Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Questioning The Clinton Foundation's Fundraising; Giuliani Doesn't Believe Obama Loves America; Police Turn Off Dashcam During Arrest; Family Mourns, Defends Road Rage Victim

Aired February 19, 2015 - 07:30   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: It is time now to go "Inside Politics" on NEW DAY. John King, please help us.

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, "INSIDE POLITICS": You're going to lose at the CNN Quiz Show, it should be held in Hawaii, that's the answer to that one. You should get the fancy shirts and the beach.

Let's go "Inside Politics" this morning. A lot to talk about. With me to share their reporting and their insights are Jackie Kucinich of "The Daily Beast" and Ron Fournier of the "National Journal."

Let's start, the "Wall Street Journal" writes a story about the Clinton Foundation that Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton is running for president, she hasn't officially declared yet, but she's running for president.

They're raising money from foreign sources again. Here's some of the countries they raise money from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman, though, "Journal" reports 48 million total from overseas looking at the Clinton Foundation financial reports.

Ron, you wrote a story about this in the "National Journal." You called it stupid and sleazy. Why?

RON FOURNIER, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": Why mince words? Look, nobody is questioning whether or not this is a good charitable foundation, doing some really good things around the world, it is.

The problem here is first of all politically it's stupid because they're taking money from countries that go against whether it's going to be Hillary Clinton's brand and her reputation as somebody fighting for women. Some of these countries are not very good for women.

And it's sleazy because of the perception. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, obviously there is no way that you should have someone who is speaking of running for president taking money from foreign countries because it raises the level, what is it they're getting, they're expecting for that money.

Even the Obama administration said, this was not right, which is why they were not allowed to take these donations when she was secretary of state.

JACKIE KUCINICH, "THE DAILY BEAST": Well, it's not like she could recuse herself. If she's president, either, she's dealing with these countries. It's problematic so you wonder why they just don't reinforce the ban and this problem goes away.

KING: That's the question for me. Look, they were doing this when she was out of office. She lost the presidential campaign in 2008. Her husband was running the foundation. He was doing this whether you like it or not. The White House said, don't do this when you're secretary of state.

Bill Clinton agreed. He backed off because she was secretary of state traveling the globe. It makes sense, right, but if the president had to tell them, not to do this, why do they think if she's gearing up again, that it's OK to go back to do it?

FOURNIER: We've seen this before. You and I have covered them a long time. They're not a corrupt couple like a lot of people say. When he was governor of Arkansas, they could have made a lot of money off that state, other governors did. They didn't.

They're not personally corrupt people, I don't believe, but they have this obsession with campaign money. They can't stand the idea that they might lose because they didn't raise enough money. It's part of their mentality as campaigners. So they just you know, this is part of their DNA to go get money any way they can.

KING: Is it a gateway for Republican critics to start running the old grainy images of the White House coffees? One of the big questions of the Bill Clinton presidency was using places within the White House for fundraising.

FOURNIER: It's the second biggest (inaudible) of this administration. They are playing the narrative. Why would they do that? It's unnecessary. They could run this foundation without $2 million from Saudi Arabia.

KUCINICH: Right. And you have to wonder, it really doesn't make any sense at the end of the day because -- why?

FOURNIER: They'll change their position because it's the right thing to do.

KING: But do they wait until she officially declares? I mean, is that too cute?

FOURNIER: If they're smart, they do it now.

KING: I just want to say for the record, the Clinton Foundation did put out a statement saying, number one, it's a philanthropy period, as with global charities it receives support from individuals organizations and governments from all over the world.

They do say, they are right about this. The reason we know about this is they've been transparent. They've filed the paperwork and it's out there. So it's not a question of hiding anything, it's a question of whether it's smart.

KUCINICH: But as we know a new falls away during a presidential campaign. It's a charity. It has their names on it so.

FOURNIER: And they deserve credit for disclosing it. So why not go all the way. If you're going to be a good government, if you're going to be a good corporate citizens and good NGO citizens then stop taking money from these foreign governments.

KING: Stop taking money from foreign government. Do you notice, not just that they're foreign governments, it's governments who have human rights practices and treatment of their own people --

FOURNIER: And women.

KING: The economic relationships, strategic relationships people would say is that a conflict of interest. But more importantly if she wants to make the case that I'm going to break that glass ceiling.

FOURNIER: A couple of these countries support terrorism. She's on record saying they support terrorism and yet she's taking money from them. I just don't get it.

KING: All right, we'll see if that one changes. Let's see if there's push-back from the Clintons.

Let's move on to some very interesting poll numbers this morning. The big question for the president in his final two years is, how can he stay out of that lame duck status? Here is the president's approval rating in our brand new poll this morning.

The president is at 47 percent approval and 51 percent disapprove. It's about static from last month -- a year ago, 45 percent, 50 percent, a year ago. I want to get into the economic numbers too because this is what's interesting.

The president sort of holding steady, it's not horrible numbers, not great. He's holding steady, but people are feeling better about the economy. That's usually the tide that lifts a president.

Look at this, how do you feel about the economy, 36 percent, a year ago felt good about the economy and now 48 percent, about half of the American people.

If you ask people what do you think about a year from now, look at that number, 56 percent say they think the economy is going to be better a year from now. Yet, how is the president handling the economy, 45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove.

Why isn't he getting personal credit for people's slowly increasing optimism about the economy?

KUCINICH: It really is curious that he's not getting credit because one of the reasons is people are finally feeling the effects of a better economy. Also something like gas prices, every single day you're going to the gas pump and you're not getting -- you're paying a decent amount for gas. So it really, you really have to wonder. I don't know the answer. FOURNIER: I can't -- I don't have any data to back this up. My gut tells me that the American public thinks this is happening despite Obama and despite congressional leaders. They do feel the economy coming back. They do feel the impact of gas prices.

But we've seen polls, their faith in government and faith in leaders has plummeted. They don't see. They see the president is not getting his agenda through. They see gridlock, they see petty bickering -- you know, petty bickering and nothing getting done. So they kind of figure this is kind of happening on its own.

KING: I think also their faith in over the horizon. Do our leaders, Democrat or Republican, presidential or Congress, have an idea for what a 25-year plan, for what are we going to teach our kids? Are they going to be ready for the economy, the American dream question down the road?

FOURNIER: When you're part of a system that the public doesn't trust, it's hard to expect that your numbers will get any higher than where these are now.

KING: This will be talked about quite a bit. Rudy Giuliani in a fundraiser in New York, a meeting of big Republicans, including the presidential candidate on the Republican side, the Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, Rudy Giuliani says this.

And again remember, in the context, Rudy Giuliani is not the mayor of New York anymore. He's not running for anything so he can say whatever he wants. A likely presidential candidate is sitting a few feet away when he says this.

"I do not believe, I know this is a horrible thing to say, I do not believe that the president loves America, he doesn't love you and he doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country."

FOURNIER: You can be as opposed to the president of the United States as you want to be. You don't say that anybody in this country, much less the president of the United States doesn't love the country unless you can prove it. That is deplorable. That is wrong. I actually think you can almost say it's unpatriotic to accuse somebody else of not loving the country.

KUCINICH: It actually reflects more poorly on him than it does on the president.

FOURNIER: It shows how desperate he is. It can be dangerous. We can't have a country where half the public thinks that the president doesn't love their country. It's not healthy.

KING: Again, he's not in public office any more. He's I guess entitled to --

KUCINICH: He can say whatever he wants.

KING: As a citizen he can say whatever he wants, but as a leader. He was America's mayor after 9/11 and God bless him for what he did after 9/11.

FOURNIER: But I look at him differently as a citizen. I look at him differently. He has the free right to say that, but now I look at him as much more desperate and deserving of less respect after saying something like that.

KING: I assume the next time Scott Walker does a public event, he gets asked to agree or disagree, right?

KUCINICH: Of course, he does.

KING: Isn't that part of the risk here?

FOURNIER: He should have stood up right then and denounced it. By the way, President Obama said in 2008 that President Bush's handling of the debt was unpatriotic. President Obama should have not said that about President Bush.

But even that is different than saying, they don't love their country. I don't know of anybody who said that President Bush doesn't love his country. They shouldn't because President Bush loves his country. President Clinton loves his country and President Obama loves his country.

KING: That one will be talked about in the days and moments ahead. Mr. Berman as we get back to New York, I know you love a little bit of humor. Remember, Joe Biden saying hello to Ashton Carter's wife using the two-hand and the whisper treatment. Well, David Letterman thought that was worthy of a top ten.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW": Top ten things that Joe Biden said at this moment. Number three, ever heard of a second, second lady? Number two, I don't have a time machine, but I do have a hot tub. And the number one thing Joe Biden said at this moment -- in the words of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I'm not 100 percent sober.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The life of Joe Biden.

BERMAN: You know it's hard to make jokes about the vice president. So hats off to David Letterman for tackling that difficult task. John King, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

All right, about 39 minutes after the hour right now. A man kicked and tazed during his arrest. Some of it caught on dash cam video. That is -- until one officer turned the camera off. We're speaking to one of the victim's lawyers, next.

Plus, they donated money to help pay for a mother's funeral, but now they want their cash back. Did the victim invite the deadly confrontation?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) CUOMO: An arrest in St. Louis that you need to know about. It was captured on dash cam video, kind of. Officers wrestled Cortez Bufford to the ground. He's kicked, tazed and then comes the "kind of" part because the brutality taken to another level. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of you, hold up. Hold up. Everybody hold up. We're red right now so if you guys are worried about cameras, just wait.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: That's the voice of a female officer. We're told, saying we're red, meaning that the dash board camera was recording and then another officer turns it off.

Joining us now, Joel Schwartz, he is the attorney who filed the suit against the St. Louis Police Department on behalf of Mr. Buffer. Thank you for joining us on NEW DAY, sir.

JOEL SCHWARTZ, LAWYER FOR CORTEZ BUFFORD: Good morning.

CUOMO: What have you received from the police in terms of apologies, admissions of wrongdoing, et cetera?

SCHWARTZ: We have received quite the opposite of admissions of wrongdoing. They are stating that their actions were appropriate in this instance.

CUOMO: Now when they say actions, are they talking about what they did to Mr. Bufford or what they did with the dash cam video?

SCHWARTZ: The dash cam video has not been discussed with us. Obviously that's a violation of departmental policy. As far as the tazing and the kicking, they are stating that that is proper police procedure. We would quarrel with that.

CUOMO: All right, let's put up the statement. We have to unpack, there are two things here. It's what they did to Bufford and why, and it's what they did with the dash camera, they both matter.

As to the first part, the officers, this is from their attorney, "The officers were not acting out of line at any time during the arrest. The person involved in the altercation had a semiautomatic weapon, gun, and the officers were protecting themselves and the public. They did what had to be done to protect themselves."

The fact pattern, he does an illegal U-turn, they say. They smell marijuana. They find marijuana and a loaded gun on Bufford. He was wrestled out of the car and this is what ensues, do you rebut any of those allegations?

SCHWARTZ: We rebut virtually all of the allegations. We're not arguing with the fact that there was a gun. However, we are quarrelling with the fact that the gun was relevant to the situation. The gun was not located until after the camera was turned off. So there is no gun located during the course of the entire encounter unless and until it happens off-camera once that officer turns the camera off.

CUOMO: Well, I want to get to the second part. I want to get to the camera part. I want to make sure that we go through this because we have to inform suspicion, what is suspicion in these situations? Well, what kind of kid is this, this 18-year-old?

What did the cops think they were dealing with? There's a loaded gun. They were at risk. What can you tell us about Bufford in terms of what he presented to police as a threat?

SCHWARTZ: He presented no threat to the police whatsoever. He hadn't committed any traffic violations, contrary to what the police are alleging. He has not had any prior convictions and he's a good kid.

CUOMO: Except for the loaded gun in the car. How do you explain that?

SCHWARTZ: I can't explain that. That is a violation of law. However, that is really not relevant to this conversation as none of the officers were aware there was a loaded gun on his person or in the vehicle at the time.

CUOMO: OK, point taken on that. So now let's go to the second part. Have you ever heard of cops having a discussion like this, in process, of saying whoa, whoa, better turn off the camera before we go any further?

SCHWARTZ: I was not aware they had the capabilities to turn the camera off on site and I've never heard of something like this occurring.

CUOMO: Is there any explanation that could be offered to you that would make this OK?

SCHWARTZ: I don't think there's a reasonable explanation that would make this OK.

CUOMO: The idea that it is a violation of department policy. Is that enough? Have these officers been fired? Should this be a crime doing something like this? Because what is the intentionality in turning off the camera, except the obvious, which is very frightening.

SCHWARTZ: Well, the obvious is that this is not only a violation of departmental policy, but the video would be evidence in a criminal investigation and in turning off that video, you could argue that it's tampering with evidence.

CUOMO: Now OK, but even that is a little benign. It's a little bit of an innocent explanation. What happens after they turn off the dash cam video? You don't know because we don't get to see it. What do you hear from your client happened after they turned off the video?

SCHWARTZ: Most of the kicking and tazing was done prior to the camera being turned off. Our client indicates that he was kicked at least one more time, maybe twice more once the camera had been turned off.

CUOMO: So what do you think, what do you think was going through their heads? I know lawyers always say we can't get into their mind. Let's set it aside for a second. From what you understand of the situation, what do you think it was about?

SCHWARTZ: Well, instinctively as well as intellectually, this officer who turned the camera off knew what they were doing was wrong as a violation of policy and a violation of our client's civil rights. At that point, she turned off the camera.

CUOMO: What do you think should be done to the officers in this situation?

SCHWARTZ: That's not for me to decide.

CUOMO: Well it's for society to decide. What has the department done so far?

SCHWARTZ: I know the department conducted an internal affairs investigation, I have not been made privy to what those results were or what they intend to do with any or all of these officers.

As far as the general public is concerned, the trust needs to be there, people need to see this and police officers need to understand that this is certainly not acceptable.

CUOMO: Especially this coming in St. Louis, so close to Ferguson. Obviously there's been such a spotlight on that area. The charges were dropped because the action of turning off the dash cam video diminished the evidentiary merits of the case, as far as you know, anything from the police department in terms of investigating the officers for excessive force?

SCHWARTZ: No, they don't tell me those types of things so I have no new information at this point.

CUOMO: Well, that is of concern also. Please stay on the situation for us and we'll check back in with you, sir. Thank you for joining us.

SCHWARTZ: Thank you very much.

CUOMO: What do you think? Am I pushing it too far in saying it seems like something that should be actionable against the officers by the department, if not by the district attorney? What do you think, go to NEW DAY, go to facebook.com/newday -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Thanks, Chris. Two very different sides of a road rage controversy. The family of a mother gunned down is defending her decision to confront the man who ended up killing her. But not everyone is buying the story. We'll tell you why.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: The family of a woman killed after a road rage incident is coming to her defense. They say Tammy Myers is the victim, no questions asked, but questions are being asked about her role in the incident and what she did to put herself in danger. CNN's Sara Sidner explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Filled with sorrow, the family of Tammy Myers walks by her make shift memorial as they prepare to make funeral arrangements. Myers, a mother of four, shot and killed after a road rage incident.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was doing what every mother would do is protect her baby.

SIDNER: But while the family first explained this as a case of road rage only on the part of the suspected killer, they now find themselves defending Myers' role in possibly escalating the situation.

Initially the family only revealed details that the driver suspected of killing Myers went off the handle with no provocation, but new details are emerging.

Police say Myers was finishing up a driving lesson with her daughter in the parking lot just 2 minutes from their home and then the two left the school and ended up in some kind of altercation with the man who would eventually kill Tammy Myers.

LT. RAY STEIBER, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE: The vehicle came up at a high rate of speed behind her and then pulled off to the side and ultimately cut in front of her as that vehicle did that, her daughter had reached over and honked the horn.

SIDNER: Police say Myers and that driver sketched here argued. Myers and her daughter then drove home.

STEIBER: Her 22-year-old son came out of the house, got into the car. He was armed with a firearm that is registered to him and then they left the house. They left the house in search of that person they were -- that Mrs. Myers was involved in an incident with just prior.

SIDNER: Police say they found the driver they were looking for, but gave no details on what happened in that second encounter. What we do know is Myers and her son returned home and this time the suspect followed. Gunfire was exchanged and Tammy Myers was struck in the head.

Despite the criticism that Myers and her son may have had a hand in escalating the situation, her family says no one should ever have died over something so trivial. Sara Sidner, CNN, Las Vegas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: Thanks to Sara. And we will stay on that story.

Now when we come back, nuance or nonsense, the terrorist name game continuing in Washington. President Obama spending a lot of time describing who we are not at war with, is this worth it? We discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)