Return to Transcripts main page


Ferguson Police Brace for New Protests; U.S. Nuke Program in Decay?; President to Face GOP Majority over Immigration; Obama, GOP Prepare to Battle Over Immigration

Aired November 14, 2014 - 19:00   ET


DON LEMON, CNN GUEST HOST: OUTFRONT tonight, Ferguson on edge. Gun sales are up. Businesses shutting down. When the grand jury speaks, will Ferguson streets erupt?

Plus America's aging nukes. Disturbing new details on how the world's most dangerous weapons are decaying.

And America's favorite TV dad, Bill Cosby, old allegations of rape get new life through social media. Can his reputation survive?

Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening. I'm Don Lemon in for Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, Ferguson on the brink. Tonight it appears that the people of Ferguson, Missouri, are preparing for a major fight. Gun sales have spiked, police are stocking up on riot gear. The National Guard is at the ready. Businesses are boarding up and schools set to shut down.

All this in anticipation of unchecked violence in the wake of a grand jury decision on whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. That decision expected to come at any time and earlier today a spokesperson for the St. Louis Police Officers Organization told CNN that as violent as Ferguson streets have been, he's anticipating the worst is yet to come.


JEFF ROORDA, ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION: I keep hearing this myth perpetuated that this is a peaceful protest. There were attempts to kill police officers every night in Ferguson after the shooting of Michael Brown and I expect far, far worse.


LEMON: Sara Sidner is OUTFRONT tonight in Ferguson, Missouri.

So, Sara, what preparations are you seeing under way now?

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Look, you know, most of the folks that are preparing, have already prepared. For example, the businesses on West Florissant where the initial unrest have began, have boarded up, almost every single business there has boarded up completely with the exception of one or two.

There are a few businesses near the police department that have decided to board up. There are folks who are going out and getting three days worth of water and food. But there are a lot of people in this town, about 21,000, and some folks are just waiting to see what happens, not thinking that it's going to be as bad as everybody keeps predicting.

However, of course you still have those nightly protests. They've been going on now for more than 90 days and the protesters say, look, we've been mostly peaceful throughout all of this and, yes, they acknowledge that there could be a few in the crowd that decide to do things like loot or riot, but that there are folks here who have been protesting every single night. They are residents here. And some of them said we are going to try to stop anyone who plans on doing violence because they have to live in this town afterwards.

We also were able to have a conversation with one of the members of the St. Louis County Police Association.

And as you know, Don, that association and that police department has taken over for much of the detail in dealing with the protesters. And here is what he had to say about what happened before and the changes that they've made since.


GABE CROCKER, ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION: Certainly, you know, there are incidents from the first, you know, period of civil unrest in Ferguson where we may look back and go, you know what, there's some things that we can tweak, there's some things that we can modify. We're very willing to do that. And we've made changes. And our chief has instructed us to make changes and we're doing those things.

But, you know, remember, the protesters and the individuals that are out there causing a lot of problems, not the peaceful protesters, for clarity, they don't have to abide by any rules. They can do whatever they want.


SIDNER: And that's who everyone is worried about. Not the peaceful protesters, not the majority of the people who are coming out to the streets and expressing their problem with the justice system. But those who come that intend to use this as an excuse to be violent or loot, that is who a lot of folks are worried about -- Don.

LEMON: All right. Sara Sidner reporting to us this evening from Ferguson, Missouri.

Thank you, Sara.

I want to bring in now the attorney for Michael Brown's family, Benjamin Crump.

Mr. Crump, I have to ask you, it has been said that in the time before a decision is announced, that the family of Michael Brown, the officer of course and maybe some of the law enforcement agencies would get some advanced notice of timing.

Do you know anything about the timing of a decision?

BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL BROWN JR.'S FAMILY ATTORNEY: Well, Don, we've been told we will get notice before the decision is announced. How much time we're not aware. The one thing we do know, family members of Michael Brown, like many in Ferguson got notice to the schools that they have a pass code to tell them if they will have school on Monday or not. So that is some indication.

LEMON: OK. And so have we heard anything about school on Monday, or no?

CRUMP: We haven't heard anything. Only that they got passwords and they'll be notified.

LEMON: OK. Because there were some indication from some that we had heard here at CNN and not sure again that this is anything official, that there may be a decision this weekend, as early as this weekend. Have you heard anything about that?

CRUMP: Well, you know, it is a jury deliberation, Don. So when they start deliberating, you don't know how long they will deliberate, when they might start deliberating, so none of us know but we are anticipating that all the witness testimony is done. So we think we're getting to the end here.

LEMON: So you think you're getting pretty close then, is that what you're saying?

CRUMP: Yes, sir.


CRUMP: Getting pretty close to getting a decision.

LEMON: OK. So I want to ask you this because -- and I know it's not your intention to spark violence. It's your intention that there be peace here. So yesterday you said that everyone has a right to trial by jury and that in our system, you're not guilty until proven innocent.

After that statement, though, we heard from a lot of people saying that you didn't offer the same due process for Officer Wilson by accusing him of executing Mr. Brown in the days and weeks that followed Brown's death.

What's your response to that?

CRUMP: Oh, very simply, Don, you want him to be able to get his trial by jury because somebody says something. Think about all the things they said about Michael Brown, the dead, unarmed teenager. So all -- I think it's fair for him to get his due process, but also we need Michael Brown to get his due process. And if he gets this indictment, he's going to have a chance to have the best lawyers, he's going to have the chance to have the best defense possible.

But if he is not charged, you do look at -- to Michael Brown's family and say where is there due process, where do they get chance to have justice for their unarmed child who was killed?

LEMON: If the grand jury decides not to indict Officer Wilson, are you concerned that those types of statements that you have used in the past and again yesterday claiming that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot are only going to incite more anger and more violence?

CRUMP: Well, the fact is, Don, seven witnesses said he had his hands up. There is forensic evidence that supports the witness statements and the truth of the matter is, how many times have young people of color being killed and being swept under the rug and nobody had done nothing.

I want you to know again, on the record, we are telling everybody we want them to be act responsibly and to be constructive and be peaceful. And remember, Don, this is going to be a defining moment not just for the state of Missouri, but all of America. And we all have to act on our best behavior. But it is troubling to us to keep watching our children get killed and it is swept under the rug and everybody says it is OK.

It's not OK. It hurts. And we want to change this system so we got to find a way to have some positive solutions.

LEMON: And I think -- listen, I can't imagine what it's like for any parent to go through that, regardless of the circumstances, but the reason I ask you that question is because the family pathologist, the pathologist that the family hired, said that it was inconclusive as to whether Brown's hands were up when he was shot. So what evidence do you have that suggests that Brown was surrendering when he was shot. You talked about the eyewitnesses, but what other evidence do you have?

CRUMP: Well, Dr. Baden has said over and over again, it's a combination of things. Just the autopsy alone won't tell the complete story. We did have to take into account. We have to take into evidence the body is a moving object so if the witness says that it was like this era and you have the -- the bullets here then you can start logically to making conclusions. And so that's what the tells this tale and Dr. Baden you're going to find is very convinced, when his testimony comes out.

We can't get into the substance of his testimony because he took an oath, but I think after the grand jury comes back with their decision, he will be able to elaborate for you, Don, and anybody else who needs to understand why he feels that this backs up the witness statements, these independent witness statements. LEMON: If the officer is not indicted, are you going to abide by what

-- how the process is played out and the decision that the grand jury reaches?

CRUMP: You know, we have to, Don, because we have a system of laws and we have to respect the elected officials. But I want to say this. If we keep doing things the way we do them and expect different results, then that's the definition for insanity. If we keep having local prosecutors who have this symbiotic relationship with the local police department sit in judgment every time they kill one of our children, it's almost as if the game is fixed even before we begin.

And it's not fair and it's not right. We need a special prosecutor who can give due process to Michael Brown, Jr. and the unknown Michael Brown Jr.'s because, as you know, Don, this happens all over America every day. And nothing is changing. We've got to have positive solutions. The video cameras will be a start. Instead of buying more military trucks and military gear --

LEMON: Right.

CRUMP: -- we need to get video body cameras. This proposed Michael Brown law passes so we won't have this issue in the future.

LEMON: And Mr. Crump.

CRUMP: And that will be a step in the right direction.

LEMON: Thank you, sir. I have to -- I have to go. As you know we have limited time here. I appreciate you joining us here on CNN. Thank you again.

CRUMP: Thank you so much, Don.

LEMON: And I want to bring in forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht now and also David Klinger, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and a former officer with the L.A. Police Department.

Good evening to you, gentlemen.

I'm going to start with you, Dr. Wecht. When last we spoke, you said that you would vote to indict Officer Wilson, is that a rush to judgment when we don't know a lot about the struggle inside of the police car and there are conflicting witnesses -- witness reports about what exactly happened on the street?

DR. CYRIL WECHT, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Don, whatever happened at the police car was not relevant to the subsequent seven shots that were fired from some distance away. So Michael Brown may have been 100 percent at fault in that scuffle. You then have to move on to the subsequent shots. And my statement was based on, and I shall repeat very quickly, two shots of the right arm, one in the forearm, then enters in the back, exits in the front, and a shot in the upper arm that enters in the front and exits in the back. There is no way that you can have those two shots if the trajectories

moving upward fired by a 6-foot officer against a 6'5" victim unless that arm is in an upward position like this. You can't have the arm down and have upward trajectories. And you've got two shots in the chest that have a downward trajectory and then you got two shots in the head that have a very downward trajectory.

Put that together, I want somebody to tell me another scenario whereby those shots could have been fired without Michael Brown having been --

LEMON: The reason --

WECHT: -- initially in a standing position like this and then falling forward and then falling forward more and then landing up dead prone. I want someone else --


LEMON: Doctor Wecht -- the reason I ask you that question is because the forensic pathologist hired by the family has said that it was inconclusive, that his hands were up, and you're giving a different account by reading basically the same pieces of evidence.

And so if you two, both of you, respected forensic pathologist, cannot come to a consensus, how does one expect a grand jury to do so?

WECHT: I'm not carrying on a movement, I'm not living in St. Louis, and I'm not involved nationally. You asked me my opinion and I gave you my opinion. I wasn't going to try to evade it in some elusive fashion. I gave you my opinion and it is based upon the forensic analysis of those shots.

LEMON: I understand that.

WECHT: Whatever he various witnesses --

LEMON: I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that if you two are, you know, as I said, at odds, that must be tough for a grand jury. I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just asking you a question. Can you understand a grand jury looking at that? WECHT: Well --

LEMON: They're not experts, they're not forensic pathologists.

WECHT: Yes -- no. I can understand that very well. I've dealt with -- I've been involved with jury trials now for 52 years and I appreciate your comments and you're right on target. I -- by the way, I want to go ask, how does it known what Dr. Baden has testified to in the grand jury?


WECHT: I thought it has not been disclosed and yet people are saying that Dr. Baden has said -- he said it was inconclusive back then when he did the autopsy. Do we know what he testified to here two days ago there in Ferguson? I'm not aware of that. LEMON: Yes.

WECHT: So, secondly, Michael Baden is a friend and a colleague, we've been together for 50 years, and we've been on cases on the same side and we've been on different sides.



WECHT: I understand that.

LEMON: All right.

WECHT: And I'm not uptight about this.

LEMON: You have to understand, too -- no, you have to understand, too. I have limited time here. And David has been sitting by very patiently and I want to get David in since we invited him on the air here.

David, we know Michael Brown was shot at least six time. Some say seven -- between seven and eight times during the encounter with Officer Wilson. Is the number of shots reason enough to indict this officer?

DAVID KLINGER, ASSOCIATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS: Absolutely not. Police officers around the country are trained to shoot until the threat is over. So running with the scenario, where Officer Wilson had lawful warrant go ahead and use deadly force to stop an attack. If it takes five bullets, six bullets, seven bullets to stop somebody, you shoot until the threat is over.

I was involved in a shooting as young police officer, and fortunately for everyone involved, I was able to resolve a situation with a single shot, but the individual kept fighting with a knife, he's trying to murder my partner, stabbed him in the throat. We're able to control him after I fired one shot into him. So we stopped shooting him.

But if an individual continues to press the attack, and the officer has a reason to believe that his life is still in jeopardy, deadly force is continued to be authorized. Once the threat is passed, the officer has to stop shooting.

LEMON: All right. David Klinger, sorry I didn't give as much as time as Dr. Wecht but I appreciate you joining us here on CNN.

Both of you, gentlemen, have a good Friday. Thank you very much.

OUTFRONT next, shocking new details about America's nuclear weapons, subs, bombers, even ballistic missiles slowly decaying. Are Americans at risk?

And Bill Cosby looks to expand his fan base on social media but it backfires. Now America's favorite TV dad is facing rape allegations from his past. Also dozens of soldiers mobilized to catch a big cat on the run.

Ahead a French feline frenzy.


LEMON: Major problems for America's nuclear program. Outdated equipment, lack of necessary supplies. Those are just some of the findings from a shocking internal review of the nation's aging nuclear program. And now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wants to overhaul this crucial part of the U.S. military and inject billions of dollars into the programs' deteriorating infrastructure.

Tom Foreman is OUTFRONT tonight.


TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In the dangerous world of nuclear missiles and strategic bombers it's hard to imagine a simple hand tool could be a problem. But the Pentagon review found supplies were so neglected, workers at three nuke sites were sharing a single specialized wrench for more than 400 missiles.

CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Now how did they do it? They did it by federal expressing the one wrench around each days. They were creative and innovative and they made it work. But that's not the way to do it.

FOREMAN: The Pentagon is now acknowledging many such troubles, including an inspection regiment that nitpicked insignificant details while ignoring potentially serious issues like leaky hydraulic seals on aging missile blast doors, making it impossible to close them properly.

A culture of inefficiencies, micromanagement and daily shortages in equipment qualified personnel, facilities and funding. Even badly outdated helicopters being used to service nuclear operations. Choppers that came into service under President Nixon during the Vietnam War.

HAGEL: We've just kind of taken our eye off the ball here and if we don't fix this, eventually it will get to a point where there will be some questions about our security.

FOREMAN: Officials say these problems grew in part from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, which forced the Pentagon to choose between sending resources to battle or to the nuke program.

ROBERT WORK, DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY: When you have to make a hard choice like that, you are going to support the war fighters and you make it as best as you can.

FOREMAN: Still embarrassing lapses have resulted, such as incident last year in which a missile bay door was left open and unattended while one crew member slept and another went for food. And more recently reports of missile officers cheating on proficiency tests.


FOREMAN: Fixing all of this is not going to be cheap. There is no question about that. The military currently spends about $15 billion to $16 billion a year on its nuclear program. They said that'll have to move up by about 10 percent, and even then, Don, they say it will take a good number of years before all the damage is undone.

LEMON: Boy. Tom Foreman, thank you very much tonight.

Just how at risk is the nation's nuclear arsenal?

Retired four-star General Wesley Clark is here. He's OUTFRONT with me tonight.

So, General, there have now been two reviews and more than 100 recommendations. How concerned are you about the state of the nation's nuclear program?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, I think you have to have confidence in these reviews and it seems to that they pointed out some very real problems and they should be corrected.

But, Don, what we're not hearing is the efforts in the modernization of the nuclear force that will be necessary to protect the U.S. deterrent against Chinese and Russian modernization of their nuclear forces. And even though we don't want to admit it and we don't want to face it, there is kind of a nuclear arms race that's restarted, both from Russia and from China.

LEMON: Interesting. I have to ask you about this because our Jake Tapper just interviewed the former Navy SEAL who claims that he killed Osama bin Laden, and here he talks about how to -- how he expected to die on that mission. Here it is.


ROBERT O'NEILL, FORMER NAVY SEAL: There was two of us left on the stairs going up. We knew we had to get up there because they were doing something, we assumed rigging explosives, vests, to blow themselves up. So when we went up, my thought wasn't of oh, we're about to shoot this guy and be heroes, my thought was we're going to blow up, let's get it over with.

And we went up there to do but with the thought that, you know, we will die if he blows, but he will die, too, and that is worth it.


LEMON: And General, his name is Robert O'Neill. He's getting a lot of criticism about speaking out but really plenty of administration officials have also leaked details about the mission. Is what he did any different?

CLARK: Well, I think we put our servicemen in special ops in really difficult position because they must be asking these questions. But the truth is when we set up the Special Operations Command and these forces, we wanted them to be totally secret, undercover, and if for a time we couldn't even mention the name of the organization.

Now it's up to the administration and the leadership at the top to decide how much information should be released. People that come in to the service understand that. They are told they have to keep it secret. And then if a decision is made at the top to release certain details, well, OK, you have to live with it.

I feel really bad for O'Neill and the other man who are there because they can see the information coming out, it is very meaningful to them. There is some extraordinary heroism and skill involved in these operations. They often don't get any personal credit for it. That's part of the job as they signed up for it.

But still, the safety and success of these missions rests on the secrecy of the technology and the techniques. We should always keep that in mind.

LEMON: Wesley Clark -- General Wesley Clark. Thank you very much. Have a good weekend, sir.

CLARK: Thank you.

LEMON: OUTFRONT next, the president defying Congress and going it alone against a Republican majority. Is another government shutdown on the way?

Plus Bill Cosby, one of America's favorite comedians, under fire. How a social media stunt led to allegations of rape.


LEMON: President Obama doubling down, threatening to go it alone on immigration. The fate of millions of people living in this country at stake right now. But it's the president's first major fight with congressional Republicans since Democrats suffered major losses in the 2014 midterm elections. And Republicans aren't going to let the Republicans act without a major fight.

Dana Bash OUTFRONT tonight.


DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Presidential fighting words for Republicans on immigration from his trip halfway around the world in Asia.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system better. And that's going to happen.

BASH: That is going around Congress and issuing an executive order allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to stay legally. Republicans are united in opposing the move, calling it a declaration of political war.

REP. TOM COLE (R), OKLAHOMA: There's a lot of people on our side thinking he is trying to bait us into some sort of fight. You know, we're trying to be --

BASH (on camera): Are you going to take the bait?

COLE: Well, you know, are we going to fight this? Yes.

BASH (voice-over): But there's no GOP consensus on how to fight it, far from it. Some want to use Congress' main constitutional weapon, funding the government, to stop the president's immigration policies.

REP. JOE PITTS (R), PENNSYLVANIA: We'll look at things like using the power of the purse.

BASH: But many Republicans are resisting, since the last time they used government funding to stop an Obama policy, it spiraled into a government shutdown.

COLE: I personally think that's just a losing strategy. It certainly didn't work with Obamacare.

BASH: Another GOP idea, take the president to court for executive over-reach.

REP. MO BROOKS (R), ALABAMA: What we should do is engage in litigation.

BASH: But proving abuse of power is tough. Republicans are already trying to sue the president on Obamacare and having trouble even finding legal counsel to push it.

Beyond the power struggle --

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R), TENNESSEE: This president is clearly out of bounds on this issue.

BASH: And the open question is how did it come to this? Why haven't House Republicans tackled illegal immigration legislatively?

(on camera): It hasn't happened for six years or even four years since you've been in charge?

REP. TOM REED (R), NEW YORK: Well, maybe the time is right. So, let's see what happens?

BASH: Exit polls from last week's election show a majority in favor of at least some legal status for undocumented immigrants, but most House Republicans face a different dynamic, representing conservative districts. In fact, three quarters of House Republican districts have Latino voting populations of less than 10 percent.


BASH: And the thing to keep in mind is that there is a healthy group of Republicans, even those without Latino populations in their districts, who want to find compromise. And, Don, I talked to many today who said they thought was now finally the chance to convince fellow Republicans to come along, but their hope for that will be blown up by any presidential executive order.

LEMON: Oh, my. Thank you, Dana Bash. Appreciate that.

BASH: Thank you.

LEMON: Now, it's time to discuss it.

Let's go OUTFRONT with Jose Antonio Vargas. He's a Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist who revealed and chronicled his own life as an undocumented immigrant in America.

Also with us is Derrick Morgan. He served as special counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney.

My first question is going to go to you. The president is expected to provide relief for 5 million immigrants, 5 million undocumented immigrants.


LEMON: But that's the question, though. There are nearly 12 million undocumented immigrants.

Is there -- do you think that this bill is comprehensive enough it? Because it may not cover all of those immigrants.

VARGAS: I want to address that question, because no, it's not comprehensive enough. But doing nothing is not acceptable anymore. What the Republicans are trying to say is that to do nothing, to remain, to kind of stay in the status quo. And that's why this is not an either/or kind of situation.

The president has said he wants to act, because it's to act. Every day he doesn't act, a thousand people get deported every day.

LEMON: So, what's a better solution then, do you think? If you think it's not --

VARGAS: A better solution is for the president to announce executive action as soon as he can, so that no person that doesn't deserve to be deported is not deported, and then Congress to actually pass a bipartisan bill that's permanent, because nothing the president does will be permanent.

LEMON: But you realize that this not going to go on obviously without a fight. You saw Dana Bash's story there.

And, Derek, my question to you, is Congress is unlikely to pass a comprehensive bill. You heard in Dana's piece there, that seems to be little consensus among Republicans as what to do now. So, what else can be done? Where is the common ground here?

DERRICK MORGAN, VICE PRESIDENT, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, one thing is for sure, if the president does do an executive amnesty like he's been promising, it's going to poison the well for any kind of cooperation on immigration or probably a lot of other things. It's illegitimate. A majority of people do not want him to do it, including a majority of Hispanic Americans. Instead, he ought to be working with Congress for common sense solutions, but that's not going to happen when he does an executive amnesty.

LEMON: Why did you flinch when he said "executive amnesty"?

VARGAS: Wait a minute. I mean, that is intellectually dishonestly. This is not amnesty. Whatever the president does is temporary.

Amnesty says -- that's what Ronald Reagan did in 1986, when the Republican president did amnesty. So, it's really intellectually dishonest for you, Derrick, to actually say that this is -- what does that mean executive amnesty?

LEMON: Derrick?

MORGAN: Amnesty is when you don't enforce the law, and he is saying that he's going to take a group of 4 million to 6 million illegal immigrants, people that are in the country illegally.

VARGAS: Undocumented immigrants, yes.

MORGAN: And he's not going to enforce the law.

VARGAS: But wait, enforcing the law -- you mean the same president who just deported more than 2 million people, who's been enforcing that law?

MORGAN: The president himself has said that the statistics that the left is throwing around about deportation are really misleading and they are. He's changed the definition of it.


MORGAN: He started to turn people back at the border and call those deportations when they're really not.

LEMON: All right. Let's talk about this because here -- these are the exit polls and you are talking about numbers that are being thrown around. The exit polls from the 2014 midterms show this -- 57 percent of voters, 57 percent of voters favor a path to legal status of undocumented immigrants. They don't want deportation.

And then there's 35 percent of voters who want a path to legal status, they're Republicans. I mean, does the GOP need to rethink its stance here to maintain its edge in 2016? Do you --

MORGAN: Well, the fact is that more than 70 percent of the people said they didn't want the president to act on his own illegitimately like he would be doing, he does an executive amnesty, and well over 50 percent of the Hispanics also agree he should not do this on his own.

VARGAS: By the way, and there is a historical precedent for presidents, Republican and Democrat, to issue an executive relief like this. Ronald Reagan did it in the '80s, right?

So, this is not about what the legal -- the legal -- there is legal basis for the president to do this. The question is --

MORGAN: Ronald Reagan worked with Congress in 1986 for the amnesty of illegal immigrants then, and we actually ought to take a lesson from his book and learn from it later on --


LEMON: Let him finish and then I'll let you.

MORGAN: Well, if this was a brand new argument and we said, how do we try to deal with people here illegally, and we never tried amnesty before, it would have a lot more merit. But the fact is, we see what happened in 1986, we have an amnesty of 3 million illegal immigrants and what happened? More illegal immigrants came and now, we're at over 11 million or 12 million immigrants.

VARGAS: Just two really quick points. I am a person. I'm not illegal. I am here illegally, but as a person, I'm not illegal.

The second point, what do you want to do with us, Derrick? What is the solution? What do you want to do with us?

MORGAN: I think the solution on immigration has to be the same thing actually that was promised in 1986. In 1986, they said they would try a one-time amnesty and in exchange, we would secure the border and we would have workplace enforcement.

VARGAS: How many dollars do you want to spend on border security?

MORGAN: Spending isn't necessarily the issue. It's really a matter of will by the president. Is he going to work with state and local governments, for example?

LEMON: I think we are getting far afield here because we keep moving on. But the question is, what is going to happen when the president, because the president has vowed now that he is going to do something executively?

VARGAS: Yes. And he needs to do something.

LEMON: And you believe this is going to be even bigger?

VARGAS: You know, this is -- it's really sad that this gets so overly politicized, considering that we're dealing with 12 million people, a thousand of whom gets deported every day, who belong in families with American citizens in them.


Derrick, I'll give you the last word. We got to go. Very quickly.

MORGAN: President Obama had a filibuster-proof Senate, he didn't do anything for years and now, he is rushing to do an illegitimate amnesty that's unfair, it's costly and it won't work, and an even more illegal immigration.

LEMON: All right. Derrick Morgan and Jose Antonio Vargas, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

OUTFRONT next: Bill Cosby made a living making people laugh. But there's nothing funny about allegations of rape. Why is America's favorite TV dad suddenly under fire?

Plus, a big cat on the loose in Paris. They thought it was tiger, but that was a faux pas -- paw. The story is ahead.


LEMON: Rape allegations come back to haunt America's favorite TV dad, Bill Cosby. For years, multiple women had accused Cosby of sexual assault. But when the 77-year-old comedian posted a challenge on Twitter this week, to meme him are to caption him, a few classic Cosby photos, he got more than he bargained for. Memes labeling Cosby a rapist.

And last night, I interviewed one of his accusers Barbara Bowman, and she said she was 17 years old, an aspiring actress, when she met Cosby through her agent in New York City.


LEMON: How do you think he drugged you? Do you have any idea? No?

BARBARA BOWMAN, ALLEGES BILL COSBY ASSAULTED HER: I never saw any drugs but I would wake up completely confused, half dressed and knowing that my body had been touched without my permission.


LEMON: Bill Cosby has repeatedly denied the allegation. CNN reached out to Cosby's representatives for comment, they have not yet responded.

So, joining me to discuss this is CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, Mark Geragos.

Mark, thanks for joining me again. We talked about this last night.

You have defended a lot of big stars, Michael Jackson among them. It's a challenge for someone like Bowman to go up against a beloved public figure. And you also mention Kesha (ph) as well.

MARK GERAGOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, it is a challenge. I -- the thing about her interview last night with you was that there were several things that she said that do seem to resonate and I think ring true. And that is the troubling part about all of this. And I think one of the reasons that it has got some traction.

LEMON: Yes. I also spoke with her, Mark, about -- and I asked her why she never took any legal action against the comedian. This was her response.


BOWMAN: I didn't -- why didn't I? Well, I tried. I told my agent one time. She did not believe me.

I -- a friend of mine in '89 took me to an attorney and he laughed me out of the office. At that point, nobody would believe me. He was Doctor Huxtable, he was America's dad. Everybody loved him.

I loved him. I wanted him to be my dad. And nobody believed me.


LEMON: She was 17 years old. Do you believe a 17-year-old or do you believe Bill Cosby?

GERAGOS: Well, I -- Don, I think part of the problem and you mentioned Kesha, resonates the same thing she says when you've got somebody who's young and this disproportionate type of power amongst the person who is doing the accusing and the predator. It's a very difficult situation. It's very tough.

I've been on both sides of this and I can tell through is no easy answer to it.

LEMON: What do you do, Mark, when there is no evidence, there's no rape kit, it's almost 30 years later?

GERAGOS: Well, the thing about it is the law has developed over the years because we recognize as a society at least that these things can happen. If there is somebody that you have made a doctrine of fresh complaint, where you've told somebody at the time, in real-time, that normally would be hearsay, you couldn't -- you wouldn't be allowed in.

Now, we have carved out exceptions in the law so that will come in. And so, if she has people who she told in real-time, even when she was 17 or 18, a lot of times that will come in to try to tend to corroborate what she is saying.

LEMON: Yes. This all started as part of -- you know, the comedian who talked about it and made fun of Bill Cosby, calling him a rapist in his set, and then it was the social media meme thing.

But if you look on social media, people like to make fun. That's what they do. But if you look at comments, right, actual news stories, many people will say, you know what, why 30 years later? I don't really believe her. He is a famous man, he's got money and she's out to get something. She's never really asked for money, though.

GERAGOS: She really hasn't asked for money. And I think we talked about this a little bit before. I don't mind having been on both sides of this with people having a healthy skepticism.

I think that's part of what you want in say society that values a presumption of innocence. But at the same time, when you look at the motivation and what are the motivations, is it to just get a quick, fleeting type of fame and get your name out there, or is there some other reason? Is there something else to trigger it?

So, those are the questions you have to ask and I don't think you belittle the people who were asking the tough questions.

LEMON: Absolutely. And this has gained momentum because she's not the only one who has made accusations that are similar. Thank you.

GERAGOS: Well -- I agree with you, Don.

LEMON: Thank you, Mark Geragos. Appreciate it.

OUTFRONT next, a massive search in France after a wild cat is spotted near a top tourist destination.

Plus, decades of scandals and cover-ups have led to a steep drop in the number of Catholic priests. Lisa Ling on what drives a man to still decide to wear the collar.


LEMON: All right. Pay attention to the TV. Check this out. A town on edge, steps from a top tourist destination. A mysterious wildcat still on the prowl near Disneyland, Paris. More than 100 police and military forces spent two days searching for the animal.

Residents are being warned to take caution. There have been several sightings of the animal first thought to be a tiger. And based on photos and paw prints, officials believe it may be a lynx, one of the most endangered cats on the planet.

Wildlife expert Jeff Corwin is OUTFRONT to confirm, right?

So, does this look like a lynx to you? This would be incredibly rare, if it is, Jeff.

JEFF CORWIN, WILDLIFE EXPERT: Wait a minute, Disneyworld is the top tourist destination in France?

LEMON: It's one in the world. It is in the world.

CORWIN: It is, yes. I love Disneyworld.

But this is a very intriguing story. We are talking about what could be a lynx. This is a creature that's historically lived in Western Europe, is now limited to two protected areas in Spain. Total population, 250 animals, incredibly rare.

LEMON: Yes, it's near Disneyland, Disneyworld, same company in Paris. There are a lot of children around, Jeff. This animal isn't so small. Could it be dangerous?

CORWIN: Well, it's -- it's not so small, but it's not so huge. Think of this creature in proportion to something like a cocker spaniel. It is on the order 20 to 30 pounds plus, it's about three feet in length. It's got a tiny little bob tail. Its primary source of food is rabbits.

It's also nocturnal. So, unless your kids are wandering through the woods at night in the remote territories of France, they are probably pretty safe.

LEMON: OK. Here is what the mayor of the town said. He issued direction, Jeff, of what to do if you encounter the animal. He says, keep calm. Don't run. Don't shout. Step aside. And move away back wards, while maintaining an eye on the feline. Take shelter in a room or vehicle and call emergency services.

It's easy for him to say.

CORWIN: My goodness. I don't know if they are looking for lynx or taking a DUI test. This is very complicated.

You know, here is my opinion. This is a creature that would have to be -- if it's truly a lynx-sized creature, a small-bodied cat, you have to be in a tremendous -- that has been mall would have to be stressed, diseased, injured or old or infirm to attack someone.

But, that's good advice. I think the good message is, if you see the creature, give it space and call the authorities.

LEMON: All right. Jeff Corwin, I'm just jealous you are in Catalina -- on Catalina, excuse me. Thank you.

CORWIN: Well, I'm about to go diving.

LEMON: Oh, whatever. I'm hating. Thank you. Enjoy.

CORWIN: All right. Bye.

LEMON: OUTFRONT next, Lisa Ling on the young Catholic man who despite sex scandals and celibacy are turning to the priesthood.


LEMON: This weekend, Lisa Ling will introduce viewers to a number of young men who had been drawn to priesthood.

Erin spoke to Lisa about her upcoming episode on her series, "THIS IS LIFE".


LISA LING, THIS IS LIFE: Twenty-six-year-old Father Gary has just been assigned to his first parish in central Michigan.

FATHER GARY: In the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

CROWD: Amen.

FATHER GARY: The Lord be with you.

LING: It's a big role for a man as young as he is.

FATHER GARY: The chosen people.

When I first arrived, I looked very young. They are like, you are the father? I thought it was funny.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: The number of priests, this is an industry in crisis, an industry that change (INAUDIBLE). But I mean, they're having so much trouble, having young men choose to do that, to give up everything else that life provides.

You found men who have chosen to accept that calling.

LING: Yes. I can't think of a profession that has been scandalized more within the last decade. You have to be hiding under a rock not to have known about the scandal in the Catholic Church. And so, you would think young men would want to run in the opposite direction.

And when I asked a number of these young men, why? Why would you want to enter this profession that has been so scandalized? And a couple of them said, that's exactly why. We want to step up to the plate. We want to try and help the church and there's a need for priest.

And in a way, they are sort of rebelling against status quo and against all the criticism that the church has gotten.

So, what about the issue of celibacy. I mean, that's the big reason a lot of people have stopped going to priesthood. Is that something that they embraced? Or they believe that Pope Francis will go along a path he seemed to start to tread, which is perhaps priests can marry in the Catholic Church?

LING: You know, when I visited sick people with these priests and saw that amazing comfort that they brought people who are in their moments of deepest despair, some could argue that's better than sex, you know, to give -- to be able to give those people that kind of comfort. It's remarkable.

BURNETT: It's a beautiful way of putting it.

All right. Looking forward to seeing that one. Thank you, Lisa.

LING: Thanks, Erin.


LEMON: Don't miss "THIS IS LIFE", Sunday at 10:00 Eastern.

I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for joining us.

"AC360" starts right now.