Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Europe Scrambles to Stop Terror Threats; European Foreign Ministers Meet in Brussels; Events Mark Martin Luther King Jr Day

Aired January 19, 2015 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ACHOR: European officials are scrambling to stop the spread of terrorism and threats. Some of the latest developments for you this morning, European Foreign Ministers gathering in Brussels right now and that is the issue they are trying to tackle. We're learning more about intelligence failures involving the two brothers behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. A source saying French intelligence agencies made multiple missteps even after the United States gave them a heads up.

Also French authorities trying to track down two people who maybe connected to the man who killed four hostages at that kosher grocery store in Paris after killing a French policewoman.

Clearly a lot of stake with this big meeting, CNNs Phil Black is live in Brussels, he's covering this for us. So Phil what realistically do these foreign ministers help to accomplish by gathering. What exactly do they plan to do that they aren't already doing or haven't been doing in the past?

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ashleigh, this meeting was actually set before recent events in France -- in Brussels, or initially going to get together to talk about things like Russia. But they clearly have a very new important item at the very top of their agenda. And principally, what they are getting together to do is to talk, but they say what they will be talking about and trying to come up with concrete solution on and suggestions for is greater cooperation, greater cooperation internally within Europe but also greater cooperation with Arab nations as well.

What they're talking about there crucially is intelligence information and particularly the sort of information that allows them to track movements of potential extremist who are leaving Europe to go to other lawless country such as Syria, such as Yemen where they receive training, fighting experience. And the concern is their instructions to come back here to Europe to bring that conflict and to bring their ideology to the streets of these cities.

And that, of course, is the concern. They believe that is the situation, the circumstances that have allowed situations like in Paris, like the foiled plot here in Belgium, to flourish the concern that thousands of Europeans are traveling to these places. Hundred are coming back. And at the moment, they're simply too many for them to be able to track thoroughly and to keep an eye on once they have returned, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So Phil, what about just a notion of better cooperation with Arab nations, starting with the conversation the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs had with the head of the Arab League. What exactly are these two bodies doing? How much is the Arab League committed to this problem because they also face this within their own countries?

BLACK: Indeed, and I guess that's the motivation. That's why they should be very much on side and whatever the suggestions are, whatever the discussions are, it is Arab countries and other Muslim countries that also suffer enormously and they would argue, suffer far more because of Islamist terror than the West does.

So they very much have a crucial stake in this. It is some of those Arab countries that people -- these potential extremists uses transit countries to get to these other countries. They are the ones that potentially have a lot more to offer, I think, in assisting European countries in tracking these potential suspects, these potential terrorists.

So they have a lot at stake. They also have the potential to help and it's the sort of information that they can provide in order to help European countries build a system that would more effectively prevent the sort of circumstances, the sort of cost (ph) we have seen in the streets of these cities in recent weeks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Phil Black doing the live reporting for us in Brussels, Belgium. Thank you for that, Phil. And I want to make sure everyone tuned in tonight to our specials. Two of them starting at 9:00 here on CNN, one on the Paris attacks and other on the war within Islam, great reporting that's coming your way tonight starting at 9:00 here on CNN.

If you're home and watching this from there, it's good. You have a day-off. It's because America is celebrating the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior. That's some live pictures for you of his tomb in Atlanta, Georgia.

Civil rights leader fought for voting rights for all Americans and now 50 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, are some of those rights crumbling? Going to talk about and the movement and where we go from here. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Several high profile events today marking the Annual Martin Luther King holiday. In Washington, the Annual MLK peace walk and parade is underway. We got some pictures of it for you, beautiful day. This holiday this year comes 50 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

That story is told in the historic 1964 Civil Rights march in Selma. Oprah Winfrey and other celebrities lead a re-enactment of the March yesterday at the Edmund Pettus Bridge where Dr. King and his followers were attacked by riot police. (BEGIN VIDEO PRESENTATION)

OPRAH WINFREY, ACTRESS AND PRODUCER, SELMA: Ranking up there with the great life experiences, this would be one seeing John Legend singing Bridge Over Troubled Water and Glory on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, that's something I will never forget.

(END VIDEO PRESENTATION)

BANFIELD: So that confrontation has been dramatized in the new film, "Selma", which has been nominated for Best Picture Oscar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... stands up, says, "Enough is enough." We must march, we must stand up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You march those people into rural Alabama, it's going to be open season.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May I have a word?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's no words behind.

(MUSIC)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are 70 million people watching.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If this make (inaudible), then otherwise, come to Selma.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've heard about the attack of innocent people. I couldn't just stand by.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looks like an army out there.

(MUSIC)

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: I am so going to see that movie. I got chills just look at it.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah.

BANFIELD: It chills looking at the three of you as well. I want to bring in HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst Paul Callan, and CNN senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

All right, gentlemen, 50 years since the Voting Rights Act and yet voter turn out right now is at historic low. So if you look at some of the numbers, midterm election is traditionally low, but last November's turn out was one of the lowest since World War 2. Only 36.4 percent of all eligible voters, only one in three made it to the polls. And among young people under age 30, was only 13 percent. A little difficult to equate exactly why, but there have been some pretty momentous shift.

And Jeffrey, I'm going to start with you if I can. The Supreme Court effectively sort of cut the oversight of a number of southern states that for the last several decades had had eyeballs on them and they weren't allowed to make changes to their voting rights unless they check with the Feds. They don't have to do that anymore, but has something happened since that tie was cut?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, yes. A lot has happened. Many of the states who were freed from oversight, most famously, notably, Texas and North Carolina, took advantage of the absence of oversight to limit voting, to limit early voting, to impose photo I.D. requirements, and the Obama Justice Department has sued those two states to say that, "This is an example of why we still need the Voting Rights Act. It violates what remains of the Voting Rights Act." But those cases are before the courts and they really illustrate the tension that's going on now between the people who say, "Look, times have changed." And other people who say, "No, we still need this kind of supervision," especially of the southern states.

BANFIELD: So gentlemen, you know, have times changed? Do we still need supervision? Aren't these things can be corrected at a state to state -- on a state to state level?

JACKSON: I think they could. A couple of things to make note, first of all, I did see Selma. One, the full movie, it did a great job. Just demonstrating how far, you know, in a Civil Rights era, things were done in order that we can have the benefits, and you know, enjoy some of the progress that has been made...

BANFIELD: And a Amy Poehler and Tina Fey said at the Golden Globes, "Now everything is fine."

JACKSON: Well, I don't know about being fine but it certainly dramatized what happened back then, and I give kudos to that movie, very well done. But taking it back a step, understand what happened in 2013 and Jeffrey points out what states took advantage of it, but the Supreme Court simply said this, they said, "What you're doing in terms if pre-clearance and having those states go and having to get approval from the Department of Justice, you're doing it on an outmoded formula."

Congress hasn't change the formula in 40 years. Change the formula to keep it up to date with what's happening now and the norms of now and we're fine. So Congress didn't strike it down.

BANFIELD: And a -- wait, an outdated formula?

JACKSON: Yes.

BANFIELD: Or outdated fact.

JACKSON: Well, the formula drives the fact because the facts, Ashleigh depend upon if the facts are that you're disenfranchising voters you're not allowing people to participate, you craft the formula that's in keeping with that. And so therefore, you have to do it based upon facts of today in order that we can have a formula that's in keeping for today. But the reality is, is that you know I have statistics here. I looked at the specific and it says that African-American voters whether you have this ID, Missouri black voted turned out higher by more than 6 percent, Tennessee black voted turned out high than more than 6 percent. Georgia at 5.9 percent, Indiana, 5.9 percent it goes on so there is participation in a process and I think there's a recognition, however, that we certainly need to do more but this participation amongst African-American and the minority voters.

BANFIELD: Paul, voter ID issues aren't the only issues that when it comes to the problems of oversight and the thought that there's more need for it, there are all sorts of different reasons why people criticize that we're not there yet.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LAEGAL ANALYST: Well, yes. And, you know, you just have to adjust developing it, the points that Joey you just made very well I think. This idea they call it pre-clearance, arose out of the idea that there was some places that were so bad they had discriminated so clearly against African-Americans that if you're going to change your voting laws you're going to Justice Department and get it approved because we don't trust you.

The Supreme Court is looked at that now and so, you know, something bad arises out of something that was going on 35, 40 years ago.

BANFIELD: The old back.

CALLAN: Yeah. Times have changed now. Those are the new facts that Joey is talking about and I think, you know, sometimes things change sometimes things never change and I say that because what this is really about is politics, you know, most African-American voters are Democratic voters and the Republican party has a really good reason not to want a lot of Democrats to vote.

So -- And if you went back probably to the time when the Irish were, you know, controlled by Tammany Hall and they were voting the deed (ph) it was the same idea, it's politics.

TOOBIN: I call it politricks.

BANFIELD: Politrick. Well, it's a good one. Jeffrey Toobin, let me ask you this, often times when you heard the Supreme Court is waiting and that is decided. There are different ways for things to be re- decided. Is there any sort of litigation in the pipeline right now that may make its way towards the Supreme Court again? That we may see a reversal of this reversal and if that's complicated that we may see more break foot on the ability of state to do whatever they want, when they want it.

TOOBIN: Well, it is true that this -- the North Carolina and Texas suits are working in their way through the courts, but remember, you know, the Supreme Court's composition, if it remains as it is, has five Republican appointees, four Democratic appointees and the five Democrat and five Republicans have been very hostile to the Voting Rights Act.

And if I can just disagree with something, Joey said you know the idea that al this is so obsolete. The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 by virtually unanimous votes signed by President George W. Bush so those formulas aren't solely the formulas of 1965. Those are formulas that were approved very recently by Congress and the Supreme Courts said no, no, no, not good enough. So it's not just the times have change...

JACKSON: However...

TOOBIN: It's that the Supreme Court doesn't like these formulas.

JACKSON: But the Supreme Court, Paul left it up to -- I'm sorry Jeffrey, left it up to Congress to make that decision. The Supreme Court didn't technically strike down section five. The Supreme Court said we worked the formula in keeping with today and then you can do what's likely inappropriate.

BANFIELD: I love that you two disagree with one another, but you're going to have take it to the halls of CNN because we are out of time on this segment. That said, happy MLK Day to everybody. It's nice to have you on board on a holiday, I appreciate all of you coming here.

CALLAN: Good to be here.

BANFIELD: Joey Jackson, Paul Callan, and Jeffrey Toobin nice to see you in D.C. Thanks for being with us, appreciate it.

Patriots crushed the Indianapolis Colts and my son is thrilled. The NFL playoffs getting underway this weekend, but now some ugly allegations that the Pats just might have resorted and turned (ph) tricky and ugly and underhanded an illegal, and guess what the allegations are -- it's not the first time oh no, say it ain't so, (inaudible)next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The NFL is investigating the New England Patriots for allegedly deflating footballs during yesterday's AFC championship game against the Indianapolis Colts. If you were watching you saw the Patriots absolutely demolishing the Colt 45 to 7 last night. And the scandal already has a nickname. Deflate-Gate, Deflate-Gate good one.

This is not the first controversy involving the Patriots. That team was penalized in 2007 for spying on the New York Jets. And that scandal also had a cute nickname Spygate. Patriots lost the first round draft pick as the result and the head coach Bill Belichick was personally fined $500,000 for that little stunt.

I want to bring in CNN Sport Supporter Laura Rutledge in Atlanta. OK, so first and foremost, how did this arrive? Where the allegations come from? Somebody in the Colts grabbed a ball and say "This ain't right", like what happened?

LAURA RUTLEDGE, CNN SPORT CORRESPONDENT: Well, this actually started around 1:00 a.m. this morning when an N.D. reporter named Bob Kravitz tweeted out that he heard from an NFL official that somebody said one of the referee, that some point during the game brought a ball over, took it out of play and weight it.

Now, just so you know, each ball for it to be, you know, correct for an NFL game should be between -- should have between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds of pressure per square inch so, they were checking all that out. Now each team has 12 personal footballs that they do provide. And then footballs are check by referees two and half hours before the game, Ashleigh.

So, this is a situation where we don't know exactly when this happened but we do know that it happen at some point during the game were referee said "All right, we're going to check on these balls and make sure that they are of the correct weight.

BANFIELD: So, full disclosure. I know so little about football, hockey another story. But football is a tough one for me and I would just assume that if the ball isn't great, it's not good for either team. So why would that be an advantage for Patriots?

RUTLEDGE: Right. Well, a lot of it has to do with poor weather and yesterday of course during this game it was pouring rain, if the ball is deflated it's little easier to grip so it's easier to throw and catch it also easier if you're handing the football off, so hold on to it. So, that would definitely factor into this in some way.

But one thing I want to point out for sure, Ashleigh, that this was as you said a dominant win for the Patriots 45 to 7. So it's not like the Colts can even claim at this point that if the footballs were deflated, that would have factored again at all in this particular outcome.

BANFIELD: OK. So you're telling me there's no chance for the Colts to be in the Super Bowl, is that what you're saying, Laura?

RUTLEDGE: No chance. No matter what happens the Patriots are going to the Super Bowl.

BANFIELD: Because I need some -- yes, I need some, you know, quiet time in my house.

RUTLEDGE: Right.

BANFIELD: And if there's any changes, the Patriots win can become -- what the towns you see? I mean, would they lose the draft picks again or what would happen?

RUTLEDGE: That's exactly what it would be. Worst case scenario, the Patriots would lose a draft pick and, as you mentioned before, you know, they were penalized in 2007 for Spygate and that was the situation where there was also the penalizing of the Bill Belichick, the head coach, with the personal fine of $500,000. That's a maximum fine that the NFL can put out.

But the maximum penalty for this would be just losing a draft pick. BANFIELD: OK.

RUTLEDGE: Either way they're going to Super Bowl.

BANFIELD: All right. Well, keep us posted, Laura. Thank you for that.

RUTLEDGE: We'll do.

BANFIELD: Appreciate it. Nice to see you. And nice to see you as well. Thanks so much for being with us. Stay tuned, my colleague, Wolf, picks up right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)