Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Obama Reconsidering U.S. Policy in Iraq and Syria; Pathologist Hired by Michael Brown's Family Testified before Grand Jury; Benjamin Crump Says Missouri Governor Should Have Spoken against Police Violence

Aired November 13, 2014 - 10:00   ET

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

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me. Happening right now, four major hearings on Capitol Hill set to begin at any minute. Top military officials will fight for an additional $5.6 billion to help battle ISIS. Also happening, representatives will examine how terrorists are getting their money. Plus Deputy VA Secretary Sloan Gibson will face off with lawmakers about why it's taking so long to fix VA hospitals. And the Ebola outbreak will be front and center as the House Foreign Affairs Committee examines the global response.

We begin with the fight against ISIS. Moments from now the defense chief, Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey will testify about the ongoing battle against the terrorist group. All of this happening as sources tell CNN President Obama is re-examining America's war on ISIS and asking for a review of the military strategy in Syria. In Washington, CNN's global affairs correspondent Elise Labott and CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr join me. And in Orlando, Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, CNN's military analyst joins me. Welcome to all of you.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Carol.

COSTELLO: Thanks for being here. Let's begin with you, Elise. Elise the White House denies an official review of the strategy in Syria has been ordered. So, what are they talking about? You broke this story.

LABOTT: Well, let's be clear, Carol. It's not a military strategy. We're talking about a political transition dealing with President Assad. You know, the White House, as you said, not calling it a review, but officials are calling it constant recalibrations of the strategy. One official for me called it a, quote, vigorous assessment. I think there's a realization they need to better define how the political chaos in Syria fits in to the campaign against ISIS. The administration had a hope to go after ISIS in Iraq first and then take on Syria after those moderate rebel force was trained to go after ISIS and then after Assad's forces. Officials say developments on the ground make that untenable. You know the opposition is really fighting a two-front battle right now against both ISIS and regime forces and could be destroyed by the time the U.S. would pivot from Iraq to Syria.

Coalition allies asking for a much more coherent Syria strategy, something Congressman Ed Royce, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee spoke on "NEW DAY" just recently when he talked about a shift in strategy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ED ROYCE (R) CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Syria is saying, look, Assad is not going to come to the table. He's not going to work out peace. So, if you want our engagement, let's have a plan to do something to remove Assad and then we can stop ISIL. I think that's what's driving it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LABOTT: Now, diplomats tell me Secretary of State Kerry trying to get everyone in the region to try to reenergize efforts on a political roadmap that ultimately transitions Assad from power. There is also talk about expanding the train and equip program for the rebels which they haven't even started vetting them yet. The problem with all this is, while I think everyone does want to get rid of Assad, there's no viable alternative. The political opposition is in still disarray. And you have Assad's main backers, Russia and Iran in particular, who aren't quite ready to cut him loose. So, this is going to take a lot of time, Carol.

COSTELLO: OK, so General Hertling, a question for you. So, now since that the Obama administration thinks that the removal of Syria's president is needed to eventually win the war against ISIS, but they don't like the word miscalculation when it comes to strategy. But that surely is what this is, right?

LT. GENERAL MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: I don't think so, Carol. I'm sorry. I think what we have is something you always have in a campaign, it's a continual reassessment of what's happening, what's going on both politically and militarily. And I don't - I think we're jumping a little bit to conclusions saying that the president is suddenly interested in removing Assad. That was never said. It hasn't been reported. What he's interested in, though, is how do you reassess the campaign within Syria as we see some additional successes in Iraq.

And this is especially true after I think General Allen and others have gone around the area, talked to our allies and said what can we do better. And as Elise said a minute ago, what we've seen is not only just Assad or the pre Syrian army facing two fronts, what we are seeing is by us focusing on ISIL in Syria, Mr. Assad has only had to focus on one enemy, and that's the Free Syrian Army. So, I think we've given him a little gratitude or a little latitude in that in terms of going after just one enemy as opposed to two while we focused on the other enemy. So, all of these things are part of the consideration, part of the campaign reassessment. And I'm sure part of the design of both the military and the political sources to look at new ways of doing business.

COSTELLO: So Barbara, Chuck Hagel is going to testify before Congress shortly, right? So, he'll definitely talk about this very topic. What will he say?

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I don't think you're going to see either Secretary Hagel or General Dempsey change their positions, move the ball essentially, on this question. They're going to talk about the military part of this strategy and the airstrikes and the success they believe they're having against ISIS. But they're not going to suddenly come out and say, oh, there's a whole new political strategy. Of course, all of that still under review.

The points that Hagel and Dempsey, Dempsey especially, have been making is there's no military solution alone to all of this. You know, that old saying you cannot kill your way to victory, especially with a group like ISIS. They have been very adamant that the military is one tool, but that there will have to be a political solution in both Iraq, with the Iraqi government getting its act together and in Syria. Hagel himself several weeks ago wrote a memo to the National Security Council saying he was concerned that there was not enough attention being paid to the question of what to do about Assad because of all the points that both Elise and General Hertling are making. So, this question has been on the table for some time in terms of what the Pentagon thinking, is don't look for them to break new ground, but look for them to reemphasize these points that the military, the U.S. military can only do so much. Carol?

COSTELLO: OK, so let's talk about the possible political solution and pushing Assad aside. Elise, don't you need Russia's help? And the United States is not exactly best buddies with Mr. Putin at the moment.

LABOTT: That's right. Officials are saying look, Russia is not our friend in all this. I think that there's been mixed messages coming from Russia when they talk to U.S. officials.

Now, Russia says it's not necessarily Assad, per se, that they want to keep in power, but the institutions of the state. They don't want to see a collapse of the state. Clearly Russia has a lot of interest there. But I think what the U.S. - And this has been going on for some time, Carol. You remember these political talks in January before this whole problem with ISIS really started. The U.S. was looking for a political transition that basically got rid of Assad, but kept a lot of the regime and the institutions of the state in place. And I think that's what the U.S. is looking to do again. I think that's something that ultimately Russia may agree on. But right now they're making a few noises, but they are certainly continuing to arm Assad, continuing to give him political support, so it doesn't matter - doesn't look like they're ready to do anything just yet and Iran as well.

I mean Secretary Kerry has been having a lot of talks with Iranian foreign minister Zarif about the nuclear issue. He has raised the issue of Syria and the need for a political settlement, but no idea as of yet that Iran is willing to change its very hard line position that Assad should go.

COSTELLO: And then the other problem, if you will, because I'm lacking a better word at the moment, General, but the coalition that's helping the United States in Iraq rid itself of ISIS is not helping in Syria. So if the United States wants to come up with some sort of political solution or maybe down the line a military solution, it's on its own at the moment, right?

HERTLING: That's exactly right, Carol. And I think that's part of the issue. And that, you know, some of the coalition has, in fact, been conducting airstrikes in Syria, not many of them. But I think this is a critical point. We keep as a military force, General Dempsey, Mr. Hagel are keeping their eye on the ball of defeating ISIL. It is not focused on the replacement or the transition of Assad. That's a political solution. And I think until you gain consensus by a great many allies in this case, some very complex in nature, you're talking not only Russia, but Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, I mean this is an interesting coalition all having different aspects of what the fight in Syria might look like while we're defeating ISIL.

But the whole problem comes back to how do you defeat one element, the conflict in Syria without affecting or allowing Mr. Assad to go after singly the other element which is the Free Syrian Army?

COSTELLO: All right. I'm looking at this House Armed Services Committee. And you can see the chairman speaking - giving his opening remarks. You saw the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel walk into the room. And Barbara, I'll ask you a question about Chuck Hagel. Because arming these moderate Syrian rebels was supposed to really help us win the war on ISIS, right? But those moderate Syrian rebels haven't even been vetted yet. Are any of them actually fighting on the ground?

STARR: Well, there are some certainly, you know, for months now they have been fighting the Assad regime on the ground, but in terms of this train and equip program that the U.S. military is trying to get going, no. It's going to take a very long time. It's going to be very slow going. And one of the big unanswered questions, no matter what anybody tells you, so you train them, you equip them. They go back home to their towns and villages. Will they fight ISIS or will they turn and continue to use that capability to fight the Syrian regime, to fight Assad? These people are very dedicated to getting Assad out of power, though U.S. hopes they go back to their towns and villages to fight ISIS and push ISIS back. But there's no guarantee on any of that. And, you know, we could a year from now be in a very different position with armed and trained rebel groups not exactly doing what the U.S. intended them to do. It may turn out to be very tough.

COSTELLO: So, this hearing should be very interesting. Barbara Starr, Elise Labott, General Mark Hertling, thanks to all of you.

Checking other top stories this morning. Echoes of the Cold War. For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian bombers will once again regularly patrol near U.S. shores. Russia not only confirm these patrols, but says they're in response to the global anger over its military involvement in Ukraine.

Today on Capitol Hill, the House is due to debate the Keystone oil pipeline. And the Senate takes up the matter next week. President Obama opposes it and that puts him at odds with the fellow Democrats from oil-rich Louisiana. Senator Mary Landrieu is locked in a tight runoff with Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy. Both hope their support of the Keystone will win votes back home.

Midair scare for Bono. A media report say Bono was on a private jet traveling from Dublin to Berlin when the rear door of the plane fell off. Bono and three friends on board, not members of U2 lost their luggage. The plane landed without incident. An investigation is under way. Wow.

Still to come in the "NEWSROOM, " a critical day for the family of Michael Brown as the pathologist hired to do an autopsy of their son is set to testify before the Ferguson grand jury. We'll talk about that next. Actually Sara Sidner is in Missouri with a tease.

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are here standing outside the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney's office. We know that that pathologist has gone inside. We'll have a live update for you. We're going to hear from Michael Brown's family attorneys.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: I want to take you back now to Ferguson, Missouri, where any minute now the attorneys for the family of Michael Brown are expected to address the media. The town waits for a grand jury to announce whether it will indict Officer Darren Wilson in Brown's death. Earlier this morning, Wilson's attorney spoke to CNN about the process but he's keeping his opinions about the outcome close to the vest.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe your client, Officer Wilson, will be indicted?

NEIL BRUNTRAGER, ATTORNEY FOR OFFICER DARREN WILSON: I really can't comment on that, and I can't answer your question. I can tell you that, of course, we hope that that will not happen. But like everyone else, we're waiting for that decision. We think the grand jury is looking at this thoroughly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: CNN's Sara Sidner joins me now from Clayton, Missouri, with more. Good morning, Sara.

SIDNER: Good morning. We're standing outside the prosecuting attorney's office here in Clayton, awaiting to hear from the attorneys that the family hired, the family of Michael Brown. Sorry about that. Lots of traffic going on here today. Basically what we have heard from the attorneys that they have told us that there is the pathologist that they hired, Dr. Baden that he's expected to speak with the Grand Jury today. He was one of the pathologists that did an autopsy on Michael Brown, and we all heard some of that information early on in this case. He is going to be a witness in front of the grand jury. The prosecuting attorney's office for its part has been very clear that they are trying to give every bit of evidence that is possible to give to the grand jury so that they can make a good decision, and that is what it seems is going on here. Now, this has been going on, as you know now, for months. We have been here for months. And I can tell you from being here that in Ferguson and the surrounding towns, and I'm talking about Clayton, St. Louis, some of the towns, Edmundson, around Ferguson, everyone is a bit nervous. They're worried about what's going to happen when that grand jury decision comes down. The protesters themselves have said they are going to take to the streets in huge numbers if that decision is not to indict Darren Wilson. Bu there's lots of Darren Wilson supporters who are standing in the background that say the grand jury is going to do its job. And if they do its job, people should respect its decision. It's 12 people that will make the decision. Nine have to decide to indict in order for there to be an indictment. So two- thirds majority, Carol.

COSTELLO: All right, Sara Sidner, thanks for that update. We appreciate it. I want to bring in now criminal defense attorney Midwin Charles and CNN legal analyst Paul Callan. He's also a criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor. Welcome to both of you.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good morning.

MIDWIN CHARLES, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.

COSTELLO: OK. So, Paul, has this been the most thorough grand jury in history?

CALLAN: It's right up there. It's certainly - it's an unusually thorough grand jury because most cases that get put into the grand jury, it's sort of wham, bam, just a couple of witnesses, barebones case, and then the grand jury votes to indict or no true bill. However, in controversial cases and particularly in cases involving police officer shootings and killings, there are more extensive presentations. So this is not without precedent. There have been big presentations like this in other places.

COSTELLO: What was unusual to me, Midwin, is now this private doctor is going to go in and testify before the grand jury about autopsy results and he didn't even have Michael Brown's clothing to examine. So, what of value will he be able to give to the grand jury? This is - the doctor hired by the Brown family.

MIDWIN CHARLES, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, Dr. Baden, who is an excellent doctor? It's interesting. Because I think one of the problems that I see with the manner in which this grand jury has proceeded thus far is that the tactic or the strategy of Bob McCulloch, the prosecutor seems to be kind of throw everything against the wall and see what sticks which is unusual when it comes to grand jury proceedings.

The purpose of the grand jury proceeding at least put forth by a prosecutor is I believe this person has committed a crime and I'm going for an indictment. And you do that by selecting, handpicking the information that you want to show to the grand jury.

So, by sort of having this sort of, we're going to just throw everything out against the wall and see what sticks, it confuses the grand jury. So, I just don't know where they're going with this.

COSTELLO: It's almost like a trial, right? You're having competing coroners here.

CALLAN: Well, yes, you did - and by the way, if there is an indictment in the case, the competing coroners are going to be used by defense attorneys to create reasonable doubt and make it more difficult to get a conviction. But I just want to be clear about something. Over the last couple of days I've been speaking to prosecutors in New York. Of course, New York is one of the busiest jurisdictions in America. A lot of police cases, police shooting cases through the years. And what I'm picking up from assistants who have presented these cases to grand juries is that almost universally when it's a police shooting case, they put everything in front of the jury. They present it differently than they do in a normal case. And I agree with Midwin, if this was just, you know, a normal street crime or a robbery, you'd put in the victim, you'd put in one eyewitness and then you would, you know, then you would charge the law. But in New York, I can tell you they almost always put as much evidence -- because they know it's going to be scrutinized by the public.

CHARLES: Well, also, the question is why? If the purpose is to secure an indictment, why have a different process for police officers as opposed to other people who commit crimes?

CALLAN: Well, and I ...

CHARLES: I think the ...

CALLAN: The process is not to procure an indictment. So, it's to procure a just result.

CHARLES: No, the process is justice. And the reason why you go forward with this as a prosecutor is you want an indictment. You're not doing this because you want to have fun.

CALLAN: Why would you have a grand jury at all? Why would you have a grand jury at all? If it served no purpose, but to get an indictment?

CHARLES: That's right. That's my point.

CALLAN: Well, we have grand juries in America for a reason. The whole idea of grand juries in the Constitution was to protect us from overzealous prosecutors who might want to bring charges that weren't warranted.

CHARLES: Of course.

CALLAN: It arises out of you know, the fear of the British system where colonists were rounded up and imprisoned without proper grand jury protection. So, that's why I spilled into the system.

CHARLES: No, and I get that. But I think we should all be deeply concerned if there are double standards in our justice system. And I think that's the point that I'm trying to make here. COSTELLO: OK, so I'm going to ask you both for a prediction. Because

this has dragged on for months, right? I mean the prosecutor could have made his own decision on whether to charge this officer with a crime or not, right?

CALLAN: Yes. He could have - well, he would have had - he had an option. He could have done a probable cause hearing in front of a single judge. But then the decision would have been one judge deciding to go forward or not. He might have been subject to criticism that he had some sort of agenda whereas this is at least 12 citizens who hear the evidence.

COSTELLO: So, which way do you think it's leaning? Because I saw you looking at Darren Wilson's attorney and what he said. And so, read between the lines for us. Does he look hopeful? Can you tell?

CALLAN: You know, it's always impossible to call these things because - but statistically I can tell you a couple of things. It's very rare that a police officer gets indicted and charged with murder in a fact pattern similar to this. Now, there have been indictments of police officers in some cases, but it's got to be a really strong case in order to see a police officer -- they get the benefit of the doubt usually with the grand jurors. So, I would have to say probably, I'd say 70 percent chance no indictment. 30 percent chance of indictment if I were to put odds on it. That's where I would rate it.

CHARLES: See, I'm not a betting woman ...

(LAUGHTER)

CHARLES: But I will say I would be surprised -- I would be very, very surprised if there was an indictment here, simply because the manner in which this has gone on.

COSTELLO: Let's head to this press conference. These are the attorneys for Michael Brown's family. They're going to talk about what Governor Nixon said yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY GRAY, ATTORNEY FOR FAMILY OF MICHAEL BROWN: It has been long and it has been hard. The Brown family wants to send a special thank you to all of those that have supported their call for justice for Mike Brown. The other day Missouri Governor Jay Nixon held a press conference in which for the most part was directed at demonstrators. The family wants to associate themselves with the governor's statements and reiterate his denouncement of violence, looting and rioting in the name of Michael Brown. We feel, as the governor and other law enforcement officials, that such acts cannot be tolerated. We want to make it very clear that on behalf of the Brown family we do not condone any acts of rioting, looting or violence and that we want to encourage all of those that support the justice for Mike Brown to remain vigilant, yet peaceful, calm and dignified as we await and after we receive the announcement of the grand jury decision.

We also feel that it is equally important to implore law enforcement to exercise reasonable restraints when dealing with demonstrators. There have been too many reports of excessive behavior and agitation by police officers which have resulted in the outbursts of the kind that the governor described by otherwise peaceful demonstrators. History is clear. Prior to many uncivilized reactions by demonstrators, they were simply exercising their First Amendment rights during which time they became victims of assault rifles being pointed in their face, being man handled, being tear-gassed, hit by rubber bullets, falsely arrested including members of the media, some of which had their equipment damaged. These acts of violence impacted innocent men, women and children simply exercising their rights.

Law enforcement should have been equally condemned by the governor for this conduct at the same time he was admonishing the demonstrators. A strong message of zero tolerance should have been conveyed to all. Again, we are hopeful that law enforcement and demonstrators can assemble in the same area, if it comes to that, without incident. That is our solemn hope. We realize that some people are anxious, angry and want instant answers. However, violence, looting and rioting is not a responsible way of expressing those feelings. It severely diminishes the opportunity for healing and positive dialogue going forward. In sum, the Brown family sends a passionate plea this morning to law enforcement and to those who support Justice for Mike Brown, junior, to allow cooler heads to prevail in times of adversity.

Right now I want to turn the microphone over to Attorney Benjamin Crump who wants to speak to this issue as well as the visit of Dr. Michael Baden today before the grand jury.

BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL BROWN'S FAMILY: Thank you, Attorney Gray. Regardless of the decision of the grand jury, this will be a defining moment in the history of the state of Missouri. In response to Governor Nixon's remarks that seem to be addressed only, as Attorney Gray said, to the supporters of Michael Brown, junior, the dead unarmed teenager, we come here on behalf of his family to address not only those supporters, but the entire St. Louis metropolitan community as well as the assembled law enforcement.

First, to the supporters of Michael Brown, Junior, we would like to thank you all for exercising your constitutional First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. Secondly to the St. Louis community, we would like to thank you for your continued support for every citizen's right to due process.

Thirdly, to Governor Nixon who is Missouri's chief law enforcement officer, whose responsibility is to make sure that the laws are enforced equally for all Missouri citizens including those communities like Ferguson who have had interactions with law enforcement that have led to questionable outcomes that have resulted in a burning desire for civility, transparency and equal protection.