Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Crime Increasing?; D.C. Mansion Murders; Rand Paul Holds Up Surveillance Bill. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired June 01, 2015 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:06] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Top of the hour. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

We're following the news of a pretty frightening breach in security at dozens of the country's busiest airports. TSA agents secretly tested on their abilities to keep Americans safe in the skies, and they have failed. This revelation that undercover agents have been able to smuggle mock explosives and weapons through U.S. airport checkpoints.

And this wasn't just an isolated incident. No, these agents were able to smuggle these illicit and potentially deadly items in 95 percent of the time.

I want to bring in CNN's Suzanne Malveaux with more on this.

And how exactly did this happen?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, because you think about it, you take off your shoes and your coat, and you think you're safe, and you're not, because the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, they conducted a series of these tests with their officials. They're called the red teams.

They posed as passengers trying to pass through these security checkpoints with these realistic-looking explosives or weapons. Well, TSA officers failed 67 out of the 70 tests. That's 95 percent of the time, to actually identify and confiscate these items.

So, they got through the magnetometers, the pat-downs, the searches, the whole thing. It should be noted that the TSA also does similar kinds of tests on themselves to see what are these holes in the security system and how they be addressed?

They have been doing this now for 13 years, but these tests by both the Inspector General's Office and TSA by their very nature is designed to make it very hard for the TSA to succeed. But even former homeland security officials, Brooke, say they're very alarmed by what they found.

BALDWIN: So, given the fact that they were able to get all this stuff through, what changes for all of us next?

MALVEAUX: So, we don't know exactly or precisely what's changing, but we know the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, he is trying to get on top of all this. So, he puts out a statement through his department through a spokesman

this morning saying that these numbers in these reports, they never look good out of context, they're a critical element in the continual evolution of aviation security.

But it goes on to say that they have already implemented a series of actions to address these issues raised in the report, not specifics. We don't know exactly what it is. And they also emphasize that there are multiple layers of protection that the TSA uses.

So, some things we see. Some things, we don't see. So, it's not just about the screening of checkpoints. You have got the random canine screenings, reinforced cockpit doors, federal air marshals, armed pilots, all that goes into the security system.

But this portion, Brooke, what we saw initially, certainly failed.

BALDWIN: Clearly did, if we're talking 95 percent of the time.

Suzanne Malveaux, thank you so much.

Now to this. For the first time in seven years, the National Security Agency is not collecting your phone data. That is because the U.S. Senate let the Patriot Act expire, thus ending the cell phone spying of Americans. But those same lawmakers are now working to approve a new version of it called the USA Freedom Act.

Many blame/credit the Patriot Act's temporary stall to Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, saying he's putting his ambitions to be president above national security.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: The court has said, how can records be relevant to an investigation that hasn't started? The court has said that even under these lower standards, even under these standards of saying that it would be relevant, that all of the stuff they're collecting is precisely irrelevant.

People here in town think I'm making a huge mistake. Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States, so they can blame it on me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: I'm joined now by CNN national political reporter Maeve Reston and also by Mattathias Schwartz from "The New Yorker."

Welcome to both of you.

MAEVE RESTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Matt, you up first. With your piece in "The New Yorker," so you're basically saying, you know, Ed Snowden shouldn't have been necessary to expose a program that you call conclusively ineffective and according to one court illegal. Tell me why.

MATTATHIAS SCHWARTZ, "THE NEW YORKER": That's right, Brooke.

The job of Congress and the courts and the president is to figure out what the NSA is doing to make sure that it's in line with the law. And now just rolling back to Snowden, we have a chain of events in which an NSA contractor disclosing the existence of the metadata program has now led to a federal court of appeals finding it to be illegal and Congress just yesterday shutting it down. This isn't how it's supposed to work. There's actually--

BALDWIN: How is it supposed to work?

SCHWARTZ: It's supposed to -- the courts are supposed to be looking at this. The FISA court is supposed to be making that Section 215 is in line with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

And the fact we needed Snowden, to me, is a symptom that the system of oversight is -- it's not working.

BALDWIN: I want to come back to you because this is sort of this interim period, right, between last night and the Freedom Act and what this means for now.

SCHWARTZ: Yes. Yes.

BALDWIN: But, Maeve, to you, because I was just handed -- so in my hot little hands here, I just got a statement. We can't talk about all this, right, without talking about Senator Rand Paul and sort of the victory--

[15:05:02]

RESTON: Right.

BALDWIN: -- albeit brief, right, with President Obama and senators, including many of whom in his own party. And so he was essentially saying -- this is a quote that's been everywhere -- "People here in town think I'm making a huge mistake. Some of them, I think," as we played, "secretly want there to be an attack on the U.S. so they can blame it on me."

So, here's what we now have. Apparently, he was just on FOX News. This is what he said. "I think, sometimes in the heat of battle, hyperbole can get the better of anyone, and that may be the problem here. The point I was trying to make is I think sometimes people do use fear to try to get us to give up our liberty."

What's he doing with that?

RESTON: Well, we just have to remember that this is the issue that is Rand Paul's sweet spot. It's how he came--

BALDWIN: For the base, right?

(CROSSTALK) RESTON: -- raised his national profile. Right. It's how -- the reason that many voters love him.

I was actually just in Iowa this past weekend talking to many of them. And many people feel that the federal government has gone too far. It's also interesting for Rand Paul because, throwing it forward to his hopes for the presidential race, it's the sweet spot where he could bring together potentially liberals and some conservatives who are concerned about this issue in a sort of general election coalition.

So, he's taking a huge risk here. It's obviously harmed his relationships with a number of his Senate colleagues, but for a long time, Rand Paul has also been the punching bag.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: -- this like public -- he has become the punching bag. And he has sort of become this public enemy number one.

RESTON: Yes.

BALDWIN: Even someone who endorsed him, Mitch McConnell there in the Senate, the way he spoke about him yesterday, I have to wonder what things--

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: -- when doors are closed, what really is their relationship, but still, you know?

(CROSSTALK)

RESTON: There's probably a lot of yelling -- yelling going on behind the doors, for sure.

McCain, for example, who has been one of the people who has been criticizing Rand Paul most, they have always had a really tense relationship. But the relationship with McConnell is interesting because he really needed Rand Paul out on the campaign trail in 2014.

And so do we -- that relationship could be sort of irreparably damaged by this. We don't know. And I think we will have to see also, looking at the polls in the future, whether Rand has gone too far for GOP voters with this, considering that the program was shut down, at least temporarily.

BALDWIN: Just off the top of my head, when you look at the most recent polling, six out of 10 Americans want Congress to renew the program.

So there's that.

RESTON: Right.

BALDWIN: Here are the numbers. Matt, to you. You have seen the numbers also in this period now

between presumably the Freedom Act happens -- what happens if there is a terror attack?

SCHWARTZ: Well, that's what we have been asking for the last 13 years, isn't it? And it hasn't happened. And what we do know is that Section 215 hasn't prevented a single terrorist attack or terrorist plot domestically in that entire period.

And I think what we're seeing now is a transition from a time when the government can just say national security, here's the name of a new group of Sunni extremists who are posting Twitter messages saying they want to kill you, give us everything we need, we will figure out the details in the back room. Don't worry about the fine print. We will take care of that with our white papers, with our Office of Legal Counsel.

We're transitioning from that to where they actually have to make their case with data and they have to be held accountable to other branches of government and they have to show results. And what have these programs done? And the reason why Section 215 wasn't renewed last night is because they failed time and time again to do that two years after the program's been revealed.

They have had 24 months to make their case. They simply haven't done it. I think Rand Paul is making some political hay out of it. He's a senator from Kentucky. He's running for president.

BALDWIN: Right. Right.

SCHWARTZ: That's his job. He's supposed to get in there and be feisty and talk what people -- say what people are caring about. And that's what he's doing.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHWARTZ: And obviously people like Senator Mark Udall and Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Pat Leahy have been banging on this for a lot longer and a lot harder, but also in a way that is a lot more collegial.

And you can see them protecting their flank a little bit. And I think it's good to have someone in there stirring things up and saying to the Mitch McConnells and the John Brennans of the world, you just haven't made your case. Show us the data.

BALDWIN: Matt Schwartz, great piece in "The New Yorker" on this. Thank you so much for hopping on the show. I really appreciate it.

SCHWARTZ: Oh, sure. It's my pleasure, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Yes. And, also, Maeve Reston, our CNN national political reporter, thank you so much. I appreciate both of you.

RESTON: So good to be with you.

BALDWIN: You got it.

Coming up next, this crime wave putting some Americans on edge, some of the country's biggest cities seeing spikes in violence. We have a lot of numbers we're going to throw at you and put them in context coming up. Are officers afraid to do their jobs? That's a huge discussion we're going to have.

Also, we will speak live with a lawyer who actually just met with the suspect in the D.C. mansion murders. Hear why he keeps bringing up pizza as a defense. Also, Nancy Grace, she will weigh in on this. She has some questions as well.

And the cover that has everyone talking right now. This is Caitlyn Jenner. This is the first photo of former Olympic star Bruce Jenner, Annie Leibovitz's photo shoot. Buzz Bissinger did the big interview. We're going to talk all about that coming up next.

You're watching CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:14:15]

BALDWIN: You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

Major cities across the United States rocked by this crime spike not seen in years. Take Baltimore, for example. The city is facing its deadliest month in more than 40 years, as of today, 43 homicides in just four weeks. But even that pales in comparison to the crime spike seen in Milwaukee. Homicides jumped 180 percent there this year, murders and shootings up in New York, up in Chicago, up in Saint Louis and Atlanta.

These "Wall Street Journal" numbers coming after two decades of a steady decline in overall crime.

Joining me, Harry Houck, CNN law enforcement analyst and retired NYPD detective. Also with me, David Feige, writer of "The Myth of the Hero Cop," is a contributor as "Slate." He's also a professor at Seton Hall Law School and creator of TNT's "Raising the Bar."

[15:15:04]

Gentlemen, great to have you both on.

HARRY HOUCK, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Good afternoon.

DAVID FEIGE, "SLATE": Nice to be here.

BALDWIN: Harry Houck, to you first. When we run through some of these numbers, and we talked about this before, but why is crime up? Why do you think?

HARRY HOUCK, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, there's probably a number of different factors why crime is up. First of all, let's put the blame on the criminals and not on the

police, all right, like this article pretty much does here, that he had written.

BALDWIN: We're going to get to that in a second.

HOUCK: Right.

BALDWIN: Keep going.

HOUCK: So, basically, we got police officers out there that are tired of the rhetoric against themselves. Right? Police officers are answering calls. They're making 911 -- responding to 911 calls. They're making arrests when warranted.

But I don't think police officers are out there doing -- taking that extra step that's required.

BALDWIN: Harry, have you heard about this whole -- this Ferguson effect? This is -- Heather Mac Donald was writing about this in "The Wall Street Journal."

HOUCK: Right.

BALDWIN: This is what the Saint Louis police chief had referenced, how police officers are disengaging from how she refers to as discretionary enforcement activity, and the criminal element is feeling empowered, the Ferguson effect.

HOUCK: Right, exactly. They're -- well, they're definitely feeling empowered.

You're talking the Ferguson effect. And that's a really good example here, where we got a police officer who acted properly, all right, was totally exonerated, and was still vilified in the press and vilified by politicians.

This is what police officers do not want to have to go through. When they act out there on the street, they're making split-second decisions. All right? They want the benefit of the doubt, all right? Let's wait for an investigation to be concluded before you start vilifying police officers.

BALDWIN: OK. David, I got to get you in here. You write in "Slate," the stories of the hero cop are used to legitimize brutality."

Let me just quote you. You say -- you write this: "Quite simply, in the years since the September 11 attacks, the story of the hero cop has become so powerful and pervasive that even questioning police behavior is decried as disloyal, un-American, and dangerous."

What are you saying here? Are you saying that cops aren't heroes?

Well, some are and some aren't.

FEIGE: But what we do is, we create this narrative that cloaks all the police officers in this sense of invincibility and heroism. And that has real world consequences.

I mean, look, on my way up here today, I saw a piece that literally ran on your air 10 minutes ago that said Texas cop comforts grieving teen. OK. And that's great.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: We had them on the show.

(CROSSTALK)

FEIGE: And I'm glad that he did. Right. And I'm really glad he did.

And the first thing he said is, lots of strangers reached out to me to express my condolences. But what we focused on, what you focused on was the cop who did it, which, by the way, is great. I'm not decrying what he did. I'm just saying that the media tends to create and perpetuate a myth that is propounded by police officers and police unions about the nature of police work and its dangerousness.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Go ahead, Harry.

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: The problem is, you sit here and you read this article of yours. You should have named it why I hate the police, because that's basically what it is.

(CROSSTALK)

FEIGE: But I don't hate the police.

HOUCK: Yes, you do. Reading this article, you do, sir.

FEIGE: OK. Here's--

HOUCK: You have a problem with officers being heroes.

Here in your article, you state -- and I quote -- "Being -- police officers are shot and killed, but this is fairly a rare phenomenon."

FEIGE: But that's true.

HOUCK: How many numbers would make you happy, sir? How many numbers would make you happy?

There are police officers -- what you don't understand, there are 1,000 police officers every day that are getting injured out there on the streets. We're not hearing about it.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Let David respond.

FEIGE: Whenever you're done, I will happily respond. Are you done?

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Go ahead, David.

FEIGE: OK.

The answer is, every cop who dies in the line of duty is tragic. I'm not in favor of anybody dying. And it's absurd to suggest that I am.

What I am saying is -- and this is the part you're having trouble responding to -- it is, in fact, by the numbers, a rare phenomenon. And what I pointed out in the piece that obviously has gotten you very upset is the fact that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government agency that compiles these numbers, police work doesn't even crack the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs.

And that's the kind of thing that, obviously, you respond with a lot of anger to and a lot of people just don't know. All I'm interested in is putting the facts out there, so that people can be rational in making decisions about this sort of -- about these issues, because transparency and accountability matter in a democracy.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Let me jump in, because--

HOUCK: Sure.

BALDWIN: -- Harry, does David have a point in that police officers have leeway? He points out how -- and I can think of a recent example -- where police officers after, let's say, there have been -- there's been a shooting, they have a couple days to get stories straight. Does he have a point?

HOUCK: That's their fundamental right, OK?

There's a -- it's not to get their story straight. That's their fundamental right. A police officer -- so, do you want to take the constitutional -- the laws away from the police officers? All right, he has -- if a cop--

FEIGE: Harry, that's absurd.

HOUCK: -- doesn't want to talk about an incident, he does not have to. He does not have to.

FEIGE: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: We had the one officer in Baltimore who did not give a statement to the police officers. He can do that. That's his right, sir, just like it is yours.

(CROSSTALK) [15:20:05]

BALDWIN: Go ahead, David.

FEIGE: Finish whenever you're -- OK.

Let's just be clear. It's not constitutional. Those are statutory. There's a difference. Those are statutory rights incumbent -- that have been passed by legislatures, right, often termed as police officers' bills of rights, which accord them special and unique privileges.

HOUCK: Yes.

FEIGE: It is not their constitutional right. It is a right that we grant them. And the question is--

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: Just like, if you're a member of a union, sir, then your union makes sure that you have got special rights also.

But all that is trumped by the Constitution. You can take all that away, and if a police officer does not want to make a statement about an incident he's in, and there might be potential criminal liability, he does not to have to make a statement. So, you don't even need those laws.

FEIGE: Nobody has to make a statement. Nobody -- obviously, nobody has to make a statement. That's the Fifth Amendment.

But -- and you're right. Unions -- the unions have created a system in which police officers are afforded special and unique rights. The question is, is that smart, and does that enhance justice? And I think that there is some pretty solid evidence to suggest that those things do not do the things that they were suggested they would do.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: So, then, solution-wise -- let me just -- hold on, hold on, hold on. David, in reading your piece--

FEIGE: Sure.

BALDWIN: And, again, to your point, this is very un-American to almost have part of this conversation. This is not a popular conversation to have.

I'm glad we're having it. We're looking at both sides, right?

FEIGE: Clearly.

BALDWIN: I know, OK?

But, to your point, you write about the sense of invincibility and righteousness among police. How then, moving ahead, would you counter that, David?

FEIGE: I think it's very important to have accountability and transparency. What that means is greater civilian oversight of the police. We need to remove some of the systemic advantages that the police officers all are accorded, so that we can treat them fairly, like we treat everybody else in the system. That's all.

Look, the reality is -- and you mentioned this earlier. We were talking about -- in fact, Harry mentioned, like, they're not taking the extra step. At the end of the day, police officers are civil servants. They're there to do a job. It shouldn't be up to them whether or not to do a good job. Do a good job. That's what we expect of teachers and sanitation workers and everybody else that taxpayers pay.

It's not too much to ask.

HOUCK: Those people can't be killed in the line of duty, sir.

BALDWIN: Harry, you get the final word. You get the final word.

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: You compare lumberjacks to police officers. More lumberjacks are killed than police officers are. But you know what? Lumberjacks--

(CROSSTALK)

FEIGE: Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics--

HOUCK: A tree, sir, isn't going to pull a gun and stick it in the face of a police officer and kill him, OK? Those are accidents.

FEIGE: That's true.

HOUCK: You cannot equate accidents to police officers.

BALDWIN: Harry Houck, David Feige, gentlemen, it's an important conversation.

FEIGE: We can -- go ahead. It was a pleasure.

BALDWIN: Let's have it again. David Feige, come back.

FEIGE: You bet.

BALDWIN: Harry Houck, I know you will be back. Thank you both very, very much.

HOUCK: Thank you.

BALDWIN: And important to talk about it. May not be -- may not be pretty.

FEIGE: That's right. BALDWIN: Coming up next, a meeting between the suspect in the

Washington mansion murders and his former lawyer about whether or not he even likes pizza. That lawyer will join me live next. Plus, we will get Nancy Grace's take on this whole thing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:17]

BALDWIN: Happening right now, three members of a Washington, D.C., family are being laid to rest two weeks after they were murdered in their home.

Police have charged Daron Wint with the deaths of this family and their housekeeper, but say more people were involved. But a lawyer visiting Wint says he couldn't have committed the murders because he hates pizza.

Let me bring in that lawyer, Robin Ficker, Wint's former attorney. And also with me, HLN host and former prosecutor Nancy Grace.

So, welcome to both of you.

And, Robin, you're up first, because I know that you met with him, what, for two hours over the weekend. You are staying true to this defense that he doesn't eat pizza. But here's the thing. That doesn't explain, you know, where he was that night. It doesn't explain why his DNA was on the pizza.

ROBIN FICKER, ATTORNEY: He doesn't have to prove anything. He's presumed innocent.

The government must prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The pizza was delivered outside the house. The murders were committed many hours later. There's a huge time gap here, enough time for Grace to drive from Atlanta all the way down to Miami and back. He did not commit these crimes. I spoke to him.

He told me only good things about the male victim. He said he never met the mother. And he said he would never hurt a child. He has a 14-year-old daughter himself. He had five sisters and three brothers. All these kids took care of each other growing up. He would never hurt a child. And, by the way, he's charged with only one murder, that of Mr. Savopoulos.

BALDWIN: So, hold on, Nancy. I'm coming to you in a second.

But so where did he tell you -- where did he say he was that night?

FICKER: Well, I am not going to reveal everything that we talked about, but I think they should start looking at some insiders who knew that Mr. Savopoulos was dispensing large amounts of cash, could have $40,000 brought to his house without any police inquiry or any bank inquiry, as though he'd done this many times before.

They should start looking at Metals Fabulous, a company that was owned by Mr. Savopoulos or run by him, where he was dispensing large amounts of cash, which company went into forfeiture and the IRS was involved. They should look at insiders--

(CROSSTALK)

NANCY GRACE, HOST, "NANCY GRACE": Whew. Good luck telling all that to a jury.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Jump in.

FICKER: They shouldn't look at a little guy who worked there 11 years ago who would never hold a grudge that long.

BALDWIN: Nancy Grace, jump in, please, ma'am.

GRACE: OK.

Let's -- number one, just try to follow Mr. Robin Ficker's theory, who, I might add, is a very well-respected criminal defense attorney. And now we see why. His defense, that Wint doesn't like pizza? So let's follow that train of thought.