Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

North Carolina Police Trial; Search for MH370; Republican Debate. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired August 06, 2015 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:04]

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Rolling on, hour two here. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Here we go.

In just two hours, up go the lights and out come the candidates, or at least seven of them. Tonight is the first of the Republican debates, starting with this so-called happy hour debate with the seven lowest polling candidates and then it's on to the main event, the top 10, Donald Trump and the nine other guys who will be trying to get out of Trump's shadow and into the spotlight he's been so enjoying.

Tonight, voters will be watching for substance. They will be watching for style and, let's be real, looking for those zingers, the missed opportunities.

One man watching it all, Steve Duprey. He's the chairman of the Republican National Committee's Debate Committee here.

Steve, thank you so much for being with me.

STEVE DUPREY, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE DEBATE COMMITTEE: Yes.

BALDWIN: So, Steve, here we go. You just look at the numbers, 10 candidates, two hours, 60 seconds to answer, 30 seconds to respond if called out.

Just given all of those constraints, realistically, do you expect any substance to come out of tonight's debate?

Well, this is the first of what will be nine to 12 debates, so I think this is really an introduction to America for a lot of the candidates. So the goal is not to have a really bad moment and hopefully to make a good impression. But I think the toughest job tonight will be moderating the debates and keeping the flow of the conversation going and keeping candidates to the time limits.

BALDWIN: I know you point out there are many more debates, but this is the first, which makes it a biggie in and of itself.

DUPREY: Yes.

BALDWIN: And I'm wondering how concerned are you that the candidates will be going after each other or even attacking someone who is not on stage, Hillary Clinton, instead of answering questions and delivering specifics? I hear you laugh, but it's a good -- it's an honest question.

DUPREY: No, it's a risk. No, it's a real risk. I think the moderators will obviously try and get them to answer the questions, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of our candidates started to mix it up.

We have 17 candidates. You have to start to draw distinctions. I think frankly you probably need to do it earlier in this race just because there are so many candidates. It should be exciting.

BALDWIN: You say 17 with a smile, Steve.

DUPREY: Yes. Well, when we first made a list and started this committee two years ago, we had 23 people on the list and we really thought that eight or nine would end up filing. But to our surprise, there are 17 and, who knows, there may be more.

BALDWIN: Final question, back in your state, in New Hampshire, Donald Trump, he is on top by a wide margin in the latest poll. We know he was a no-show at the forum on Monday night. I'm sure you have been talking to voters. Do they care that he didn't appear on that stage or will that mean that there will just be more eyes on him tonight?

DUPREY: Well, I don't think people were offended that he didn't show up. There are going to be so many forums and so many events between now and the New Hampshire primary. I don't think people took great umbrage to it.

But Donald Trump is striking a chord. He knows how to work with the media very well. He has a presence and he's a legitimate candidate and anybody who thinks not is badly underestimating him. I think he will do well tonight. It will be interesting to see the interplay between Mr. Trump and all the other candidates.

BALDWIN: Steve Duprey, thank you so much there in Cleveland, with only a couple hours to go.

We may have an idea of what some of the candidates are up to, thanks to the Independent Journal Review. Here are some of their pre-debate rituals.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE PATAKI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Before a debate, I say a little silent prayer and drink a diet lemon Snapple iced tea.

CARLY FIORINA (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I like to be mentally focused, but relaxed, so I play solitaire.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I take my new phone, thanks to the Donald, I listen to Motown to mellow me out.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R-WI), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Before a debate, I go out and run. It's a great way to relax. You're can't take any phone calls. You're not reading e-mails.

You're not looking online. You're just out running and that clears your mind.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Before a debate, I normally call my mom to get advice. Hey, mom, I can't say that on television.

MIKE HUCKABEE (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I got a video from a couple of my very trusted political advisers.

MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: What is Megyn Kelly going to ask at the FOX debate?

COMPUTER VOICE: Let me check on that.

BEN CARSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I take these hundreds of pieces of paper because they have all the advice that people have given me about what to say during the debate and light them on fire. I'm going to be me. So whatever comes out, it's me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: So Snapple and Motown aside here, ah, to be inside the last- minute preps. And there's not much time left before that first debate, but does this one even really matter?

Let's talk about it with Republican strategist Mercedes Schlapp and Todd Graham, the director of debate at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.

Welcome to both of you.

Todd, you're up first here as our -- we will call you our resident debate coach. I know you wrote this piece for CNN.com. There's so much talk about the prime-time debate, but I want to begin with the happy hour debate, so to speak, the 5:00 debate.

[15:05:05]

In a sense you could say they have more speaking time, no Donald Trump to deal with, the advantage of being perceived as an underdog. But from what I have read from you, you're calling this really sort of a loser scenario.

TODD GRAHAM, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Well, it is sort of a loser scenario in a couple of ways.

The first is, you have got a new one, Brooke. You have called it the happy hour debate. That doesn't sort of seem presidential. One of the things I talked about in my piece is that their language matters and we're calling this the J.V. debate, we're calling it the second- tier debate, we're calling it other sort of derogatory names, and it's not really good to be associated with that if you want to be president.

And the history of presidential debates in the country pretty says if you're left off the main event, you have no chance of becoming president.

BALDWIN: It was Lindsey Graham who I grabbed that from. That's what he called it on Twitter. There you go. I agree with you. Language absolutely matters.

Mercedes, to you. One of those on the undercard, Carly Fiorina, I'm wondering when we talk about the big debate, the top 10, why isn't there a woman up there?

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: This is to Mercedes.

MERCEDES SCHLAPP, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Sure. I would have loved to have seen Carly Fiorina in the top 10. I think she's an incredible voice for conservative women in particular and she's also made a case against what would be the political establishment on the Republican side.

Again, this is the first debate. I think what you're going to see, even in that happy hour debate, at 5:00, is that you might be able to see some new pieces coming out, some headlines from these candidates, especially from an individual like Carly. Be on the lookout. We can't just brush off the 5:00 debate.

We have so many of these debates to look forward to in the upcoming months. This is just the beginning.

BALDWIN: It is just the beginning. But for a lot of Americans, they are getting really introduced to a lot of these folks this evening.

And, Todd, to you, when you just look at the sheer time constraints of answering and responses, how much of this really is going to be substance vs. just getting that good zinger in that will make headlines the next day?

GRAHAM: Well, there's a difference in what you have to do in the first debates.

With like 10 people in the debate, you need to make a statement about yourself that people will remember. I don't know if recall, but four years ago, Herman Cain gained in the polls because he had that catchy 999. And that is sort of what caught on. It wasn't necessarily him getting out zingers against the front-runners.

It was that he set himself apart from the other candidates. And so I think that's what the other candidates need to do in the main event. I hate to disagree with your other guest, but if you're not in the main debate, I really do think the campaign is not just beginning, I think the campaign is ending.

BALDWIN: Mercedes, to you. That's a great point, by the way, about the introductions. I think it's also interesting. Recently, we watched the Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush back and forth. It seems like she really is honing in on him, so quick to react to what he said Tuesday afternoon. I'm curious just your perspective on why she hasn't really taken on

Trump. Do you think perhaps it's just a sign that she's not taking him seriously?

SCHLAPP: She's probably wise not to take on Trump because God only knows he would take on Hillary.

Look, she's being aggressive. She knows that Jeb Bush could be that front-runner that she is focusing on Jeb Bush. Again, I don't think she is ignoring necessarily Trump or Governor Scott Walker or even a Senator Marco Rubio. But at this point, Governor Jeb Bush, he has the money and he has most of the endorsements. Of course, he still needs to convince the conservative base of the Republican Party to support him.

So it's still a long haul, but I think she's going to go and punch him where she can early on to see if she can make inroads there. But again it's still too early. She's probably wise to stay away from Donald Trump because I think Donald Trump would quickly attack.

BALDWIN: Todd, I talk to a lot of supporters of Donald Trump and I think one the reasons they really like him is because he's not this Washington insider. But I'm wondering how he sort of straddles that, but also acts presidential on that stage this evening.

GRAHAM: You know what, it always plays to be the outsider early on in the debates. I think somebody like Trump is going to be fine for a long time.

In fact, if you want to play a good drinking game, if he says the word loser in the debate tonight, that's a shot for sure. That goes over well in the beginning, in the early season. But later on, when we winnow down the field, he is going to have to start becoming more presidential if he wants to get the moderate vote, if he wants to get the independents.

But for right now, sure, he will look fine in these debates. One thing you need to remember is anyone who attacks Trump takes time away from themselves, because one of the things that happens in these debates is, when you attack someone, they get to answer you. I think it's unwise to attack Trump, not because he will attack you back, but because it gives more airtime to the front-runner and that's something you don't want to do.

BALDWIN: Todd Graham, that just made America laugh and gave a lot of people a great idea. Not saying I advocate it, but you did.

[15:10:04]

Todd Graham and Mercedes Schlapp, thank you so much to both of you.

Next here, we will move away from the debate and talk about this -- what they found from this plane, new debris now. A window and seat cushion have washed up in the same area where a possible piece of MH370 was recently discovered. Could high-tech mapping of the ocean currents reveal where this debris originated? That's next. Also, the dash cam video in the case of a police officer charged for

killing an unarmed driver who just wanted help after a car accident, but could it help or hurt the prosecution's case? We will show you the video and discuss that.

Also, another company increasing its paid leave for new parents. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: Even more developments now today in the mystery of Malaysian Air Flight MH370.

[15:15:04]

Airplane seat cushions, window parts, they're also now washing up on that very same island where a piece of the plane's wing was found, this now coming to us from Malaysia's government and it's already raising some eyebrows, particularly from Australian authorities who say none of the debris turned over to Reunion police appears so far to be aircraft debris.

Joining me now, Nick Mallos, conservation biologist and marine debris specialist.

Nick, great to have you back.

NICK MALLOS, MARINE DEBRIS SPECIALIST: Thanks for having me, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Here's my first question. The Malaysian transport minister says that there are many items collected, including, as we mentioned, the seat cushions. But when you think of just the weight of these different items, obviously, a seat cushion is much more buoyant than, say, a flaperon.

Is it possible, then, for these different pieces to sort of somehow collect at the same precise spot?

MALLOS: It certainly is possible.

I think what is really important, and many people probably don't realize this, is new science that came out there year shows that eight million tons of debris and plastic enter our ocean each year. There's a lot of debris that is already out there beyond the wreckage potentially from MH370.

But each debris item, based on where it sits on the surface or below the surface, is vulnerable to different energies from the wind, the waves and the currents. So if the seat cushion happened to be sitting at the surface at the water at same trajectory and level as the wind, certainly, it's possible to have drifted at a similar rate to that wing and washed ashore.

BALDWIN: OK. Possible, I hear you saying.

Speaking of debris, I want to show this animation here. This is modeled from the Australian National Security Agency. You will the debris the red here on the screen, these particles sort of move around and this is showing how the currents are dragging debris both in western and eastern directions. Why do you think we haven't seen debris, then, wash up on the shores of Australia?

MALLOS: Yes, it's hard to say.

But certainly the currents operate in the Indian Ocean in a fairly distant way. Based on where the plane may have hit the water may very well indicate where the debris quickly drifted. Again, much of the debris from the plane likely sank because it is very dense. However, these lighter weight objects that may be subject to the surface currents and the windage may have moved northward and caught very quickly into those westerly moving currents, as the model shows.

BALDWIN: On the notion I was thinking -- this is something else that has perplexed me, is we don't know if a large chunk of this airplane is still sort of together and on the bottom of the ocean, we don't know how many pieces it could be.

But I'm wondering, and who knows when they will find all of that, right, but how long could some of that remain underwater and sustain some of the saltwater damage? Especially, I'm thinking about the black boxes.

MALLOS: It's difficult to say, but debris persists for very, very long periods of time in the ocean, upwards of decades to even hundreds of years, and based on the material it's made of.

And particularly when things sink to the deep ocean in some of these areas where the search is, it's thousands and thousands of feet deep, you have very, very cold waters. And so they can be preserved for very long periods of time. Certainly being submerged at depth doesn't necessarily jeopardize the integrity of the plane if in fact it's largely intact.

BALDWIN: All right, Nick Mallos, thank you so much.

MALLOS: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Coming up next, one day after Netflix announced that new parents, and, by the way, we're talking those who have given birth or even just adopted a child, any of them, moms, dads, they can take up to a year off. In fact, we have now learned Microsoft is bumping up its paid parental leave. Could this become a trend? This is ahead.

Plus, the critical dash cam video that shows the seconds right before a police officer shot and killed this young man who had just been in a car accident. The officer is now on trial in North Carolina. Will this video make or break the prosecution's case? We will show it to you. You be the judge, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:23]

BALDWIN: We have seen how crucial video really can be in killings by police. In Charlotte now, North Carolina, it's now the focus in the case of a police officer on trial for voluntary manslaughter.

Randall Kerrick is charged in the 2013 shooting death of Jonathan Ferrell. And for the first time, dash cam video was shown from that night just moments before Ferrell was shot and killed. Ferrell had crashed his car, so he walked to this nearby neighborhood and knocked on the door of a home, wanted help.

The woman who answered, she actually was frightened and she called 911 thinking Ferrell was trying to break in. That's what police were told when they got to the scene and the dash cams were rolling. We are going to show this to you. But just a warning, you're about to hear this young man lose his life, 12 shots were fired, 10 of them hit the 24-year-old man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get on the ground!

(GUNFIRE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Let's talk about this with CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

We have now seen the video. We were anticipating the video. I just want to walk through it how either side could see it differently beginning with you, and then the prosecution. We know the family's attorney said the video would show Kerrick, the officer, raising his arms yelling wait before the two laser points on his chest. But that's not on the video.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Maybe that happened off video. But we can't see...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: We can't see that.

HOSTIN: At least what has been released so far.

[15:25:00]

But I will tell you, what struck me, and we're talking a lot about the victim's actions, as opposed to the officer's actions.

BALDWIN: We will talk about both.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: That's where I think the focus needs to be, because the officer again is the professional here. The officer is the one trained to respond in crisis. And what I saw was a well-dressed young African-American man walking

towards them. I don't -- and my understanding is that Tasers were sort of drawn when he was approaching and perhaps that is why the prosecution is saying that he didn't run towards them, he was running away from the Tasers and that's the prosecution's theory.

But I just think it's shocking that an officer seeing this person unarmed, well-dressed, walking, would resort to deadly force. That doesn't make sense to me. And I suspect it doesn't make sense to the prosecutors that are trying this case.

BALDWIN: This officer was responding to a call from a woman who sounded terrified on the phone. We played the 911 call the other day, thinking that this was some sort of potentially violent intruder. You made that point the other day. What strikes you about this?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There's a few things that are going to happen.

Each side is going to use this video to buttress the argument they are making.

BALDWIN: To their advantage.

JACKSON: No question.

For the prosecution side, this is how it's going to play out. He's clearly not armed at all. In fact, you visually see both of his arms and there's no weapon whatsoever. Number two, if you do the countdown, it's three, max four seconds between the time he says to stop and shots are fired.

So how reasonable could that be? Number three, the sheer quantity of shots, there are 12 shots fired. Really, says the prosecution? The defense, however, is going to marshal it to support their point of view, which is what? There is not compliance. He was not complying to stop, number one.

He was running towards us, number two. Number three, I objectively and credibly had a basis to believe that I was in imminent fear. And you could see that playing out based upon what we saw. Each side in that courtroom, slowed the tape up. Walk the witnesses through the tape. On cross-examination, the defense pointed out those two points, noncompliant, imminent fear, charging towards us. And, of course, the prosecution saying, unreasonableness of your action. You clearly didn't need to shoot.

HOSTIN: I think what is fascinating, though, is when you're talking about the reasonableness of his actions, again, the officer is the trained professional, not this young man that was in a car accident.

Other officers similarly trained, similarly situated did not shoot him 10 times. They did not act that way. I think that is a very, very strong part of this for the prosecution.

JACKSON: Critical, if I could just piggyback upon that, because that's the legal standard.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: Because I'm right, aren't I?

JACKSON: Well, you are right. You are right. And because -- I'm going to tell you why, because the Supreme Court has said that you measure these things by what an objective officer would do, a reasonable officer, in that officer's position.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: You have three officers there, two are not shooting, and I think the prosecution is going to be hammering that point...

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: I want to show you something from today. He did what he could to show that other officer who responded who did not use his gun, right, to your point. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARDEN HARRIS, PROSECUTOR: When you ran around to the end of the defendant's car and saw, observed the defendant shooting (INAUDIBLE) you never pulled your firearm, correct?

ADAM NEAL, POLICE OFFICER: Correct.

HARRIS: And when Jonathan ran past you, do you recall what you told (INAUDIBLE) that you were going to do to Jon?

NEAL: Yes, sir.

HARRIS: What was that?

NEAL: Possibly put him in a sleeper hold.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: A sleeper hold, like a chokehold. Again, to your point, not pulling a weapon, looking at potentially, as equally as important, how the other officers responded.

HOSTIN: Because there is something -- and it's something I talk about all the time. I talk about officers being training to de-escalate. And officers are trained to de-escalate.

Deadly force is your last option. When you're talking about a case where three other officers are experiencing the same thing in real time, rather than pull their weapon and shoot 12 times, these other officers were looking at the scale of escalation.

So, this officer is saying, huh, in the same situation, I would have maybe put him in a chokehold, which again we can talk about that with the Eric Garner case. I'm not sure that that's the appropriate method, but he chose not to act as this officer did. And I really think that's going to be so critical to the prosecution and to perhaps the jury.

JACKSON: Absolutely. But very important to note and that is -- and the Supreme Court also says officers have split-seconds to act.

That's I think why in this particular jurisdiction, an officer hasn't been indicted in 30 years, and absent potentially that particular video, potentially, there would not have been an indictment here and we have already spoken, Brooke, about the first grand jury not even indicting

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: Times are changing.

JACKSON: They certainly are.

HOSTIN: The community is -- are demanding accountability, accountability. And I think that's -- that's what is taking place here.

BALDWIN: Sunny Hostin...

JACKSON: And we have got surveillance video.

BALDWIN: All the video, body cameras, dash cams, et cetera.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: Talk about it forever.

BALDWIN: Joey, thank you so much. Sunny, thank you as well.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: ... be with you, Brooke.