dozen murders and roughly 50 rapes between 1976 and 1986. He has not entered a plea to the murder charges.

Coming up, an FBI agent impresses on the dance floor until he loses his gun and shoots someone. More on this video going viral.

Plus members an immigrant family fighting back after U.S. officials seize their entire life savings. How it all unfolded at the airport in Cleveland.


[19:34:44] CABRERA: Come look at your TV. If you are in another room right now, because Denver police are investigating an FBI agent who is showing off his dance moves, and he accidentally shot a man on the dance floor, and you can see it in the video it is a happens.

The off-duty agent is there doing a version of the stinky leg maybe, the gun falls out during the backflip and then it goes off with the flash when he goes to pick it up. One person was taken to the hospital with a leg injury. Luckily that wasn't serious. Here's how a witness described the scene.


[19:35:16] CARA CHANCELLOR, WITNESSED ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING: It was a break dance circle, quintessential break dance circle. There was one man doing flips and he left and the FBI agent, I guess, we didn't know that, he came on the scene and he did a back flip and he was dancing. And then right as he did that back flip his gun fell out and hit the ground. It shot off.


CABRERA: That agent was taken to Denver police headquarters and later released to his FBI supervisor.

An immigrant family from Ohio says U.S. customs seized their life savings, a $58,100 to be exact. Rusham Kazazi was flying home to Albania with the money in his bag and court documents because all he say for his family and to help purchase a vacation home. Karzazi says customs agents interrogated him and took the money. Here's how his son reacted.


ERALD KAZAZI, SON OF RUSHAM KAZAZI: He was intercepted by TSA at the airport because he had money in his luggage. We have never even done anything wrong, so to have CVP take his money with no cause whatsoever is shocking.


CABRERA: Polo Sandoval is joining us now.

And court documents say that man was also strip searched.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is what this gentleman alleges in these court documents that have been recently filed as he seeks to get his life savings back on. He also claims that he put the $58,100 in his carry-on when he left Cleveland Hopkinton international airport headed back to his native Armenia (ph). He said wanted to buy a vacation home here.

He had a layover in Newark, New Jersey where Mr. Kazazi says he planned to make that declaration of this money. So did federal authorities have that solid legal footing in seizing this money? It's actually kind of unclear here, Ana.

Let me explain here. It is not illegal to either come into the United States or leave the United States with large amounts of cash as long as you declare amounts in excess of $10,000. The question is though where should that declaration happen? When you pull up the form here that's required when you are traveling with these large amounts of money and you can read the -- the instructions for yourself here, it says that travelers carrying currency in excess of $10,000 either in or out of the United States have to make the declaration at the time they make entry into the United States or in Mr. Kazazi's case at the time of departure from the United States at a port of entry.

The question though what port of entry? Mr. Kazazi claims that he planned to make that declaration at Newark international during his layover before he left to Armenia. But authorities here seem -- or at least everything that we have -- everything that's pointing to what we have right now is that seizure made by authorities happened hat Cleveland international airport. So that's the question here.

If you are moving with these large amounts of money, should you make that at your initial point of departure or your last U.S. port of entry before you least United States? We looked at the forms here, and it just doesn't say. We turned to customs and border protection saying they cannot comment because of pending litigation, and they simply referred us to the form that doesn't go into great detail.

CABRERA: Have they told the man whether he can get his money back?

SANDOVAL: The seizure took place in October there in Cleveland Hopkins international airports. Two months, Mr. Kazazi then received that formal notice that they would not give him back his money saying that this money was involved in smuggling, drug trafficking and money laundering. However, criminal charges have not been filed against this man yet. So, again, we will have to see how that plays out in court.

CABRERA: Indeed. Polo Sandoval, thank you.

Coming up, a CNN exclusive. The war against the most dangerous gang in the world, MS-13. Our own Nick Paton Walsh, he has access to an elite police squad that tracks down gang members but not without controversy.


[19:43:28] CABRERA: MS-13 has been called the most dangerous gang in the world. The battle against MS-13 extends far south of the U.S. border waged by police forces in Central America. But there are troubling aspects to the effort, especially in El Salvador.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh, gained access to what's known on the street as El Salvador's death squads, police units with a dark history and backed by American money.


NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's an undeclared war here in El Salvador. Elite police against MS- 13, a gang menace that beheads, rapes and terrorizes. And it's America's war, too, because President Trump has declared MS-13 animals that must be eliminated, and these men are fighting with U.S. money and help.

A lot of this equipment American government supplies, part of an effort to try and tackle gang violence back in El Salvador.

These men, the jaguar unit, say their targets are a gang leaders to cripple the gang hierarchy.

COMMANDER CESAR ORTEGA, JAGUAR POLICE UNIT (through translator): U.S. participates in training as well as providing equipment. The only thing that the U.S. does not supply is lethal equipment, the weapons and the ammunition, but it does supply us with protective equipment, helmets, bulletproof vests and knee pads.

WALSH: There's something U.S. taxpayers should know about how America is fighting this proxy war. This unit has a dark history. Many once an elite unit called the Special Reaction Forces or SRF. It was disbanded off to the travelling allegations.

The force had a very lethal track record on the street killing a stagger 43 people they say were gang members in just six months last year. Some, and it's repeatedly been alleged, illegal executions.

That's a problem for the U.S. who aren't supposed to fund units guilty of human rights abuses. Critics say some (INAUDIBLE) police evaded this dark past by being forwarded into the new jaguar unit so the U.S. had no issues funding them.

In fact, the number of gang members killed each year by police has risen five times in two years, a higher body count that hasn't, say polls, made people feel safer.

It's a culture of alleged impunity exposed in Whatsapp messages CNN obtained where (INAUDIBLE) police discussed executions and ask for informant help identifying gang members. Can you send us a picture of shadow, the message says. We are going

now. We have located him. Send me his photo right now. We're going to crash that (bleep).

A local police officer rails at the sloppy cleanup of an execution of a gang member by fellow police nearby.

[19:46:21] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE) WALSH: There are witnesses who saw that they were beating that son of a (bleep) before killing him and comrades portrayed it as a shootout. Here you have bad procedures and practice. If you're going to do some (bleep) like that, you better be sure there are no witnesses.

Brutal tactics can drive people away from the police towards gangs like MS-13 into whose world here we get rare permission to enter. \

We are headed now to one of the scenes of the more prominent killings here deep inside gang territory carried out by what locals here say was effectively a police death squad.

Nobody disputes that Eclipse as he was known was a local gang figure, but they do dispute that Eclipse was armed when police shot him dead. Neighbors say it was simply an execution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They came inside and a little time passed. They are screaming hand in your weapons, and they replied there they are, mister. They are surrendering, and all raff sudden we hear the first shot, and after hearing the first there was some silence and after another four shots were fired.

WALSH: His distraught mother shows us the scene, his bedroom.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Here he was lying down. His hands like this, as if he had been sleeping. They killed my son.

WALSH: She claims they shot him in the back. They say the police never come around here now. This case was investigated, but charges weren't filed. Police rarely, if ever, prosecute their own. In fact, one of the officers accused in this shooting likely now serves in the new jaguar unit. Using his photograph, a facial recognition expert who used to work for British police identified him in our footage of the new jaguar unit.

KENNY LONG, FORMER POLICE IDENTITY EXPERT: These images are very, very clear, very good images. I'm 85 percent certain at least that this is one in the same person I'm looking at.

WALSH: An officer accused of a killing in the old unit is likely in the new one, the Jaguars. At forthcoming U.N. report will declare a pattern of behavior by security personnel amounting to extrajudicial executions. Salvadoran police report they are fighting quote "terrorists" and often arrest them without the use of arms while keeping human rights paramount. More than 200 officers faced court for improper armed aggress last year, they said.

ORTEGA (through translator): There's a general belief about this unit having a green light to kill these gang members, but that's a lie. This does not happen here, not in any other country. We stick to the legal norms of our country. We can only respond against aggression and we use the force level that applies to our police corps, and as a last resort we fire our weapons.

WALSH: In a statement, the U.S. embassy said the U.S. government takes allegations of extrajudicial killings extremely seriously and has consistently expressed concerns regarding allegations of security force abuses. It provides assistance to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate all kinds of violent crimes, including those involving suspected human rights violations.

They added that the U.S. recently provided 500 body cams and tracks alleged abuses so no corrupt officers get their help. The U.S. has tried brute force here and elsewhere before and failed, all got caught in a longer conflict and as the threats of MS-13 rises, they will have to hope the gangs crumble rather than escalate the fight.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, San Salvador.


[19:50:03] CABRERA: Out thanks to Nick.

Coming up, W. Kamau Bell heads to college on a brand-new "UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA."


W. KAMAU BELL, CNN HOST, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's funny because I think people who don't go to HCBUs think of these as being like monolithic places, where every black person is the same. You would understand everybody because you're all black and you speak blackish, but you are saying there's diversity amongst black people. Is that what you're trying to say?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's what I'm trying to say.

BELL: OK, all right.



[19:54:052] CABRERA: On tonight's brand-new "UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA" w. Kamau Bell is going back to school to explore the country's historically black colleges and universities. Here's a preview.


BELL: Are you two students here?


BELL: I have to ask the inappropriate question because this is where we're at. Are you a really, really light-skinned black person?


BELL: OK. All right. I feel like I just want to put the thing -- the white elephant in the room. So did you have any feeling at all of, this will be strange or weird or?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, most of my friends are black. And so like --.

BELL: They are now. So talk about your life here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I like the people. I feel right at home even though everyone's from a different place. Everyone is from D.C., Philly, Baltimore. I'm coming up here. I don't even know the language they are speaking practically. Now it is like second nature to me.

BELL: Yes, yes. I think it's funny because people think of these as being monolithic person where every black person is the same. You understand everybody because you're black and you speak blackish, but you're saying there's diversity amongst black people. Is that what you're trying to say?


BELL: That's what you're trying to say. OK. All right.


CABRERA: W. Kamau Bell joins us live.

You talk about in this episode that when you were preparing to go to college, you wondered if you would actually fit in at an HBCU. Why was that?

BELL: I don't think I even wondered. I assumed I didn't, because I had an incorrect idea of the type of black person who goes to an HBCU. A lot of them are people who grew up in white environments or white school. They go a lot of private school and they go to an HBCU to connect with their blackness. I could have used that. Maybe I wouldn't have dropped out of college. I mean, that wouldn't me sitting here talking to you right now, but yes.

CABRERA: Did your perspective change at all after this?

BELL: Absolutely. I mean, that conversation we just showed right there, like that young man was just like, no, I don't -- even though we are all black, we don't speak the same language. I mean, we all speak English but we don't all talk the same. We don't know -- we are not interested in the same thing. I really learned a lot about the diversity of HBCUs, which I think people are going to be surprised about.

CABRERA: And despite their history, some people question the need for historically black colleges and universities today. Why do you think they still have an important role to play?

BELL: I think the problem is, people question their need as if there is somehow a second level of school under regular schools. But really, they turn out the higher rate of black professionals, a higher rate of black medical students. So they have just as much reason to be here as any other school. And I think if HBCUs may be promoted that more and gap that and really put that message out there, we are trying to help them tonight with this, I think people would realize that they are viable alternatives in an era where like a black student gets arrested or gets harassed by the cops for falling asleep in a common room (INAUDIBLE) school, this is a place where no black people are getting arrested for hanging out in coffee shops or falling asleep in public areas.

CABRERA: I want to switch gears for a moment talk to you about the two comedians caught up in controversy this week. Roseanne Barr was fired from her show or her show was canceled for her racist tweet she sent out about Valerie Jarrett. And then while Samantha Bee apologized for the vulgar slur she made about Ivanka Trump, she kept her job. President Trump called it a double standard. What do you think?

BELL: These are two separate issues that weirdly happened in the same week. I think there's a very big difference in level of vulgarity and awfulness in what Roseanne Barr did and what Samantha Bee did.

Samantha Bee, I certainly understand why she apologized. As soon I heard she said, I was like, there's a better joke there, Samantha Bee. You are a better comedian than that. Whereas Roseanne Barr was not trying to be funny. And so, Roseanne Barr is being fired for a history of this kind of staff. Her twitter feed goes back a long way with this kind of awfulness. So I don't think -- I think that was the racist draw that broke the racist camel's back.

CABRERA: Kamau, we just heard that Samantha Bee is going to address the uproar over the Ivanka comments on her show full frontal this week. If you were to give her some advice in how to do that, what would it be?

BELL: First of all, I don't think she needs my advice. I think it's clear that she knows that was too far. I think comedians are allowed to make mistakes. I think that a lot of times comedians say we should never have to apologize. But I'm with the camp of, sometimes they should apologize if they went too far. I would say, be honest, do what you know is the right thing to do and right better jokes next time. You are a great joke writer. Write better jokes.

CABRERA: W. Kamau Bell, good to see you. Thank you.

BELL: Thank you.

CABRERA: Well, tune in to the brand-new "UNITED SHADES OF AMERICA" airs tonight at 10:00 eastern right here on CNN.

Top of the hour. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. So glad you could top off your weekend with us.

Tonight, President Trump's legal right-hand man is making some outrageous comments about how immune the President of the United States is to legal action. Rudy Giuliani actually told a reporter today that President Trump could have shot someone in the oval office and would not be indicted. Read with me what Rudy Giuliani told "the Huffington Post" today about

his client, President Trump. In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted. I don't know how you can indict while he is in office, no matter what it is. If he shot James Comey, he would be impeached the next day. Impeach him and then you could do whatever you want to do to him.