Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Obama to Meet with Lynch on Gun Reform Options; Saudi Arabia Cutting Ties with Iran; Armed Protestors Occupying Federal Land; Camille Cosby Scheduled To Answer Questions In Defamation Case Against Bill Cosby; Investigation Of Chicago Airports Reveals Some Surprises. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 03, 2016 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:04] FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: All right, the next hour of CNN NEWSROOM begins right now.

All right. Hello again, everyone, and thanks so much for joining me, I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Vacation over. President Barack Obama arriving back in Washington this afternoon. He'll begin his 2016 agenda tackling the, quote, "unfinished business of his presidency," the epidemic of gun violence.

Monday, he plans to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss his options and expanding background checks for gun sales. 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 joining us now. So, Chris, the timing of this town hall really should be noted, quite significant.

CHRIS FRATES, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right, Fred, because 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 VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A few months ago I directed my team at the White House to look at any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence. And on Monday, I'll 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRATES: Sources say President Obama is expected to announce new executive action soon, expanding background checks on gun sales, aimed at closing the so-called "gun show loophole," which allows some gun sellers to avoid conducting a background check. 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.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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 unsign that so fast, so fast.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R-FL) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All these executive orders he's going to come out with tomorrow that are going to undermine our Second Amendment rights, on my first day in office, they're gone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FRATES: And Jeb Bush argued that there was no need to expand background checks because ==

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. GOV. JEB BUSH, (R-FL) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The so-called "Gun Show Loophole," which is what I think he's talking about, doesn't exist. People that want to sell random -- you know, occasionally sell guns ought to have the right to do so without being impaired by the federal government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNIE SANDERS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What 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 VIDEO CLIP)

FRATES: Now measuring Americans' attitudes on gun control 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, say they support requiring background checks for all gun buyers. Fred?

WHITFIELD: All right, Chris Frates, thank you so much.

So this has been one of the most critical issues in Obama's presidency. He has made at least 12 public speeches in the aftermath of mass shootings, oftentimes calling on Congress to take action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: And we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world. And there's 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've 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 we'll 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 heart broken by what's happened and I offered the thoughts and prayers not only myself and Michelle, but also 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.

[16:05:10] 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 Fort 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'm confident that the outpouring of unity and strength and fellowship and love across Charleston 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'm going to say that we can actually do something about it, but we're going to have to change our laws.

(END VIDEO CLIP) WHITFIELD: So sources tell CNN that President Obama's executive action is expected to be announced ahead of his state of the union address, which is January 12th. And we don't know the exact date or the exact language yet. 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 and therefore, doesn't require them to conduct background checks.

Additionally, sources also say his plan will include new funding for government agencies to better enforce existing gun laws. It is likely that the mass shootings during Obama's presidency did influence this kind of executive action, but the vast majority of guns used in recent mass shootings, San Bernardino; Charleston, South Carolina; Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado, Tucson, Arizona where all of those weapons were bought legally through a licensed dealer, which included a federal background check.

So let's talk about this with CNN political commentators, Van Jones and Ben Ferguson.

Good to see both of you all. Happy New Year.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Happy New Year.

WHITFIELD: All right, Van, to you first, you know, the president is using executive order. Is this a sign of his frustration that he's been unable to work with Congress to get something else done? How is it being interpreted that he is flexing his muscle this way?

JONES: Well, first of all, I just wanted to say, I am happy, happy, happy and very, very proud of this president. I mean, that was just heartbreaking. You look at -- I mean, he starts off, he's looking like Tiger Woods, by the end, he looks like Morgan Freeman, seven years, almost eight years, the president has been begging the country to take action.

There is a circle that's what's allowable to our constitution, a circle of what is required by conscience. In the middle is where you find executive orders.

This president is doing what I think Americans want to be done. 80 plus percent of Americans want something to be done. So I'm very happy. I'm very proud to see him doing this. It's just so heartbreaking. We've had too many funerals, too much terrorist violence with guns, too much street violence with guns. Somebody has to do something. And he's acting within his authority to do what he can.

WHITFIELD: So, on that note, whether this is the response that Americans have been looking for, you know, Ben, we have this ORC poll from last month saying 62 percent of pollsters say they disapprove of how Obama is handling gun policies in the U.S.

So, is this a response that might move the needle? If this is the kind of response action that those who were polled were saying they want to see from the president.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think so. And I think this -- the big issue is this is a false sense of security and help. He is pushing this, what he's claiming that somehow it's going to keep us safe from, his actions of all those speeches that you just played before Van and I came on here.

But the reality is not one of those shootings would have been stopped with anything the president's going to do through this executive action. This is a bait and switch. This is about his legacy.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Does that preclude the effort, then, to do something in some other way?

FERGUSON: There's people that want things done when it comes to mental health, when it comes to saying that if you're committed against your will by a court that you shouldn't be able to get your hands on a gun for a period of time. The president is not doing any of those things.

And, again, if the president of the United States of America would have done this seven years ago, when he became president of the United States of America, not one of these shootings would have been stopped because of this executive action.

This is a false sense of security. This is pushing gun control, not actually going to deal with the problem, which is mental health, where there is a common ground on this. And so he can walk out there and he can say all of these happen -- all these things that happened during his presidency have inspired him, but you're not dealing with the problem at all and none of these would have been stopped.

[16:10:10] WHITFIELD: So then, Van, how do you respond to that that there isn't a connection in enough of the mass shootings and the gun show loopholes?

JONES: Sure. The problem is that when we focus only on the mass shootings, we forget that there are shootings every day. There -- we have funerals in this country every single day of people dying because of gun violence. And what we don't know is what is the relationship between some of those killings and some of these things.

Here's a reality. What we know is, in countries where they have tougher gun laws, in countries where they have better regulations, they have fewer killings.

And so the president can't do everything, but he can do something. I think most people in the country are going to be happy to see him take some action. This is purely constitutional.

And, by the way, a lot of conservatives say he's trying to be a dictator. He's actually had fewer executive actions than Bill Clinton, fewer executive orders than W., fewer executive actions than Reagan by far. This is not being a dictator. It's being a responsible president using the power he's got.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: I would say this, the president -- this is the difference between what he's talking about Bill Clinton and George Bush. When they did executive actions, it was on much smaller issues. The president is now making law through executive action when Congress decides and people that send Congress to Washington decide they don't want something done.

There's a completely different scenario here. You have a president that is going to try to make law coming up this week because he says Washington won't act. Well, the people that voted Congress into Washington and they are listening to people and they decide not to act, that is also their job to not make new laws if the people don't want them. And yet the president is taking executive actions to hold --

JONES: This is not new law.

FERGUSON: Yes, it's an absolute new law.

JONES: These are not new laws. I went to law school. Regulations are fully constitutional. And, unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how our government works.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Well, you know --

FERGUSON: Well, I think there's going to be a lot of people that are going to challenge this legally. And I think that's one of the main things you're going to see.

WHITFIELD: And if the argument ends up being that the president is using executive order and he is ramming through an agenda that is not a reflection of America, what is the best argument to make in which an executive order would be used, Van?

JONES: Well, listen, executive orders can be good or bad. You can agree with them. You can not agree with them. But these are fully constitutional within his authority to do.

And the other thing, I think, you want to be clear about is, this does ramp up, and I think Ben will agree with me on this, it does ramp up the stakes for 2016.

In other words, you have some Republicans say, this is the kind of stuff we don't like. We don't want. You're going to have Democrats rallying around the president saying we should do this and do more. And that will then say, listen, if you want to keep these few steps the president has made in place, in place, you've got to get out and vote. If you want to get rid of them, you've got to get out and vote. So this does ramp up the stakes for both sides for 2016.

WHITFIELD: And Ben, last word. FERGUSON: Yes. There's no doubt about that. I think this is going to be a center point of this election especially with these executive actions. And I think you're going to hear Republicans say, not only will they rescind these but also they're going to say name one of these mass shootings that would have been stopped by this executive action, if it would have been in placed six, seven years ago, and the answer is not one of the mass shootings in this country would have been stopped that the president cannot talked about with these executive actions.

This is nothing, but gun control doing it under this banner of I'm going to stop mass shootings and it would not have fixed it.

WHITFIELD: All right. We'll leave it right there. Ben Ferguson, Van Jones, good to see you, gentlemen. Thanks so much.

FERGUSON: Thanks. Happy New Year.

WHITFIELD: All right, Happy New Year.

And don't miss the live exclusive town hall about guns in America this Thursday, 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. President Obama will join Anderson Cooper to discuss the executive action that he is expected to announce at any day now. And the president will take questions from a live studio audience. That's Thursday, 8:00 p.m. right here on CNN.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE ANNOUNCER: This is CNN "Breaking News."

WHITFIELD: And this breaking news out of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia says it is cutting all ties with Iran and is giving Iranian diplomats 48 hours to leave the country. This follows a firestorm of protests against Saudi Arabia.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PROTESTORS SHOUTING

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Angry demonstrators storming the Saudi embassy in Iran. Protesters are furious that the Saudis executed 47 people accused of terrorism. And among those executed, a prominent Shiite cleric, Nimr al-Nimr.

The Iranian leader says the execution will cause, quote, "Divine revenge for Saudi politicians."

And armed protesters have taken over a federal building in the Oregon wilderness. And they're calling on Americans to take a stand for their land. Details next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:17:31] WHITFIELD: All right. More now on this breaking news out of the Middle East and Saudi Arabia saying it's cutting ties with Iran. Iranian diplomats now have 48 hours to get out of the country. This follows a firestorm of protests against Saudi Arabia after the Saudis executed 47 people accused of terrorism and among those executed a prominent Shiite cleric, Nimr al-Nimr. The Saudi diplomats are already being evacuated from Iran after the embassy was stormed.

Senior international correspondent Frederik Pleitgen joining me now with more on what you know.

Frederik, this is a very delicate situation.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, delicate situation and certainly a very surprising twist in all of this that was going on since late Saturday. And the Saudis today coming out and announcing, as you said, that there's severing all ties, accusing Iran of undermining Saudi Arabia's security.

It was the Saudi foreign minister who came out and said that Saudi Arabia, quote, would not allow Iran to undermine Saudi Arabia security. Of course, they are speaking about that incident that we're seeing on our screens right now, where protesters in Iran stormed into the Saudi embassy in Tehran late Saturday night.

They are setting some rooms on fire. The Saudis say that they had asked the Iranians to protect that embassy, they claim, but that did not happen. The Iranians, for their part, today, at least to a certain extent in damage control mode, when the President Hassan Rouhani, while condemning the killing of the Shiite cleric, did come out and say that storming the embassy was wrong, that the Iranians were going to find the perpetrators. 40 people have already been arrested, but clearly that has not been enough to calm down the mood in Saudi Arabia.

WHITFIELD: And then what does this do about relations with nations that are close to Saudi Arabia like the United States of America and, at the same time, having their own deals and other relations with Iran?

PLEITGEN: Well, you know, it puts the U.S. in a huge bind. The U.S., for a very long time, has been trying to balance the Iranians and the Saudis. The Saudis, of course, as you pointed out, is one of America's most longstanding and one of the most important allies in the Middle East.

The Saudis, in recent months, recent years, have not been very happy with U.S. foreign policy especially as the U.S. and Iran were inching closer towards a nuclear deal. That was something that the Saudis were always very skeptical of. However, one of the biggest accomplishments in diplomacy especially for Secretary of State Kerry was actually getting the Saudis and the Iranians into one room to speak about the future of Syria.

[16:20:00] They're both at opposite ends of that conflict accusing each other of meddling in that conflict and getting them into the room for something that many people saw as a prerequisite for trying to solve that crisis.

All of that is going to become more difficult and the big question now is, Fredricka, what are the allies of these two countries going to do next? What's the United Arab Emirates going to do? What's going to happen in Bahrain? What's going to happen in Iraq for instance? Lebanon?

There's a lot of very fragile states that could suffer from worse relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

WHITFIELD: All right. Frederik Pleitgen, thank you so much from London.

All right. Still ahead, armed demonstrators have taken over a federal building in the Oregon wilderness and they're calling on Americans to take a stand for their land.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: A developing story in Oregon, armed protesters are holed up in an unoccupied federal building in the middle of the government- owned wildlife refuge. They claim to be taking a stand against the federal government's control and 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 people who are doing this?

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Fred, they call themselves patriots, constitutionalists and some referring to themselves as militia members. And at this point, they claim that they are trying to support the Hammond Family, that you just mentioned, Fred.

But also at the heart of this issue, what really is a larger one here, this building conflict between the government and some ranchers, they're calling into question the use of some public land.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANDOVAL (voice-over): They're armed and staying put. A group of protesters broke into an unoccupied building at an Oregon Federal Wildlife Refuge Saturday. They claim to be taking a stand against the federal government's control and use of the land, the armed occupation broke off from a peaceful rally earlier in the day to support Dwight and Steven Hammond. They're a father and son ranching duo expected to report to prison Monday.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is my decision, obviously. It's a sentence.

SANDOVAL: Hammond and his son were convicted of arson, setting at least 130 acres of federal land on fire. The Hammonds maintain it was a controlled blaze that accidentally got out of hand. Prosecutors, however, argue the flames were meant to cover up poaching.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It sort of frightening when there's people making threats and people touting guns.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People are afraid.

SANDOVAL: Among the arm protestors, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. He was at the center of a similar standoff with the federal government last year over grazing fees.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is not a time to stand down. It is a time to stand up.

SANDOVAL: The younger Bundy called on militia groups to descend on Harney County and demand the government restore, quote, "The people's constitutional rights, part of a vague and vocal anti-government message."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The people have been abused long enough. Their lands and their resources have been taken from them to the point where it's putting them literally in poverty.

SANDOVAL: The Hammonds, however, are distancing themselves from this latest face-off. Their attorney communicating in a short, but clear statement, to the county sheriff's office says, "Neither Evan Bundy or anyone within this group or organization speaks for the Hammond Family."

Those who are protesters, however, say their demonstration is peaceful, but if provoked, they will defend themselves.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANDOVAL: The Hammond Family, they are making it very clear, they do not agree with this armed occupation of this federal building, Fred.

Now, tomorrow, they are expected to at least the Hammond, both father and son, are expected to turn themselves into federal authorities to begin serving a five-year sentence. The reason why it's so long, Fred, is because by federal law, any arson on federal property requires a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and that's really what's sort of reignited this conversation. It's sort of an older issue that's now being discussed yet again.

WHITFIELD: All right, Polo Sandoval, thank you so much.

Let's bring in Matthew Fogg here. He's a retired chief deputy U.S. Marshall, and joining me now from Washington. Good to see you. Happy New Year.

All right. So, the leader of these occupiers, Ammon Bundy, said they are prepared to stay in the building for weeks, even possibly years.

How do you see this playing out?

MATTHEW FOGG, CHIEF DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL (RET.): Well, I see it playing as a very dangerous situation when you've got people with armed weapons such as what I've seen with these folks are carrying, A.R. 15s, long guns, Gloc 9 mm, flat vest and so forth.

And a lot of these people are, when you talk about militia, a lot of this people are prior law enforcement or had law enforcement training. So you're talking about a serious situation here. And when we look at -- I've been involved as U.S. Marshal, I remember Ruby Ridge, and I remember the stand off. When you're talking about (INAUDIBLE) --

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: Waco.

FOGG: And Waco, of course.

The bottom line is you just don't know. When people are carrying guns and they're talking about hunkering down and that they will take action, then you have to believe them.

WHITFIELD: OK. So earlier I spoke with our justice correspondent Evan Perez, and this is what he said about some of the law enforcement reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: The FBI, which has jurisdiction, because this is a federal building that has been taken over by an armed group, they're taking -- keeping a very low profile on this. And it's a very unusual situation obviously.

They seem to be wanting to lower the temperature. They don't want to make a confrontation, which is what this group appears to want. They seem to want some kind of confrontation that perhaps will draw even more support from the wider militia movement.

It's important to note that even members of the militia groups around the country, a lot of them seem to be distancing themselves, they're not quite sure that this is right way to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: To Matthew Fogg, back with us. You see that kind of caution that Evan Perez is, is talking about, is in direct contact with what you are talking with Ruby Ridge and Waco and federal authorities not wanting a repeat situation like that.

FOGG: Well, again, but we have to do our jobs. And you can also be sending a message the other way. That once these groups understand that they can stand up against law enforcement and people will back off, then they will continue to move forward. So this is serious.

They have actually seized, then taken over federal property with guns. That would almost fall under The Patriot Act when you're talking about the type of instigation, what it means here.

I understand, we have tried to low key these things. We did it on a gun battle, but I'm just telling you, a lot of other militias are watching this thing. And if they see that these guys are successful and backing the government down, then they probably want to try to do the same thing.

WHITFIELD: All right, Matthew Fogg in Washington. Thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it.

FOGG: You're welcome.

WHITFIELD: All right, coming up, he is a self-described gun lover. But after the mass shooting at an Oregon community college he made a viral video, pleading for responsible gun ownership.

We'll talk to him about Obama's new executive order, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:30:01]

WHITFIELD: All right, sources tell CNN, President Obama is preparing a new executive action on gun control. We don't know the exact language of this order yet, but here's what we do know. The focus remains on closing the so-called gun show loophole, which does not require certain sellers at gun shows, online sites and elsewhere to have a license, and therefore doesn't require them to conduct background checks. Additionally, sources also say his plan will include new funding for government agencies to better enforce existing gun laws.

Joining me right now is Mark Harmon, the Founder of the American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership, who is meeting with President Obama on Tuesday. Good to see you. I want to hear more about your upcoming meeting. After the mass shooting at an Oregon community college, you actually made a viral video, pleading for responsible gun ownership. Why did you go public with this push for more control, and then tell me about this Tuesday meeting you have with the President.

MARK HARMON, AMERICAN COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP FOUNDER: Well, quite frankly, I want to just clarify a couple of things. I did not vote for President Obama on two different occasions, and when I watched him on the day after the shooting in Oregon, I saw him in a different light. I saw a President but I saw a man, I saw a father, I saw a person just pleading for help, saying I can't -- every time I turn around I am getting stonewalled by the congress. He specifically called on gun owners. That haunted me for the next 24 hours. So on October 3rd, the day following that, I got on the internet and posted a video ranting at fellow gun owner friends of mine about we have to be responsible.

We can't let political devices or differences or whatever those may be -- we can't let that come between us and the safety of our country and our friends and family and our fellow citizens. And I decided at that point, it was time to get involved and to start just making a lot of noise around and see what I can get done.

WHITFIELD: What -- among those things, getting done. What do you think is reasonable, what do you want to see as a gun owner and as someone as you said who did not support the President but now you do?

CARMAN: I do support the President on this 100 percent, because any conversation I have had with anybody from the White House or from Senator Schumer or other people I have talked to, I have not heard one person talk about banning guns or doing away with the second amendment. We're talking about putting responsible rules and regulations in place that simply cause people to get a background check when you buy a firearm. To close the loopholes for people that are engaged in the business of selling firearms but not they're licensed, I mean, in my state, I could set up and sell rifles out of the back of a pickup truck like watermelons and there's no law stopping me.

WHITFIELD: The executive order would include something like that where they would impose some restrictions on being able to resell your gun to someone else. What are you going to be talking about specifically on Tuesday with the President?

CARMAN: We're going to be talking about things that the President can do by executive order. There are some things he cannot do. Of course, he cannot write law, but he can by executive order do things to identify and make clear what requires a person to be licensed to sell firearms. And for a lot of people that are really -- you know, jumping up and down about the executive order, let's remember that the emancipation proclamation was an executive order.

WHITFIELD: Ok. So last hour I spoke to Jerry Henry, the Executive Director of georgiacarry.org. I asked him recommendation to stop or prevent another mass shooting. This is what he said.

[16:35:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY HENRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GEORGIACARRY.ORG: I think the main thing we need to do is do away with gun-free zones, because if every place where the mass murders occur is a gun-free zone. And if they don't know somebody's in there or know that somebody's in there or might be in there with a gun or two or three or five people or whatever, they're going to be less likely to go into those places and commit these crimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Mark, what's your reaction to that, doing away with gun-free zones? Is that something you're going to be having a dialogue with the President about?

CARMAN: As a former police officer and the father of a current police officer, I can tell you that I -- I personally don't think that civilians ought to be enforcing the law. They're not trained for it. But then again, you know I understand the logic in gun-free zones if you're advertising that people here are not armed that causes the bad guys to go in and do things. But I really don't -- I really don't believe that that's the case. I think that getting the proper restrictions in place as to who has access to a firearm is the answer.

WHITFIELD: And on the campaign trail, we're hearing from some candidates who say any executive order like this based on what we've been -- what's been described for what the President wants to institute is that -- it's an infringement on second amendment rights. What's your response to that?

CARMAN: Two things. One, second amendment, a lot of the people that are adamant second amendment have to be right to the letter and all of that, we have a right to keep and bear arms. If we agree, stipulate we can't interpret that language for the 21st century, let say wherein does the contusion give me the uninfringeable right to acquire and dispose of a firearm. We're looking at opinion by the Supreme Court handed down and told the stated it is constitutional and the states should put regulations in place. What we're looking at from that. As far as a candidate who wants to unwind an executive order looking at 72 percent of the guns owner surveyed would like universal background checks and loopholes closed and we look at general populous, proceed at your own peril.

WHITFIELD: All right, Mark Carman, Founder of the American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership. Thank you so much for your time.

CARMAN: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: And on Thursday, this week, more Americans will get to ask President Obama about guns in this country. It's all part of CNN's exclusive, live town hall hosted by Anderson Cooper, Thursday 8:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

All right, coming up, Bill Cosby is out on bail in one case, and his wife is going to be deposed in another case aimed at the comedian. Could the two cases intertwine, details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:42:01]

WHITFIELD: All right, welcome back. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. This week, Camille Cosby is scheduled to answer questions 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 accusations. He is counter suing and is also involved in a criminal case in Pennsylvania, where one woman claims Cosby drugged and assaulted her. Now all eyes on Camille Cosby and what she might say this week. A judge ordered her to answer questions from the attorney for the seven accusers in Massachusetts. Could her answers end up in her husband's criminal case in Pennsylvania? I want to bring back CNN Legal Analyst Phillip Holloway. All right, so this deposition, while it's in the defamation case, might it be used, borrowed, in the criminal case?

PHILLIP HOLLOWAY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It depends, Fredricka, on what exactly she might have to say. Keep in mind, according to all of the evidence that we know about and including in the police complaint that we read just this past week, the only two people in the room were Bill Cosby and the victim. I'm talking about the criminal case in Pennsylvania.

(CROSSTALK) HOLLOWAY: Correct, so if she, being Camille knows anything, it would only be hearsay because of something that her husband presumably told her. If that would be considered something to be a confidential marital communication, she may have a privilege to keep off the stand, in other words, not have to testify about that, in a criminal trial.

WHITFIELD: Ok. So, we are at this juncture with the criminal case because that's what was once a sealed deposition of Bill Cosby was unsealed, and because there was that admission of inappropriate behavior and use of Quaaludes, that helped resuscitate this criminal case.

HOLLOWAY: Absolutely.

WHITFIELD: Wasn't there also a gag order, because there was a settlement in the civil case involving Andrea Constand, and now that's evolved into a criminal case, how does that change the storytelling, the account of her, the eyewitness, as well as possibly incorporate any other accusers into this criminal case?

HOLLOWAY: There can be no doubt, Fredricka, that unsealing of the testimony in the civil case along with Bill Cosby's own words given to the police a year after this allegedly occurred, his words, I guarantee you, that proves 95 percent of the state's case, it proves he was there, it proves he did the things that she is accusing him of doing, even though she might have otherwise arguably had some type of inability to recall or observe or understand what was happening due to her intoxication. He confirmed everything that she said except for the key and crucial element of consent. To that point, that's where the other accusers can come in, Fredricka, if their stories are so similar to Ms. Constand's that they are deemed to be similar transaction evidence or evidence that would bear Bill Cosby's criminal signature as it pertains to his motive of operations or modus operandi so to speak, then that evidence can prove what Bill Cosby's words do not, that it was a nonconsensual encounter.

If that's the case, they could literally line up victim after victim to come in and testify to this jury. And if that's the case, his own words combined with their testimony could easily spell a conviction.

WHITFIELD: Why are there still potential complications? You have his deposition, some admissions, but then you have in this criminal case -- I mean he is going to plead not guilty, going to combat that, how does this deposition either make it much more difficult for his defense team or can it even be further complicated for the prosecution?

HOLLOWAY: It makes it -- I think, much harder for the defense team, Fredricka, because he basically admits -- not with respect to Ms. Constand but at least with others that he gave them Quaaludes. Now, it's in dispute what exactly he gave Ms. Constand. It not in dispute he gave her pills. He says it was Benadryl. His mother says he told her it was something out of a prescription bottle, he'd have to read the label and get back to her. He admits to giving her pills and he also admits to the police, the Benadryl puts him to sleep right away. His own words and why he ever sat down and agreed to talk to the police in the first place, I cannot figure out.

WHITFIELD: Because they thought it would be sealed.

HOLLOWAY: I am talking about the police interview. He went with lawyers and talked to the police and he confirmed everything and he even gave them the ammunition they need with regard to Benadryl, which puts her to sleep.

WHITFIELD: All right, we'll have to leave it right there. Thank you so much, Phillip Holloway. Appreciate it. All right, we'll be right back.

[16:47:01]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, we're wrapping up a busy travel weekend with lots of people heading home after the holidays. O'Hare is one of the nation's busiest airports, and along with another, Chicago Airport midway was the focus of a CNN investigation. So we wanted to know why some of the police officers assigned to protect both airports are not allowed to carry weapons. They work alongside armed police officers but there's one major difference. If there is an attack at any terminal, these aviation police officers say they are trained and told to run away. And now those officers are speaking out. Here's CNN's Senior Investigative Correspondent Drew Griffin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN'S SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Take a look around the passenger terminals at Chicago's O'Hare and midway airports and you will see what appear to be police officers, but take a closer look. Not one of them is carrying a gun. The event of an active shooter or terror strike here, you might be surprised to hear how they've been told to react. Not fight back. Not try to neutralize the threat, but instead, to run. You guys are police officers. But you don't have guns. Do you feel safe when working?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, sir. Not safe at all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely not.

GRIFFIN: Do you feel almost as if you're a sitting target?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.

GRIFFIN: It's not for lack of training or licensing or experience. Aviation police officers are all sworn officers in the state of Illinois. They get the same training as Chicago police, and many are military veterans or have second jobs in suburban police departments. These two officers speaking in silhouette, for fear of being fired, say all they want to do is carry a gun like any other law enforcement officer.

Just two years ago at Los Angeles International Airport, a man with an assault rifle killed a TSA officer, wounded several others before being shot and wounded by an armed police officer. The same event took place in Chicago's two airports, the nearly 300 unarmed aviation police would be defenseless to stop it. So, in the event of -- let's say, terrorist attack, let's say it's a shooter, what are you supposed to do?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Run.

GRIFFIN: Run?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hide.

GRIFFIN: Hide?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Seek shelter.

[16:52:01]

GRIFFIN: This internal Chicago aviation department document obtained from aviation department sources outlines the policy, if evacuation is not possible, hide. You must also ensure that unarmed security personnel do not attempt to become part of the response. Here's the training video. Officers say they were instructed to watch.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If evacuation is not possible, you should find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you. Block entry to your hiding place and block the doors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're casualties if you tell us run and hide. How can the public look at us if they see police officers run and hide?

GRIFFIN: It's the Chicago police who carry guns at both airports since they are the primary law enforcement agency. If there's a major incident or an arrest, aviation police tell us, they must wait for Chicago police to show up, a unique arrangement among major U.S. airports.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn't make any sense.

GRIFFIN: Matt Brandon is an official with the union that represents aviation police officers. Basically they're just -- I mean no disrespect to the officers -- as their role at airport, they're glorified security guards.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's exactly right. My question to the city is you send these men and women to the Chicago Police Academy to be trained as police officers, to be able to respond as police officers, to be able to act as police officers.

GRIFFIN: The Chicago Police Department has 231 armed officers assigned to O'Hare and Midway, and the city says that's enough. So too, does the Chicago Aviation Department about its unarmed force. And the staffing level of armed police is, for the most part, similar to other major U.S. airports. If you compare the top three busiest airports in the U.S., Atlanta's Hartsfield Jackson has 178 armed police, Los Angeles, 572, O'Hare's budgeted 175. Numbers do not include additional security, such as private security personnel. In an e-mail to CNN, the Aviation Department says, the multilevel security has proven effective in stopping and preventing crime, and that violent crime incidents are extremely low.

But there's been no explanation why the nearly 300 aviation police officers here are unarmed. The department is declining to discuss security measures, CNN has surveyed large U.S. airports and found Chicago's use of unarmed aviation police officers is unique and according, and to Miami Security Expert Wayne Black, absurd.

WAYNE BLACK, MIAMI SECURITY EXPERT: You've got sworn law enforcement officers at a U.S. airport that are trained to hide if there's an attack. That's crazy. Airports are targets of terror activity. What are they going to do if somebody runs in with a gun and there is no law enforcement officer there?

GRIFFIN: In October, a man caught with these knives attempted to get on the airfield and actually told the officers he knew they were not even armed. The gun issue is part of ongoing dispute between the officers and their chief, Richard Edgeworth, Chicago's aviation recently took a no confidence vote against Edgeworth, calling him incompetent and someone who exerts control through intimidation and fear. Despite the vote, Edgeworth's boss says he has full confidence and trust of the Aviation Department. Edgeworth has repeatedly refused to even answer numerous phone calls from CNN. When we approached him to ask our questions, he did what his officers are supposed to do if anyone approaches them armed. Excuse me, Chief Edgeworth, Drew Griffin with CNN. Good to see you. We wanted to ask you why your officers aren't armed?

GRIFFIN: Wouldn't the public be better protected if they were armed and were able to engage a threat instead of -- sir, instead of having to run and hide?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, that was Drew Griffin reporting. Thanks so much for being with me today. I am Fredricka Whitfield, much more Newsroom straight ahead with Jim Sciutto.

[17:00:00]