Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Patriot's Football Deflation Response; Federal Charges Unlikely for Officer Wilson; Yemeni Government Resigns

Aired January 22, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

Bill Belichick has spoken. Ten days before the Super Bowl, the head coach of the New England Patriots addressed the scandal that's hanging over his team and the NFL as well. And he says he's never talked about the air pressure in a football before now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL BELICHICK, HEAD COACH, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: When I came in Monday morning, I was shocked (INAUDIBLE) to learn of the news reports (INAUDIBLE) footballs. I had no knowledge whatsoever of this situation until Monday morning. I'd say I've learned a lot more about this process in the last three days than I knew or had talked about it in the last 40 years I've coached in this league.

I've never touched a game ball. That's not something that I have any familiarity with on that. And again, I was completely and totally unaware of any of this that we're talking about in the last couple days until Monday morning.

Think we all know that quarterbacks, kickers, specialists have certain preferences on footballs. They know a lot more about it than I do. They're a lot more sensitive to it than I am. Tom's personal preferences on his ball -- footballs are something that he can talk about in much better detail and information than I could possibly -- than I could possibly provide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So a quick reminder, according to NFL rules, footballs must weigh between 14 and 15 ounces and be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch. The refs check them about two hours before each game that's played, but Belichick said he didn't know anything about that either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BELICHICK: I had no knowledge of the various steps involved in the game balls and the process that went through -- that happened between when they were prepared and went to the officials and went to the game. So I have learned a lot about that. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: As have I. But I don't live in the world of football and you all three do. Joining me now is NFL former linebacker Coy Wire, former NFL referee Jim Daopoulos, and Michael Holley, a program host on sports talk radio WEEI in Boston and author of "War Room" and "Patriot Reign."

First, Michael, to you. You're in Boston. You deal with Bill Belichick a lot. Were you surprised to hear what he said today, specifically that he really just didn't know much about this process at all?

MICHAEL HOLLEY, SPORTS JOURNALIST/AUTHOR: I wasn't surprised to hear about that, the process of dealing with the football. I know Bill Belichick is a master of the minutia. He meets with officials before every game and talks about some of the things that will be on the table in a particular game. But in terms of dealing with the football, I think what he said is true and it really comes down to this, Ashleigh, and I know Coy and Jim can speak to this as well.

It really comes down to this, do you believe Bill Belichick or not? Do you believe that he had nothing to do with it? I know a lot of people think that Bill Belichick was around in a shadowy hoodie and kind of walking around the bowls of Gillette Stadium tampering with the footballs. But I think he made it clear today that that's not really his focus. He had nothing to do with that. And so the other piece of this puzzle will come clear today, it's, who did have something to do with it and how did these balls come in underinflated?

BANFIELD: So, Coy Wire, I'd like you to weigh in on that, if you would, and bounce off that as well because Rachel Nichols from CNN here said just a short time ago, this is a man who knows everything. This is the micro manager of micromanagers. This is not a guy who can claim, yes, yes, I'm really not - I'm really not read in on that part of the game. And then there's his history as well.

COY WIRE, FORMER NFL LINEBACKER: Yes, I don't think he's given himself the benefit here in us believing what he has said. I mean the guy's been around the league for 40 years. He came into the league in 1975. He does run his organization meticulously down to the minute details. He can tell you an opposing team's second string gunner, what college he went to. I find it hard to believe he didn't know the process before the game.

But what he did, which stood out to me, was he really kind of put this on Tom Brady. And now we're going to wait to hear from him later today to see if he was at fault for this and if he was the impetus for this situation. Two pounds less than regulation. Someone tampered with these footballs. And if it's not Tom Brady going to take the blame, it looks like it may be an equipment manager or ball manager that has to take the fall for this situation.

BANFIELD: And, again, if you could just go a little deeper into that, Coy, with your background and football knowledge. This guy's been around a long time, Bill Belichick. He's been through the university system, et cetera. What is his history with deflation and balls in his past, before he was in the NFL?

WIRE: Are you talking about Tom Brady or Bill Belichick?

BANFIELD: Bill Belichick.

WIRE: Well, he hasn't had any history or track record.

BANFIELD: Nothing?

WIRE: You know, the only thing that he has done, it's well-known, is spy-gate in 2007. And even then he claimed not to really know the details of the rules and of what was legal and what was not within the rules as far as videotaping or getting information from the opponent. So we've heard this from him again. What he did today was deflect everything, deny any recognition of what happened. Very similar to what Lane Kiffin did at USC when he was the head coach there for the Trojans, when they were found guilty of deflating footballs, they were fined $25,000 by the PAC 12 Conference back then.

BANFIELD: It's not like he's never heard of this kind of thing before.

WIRE: It's not like he's never heard of this.

BANFIELD: Good point.

And, Jim Daopoulos, if you could just weigh in as a former ref in the game. I know you sort of fall into the school of, this is not a huge deal. But aren't rules rules and effectively it's not right to break any rules, even if you don't think that they give a huge advantage to the game. Isn't that really what we're looking at here?

JIM DAOPOULOS, FORMER SUPERVISOR OF NFL OFFICIALS: That's exactly the point, Ashleigh. And what you're looking for as an official is to make sure that both teams are on a level playing feel and that they, you know, and that they go by the rules.

Now, the only question that I'm having right now, and as Coy mentioned, they were two pounds under the PSI. Well, you know, the issue is this. Number one, the ball has to weigh -- or has to have 12.5 to 13.5 PSIs, whatever that is, pounds per square inch. Now, when an equipment manager brings it in, he may bring it in, if the Patriots like it at a very soft ball, they can bring it in at 12.5. Right on the number at 12.5. If a quarterback likes it a hard ball, they'll bring it in at 13.5. The officials aren't going to adjust that ball. That ball can be as low as 12.5.

So maybe the ball came in at 12.5. Did it go down a half of a pound or did it go down two? I don't think we really know exactly what happened. And that's why I am kind of reserving my judgment until the NFL comes out and says, this was done by this individual under the auspices of this individual. But right now I think we're just speculating what actually happened.

BANFIELD: So - OK. So, Michael Holley, help me out here. I am not a big football fan, so I don't know a lot about football.

HOLLEY: Yes. OK.

BANFIELD: But I do know this. I can research the things that have happened in football before. And there is one fella who has come on the record as former quarterback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers who went to Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson has admitted that he -- and I'll quote him here, according to "The Tampa Bay Times."

HOLLEY: Right.

BANFIELD: "I paid some guys to get the balls right. I went and got all 100 footballs and they took care of them." It cost him, according to the newspaper, $7,500, he's quoted to the paper as saying, to pay those two ball boys to scuff up the Super Bowl balls because, in his estimation, again, according to "The Times," it was real hard to play with footballs that were new out of the pack, that weren't scuffed up. He didn't talk about deflating them.

HOLLEY: Right.

BANFIELD: But what worries me here, Michael, is that he got access, he paid for access. And that is just wrong on so many levels. And that's at the Super Bowl.

HOLLEY: Well, Ashleigh, you know, Brad Johnson was talking about that at the Super Bowl, as you mentioned. That was in 2002. And that was before, you know, Peyton Manning lobbied on his behalf and the behalf of other quarterbacks to be able to have access to these balls, to treat them, to scuff them up and have their own preferences on the football. So that was right around 2006 - 2005, 2006. Brad Johnson did that in 2002, before the lobbying happened.

But I just wanted to mention also, to piggy back off of Coy's point and Jim Daopoulos' point about Bill Belichick and whether he's telling the truth or not, particularly for Coy. You know, Bill Belichick and Roger Goodell do not have a great relationship because of spy-gate in 2007. Belichick would be a fool - let me say that again, he would be an absolute fool, the biggest fool that you've seen in Atlanta, to come on the big stage today and tell a lie because he knows if there's any inconsistency or discrepancy in what he says, Roger Goodell will dock him a draft pick and possibly suspend him for the Super Bowl.

BANFIELD: And I -

HOLLEY: So he has to be telling the truth about what he knows.

BANFIELD: And as I understand, it could cost him, you know, a place in the Hall of Fame as well, with two asterisks by his name.

HOLLEY: Well, not necessarily.

BANFIELD: Gentlemen, I have to leave it there.

HOLLEY: I don't believe - I don't believe that.

BANFIELD: You don't think so? You don't think so?

HOLLEY: I think that's an -- that's an exaggeration. No, I don't think so. Hall of Fame, no, absolutely not. He's going to -

BANFIELD: Well, I'm going to leave it with you. You're more of an expert than I. But I have heard other experts say that that is definitely something that's on the line. I mean, you know --

HOLLEY: No way. No way.

BANFIELD: I don't know, letting that lie out there in public, if it is a lie, and, again, this is just an accusation. This is nothing that's been proven.

I do have to leave it there, guys, though. Thank you so much. Jim Daopoulos, Michael Holley, Coy Wire, so appreciate it.

And this is really important because you heard these three guys just talk about possibly throwing your QB under the bus? Well, guess what? Patriots quarterback Tom Brady has a live news conference planned at 3:45 Eastern Time. So CNN is on it. Setting up the mikes as we speak. Make sure you stay tuned. It will be fascinating to hear what Tom Brady has to say.

But as Rachel Nichols has said before, there is little that those two do, the head coach and the quarterback do without consulting with one another. So it will be a fascinating news conference. Again, live on CNN.

The United States Justice Department promised justice in the Ferguson police shooting. So what does justice look like? The FBI investigation has turned up a few things. But after the grand jury failed to indict the officer who killed Michael Brown, did the DOJ turn up enough to do anything on its own? You'll be surprised to hear what the DOJ has to say.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Well, everybody pretty much knew it was going to be difficult to prove and now multiple sources tell CNN that a federal investigation has not been able to find enough evidence for Darren Wilson to face civil rights charges federally in the Michael Brown shooting death. The FBI has completed an exhaustive investigation. And while the final Justice Department report has not yet been completed, a U.S. official tells CNN that the DOJ will not recommend charges filed against that officer.

Now, ultimately, this guy is where the buck stops. Attorney General Eric Holder. He's got the final say in this case. And we know that he has given this case his all, dedicating, quote, the full resources of the Department of Justice, sending dozens of FBI agents to Ferguson. Some of the most experienced federal prosecutors in this case. But it really boils down to the evidence. Pesky evidence.

For the legal view now I'm joined by guys who live and breathe by the evidence. HLN legal analyst and defense attorney Joey Jackson and CNN legal analyst Paul Callan, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor.

Gentlemen, does this surprise you? Paul, you can start.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it doesn't surprise me because the facts here, as tragic as Michael Brown's death was, this was always an uphill battle for a prosecutor. And, frankly, when the local grand jury couldn't make out a case, it seemed to me prosecutors on a federal level would have a difficult time as well. But, you know, they were very, very aggressive in saying, you know, we're sending in - we're flooding FBI agents. They did their own autopsy. It kind of sounded like maybe they would bring a case. But, obviously, they couldn't. The evidence talks in the end and it wasn't there.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BANFIELD: Not everybody follows every single inch of the developments in this case and yet thousands upon thousands of people took to the streets rallying against this officer and against his actions -

JACKSON: Right.

BANFIELD: Presuming that the grand jury got it wrong, that there was something else afoot. Perhaps the prosecutor had it in for Michael Brown and skewed that case to the grand jury. But now you have Eric Holder, a guy who said I am committed to this, 40 FBI agents, the most experienced prosecutors in the civil rights division, the independent autopsy that you just mentioned. He sent in the brigades. You cannot use the same argument with Eric Holder's efforts to find something in this case.

JACKSON: You can't. But remember this, Ashleigh, you're judging it by different standards. Not you, you, but the law is different. And as much and as confident as Eric Holder may or may not be, he doesn't create the law, he doesn't certainly create the facts.

Remember under a federal prosecution you're showing intent. Was there an intentional deprivation of a civil right? Well, what does that mean? It means that I have a right to travel freely and without excessive force being used against me. In the event you find that there was an intentional deprivation by excessive force, you can do that.

But it also means that intentional means willful, which means evil, which means purposeful, which means wicked. And if you find that, then, of course, you may have a civil rights case. But on the state level, Ashleigh, if you can't even find recklessness or negligence, how do you get to the level of intent.

So I won't - you know, I'm not endorsing the state process, I think a lot could come out of it by way of perhaps reform. I think it's a matter of trust. And if you have independent investigators, it's fine. But remember that the federal investigation is quite different in terms of the standard that you have to show, intentional deprivation, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Very high.

BANFIELD: And, look, I hear you. That standard is critical that Wilson would have had to have intention to violate Brown's civil rights.

JACKSON: Right.

BANFIELD: Paul, is there anything in this case that the feds might have found that would suggest that Wilson is a bad man and did the wrong thing and that Michael Brown was innocent in all of this and yet they couldn't go ahead with any kind of civil rights charge?

CALLAN: Well -- well, no. And I would have to most respectfully disagree with Joey Jackson's analysis about the difficulty for the feds. It being a lot more difficult than the locals. And I'll tell you why.

They had two ways to go. One, could they show that the officer was a racist? Had he said racist things? Maybe he was motivated by racism in the killing. Well, there was no evidence of that. So, obviously, they couldn't go on that grounds.

Addressing what Joey just had to say about intentional deprivation of the right to travel or of human life, those are civil rights violations. Well, firing a gun to kill somebody without justification is automatically a violation of somebody's civil rights. And they couldn't prove on this fact pattern that was there was an intent -

BANFIELD: That there was no justification.

CALLAN: That there was no justification. So it all came down to justification. If it was a justifiable use of force, you can't indict criminally.

JACKSON: Here's why I disagree with my esteemed colleague. At the state level, you have a panoply of choices. You can go after somebody for acting negligently. What does that mean? It means I was careless in the discharge of my firearm. You can go after someone for acting recklessly, which means that I consciously disregarded the risk, that use of my firearm would result in death.

BANFIELD: A big step above careless.

JACKSON: Absolutely. You have a number of resources at the state level and a number of theories that you can go after someone with, Ashleigh. It means -

CALLAN: But, Joey, he wasn't careless.

JACKSON: Hold on. It need not be - exactly.

CALLAN: You're saying - well, no, no, you're saying he was careless in aiming the gun?

JACKSON: No, no, hold it back.

BANFIELD: That's (ph) an option. That (ph) is an option.

JACKSON: (INAUDIBLE). What I'm saying is, is that at the state level, if evidence would suggest that, then you could go after him in that way. The grand jury has ruled - and, you know, that was their ruling. I'm not going into the actual evidence. But - hold on for a second (ph).

CALLAN: I understand that. But carelessness has to do with an accidental discharge.

JACKSON: Exactly. But what I'm saying is, at the state level, you have theories that you could pursue. Let's be clear, at the federal level, there are no such theories. There's one theory and that theory is evidence of intent. That's the only way that you get a conviction at the federal level is by demonstrating a willful and purposeful deprivation, unlike the state where you can go after multiple levels and the grand jury could have indicted on those levels.

CALLAN: I agree with Joey on that.

JACKSON: That's the point.

CALLAN: I agree with him.

BANFIELD: I've got 10 seconds here. I've got 10 seconds here.

CALLAN: Yes.

BANFIELD: But here's what it comes down to.

CALLAN: Yes.

BANFIELD: If the DOJ, and the sources are telling CNN it's done, and they come out with their final report and say, it's done, there's no evidence that Officer Wilson did anything wrong, does the focus then change to the federal government and do they then say you're just like the grand jury, you're just like the prosecutor, you let this one slide, or do most people look at the federal government and Eric Holder and his commitment to this and say, maybe this isn't our poster person for this cause?

CALLAN: Well, I think that that's going to happen. And, remember, this case doesn't necessarily end. The Brown family could file a civil action. The federal government continues to investigate Missouri's criminal justice system. And they may come up with evidence that there's discrimination in the way African-Americans are treated.

BANFIELD: Last word, Joey.

CALLAN: So it's not over. The Ferguson story is not over yet.

JACKSON: Yes. I just think we have to keep in mind that there's different standards that apply to both. And so I don't think it's time to lose faith in the federal system. It's time to understand that the federal government has a far different burden than the state did. And at the state level, I think people are disenchanted because they feel that it was not an independent, thorough investigation. And that's why, Ashleigh, I think what we'll see around the country -

BANFIELD: Not because (INAUDIBLE).

JACKSON: Right. BANFIELD: I'm saying the commitment to this case.

JACKSON: I think the commitment was there -

BANFIELD: There. Yes.

JACKSON: But I think the law is what the law is and the facts are what the facts are. But I think the best that can be seen throughout the country is perhaps legislation that allows the community to trust by saying if there's a shooting involving a police officer --

BANFIELD: We're on it.

JACKSON: The local prosecutor doesn't deal with it. It goes to an independent body to assess, examine and evaluate.

BANFIELD: I'll do you one further, that the conversation began in earnest or perhaps has been catapulted in earnest about this entire issue.

CALLAN: That will always be the same that Ferguson is remembered for it, yes.

BANFIELD: That's the - that's the issue.

All right, guys, hold on for one second. We've got some breaking news coming in to CNN that comes to us via Yemen. And you know that things are very difficult right now in Yemen. We have several hundred Americans in the embassy in Yemen and there has been a coup-ish attempt. Very confusing. But there is a group that wants control of the constitution there. The president at one point said they had lost control of the government. Now not so clear, but there is breaking news. We'll get it to you in just one moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BANFIELD: Our breaking news coming to you from the Gulf. For days now we've been reporting to you about Yemen and a siege on the government in Yemen by Houthi rebels there and a very confusing situation after the abduction and capture of a high government figure, the chief of staff. At this point now, CNN is learning that the Yemeni government has resigned. Apparently the prime minister and cabinet in its entirety. There's been a lot of pressure on this government and the constitution by those who basically fought their way in, in what at one point was being called by the government a coup. The admission coming that the president had lost control of that country. Our Nick Paton Walsh is live in Yemen right now.

So, obviously, this is critical because this is a, you know, albeit an ally, however you want to call them as an ally, an ally of the United States. We have several hundred staff members inside the American embassy in Sanaa. What does this mean for that government, for that president, and who's in control? NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it

seems as though the last (INAUDIBLE) of the government's control are slipping away from under it. President Hadi is still president, but he's the one who agreed to this lengthy series of points and deals with the Houthi rebels, which so far today only appear to be (INAUDIBLE) set into play.

Now, this resignation of the prime minister, Khaled Bahah, and his entire cabinet, as confirmed by a Yemeni government spokesperson, is a significant move according to a letter posted by the information minister, which purports to be outlining the reasons for the resignation. It seems, though, the cabinet and the prime minister are aware of the deal, so to speak, that's been done by President Hadi with Houthi rebels and, frankly, they seem to say they want no part of it. That they tried their best but they will now need to step back from the political fray. And I paraphrase there.

Many concerned what effectively President Hadi had done would be to carve a deal here, which gives the Houthi's substantial influence across the government. They can, under this deal, be involved in editing rewrites of a new constitution. They can appoint governors - sorry, officials across government. The question, of course, was, how much power did President Hadi have? Well, his cabinet, his prime minister have now quit. And that obviously shows they believe their jobs were basically to be figureheads for the Houthi movement. You can interpret it in that particular way.

We haven't heard what the Houthi's response to this will be, but it is a seismic change in the political climate here and one that does suggest President Hadi is now hanging on to executive power by significantly less of a thread than he had a couple of hours ago.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And it's critical to remember that we have two warships that are currently positioned in the Red Sea just to the west of where you are, Nick, in case there is an immediate need to evacuate those several hundred people who are in the American embassy right now.

And as our Nick Paton Walsh continues to keep an eye on the stability of that situation, we also have some breaking news coming to us regarding the visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who you will probably know by now was invited by Congress, but not necessarily the White House, to come and address Congress. And now we are learning that there is some developments there. The president is now weighing in. Speaking about that. Will he or won't he take part in any kind of high-level visit with Netanyahu? That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)