Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Obama Vows Veto If Congress Rejects the Nuclear Deal; Mexico Offers $3.8 Million Reward for Capture Of "El Chapo;" NYC to Pay Eric Garner's Family $5.9 Million. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 14, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:30] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm Fredricka Whitfield in for Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

It took 20 months to hammer out but Iran and six world powers have a deal to limit Iran's nuclear program. The main goal, preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons for at least 10 years. It will also call for regulation inspections of Iran's known nuclear sites and those suspected of playing a role.

And in exchange, over time Iran will see the lifting of the international sanctions that have crippled its economy.

Nic Robertson is in Vienna at the talks.

It was touch and go. How did it finally happen?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, one of the last sticking points seemed to be the issue of Iran wanted the arms embargo, the U.N. sanctions arms embargo lifted. That they have been told they will get after five years if they comply with this agreement. Ballistic missile ban will be lifted after eight years.

The other key sticking point had been the -- what is known as a PMD, Possible Military Dimensions. And literally, an hour before we learned the agreement had been finalized, an hour before that, the Iranian delegation signed an agreement with the world's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to agree to answer those questions about its past uses, possible military uses of its nuclear technology so that really paved the way.

What we're told now is this is a very robust deal that allows for 24/7 inspection in terms of verification that Iran will get what it wants, a lifting of sanctions over time. Those sanctions can be snapped back on.

Also we're told that Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon will be drenched out from what may be months now to a year by this inspection system and by the fact that their stockpiles of enriched uranium will be reduced by using 98 percent from 12,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.

And also their centrifuges that enrich this material will be reduced by two-thirds. And that will stop a quick breakout to making a weapon.

Fredricka?

WHITFIELD: All right but not completely a done deal yet. There still has to be approval from the U.N. and the U.S.

ROBERTSON: Absolutely. This has to go before Congress. The final sort of wording of the U.N. resolution has been worked out. It has been worked out here already, but that would have to go to the U.N. Security Council for a vote.

After that, you go through a period where Iran has to complete what it's agreed to do. And then you get a verification process after they say they have completed the verification process to check that. So all of this plays out overtime. You know, it could be sometime next year before Iran actually sees any of those sanctions being lifted.

Fredricka?

WHITFIELD: All right. Nic Robertson, thank you so much, in Vienna.

Let's talk more about the U.S. end of this.

So now the president of the United States has to sell the deal to U.S. Congress.

Michelle Kosinski is at the White House and Joe Johns is on Capitol Hill.

So, Michelle, you first. The president said that he will be working hard to answer any questions from Capitol Hill, but to what extent.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We already know that he called congressional leadership last night. There will be briefings, other meetings. He's also going to reach out to other world leaders. He's going to speak to Benjamin Netanyahu who has levied some of the harshest criticism on this.

But when it goes before Congress, you know, there is that bipartisan bill that passed a few months ago that says the White House has to send the deal to Congress so that they can review it for two months and after that they can vote. But it's not an up or down vote on the deal itself. They can't collapse the deal.

And the president is within his right and his breath, according to the law, to do this on his own. It's considered an executive agreement, not a treaty remember.

So what Congress would vote on is whether they want to lift the sanctions that Congress itself imposed on Iran. The president, though, says he's going to veto it if that does happen. And then Congress would have to override that veto.

So they would need two-thirds majority. That could be impossible given they would need so many democrats to get on board for that. But even if they were to accomplish, then they would keep certain sanctions on Iran, but the rest of the world would have them lifted. And the deal would be in place among other nations. So even if the U.S. kept those particular sanctions in place, they wouldn't really have the same effect.

Here's some of what the president said earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[12:05:05] BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KOSINSKI: Of course the president wants Congress to be on board. And the harsh criticism is out there. The White House fully expected it. Some of the criticism is coming from democrats, more in the form of skepticism like let's take a look at this and see if it lives up to our expectations of what we consider a good deal. So there's absolutely still a process to be met there.

Fredricka?

WHITFIELD: All right, Michelle Kosinski, thanks so much.

Let's talk more about that on Capitol Hill. What's next?

Joe Johns is with us. So already a lot of expressed opposition, but now what?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think there are two or three things you can say here, Fredricka. This is as many people have predicted, is going to a hard sell on Capitol Hill if our discussions with members of Congress this morning lead to any conclusions. It's still early.

A lot of the opposition and the criticism is pre-cooked just a bit. But many democrats, as Michelle said, are expressing a lot of skepticism.

On the Republican side, there is outright optimism -- I should say opposition as there has been for quite a while.

Congressman John Boehner, the speaker of the House, talked just a little while ago here on Capitol Hill about his concerns. He said the administration has abandoned its principles in the Iran negotiations.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: And we're going to do everything we can to get to the details and if, in fact, it's as bad a deal as I think it is at this moment, we'll do everything we can to stop it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Now Congressman Robert Menendez is one of the people who has been a critic of these talks for quite a while.

I spoke with him right here on Capitol Hill a couple hours ago. And he is of the opinion that everybody should have a wait-and-see attitude. Nonetheless, he's not sure at all that this proposal can pass the Congress as it stands.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D), NEW JERSEY: I think there will be a vigorous debate, but I also think that the premises that are being put out there, it's either a deal or war, or deal or no deal. I think there can be the effort to get a better deal.

It's pretty interesting to me that if all of the world powers were sitting on one side of the table and Iran beleaguered by sanctions and falling oil prices are sitting on the other side of the table, that they can still preserve their nuclear infrastructure, that they can get significant sanctions, really, access to conventional arms in a couple of years. So those are going to be the hard questions to ask here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Now, Michelle Kosinski spoke just a little while ago from the White House about the president's threat to veto anything that shoots down this proposal. So that sets up an override scenario here on Capitol Hill as she described.

The question now is the timetable. They have five days to get this language up to Capitol Hill for members of Congress to start working on it. The hearings and so forth. The briefings.

And after that, two months. And that will put us right about the middle of September by the time we see a drama here on Capitol Hill as to whether the Congress will approve this.

Fredricka, back to you.

WHITFIELD: All right, thanks so much. Joe Johns on Capitol Hill. Appreciate that.

All right, coming up next, El Chapo still on the run.

Why is his influence in drug trafficking in the U.S. so strong? What it takes the capture him.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:12:12] WHITFIELD: Mexico is offering a $3.8 million reward for the capture of escaped drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. Some U.S. law enforcement officials are calling Guzman the most-wanted man since Osama Bin Laden.

Guzman is the leader of the Sinaloa cartel that makes billions of dollars in the drug trade right here in the U.S. And his American stronghold is Chicago.

The DEA says his cartel supplies 80 percent of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamine to the windy city.

Moments ago the Chicago Crime Commission, a non-profit dedicated to improving the criminal justice system in Chicago, named El Chapo public enemy number one.

Joining me right now to talk about El Chapo's influence in Chicago in particular is Michael Vigil, the former DEA chief of international operations.

Good to see you, Michael.

MICHAEL VIGIL, FORMER DEA CHIEF, INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS: Good seeing you.

WHITFIELD: So what is it about Chicago and El Chapo and this direct line to supply so much?

VIGIL: Well, the thing is that Chicago is a very strategic location for the Sinaloa cartel. It's a transportation hub. You know, the ethnicity of Chicago lends itself to a lot of the drug trade.

The gang culture and apart from that, you know, the size of the city. So Chicago in essence has become the principle distribution hub for drugs in the United States supplanting Miami that used to control it many years ago.

WHITFIELD: So is your feeling Chicago has worked hard to do something, kind of, you know, curb, I guess, this trafficking but this cartel has been so creative, they have just been so resistant to any kind of intervention?

VIGIL: Well, the fact of the matter is that Chicago is one of the cities in the United States that has a huge Mexican or Hispanic population which makes it very easy for cartel operatives to blend in to the population there in Chicago.

You have a number of ethnic gangs that the Sinaloa cartel uses to distribute drugs throughout the city. And it's a major project, but I'm sure that the federal agencies and local agencies are working very closely together to try to curb that situation.

WHITFIELD: And so what does your gut tell you about this incentive that even Mexico is giving, nearly $4 million in the capture or leading to any information, you know, toward the arrest of El Chapo.

Do you think anyone who has any information is willing to risk their life even -- or their family's lives even for that multimillion dollar reward?

[12:15:00] VIGIL: Well, at this point in time, the only ones that would be able to provide the information as to his whereabouts would be members of his own organization. And, quite frankly, given his propensity to conduct beheadings and dismemberments, I don't think that's going to be a high enough figure for anybody to take him on.

WHITFIELD: So in your view, he's somebody who will never be captured?

VIGIL: I think there's a strong possibility, but if he's able to make it back to his stronghold, which is his native state of Sinaloa, very rugged terrain, very -- you know, very difficult to traverse there. You know, the roads are just absolutely miserable and I've been in that area.

So Chapo, you know, has a stronghold there. And then he enjoys the protection of the local population because he plays the role of Robin Hood. He builds churches, he builds schools, he gives money to the poor. But not because he's a great humanitarian, but it's to create a blanket of protection around himself.

WHITFIELD: Right, to win that support.

All right, Michael Vigil, thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it.

VIGIL: Thank you.

All right, up next, a year after Eric Garner's death, his tragic death at the hands of police, New York City reaches a settlement for his family.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:20:00] WHITFIELD: Almost a year to the date Eric Garner died at the hands of New York City Police. His family accepted a $5.9 million settlement from the city. Garner died after officers put him in a choke hold and held him to the ground as he repeatedly said "I can't breathe."

Officers initially confronted Garner for allegedly selling loose cigarettes. His family filed suit against the city seeking $75 million and today they said this settlement is not justice for Eric Garner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GWEN CARR, ERIC GARNER'S MOTHER: We were asking the federal government, which we've been asking them for a whole year, to come and take the Eric Garner'S case. Because, as you know, at the grand jury, we didn't receive justice. Even though my son said he couldn't breathe 11 times. 11 times he said he couldn't breathe. And they chose not to indict. Where is the justice?

(END VIDEO CLIP) WHITFIELD: As part of the settlement, New York City admitted no liability. Rather they say this, quote, "Acknowledged the tragic nature of Mr. Garner's death."

Joining me right now is Mark O'Mara, criminal defense attorney and CNN legal analyst. Also with me is Florida tax attorney Brianne DeSellier.

All right, good to see both of you.

So, Mark, I wander to you first because no liability, but at the same time New York City is "acknowledging the tragic nature of Mr. Garner's death."

How is that different?

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's really not. It's sort of one of those technical legal things we say, where we say, we're not going to acknowledge that we're responsible, but we're going to pay you money as though we were.

It's almost like pleading not guilty in a criminal case. What it does is it doesn't put on record an acknowledgment that they've done anything wrong that might be used against them in future investigations like the federal investigation that may come.

Technically, you know, what they did was they said to the Garner family, "We are so wrong that we're going to pay you some money for what the officers did to you."

WHITFIELD: And so, Brianne, $75 million was the first thing asked. The settlement was $5.9 million. How did this figure come about?

BRIANNE DESELLIER, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's a very nuanced process, but there are several legitimate reasons why you would ultimately want to settle a case like this.

Aside from the standard reasons, you know, you save the time and expense of litigation, the pain for the victim's family of reliving this over and over again throughout a long trial period.

I think that, in this case, there's also additional stuff at stake because there's an old saying under the law, bad facts make bad law. And I think that this case if litigated to its conclusion had the potential and even dare I say likelihood to become essentially a paradigm example of that principle because you just have these two equally important legal issues and they're just in direct competition with each other.

We've got, on one side of the case, this police officer. And, you know, these guys are on the front lines. They are making life-and- death decisions everyday, sometimes in a split second and they need the ability to have the judgment and discretion to do that.

And then on the other side of this case, we have another police- involved death. I think that people are tired. I think that they're concerned. And there's this general perception that police brutality has become somewhat of a recurring theme in our society. So if litigated to its conclusion, my fear would have been that we couldn't have really reached a satisfying conclusion relative to either party.

WHITFIELD: OK. So, Mark, you know, you mentioned while this is one case, this is one suit, there might be more litigation.

We heard, you know, Mr. Garner's mother say that she wants to pursue federal investigations. Might there also be room for a civil suit because the family may not be happy with this being the last word on Mr. Garner's death.

O'MARA: Well, this is now settling the case forever more between the Garner family and New York City and the police department. That's what this is. A full and complete settlement.

I think what the Garner family is looking at, realizing the enormity of the emotions and also the frustration that they feel, justified or not, that the grand jury decided not to indict, that they want another set of eyes, federal investigation to look at this case to see whether or not, or what else the police department and particularly the officers involved may have done wrong by violating the civil rights.

They are never going to be complete with having lost their son, their father, their brother. But they're just hoping for yet another set of eyes to look at it.

WHITFIELD: And so Brianne, that there is this settlement and that there is this acknowledgment by New York City police.

Does it still leave the door open? That any or all of the officers involved could still face some sort of charges or some sort of repercussions from this?

DESELLIER: Yes, absolutely. I think the important thing to point out is that this wrongful death case is a state cause of action. So there is still an on going federal investigation here and this settlement is not going to preclude any sort of charges relative to that. And you know, relative to that, we're just going to have to stay tuned and see what happens.

[12:25:00] WHITFIELD: All right, Brianne DeSellier and Mark O'Mara, good to see both of you. Thanks so much.

O'MARA: Thanks, Fredricka.

DESELLIER: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: All right, coming up next, digging deeper into today's nuclear deal with Iran. How can the world enforce this agreement and ensure that Tehran is not building a bomb?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, we're getting reaction from around the world on the historic deal to limit Iran's nuclear program and over time lift economic sanctions on Iran. The Iranian president says it opens new horizons. Republicans on Capitol Hill seem to be saying, it's dead on arrival. President Obama praised the agreement and says if members of Congress are worried about inspections, they should not be.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Because of this deal, we will, for the first time, be in a position to verify all of these commitments. That means this deal is not built on trust; it is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities.

Inspectors will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain - its uranium mines and mills, its conversion facility, and its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities. This ensures that Iran will not be able to divert materials from known facilities to covert ones.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also weighed in when he spoke to CNN's Christiane Amanpour just a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Sanctions brought them to the table to negotiate. They did the very thing everybody put the sanctions in placed to get them to do, which is to negotiate. So they negotiated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)