Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Anthony Weiner Allegedly Again Involved in Sexting Scandal; Latest on Lochte Saga; Male Athletes Accused of Violence Against Women. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired August 29, 2016 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DAN ABRAMS, TELEVISION HOST, CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS ANCHOR FOR ABC NEWS: I`m Dan Abrams, sitting in for Dr. Drew tonight. I cannot believe I am saying
this, but, yes, he did it again. Yes, again. Anthony Weiner, allegedly involved in another sexting scandal. This time, arguably, the worst one
yet. His high profile wife finally saying enough is enough after years of standing by his side.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY WEINER, POLITICIAN AND FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I`ve exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the
last three years. This behavior is behind me. I apologized to my wife, Huma.
HUMA ABEDIN, POLITICAL STAFFER, VICE CHAIRWOMAN OF HILARY CLINTON`S CAMPAIGN, WIFE OF WEINER: Anthony has made some horrible mistakes. I do
very strongly believe that that is between us and our marriage.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Anthony Weiner is separating from his wife, Huma Abedin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After new reports surfaced that he sent sexually suggestive photos once again.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This comes a day after the New York Post published photos reportedly of the former New York congressman sexting with a 40-
year-old woman from the West Coast. You probably know by now that she is a top aid to Hillary Clinton.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Oh, poor Huma. Joining me now, Areva Martin, attorney, Sherra Elizabeth, also an attorney, and Robert Weiss, a sex and tech addiction
expert at Elements Behavioral Health. Joining me on the phone now, JD Durkin, senior editor at Mediaite. So, JD, take us to this latest photo and
how we got here.
JD DURKIN, SENIOR EDITOR AT MEDIAITE: Yeah, absolutely, Dan, thank you for having me. So, basically, the breaking news came out this morning from the
"New York Post," of course, they had to be the conservative leaning tabloid here in New York City, so no surprise there that they are really the ones
who have been really aggressively pursuing the allegation against the former congressman.
But, basically, the story broke this morning. They said that beginning in January 2015 and lasting upwards until about a month ago, so about a year
and a half or so, an ongoing sexting relationship, if you will, between Anthony Weiner and this 40-year-old woman from the West Coast.
Now, the woman is not mentioned by the "New York Post." They just kind of referred to her as the busty brunette, and, of course, the "New York Post"
front page today, Dan, just really has this -- this very revealing photo, if you will, the "New York Post" never ones to shy away, that says, pop
goes the Weiner.
ABRAMS: I mean, the picture is so bad. I mean, the picture is so bad for Anthony Weiner. We don`t know why it`s coming to light now, do we?
DURKIN: No, not necessarily. If you remember, though, going back a couple of weeks ago, sexting allegations were back in the news regarding Anthony
Weiner. It`s not the first time in several years that we are hearing about this. You may remember there were a lot of headlines where Anthony Weiner
apparently calls himself deceptively strong like a mongoose...
ABRAMS: Yeah.
DURKIN: ... and that came in regard to the kind of secret troll that end up being a male republican, male conservative college student here in New York
who was kind of trolling like a cat fish, if you will, with Anthony Weiner making the congressman think that he was actually a woman and then those --
those texts got turned over to the "New York Post," so, this has kind of been with increased pressure that seems like we got to where we are today.
ABRAMS: All right. Robert, before I ask this question, I want to tell you a personal anecdote, which is I`ve known Anthony Weiner a long time. I`ve
known him, you know, from his early days as a congressman. I bumped into he and Huma two weeks ago outside a restaurant, talked to them for 20, 25
minutes or so.
He doesn`t seem like the same person who I knew ten years ago. He seems like a different person. I even said to a friend of mine after seeing him,
he seems a little off. When -- when you hear about what he`s done here, "off" is not a medical diagnosis. You see the provocative pictures knowing
how incredibly risky it is, and this one with his child lying in the bed, what to make of it?
ROBERT WEISS, SEX ADDICTION EXPERT, ELEMENTS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: You know, Dan, I don`t think this is a new problem for this gentleman. Clearly, we`ve
seen it in the media over and over again. And I think that`s when you ask an addiction specialist, why do people who know better, who could make
better decisions, who, clearly, are not making good choices for themselves do something like this over and over and over again?
This is an emotional problem. This is not a healthy man. And it`s not a healthy family.
ABRAMS: Let`s remember, this is the third -- let`s be clear, the third scandal he`s been in, right? 2011, he accidentally post the picture of
himself on Twitter, meant for a 21-year-old woman.
2013, this is when he`s actually suddenly becoming a real candidate for mayor in New York, he sexts with aspiring porn star, sent letter. And now
in 2016, the "New Your Post" reports that he`s sexting with this 40-year- old woman.
[19:05:00] AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Yeah, I think, Dan, the problem for so many of us is we know that history. We know this guy has apparently what
professionals will call a sex addiction, but the child.
So as a children`s right advocate sitting here watching this new low that he sunk to, to see him with his child, totally oblivious to the fact his
kid is in this text that`s being sent and now being shown across the world, so I have to wonder, is he, you know, becoming progressively...
WEISS: Oblivious is absolutely the right word.
MARTIN: Becoming worse. You know, he`s gonna cross the line as a criminality.
ABRAMS: Do you think -- do you think he may not even realize how bad it looks?
WEISS: Look at it this way. If you have an alcoholic who has had a pint of vodka and they got to go to pick up their kid at school, they are gonna
drive drunk to pick up their kid. They are not thinking about the kid, they`re drunk.
So this guy is so caught up in the intensity of what he`s doing. The kid walks in the room, he suddenly works that into a way to be seductive. Oh,
look, here`s my cute kid, you`re gonna like me even more. He`s not thinking about the kid.
ABRAMS: And sir, he has also put -- I mean, Huma did announce today that she is gonna separate from him. But, he puts her in a position now where
she basically got no choice, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely.
ABRAMS: I mean, you wanna talk about having no choice. You know what, Anthony, here`s the way to make sure she has to leave you, put your kid in
the picture, right?
SHERRA ELIZABETH, ATTORNEY: Absolutely. His wife, I mean, think about her position. She`s Clinton`s aide. They`re in the middle of a tough and
contested election, of course she has to say at this point, you tied my hands. What can she do?
MARTIN: We have not talked about this. Well, let`s talk about child custody because she separated and perhaps, divorce is next. And whenever you have a
couple and there`s a kid involved, the question becomes who is going to have custody? Who is going to have access to the child?
ABRAMS: Let`s talk about it. So, how important does this become what he`s done in terms of custody? I mean, it`s very important, yeah?
WEISS: It`s very important.
MARTIN: She could go in court and say, look, this guy is unfit, to be with our son without supervision. She could say to the court, I want him to be
around our kid, but I want supervised visits because his judgment is so poor at this point.
WEISS: And she`s absolutely right. I mean, this is a man who should have had the help to figure this out a long time ago.
ABRAMS: Apparently, he was in therapy.
WEISS: The therapy is not treatment. Treatment for a behavior disorder is directive.
ABRAMS: Explain to us. What`s -- what`s the difference?
WEISS: Well, for example, I would not tell somebody I was working with a year and a half later to run for mayor. I would consider somebody who had
an addictive disorder who really need time out.
ABRAMS: Yeah, but you can`t listen to your doctor. You theoretically suck.
WEISS: Of course.
ABRAMS: I mean, come on, it`s 2013, you`re Anthony Weiner.
WEISS: And look how that worked out. So , I am just saying maybe you should listen to the people who are there to help you. I see three issues here.
Either you never got the help he needed, he never was able to take advantage of the help he need, or he just doesn`t care.
ABRAMS: Let me just read a statement from his wife. He hasn`t responded yet. But she wrote, after long and painful consideration and work on my
marriage, I made the decision to separate from my husband. Anthony and I remain devoted to doing what is best for our son who is the light of our
life.
ELIZABETH: Don`t you say, stop embarrassing me. Like, you, medium snap chat, where at least your messages disappear, you know, when people record
your text messages, come on.
WEISS: This is a guy who put his penis on Twitter. I mean, that was not a good idea, right?
MARTIN: We are making the assumption, Dan and Rob. That this is a true sex addiction. We haven`t seen his medical record. So, we don`t know. Some of
us are thinking is this just a role guy...
ABRAMS: Anyone, let me ask you guys. Do any of you sorry for Anthony Weiner?
MARTIN: No.
ELIZABETH: No.
WEISS: I feel sorry for him.
ABRAMS: You do?
MARTIN: I feel sorry for his kid.
WEISS: I feel sorry for this man who walked into the blind light and ruined his entire life and his family and all, I mean, I can`t imagine, unless
he`s incredibly masochistic or this is what he wanted. Who wants to humiliate his wife, his kids...
MARTIN: But he has made his choices.
WEISS: Addicts make choices everyday to pick up a bottle, to pick up a drink. That doesn`t mean that they are making well-informed decisions,
they`re emotional decisions. This is a broken person. You know, he`s making broken decisions.
MARTIN: But we can make that excuse for everybody that engages in bad behavior. He`s engaging in bad behavior. I feel sorry for his child.
WEISS: I do too.
MARTIN: That has to be of this horrific story...
WEISS: And his wife.
MARTIN: And his wife. And the family.
ABRAMS: What about the fact that the woman he was sexting with is a Trump supporter.
(LAUGHTER)
MARTIN: Well, look how they are describing this woman, a busty brunette, that is so demeaning.
WEISS: I would have chosen her, thinking that she will be less likely to be in touch with anyone I know because if I were him. Because she`s a Trump
supporter. So I`ve been thinking about that. How do I protect myself?
ELIZABETH: Premeditation?
WEISS: These acts are definitely chosen, carried out with thoughts.
MARTIN: So, Rob, he`s choosing his partner to sext with based on her political affiliations?
WEISS: Well, if you`re in the sexting world. By the way, I think it is important to say that this dilemma is not just playing out on the world
stage with these people. There are a lot of couples all over America who are dealing with someone sexting, someone texting someone with a porn
problem, and families are falling apart. This is not new.
ABRAMS: Except they`re not on the cover of the "New York Post." That picture on the cover of the "New York Post" is -- I said it before, it`s
tragic. It`s just -- it couldn`t be worse. I mean, even his face. Look at his face. I mean, it`s just...
[19:10:00] ELIZABETH: They didn`t show his boxers.
ABRAMS: All right. They spared us that.
WEISS: He absolutely doesn`t. Just because he has a problem.
ABRAMS: Next up, Ryan Lochte, officially charged in Brazil. But why is no one talking about the fact that the authorities there lie and that this may
have still been a robbery? And later, a judge is being punished too much because of lighter sentences in sexual assault cases. Some controversial
topics coming up after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were you robbed on Sunday morning in Rio? How would you answer it?
RYAN LOCHTE, SWIMMER: I can`t answer that. Because I don`t know if -- because -- I was intoxicated so I don`t know. All I know is that there was
a gun pointed at us and we had it. We were demanded to give money. Whether it was to pay for the damages of the poster, whether it was extortion or
whether it was a robbery, like, I can`t -- I can`t -- I`m not...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At that point, it`s not a robbery. At that point, you`re striking a deal. You`re striking a deal to pay for what damage you`ve
caused so that he doesn`t call the police, and this doesn`t become a bigger incident. Isn`t that fair?
[19:15:00] LOCHTE: We just wanted to get out of there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: You can call it a negotiation, legally, I still call it a robbery. I`m Dan Abrams, sitting in for Dr. Drew with Areva and Sherra. Joining us
is Steven Moore, retired FBI special agent. So, the Rio police had charged Ryan Lochte filing a false police report. Now, everyone jumping on Lochte
for embellishing the story.
I am not going to defend him morally, but why is no one talking about those lying Brazilian authorities who claimed initially that no guns were used
and it seemed may have at least overstated the vandalism at the gas station. I don`t even know that there was a crime committed here, so why is
this such a big deal?
STEVEN MOORE, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, there was a crime. There was a crime committed. You had -- you had vandalism. You had...
ABRAMS: That`s not what he`s been charged. He`s been charged with filing it falsely. He didn`t go to the police to file the police report.
MOORE: It doesn`t matter.
ABRAMS: Yes, it does. In Brazilian law, it does matter, and they came to him.
MOORE: But if he reiterated what he had said...
ABRAMS: Yeah.
MOORE: I`ve charged people with lying...
ABRAMS: Wait a second. I`m not -- let`s -- let`s flip this for a minute, all right? Let`s imagine now we`re here in the United States, right? And
some Brazilian athletes go to a gas station, they ripped down something off the wall, they`re, you know, reeking a little bit of havoc, and someone at
the gas station comes up, flashes badges, points gun, and says, hey, guys, you`re now going to pay for this, and we`re gonna tell you exactly how much
you`re gonna pay.
Those -- those guys at the gas station will be facing charges here in the United States. We`d be outraged at this whole situation, but instead, we`re
all just really irked just at Ryan Lochte.
MARTIN: No, I think you`re oversimplifying. What happened here, Danny, you`re taking a position for Ryan when I don`t think it`s justified. The
issue here is you can`t tell half the truth. And that`s what he did. Had he called his mother or the officials and said, look, this is what happened.
We were drunk. We went into the gas station. We knocked on the door. The door was open. We urinated on the wall. We pulled a sign down. We were
about to leave. They pulled a gun. We were confused. Everyone, I think like you, would have embraced them and said this is outrageous behavior on the
part of the Brazilians.
The problem is he started with, we were driving in our car and were stopped on the side of the road, so he started with a lie, and that lie snowballed
and snowballed. I think that`s why you`re seeing the outrage on the claims of white male privilege and white athlete privilege on the part of Ryan
Lochte. That`s my position. I think that`s what people are feeling.
ELIZABETH: And let`s be clear, Ryan Lochte was playing up on the emotions of the American people who were already worried about being in Brazil. I
was actually in Rio at the time at the Olympics. I got several calls from family members and texts saying, are you okay? Lochte just got held up by
gunpoint.
And he wanted that attention. When it started spiraling out of control, he didn`t say, oh, gosh, I should stop this. He says, oh, I`m getting more
camera time.
ABRAMS: Look, I`m not defending -- I`m not defending Ryan Lochte morally. Meaning, if all the sponsors want to pull out from him, more power to you.
The guy didn`t tell the truth, but I just think maybe he`s just a bit of a doofus, and, you know, like, the point -- the point is that this isn`t, you
know, we`re all making this out to be an incredibly great crime, Ryan Lochte.
But the truth is, would you guys agree with me, the two lawyers, that is robbery on the part of the gas station security team if they raised a gun
at the authorities in Rio, now say they did, and they demanded a certain amount of money for compensation, whatever you want to call it, for the
quote-on-quote damage. That would called robbery.
MARTIN: But I don`t think those are the facts. Because there`s a lot of confusion about the facts. What we`re hearing is that they used a weapon to
try to prevent them from leaving the premises.
ABRAMS: Okay. That`s called false imprisonment.
MARTIN: Well, that`s false imprisonment. Not necessarily a crime, could be a civil claim that they could make against those Brazilian police officers.
ABRAMS: It`s not right.
MARTIN: But it could be crime committed. They don`t have to be neutrally exclusive. Ryan and crew could have committed a crime and perhaps the
Brazilian authorities committed one as well.
ABRAMS: But you want to about...
MARTIN: But one doesn`t cancel the other.
ABRAMS: Look, maybe not. But you want to talk about comparative crimes here. The Brazilians, in my view, committed a more serious crime here by
raising the gun demanding a certain amount of money and not letting them leave than Ryan Lochte did by exaggerating his account on the police
report.
WEISS: It has to do with the status of the person involved.
ABRAMS: Oh.
WEISS: You don`t expect that much from a Brazilian security guard.
ABRAMS: Oh, I`m sure the Brazilians may not...
WEISS: You can`t argue with me because you just said Ryan did this because -- Ryan did this because he was white. Now, you can`t argue...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... being treated differently because he`s white.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: White male privilege with respect to the outrage. I didn`t say...
WEISS: Did you say male privilege?
MARTIN: Well, you can male privilege, and I can say white male privilege.
(LAUGHTER)
WEISS: I agree. If it was a black athlete and we said that was black privilege, where are we going?
(CROSSTALK)
[19:20:00] ELIZABETH: Doesn`t matter, white or black, the matter is you cannot lie to the authorities...
WEISS: Agreed.
ELIZABETH: . We would all counseled our clients to say nothing or definitely don`t lie. And that`s what he`s been charged of. That`s what he
did.
WEISS: Brazilians need to back up their claims.
ABRRAMS: Well, the USA Today did it`s own investigation, right? They found that none of the surveillance video shows the swimmers in or near the
bathroom, so, you know, that`s another factor that comes into play when evaluating the Brazilians` account here of what occurred.
MARTIN: But, Dan, don`t you at least acknowledge that Ryan put the wheels in motion that had led to him...
ABRAMS: Absolutely.
MARTIN: ... losing his endorsements and the outrage that we seen in America? Simply coming forth and telling the entire truth. Not the half,
but telling the entire truth. I think this whole situation would have been handled differently.
ABRAMS: No question.
MARTIN: He wouldn`t have lost his endorsements, and we probably would be agreeing with you that the Brazilians are to blame rather than looking at
punishment for one of the most decorated swimmers in American.
ABRAMS: Let`s take a quick break. When we come back, I wanna talk about whether his career has been ruined by the reaction to what he did as
opposed to him himself.
And later on, judges on the hot seat after dulling out little or no jail time to sexual assault defendants. Are they suffering too much in the court
of public opinion? Back after this.
[19:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who has the best video of the year? I can`t tell you that. They are all so great and so talented, I could never choose. I
couldn`t tell you, even if there was a gun to my head.
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which there isn`t.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: Jimmy Fallon playing Ryan Lochte last night on MTV. I`m Dan Abrams, sitting in for Dr. Drew, with Areva, Sherra, and Steve. Now, Lochte has
lost millions in sponsorship dollars, but you know, the question is, has his career been destroyed for tearing down a poster and exaggerating?
Believe it or not, someone is defending him, filmmaker Michael Moore, posted in defense of Ryan Lochte on Facebook saying this, quote, every time
the media runs the clip of Ryan Lochte telling his drunken/hungover exaggerated version of what was basically the truth, the media is
continuing to abuse someone who is not in control of his faculties.
Does this bother anyone? Michael Moore. Who would think, Michael Moore, was gonna defend Ryan Lochte?
ELIZABETH: I know.
MARTIN: What does he mean when he say was not in control of his faculties?
ABRAMS: I think he said he was drunk.
WEISS: But not on the "Today" show.
ABRAMS: I think he is pointing that he was drunk the next day too. I think. I mean, let me read you another quote from Michael Moore. You ready?
He says, there`s so much -- do we have this? There`s so much hate going around these days, we even throw it at the a guy, the second most decorated
swimmer ever, a guy who proudly waved our flag and held his hand over his heart during out national anthem. Yeah, Ryan F you Ryan Lochte! And God
bless these United States of America where everyone gets to throw the first stone.
ELIZABETH: Liste, I was a former athlete. I played basketball and ran track in college. You were always told that you were representing your team, your
country, whatever it may be every time you are in the realm of that sports arena. So, he knows he is under a microscope, and he has to act
accordingly. Let`s not give him a break.
ABRAMS: Are you guys gonna be upset with me if I, again, talk about the Rio authorities? I mean, why are we not -- I mean, look, I hear you. I hear
you. But the real authorities have not even identified the guards except to say that they are members of law enforcement who were working a private
security detail.
Now, why are they keeping their names a secret? Why is this all -- it`s just all feels wrong.
MARTIN: Dan, we`re not here to defend the Brazilian authorities...
ABRAMS: And I`m not here to defend Ryan Lochte.
MARTIN: We`re dealing with America. We`re dealing with us here, the reality of athletes that go into the world stage, that go to the Olympics to
represent their country. Aren`t you the least bit bothered by the embarrassment that he caused to the team and the distraction?
WEISS: Enormous.
MARTIN: And the distraction?
WEISS: Enormously.
MARTIN: So, here we are rather than celebrating these athletes, we`re talking about which lie and how do we determine what the facts are with
these...
ABRAMS: Right. Here`s my problem. My problem is that the media`s coverage of this has been so focused on -- and rightly so, Lochte goes on national
television and tells a lie, right? He tells a lie about being pulled over by the authorities.
We don`t know exactly what he said to the authorities, but I do know this. That in any other case, Areva, as an attorney, you`d be challenging, right?
You`d be saying, wait a second, this smells wrong.
Because if the Brazilian authorities lies in connection with this case, the fact that they committed crime at that gas station, and all we`re talking
about is the fact that Ryan Lochte said he got pulled over by the police instead of saying we got in an altercation at a gas station.
MARTIN: But, Dan, you`re in the courtroom. We`re talking about the court of public opinion, and you`re right. If this were a trial, yes, we would be
looking at all of the evidence and the weaknesses in the evidence and the credibility and the...
WEISS: And the crime maybe the Brazilians committed.
MARTIN: . the crime and the credibility of the Brazilian authorities involved. But we`re talking about the court of public opinion.
ELIZABETH: Areva, whether we want this guy to be the role model for the next generation.
ABRAMS: No! Let`s agree. Let`s all agree. No. All right? We don`t want -- I do not want Ryan Lochte to be a role model, period.
MARTIN: We`re trying the case in the public. You`re trying the case in the courtroom. I might be on your side if we we`re in court, but we`re not in
court.
WEISS: He have to go to Brazil to defend himself.
ABRAMS: Wait, my point is in every other high profile discussion case, we actually challenge -- there are at least some people -- no one wants to
defend the guy, right? I get it. Everyone wants to sort of pile on to Ryan Lochte. He`s not an appealing guy, right?
ELIZABETH: Michael Moore does.
(LAUGHTER)
ABRAMS: Well, talk about two not appealing guys...
WEISS: Birds of a feather.
[19:30:00] ABRAMS: You`re right. There is no way for him to defend himself in court without going to Brazil. Would I do that? No way.
WEISS: Of course he`s not going to Brazil.
WEISS: Right. And the Brazilians know that. They knew that before they charged even him.
ABRAMS: Right.
WEISS: This is like -- this is like getting into a bar fight, and when the guy is out of range, saying, oh yeah? You know, that`s what they`re doing
here.
ABRAMS: Right, but what I`m focused on is why the media, the public, amazing commentators like yourselves are not focusing on the Brazilians`
crimes and injustice that occurred here in making this big deal about this filing of a false police report.
MARTIN: I`ll tell you, Dan, why. Because it doesn`t change anything.
ABRAMS: Sure it does.
MARTIN: No, it does not. It will not change how the public received the information that was given to us out of Ryan`s mouth. We can sit here and
go down the laundry list of things that the Brazilian...
ABRAMS: You mean you`re allowed to lie to the public.
MARTIN: Wrong. Well, you can lie to the public...
ABRAMS: And then you lose your endorsements.
MARTIN: You don`t lose your freedom.
ABRAMS: That`s right. You lose your endorsements.
MARTIN: You don`t lose your freedom but your endorsement is tied to your reputation.
ABRAMS: Totally.
MARTIN: So that`s really the issue I think that everyone is focused on is what kind of representative is Ryan for the USA?
ABRAMS: Not a good one.
MARTIN: It is the reality, Dan.
ABRAMS: Right? Not a good one.
WEISS: It`s not what he did that night. It`s not even what he did when he talked to his mom. It`s what he did when he sat in front of Matt Lauer.
That`s when the second foul occurred. It`s like in football, you always get the flag thrown for the second guy who reacts. The first guy who threw the
punch and it was never caught on T.V. walks away every time.
ABRAMS: I want to see the rest of that surveillance tape, too. I love the fact that we are getting edited surveillance tape, et cetera. You know,
look.
MARTIN: I think you need to go Dan. I think you want to represent Ryan.
ABRAMS: You know, he has a great case legally. There`s no question about it.
MARTIN: You would be a damned good lawyer.
ABRAMS: Court of public opinion. He`s like, you know, enemy number one because he exaggerated a story. Look, I don`t know. All right. Move on.
MARTIN: Good lawyer.
ABRAMS: Judge is under fire, coming up. We got another controversial topic coming up. You`ve been even reading about this. All these judges apparently
giving seemingly light sentences to men convicted of sexual assault.
One judge even getting moved out of the criminal court all together now. The question is, do the punishment for the judges fit the crime? One of my
guests says no.
[19:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 19-year-old Stanford swimmer, Brock Turner, raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. A judge sentenced him to just six
months in jail. 21-year-old Ikaika Gunderson beat and choked his girlfriend.
That same judge agreed to delay his sentencing for more than a year so he could play college football in Hawaii. And now, 18-year-old high school
basketball player sexually assaulted two unconscious classmates. His punishment? Probation!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABRAMS: I`m Dan Abrams, in for Dr. Drew. Those defendants are young. They are white. They are male athletes accused of sex crimes or violence against
women. The judges have been white and fueling outrage with what are seen as lenient sentences. Now, one of them even forced out of the criminal court
altogether.
Back with Areva and Sherra, and joining us now is Elura Nanos, attorney and columnist at lawnews.com, and Larry Seidlin, a retired judge who presided
over the Anna Nicole Smith trial. All right, Elura, you were arguing that the outrage in these cases is misplaced, why?
ELURA NANOS, ATTORNEY, COLUMNIST: Well, I mean, I think that we`re right to feel outrage as a society, but we should be feeling outraged about the
commission of the crimes. The crimes are committed against defenseless young women, and the outrage should really be reserved for the defendants.
And I think that blaming the judges for the sentencing is really a spectacular placing of blame in the wrong place. It`s just, it is misplaced
because these judges, for the most part, are operating within the confines of the system where they are being advised by the Department of Probation,
by social workers.
Each of these cases have both mitigating facts and aggravating facts, and the judges are taking all of these factors into account when making their
sentencing decisions.
ABRAMS: You know the argument, right? Which is basically, that they are not getting it, right? The argument goes that they are just not understanding
the significance and import of sexual assault cases, and as a result, they`re giving lenient sentences, in particular, because these are white
male athletes.
NANOS: I mean, I just don`t know that that`s true. I think that there`s always a possibility that that`s true, but in the cases that we are talking
about right now, these are all cases where the defendants are young, which is an important factor.
We generally believe as a society that we should be more lenient with younger defendants. These are all defendants that have family support and
future of college ahead of them. That certainly does not excuse their crimes on any level.
ABRAMS: Before I get the judges` side, let me say Areva shaking her head.
MARTIN: I started to shake my head when she talked about the family support, and when you talk about these -- these case and whether these
defenders should be given leniency, I don`t think we can have this conversation without talking about the bias and criminal justice system.
The bias that disproportionately impacts in a negative way young African- American and Latino males, and particularly those who are unemployed and bias against poor people. So, if you are poor, and if you are minority, and
you`re in the same situation, the chances of the these mitigating factors being used in a way that were favorably result in lesser sentence is just
not the case.
ABRAMS: Yeah.
MARTIN: Study after study proves that.
ABRAMS: Judge Seidlin, I think Areva has got a point on that, and yet when it comes to the criticism of the judges, right, impeach the judges, et
cetera, are we overreacting?
[19:40:00] LARRY SEIDLIN, RETIRED JUDGE: Well, there are three purposes when you`re sentencing defender and offender. One is to punish the
defendant. The second element is to try to detour other individuals from committing that crime, and the third reason is to try to rehabilitate that
offender.
Therefore, the judge has to balance all three elements. Here, in this case, you have college students. This -- the statistics indicate that these kids
are not going to come before the court again. They are not going to commit a second offense.
Therefore, the judge figures just the sensing of the student to jail will - - will stop that student from coming back into the criminal justice system again. That putting this student in jail for a long time, what purpose does
it really serve?
ABRAMS: All right. Let`s talk about the Brock Turner case in particular because he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. There were
witnesses there to testify that could testify, so it`s not really one of those arguments where you say, it could be tough to convict, et cetera.
Sent to six months in jail. He actually set to now be released on Friday, having served half of his sentence. Do you think that it is impossible to
evaluate these cases without looking at it through the racial prism?
ELIZABETH: Yes.
ABRAMS: Well, let me just let Sherra. Hang on, Larry. Let me let Sherra.
ELIZABETH: The fact of the matter is judges should absolutely look at the these mitigating factors. It`s the fact that the mitigating factors look
different when it`s a white male than they do when it`s a black male or some other demographic. That`s what it is.
The problem that -- that bothers me about Judge Persky in particular with the Stanford case is that he actually requested to only have civil cases
after. That, to me, implies that he`s not even confident in his own judicial decision.
ABRAMS: Well, come on. This is a guy -- this is a guy who`s got effectively pushed out. He can`t -- because anytime a criminal case comes in front of
him, people start saying, oh, this is the Stanford judge, we want to make a motion to get him kicked off the case if it involves anything involving
domestic violence, sexual assault, et cetera, and as a result, he can`t function on the court anymore.
Which is the only -- the real problem I have which is the overreaction against the judges, meaning criticized him. I think these are lenient
sentences. I think that they can be criticized.
They should be criticized, but the notion you gonna effectively push this judge out and people are calling for the impeachment of these judges, are
we going to start doing this on attempted murder cases and assault cases where we don`t like the sentencing?
ELIZABETH: Well, this is the thing. I don`t want that judge on my civil cases. He`s saying, oh, I can`t handle criminal cases for whatever reason,
it`s too much for him, so I have to take him on civil cases now? Is that right? No.
ABRAMS: I don`t know. It seems to me he has to move out of the criminal cases because the judge, I mean, if you`re dealing with this, right, if you
issued a sentence, and the world came after you, what do you do?
SEIDLIN: I would do what you`re supposed to do, dispense justice. You can`t allow the public pressure, public opinion to decide how a case should be
rule. I mean, after what you`ve said and done.
ABRAMS: That`s better.
SEIDLIN: When I had the Anna Nicole case. When I had the Anna Nicole cases, as you remember, Dan, it was a non-jury trial. I tried the case. I didn`t
read the papers or watch T.V. everyday to see what the media thought. You got to rule according to your conscience and rule fairly.
This judge, they rap him out of town. They pressured him to get out of the criminal division. It`s a shame because, from what I read, he was a very
fair equitable judge that now pushed into the civil division. I think it`s hysteria and overreaction to what really took place.
But I agree with our friend, Areva, that there are two systems of justice in America. There`s a system for the whites and there`s a system for the
blacks, rainbow coalition. They are not getting the same justice as a white...
ABRAMS: But if that`s the case, if that`s true, but if that`s true, then these judges should be suspended, you know. I mean, honestly, if black
people in this country can`t get justice, we shouldn`t have these judges.
MARTIN: All the lawyers at the table could stipulate with that. Let me just say something about what court judge said about Gunderson. He re-offended
within two months.
ABRAMS: I`m going to come back to that case because I`m actually really troubled by what the judge did in that case. But, coming up next, we`re
gonna talk about also should a judge be held responsible for a lighter sentence when a victim does not want the attacker punished?
[19:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: I`m Dan Abrams, in for Dr. Drew. Two young women allegedly sexually assaulted while unconscious. The attacker, 18-year-old high school
classmate, David Becker, sentenced to two years probation. The judge, Thomas Estes, is now under fire with his impeachment as well.
Back with Areva, Sherra, Elura, and Larry. When Becker texted an apology to one of his victims, she texted back, quote, don`t even worry about it,
it`s all good. One of the two victims also said in their impact statement that jail time was not necessary, and that she supported probation.
Judge Seidlin, how much impact would that have on your sentencing if one of the victims says I want him to get probation?
SEIDLIN: Well, the victim having input during the hearing has a large impact. When you commit a crime, you`re committing a crime against the
people of the state. You`re committing a crime against the government. But then when you look at the facts, the victim, their testimony has tremendous
impact. It can mitigate or aggravate the sentence that I would impose.
[19:50:00] ABRAMS: But, Sherra, you`re saying maybe she feels guilty, right? I mean what happened, et cetera.
ELIZABETH: Yeah, absolutely. I think they had, you know, at least a friendship beforehand, you know. She probably felt guilty that she was
there in first place that many victims feel. And so, her text to him immediately was probably to just get it out of her head. Get it out of the
way even though, you know, she may have felt differently later.
MARTIN: I think just the opposite. I think there`s so much pressure on young girls. One we know not to come forward and report sexual assault
particularly in a school or college setting. And then the shame and embarrassment, the victim shaming that this country does makes it very
difficult for someone.
Because now, obviously, you`ve ruined the life of some star athlete or you`ve ruined the college career of some star athlete. I think that`s a
tremendous burden for a young victim to carry.
ABRAMS: Elura. Elura, go ahead.
NANOS: I think that`s -- I think that`s exactly right, that we do have to keep in mind, all of these factors when we`re thinking about a victim
statement. We have to look at whether that victim statement really was a voluntary statement or if there are surrounding factors that are important.
But I want to go back to what Areva said earlier, which is that people of color are generally denied the same justice that white people are. That is
certainly true and anyone working in the criminal justice system knows that. But the remedy for that is not now to make more snap judgments for
white people.
In other words, the remedy is not to look at what these judges are doing and saying they must be wrong. The real remedy is to look at all of these
factors. You know, pressures on the victim, what the victim said, what may have been behind what the victim said. All these factors must be taken into
account to make fair judgment.
And for viewers looking in on these cases who has not been in the courtroom, who know none of the underlying facts. To opine that a judge,
and to be certain that judge has miscarried justice when they have no evidence was deduced at trial, when they have no idea the real impact that
the victim has suffered or not suffered.
And just completely throw out the window the idea of the severity of the crime. In the case of David Becker, the fact did not indicate a particular
violent assault. And that`s not to minimize the violence of all sexual assaults. Judges are in the business of making these...
ABRAMS: Let Areva response.
MARTIN: I disagree with that. I don`t think it`s about trying to even the playing field with respect to how African-Americans are treated in the
justice system by being overly harsh on these defendants. But I do think it`s important for us to have this discussion about how judges treat
defendants in sexual assault cases, particularly when the defendants fit a particular profile.
ABRAMS: Do you view this as white justice?
MARTIN: I think it is. Absolutely. We`re talking about privileged athletes. We`re talking about athletes that have access to private attorneys. That`s
a huge issue in the criminal justice system whether you have a public defender or you have a high-priced lawyer.
ABRAMS: Judge, how do you avoid that when you`re the judge? How do you not let that seep in?
SEIDLIN: Dan, you need more black judges and you need more Hispanic judges. That`s what you need. You need a judiciary that reflect the community. Let
me just mention one other thing. I sat on the arm of five chief justices. I was right there.
They had me as administrative judge. Five of them. They put judges in the criminal division that were former prosecutors. They don`t put bleeding
hearts in that criminal division because then they`re in the hot seat too.
ABRAMS: All right. I`m sure they didn`t appreciate you sitting on their arms either.
(LAUGHTER)
ABRAMS: Coming up -- everyone stick around. My take on the parenting police with a very personal story, coming up after this.
[19:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABRAMS: Welcome back. My take. I`ve had it with the parent police. You see this woman in Delaware arrested for leaving her 8 and 9-year-old alone at
their vacation rental while she went to pick up some take out food. A neighbor helped the kids while they`re walking their dogs and then calls
the police.
Blame over zealous police officers for actually charging her, 500 dollars bail, but they`re just enforcing a got you game that many are playing with
parents. You leave your kids strapped in a hot car with the windows closed while you grab a drink. I hope you serve time in a hot prison cell.
But I was dropping something off at a friend`s area in the sleepy area of Long Island this week and my 4-year-old says, he wants to stay in the car
while I go inside.
I`m thinking nice day. I open the window. He knows how to open the door. I parked in the driveway. He can come in if he wants. But then I pictured the
legal eagle busted headline.
Now, obviously reporting really bad behavior by parents is an important protection for kids, but a lot of the time it feels like the so called good
Samaritans aren`t trying to be good as much as they are judgmental.
I`ve been lectured by strangers and everything from how to talk to my son, to how fast he should ride his scooter. I would love to scrutinize how
somebody parent patrol types raise their kids.
In the meantime, help if you can. Wait with those kids in Delaware until mom gets back if you`re worried. But good loving parents shouldn`t have to
worried about being reported because someone else wants to play judge. And Arevea, imagine those kids having to watch mom get arrested.
MARTIN: Yeah, that was traumatic, but what if mom really was a bad mom and the good Samaritans did something good to alert the police about a
negligent parent?
ABRAMS: But there`s nothing to indicate she was negligent.
MARTIN: You don`t know that as a neighbor. How would you know?
ABRAMS: Because 8 and 9-year-olds are walking the dog?
MARTIN: Without an adult. That`s the problem. Dan, I have three kids. When I saw 8 to 9-year-old walking...
ABRAMS: Walking a dog?
MARTIN: In a neighborhood. You said they`re on vacation. It`s not even their neighborhood.
ABRAMS: So?
MARTIN: They don`t know that community. Anything could have happened to those kids.
ABRAMS: Do you really believe that?
MARTIN: Absolutely.
ABRAMS: You do.
MARTIN: Mother of three.
ABRAMS: Really?
MARTIN: Mother of three.
ABRAMS: They should be arrested?
MARTIN: Absolutely. I want the authorities called. I don`t know if I want her arrested. I don`t know if I want bail.
[20:00:00] ABRAMS: You`re the nosy neighbor. You`re the one. You`re the one I was worried about.
(LAUGHTER)
ABRAMS: All right. Thanks for watching. I`ll be back tomorrow. Nancy Grace is up next.
END
