Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Obama Announces Executive Action on Immigration; Will Ferguson Cop Resign?; NSA Official: China Can Shut Down U.S. Power Grid

Aired November 21, 2014 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Battle lines drawn. President Obama announces his immigration plan, he will sign his executive order today, affecting millions of undocumented immigrants, or will it? We're going to discuss the plan, the timing, the political fallout, and legal challenges ahead.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: And another woman goes public, sharing her story for the first time of how she says Bill Cosby sexually assaulted her decades ago on a beach. Despite a troubled past, she explains why she's coming forward now.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking overnight, CNN has learned that Officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed teenager Michael Brown, could resign today. This as the grand jury gets closer to announcing whether it will indict Wilson. Will his resignation quell any potential for unrest?

CUOMO: Your NEW DAY starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Kate Bolduan, and Michaela Pereira.

CUOMO: Think it's weird for the computer to between the two of us?

CAMEROTA: No, I think it's fine.

CUOMO: Right?

CAMEROTA: We're sharing.

CUOMO: All right, I think it works.

CAMEROTA: Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: Good, then we'll move on.

PEREIRA: No security issues there. CUOMO: Good morning, welcome to a NEW DAY and it's called Friday, November 21st, 6:00 in the East almost. Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota here with what could be historic change or simply historic political fighting in Washington, D.C.

President Obama told the nation he is forcing immigration change. He is going to send a message to millions of undocumented immigrants that they can come out of the shadows. The main impact of the order would be easing the threat of deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants, saying the focus will be on deporting felons, not families.

CAMEROTA: But furious Republicans are not buying it. They say he's overstepping his constitutional powers. And House Speaker John Boehner dismissing the president's credibility on this issue.

The president taking his message on the road today, speaking in Las Vegas. White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski joins us live with more.

Good morning, Michelle.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Alisyn.

Right, he did it. And the president will actually sign his executive action today but has now announced what will affect nearly five million people here. Or more than 40 percent of the known population of undocumented immigrants, giving them a chance to stay and work.

And the president saying this is not changing the law but simply using legally permissible discretion in enforcing it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KOSINSKI (voice-over): With crowds chanting, in Spanish, "Yes, he could," in the freezing cold outside the White House, the president put his case for executive action before the American public.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These people, our neighbors, our classmates, our friends, they did not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. They came to work.

KOSINSKI: At one point, quoting scripture.

OBAMA: We shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger. We were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants.

KOSINSKI: His plan allows the Department of Homeland Security to take certain groups off the priority list for deportation, while keeping others high up.

OBAMA: Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who's working hard to provide for her kids.

KOSINSKI: Putting more resources at the border and focusing on deporting criminals and those entering the U.S. most recently. The plan will allow immigrants who have been in America at least five years with children who are legal residents, the chance to apply to stay for three years, provided they pass a background check and start paying taxes.

They will also expand such relief granted by the president to people brought here illegally as kids, the so-called DREAMers. For example, eliminating the age limit. And promises to streamline the immigration system, helping high-skilled workers, graduates and entrepreneurs, with a chance to stay.

OBAMA: What I'm describing is accountability. A common-sense middle- ground approach. If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you're a criminal, you'll be deported.

KOSINSKI: The speech was played just before the Latin Grammys. Cheers went up at watch parties around the country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's emotional, so that maybe one day my mom will be able to -- my parents will be able to go to, you know, back to Ecuador, and you know, families will be connected again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obviously, this is a huge victory for our community. But obviously, this is not enough. We're going to still fight...

KOSINSKI: The plan, remember, is not a path to citizenship. The Republican response?

REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: I fear what he has done is torn Article I out of the Constitution, put it into his own pocket and said, "I'm now the legislative branch, too."

KOSINSKI: House Speaker John Boehner, in a statement, said the president "cemented his legacy of lawlessness and squandered what little credibility he had left."

To all of which President Obama responded with those three little political words.

OBAMA: Pass a bill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOSINSKI: So there's a question. Will this now spur Congress to pass its own bill and supersede what the president has just done? Or will it, as some have warned, ruin the chances of them taking this up? Or alternatively, will they be taking something else up? Like a lawsuit -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Hmm. There still are so many questions. Michelle, thanks so much for breaking it down for us.

Let's bring in Ron Brownstein. He's our CNN political analyst and the editorial director of "The National Journal"; and Alan Gomez, an immigration reporter for "USA Today," who has followed this issue extensively. Gentlemen, good morning.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Good morning.

ALAN GOMEZ, IMMIGRATION REPORTER, "USA TODAY": Good morning.

CAMEROTA: Ron, let me start with you. How significant are the changes that the president announced last night?

BROWNSTEIN: This is, I think, a huge moment, both substantively it affects us as the spot pointed out, five -- potentially five million people, but also politically. I mean, this is a huge moment for both parties. Like many other things that the president has done in his second term, this really aligns the Democratic Party with the priorities of its new presidential coalition, which are minorities, millennials and socially liberal whites at the expense of further alienating many of the same culturally conservative voters -- older, blue collar and rural whites -- who moved very sharply away from them again in 2014.

And for the Republicans in their response, on the one hand, they feel, you know, enraged that the president is doing this in the face of the election. But they also face a long-term demographic challenge that, if they cannot improve their share of the growing minority vote, the math gets tougher and tougher for them to win the White House. So big moment for both parties.

CAMEROTA: Alan, there is a fascinating article in Politico today about how this was not a rash decision by the president. This had been going on for nine months in these back-room dealings. And little did we know just how close the Republicans in the House were to signing onto some sort of bipartisan bill when suddenly, Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his position, and it all fell apart.

GOMEZ: Well, yes, I mean, there's been efforts by Republicans in the House to try to get something passed through Congress for a very long time. Representative Mario Diaz Balart from Florida, he was going to lead the team of legislators that were trying to craft a bill that could get through the House. They always rejected a bill that was passed by the Senate last year. John Boehner said he never wanted that. So they were working on that for quite a bit of time.

But there were several points along the way, several reasons that House Republicans gave for not wanting to take that up. At first they said they couldn't trust the president for -- on border security, to enforce that portion of any sort of immigration bill. Then they said it was because of Eric Cantor's loss. He'd come out sort of in support for immigration reform, and a lot of people blame that for his loss, even though that's a little bit debatable. Over the summer we had that wave of Central American children coming over. And so at that time they said, "Well, we can't do it now. We've got this crisis going on." So along the way there's people always trying, but there was always a lot of skepticism about whether they were actually going to file anything and get something going.

CAMEROTA: So Ron, now what do Republicans do? BROWNSTEIN: Well, you know, I think they fight it in many different

ways, and I think they're debating how far they can go while trying to hold to the line of not seeming so intemperate that they alienate, further alienate Hispanic voters. I think it is a very difficult moment for them.

I myself am dubious that they were ever going to pass a bill acceptable to the president. We saw essentially the same thing under George W. Bush in 2006 as under President Obama in 2013. In each case, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill with measurable Republican support, and then the House Republicans refused to take it up. Eighty percent of them represent districts that are more white than the national average. They feel very little political personal incentive to do this. But it is an imperative for the party.

I think what you're going to see now is a lot of forceful response and a real struggle by the leadership in both parties to prevent the most extreme members from defining this in a way that does further alienate Hispanic voters.

CAMEROTA: Alan, let's talk about the very strategic timing. Last night wasn't any old Thursday night. It was the Latin Grammys Awards, and millions of people were watching Univision when that network cut away from the Latin Grammy awards to take the president's speech live. He had a captive audience of the very demographic that he was courting.

Are Latinos happy today? Or did it not go far enough for them?

GOMEZ: They're happy, but of course some of them are a little bit upset. The president could have gone a little bit -- they think he could have gone a little bit further with this action. There are still a lot of undocumented immigrants who are not going to be protected under this. Those who have lived in the country for a long time but just don't happen to have any U.S. citizen children. So they think there's more he could have done.

The timing of it is interesting, because he -- he was thinking about doing this over the summer. He delayed it, to help his some of his Democratic colleagues who were trying to get re-elected in the Senate, who thought that him doing it over the summer would enrage the more conservative side of their states and lead to their loss. Obviously, that didn't work out for them either way.

But he ended up doing this now, and I think the timing just worked out incredibly well. Obviously, we're going into a cycle now where it's going to be presidential election season very, very soon. And we're facing a presidential election. And so it's -- this is where the Hispanic vote is critical.

They weren't that influential in these last elections that we just saw. The demographics, the geography of the election just didn't work out for that. But in a presidential election, they are paramount; they are critical. Mitt Romney got 27 percent of the Hispanic vote ,and that was one of the things that helped sink him. And so Republicans are -- their response now in these next couple of

weeks, in these next couple of months to what the president did, is going to go a long way towards determining how many of those Hispanics actually come around and vote for the Republican Party.

CAMEROTA: Alan Gomez, Ron Brownstein, thanks so much for being with us on NEW DAY and helping us understand what's happened last night. Great to see you guys.

And we'll be joined by the White House press secretary in the next hour, Josh Earnest, who will help answer some of the many remaining questions about the president's plan.

Let's go over to Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Alisyn.

Another big story to be watching today is what's going to happen in Ferguson. Now it's police Officer Darren Wilson who's center stage, reportedly in talks to resign from the department. He says it's to make life easier on his fellow officers. But his decision could be pending the outcome of the grand jury decision. That decision could come today.

We have Evan Perez in Clayton, Missouri. That's where the grand jury has been deliberating. Evan, what do we know about what Wilson is negotiating or not? And what do we know about the timing with the grand jury?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chris, good morning.

Yes, the timing is very much dependent upon the grand jury. As we know, the grand jury is coming back here today, to the St. Louis County Justice Center, to do some of the -- to do the deliberations, and they could make a decision later today.

And that comes as Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown, is in negotiations, the final stages of negotiations to resign. Now, you know, his resignation has been in the works for some time. And one of his concerns was not to resign at a time when the grand jury was still hearing evidence, for fear that that would signal that he is admitting any guilt or any fault here. He maintains that he did nothing wrong, and he's really just doing this to ease the pressure in some of his fellow officers.

CUOMO: All right, Evan, thank you very much. We're going to have to see -- obviously, he wants to hold until he knows whether or not he's indicted because of the suggestion of it. But we're going to have to see what happens today. It could be a very big day, not just for him but for that entire community -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, Chris. We're also getting word that China is capable of mounting hack attacks with enough juice to shut down the U.S. electrical grid and other critical systems. Those words of warning from the head of the NSA, who says malware from China and other countries has been detected on key U.S. computer systems. So can a catastrophic event be prevented?

Let's get right to chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto with the latest. What do we know, Jim?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, this is pretty alarming testimony before the House Intelligence Committee by the NSA chief, Admiral Michael Rogers. Admiral Rogers, who is also head of the U.S. Cyber Command, says that China and probably one or two other countries, which he did not identify, have the capacity to shut down not just the nation's power grid, but other critical infrastructure.

Here's what he said before the committee. He said, "We see them attempting to steal information on how our systems are configured, the very schematics of most of our control systems, right down to the engineering level of detail so they can look where there are vulnerabilities, how they're constructed and how could I get in and defeat them?"

They also say that there are multiple nations, as well as surrogate criminal actors acting on behalf of nations. You know, while he didn't identify the other one or two countries involved, Russia certainly a candidate here. And Russia is a country that has used criminal groups, hacking groups as surrogates to carry out attacks on sensitive government systems.

This comes, as well, after a new report by Pew which predicts a catastrophic cyber-attack, causing significant losses of life and money by 2025. It's interesting: Rogers before the committee was asked about that report, and he said he did not disagree, Alisyn, with that assessment.

CAMEROTA: So troubling. Jim Sciutto, thanks so much for explaining it.

There's other news to talk about. Let's get over to Michaela.

PEREIRA: And happy Friday.

CAMEROTA: You, too.

PEREIRA: Let me be the first to say it to you both and to you at home.

And of course, we begin with some breaking news for you right now. Israel has arrested three Palestinians who allegedly planned to assassinate Israel's foreign minister. Israeli defense officials say the men planned to fire a rocket toward the foreign minister's convoy near his home during Operation Protective Edge over the summer.

More violence breaking out in Mexico. Overnight skirmishes broke out between protesters and police, who forcibly cleared demonstrators from the main square in the center of Mexico City. Earlier police used fire extinguishers to disburse protesters throwing Molotov cocktails in the streets. Demonstrators are demanding answers in the case of 43 missing college students. It is feared they were massacred by a cartel on orders from a Mexican mayor.

One person is dead, three others have been injured after a deadly blast at an off-shore oil platform near Louisiana. Investigators are trying to figure out exactly what sparked the explosion some 12 miles off the coast of New Orleans. Happened around 3 local time Thursday afternoon. Officials say that rig was not in production at the time. The damage has been limited to the explosion area, and no pollution was reported.

The latest developments now for you in the FSU shooting. The shooter has now been identified as this young man, Myron May. He was a lawyer and a 2005 FSU graduate. We've learned that he messaged eight friends to tell them they would be receiving packages; those packages should arrive today. Investigators are hoping the packages may hold some clues as to why he opened fire.

One of May's three victims has been identified as library worker Nathan Scott. He was shot in the leg. But he is recovering. We send our best to him and to the other victims.

CAMEROTA: Still so many questions about that. We still stay on that.

Also, more ahead from Ferguson, Missouri, on what could be a pivotal day. A decision is imminent on whether to indict the officer who shot Michael Brown. Plus, he could lose his job. We'll have analysis of all that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: All right. We have breaking news out of Ferguson. Officer Darren Wilson is reportedly in talks to resign. But only if he's not indicted by the grand jury. We could get that answer today.

Let's discuss what's going on with that decision, what's going on with the grand jury and what may come next. We have criminal defense attorney Danny Cevallos and attorney and from the CNN Center, attorney and radio host Mo Ivory.

A happy Friday to both of you.

Let's talk about this first headline here. Mo, if Officer Darren Wilson were to resign, what would that mean to the community, if anything, in your estimation?

MO IVORY, ATTORNEY/RADIO PERSONALITY: Well, it just would be something that would make the supporters of Michael Brown feel like there's a little ounce of some justice, you know, sort of on a community level. Because I can't imagine that he would believe, even if he's not indicted, that he could then go back into that community and be a police officer. So I mean, for the heart, it probably would make Michael Brown supporters feel really good. And it's probably a prudent thing for him to do.

CUOMO: Danny, he could keep -- you know, if he's not indicted, especially, he would keep his job, and it would be -- the assumption is that he didn't do anything wrong. But what could this mean right now to the grand jury, if anything?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't know that it will make that much of a difference on the grand jury itself. But remember this is a police officer. He's experienced at testifying. Whether or not he was still on the job or not on the job, this is -- law enforcement knows how to testify in court, whether it's before a grand jury or a petit jury.

And remember, grand juries are such one-sided affairs. There's no defense attorney. There's no -- it's the prosecution's show. So when we talk of this old saying of a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, that's true. But a prosecutor can also not indict a ham sandwich if he is so inclined.

IVORY: Exactly.

CEVALLOS: I'm not saying that's happening here.

CUOMO: Here's something -- I get your point. I know that legally it's correct. But Mo, here's what I don't get. Prosecutors usually don't go to a grand jury if they don't want to bring a case. You could argue that wouldn't even be ethical. If you take it to the grand jury, it's because you want to make a case, right?

IVORY: Sure, which then says that, if you feel like there is enough evidence for a case, you don't even have to go to the grand jury.

CUOMO: That's right.

IVORY: You can just prosecute yourself.

So you know, that example is exactly right, what Danny said. But I think in this situation, it gives people a lot of pause, because the prosecutor is actually supposed to be working to find justice for Michael Brown. But in this instance, it doesn't necessarily feel that way. And it doesn't necessarily feel like, from putting Darren Wilson on the stand -- imagine he goes on the stand, he goes before the grand jury, and he's like you said, well-seasoned in speaking before a juries. He knows what he needs to say. But then there's nobody equally with the kind of support on the Michael Brown side to come forward in that manner. You have to wonder, what kind of impact did that have on the grand jury?

CUOMO: We gloss over this too often, so let's give it just a beat of time now. Because people are trying to figure out what's going to happen in this grand jury and why. And there's a lot of misinformation, misconceptions going on.

One, this prosecutor could have brought charges. He decided not to. He went to the grand jury. Having a witness come forward in the grand jury who is the defendant changes the entire equation.

IVORY: Right.

CUOMO: It's very rare. Usually, a lawyer like, you know, Danny or you won't put your client anywhere near it... IVORY: Right.

CUOMO: ... because all the rules are skewed towards the prosecutor.

CEVALLOS: No. Right, right.

CUOMO: But this officer gets on the stand. He's there for hours. He takes his entire story, right? That ham sandwich turns into steak and potatoes, in terms of you know, how it is for a grand jury, right?

CEVALLOS: I think so. But the bottom line is people during this process have completely lost track of what a grand jury is supposed to mean.

As a defense attorney it's shocking to me that people are saying, this grand jury may not indict and that's injustice. As defense attorneys, grand juries almost always do indict. They're such a one-sided affair.

IVORY: Right.

CEVALLOS: The other thing is people are saying, "Oh, well, this grand jury isn't transparent. We can't see what's going on." Grand juries are designed to be secret. We're not supposed to know what's going on. Otherwise it would threaten the very process.

IVORY: Right.

CEVALLOS: If you want transparency, if you have a predetermined outcome that you would like in this case, well, then that's not what a grand jury is for.

Now if the prosecution, there's a theory that maybe the prosecution is just putting all the evidence before the grand jury to absolve itself of liability, if they come back with a no true bill or no indictment. And maybe that's the case.

But you could also look at it as they're trying to put, in a high- profile case, all the information that the grand jury could possibly look at. And it's true that ultimately, if the grand jury chooses to indict or not indict, that is the grand jury and not the prosecution.

CUOMO: But you have a case that comes down to perception in the moment, for whatever the witnesses say they saw.

IVORY: Right.

CUOMO: And you have before the grand jury one side of what was perceived in the moment. And that could be very influential on them.

IVORY: That's right.

CUOMO: And I don't think people are weighing that enough.

All right. Last question for us to get into today. Which is going to be, first of all, if the grand jury says, "No true bill, we're not indicting," the prosecutor could still charge him.

CEVALLOS: Absolutely.

IVORY: That's exactly right. That's exactly right.

CUOMO: But nobody anticipates that, and that's the last point. Mo, you used the word "feel." Why does it feel like there's not going to be an indictment? Is that the media portrayal? Is that all the preparations? Is that just the pessimism? Why does it feel that way?

IVORY: I think it's all of those things. I think it's a combination of all of those things, certainly the media, certainly the way there's been this preparation has made people feel that there will not be an indictment. And then, of course, the history of, you know, officers being able to, you know, use excessive force and be able to get away with it.

Now of course, this is not about a trial, whether he's, you know, guilty of this or not. It's just whether he should go to trial and face a jury of his peers. But people are just very pessimistic about it. And that doesn't mean that there won't be an indictment. It's just a feeling in the air. We do not know what these 12 people -- and only nine of them have to agree -- what they will agree on.

CUOMO: Whether they have a group of nine or not.

IVORY: Exactly.

CUOMO: Mo Ivory. We're all waiting on the outcome. Danny Cevallos, thank you very much.

And remember, it's going to be as much about the response as the findings themselves. We encourage you to look at the PSA from Michael Brown's father, his family and what they want. And it's nothing about outrage, no matter what happens. So take a look at that -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Chris. Adding insult to injury in already-buried Buffalo, New York. More snow, which could turn to flooding this weekend. Even the Buffalo Bills need a snow day. We'll take to you Buffalo for the big dig-out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Welcome back to your NEW DAY. It's a NEW DAY in Buffalo, but is it a better day?

They are digging out after a vicious week of snow. Now the fear is actually warmer temperatures. Because what's going to happen to the snow when it warms up? It's going to turn into water. Flooding, rain, the intense weight of the water on top of the snow could collapse roofs. There's a whole host of new problems on top of the ones that already exist.

Let's get to meteorologist Jennifer Gray. She's in Buffalo. What are you seeing there? JENNIFER GRAY, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, well Chris, that's why all of

these trucks have been here round the clock for the last three days, getting as much snow as they can out of the city and bringing it here. It's basically a race against time to get as much snow out, before the melting begins.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GRAY (voice-over): Round two of the monster blizzard bearing down on Buffalo, piling more misery on a community paralyzed by nearly six feet of snow. The deadly storm that has already claimed ten lives now brings about a new threat: roof collapses like these. The fear: that the weekend's warming temperatures will cause flooding in homes and buildings to buckle under the weight of the melting snow.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's been a long four days, and I'm ready for it to end.

I'll be happy if I can get that off the roof and just not have my house collapse down.

GRAY: Rescue workers evacuating 200 people from this nursing home Thursday ahead of a possible roof collapse.

Meanwhile, snow drifts trapping residents inside their homes. With EMS firefighters and volunteers racing out to save them at any means necessary.

Rescuing this elderly woman as her roof began to buckle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll get you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll get you.