Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Obama Expected to Soon Announce New Executive Action Expanding Background Checks on Gun Sales; Two Oregon Ranchers are Set to Go to Prison Tomorrow for Arson; Protesters Angry after the Saudis Executed 47 People Accused of Terrorism. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired January 03, 2016 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:12] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.
President Barack Obama arriving back in Washington just a few hours ago. He will begin his 2016 agenda by tackling the quote "unfinished business" of his presidency, the epidemic of gun violence. Sources tell CNN that he is preparing a new executive action on the issue. This Thursday the president will join CNN's Anderson Cooper for an exclusive live town hall on guns in America.
CNN investigations correspondent Chris Frates is joining us now.
So Chris, the timing of this town hall should be noted and we also are talking about the president meeting tomorrow with the attorney general.
CHRIS FRATES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that is exactly right, Fred. The president is kicking off the New Year with an aggressive push for tighter gun control. And sources say expanding background checks will be a keystone of the president's actions.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A few months ago I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence. And on Monday, I will meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options. Because I get too many letters from parents and teachers and kids to sit around and do nothing.
FRATES (voice-over): President Obama is expected to soon announce new executive action expanding background checks on gun sales aimed at closing the so-called gun show loophole which allows some gun sellers to avoid conducting background checks. Gun control advocates have also pushed the White House to tighten regulations on the reporting of lost and stolen guns and want the president to prevent more alleged domestic abusers and passengers on the no fly list from buying guns.
But before the president has even announced the details of his actions, Republicans running to replace him were seemingly competing on who would undo them faster. DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So he's going to sign
another executive order having to do with the second amendment, having to do with guns. I will veto that -- I will un-sign that so fast. So fast.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All these executive orders he is going to come out with tomorrow that are going to undermine our second amendment rights on my first day in office, they are gone.
FRATES: And Jeb Bush argued there was no need to expand background checks because --.
JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The so-called gun show loophole which is I think what he is talking about doesn't exist. People that want to sell guns random, you know, occasionally sell guns ought to have the right to do so without being impaired by the federal government.
FRATES: Democrats have applauded Obama's efforts. On Sunday, Bernie Sanders, whose Democratic rivals have called him weak on gun control, endorsed increased background checks.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think most gun owners in this country understand that people who should not own guns should not be able to buy them. And we do need to expand the instant background check. I don't think that's an onerous burden on anybody.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FRATES: So measuring Americans' attitudes on guns seems to depend on how you ask the question. In a recent CNN poll, a majority said they don't support stricter gun control laws or the president's handling of guns. But in a Quinnipiac survey an overwhelming majority, 89 percent, said they support requiring background checks for all gun buyer, Fred.
WHITFIELD: All right. Chris Frates, thank you so much.
All right. So, this has been one of the most critical issues in the Obama presidency. He has made at least 12 public speeches in the aftermath of mass shootings oftentimes calling on Congress to take action.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
OBAMA: We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world. And there are some steps we could take not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don't happen.
I have had to make statements like this too many times. Communities have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. We come together filled with sorrow for the 13 Americans that we have lost. With gratitude for the lives that they led and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on. I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, to pray with you today and will stand by you tomorrow.
And the federal government stands ready to do whatever is necessary to bring whoever is responsible for this heinous crime to justice.
All of us are heartbroken by what's happened, and I offered the thoughts and prayers not only of myself and Michelle, but also of the country as a whole.
And each time I learn the news, I react not as a president but as anybody else would, as a parent. In the hard days to come, that community needs us to be at our best as Americans, and I will do everything in my power as president to help.
The lives that were taken from us were unique. The memories their loved ones carry are unique and they will carry them and endure long after the news cameras are gone.
Any shooting is troubling. Obviously this reopens the pain of what happened in Ft. Hood five years ago.
The country has to do some soul searching about this. This is becoming the norm. And we take it for granted in ways that as a parent are terrifying to me. The good news is I am confident that the outpouring of unity and strength and fellowship and love across Charleston today indicates the degree to which those old vestiges of hatred can be overcome.
And each time this happens I'm going to bring this up. Each time this happens I am going to say that we can actually do something about it but we're going to have to change our laws.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: So sources tell CNN that President Obama's executive action is expected to be announced ahead of his state of the union address on January 12th. We don't know the exact language of this order yet, nor do we know the exact day but here's what we do know.
The focus remains on closing the so-called gun show loophole, which doesn't require certain sellers at gun shows, online sites and elsewhere to have a license that therefore doesn't require them to conduct background checks.
Additionally, sources also say his plan will include new funding for government agencies to better reinforce existing gun laws. It's likely that the mass shootings during Obama's presidency did influence this executive action. But the vast majority of guns used in recent mass shootings, some of the more notable ones and highly publicized, San Bernardino, California, Charleston, South Carolina, Newtown, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado, and Tucson, Arizona. In those cases all of those weapons were bought legally through a licensed dealer which included federal background checks.
Let's talk more about this executive order and what it entails, what's behind it. CNN senior political analyst David Gergen with us on phone and constitutional attorney Page Pate with me here in Atlanta.
So Page, let me begin with you. Will this executive order be challenged on constitutional merits?
PAGE PATE, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY: Absolutely. There is no question as soon as this order is signed, the Republicans are going to line up to file a lawsuit to challenge it. The first question is, is this type of restriction constitutional? And I think it is. The Supreme Court has given us some guidelines in what we can do and not do in relation to guns but requiring background checks for everyone, I think the Supreme Court's OK with that.
The second question, and this is the bigger question, can he do it by executive action? It is very limited, the scope of an executive order. You have to be given the authority by Congress or it has to be clear in the constitution. That's what the Republicans will focus on.
WHITFIELD: Does the White House feel it would be defeating if it were to ask Congress for such approval in order to move forward with executive action? Would it not put the White House in the same situation it's been in, not being able to get congressional support?
PATE: Exactly. I think that's the problem. The White House sees no political will to move forward on gun control in Congress so he is going to do it on his own. And Congress can later ratify what his done. But I think this is at least one way to start the conversation and press it forward.
WHITFIELD: OK. And David, if I could bring you in to this, then, I know you're on the phone with us. But in your view, is this a prelude to more? Is this a small step toward other potential action from this White House?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): This is a prelude to a major showdown at the ballot box. And I think that's also where gun issues will be resolved this November. I think the courts may speak before November. But I don't think they will resolve the issues.
But clearly now, President Obama has the support of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Especially if Hillary is elected you are going to see them follow through and push -- continue pushing the Obama agenda. And you are going to have Republicans like Trump who is already out there and there are others who are saying if we are elected we are going to cancel it.
So ultimately, I think this is actually a good thing. It is going to be left to the voters. Let the people of the United States decide this. It's very contentious. People in rural areas tend to be very opposed to gun control. People who live in large urban areas and live around a lot of violence tend to be very much in favor of it. Let's have our vote. Put it to a vote.
WHITFIELD: And so, Page, if this is to go through, if the executive action is what we understand it to be at this point, based on some of those examples, some that I just gave at the top of the show, it may not have been a preventive measure in any way in keeping the guns out of someone's hands who, you know, has ill intent. But how do you suppose the White House would argue it is -- its implementation would be instructive and important?
[14:10:11] PATE: that's a great question. But I think Obama has addressed that by saying if we can just stop one of these violent incidents with guns then we have done something important. Even though these guns that were used in connection with these other atrocities, these horrible crimes, were purchased legally, if we can stop perhaps the next or the one after that, if we can do anything to at least advance what we believe or at least what the administration believes is too much gun violence, and I think he believes it's worth it.
WHITFIELD: And then David, you know, in terms of the political fight especially in an election year, this method of going after the sellers as opposed to going after the gun owners and buyers, does that change the dialogue in the road for the White House?
GERGEN: I don't know if it changes the dialogue. It certainly sharpens the issue as one of the highest of the campaign. It (INAUDIBLE), as you know. It's national security as well. So voters is going to be paying a lot of attention to it. The election will serve as a referendum. But I also want to emphasize this emphasis on buyers at this point and background checks.
This is only the beginning. Once this happens you're going to see an additional push on assault weapons, how powerful these weapons are. It may be these people who did the shootings have bought guns legally, but should they really have these kinds of guns in the hands of people who have been shooting? I think a lot of Americans would say no. A lot of Americans would say don't mess with guns, stay out of it. So, it's a - I think it is great issue for voters to decide.
WHITFIELD: And then Page, how does the White House win support when you look at some of the more recent occasions? You talk about the San Bernardino shootings and these gun people did not obtain their weapons by way of a gun show or even going to a shop but instead it was handed off to them from an acquaintance, you know, who we now know is facing charges of his own. How might this provision be asserted in that argument or not?
PATE: Well, I think President Obama's trying to start with what he believes is the easiest baby step first. He believes that most Americans support the idea that if you're a prohibitive person already, if you have criminal conviction, if you are convicted of domestic violence. You should not have a gun.
So all this additional background check executive order will do will be to try to prevent those people from getting guns. And I think that motive or at least that initiative does have plenty of political support. WHITFIELD: All right. Page Pate, David Gergen, thanks so much to
both of you. Appreciate it.
GERGEN: Thank you both. WHITFIELD: We'll talk more about that over the next few hours. And
you don't want to miss this live exclusive town hall about guns in America. This Thursday 8:00 p.m. eastern. President Obama will join Anderson Cooper and among other things. He will discuss the executive action on guns that he is expected to announce any day now, we understand, at least before his state of the union address. And the president will be taking questions from a live studio audience. The town hall on guns in America with President Barack Obama moderated by Anderson Cooper right here on this network this Thursday 8:00 p.m. eastern time.
All right. A group of armed protesters break into a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. Their demand in to use the land as free men and they say they are prepared to stay for years. Details on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:16:13] WHITFIELD: Hi. We are following a developing story out of Oregon.
Armed protesters are holed up in an unoccupied federal building in the middle of a government-owned wildlife refuge. They claim to be taking a stand against the federal government's control and use of the land. Their leader, Amman Bundy, is the son of Clivan Bundy. You might remember him, a Nevada cattle rancher known for his dispute with authorities over unpaid grazing fees on federal land.
It all started because two Oregon ranchers are set to go to prison tomorrow for arson. Dwight Hannon and his son Steven say they lit a controlled blaze to try to protect their property from wildfires. But authorities say they did it to cover up poaching.
CNN's Polo Sandoval is following the story for us.
So Polo, the Hammond family says they actually don't even want help from the Bundys who have become the occupiers of that federal refuge building. So what's going on?
POLO SANDOVAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. Especially a Bundy son here, Fred. And of course, we have to be very clear that there seems to be two groups of supporters for the Hammonds that appear to be at odds here.
Mainly after you read a short but very clear statement that was released by the Hammond family to the hardy county sheriff. In fact, I do want to read again just a bit - the very short one which actually reads quote "neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group or organization speak for the Hammond family." They have been very short there but it seems on very clear here.
We have to look back to what happened yesterday. There was a group of supporters that had come together rallying behind the Hammonds, this father/son ranching duo that scheduled to turn themselves in to federal authorities tomorrow, convicted of a 2001 arson. Now, at this point we do understand that during that -- actual peaceful demonstration there were a group of supporters that essentially split off and made their way to that federal wildlife preserve, some of them were actually armed. And again, they do maintain that they are not going anywhere until their grievances are addressed. In this case, they maintain that the government simply owns - rather that they're addressing this conflict between ranchers and the federal government, the use of property as well. And of course what we expect tomorrow that key development which that father/son duo will be turning themselves in.
So it is a very complex case here, Fred. You have to look back all the way back to 2001 when the Hammonds were convicted of -- especially the son was convicted of setting fire to about 130 acres of federal land. This was property that they were leasing from the government for grazing. However, prosecutors maintain that they actually set fire to that land to cover up suspected poaching. And now the family of the Hammonds, supporters of the Hammonds are now coming together saying that a five-year sentence is too hefty. But you look at the books and what the law requires, and arson on federal property, Fred, does call for that five-year prison sentence. So you have a lot of disagreements that are now leading to some tense moments for the people in this community that's about a five-hour drive southeast of Portland.
WHITFIELD: All right, Polo Sandoval, thank you so much. Keep us posted on any new developments.
Let's talk more about the legal ramifications of this story. Jonathan Gilliam joins me from New York. He is a CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI special agent. Good to see you, Jonathan.
JONATHAN GILLIAM, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Good to be back.
WHITFIELD: The occupiers, if we can call them that, say they are ready to stay for weeks, possibly even years. How do you suppose they would manage that in this federal building?
GILLIAM: I'm sure they have, you know, these are individuals who prepared themselves for the long haul. I don't think that this is something they just reacted to and showed up. So they probably have lots of meals ready to eat, which are, you know, it is food that they can store over long periods of time and water. I mean, these different groups of people and the people that are showing up to this are people that plan on these things to happen. So they are prepared for it fully.
[14:20:12] WHITFIELD: And these occupiers, they say they will do whatever they have to do in order to make their point. One of them was interviewed by our Victor Blackwell this morning and he wouldn't necessary acknowledge that they had weaponry, but he did say that if force was used against them they would do whatever it takes to defend themselves.
So from a law enforcement approach, knowing there's that kind of language already being, you know, broadcast, what is the approach by federal authorities? Is this an issue of waiting it out and hoping that they just tire of the situation? Or would there be a more tactical approach into forcibly removing them? GILLIAM: There's no reason for a tactical approach, Fred. I mean,
look, the reason we're in this situation right now is because there's a lack of dialogue. Setting aside the thing that I can't understand with this legal process of having these individuals, the Hammonds, serve a period of time in jail, releasing them and then saying you need to serve more time, you know, I'm not an attorney, but that sounds like double jeopardy to me. And so we'll set that aside.
What I see now is the problem besides that is the fact that you have these different militia groups who have agendas. And, you know, some of them rightfully so. But they are choosing a location to go and set up and take a stand on these things. Meanwhile, you have federal agents or federal judges that are also taking a stand on this. And there's no dialogue in between these people. I mean, when I heard that interview this morning with the junior Bundy --
WHITFIELD: Ammon Bundy.
GILLIAM: Ammon Bundy, I couldn't make heads or tails of what he was thinking or what was going on.
WHITFIELD: OK. Well, actually, let me stop you right there because it gives people an opportunity to perhaps hear for themselves. And this is a little of that interview from this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMMON BUNDY, LEAGUE OF ARMED PROCESS: You know, everything we live, everything we wear, all the amenities that we have come from the land. And all wealth is generated from the land. And so, if America wants to prosper, they have to be able to have access to the lands and resources and government has to stop claiming these things and taking them from the people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right. So that's a taste of some of what he was saying this morning. And I mean, your interpretation of what he was just expressing?
GILLIAM: You know, it's too vague. The rest of that interview, Fred, he is too vague on what their stance really is, what their posture is. If they want support for their movement, they need to be -- and this is always my biggest complaint when it comes to anybody protesting anything. If you show up, you need to make known what your protest is, you need to make known what your solutions for that protest is. Don't just show up somewhere, occupy an area and be mum. It doesn't do anybody any good. And it certainly doesn't do their movement any good.
And on the other hand, federal authorities, there's no reason for them to rush in on this. They should be trying to set up dialogue. And the federal authorities, I'm not just talking about the agents, but the judges and the court system and whoever manages these lands, you know you have a problem. These problems have been going on for a long time between ranchers and the federal government. Somebody needs to come to a conclusion and sit down and have a dialogue. So we don't have to get to this situation. This is a failure completely amongst the people and the government to come together and solve these problems.
WHITFIELD: All right, Jonathan Gilliam, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
GILLIAM: You got it, Fred.
WHITFIELD: All right. Straight ahead, violent protests against one of the most important allies in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia. And why Iran says it is expecting quote "divine revenge."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:26:39] WHITFIELD: A fire storm of protests against Saudi Arabia.
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)
WHITFIELD: That's the Saudi embassy in Iran. Protesters angry after the Saudi executed 47 people accused of terrorism. Also executed a prominent Shiite cleric known for being critical of the Royal family in Saudi Arabia.
Iranian leaders say the execution of the cleric will cause quote "divine revenge for Saudi politicians." Protests also popping up in places from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain and India.
Senior international correspondent Fredrik Pleitgen joining me now from London.
So, why all this fallout from the death, the execution of this cleric?
FRED PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this certainly is a very prominent cleric and certainly someone whose execution caused a lot of genuine public anger there in Iran. However, there were also the flames being stoked somewhat, especially as this protest gathered, Fredricka, in front of the Iranian embassy, and at some point those protesters actually went into the embassy, ransacked the place, and then set the place on fire.
Now, the Iranian government, especially the moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, is trying to conduct a little bit of damage control. He said today that he believed that storming the embassy was the wrong thing to do. The Iranians have already announced that they have arrested some 40 people in relation to that.
However, he also heavily criticize Saudi Arabia for executing the cleric. And certainly, if you look across the board, Iranian politician, the Iranian public very angry at about what happened. And of course, this is something that could cause reverberations around the entire Middle East. You've shown some of the places where we've seen these protests. We have the conflict going on in Yemen that pits Saudi Arabia and Iran against one another. Yet, the conflict in Syria, the situation in Iraq, so certainly this kind of anger is something that could deepen that divide. WHITFIELD: And then, Fredrik, Saudi Arabia is one of America's
closest allies in the region. So what is the U.S. to do in terms of reaction?
PLEITGEN: Well, the U.S. has come out and said it was very concerned about the executions taking place, didn't specifically make reference to the executions of (INAUDIBLE), but certainly they will try and ease the tensions somewhat.
One of the things, one of the big achievements, of course, especially secretary of state Kerry over the past years has in the Syrian crisis has been actually bringing the Saudis and the Iranians into the same room to try and find some sort of solution. If that momentum is continue, they are going to have to at least try and speak to both sides and try and ease the tensions over all of this.
So those are very, very important negotiations. There are some new channels, at least indirect ones, between the U.S. and Iran to try and ease all this. But certainly it will be a tall task. And it certainly isn't a very promising start to the year there in the Middle East.
WHITFIELD: All right. Fredrik Pleitgen, thank you so much. Appreciate that.
President Barack Obama getting ready to take executive action on guns in America. And there is strong reaction on the campaign trail today with some candidates calling it el legal. Their responses next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:32:54] WHITFIELD: All Right, welcome back. Let's get back to our big story this hour.
President Barack Obama soon to unveil an executive action that expands background checks during gun purchases. Several GOP candidates are already saying if it happens they would repeal it if elected.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CARLY FIORINA (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: President Obama has been lawless in his use of executive orders. I think we need to enforce the laws we have, and we are not doing so. And what that means, because we're not enforcing the laws we have, we have people like Dylan Roof in South Carolina who never should have been sold a gun, and we have loads of criminals running around with guns and perpetrating violence with those guns and we're not prosecuting them.
MARCO: I'm going to get to the oval office and I'm going to walk behind that door, sit behind that desk, and immediately repeal every single one of Barack Obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive orders. All these executive orders are going to come out with tomorrow and undermine our second amendment rights. On my first day in office, they are done.
BUSH: We're a bottom-up country. We are not a top-down country. And he doesn't have the authority to do this anyway. If it is such a great idea, let him go to Congress. My belief is the best approach to this is have these laws be thoroughly vetted at the state level.
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This president is a petulant trial. Whenever he can't get what he wants because quite frankly the American people have rejected his agenda by turning both the house and the Senate over to the Republicans and going from 21 governors when he came into office to 31 Republican governors now, now this president wants to act as if he's a king, as if he is a dictator. The fact is if he wants to make changes to these laws, go to Congress and convince the Congress that they are necessary.
TRUMP: Well, I don't like it. I don't like anything having to do with changing our second amendment. We have plenty of rules and regulations. There's plenty of things that they can do right now that are already there. They don't do them. We have a tremendous mental health problem. We're closing places all over the world, all over the country they are closing. Nobody's doing anything about that. All they want to do is blame the guns. It's not the gun that pulls the trigger.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WHITFIELD: All right. Let's get our political panel to weigh in now. Republican strategist Brian Morgenstern and Democratic columnist and co-author of "the Party is Over," Ellis Henican joining us from New York.
Good to see both of you. Happy New Year.
[14:35:05] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happy New Year.
WHITFIELD: OK. So Brian, you first. You just heard Donald Trump saying he doesn't like anything having to do with, you know, changing the second amendment. You heard Carly Fiorina say, you know, enforce the rules and laws that are already there. And then Rubio who says he plans to repeal everything that he believes is unconstitutional or illegal. So what's at issue here? The White House is going to be meeting, the president meeting with the attorney general tomorrow clearly to see what would be legal and constitutional. Is that where the argument will have to go with his use of executive action?
BRIAN MORGENSTERN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It certainly will because it's piled. You know, one action on top of another on top of another. And we saw that with the amnesty program it was struck down in federal court. And so, this is just one piece of I think a larger narrative that the Republicans will use to get back to, you know, a strict constructionist constitutional government that President Obama has gotten away from. So that's certainly one of the points of attack.
But another one is that this is ostensibly in response to mass shootings and yet no background check would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings. You know, background checks are great, but something like over 80 percent of crimes committed with guns are with illegally obtained guns through the black market, you know, or just gifted or stolen or in some other way where there's no documented transfer to check. So, you know, the policy argument of course with the constitution, but there's also the practical reality of it.
WHITFIELD: And so, Ellis, the White House will argue it has tried or if it's tried to, you know, work with Congress, he hasn't been able to make much of a dent as it pertains to this area. So that's what executive action is all about. You resort to that when you have to. Is that going to be a reasonable argument enough?
ELLIS HENICAN, DEMOCRATIC COLUMNIST: Boy, I wish Brian could convince his fellow Republicans background checks are a good idea because the vast majority of Americans want them.
The key word here is tripartite, right. We have a government that has three branches and each one of them has some powers including the president. He has got some powers to do some things and this president is saying, hey, before I get out of here, I'm going to use that power for the sake trying to curb gun violence. Most Americans support it and I suspect the courts are going to let it stand.
WHITFIELD: All right. Let's listen to the Democrats. They too were taken to the airwaves today and being about it. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I'm especially concerned because I know what a Republican president would mean. I know that Republican president would delight in the very first day reversing executive orders that President Obama has made including one that we expect him to make in the next weeks to try to do more, to have background checks for more gun buyers by requiring more sellers to do them.
SANDERS: I would prefer that we could have bipartisan support, but the truth is Republicans are not interested in doing anything about gun safety. I think the vast majority of the American people are horrified by the mass shootings that we have seen. They want action. Overwhelming consensus understands that people who are criminals, people who have mental issues should not be owning guns or buying guns. And what the president is trying to do now is to expand the instant background check by closing the gun show loophole. And I think he is doing what the American people would like him to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right. So, Brian, for the Democrats, will this executive order be a bane or a bonus in their, you know, launch for the White House?
MORGENSTERN: Well, the Democrats love gun control. They love background checks. And Republicans can diminish the expectations in terms of how much effect this will have. Republicans can say it's unconstitutional and I think they are right on both counts. But democratic voters just are in love with gun control, background checks and making it harder to get guns.
So this is politically very good for Hillary and Bernie. They can be supportive of the president on this policy and they can, you know, perhaps both, you know, gain some ground in their own primary field.
I think in the general election, though, obviously 300 million guns in this country. You know, the second amendment is a cultural institution just as it is a constitutional one. And so, in the general election I think that this is a loser for the Democrats and will be --
HENICAN: Boy.
WHITFIELD: Ellis?
HENICAN: It's a 75 percent issue. Anytime you can get something that 75 percent of the American people want you to agree with, you might argue the policy, but let me tell you, it is excellent politics. I wish I could find three or four more of them. It would certainly make November a whole lot easier.
WHITFIELD: All right, Ellis. Brian, thank you so much, gentlemen. Appreciate it.
(CROSSTALK)
[14:40:01] WHITFIELD: OK. Well, the presidential candidates weigh in on Obama's executive order, ordinary Americans are also talking. CNN visited a gun show this weekend in Virginia and asked people about requiring all gun sellers to be licensed, which means every gun purchase would require a background check.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNETTE ELLIOTT, OWNER/PROMOTER, NATION'S GUN SHOW: I think it's reasonable to have background checks. And I think that, you know -- I don't think that you should do away with all background checks, but I don't think trying to enforce background checks on (INAUDIBLE). I think we will end up making a list they have been trying to get more decades and that's so they can confiscate our firearms. I don't think that's to protect. In every country they've done it before. History has proven that they have gone and confiscated firearms.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like a driver's license, there should have the gun license. There's no reason why I shouldn't be an option or on the table.
DOUGLAS COCHRAN, ATTENDING GUN SHOW: I believe people are doing on one side of ignorance based on a fear and again a lack of perception about how dangerous firearms really are in the American community to the individual American citizen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: On Thursday more Americans will get to ask President Obama directly about guns in this country. It's all about of CNN's exclusive live town hall hosted by Anderson Cooper. Be sure to watch Thursday 8:00 p.m. eastern time.
Also coming up, he said/she said. Bill Cosby is in the middle of several heated legal battles. What will his wife say now that a judge has ordered her to testify this week? Details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:44:50] WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back. I'm Fredricka Whitfield.
This week Camille Cosby is expected to be deposed in a defamation case involving her husband, Bill Cosby. The iconic TV dad is involved in a civil suit in Massachusetts where seven women are suing for defamation after Cosby essentially called them liars when he denied their sexual assault allegation. So he is countersuing now as well and he is also involved in a criminal case out of Pennsylvania.
So we're talking about three different cases here. Pennsylvania, one woman claims Cosby drugged and assaulted her. But let's now focus on the civil suit against Cosby, the defamation case in Massachusetts, where his wife of nearly 52 years is now the center of attention. A judge has ordered Camille to answer questions from the attorneys for the seven accusers. Many people are wondering what she'll say or what she won't say.
I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Phillip Holloway.
All right. Good to see you. We know the judge has ordered Camille Cosby to be deposed, but that essentially means she has to show up. But does she have to answer questions?
[14:45:55] PHILLIP HOLLOWAY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, that is the $64,000 question. What will she do, Fredricka? The judge is correct. She does have to appear. The difference is because this is a civil case versus a criminal trial or even a trial in the civil case because this is the discovery phase of the civil case. And a deposition is lawful and it's proper if its purpose is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
Now, while it is true that any communications made between she and her spouse might not be admissible at a trial under what we call the marital communications privilege, that still doesn't mean that she can't be asked about things, because keep in mind, and the judge noted this in his order, Fred. She was not only his spouse but she was his business partner. Correct.
And so the question is, were these communications marital or were they business? Were they private or were they part of their business relationship? So all of these things sort of wrapped up into one explain why the judge has ordered her to at least attend the deposition.
WHITFIELD: Interesting. OK. So the argument will be made from her counsel likely of that marital privilege that, you know, their relations are intertwined, it would be difficult as a spouse to try to testify or be deposed against your husband. However, because those objections might be made, during that deposition would there be a ruling, you know, so that she would have to answer something that perhaps she wouldn't be comfortable answering? HOLLOWAY: In civil depositions in these cases, objections are always
raised and it might be on matters of privilege, it might be on other evidentiary grounds. And it might require them to say, look, we're not going to answer this question until we get a ruling from the judge. And they can take that issue to the judge and say, judge, we want you to order her to answer this specific question. And the judge may have to make a ruling on that individual question.
But the judge made a very important distinction, Fred. He said, look, this is a civil deposition. This is not the same thing as trial testimony. And if she happens to say something that is not necessarily admissible at trial, it is still proper in the context of a civil deposition because it could lead them to admissible evidence.
WHITFIELD: And there are some who argue that all cases can be intertwined. Yes, we are talking about the Pennsylvania sexual assault case. We are going to talk about that again when you return next hour. But what she says and how she answers questions, she has to in her mind know that what she delivers could be used in other cases potentially.
HOLLOWAY: That's entirely possible of what she says in this deposition. The questions, if she becomes a witness, for example, in any trial, whether it be the civil trial or the criminal trial, if she says something in these depositions, even though it might not ordinarily be admissible, and if she changes her story and says something different at trial, her word can be brought directly into the trial to impeach her testimony. That is to call into question her credibility by showing that she may have said something that was inconsistent in testimony during a prior occasion.
WHITFIELD: How much could that 2005 deposition that was unsealed, that of Bill Cosby, that was unsealed and seemed to now accelerate this case in Massachusetts and certainly reopen the door for the Pennsylvania case? But is it possible that during the deposition of Camille Cosby that would be brought into the equation to see if she could corroborate anything that he's already on record said?
HOLLOWAY: The short answer is yes. And the judge addressed that in his ruling ordering her to testify. Basically part of Camille Cosby or the Cosby team collectively, their argument was anything that may come up is going to be sort of cumulative. It is going to be in addition to what we already know from his other depositions. But the judge said, wait a minute, he hasn't been deposed, at least not in this case. So we don't know whether or not her words or her testimony is going to be cumulative to things that you already know. There could be lots more information that she could provide that Bill Cosby has not yet provided, Fredricka, in the context of hi police statements or his depositions in other civil cases.
WHITFIELD: It will be interesting because I would imagine these seven accusers, they are saying that he called them liars and they detailed certain things that were very similar to his account, right, in his deposition. So it would seem that that would bode well for their case. [14:50:06] HOLLOWAY: It does. That's exactly the reason why they're
going to get into all this, is because the revelations that came out of the 2005 deposition bolster their claims at least in their lawyers' arguments that, look, we are telling the truth when we accused him. And that's the essence of defamation, is did somebody say something untruthful about you that damages your reputation. So they are saying that there is absolutely bolsters their claims that Bill Cosby defamed them by effectively calling them liars by the man they (INAUDIBLE).
WHITFIELD: All Right. We are going to have you back because we are going to talk about the criminal case. So again, for people who might be listen -- there are three cases here. You have two civil cases, you got the defamation suit filed by these seven accusers, you have his countersuit, and then when you come back we are going to talk about the Andrea Constand criminal case in Pennsylvania.
HOLLOWAY: Look forward to it.
WHITFIELD: OK. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.
All right. Straight ahead, Israeli security forces are still searching for an accused gunman. What we are now learning about the man accused of killing two people and a plea coming from a relative next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:54:07] WHITFIELD: A manhunt continues in Tel Aviv for a gunman accused of killing two people. And now the man's father is speaking out to CNN. He is urging the 31-year-old Nasha'at Melhem to turn himself in. The deadly attack last week was captured on surveillance video.
CNN's Ian Lee spoke with the father and has the latest from Jerusalem.
IAN LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Fredricka, it's been over 48 hours and the gunman in the Tel Aviv shooting is still at large. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed the government's efforts and the scale of the operation to track him down at his weekly cabinet meeting.
But we are also getting a better profile of the suspect. Arab Israeli Nasha'at Melhem, I traveled to his village in (INAUDIBLE) to speak with his family. It was his father who initially called police about the 31-year-old after recognizing him from security footage and finding a gun missing from his home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[14:55:03] AHMED MELHEM, UNCLE OF SUSPECTED SHOOTER (through translator): My son, I heard he was in Tel Aviv and did what he did. I did not raise him in this manner and I am sorry for what he did. When I found out of the incident, I personally on my own arrived to the police station and assisted all security bodies with all directions. First of all, I thank you and secondly, I wish all wounded to get well and I send my condolences to everyone whether a Jew or an Arab.
LEE (voice-over): The family describes Nasha'at as a troubled man who was depressed and suffered from a psychological disorder. He was arrested in 2007 and served five years after trying to steal a gun from a soldier. Around that time, he was diagnosed and put on medication. While the police consider him armed and dangerous, the family hopes he can be captured alive.
MELHEM (through translator): He is suffering from a mental disorder and we are worried a civilian in Tel Aviv might find him, shoot him, and kill him. Our second concern is that he might hurt himself. We urge him to turn himself in for his own safety.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEE: Some residents of Tel Aviv kept their children home from school today as this manhunt continues. The police, though, still insist it's safe to go about their normal live but are urging residents to be more vigilant and report suspicious activity - Fredricka.
WHITFIELD: All right. Thank you so much, Ian Lee in Jerusalem.
All right, coming up, armed protesters have taken over federal building in the Oregon wilderness and they are calling on Americans to take a stand for their land. Details from that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:59:36] WHITFIELD: Hello, everyone. And thanks so much for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. We begin with a developing story in Oregon. Armed occupiers are hole up in an unoccupied federal building in the middle of a government-owned wildlife refuge. It claimed to be taking a stand against the federal government's control in use of the land. It all started because two Oregon ranchers are set to go to prison tomorrow for arson.
CNN's Polo Sandoval is following the story for us.
So Polo, who are these occupiers, and what do they hope to accomplish?
SANDOVAL: Well, Fred, they call themselves at this point (INAUDIBLE), patriots, constitutionalists, and --
END
