Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Cosby Sex Allegations; Cosby 2005 Deposition Released; Ashley Madison Hacked. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 20, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00] MICK FANNING, PROFESSIONAL SURFER: I spoke to mum and she was - she was telling me she wanted to rip me out of the television screen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: An incredible story of survival. Go to cnn.com to see the full interview and that video once again.

Thanks so much for joining us all "AT THIS HOUR." LEGAL VIEW starts right now.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm Pamela Brown, in for Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to LEGAL VIEW on this Monday.

Well, he didn't hear "no," so that must have meant "yes." That new revelation and plenty more coming from Bill Cosby's full deposition just into CNN. The biggest bombshell - that he obtained prescription Quaaludes to give to women he wanted for sex. And not just that, but Cosby admits that he gave accuser Andrea Constand one and a half tablets of Benadryl to, quote, "relieve stress." Benadryl is known to cause drowsiness.

And then there's this revelation, that unbeknownst to his wife Camille, Cosby says he was having what he called sexual relationships with at least five women outside his marriage in different cities, and hotels and one of his homes. It was two weeks ago that we first saw parts of Cosby's deposition stemming from Constand's civil lawsuit back in 2005. Well, CNN has obtained the full deposition, nearly 1,000 pages. And let me tell you, it is an eye opener on Cosby's views on women and what he did to try to keep them quiet. Our Alexandra Field joins us now from New York.

Alexandra.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Pamela.

This deposition was done in Philadelphia a decade ago. Bill Cosby was questioned by an attorney based on statements made by 13 different Jane Does who were all willing to testify against him. At one point during the exchange, the attorney says to Bill Cosby, "I think you're making light of a very serious situation." To which Bill Cosby responds, "that may very well be."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) FIELD (voice-over): The deposition is nearly a thousand pages long and what emerges is a clearer picture of Bill Cosby in his own words. Cosby answered questions as part of a 2005 lawsuit that Andrea Constand brought against him for allegedly drugging and sexually assaulting her. Cosby said the sexual encounters with Constand were consensual. "I don't hear her say anything," he said, "and I don't feel her say anything. And so I continue and I go into the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection. I am not stopped."

Over the past 40 years, more than 25 women have publicly accused Cosby of raping or assaulting them. In the deposition Cosby says, both the sex and the pills were consensual. The star saying he looked for women's nonverbal cues in response to his sexual advances.

BARBARA BOWMAN, COSBY ACCUSER: I don't believe in nonverbal cues. Consent is not the absence of a no. And when you're - when you're stuffing drugs or alcohol into a woman and then calling it sex, it's diabolical, it's disgusting, it's unacceptable, and it's rape. And that's a crime.

FIELD: The 78-year-old has never faced criminal charges. In the deposition, he admits to offering Constand money for education and trying to keep his wife, Camille Cosby, in the dark. "My wife would not know it was because Andrea and I had had sex and that Andrea was now very, very upset." These revelations sickening to the women who have publicly accused Cosby.

JANICE DICKENSON, COSBY ACCUSER: I keep reliving the same sick - the same sick feeling, you know, in my soul. But I have to be strong.

FIELD: The transcript reveals more about the use of Quaaludes. Cosby admits giving the drug to a young woman in Las Vegas before they had sex in the 1970s. The lawyer says, "she said that she believes she was not in the position to consent to intercourse after you gave her the drug. Do you believe that is correct?" "I don't know," Cosby replied.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FIELD: One of the women referenced in the deposition is Beth Farrier, who alleges that Bill Cosby put drugs in her coffee and then sexually assaulted her. Her attorney, Gloria Allred, has issued a statement on her behalf saying that, "Cosby's testimony demonstrates how deceptive, manipulative and disgusting that he was. It is no wonder that he fought to keep this deposition, which reveals his revolting predatory conduct, hidden from public view, but the truth is out now and it will never be hidden again."

And CNN has reached out to Bill Cosby's publicist, who says that he has no comment at this time.

Pamela.

BROWN: Alexandra Field, thank you so much.

So in light of all of these revelations, the big question, could Cosby be charged? For that, let's bring in Bruce Castor, who is running for district attorney in suburban Philadelphia, Montgomery County.

[12:05:00] Bruce, nice to have you on with us.

You were the D.A. back in 2005 when a Temple University basketball official accused Cosby of sexual assault. This is the deposition we're talking about. Ten years ago you chose not to prosecute Bill Cosby, but today you're rethinking that. What's different now, Bruce?

BRUCE CASTOR, FORMER D.A., MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA: Actually, I'm not rethinking the prosecution of Cosby for sexual assault. I'm thinking that there might be a possibility with the release of the deposition transcript that he might have lied during that transcript under oath. And while the statute of limitations would have run on virtually any crime that it was known at the time, the deposition transcript was sealed. And because it was sealed, a very strong argument can be made that it was not available to law enforcement and the statute didn't begin to run on potential perjury until after it was unsealed.

BROWN: So to be clear, you never - you never read that deposition where he admits to acquiring Quaaludes to give to women that he was sleeping with and so forth? You never read that at the time?

CASTOR: Correct. He would not be able to have given that deposition unless we had stated in writing that we were not going to prosecute him. Otherwise, the Fifth Amendment would have applied and he would have been able to assert the Fifth Amendment and avoid being deposed. We knew that at the time. Ordinarily, when the police are encountered with a crime and it goes unsolved or they don't have enough evidence to solve it, they don't - they don't write out that they're not going to charge anybody because they think they might get evidence later. But back then, we knew about the civil suit, we wanted him to be deposed under oath so that Andrea Constand could have a recovery civilly. And so the point of the exercise of writing out that we weren't going to prosecute him was to force him to be required to answer questions under oath at the deposition. So that doesn't occur but for the fact that we had written that we would not charge him.

BROWN: So, Bruce, you - let's be clear here, you first have to win reelection and then you still have an uphill battle to overcome all of these legal challenges in this case. Do you really think that Bill Cosby is going to see the inside of a courtroom?

CASTOR: Well, there's - any of the - any - if there are any suits pending, he might see the inside of a courtroom there if the - if the litigant - the plaintiff doesn't settle the case, as has happened up to this point. There's an even bigger "if," and that is, did the - did the - if there was any lies told, did they occur in Montgomery County? I learned yesterday that the deposition was given in Philadelphia. That makes it so that it would be difficult to bring any kind of a charge based on that transcript in Montgomery County. But I certainly would see if there was any possibility of doing so. If I couldn't, and I thought that there were material lies that constituted perjury, I would simply refer it to my colleague in the city of Philadelphia and ask him to make the decision.

BROWN: But what about statute of limitations for that? CASTOR: Well, that's what I was alluding to earlier. I don't believe

the statute of limitations began to run until such time as law enforcement officials could have discovered the violation. And because the judge sealed the transcript, and it remained sealed all those 10 years, I believe a very strong legal argument could be made that the statute did not begin to run until it was unsealed and law enforcement officials became aware of possible violations. The statute of limitations is not an absolute bar to prosecutions if the - if law enforcement could not have discovered that the crime had occurred. And in this instance, there's no way law enforcement could have discovered anything in that transcript because it was under judicial seal.

BROWN: OK, so we're going to talk about all of this coming up.

Bruce Castor, thank you so much.

So we're going to be looking at that deposition and what it could mean legally for Bill Cosby and the women who have filed suit against him. Could Cosby's own words come back to haunt him in new legal proceedings? Stay tuned, our legal panel right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:12:38] BROWN: Back to Bill Cosby's deposition now. Admission of giving women Quaaludes, Benadryl, even asking one woman about her father who died of cancer. All actions by Cosby with the end goal being sex.

For the legal view, I want to bring in CNN legal analyst and defense attorney Danny Cevallos and CNN commentator Mel Robbins.

Thanks for joining with us, guys. I want to go to you first, Danny, quickly on this issue that was raised by our last guest and he basically said - he made the argument that the statute of limitations may not apply if they bring perjury charges because the deposition was sealed. In your view, will that work in court? Is that an alternative here?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a theory of liability. As a general rule, you can toll statutes of limitations. You essentially stop the clock on the time limit running in which to bring a case. And there are all kinds of different, creative ways to think about tolling the statute. It is not a slam dunk by any stretch and it is, again, we're only talking about the perjury part of the crime. And perjury itself is not an automatic any mistaken statement of fact. It has to be intentionally false and it has to be material. But at least as to tolling the statute of limitations, it's certainly possible but it's not a sure thing.

And people often - prosecutors often come up with creative ways to argue that the statute of limitations is tolled. Most notably when they believe that a prospective defendant has intentionally caused facts not to come out. But whether or not that was intentional, whether or not the parties or a judge can be said to have participating in concealing this information, I think it's - I wouldn't call it a stretch, but I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, either.

BROWN: It would be a challenge.

OK, Mel, to you, because reading through this deposition, it is really an eye-opener, especially on Cosby's definition of consensual sex. And I want to read a little part of the deposition. It says basically, "I don't hear her say anything. And I don't feel her say anything. And so I continue and I go into the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection. I am not stopped."

So, Mel, is that really an area that exists legally between permission and rejection?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR: Yes, we call it rape. I mean he's not getting a response because he's drugged them beyond the point of being able to move, for crying out loud. You know, he does not admit that he, quote, "rapes" the women in this deposition, so it's not the huge landslide of new information that we were all expecting. It's just in disgusting, slimy, predatory detail and that's what's really upsetting about this.

[12:15:23] But the real outlier here, Pamela and Danny, to me is whether or not this tips the scales in the ongoing investigation in Los Angeles. There's a young woman named Chloe Goins, whose attorney has been on this show, and her alleged attack by Bill Cosby at the Playboy mansion in 2008 falls within the statute of limitations, it's under investigation. And what could very well happen is you could see a district attorney say, wow, given that I now have this layer of detail and I've got a witness that's willing to go forward and she had spoken to a friend right after it happened, this is a case I feel comfortable bringing to court. I think that is the most significant way that these new revelations, Pam, could actually result in Bill Cosby seeing the inside of a courtroom.

BROWN: And, Danny, what I find so interesting here is that, in a lot of these cases, in the quotes, he's basically insinuating that he didn't do anything wrong because the woman didn't say no, didn't tell him to stop, didn't say, don't do that again to me. What is your reaction to that? Would that hold up? Would that argument hold up in a court of law?

CEVALLOS: Probably not. And here's why. Over time we have evolved our laws to recognize that "no" comes in a lot of forms and not necessarily in a verbal "no." Statutes do not require actual physical resistance. Resistance comes in all manner of forms and is easily defined. And the safest way to make sort of a broad statement about the 50 states and their laws in that area, although they do vary, is that no can be verbal, it can be non-verbal. All that is needed to be proven is the absence of consent as a general proposition. Yes, no means no, but no takes many other forms.

BROWN: And then there's the added factor that these women alleged that they were drug, so that's part of the issue as well.

Danny Cevallos, Mel Robbins, thank you so much.

ROBBINS: Thank you.

BROWN: Well, a popular dating website is calling in top security teams. Hackers say they have broken in, stealing information about millions of the sites' customers. It's a familiar story. The twist this time, this sites' users may have much more to lose than their personal data. We're going to explain this right after the break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:21:14] BROWN: So a website that encourages people to cheat on their partners is reeling from a huge data breach. Tens of millions of unfaithful customers could be exposed. Ashleymadison.com executives confirm this morning that their website has been hacked and the group claiming responsibility is threatening to release the personal information of the websites millions of users. Ashley Madison's slogan is, quote, "life is short, have an affair." The company is working with law enforcement agencies to find out the scope of the attack as we speak.

Joining me now to discuss, CNN Money's Samuel Burke in New York.

So, Samuel, I'm pretty sure 37 million people are pretty much freaking out right now all around the world. Explain to us first, why did this website get targeted by the hackers?

SAMUEL BURKE, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Well, the only people that aren't freaking out are probably divorce court lawyers because you can only imagine the number of people, if they find this information out, that are going to be taking their husband or wife or significant other to divorce court after this.

The hackers in this case, Pamela, say that they're actually going after Ashley Madison and the other websites associated with this company, Cougar Life and establishedmen.com because the company promises something called full delete. You pay about $15 and they promise to delete your information. And the hackers are claiming that the company doesn't actually delete that information and that's why they're going after the company. Hardly a moral stand if you ask me.

Now, for their part, the company that owns this website, Avid Life Media, is apologizing and in a statement they say that they're trying to fix this. That they've actually fixed the gap already but they go on to say, quote, "we are working with law enforcement agencies which are investigating this criminal act. Any and all parties responsible for this act of cyber terrorism," they're calling it, "will be held responsible."

But until then, people are just going to have to sit back and wait and see if their information is on there. And who knows what people share on this website, quite frankly. Names to Anthony Weiner-style photos. So we're going to be finding out if these hackers publish it.

And, you know, just from what you talked about, it's a little unnerving because this is a company, Samuel, that has bragged about keeping its customers' information private, that it -- that security is a top priority. It doesn't really give you much confidence that your information is - is safe anywhere, does it?

BURKE: Listen, with all the hacks that we see from Sony, which is alleged to be North Korea by the United States government, to the United States government being hacked, you have to remember here, if you put it online, it can be hacked. They can build a wall and a hacker can build a ladder.

And this is actually part of a bigger wave. Just a few months ago, Pamela, you and I were talking - reporting on the hack of adultfriendfinder.com. Well, at least on that website, they're not particularly encouraging cheating, but people's fetishes were released, all types of information. And, you know, some companies say, well, don't worry, the financial information may not be out there. But in this case, financial information is the least of people's worries. You can change your credit card number, you can't change your fetishes and your cheating past if it's out there on the Internet for you and your wife and the world to see.

BROWN: I mean, frankly, marriages are at stake here. As you said, divorce attorneys are really the only ones that are going to benefit from this. Samuel Burke, thank you so much, we appreciate it.

And let's bring in CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos and Mel Robbins to talk about the possible legal fallout from the hack.

So, Danny, I was just talking to Samuel about this, what recourse do these customers have if their personal information is released? How much does it matter if it's their names released versus perhaps their financial data?

CEVALLOS: Well, practically it's going to be devastating whether it's names, financial data or especially sexual proclivities. I mean that's the kind of information that is stored on some of these websites. This is not Best Buy or Home Depot. This is a very specialized site with very sensitive information. Yes, financial information, but also very personal information.

[12:25:15] There are a couple different kinds of causes of action that could cover this. One of this is public disclosure of private facts. But historically, that has to be an intentional act by the - by, say, the website or the defendant. And it's clear it was an unintentional act even if it may have been negligent.

Another kind is intrusion upon seclusion, where somebody purposely invades someone else's privacy. But again, those are the hackers in this case and the actual website themselves, the company, did not intent or want this information to get out.

Still, however, modern law is moving towards holding companies and especially financial institutions, both under federal law and state law, liable for data breaches. And the states all have different laws addressing this, as does the federal government, especially as it relates to banking and other financial institutions. But there are many different potential liabilities and we are moving towards laws that more specifically addressed -- address the responsibility of a company to protect data. BROWN: That's what I was going to ask Mel. Like, it would appear the

onus, you would think, would be on the website. I mean this is a site that has touted that it protects its customers' information and that security is a top priority. So, Mel, how much, what kind of liability is Ashley Madison exposed here? How big of a problem is the publication of these private facts for them?

ROBBINS: Well, you know, it's an interesting question and it's mostly going to be in two categories - potential financial liability and potential reputation liability. And here's the deal, we're looking at both consumer protection laws, which protects your information, but there are even more serious laws, Pamela, around the storage of financial information. And what I find to be interesting is most people on this website are actually paying for their membership with a credit card and so there are very strict policies in place for how it is that a company is allowed to store your credit card information for ongoing purchases, like a membership like this. And so if they were violating federal and state data security laws as it relates to the financial regulations, that's a much more serious breach. It's got much greater teeth in it.

Whether or not someone can sue them personally, I guarantee you their user agreement is buttoned up. It's probably 47 or 50 pages long. And as long as they used, quote, a reasonable standard in the way in which they have security software on this site, they probably covered themselves from a negligence standpoint. But you could see some sort of financial whack hitting them if they did something in violation of federal or state law and how they store credit card information.

BROWN: Certainly raises a lot of questions. Mel Robbins, Danny Cevallos, thank you so much.

And up next right here on LEGAL VIEW, the family of the Chattanooga shooter reveals details about his troubled last years. We're going to hear about the problems that led them to send him away from home. And newly uncovered writings that could give some insight into what happened.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)