Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

States Set to Resume Executions After Break; U.S. Captures Benghazi Suspect; Dr. Oz Under Fire; Picasso Painting

Aired June 17, 2014 - 12:30   ET

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

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: "Since the deadly attacks on our facilities in Benghazi, I have made it a priority to find and bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of four brave Americans.

"I recently authorized an operation in Libya to detain an individual charged for his role in these attacks, Ahmed Abu Khattalah. In fact, he is now in U.S. custody. The fact that he is in U.S. custody is a testament to the painstaking efforts of our military, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel.

"This individual will now face the full weight of the American justice system."

I wanted to skip ahead to the third paragraph if I could. "With this operation, the United States has once again demonstrated we will do whatever it takes to see that justice is done when people harm Americans."

Again, the United States president, weighing in on the capture of Ahmed Abu Khattalah in the Benghazi attacks, "We will bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi attacks.

"We will remain vigilant against all acts of terrorism and we will continue to prioritize the protection of our service members and civilians overseas. We will also sustain the Libyan people and do the difficult work of democracy."

Some of that may sound like platitudes. The president will undoubtedly have an uphill battle. There were, by all accounts, dozens. But also in the aftermath, there were no American personnel to actually process that crime scene.

One of the first people at that crime scene was our own Arwa Damon who was able to look at and read some of the evidence, a journal by the former ambassador, the now late ambassador.

That is going to be a case ripe with defense issues, once that suspect -- I suppose we can now say, whether that's official, whether that's just common parlance, I don't know yet, but there will be, clearly, a lot of issues at stake in trying to prosecute Khattalah.

I want to get to other news we've been covering. It's been seven weeks since an inmate died of a heart attack followed a botch lethal injection. There have been no executions since then, but that could be about to change.

Georgia, Missouri and Florida have executions on the books planned for the next two days. Take a look at your screen. These are the men -- Marcus Wellons, scheduled to die this evening in Georgia for the rape and murder of his 15-year-old neighbor.

Later tonight, John Winfield is scheduled to die in Missouri for murdering the mother of his children and two other women in a jealous rage. However, it is not clear if Winfield will be executed because a federal judge has issued him a temporary stay. That happened last week. Prosecutors are asking for the stay to be lifted in time, so stay tuned on that.

Number three, John Ruthell Henry, scheduled to die in Florida on Wednesday evening for murdering his estranged wife and child from another marriage.

Attorneys for all three men have challenged the executions because of the secretive process that the states are learning to obtain the lethal drug, need for the executions. Georgia and Missouri both use a single-sedative drug. Florida is using that three-drug cocktail that's also been controversial.

Joining me to talk about this week's planned executions is CNN legal analyst and former prosecutor Paul Callan. I don't even know where to begin because you and I often come to blows, figuratively speaking, on this.

It's an old issue. It's not going away. We are morphing. There is no question that we are morphing as a society in how we view these things.

Many say that cruel and unusual punishment needs to be accommodated for more when we deal with how we execute people, if we're going to execute them at all, sir.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the supreme court has said and recognized something called evolving standards of decency in how we punish people. For instance, we don't put juveniles to death. We don't put people who have mental disabilities to death, although that's part of the controversy in one of these three cases.

However, the Supreme Court has always held the death penalty is legal, and this cruel and unusual punishment argument, they have never brought. They've upheld hanging, electrocution, and firing squads, and lethal injection is not as painful as those deaths.

BANFIELD: The machete is an assured instant death as well. I asked a lawmaker whether a guillotine would be appropriate. He said, I guess, if the states wanted to. What do you mean by our evolving sense of decency? What is that about?

CALLAN: You brought up the guillotine. I was surprised to see France used the guillotine up until the 1980s. That's the last time a guillotine death occurred in France. Pretty much all of western Europe does not permit the death penalty, but we, along with I think 39 other countries, do, and as long as the Supreme Court says it doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment or another constitutional amendment, it's a matter of democratic choice by the individual states.

BANFIELD: It's effectively four justices or five justices who determine what now we've evolved to, because we could also build a coliseum and fill it with lions. What do we determine what we've evolved to?

CALLAN: We could not build a coliseum and fill it with lions because I can assure you that would be unconstitutional, even by the standards of the 1700s. In this country, the Supreme Court has always been the final arbiter as to what the Constitution means.

BANFIELD: So five people will determine what's cruel and unusual --

CALLAN: No, the Supreme Court of the United States will determine it, or we've got two ways to decide this. We can let it be decided democratically, or we can let our judges decide it. You know something, they favor it as well. I don't know what other system we could have.

BANFIELD: How about the system of perfection? Because you don't get a mulligan when you execute someone.

CALLAN: The interesting thing, in these recent cases, in the past, you could argue maybe guilt or innocent. These three cases, there's no question. They didn't even really contest their guilt.

BANFIELD: Did you actually see it?

CALLAN: I know because the --

BANFIELD: That's what I'm going to tell you. Slam dunk cases in the past. I've seen many a slam dunk case in the past where many of us have been astounded to see them overturned.

CALLAN: They all said it was mental disability or something else that caused the killings.

BANFIELD: I told you, it's fireworks when we talk about this.

CALLAN: We need more time.

BANFIELD: You're way smarter at this than I am. It's an uphill battle for me. Paul Callan, thank you for that.

I want to move on as well to a story that's developing now on Capitol Hill. A famous TV doctor, Mehmet Oz is getting an absolute grilling from a U.S. senator at a hearing on, of all things, deceptive weight loss claims.

Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why would you say something is a miracle in a bottle?

DR. MEHMET OZ, TV SHOW HOST: My job, I feel, on the show is to be a cheerleader for the audience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: That was just one of a number of fiery moments for Dr. Oz during the questioning. And you're going to hear a lot more of it during the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: We're continuing our breaking news coverage here on the arrest that's been made in the attacks on the consular compound in Benghazi, Libya, two years ago, the Americans bringing Ahmed Abu Khattalah into custody, apparently en route to the United States, for prosecution, this, of course, in relation to the attack on the compound that killed four Americans, including the United States ambassador.

A couple of things have just happened. Man, this is happening at warp speed. The Feds have unsealed the actual charges, the terrorism- related charges against Mr. Khattalah, and perhaps fascinatingly, he's going to be charged in the U.S. district court in Washington, not in the U.S. Southern District, in New York, where so many of the other terrorism trials have taken place.

But I'm going to go over these charges sort of live as we speak about them with Paul Callan, our CNN justice analyst as well.

I'm looking at this at the same time you are, but I see a lot of conspiracy in here, which is kind of the easy way to get a conviction. But let me read some of them out loud for our audience.

Killing a person in course of an attack on a federal facility involving the use of a firearm and dangerous weapon, and attempting and conspiring to do the same, that's number one.

Number two, providing, attempting, and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists resulting in death, that's another easier one to prove than the actual act itself.

Discharging, brandishing, using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, sounds like almost every day in that part of the world. Your thoughts on those charges? Are they leaving anything out? Is there lots of room for improvement.

CALLAN: My thoughts are, these are the first set of charges that come down. I think these are pretty vague. I think it's interesting that they're focusing on firearm possession in the Middle East of all things. It's kind of a routine thing, you know?

BANFIELD: I only want -- I don't know if we have the picture, but there are so many photographs taken on these guys cell phones, because they're that smart, of them brandishing the weapons and sort of cheering on what's going on with the fiery backdrop, so perhaps that's --

CALLAN: They can make the case by showing those videos and then saying he acted in conspiracy to kill Americans in the embassy.

The second thing, why is it being brought in Washington, D.C., instead of the Southern District, New York City, where a lot of them are?

BANFIELD: Yes, what's that about?

CALLAN: The D.C. court -- federal court handles federal institutions ,and this is an attack on a federal embassy, a federal facility, so it's logical that's the Washington court would be the one that would have jurisdiction over the case.

BANFIELD: I just got handed to me a statement from the attorney general, Eric Holder, with regard to the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattalah. I don't know if I have -- do I have time to read some of the statement from -- all right.

I've got some time. Let me just read this as I'm getting it. Attorney General Eric Holder released the following statement on Tuesday regarding the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattalah for his role in the attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

Quote, "Our nation's memory is long and our reach is far. The arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattalah represents a significant milestone in our efforts to ensure justice is served for the heinous and cowardly attack on our facilities in Benghazi.

"Since that attack which caused the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, we have conducted a thorough investigation across continents to find the perpetrators.

"The arrest of Khattalah proves that the United States government will extend any effort necessary to pursue terrorists who harm our citizens."

And there is more to this statement as well. I direct you to our Web site, CNN.com. We'll have that up, shortly.

We'll also continue our breaking news coverage on this throughout the date. My colleague Wolf Blitzer will have a lot on this in the moments to come.

I know as well that one of those stories I mentioned earlier is of utmost interest to most Americans who watch television. A famous TV doctor, Mehmet Oz is on Capitol Hill, and he's being grilled by U.S. senators because of what they're saying are deceptive weight loss claims.

You're going to hear exactly what happened, why Dr. Oz is saying he's not directly involved, but the grilling is something to hear. We'll have it in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The growing concern over those false and deceptive ads for weight loss products hit fever pitch on Capitol Hill today. And caught in the middle of it all, a celebrity TV host named Dr. Oz. You know him well. Take a listen to part of the exchange between him and one Senator Claire McCaskill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CLAIRE, MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: Dr. Oz, I will have some tough questions for you today about your role, intentional or not, in perpetuating these scams. When you feature a product on your show, it creates what has become known as the "Oz effect," dramatically boosting sales and driving scam artists to pop up overnight, using false and deceptive ads to sell questionable products. While I understand that your message is also focused on basics like healthy eating and exercise, I'm concerned that you are melding medical advice, news and entertainment in a way that harms consumers.

DR. MEHMET OZ, HOST, "THE DR. OZ SHOW": I encourage a nation searching for answers to their health woes. We often address weight loss because, as you all mentioned, it effects about two-thirds of the population. The only message I gave was to eat less and move more, which is the most important thing people need to do. We wouldn't be very effectively tackling this compress (ph) challenge because viewers know these tips and they still struggle.

So we search for tools and crutches, for short-term support so people can jump start their programs. We use the alternative solutions often - commonly used in other countries, other parts of the world, like in the Irabeta (ph) tradition in subcontinents of India, or traditional Chinese medicine. We feature cleanses and new diet programs by promising authors. Now, many of these are controversial, as are the supplements that we researched and profiled. I would rather have a conversation of this material on my stage than in back alleys.

MCCASKILL: I don't get why you need to say this stuff because you know it's not true. So why, when you have this amazing megaphone and this amazing ability to communicate, why would you cheapen your show --

OZ: I actually do personally believe in the items that I talk about on the show. I passionately study them. I recognize that oftentimes they don't have the scientific muster to represent as fact. But, nevertheless, I would give my audience the advice I give my family all the time. And I have given my family these products.

MCCASKILL: In January you called Forskolin, quote, "lightning in a bottle." And "a miracle flower to fight fat." That was just in January. So I really hope - I know you know how much power you have. I know you know that. You are very powerful. And power comes -- with power comes a great deal of responsibility.

And I know you take it seriously and I know you care about your listening audience and your viewing audience. I know you care about America's health. So -- and you are being made an example of today because of the power you have in this space. And we didn't call this hearing to beat up on you. But we did call this hearing to talk about a real crisis in consumer protection. And you can either be part of the police here or you can be part of the problem. And we're just hopeful that you will do a better job at being part of the police.

OZ: Well, I came here because I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. You mentioned FBX, which is basically a fiber. And we know that fiber, when taken correctly, has been a very effective tool for weight loss for the reason that I stated. Your comments about the language I use is well heard. And I appreciate it. I host a daytime television show where I fill a need to bring passion into people's lives about what they can do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, if it looked like Senator McCaskill was grilling Dr. Oz almost like a courtroom scenario, it's because she used to be a prosecutor in Missouri. So perhaps it was just natch (ph). Rene Marsh joins me from Washington.

So, Rene, look, I kind of get the idea here that the Federal Trade Commission is on the warpath. They want to stop all this deceptive advertising. But is Dr. Oz kind of like the collateral damage in all of this?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, you heard him there say he was really on the deep end here. Saying, look, I could just make one simple reference to a product and all of a sudden it turns into an ad. But how big is this problem, aside from Dr. Oz? Well, the FTC, they say that it's a pretty significant problem. They say more consumers were victims of fraudulent weight loss products than any other fraud in 2011. And that is based on a survey that they gave to consumers.

In 2010 alone, Ashleigh, the commission collected nearly $107 million in consumer restitution for these deceptive weight loss claims. But, you know, even as this agency is trying to crack down on the problem, it still persists. Why? Simply because a third of Americans are obese. There's lots of money to be made and fraudsters are looking for ways to take advantage of it.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: I've bought a bunch of it myself, Rene, so I was interested to hear what went on, on Capitol Hill today. You, my friend, would know nothing about hat.

Rene Marsh live for us on Capitol Hill. Thank you for that.

So, ever been to a museum and just been mesmerized by a painting, especially like a Picasso? Imagine if you were actually looking at two paintings and you didn't even know it because, guess what, that's exactly what's going on with this one. See if you can spot the second painting behind the first. We'll explain right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BANFIELD: It's a perfect example that you just never know what's lurking beneath the surface. And even if you squint at this painting, you are still not going to see it because it takes a high-powered gizmo to spot the masterpiece behind the masterpiece. There's a hidden painting, y'all, beneath one of Pablo Picasso's first works of art. This is the Blue Room. He created it back in 1901, real early in his career, while he was working in Paris, starving artist and the whole bit.

In 1954, a conservator said, I don't think so, something's a bit off. The brushstrokes just aren't working for me. But it was going to take decades before there would be new technology that could pave the way for the detective work to really kick in. And for the first time, the Phillips Collection in Washington, D.C., is revealing what was hiding beneath the painting. It's a man wearing a bow tie, his bearded face resting on his hand, but no one knows who the man is. I want to bring in Susan Frank. She's the associate curator of research for the Phillips Collection.

Susan, this is just awesome. Beyond all awesomeness. How on earth did they actually find the hidden painting?

SUSAN FRANK, ASSOC. CURATOR OF RESEARCH, PHILLIPS COLLECTION: Well, this is such an interesting part of any curator's opportunity at a museum is to work with conservators and scientists to go and learn more about the objects in the collection. And knowing that there seemed to be this brush strokes that did not match the composition that we see on top, and scientific analysis and the mid-'90s that the National Gallery who collegiately worked with us to take x-rays of the painting.

BANFIELD: Is that what it is, the gizmo is actually just kind of, you know, pro forma (ph) x-ray or is it something more special than that?

FRANK: You can do a pro forma x-rays, which was done back in the mid to late '90s. And then about six years ago, technology had improved so that digital infrared camera revealed a much more complete image of this unknown man that is the painting that precedes the Blue Room that we have all known for so many years.

BANFIELD: So one of the things, Susan, I wanted to ask you is that, I always wonder if artists back then did this to be sneaky or did this because they were broke and they didn't have enough canvases, so they would work on something and then they'd say, you know, I'm going to start all over and just use a canvas I have?

FRANK: Well, it's certainly, with Picasso, it was a period in his life when he was broke and he needed to repurchase canvases. Whether this was a portrait of an individual he thought he might be able to sell it or whether it was just something he did that was an individual who had captured his imagination.

BANFIELD: Amazing.

FRANK: But Picasso is an artist who worked so quickly and had so many ideas that -- BANFIELD: I love it.

FRANK: Reusing these canvases to capture a current idea was like part of his process.

BANFIELD: Susan, thank you so much. It's great to talk to you. Susan Frank joining us live on this. I can't wait to see that in person.