Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Roger Goodell: "We Didn't See Ray Rice Video"; The New Face Of Apple

Aired September 10, 2014 - 16:30   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All right. Ted Rowlands, thank you so much and we'll stay abreast of that situation.

Coming up, he's suspended indefinitely, but that does not mean necessarily that he's out for good. Why the NFL commissioner will not rule out the chance that Ray Rice could return to the league. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. Sports Lead now, Baltimore Ravens' Ray Rice admitted to the NFL that he had knocked out his fiance in a casino elevator, why then, did it take seeing video of the assault for the league to finally react as if something horrible had happened?

That was one of the questions posed to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in his first interview since Rice was kicked off the team amid calls for his resignation.

Goodell spoke with CBS' Norah O'Donnell about some of the mistakes he's made personally in handling the situation including the initial meagre two-game suspension for Rice.

He was also asked whether anyone in the league had seen this disturbing video of the assault before the web site TMZ released it earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: No one in the NFL, to my knowledge, and I've been asked that same question and the answer to that is no. We were not granted that. We were told that that was not something we would have access to, and on multiple occasions we asked for it and on multiple occasions we were told no.

NORAH O'DONNELL, CBS: You know there are people that are saying that they just don't buy that, that no one in the NFL had seen this tape.

GOODELL: Well, that's a fact and I think it's a fact because the criminal justice system and law enforcement were following the laws and doing what they needed to do to make sure that they followed the criminal activity. This is an ongoing criminal investigation.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: Of course, and I'm just spitballing here, but the NFL could have tried what TMZ did and aggressively pursued the tape directly from the casino, but that's just me. I'm a different breed of cat.

Baltimore Ravens' owner, Steve Biscotti acknowledged as much however in a letter to fans. He writes, quote, "Seeing that video changed everything we should have seen it earlier. We should have pursued our own investigation more vigorously, we didn't and we were wrong," end quote.

Joining me now is Chris Kluwe. He is a former punter for the Minnesota Vikings. We've had him on the show before to talk about his book. Chris, first, I want to get your reaction to what NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that no one in the NFL saw the tape of Ray Rice hitting his then fiance, now wife, until it was released by TMZ earlier this week. Do you buy that?

CHRIS KLUWE, FORMER NFL PUNTER: No, I don't buy that simply because the NFL is an organization and Roger Goodell has shown that as commissioner he will stop at nothing to find out all of the facts in a case and then render judgment on that case.

But something like this where they knew Ray Rice was in a casino. They knew there was video evidence. They knew Ray Rice and his attorney had that video evidence.

I don't think that there is any way that the commissioner doesn't ask for that and then watches the video and takes it into account and deciding what the punishment should be.

TAPPER: I want to get your reaction to another part of Norah O'Donnell's interview with Goodell, when he talked about why it took seeing this tape before he came down really hard on Rice. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOODELL: When we met with Ray Rice and his representatives it was ambiguous about what actually happened.

O'DONNELL: But what was ambiguous about her laying unconscious on the floor being dragged out by her feet?

GOODELL: There was nothing ambiguous about that. That was the result that we saw. We did not know what led up to that. We did not know the details of that. We asked for that on several occasions.

It was unacceptable in and of itself what we saw in the first tape and that's why we took action. Albeit, insufficient action and we acknowledge that. We took responsibility for that. I did, personally, and I take responsibility for that now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So I find that all very confusing, Chris, maybe you have a Goodell to English and English to Goodell dictionary you can use, but can you explain what exactly he's saying there?

KLUWE: Well, I think this is another case of prevarication. I think this is something that, Goodell did know exactly what happened in that elevator because it was widely reported by many sports outlets that Ray Rice told the commissioner and the Ravens exactly what had happened.

He described to them the incidents that were in the elevator. You can find that on a multitude of stories online dating back to when this first became a story and for Goodell to now say that it was ambiguous.

Well, no. It wasn't ambiguous, you knew exactly what happened because Ray Rice told you what happened and you said he told you what happened and to back pedal away from that now is more fumbling at an issue that the NFL doesn't know how to address and they should know how to address because it's a very important issue.

TAPPER: The commissioner was also asked whether Ray Rice would be allowed to play again and he said it was possible. What do you think? Should he get a second chance?

KLUWE: I think everyone deserves a second chance. I think the NFL is all about redemption stories, but you have to show that you've truly changed and one example I know a lot of people will use is that of Michael Vick.

Michael Vick did his time. He was rehabilitated and now he works actively to help put an end to violence against animals and if Ray Rice shows that he can truly change who he is and change that type of behavior and serve as a role model I think he does deserve a second chance.

But from his actions that he's shown so far, it doesn't look like he's interested in that. It looks like he's been more interested in covering up what happened so he can keep his job to keep getting paid.

TAPPER: There have been a lot of calls for Roger Goodell to resign. Where do you stand on that?

KLUWE: I think if it turns out, if we're able to prove that Roger Goodell did see the tape and just either brushed it aside or didn't take it into account that laying the suspension on Ray Rice, the initial two-game suspension, I think he should resign because this is a very important issue and it's an issue that the NFL has been struggling with over the years.

There is a big problem with domestic violence and abuse within the NFL from its players and it's something that when you give a guy a slap on the wrist, when there are no consequences to hitting your partner or, you know, abusing your partner, well, then guys are going to keep doing it because they have no reason not to.

If that's in their mindset, then they're just going to keep going. That's something that Goodell as commissioner of the game and overseer of the game, his job is to protect the shield and that's not protecting the shield. TAPPER: All right, Chris Kluwe, always a pleasure talking to you. Thank you so much, sir.

KLUWE: No problem. Thanks for having me on.

TAPPER: Coming up, he's been criticized since day one for a lack of innovation. So will his new Apple Watch bring CEO Tim Cook out of Steve Jobs' shadow?

Plus, if there was a bill like the one before the Senate back in 2008, Tina Fey might have gone to jail for saying she could see Russia from her house or at least according to one Republican senator.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. The Money Lead now. The rumors proved to be true. Yesterday's Apple CEO Tim Cook sent ripples through the tech world laying out the company's new product plan, bigger and even bigger iPhones and the company's first-ever wearable device.

The Apple Watch for a mere $349, you will be able to text, check email, answer calls and even improve your workout all from the comfort of your very own wrist. This marks Apple's first new device since the iPad in 2010.

It's also the first time we got a look at what post-Steve Jobs Apple can achieve. So is this a comeback for the popular company and did it ever really leave?

Joining me now is "New York Times" technology writer, Farhad Manjoo. Farhad, good to see you as always. Critics of the Apple Watch say there's no need for it. It's too expensive and I have everything I need on my iPhone right here. Why would anyone want an Apple Watch?

FARHAD MANJOO, TECHNOLOGY WRITER, "NEW YORK TIMES": Yes, I mean, so the argument for this device is it may free you a little bit from the distractions of your phone. So you may be able to kind of glance at your watch and get quick information from it.

So rather than spend like 10 seconds taking the watch out of your pocket and logging in and looking at your email, you can just go through your email very quickly on your watch. So that doesn't sound like a big deal, but I think over the course of the day it might add up to a device that people find helpful.

Of course, this is the thing that always comes up when Apple comes out with a new device. People say it doesn't do enough and it's too expensive. Usually over time those critics are proven wrong.

TAPPER: Sure enough.

MANJOO: I think that could happen here too.

TAPPER: Now you're rather bullish in column. Apple is back and better than ever. You write that's the headline. What about this announcement gave you -- made you so bullish?

MANJOO: Yes, so, I mean I think the big question about Tim Cook's Apple was whether it could make something completely new and whether whatever it made would be kind of as ground breaking as the stuff that Apple produced when Steve Jobs was CEO.

And I think basically they answered that question yesterday, and I think that, you know, the watch from what I saw was a ground breaking new device. It remains to be seen if people will like it, but, you know, it has a really interesting user interface.

The watch dial is used in an interesting way, and I think that they have, you know, made a really good-looking watch, which is something more than can be said for a lot of other devices that are out there. I think at least on that score they've done a good job.

TAPPER: You know, you talk about ground breaking. All of these big Apple products, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad and now the Apple Watch, they're called ground breaking and innovative, as you know and have written before. All of them are versions of products that existed, MP3 players and cell phones, what is the difference with Apple products?

MANJOO: I think what usually -- Apple usually comes into the market when there are lots of other devices out there that do things, but they don't do them well. So we saw this with the iPod. There were music players before, but they just weren't very good. They were hard to use.

That's true also of the iPhone and the tablet computer, the iPad. Basically what they do is they kind of reduce the complexity and they do that by making the hardware look good and by making the use are interface, making it work very well in a way that's kind of intuitive to people and you don't have to learn about it.

And I think that's what they've done with the watch, too. There are lots of other watches out there, but most of them don't look very good and they're hard to use and that's sort of what they've tried to solve with this one.

TAPPER: All right, well, I haven't bought it yet. I'm not yet convinced about the watch. Farhad Manjoo, thank you so much. Appreciate it. Good to see you, as always.

The other big news out of Apple's event, U2 announced they're dropping a new album. They're pairing up with Apple and nothing new where Bono taught us how to count to 14 in Spanish.

There's the black and red special edition iPod that bore the band's name. So when Bono, the edge and the two other guys hit the stage to perform cuts from their new album it wasn't an entirely surprising surprise. They said the new album was free.

Every single person with an iTunes account can log on right now and download all 11 tracks without paying one penny. U2 is twisting and turning away from music's normal way of doing business. Billboard says because the album is free none of those downloads will count on the charts. Instead U2 is betting on gaining a few new fans to help pack stadiums and arenas. The last tour grossed over $700 million. So it's the new paradigm.

Still ahead, making SNL political sketches illegal? One Republican senator warns that voting for a particular bill in the Senate would do just that, but he says he's not going to do it, not going to do it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military victory centuries ago in a part of the world where today --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. The Pop Culture Lead now. Imagine in America where a presidential impersonation such as any of these would suddenly become illegal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: None of us want war in that whole area out over there, but as commander in chief I'm ever cognizant of my authority to launch a full-scale or give death there on the desert sand. Probably won't, but then again, I might.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So you ask, in what brave new Orwellian world would SNL comedians become brazen outlaws just for mocking the residents of the oval office. Well, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said that would be the outcome if the Democrats new proposal for campaign finance reform were to become law.

The amendments bill is designed to give Congress greater authority to regulate campaign contributions from corporations after the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. It's an idea that Cruz claims could potentially affect corporation's free speech and it uses the example of NBC home of "Saturday Night Live."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Who can forget in 2008 "Saturday Night Live's" wickedly funny characterization of the Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin? Lorne Michaels could be put in jail under this amendment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now some might say there is something almost criminally funny about Tina Fey as the former Alaska governor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TINA FEY: I'm going rogue right now so keep your voices down. We've got a bunch of these --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: But is Cruz's claim true? CNN senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin joins me now. Jeff, explain the argument is trying to make here and fact check it for us.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: OK. Citizens United, one of the things the Supreme Court said was that corporations have first amendment rights and a lot of people were outraged about that. This amendment doesn't really address that.

Everyone agrees, in fact, that corporations do have first amendment rights. It's why NBC can parody presidential candidates. It's why CNN can get the access that we need to do reporting.

What -- what Cruz, I think, is trying to cleverly tie together is limiting campaign contributions, which is what this is really about and this other issue of whether corporations have first amendment rights, which he is correct, they do, and they should have.

TAPPER: So is he right or wrong and what does it have to do with "Saturday Night Live"?

TOOBIN: I think he is wrong. What he's saying is that if corporations didn't have first amendment rights Congress could pass a law criminalizing satire of politicians. This amendment has nothing to do with whether corporations have first amendment rights.

This amendment is simply about restoring the old status quo about campaign contributions, but I do think Ted Cruz makes a good point when he reminds us that it is necessary for a free society that not just individuals, but corporations, have the right to free speech.

So I think his point is legitimate in the abstract, but it really has very little, if anything to do with the constitutional amendment that Congress -- that the Senate is debating.

TAPPER: And what exactly would this constitutional amendment that Democrats are pushing? What would it do?

TOOBIN: Well, it would give Congress the authority that it used to have before the Citizens United decision in 2010. It would have -- Congress would again have the authority to limit campaign contributions by corporations, continue to limit them by individuals, eliminate super PACs.

And basically go back to the regulatory system that we had in the 1970s, '80s and '90s in this country. It really was not a dramatic change in the law and I think people should be aware that this amendment has virtually no chance of passage.

It requires three-quarters of the states to ratify it and it's not even going on get through the Senate with two-thirds of a vote, but it is a useful subject to discuss and Democrats think it's helpful and that's why Harry Reid has it on the floor in the election season. He thinks it will help Democratic candidates.

TAPPER: It will help Democratic candidates gin up the base. It's a campaign issue because obviously, it's a nonstarter in the House and as you point out the Senate and it would have to go to all of the states.

TOOBIN: Right. Harry Reid and the Democrats think this limiting campaign contributions is a cause that most people support, and I think by and large that's right, but this is a vehicle that is clearly going nowhere.

But it is one that Reid and the Democrats think will on gin up not just their base, but middle-class popular support, the old-fashioned good government types, who were the people who had been behind campaign finance regulation, you know, for 100 years.

TAPPER: Jeffrey Toobin, thanks so much. That's it for THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. I now turn you over to Wolf Blitzer. He's next door in THE SITUATION ROOM.