Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Man Lunges At Daughter's Killer In Court; Game On in Trump Versus Clinton Battle; Trump Rips New Mexico Governor and Now Wants Endorsement; Violent Protests Outside Trump Event; Hickenlooper Says Maybe Gender a Factor in Clinton E-Mail Probe. Aired 1-1:30pm ET

Aired June 03, 2016 - 13:00   ET

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

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: -- Michael Madison, seen there in the orange jumpsuit. Terry was giving what you call the victim's impact statement when he reached what a prosecutor called any father's breaking point. He eventually was restrained by the deputies. Madison, for his part, was sentenced to death for killing those three women. This all happening back in 2013.

And later today, that father, Van Terry, is going to be interviewed by our own Brooke Baldwin. That's at 3:00 Eastern time right here on CNN

Thank you so much for watching, everyone. "WOLF" starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDFATE: He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My temperament is so much tougher and so much better than her temperament.

CLINTON: He also said, I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me. You know what? I don't believe him.

TRUMP: She does not look presidential, that I can tell you. Four more years of this stuff, we're not going to have a country left.

CLINTON: If you believe America is weak, then you don't know America. And you certainly don't deserve to lead it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 10:00 a.m. in Culver City, California, 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 8:00 p.m. in Baghdad. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Up first, game on, the knockdown, drag-out battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is in full effect right now and it's giving us a preview of what's to come in the presidential race.

The candidates are back on the campaign trail today after Clinton unloaded on Trump during a speech yesterday. Trump wasted no time firing right back, calling the speech pathetic and sad to watch. Take a look at this. You're looking at live pictures from Culver City, California. Hillary Clinton has an event there this hour. We'll be watching. We'll keep you updated on her latest comments.

Trump, meanwhile, is campaigning in Redding, California later today. After a rally last night in San Jose, scuffles broke out between Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters. Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: (INAUDIBLE.)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman strongly condemned the violence on Twitter.

One fight Trump is looking to be giving up right now is the one against a prominent Hispanic leader within his own party. In a nearly complete about face, Trump tells a New Mexico newspaper that he now wants the endorsement of the state's Republican governor, Susana Martinez, saying that he not only respects her but has always liked her. This is the same governor that Trump blasted just last week during a rally in Albuquerque.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: She's got to do a better job, OK? Your governor has got to do a better job. She's not doing the job. Hey, maybe I'll run for governor of New Mexico. I'll get this place going. She's not doing the job. We've got to get her moving. Come on, let's go, Governor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Following those statements against Governor Martinez, Republican leaders immediately pressured Trump to backtrack not only because Martinez is a fellow Republican, but she's the only female Latina governor. Two groups Trump must win to have a solid shot of making it to the White House. She's also the head of the Republican Governors Association. Until now, the presumptive nominee has refused to do so, even defending his comments as recently as Tuesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: She was not nice. And I was fine, just a little bit of a jab. But she wasn't nice and you think I'm going to change? I'm not changing, including with her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But Trump's new olive branch, will it be enough to win Governor Martinez's endorsement? Here's what she told a reporter from a Santa Fe -- Santa Fe newspaper.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GOV. SUSANA MARTINEZ (R), NEW MEXICO: He needs to address his plans for us and New Mexico people deserve to get that answer. He's not addressed it yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it possible you might not endorse him (INAUDIBLE)?

MARTINEZ: I'm waiting to hear from him as to addressing the issues facing New Mexico.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) --

MARTINEZ: Thank you. With that --

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: All right, let's get some reaction from the Trump campaign. Joining us right now is the senior advisor, Ed Brookover. Ed, thanks very much for joining us.

ED BROOKOVER, SENIOR ADVISOR, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: Glad to be here today, Wolf.

BLITZER: Are they surprised about this turnaround by Donald Trump only last week strongly criticizing her and now, all of a sudden, this olive branch saying he anxiously wants her endorsement, her support.

BROOKOVER: No, not at all. I mean, she wasn't at the rally. He did, as he said, took a little shot at her. But we are in the business of making friends in the Republican Party and she certainly is an endorsement we would appreciate.

BLITZER: Because it wasn't just a little shot. He basically said she's not doing a good job as governor of New Mexico. That's hardly a little shot.

[13:05:04] BROOKOVER: Well, you know, in the -- in the -- in Mr. Trump's speech on that day, he was talking about a whole lot of different issues, which we do think he addressed issues facing New Mexico. And now, he's reached out. He's extending an olive branch, and we'd like her to come to our side.

BLITZER: Is this the result of a lot of pressure that he's been under from top Republicans. Hey, you've got to -- you've got to cut it out. You can't go after Suzanna Martinez, a very popular woman, Latina, head of the Republican Governors Association. You can't go after her like that.

BROOKOVER: I think it's a result of Mr. Trump continuing to want to grow his campaign, to reach out, to include more Republicans and for us to keep moving forward to go after Hillary Clinton like we did earlier yesterday.

BLITZER: Was it a blunder for him to say last week what he said about her in Albuquerque? BROOKOVER: I don't think it was a blunder. She wasn't there. I wish

she'd been there. I wish things had gone more smoothly. We want to move forward now.

BLITZER: All right, let's talk about this Trump University lawsuit. His latest comments in the "Wall Street Journal" interview against the judge in this case, suggesting he's not a fair judge because of his Mexican heritage. You said he has an inherent conflict of interest.

The director of the Latina outreach program for the Hillary Clinton campaign said, the fact that Donald Trump doesn't see Judge Curiel and his family as Americans makes him unfit to be president of this great nation, a nation of immigrants.

The judge, clearly, is an American. He was born in Indiana. He's a federal judge. These comments about him, they've caused a lot, a lot of outrage.

BROOKOVER: You know, this judge, from day one, has overreached, in our minds. He put together this lawsuit that has little foundation. And we think, from day one, he's been unfair. And Mr. Trump's --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: He didn't put the lawsuit --

BROOKOVER: He accepted -- he accepted the lawsuit.

BLITZER: He accepted to consider the lawsuit, but that's his responsibility as a federal judge.

BROOKOVER: He could have -- he could have turned it down, which we thought would have been the correct thing to do because we don't think there's enough to bring this forward.

BLITZER: So, if Trump's lawyers thought he was being unfair, why didn't they ask to have him removed, for him to recuse himself? They never took any legal step like that. In fact, the judge accepted some of their requests to delay any trial until after the November election.

BROOKOVER: I don't know much about the legal strategy. I've not talked with them about that. But, even though that we think this -- these lawsuits are without foundation. And that when -- that Mr. Trump's not afraid to take the facts and let them become public on the case.

BLITZER: Because when a Republican presumptive nominee calls a federal judge a hater, if you will. And he offers these ugly words about a federal judge, that raises all sorts of questions about interference and separation of powers between the executive, the legislative, the judicial branches of the U.S. government. He's being widely condemned for this. You -- I'm sure you appreciate it. How does he walk this back? That's the question.

BROOKOVER: I think these comments around this case, they've not -- he's not talked about overstepping bounds, in this case. He's talked about his reaction as a private citizen to a lawsuit. He thinks it's been unfairly brought against him.

BLITZER: All right, let's talk about another comment he made last night. He basically said -- he didn't really respond to Hillary Clinton's blistering attack against him on foreign policy and on national security. But did say -- he did really go after Hilary Clinton and said, basically, she belongs in jail right now because of the e-mail controversy. Isn't that going way too far, that she belongs in jail right now?

BROOKOVER: Well, if you believe that she broke the law, that she's (INAUDIBLE.)

BLITZER: But she hasn't even been charged with any crime.

BROOKOVER: No, she hasn't yet but --

BLITZER: She hasn't been charged with a crime.

BROOKOVER: -- there's this ongoing investigation taking place.

BLITZER: There's an investigation. But while there's an investigation, you don't belong in jail.

BROOKOVER: Well, not while -- not while the investigation's going on. But I think he was referring to down the road, that these actions she's taken, this cover-up that she's undertaken is one that deserves the utmost kind of punishment because she set an example as secretary of state with our national security.

BLITZER: Here are the -- is the rhetoric going too far? Basically, is Donald Trump's rhetoric against Hillary Clinton. Her rhetoric is pretty, you know, brutal against him as well. Basically, she's saying he's not fit to be president of the United States. But he's saying she belongs in jail right now.

BROOKOVER: He's trying to make the point about how serious these charges are. They are serious. They put our national security at risk. And he's going to continue to make these kind of charges as long as we need to make the point about why the risk we think she will be as president.

BLITZER: I'll play a little clip. This is Hillary Clinton really going after Donald Trump. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She has continued to lie about it, right? She told us the lawyers signed off on it. The inspector general --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Donald Trump's ideas aren't just different. They are dangerously incoherent. They're not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared, he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Now, in this, what, about 45-minute speech last night after her attack, he really didn't respond to the specific accusations she levelled against him on national security and foreign policy. He went after her on other issues. Why didn't he respond to those specific complaints that she -- that she put forward?

[13:10:00] BROOKOVER: Well, you know, if I had her record of secretary of state, I would do what she did, too, and try to lash out and cover it up. She didn't talk about the Russian reset. She didn't talk about the pivot to Asia. She didn't talk about or his decision to go to make a regime change in Libya. We could go on. And so, I think he believes that if she wants to have a substantive discussion, we'll take a shot at that. But right now, she was sort of putting -- she was the one not to talk about her record but to talk about him.

BLITZER: After he spoke last night, there were some ugly demonstrations outside the venue. Let me play a little bit. You can see it going on over there between Trump protesters -- and some of the Trump protesters who were -- you can see one of the supporters there being hit. Apparently, he was sucker punched over there. He went to the police. The individual was arrested, we're told, as a result of that.

But, unfortunately, this is happening now all too frequently. These very, very ugly demonstrations. What can the candidates do? Your candidate, Donald Trump, other candidates do to try to calm things down?

BROOKOVER: I think they both -- I think it's a couple things. One, they need to continue to condemn the violence outside. Peaceful protests, everybody's for this. It's part of what America was built on. But we have to condemn the violence. I think, secondly, we need to say to our folks, you know, try to walk away, try to keep a cool mind.

And I also think, then, we also need to allow the police to do their jobs. And so, if -- and the public should let them do their jobs. And there's a place for protesters to gather so they can be recognized. Great. Don't cross those barriers. Do peaceful protest. And then, let's allow a Democratic process.

BLITZER: Do you think you'll hear a statement like that from Donald Trump anytime soon?

BROOKOVER: I know he's talked about not wanting -- he's already said that he condemns the violence. He's already said that he doesn't -- that he doesn't condone that kind of activity.

BLITZER: Yes, he's got to calm things down. The other side has got to calm things down as well. BROOKOVER: It's a little heated.

BLITZER: Yes, very heated. All right, Ed, thanks very much, Ed Brookover, for joining us.

BROOKOVER: Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Donald Trump says when someone hits him, he hits back even harder. And he's now responding to Hillary Clinton's blistering speech, not with, necessarily, on a policy talk, but with calls for her to be put in handcuffs. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: After what she said about me today in her phony speech -- that was a phony speech. That was a Donald Trump hit job. I will say this, Hillary Clinton has to go to jail, OK? She has to go to jail. Has to go. That was a phony hit job. She's guilty as hell. It was pathetic. It was so sad to watch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Joining us now to discuss this new level of attack and counterattack, what it means for the race ahead, the Colorado Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper. Governor, thanks very much for joining us.

GOV. JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D), COLORADO: You bet, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, you've endorsed Hillary Clinton. You want her to be the next president of the United States. What do you think of what Donald Trump just said that she really belongs in jail? She's, quote, "guilty as hell," in reference to the ongoing Justice Department, FBI investigation into her setting up a private e-mail server during the four years she served as secretary of state?

HICKENLOOPER: Well, she hasn't been charged with a crime yet. It sounded, from the clip, almost like he wanted her to be in jail because she had the audacity to attack his volatility, right, his temperament.

BLITZER: But are you -- what are you suggesting? I mean, it's -- elaborate on what you just said.

HICKENLOOPER: Well, I think that, you know, what she was talking about is that his temperament makes him unfit to be -- to be president, and she was talking about international politics. But if you look at it just from the economy, one of the things that this -- that any good business, any good economy is based on is predictability, reliability, confidence that you know what's going to come next. And I think Donald Trump, throughout this entire campaign, has been the opposite of predictability. Who knows what he's going to say next.

And, you know, businesses, especially like in the six months before a presidential election, capital investment goes down because they're not sure who's going to be the president. If someone like Donald Trump was elected president by some -- by some fluke, I'm not sure any business would want to make large investments into capital because the predictability would be too high.

And think about our trading partners all over the world. The unpredictability would make it very hard for them to be good partners.

BLITZER: All right, Governor, you've suggested that the whole Clinton e-mail investigation would be treated differently if she were a man. Now, why do you think gender is playing a role in all of this?

HICKENLOOPER: Well, I'm not saying it is. I am -- what my point was -- is that this is -- I mean, she's done 11 hours of testimony. There's no charge that's been filed. Released thousands and thousands of e-mails. All of which, when she was using them, they weren't top secret or secret information when they were sent. I mean, at a certain point, shouldn't we move past this?

And I struggle to understand why this has become -- I mean, obviously, I understand it's a political campaign and both sides are attacking each other. But this does seem that -- I mean, we've exhausted it. We've gone through it again and again.

[13:15:05] BLITZER: Well, I think we've got to wait to see what the FBI decides. Their investigation is ongoing.

HICKENLOOPER: Of course.

BLITZER: We're told it's not going to necessarily be all that much longer before they reach some final conclusions, make their recommendations to the U.S. attorneys - the - the attorney general of the United States. We'll see what happens. So there's still a lot of stuff out there. We'll see what happens.

Now, let's talk a little bit about the vice presidential pick from the Hillary Clinton - from Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Your name has been mentioned. What, if anything, can you tell us, are you being vetted right now? Has anyone had a serious discussion with you about that? We're showing our viewers some other potential Hillary Clinton vice presidential picks.

HICKENLOOPER: I think the Clinton campaign is very focused on their primary with Senator Sanders and, obviously, focusing on the risks that Donald Trump presents. And I haven't been vetted. No one's called me and asked me any questions. I think they are, as they should be, very focused on the campaign.

BLITZER: And if they do call you and they say, you know what, we want to see all your tax returns, we've got some questions for you, we want to put you on that list of potential vice presidential running mates, what would your answer be?

HICKENLOOPER: Well, I do have the greatest job in the world. I mean to be governor of Colorado is a gift. But if the candidate calls and says it's important for the country and I need you for these reasons, obviously, it would be hard to say no. BLITZER: Yes. Well, that sounds like a yes to me, of course.

All right, governor, thanks very much for joining us.

HICKENLOOPER: You bet. Thank you.

BLITZER: Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado.

By the way, our own Jake Tapper has interviews later today with the two presidential frontrunners. He'll sit down separately with Donald Trump, part of that interview will air later today on "The Lead," and the full interview will air on "State of the Union" Sunday morning. Jake will also interview Hillary Clinton. That interview will also air later today on "The Lead." All that starts at 4:00 p.m. Eastern only here on CNN.

Up next, the U.S. State Department under fire as questions remain over who's responsible for doctoring an official government briefing video to take on a key question about U.S. negotiations with Iran. We have the former spokeswoman for the State Department, the current communications director at the White House, Jen Psaki. She's standing by live. Her first television interview on this sensitive subject. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:40] BLITZER: The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Ed Royce, is now demanding answers from an admission from the State Department. That's the agency that's now admitting an archived 2013 press briefing was intentionally edited to remove comments about the Iran nuclear negotiations. In the letter, Chairman Royce writes, and I'm quoting him now, "in tampering with this video, the Bureau of Public Affairs has undermined its mission to communicate timely and accurate information with the goal of furthering U.S. foreign policy," end quote.

"This is all the more troubling given that the video in question dealt with hugely consequential nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran." Also a quote from Ed Royce. Originally, the missing video was blamed on what the State Department called a technical glitch. Our global affairs correspondent Elise Labott takes us through the sequence of the events.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

QUESTION: Were there secret -

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A startling admission from the State Department. A critical exchange from a press briefing about secret talks with Iran cut from the video version of the briefing posted online.

JOHN KIRBY, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: This was a deliberate request to excise video.

LABOTT: It began in February, 2013. U.S. officials were secretly meeting with Iranians about possible nuclear talks. The State Department's spokeswoman at the time, Victoria Nuland, denied direct talks were taking place.

VICTORIA NULAND, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN: With regard to the kind of thing that you're talking about, on a government to government level, no.

LABOTT: When the covert talks were revealed months later, Nuland's successor, Jen Psaki, faced tough questions about whether the State Department was lying.

JEN PSAKI, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN: There are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.

LABOTT: But when a reporter tried to refer back to the exchange from the video archived online, he discovered that a critical section of the video had been edited out. The State Department's initial excuse?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Genuinely, we think it was a glitch.

LABOTT: But now a different explanation from the current spokesman, after learning the nine minute exchange was deliberately removed at the request of an unknown official who called one of the department's video technicians.

KIRBY: The individual who took the call doesn't remember anything more than that it was being passed on from somebody else in the public affairs bureau.

LABOTT: Psaki, who's now the White House communications director, denied involvement on Twitter, saying, "I had no knowledge of, nor would I have approved of, any form of editing or my briefing transcript." Still no word from the State Department as to who gave the order or whether something like this has ever happened before.

KIRBY: You know, we don't have the time or the resources to go back and look at every single briefing from the - from the past.

LABOTT: Critics of the Iran nuclear deal said the incident proves their claims, the Obama administration misled the American people. Republican Senator Tom Cotton insisting the State Department, quote, "identify the official who ordered manipulation of the Iran video and impose appropriate discipline."

The episode comes on the heels of a top aide to President Obama, Ben Rhodes, telling "The New York Times" magazine that the administration created a quote, "echo chamber," to manipulate the media in favor of the deal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LABOTT: Now, the State Department says it has put in place policies to make sure this never happens again, but the debate continues. Fox has just released new e-mails between James Rosen, the reporter involved in the deleted exchange, and Jen Psaki. Rosen asked Psaki in these e- mails for clarification of her denial, saying she only denied involvement in the transcript, not the video. Psaki responded that she had nothing to do with the scrubbing of the briefing in any form and accused Rosen of vilifying her with no evidence, Wolf.

[13:25:26] BLITZER: Elise Labott, thanks very much for that report.

Joining us now, the White House communications director, Jen Psaki. She was the State Department spokeswoman during some of this controversy. This is her first TV interview since the State Department admitted it was not a technical glitch but someone had deliberately told that video tape editor to go ahead and delete, what, about seven or eight minutes of the official video.

Have you gone back, Jen, and looked who - who was responsible for asking that videotape editor to remove that video, that sensitive video?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Wolf, I don't have any more information than you do. This is a stunning case of poor judgment, whether that is - was incompetence or lack of experience or both. I don't know the answer to that. The fact is, as was stated in the previous piece, I had no involvement with the editing, I had no knowledge of this, nor would I have ever approved of it. As actually the Republican you referenced before, I agree with the sentiment that the whole purpose of the State Department briefing is to provide a forum to have a debate and a discussion with reporters from the United States, but all over the world about a range of issues. I spent two years doing that. Many of my predecessors spent even more time. And this really flies in the face of that effort and something many of us spent time really believing in and hopefully delivering on from that podium.

BLITZER: Do you want the inspector general of the U.S. State Department to launch an official investigation? You heard Chairman Ed Royce, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has just asked that the inspector general find out precisely what happed, who asked that videotape editor to delete that video? Is that a good idea for an I.G. report to begin right now?

PSAKI: Well, Wolf, I'll let the State Department and their lawyers speak to that. I will say, you know, I think I - I understand why people at home who are watching this inside the beltway debate in many ways can't understand why nobody would be held accountable and why there - they haven't been able to get to the bottom of it. So I'll let others and I'll let the State Department speak to the process.

BLITZER: Because there are also demands from The Hill, from members of Congress, from House committees, to have their own investigations. Will you fully cooperate?

PSAKI: Of course.

BLITZER: Let's talk a little -

PSAKI: I have absolutely nothing to hide here, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, so -

PSAKI: But I will say again, I had no involvement and no knowledge here. And I think this has raised an interesting debate that you've probably had on your show before, and we've all discussed many times over the years, which is whether diplomacy should be given the room to develop and to grow with the - with the - with the secrecy that is sometimes needed. One - many could argue, I would certainly argue, that we would not be at the place we are with Cuba, we certainly would not be at the place where we have a deal with Iran, where they've agreed to not move forward on creating a nuclear weapon had we briefed out these discussions publicly. And that's something that - going back to Schultz and Kissinger and Madeline Albright used to talk about how mushrooms grow better in the dark. I mean this is something many, many people have spoken about over time.

BLITZER: But there's - there's one thing - but, Jen, as you know, you worked in the State Department, you're not at the White House, as you know, it's one thing to be discreet and not release all the information to the public for sensitive reasons, whether it's classified or diplomacy or whatever, but it's another thing to flat out lie to the news media and to the American public, which is what your predecessor, Victoria Nuland, did when she was asked back in 2013 whether or not there were secret, bilateral, government to government negotiations going on with Iran and she said "no." That was - that was a lie, right?

PSAKI: Well, Wolf, I think you'd have to speak to my predecessor about that. What I can tell you is that what I was doing, not just that day when this question was asked, the fact is, a week before this, I proactively talked through every aspect of the back channel at the State Department briefing. I was also supportive of and involved with the briefing of press and the stories that came out before that. So my role was providing information. I was an advocate of that about the back channel. It was at the time where we could do that because of where the diplomatic negotiations were. There's a long history for decades, again, of not being able to provide information when it's at a sensitive time that could have an impact. And that certainly may have - was the case earlier that year.

BLITZER: But - but then there was this subsequent - when you were the State Department spokeswoman, subsequent exchange you had with James Rosen of Fox when he asked why Victoria Nuland had lied about those direct, bilateral negotiations. I'll play the clip once again. Listen to this.

[13:30:05] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation of the secrecy of secret negotiations are concerned - is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?