Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Giffords Documents Released Today; Second Chances in Politics; Women on Top

Aired March 27, 2013 - 14:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: January 8th, 2011, a horrible Saturday morning at a shopping center just outside of Tucson. Remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: Hello, 911, there is a shooting at Safeway.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, what do you need?

UNIDENTIFIED CALLER: I'm at Oracle. Gabrielle Giffords, people and Gabrielle Giffords were hit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically shot in her head, 12 others wounded, six people died. More than two years later, the Pima County Sheriff's Department is now releasing new information, hundreds of pages of police reports kept sealed by a federal judge until today.

And Brian Todd is with us now from Washington. He and his producer have been combing through all the documents. And, Brian, what are you learning about specifically the day of the shooting, but also what are you learning about Jared Lee Loughner who is now, by the way, currently serving seven consecutive life sentences for what he did?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Brooke, we're learning a lot of riveting new details, some kind of nugget type information about the day of the shootings, about Jared Lee Loughner, his demeanor the day of the shootings.

It's 2,700 pages of documents released by the Pima County Sheriff's Department today. As far as Loughner is concerned, one account is from Alan Foreny. He is an officer with the Arizona Fish and Game Department.

Now in one document, Foreny describes stopping Loughner at a traffic stop, just a couple of hours before the shootings. This was for running a red light. Now that traffic stop we did know about.

But in one document, Foreny describes Loughner's behavior to a Pima County detective and an FBI agent. Foreny said he started lecturing Loughner about his driving and then listen to this detail, quote, "Then I told him I said I'm not going to write you a citation for this and when I said that to him, his face got kind of screwed up and he started to cry.

That struck me as a little odd." Foreny said so I asked him if he was OK, and he said, yes, I'm OK, I just had a rough time, and I really thought I was going to get a ticket and I'm really glad you're not."

Brooke, of course, that leads to all sorts of questions. Was he maybe on the verge of a breakdown or something like that, but some riveting detail about that traffic stop and Loughner's demeanor.

BALDWIN: There is also, Brian, there is an account from one of the officers who responded to the Giffords shooting and ended up driving Loughner away. This was the quote. "While enroute he managed to work himself out of the seat belt and was moving around the back seat freely. That officer is also quoted as saying, quote, "Mr. Loughner stated nobody else knew about the shooting." Is that information new to you, Brian?

TODD: It was new to me when I saw it today, Brooke. Our producers, we have a team of producers combing through this. None of us had seen that particular detail before, that he worked himself out of the seat belt.

You can assume that he, of course, had cuffs on at that point. And was probably not able to move around quite as freely as that might indicate, but, still, a very chilling indication there of just some of the detail.

And what he was saying in the car on the way from the scene, things like that, the fact he was so, I guess, you know, squeamish or squirmy that he got out of the seat belt, and that had to have at least caused some pause for the officers involved there.

BALDWIN: Brian Todd, thank you.

Coming up next, my "Hot Topics Panel," first is David Petraeus says he's sorry, how does America decide who to forgive and who not to forget when it comes to leaders and politicians?

Plus, a new study shows women are better decision makers than men. Do we really think that way?

And did a college lesson go a tad too far when a professor told students to stomp on a piece of paper with the word Jesus written on it. My panelists are standing by. They're next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: All right, let's rock and roll. Time to hit the hot topics, stories you'll be talking about around the dinner table tonight. First up, the former head of the CIA, four-star general here, David Petraeus, he may just turn out to be the latest example of how scandal and second chances often go hand and hand. The retired general committed to speak at the University of Southern California before his undoing and he did not cancel. Instead, he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID PETRAEUS, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I'm also keenly aware that the reason for my recent journey was my own doing. So please allow me to begin my remarks this evening by reiterating how deeply I regret and apologize for the circumstances that led to my resignation from the CIA and caused such pain for my family, friends and supporters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: You remember the story. He stepped down, back in November, after admitting an extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell. The question is, could this be the beginning of Petraeus' career relaunch?

Joining me now, my "Hot Topics Panel," Columbia University political science professor, Marc Lamont Hill, cultural and political critic, Michaela Angela Davis, we also have Michael Reagan, the president of the Reagan Legacy Foundation, and psychologist Paula Bloom.

So, welcome all of you. Michaela, let me hear from you. Just in hearing General Petraeus talking last night, by this sort of public apology, does that mean he's back?

MICHAELA ANGELA DAVIS, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CRITIC: Well, I think every journey starts with an apology. So I think that's a very powerful start and I think what we're going to look to is what happens next.

We have seen certainly former President Bill Clinton go through something extremely public, very close, and his legacy is determined by what he did next, his humanitarian work, his supporting his wife. I think we need to watch what happens after the apology, and that will really determine the legacy.

BALDWIN: Michael, do you agree? Do you think it is this public apology and this sort of time period where we see how they respond, you know, sort of now that they have fallen, the great redemption story that Americans love?

MICHAEL REAGAN, PRESIDENT, REAGAN LEGACY FOUNDATION: Well, it was basically public because the media was covering what he was going to say, the first time out for General Petraeus. This is a man who was looking even at the presidency of the United States once he came out of the military.

So he's trying to rebuild, you know, his career, if you will. But Bill Clinton did set the standard here. Bill Clinton was forgiven. Again, why? Because of the next thing he did.

Look at John Edwards. I don't think anyone will forgive John Edwards. Why because his wife was dying of cancer when all these things were going on. Weiner and what he did. In fact, he's trying to rehabilitate himself.

He's able to, in fact, do that, but we do tend to forgive people who want to, in fact, apologize to us. But I will tell you this, I think if you asked the women in that room if they'll accept the apology, you'll find a different answer than from the men.

BALDWIN: It's an interesting question. Let me go to a man, Marc Lamont Hill because it's a great point. How do we determine who to forgive and who to forget? Because Michael brings up the Anthony Weiners of the world and then you have Mark Sanford.

We all know, you know, what happened when he took that sort of famous hike on the Appalachian Trail, right? Now this -- I think she's now his fiancee. This Argentine woman and he has won his primary in his state of South Carolina. Who do we forgive and who do we not?

PROFESSOR MARC LAMONT HILL, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: I think some of it comes down to not whether you forgive them or not, whether you like them or not. Anthony Weiner, it is not that we don't forgive him, it was just so creepy. Like we forgive him, we don't want anything to do with him.

But then on top of the creep factor, there is the question of how sympathetic can we be with the person that did something bad and with the person who was victimized by it. So for example, in the case of John Edwards, who can relate to John Edwards? I mean, his wife was dying.

This guy is cheating, making babies, still in his mind his crazy mind still thought he would be attorney general even after he bowed out. That's nuts. I think the biggest thing here is that we have to as a nation not only accept apologies, but accept real apologies.

I think the problem in today's politics is that too often people say, you know what, I'm sorry you misunderstood that crazy racist thing I said. I'm sorry that you're upset by it. A real apology is I did something wrong, here is why I was wrong, here is how it hurt you and here is how I'm going to make it better.

BALDWIN: It is the authenticity, right?

PAULA BLOOM, PSYCHOLOGIST AND AUTHOR: Right. That's exactly what I was thinking. I mean, there are so many non-apology apologies. Like, I'm so sorry you were offended by that, you know, that's not -- the apology, basically, the steps really is that, one, you have to acknowledge you did something wrong, which is what he did.

And then be able to acknowledge the pain you caused someone else and take ownership. And then say what am I going to do about it? I totally agree that it is really about your actions. The words of the first step, actions are what really matter.

BALDWIN: Practice what you preach people.

REAGAN: If I could jump in for a moment, listen, are you apologizing for what you did or apologizing that you got caught? BALDWIN: It's a great point. It is a great point. Hopefully it is the former. Let me move on. I want more time to talk about decision- making. A new study is making some waves saying that the ladies are better decision makers than men. Let's talk about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: All right, let me begin by showing you some pictures and you're forgiven if you don't recognize the face you're about to see. This is Julia Pierson. So for 30 years, she is the one who has been working her way up the ranks at one of the most macho of workplaces, think men in black, suits and sunglasses, guns tucked under the jackets, wire in one ear, the Secret Service.

It has been almost one year since some of those macho men were caught hanging out with prostitutes in their hotel in Colombia while preparing for a presidential visit. Now the secret service is getting a new boss. It is Julia Pierson. She's about to be sworn in. She's about to become the first woman to lead the agency in its 148-year history.

And, that got us thinking today. There is also a new study. I hear some -- new study that found women take a completely different approach decision-making, taking other people's interests and views into account while men would rather not maybe rock the boat.

That suggests that women make better decisions, again, according to this one study and they're better leaders because of it. Michael, I just want to begin with you, I know you had Secret Service agents around you, as you're growing up.

Let me start with you. Do you think, had there been a woman in charge of this sort of macho group a year ago, do you think those men would have behaved as badly in Cartagena?

REAGAN: Yes, absolutely.

BALDWIN: You do?

REAGAN: Macho men or macho women. I had women part of my Secret Service detail during the 1980s for eight years. There is macho men. There is macho women. They're in fact out there. Now, it may look good to have a woman up there, but the reality is, you know, it all comes down to jobs.

It all comes down to performance and what have you. So, you know, we're going to find out in the future if indeed she's a good leader or bad leader, if this is a pick because she's a woman or they picked the right person and the right person doesn't matter if they're male or female, it is as long as it is the right person at the top.

HILL: I strongly disagree.

DAVIS: I do too.

BALDWIN: Michaela, go ahead. DAVIS: Yes, I think there is skill sets that women have -- women are in constant negotiation all the time, and maneuvering things that men don't have to in the board room and at home and so I think that her womanhood and the skills that do get developed because of this negotiation can make her super qualified in ways that men don't even begin to think about.

So, you know, I went on Wikipedia to see it say director for her. This is a big move. I think her womanhood, I think -- I take -- I feel a way at certain times and people don't want to use the strength of being a woman as an asset.

BALDWIN: Go ahead, Paula.

BLOOM: I don't really feel -- I mean, listen, any one person -- there may be women not good at this and men who are really good at this. There are some gender differences, some gender differences.

When we're talking about women in corporations, there is such a movement toward social media and relationship building and how that relates to business so it makes sense to me that women who tend to have some greater strengths in that are going to be able to manage those things good.

This is also Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook. This is perfect that's why we need women sitting at the table, not just because we need more women, but because women bring incredible strength.

BALDWIN: But what about in politics? Marc Lamont Hill, and I'm giving you the final word on this. Because I was wondering let's say you're in the situation room and there is a woman in charge and let's say you're in a situation where you have to put the finger on the button.

I think about me, you know, sometimes I get so much choice, get a little overwhelmed, maybe that's just me, not women in general, but would that be a concern as a woman, as a decision maker? We do take so much into consideration.

HILL: This is all part of how we frame men versus women. We say women are so emotional. That was the thing against Hillary Clinton. Do we really want a woman with her finger on the button? Who is more emotional than George Bush? They tried to kill my daddy, so I'm going to launch an illegal war for four years. I mean, men are emotional too. Our emotions are called anger. That's the only difference.

REAGAN: It is about picking the right person, men or women.

HILL: Hold on, Michael. Let me finish this point. Women didn't interrupt in this segment, but the other point here is that --

BALDWIN: Aren't we so nice, ladies?

HILL: It is a strong man or strong woman to say that an unqualified person shouldn't be -- no one is suggesting the person should be unqualified, but apples to apples, if a man is qualified and a woman is qualified, diversity matters.

We should have qualified women because they bring a different skill set to the table. Men are socialized to be stubborn, obstinate, rude. We can change that. That's the reality we need to change and women can lead the way.

BALDWIN: I have to interrupt as a woman. I want to move along. I want to talk about what is happening in Florida, this huge flap. The question is, did a college lesson go too far when a professor told students to write the word Jesus on a piece of paper, think about it and then stomp on it. A student got kicked out of the class for not wanting to do it. We'll talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: The governor of Florida is now stepping in, demanding answers from Florida Atlantic University over this bizarre incident. Here is a student describing exactly what this professor asked his class to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN ROTELA, FAU STUDENT: He said, everybody write Jesus on in bold letters. So what I did was I wrote Jesus, just like this and then afterwards, he said, everybody put it on the floor. So we took it out, put it on the floor.

And he had us all stand up and once we were standing up, he said stomp on it. And that's when I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: The lesson, taught by this professor, D'Andre Pool, was to illustrate the power of symbols. You could say it works too well. Governor Rick Scott was so outraged.

He fired off a letter to the university, which read in part, quote, "The professor's lesson was offensive and even intolerant to Christians. And those of all faiths who deserve to be respected as Americans entitled to religious freedom." That angry backlash forced the school to now issue this apology.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. CHARLES BROWN, FAU SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS: On behalf of all of us here at FAU, we are deeply sorry for any hurt this incident might have caused our students, people in the community and beyond. As an institution of higher education, we embrace academic freedom.

But with that comes a level of responsibility, which we did not uphold. Based on the offensive nature of this exercise, we will not use it again. It was insensitive and hurtful and we are truly sorry. Please know we have not taken any disciplinary action against any student regarding this matter. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So let me open it up to all of you and to the professor on the panel, to you first here. And my first question is why exactly again did the professor do this and it was to discuss the importance of symbols in culture and many students would hesitate before they stomped on this paper with the word Jesus on it. They wanted to discuss that. So Professor Hill, good lesson, bad execution?

HILL: Yes, I mean, let me say this, I get in trouble. I do not endorse this activity. I would not do this activity. Anything I'm going to say following this, I still don't endorse it. However, I do understand what he was trying to do.

What he could have done is say, look, everybody write Jesus on the paper, how many of would you feel comfortable stomping on it. That would convey how powerful the symbol it. It is just a word on a paper, but it means so much to who we are as people.

But to ask students to get out of their chairs and stomp on Jesus, it is way too far. I don't think it violates civil liberties, but I do think it is a bad activity and deeply insensitive. I wouldn't do it and anyone else out there, I recommend you don't do it either.

BALDWIN: OK, guys, I'm told I'm out of time. I hate this. I always wish I had more time. That's where we have to leave it with Marc Lamont Hill. Marc Lamont Hill, Michaela Angela Davis, Michael Reagan and Paula Bloom, thank you so, so much.

Still ahead, dramatic new video, just in of this massive -- massive landslide, this is Washington State. Home owners have been told to get out. Chad Myers shows us the danger for the area next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)