Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Iran Nuclear Talks Restart Today; Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Tom Cole; Saudi Arabia: Airstrike Campaign Achieves Goals; Dr. Oz: "We Will Not Be Silenced"; Bryan Price's Profanity- Laced Rant. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 22, 2015 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Here's the situation. U.S. warships are stationed off the shore of Yemen and there is a warning to Iran in that statement about shipping weapons to Houthi rebels who've been wreaking havoc on Yemen, assuming that that is true that Iran's been doing that.

So how will this situation affect ongoing nuclear talks? What should the U.S. role be in that situation and do we even have the authority to do any of this?

Now Congress had an opportunity to debate this and authorize military force against ISIS, hasn't taken those opportunities yet. Is it going to change?

Let's discuss with members of Congress themselves, Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Congressman Tom Cole, the deputy majority whip for the Republicans. Gentlemen, thank you for being with us on NEW DAY this morning.

I see that you are each adorned in the tie color of the opposite party. Let's assume that that means there is some type of equity going to be here this morning, some kind of joining.

Let's start with the beginning, which is the authorization of use of force. Why, I'll start with you, Congressman Schiff, why hasn't there been a vote yet? Why isn't this happening when obviously the strategy is not settled and not working?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I don't know how to explain it except that we have a convergence of interest for a long time the administration a position that didn't need it, didn't really necessarily want to force this issue on Congress.

It has now proposed a draft, but at the same time, there are many in Congress, who just don't want to have vote on this in case things go badly. None of that is an adequate answer though. This is our institutional role.

The constitution gives us the power to declare war. If we don't live up to that responsibility now, we set a very dangerous precedent I think in the future that presidents can make war with or without the blessing of Congress.

CUOMO: Deputy Majority Whip, why don't you shame your members into taking their responsibility? If they want to criticize they should debate and vote as well.

REP. TOM COLE (R), OKLAHOMA: Well, you know, the process in some ways has begun. We have had hearings, but I agree with you, and I very much agree with my friend, Adam. Look, the administration initially didn't want this.

Quite frankly Democratic leaders didn't want to vote on it before an election. It is a divisive issue and there is not a consensus here that the president's proposed resolution for the authorization of use of force is strong enough. So I get all this, but I think Adam makes the right point.

At the end, constitutional authority's like a muscle. You either use it or you lose it and frankly, Congress is in danger of using war making authority if it doesn't act.

CUOMO: And, look, this has been going on for a long time, but we're also dealing with it right now. And a little bit of the irony here, Representative Schiff, is that when it comes to making the deal with Iran you could very well argue that the president has unilateral executive authority there.

And yet Congress is getting involved, but they won't get involved on the bigger issue on the use of military force overall. Let's shift to what's going on with Iran and that situation.

[07:35:01] As you look at the talks, as they restart today, do you believe the U.S. has been suckered into these talks on nukes with Iran while Iran is also running rough shad everywhere else in the world and kind of tying the hands of the U.S. to do anything about it?

SCHIFF: No, I don't think the U.S. has been suckered into talks. I think the administration as well as Iran tried to compartmentalize the Iran talks so that other very strident and important differences don't prevent us from seeing whether a deal is possible that does away with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Now, that remains to be seen. There's still significant differences left. We may or may not have a deal, but the fact is that even if there is a deal, it's not going to stop the fact that we have to confront Iran's effort to be a hedge man in the region.

Their malicious efforts in places like Yemen as well as Syria and other places in the region. So this isn't going to be the end with this confrontation in the water. And I don't think it's going to be the end even if there's an agreement on the nuclear issue.

CUOMO: Representative Cole, the Saudis said on behalf of them and their partners that means, you guys, the United States government, that "Operation Decisive Storm" has achieved its goals.

And they outline these five points of what they were trying to get done in Yemen. They say they did it. It's almost a laughable assertion given the situation in Yemen.

Why is the United States being party to what's going on with Saudi Arabia there? Do you think it's the best move for your national interests?

COLE: Well, first of all, we're not their only partner. Frankly --

CUOMO: But you are a partner.

COLE: We are a partner. I think they have a great deal of mistrust in the United States simply because of the Iranian negotiation. I was actually there recently and dealt with senior Saudi officials literally two or three weeks ago as this Yemen operation was beginning.

But their most reliable partners are the other Sunni states, the Egyptians, Gulf States, UAE, they are all there with them. We need to be there as well. Frankly, I think this is a case where the Iranians are overreaching.

I think they're causing a great deal of trouble in Yemen. This is a place the president called a success story a few months ago and now we've had to leave with our tails between our legs.

So I think working with our allies and checking Iranian aggression is the right thing to do. I'm glad we've taken an aggressive posture and frankly, I hope we continue do so.

CUOMO: Well, although Representative Cole is kind of arguing the president's case here a little bit, how do you see this as an aggressive posture, Congressman Schiff?

You know, the Houthis are running all over Yemen. Whether or not the Iranians are supporting them with arms we don't even know. We haven't heard what gives you that intelligence in government. How does the U.S. look strong in Yemen right now?

SCHIFF: Look, I'm confident of the intelligence that Iran has been providing weapons as well as military advice and support to the Houthis notwithstanding Iranian claims to the contrary.

And I think it's important as my colleague says that we have the Saudis back, that we support them through intelligence, logistics and with this show of force in the region in terms of our naval presence.

That doesn't mean that we want to necessarily participate in airstrikes or have our own ground troops there. I don't think that would be productive. And I don't think that's what the Saudis want either.

But I do think it's vitally important that we show the Gulf States that we're willing to stand up to Iran and their malicious actions in the region whether there's a nuclear negotiation going on or not.

CUOMO: Last question, when do both of you think there will be a debate and vote on the AUMF? COLE: I don't have a precise day. I just think sooner is better. I think we need to begin the process in a sense it already has begun. We've had hearings in the appropriate committee, but I think you just work through a schedule and let Congress work its will.

I think we could come to a consensus. But, again, if we don't do this, we're essentially seeding authority to the executive branch. That's not bad with this president. It's frankly bad with any president. Something Congress shouldn't do and the next president will decide this as a precedent.

CUOMO: Tom Cole, Adam Schiff, thank you for you both being on NEW DAY. Important issues, we look forward to seeing action on it -- Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: OK, Chris. TV's Dr. Oz is fighting back against critics accusing him of quack medicine. What is Dr. Oz saying?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:43:20]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MEHMET OZ, HOST, "DR. OZ": This month we celebrate my 1,000th show. I know I've irritated some potential allies in our quest to make America healthy. No matter are disagreements, freedom of speech is the most fundamental right we have as Americans. And these ten doctors are trying to silence that right. So I vow to you right here, right now, we will not be silenced, we will not give in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: That clip is from Dr. Mehmet Oz, who plans to address his critics during a special episode of his talk show tomorrow. He is fighting back against a group of the ten doctors, as you heard him say, who are calling for him to lose his position at Columbia University's medical school over claims that he promotes, quote, "quack treatments."

Joining us right now is Brian Stelter, a senior media correspondent for CNN and host of "RELIABLE SOURCES."

Interesting, I find, you and both watched that very raptly. It's interesting that he decides to sort of take the attack of free speech. Instead of taking on the arguments and criticism of those ten doctors, he talks about the free speech aspect.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: And the first thing we should say is freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

PEREIRA: Right, absolutely.

STELTER: People are open to criticism and Dr. Oz especially because he has produced so many episodes of his show, talked about so many different elements of medicine and science and health.

There are obviously some episodes that he probably has some regrets about. I think he would say that privately. I don't think he'd say that publicly, but maybe privately he would say we went too far in those cases.

But he thinks he has a strong stance on this issue about these ten doctors because they were going after him partly about GMOs, genetically modified foods.

And that's why he says at the end of that clip, I will not be silence because his position on GMOs is he says he's not opposed to them, but you should know what is in your food. You should know --

[07:45:07] PEREIRA: Right. He wants them to be labeled, which is a fairest thing to say, but it's interesting when he talks about the free speech because those ten doctors could say the very same thing too. We are allowed to be critical. We are allowed to be free speech advocates in our own right.

STELTER: Right.

PEREIRA: I also am curious about this idea of what he's going to do tomorrow. What have you been hearing from people and what do you think the tact is going to be?

STELTER: It's really unusual because if you watch Dr. Oz's show, it's a daytime talk show, very happy time of the day, usually light hearted format in the middle of the day. If you're watching him, you probably already trust him. That's why you're watching him.

PEREIRA: You're preaching to the choir.

STELTER: That's exactly it and yet he's decided he's going to spend about two-thirds of his show on this topic. They taped it yesterday so it will air tomorrow. Maybe it's a coincidence. Tomorrow's the beginning of the May sweep season. Local TV stations always care about their ratings.

PEREIRA: You think that's a coincidence.

STELTER: Maybe it's a coincidence, but it is going to take up most of the show tomorrow. I think that goes to show he's been under fire for a while now. We saw that you hear it on Capitol Hill last year and other criticisms more recently.

He believes with this ten doctors' issue he has the higher ground. So it's an opportunity to stand up and defend himself although there are times in that clip where he sounds like he's a martyr and a risk of going too far with this.

PEREIRA: Well, I wonder about that from a crisis management approach, I mean, he's using what he has. He has air time. He has his own broadcast. He has his own soap box where he can sort of stand and defend himself. Do you think it's going to be effective to silence those critics? STELTER: To go after the ten doctors, I think in the full episode he'll go at them more directly and point out some of them have ties to industry -- ties to GMOs.

PEREIRA: Are you hearing anymore buzz about that?

STELTER: Well, you know, some doctors do, some don't. Some of it is murky. So it's hard to say for sure, but certainly over the weekend, his team was starting to circulate talking points about five of those ten doctors.

So he's going to go in more detail on that and try to make this about how some doctors, some physicians do take money from different groups that have interests in various health and medicine. Of course, Dr. Oz has endorsement deals too so I'm not sure his hands are entirely clean.

PEREIRA: That's the whole thing. Does the whole thing pass your smell test? You have a good gut on these things. Does it all pass your smell test? He gets 1.8 million viewers a day on his show.

The guy is highly lauded and respected by viewers. You might have a different, I don't know, people might look at him differently from the medical community.

STELTER: Yes, some do, for sure.

PEREIRA: Choose my words carefully, dut do you think this to use kids words, is it hate-ration.

STELTER: I think Dr. Oz has been vulnerable. Whether these doctors are the best doctors to be speaking out against him or not, maybe, maybe not, but I do think Dr. Oz has been vulnerable for a while because I guess, he's done almost 1,000 shows.

When you have to spend that much time talking about the basics of health and wellness, you might go into detours and down, you know, back alleys that aren't actually the right place to go. Great example is the green coffee bean extract.

His show later acknowledged they went too far on that one. You know, maybe in other cases that's happened as well. For him it's all about what we get told when we go to the doctor, the basics about eating and working out.

PEREIRA: And maybe he needs to get back to those basics. Maybe that's what needs to happen here. Listen, we're going to find out on Thursday. We'll be watching. Let us know what your take is, you at home. Tweet us use #newday. Thanks, Brian -- Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Mich, it's a counting game that is not suitable for kids so many f-bombs that is, so much bleeping. Cincinnati Reds Manager Bryan Price unleashing an epic expletive filled tirade on reporters. Why would he do such a thing? The media's so friendly. We'll tell you ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:52:22]

CAMEROTA: This song, the year, do you remember the year?

CUOMO: I think it was '86.

CAMEROTA: I think it's safe to say the Reds' manager, Bryan Price, was not happy. He is now apologizing for unleashing a barrage of f- bombs one right after the other on reporters this week. CNN's Jeanne Moos counts the curses.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): F-bombs away. Cincinnati Reds' manager, Bryan Price, was one man orgy of expletives. The man on whom most of those f-bombs were dropped, "Cincinnati Enquirer" reporter (inaudible) counted 77 in a 5-1/2-minute rant.

Seventy f-bombs and 11 uses of a vulgar term for feces (two bovine, one equine.) Price was mad at the press for revealing information about the players that might help rivals. The reporter said later that is precisely his job.

(on camera): As the rant picked up steam, the pace of the expletives quickened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can do whatever (inaudible) you want, but I will tell you this -- I'm not going to (inaudible) tell you everything about this (inaudible) club because you (inaudible) guys are going to go out there and sniff it out anyway.

MOOS: Seven bleeps in 10 seconds that qualifies Price for the tirade hall of infamy.

(voice-over): Though then Kansas City Royals manager, Helm McCray, still takes the cake for heaving a tape recorder that gashed a sportswriter.

As for Bryan Price, he is now sort of apologized. I stand by the content of my message. I am sorry for the choice of words.

(on camera): They were choice all right, one joker rewrote Price' apologize this way. I am (inaudible) sorry for the (inaudible) words that I used yesterday. The Reds have been struggling and now their manager will have to manage having sworn off swear words. Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PEREIRA: I know it's a business and this is a job for these men, but it's still a game, and you are playing with a ball and it's amazing to me you can get that worked up.

CAMEROTA: He was frustrated.

CUOMO: I am OK with it. He is not a priest. He is a baseball manager. It happens.

PEREIRA: Kids are watching, Chris.

CUOMO: I know. So parent your kids and you don't have to worry about it.

[07:55:09] All right, so we have protesters taking over in Baltimore. Is this going to be another Ferguson? Know every case is independent, but we are hearing the same chants, no justice, no peace, and the same issue is at play, a delay before getting answers. We're going to talk with the lawyer for the Gray family and find out what they know about the situation.

PEREIRA: All right, violence surging once again in Yemen, less than 24 hours after Saudi Arabia announces an end to its air campaign, a new round of air strikes, we will explain what sparked it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)