Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

50 Charged In Largest College Admissions Scam Ever Prosecuted; CNN Reality Check: When Did Capitalism Become A Dirty Word For 2020 Democrats?; Sen. Gillibrand's Office Restructured Top Aide's Role After Sexual Harassment Investigation; Washington Post Reports Obama Administration Failed To Focus On Fentanyl. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired March 13, 2019 - 07:30   ET

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

[07:30:00] SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE), MEMBER, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: -- public safety, a thorough investigation, promptly.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Senator Chris Coons from Delaware, thank you for being with us this morning -- appreciate it.

COONS: Thank you, John.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, John, now to this crazy story.

A nationwide scandal rocking college admissions. Now, those who were in charge of who got into two schools affected by this scheme will be here with us to tell us what they saw and what needs to change.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW LELLING, U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS: This case is about the widening corruption of elite college admissions through the steady application of wealth combined with fraud. For every student admitted through fraud, an honest, genuinely talented student was rejected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. It's being called the biggest scandal in college admissions process history. Fifty people, from parents to coaches, even well-known celebrities have been charged. What's next for the students, what's next for the schools, and for the rest of us trying to navigate this process?

Joining us now are Asha Rangappa, a former dean of admissions at Yale University Law School. And, Julie Lythcott-Haims, former dean of freshmen at Stanford University and author of "How to Raise an Adult" and "Real American." Ladies, it is so great to have both of you because you had your fingers on the pulse of all of this.

[07:35:08] And, Dean Lythcott-Haims, I want to start with you because you were at Stanford. You said when the news broke of this it was not surprising to you. Did you see sketchy stuff like this happening when you were at Stanford?

JULIE LYTHCOTT-HAIMS, FORMER DEAN OF FRESHMEN, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, AUTHOR, "HOW TO RAISE AN ADULT" AND "REAL AMERICAN": I did not see sketchy stuff like this happening when I was at Stanford.

I think what we saw yesterday when we all woke up was the very, very extreme end of the lengths that some parents will go to try to purchase a spot for their kid.

But I will say this. The rhetoric in America is that black and brown kids are quote-unquote "taking spots" from more deserving people. I think what we all now know is the vast majority of spots set aside are not for black and brown or native kids. They're for children of the wealthy, children of legacies, and children who are athletes, the vast majority of whom are white kids.

You know, this is -- this is the truth of college admission in America and I think we've all been awakened to that fact.

CAMEROTA: That is such a great point. This really peels back the curtain on that one because being the child of rich parents doesn't make you smarter, but it does make it easier to get into elite colleges, it turns out.

LYTHCOTT-HAIMS: Absolutely, particularly if your parents are helicopter parents.

I mean, I think what we are seeing is what we're now calling "drone parenting" where the parent is the drone. They literally pick up their child and deliver their child to the future they have in mind for that kid. The kid has had very little to do with getting themselves to that destination. The parent has executed the entire plan.

I mean, read this indictment. Look at the lengths to which parents went to actually fabricate records for their kids.

And I'm here to care about the kids.

What do you suppose that has done to the psyche of those kids, most of whom it sounds like from the indictment, were not even aware that this was being done for them? They just woke up and learned that their life -- or much of it -- has been a fraud. I mean, how does a kid recover from that?

CAMEROTA: I'm glad that you pointed that out.

And, Asha, I'll get to you in one second, I promise.

But, Dean, what happens to those kids who are still at school? So, some of these kids are freshmen. Some like -- let's just use the celebrity parents, Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin. I think their kids are still at school.

What does the school do now, knowing that they got in on fraudulent terms? LYTHCOTT-HAIMS: Well, I'm sure a lot of people are wringing their hands over how to handle this compassionately, but fairly. I think if a school has learned that a student's record was fabricated, what choice do they have? If they're behaving ethically, what choice do they have but to take extreme measures, perhaps to expel that child?

On the other hand, you know, this has happened to the child, particularly if the child didn't know. You know, I think we've got to have a lot of compassion for a young person who has found themselves in that circumstance.

CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh.

Asha, you were a dean of admissions at Yale Law School. What haven't you done is the subject for another segment because we use you, of course, as a former FBI agent.

So, you were kind of on to this. And, in fact, you started adding questions to the application process to try to weed out kids whose parents had just manipulated the system.

What did you do?

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEAN OF ADMISSIONS, YALE LAW SCHOOL: Yes. When I became dean of admissions, I was really shocked to discover that the landscape had changed significantly from when I applied to college and law school -- when it was a black hole and you just sent things out and did it on your own. And that there were services where people would pay thousands of dollars for things like admissions essay help or putting together their application.

And I just thought that what's important is transparency. If you really want to compare apples with apples -- you know, not everyone has the resources to have access to certain kinds of help.

So adding things like -- just having people disclose the kind of help they received in preparing their application. Were they able to take a test preparation course or not, and why not? You know, to basically get to the -- how is this person here in front of me and how can I evaluate them.

And things like self-employment in college, for example. If they weren't able to participate in extracurricular activities because they were working.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

RANGAPPA: This is the kind of thing that allows you to get a full picture of a candidate.

CAMEROTA: It's really helpful. I mean, just asking the question, did you receive any assistance in preparing your application? That would be good to know.

Did you take a test preparation course? If so, please specify which one. Really helpful.

And so, Asha, beyond that, in your role as an FBI agent and law enforcement expert, as we often ask you, what's going to happen to these parents? I mean, again, we've seen the most famous faces of the actresses splashed on the screen but there are 50 people embroiled in this. What's going to happen to them, criminally?

[07:40:00] RANGAPPA: Well, they are going to face the law. I mean, they have engaged in fraud, they have participated in a racketeering scheme, and they are going to have to account for that behavior.

I mean, let's remember that there are real victims here. I mean, we can look out at, again, with these white-collar or Morpheus crimes, it feels like. You know, nobody was killed but not only did they take seats away from deserving students, they have cheapened the educational degree that students who work their way into those schools are getting.

And I think there's a third category of people who are now not going to even put their hats in the ring because they now believe that the system is so rigged that they don't even have a shot.

And so, I think those are real harms in the admissions process that has happened because of their behavior, and I think that they should be fully held to account for that.

CAMEROTA: Ladies, we are out of time. We have so much news. But this has been really eye-opening.

LYTHCOTT-HAIMS: Oh, no.

CAMEROTA: OK. Did you have a solution -- a 10-second solution, Dean? Go, go.

LYTHCOTT-HAIMS: I have one -- absolutely. We have to stop -- schools should stop participating in the college rankings. A huge percentage of the rankings is based on SAT scores, which -- so your school ranking goes up if your scores are higher.

If they stop participating in the rankings they can stop paying such close attention to -- you know, fierce attention to the SAT scores of applicants. They can start admitting people based on what they actually can do and what they'll actually contribute to the campus.

I'm calling upon schools to stop participating in the U.S. News ranking. It's harming college admission and it's harming kids.

CAMEROTA: That is really valuable. Thank you --

RANGAPPA: Amen.

CAMEROTA: Thank you, Asha, very much. Thank you, Dean Lythcott- Haims. We really appreciate your expertise in this.

BERMAN: Really, it does raise so many questions beyond the illegality here of what's going on. Such a great discussion. CAMEROTA: But that is also a great solution that schools should move towards -- that you need to equal -- level the playing field.

BERMAN: All right.

It is a simple question. Why are presidential candidates getting trapped -- or tripped up, I should say, when asked if they are capitalists? A CNN reality check, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: So, why does the question "Are you a capitalist?" have so many people running for the exits? John Avlon has our answer in our reality check. Hi, John.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Hey, Ali.

You know what shouldn't be a tough question for someone running for president? It's this. Are you a capitalist? It's a lay-up -- basic stuff rooted in American history and culture.

And yet, Democratic candidates seem to get spun around the axel on this one and in the process only helping Donald Trump's reelection.

[07:45:03] Exhibit A is John Hickenlooper, an entrepreneur who bounced back from a layoff to launch a pioneering brewpub, going on to become mayor of Denver and eventually, 2-term governor of Colorado.

And yet, when Joe Scarborough gave him three chances to answer the question, he whiffed three times.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, MSNBC "MORNING JOE": Would you call yourself a proud capitalist?

GOV. JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D), COLORADO, 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: (Laughing) Oh, I don't know. You know, again, the labels -- I'm not sure any of them fit.

SCARBOROUGH: Do you consider yourself a capitalist?

HICKENLOOPER: Well again, the labels -- you know, I am a small business person.

SCARBOROUGH: Do you consider yourself a capitalist and does capitalism work?

HICKENLOOPER: Well, I think -- I don't look at myself with a label.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: Look, I co-founded a group called "No Labels" a while ago but that's ridiculous. Hickenlooper seemed afraid of angering Bernie bros and social media mobs. But the man was a centrist Democratic governor. He helped flip a red

state blue. It's the basis of his campaign and it's nothing to apologize for.

But, Hickenlooper's not the only one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: So, what about capitalism? Are you a capitalist?

REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI), 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: See, here's the thing with all these labels and, as you said, how they're used to define people and where they're coming from. But as you see, so many of these labels are misused and misunderstood to the point --

BASH: How would you define yourself?

GABBARD: -- where people don't have any idea what they even mean anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: Actually, Tulsi Gabbard may have a point there. According to Gallup, only 17 percent of Americans defined socialism correctly -- "The government ownership of the means of production." That's half the number who could define it properly at the start of the Cold War.

And get this. Today, six percent of Americans believe socialism means being social and getting along with people. About a quarter can't say what it means at all.

But, Americans know what capitalism is after America's basically been a liberal capitalist democracy since our founding. We've had presidents who expanded the social safety net and others who expanded free markets, but it all exists within the framework of capitalism. And for all its flaws, it's been far more successful at expanding freedom and prosperity than any of the alternatives.

Now, Democrats have often been accused of being socialists. It happened baselessly with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and it's happening again today. Fox News has mentioned socialist or socialism nearly 1,800 times since October, according to transcripts.

There's a strategic feedback loop at the White House as well. Trump has used the term socialism or socialist more than 100 times during his presidency. And he clearly wants to label Democrats socialists in this election, and some Democrats seem determined to help him with this free branding.

But not every candidate is typing themselves up in knots over this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am a capitalist -- come on. I believe in markets. What I don't believe in is theft. What I don't believe in is

cheating. That's where the difference is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AVLON: That's not so hard, right? But, Democrats who seem afraid of alienating some folks on the far, far left end up winding playing into Donald Trump's reelection playbook.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

And that's your reality check.

BERMAN: It's like "Hamilton." What will you die for? If you don't stand up for anything, what will you die for?

AVLON: I always appreciate a good "Hamilton" reference --

CAMEROTA: Right --

AVLON: -- early in the morning.

CAMEROTA: -- because you're young, scrappy, and hungry.

AVLON: I am.

BERMAN: Excellent. Thank you very much, John -- appreciate it.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's office now acknowledging mistakes were made during a sexual harassment probe. The senator, who has announced an exploratory committee for president, has been a major voice in the #MeToo movement.

Our Sunlen Serfaty is live in Washington with more on this -- Sunlen.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: John, this could certainly become a major issue for the senator.

Senator Gillibrand has made fighting sexual misconduct a centerpiece of her presidential campaign, and the senator spent last summer urging lawmakers to change the way sexual harassment cases are handled on Capitol Hill. But she's now facing accusations that she did not live up to her own standards she has fought to set for others.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SERFATY (voice-over): Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has remained defiant in the wake of criticism of her office's handling of sexual harassment allegations against former staffer Abbas Malik.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY), 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We conducted a thorough -- a thorough and professional investigation and the person who was accused was punished.

SERFATY: But one of Gillibrand's aides telling CNN that after the investigation, a top aide's role was restructured due to her handling of the allegations, the clearest sign yet that Gillibrand's office acknowledges that mistakes were made when one of Gillibrand's staffers accused Malik of making inappropriate comments and unwelcome advances towards her.

After interviewing seven then-current employees, Gillibrand's office determined that Malik's behavior did not meet the standard for sexual harassment and he was not fired. Instead, he was punished by not receiving a promotion or the boost in salary he was expecting.

That decision prompting the resignation of Malik's accuser, who criticized the handling of the investigation in a letter to Gillibrand in which she told the senator she trusted this remark from Gillibrand in 2017.

GILLIBRAND: We need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is OK, none of it is acceptable. And we, as elected leaders, should absolutely be held to a higher standard.

[07:50:06] SERFATY: Two weeks ago, "Politico" reached out to more than 20 of Gillibrand's former staffers, including two who the accuser says the office failed to contact in their first investigation. That found a number of staffers who corroborated the accuser's claims and uncovered additional allegations of crude conduct.

One staffer saying that Malik repeatedly "called her fat and unattractive to her face and made light of sexual abuse." Another recalling Malik saying a "woman they were talking about couldn't get laid unless she was raped."

After "Politico" presented Sen. Gillibrand's office with its findings, a second investigation was opened and Malik was fired.

SERFATY (on camera): Senator, though, can you acknowledge that some mistakes were made in the first investigation?

GILLIBRAND: We interviewed all current employees that had relevant information. We were able to substantiate derogatory comments and did not able to substantiate the sexual harassment.

SERFATY (voice-over): In response to the dismissal, Gillibrand's former staffer telling "Politico", "She kept a harasser on her staff until it proved politically untenable for her to do so."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SERFATY: And the aide in Gillibrand's office who has since seen her role restructured in the office as a deputy chief of staff. Her title does not change but she will no longer have any involvement with investigations or personnel issues in the office.

And, Alisyn, efforts by CNN and "Politico" to reach Abbas Malik were not successful. Back to you.

CAMEROTA: OK, Sunlen. Thank you for that important update. Now, to the opioid crisis. It is killing tens of thousands of people every year and fentanyl is making things worse. Now, a stunning report puts the federal government's response to fentanyl under the microscope. One of the authors joins us with the findings -- reporters, I should say, joins us with the findings.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:55:21] CAMEROTA: "The Washington Post" out with a report this morning outlining what they call the Obama administration's failure in responding to the fentanyl epidemic despite a sharp spike in deaths. In 2013, roughly 3,000 people died from fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. By 2017, that number had jumped to more than 28,000 people.

Joining us now is Sari Horwitz, one of "The Washington Post" reporters behind this story. Sari, thank you so much for being here and for choosing NEW DAY as the first place that you're reporting your story because this is such an important topic.

What did you find?

SARI HORWITZ, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Good morning, Alisyn. Thank you for having me.

The fentanyl crisis is the worst drug epidemic in American history, ever. Between 2013 and 2017, more than 67,000 people died from fentanyl-related overdoses. And to put that in context, that is more people than military personnel killed in the Vietnam, the Iraq, and the Afghanistan Wars combined.

And so, my colleagues and I wanted to figure out how did we get here? How did this happen? And what we found was a failure at every level of government during the Obama administration.

We went back and looked and found ground zero was in Rhode Island in 2013 when there was a fentanyl outbreak. And people were surprised there because fentanyl is a drug that's usually used in hospitals for cancer and for surgery, and here it was showing up on the street.

And they notified the Centers for Disease Control and the CDC put out an alert. And then it started to spread through New England, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia, Ohio.

And the Drug Enforcement Administration put out a warning. Alarm bells were going out but basically, there was not sort of a sense of urgency at the highest levels of government.

CAMEROTA: And, Sari, why? Why were they asleep at the switch on this?

HORWITZ: You know what? We found and what we -- what people told us -- and we interviewed many people in and out of the Obama administration -- is that fentanyl was seen as sort of an add-on to the overall opioid crisis that was affecting America. Sort of an appendage. But what we've been told is it required a different strategy -- a unique strategy because fentanyl is different. It's a synthetic opioid. It's made in China -- made in laboratories. Four grains of salt -- that's the equivalent of the amount of fentanyl that can kill a person pretty much instantly.

CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh.

HORWITZ: It was being sent in through the mail -- through the Postal Service. So it was coming into the country in a different way and the Postal Service was not prepared for it. Customs and borders was not prepared for it.

And the other problem is it was being blended into heroin and the users didn't realize it was in there. And, you know, parents should realize that it's not just drug addicts or heroin addicts that are exposed to fentanyl, but kids in college, for example, who are at a party and take a pill from somebody that they think is a Xanax or a Vicodin -- maybe even an Adderall -- might have fentanyl in it.

And, you know, people don't realize that they're getting it and there needs to be more of a public service campaign to let people know how dangerous --

CAMEROTA: Yes.

HORWITZ: -- this drug is.

CAMEROTA: That is chilling.

OK, so then, the Trump administration begins. They inherit this fentanyl problem and have they done things that have been helpful to try to stop it?

HORWITZ: That's a good question and we're going to be reporting more on that. Today, our story is just on the Obama administration.

But the Trump administration has done some things. They've talked about it more than the Obama administration. They've ramped up prosecutions. The Justice Department is going after fentanyl and drug trafficking.

But people are telling us you cannot arrest your way out of this problem. There needs to be a three-pronged approach that involves prevention which is, as I said, a public service campaign to let people know how incredibly dangerous fentanyl is --

CAMEROTA: And --

HORWITZ: -- and that it can be in counterfeit pills. And also, treatment.

I'm sorry -- Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: Well, only that they did declare a national emergency on the opioid crisis. So that does then -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that opens up more funds and education and awareness.

HORWITZ: Well, they did declare -- nearly eight months and they did declare a public health emergency for opioids -- not fentanyl specifically, but opioids. No money was directed from that but it was more of an awareness campaign.

But there -- what we are hearing on the ground, especially in places that are very hard-hit, like New Hampshire and West Virginia, is that there's a desperate need for drug treatment. There's a waiting list that's like 200 people long in Huntington, West Virginia -- sort of the epicenter of this problem.

So, still, we have a long way to go.

CAMEROTA: Sari Horwitz, thank you very much for helping to sound the alarm on all this and retrace the steps for how we got there. We look forward to your future reporting on all of this and thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

HORWITZ: Thanks.

END