Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Intel Confirms Target Was ISIS CFO; Former Egyptian President Sentenced To Death; NTSB: Object May Have Struck Derailed Train; Boston Bomber's Only Hope Is Appeal; Jeb Bush Defends Brother's Iraq Policy. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired May 16, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: We're learning brand-new details about a major U.S. operation against ISIS in Syria. The White House says U.S. special operation forces conducted a raid deep in Eastern Syria, killing the key ISIS figure and capturing his wife.

Joining me now is Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, who broke the story. So, Barbara, I understand that you're learning new information about this senior ISIS official?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: More information coming to light. The name that the U.S. is using is Abu Sayyaf, that clearly not his real name, but the U.S. government, not yet releasing the man's real name or the real name of his wife.

What we are being told by officials with direct knowledge of the operation inside Syria is they were able to capture the wife. She's undergoing interrogation in Iraq. He was killed in a firefight with U.S. forces, but they were able to capture a good deal of communications equipment, a good deal of intelligence now being gathered.

One official telling me, a short time ago, that the U.S. now has what the official is saying reams and reams of data on how ISIS communicates, operates, and what they may be up to. That is now what they are going through.

Abu Sayyaf is characterized as the CFO, if you will, of ISIS, which special expertise in oil and gas, their money making operations in recent months. But the U.S. intelligence community had had some increasing evidence. He was taking a more operational role.

He was getting involved in command and control and operations, and planning. This may help explain the big question, why did President Obama authorize such a risky operation to send U.S. Delta Force commandos deep into Syria to try and capture this man and get whatever intelligence they could.

Those commandos all coming back safe, but they were in a tough firefight, we are told, they even engaged in hand-to-hand combat -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: And so, Barbara, is there an explanation coming from the Pentagon or White House about why they decided to carry out a risky operation? And I guess most of us are using the word "risky" because there were ground forces that were used in Syria in an operation last year which was not considered to be a successful one. So, why do it this time?

STARR: Why do it this time, indeed. There is no indication that there were any western hostages on the ground, a Yazidi woman from sect in that area was held by these people, but no indication of western or American hostages.

By all accounts, this was an effort to get to one of top operatives in ISIS, not a well-known name to most people, but I will tell you that the sources we're talking to tell us this operation had been in the works since about several weeks, March, even maybe before that.

This was somebody they were keeping their eye on, very much intelligence driven. They took to the president, risk, absolutely, but there were, in fact, fighter jets overhead. There was intelligence overhead. Jamming communications, as there always is.

There was a lot of backup for those U.S. troops on the ground and this is the real expertise of U.S. commandos. They get the intelligence on a target. They go in, very quick, very hot, very heavy. They will open fire. They will secure a perimeter. They go after their target.

And they get out as fast as they company that's their security, in and out, as fast as they can. They would have been planning for this for some time -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, this operation taking place, deep in Eastern Syria. Barbara, thank you so much. I want to also bring in Nick Paton Walsh, who is in Beirut.

So Nick, you've been covering ISIS for a very long time. What more can you tell us about perhaps the location where this operation took place?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Just listening to Barbara reporting. This is staggering, I think, development for U.S. military development in Syria. We don't normally see them going into hand-to-hand combat with bloody knuckles fighting with ISIS militants here.

This is an extraordinary hard place to reach, inside Syria, very much ISIS-held territory. The oil field, very well fortified, 3 to 5 kilometer perimeter of security around it, we're told by activists. Had it seem to be hit by air strikes beforehand, midnight, we are hearing from activists, who have spoken to witnesses and this Delta force went in.

An extraordinarily large risk and a very difficult, I think, operation to explain, had it gone wrong for the White House to an American public constantly assuring there would be no more boots on the ground in the Middle East.

So a definite perhaps embarkment here on U.S. military policy, and you have to ask, who was their key target. They're absolutely sure Abu Sayyaf was the key man, money man, involved in military operations.

[12:05:09] As Barbara was saying, not a household name, far from it, in fact. You struggle to find his name in ISIS literature. He's not been in their social media so maybe a back room dealer here, maybe somebody along the walls of targeting cells the U.S. military have in parts of Iraq, but not somebody you could have explained to the American public essential to necessarily to go after.

His wife, Um Sayyaf, we're being told, she is being debriefed, potentially a big deal when it comes to human trafficking that ISIS is involved in. Women aren't really that often involved operationally in ISIS. That's a bit of a stretch.

Frankly, it's imagined she would have a vast amount of information. What they may have been after is Abu Sayyaf's cell phones, computers, that bridge onto other ISIS leadership, the spokesperson, that's entirely plausible.

They may have thought they were, in fact, together at this stage. But all of these questions still to be answered. What we do have is an extraordinarily high risk raid deep into Syrian territory.

It's just maybe the gloves are off now for U.S. Special Forces when it comes to ISIS leadership in Syria or perhaps something else they were after, they haven't talked about yet.

WHITFIELD: Barbara, we keep hearing the language for military analysts, high risk, high pay-off. You mentioned officials are telling you there were reams of data that was collected from this operation. So, with Um Sayyaf, the wife, now in the possession of U.S. personnel, what kind of information is expected to be gained from her?

STARR: Well, as Nick just pointed out, the working theory by the U.S. is she was heavily involved in ISIS' human trafficking operations. So they're going to want to know everything she knows about any hostages that ISIS held at any point, that they may have killed, any hostages they still have.

What their human trafficking operations really are and what she knows about it that has brought such misery to thousands of people in that immediate area, and of course, to so many American families and families in Japan, in Europe, who have lost their loved ones to ISIS murderers.

So there will be an effort to see if she knows anything about all of that. In terms of any communications gear, laptop, cell phones, other electronic data that they may have been able to capture, very typical, they will go through all of it.

They will scrub it, look for anything they can match up, any clues they can find about what ISIS is up to.

WHITFIELD: And then what? I mean, once they try to get any more information, perhaps from Um, then what? I mean, would she be released? Would she be ultimately facing any kind of war crimes-type charges? I mean, what would happen potentially?

STARR: Yes, I think it's very early to say. She's in Iraq right now. We don't know if the Iraqi government wants to hold on to her for potential prosecution. There have been a lot of cases in the past where the U.S. has captured counterterrorism suspects overseas and brought them to the United States for trial.

Bringing a top-level ISIS person to the United States for trial, does that open up a potential lone wolf threat, even bigger in the United States to have that kind of target here? All questions we don't know the answers to.

WHITFIELD: And then, Nick, I know you've been covering ISIL and ISIS for such a long time now and you've learned so much about the inner workings of it. So now when something like this happens, is there a way of knowing potentially this location has been compromised with the death and collection of data and information?

What happens structurally within ISIS or ISIL in terms of how the hierarchy changes, those operational leaders, what might they be doing now?

WALSH: Obviously, these men, had lengthy experience in evading American surveillance. A lot of them in al Qaeda in Iraq, remember them, back during the Iraqi insurgency, the U.S. military in Iraq and then in the Islamic State of Iraq.

So they are steeped in exactly how the U.S. will try and track them down, I'm sure that's one of the U.S.' problems here so, of course, when you hear something like this, you can imagine they're not using the same cell phones ever again and maybe changing e-mail address.

Those are pretty obvious things you can imagine them doing immediately. The question really has to be what level of intelligence have the U.S. has about Sayyaf. Are they reading communications that could have gone to him, to the person he was communicating with if they knew necessarily where.

These all feels more to me like perhaps they had hoped in that location there was something other than Abu Sayyaf, unless he is this money man key linchpin figure that the Pentagon and White House are saying at this stage.

It's feasible except that you would have perhaps now on social media is themselves may have been talking more about him who he was, what he did. Instead they're saying what about your target, your operations failed because he wasn't much of a player.

WHITFIELD: All right, Barbara Starr, Nick Paton Walsh, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

[12:10:09] We'll talk a little bit more about this now and the significance of the operation, how it was carried out. A former Navy SEAL, Jonathan Gilliam, is back with us with more insight. As Barbara Starr reports, you know, Abu Sayyaf was the CFO of this -- of ISIS and that he played a vital role. But he also apparently had an increasing role in the terror groups operations and communications and with the collection of some of this data, one has to wonder, how much does this really hurt ISIS or ISIL as a whole.

JONATHAN GILLIAM, FORMER NAVY SEAL: Well, anytime you get data, OK, what you've got to look at, look at ISIS like a company, OK? And we're the opposing company trying to take them down. Anytime you get data, any data, it helps.

When you take out a figure that's in the basically the executive branch of this company, that also helps to diminish their ability to carry out business on a day-to-day basis.

So now when you look at them as an enemy in a war you start to see how I know the last reporter there was talking, you know, made it sound like it's not that big of a deal, if you look at what we did and where we did it, that first of all says that we can now reach in there.

WHITFIELD: That it was in Syria.

GILLIAM: That it was in Syria.

WHITFIELD: Without permission or consultation or even assistance from that country's government.

GILLIAM: Which I'm not really -- you know, that country's government is in such shambles right now, I think the easiest thing to do. But you know, we now have the ability to go in there, reach into their hardened heart that's one of their hardest targets and actually get specific people and collect intelligence.

I think that says a lot. I think Barbara Starr was excellent in the way that she was pointing out how they risk going in there and what exactly it was they potentially could have gotten.

This intel, once that is spread throughout the task force and it goes back into the United States, scrubbed by the bureau, it goes to the CIA, and back out to the operational sides, you will see a lot of movement based on intel if it's good intel.

WHITFIELD: So I wonder if you can tell us a little bit more about that potentially. Barbara did underscore that reams of data from cell phones and computers that were taken, we understand that some of those special ops forces made their way back to Iraq with the wife and then the other young woman, Yazidi woman, who was captured, and now freed.

So is a lot of the extrapolating of data taking place in Iraq right now? Has it been quickly taken out of the country, back to the U.S. for evaluation? How does it generally work? How immediate is the deciphering of this information.

GILLIAM: Well, I can't go into a lot of the details of how or what exactly is extrapolated out of this, but what I can tell you is that it's as fast as possible. And it's as fast as the information can get to the people who extrapolate that information. It's going to be done.

This is a type of situation where you know people are going to be coming in on the weekends and look at this stuff and trying to basically find the pieces of the puzzle that they don't have already.

So, there's certain, you know, techniques and tactics and procedures that we have in place already that that is really what I can speak to, is that we have things that we have set in place over this, you know, 15-year war that we've been over in that area technology's come so far that we already have systems in place.

It's not like that's not the reaction part of this. The reactive part is we have a mission, it's fluid, they go in there, they take this guy out. They get the information.

When they come back, this is something that is not fluid. We have procedures in place and techniques in the way we go through this. And that, I think, is what has progressed and makes this so fast compared to 20 years ago.

WHITFIELD: And no one, of course, is thinking taking out this CEO, CFO, rather, of ISIS is going to stop or dismantle ISIS as a whole. But one has to wonder how disruptive it might be, you know, how shaken up might this organization be now that a primary operative has been taken out.

How might U.S. intelligence of forces try to take advantage of this moment, the aftereffects of taking out a key operative? What are they watching in behavior and in dialogue, chatter, all of that?

GILLIAM: Information is what pushes missions forward. So as they go through this information, there may be other carry-on missions that are motivated by the intelligence that they gathered.

[12:15:05] Again, you know, he was a CFO, but I think it's interesting to see the way that ISIS reacted online because now maybe they're getting a clue that minimization is better, which you normally see with criminals anyway when they try to minimize the crime or what actually happened to them.

But regardless, we know what we did. Our over watch is such that once a mission is done, we can really measure the impact that it actually had.

WHITFIELD: All right. What do you think the next step is in -- as the U.S. tries to get a handle of ISIS? I mean, clearly, you know, the leader would be on the top of the target list. But do you think it's crippling the organization by taking out the supportive roles, deputies, before going in for the kill, so to speak, the head man?

GILLIAM: Well, I've been critical for some time now we don't have an overall strategic war plan. I think even this is an example where we get headstrong on going after particular leaderships, which has -- there's no doubt about it -- has an impact.

But I think overall ISIS has already been allowed to spread to the point where when we look at fundamental Islamic terror, these different groups, or Mohammedism moving around the world, recruiting people, we really do need to start seeing a little bit more of a coordinated war plan.

I think, you know, this is good, this is always on the table, go after their leadership. But it needs to be incorporated with the overall global movement of this group.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jonathan Gilliam, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

All right, be sure to tune in, again, to CNN, tomorrow night, 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time, to see Fareed Zakaria's CNN special "Blindsided, How ISIS Shook the World." We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:20:31]

WHITFIELD: All right, welcome back. We are following new developments this morning into the Amtrak crash investigation. An FBI forensics team has now been called in to assist investigators and they'll be looking into the possibilities that some damage to the windshield of the train may have been caused by a projectile hitting the train before it derailed.

Train 188 could be just one of three trains hit by objects that night. Erin McLaughlin is live for us now in Philadelphia following these investigations. What more do we know about the damage on these windshields

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Fredricka. Investigators are saying they are very interested in the fist-sized, circular pattern marking that was located on the lower left-hand side of the windshield.

They say they believe that that was there prior to the crash and they're so interested that they're calling in FBI and forensic investigators to take a look. In addition to that, they have new information from an assistant conductor rather that was on board Amtrak 188.

She said that prior to the crash, just before it happened. She heard radio transmission between the Amtrak dispatcher and the conductor on board a separate Septa train that was nearby. That engineer on board that Septa train said that he had been hit by a projectile.

The windshield rather had been hit by a projectile. She says that she then heard from the engineer on board Amtrak 188, he said that his train had been hit as well.

Now, adding to the mystery, a third train in the area around the time of the derailment, passengers on board an Amtrak Acela train that they too had experienced a projectile.

They said that a projectile had hit a passenger window about 15 to 20 minutes before the Amtrak 188 derailment. Investigators are taking this very seriously -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: My goodness, OK, and now let's talk about the service because a lot of people rely on that northeast corridor track and they haven't been able to for days now, including this weekend. When might Amtrak be back on board?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, Amtrak has been furiously working, trying to restore service to the very busy northeast corridor. We understand that the line between New York and Philadelphia has been suspended through Monday. But they are hopeful that that line could open up in some capacity on Tuesday.

WHITFIELD: All right, Erin McLaughlin, thanks so much in Philadelphia. Keep us posted. We'll have much more from the NEWSROOM after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:26:15]

WHITFIELD: A major verdict in Egypt today, a judge has ruled former President Mohamed Morsi should die for his role in a mass prison break. The sentence comes as Morsi was already serving 20 years for ordering the arrest and torture of protesters.

He came to power as the country's first freely elected president after the Egyptian revolution in 2012. CNN's Ian Lee is following the story. He's joining us from Cairo. So, Ian, was this a verdict expected by the masses?

IAN LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think a lot of us expected a harsh verdict, Fredricka. It wasn't really a matter of if he's innocent or guilty but what his punishment would be. And the judge very harsh, we see this a lot of times in these initial trials, these very harsh sentences.

Mohamed Morsi was one over 100 people sentenced to death in two cases that this judge heard today. One being this jail break, another being espionage. Amnesty International has come out strong against this, condemning it, calling this trial a charade.

There really has been no love lost between the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt's judiciary, when President Mohamed Morsi was in power, he tried to forcibly retire a number of top judges. Now he's also on trial for insulting the judiciary.

There a lot of things pointing to the fact that a lot of criticism, that he couldn't get a fair trial here in Egypt, but we're not expecting him to go to the gallows anytime soon.

Egypt's top Islamic scholar's going to look over this case, offer an opinion on June 2nd, the judge will make the final verdicts. But there still are two more appeals after this.

Egypt has sentenced hundreds of people to death but only one person has been executed so far in this post-revolution period -- Fredricka. WHITFIELD: So this appellate process could be very lengthy?

LEE: Definitely. In Egypt's judicial system is notoriously drawn out, slow, and most of the times we do see very harsh sentences, only be to reduced or overturned in a later appeals process.

We've already seen this with some hundreds of people who were initially sentenced to death. But Mohamed Morsi is a special case. The government isn't going to want to see him released in the public anytime soon. They do have an interest in keeping him at least in prison.

WHITFIELD: All right, Ian Lee in Cairo, thanks so much.

All right, coming up, more on our breaking news coverage continuing on the daring U.S. special ops raid that killed a key ISIS figure in Syria. We've got new details about the raid itself next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:31:32]

WHITFIELD: Our top story now, a U.S. Delta Force commando killing a key ISIS figure during a raid in Eastern Syria. Here's what we know right now. In a statement, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Abu Sayyaf, who was involved in ISIL's military operations and helped direct the organization's financial operations was killed when he engaged U.S. forces.

U.S. officials also tell CNN that Sayyaf was the equivalent of the ISIS chief financial officer. U.S. officials also telling CNN that Sayyaf was a Tunisian citizen.

The National Security Council said his wife was captured and is currently in military detention in Iraq, and a source telling CNN that Abu Sayyaf may have been in contact with ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi.

All right, joining me with more on this is CNN global affairs analyst, Kimberly Dozier. So Kim, good to see you. So Syria was not aware of the operation. How was this coordinated? How did this operation take place without the cooperation of the government there?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, the important thing is that the Iraqi government was aware, and the raiders left from Iraqi airspace and went to this remote part of Syria where the Syrian government does not hold sway. You wouldn't have a senior ISIS leader where he'd be threatened by Syrian forces.

I've spoken to two senior administration officials about how they planned this. They said they knew it would be risky, but that there wouldn't be civilians in the area.

So there was a low risk of civilian casualties and that's how they took the decision, they made their argument to the president, and he said go on this mission. WHITFIELD: And our Barbara Starr reported that this wasn't one quiet operation, but there was hand-to-hand combat involving special ops and some ISIL members.

In your article in "The Daily Beast" you wrote that some ISIS fighters hid behind women in an attempt to use them as human shields and the second defense official said that the U.S. troops had to literally shoot around the human shields to kill the fighters. So they come across as cowardly.

DOZIER: Well, yes. Together with my colleagues, Kevin Bauer and Nancy Hues of "The Daily Beast," we've built a picture of how this raid was carried out. They did meet resistance from armed guards with AK-47s and from Abu Sayyaf himself.

But they were able to capture a lot of laptops, cell phones. So while Abu Sayyaf was killed, he almost wasn't really the objective of this operation. As CFO, they knew he would be tracking all aspects of ISIS' operation.

One senior administration official has told me they're now combing through that material to try to figure out if the reports that ISIS' number two was killed are accurate.

Possibly they can track down the location of Baghdadi through this information on these laptops and cell phones. All of that is being exploited. If they get enough information, they say they could be conducting other strikes soon.

WHITFIELD: Is your understanding that he would be singular CFO of this group or might he share that role with others, especially since they are all high-risk targets?

DOZIER: Well, this organization is fairly diffuse, and so the roles are a little murky. Yes, they would be shared among different members of the leadership.

[12:35:06] Just in case one person got taken out, you'd have somebody else to carry it on, but this was about getting the kind of intelligence that leads to future raids that starts degrading the network.

One of the officials I spoke to said that this is just a continuation of the coalition strategy to shrink the area in which ISIS can operate and just make it more difficult for them to wage war.

WHITFIELD: And that staging area in Iraq that seems very significant and crucial in trying to carry out an operation like this, and perhaps as a prelude to other operations that you speak of, are likely to follow.

DOZIER: I did ask whether this meant -- is this a change in tone, sign of things to come. I was told the problem before they haven't had enough intelligence to get the go order from the president on something like this. This means their operations have gotten them enough intelligence to get them to this point. Once they get the kind of information that's on that laptop or those laptops, the hope is that they can start building a much more detailed picture of the network, which will lead to strikes not just by the U.S., but by other coalition forces throughout the region.

WHITFIELD: All right, Kimberly Dozier, thanks so much. Appreciate your insight on all of this.

DOZIER: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: CNN at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow night to see Fareed Zakaria's CNN special "Blindsided: How ISIS Shook The World."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:40:04]

WHITFIELD: All right in Boston, the jury has decided, now Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces death for his role in the Boston marathon bombings. His only hope lies in a higher court overturning the decision. He has ten days to file an appeal.

Let's bring in our legal guys, Avery Friedman, a civil rights attorney and law professor in Cleveland and Richard Herman, a New York criminal defense attorney and law professor joining us from Las Vegas. All right, good to see you both of you.

So Richard, if I recall correctly, you called this one. You said it would be death. Why, in your view, did this jury render this kind of decision?

RICHARD HERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Fred, the evidence was so overwhelming in this case, I mean, it was beyond overwhelming. When the government continued to play pictures of the bombs going off and people getting body, limbs ripped out, children dying in front of the jury, it was too much to overcome.

Couple that with a disingenuous defense which the jury absolutely rejected. I mean, this guy's dying declaration, his manifesto, a dying declaration is an exception to hearsay, that's how strong it is, he's saying, it's OK to kill innocent people for the cause. So, there was nothing.

And the only thing that could have saved him is if he got on the witness stand. He didn't do it because he has no remorse and it's not a question of the morality of the death penalty. It's the law. It's on the books and it was put into play here.

WHITFIELD: So Avery, the only moment I think most people recall him showing, I guess a human side of him, he was tearful was when he saw his mother. But clearly the jurors did not feel that was remorse for the crime.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, there was some evidence in this case, the sister, who people remember as the nun in "Dead Man Walking" said that she had interviewed Tsarnaev and indicated that he was regretful, he was remorseful.

The jury didn't buy that, Fredricka. The fact is that the evidence -- and I agree -- was so overwhelming. This was a jury that was death penalty ready. There were instructions at the beginning, could you do this if the facts warranted?

That's exactly what happened here. And I think you're correct also that there will absolutely be an appeal on the question of procedural issues, substantive issues. It's heading to the court of appeals. It's got still a long way to go.

WHITFIELD: And so, Richard, that's what makes it confusing, if there's an appeal because who can forget that he scrawled inside the boat that, you know, he was jealous of his brother for his fate and he thought that he wanted to go with him. So now he's got the death penalty but then he would appeal on what grounds? What would be the argument now?

HERMAN: Well, you know, if he's such a badass and committed to his cause, why doesn't he waive the appeal and go die and join the virgins to be a martyr.

FRIEDMAN: You know, it doesn't work that way.

HERMAN: Because he's a coward. To answer your question, Fred, the grounds for appeal in this case -- there are no good grounds here -- perhaps venue, should not have been tried right in the heart of Boston. The jury instruction, it could have been better on if one juror held out that would defeat the death penalty. Perhaps this juror misconduct somehow. This was a flash verdict on a pretty intensive juror plea there, verdict sheet. To come back that quick --

FRIEDMAN: That's an issue, though.

HERMAN: Yes, it is. And ultimate issue is whether a lethal injection is constitutional. That's if, Fred. He's going to lose on all four of those. If he doesn't get taken out in prison, he's going to die.

WHITFIELD: So Avery, now you dispute Richard's point of view, but, is it confusing, I mean, if on one hand there is no remorse, you know, people got what was coming to them.

FRIEDMAN: Zero.

WHITFIELD: Based on his actions, based on what he said and you're going to say death penalty too severe, it's not the appropriate punishment? Won't that be a tough sell?

FRIEDMAN: I don't think it's too severe at all. I actually think it's the appropriate verdict. And a lot of anti-death penalty people say, no matter what somebody does, it's inappropriate, immoral. I don't think that's the question on appeal.

There's another case of a defendant convicted in 2001, Fredricka, the Patterson case, that has gone back and forth on appeal. It's going to be retried in September of this year. That's why I say there's a long way to go.

Whether the appeal issues are disingenuous, whether they lack merit, really doesn't matter because we're dealing with the ultimate penalty and that's what goes on appeal here. And the procedures that attach to it. So that's why I say, we've got a long way to go until this is over.

WHITFIELD: It hasn't been filed yet. Is there a gut filing, Avery, it wouldn't even be filed and this issue would be moot? You think it's automatic?

FRIEDMAN: It's going to the court of appeals, 100 percent guaranteed, got to do it.

HERMAN: He's a coward, Fred.

FRIEDMAN: He may be a coward. He may be a coward --

HERMAN: He's a coward.

FRIEDMAN: I don't think that's a debate.

HERMAN: He killed innocent people.

[12:45:08] FRIEDMAN: That isn't the issue. That's not the issue.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: All right, we are going to have to leave it right there. We know that the whole case has been very polarizing --

FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.

WHITFIELD: -- all the way around. All right, thanks so much, Gentlemen. Appreciate it. Good to see you, Avery and Richard. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, he's not officially running for president, but Jeb Bush is having a pretty bad week on the campaign trail, mostly because of his flip-flopping on whether he would have taken America to war in Iraq, like his brother did. He just wrapped up a town hall in Dubuque, Iowa, where he stood by President George W. Bush's Iraq policy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Look, I'm proud of my brother, and he did what he thought was right. Yes. Maybe, maybe someone in this room has the power of hindsight. If they do, will you tell me which stock I should buy today, go into the future and look back and tell me which one I should buy. Think about this, we don't have the power of hindsight. (END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk more about Jeb Bush and all of the others in the 2016 race.

[12:50:10] CNN's senior political analyst, David Gergen, joining me live from Harvard University where he is co-director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Kennedy School.

All right, so, David, you know, we say he's one of the contenders. He hasn't officially thrown his hat into the ring, but he did kind of announce informally that he is running for president.

So, now he's going to be haunted, is he not, by the whole issue of the Iraq war, whether they stands by his brother's foreign policy, his directive on going to war in Iraq, or not. How much of a problem is this going to be?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, he dug himself a hole this week, there is no question about that, Fredricka, and a lot of people around him would like to see him get a campaign structure around him to help him manage these questions more easily.

It's a perfectly innocent mistake when you're being interviewed to not hear the full question because he started answering it and so I think -- I give him the benefit of the doubt on not hearing the question properly.

But it took four days to clean it up. There was a lot of waffling and moving around. It was not a gainly sight. The people now looking at him, as someone who is likely certainly in the top tier of candidates, may well be the front-runner early.

He's under a lot of scrutiny and doesn't seem prepared. I think that's the big surprise.

WHITFIELD: And why is that? That is the surprise. Why would he not be prepared for it? I know he has no so many different forms distanced himself from his brother, we are different people, we don't necessarily consult and talk a whole lot, but you know, we are indeed brothers.

But he had to and the people around him had to know that many of the decisions his brother made as president he would be asked to draw comparisons or distinguish whether he is the same guy or different.

GERGEN: It's mystifying, Fredricka, you're absolutely right. Everybody has known all along that one of his biggest tasks in this campaign is to make himself his own man and not be so beholdened to his brother.

So when he told a group, privately, of course, it got out, that he was relying on his brother for foreign policy advice, it was like, what? I thought you're you are on man? Why would you turn to your brother at this sensitive time? Do I think this will pass? Yes, I do. The interesting thing is both he and Hillary Clinton have been stumbling in the last few weeks. They both had rough and some would say lousy weeks and they are, quote, "so powerful in this race."

I think both have a lot of work to do, but do remember this, Fredricka, even as he was making his mistakes, there was a poll this week, first nationwide poll we've seen, where he is neck and neck, one point ahead, of Hillary Clinton in the national race. That's the first time we've seen that.

WHITFIELD: And he hasn't even officially declared that he's in.

GERGEN: And he hasn't officially declared that he's in. So even as he's running into these problems, to use a Bushism, don't mis- underestimate him.

WHITFIELD: What's the rule on that? Now that he's let the cat out of the bag, how does that expedite getting the wheels in motion for his campaign?

GERGEN: I think what he's doing he wants very much to see if he can raise $100 million by the first reporting date at the end of the quarter. With that kind of wind at his back -- and he's doing very well on the money campaign. He is doing very, very well.

But he's -- others are looking at him saying maybe he's not as strong as a candidate, maybe he's not ready, maybe he's rusty, and he needs to work on this.

We do know this, that Jeb Bush is a policy walk, he is very smart. He's a sensible person. I think he'll find his legs, but this has been a rough time.

WHITFIELD: And then, just to refresh the memories of some, perhaps will are a lot of folks who didn't get a chance to see every moment of Jeb Bush's life this week, I want to re-run what he said in the interview with Fox when he was asked about, knowing what you know now, would you have made a similar decision? Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?

BUSH: I would have, so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody and so would have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: OK, so, could it have been a moment where he didn't quite hear the question?

GERGEN: Well, look, I think he may have -- he said he misinterpreted the question. Knowing what you know now, whether at that time would you have authorized it, obviously, the answer, if you're making the decision today he wouldn't have done what his brother did, that's obvious to everybody.

Could he have interpreted it, would you have still made the same decision had you had the intelligence in front of you that George W. Bush had? He's very sympathetic to his brother. He would have gone in. He said Hillary Clinton would have gone in, based on -- I -- I don't know. Maybe his mind wasn't in gear.

[12:55:10] Maybe he didn't take the interview seriously, he just come off a big speech. I don't know what the heck happened to him, but he clearly misheard it. On a campaign trail for president, that's a big gaffe. He's lucky it came early so he can get it behind him.

WHITFIELD: Might the other Republican contenders, since there are so many more running for a nomination, might they use that to their advantage?

GERGEN: Well, they've got to be careful because, you know, a lot of them supported the Iraq war. They have to be very, very thoughtful about that. But, yes, they're going to bounce on him. They're going to make the argument so, say, funders.

He's not quite the candidate you thought he was, he's not as good on his feet, give me money because we need an alternative. You know, look how far behind he is in Iowa. This is a winnable race for, say, Scott Walker at this point who is doing well in Iowa.

The other candidates are going to take encouragement from this, no question about this. But the real issue is how does it play with voters over time?

WHITFIELD: Right.

BERGEN: I think it's one of the early gaffes that cause a lot of us to chatter because nothing else is happening in the race, in some ways. You know, we're all looking for things to talk about.

WHITFIELD: Right.

GERGEN: The race is boring at this point for a lot of voters. You look for things about this and chatter about it, but they go away if he turns out to be a better candidate in three months' time. He needs to get his act together. Needs to get a campaign it team together. Don't do a Bushism, don't misunderestimate.

WHITFIELD: Well, I'm sure he is hoping it will go away. David Gergen, thank you so much.

GERGEN: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: We'll have much more right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Hello again, everyone. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. Thanks so much for joining me.