Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Brooklyn Bridge Mystery; Who's to Blame for Malaysian Plane Disaster?; FAA Bans Flights to Tel Aviv

Aired July 22, 2014 - 22:00   ET

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

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Alisyn Camerota.

Great to see you, Don.

LEMON: Good to be with you.

Here in New York, police have a mystery on their hands. Who replaced the American flags on the Brooklyn Bridge with two white flags and why?

CAMEROTA: The one thing we know, security at one of America's most famous landmarks is not what it should be.

Meanwhile, it's been five days since Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot out of the sky, killing everybody on board, and showering wreckage and bodies over a field in Eastern Ukraine. Are we any closer to knowing exactly what happened and who was to blame?

LEMON: And of course we want to know what you think. Make sure you tweet us using #AskCNNTONIGHT. We have a team of experts standing by to answer your questions.

CAMEROTA: And with no sign of a cease-fire in Gaza, the FAA bans U.S. flights to Tel Aviv, while former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg flies there tonight on El-Al Airlines to demonstrate that he thinks it's safe. Is the crash of Flight 17 a game changer in how the U.S. treats travel over war zones?

LEMON: Plus, here at home, President Barack Obama takes a West Coast fund-raising trip, which has his critics crying foul. Is this the right time for business as usual? We will get into all of that tonight -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, Don, so let's begin with the mystery right here in the middle of New York City.

The Brooklyn Bridge is one of the busiest spots in one of the biggest cities in the world. Every day, 125,000 motor vehicles, 4,000 pedestrians, and 2,600 cyclists cross that bridge. Yet somehow none of them noticed someone replacing the American flags that fly over the bridge with white flags.

CNN's Poppy Harlow joins us tonight.

This is eerie, Poppy. What do we know?

POPPY HARLOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it certainly is, Alisyn.

As you know, this is an iconic landmark, not only in this country, worldwide. This is a place where you would think you have the top security. Bottom line, there was a security lapse. Around 3:30 in the morning, middle of the night last night, someone or a group of people replaced the iconic American flags with those white flags.

NYPD didn't find out about it they tell us until 5:30 this morning when they were alerted by construction workers. We know a few things. We know that there is not cameras apparently that are NYPD- operated, at least on this angle of the bridge. That has been troubling to some. What we also know is they were all hands on deck. Counterterrorism was there, their intel division, their emergency service division.

I want to play you a little bit of what police said this afternoon. This is not connected to terrorism, but it has a lot of people worried about who could scale this bridge, because this is a huge feat to be able to do this without apparently anyone noticing. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN MILLER, NYPD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER: At this time, it appears it has no particular nexus to terrorism or even politics. This may be somebody's art project or it may be an attempt at making some kind of statement. But at this point it's not clear what that statement is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right. So a local city council member here in New York City telling me how concerned he was about it. He saw it on his way to work, tweeted about it, obviously then called NYPD, saying, look, it's flags this time. What could it be next time?

That does beg the question. An NYPD detective whom I know well told me, look, it does seem like there was a security lapse. They're saying there is a standard level of security at the bridge. Apparently, that security failed. Perhaps more security is needed.

There were also, interestingly, Alisyn, able to -- we might have the photos -- able to cover up the lights that shine from the top of the bridge on to the flag. They covered them with aluminum foil and we're told zip-ties so that no one could see what was going on. No one is claiming responsibility. Police are scouring social media and certainly a lot of claims by witnesses and people claiming to have done this to try to figure out exactly how this happened.

CAMEROTA: So mysterious. Poppy Harlow, thanks for explaining it to us.

How could there not be surveillance camera? I thought they were everywhere in New York.

LEMON: And I felt it interesting that the police commissioner said, considering what Poppy said about the lights, if he believes that there must be some operational knowledge of the bridge. So they're looking into that.

CAMEROTA: Scary.

LEMON: So, again, a mystery, yes, a mystery.

We want to turn now to the very latest on Malaysia Flight 17. The remains of crash victims arrived in Kharkiv, Ukraine, today.

And CNN's Nick Paton Walsh live with the very latest on that.

You were there in Kharkiv when the train carrying those bodies and the black boxes arrived, Nick. Describe to what you call the ghostly, silent arrival of this train.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was a sight that many people around the world have been waiting to see for days, really.

Finally this train, having left separatist-held territories, moving into the areas controlled by the Ukrainian government, came to a railway station here in Kharkiv next to a closed wall compound into which it was very quickly taken. Ukrainian police there, even a couple of separatist militants we saw as well. But inside that compound, the really complex work beginning, Don.

They're having to take the bodies off the train slowly. This team of international experts, the majority of them here Dutch, and they have to, as they say, delicately repackage them, put them in coffins. The first 50 now out of the five refrigerated wagons there. The first one and the second one having been opened so far. The first 50 bodies will be leaving tomorrow at 11:00 in the morning after a brief farewell ceremony here, flying to Amsterdam, where the task of identification and tests can actually begin -- Don.

CAMEROTA: Nick, is there still a discrepancy as to how many bodies were on that train?

WALSH: That is a question that is going to take quite some time to answer, the reason being that the Ukrainian officials a couple of days ago and the separatists, and today a Malaysian security official who traveled on the train with it all say about 282 bodies were on board. That's bodies that were more or less intact, plus 87 body parts.

Now, that is not something, though, that the Dutch investigators here leading the international effort really agree with at all. They believe according to a reliable source who saw the bodies get put on to the train there are about 200 on board. That number could rise as they continue to open all five refrigerated wagons.

But they are concerned that it may not be all of the 298 passengers who were on board MH17. And that leads one very gruesome and troubling conclusion, that there could still be human remains out there in the crash site, an enormous area which may be hard to access. And that's just going increase the wait, the agony for those relatives waiting simply to bury their loved ones, to get some kind of closure from this tragedy.

LEMON: Well said. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you. Appreciate your reporting -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, let's go to Israel now, where the showdown with Gaza is having worldwide repercussions.

The FAA banning U.S. airlines from flying to or from Ben Gurion Airport. And European officials issuing a warning. This comes after rocket fired from Gaza struck about a mile from Ben Gurion's runways.

Tonight, Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor, is heading to that airport on an El-Al flight in protest of that FAA ban.

CNN's Martin Savidge is live for us in Jerusalem with more.

Martin, what has the reaction there been to the closing of U.S. flights at Ben Gurion?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, I think it's pretty simple to say that they are angry, especially the Israeli government here, because a number of reasons.

First and foremost is just the fact that is of course a country connected to the outside world. And it needs those flights for business and for commerce. And now to have that all shut off as a result is a tremendous economic blow. Israel is a country that is hugely dominant in technology, and even though the tourism industry already had been shut down as a result of the fact that this conflict, business was still moving forward, and you need airplanes to arrive and to depart for that.

El-Al, as you point out, is continuing to fly. That is the Israeli national airline. It has always flown regardless of what has been going on within or without of Israel. But the fact that the U.S. carriers, especially major airlines like Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, have not said when they plan to restore their flights, they have said it's indefinite, that is troubling to the Israeli government, the prime minister, the transportation minister.

They both appeal to the U.S. to say, look, you should restore the flights. It is safe at Ben Gurion. We should point out that Hamas has been trying to hit that airport for some time. And they stated it publicly. That was their intent. They issued a warning to airlines. So this is exactly the sort of thing the government feared would happen. It's become a real P.R. nightmare.

CAMEROTA: Yes, it sure sounds like it. Also, we know, of course, that Secretary Kerry is in Egypt, trying to broker some sort of cease-fire. Do we know what reaction he is having, or if this is speeding up any cease-fire talks? SAVIDGE: Well, of course, you know, it has a negative impact on

the cease-fire because it's focusing the attention now away from sort of trying to stop the gunfire to let's stop the airplanes. And that is not what anyone wants to see. Focusing on the cease-fire is still vitally important.

Israel maintains that, of course, if the cease-fire is agreed to, it will adhere to it. But it is still extremely skeptical that Hamas would do that. They say that cease-fires have been reached before and broken before by Hamas.

So even though the rest of the world feels that maybe they are very close to some kind of solution, those that are actually here on the ground are not seeing that at all -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, Martin Savidge, thanks so much for that update. We will check back in with you later in the show.

Meanwhile, an Israeli official says Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Secretary of State John Kerry that there is no reason to suspend these flights to Israel.

Meanwhile, as we said, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg says he is flying to Tel Aviv tonight on El-Al to demonstrate that it is safe.

So, joining us now is Paul Hirschson. He is the spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Mr. Hirschson, thanks so much for being here.

The reason the FAA shut down U.S. flights to Ben Gurion is because a rocket strike landed a mile away from the airport. How can you say it's safe for airlines to land there?

PAUL HIRSCHSON, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTRY: Hi. Thank you for having me.

I think that what we have is just a simple misunderstanding of the defense regime that exists here in Israel. You have heard a lot about the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. The Iron Dome is calibrated to ignore missiles that are headed for open areas. The airport is not included in that.

So the fact that a missile lands in the area of the airport is simply because we have decided consciously to avoid it. It's 100 percent safe to come into Israel, to leave Israel. We're doing that all the time. And as you mentioned, Michael Bloomberg is on his way.

CAMEROTA: OK. So, you're saying that the act that there was a missile that landed a mile away from the airport, that's OK and that passengers on flights shouldn't be concerned about that distance?

HIRSCHSON: Look, I'm not an expert in air aviation and navigation. But I can tell you that the Iron Dome system, the anti-missile

system, is calibrated to target certain missiles and to ignore certain missiles. We're not going to ignore any missiles that are headed for an area, for a place that we don't want them to land.

CAMEROTA: Well, listen, the Israeli Defense Forces put out a press release today, and I will just read to you what it says. They say, today, 87 rockets were fired at Israel; 18 of them only were intercepted; 67 of them, they say, hit Israel.

Isn't it just prudent today, it's only a 24-hour ban, today, given what is going on the ground there, and that 67 missiles hit Israel, to stop flights?

HIRSCHSON: Well, that's not a decision for me to make. That's a decision for the Americans to make or airlines around the world to make.

But the numbers that you present are correct. But that's only because those 67 were headed for open areas, for uninhabited areas. And so the Iron Dome system is calibrated to ignore them. It's not because they got through the defense mechanism. It's because there is a conscious decision taken not to take them down.

CAMEROTA: Mr. Hirschson, while we have you, as you know, Secretary Kerry is in Egypt working, we're told, on a cease-fire. Do you know what the latest is?

HIRSCHSON: Well, we have got two things going in parallel at the moment.

There is a lot of conversation under way about a cease-fire, as you mention. Secretary Kerry is in Cairo. Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, is here in Israel. And there are a lot of conversations going. In parallel to this, the Israeli military continues to pursue and to deplete and degrade Hamas' military capabilities, not least because we're seeing, despite misunderstandings, decisions made about the airlines around the world flying into Israel.

And we're chopping off their military abilities, both in terms of the rockets and in terms of this underground network of terror tunnels that has surfaced in the last few days. The question is whether we can find a way to merge these two parts and to reach a diplomatic solution, as opposed to a military solution. But, in either event, we are committed to reaching a solution to this problem.

CAMEROTA: Excellent. Good to hear. Paul Hirschson live for us from Tel Aviv, thank you.

LEMON: When we come right back, Flight 17 shot down over Ukraine. U.S. flights banned from Ben Gurion Airport. Are we safe in our skies? We're going to ask the experts, and we're answering your questions. Make sure you tweet us tonight using #AskCNNTONIGHT.

CAMEROTA: Plus, President Obama on a West Coast fund-raising tour. His critics say, is this any time for moneymaking?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Welcome back.

Flight 17 is shot down, as you know, with no warning over a war zone in Ukraine. The FAA bans U.S. flights to Ben Gurion in Israel after a rocket fire from Gaza strikes about a mile away from the runways. Suddenly, it seems passengers have a lot more to worry about than security on the plane than they used to. So are we safe in the skies?

Joining us now to talk about it is CNN's aviation correspondent, Richard Quest.

LEMON: That's a lot to answer. Are we safe in the skies?

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: Well, it feels like things are more dangerous in international travel than they were a week ago.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: I think that there is more uncertainty. I wouldn't say they're more dangerous. I would say there is more uncertainty in the world than a week ago, because what we discovered in the last week is that the existing rules for determining the safety of certain routes may have to be rethought.

And what that means is airlines are in this very difficult decision of having to make a decision, when really it's the regulators and the governments. I will give you a good example. Let's take tonight with Ben Gurion and Tel Aviv.

So Delta, United, American, or U.S., basically say they're not flying there, before the U.S. -- before the FAA came in. They're three of the largest airlines in the world. And now look who else is going -- not going, Lufthansa Group, which is Swiss, and German wings, and Air Canada, Air France.

When you get those airlines saying, we're not going, but you get your last guest saying it's perfectly safe because of Iron Dome, the traveling public is entitled to say, what the is real truth of the subject? And the airlines are entitled to say the system of determining that isn't working.

LEMON: But it appears the airline, the at least U.S. carriers, have made that decision for Americans, most of them, that they don't believe it's safe to fly there.

QUEST: Yes. But that's a slight anomaly, because at the end of the day, if you still wanted to get to Tel Aviv...

LEMON: You can go El-Al?

QUEST: No, no, no, not only that. You could still book the codeshare. LEMON: Right.

QUEST: All right.

QUEST: You could book the codeshare to Europe on Delta or United and then transfer to one of their codeshare partners, maybe not after tomorrow, when IATA closes it's for Europeans as well.

It's a real mess. And what I'm hearing from aviation experts, what I'm hearing from airline CEOs, IATA, they want clarity. They want a conference to sort it out.

CAMEROTA: But who will sort it out? You heard what our last guest said, that, OK, it was a mile away from the airport. No big deal. Had it been any closer, we should would have shot it down. Who is going to figure out whether or not it's safe?

QUEST: At the moment, the rules say the government is involved. ICAO rules say it's the government that has to put out the NOTAM, notice to airmen. That's what we saw with the U.S. today.

That's going have to change. There is going to have to be a rethink of that principle, because we cannot have a situation where Malaysia 4 flies over Syria, where all the Gulf carriers are going up and down Iraq, where you have some going into Tel Aviv and others not going into Tel Aviv. It is a dog's breakfast.

LEMON: All right, hold that thought, because I want to bring some people in here, Richard Quest.

I want to bring in now Rafi Ron. He's a former director of security for Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, and also attorney Andrew Hall.

Thanks to both of you.

Since we're talking about Ben Gurion, Rafi, I want to start with you. Israel is famous for having high security standards, particularly when it comes to aviation. Why are Israelis pushing back on this ban and insisting that there aren't any safety concerns here?

RAFI RON, CEO, NEW AGE SECURITY SOLUTIONS: Well, because I think that the decision to stop flying to Israel was not a risk-based decision, because, first of all, this situation already exists for the last day, a couple of weeks.

Hamas have been trying to target Ben Gurion Airport unsuccessfully. And the reason for that is that they simply don't have the capability to hit Ben Gurion Airport, for two reasons. One is that their rockets are not guided and are not specific enough to be able to target Ben Gurion. They can hardly target a city the size of Tel Aviv. And those that are for the -- that actually end up on course to the target are actually intercepted by the Iron Dome.

LEMON: Yes, but, Rafi, when you're talking about a missile and an airport and airplane, a mile away is really not that far. It's not that far. So you can understand the concern.

RON: No. I think that they -- we are all impressed by the events in Ukraine and see the volume of the tragedy there.

And I already heard just a couple of minutes ago the people are binding the two situations together, trying to draw a common conclusion. And that is I think part of the problem, that we are trying to make ends meet when they come.

The situation in Ukraine is that people with the intentions to take down aircraft had a very sophisticated anti-aircraft missile, and were able to use it, while, in Israel, we have unsophisticated weapon that is unable to hit the right target.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: But you're asking people to take your word for it. I mean, quite frankly, if I were to fly or be on an airplane, I probably wouldn't fly into that area, regardless of what Israel said, even with Iron Dome.

Richard Quest, you completely disagree with that, right?

QUEST: I disagree with it, in the sense that you -- Rafi says you can't bring MH17 and this together.

I think, absolutely, you can. The risks, sir, may be different, and the risk assessment may be different. But it's putting the traveling public and the airlines in exactly the same position.

LEMON: I want to get Andrew in here, because, Andrew, you're an attorney. Is this a prudent response from airlines that are probably, for good reasons, concerned about flying into war zones right now?

ANDREW HALL, ATTORNEY: Well, it's a prudent response.

But the real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is, what is -- what is going on? What we're really talking about here are acts of terrorism. In point of fact, they are acts of state-sponsored terrorism, because, in every instance, all of these acts are sponsored by a larger state that provides munitions and ability to conduct this thing.

So if you're looking at the bigger picture, what we have is we have state actors that are subsidizing terrorism that are causing the loss of life. And by terminating flights to various airports, what is happening is the state sponsors are achieving what they want, which is a political agenda through the loss of life.

That's unacceptable. That's a violation of international law. And it needs to be enforced as such.

LEMON: Who exactly do you sue in this case?

HALL: In which one, in Israel or in...

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: MH17. What do you sue in the case for the families for the flight going down?

HALL: Well, I believe that is essentially the use of Soviet- supplied missiles, Russian-supplied missiles by a separatist group that is being propped up by Russia in order to cleave off the Ukraine.

And that's, in my judgment, exactly what is going on. And we seem to ignore the major issue, which is an airplane was shot down, 300 lives were lost, and they were done in order to support a political agenda, which is a violation of international law. It is an act of state-sponsored terrorism. It is wrong. It has to stop.

LEMON: All right, thank you very much, Rafi Ron, Andrew Hall. Appreciate that -- Alisyn.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: And, Don, we will be exploring whether or not it is terrorism coming up in a segment. So stick around for that.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence makes crucial assessments about the movement of Russian military equipment into Ukraine and the shooting down of Flight 17. That's next, along with this question: Is Putin somehow getting a bad rap? You heard me.

The experts have some thoughts on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Welcome back, everyone.

U.S. intelligence officials say that Russia is still moving weapons and equipment into Ukraine, including as many as 20 vehicles today. Want you to take a look at satellite photos of Russian training facilities in Rostov inside of Russia, near the border with Ukraine.

The left photo was shot in June and shows an empty facility. But the right photo, the same area, was shot yesterday. You can see what U.S. intel calls a buildup of vehicles and weapons. These officials also believe Ukrainian rebels received training in how to use surface- to-air missiles at this facility.

CAMEROTA: And at an intelligence briefing today, U.S. officials said they determined that pro-Russian rebels shot down Flight 17. But they do not know exactly who fired the missile, who gave the order, or if Russian military personnel were on the scene. Still, many officials and media outlets have put the blame squarely on Vladimir Putin.

So let's analyze the evidence so far with our experts. Jonathan Sanders is an associate professor at Stony Brook University School of Journalism, and Bob Baer is CNN national security analyst and former CIA officer. Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here. Let's talk about the

evidence so far that has allowed the U.S. to build this case against Putin.

U.S. officials say they are certain that this SA-2 missile was provided by Russia. Yet, Bob, let me start with you. We also know that Ukraine has had a number of these for many years, and, in fact, Ukrainians have been trained on them. So why are we so certain that it was Putin who provided this one?

BOB BAER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I think the best evidence is the satellite photography. When you look at this stuff, you can actually track each tail, each launcher. You can figure out where it started in Russia, how it moved across the border, where it was positioned in the Ukraine.

They've also got AWACS coverage of this area, and they've got satellite coverage pretty much around the clock. They could see the launch. And once you string all this evidence together, it's clear. And from what I'm hearing it's absolutely 90 percent certain that this missile system came from Russia and was fired from Eastern Ukraine. No doubt from dissonance.

I don't think we're ever going to find out who actually pulled the trigger, because the crew has probably fled to Russia now, and Putin is not about to let -- turn them over to any international body.

CAMEROTA: Jonathan, let's talk about another piece of evidence that U.S. officials say they have relied upon, and that's these intercepted communications of, allegedly, these pro-Russian rebels.

We've had some of our CNN experts on who say that some of this sounds a little too convenient to them. It sounds as though it's possibly manufactured. Let's listen in and see what you think.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

GRAPHIC: They must be under our control. Please, do this task. OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

GRAPHIC: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

GRAPHIC: I have a request for you. It is not my request. Our friends from high above are very much interested in the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the "black bones." I mean people from Moscow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

GRAPHIC: Please, cooperate with the Ministry of Emergency. All that you find must not come into somebody else's hands. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: I don't know if -- I don't know if you could read -- I don't know if you could read those.

JONATHAN SANDERS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, STONY BROOK SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: Yes. I don't need to read them. I can hear the Russian. And, you know, it could be faked, but...

CAMEROTA: Listen, hold on, hold on, Jon. Let me just read to people, in case they couldn't read their screen. Here's what that intercept says.

"We have a request for the black boxes from people very high above in high places. I mean people from Moscow. You must not -- these must not come into someone else's hands."

I mean, it sounds a little bit like a bad B-movie. Are we sure that everything the Ukrainians are feeding us is accurate?

SANDERS: No, of course not. And we wouldn't expect it. And there are things that are being faked. And there is a 10 percent chance that this is something we don't know about.

But we can take Putin's very words and look at them. He may be a propagandist. He may be a liar. He may be a cold-blooded reptilian Machiavellianist. But still, in propaganda there is truth.

He said just the other day that the fact that the Ukrainians were acting, sending troops into Eastern Ukraine was what really caused this. Now that's probably true.

What we know about Putin is he's an extremely loyal guy. He set up some rebels to ferment trouble there, and there were people who wanted to do it on their own.

And suddenly, the Ukrainian state air force and tanks come rolling in. They're bombing cities in the eastern part of Ukraine. And they're about to roll his guys. So he says, "Wait a minute. We're going to get back at this."

And kind of like when the Rolling Stones hired Hell's Angels to do security at Altamont, things got out of control. He's really slammed the car door on his own hands and his own feet. He didn't want this shoot-down. But did he order it? No.

CAMEROTA: OK, so I mean, it sounds like you think that in some ways Putin is getting a bad rap here.

SANDERS: Oh, I don't think he's getting a bad rap, because Putin is not a good guy. But he's doing this for what he believes is his own country's position and good will.

And Putin has decided a couple of years ago to make himself more popular after the unrest at home, after the middle classes, the Yummies, the young upwardly mobile Muscovites, went on demonstrations against him by playing against the big evil monster, the United States. By stirring up nationalism. And it's worked.

CAMEROTA: Yes, it has worked.

SANDERS: It's terribly effective.

CAMEROTA: And the public opinion polls back at home show that something that 80 percent support what Putin has done.

But Bob, I want to ask you about a couple of things that Putin has done in the past, say, 48 hours.

The rebels handed over the black boxes when they found them. The U.S. officials didn't know that they were going do that. After woefully, a long time, they have begun to send the bodies back home. And he is allowing international investigators into -- or I should say the rebels are allowing international investigators into the crime scene.

So what does that tell you? Does that mean that Putin is backing off a little bit?

BAER: He's backing off. But he's not exactly contrite. He should have done this from day one. The quickest way in was coming through Russia international investigators. He's not provided any intelligence, and he's not going to.

I used to work with Russian intelligence for years, and they never gave us anything. And they're not going to give us something like this, which is -- which is a crime.

He is going to drag his feet as long as he can until we all go off the air and stop talking about it, because right now the Europeans are not lifting a finger against Russia, namely going after the energy sector. So he hasn't really paid a price.

And the fact that the fighting is continuing and he's send more weapons into the eastern Ukraine, he's going to continue as is and pay, I don't think in the end, very much for this.

CAMEROTA: Bob Baer, Jonathan Sanders, thanks so much for the information tonight, coming in. Great to talk to you.

LEMON: We're going to continue on and talk more about the tensions that are rising in Russia between the west; and the death toll is rising in the violence between Israel and Hamas. So where is President Obama? He's out fundraising. Is that a good idea? We're going to debate that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Turmoil, unrest around the globe, from Israeli boots on the ground in Gaza to the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Yet President Barack Obama is going on his business as usual, maintaining his fundraising schedule, where he stands to bring in millions.

Joining us now is senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta. Jim, a lot of concerns about the optics here. With everything

that is going on around the world, the president will, you know, spend the next three days fundraising on the West Coast. What gives here?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Don. And by the way, he's already wrapped up his fundraisers in Seattle tonight. Next, he's off to court donors in San Francisco and then Los Angeles.

And Don, we tallied it up, and by the end of this week, the president will have been to 11 fundraisers this month. That's a pace of nearly one every other day. And that's while all these crises have been flaring up from the border emergency a couple of weeks ago. That's still going on. The plane crash in Ukraine and the violence in Gaza.

The White House says the president is still receiving updates from his national security team and making phone calls with world leaders. Earlier tonight, for example, he spoke with the Dutch prime minister about the plane crash in Ukraine.

But the White House is sensitive to how all of this is perceived. That is why aides to the president pulled a plug on an appearance the White House was exploring to have the president do on "The Jimmy Kimmel Show." White House press secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged to me in the press briefing earlier today that kind of booking would nod send the right message. And here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We ultimately elected not to -- to have the president do that interview over the course of this trip. And that is, at least in part, related to the challenges of doing a comedy show in the midst of some of these other more serious matters that the president is dealing with in the international scenes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: And Earnest hinted a few times today, Don, that the president may cut short this fundraising trip and head back to Washington if events warrant.

But you used that word "optics." It's one of those words people use here in Washington that the rest of the country don't like very much. But the White House is certainly minding the optics tonight, Don.

LEMON: All right. Thank you very much, Jim Acosta. Appreciate that.

And the interesting thing, Alisyn is that Democrats probably won't complain because they need the money. He's raising money for the party. He's the leader of the Democratic Party.

CAMEROTA: Right. As you know, of course, President Obama's critics say this is no time for fundraising, given all that's going on in the world. Are they right? Let's debate it. Joining is Marc Lamont Hill, CNN political commentator; Elise Viebeck, staff writer for "The Hill," and Kevin Madden, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist. Great to have all you have with us.

KEVIN MADDEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Great to be with you.

CAMEROTA: OK. Marc, let me start with you. A lot's going on in the world. Is tonight the right time for a fundraising dinner?

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's not the perfect time for a fundraising dinner. But I think we have to get past the notion that the president or anyone else can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

He was on Air Force One today talking to the Netherlands prime minister, Mark Rutte. He made to it the Ukrainian embassy today. He was able to talk and discuss and get security briefings all around the world wherever he is. I think it's possible for the president to do both.

And, you know, Thursday was a bad day for the president. Bad optics attached to that, continuing his trek in the midst of a disaster and a crisis. But since then he's had a tough message for leaders. He's kept his agenda moving. And he has made this money.

LEMON: Marc, Marc, Marc, should he be doing this? Because the reason I ask this is you remember the golf shot of President Bush, "Now watch this drive." He got so much guff for that.

HILL: As a matter of political strategy, it's awful. But as a practical matter, I don't think it's undermining diplomacy in Ukraine. And I don't think it's intensifying the crisis in Gaza. I don't think it's making matters worse at the border. If we're talking about real- life outcomes, I don't think it matters. But yes, it looks bad for politics.

CAMEROTA: Elise, why is Jimmy Kimmel bad but $25,000 dinner in Seattle good?

ELISE VIEBECK, "THE HILL": That's true. I mean, the Jimmy Kimmel appearance would have shown the president probably making light of certain current events, and certainly not the tragedies that we've seen in recent days. But it would have shown the president being jovial with Mr. Kimmel.

And the White House clearly thought -- and I congratulate Josh Earnest, actually, for being as honest as he was with reporters and saying, "Listen, we realized that it wasn't the right tone to be striking." They know that the president needs to be determining and helping to shape the national mood. It wasn't the right move for the White House.

Now, fundraising is a political routine. And anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to score political points. All of these critics who say that, you know, fundraising should cease in times of certain crises, you know, they're just not living in reality. All the Republicans are fundraising all the time, as well.

CAMEROTA: OK, OK. So Kevin, as long as the president is not laughing tonight, then it's OK.

MADDEN: No. Look, I agree with Marc. It's a mistake. You know, I think the president has to be very clear about what his priorities are. And I think that's one of the things that's very unique about the presidency, is that the optics really do matter. Not only does it matter to our enemies, but it also matters to our allies on where our priorities lie.

So I do understand, and Elise is right there. There is this -- this understanding that, while the president is also a campaigner in chief, that he is the titular head of the party and fundraising is a part of his role. He is the commander in chief.

And what -- what's most important now, and I think at the heart of this criticism is that the president's role as campaigner in chief has seemed to supersede right now or replace his role as commander in chief. And, you know, he has three fundraisers, but he doesn't have...

LEMON: I got your point. I got your point.

MADDEN: ... folks up on Capitol Hill.

LEMON: I got your point.

MADDEN: The biggest issues that they care about. I just wanted to finish my point.

LEMON: I got your point. I got your point, I got your point, Kevin. But listen. Here's the thing. A mistake to what end? The president is not running again. The Democrats certainly need the money. And if it's all about optics, you know, the Obama administration may go, "Listen, people are going to criticize us no matter what. We may as well get out there and make some dough for the..."

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: That's exactly right.

MADDEN: I think the White House -- I think the White House has calculated that. What's most important for them in the 2014 midterms is that they have the money to run against Republicans, who are also going to be well-funded.

But I tell you, the one thing that really drives a lot of midterm sentiments is the president's approval rating. And the reason that the president's approval rating is hurt right now is because so many Americans feel that he's disengaged or he's incompetent on some -- handling some of the big challenges facing the country right now. So that midterm approval rating might not be enough money there to fix it. CAMEROTA: Elise, very quickly, is there anyone else who could

have stepped in for the president? Perhaps the first lady? Could he have sent a surrogate and stayed back at the White House?

VIEBECK: It's possible he could have, but he's still the strongest fundraiser in the party. And he knows it costs a lot of money to retain the Senate for Democrats. So that's what he's doing tonight.

LEMON: I think it's very interesting we get caught up in this stuff at the moment. What was Herbert Hoover's approval rating? Nobody cares. It doesn't really matter. Yes.

All right. Everybody, please stick around with us. When we come right back, there is no doubt the downing of Flight 17 is tragic, but is it terrorism? We're going to take a look into that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: All right. Welcome back.

The tragedy of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some people are calling it an accident in the confusion of a war zone. Others say it is terrorism. We're back with Marc Lamont Hill, Elise Viebeck and Kevin Madden.

Marc, the president has called this a global tragedy, but he hasn't referred to it as terrorism. Three hundred innocent civilians shot out of the sky. Is it terrorism?

HILL: I would argue that it's terrorism, that it's -- and that Russia sponsored terrorism. The defense secretary -- defense minister in the UK, Michael Fallon, today declared that Russia was sponsoring terrorism. I think that it's important to make that declaration.

But it's a fuzzy declaration. I mean, terrorism means very different things to very different nation states. For example, I mean, Vladimir Putin himself would say this isn't terrorism at the same time that he would agree with Assad and Syria that anybody who opposes the Syrian government is a terrorist. So I think one man's terrorist is another man's rebel. We have to be very careful about that.

But the bigger point here is not whether we label people terrorists, which is just about bringing international condemnation. What's more important is the sanctions. Not calling someone a terrorist, but treating someone like a terrorist.

CAMEROTA: Kevin, your response? Do you think that the president should be calling this an act of terrorism?

MADDEN: Well, look. It's tough. I think there are a lot of experts that are going to have to take a look at that. I would defer to those experts.

I think one of the important distinctions and the reason that folks are being very careful about it is because that designation would affect how State Department and the Defense Department makes decisions that are based on existing -- existing American policies. So it's going to be an important question going forward.

CAMEROTA: Elise, we have here the FBI's official definition of terrorism. We can look at it to see if this fits. It says it's a "violent or dangerous act to human life that violates federal and state law.: OK, check; that fits. "It intimidates a civilian populace or influences policy of government." OK. Seems to fit there. And "occurs outside territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." We have obviously paraphrased some of that. But it seems as though, at least by our domestic definition, it is terrorism.

What do you think about how the president has handled the verbiage thus far?

VIEBECK: I actually wouldn't call it terrorism myself, because I almost think that gives these Russian-backed rebels too much credit. It doesn't seem like they actually preplanned this attack as a way to intimidate people around the world. It seemed like they were drunk and rowdy and reckless and dangerous, and they happened to do it as an accident, which is what U.S. intelligence has shown, and that's what the White House said today.

It's not to downgrade exactly what happened here, which is a terrible tragedy, as Obama has said. But calling it an act of terrorism, I think, confuses the definition a little bit.

CAMEROTA: Marc, that's a good point. If it's an accident, is it terrorism?

HILL: I think it absolutely is. The definition of terrorism has become more robust in the last two or three decades and, certainly, since 9/11.

But the idea of calling it terrorism or not terrorism isn't about creating a new designation for what happened. It's really an attempt to criticize the president for not being tough enough. It becomes another sort of right-wing meme that says, "Oh, he won't even call them terrorists." And it takes us back to a whole bunch of other stuff from Benghazi back to -- you know, and moving backwards. That's the danger of this.

For me, again, it's not about what we label these men and women who did this. It's about how we treat them. We need to respond, again, through international sanctions. That's far more important than the actual label "terrorist."

And let me just say one more thing really quickly. The FBI's definition of terrorism, a whole lot of things would satisfy the condition for terrorism, including U.S. drone attacks abroad. So if we're really going to start throwing that terrorism label around, we have to be really willing for it to boomerang back.

CAMEROTA: All right. Great discussion, guys. Thanks so much for weighing in. Elise, Kevin, Marc, great to see you. MADDEN: Great to be with you.

LEMON: When we come right back, we have some developing news to tell you about. It involves the mayor of New York City and also former President Bill Clinton, when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: "CNN TONIGHT Tomorrow," the stories that you will be talking about tomorrow.

Outrage in New York City where a funeral will be held tomorrow for the man who died in police custody after allegedly being put in a chokehold by an officer. The arrest of Eric Garner was caught on video, which has gone viral now.

CAMEROTA: And New York City's police commissioner today ordered what he called a top to bottom review of the department's training procedures, specifically in the use of force. Bill Bratton said also he revealed that the FBI is monitoring this incident, and he anticipates the Justice Department may open its own civil rights investigation. So we will have a full report ahead in our next hour.