[Ana Cabrera, Cnn Anchor:] Top of the hour. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Major breaking news from the White House tonight. "The Washington Post" is reporting that President Trump asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions about closing the case against political ally, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the man the President pardoned last evening. More on than in just a moment, but, first, the disaster in Texas and dire warnings of potentially historic floods in days to come. Harvey is now a tropical storm that is stalled on shore within range of the flood-prone city of Houston. Harvey could dump up to three feet of rain in some areas before this is all over. The monster storm has already left behind a wide swath of destruction in Rockport, Texas. Some homes and businesses are just piles of debris now, and more severe weather is expected soon. This video shows a large funnel cloud rolling through a neighborhood in Cyprus, Texas, just northwest of Houston. We just got some new reaction from President Trump tweeting, quote, wonderful coordination between federal, state, and local governments in the great state of Texas. Teamwork. Record setting rainfall, unquote. Now, we checked with CNN Weather Center, no rainfall record set just yet. Seventy-five percent of the rain is yet to come. Let's get started with our special coverage of the disaster in Texas. We've been showing you the devastation out of Rockport, Texas, one of the areas hardest hit by Hurricane Harvey. It's also where the state's one fatality is being blamed on the storm. And fresh, new drone video shows just how destructive those 130 mile- an-hour winds were. In the lone star state, more than 3,000 customers are without power in Texas at this hour, many trying to pick up the pieces of their lives after this devastating storm. Our Martin Savidge is joining us now from Rockport. Martin, I understand you had a chance to speak with some of the victims hit hard there in Rockport.
[Martin Savidge, Cnn Correspondent:] Yes. People actually brought up the storm, which is hard to imagine when you look at the devastation here. First of all, why in the world did they stay, and then what could it have been like? You're going to hear from them in just a moment. Two things. There is good news to report in that we saw a large convoy now of what looks like relief efforts making their way into the community here. This is everything from National Guard troops that will be helping to secure and patrol the streets, as well as heavy earth moving equipment that will be used to move the debris out of the way to allow more rescue crews to come in. Also at this hour, going house by house, are the first search and rescue teams. To the fatality you've talked about, there is one that is being reported. But, quite frankly, the Sheriff here in this county says he does not know if it is possible there could be more. There was just so much devastation, and the process of searching has only just begun. Right now, they're checking up on those calls for help that came in the night, and then the lines went dead. So those are the first places they'll begin, but this time, it's been divided into a grid. They're working that through the night. As to survivors and what you see here, here's a little more.
[Savidge:] This is fairly typical when you have a major hurricane, just a debris field that is spread all over. And it is all over this town, but I want to show you something else over here. You got to watch your footing because there's nails. But take a look at this. This is not so typical. The entire front of this building, sheared of completely. Now, the interior's been knocked around a lot, but much of it is still intact. You rode it out last night here?
[Tim Freiburger, Hurricane Harvey Victim:] I did, and it was crazy. It was crazy. The wind was unbelievable. We first the wind came and we were went upstairs we have a two-story home and just peeked out the window because you really couldn't see much below. I had everything boarded up, except the upstairs windows. I couldn't reach them. And the fence was waving, you know, when it first started. And then it gave way. About an hour later, we heard this big thump. Well, we have a very big chimney out of brick that had fell over onto the roof and collapsed a part of the roof there. And then, 45 minutes later, the garage had lifted up and slammed against the house.
[Savidge:] Rockport's right on the water. That's part of the reason it got so hit so hard. It's a very tourist town. You can see that the marina didn't fare well at all. There are, what looked like, dozens, if not maybe over a hundred boats here. Looks like many of them suffered varying forms of damage, from light all the way down to a total write off. Also pulling into town, along with that relief column came many, many buses. These are buses that are being brought in to evacuate people. There are people who are sheltering in nearby communities in various shelters that have been set-up, and then there are people who stayed in their homes last night. But it's not possible to stay in this town now. There's just no electricity. There's no water. There's no telephone service. This town, by all modern conveniences, is essentially dead. And it's going to be weeks, if not months, to try to restore some of that service, so they're encouraging people to leave and go elsewhere, to those shelters in, say, San Antonio. Ana.
[Cabrera:] Yes. Those pictures behind you, Martin, and what you showed us, what you walked us through, the amount of damage there, really, is pretty striking. Thank you so much for that report. Breaking news concerning President Trump's pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. "The Washington Post" now reporting this hour that President Trump had previously asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions whether the government could drop the criminal case against Arpaio, but he was advised that it would be inappropriate. After realizing the case would not be dropped, President Trump decided to let the case go to trial and grant Arpaio clemency if he was convicted. A White House official tells "The Washington Post," quote, we knew the President wanted to do this for some time now and had worked to prepare for whatever the moment and whenever the moment may come. Now, when asked about the President's conversation with Sessions, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told "The Post," quote, it's only natural the President would have a discussion with administration lawyers about legal matters. This case would be no difficult. And the paper says the Justice Department declined to comment. CNN White House Correspondent Athena Jones is live outside the White House following this breaking news. Athena, I know CNN is still working to confirm these details that "The Post" is reporting, but Republicans have already been very critical about this pardon. What impact might this news have?
[Athena Jones, Cnn White House Correspondent:] Ana, I think this is a remarkable report by "The Washington Post." As you mentioned, we've reached out to several White House officials to get their response to this, to find out what more we can about this, but it's remarkable to see a president trying to interfere directly in a specific case. This is not something we're used to seeing presidents do. In fact, in the past administration, if you tried to ask President Obama about a specific case, he would say that he didn't want to comment in order to avoid the appearance of politicizing what should be an impartial justice system method that is going to be carried out by the justice system. And so that is one thing that's unusual. It's also interesting because this appears to be part of a pattern. You'll remember the now former FBI Director James Comey saying that the President, early on in his administration, had a conversation with Comey about maybe he could see a way to let the investigation into his then his national security adviser, Michael Flynn go. And so this is just the latest example of the President potentially trying to interfere in order to help out an ally. And as so this is going to add, most likely, to the backlash that we're already seeing, as you mentioned, not just from Democrats but also from the President's fellow Republicans like the two senators, the GOP senators, from the state of Arizona who are calling this President's move, this decision, into question. But also, just in the last couple of hours, by House Speaker Paul Ryan, who put out this statement via a spokesperson saying, the Speaker does not agree with the decision. Law enforcement officials have a special responsibility to respect the rights of everyone in the United States. He went on to say, we should not allow anyone to believe that responsibility is diminished by this pardon. But it also goes to show you, Ana, that this is something, as "The Post" suggests and as some of CNN's reporting has suggested, that at least the paperwork to pardon the Sheriff was drawn up recently. But this shows that the President has been thinking about this for several months now, if this report is to be believed. He wanted to help his ally, Sheriff Arpaio, who was an early supporter of the President, an early endorser of the President, who was prominent on the campaign trail, and who also shared this with the President. Sheriff Arpaio was also a prominent proponent of the birther conspiracy that said that President Obama was not born in America. So this is someone who has been a long-time ally of the President, someone he clearly wanted very much to help out. Now, he has done so, and we're seeing blowback and now more details emerging about how that decision came about, which is certainly to be to receive more criticism. Ana.
[Cabrera:] All right. Athena Jones at the White House for us. Thank you. I want to bring in CNN Legal Analyst Michael Zeldin. He is a former federal prosecutor who has worked closely with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the past. Michael, what are the legal implications of asking the Attorney General about dropping a federal case against a political ally?
[Michael Zeldin, Former Special Assistant To Fbi Director Robert Mueller:] Well, so for decades, in order to prevent the appearance of political meddling in federal law enforcement, both Democrats and Republican administrations have had written policies that limit the contact of the White House with the Department of Justice. In 2007, for example, then Attorney General Mike Mukasey issued a memorandum which said, essentially, there shouldn't be these things. You could have them around policy matters, but not on specific cases. So there's a long tradition of not doing this. And so the President doing this violates the many years of practical policy that is designed to ensure that people feel that the administration of justice is impartial from political intervention. So that's problematic. With respect to the specifics of the pardon, there is a process in the Justice Department. There's an Office of Pardon. There's a pardon attorney in the DOJ. There are written guidelines in the Code of Federal Regulations that govern how these pardons should be issued. And none of those rules was followed. And that creates lots of problems about why this was done and the message it sends with respect to the denigration of the seriousness of the offense that Arpaio was convicted of.
[Cabrera:] OK. Let me bring in Page Pate. He is a CNN legal analyst as well. When we talk about this new reporting, Page, that the President, prior to the Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former sheriff now, being convicted of criminal contempt for ignoring and disobeying a judge's order to stop racial profiling, to stop pulling people over and detaining them simply because he believed they were undocumented immigrants, the President apparently went to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, according to "The Washington Post," and said please drop this case against Arpaio. Given this reporting, if true, could it make the pardon now illegal in any way?
[Page Pate, Cnn Legal Analyst:] I don't think so. The President has very broad powers when it comes to issuing pardons. And I think what he's done here, while many, I think, appropriately consider it the wrong to do given the circumstances of the conviction, the type of offense that was involved here, I think he's got a legal right to do it. And even though he may have weighed in during the investigation, and I do agree that that violates, you know, years of both tradition and policy within the Department of Justice, it's still within his right to do it. So you can criticize it politically, you can criticize it from an ethical standpoint, but as far as legally and constitutionally, I think he has the right both to intercede and then ultimately to pardon him.
[Cabrera:] OK. Michael, Mueller, we know, is looking into whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired James Comey and when it came to the Russia investigation. Is it possible Mueller could be now looking into this as well?
[Pate:] Well, I don't think so. I think they're
[Zeldin:] I don't think so. It's
[Pate:] Sorry, go ahead.
[Zeldin:] I think these are unrelated matters. You know, the Deputy Attorney General is always free to expand the Mueller mandate to include something like this, but I don't think this falls within Mueller's purview. But as was said in the outset, though, it does create the appearance of a pattern when the President, if true, ask that the Flynn matter be dropped, and now he's asking the Attorney General again a few months later that this matter be dropped. And so I agree that he has the constitutional right to pardon. I do not believe, however, that he has the right to intervene in a specific case in order to effect a political outcome. I think that's beyond appropriate White House Department of Justice protocol.
[Cabrera:] Page, do you agree that this could back up
[Pate:] Well, there's a difference between
[Cabrera:] Go ahead.
[Pate:] No, I mean, there's a difference between what's appropriate in Justice Department protocol and what's constitutional. I mean, I certainly agree with the idea that there are protocols and policies in place to prevent a president from weighing in politically into a decision about prosecuting someone, but the President still controls the executive branch. And so he has the ultimate authority to decide who is going to be prosecuted in federal court. So I think it's inappropriate, but I still think it's legal, and I think it's constitutional.
[Zeldin:] Well, it's could be
[Cabrera:] So, Page, do you think it could back up
[Zeldin:] It could, Page
[Cabrera:] James Comey's story that let me just, sorry, get this out real fast to just I hear what you're saying, Page, in terms of the constitutionality.
[Pate:] Right.
[Cabrera:] But then Michael was arguing regarding the Mueller investigation. When it comes to
[Zeldin:] Yes.
[Cabrera:] evidence that could back up James Comey's story, that the President had asked him to drop an investigation into Michael Flynn, I mean, could this be a piece of evidence, to some degree, regarding the President's pattern of intervening in an investigation perhaps?
[Pate:] Absolutely. In that situation, I think it does show a pattern of conduct which somebody like Bob Mueller would be interested in because it shows or it helps him prove intent. Because if this is the way the President handles or puts his thumb on investigations, wants to change the outcome of an investigation, wants to change who is going to be charged, what they're going to be charged with, then, although it's not within the specific directive that was given to the Special Counsel in this case, I do think it can be considered as evidence of intent.
[Cabrera:] Michael, final thought?
[Zeldin:] No, I think that's right. I think that there is an absence of mistake or proof of motive or intent that this may relate to. I was trying to add to the question that, does this fall within his mandate? But as a pattern of behavior, sure, I think it would be relevant to understanding whether or not Comey was being truthful about the Oval Office meeting where the Flynn case was asked to be dropped. It seems as if the President has a disregard for the traditions of communication between the White House and the Justice Department. And I would say this one last thing, which is, while it may be constitutional, I think that if it's a corruptly undertaken act, then it may rise to be abusive. And that could give raise to articles of impeachment where one do find that.
[Cabrera:] All right. Michael Zeldin and Page Pate, thank you both. We really appreciate you jumping on the phone on such short notice. Much more ahead this hour. Up next, where tropical storm Harvey is heading next. Stay with us. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.