Alec Baldwin told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in an interview airing Thursday that he did not pull the trigger on a prop gun he was holding on a New Mexico film set when it went off, killing a cinematographer.
"I didn't pull the trigger," Baldwin said. "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never."
It is Baldwin's first sitdown interview since the Oct. 21 shooting on the set of the western film "Rust." Authorities have said Baldwin was told the gun was safe to handle but continue to investigate how a live round ended up in the weapon.
ABC released a clip Wednesday that shows Baldwin breaking down in tears while describing Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer who was killed on the set. Director Joel Souza was also wounded.
He said in response to a question about how a live round ended up on the set: "I have no idea. Someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet that wasn't even supposed to be on the property."
The interview will air as part of an hourlong special on ABC at 8 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday and stream on Hulu later that evening.
Investigators have described "some complacency" in how weapons were handled on the "Rust" set. They have said it is too soon to determine whether charges will be filed, amid independent civil lawsuits concerning liability in the fatal shooting.
ABC said a two-hour special "20/20" next week will examine the investigation into the shooting in more depth.
Google Opens Its Defense In Antitrust Case Alleging Monopoly Over Online Ad Technology
Google opened its defense against allegations that it holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology Friday with witness testimony saying the industry is vastly more complex and competitive than portrayed by the federal government.
"The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years," said Scott Sheffer, a vice president for global partnerships at Google, the company's first witness at its antitrust trial in federal court in Alexandria.
The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly over the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads seen by consumers.
Google counters that the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow type of online ads — essentially the rectangular ones that appear on the top and on the right-hand side of a webpage. In its opening statement, Google's lawyers said the Supreme Court has warned judges against taking action when dealing with rapidly emerging technology like what Sheffer described because of the risk of error or unintended consequences.
Google says defining the market so narrowly ignores the competition it faces from social media companies, Amazon, streaming TV providers and others who offer advertisers the means to reach online consumers.
Justice Department lawyers called witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting their case Friday afternoon, detailing the ways that automated ad exchanges conduct auctions in a matter of milliseconds to determine which ads are placed in front of which consumers and how much they cost.
The department contends the auctions are finessed in subtle ways that benefit Google to the exclusion of would-be competitors and in ways that prevent... Read More