Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Rand Paul Talks Filibuster; Cannibal Cop Case Could Go to Jury; Gun Measures Face Key Votes; Inmate in Solitary for 2 Years Sues.

Aired March 07, 2013 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: That's what we fought for. That's what our soldiers are fighting for. And to me, it's disappointing to think they would be overseas risking their lives to fight for something that we're willing to give up on so easily.

BASH: You talked for a long time and had a lot of things to say yesterday, into last night. One of the things that you said was you were talking about 9/11 and you were using the example of the hijackers. And you said that you thought maybe the hijackers were citizens. Did you mean U.S. citizens?

PAUL: There were 19 hijackers, a lot were here on student visas. I'm almost positive I read somewhere, and it's hard to be authoritative when I'm not positive, but I thought I read somewhere that some of them had voting cards. And if you have a voting card, you would have to be a citizen. And I had never read that they were citizens, but I read somewhere the other day, so I may have misspoke, but I thought I read somewhere that some of them had voting cards. And I don't know how they would have voting cards if they weren't citizens.

BASH: Let me more of the personal questions here. We talked a little bit about the fact that you were eating on TV. Eating in front of the senators. You ended it saying effectively that nature was calling. Is that why you ended it?

PAUL: That and --

BASH: When you got to go, you got to go.

PAUL: Yes, 12 hours is a long time not to go to the restroom. So, yes, it does limit you. And I asked how did Strom Thurman go 24 hours and apparently there are stories that he was bending the rules a little bit.

BASH: How?

PAUL: By leaving the floor very briefly.

BASH: But, did you go -- when you went in at 11:47 a.m., did you say I'm going to be here until after midnight? What was your plan?

PAUL: No. As I drove up in the morning, I was with a staff member and I said if we have a chance, why don't we maybe try to capture the floor to make our point. We had no plan and I had the wrong shoes on, my feet were hurting the whole day. And we really didn't plan it out. We had thought about if this issue is important enough that we would like to do it sometime, but the floor is controlled by the leadership and not often left open where someone can sort of capture the floor and begin to speak. So one of the reasons filibusters don't occur is because they carefully guard the floor from letting it happen. And it was left unguarded, and so I decided to speak.

BASH: I did notice that you had water there. I don't know if it was intentional. You were trying not drink it. That was intentional?

PAUL: Yes, I decided to drink very little water and have no caffeine.

BASH: You clearly didn't need it. What happened when you left, did you go have a good meal?

PAUL: It was almost 2:00 in the morning. I went home. But it was nice. There were a lot of supporters. My staff stayed through the evening. A lot of them were in the gallery, a lot of other staff was. And really one of the most complimentary things I found was about 15 members from the U.S. House of Representatives came over. I've never seen that happen before, it energized me and a lot of them said that it energized the movement of people who really believe strongly in the constitution.

BASH: And when you were on the floor and you were talking about the fact that Strom Thurman had the longest filibuster in history, but you didn't have in your mind I'm going to try to be competitive, I'm going to try to beat that?

PAUL: No, not really. And I didn't really know how long it would go on when I started. In some ways I had said early on if the president will respond, I'll stop now. And that's all we've been looking for is a clarification.

We really think the president may not be too far away from us on this. But we're troubled by the fact that it's been hard to get the information and that when Senator Cruz asked Eric Holder questions, he had to ask him repeatedly is it constitutional or not. Are you saying you have the authority? And he kept using words like it's not appropriate. And the president used words like I don't intend to.

But he did this on indefinite detention, too. The president signed in to law that says you can detain a citizen of the United States without a trial. Now he's arguing you can kill an American citizen without a trial. And it's like just saying you don't intend to, that I'm a good person, I'm not questioning his motive, but the reason we have laws is some day we may get somebody who won't respect and will use that law for bad purposes.

BASH: And let's go back to where we started, to you saying that you -- giving us the news. You have heard from the White House and you think that they might give you an answer that could satisfy you.

PAUL: I'm very hopeful. And I said I will get out of the way, let them vote, compress the votes, and we won't have to stay here until Saturday. All I'm looking for is clarification and I think Eric Holder's comments in the committee under a little bit of duress, but I think those comments were getting closer to our position. But I also don't think they will have to change their position. I just want them to clarify and make sure that Americans know that when you're sitting in a cafe or sitting in a restaurant, you will not be targeted by the American government.

BASH: Senator, thank you, and you're going to tell us as soon as you get that word, right?

PAUL: Absolutely.

BASH: Okay, appreciate it. This is maybe a situation of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I bumped into you outside. Thank you very much. I'm going to toss it back to Ashleigh, because I think that you might have a question.

BANFIELD: Don't let him go. I do. Don't let him go. You'll have to do the translation, because he doesn't have the ear piece, but I am so interested in this issue because it sounds like the senator and Eric Holder are on the same page about the cafe scenario and Eric Holder said, no, that's not what it's about. I would like you please to ask the senator the Times Square bomber who but for a bad trigger device could have blown up Times Square, if it there were a drone hovering there, would that be an imminent threat that the senator would agree we could use lethal force on that American citizen. Faisal Shahzad in May of 2010.

BASH: So Ashleigh is asking, just to clarify the concept of imminent threat, reminding us that the Times Square bomber, the almost -- the person who almost blew up Times Square, would you consider that an imminent threat?

PAUL: Yes, anybody bringing a weapon to a place, assembly a weapon, using a weapon, that would be. And the reason we're so concerned about this is when you look at the drone strikes we're doing overseas, they show you pictures of them occasionally. CNN has probably had the unclassified pictures on TV, they're driving in cars, walking on paths, at home, and so the thing is that's not a standard that I think is acceptable here.

Because the question is here you would be accused of a crime and we determine whether or guilty or not. I know we can't take people to court in battlefields and overseas locations, so it will be different. But the thing is the president needs to be explicit that the standard they're using overseas, there's also been accusations they're doing signature strikes where they don't know the name of the person and they say we think there are bad people here and there's a line of trucks coming out or going in so they bomb a caravan. That is probably, I don't know this, because I don't have the classified information, but probably how al Awlaki's son was killed is they didn't target him, he was part of a signature strike.

BASH: Do you really think they would do that potentially in the United States, just bomb a caravan?

PAUL: No, and that's why they should say explicitly they won't. What worries me when I ask the specific and direct question, my job in the Senate is to advise and consent, which means I'm supposed to try to get answers from the nominees and it's our chance to have the administration be explicit.

So I ask them these questions. It should be an easy answer. I've said all along it should be, no, obviously it would be unconstitutional to do signature strikes, to do targeted killing. But we are doing targeted killing of people not engaged in combat overseas. They may have proof that they were in combat yesterday or they're going to be in combat tomorrow, but that kind of standard can't happen in America. We can't say you were communicating with e- mail to somebody and we're just going to kill you. That's not the kind of standard we have in our country. And it's really important. And when Barack Obama was a senator, I think he would have been standing with me last night. I think he like Senator Wyden would have come to the floor and supported me yesterday. I think he's either forgotten his moorings (ph) or needs to be more explicit in what his beliefs are because the Barack Obama of 2007 is not the Barack Obama who would not explicitly say we're not going kill Americans.

BASH: I'll play devil's advocate. Maybe he's a Barack Obama who has a lot more information than do you about the threats to this country.

PAUL: The thing is that saying that I have some superior secret knowledge is why I'm allowed to kill Americans without any kind of due process isn't good enough for me.

BASH: Ashleigh, any other questions?

BANFIELD: I want someone to give me a real good definition for imminent and I hope the parties will agree on what this definition will be. Because it seems like the senator agreed with Eric Holder and the circumstance of the Times Square bomber. That would be one circumstance of imminence where you would kill an American on American soil without a trial. Call me crazy, but that's what it sounded like to me.

Dana Bash and please give our regards to the senator. Thank you. That was terrific and way to hustle. You work hard, Dana. Thank you, senator.

BANFIELD: All right. So we'll move on.

We have another case that has been making a lot of headlines. It's a police officer who is being accused of being a cannibal or at least plotting to be a cannibal. The jury will make up its decision and if they believe he wasn't just fantasizing about it but was preparing to kill and eat victims, he could spend the rest of his life in prison, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The case against the so-called cannibal cop, Valle, could go to the jury today. The defense rested after just one day, one day of testimony. But it was testimony that was designed to show that Valle was just indulging in a sick fetish when he chatted online about kidnapping, raping and eating women, not that he actually planned to do it.

But here were some of the exchanges between Valle and one of the alleged co-conspirators. How big is your oven, Valle? Big enough to fit one of these girls if I fold their legs.

CNN's legal analyst, Sunny Hostin, is covering the trial, and also defense attorney, Joey Jackson, is weighing in on this, as well.

First to you, Sunny.

You're at the courthouse in New York City. I expected a lot longer defense than one day. If he's trying to prove that this was just silly talk and not actual planning.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, they certainly put a lot into that one day. I've got to tell you, it's a fascinating day in court today. It's closing argument day. You've got two lady lawyers battling against each other, female attorney for the prosecutor, female attorney for the defense. And we heard two very different versions of what really happened here. The prosecution says, hey, listen, as the government, we can stop something before it happens. The law does not require us to wait until he actually executes his plan. That's how the government started their closing argument. But in direct response, listen to this, this is what the defense attorney said. She said these are gal's words, I have a world in my mind and in that world I'm kidnapping women and selling them to people interested in buying them. I just have a world in my mind. So the defense even in one day argued to this jury, Ashleigh, that this was just some sick dark fantasy that he never intended to kidnap anyone, to eat anyone, it was all in his mind.

BANFIELD: Joey Jackson, I understand that we can't be the thought police, however, I want to put up a few of the actions that go away from thought and actually show action. He accessed his police database to get information on some of the alleged targets. He met one of the alleged targets for lunch. He allegedly compiled a dossier of the women and he searched online of homemade chloroform. How is it that you can take those facts and still turn them into fantasy?

JOEY JACKSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY & CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Here's what happens. From a prosecution's perspective, they will say it's part of a conspiracy and you need what's caused an overt act, an argument in furtherance of that conspiracy so that you can complete it. And those there that you just laid out show those overt acts. So from the part of the prosecution, they're saying, aha, we got you. From a defense perspective, they're saying you need the act. It's a legal definition of saying you have to actually have acted. And it's not enough if it was only in his mind. So it's a fascinating argument, the jury is the trier of fact, they'll determine who prevails.

BANFIELD: Sunny, I have to wrap it up there, but really quick comment, is this going to come down to the battle of closing arguments or does it feel as though the jury has a lot more than what closing arguments can change? HOSTIN: No, they are paying close attention to these closing arguments. I would say it is down to the battle of closing arguments. Prosecution took about 40 minutes. Defense took about 40 minutes. I suspect that if this jury gets this case after lunch, Ashleigh, we could have a verdict today.

BANFIELD: Oh, wow. That's a quick verdict watch. Well, stay on it for us. Break in if you can.

HOSTIN: Sure will.

BANFIELD: Sunny Hostin alive for us in New York City, and Joey Jackson. As always, good to see you.

Coming up next, can Congress actually act on gun control? And if they do, what would it look like? We're soon going to find out as lawmakers take up the very first piece of legislation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Four separate bills that aim to protect Americans from gun violence while protecting gun ownership rights. They're all being vote order today by the senate judiciary committee. A bill to close the so-called gun show loophole has pretty wide support. The others are pushed by Democrats and resisted by Republicans, though not all democrats are on board either. There is a bipartisan bill, though. It was just released yesterday. And it would beef up background checks by making more sellers actually do them, not necessarily by making more sellers do them, but by widening the field of buyers who would actually fail them. This bill will screen out people who have used insanity defenses in court and people involuntarily treated in mental hospitals, even if treated as outpatients.

I'm joined by CNN senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, and from Spartanburg, South Carolina, psychologist and author, Terry Lyles.

I have been very fascinated be by the bar you have to reach in any kind of mental care that you have had to undergo and where that bar is going to be danced around when it comes to any kind of bill that tells me I'm too dangerous to have a gun. Do you feel you're getting any kind of direction?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I do. I think there is a line being drawn. As far as I understand it, that line would exclude very few people. I mean, the number of people who raise insanity defenses in court is tiny. Yes, I guess it's a good idea not to allow those people to purchase guns. But I mean, the idea that's going to somehow protect large numbers of people seems very unlikely to me. Same thing with involuntarily committed to mental institutions. Yes, I guess it's good these people can't get guns, but I don't think anyone should think there are large numbers of people that are going to be prohibited from buying guns as a result of this law.

BANFIELD: The way you read proposed legislation, this is going to speak to a lot of people watching. Someone who has had a bad year, a divorce, a death in the family and is terribly depressed and goes and sees a counselor of some kind and says, I feel suicidal, does that put them in a bracket that says they can't buy a gun anymore?

TOOBIN: Not at all. I don't think people who are just getting ordinary psychiatric treatment for every day problems would be covered by this bill at all.

BANFIELD: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: And I think that's a good thing they're not covered by this bill because people should get help and shouldn't be discouraged from getting help because of possible future consequences down the line.

BANFIELD: That's the perfect question for Terry. I have always wondered in your line of work when do you decide that the person who's come to you for counseling needs to be reported because he or she might be dangerous.

TERRY LYLES, PSYCHOLOGIST & AUTHOR: Well, as was mentioned in the legal side, there are ramifications of how to report and when to report. And what we try to determine is if someone is situationally dangerous or psychologically dangerous? Because situationally danger can be anything. You can be in a bad situation in threat or danger and respond negatively. But I think the bill is going to talk more about who has that weapon and how do we determine that is going to be very, very tricky. As he just noted on the legal side, just because someone seeks treatment or help doesn't necessarily mean they have an intent to harm someone. However, the gun is what's in the middle. So it's going to be tricky to put the law into place that protects the patient or person seeking help versus the person who could be dangerous with a weapon.

BANFIELD: Terry and Jeff Toobin --

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Go ahead, last comment, Jeff.

TOOBIN: I just want to say The National Rifle Association supports this bill, so it's not surprising the number of people excluded under this bill is very, very small.

BANFIELD: It's a good point to make and still a continuing story.

Thank you.

Up next, a story that might just outrage you because the pictures will be astounding. A man basically tossed into solitary and forgotten about and the dramatic transformation is nothing short of alarming. It's coming next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Some pictures I want to show you because there is just nothing like seeing sharks, especially when there are many, many, many sharks, but here you go. Just when the Palm Beach area life guards figured that it would be safe to let people back into the water, they decided to close beaches for a second straight day yesterday because a life guard supervisor says shark sightings, apparently tens of thousands of them. I thought it would be tens of thousands of sharks. Just sightings. And this happens to be a picture of just one live. This is Deerfield Beach, Florida. A live picture. They've closed these beaches, as I mentioned, according to our affiliate. But how do you like that? Just train your live camera on the water and you get to see that from above. Yikes. They're migrating south for the winter it turns out.

Two years in solitary confinement. Could you imagine the toll? Wow. That's the same man, Steven Slevin before and after his detention. He was thrown into a county jail in New Mexico. The suspicion was drunk driving and receiving a stolen vehicle. He was never tried. His lawyer said he was just forgotten, abandoned and mistreated because he was mentally ill. His complaints, he got bed sores, fungal, dental problems, malnourished, and decided to sue when he was let out. And not for just a little bit, $22 million, ultimately, ending up with $15 million, which makes this one of the largest federal civil rights awards for an inmate in history.

I want to bring back a legal panel to get answers on this one. Joey Jackson and David Young, Judge David joining us today.

I'm going to start with you, Judge David.

We have a Constitution that guarantees us due process and a speedy trial. How is it a guy ends up like that after two years, forgotten?

DAVID YOUNG, JUDGE & COURT CERTIFIED MEDIATOR: Obviously, his lawyer forgot about him, too, and the system forgot about him, also. It was such a calamity of errors in this case it was just unbelievable. You have to ask yourself, did the punishment fit the crime? Is $15 million a proper award in this case? Judge David would never have done that.

BANFIELD: There's something called good behavior when it comes to prosecuting and behaving. We all are presumed innocent, so doesn't this put a chill in authorities out there they better not lose files and people?

Joey?

JACKSON: That's the very point because when we talk about this, you want it to have a deterrent effect. It should not have happened in the first place and this will ensure it doesn't happen again. Certainly, there's blame everywhere. In the judicial process, you're supposed to schedule the case. The prosecution should be on top and aware of the case and his defense attorney should have been asking where my client is. The money's necessary, so that we can ensure, it never occurs again.

BANFIELD: Judge David Young, a lot of people would say if they like to follow the law and all the bits and pieces of it, that the government has immunity. You can't sue a prosecutor because a prosecutor you know, maybe got it wrong in a courtroom. Is there immunity in something like this?

YOUNG: No, because they filed charges under the Civil Rights Act. You're talking about $15 million from a small community, a small community whose people are going to suffer because there won't be social services. That's what has me. You could find two or three million dollars would concern the purpose. You could put the negligent people in jail under civil rights charges, but to bankrupt the town of $15 million is pretty egregious.

BANFIELD: Those pictures, I just felt sick about it.

I'm flat out of time though.

Judge David Young, nice to see you.

Joey Jackson, I always love having you.

JACKSON: Thanks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: We'll see both of you again soon.

Thanks for watching, everybody. AROUND THE WORLD is next.