Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Man Arrested and Charges with Assault in Cop Shooting; FBI Nabs Robert Durst over Cold Case Slaying; Still Thousands of Veterans Waiting Months for Appointment; U.S. Citizens Taking Up Arms in Syria, Iraq; GOP Threatens to Delay Attorney General Confirmation; The Problem with the Hillary Brand; Series Features Lost Gospel of Judas. Aired 5-5:30p ET
Aired March 15, 2015 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM, I'm Suzanne Malveaux, in New York in for Poppy Harlow.
We begin in Ferguson. An arrest in the case of the shooting of two police officers. Twenty-year-old Jeffrey Williams, he was arrested late Saturday, charged with two counts of first-degree assault. St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch said officers may have not been the intended target.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT MCCULLOCH, ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Essentially what we're charging with is firing shots, it's possible at this point that he was firing shots at someone other than the police. But struck the police officers. So the charge is still assault in the first degree, class A felonies for striking those two officers.
There is a weapon recovered, which is -- has been tied to the shell casings that were recovered there, the weapon recovered from him, and he has acknowledged his participation in firing the shots, or his -- that in fact he did fire the shots that struck the two officers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: McCulloch said the arrest came about thanks to the many tips from the public. Attorney General Eric Holder commented on this arrest, saying, in part, "This arrest sends a clear message that acts of violence against our law enforcement personnel will never be tolerated."
We are also watching a rally at this hour outside the Ferguson Police Department in support of the mayor and the police.
I want to bring in our Stephanie Elam, she is live at the St. Louis County Police Headquarters and also former FBI assistant director and CNN law enforcement analyst Tom Fuentes who is on Washington, D.C.
We've been talking about this throughout the week.
Stephanie, first of all, to you, on the ground there, you've talked to a lot of people here, including some people who know the suspect Jeffrey Williams. What are we learning about him this afternoon?
STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, Suzanne. At this point I can tell you I talked to one man who went to visit Jeffrey Williams in jail today. His name is Bishop Derrick Robinson. He said he spoke with the man today that he knew -- outside of just the fact that he's an organizer for these protests, he knows him through the religious community here in the greater St. Louis area.
He says that he knows this man and he knows that he's not out there demonstrating, and he says that while he talked to him, Jeffrey Williams actually said that he hadn't been out there demonstrating at all. He says that -- he stuck to the story that we heard from the prosecutor, that he was shooting at somebody else. He claims that somebody was robbing him. This is what we're getting from Bishop Robinson. That someone had robbed him and that he was going after him.
Now take a listen to what the bishop had to say after that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BISHOP DERRICK ROBINSON, SPOKE WITH SUSPECT JEFFREY WILLIAMS: I asked him to describe the individual. And he said he couldn't. And I told him could he -- I told him I'd come back and see him, could he provide me more information of who this person is, so that we can confront the individual who robbed him.
ELAM: And he's saying the person that robbed, he believes was one of the protesters that had been out there in front of the Ferguson Police Department. Is that correct?
ROBINSON: That's what he told me. And I told him, why didn't he come to persons like myself, who he knew, and others to share what was going on because there was enough law enforcement, there was enough leaders that would be able to defuse whatever was going on. And I thought it just -- you know, it just didn't look good for our community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ELAM: Now Bishop Robinson saying that he doesn't believe that Jeffrey Williams was shooting at the demonstrators, but did not go so far as to say that he was shooting at the police officers. I've heard other people say that. But what he's saying is that one of the people that has been out here organizing these protests, he knows that Jeffrey Williams was not out there as a constant demonstrator throughout the time about what was happening here.
What's also noteworthy here is that the prosecutor saying that they've gotten these tips from people who are demonstrating, and also people in the community to find out who Jeffrey Williams is, and that he was the one behind it, and because they were able to recover the weapon, they feel fairly certain that it's him.
They do believe he is the shooter, but they're not ruling out that there -- he may have had accomplices at this point, Suzanne. MALVEAUX: All right. Stephanie, thank you so much. Appreciate that.
Tom, I want you to give us some analysis because we saw you throughout the week on the ground. And you were walking us through the ballistics and how you believe that the shots occurred from this hill and how those police officers were hit.
Does that sound like a convincing argument to you? That this is a man, a local man, who essentially had a beef with somebody else, and he didn't intend on shooting those officers? That he actually missed his intended target?
TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Suzanne, when McCulloch states this is what Williams said, that he was in an argument or he was being robbed and shooting at the people that were trying to rob him, and essentially Williams saying that, yes, I pulled the triggers, that was my gun, those are my bullets, and I'm responsible for the bullets that hit the police officers, but I didn't mean to shoot the police officers. I was shooting people trying to rob me.
That's why McCulloch is saying it because he doesn't have to say anymore than what he can already prove. And since Williams has admitted to that much and the gun has already been checked out forensically to back it up, he could prove that right now.
I think the issue, from having stood at the top of that hill, that he was shooting at robbers a few feet away and somehow down below where there's really only a line of police officers, the protesters had been moved to each side of that street, so they were not present when this happened. And then he's able to hit two officers standing side by side with two of the four shots that were fired. To me it's a pretty incredible tale that he's trying to tell.
MALVEAUX: And Tom, what are they basing this on, the charges?
FUENTES: Well, they're basing it on the fact that he owned the gun, he used the gun, he shot the gun, the gun hit the police officers. And when they arrest him and obtained the gun through a search warrant, so obviously they had very good information from one or more people helping the police, that he admits all of that. And so when he says, yes, I fired the shots, then that's pretty much the case right there.
Now trying to add to the fact, he probably does not want to -- or would not be likely to admit that yes, I intended to shoot police officers, thinking that that's going to absolutely guarantee him the maximum sentence of life in prison. So he says that -- he tries to make it sound more like an accident, he still could get life, but I think he's hoping that there might be a better chance of leniency.
And the other issue is here's a guy on probation, he's already had, you know, charges pending. He violated his probation, had not been checking in, as he was supposed to, and he's running around with a gun. Whether he's down with the crowd protesting or not, he's in the vicinity of hundreds of innocent people, hundreds of police officers, and he's running around with a gun and then comes up with this I was being robbed, which also begs the question, why would robbers be trying to commit robberies that close with the police a block away essentially.
MALVEAUX: Yes. Well, there's still a lot of questions about the case and what happens next. But we also want to focus -- stick around. I want to focus on another case here.
This is a case of three mysterious deaths in three different states, and a cold case that has stopped detectives for decades now. Now there's questions surrounding a documentary and what an office documentary actually played a role in this arrest.
Wealthy real estate heir Robert Durst, he is now sitting in a New Orleans jail cell. He was arrested just last night. He is facing murder charges in the case of his longtime friend and crime writer Susan Berman.
Well, Berman was found shot to death in her home in Beverly Hills. This was back in December 2000. No one has ever been charged in that case, but an HBO documentary on the life of Robert Durst might have given authorities just the evidence that they needed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing happens the way it's supposed to happen when it comes to Bobby Durst.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was clear enough that I might be dancing with the devil.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our society is safer with him behind bars. If you back him in a corner, if you threaten his freedom, he'll kill you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Something big is going to happen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was shocked.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I need to know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He had it coming.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This was found inside this.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you kidding?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How is it --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: In "The Jinx" a stunning revelation, the killer's note to police bears remarkable similarities to Durst's handwriting, down to the misspelling of "Beverly." Durst's attorney says he maintains his innocence.
The story, though, does not even end there. The New York millionaire's wife, Kathleen, disappeared back in 1982, yet another crime that's never been solved. Berman was being questioned about this case when she was found dead.
I want to bring in our Michael Daly, he's special correspondent for "The Daily Beast." And Tom Fuentes who's joining us again to talk about this.
Michael, first of all, you know, it's just unbelievable when you look at all of the -- you know, the story, the components of the story. HBO has laid it all out there. How is it possible that investigators first go round didn't discover these letters and the similarities in the handwriting.
MICHAEL DALY, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, THE DAILY BEAST: I mean, they started -- they had one of the letters. They had a letter that was actually sent from -- as Durst himself says, had to have been search by the killer himself because it was posted just before or around the time of the murder, and said there's a cadaver in this building, right? But then you come up with all these years later, the police turned over all of Susan Berman's personal possessions to her stepson.
MALVEAUX: Right. Right.
DALY: All these years later, in the midst of this documentary towards the end of their time speaking to the stepson, he says, oh, I just went into this box of her stuff, this plastic box, and there's this letter. And you look at the letter, the handwriting is astonishingly similar, the misspelling of Beverly is the same in both.
MALVEAUX: Yes. Right. Right.
DALY: And you say to yourself, this has got to be the killer. And the next question you have -- ask is, why didn't the detective come across this before? I mean, you had -- you knew from the crime scene that it was probably someone who knew her and --
MALVEAUX: It's pretty remarkable when you think about it.
DALY: It's -- but I mean, I make mistakes all the time, you know, so I'm saying that obviously that can happen, but it is kind of remarkable.
MALVEAUX: And, Michael, let's -- I want to talk about, though, the role of this documentary here because it's called "The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert durst." And offers evidence that's seen probably for the first time when they revealed the death of Susan Berman.
We should also mention HBO owned by CNN's parent company, Time Warner, but what do you make of the timing of this? We've got the arrest of the Durst himself and then the finale is about to happen. It's a series. It's --
(CROSSTALK)
DALY: It's like Paddy Chayefsky --
MALVEAUX: I mean, is this coincidence? Come on. DALY: Like Paddy Chayefsky, he came back to life and wrote a script
about, you know, you do this documentary about a murder and then you come up with this amazing evidence and then you put it away in a safety deposit box and then somehow amazingly on the eve of the final episode of this --
MALVEAUX: How do you explain that, seriously?
DALY: All of a sudden you get the guy locked up for murder. I mean, it's -- I've got do say that the people at HBO who -- they're on their game.
MALVEAUX: They're on -- well, OK, we won't accuse -- it sounds like a bit of an accusation there.
DALY: No, no, I'm not saying -- no, I just -- I'm not saying that. I'm just saying they did the story, they came up with this evidence, and they clearly had this letter and were aware of this letter some time before they informed police. They informed the police, the police responded. And maybe it's just happy coincidence for everybody that this guy gets collared on the eve of the final episode.
MALVEAUX: All right. Tom, you know, there's a little bit of suspicion there in Michael's voice there, but FBI agents, they tracked Durst to the New Orleans hotel. And they say that they believe he was actually preparing to leave the country at the time.
FUENTES: Right.
MALVEAUX: And he paid with cash. He was staying under a fake name, had a fake driver's license with him as well.
What kind of information, what kind of evidence does that build for you? What does that say to you in terms of where he was in all of this?
FUENTES: Well, it would show that he's intending to flee and try to, you know, stay gone, and not be located. So, you know, in a case like this, it's not uncommon, if I could add, that law enforcement officers the next day go into the squad room at work and say, hey, did you see that HBO documentary last night? Or did you read this account in such and such newspaper about a certain case that they may have worked on years ago and look at that, and go, no, you know, let's look at that again.
So that's not totally uncomment. And I would commend the investigation done by HBO in support of the documentary. And other great documentaries have had similar results. So, you know, that's not uncommon. LAPD reopens, works the case, looks at the new evidence, and says let's get a warrant. Then when information comes in that he may have fled the state for sure, and possibly getting ready to flee the country, then they elicit the support of the federal government.
And the FBI and the marshals then can execute what's known as unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrants. So what happens is the FBI Fugitive Task Force out of L.A. then starts sending leads around the country, pursue him. He's located in New Orleans and arrested.
Now when his attorney says we're not going to fight extradition, there is no real extradition in a federal warrant like this.
MALVEAUX: Right.
FUENTES: The only hearing is to say, are you Robert Durst? Yes, I am, boom, you're going to Los Angeles. So that's all they have to show in this case.
MALVEAUX: All right. OK. Tom Fuentes, Michael Daly, thank you so much.
It really just shows the power of media and that doc that came out there.
FUENTES: Right --
MALVEAUX: Everybody put it all together there. Got to leave it there. But we'll be watching.
DALY: I mean, they really did a great job. They really did.
MALVEAUX: Yes. That's excellent.
We're also watching this, President Obama vowing to give our veterans the hospitals that they deserve, but there is evidence now that suggests that some V.A. workers, they're still not taking their jobs seriously. We're going to talk to a Marine turned veterans activist to get his reaction about what is happening.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: It is a troubling update to the scandal that rocked the Department of Veteran Affairs. On this past Friday at Phoenix V.A. Hospital, President Obama acknowledged still more work is needed to improve veterans health care.
It was a CNN investigation last year by our own Drew Griffin that catapulted the V.A. crisis into the national spotlight. Well, in this exclusive update Drew uncovers evidence the V.A.'s Los Angeles facility has been hiding wait times possibly to mislead Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DREW GRIFFIN, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's still happening. Thousands of patients at the Greater Los Angeles Veterans Medical Centers have been waiting more than three months, just for an appointment. The detailed evidence comes from the V.A.'s own documents obtained by CNN, and confirmed by medical and administrative sources inside the Greater L.A. V.A. hospital system.
New patients seeking care are forced to wait the longest, sometimes months, to see a doctor. Records show this January 15th, more than 1600 veterans who were new patients were waiting 60 to 90 days for an appointment, another 400 veterans have been waiting up to six months. And the documents provided to CNN show the lengthy wait times are still happening.
All of this comes 10 months after the head of the V.A., General Eric Shinseki, was forced to resign because of mismanagement of the exact same issue.
Now listen to what one V.A. official from Los Angeles told Congress just last month.
REP. DAN BENISHEK (R), MICHIGAN: How long is the average wait time for a new patient at the Greater L.A. Medical Center?
SKYE MCDOUGALL, ACTING DIRECTOR, VHA DESERT PACIFIC HEALTHCARE NETWORK: The average wait time for a new patient right now is about four days.
GRIFFIN: That statement is simply not true. According to these V.A. documents, and a half dozen doctors and administrators within the hospital who spoke to CNN, the average wait time is 10 times greater. It's not four days. It's 44 days. The delays are even taking place at the Los Angeles Clinic for Mental Health where documents show more than 300 veterans seeking mental health care have been waiting 30, 60, even 90 days.
Specifically asked about mental health wait time, that same V.A. official, Dr. Skye McDougall, told Congress the wait time is no different. She said just four days.
BENISHEK: And that's true for mental health patients as well?
MCDOUGALL: It's true for mental health as well.
GRIFFIN: Again, according to V.A. documents and a half dozen sources interviewed by CNN, that is not true. This chart shows as of March 1st, new mental health patients in Los Angeles are waiting an average 36 days just to get an appointment.
Los Angeles V.A. officials wouldn't talk to CNN about the discrepancies, instead sent a statement explaining the report given to CNN does not include same-day appointments or in some cases saying week appointments for those veterans who need care quickly. New patients the V.A. told us typically account for less than 10 percent of all veteran appointments and are not representative of the whole patient population.
The V.A. also is sticking by its own man, that new vets waited just four days for appointments in January, just eight days in March. The real truth say that doctors and administrators CNN has interviewed is wait times for patients at the Los Angeles V.A. Medical Centers extends into weeks and months and are a serious problem.
Drew Griffin, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MALVEAUX: I'm joined by Adam Banotai, he is a Marine Corps veteran who saw action in Fallujah. He is now active in veterans issues. And first of all, Adam, you know, your reaction to Drew's report, the
fact that they're -- they're trying to hide the fact that some of these wait times, as much as 36 days? Does is it surprise you that we're seeing these kinds of things?
ADAM BANOTAI, U.S. MARINE CORPS VETERAN: It doesn't surprise me at all. I don't know where the V.A. came up with these four-day numbers for wait times. It's far longer than the 30 days that was the goal of the 2014 Veterans Access Choice and Accountability Act. And what's happening now even, is you're getting veterans who are getting booked appointments a month out, 30 days out.
MALVEAUX: Right.
BANOTAI: Then three days before that appointment comes, they call and say, hey, we're going to have to reschedule, the doctor is not available, and we'll book you for another three weeks out, so now they're waiting seven weeks. And this is happening -- it's rampant across the country. It's not just Los Angeles.
MALVEAUX: So why aren't these fixing this? Why haven't they been able to fix this?
BANOTAI: That's a good question and I wish I had the answer. I think there is a systemic cultural problem within the V.A. I think it stems all the way from the top starting with Secretary McDonald. I think there needs to be a complete revamp of the system. And if not perhaps they need to expand upon that act that I mentioned earlier, where it's given veterans the right to go out into the private sector and gain care there because V.A. just can't do it. If they can't do it right, send them to the private sector where they can do it right.
MALVEAUX: Adam, I want you to listen to this. This is President Obama earlier in the week, what he said about veterans' mental health care. This was on Friday. Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Some of the other issues that were expressed of concern revolves around mental health issues and suicide prevention. And this is an area that there's been great bipartisan work on, but there's still more to do, and I think there were some very positive suggestions that were received about how we can make progress there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: This past week in Indianapolis, we also saw an example here. This was a health care clinic, the Virginia -- a V.A. health clinic manager who was placed on administrative leave. This was after a series of e-mails that she sent the staffers appearing to mock veteran suicide and mental health issues here. You see the one -- the e-mail photo showing the elf hanging himself, bemoaning the fact that the clinic is out of the Xanax.
The manager has since apologized for this, but I can't imagine, you know, what were they thinking here? I mean, is this part of the culture? Is it like dark humor or -- I mean, what is going on that they would joke about suicide?
BANOTAI: Well, first, President Obama said that bipartisan work has been done, and that's true. There has been work done. The problem is, there's still a lot of work to do. And this Indianapolis case shows us that. Why she did that, why she thought that would in any nature be appropriate, let alone to use her government e-mail to send this out to every staffer in that facility, I don't know.
But the V.A. themselves put out a study that found 22 veterans a day are taking their own lives. This woman was in charge of a program designed to reintegrate new veterans returning home society. So that person who's that aware of this mental health issues is with this kind of humor and treating veterans that way? I have to believe that it's a broad spectrum of problems culturally across the entire V.A. system.
MALVEAUX: Because it looks like she didn't just send an e-mail, she set up the whole photo with the elf, the whole bid. I mean, it seemed very deliberate.
BANOTAI: Very deliberate, well planned. Obviously there's -- at no point in time did she think there was anything wrong with this. She thought this was totally appropriate and funny. And this comes when we have veterans -- the one veteran I spoke to diagnosed with PTSD, compensated for that disability, goes to the V.A. in his local area, this is northeast United States, says he needs to be seen.
He's in a state of crises, they tell him we don't handle PTSD here. You need to go here. They give him a business card to a bingo hall across town for a group that just handles mental health issues as a whole. Not even PTSD or veteran specific.
MALVEAUX: It's unbelievable. It's hard to even imagine.
BANOTAI: That same veteran went home, called the V.A. crisis line, which is for immediate, urgent care for crisis, got an automated recording that said no one is available to take your call, please try again later and hung up on him.
(CROSSTALK)
MALVEAUX: It's crazy.
BANOTAI: That's what's happening to veterans in crisis.
MALVEAUX: Yes. Adam, please stick around because we have something else to talk about.
Up next, why would vets return to the Middle East, risk their lives to defeat ISIS? Well, there are some veterans who are actually heading back to the front lines in Iraq, taking up arms against terrorists.
We're going to talk about that after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MALVEAUX: Now to the war against ISIS. You have seen here on CNN, the curious phenomenon of Westerners, the CIA estimates 2,000 of them, have been somehow persuaded to join ISIS on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. And the U.S. government estimates that 180 Americans have tried to go to Syria and fight, possibly for ISIS.
But there's also another side to this story. That is the opposite side, that a number of U.S. citizens, many of them war veterans, they're in Iraq and Syria fighting against ISIS.
They're strictly volunteers and the reasons for doing it, well, they vary, as you can imagine.
Back with me U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Adam Banotai, and in Irbil, Iraq, journalist and contributor to "The Daily Beast" Mat Wolf who was also a combat veteran of Iraq war.
Matt, I want to start off with you. You met some of the Americans who have taken up arms against ISIS. Do you have a sense of how many there are on the ground there? And why do they say this is important for them to be there?
MAT WOLF, JOURNALIST AND U.S. MARINE CORPS. VETERAN: Well, I can't say all of them are American necessarily, but as far as numbers, Western fighters from Canada, United States, Europe, I'm hearing numbers as many from 100 to 200, and that's both in the Iraq and Syrian theater. I can't say that's entirely Iraq or Syria.
As far as why they do it, most of the answers I get overwhelmingly deal with they saw it on the news, they -- they saw the atrocities ISIS was committing, and they felt really compelled to go in and do it. Not all of them are combat veterans or veterans of any military, be it Europe or the United States. Some of them definitely are but some of them are just everyday people that --
MALVEAUX: And Adam Banotai, sorry to mess up the name there -- pronunciation, but, I mean, you fought, you fought in Iraq. You know the author of the "New York Times" article who talked about his own experience of being over there. Why -- why was that important for him to put himself in harm's way to fight against ISIS? And could you imagine yourself going back?
BANOTAI: I can imagine myself. In fact I have imagined myself, more in a -- maybe a fantasyland type of thing, not a very serious thought. But it's crossed my mind. I think it's for two main reasons. One, veterans are really disenchanted with coming home. They had a great sense of purpose, a mission in this fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. And that piece is missing from them when they come back home.
And they don't know how to handle that. Perhaps because they're not being reintegrated properly by the V.A. system, but then also I think there's a lot of frustration, a lot of frustration that we fought for something over there and we accomplished some military victories, and now ISIS is here, waging this war, cutting people's heads off, burning people alive, and we don't really have a policy or a military plan to deal with it. We're just kind of floating around, doing a little bit of something without a whole lot of anything. And --
MALVEAUX: So Adam, why didn't you go? You said you considered it. I mean., would you go, would you put yourself at risk and try to accomplish what you feel like you didn't the first time?
BANOTAI: I don't think I would go back as a volunteer, as a civilian the way that these people are in this segment. However, if I were able to go back in the Marine Corps right now to the previous unit I was with, the job I was at and I got told you are going over to Iraq right now and you will fight in Fallujah again, I would sign up in a heartbeat like that. But then you're getting the backing of the U.S. military, those comrades in arms. I mean, I -- was with the Peshmerga over there and they're great individuals, but they're not American Marines.
MALVEAUX: Yes. Mat, I want to ask you about that because -- do you think the Peshmerga, I mean, are they welcoming Americans fighting side by side? Do they get to see combat or are there Americans in Peshmerga who are giving the kind of resources they need to be even successful there?
WOLF: Well, the Peshmerga from what I understand might have one or two Americans amongst them, but the group that's been taken most Westerners and the most foreigners into their ranks is actually the YPG, which is a neighboring Kurdish unit inside Syria. They certainly have been bringing in the Americans now -- Americans and Westerners.
What I've been hearing about the YPG very often from foreign fighters who have left them, though, that they feel like they're being used as propaganda more by the YPG than they actually are as fighters. They are doing a lot of media interviews and there are a lot of disgruntled ex-foreign fighters coming through Iraq right now, having left Syria complaining that they didn't do the fighting in Syria, they expected when they first arrived.
MALVEAUX: All right. Mat Wolf, thank you so much. And Adam as well. I'm sorry we've run out of time, but it's a fascinating read in the "New York Times," your friend who wrote it, that article about his own experience and just the frustration that he's had, and it's very interesting to learn of your own frustration as well.
BANOTAI: Tom is a great writer and a huge veterans advocate. And it was an excellent piece.
MALVEAUX: All right. Thank you so much.
BANOTAI: Thank you.
MALVEAUX: Appreciate it.
Coming up, a political fight on Capitol Hill now holding up the confirmation of the nation's top law enforcement officials.
Well, should the Senate be playing politics with a vital appointments? What does abortion have to do with all of this? That's up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: Word today of a new delay for Loretta Lynch's confirmation vote to be the next attorney general. During an appearance on CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION," Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell issued a warning to Democrats. Warning that he won't schedule a vote on her nomination until they resolved a dispute of an abortion measure that has been added to a human trafficking bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Sounds like you are threatening to hold up Loretta Lynch, who has been in limbo for months and months.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MAJORITY LEADER: It's not a threat. We need to finish this human trafficking bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. That's the next item. It's on the Senate floor right now.
BASH: Right.
MCCONNELL: We need to finish that so we have time to turn to the attorney general because the next week, we'll be doing a budget and two weeks -- and the next two weeks after that, Congress is not in session.
BASH: So unless Democrats give in, Loretta Lynch's nomination will not be on the Senate floor next week?
MCCONNELL: We have to finish the human trafficking bill. The Loretta Lynch nomination comes next.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MALVEAUX: Joining me now is CNN political commentators Ben Ferguson and Lamont -- Marc Lamont Hill.
Thank you, both gentlemen, for joining us today.
BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good afternoon.
MALVEAUX: Good afternoon.
Marc, I want to start off with you here. I mean, what do you make of this -- you know, clearly he's talking this is a scheduling issue, before you know, this was important, this was supposed to be done a while ago. What do you make of what's playing out here?
MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's incredibly frustrating and it's not uncommon for this Congress and for the previous Congress to do the exact same thing. And let me be clear, this isn't just a Republican things, Democrats have also bills hostage for their own political preoccupations and obsessions sometimes with the right.
Right now we're seeing the very same thing and it's extremely frustrating. And it hasn't just happened with the surgeon general. It's also happened, as you mentioned, with the attorney general. That's been also happened with the surgeon general a few months ago. And we saw a major health crisis break out and we didn't have one, because people were playing politics with nominations. And this needs to stop.
Look what happened to Iran and the 47 senators or what's happening right now with Loretta lynch. Republican senator must stop playing bout with citizens are entitled too.
MALVEAUX: So, Ben, respond, if you will, to that, because, you know, what we're talking about clearly this is a very important nomination that's got to go through. This happens on both sides of the aisle but now we're in a standstill. We're still under in delay mode.
FERGUSON: Look, it's pretty simple what he said. He said let's get done with the human trafficking bill, and this is next stop. And Democrats have not been wanting to work on that bill. And he's pretty much saying, we're going to through the list the way that we see the list to be done, we're in charge now and this is the next thing up. And if you want to move on to Loretta Lynch, and let's get this done, let's knock it out and move on so that we can move forward.
I mean, one of the biggest things here is Democrats are having a hard time realizing they're not in control of the Senate and they're not in control of the House.
And I know they hate that. It's never fun losing, but when the team that wins is the one that decides the agenda. And when they push something forward and they say we're going to deal with it, then that's the way the Senate works at that moment, that's the way it's always worked. And they got to deal with it.
MALVEAUX: So, Marc, we have heard this complaint before that Democrats are accusing Republicans of sneaking in this anti-abortion language, but we've heard Republicans coming bake saying the language was in there all along, why didn't they read it in the first place. Who is at fault at this point that we have this holdup?
HILL: I mean, the great thing about the American Congress is that there's bipartisan fault to go around. Democrats should have read the bill earlier, and Democrats, in many ways are culpable since 9/11 of not reading major legislation. So I don't let them off the hook here, but there's another issue here, and this is why I completely disagree with Ben. This isn't just the schedule. The Lynch nomination has been held up for a long time now.
And it isn't because there's some rigid schedule that people are trying to account for. This is about trying to get a bill passed that people don't want. The Democrats don't want. I agree elections have consequences here, but right now we're in the middle of one of the biggest civic crises of the last two decades, with what's happened in Ferguson, what's happened with these two police officers who were tragically killed, and what do we need more than an attorney general? That's not --
FERGUSON: You've got Eric Holder. HILL: We can do both.
FERGUSON: Look, you got --
HILL: I'm sorry?
FERGUSON: First of all it's not like the position is completely empty and there's no one there. Let's be clear about that. Eric Holder has been saying plenty about Ferguson, more than any other person, probably I would even think Democrats are saying he's the most qualified to deal with Ferguson and to finish that up. So I don't think it's like there's an empty no one at the desk, you know, incapacitation here.
HILL: So that's just disingenuous.
FERGUSON: Hold on. Hold on. The attorney general's --
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: That's disingenuous, Ben. You don't want Eric --
FERGUSON: Yes. But no, I'm saying I don't want Eric Holder, I agree with you. But I'm saying, let's not act like there's injustices being done right now. Eric Holder is your guy and you all have loved him for six years now, let's not act like there's an empty chair in the most important job at the Department of Justice. It is filled at the moment.
But let me go back to something that was said a moment ago. Democrats had no problem with this human trafficking bill until special interest groups read the bill which apparently Democrats did not. That is their fault for not reading the bill. They need to start reading the actual things they're getting on.
MALVEAUX: All right, guys.
FERGUSON: And then they won't get themselves in a situation --
MALVEAUX: We've got to --
(CROSSTALK)
MALVEAUX: We've got to bring you guys back.
HILL: I conceded that point from the beginning. We still have to respond to it.
FERGUSON: We agree.
MALVEAUX: Yes. We've got to bring you guys back another day because they're telling us we're out of time. I hate to let you go so quickly.
Thank you both, Marc, Ben, appreciate it. Does Hillary Clinton have over -- a problem as she considers a run for
the White House? This is not just the e-mails, but an issue that could doom her with younger voters. We're going to tell you what that is, up ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: Hillary Clinton's attempt to put those State Department e- mails behind her hasn't really worked out that well. And it could pose some new problems in the future.
Clinton kept her own e-mail server in her home. She also decided which of those e-mails would be made public and which ones would be kept private.
Martha Pease is joining us now. She is a branding expert and the CEO of demandworks.com. Her new book "Think Round" with Michael Campbell is available this Thursday.
And Martha, you wrote on CNN.com really a very fascinating case about what Hillary Clinton needs to do and perhaps who she's missing out on here. The millennials in particular, the young folks who she just might have a problem with. Explain why.
MARTHA PEASE, BRAND EXPERT: Well, many millennial are looking at Hillary and don't have an issue with her, I'm sure. We don't have any research at the moment to see what the reaction was to her press conference and what's happened with the e-mails, but step back for a second, millennials as a group are pretty cynical crowd when it comes to brands, and companies, and people and politicians. There's a lot of research that shows that.
They're also a crowd that is very values driven. And they are -- they place great importance on authenticity. In anything that they relate to in their lives. It could be where they live, it could be the products that they buy, it could be the politicians that they vote for. And authenticity is an aspect of the Hillary Clinton brand that is sometimes hard to find, and she and the team I think risk some exposure if they're not alert to the idea that authenticity is actually going to be a very, very important aspect of her appeal to the millennial audience.
MALVEAUX: And you write in this here. I want to read it here, part of the heightened danger coming out of her press conference lies among millennials who will be a critical voting group of Democrats in the 2016 presidential election, that say authenticity is paramount importance to millennials and how they relate to everything in their lives, including politicians.
It seems almost bizarre in a way, because we live in this society where you've got, you know, the reality shows that aren't real, they can tell like when people are being fake. And does that kind of build and become a part of their culture that it becomes even more important in 2016?
PEASE: Yes, it not only becomes more important because there's so many more pieces of information and input basically into the equation of what's authentic and what's not, but it's also a group that talks to each other. And they talk to each other more than they talk to brands and companies, and certainly more than they talk to politicians.
MALVEAUX: So how does she change this?
PEASE: How does she change this? Well, I think there are a few things that she needs to look at. Number one, she needs to elevate the behaviors that are associated with authenticity, you know, being forthright and taking the initiative to be clear about information and to be transparent.
I think something else that's absolutely critical is she's got to show trust. She has to show that she can trust the press, that the press is actually going to be standing in to some degree as a primary candidate on the campaign trail for her. She needs to be able to find places where she can trust the press because they will be the speaking platform for her.
And I think she also needs to show that she can trust the American people, that it's not a question of keeping a distance from Americans and from the public, and from the issues that concern her -- them. It's a question of really engaging with them because engaging will deliver the sense of authenticity that's critical.
MALVEAUX: All right. We've got to leave it there. I covered Hillary Clinton for many years. I know that's a very difficult thing for her to do, to really open up the way you've described. So it's a challenge. Yes.
All right. Thank you so much.
PEASE: Thank you.
MALVEAUX: Appreciate it.
And Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, you've probably heard of those gospels, but what about the Gospel of Judas that didn't make it into the bible and it tells a very different story about the man who betrayed Jesus.
But first, why exercising with your partner might be just the motivation that you need to get fit. Here's our Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: How important for you is this to do together?
JULIA SMOOKLER, FIT NATION PARTICIPANT: You know, accountability is huge. And I feel like we would hold each other accountable. We have the same goals. Like, if you don't want to work out one day, and -- but I do, let me help motivate you.
GUPTA: Is this going to be more supporting each other, or is there going to be some friendly competition? EUGENE SMOOKLER, FIT NATION PARTICIPANT: I'm a little better swimmer,
just a little.
(LAUGHTER)
J. SMOOKLER: He's awesome.
E. SMOOKLER: But -- no, yes, right. You know, I think I really just want to support each other. I just want to make it fun for both of us and help one another.
GUPTA: Your husband. What are you most concerned about?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm concerned for us to stay on track, to make sure we really stick with it. I think having that team support and knowing that four other members are doing it with us, too, that's a pretty cool thing.
GUPTA: Many doubt right now that Joe is going to have a -- any difficulty crossing the finish line?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, you know, I'm concerned because she's had a little back surgery last year, disk bulge. And you know, because she's delivering babies all the time. That's not easy. And I was a little concerned. But she has the strongest work ethic I've ever seen. So I don't doubt at all she'll finish. We may have challenges, but there is no one that can outwork her. So I'm really excited. I know she'll finish.
GUPTA: We're going to cross that finish line together.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That sounds good.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MALVEAUX: It is one of the most famous acts of betrayal in history, Judas leading the Romans to Jesus. Well, tonight the new CNN series "FINDING JESUS" takes a closer look at the lost Gospel of Judas and the idea that Jesus asked Judas to betray him because he was the closest of his disciples.
Joining me now is Michael McKinley. He's the co-author of "Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact, Forgery."
Could the lost Gospel of Judas really change the way we understand the faith, the way we understand the story?
MICHAEL MCKINLEY, CO-AUTHOR, "FINDING JESUS: FAITH, FACT, FORGERY": There's certainly a case to be made for that, Suzanne, and it's one of the things we do in the book and in tonight's episode. So that's the long answer, you'll see it tonight. But yes, reading it that he was actually fulfilling Jesus' divine will by betraying him. It was a necessary condition, if you will, to lead to his crucifixion and, Christians believe, resurrection. MALVEAUX: That is dramatic, it is profound, being Roman Catholic
myself.
MCKINLEY: Yes. Me too.
MALVEAUX: But I'll be watching this, but also this is just one revelation that we learn this evening that there are other things about the other disciples that could change everything.
MCKINLEY: Indeed. There is an argument that this gospel was written not by Judas, but by using him as kind of the lightning rod for a lot of discontent about how the disciples carried on the message of Jesus after he died and, in fact, it was the criticism of their behavior saying that they did not -- were not faithful to his teaching. So it was, you know, a harsher document than the interpretation that he was fulfilling divine will.
MALVEAUX: Yes. Very critical of the other disciples.
MCKINLEY: Absolutely. Yes.
MALVEAUX: Michael, we're going to be watching. We are going to be watching. This is an amazing series. We really appreciate it.
MCKINLEY: Great.
MALVEAUX: OK. Fascinating.
The story of the Gospel of Judas unfolds tonight on "FINDING JESUS." That is at 9:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
