Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Is America Seeking an Immoral President?; Supreme Court Sends Obamacare Mandate Back Without Decision; Warren Buffett's Investment Company Purchases $1 Billion of Apple Stock. Aired 10:30-11:00a

Aired May 16, 2016 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:29:40]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. BEN CARSON, TRUMP CAMPAIGN SURROGATE: ... The value of women. So as a Christian, what I do do is not judge everybody. And that seems to be something a lot of people have gotten into.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN HOST: Big picture here, does morality, does character really matter anymore when it comes to choosing the President? I'm not casting stones, but is America ready for an immoral President, maybe? With me now to talk about that is Doctor Gail Saltz, a Psychiatrist and author of "Anatomy of a secret life; The Psychology of living a lie." And Pastor Darrell Scott, Founder of the New Spirit Revival Center, and a Donald Trump supporter. Welcome to both of you.

Glad to have you both here. Doctor Saltz, you say America is conflicted over morality and the President. What do you mean?

DR. GAIL SALTZ, PSYCHIATRIST, PSYCHOANALYST: I mean that I think Americans are very aware that there are many world leaders today who are not necessarily the most moral of characters. Meaning they're willing to break the rules, or manipulate the situation for their own good. And I think that some Americans have concern that if we choose a leader who wears the white cap, so to speak, or is very moral, will they fare well against those kinds of leaders?

So I'm not saying that they will or they won't. But I do think that some of the candidates, let's say, have been talking about, "you know hey, I'm not going to get taken advantage of. I'll go out there and get the best deal." And I think some Americans are responding to that. Because they are conflicted about whether having a really moral President is necessarily good for us as world -- as a country.

COSTELLO: Pastor Scott, would you agree with that?

DARRELL SCOTT, DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER: Well morality changes with times in America. What was once immoral now is viewed as moral. And even with character evaluation -- character evaluations are subjective. There's no objective definition of character. And so as times change, people's opinions change. And once again, what we once thought was intolerable has now become tolerable to the extent that it's very hard to judge an individual. Because you don't have a clear moral compass -- I mean a clear compass as to what morality is these days.

COSTELLO: Along those lines -- and I'll pose this question to you Dr. Saltz -- Alabama Senator, Jeff Sessions, told ABC, "voters don't really expect candidates to be pure. They don't expect Donald Trump to be pure. They already know that he's not." Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: Well of course he has to answer, and people will ask those questions. And they've got 20 or more -- they've got hundreds, I suppose -- people digging into everything he's done for all these years. But people have not expected purity on his part. What they're concerned about, they're deeply concerned about -- is this somebody strong enough to take on Washington? Will he challenge the establishment? Will he end the illegality in immigration? Will he insist on trade agreements that lift our economy, increase manufacturing? And will he stand up to the elites? And he's doing so, and the people are responding.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: So Dr. Saltz, this kind of -- that's what Pastor Scott was saying, right? I guess the question -- and I'm going to remove it from these two candidates because I don't want to imply either of them are immoral, that's not for me to say. But how far do you think Americans are willing to go when it comes to character issues in choosing a President?

SALTZ: I think (you can see that) we're Americans, we're interested in, sort of educating ourselves about past presidents, and which ones were great, really great leaders, and what their moral compass was like. Because at the end of the day, while it might be difficult to define which part of your moral compass, let's say, plays to being a great leader, it's certainly true that overall if you're very willing to break the rules -- in fact, if you're excited by breaking the rules -- in fact, if you're willing to commit crime -- and that's where your moral compass sits, you know, sometimes it's going to work in the country's favor that you're representing. And sometimes it's really not. Because that person will be concerned about themselves and what's best for them.

So for instance, Richard Nixon was obviously willing to break the rules, had a really questionable moral compass. And he used it in the service of his own election. And I think, I think Americans should be really concerned about whether having a really, let's say flippant, moral compass is good for the country. I would argue, not so much.

COSTELLO: Pastor, I'd like to ask you just a partisan question, right? Because ...

SCOTT: OK.

COSTELLO: ... if Republicans can forgive Donald Trump's, you know, transgressions, can they also forgive Bill Clinton's past transgressions? And vice versa. Or doesn't it work that way?

SCOTT: Well first of all, we live in a different age, to the extent that what was at one time complimentary, is now demeaning. In the past, for a man to compliment a woman's appearance, she would say thank you. Now if you compliment a woman's appearance, they'll -- they can charge you with being sexist. However Donald Trump has ...

COSTELLO: Really?

SCOTT: Yes. A lot of times. Donald Trump is in the process of making a transition from a private person, a private citizen -- he was a public person, but he was a private citizen, a public person. Now he's making the transition to public servant. As a public servant, he doesn't have the license and the liberties that he had as a public person -- as a celebrity figure. As a celebrity figure, he's expected to make outsized and outlandish comments, and have an over the top personality. As a public servant, he's held to a different standard.

Now Bill Clinton was in the -- as a public servant he committed a number of transgressions as a public servant. That, for a public servant, these transgressions are inexcusable. You don't use your office as a bordello. And you do not engage in activity as a public servant that you could as a private person -- or that you would as a private person.

So no, it's easier to look at Donald Trump's pre-public service life and say, well some of it was due to youth, some of it was due to the times that he was in. You know, in Christianity -- Christianity is based upon forgiveness. The apostle Paul -- the greatest example of Christianity that Christianity ever produced -- at one time persecuted the church. But then he went on in the writing of his epistles to say I've wronged no man.

Well how can this guy that persecuted the church say that he wronged no man? And it's because he was a different person then. And so Donald Trump was a different person then, than he is now. He's older, he's wiser ...

COSTELLO: But that doesn't -- but that doesn't hold true for Bill Clinton?

SCOTT: Well Bill Clinton was in public service. And so he's continuing in his vain, as a public servant. And in that office he should have had a different behavior pattern. He should have behaved differently because he was a public servant. As a public servant he has a greater degree of responsibility. He has a different set of priorities.

COSTELLO: OK, I got it ...

SCOTT: As Donald ...

COSTELLO: I got it.

SCOTT: Yes ...

COSTELLO: I just wanted to ask ...

SCOTT: So Donald Trump, now his priorities changed because he's going into public service, now his priorities are different.

COSTELLO: I got it. So, Dr. Gail, do you agree?

SALTZ: You know, Carol, basically moral compasses don't change dramatically because someone makes a decision to get a different job. But also I would say, forgiveness is very important. But forgiveness can only happen when someone acknowledges that they made a mistake, regrets that mistake, does the hard work of making change -- real personality character change -- and then is able to say, you know, I plan to not repeat that mistake.

It -- and hopefully all humans are capable of forgiving that. But the person has to say, "this was wrong," as opposed to "I never did that," or "I don't own that." Those are very different things that's hard -- I would say impossible -- to change your moral compass or your moral behavior, if you can't acknowledge that you did things that were, to you now, amoral.

COSTELLO: Interesting. I have to leave it there ...

SCOTT: But those (are saying) ..

COSTELLO: I could go on with this forever, but I have to leave it there. But thank you both for a fascinating conversation. Dr. Gail Saltz, Pastor Darrell Scott. I have to pass along some breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court. Do we have that now? We're working on it? We're going to have that next. I'll be right back after break.

[10:38:45]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:43:10]

COSTELLO: All right, we have that breaking news to share with you right now. It comes out of the U.S. Supreme Court, it concerns the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare. Actually, the justices did not issue a major ruling, but that in itself is big. CNN Supreme Court Reporter, Ariane de Vogue explains. Good morning.

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Morning. What the Supreme Court has done, is it's sent this case back down to the lower court. It was a case concerning the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. The court sent it back to the parties to work on it some more. At issue here, it was religiously affiliated, non- profit groups who objected to having to provide contraceptives to their employees.

The Administration offered them an accommodation, they said that that wasn't good enough. So today the court looked at this, it said it's not ruling on the (merit), it's sending it back down. That's an interesting opinion from the Supreme Court. Not a large opinion, just sending it back down. COSTELLO: All right so let's (parse) this out. I want to bring in

CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. Hi Jeffrey.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hi Carol.

COSTELLO: So tell us in layman's terms what this means.

TOOBIN: Well I think this is what it means to have eight people on the Supreme Court instead of nine. Instead of really deciding this case at all, they basically said to these religious groups, and to the Obama Administration, "come on, you guys are not really that far apart on this. Work something out and keep us out of it."

The issue here is -- everybody agrees that the religious institutions don't have to pay for birth control for their employees. But the issue is how, what's the mechanics for how they opt out of the process? There's a disagreement about that narrow issue. And basically, the Supreme Court is saying, "we don't want to get into this, you work it out. But in the meantime, Obamacare survives, once again."

COSTELLO: So if Justice Scalia had been alive, would it have been different?

TOOBIN: It's hard to know because all nine Justices agreed to kick the can down the road on this. So it's possible Justice Scalia would have joined in, in the non-decision that came out today. But certainly if you look at (the oral) argument in this case, there was the possibility that there would have been a four to four opinion on this aspect of Obamacare. So if Justice Scalia had been there, there might well have been a majority. This non-decision, I think, is indicative of what happens when the Court is trying to avoid four to four decision. Here they unanimously decided, in effect, to do nothing.

COSTELLO: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks for your insight, I appreciate it. Still to come in the Newsroom, tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the Waco biker shootout that left nine people dead. We'll preview tonight's CNN's special investigation.

[10:46:10]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: Warren Buffet's investment group buys more than $1 billion in Apple stock. That means Apple gets a vote of confidence from one of the most trusted names on Wall street. And the market is responding, sending Apple shares soaring right now. The DOW as a whole, it's up about -- oh you can see it there, over just about -- well 105 points. That's right there.

All right, let's talk about a CNN special tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN. An in-depth investigation as to what happened 1 year ago tomorrow between rival biker clubs that turned a restaurant in Waco, Texas into a combat zone. When it was over, nine bikers were dead, nearly 20 others wounded, nearly 200 people arrested. But the precise cause of the carnage has remained mirky, until now. Ed Lavandera is here, ooo, are you going to tell us?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I don't know, it seems a little early to get into all that, right? You know, it's amazing. We will get into -- you know, there's probably not one clear answer that you can give everybody. It kind of depends on what your point of view is. But what went down in Waco a year ago, even the most hardened, kind of grizzly biker will tell you, is the wildest, most insane chapter in outlaw biker history. And one of the people you will hear from in tonight's show is the National President of the Bandidos Motorcycle -- a man who is now under federal indictment, and speaking with us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW HORACE, FORMER ATF AGENT: These are people that are the worst of the worst, the baddest of the bad. Not every member of the organization is an outlaw, but certainly there are members in the organizations that purport and commit criminal acts.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): The majority of America's motorcycle clubs preach comradery and a love of riding. But in some clubs, there's a more sinister side.

PETE JAMES, FORMER PRESIDENT, CHICAGO OUTLAWS: This has got nothing to do with do-gooders and philanthropists, or choir boys. But on the other hand, it's not this great, huge criminal enterprise that everybody thinks.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): And Pete James would know. For 16 years he was President of the notorious Chicago Outlaws. On the street, he goes by "Big Pete."

JAMES: The Bandidos are one of the largest clubs in the world. They have chapters all over. They're a powerful club, as (are) one- percenters.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): One-percenters, like the Bandidos, believe the rules that apply to 99 percent of us, don't apply to them.

LAVANDERA: One-percenter biker clubs are considered outlaws. These bikers hardly ever talk, but we've managed to get exclusive access to the two rival clubs involved in the Waco shootout. The President of the Bandidos lives in this rural neighborhood North of Houston, behind these trees and this iron gate. He's never allowed cameras inside, until now.

[10:53:10]

JEFF PIKE, PRESIDENT, BANDIDOS MOTORCYCLE CLUB: Come here you guys. You hungry? Come on.

LAVANDERA: So it's interesting to come out here. This is real peaceful, real quiet out here. I mean, in a lot of ways your life is not that peaceful and quiet, right now.

PIKE: Not right now it isn't, but it has been for a decade. LAVANDERA (voice-over): Jeff Pike has worn the Bandidos vest for more

than 35 years. And he's been their National President for the last 10.

PIKE: The new Bandidos are not the old Bandidos. We get along with everybody. Except one.

LAVANDERA: That's the one we're here about.

PIKE: Correct.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO: Oh, you're going to leave us hanging. So what happened in Waco? What was the beef?

LAVANDERA: Well there's kind of a lot. Waco didn't just happen on that quiet Sunday. So there was things that led up to it, and issues between the two, the two clubs. We'll get into, we'll get into a lot of that as to what led -- is there one driving reason? Like I said, it really kind of depends on which club you're in and who you sympathize with, so ...

COSTELLO: Just in listening to them it's hard to believe that happened. You know, here's a guy feeding the ducks.

LAVANDERA: Yes. And under federal indictment. I mean, it's 7 months after Waco, the feds come after the top three leaders of the Bandidos and arrest them. And those -- he was not in Waco, so that's what makes all of this -- like the mystery about what's going on with all these cases ...

COSTELLO: So what has he been indicted for?

LAVANDERA: A slew of -- like racketeering. And so there's underlying charges there that include murder, extortion, and those sorts of things. So the feds are building a case against the top leaders of the Bandidos, possibly more. Feds aren't talking, prosecutors aren't talking, and the cops aren't talking either.

COSTELLO: Why did they agree to talk to you?

LAVANDERA: Great question. I think -- a lot of the bikers, they agree on one thing, they really agree on their anger and their frustration with the way law enforcement handled that situation, and what prosecutors have done. So right now, the way it stands, 177 bikers arrested in the shootout in Waco. So whether or not the first thing you did was go hide in the freezer of the Twin Peaks, or you actually pulled the trigger of a gun, you face the exact same criminal charge.

So a lot of bikers, very frustrated, feel like they've been, kind of, they're being mistreated in that sense. So there's a lot of anger in the biker community about what has happened in the legal (circuit).

COSTELLO: Do they, in part, blame the police for much of the violence that happened on that day in Waco? Did police exacerbate the violence?

LAVANDERA: Many do. What we've heard from bikers time and time again is that, had police officers put two cops there at the front of the Twin Peaks, that they believe that wouldn't, that wouldn't have happened. Obviously, law enforcement officials disagree with that very strongly, and people who've seen the videos that we have and that sort of thing, offer the cops' perspective on that.

But yes, there's a lot of the bikers in these clubs who just feel like, hey, if the cops would have put two guys there, maybe this wouldn't have happened.

COSTELLO: Fascinating. I can't wait to watch ...

LAVANDERA: All right, thanks, Carol.

COSTELLO: ... Ed Lavandera, thanks so much. CNN's special -- special report, "Biker brawl: Inside the Texas shootout," airs tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern, on CNN. Thanks so much for joining me today, I'm Carol Costello. AT THIS HOUR with Berman and Bolduan, after a break.

[10:56:20]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)