Return to Transcripts main page
ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT
Five Dead, Multiple Injured in Newspaper Shooting; Suspect's Fingerprints Appear to Have Been Altered. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired June 28, 2018 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We'll be watching you and our continuing coverage will continue. Cuomo Prime Time, 9 p.m. Eastern tonight.
Erin Burnett picks up our breaking news coverage right now.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: OUTFRONT next, breaking news. At least five dead, multiple people wounded at a newspaper in Maryland. Police recovering what they say they suspect is an explosive device. Why was a newspaper targeted?
Plus, Rod Rosenstein shutting down House Republicans, pushing back on conspiracy theories. Rosenstein's longtime friend is OUTFRONT.
And President trump privately polling aides on who's going to replace John Kelly as chief of staff.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
And good evening, I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news. A war zone. Those are the words that are being used to describe the deadly mass shooting that happened late today in the newsroom in Annapolis, Maryland. We are awaiting a press conference.
Here what is we know. Right now as we await that, and we are going to bring it to you live. So many details to learn tonight. We know five people are dead, several others injured. And we just know some of the chilling details about the attack here just coming into CNN.
Witnesses say the gunman shot through a glass door. It happened at about 2:30 this afternoon. And then started shooting in the newsroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw a guy. I saw a guy holding a gun. The door of the Capital Gazette had been blown to pieces. It was in shattered pieces all on the carpet. And this guy was holding what looked like a big shotgun and moving across the entrance of the Capital Gazette Office, pointing the gun deeper into the office like he was targeting people.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BURNETT: Like he was targeting people. And now another witness, Phil Davis who is a crime reporter for the newspaper, The Capital Gazette, who was also -- was inside the news room is saying there is, quote, nothing more terrifying than hearing multiple people get shot while you're under your desk, and then hearing the gunman reload.
Now, police were on the scene within 90 seconds saving countless lives.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was the address?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 888 Bestgate Road, Suite 104. The person is still shooting.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have about four bodies inside.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is inside the Gazette office, the main office where all the victims were, we got him.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: According to one official, the suspected gunman was found hiding under a desk, taken into custody. Police say they recovered what they thought may have been an explosive device as well. But the chilling story here as we desperately try to understand a motive, and as I said, press conference, we are waiting for that. The moment that comes, we're going to bring to it you live.
As we await, I want to go to Shimon Prokupecz who is OUTFRONT live in Annapolis. And Shimon, what are you learning from your sources tonight?
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, Erin. Really behind us right now at this moment a crime scene. Police working through that scene, really trying to determine any kind of motive, what caused this man to open fire inside this newsroom? Still, a big question here for investigators who say the suspect who they finally, we believe, learned his name, is not cooperating with them, though they are questioning him. They say he is not cooperating.
And as you said, he walked in here, opened fire using a shotgun we're told, killing five people. Three other people have been injured. They are at a hospital here, and they are expected to survive.
But really, Erin, when you think about it, you know, the real question for investigators here, now that they have the suspect in custody, is who is he? Why did he do this? And really trying to see if this was motivated by someone who was angry at the newspaper for something that was published, something that was written, or was this something else.
And that's still the big question and the big mystery here tonight, Erin.
BURNETT: All right, thank you very much, Shimon. And as we say, you know, we didn't seem to have and idea on -- I mean, at least that's what we had originally heard and was not cooperative.
Evan Perez is OUTFRONT live in Washington. And Evan, you are learning, as everything we now know about this individual, what is that?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, one of the things that police had trouble with was the fact that he didn't have identification, he was not being cooperative, would not tell them who he was. It appears that they used other means to identify who he is.
One of the first things they did is they put his fingers through a reading machine, a fingerprint reading machine that they have on the scene. The FBI agents that were on the scene helping the Anne Arundel County police. And it came back with no fingerprints. It came back with no hits.
And so the question became, why is that? We're told that it appears that his fingerprints were altered in some way. Perhaps he filed them off, perhaps he put something on them so that they -- when he was arrested, when he was taken into custody, police were not able to use his fingerprints to be able to identify him.
[19:05:07] So that's one of the troubles that police had. That it appears that they have now been able to bridge that gap. They've now figured out a way to identify him, perhaps through his face. They have facial recognition technology. They can use that to match it against databases, state databases.
So they do know how and who it is. At this point, they're not saying whether he has provided any information. They have not determined what exactly brought him to this newspaper today, whether he had a beef with the newspaper, whether he knew anyone there, whatsoever. We have no idea what brought him there today now.
BURNETT: And a pretty incredible when you say his fingerprints were altered. It's an unusual thing, Evan to hear. It stands out certainly just hearing you report that.
But I do know from the dispatch video which we're going to hear more of, I guess we do know it's a he?
PEREZ: It is a man.
BURNETT: We know he's white, we know some descriptors about him but that's it.
PEREZ: Right. We know he's a male, he was describe at least by the police there as white. I'm told that there perhaps -- that might not be the case, he might be Hispanic perhaps. So that's again some of the information that authorities are still looking at as far as this investigation. It's still very early on. But we know, Erin that at the minimum, they've got five charges of murder that they could bring against him.
And so if he doesn't cooperate, we can expect that they're going to book him and perhaps bring him before a judge, perhaps even tonight or tomorrow, early tomorrow in Annapolis there.
BURNETT: All right, thank you very much, Evan. And I want to go OUTFRONT now to Annapolis, and to the mayor of Annapolis, Gavin Buckley. And Mayor Buckley, thank you for being with us. It's a terrifying and tragic story happening in your city. Hard to imagine.
Can you tell us anything that you have learned tonight, Mayor, about this suspect?
MAYOR GAVIN BUCKLEY, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND: So I just want to first of all send our love to the families that are affected by this. We are a small community. The city of Annapolis is about 38,000. And everybody knows each other in this town. And so -- they even let Australians to be mayor here, you know.
And so it's a village, and, you know, we're devastated. And we're especially devastated because we know the journalists. The journalists who sit through council meetings and report on us, and report on our kids' sports teams, and report on our cat up a tree, you know, all that sort of just local journalism that's really important.
And this is actually one of the oldest papers in the country so it's a devastating day.
BURNETT: And Mayor, I know that -- we understand he was not cooperative at first, that he had actually -- as you heard Evan Perez saying, his fingerprints appeared to be altered. It was unclear as to why. He didn't have an I.D.
At this point, you know, you're talking about a newsroom targeted in an incredibly fractious moment in this country. Do you have any sense from your briefings as to a motive at this time?
BUCKLEY: I just hope it's not political because it's a sad day if that is what's happened. Because for journalists to have to put their life on the line for the small amount of money that these guys make, it is tragic. And I can't speak highly enough of these guys. I can't speak highly enough of the emergency responders, our city police officers were in there within 60 seconds to a minute and a half. If they didn't get there as fast as they did, I think there could have been a lot more devastation.
We had trained a week earlier, we'd done an active shooter drill. And I think that some of that paid off today.
BURNETT: Do you know whether the suspect is cooperating or answering any questions at this time? Or is this all investigative work about motive or who he may be all being done without his cooperation?
BUCKLEY: Up to this point, we know he wasn't cooperative. I understand he's a white male. But I have got no details, no names, anything like that. We know that one of the journalists was tweeting or texting to our city police officers during the attack. And we thought it was a joke at first. And then come to find out that it was a devastating tragedy. BURNETT: In terms of what he did, we do know from one of the journalists in the room that he had, you know, shot his way through a glass door, and went in the newsroom. One of them said it appeared that he was targeting individuals. And I know police said in their last presser, and I know, Mayor Buckley, we're awaiting another one any moment. But, that they recovered what may have been an explosive device.
Do you know anything more about that or what his intended method was?
[19:10:01] BUCKLEY: Yes. We don't know. My understanding on the bag with the -- that could have been explosives, it was gas cans. I don't know if there any kind of detonation things with them. I just know that our emergency responders didn't even think about that.
They stepped over bodies. They went to the source of the violence. And I think he heard them coming and he threw down his weapon.
BURNETT: He threw down his weapon, and we understand he was -- was he cowering under a desk when they found him? That's what we've heard. What do you know happened?
BUCKLEY: That is exactly what I heard as well, yes.
BURNETT: Well, Mayor Buckley, I appreciate your time so very much. And again, our thoughts are with you. It's terrible, terrible day.
BUCKLEY: Thank you so much.
BURNETT: Thank you.
BUCKLEY: Thank you, thank you.
BURNETT: The mayor there with some new information, obviously that the gas cans in that bag. A new development here as we try to understand what happened at this crucial question of a motive. As he said at this point, his understanding is still no cooperation from the suspect.
Next, more on our breaking news. What could have made the Capital Gazette a target? The motive here so crucial.
And Rod Rosenstein facing off with House Republicans today, to end their conspiracy theories once and for all. Wait until you actually see the interactions here. This was the ultimate theater.
And Trump raising doubts again about whether Putin meddled in America's election. That is about -- that is something about which, of course, there is no doubt except for -- to him.
We'll be back.
[19:15:18] BURNETT: Well, back with our breaking news. A deadly newsroom shooting, five people killed, at least three more injured. The offices were of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland.
And a lot more details coming in as we await this press conference coming up momentarily. A law enforcement source telling us the suspect who is in custody is refusing to cooperate. You heard the mayor just saying it's -- his understanding is that's still the case. Officials were not able to identify him through fingerprints because they appear to have been altered. But they are confirming now that they were able to I.D. him using facial recognition software, which could be very significant.
We do not yet know his name. They've not released that.
OUTFRONT tonight, Kaitlan Collins at the White House. And Kaitlan, of course the president has been briefed, the press secretary has spoken out.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: She has, Erin. And she's probably issued the strongest statement that we've gotten from the White House. This is someone who interacts with reporters on a near-daily basis. She said that she strongly condemns the act of senseless violence in Maryland tonight. She said a violent attack on innocent journalists doing their job is an attack on every American. And she said that her prayers are with the victims and the families.
Now, President Trump was not at the White House during the time of this shooting about an hour away outside of Annapolis, but he was in Wisconsin traveling back. He tweeted that he had been briefed on the shooting pretty quickly. And then later when he returned to the White House, reporters were on the south lawn asking him questions. They were clearly audible, a response to this shooting.
He declined to answer those questions. He continued on. You can see him there. He walked on to the Oval Office. But he did tweet about the shooting earlier today saying that he'd been briefed on it, he said his thoughts and prayers were with the victims and their families, and he thanked the first responders.
Now, of course no motive has been determined in this shooting yet. But during a flight back from Wisconsin, one of the press secretaries who was on board with the president, Erin was asked about the president's rhetoric on the media and if they thought that there was some chance that had anything to do with this. This deputy press secretary, Lindsay Walters, said that the White House condemns violence, there's no room for that. She said violence is never tolerated in any form no matter who it is against.
BURNETT: All right, Kaitlan, thank you very much. I want to go to Phil Mudd, former CIA counterterror official, Jonathan Wackrow, law enforcement analyst, Juliette Kayyem, former assistant secretary for Homeland Security, and Brian Stelter, senior media correspondent and of course host of our Reliable Sources.
Jonathan, let me just start with you. A lot of news here just coming in. Fingerprints altered. They were able to I.D. through facial recognition software.
JONATHAN WACKROW, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: It's amazing. First time that I've heard of a positive identification being made with facial recognition software. I mean, I think this is a game changer for law enforcement, being able to, you know, quickly identify who this individual is from that new technology.
BURNETT: What do you make, Phil of the fact that there were -- the fingerprints were altered?
PHIL MUDD, FORMER FBI SENIOR INTELLIGENCE ADVISER: I don't make much yet. In these situations there's a big difference between what we think and what we know. Somebody might look at this and think because the fingerprints were altered this must indicate that he had prepared for this in advance. My first reaction is, hold on a second here, what if he was involved in a job or a hobby where he's handling corrosive materials that affected his fingerprints? What if they're using a mobile device for fingerprints that's not quite as effective as a device you can get when you really have him in custody?
So, I'm looking at this saying, let's not rush this one.
BURNETT: Let's wait.
MUDD: Let's see what we've got here.
BURNETT: It's interesting though, Juliette, you know, to Phil's point, of course is well taken, yet at the same time he didn't have an I.D. on him. He's not cooperating. And at this time, we understand from the mayor of Annapolis he is still not cooperating.
JULIETTE KAYYEM, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETRARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: That's right. So the fingerprints in and of themselves might say a number of theories, but just in the totality of circumstances, not simply he didn't have identification, he clearly knew weaponry pretty well from what we've heard so far. The fingerprints being mutilated or in some way not clean and clear for fingerprint tests, as well as let's just add on the explosive device.
So they are -- so the combination of all of these things then would make one believe, OK, this is someone who, you know, had planned it, had maybe done things to himself. Maybe would have thought that he was going to be killed during it so that it would be harder to I.D. And so that's where -- you know, that's why all of us on the panel also wait. Because, you know, we're going to get a lot more intelligence about what the motive might have been.
But, there's a lot of data points to suggest that this was someone who was going to go in, kill, didn't want to be identified, and probably thought he would be killed.
BURNETT: And, you know, had a plan, of course. You heard the mayor there, Jonathan, say that, you know, of course he, along with everyone in this country has hopes that there is no political motive here, and we don't yet know any motive. [19:20:00] But what we do know is that he did have some sort of a -- he had that bag, you heard the mayor say it was a bag, and that they thought it was an expressive device. And what was in it was gas cans. When you hear that you think what?
WACKROW: Listen, we clearly know that he showed up with the intent to kill. Either he's going to be utilizing the shotgun, and if that failed, he had a secondary device that he could utilize.
So, you know, finding out what his motive is, and why he showed up there -- listen, rational people don't just wake up in the morning, grab a shotgun and, you know, gas cans, and rush into a location without a very specific motive. I think what we're going to see through the investigative process is that, you know, either the newspaper or somebody there, you know, was being targeted. You know, a lot of times, you know, almost -- over 50 percent of the times in these, you know, active shooter situations, it's some sort of grievance.
Now, it could be a grievance against the newspaper, against a journalist. There's could be a domestic dispute that, you know, carried over. There's a lot of things right now. We're in the infancy of the investigation.
BURNETT: And Brian, one thing we do know is the dispatch. We have some of the audio of what happened here. And of course as we've said, you heard 60 to 90 seconds before they were able to get in there. Obviously that saved lives.
And about 22 minutes into the attack, they started describing the suspect. And here's what we heard on the tape, Brian.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do we have any kind of intel on our shooter?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: White male with a ponytail.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do we have a clothing description?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No clothing description.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: And that's what we get, Brian. I mean, you've been talking to people who are in that newsroom, in that scene of fear and carnage, what are they telling you?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, some staffers at the paper who -- believe it or not, they're actually going to produce a paper tonight. The paper will come out as scheduled tomorrow morning. We can share a couple of posts from these reporters who are sharing this on Twitter.
Reporter Chase Cook saying, "I can tell you this. We are putting out a damn paper tomorrow." And here's an emotional message from a photographer named Paul Gillespie, describing what it was like inside the newsroom. He was there at the headquarters. He says, "I'm OK physically so far, but I'm mentally a mess. I was inside, I was -- I'm lucky to be alive. Please pray for my coworkers who were not as lucky as I was."
He says, "We lost some truly great people today. I am in shock trying to process this horrible situation."
You know, Erin, we don't know for sure if the five fatalities were all journalists. What we do know is that would make this the most deadly day for journalists in America since 9/11. You think back to 2015, two journalists were gunned down on live T.V. on a T.V. station in Roanoke, Virginia, WDBJ.
Now, in that case, that was disgruntled ex-employee who carried out that attack on live T.V. There were also issues of mental health in that case. So, I don't think we can rule out a possibility of an ex- employee, disgruntled guy who went to this office today, but it is notable that so far, none of the staffers have said they recognized him.
BURNETT: And, you know, Phil, I think that's significant, right? Because when you hear from the dispatch, right, white male with a ponytail, the implication is that he was not hiding who he was physically, obviously from an I.D. perspective. And who knows from the fingerprint they have.
But, they aren't all saying, oh, we knew this person. Nobody is saying that.
MUDD: And nothing is suggesting -- a lot of this isn't suggesting that he went in with a sophisticated plan for how to cute this, including whether to put a baseball cap on, whether wear a hoodie. You look at some characteristics. He didn't case the place well enough to realize, how can I get in without shooting up the door? He didn't go in saying --
BURNETT: Right, because he shot through the glass door to the newsroom before he went in.
MUDD: Let's cut to the chase here. Didn't bring a weapon, and like the weapons we saw at the Pulse shooting, like the weapon we saw in Las Vegas. He didn't sit there and say, how do I confront law enforcement when they walk in?
It looks like, if it was an explosive device, it was pretty rudimentary, and clearly it didn't work. He didn't sit there and say, how do I exit once law enforcement gets in here?
A lot of this is looking -- including the fact that he wasn't sort of trying to protect himself, for example, from surveillance cameras or people in the building like somebody who did not have a sophisticated plot. I'm not saying he didn't think about it for a while, but he didn't think through a lot of this very clearly.
BURNETT: How long, Jonathan, until you think we know the motive? WACKROW: We may not know the motive. He's not speaking. And, you know -- and I think, you know, there's reporting and everyone saying like, oh my God, he's not cooperating with police. Well, why would he? He just killed five people. This isn't a rational person.
He's not going to just sit there with law enforcement and just spill his guts. So law enforcement is going to have to take this very methodically, to look at everything in this individual's life. You know, once they positively identify him, they need to start looking at his entire network. You know, his relationships, where he lives, you know.
That's going to take some time. You know, (INAUDIBLE) him, you know, divulging his motive.
BURNETT: Right. And Juliette, obviously, you know, motive, crucial in the specifics of this case and also for the whole country now to understand as you put -- you hear Brian put the context on it, right. The most deadly day for journalists since 9/11.
KAYYEM: That's right. Yes, and this is -- you know, look, this is the challenge of those of us here on the panel. You don't want to make this bigger than it is, but you also don't want to deny reality, right? So this is how the gun debate often unfolds.
[19:25:01] You want to focus on the victims but there is a bigger issue. Today, we may have the same. But there's only two potential motives. One is a quite personal one, and like Brian, I completely agree, the
fact that none of the witnesses knew who he was suggests that a second theory, which was, this was done for some other reason. Whether it's against reporters or maybe they wrote a story about him, who knows at this stage.
But I don't think it's inappropriate at this stage to at least raise the issue that -- or at least put out there as we do with the gun debate, that the tone towards journalists may be a motive here. I don't think I'm being political. I think it is important to say --
BURNETT: I think that's just a fact
KAYYEM: -- that the antagonism towards journalists -- yes, it's just -- and so that is part of the theory of the case in the same way that we do this with the gun debate. And we'll find out whether it was the personal or the more political. But right now, it does not look like it was the personal.
BURNETT: Right. And of course, Brian, I mean, you know, I think just to be honest, look, thanks to Sarah Sanders for coming out with a tweet the way she did. That's a good thing.
BURNETT: But this -- the facts are also the facts. Who knows what the motive is here? But the tone from this administration towards reporters of disdain, and disgust, and disrespect is just the way things are now, right? We have, you know, people accosting our Jim Acosta at Trump rallies. That is not coming from nowhere.
STELTER: The reality for journalists in America today, especially journalists covering politics is that, you're going to get threats. You're going to get threats, usually electronically, via e-mail or phone. Sometimes full-blown death threats. In other cases, more generic messages.
We've also seen a sharp rise in actual physical assaults against journalists. Now, these do not happen every day but they happen too often. And they're happening more than they did five years ago.
So some of the rhetoric is related to reality on the ground. Now, thank God we don't see journalists being gunned down in the streets of America, except that today we did see that. And we need to know more about why it happened.
It is haunting and chilling to think that some of the killings of journalists we see in other countries could be coming home here. You know, we all remember Charlie Hebdo in Paris. There was even a bombing in Kabul just a few weeks ago, 10 local journalists killed there.
Those stories usually feel very far away. And journalists here in this country are incredibly lucky and have an incredible amount of freedom to do our work safely. But today, that does not appear to be the case in Annapolis.
BURNETT: All right, thank you all very much.
And next, fireworks and hostility between House Republicans and the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROD ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr. Jordan, I am the deputy attorney general of the United States. OK? I'm not the person doing the redacting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And that was a nice exchange.
Plus, is the president looking for a new chief of staff at this moment? A big dinner this week provides some clues.
[19:30:19] ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: New tonight, Rod Rosenstein's fiery clash with the GOP. The deputy attorney general pushing back forcefully against Trump allies on Capitol Hill who try daily to discredit Bob Mueller's investigation. There was yelling, there was finger-pointing, drama, it was all on full display.
And Manu Raju is OUTFRONT.
MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER (voice-over): Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and House Republicans trading sharp blows today in a bitter feud over the Russia investigation.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: Mr. Rosenstein, why are you keeping information from Congress?
ROD ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Congressman, I am not keeping any information from Congress.
RAJU: The fight turning nasty.
JORDAN: I want to know why you won't give us what we've asked for.
ROSENSTEIN: Sir, I certainly hope your colleagues are not under that impression. That is not accurate, sir.
JORDAN: It is accurate. We have caught you hiding information --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Chairman, can we allow the witness to answer? Point of order. We can go to Mr. Jordan's press conference but we came here to hear from the witnesses.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The time belongs to the gentleman --
JORDAN: Mr. Rosenstein --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we allow him to answer?
RAJU: And Rosenstein visibly frustrated.
ROSENSTEIN: Mr. Jordan -- I am the deputy attorney general of the United States. OK? I'm not the person doing the redacting. I'm responsible for responding to your concerns as I have.
I have a team with me, sir. It's just a fraction of the team that's doing this work. Whenever you brought issues to my attention, I have taken appropriate steps to remedy them. So, your statement that I am personally keeping information from you, trying to conceal information?
JORDAN: You're the boss, Mr. Rosenstein.
ROSENSTEIN: That's correct, and my job is to make sure that we respond to your concerns. We have, sir.
JORDAN: I think the House of Representatives is going to say otherwise.
ROSENSTEIN: But your use of this to attack me personally --
JORDAN: Why did you -- it's not personal -- RAJU: Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray both defended
their response to an onslaught of requests from Republicans to turn over records about the 2016 Clinton e-mail investigation and Russia probe.
And the FBI director revealing a staggering number -- 880,000 documents had been produced to Congress.
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: In just the past week, for example, we've had approximately 100 employees working day and night dedicated to this project, through the weekend, to collect, review, process, and produce thousands of additional pages.
RAJU: But Republicans saying that's not enough. Citing a text message from FBI agent Peter Strzok that was critical of Trump and that was not turned over to Congress. Democrats saying Republicans have one goal, to undercut special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, which Rosenstein oversees.
REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), ILLINOIS: Because Mr. Rosenstein, it doesn't matter. They want you. They want to impeach you. They want to indict you. They want to get rid of you.
RAJU: And Rosenstein and Wray offering this response amid Trump's claims that 13 angry Democrats are running the Russia probe.
WRAY: I do not consider myself an angry Democrat. You can be quite confident of that.
GUTIERREZ: Are you a Democrat? Are you a Democrat?
WRAY: No, I'm not.
GUTIERREZ: You're not a Democrat, thank you. Maybe I should have gone to that question.
Mr. Rosenstein, are you a Democrat?
ROSENSTEIN: I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not angry.
RAJU: Democrats also defending the Mueller investigation.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Is it atypical or typical for an investigation of this magnitude to take as long as this has done?
ROSENSTEIN: No, sir. I don't think it's atypical at all. I believe that it's being done as expeditiously as possible.
RAJU: And. Erin, this contentious hearing came on the same day that the full house voted along party lines to call on the Justice Department and the FBI to provide even more records by a deadline of next week, July 6th. Records related to the Russia investigation and the Clinton e-mail probe. And Republicans already are warning Rod Rosenstein that if he does not
comply by this new deadline, that he will be held in contempt of Congress and some conservatives want to go further and impeach Rod Rosenstein. Democrats on the other hand are saying it's time for the Justice Department to draw the line, provide no more information to the House Republicans, who they believe are simply trying to undercut the Mueller investigation -- Erin.
BURNETT: All right, thank you very much, Manu.
I mean, as I said, pretty incredible theater there, and political fireworks, when you're talking about personal attacks at a congressional hearing.
I want to go to now to the former chief of staff, the organized crime section for the Department of Justice, James Trusty. He also is a long-time friend of the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
So, you know him personally. You know him professionally. And I thank you for your time.
James, what's your takeaway? When you watch this, I mean, you know, these moments where Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein are -- you know, I'm not angry, I'm not a Democrat, you're attacking me personally.
[19:35:00] What did you see when you see the deputy A.G. responding like that?
JAMES TRUSTY, FORMER CHIEF, DOJ'S ORGANIZED CRIME SECTION: Well, I saw a combination of things. I mean, again, the starting point for these types of hearings is you typically have one party asking questions, like how long have you loved orphans and puppies in the other side saying, when will you stop beating the elderly?
So, we had that kind of theater in place today where people very clearly immediately showed where they were when it came to Rod or Chris. But at the end of the day, there was substance too. I think what most viewers probably saw were some fairly loaded questions/speeches that Rod actually took umbrage to.
And I don't blame him. He's not a politician, he's a prosecutor. He's willing to take a lot but I think he felt he was getting unfair shots and he fired back pretty hard.
BURNETT: I mean, he certainly did. I mean, I just want to play, you know, some of the heated back-and-forths here, specifically, I mean, as we showed, there were multiple people, but between the deputy attorney general and Jim Jordan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JORDAN: Why are you keeping information from Congress?
ROSENSTEIN: Congressman, I am not keeping any information from Congress that it's appropriate -- JORDAN: In a few minutes, Mr. Rosenstein, I think the House of
Representatives is going to say something different.
ROSENSTEIN: I don't agree with you, Congressman. I don't believe that's what they're going to say. If they do --
JORDAN: Did you threaten staffers on the House Intelligence Committee? Media reports indicate you did.
ROSENSTEIN: Media reports are mistaken.
JORDAN: Sometimes. But this is what they said. Having the nation's number one law enforcement officer threaten to subpoena your calls and e-mails is downright chilling. Did you threat to know subpoena their calls and e-mails?
ROSENSTEIN: No, sir, and there's no way to subpoena phone calls.
JORDAN: I mean, I'm just saying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: I mean, he was -- let's use polite words -- frustrated and aggravated. He was PO'd, right?
TRUSTY: Yes, I mean, there's one point around there, Rod took a sip of water and I'm pretty sure he wasn't thirsty. He was trying to keep the blood temperature down. He was getting pretty fired up.
Again, my view on that is you've got a guy who's very principled, who very much knows as a prosecutor he's not in the business of leaking information or sending out cronies or sending out surrogates to kind of get his position known. And that's frustrating for the political class and for a lot of people. Because they really want to know, what is he doing to manage this probe? What is he doing to keep it on its rails?
And, of course, there's still very open questions about how the probe started in the first place. So, with all that uncertainty, it tends to be thrown at Rod like he's doing something wrong. But most prosecutors, career prosecutors, would agree he's doing it exactly right by not choreographing and telegraphing everything he's doing.
BURNETT: Right. And, you know, he made it clear they're still investigation collusion, they have not come to a conclusion on these crucial questions, despite what the president of the United States himself, for example, may say.
One of the president's most loyal defenders, by the way, Congressman Ron DeSantis, was in the room. He actually came out and said Rosenstein, suggesting he should have recused himself in the Russia investigation before Jeff Sessions did so. Rosenstein took serious umbrage to that.
Here's the exchange.
3(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Seems like you should be recused from this more so than Jeff Sessions, just because you were involved in making decisions affecting both prongs of this investigation. Why haven't you done that?
ROSENSTEIN: Congressman, I can assure you that were it appropriate for me to recuse, I'd be more than happy to do so and let someone else handle this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: I mean, with a smile, but, James, making it very clear he would have recused if he felt it was the right thing to do.
And he wanted to make it clear, he was very confident in the fact that he has chosen not to.
TRUSTY: Yes, and there's a good chance that he's consulted with ethical experts on that very question, to just make sure that he has essentially a paper trail to expose someday that shows he wasn't doing anything wrong. So he seems very comfortable with the notion that he's on that case. I also thought frankly it was a genuine moment when he kind of looked down and smiled like, man, if I could have just been off this darn thing, I could have a real job every day.
But again, I think it was a professional prosecutor, not a professional politician. So, there's times you see flashes of emotion, sometimes humor, sometimes anger. But that he answered the questions he could, and he took a very kind of long-range, historical approach to his role as being the deputy attorney general.
BURNETT: Well, he certainly showed himself to be a person with fire and fury in his belly and that was good to see. Thank you very much, James. Appreciate your time.
TRUSTY: Sure. Thanks, Erin.
BURNETT: And next, President Trump tweeting new doubts about Russian election meddling, even as the deputy attorney general said, you know, that's still undecided. The meeting with Putin, of course, is now set.
And more on the breaking news this hour. We are learning more, literally coming in at this moment, about the gunman and a previous interaction with that newspaper as we try to understand what the motive for this horrific attack could be. We'll be back.
[19:43:47] BURNETT: All right. We've got some breaking news. New details coming in this moment on the suspect in the shooting.
Evan Perez is OUTFRONT. Evan, what are you learning?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESOPNDENT: This is a suspect, the suspect in this shooting at this newspaper in Annapolis, is believed to have had a previous interaction with executives or officials at this newspaper. Now, this is at least going part of the way in explaining what happened today, why this shooter went to this newspaper in Annapolis, the "Capital Gazette," why he went there today, why now.
It appears there's been some beef that he had, something that he believes that went wrong previously in an interaction that he had with someone at that newspaper. Now, this is -- we're told it's somebody, either an editor or executive at the newspaper, the suspect is now trying to -- they're trying to interrogate him there by the Anne Arundel county police.
We know he was being uncooperative. But police have enough information now that they're conducting searches at an address that is associated with this suspect. He is believed to be in his upper 30s. We have a name of the suspect. We're not going to report it just yet because obviously police are doing some of the investigative work that they're doing and we want to make sure everybody's safe and that no harm comes to anyone.
[19:45:07] But we know that this is a suspect that the police have a lot of information on now. They're doing some searches of an address that is associated with him. They want to see if there's any -- perhaps any other devices that he may have left behind, maybe perhaps left a note or something to explain exactly why he did what he did. But it appears from court records and so on that there is an extensive record that police can now draw on as part of this investigation that could help explain exactly why he did what he did at the "Capital Gazette" newspaper today in Anne Arundel County outside of Annapolis, Maryland -- Erin.
BURNETT: All right, thank you very much, Evan.
Obviously as Evan's saying, they know the name, we are not going to report it, in his upper 30s, that he had had an interaction with someone senior at the paper, whether an executive or editor. Obviously, that a very significant development as we try to understand the motive.
I want to go now to Terry Smith, a columnist for the "Capital Gazette."
And, Terry, look, we're glad that you are safe. I know you must be struggling to understand what happened. I know you weren't in the building at the time of the shooting. But you go there, you go in and out, you know it well, you have spoken to coworkers who were there.
What is your reaction, Terry, to this reporting that we now understand that this man had had an interaction with someone senior at the paper? We don't yet know whether it was an editor or an executive or what it was about. But we do know there had been an interaction. TERRY SMITH, WRITES COLUMNS FOR CAPITAL GAZETTE: Erin, it's entirely
possible. And yet, I spoke with Rick Hutsell (ph), the editor, who's actually out of town, earlier, shortly after the shooting. And he knew nothing of that.
We have this briefing that I guess you're going to carry at 8:00 coming up. And, excuse me, we'll all learn some more about it.
It's entirely possible. It's a small town, city, really. But very close one.
What I can tell you is about the shooting scene itself. Going to the Annapolis capital is like walking into a grocery store. I mean, it's totally open, there's not a shred of security. It's in a four-story brick and glass office building which has a main entrance and then you turn -- it's a quite nice building. You turn in and go through double glass doors. He apparently shot through them, because through those double glass doors, Erin, you can see the entire newsroom.
It's a completely open newsroom. You can see the people at their desks. You can see the editors' offices lined up on the left. And my point is, it's totally vulnerable.
And that's vulnerable, and that's true because there was not the slightest expectation of this. And there's an irony. That here in Annapolis, the mayor, Gavin Buckley, with whom you spoke earlier, organized an active shooter drill downtown, not near the "Capital," not near the paper. But it was on the front page of the "Capital."
So, it's interesting to wonder if that gave anybody any ideas, or if this is a long-running dispute, it may have nothing to do with it.
BURNETT: We just don't know. And there are so many crucial questions about that right now. I know, Terry, you've been speaking to people you know. What do people who were in the room told you about the gunman, about what happened in those moments, how they escaped?
SMITH: They say it's absolutely terrifying that he shot through the door, came in, continued shooting reloaded. I'm afraid -- I do know the names. But they'll be released very shortly. The families are being notified, and they're friends of mine, among them, among both the fatalities and the injured.
Absolutely terrifying. You can just imagine, in a completely open scene, this was on the first floor, the ground floor. There are glass windows all around. There is nothing except for a few half-walls at the editors' offices on the left to impede a shooter.
So -- and altogether, I think there are 170 people in there. So, the list of fatalities which is not official, originally it sounded like there were 20. I'm told by the editor, Rick Hudsel, that is not correct and the number is less than that.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you very much, Terry. We appreciate your time.
[19:50:01] I'm sorry --
BURNETT: -- for the loss of your friends and those you know.
We do understand the death toll is five. As Terry said, we don't yet know the names as the families are being notified.
Terry, thank you.
And next, President Trump casting doubt on Russian meddling. This has been settled. This is not a matter of dispute or debate or discussion, it is a fact. And yet the president is questioning it. Exactly as the man he's about to meet with wants him to, Vladimir Putin.
This comes as Trump is polling aides about who his next chief of staff should be? Who is topping the list and who should take the job?
Jim Acosta has new reporting.
BURNETT: New tonight, Trump and Putin face to face. The White House announcing the leaders will meet for a summit July 16th in Helsinki, Finland. President Trump previewing the summit, making a rosy prediction.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We can all get along. It's going to be great. The world has to start getting along.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And roughly 30 minutes before the summit was formally announced, Trump was saying what Putin wanted to hear, once again casting doubts that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
President Trump tweeting: Russia continues to say they have nothing to do with meddling in our election. Where is DNC server? And why didn't shady James Comey and the now disgraced FBI agents taking closely examine it. Why isn't Hillary Russia being looked at? So many questions. So much corruption.
So, let's be clear. Russian meddling in the U.S. election is not a matter of dispute or discussion. Period. I can't believe I actually have to say it, and yet when the president of the United States continually denies the reality and the facts, we are forced to repeat them and to show for the umpteenth time that President Trump's intelligence chiefs not only fully concur with the formal intelligence assessment that Russia interfered with the election but that Putin is going to do it again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE ROGERS, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DIRECTOR: Participated in that 2017 work, I stood by it then. I stand by it now. And I agree with Director Pompeo. This is not going to change or stop.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Russia?
ROBERT ASHLEY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY DIRECTOR: Yes. It is not going to or stop.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: (INAUDIBLE) entire community, we have not seen any evidence of any significance change from last year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: It happened, and it's happening again. And yet, the president, of course, continues to suggest he's taking Putin's side. As he questions whether Putin meddled in the election, today on Twitter, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, I'm sorry, of the United States says that collusion with Russia when it comes to the Trump campaign is not off the table in the Russia investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Do you believe as Donald Trump indicated that the investigation, in which you have read, the inspector general's report, has vindicated Mr. Trump as relates to collusion with Russian agents as he indicated? Or is the investigation ongoing?
ROSENSTEIN: There is an ongoing investigation, yes.
[19:55:01] LEE: And it's not concluded?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, the political editor for "The New York Times", Patrick Healey.
And, Patrick, you know, I mean, I said that with frustration, because at this point, I don't understand how anybody can't have frustration, right? You can think whatever you want to think. You can think the investigation should have ended ages ago and there was no collusion, but to deny Russian meddling in the election and to deny that it's happening again is frankly absurd, and yet the president did it again. As he called the FBI all sorts of names.
PATRICK HEALEY, POLITICAL EDITOR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Right. Just over and over again, Erin. He is so invested in this idea that any role that Russia played in the election, if it were to be validated, would somehow delegitimize him.
He cannot make sort of the simple separation that Russian interference in the 2016 election absolutely happened. It's been verified over and over again, and that you can basically, if you're president of the United States, acknowledge what the intelligence agencies are saying. You can acknowledge that's true, you know, and still contest whether you yourself or your campaign colluded with the Russians.
He can't do it, Erin. He's just so invested in, frankly, carrying Putin's water. It is really, really strange. I mean, do you normally have American presidents, you know, standing up for allies or trying to explain what they were saying to the voters at home? And he does it with Putin.
BURNETT: Right. Putin tells me, nothing, he insists, nothing is wrong. That's what he said the last time when he met with Putin on the sidelines of the summit last summer, right? So --
BURNETT: You also have, though, and I want to play this for you, Patrick, because this was a little strange. Adam Schiff, of course, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, which, you know, wrapped up its investigation with the Republican conclusion that Democrats didn't agree with. But the point is Schiff talked to a lot of people involved in this, right? He was part of an investigation.
Today, he suggests that Russians laundered money through the Trump organization, and that is why the president is seen as soft on Russia. It's a pretty incredible thing to come from a sitting congressman. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D) ,CALIFORNIA: One of the things I think needs to be investigated by the special counsel, by the Congress is whether the Russians were laundering money through the Trump Organization and this is leverage they're applying to the president of the United States. That would be far more compromising in my view than any salacious --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Do you think that he would raise that just willy-nilly? Or does he have knowledge that's causing him to raise that?
HEALEY: Yes, we don't know what he's basing that on, but that is a pretty -- that's a pretty powerful charge, and right now, the reality is we only know so much about what Mueller is investigating. There may be other dimensions to it. Money has been one, but laundering -- that's a big charge. I mean, Adam Schiff has been out on this, but, you know, we don't know that to be true.
BURNETT: We don't. And, of course, obviously, coming from him, it does take on great significance.
BURNETT: One would hope he wouldn't come out and raise something like that unless he had information to somehow substantiate it. Thank you so much, Patrick.
BURNETT: And tonight, President Trump privately pulling aides and outside advisers on possible successors for his chief of staff John Kelly. There's a dinner. The president had this week that could shed some real clues at who Trump is looking at.
Chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta is OUTFRONT.
Jim, you know, Kelly, I think some are shocked that he has been there as long as he has, given where we are with their relationship. What are you hearing?
JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, the discussion has been for some time that he'd stay on for a year. He came on board a year ago, the end of July last year. What we're hearing at this point is that yes, there is a discussion about a replacement for the chief of staff John Kelly.
We're told a couple of nights ago over here at the White House president had dinner with Mick Mulvaney, who is the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the subject of the job of chief of staff did come up. He was not offered the job, but it did come up. That's obviously going to fuel speculation that perhaps he's looking at Mulvaney.
The vice president's chief of staff, Nick Ayers, his name has been floated as a possible successor to John Kelly. Now, the White House was asked about this earlier today, Erin, and the deputy press secretary Lindsey Walters, says she talked to the president about this personally and he said there is no such conversation going on, and that he described it as fake news.
But, of course, we're hearing that the subject did come up the other night at dinner at the White House with Nick Mulvaney. So, stay tuned.
BURNETT: There'd been a lot of things described as fake news, they'd been anything but. So, it's sort of meaningless term.
ACOSTA: Turned out to be true.
BURNETT: Yes, when it comes to this, I guess the question is you can understand why a lot of people would want this job. They want it because maybe they like the president. They want it because they like the prestige, whatever, all sorts of reasons. The president doesn't necessarily always treat these people well. Is that making anyone -- giving anyone pause?
ACOSTA: Yes, exactly. And also, keep in mind, the president likes to be his own chief of staff. He likes to be his own communications director. He likes to be his own press secretary. So, it's a maddening job for whoever goes into any of these positions but Mick Mulvaney is seen as somebody who keeps the trains running on time. That might be what the president needs -- Erin. BURNETT: That might be exactly what he needs. Thanks so much, Jim
And thanks to all of you for joining us.
Anderson starts now.