Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

Democrats and Republicans Decide Funding the Government; John Boehner's Press Conference; New Inconsistencies Surfaced in "Rolling Stone" Report; T-Rex Lucy Ends Up in Museum

Aired December 11, 2014 - 11:30   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: We are just hours now from a House vote on funding the government. That might not sound sexy to you, but what you need to know is that theoretically it could lead to a shutdown. Democrats are lashing out over this spending bill, raising concerns that there are not enough votes to get it through. And if they don't do it by midnight, you know, they've got to do something else there will be a shutdown.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Or this sounds like echoes of times before, does it not, John? Joining us now from Washington our senior digital correspondent Chris Moody. Really, a pleasure to have you with us at this hour. So, let's talk about what the Democrats are so upset about?

CHRIS MOODY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's not just the Democrats. It's Democrats and Republicans. Look, people think - people wonder why Congress can't get anything done. Well, when they do get things done, they do it in back rooms under the threat of a possible shutdown. Which people should have reason to be mad? Now, there's probably not going to be a shutdown even if they pass this $1.1 trillion spending bill because they'll do a short-term bill that will act as a stopgap. But the reason people are angry is because - Here comes Boehner. John Boehner.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: I'm back to - overall discretionary spending, some $176 billion since the 2010 fiscal year. And over the ten-year window, we're on track to save taxpayers nearly $2.1 trillion. This bill also supports our national defense, particularly our efforts to defeat and destroy ISIL. Prevents attacks, bailed out of Obamacare's risk corridor, per annum, while cutting funding for the IRS and the EPA. And it continues our work to deliver a 21st century health care system for our veterans and their families. It's a good bill. And I think it reflects the people's priorities. And I'm asking the House to support it.

Now, ideally we've been able to do this work one bill at a time. And the House tried to do just that. We've passed seven of our appropriation bills. And not only that, but we consider these bills under a more open process, allowing the minority to offer as many amendments as they wanted to offer.

Unfortunately the Democrat majority in the Senate passed no appropriations measures, none, zero, nada, and dozens of House-passed bills that also met the same fate sitting in the Senate gathering dust. In January the new American Congress will bring us an opportunity to begin anew. And as Senator McConnell and I have pledged, the people's priorities will be our priorities. We've pointed to the Keystone pipeline, the Hire More Heroes Act, restoring the 40-hour workweek as examples of bipartisan bills that we'll take up early next year. We've also made clear that early on we'll make a direct challenge to the president's unilateral actions on immigration.

And you can expect that challenge to the president to include real action on border security. The House has already begun work on this issue. And we'll restart that work again next month.

We'll take this fight to the president on the strongest possible ground with new majorities that the American people elected. Of course, the opportunity to serve the American people is always humbling, it's even more so at a time when our country faces such great challenges. We're ready and eager to get to work.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you need Democrats to pass it, and (INAUDIBLE) as Democrats are rating objections today, how worried are you?

BOEHNER: I expect this bill will receive bipartisan support and pass. Remember, this bill was put together in a bicameral - bipartisan way. And there's no members that have objections to it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If this bill has trouble this afternoon, are you willing to go ahead with the short-term plan, and why isn't that a good idea anyway, "The National Review" and others are suggesting that House Republicans should view a short-term plan, (INAUDIBLE).

BOEHNER: This plan was put together after consultation with our members, and the entire plan was put together consulting all of our members. And we worked through this process in a bipartisan, bicameral way and I do expect it to pass. But listen, if we don't get finished today, we're going to be here until Christmas. We all know how this process works. And let me just tell you all something else, there's not one of you in this room that doesn't understand that this is exactly the way I don't want to do business. I want to do 12 appropriation bills, I want to do them one at a time and I want to do them before October 1st. But when the Senate does nothing, they put us in this box and here we are.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said that the people's priorities will be your priorities. How do you respond to lawmakers like Elizabeth Warren who say that in this bill you have a giveaway to Wall Street that will ultimately hurt consumers?

BOEHNER: I don't believe that to be the case at all. And Democrats have supported this provision in the past: it was agreed to in this bill on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. And so, while some members may have even objected to this issue and that issue, and nobody did this unilaterally. We've done this in a bipartisan fashion and frankly, it's a good bill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That said (INAUDIBLE).

BOEHNER: I didn't ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sorry, (INAUDIBLE) line. But let's talk about the specifics of Dennis' (ph) questions for a second. Why should big banks be able to trade derivatives and have their risk covered by us, by the taxpayers? Why should they be able to do that?

BOEHNER: I don't believe that to be the case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not that provision (ph)?

BOEHNER: I don't believe that your description of this is the case.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) reform bill on Monday? Do you plan on putting that on the House floor today?

BOEHNER: No, no. I have no knowledge of what the plan is for that bill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) goes this afternoon? [ laughter ].

BOEHNER: That is enough reason in and of itself.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This isn't the moment you tear up?

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) people referring to this congress as the American congress? Are you saying about the previous Congresses? Where they less American? Why do you keep using that phrase?

(LAUGHTER)

BOEHNER: Well, I just think that the American people elected new Congress in November and we decided to call it a new American congress and we have one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You talked about some of the steps that you have at your disposal next year, by backing at the presidency negative action on immigration. What can some of those steps look like?

BOEHNER: Well, I could detail those steps, but it would be an inconclusive list. There are options available to us. And we're going to exercise those options. The president can't continue to just ignore the Constitution.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Speaker, aside from your plans on immigration, what else is at the top of your priority list once you have control of both houses of Congress?

BOEHNER: The American people are still asking the question where are the jobs? And we've got to stay focused on this issue. I believe the president's policies are getting in the way of jobs being created in America and whether it's the Keystone pipeline, whether it's the president's war on coal, whether it's the EPA out of control or OSHA, these policies are hurting job creation in America. And so, the economy and jobs will continue to be our top priority. Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) that Democrats to support this Dodd- Frank provision in the past. Did they - do you sign up from Democrats to put it in this budget, and you expect to be able to get 218 on appropriation bills over the next two years?

BOEHNER: Democrats have signed off on putting this Dodd-Frank language on swaps (ph) in this bill. This was agreed to in a bipartisan, bicameral basis. And when it comes to next year, and appropriation bills, we'll have the votes to get them passed. Merry Christmas.

UNIDENTIFIED PEOPLE: Merry Christmas.

BERMAN: That's House speaker John Boehner.

PEREIRA: And that's how he ends the conversation.

BERMAN: He drops the mic and says Merry Christmas and walks off. That says it all right there. House Speaker John Boehner just says he does think that this $1.1 trillion spending bill will pass with bipartisan support. He thinks that he has the votes among Republicans and Democratic votes, too. To get these, too. I don't think he would have been out there speaking today if he didn't think he had the votes. Let's bring back Chris Moody, and right now our political reporter. And Chris, one of the things he was pressed on, one of the things that Democrats have a problem with is this issue with derivatives, financial regulation, easing some of the regulations in Dodd-Frank.

MOODY: People have a lot of problems in this bill. And the reason is they were slipped in without much debate very late in the game and people had just a day to read what became a 1600 page bill. You're loosening regulation's on Wall Street, you are also increasing the amount of money people can give to political committees, to party committees, to the tune of $777,000 from I think about 96 or 97,000 dollars. You are overturning a marijuana bill, or a marijuana law that was passed by people in the District of Columbia. There's so many things in here that people are frustrated about. Now, the thing is, thought, the interesting thing is that if Democrats kill this thing today because they're frustrated with some of these loosening restrictions on Wall Street, this will kick this in to 2015 when the Republicans will be in control and they'll have probably an upper hand in getting more Republican writers into a bill like this. So, it's really I think in the best for Democrats right now to get this thing passed today.

PEREIRA: Chris Moody, our thanks. And of course, stay with CNN. We'll be watching this all day.

Take our break here. Ahead "At this hour," new inconsistencies surfacing, adding to the doubt about an alleged gang rape at a UVA frat house. How these new discrepancies are not only damaging to the woman's story, but to the magazine that reported it as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BERMAN: A new report released just last hour by the Justice Department offers new statistics about rape among college-aged women. Now, the study compared women who were students between 1995 and 2013 with those who were not in school.

PEREIRA: Now, among the key findings, 80 percent of rape and sexual assaults involving students was not reported to police. About 80 percent of victims in all cases knew the offender. And the rate of rape and sexual assault was higher for women who were not students. In the meantime, there are more serious questions this morning about the details reported by "Rolling Stone" magazine about a brutal gang rape at the University of Virginia. The "Washington Post" has uncovered new inconsistencies in the account given by a woman the magazine calls Jackie.

BERMAN: Yeah, the "Washington Post" story is fairly breathtaking. Among the new gaps that they report, questions about the evidence that Jackie offered to identify the man she says orchestrated the attack. And get this. The magazine's assertion that a friend of Jackie would not be interviewed out of loyalty to his fraternity. While the man now tells "The Washington Post" that Rolling Stone never contacted him.

PEREIRA: Joining us to look at all this, senior media correspondent, Brian Stelter, host of CNN's "Reliable Sources." I've got to wonder, how damaging is this? And in terms of - We'll get to what it's doing to sexual assault and the movement there to protect young women in a second, but in terms of the reputation that's at stake for "Rolling Stone," how damaging is that?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We had so many hits over the years. But this is such a glaring miss for them, this is such a series of mistakes that they've made along the way, and now they are doing this internal review, trying to figure out what went wrong, why they didn't do what they needed to do, why this story wasn't fact checked.

PEREIRA: And how they not do again.

STELTER: And we're waiting for the outcome of that. We might get it today, we might get it tomorrow. What I wonder is, whether any heads are going to roll, frankly, there. The writer of the story hasn't said anything for a week now. She has been silent. You call her home phone number, the voice message box is full. So, we haven't heard her side of the story, frankly, about this, maybe she has some great explanation, but I kind of doubt it.

BERMAN: Yes, the writer, the editor, so many questions. And, you know, without reinvestigating this young woman again, because that's not so much the issue here, this "Washington Post" piece, what it did, is it almost went back piece by piece ...

STELTER: Yes.

BERMAN: You know, unraveled parts of the story that "Rolling Stone" told and found inconsistencies and beyond that, they found what appeared to be out and out now fabrications that "Rolling Stone" tried to contact someone who says they weren't contacted.

STELTER: And that's a cardinal set in journalism. If you say you contacted someone, you better damn well try to contact them. I do think it's worth noting that it seems like Jackie story has evolved over time, but that's something traumatic did happen to her. Her friends believe something bad, very bad did happen to her.

PEREIRA: Her father even does.

STELTER: Yeah, that's right. And in some of the initial reports were the five men were involved. That's what she told her friends initially. Then she told "Rolling Stone" seven men. I don't think we should get a new argument about whether that a significant difference or not, because her friends believe something very traumatic happened. However, if the details weren't right in that article, it does undermine the entire article. She has retained a lawyer now, by the way. The lawyer came out yesterday for Jackie and her family and said we have no comment at this time. Please stop contacting us.

PEREIRA: And then on top of this is that discussion that I was mentioning earlier, is how this is going to hamper the efforts to combat sexual assault, which is an issue on campuses, and not just on campuses, across the nation?

STELTER: Absolutely, and among young people in general ...

PEREIRA: Yeah.

STELTER .... there was another friend of Jackie's interviewed by CBS yesterday. She said she felt like the writer at "Rolling Stone" was trying to sensationalize this topic. That's not what we needed when it comes to this topic. This topic is awful ...

PEREIRA: And it's not what we do.

STELTER: And significant enough and it's not what we need to be doing. And also, that - in this case, maybe she was out trying to find a story that would get people's attention. That wasn't actually necessary. This is significant enough on its own as the Justice Department report shows.

BERMAN: All right. I want to go to another story that people are talking about right now, it's a little of a hard turn. What's going on at Sony, the hack attack at Sony.

(CROSSTALK)

BERMAN: It is - it's just unbelievable. Some of the discussions that have been revealed here, just a very, very nasty sigh of what's going on in Hollywood right now, including discussions about the president of the United States. I want to read you something if I can find it. Can you scroll up to that right now so I can see that?

They were discussing what the president likes. This is someone - senior executive of Sony and Scott Rudin, right, a very powerful ...

STELTER: Famous ...

BERMAN: Very powerful producer. The executive of Sony asked Rudin, should I ask him, the president, if he liked Django. Scott Rudin says 12 years. In that missing "12 Years a Slave". Then this executive says, or "The Butler" or "Think Like a Man." Then Scott Rudin responds, according to this hack attack, right along, I bet he likes Kevin Hart.

PEREIRA: Who he also goes on to call a pretty awful name.

STELTER: Yes, he does.

BERMAN: Look, the bottom line here. And all those, all those are films, you know, staring predominantly African-Americans, talking about an African-American president. That seems (INAUDIBLE) racial.

STELTER: There is definitely a racial tone to this, and this in the context of a fund-raiser that's going to be held for the president. The president was going to be at it. And they are talking about, what should we talk to the president about? It certainly makes everybody involved look very bad. And it's one of many examples of the damage that's being done to Sony from this hacking. This - you could maybe argue it's self-inflicted, but these emails were never meant to see the light of day and now they have. Scott Rudin came out ....

PEREIRA: How bad is this going to be? I mean how bad is this for Sony?

STELTER: I think it's - it's - every day it gets worse for Sony, is the short answer. Every day it gets worse for Sony as new e-mails come to light. I think they are going to actually come out later today and address this. Because every day we learn something new from this hacking attack which, by the way, they say is basically a terrorist act. That is true, but now we're dealing with the ...

PEREIRA: Distracting from the issue of this, right?

BERMAN: Scott Rudin said at the Angelina Jolie, I'm not destroying my career over a minimally talented spoiled brat?

PEREIRA: Oh, god.

STELTER: Do you think that she'll ever want to work with him again?

PEREIRA: Not so much.

STELTER: I'm going to guess no. And that is the damage for them a year or five years down the line after their computer systems are back up and running.

PEREIRA: Brian Stelter, it was good to have you. Thanks.

BERMAN: All right. Just ahead for us, we are talking about the biggest discovery ever of a complete Tyranosaur Rex dinosaur and the fight over who should own this skeleton. A preview of a film you will not want to miss. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: A discovery of a lifetime, a group of scientists stumbled upon a giant in the black hills of South Dakota, the most complete t- rex dinosaur fossil ever found. Its discovery is uncovered in the film "Dinosaur 13" airing on CNN tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It took me over to this big cliff and he said, take a look. And I looked at it and I looked at him and I said, is that T-rex? He said yes. And I think it's all here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we haven't started digging, we haven't moved anything around yet. We've just been looking at it and taking some pictures and trying to figure out how to proceed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So it sounds like a great find, right? Well, it quickly turned into a major drama. Who owns the find? Who owns the fossil, a specimen named Sue. Joining us now from Sue's current home in Chicago's Field Museum is Poppy Harlow, who looks so small next to Sue.

(LAUGHTER)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello! Can you see me?

PEREIRA: There she is.

HARLOW: This just gives you a sense, guys, of the enormity of Sue. 42 feet long, the largest t-rex fossil ever found in the history of the world. The most significant because Sue is the most complete. 90 percent of her is still here. It is extraordinary. Few interesting facts, guys. Sue was found by a woman, girl power, a scientist named Sue, so that's why she's named Sue. But we don't really know if she's a male or female. These bones weigh about 4,000 pounds. She dates back to 67 million years ago. And we know that Sue died when she was 28, but you cannot overstate the scientific importance of this dinosaur, what these kids, you want to come over? They're very excited about her. They're very excited.

(CROSSTALK)

HARLOW: Because of all -- because of all of the papers, there are 50 papers written about her around the world. She's been studied time and time again. And guys, what's interesting is they actually continue to study her skull here and find out more and more and more about her. So, you can't overstate the scientific importance. But Berman, as you mentioned, there is a lot of controversy also over how she finally ended up in a home.

PEREIRA: Tell us a little bit about that.

HARLOW: Well, what happened is, they found Sue in South Dakota in the side of a hill by these scientists and then they collected her and then shortly thereafter, the FBI came in, the Department of Justice. They took sue away. There was a huge legal battle, guys, for about seven years over who would own Sue. Ultimately it was decided she didn't belong to the people who found her. She actually belonged to the landowner and it was sort of federal land and then she was auctioned off. And sold to the field museum for $8.4 million. It is a lot of money. And guys, just so you know, even the people that found her, although they would like her home in South Dakota, they're very happy she's in the field museum because of all of the science that comes out of it.

PEREIRA: And kids looks like that, get to see her. Make sure to tune in tonight. It's on CNN. You will be able to watch "Dinosaur 13" right here." Thanks, Poppy.

That's it for us at this hour.

I'm Michaela Pereira.

BERMAN: And I'm John Berman. "Legal View" with Ashleigh Banfield starts right now.