Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Donald Trump Today Launching His Harshest Attacks Against Jeb Bush; Democratic National Committee Presidential Candidate Debate Last Night; Suspicious Device Found on an Air France Flight Not a Bomb; Democrats Spar Over National Security, ISIS At Debate; Friend Of Shooter Faces Several Charges; Bowe Bergdahl To Face Military Court. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired December 20, 2015 - 14:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[14:00:00] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Happening right now in the NEWSROOM.

Democratic showdown.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the type of campaign that we run.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS.

MARTIN O'MALLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When you listen to the Republican debate the other night, you heard a lot of anger and you have a lot of fear.

WHITFIELD: The candidates argue over who has the best plan to take on the terrorists, lead the nation, and defeat Republicans this fall.

NEWSROOM starts now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining me this Sunday. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

We are following two big stories today. We have lots to talk about following that Democratic debate.

But first, Donald Trump today launching his harshest attacks against Jeb Bush on NBC's "Meet the Press," calling him an embarrassment for the Bush family. Jeb Bush ramping up his insults towards the GOP front-runner over the weekend. This really is getting pretty ugly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He is an embarrassment to the Bush family. And in fact he doesn't even want to use the Bush name, which is interesting. JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Just one other thing, I have to

get this off my chest. Donald Trump is a jerk. You cannot insult your way to the presidency.

TRUMP: It was so sad to watch him. So sad. Bush. No. It was just sad. I mean, it's like close to incompetent. You look at that, it was terrible.

BUSH: For us to win, Donald Trump can't be the nominee. He's never going to beat Hillary Clinton. It's just not possible.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anyone you want to call out by name?

BUSH: I'm the only guy that's speaking out about the lack of seriousness of Donald Trump, not being able to apps the question about the role of the nuclear triad? The answer he gave was just, like -- it made no sense at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. So let's talk more about this. I want to bring in CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein and CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson.

Good to see both of you.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good afternoon.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi.

WHITFIELD: All right, Ron. Let's begin with you. Really, I mean, this is pretty nasty. How is it this race is defined by ugly words being hurled among the GOP candidates? I mean, Trump so far is out in front, but why does he feel he needs to respond or even pick on Jeb Bush? Not really sure who's throwing the first punch, so whether it's picking on or whether it's counterpunching, why does he need to do this when he's so far ahead in the polls?

BROWNSTEIN: It is a great question. Look, I think Donald Trump, one of the reasons he is ahead in the polls, is because for a portion of the Republican base, his willingness to say things that other candidates won't say, is proof that he is not a politician as usual. And this is kind of that broader pattern that he has pursued.

What it is kind of more fascinating from Jeb Bush's point of view. You know, obviously, the most obvious answer is these two men do not like each other and that is a big part of the explanation. But I think there's more to it than that.

If you look at the polling, among the Republicans who are not voting for Trump, he is pretty unpopular. He is more unpopular than the other candidates are among the candidates who aren't voting for them. And what that suggests is there is still a role for someone in the party to try to be the one to stand up to Trump, particularly in New Hampshire. The problem is you have a number of candidates who could fill that slot. You've got John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and I think what you see from Jeb Bush is to some extent auditioning for that role of being the one to stand up to Trump for the voters in the party who are most resistant.

WHITFIELD: OK Ben, do you see it that way? That perhaps Bush says, you know what, there are those Republicans who don't like Donald Trump and those are the ones I'm appealing to when I do this, when I engage with Trump on this.

FERGUSON: I mean, partly, but a lot of these just comes down to the fact that I think you see Donald Trump going after Jeb Bush for one basic reason -- they really hate each other. And it's become personal, and I think he wants to beat him into oblivion and have this terrible campaign and him go out at one or two percent in the polls.

The other part of this, though, I do think is strategic, not just personal, and that is Jeb Bush has become the all-encompassing, you know, guy that the GOP, the people that, you know, Donald Trump does not get endorsed by, the people that do not like him, they kind of made him the establishment candidate.

And so, it's to keep that narrative alive, that look at him, he is the establishment, he's endorsed by the establishment, they wanted you to have Jeb Bush, I'm the opposite of that. They want to destroy me and I'm at the top of the polls. And so, I think it goes a little bit of both those narratives for him. And I really think a lot of this is now are just flat out personal. It's obvious they cannot stand each other.

And I think when it comes to that, trash talking and beating someone down, Donald Trump wants to absolutely destroy Jeb Bush's campaign and embarrass him and actually it helps him I think because he can say look what I did to the establishment candidate. I was able to topple him. Stay with me. We will make America great again as he puts it.

[14:05:10] WHITFIELD: OK. All right. That's the Trump/Bush dynamic.

Ron and Ben, don't go anywhere because we are going to talk some more. Because right now I want to talk about last night's debated, the final debate of the year for the Democrats. And instead of primarily targeting each other, the Democratic candidates spent a lot of time trying to tear down the leading GOP candidate, Donald Trump.

CNN investigations correspondent Chris Frates is in our Washington NEWSROOM right now to break it all down for us.

So Chris, what are the takeaways from last night's face-off.

CHRIS FRATES, CNN INVESTIGATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, I tell you. With so much drama simmering in the days before last night's debate, it looked like sparks would fly between Clinton and Sanders finally giving the Democratic debate some of the excitement the Republican rivals had had all season long.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FRATES (voice-over): Finally, a Democratic debate with some potential for drama. After days of smack talking among the DNC, the Sanders and Clinton campaigns, the debate stage was set for the two top Democrats to throw down over accusations that Sanders exploited a software glitch to access Clinton's confidential voter information, a move Clinton's camp called below the belt. Clinton goes for jugular, politico Trumpeted, signaling she was ready to throw some mud in the debate.

SANDERS: I apologize.

FRATES: Wait, what?

SANDERS: Not only do I apologize to Secretary Clinton and I hope we can work together on an independent investigation from day one --

FRATES: OK. But Clinton's not going to let him off that easy, right?

CLINTON: I very much appreciate that comment, Bernie. If I don't think the American people are all that interested in this.

FRATES: Instead it seems Clinton thought Americans wanted to hear how she would take on the Republicans, a theme she stuck to throughout the night largely ignoring her two Democratic rivals.

CLINTON: And we also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don't fall on receptive ears. He is becoming ISIS' best recruiter.

FRATES: Clinton went on to say that ISIS is using Trump videos to recruit more jihadists, a claim there is no evidence to support.

CLINTON: We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us as well as the region, and we finally have a U.N. security council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political --

FRATES: Republicans pounced on that remark, Jeb Bush twittering, no, Hillary Clinton, we are not where we need to be in the fight against ISIS.

O'Malley, a distant third in the race, with national security implications into his pitch for tougher gun control.

O'MALLEY: ISIL videos, ISIL training videos are telling lone wolves the easiest way to buy a combat assault weapon in America is at a gun show and it's because of the flip-flopping political approach of Washington that both my two colleagues on this stage have represented for the last 40 years.

FRATES: But even when she wasn't center stage, Clinton was still the center of attention.

CLINTON: Sorry.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRATES: So none of the flash that some observers had hoped for there, Fred, neither Martin O'Malley, nor Bernie Sanders landed any game changers last night. And Hillary Clinton left the last debate of the year still solidly the front-runner. In fact, she was so comfortable and she previewed her general election message, which is mainly that Republicans want to roll back all the progress the country's made under President Barack Obama, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Chris Frates, thanks so much. Giving us a lot to chew on right now.

Let's dig a little deeper on the Democratic debate. Let's bringing back Ron Brownstein and Ben Ferguson who were with me earlier and now bring in Angela Rye in Seattle. She is the former executive director of the congressional black caucus.

Good to see all thee of you now.

All right, Angela, ladies first now. So what's your assessment of what happened last night? Who stood out to you?

ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Well, I want to say first that the opening statements, Martin O'Malley stood out to me. He was a very, very effective -- or had a very, very effective opening and he kind of left it at that. I think it was clear after that why Hillary Clinton has remained the front-runner for some time. One of her stronger moments to me is when she challenged Bernie Sanders to close the Charleston loophole by sponsoring legislation, I think effectively putting him in his place as a senator.

I think the debate was lively. I definitely had the same surprises in the last with Bernie Sanders just killing the drama of data-gate with an apology to Secretary Clinton and with her agreeing to go forth with an independent investigation. I thought all those moments were very strong.

WHITFIELD: All right. So let's talk more about data breach and Sanders, you know, really coming out strong and then even issuing his apology, Ron, to Hillary Clinton. Do you think this puts an end to it or is it really just the beginning? He is the anti-establishment guy.

BROWNSTEIN: No, I think it largely puts an end to it. Look. What the senator's campaign did was egregious and it was appropriate for him to apologize. What the DNC did in reaction was probably an overreaction and also egregious in its own way in terms of cutting him of from the data. And I know that Hillary Clinton really wants to have an extended conversation about data security, you know, in this campaign with her own backdrop. So I think there are incentives to all of them to move on.

I would say, I think the overall takeaway from the debate, though, is really, especially as the issue terrain has moved more toward national security and foreign policy, it really separates Hillary Clinton in terms of preparation to be president from the other two.

You saw almost a tale of two debates last night. In the second half when they were talking about economics, I thought Bernie Sanders was much more animated and focused. But when they were kind of talking about a strategy against a problem as complex as ISIS, I thought there was a lot of participation between Hillary Clinton and the other two on the stage about who you could imagine as president tomorrow.

[14:10:50] WHITFIELD: And then, Ben, you know, Donald Trump, he wasn't the one that was on stage. These were Democrats. But he was certainly on the minds, you know, of these candidates.

FERGUSON: Sure.

WHITFIELD: So, you know, how does it help the Democratic candidates to try to focus on him as the opponent, not necessarily, you know, picking apart each other?

FERGUSON: Well, I think it's a smart move because, let's be honest here, Bernie Sanders is the best second-place candidate I've ever seen. And every time he has an opportunity to go after Hillary Clinton he absolutely goes in the other direction.

So from her perspective, to look towards the general election and try to turn Donald Trump into the focal point of her campaign is a very smart move. I mean, she has got this thing wrapped up. Bernie Sanders has shown in the last two debates especially he is not going to challenge her on issue, he is not going to challenge her on her emails, he is not going to challenge her on her saying something as egregious as we have ISIS basically now where we want them and we're somehow winning when we're not.

So they're not challenging her for the nomination. They are just hanging out with here on stage I guess is how they're looking at this. Because if you are trying to win the presidential election or you are trying to win the nomination for your party, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders did not look like they were trying to even challenge her last night. And I think from her perspective, who cares about, you know, everything going on with the DNC and what his campaign, Bernie Sanders, did with the information? She doesn't need any of that around her, especially with her own emails. To move past it, very smart move and Hillary Clinton has to be enjoying the holidays right now because she's going to be the nominee.

WHITFIELD: All right. So Angela, do you see this as a shoo-in for Hillary Clinton? I mean, you heard from Martin O'Malley and you in the Sanders campaign who were very critical of the DNC suggesting that it was, you know, it was skew this whole debate was skewed to warn Clinton and the way in which the DNC has making decisions shows their favoritism toward her.

RYE: Well, I think there is difference between the Democratic nomination process by to be the party being skewed for Hillary Clinton and party supporter, party members being skewed towards Hillary Clinton. It is no different than Donald Trump being the front-runner in the GOP nominations. They are not skewing the process but rather the party or party members is skewed towards Hillary Clinton. It is very clear in the poll.

I do want to take issue with a couple of thing that Ben just mentioned though. First, I don't think this is accurate to say that neither Bernie Sanders nor martin O'Malley challenge Hillary Clinton yesterday. There were a lot of times where there was light between their position. Whether you are talking about ISIL, whether you are talking about whether you were talking about gun control and their history on supporting and/or not supporting. Martin O'Malley --

FERGUSON: I'm not saying that there is -- let me make this clear, I'm not saying there's no difference between them. I'm saying as a candidate there are opportunities for them to go after Hillary Clinton. When Bernie Sanders said something as, well, we may have some light in between us on this issue, that does not sound like a candidate trying to explain why you should vote for him over Hillary.

RYE: That's why you should have let me finish. What I was saying was he took issue with the fact that he doesn't want to be liked by everyone. In fact, he said that Wall Street would not like him even more so than corporate America. There was light them on how to approach family medical leave act. You saw Bernie Sanders mentioned that hey, I don't think $1.61 is too much to charge middle class families per week.

There were a lot of opportunities, Ben, and I'm sorry you missed that, but it is important --

FERGUSON: I'm just saying Hillary Clinton is still overwhelmingly in the lead and has this wrapped up.

RYE: It's different when --

WHITFIELD: Go ahead, Ron.

BROWNSTEIN: Can I just -- I just want to add a quick point. You know, one of the fascinating disagreements on the stage last night points to something really potentially unusual in the general election where you had both Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley say that we should focus on ISIS and not try to take out Assad today, which is essentially -- at this point, essentially the same position that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz articulated in the Republican debate with Wolf Blitzer earlier in the wreak whereas you had Hillary Clinton arguing you could not do one without the other. If you just focused on ISIS and let Assad empower, you would radicalize more people even while reducing the threat on the one hand.

So, there is potential for a general election debate where you will have the Democratic nominee taking a more aggressive posture on regime change in some ways echoing the George W. Bush approach, than the Republican nominees, because you have the two front runners in the Republican party now who have moved toward a position of skepticism, of international engagement, skepticism of immigration, skepticism of free trade.

Cruz and Trump kind of rejecting the international consensus in the party that goes back to at least Dwight Eisenhower. And you could see an unusual polarity of argument in the general election if one of those two is a raid against Hillary Clinton.

[14:15:30] WHITFIELD: So we keep hearing words like evolution. Maybe we are also start hearing things like morphing, with all these positions morphing into one another and the candidates rubbing off on one another.

All right, thanks so much Ron Brownstein, Angela Rye, Ben Ferguson. Thanks to all of you. Appreciate it.

Also coming up in the bottom of the hour, we'll talk about the candidates' plan to take on ISIS with our military experts. At least we'll be turning to them on their points of view.

All right, still ahead, a plane makes an emergency landing after a suspicious device was found in the restroom. Now four people are under arrest. What investigators are said about what they found coming up.

Plus, CNN's reality check team was busy last night analyzing what the Democratic candidates were saying in the debate. And we will show you what they found throughout the day. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: Why is it that we are -- why is it that we spend almost three times per capita as to what they spend in the UK, 50 percent more than what they pay in France, countries that guarantee health care to all of their people and in many cases have better health care outcomes? Bottom line, it ties into campaign finance reform, the insurance companies, the drug companies are bribing the United States congress. We need to pass a Medicare for all single payer system. Lit lower the cost of health care for a middle class family by thousands of dollars a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:03] WHITFIELD: A suspicious device found on an Air France flight was not a bomb according to the airlines. Four people have been arrested, though, in connection with what the airline's CEO called a nasty joke. The flight made an emergency landing in Kenya after the flight crew was alerted.

CNN correspondent joins Robyn Kriel joins us now from London with the latest.

So Robyn, what did you learn about these arrests and what were they up to?

ROBYN KRIEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, not much has been learned about the nationalities of the four people who are being interrogated by Kenyan police or much about the nationalities of those on board the Air France plane, although we could assume a majority would be French nationals.

The device, Fred, all made of innocuous materials -- cardboard, paper, and kitchen timer of some sort, all sort of very innocuous on their own, but when put together and assembled it did look very dangerous. And I have seen pictures floating about on social media if that is indeed the device it would have been a scary and agonizing few hours when the flight crew discovered this device passenger found in a restroom as we said and alerted the crew. They made a decision to stop. It would have been a few hours until they could have landed the plane on a (INAUDIBLE) runway large enough for the 777 to land. It would have been a few hours before they can make that terrifying few hours indeed.

The air France CEO not impressed at all. This is the fourth bomb scare they have had since the Paris attacks. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FREDERIC GAGEY, CEO, AIR FRANCE (through translator): And every time we can get information, intelligence about the authors of these extremely unpleasant jokes, we complain and find this behavior both stupid and completely one which causes damage and absolutely unacceptable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KRIEL: Of course key questions, Fred, such as how did these various materials get on board or were they assembled on board and of course who is behind this hoax as it were.

WHITFIELD: So, Robyn, is there a feeling that this is a dry run or was this a joke?

KRIEL: There's not really a feeling that it's a joke, Fred. Indeed, no one is laughing as you can imagine. The Air France CEO and the people on board that plane all of whom were absolutely terrified and currently in Kenyan custody trying to get back.

There is a question could this have been a dry run. Some people say it could have been. Others say no, because this will force Air France to perhaps change security procedures. One thing is certain, though, if the persons' goal was to terrorize a population, to terrorize an airline, then he has reached his goal. It probably is not as bad as if it had been a real explosive but it still has caused terror and anguish amongst families and indeed probably the entire country and indeed the world.

WHITFIELD: We know people were terrified to even learn of something like that happening.

All right, thanks so much Robyn Kriel in London.

All right, next, a teenager who killed four people in a DUI crash has vanished. He had argued that he suffered from affluenza, brought up wealthy with no limits. Well, next I am talking to a U.S. marshal about how official will try to track him down.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:26:37] WHITFIELD: All right, right now, the FBI and U.S. marshals need your help finding 18-year-old Texas affluenza teen Ethan Couch. A $5,000 reward is being offered for his capture. Authorities believe he ran away along with his mother while he is supposed to be on probation.

Ethan Couch is currently serving a ten-year probation sentence for driving with a blood-alcohol content level of three times the legal limit and killing four people. They were all helping Briana Mitchell, whose SUV broke down on the side of the road, the four people who were killed. The teen skipped his probation meeting last week and could be anywhere in the world with his mother.

So let me bring in former assistant director of U.S. Marshals and CNN law enforcement analyst. Good to see you, Art Roderick.

All right, Art, so we are a few days into this massive search. But where would authorities have begun? Are they, you know, trying to look at, you know, airline records to see where they may have gone, if they have left the country or simply theft state? How do they do this?

ART RODERICK, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE: Well, I mean, the Tarrant County sheriff asked the marshal service to come in and assist in their part of the task force out there in the northern Texas regional fugitive task force. And when you look at the task forces around the U.S. and internationally, that the marshal service are involved in with their state, local, and federal partners, they arrest over 100,000 fugitive felons, domestic and internationally every year. So they are the experts at this type of fugitive apprehension case.

And what you got here is not only are they looking at computer files and records but I think the key at this particular case is going to be the finances. And these people aren't adept at hiding under the radar like a lot of fugitives are that are involved in criminality on a regular basis. This mother and son team don't know how to stay under the radar. So it is going to be a lot of computer searches but also tracking the financial records, which the marshal service has a great financial crimes unit that looks at these type of information to track the money to find out where the resources are.

Right. So you are saying, unless hay had a very sizable stack of cash, they are likely using their ATM cards or, you know, credit cards and that's the kind of electronic or, you know, financial transactions that really could leave that, you know, bread crumb trail of where they might be.

RODERICK: Exactly, Fred. They need money to be able to survive out there and money is going to leave a digital footprint. And since these people are not used to being under the radar, as a lot of fugitives do when they know they are wanted and they are hiding I think it is going to be relatively easy to track these individuals.

Now, if they go international, then that makes it a little more difficult, but definitely by no means impossible. Interpol would be involved. They would put a red notice out which goes to a 190 different countries around the world. And they can be picked up on that red notice when they try to get into come in legally or illegally into any country.

WHITFIELD: So that record had already been made then. If they would have already left, you know, out of this country, then that print is already on any number of those 190 countries that you mentioned if they went there. So would that mean that the U.S. would have that kind of information already?

RODERICK: They might have it already or they are in the process of getting it. You know, the way everything has done electronically nowadays. It is very difficult to come up with a bogus U.S. passport anymore. They're all scanned. They have all our information in there.

If they have gone to a third country, another country, and checked in through the regular passport immigration process, there will be a record of that. Most of the times if they enter the country illegally they'll be expelled by that country as an undesirable alien.

WHITFIELD: My goodness, and they're potentially facing a nasty penalty if they've not just, you know, crossed into another state but even left the country.

RODERICK: Exactly.

WHITFIELD: All right, Art Roderick, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Coming up, the showdown between the Democratic candidates over their strategies for fighting ISIS. We'll ask our military experts whose plan could actually work. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Welcome back. One of the most fiery topic last night's Democratic debate was ISIS and how to combat terrorist abroad, a subject that the candidates clearly don't see eye to eye on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is a war for the soul of Islam. The troops on the ground should not be American troops. They should be Muslim troops. I believe that countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have got to step up to the plate, have got to contribute the money that we need and the troops that we need to destroy ISIS with American support.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The administration has tried that over and over again. If it doesn't work and the threat is so great, what's your plan b?

SANDERS: My plan is to make it work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Hillary Clinton touted her foreign policy experience and laid out her strategy to fight ISIS. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[14:35:01]HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I wish we could say yes, let's go destroy ISIS and let's let Assad continue to destroy Syria, which creates more terrorists, more extremists by the minute. No. We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS, which is a danger to us as well as the region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Clinton is getting criticism for those comments. Almost immediately after she made them, Jeb Bush tweeting, "No, Hillary Clinton, we are not where we need to be in the fight against ISIS."

Let's talk about this with CNN military analyst, Lt. General Mark Hertling, and Anthony Shaffer, a retired Army intelligence officer.

Lieutenant General Hertling, let me begin with you. Good to see both of you. So do you agree with Hillary's statement that the U.S. is where it needs to be in the fight against ISIS right now?

LT. GENERAL MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It was certainly a very interesting debate, Fredricka, and first of all, good afternoon. No, we're not where we need to be yet, but we're attempting to get there.

I don't think any of the candidates on either side -- and I've been attempting to be apolitical on this judging them for what they've been saying, have missed the mark.

What Secretary Clinton did yesterday was basically outline what the president is doing already and so did the other candidates frankly. But she added to that a no-fly zone.

And anyone that's been involved in establishing a no-fly zone knows there are certain conditions you have to meet and that is a throwaway line that's been bouncing around Washington for people who are uninitiated.

Senator Sanders basically said we have to lead from behind. They both agreed with the fact that we can't put ground troops. It would be a strategic mistake to put large numbers of ground troops from America on the ground in Syria.

I agree with that. Governor O'Malley basically said we need more intelligence and we need to separate USA I.D. from the State Department. That was how I wrapped it up.

Basically what they're all saying is we need to continue to do what we're doing right now because the proper action. But a lot of people want this to happen faster. Truthfully, it can't happen any faster than it is happening. This is going to be a very long campaign. We've said that from the very beginning.

WHITFIELD: All right. So, Mr. Shaffer, do you agree with that? Can't happen any faster? Is that what Hillary Clinton was saying? We are where we need to be, meaning this is a step?

ANTHONY SHAFFER, RETIRED ARMY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: No. We're not moving this as rapidly as we could or should. I've been talking to the Pentagon and folks involved in the planning. There's been a hesitation to move the as rapidly as we could or should with special operations forces as well as the aircraft we need to increase our number of sorties.

I think we have purposely allowed by the policy of the White House to not do the necessary things to slow down the growth of is. I'm sorry, Hillary Clinton helped create the conditions for ISIS by first destabilizing Libya, allowing weapons there to go to Turkey.

Turkey then to essentially arm the precursors of ISIS, which they thought would go after President Assad and Syria instead going off on their own. Hillary Clinton has no ground to stand on regarding the reality of her past policy and saying if we stick with the current one it will work.

What we need to do is look at how we can actually do more militarily with special operations forces, not boots on the ground then really push our Arab allies, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and the Saudis to actually get behind what we're trying to do.

What is lacked is leadership, is trust in us, because of these other actions I mentioned the Arab allies have been reluctant to jump in with us. As much as Bernie Sanders says he wants to do this, I think he's on the right path. We had to show the leadership to do that.

WHITFIELD: You brought up Libya. Talk about the questions asked at these debates central to whether this country, this world is better off with or without dictators in the region. You mentioned, you know, Libya, the removal of Moammar Gadhafi. Here's what Bernie Sanders had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANDERS: But I think -- and I say this with due respect, that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little built too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.

Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS.

Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy. Getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you have to think about what happens the day after.

WHITFIELD: All right. General, what do voters need to hear from candidates as it pertains to that because already we see there's some history whether it be Iraq or whether it be, you know, Yemen or even Libya, but then moving forward, how are voters to digest this information? What's the information they need to hear from candidates?

[14:40:07]HERTLING: Yes. This is a very important issue. And first of all, I want to say that I don't agree completely with Tony that Secretary Clinton can be blamed for the removal of Gadhafi in Libya.

I think there were many, many factors that contributed to that. What I'd like to say is early on in the Iraq war, yes, the military was given a mission, and truthfully, Fredricka, I was part of that as war planner on the joint staff in the J7, to rid Iraq of a dictator.

Regime change is not a military mission. That's very difficult to execute with military forces. That is a political implication that politicians have to determine through diplomacy how they view do that and what they do.

The military certainly can contribute to that and it has in several countries. We have to be very careful in say, we just have to rid ourselves of a dictator. I think Senator Sanders was correct in that last night.

We can't focus exclusively on that until we ask the question what then? What replaces that dictator? What is the government that comes in to establish the security of the people in that country?

You know, a lot of people do want to get rid of dictators, but you always have to ask the question what does it look like after you do that and how does that affect the people in the country.

WHITFIELD: Now these candidates are more compelled to ask that question because that was the criticism early on, that question wasn't asked enough before the actions moved forward.

SHAFFER: Absolutely. We saw it in Afghanistan with the loss of regime there after the Soviets left, we've seen it repeatedly. That is an excellent question. My friend and mentor who worked for President Clinton, Bill Clinton, actually would be often asked, can you do this militarily?

And as Mark just said, the general would then say I can do this militarily, but then what? What do we do then? That's that what if question that the politics often have to ask and often try to look to the military for solutions.

It's not the military's job to figure out regime change and put a government back together that will bring peace and democracy to a region. It's two different missions.

WHITFIELD: All right, General Hertling, Anthony Shaffer, thank you so much, Gentlemen. Good to see both of you. Appreciate it.

HERTLING: Merry Christmas, Fred.

WHITFIELD: I keep forgetting. It is like the last big weekend before Christmas, but when you're working it, you know, sometimes you forget. Happy holidays. All right, the friend of San Bernardino shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook, has a bail hearing tomorrow. Next, more on Enrique Marquez and the charges he's facing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:45:54]

WHITFIELD: Enrique Marquez, the former neighbor of San Bernardino shooter, Syed Rizwan Farook, appears in court tomorrow for a bail and detention hearing.

Marquez did not enter a plea in federal court in Thursday when he was charged with conspiring to provide a material support to terrorism, making a false statement in connection with the acquisition of firearms, and immigration fraud related to an alleged fake marriage to a woman in Farook's family.

Right now the 24-year-old who worked at Walmart and a local tavern is sitting in a Los Angeles detention center. Marquez befriended Farook a decade ago when he moved next door. Authorities say he called 911 the day after Farook and his wife killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center.

And he told the dispatch that Farook used his gun in the terror attack. Marquez also said he wanted to kill himself. Later he was referred to a psychiatric ward and placed on involuntary hold.

CNN legal analyst, Danny Cevallos, joining me now from New York with more. Danny, what are the chances that the judge grants him bail? It sounds like he is presenting the story of I didn't really know that my participation would lead to something like this.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: As a general rule, defendants are entitled to bail unless there's no combination of factors that will ensure their appearance at trial. Remember, bail is not punishment. Bail is about ensuring that a defendant shows up to court and secondarily that they don't pose a danger to the community.

However, under federal law, there are certain situations in which a rebuttable presumption arises that this defendant is a risk of flight. One of those, for example, is if the maximum penalty is more than ten years.

At least as far as the providing material support to terrorists, that charge carries with it a maximum that is beyond ten years, so it seems highly unlikely ultimately that this defendant will get bail.

WHITFIELD: He's been talking. He's not accused of direct involvement in the San Bernardino shooting. But do you see that there is an opening for that even if it was, you know, conspiring, if it was making false statements, even if there is immigration fraud and then claiming responsibility for the weaponry? Do you see that his charges could be --

CEVALLOS: To say that he's been talking is an understatement. If you look at the criminal complaint which is available online through the DOJ website, this defendant sat down and gave a very, very detailed -- you could call interrogation interview with agents where he admitted to a number of acts that would be considered criminal under the code.

So in a case like this, he's given them a lot of information. But, remember, at least the conspiracy he's being charged with is not providing the actual conspiracy to commit this horrible act but, instead, an earlier conspiracy to commit crimes that never occurred.

However that conspiracy resulted in materials such as gunpowder and other material items being provided that were used in this attack. I think given the broad scope of federal law it is entirely, should prosecutors want to do so, that they could amend and charge him with additional crimes.

Right now the conspiracy to provide, for example, the firearms is only related to an earlier conspiracy, a crime that was never completed. It turns out those firearms that he provided were used later on in this horrific act.

WHITFIELD: And when you say -- and your feeling is there might be more charges as opposed to leniency. And I would ask leniency because he has fessed up, he's said that there were other things they were planning, he got cold feet about it, chose not to do it. And because he's been so chatty, does it speak to his guilty conscience or that he never thought something so terrible would happen?

CEVALLOS: Criminal defense attorneys say this all the time. Simply because you give a detailed interview with agents does not guarantee you any leniency.

[14:50:05]And agents are very good at getting defendants and suspects to tell all when they are sitting in a room with them. There is no guarantee of leniency unless it's something that the U.S. attorney makes through some agreement.

However, this defendant no longer has that leverage because if you read that complaint, if everything he said in it is true, he's essentially handled this case to the federal government on a platter.

And he has significantly reduced his leverage to negotiate any kind of plea deal at this point, which ultimately may be a good thing, especially when you consider all the people that were victimized by these acts.

WHITFIELD: Sent a pretty strong message to anybody else who may be thinking about the same kind of activity, right? All right, Danny Cevallos, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Held captive by the Taliban for years, now Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl faces court-martial and possibly life in a U.S. prison. He has a hearing this week. Details on the charges against him next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl will be arraigned for his court-martial this week and face a military court on charges of desertion and endangering fellow soldiers. Bergdahl was held captive by the Taliban for nearly five years after he allegedly deserted his unit. He was freed after the U.S. released five Taliban detainees in a controversial prisoner exchange last year. CNN's Nick Valencia has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): By now you've probably seen this video, a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter lands in the middle of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. With each passing second, U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl takes a step closer to freedom. After five years in Taliban captivity and torture, he is finally going home.

[14:55:03]BOWE BERGDAHL (via telephone): Like you're standing there screaming in your mind, in this room you're standing in this blackened dirt room that's tiny and just on the other side of that floozy little wooden door you could probably rim off the hinges is the entire world out there.

VALENCIA: That's Bergdahl describing his captivity in an interview with a popular podcast. In it we get a chance to hear from Bergdahl ourselves, a man who was discharged from the Coast Guard for psychological reasons only to land in the U.S. Army under what he calls inept leadership. Bergdahl says as a 23-year-old private he didn't feel like his concerns would be taken seriously.

BERGDAHL: All I was seeing was basically leadership failure to the point that the lives of the guys standing next to me were literally from what I could see in danger of something seriously going wrong and somebody being killed.

VALENCIA: But what awaited back home was anything but a homecoming. The celebration in his hometown of Hailey, Idaho, canceled amid controversy of Bergdahl's release and questions surrounding his disappearance. The frustration was especially expressed by some of Bergdahl's platoon, who were part of the initial rescue mission.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we would have found him I think a lot of us would have shot him, if that tells you anything. I really say that with sincerity that we had that much hate towards him.

VALENCIA: Despite a military investigator's recommendations that Bergdahl not face jail time, the Army announced this month it will court-martial Bergdahl on charges of desertion and endangering fellow soldiers.

BERGDAHL: I've made it through the last five years.

VALENCIA: If convicted he could face life in prison, but the court's decision may not matter much to already see Bergdahl as either a hero or a deserter. Nick Valencia, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Bergdahl's defense attorney slammed the court-martial in a statement saying that he, quote, "had hoped the case would not go in this direction," end quote. He noted that the Army commander who ruled on the case, quote, "did not follow the advice of the preliminary hearing officer who heard witnesses," end quote.

We'll have much more straight head in the NEWSROOM and it all starts right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)