Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Pentagon Briefing on Threat of ISIS; Eyewitness to Michael Brown's Death Previously Lied to Police

Aired August 22, 2014 - 12:30   ET

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


KIRBY: I believe there's imagery of it, Jim. I don't know. We'll have to -- we'll have to get back to you on that. I'm not sure.

QUESTION: And also, I'd like to follow up on Joe's (ph) question. Can you tell us if the administration more seriously considering now expanding the air campaign in Iraq to directly confront ISIL in a way that it hasn't, with a goal, with the expanded mission perhaps of defeating them or expanding the strikes to Syria?

Because of the comment that administration officials have made in the past few days suggests that maybe that's under more serious consideration than it has been in the past.

And then secondly, can you update us on the provision of weapons by the United States or by allied countries to the Pershmerga?

KIRBY: On your first question, I think Secretary Hagel and the chairman spoke pretty well to it yesterday. I don't know that I can expound on it any further. We continue to assess and monitor ISIL activities. That's one of the reasons why we put assessment teams there in the first place, to get a situational awareness of what's going on there.

As you know, we are engaged in supporting Iraqi security forces and not just only -- but you know, with kinetic air strikes, which we believe have had an effect.

I'm not going to get ahead of planning that hasn't been done or decisions that haven't been made. We don't telegraph our punches. But I think you can rest assured that the leadership here in the Pentagon understands the threat posed by this group, understands the threat posed inside Iraq, and we are gaining every day a better understanding of Iraqi security force and Kurdish force capability in meeting the threat inside Iraq.

Two points I think are important to make, and I'm not -- I'm going to make these points but I also know I'm not answering your question. I'm not going to talk about any future planning or future operations. But it is important to remind everybody that these -- what we are doing in there is in support of Iraq and that ultimately this is a fight that the Iraqi security forces have got to take on.

The second point is, there's not going to be a purely military solution. So, when the secretary and the chairman were up here talking to you yesterday, they talked about using all of the elements of American power and international influence as well to deal with this.

Ultimately, the answer is going to be found in good governance. Now, I know that's not -- you know, that doesn't offer everybody the -- you know, the immediacy that they may want to have in dealing with this threat, this very serious threat -- but ultimately, it's defeating the ideology through good governance.

It's removing the unstable conditions, the petri dish through which groups like this can foster and grow. And that's -- that's where we've gotta get long term. And so we are a tool in the toolbox, the -- we're going to continue to conduct the missions that we've been conducting in Iraq. You've seen it more today.

I think Central Command released yet another press release now. We're up over 93 air strikes. But ultimately, that's not going to be what solves this problem.

QUESTION: Just a couple. When does it become a question of U.S. self defense versus this organization that's posing a transnational threat? Because, you know, the administration has said again and again that it wont hesitate to act against any organization or terrorist group that directly threatens American interests. That, to me, seems different than the Iraqi, you know, helping them to fight -- defeat, you know, push back ISIL.

KIRBY: But I think what you're seeing us do in Iraq does both of those things. And again, the secretary mentioned this yesterday, that we are -- that part of the mission is supporting, advising, assisting, helping Iraqi security forces and Kurdish forces blunt the momentum. We believe we've succeeded in blunting that momentum. But it's also about protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, including some of the air strikes that we're conducting inside Iraq.

I think the United States military has, over the last several years, a pretty good track record of defending American interests and American citizens and American facilities in many places around the world from, you know, protecting them and defending them from terrorist threats.

I'm sorry, yes, there's been -- as you -- as you heard yesterday, and I think I've said it before, Secretary Hagel has set up a task force here at DOD to examine options and opportunities for us to -- to resupply Kurdish forces. No decisions have come out. I have nothing to announce about that today.

That said, we do continue to help the Iraqi government in Baghdad conduct those kinds of resupply missions: in some cases actually flying their equipment up to the north where it needs to get. And we have been encouraged by the assistance of international partners like the U.K..

And I also want to take the opportunity today to thank Albania. Albania has now come forward and -- and offered to conduct resupply missions for

I do want to point out, you know, that most of the -- first of all, the military is not the only source of tactical gear used by law enforcement in this country. And I think we're losing sight of that. And we look at -- we see the pictures, and we think, `Well, that's all military.'

Most of the stuff you're seeing in video coming out of Ferguson is not military equipment. And as I've said before, Ferguson itself only had -- they got two Humvees, soft- skinned Humvees from this program and a generator and I think a trailer. And that's it. So a lot of this is not U.S. military equipment. That's point number one.

Point number two I would make is 95 percent of the property that is transferred to local law enforcement through this program is not tactical. It's not -- it's not weapons. It's shelving, office equipment, communications gear, that kind of thing -- furniture. So it -- I think it's important to keep this thing in perspective.

And where the secretary wants to be is he wants to keep it -- he wants to, you know -- as he looks at this program, wants to make sure that we're striking the right balance, that the right stuff is -- is -- is being transferred, that the accountability is in place.

But he's also mindful that it's not a good place for the republic, for the Pentagon to be holding strings or carrying sticks out to law enforcement. There's a reason why we aren't involved in local law enforcement activities. And he -- he wants to make sure that -- that we take our proper place inside this democracy.

QUESTION: So the local media accounts of these vehicles being heavily armored is incorrect?

KIRBY: I don't know whether they're heavily armored or not.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: They're -- I'm talking -- no, and what I said was the two Humvee vehicles that we provided to Ferguson were soft-skinned, not armored.

Now other tactical vehicles they have, I can't speak for where they got them and whether they're armored or not. I just don't know. But I just was trying to make the point that as you look at the video coming out of Ferguson -- I understand how people would look at that and say, `Well, gee, look at all that military gear,' most of it. In fact, almost all of it, is not military gear. It didn't -- doesn't belong to us. We didn't provide it for them. So I just wanted to provide a little bit of perspective on your question, which was a good one, I think. Thank you for it.

Margaret?

QUESTION: We've heard a lot about the response to ISIS needing to be sort of locals retaking their country, right, And -- and helping to craft a regional response.

Yesterday, Secretary Hagel talked about the $500 million he wants to put to work to help train and equip Syrians, moderates, that we've identified that we want to work with. What's the status of that program? And if it's not going to be funded until 2015, is there thought to actually speed that up?

KIRBY: The -- you're right, Margaret. The program is part of our overseas contingency operations budget request that was submitted to Congress this summer. That -- so it's on the Hill now for contemplation, and it has to be authorized by -- by Congress.

You're also right that it's a fiscal year 2015 request. So that if -- if authorized and appropriated, we wouldn't be able to access that money, and therefore wouldn't be able to execute that program until fiscal year '15. I know of no plans to try to accelerate it. Again, we're working through Congress and through the budget -- the budget vehicles available to us to get at that program.

While we are waiting for Congress to act, the secretary is working with the joint staff, Central Command, and, of course, his own staff here in the Pentagon to further develop the ways in which we would -- should we get the funding we're asking for, the ways in which we would execute that.

I don't have any hard decisions here to announce today. I can't tell you, you know, where it would take place or how many people would be trained. And they's still a vetting process that needs to be fully developed here.

So there's a lot of -- there's still a lot of homework to do. We have kept Congress informed until they went out on a break. I mean, we were over there frequently, keeping them informed of what the thinking was. But it's not fully developed yet. And we're gonna work -- the secretary wants to work closely with Congress as -- as they both review the -- the request itself, and we continue to develop our plans.

QUESTION: But isn't there a sense that this needs to be get -- this needs to happen quickly? I mean, is that what the secretary is trying to do?

KIRBY: We -- we are working through the -- the budgeting process here to develop this program. And -- and while, yes, everybody shares a common sense of purpose here when it comes to the train and equip mission for the moderate opposition, we also don't want to get wrong, either. So you can only go as fast as his right. And that means that

you've gotta have a good plan in place and that you -- and a key to that is a proper vetting process, which we just haven't nailed all that down.

It's really important -- in order to do this, to have a positive impact on the moderate opposition that you're -- that you're working with the right sorts of folks.

QUESTION: And my understanding what you're saying to me, this building would not have the authority to act without congressional approval... KIRBY: We...

QUESTION: ... and not before 2015 to do this?

KIRBY: We do not have the authorities now to begin a train and equip program with a moderate Syrian opposition. We want to have those authorities, and we want to have the resources that go with it. And we also want to build a program that will make sense and will do the job, and we're still working on that right now.

In the back?

QUESTION: In January, the president equated ISIL's capabilities to that of a junior varsity team, so, which seems to be in direct contrast with what the secretary said yesterday. I was wondering if there had been new analysis or done to -- to get to the secretary to that position?

And does that mean that ISIS is getting stronger?

KIRBY: I would make a couple of points. One I would point you to what the president said yesterday or the day before about ISIL and the threat that they posed, as well as comments made by Secretary Kerry, and of course you've heard what Secretary Hagel said. I think everybody has the same view here about the threat posed by ISIL not just to Iraq, but to the region.

There's no divergence. This is August. You're talking about comments that were made in January. ISIL -- and we've been watching this for months. They have grown in capability. I've said it from the podium as have others. They have grown in capability with speed, helped along by resourcing from some of their own criminal activity, as well as donations and ransoms and helped along by a sanctuary that they have in Syria. So, we've all been watching this. They have advanced in capability. And we -- we saw the speed with which they gained ground and held ground in northern Iraq earlier this summer.

So, it's a -- the real answer to your question is, it's a constantly changing, fluid situation, and their threat continues to grow. And that's what led us to where we are today, which is that we believe it does pose an imminent threat, and it's a threat that we need to take seriously. QUESTION: The New York Times just moved a story quoting NATO officials saying that Russian artillery had fired on Ukrainian forces. What do you know about that? And how does that -- is that a game changer in any sort of way?

KIRBY: I didn't see the New York Times report, so I won't comment on a press report I haven't seen and can't -- and can't confirm. I'll just go back to what I said at the outset, that the support for separatists, the build-up along the border, the constant flow of -- of significant weapons systems across the border in Ukraine needs to stop. It just needs to stop, and that's as far as I can go given what I know, and I have not seen that press report.

Tony? QUESTION: Just one budget question. The convoy going in today, one of your guys a couple of weeks ago said that it could be a Trojan horse, actually military equipment going in under the guise of humanitarian. Do you have any indication at all that this is a Trojan horse, or is it really humanitarian supplies, but you still think it's a quasi invasion?

KIRBY: We don't have a perfect picture of what's inside those trucks, Tony.

(OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: I don't have an imperfect picture either of what's inside those trucks. It's the entry -- the unauthorized entry into Ukraine, which as I said at the outset is -- is a violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and we call for Russia to pull those convoys back.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) the OCO for '15. What's the status of the fiscal '16 budget where you have the specter of sequestration returning? It'll be false (ph) crisis after these other crises end. So what's the stance?

KIRBY: We're hoping it's not -- we're hoping it doesn't become a crisis, Tony. I mean, we want Congress to do the right thing, which is to -- which was repeal sequestration and get it off the books. The work on the '16 budget continues. The comptroller has given the services guidance to deal with a range of options. I won't speculate any further than that.

QUESTION: You were here two years ago when the Pentagon was getting criticized for not planning for sequestration. Contrast that with today in terms of planning for what may likely happen.

KIRBY: As I've said, we've given the services a planning guidance for a range of options, a range of budgetary options. I really don't want to go into any more detail than that. You saw how we dealt with sequestration and the planning that we did for it when we submitted the '15 budget. So, our focus right now is on getting that '15 budget authorized and appropriated. We -- we've not only had public hearings. We've had many

briefings up on the Hill. And then secondary to that is the ongoing work of the '16 budget, and I just won't go into details on that.

QUESTION: Let me take a shot at you on one thing. Why are we only learning about this China P8 (ph) incident four days after it happened? Why didn't you disclose it quicker?

KIRBY: Well, there's a -- there's not -- there wasn't some Machiavellian intent here to conceal. I think we needed to process the information and kind of figure out what really happened. And I also believe -- and I think this was the right course, too -- we wanted to make sure that we had taken the opportunity to register our deep concern directly with the PLA, which we've done. And it made no sense to go public with that until we had had a chance to deliver that demarche, which we did -- which we did today. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: I am not aware of a response.

Maggie?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) any indication from U.S. allies whether they'd be willing to participate in airstrikes in northern Iraq? I mean, many of them have agreed to deliver weapons. Have they talked about possible airstrikes? And if not, I'd like to know why they've expressed hesitancy and why we're the only ones out there.

KIRBY: Your question presumes hesitancy. I won't -- I am absolutely not going to speak for other countries up here. It's hard enough for me just to speak for, you know, what I have to speak for here. I speak for the United States military; that's my job. I'm not going to talk about what other countries are willing to do and what timeline.

Yes? I don't know. I pointed at her. I'll get to you after that.

QUESTION: Yesterday the chairman said that the joint operations center in Erbil and Baghdad are evolving. I was wondering if you could describe how they've changed since they were first set up and if the U.S. is looking at beefing up the one in Erbil.

KIRBY: The joint operation centers are -they continue to be operational, one in Baghdad and one in Erbil. The personnel have -- in each one have stayed fairly static. I mean, there's some fluctuations. I think I can give you an update. In Baghdad, there's 93 people in that joint operation center, Erbil it's 68. And that's stayed pretty steady, hasn't changed much. I'm not aware of any plans to beef them up. I think they're -- they're right about where they need to be for what we're doing.

QUESTION: You said evolving. Does it mean the things that they're doing versus the number of people that are there? Are they...

KIRBY: Just that now -- now that they're up and running and now we are conducting kinetic airstrikes inside Iraq, they -- they are working more and more closely every day with Iraqi and Kurdish forces on assistance and providing some advice from the joint operations centers. But I wouldn't read more into it than that. It's just it's a -- like any military operation, it -- you know, every day you advance and you deepen the dialogue, you deepen the cooperation, that kind of thing.

Yes, now it's your turn.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) follow-up to the question regarding the allies and partners in the region. At least can you give us a few details as to what level the U.S. military is cooperating with partner and allies in the region, combating these operations in northern Iraq? And the secondly, can I get your assessment about the situation in Syria, in terms of the ISIL and moderate opposition clashes? How these airstrike operations will affect the situation in Syria, while the ISIL seems free to go back to Syria with the heavy weaponry they got from the Iraqi army?

KIRBY: Well, the answer to your second question is that we haven't made any decisions on -- with regard to Syria. I don't have anything to -- I'm not going to speak about operations that we're not conducting. So I couldn't possibly begin to answer that question.

On your -- on your first question, the -- the international partners that we're dealing with most every day in Iraq, the Iraqis. And we've made it clear that a big part of our job there is to help assist them in combating this threat. And we're doing that every day.

There have been some international partners who have come forward and made it public that they would assist in the humanitarian side of that mission, the U.K. and Australia, the French, and others, Italy. And I'll let them speak to what they're doing and how they're doing it and the decisions they're making. But with regard to day to day, and particularly with respect to the airstrikes that we're conducting, it's being conducted with our partners in Iraq, our Iraqi partners.

Yeah. I got time for just a couple more.

QUESTION: On the budget, are we likely to see an additional OCO request before Congress takes up spending measures sometime in September (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: I'm not aware of any, and I wouldn't get ahead of that. I think the secretary said it pretty well yesterday that we think we're going to be OK for fiscal year '14, but he wouldn't -- he opened the door for the possibility that in -- for '15 we might -- you know, we might need to look at some additional funding sources. But we're not there yet, we just don't know.

QUESTION: Do you have any sense of a timeline of when that...

KIRBY: I do not, no.

You had your hand up for like ever. He got -- that was easy.

All right, last one.

QUESTION: So, I want to go back to the China fighter. Excuse me if I'm naive about this, but you said they intercepted the P8, and I was wondering if there was any message from the Chinese pilot about why they were intercepting it and if -- if there are any standard procedures that go with an interception, if it's noted...

KIRBY: Well, you're not supposed to do a barrel roll over the aircraft.

Look, I'm not aware of any radio communications. I'd point you to Pacific Command for details like that. I think the message that they are apparently trying to send was you know, they -- resisting the flight of this -- this patrol aircraft, which I'll remind you -- as I said at the outset, was in international air space. The message we're sending back to China is that's unacceptable and unhelpful to the military relationship that we would like to have with them.

Listen, before I go, I tried to make a quip, and I don't think I came off the way I wanted. I said I have a hard enough time doing this, I meant my own eloquence. I didn't mean that I don't like the job and what I'm doing. I very much do enjoy the privilege of being up here, but I was just talking about my own poor performance on most days.

All right, thanks everybody. Appreciate it.

QUESTION: What is the possibility -- you could release footage or video of the P8...

KIRBY: We'll take a look at it. I don't want to give you a...

QUESTION: It would be great if you could do that today, quite frankly.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Rear Admiral John Kirby, discussing the strategies on dealing with the ISIS threat that is not only in Iraq but also across the border in Syria, after some pretty strong suggestions from the secretary of defense yesterday and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that things are getting more serious, that this is like nothing we've ever seen before, and that perhaps Syria needs to be a place that needs to be considered.

Maybe one of the bigger headlines that has just come out of this weekly briefing is that we're not going to telegraph our punches -- that's a direct quote from the rear admiral himself -- when it comes to how to deal and where to deal and when to deal with ISIS threats.

Not only that, the talk about the long-term strategy in dealing with this radical group is that the rear admiral suggests the Americans need to have a regional approach, and a multinational approach, and that this will take time to forge a group, that the Americans will not be, as he quoted, the only tool in the tool box that will be used.

Another significant mention, a question about the 300 American troops that have been requested to be transferred to Baghdad as additional security forces, specifically the force protection request for the embassy there. I want to bring in - I want to go straight to Baghdad where CNN's Jomana Karadsheh is joining us live.

Can you give us a picture of what things are like right now in Baghdad, as so much of the energy circles around Baghdad when it comes to ISIS threat, and then this request for additional troops. Set the scene there for me, Jomana, if you would.

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's a very tense time. It's government formation and this historically is a very tense time. There are always fears about violence taking place here at that time. Politics and violence in this country are very closely intertwined.

ISIS has always had its eyes on Baghdad. This is one of its goals. And there have been concerns of attacks from within. Of course we have seen Shia militias and Iraqi security forces really securing the entrances to Baghdad, the surrounding areas, trying to stop these advances of ISIS. But, of course, there's always that concern about infiltration, about attacks that might happen. It's very unpredictable here in Baghdad.

BANFIELD: And then I want to return to Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, with this question about what the rear admiral suggested when he said this issue of dealing with ISIS will not be purely a military solution. His quote. It seems, though, Peter, and shed some light on this, that we are a long way away from a successful political solution at this point.

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes. I mean you can argue that successful political solution in Iraq hasn't presented itself for more than a decade. And so there's no reason to expect one will immediately be apparent. The -- Rear Admiral Kirby did talk about 93 air strikes. I mean, yes, military solutions are not the only solutions. But the fact is, is that the U.S. drone program in Pakistan has basically decimated the core of al Qaeda and ISIS is now, of course, a stronger organization than the core of al Qaeda is, but military strikes do degrade these organizations and force them to fight in different ways.

You know, ISIS has been fighting as a conventional army. If these strikes continue, it's going to be very hard to be rolling tanks down highways as they've been doing in the past. They've got to revert to being more of an insurgent group, more of a terrorist group, which is not a good thing but it's certainly better than them having a conventional army taking over a third of the country, as they've done right now, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Colonel Mansoor, to you, and it's -- I'm dovetailing off what Peter was just talking about. There was this specific question in that briefing with the rear admiral at the Pentagon about the potential of air strikes inside Syria. It was a pretty nondescript answer. We're not ruling anything in, we're not ruling anything out. My question for you, with your background and having spent so much time in that region, as an executive officer to the man who was in charge for American forces in that region, Syria is an extraordinarily complicated place. It is far more complicated, it might be said, than Iraq. And things have not gone particularly well in Iraq. Is there any hope that anything could go well in Syria?

COL. PETER MANSOOR, U.S. ARMY (RET.): We could defeat ISIS on both sides of the border with a regional approach, with supporting Iraqi and Kurdish forces, U.S. air power, U.S. advisers. This is a mission that can be accomplished. If we go into Syria and say, we're going to solve the civil war there, it's -- it would be a can of worms. But that's not the mission. The mission is simply to destroy this one group that is a threat to the United States, and that, I believe, is a mission that the military could accomplish given adequate support from regional partners and adequate support from European and the United States government.

BANFIELD: Colonel Mansoor, Peter Bergen, Jomana Karadsheh, thank you all, your insight is available at this extremely important time. Thanks to you.

I want to take us a little closer to home right now because there are some brand-new questions that are being raised about the past of one of the witnesses who's been speaking about the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Will the credibility issue be an issue should this go to trial? We're going to talk about that in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Now to Missouri and the developments in the Michael Brown shooting case. Last night was peaceful. Peaceful protests on the streets of Ferguson. Governor Jay Nixon ordering the Missouri National Guard to start pulling out of that city.

In the meantime, there's new details coming out about Dorian Johnson, who is Michael Brown's friend. That's the witness who watched Michael as he was shot and killed. A report from the Jefferson City Police Department says Johnson was arrested back in 2011 for stealing a backpack and then lying to police about his identity. Our Chris Cuomo spoke with Johnson's attorney about his past and how Johnson's past might affect his credibility. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, ANCHOR, CNN'S "NEW DAY": Did you know anything about your client's criminal background before today?

JAMES WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY FOR DORIAN JOHNSON: You know, the client's criminal background is really a red herring here. This is a case where you have two innocent, unarmed citizens walking down the street who eventually had to flee for their lives unarmed with their hands in the air. Criminal background or not, everyone is entitled to constitutional protection. This police officer can't be judge, jury and executioner. Criminal record, history, A student, honor roll, whatever it is, the point here is that you can't gun down innocent people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: And Dorian Johnson's attorney suggests that any suggestion that this client's past is relevant to his credibility is a diversion and that several witnesses have cooperated his version, his explanation of what happened, what he saw that day.

And for the legal view on this, I want to bring in three divergent opinions because that's what they always are. I want to bring in CNN's legal analyst Paul Callan, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor himself, as well as CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor, and CNN legal analyst and defense attorney Danny Cevallos.

I have been watching some of these debates over what this latest development is. I have watched you and I know you differ specifically about the credibility issues from Paul. Danny, I'm not sure where you fall in this. We always see witness credibility at stake. We always see the challenge of witness credibility. I'm wondering if you think we always see it before we're even in a courtroom.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, I think it's remarkable that that is what we're talking about now. We're talking about some arrest three years ago for stealing mail as opposed to talking about what this person saw, which was his friend shot in front of him. And I think it's remarkable that anyone is saying that his credibility somehow is an issue in terms of what he saw because we've got four other eyewitnesses with no dog in this fight who are saying --

BANFIELD: That we know of.

HOSTIN: That we know of.

BANFIELD: That we know of.

HOSTIN: I suspect that there are many more, that are saying the same exact thing. So even if he were cross examined at trial -- which I suspect, if it goes to trial, he would be cross examined on his credibility, of course -- there are four other people that are saying the same exact thing.

BANFIELD: That we know of specifically and they are on the side of the family, of Mike Brown.

HOSTIN: Not necessarily on the side. They were just people that were there in the street.

BANFIELD: They support the notion of what Mike Brown's attorneys have actually called an execution, which I have a big problem with. Attorneys should never be throwing those kinds of terms out. We have a presumption of innocence in this country. Is there a concern about a jury pool right now being poisoned? I know we're only at the grand jury stage and they're already enpaneled (ph) but if there is a trial, and I suspect there may be, that this is very poisoned, this kind of rhetoric that's being tossed around by all sides.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, yes, I mean I think the well has already been poisoned. I mean this story has been so divisive and it's been so thoroughly discussed and it's impossible for me to believe you could get a jury that would really focus on the evidence in the case. I think they're going to -- they may have to change venue, but I don't know where they'll send it to. It's a state case. They have to stay in Missouri.

And getting to Sunny's point on - and why I disagree. You know, the believability of a witness, the credibility of a witness, is always key in a criminal case. I wonder, Sunny, if Officer Wilson had been convicted of lying to the police -

BANFIELD: (INAUDIBLE) -

CALLAN: I guess - I guess you wouldn't cross examine him on it in court.

BANFIELD: All right. OK. And I've got to get Danny in on this because I've got 30 seconds till the end of show.

CALLAN: I think you would.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is -

CALLAN: Oh, I'm sorry, Danny.

BANFIELD: Thirty second till the end of show. Police -

CEVALLOS: The fact -

HOSTIN: I wish I had time to answer that, Paul.

CALLAN: Yes, well, you don't have an answer to that one, Sunny.

BANFIELD: (INAUDIBLE), just out of time. The police and authorities are rare to release volumes of information. So oftentimes what you do hear from is the other side of the potential coin. Are you surprised at what you're hearing about in this case?

CEVALLOS: Well, remember, when civilians are arrested, there's one prosecution, a criminal investigation. When police officers are, there's a criminal prosecution and an administrative investigation. So this officer may or may not have already given what we call a Garity (ph) statement. Something that immunizes him. He can be fired for not giving it because it's an administrative investigation, but it can't be used against him. So St. Louis County usually waits until the investigation runs its course. So we don't know if he's given that statement. But he should probably avoid making any other statements.

BANFIELD: I could talk to you for hours, and I just don't have them. Have a good weekend, all three of you, thank you.

HOSTIN: You too.

BANFIELD: And thank you for watching us. Don Lemon is reporting live from Ferguson. He starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)