Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Case Could Deal Blow to Obamacare; Boston Marathon Bombing Trial Begins; Hillary Team: "Nothing Nefarious" Going On; DOJ Finds Systematic Discrimination in Ferguson; No Progress on U.S.-Iran Deal

Aired March 04, 2015 - 09:00   ET

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

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: He is. He's -- he is a mess. Have a great day, though, try at least.

NEWSROOM starts now.

Happening now in the NEWSROOM, Ferguson Police accused of biased policing by the federal government. Excessive force, traffic stops, even racist e-mails. We'll talk to a rep from the police department.

Then, America and Iran at the bargaining table. The sticking points holding up a nuclear deal. Will either side budge?

Plus, the Boston marathon bomber trial begins any moment now. Will jurors sentence him to death or will they buy -- will they buy that his big brother pushed him to terror?

Let's talk. Live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

And good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me.

Nearly seven months after an unarmed teenager, Michael Brown, was shot and killed in the streets of Ferguson by a white police officer, the Justice Department is expected to unveil a scathing new report about widespread discrimination in the city's police department.

Among the most troubling findings between 2012 and 2014, 93 percent of people arrested were African-American. 88 percent of those subjected to police force were black. 9 out of 10 people who received citations were African-American. And 85 percent of vehicle stops involved black drivers. It doesn't stop there. Investigators also found evidence of racist jokes about President Obama.

So let's bring in CNN's Sara Sidner. She's on the ground this morning in Ferguson with reaction.

Good morning.

SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning. Look, there hasn't been any reaction in the streets, no protests at this time, but we have been hearing from members, for example, of the Ferguson commission that the governor put in place after what happened here in Ferguson in August, after the shooting and killing of Michael Brown and the response to that, and they are highly disturbed about what it is they're seeing.

Some of the residents here, though, have told us in the past that this is nothing new. Those numbers have been out there for a while and to now hear from the DOJ that they are potentially going to give a decree to this department and the city and the court about racial discrimination makes them feel vindicated.

I do want to talk a little bit about that e-mail because the e-mail that the DOJ has in its report has stirred serious controversy and has upset people. One of those comments in the e-mail said something to the effect that President Obama would not be able to keep his job for long because, you know, what black folks keep their jobs for four years -- keep a steady job for four years.

That really set people off. And I want to let you listen to a member of the Ferguson commission on what she thinks about hearing about that e-mail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If they would say that about the president of the United States, what do you think they will say about poor black men and poor black women living in a racialized area of this city? And it's disgusting and it should be dealt with harshly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you actually see the jokes and the statements, it makes -- it makes you say, they've been laughing at this community, they've been laughing at the people in this community for a very long time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: But what the Justice Department seems to be really focusing in on in this particular final report is the patterns and practices of the department and the court when it comes to traffic stops and how they deal with African-Americans. And those numbers that you just spoke about earlier, those are the numbers that really tell the story and why the Justice Department is coming after this department and the city -- Carol.

COSTELLO: So what could happen?

SIDNER: Many things could happen. First, there is expected to be a decree. And basically what that does is it lays out what the issues the Justice Department says need to be addressed and fixed and then the department can respond and the city can respond to that and try to work out a deal that makes sense.

If they do not work out a deal, then there is the potential for a lawsuit where the feds come in, they sue the city, they try and put themselves in place to take over and oversee all the workings of the department, but for now they have to first try and see if this can be worked out.

And I have to tell you, we've been covering this for seven months now, almost seven months now. And I talk a lot to the city officials here and the residents here. And the city officials said, look, we are willing to work with the Department of Justice. We have been working on some of these issues already so it gives you some idea of what we are hearing from the city and what we may hear from the city after the DOJ makes its official announcement.

We are expecting to hear from city officials, the mayor, potentially the police chief, after we hear from the DOJ today -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. Sara Sidner reporting live from Ferguson, Missouri, this morning.

Let's dig a little deeper with Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association. He's also a former Missouri state representative and has staunchly supported Missouri law enforcement officers and their tactics. He joins me now live from St. Louis. Welcome, sir.

JEFF ROORDA, BUSINESS MANAGER, ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION: Good morning, Carol.

COSTELLO: Glad you're here. Last year you told CBS, quote, "Whatever has happened in America to cause these feelings of resentment in the black community, it is not a failure of law enforcement." But if 85 percent of vehicle stops involve black drivers and 93 percent of people arrested were African-American in a two-year period, how can that be true?

ROORDA: Well, let's put these numbers in perspective, Carol. The state disparity index is 1.52. Ferguson's is 1.37. They're well below the state average. That's every -- police department in the state accumulating --

COSTELLO: Well, we're talking about what's happened in Ferguson, though. I mean, you can't spin these numbers into something good, can you?

ROORDA: Well, no, I don't mean to spin them into numbers -- spin them into something good. I mean to put them into perspective and to say that this is some sort of smoking gun I think puts these numbers into a context that --

COSTELLO: You're not disturbed by these numbers?

ROORDA: Well, let's remember that Ferguson is in an area of north St. Louis County where 90 percent of -- of the community is African- American and --

COSTELLO: No, 67 percent of the community is African-American.

ROORDA: Sixty-seven percent in the city of Ferguson.

COSTELLO: Not 90.

ROORDA: No, 90 percent in the neighboring cities, people that are traveling through the city of Ferguson. You've got to -- you've got to know more about the numbers and more about the community than just whose heads are lying on pillows at night when everybody's asleep, which is what 67 percent targets.

COSTELLO: So you don't believe there should be any changes in the Ferguson Police Department?

ROORDA: Of course there should be. Absolutely there should. But --

COSTELLO: What changes should there be?

ROORDA: Well, first of all, you know, there are some problems with their municipal court. Fifteen percent of their revenue comes from municipal fines, although that's half of what the state allows. There's a law going through the legislature that would lower that and cap it at 10 percent.

The Paternal Order of Police, my organization, supports that, supports capping the amount of revenue that can be produced by a court.

COSTELLO: So you're suggesting that it is true that police departments, not just in Ferguson but across the country, are targeting African-American drivers to raise revenue so they won't have to raise taxes.

ROORDA: Well, I --

COSTELLO: So tell me exactly what you're saying.

ROORDA: I didn't say anything about African -- didn't say anything about African-American communities, Carol. The law here in Missouri is called the Mass Creek Law. It's named after a predominantly white city, in our state, Missouri, and we've got a problem here in Missouri with black and white communities being the target of excessive traffic fines. So I'd shudder to say that it's just about African-Americans. I'd say that it's a widespread problem that we're trying to deal with here in Missouri.

COSTELLO: OK. Well, let's go back to police tactics in Ferguson.

ROORDA: Sure.

COSTELLO: You don't think that there is a problem with the way police treat African-Americans in light of these statistics that came from the Justice Department?

ROORDA: Yes, well, you know we're just seeing the numbers and of course the numbers are meant to turn our heads. We didn't see --

COSTELLO: No, they're not meant to turn our heads. This was after going through 35,000 pages of police documents. It's not to turn our heads. --

ROORDA: But then why not release -- then why not release the whole report instead of leaking out the most damning numbers which is the Justice Department's pattern and practice?

COSTELLO: The Justice Department will release the entire report later today. ROORDA: Right.

COSTELLO: I just think we got a lead on the information and we're releasing that part of it.

ROORDA: Right. But -- but we ought to be careful to wait for the full report and see what these numbers mean in full context. And let's remember the most -- the most interesting statistic is 100 percent of the police departments that the Justice Department examines, they find that there's some pattern or practice of racial bias.

COSTELLO: But we're talking about Ferguson where someone was shot and killed, right? And many people believe it wasn't a justified killing. And I know it went through the court system.

ROORDA: Well, not grand jurors.

COSTELLO: I understand that --

ROORDA: Grand jurors believe that --

COSTELLO: I get it, I get it.

ROORDA: -- that Darren Wilson was the subject of attempted murder and was defending himself.

COSTELLO: These statistics -- these statistics do show that there might be a problem in Ferguson, don't they?

ROORDA: Well, they show that we have a larger problem in America and that is that -- that people that are -- that are trapped in economic disparity and -- are more likely to come in contact with the police, are very often African-Americans and we're not going to solve the problems of Ferguson or any other community like it in the United States by not -- not having a frank discussion about what the real problems are with economic disparities.

COSTELLO: So there should be no firings in Ferguson? No one should step down? What should happen? Nothing should happen?

ROORDA: Well, certainly the people that wrote those two very crass, tasteless e-mails should face some discipline. But let's remember, it's two over a seven-year period. I don't -- I don't mean to defend it because it's indefensible but --

COSTELLO: Two-year period.

ROORDA: No, these go back to 2008. The two e-mails --

COSTELLO: The e-mails, that's correct, that was 2008.

ROORDA: Go back to 2008. So let's remember also, these are -- these are tasteless e-mails that are forwarded through e-mail across the country. Every major corporation in the country has some knucklehead that decides to forward these e-mails but no one would accuse those Fortune 500 companies of being engaged in a pattern and practice of racial bias. It's just bad form, bad taste and it's hurtful and people ought to refrain from it.

COSTELLO: All right. I have to leave it there.

Jeff Roorda, thanks for joining me. I appreciate it.

ROORDA: You bet.

COSTELLO: One day after Israel's leader went before Congress and railed against a U.S.-led nuclear deal against Iran, those talks have hit an imposing obstacle. Reality. A source knowledgeable about the talks tells us there is little movement from either side on key issues that have divided the two nations for years, and a crucial deadline for a deal is now less than a month away.

CNN's Frederik Pleitgen is in the Iranian capital of Tehran. He joins us live this morning.

Tell us more, Fred.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Carol. Yes, it seems those two issues -- there are two issues that seem to be holding things up right now, and they are actually two very fundamental issues. One of them pertains to research and development, and the kind of research and development of centrifuges that Iran would be allowed to conduct if this agreement were to go through.

The Iranians want to build better centrifuges and of course they want to build more centrifuges as well. And that's one of the main sticking points between the U.S. and Iran. Obviously the U.S. wants to cut down significantly the number of centrifuges Iran has and also wants to very much curb the development of newer and better centrifuges because the better the centrifuges are the quicker Iran could if it decided to get weaponized uranium to actually make a nuclear bomb.

So that's certainly something that is a big point of concern for the United States. For the Iranians, for their part, the major concern that they have, and this is by the way not only from the government but for many people that you speak to here as well, Carol, is the issue of sanctions. And there it seems as though there is some pretty big disagreement there as well as to what sanctions should be lifted, how fast they should be lifted and what time frame they should be lifted.

And that's certainly something where the Iranians say they want all sanctions to be lifted as fast as possible. But the U.S. says for the time being only the lifting of some of the sanctions are in the cards so they want other sanctions to be lifted over a different time period seeing how this agreement goes. So there are some very big sticking points. Both sides are saying that they will continue to negotiate and try and hammer out some sort of deal. However, as you said, time certainly is running out -- Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. Frederik Pleitgen, live from Tehran this morning. Thank you.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, nearly two years after those deadly blasts at the Boston marathon, the trial for the accused bomber is finally kicking off.

Alexandra Field is covering for us.

Good morning.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces 30 charges, 17 come with a possible death sentence.

Coming up after the break, we'll talk about what we expect to hear from the prosecution when they make their opening statements.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Obamacare, the big issue at the U.S. Supreme Court today. Justices are hearing arguments on whether most enrollees of the national health care program will be able to keep their subsidies. Without the aid, millions of enrollees may be forced to drop their insurance coverage, putting the future of Obamacare at risk.

Justice correspondent Pamela Brown is live outside the U.S. Supreme Court with more.

Good morning, Pamela.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Carol.

Quite a crowd out here. In fact, people have been lining up outside the Supreme Court since 3:00 this morning to hear the oral arguments in this case. The stakes are very high, Carol, because at least 5 million Americans could be impacted depending on how the court rules and if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, not only could at least 5 million people lose their health insurance, because they couldn't afford it, but it could derail the affordable care act.

So, a big decision here today. What the plaintiffs are arguing is that the law never intended for people in those 34 states with federal run exchanges to qualify for subsidies. They're focused on four words that are at the center of this case today established by the state.

The plaintiffs say if you look at the four words it's clear that the people in the other states shouldn't get subsidies and that there was an abuse of power by the Obama administration by rewriting the rules after Congress passed the law. So, that's what you're going to hear from the plaintiff's side. But on the other side of this, the government is going to argue that you can't take those four words out of context, it's clear if you look at the law as a whole that from the very beginning, everyone who couldn't afford the insurance should be getting subsidies no matter if they're in a state with federally run exchanges or not.

In fact, Carol, I just ran into Kathleen Sebelius, the former health and human services secretary who was in the administration, when this was crafted she said, basically, look, the subsidies are a lynchpin of the Affordable Care Act. Without that, the market could collapse. So, making it clear here that the stakes are very high.

And I'll tell you, all eyes are going to be on Chief Justice Roberts today. As you know, Carol, he stunned conservatives when he held up the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. It will be really interesting today to see how he interprets those four words and what his reaction is, Carol.

COSTELLO: Absolutely. Pamela Brown, we'll check back. Thanks so much.

The trial of accused Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is underway. Opening statements expected to begin at any moment. It's been nearly two years since the deadly blast and now the life of the accused 21-year-old is at stake.

For a breakdown of the jury and the charges, and the lawyers, here's Alexandra Field.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the accused Boston bomber, he's accused of killing three people and injuring 260 others at the finish line of the Boston marathon. Now, he's fighting for his life.

This case isn't only about innocence or guilt, it's life or death for the 21-year-old. It took almost two months to seat an impartial jury, 1,373 people were called. According to a questionnaire, 85 percent of them said that he was guilty or had some connection to the bombing.

Their responses are pretty telling. I'm set in my ways and this kid is guilty. We all know he's guilty so quit wasting everyone's time with a jury and string him up. Waste of time. They should have already killed him.

Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty. His legal team has argued unsuccessfully to get the case moved out of Boston, citing concerns that he won't have a fair trial. Massachusetts, one of the bluest states, doesn't have a death penalty, but Tsarnaev is being tried in federal court on 30 federal charges, 17 of those charges carry a possible death sentence, including intentionally killing people with weapons of mass destruction.

Tsarnaev has star power on his bench. Judy Clarke, a fierce opponent of the death penalty. "None of us, including those accused of a crime, wants to be defined by the worst moment or the worst day of our lives," Clarke has said.

Clarke has successfully fought to save the life of a spate of high- file criminals -- Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, and Jared Lee Loughner, the man who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and killed six others. Those cases were all settled with plea bargain agreements that avoided death. So far, the U.S. Department of Justice has refused to remove the possibility of the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: All right. Alexandra Field is live in Boston now. She's covering the trial for us. As I said, just so many intriguing things will come out of this trial. For example, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding out on the boat and he wrote something on the walls of the boat. I would think that would have a place in the trial?

FIELD: Absolutely. The prosecution is going to want to present that to the jury. We know that much. That note that he wrote inside the boat seemed to explain his motivation, the prosecution says, for his role in the attack at the marathon finish line.

In fact, the prosecution actually wants to see that writing, wants to show the jury that writing in the boat itself. They're talking about cutting panels out of the boat and bringing it here to the courthouse. The defense has said they don't want the jury to see any of that writing out of context.

So, they're arguing that perhaps the entire boat should be brought here to the federal court house. The judge has not yet ruled on how the jury could see that writing but the prosecution says it is key to their case. They say the writing inside that boat bears the hallmark of al Qaeda inspired rhetoric, Carol. So, certainly, a theme that could hear throughout this trial.

COSTELLO: Another intriguing aspect is Tsarnaev's sister-in-law, his brother's widow, Katherine Russell, could she be called as a witness?

FIELD: You know, Carol, she has for so long been the subject of so much speculation. People have wondered from the beginning and talking about the public as well as investigators about what Katherine Russell could have known, if she knew anything at all.

She's never spoken publicly. Investigators have spoken to her. She's never been charged with anything. So is she is a suspect or is she a witness? Who knows?

We don't know who the defense could call in this case. At this point, we do know the prosecution has put together a potential list of witnesses that numbers in the hundreds and hundreds but that list remains sealed right now. So, we won't know if she's going to be called until she is called if she's called, Carol.

COSTELLO: All right. I know you'll keep us posted. Alexandra Field, thanks so much.

Still to come in the NEWSROOM, team Hillary Clinton pushes back on the e-mail controversy. Brianna Keilar following that for us.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Carol.

Clinton aides say nothing nefarious was at play here, as critics and perhaps more importantly, question why someone would use solely personal e-mail unless it was to control e-mail communications that are supposed to be stored on a government server. We'll have more details after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Hillary Clinton's office is defending her use of a personal e-mail account while she was secretary of state, saying nothing nefarious was at play. But so far, we haven't heard much from Clinton herself. She spoke last night at a fund-raiser but made no mention of e-mails. She stuck to her script.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Don't you some day want to see a woman president of the United States of America?

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

Well -- well, in many ways all of these questions, all of these questions can only be answered by you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: Let's bring in CNN's senior political correspondent Brianna Keilar.

I would suppose just because Hillary Clinton didn't mention this controversy doesn't mean it's going away any time soon.

KEILAR: No, I don't think it's going away at this point, Carol. We're hearing -- we've heard from a Clinton aid who says, as you said, there's nothing nefarious at play here and the reasoning that this aid gave for why Hillary Clinton relied solely on personal e-mail when really it -- a lot of folks now are using government e-mail and the idea is that even if you're using personal e-mail a few years ago it should have been preserved on a government server.

The reasoning seems to be twofold. One, we're told by this aide, she likes using her blackberry before being secretary of state. She wanted to use it afterwards. She's getting hit a lot on that by critics and observers because certainly she could have used a new e- mail address on her BlackBerry. We're not sure this was an old e-mail address she continued to use.

The other explanation they gave is, this is what Colin Powell did. Certainly I think there's a lot of experts, cyber experts who are questioning why would someone be using just their personal e-mail, unless they were trying to really keep a tight hold on these e-mail communications that are supposed to be stored on a government server?

COSTELLO: Well, let's go back to Colin Powell because after Colin Powell left office wasn't there a new rule put into place that, you know, public officials couldn't use personal e-mail accounts anymore? And there was a rule put into place, when did it take effect?

KEILAR: Well, so here's the thing, the law on this area is -- you talk to legal experts, they say it hasn't been great and it's had to be cleaned up. So, Colin Powell is under certain regulations and then in 2009, which is when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the updated regulations said if you are using private e-mail, that information needs to be transferred at some point to be stored on a government server. Here's the catch in this though, Carol, there's no timeline on that.