Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CIA's Interrogation Program; More Evidence from the Ferguson, Missouri Grand Jury Released Today; Captain Ron Johnson Featured in Documentary Series; Private Armed Security Guards Lack Training and Oversight

Aired December 14, 2014 - 17:00   ET

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

POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: Hi everyone. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Poppy Harlow. Thanks so much for joining me this evening. We are watching three big stories at this hour.

First, defenders of the CIA's interrogation program are making a lot of noise today. A lot of people talking out calling the Senate report on CIA and torture seriously flawed inaccurate and bias.

Also, a new argument is surfacing, are President Obama's drone strikes really a preferable way to deal with terror suspects. Where is the line? Drone strikes that killed that have been bystanders and children. And critics say they may not be more legally superior to the CIA's interrogation techniques. We will hear both sides of that argument this hour.

Also, more grand jury testimony is released from Ferguson, Missouri from the prosecutors there. We will tell you where you can read that testimony and show you how a number of so called witnesses to the shooting were not really witnesses as all. That is right. Apparently some lied under oath.

Let's start, though, with the CIA. Defenders of the agency's so- called the hemp interrogation techniques or EITs as they are referred to are out in full force challenging the senate committee report hat outlined how the agency resorted to torture as they tried to get information out of terror suspect.

Former vice president Dick Cheney and the man who foresaw the CIA's interrogation program are questioning the report, the reasons for its release and the conclusions drawn from it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is this notion that somehow there's a moral equivalence in doing what the terrorists do and what we do. That's absolutely not true. We were very careful to stop short of torture. The Senate has seen fit to label the report torture, but we were making sure of that definition.

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CLANDESTINE SERVICE: But this report throws the CIA under the bus, under the bus. It throws under the bulls all of these people who actually work to so hard to protect the country. And actually, my concern is it subjects that to threats from ISIS which I think you have already begun to see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: A lot to talk about this hour. Let's get straight to Brian Stelter. He joins me here in New York. He is CNN's senior media correspondent and the host of "RELIABLE SOURCE." He is also joining me, as always, CNN commentators Ben Ferguson and Marc Lamont Hill.

Ben, let me begin with you. What do you make of the Dick Cheney interview on "Meet the Press" this morning. And what he said really digging his heels and saying this is the right thing to. It worked. And calling this report deeply flawed.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it is totally flawed, this report, mainly because you don't do a five-and-a-half year report and not talk to anybody at CIA if you are actually trying to do a report which is going to move America forwards as this report claims.

The other thing I found very interesting is when Dianne Feinstein was talking with Wolf Blitzer here. One of the main thing she really was angry about was the CIA looking into her emails and her staff emails and she didn't like that. And it was one of those moments to pause for me because when saw here being this angry, I think it really tells you a lot about the reasoning behind this report. She doesn't like CIA. In fact, she pretty much hate them.

HARLOW: Wasn't it just Dianne Feinstein alone who did -- wait. It wasn't just Dianne Feinstein alone --

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: But I'm saying Dianne Feinstein said it, though, on this. But Dianne Feinstein led the report. She was in-charge of it. She didn't want to talk to anybody at the CIA and she was mad they looked at her emails. And so, I think that tells you the basis for this report.

HARLOW: OK. Ben --

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Maybe, or --

HARLOW: I want Marc to weigh on this as well because Ben does have a point that they did not, this committee, did not interview operatives at the CIA leaders in this program. Now partly, that because the DOJ was doing an investigation and they couldn't Intel 2011. But the question and becomes and Angus King was posed this question as well, the independent, you could have done it from 2011 up until now.

HILL: No. And that is fair question. Why didn't they do it again? And I think you're right that the initial reason it wasn't done was because they didn't have sufficient access to the CIA because of the DOJ investigation. But to reduce this to some sort of partisan witch hunt that was animated by Dianne Feinstein's frustration over email investigation might be a bit shortsighted or even dismissive. I think she may be more upset about torture. FERGUSON: But she said it, not me.

HILL: She didn't say that the reason she did this was because she didn't like the CIA. That characterization, what I am disagreeing with Ben, not whether now she dislike these CIA. That's immaterial to me. The point here is the question about of torturing and enhanced interrogation. And what I have done fascinating is initially is saying we don't do it. Anyone they get going and becomes exposed and that they do it is to say well, we did it but we had to do it. And then they say, well, you don't have to do it. They didn't have to do it, but it worked. And so, they keep moving the ball when in fact, this is something that simply violates international law and should be not only criticized but probably prosecute.

HARLOW: When they talked in the executives summary about this and even mention in where the line is and we thought that all of these done, by the way, off of U.S. soil. And you know, where the line fall down. You heard Dick Cheney again this morning saying, look, the lawyer signed off on this. The president knew about it. I knew about it. We met six days a week with the head of the CIA.

Let me bring Brian Stelter in here because also, Brian, we knew some of this as it was going on because of leaks. Leaks at the CIA. Then this report says really warrant followed up on internally getting to the bottom of them.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN HOST, RELIABLE SOURCES: Right. Because they were encourage to have them.

HARLOW: Do you think that the CIA used the media? If so, did they do it effectively.

STELTER: I think that's one of the things this report illustrates. You know, we would only seen the executive summary. I would love to see what is in the other 6,000 pages of this report and get into the integrate details. But from the executive summary, we know that the media was at sometimes used, you know, by the CIA in order to present a positive portrait of how this interrogation program is working.

But what I think we can all agree on after seeing the executive summary is there is a lot we didn't know. Even a lot, there wasn't leaked out by the CIA in order to give a positive scam (ph) in this program. There is a lot that I did not know. For example, the 25 percent of these detainees that were innocent according to the Senate report. That kind of information, we didn't know. We can all agree that is worth knowing about even if we think this was part of some report that was full of (INAUDIBLE). More information on the sunlight is almost always a good thing.

HARLOW: Marc, to you.

HILL: It's incredibly frustrating to have this. I'm excited that this information come up because we need to know. The public deserves to know it. But when you hear cases of like one in four people being innocent, and not only people who are innocent, but people like (INAUDIBLE) who is in Germany's sends of to Afghanistan where he was (INAUDIBLE), I mean. And it was in the case of mistaken identity. This type of stuff is dangerous and somehow we have bought into this idea that if it keeps us safe anything goes and that is not who we are.

(CROSSTALK)

HARLOW: Brian, quickly, then to Ben.

STELTER: When we spend time talking about whether this is biased and flawed and partisan, we are not talking about the morality of the program. And that is the (INAUDIBLE) or the debate. It should be half.

HARLOW: Do you think, Ben, that we should be talking about what Brian said the morality of it, the most. Because I'm just looking at my notes here on what Dick Cheney said this morning. He was asked on "Meet the Press." He was asked about it. What do you say about those one in particular, who was found to be innocent, a case of mistaken identity and ended up dying. You know, what do you have to say to that? And he kept report back to look what happen on 9/11 here.

FERGUSON: Here is the thing. You have got the fog of war that comes into this. And it is a very easy for us, more than a decade later to look at this and say we could do things better. And I'm in favor of doing things better. But to act as if all of these detainees were treated this way is factually incorrect as well. We have to look at where these tactics were used. And they were used specifically against people at the highest level first and foremost.

And I also got to go back to, of course, you hear. I don't believe that what we did was waterboarding, other things are torture. I think what is torture is having people in the twin towers have to choose between it is burning to death or having to jump to their death. That is torture.

What happened to those people on 9/11 have --

HILL: How about forced rectal feeding.

FERGUSON: Hold on, let me finish. What happened on to those people on the plane? I'm looking out for them first and foremost and American people like that. When you have an attack like that that happens, there are some people that are actually worth more alive than dead like we are using drones now. And sometimes those people are pretty smart, they are pretty deviant and saying, do you want to speak with us is not going get any information out of them. That's the reality of dealing with terrorists.

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: Reality is that it doesn't work.

HARLOW: We have to get a break in. But as we go to break, let's think about what John McCain, the Republican, said that this does not result in useful information. Someone who has a lot of credibility in this arena, as a former prisoner of war. Quick break. We will be back on the other side. Don't go anywhere.

We are going to talk about what was just brought up. Has the juice of drones done just as much if not more damage than torture. Which is more effective? What should we do in this country? Where is our moral compass on all of this.

Also, we will speak with Brian later about the huge Sony hack that keeps getting worse and worse. And now, guess what, those hackers promising a damning document dump on Christmas. The details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Well, a Senate report on CIA interrogation has kept republicans on their heels. They have tried, some of them, to defend the agency and the former president Bush. And now, they want the counter arguing, questioning President Obama's use of drones.

Now, the drone program, there is a lot we don't know about it. It is largely crowded in secrecy. Those in "New York Times" has reported that the president does approve some of those drone targets.

And we are back in CNN commentators Ben Ferguson and Marc Lamont Hill.

Marc, let me begin with you. President Obama expanded the drone programs significantly, right? And by one count, the strikes have killed possibly hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and Yemen. And I wondered, given what we now know, how much of the CIA operations have become republic and transparent? Do you think that the president, this administration is vulnerable to future legal questions about this use of drones?

HILL: I can't say for sure whether there are legal questions that he will face because, again, the done program as just currently constituted and many people's estimation is league. But it certainly faces (INAUDIBLE), that's the whole question. I don't think that President Obama's drone program is morally superior to President Bush's regime of torture. That the fact of the matter is, when you say hundreds of civilian casualties in a drone attack, that is a conservative estimate.

You know, when you talk about how enemy combatants are constructed or how, you know, war participants are constructed in a place like say Yemen, we're basing it on their age, not necessarily the political affiliation or their activities. So if you're 18 and you are in the area, you are considered a member of the Yemeni army. I remember the resistance force as such. They are saying, well, you are not a civilian casualties. In truth, they are often times. And so, the casualty count will be high. The moral and ethical critique will be merited. And I can't wait to find out because I do not hold President Obama in a correct position on this issue. It's disturbing.

HARLOW: All right, I want you both to list to CIA director John Brennan. This is at that news conference at the historic news conference at the CIA on Thursday talking about drones.

FERGUSON: Yes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: During my tenure at the White House as the president's assistant for counterterrorism, that the use of these unmanned aerial vehicles and you referred to as drone, and the counterterrorism efforts has done tremendous work to keep this country safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: So Ben, I want your thoughts on that. When I heard that and then this morning when we herd Dick Cheney saying, look, this worked. These enhanced interrogation techniques worked. They kept us safe. They got us information. And he said no crime was committed.

Do you see those statements has pretty equivalent just talking about different techniques?

FERGUSON: I think they both understand that we have a war on terror. I actually, see both of their perspective. I mean, I will say this. I don't like the drone strikes as our main ultimate strategy because there is many of these terrorists that are worth more to us alive than they are dead when it comes to knowing what they have in their head about future strikes, about what they have going on. And I don't think it is funny at all, Marc. I think it is the reality of dealing with terrorism.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: Hold on. Let me finish what I am saying. I don't think it is torture or waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11. I said that many of times. I have no problem with the guy being waterboard.

Here is the other thing. Only one innocent person in this from Senate report who has killed after there was a mistaken identity. How many people have been killed by drone strikes that were innocent? I mean, I have to laugh at Dianne Feinstein and others that act like they are sitting in the more high ground while they are allowing the president of the United States of America use drones.

There is no jury. There is no questing. You may be in the wrong place, wrong time. We are talking about hundreds of innocent people.

But here is the real thing. They are using drones so you don't have to take people to places like Guantanamo. This is a strategy to fight the war in a very limited way against terrorist. And this is how they see where they can do it without having to answer the least amount of questions about what happens afterwards. Dead men don't talk and I'm shocked Democrats are allowing this to happen.

HARLOW: But is that how you should fight a war by -- in the way that make --

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: No, I don't think so. But I think the war is ugly.

HARLOW: Marc, you want to weigh in?

HILL: Yes. But we are also has rules. And I think somebody says this becomes a straw man, right? No one in this conversation is saying that somehow the president should on un-critique or un- challenge on his drone program saying quite the opposite. And the reason I laughed is not because I find droning funny, but I find Ben's argument to be a bit funny because essentially what he is saying is don't drone people as epical. Let's take them up (INAUDIBLE)

FERGUSON: I never said to torture anyone, Marc. Marc, I never set to fortune anyone. Don't put those words on my mouth, all right?

HILL: Fair enough.

FERGUSON: Let's make that very clear. I said I think you have --

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: Let me finish this. So you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: Ben, I'm conceding the point. You didn't say torture. What I am saying is that what you describe as enhanced interrogation, I am describing as torture. So what you say we should do, I am calling torture. I am not saying you are calling it torture. I am calling it torture.

But my point here is that, in both cases there is an ethical challenge that is here in the nation. And I don't think the ethical challenge is resolve at the level of functionality. In other words, it just because it works does mean we should do it, you know? And that's the problem. Dick Cheney and Ben Ferguson right now is saying.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: What would you propose then?

HILL: I'm saying no matter what happens at 911, that doesn't absorb us of moral responsibility. And finally, it doesn't work. The CIA reports in --

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: And Marc, if you don't like drones and you don't like waterboarding, what would you do, if you don't like drones, you don't like waterboarding, you don't like enhance interrogations, that means against the highest level and the mastermind of 911? How would you deal with these terrorists. Because I'm willing to listen to your suggestion. I'm not hearing any from you or Dianne Feinstein or anybody at the White House for that matter. That is why they are using drones. So what is your brilliant ideas? HILL: OK. Well, two things. One, it's a logical fallacy to suggest

if I don't have an answer for solving international terrorist at this moment that meet your argument.

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: Let me answer. However, the answer to your question according to expert is you can do a sophisticated interrogation techniques without rising to the level of torture. Let's take waterboarding off the table for a minute. There are forms of psychological investigations. There are forms of even physical investigations that don't rise to the level of torture that have turned out to be more effective that what you call enhanced interrogation. That's according to John McCain who I think knows a thing or two about torture and someone who was tortured. I think when you talk to counterterrorism experts, they all also say the same thing.

HARLOW: All right, gentlemen, we have to take a quick break. I want to continue this conversation on the other side. A little hint in the conversation but we will keep talking.

Quick break. We will be right back. We are going to talk about does the curse of being a public official always having to be on camera and what you say, we will explain that.

Also, our investigation that found that in some places it is harder to become, guess it, a manicurist than an armed security guard.

Do not miss this shocking yearlong investigations next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Intelligence information from the individuals who was detected to EITs provided information that was used in that. Again, I am not going to attribute that to the use of the EITs.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are the ones we have been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns. The ones we don't know, we don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm the decider. And I decide what is best.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just want you to know when we talk about war we're really talking about peace.

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: I actually voted for that. Before I voted against it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right, we are back with Ben Ferguson and Marc Lamont Hill.

When you look at that, and you look at these debates over known unknown, right, at they are talking about this. We have been voting for something before and then you voted against it before that. Just about anyone who has to live in front of a microphone, a camera will say things that confuse us just a little bit.

To you, Marc, first. Should we be parsing every single word and sentence for little inconsistencies, little mistakes? Is that helpful to anyone?

HILL: Of course we should. How else would we stay employed. No, no, no. I think at some. Look, living in public is hard. Saying things for a living is hard. And sometimes you say things that are well- intentioned and that is something misstated. Sometimes you say things that make good defense. But the political monsters and vouchers (ph) just what I am (INAUDIBLE). Saying, for example, as you a for something before you are against it. It is easy to make fun of, but it is not necessarily the worst thing of the world to say. So I try to be a little -- I try to be a little kinder these days before I make a statement of it.

HARLOW: A little kinder. You are really kind to Ben, always, on this program.

FERGUSON: Always.

HILL: Always.

HARLOW: But Ben, you have your program, right? I mean, we all say things and then we think does that make any sense?

FERGUSON: Yes. I got a microphone five hours a day in front of my face. And I can tell you there are days when I am like what did I just say? I mean, you got to give them a little bit of leeway unless it is a hard core, I think, policy issue.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: Yes. Well, remember, my favorite one ever, though, is Bill Clinton. What is the meaning -- it depends on the meaning of is, is. I mean, that is one word you should get rip on, for example. I mean, everyone knows what the meaning of is, is. You know, Clinton, during that time. But I think you see some people they think, you know, I'm so smart and I'm so brilliant I will be able to talk my way around it, above it, under it, anyway I can and I will just confuse everybody. And that is when the most time my flag goes up and saying, I think they know exactly what they are doing right now. And that is when out talk.

HARLOW: Marc, what do you think? What do you think the public remembers long term in things like this?

HILL: I think it depends on the person and what kind of political infrastructure and legacy they have. If you're Dan Quail, you will be remembered for the guy who couldn't spell potato. If you are Bill Clinton, you know, you have a very strong political legacy, whether you agree with it or not. People remember Bill Clinton for a great deal of things and the sex thing becomes just one piece of it. The is thing becomes a piece of it.

But you know, when you are somebody like President Obama and your legacy is still unfolding, it remains to be seen. But I think there is a chance to say something really damn, something that gets beaten up on and you can still survive and drive.

HARLOW: Yes. Many, many have.

HILL: Hillary Clinton is great example of that. I mean, she recently said that she was dead broke leaving the White House. Yes, she still is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. And no one thinks she was dead broke leaving the White House.

HARLOW: You were talking about the interview with ABC?

FERGUSON: Yes. I mean, you know, she is not dead broke. Everyone knew it and guess what, she's still the front-runner.

HARLOW: All right, guys, pleasure to have you on this evening. Always fun. Thank you. Appreciate it.

All right, coming up next, the prosecutor in Ferguson has released a lot of new evidence heard by the grand jury there. Our teams have been reporting to it all day. We will tell you what we have found.

But first the shooting of Michael Brown, the protests that followed in Ferguson certainly one of the biggest news events of the year. There is also Ebola, that epidemic, the missing planes, those midterm elections, we want to know what you think. The top stories of 2014 have been. Vote now on our the year end review page. Go to CNN.com/yir. Try to go there this week. Voting ends on Friday.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: We got more evidence from the Ferguson, Missouri grand jury today. It just came out a huge document on hundreds of more pages of these official documents released by prosecutors adding to stack evidence released just a few weeks ago. And when you look through these transcripts, there are confirmation that some of the people who say they saw the shooting in Ferguson, they didn't. They weren't telling the truth and then they admitted it later. Other so-called witnesses to Michael Brown's death change their stories once they were sat under oath in front of the grand jury. These bad testimony came from waitresses on both sides.

Josh Levs is (INAUDIBLE) to the documents. He joins me live Atlanta.

That stood out to me really most of your readings, that reporting that you have done, Josh, that witnesses on both sides, when they gone in front in the grand jury lied about it.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And they were challenged on both sides which also may come to the surprises on people who feel that prosecution went into this with one specific perspective.

I can tell this. We have been piecing through these thousands of pages of documents. And it is quite possible that by far is a majority of witnesses who were their best to say what they believe they saw. But is also not in question that there are a handful of witnesses who were brought out who were not at all helpful to the grand jury in determining what may or may not had happened. Because some people admitted that they lied and some others had no credibility by the time people were done asking them questions and that included prosecution and grand jurors.

Let me give you a couple of examples to show that these are people on both sides. This first one I'm going to tell you about, witness number 35. This is someone who is very pro Michael Brown and came from that contingent. He kept changing his stories. So it got to the point where a grand juror asked him are you telling him that the only thing that is true that about all of your statement before this is that you saw that police officer shoot him at point-blank rank? Witness 35 says, yes.

There here is a woman on the other side, this is witness 40, who kept changing her stories in numerous ways, plus it turned out that she had hosted a racist rant on the day of the shooting. And has memory problems and all this other issues.

So witness 40, the prosecution actually asks her, is this possible do you think that you dreamed about this after it happened. And it feels real to you that you are up there? And she says, no, I have never dream about it.

But, Poppy, this is what happen with people's credibility in several cases should you take a look at this and you feel for the grand jury that has to sit through hours and hours in some cases, a testimony will noble.

HARLOW: And then the question becomes why the prosecution chose to put some of these witnesses that they previously deemed pretty un- credible in front of our grand injury. I know you talked to some of our legal analysts about that. What are they saying?

LEVS: So you have two major camps. One camp says that the prosecution went into this wanting Wilson, the officer to be exonerated. And so, they decided that if they kind if made a big jumbo of information at all different directions, the grand jury would just decide, hey, there is just no way that we can indict this man.

Then you have people on the other side who say this prosecution knew that no matter what it did, there was going to be so much scrutiny from the public and that there would most likely be as there is, a federal investigation. All right, these people would look at what was done inside the grand jury. And so that this prosecution wanted to be able to say, hey, we tossed absolutely everything at the grand jury. And they made their own decision.

But I can tell you this, ultimately, what the grand jury did get was a giant jumble of information. HARLOW: Yes, a lot of it. And there is back-leaning article from

you, Josh, on CNN.com right now that course through all of it.

All right, Josh, thanks. Good to be with you.

LEVS: You bet. Thanks a lot.

HARLOW: Coming up on Tuesday, CNN is going introduce you to the ordinary people who have done just extraordinary things this year. One of them is a highway state patrol captain who helped bring peace in Ferguson, Missouri.

Here is Don Lemon with the preview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CAPT. RON JOHNSON, MISSOURI HIGHWAY PATROL: It seemed like something out of the 60s.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR, CNN TONIGHT (voice-over): With Ferguson cops at the middle of the controversy, the governor turned it to the highway patrol.

GOV. JAY NIXON, MISSOURI: Today, I'm announcing that the Missouri highway patrol under the supervision of Captain Ron Johnson who grew up in the this area will be the directing the team that provides security in Ferguson.

JOHNSON: When I became a policeman, it was legislative (ph) banner.

LEMON: And this community never needed him more than in this moment.

When the governor called you, you were probably telling everybody I don't know. I don't think so. But, did you know?

JOHNSON: I don't think I wanted to know because the magnitude was so large of what I saw and not knowing if I was wrong enough to face it.

LEMON: You didn't think you could do it?

JOHNSON: No.

LEMON: Johnson took action immediately.

JOHNSON: We are going to have a different approach and have the approach that we are in this together. I loved the press conference. But I knew it was mark that was going to appear. And the pastor that was in-charge in that, I knew her. And so, I asked her if I could marched with the group. And she said I rather you not.

LEMON: Johnson, finally overcame the pastor's objections and started the healing by joining the marchers.

JOHNSON: And she looked at me and she said no, I want you to march in front with me and I told people that that was a changing point.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: Much more on that Tuesday night on our CNN special Tuesday night.

Coming up, leaked emails from Sony Pictures executives, this hot brat have been incredibly damaging to the company. Now the hackers responsible are promising to release the most harmful information yet on Christmas.

Also this, as Sony asks the media to not release some of what the hackers released, what is their legal ground?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Well, the fallout from just an epic hack of Sony Pictures is snowballing. It is getting worse and worse. Hackers have turned the $8 billion company on its head exposing salaries, secrets, script, emails. And now the hackers are promising its so-called Christmas gift that will hurt even more.

Let me bring in our senior media correspondent Brian Stelter, host of "RELIABLE SOURCES."

So this news just broke this afternoon that they are going to release something a lot worse, they say, more damming to Sony Pictures if Sony doesn't do what they demand which is not air with this film, "the Interview" which they are going to do. How bad is this for Sony big picture?

STELTER: Every day it gets worse. And I can't imagine what they are claiming they would release as --

HARLOW: It could be worse.

STELTER: I guess as a bad experiment, we can imagine what is the most sensitive data that a company has? And then imagine that coming out. It seems like a lot that has already come out -- Social Security numbers, private medical records, and really private emails between stars and executives and between those executives talking about their stars in the spirited way.

HARLOW: So those executives like Amy Pascal has apologized for her emails, one of them are racially charge about the movie that President Obama would like to see and what she should talk about.

STELTER: Definitely racially insensitive.

HARLOW: But should -- just does the top brass need to go or will it go at Sony?

STELTER: I would suck by that. And I say that because they are in the middle of the MH control mode right now trying --

HARLOW: OK, maybe not right now. But I mean, the long fall out. STELTER: Well, there is people asking that for sure, you know. The

flip side of that is they are trying to steer this company, get it back on its feet. And maybe they can do that effectively. The question is whether they have lost the trust of the folks in Hollywood that matter -- the powerful producers and the even more powerful stare. And that's hard to measure right now.

HARLOW: It was interesting. I have Richard Edelman on the program earlier this week, the big PR firm middle man and I said how should they be handling this outside of this written apology? He said, suggested long -- a long sit down interview that instead of canceling all of the interviews on the red carpet, at the premiere of the movie, they should have had those top executives sit down with one network, preferably us, and do a long interview. I mean, you have asked for these interviews? Would that be the right strategy?

STELTER: And even today, you know, today the latest rumor I was hearing was that production was being halted on some Sony shows or movies. I checked in with Sony. They are not commenting that it is not true. But they won't even say so On the Record. They won't even issue a statement about that On the Record. So they are very much in a defensive posture and not on the kind of offensive posture you describing.

HARLOW: Right. To get try to get out in front of it.

STELTER: But interesting, the email, this new letter, though, we're getting today from a lawyer retained by Sony may suggest a new strategy.

HARLOW: So let's talk about this letter that "the New York Times" has received. We at CNN have not received it yet but it's a letter from a David Boyd, big name attorney saying basically what, Brian?

STELTER: Saying that he is demanding basically that these media outlet's stop covering this material the way it is being covered and study, no. If they have it do delete it and to stop, you know, trafficking in what he called stolen information. He goes on to say that the studio does not consent to the possession or the review or the copy of the publication of this information. This has come many, many days after this material started to be published by these organizations. And many times it is happening initially with Gossip website, and then trickling up to more mainstream news outlet.

HARLOW: So, what "the New York Times," for example? I mean, we haven't got a letter here yet. But we probably will. What is "the New York Times" doing about it?

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: We're just reporting what has already been on these gossip websites. And we know it is true because Sony, people on background, are acknowledging the material basically.

HARLOW: So they are not abiding by it.

STELTER: That's right. And it would be interesting to see if it ratchets it up beyond this point, you know, because --

HARLOW: Like taking legal action.

STELTER: Right. And that is enough that we have seen and something that that would be -- we have to look at what the president of that would be, you know. Because it is not news outlet that are hacking to Sony who gain this information. (INAUDIBLE) are only reporting what is already out there. This is a very weird metaphor comparison, but Edward Snowden's document, he is the one that walked out of the NSA with those documents. It wasn't news outlet that went in and top them. It was Edward Snowden.

Then the news outlets process and contextualize. The difference here, of course, this is not about national security.

HARLOW: No, it is not.

All right, Brian Stelter, good to have you on. Thanks for coming in. Appreciate it.

Coming up next, get this. Well, a manicurist in California has to complete 400 hours of training to be licensed, an armed guard there gets authorized after 54 hours including just 14 hours of fire arm training. In 15 states across this nation, no firearm training is required at all. Our special investigation into those armed security guards next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Private arm security guards, you see him everywhere -- shopping malls, sporting events, patrolling neighborhood, a lot like police. But unlike police, their training and government oversight are spotty at best and sometimes they lead to tragedy.

Our Drew Griffin did an exclusive report with the center for investigative reporting.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is former security guard, Joshua Kosashanko (ph), taking a smoking break outside of the private security company where he works in suburban Phoenix. He is not carrying a gun now, but five-and-a-half years ago, he was armed and licensed to carry by Arizona's department of public safety. That turned out to be a dangerous breakdown in the system.

An investigation by CNN and the center for investigative reporting found licensing requirements so varied. And in some states, so lax, it can be harder to become a manicurist than an armed security guard.

DANIEL TARANGO (PH), SHOT BY SECURITY GUARD: I woke up and I had tubes running down my throat.

GRIFFIN: Daniel Tarango (ph) today is in a wheelchair paralyzed after being shot through his car window over stolen food. The person that shot and nearly killed him was a then 19-year-old security guard Joshua Kosashanko (ph) who should never have been allowed to carry a gun.

Hey, Joshua, Drew Griffin with CNN. How are you? We've been trying to get in touch with you. We're doing a story on security guards. How do you become an armed security guard? How is that possible?

JOSHUA KOSASHANKO (PH), SECURITY GUARD: I'd rather not comment, sir.

GRIFFIN: Do you think you should be placed in a position where I think you're training security guards now?

KOSASHANKO (PH): No comment.

GRIFFIN: It was shortly before 2:00 in the morning on June 3rd, 2009 at this convenience store in Tucson. Tarango (ph) was 18 years old. Kosashanko (ph) was hired as a security guard watching for shoplifters.

TARANGO (PH): We were going to get food, and leave, and it was not going to that big of the deal.

GRIFFIN: Tarango (ph) says he waited outside in his car as his friends went to steal food. And in the next moments, Kosashanko (ph) and a second security guard gave chase, a scuffle broke out. His friends ran. Tarango (ph) through the car in reverse. Kosashanko (ph) opened fire.

TARANGO (PH): When I heard the gunfire, I looked back and I just seen the glass shatter and felt like a slight push, somebody had pushed me over.

GRIFFIN: Tarango (ph) admits he should have never been there. It turns out Kosashanko (ph) should not have been working as an armed guard there either. He had a criminal record as a juvenile. In fact, he had several run-ins with the juvenile system. When he was 13, he pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault. He was deemed a felon at a juvenile delinquent. The court placed him on probation and made him a prohibited possessor, meaning, he lost his right to bear arms, at least until he turned 30.

But even with all that information, we discovered the Arizona department of public safety never checked his record. Captain Steve Entaman oversees licensing for armed guards.

This guy's juvenile records apparently weren't checked. So where was the breakdown?

CAPT. STEVE ENTAMAN, OVERSEES LICENSING FOR ARMED GUARDS: Because Arizona does not require juvenile records to be reported, on this particular instance, it was in the adjudicated record as opposed to conviction. It did not show that he had any kind of record whatsoever.

GRIFFIN: But certainly, the check could have gone beyond that. You could have looked beyond the juvenile records.

ENTAMAN: We could look at his juvenile records had he disclosed that he had that in his background.

GRIFFIN: So as long as he lies on his application, he basically hides his entire juvenile record?

ENTAMAN: In this particular case, yes.

GRIFFIN: The state didn't need the record. Since Kosashanko (ph) a prohibited possessor, banned from carrying a gun, that information would have shown up in a federal law enforcement database, but Arizona didn't check it.

The state of Arizona may be a poster child for what's wrong with the nation's lack of regulation for the armed security guard industry. Kosashanko's (ph) armed guard training consisted for just about 16 hours, only about four of which took place at a gun range.

Arizona is one of 27 states that doesn't check if someone applying to become an armed guard is prohibited from possessing a gun. The company that hired Joshua Kosashanko refused to talk with CNN as did Kosashanko (ph) himself.

Yes, Drew Griffin with CNN.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you please leave the building? We don't want to be on film.

GRIFFIN: OK.

But in a court deposition, he explained he was fully justified in shooting the fleeing shoplifters because his job was to stop them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So did you think it was smart to chase after them into the parking lot?

KOSASHANKO (PH): I wouldn't necessarily say it was smart or not smart. I would say that it's a danger associated with the job.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The job is to arrest snack food shoppers.

KOSASHANKO (PH): Shoplifters for anything period.

GRIFFIN: Steve Amitay is a lobbyist and general counsel for the national association of security companies. We met up with him at the industry's annual convention earlier this year where he continues to push for FBI background checks for anyone who wants to be an armed guard. In nine states, even an FBI background check is not required.

STEVE AMITAY, GENERAL COUNSEL. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITY COMPANIES: The public lay book to security officers in emergency situations, we want to make sure this guy is properly vetted and not a problem himself.

GRIFFIN: That's not going to be easy. In the last four years, there's been no fewer than a dozen bills introduced in state legislatures and in Congress trying to control and license or regulate who can be a security guard. Of those, most have failed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get down on the ground.

GRIFFIN: Even after the shooting of Daniel Tarango (ph). Arizona did little to change licensing requirements. There is this additional box which relies on applicants to disclose or check if they are a prohibited possessor. Legally barred from owning a gun. But Arizona still doesn't check that federal database when someone applies to be an armed guard.

ENTAMAN: If they're not truthful with us, we can't control the person untruthful to us.

GRIFFIN: As for Joshua Kosashanko (ph), after the shooting he was arrested for attempted murder but ultimately, only indicted and convicted for violating the law that banned him for possessing a gun. He served probation. He now works according to his linked in page, as a corporate trainer and hire manager for the very same security company he worked for the night he shot and nearly killed Daniel Tarango (ph).

Do you think that the state of Arizona shouldn't giving you a license to be an armed guard when you got an arm.

KOSASHANKO (PH): No comment, sir.

GRIFFIN: No comment at all?

KOSASHANKO (PH): No comment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: Wow, what a report from Drew Griffin.

All right. Coming up next, new information on an American, a 29-year- old released from a psychiatric hospital then bought a ticket to China and crossed over to North Korea where he is right now. How did this happen? What's going to happen? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Welcome back. I'm Poppy Harlow in New York. This story now, U.S. embassies overseas have been looking for an American citizen. And this weekend, he turned up in North Korea.

Our Will Ripley is following this story live from Tokyo for us.

This is a 29-year-old and everyone's asking, how did he get from the United States into North Korea?