Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

FIFA Votes for President in Wake of Scandal; Police Under Fire After Arrest of Pregnant Women. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired May 29, 2015 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:01] SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After the contest he says they'll hold a peaceful protest where the depictions of the Prophet are held up for the world to see. And just in case there's trouble, the Facebook page says people are also encouraged to utilize their Second Amendment right at this event just in case our First Amendment comes under the much-anticipated attack.

In other words, they're telling folks to bring their guns. They say their protest is in response to the recent attack in garland, Texas where police say two armed men tried to go on a rampage against another group holding a prophet Muhammad cartoon drawing contest. Those two men were killed by police. Both lived in Phoenix, and at least one attended the mosque where he's planning to protest.

They call it free speech. Muslim leaders call it hate speech, saying it's caused fear in their community.

IMRAAN SIDDIQI, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS OF AZ: Recently, the mosques here in Phoenix actually received threatening letters, very specific threats saying we are going to massacre your congregations. This is all happened within the last week. So, this adds to that intersection of Islamophobia and gun culture.

SIDNER: The reaction, they're telling congregants to steer clear of the protesters. But police will be there, prepared just like the protesters, just in case there's trouble.

Sara Sidner, CNN, Phoenix, Arizona.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: So what's your take? You can tweet us #NewDayCNN, post your comments on Facebook.com/NewDay.

Curious to see what your thoughts are.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: So, save yourself (INAUDIBLE). What do you think? What's your gut reaction as a Canadian?

PEREIRA: It's hard to watch. This is really hard to watch.

I don't believe that any of our faiths, any of our faiths, are about hatred. And to react with hatred about somebody's belief, I just find this so upsetting and so unsettling.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: People need a kindness pill. Doesn't matter what faith you are, just act with kindness.

PEREIRA: Love.

CAMEROTA: And love towards people. That would answer, that would solve everything.

CUOMO: Now, what they say, right? Because you now have this emerging division in the culture. And one, by the way, men like the one involved here who served and often are only confronted with the worst aspect of Islam, which are the extremists, sometimes it's understandable that because of their exposure, they see it in a very limited way.

But few people benefit from that definition. They say it's a First Amendment issue. I should be able to do this. Nobody is arguing that you don't have the right to show a Mohammed cartoon. This is exclusively a moral issue.

Why don't we like effigies of religion? Why don't we like the N-word? That's a moral question, not a legal one.

I think it's falsely elevated this dialogue. And to be sure, the First and Second Amendment weren't put together to defend each other. That's not what you should be doing.

CAMEROTA: I think it's an interesting debate about where's the line? And we were trying to ask Pamela Geller that, but she doesn't even like that question because there should be no line, she says.

CUOMO: Well, she says, where do you draw the line. The question is, draw wherever you want. Nobody's going to argue that you don't have the right to draw the line the way you want as long as you don't hurt me with where you draw the line.

PEREIRA: This is a hurtful conversation to begin with. We're going to carry on the conversation online. But we want to move forward with our show.

FIFA is moving forward with its presidential election today in the midst of a widening bribery scandal. There's a lot more at stake than just the future of world soccer. How the outcome could impact global politics. We'll take a look at that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:37:28] PEREIRA: Well, delegates from over 200 countries are casting their votes right now for the president of soccer's organizing body, FIFA. Current President Sepp Blatter worked closely with 14 officials indicted in a huge racketeering conspiracy. He is likely to get re-elected.

But the soccer scandal has spilled into international politics, rather. So, we want to take a look at how the scandal could effect global relations.

Christine Brennan is a CNN sports analyst and "USA Today" columnist. Bobby Ghosh is here. He is our CNN global affairs analyst and managing editor at "Quartz".

We'll get to geopolitics in a second. But I think, Christine, we have to talk to you first. I think there are so many of us here in North America struggling to understand how on earth could a man at the head of an organization that is being indicted on bribery and corruption how, (a), he's not being investigated, and (b), how he could possibly get re-elected? Because it's widely considered he will be re-elected as president.

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, CNN SPORTS ANALYST: Well, Michaela, first of all, we don't know he's not being investigated as the Justice Department said, as Loretta Lynch said there are ongoing investigations. This is only the beginning. It's not the end.

So, Sepp Blatter could end up being in trouble, big trouble. I wouldn't be the surprise if that's the case. He's going for a fifth term since 1998. I would be shocked to find out that he did not know about this. So, that's number one.

And number two, how is he going to be re-elected? It's all about all of the fact that he has done so much for these individual countries, 209 nations. So many of these nations are beholden to him. They look to him. They say they owe him.

And this is international politics 101. We've seen it in the Olympics. We've seen it with all these different countries. It's such a close world for us in a democratic society like the United States it's just stunning. But this is the way business is run old school 19th century, not even 20th century, 19th century ways of leadership, of fiefdom much more than actually democracy.

PEREIRA: A FIFA-dom, if you will.

Well, look, we look at what's gone on here in the United States with our sporting issues of late.

We've seen what's gone on with the NFL. We've seen Deflategate. We saw the issue of safety of our players on the field with those hard hits and their helmets. We've talked about even domestic violence.

We've seen what the NFL, the scrutiny the NFL has been under and what has subsequently happened. That is so different from how this world operates internationally.

BRENNAN: Oh, completely different. It is a closed society. Often, the journalists are part of the government. They're cheering. I can't tell you the number of Olympics I've been to where you hear cheering from all of these reporters, quote/unquote, "reporters". They're not independent journalists. They're all part of the team.

[06:35:01] Also, you have to consider how much they don't like the United States of America. They love our money, but they don't like us.

And going back to the 2009, President Obama flew over to Copenhagen to try to help Chicago win for the 2016 Olympic Games. Those were the IOC meetings there. When he went there, it was seen as a good thing for Chicago turned out to be a terrible thing. One IOC member, French IOC member complained about having to get up early and go through extra security.

PEREIRA: Because of the president being there.

BRENNAN: Because the president being there. So, that's what they think about the United States. That's why they're so angry with the investigation that's going on.

PEREIRA: That's a perfect time to pit it to you, Bobby, to talk about the anti-American sort of feeling that there could be. First of all, this is the biggest sport in the world. It isn't the biggest sport here in the United States.

Do you think there's going to be ill-will that the country who it isn't our thing is delving into a world that arguably we don't really know that much about?

BOBBY GHOSH, QUARTZ: Well, actually, opinion is quite divided on this. Of course, the officials who are beholden to Blatter who are part of this incredibly corrupt system they will hold a grudge against the U.S. however, in the soccer world at large -- I've just returned from Europe and every newspaper you open you're seeing words that I've not seen in many years which is thank God for America.

PEREIRA: Really?

GHOSH: People are saying only America, they're making jokes about it takes a child to see that the emperor has no clothes. But the jokes aside, a lot of people in the sporting world are grateful someone is finally putting the bell on this cat. Someone's finally taking on FIFA because no other country in the world has dared to do this, perhaps because the U.S. does not have as much skin in this game.

PEREIRA: Fair enough.

GHOSH: To use an American sporting metaphor, perhaps because the U.S. is not that much into soccer only the U.S. could pull this off.

PEREIRA: OK. So let's talk about Putin. He said yesterday not only does he standby Sepp Blatter, the head of the FIFA organization, but he implied that the arrests are meant to throw into question Russia's getting the 2018 World Cup.

GHOSH: Absolutely.

PEREIRA: First of all, is this more about his foreign policy thought process? He compared the U.S. arrest to the prosecution of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. I mean, let's be honest.

GHOSH: Putin is going to criticize the U.S. for almost anything. He'll probably complain we're observing Halloween. That's a whole different thing.

But, yes, he's absolutely worried about 2018, the soccer World Cup there. Anybody who's got -- who has had sort of success dealing with FIFA is now going to have that success -- that sort of box opened and examined very closely. Did they give bribes?

We know that bribe-giving -- this investigation suggests that bribe giving and bribe taking was rampant throughout the body. So it's not unreasonable for people to now start looking into the Russian thing and he's basically trying to avoid that kind of scrutiny.

PEREIRA: Well, we have to watch to see what happens. And of course the election today to find out who else comes under investigation and what this does to existing bids and hosting opportunities for these cities. We'll be watching.

Bobby Ghosh, Christine Brennan, always a pleasure. Thanks so much.

Chris, over to you.

CUOMO: All right, Mick.

Have you seen this? It's the latest test case for police potential excessive force. This is body cam video from an officer, obviously. This is an 8-month pregnant woman being arrested in California. No crime was committed.

How does this not go too far? We will test. You decide.

CAMEROTA: Wow. And on this week's "PARTS UNKNOWN," airing Sunday at 9:00 on CNN, Anthony Bourdain explores his home, the best state in the union, New Jersey. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY BOURDAIN, PARTS UNKNOWN: As some of you may or may not know, I was born in New York City. But immediately after my birth I was whisked off to what would become my happy home for 17, 18 years. That would be New Jersey.

[06:44:10] Now, as a long-time resident of New York, I happen to think New York is the greatest city in the world. But if you're asking me what is the greatest state in the union, the greatest state of all 50 states -- it's New Jersey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Here's the situation: Michelle Cooks is very pregnant and says a police officer knew that and still treated her like an animal, forcing her to the ground and making an arrest for nothing. The city defends the police action.

So, let's start with the facts and then test this use of force.

CNN's Kyung Lah sets the table for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHELLE COOKS, PREGNANT WOMAN: What are you doing?

POLICE OFFICER: Ma'am --

COOKS: I'm pregnant!

(INAUDIBLE)

KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): How did dropping off children at school suddenly escalate to this?

COOKS: Please, I'm pregnant!

LAH: Police body cam video captures the entire incident.

POLICE OFFICER: What's going on, ma'am?

LAH: The first contact the Barstow police officer has is with this blonde woman who says she called the police to school.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She gets inside of her car. (INAUDIBL) punching my window.

LAH: No damage to the woman's car.

The Barstow police officer then clearly says this.

POLICE OFFICER: I don't see right now --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was scared.

POLICE OFFICER: I don't see a crime that has been committed. If there was damage that would give you the opportunity to place her under citizens arrest if you wanted to.

[06:50:02] I don't see any crime.

LAH: The officer walks over to the other woman, Michelle Cooks, who had just dropped off her second grade daughter at school. She's upset after the confrontation with the other woman.

COOKS: She was honking and honking, so I asked her what she wants. She was like you cannot drive out here. This is a one-lane thing.

LAH: The officer then asks for Cooks' name.

POLICE OFFICER: OK. What is your name, ma'am?

COOKS: I'm not giving you my name.

LAH: Cooks gets on the phone to call her boyfriend.

POLICE OFFICER: Ma'am, I'm going to give you two minutes.

LAH: He gives her about 20 seconds.

COOKS: Don't touch me. Don't touch me.

POLICE OFFICER: Ma'am, please.

COOKS: Do not touch me. I'm pregnant. Do not touch me.

LAH: Cooks is eight months pregnant and never stops screaming.

COOKS: What are you doing? Stop! Let me arm go!

LAH: She is arrested.

(on camera): In your opinion, how did the officers treat you?

COOKS: Like an animal. Like a monster.

LAH (voice-over): This is Michelle Cooks today. Cooks says police charged her with resisting arrest, but a judge dismissed the charges. She gave birth to her daughter, olive, two months after the arrest. She was healthy at birth.

Her mother though remains traumatized.

COOKS: You just looked at me and said, oh, she must be this way. And I'm not that way. You made me feel that I'm a way that I'm not. And I work so hard to provide for my family.

LAH: Kyung Lah, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: Now, in a statement the city of Barstow says, "It is apparent that Ms. Cooks actively resisted arrest. The Barstow police department continues to be proactive in training its officers to assess and handle interactions with emotionally charged individuals. This incident was in no way racially motivated."

Now, let's test all that because it is certainly a controversial arrest to say the least. We bring in CNN law enforcement analyst and retired NYPD detective, Mr. Harry Houck, and CNN legal analyst Mel Robbins.

Thank you to you both.

All right. Harry, let's take it from the top. I didn't hear the officer on the tape, his body camera running, I didn't hear him ask the white lady for her identification. Did you?

HARRY HOUCK, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: No.

CUOMO: Let's start from there. What do you think about this arrest?

HOUCK: First of all, I wouldn't have treated these people the same way this officer did. If I were -- you got a verbal altercation between two people. You got no crime committed here.

CUOMO: Which he recognizes. He says I don't see a crime.

HOUCK: So I would have said to both of them, listen, this is over. Go on your merry way. But apparently that didn't happen.

CUOMO: So now he walks up to the second woman.

HOUCK: Now he walks up to the second woman, asks her for her name, all right? Any individual would you have given your name? I would have given my name.

CUOMO: Maybe, maybe not.

HOUCK: I don't have the right, I have the right to or not but given him the name and see where it went from there.

CUOMO: California as you know under their state's criminal procedure took the time to pass a law that says I don't have to give you my identification.

HOUCK: Unless the officer believes a crime may have been committed.

CUOMO: Which he obviously did not.

HOUCK: Which he did not. Did the officer act properly here? It's already been thrown out of court.

My issue with this whole thing here is that you must, by law and Mel will back me up on this, submit to a police officer when he places you under arrest. All right? You cannot resist arrest.

All she had to do was put her hands behind her back and get handcuffed. And she wouldn't have been involved in an altercation.

CUOMO: You are putting it on her when he is the one who did the wrong thing. He knew there was no crime.

HOUCK: But it's still the law.

CUOMO: He goes up to a lady, she's obviously pregnant. She's giving him a little attitude. She's angry. You arrest that lady?

HOUCK: Listen, I would not have, OK? But I'm saying still whether the police officer is right or wrong, you must submit to that officer. And then after you're arrested then you take it through the courts.

CUOMO: Mel, look, Harry's arguing the law here. Usually he argues the facts of the practice.

The law isn't what the issue is here, right? It's what the officer initiates. What's your take?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: My take is I completely agree with you, Chris. Good morning, Harry.

And, yes, I will back you up with this exception though, Harry. The police cannot engage in behavior where they escalate a situation, arrest people without any grounds whatsoever and then after the fact when a citizen is fully within her rights to say, hey, wait a minute what are you doing say, hey, you're the one that is the problem.

I've got a couple issues with this, Chris. And this tape is not only disturbing to watch, but I think it's actually extremely educational. And, Chris, you've already pointed out a bunch of the things that struck me.

Here we know Michelle Cooks' name. We don't even know the white lady's name. We still don't know her name. She wasn't asked for her name. She wasn't asked for her identification.

And while I agree that this is not a situation of explicit racial bias, I do believe that this is one of these examples of what people keep talking about of implicit bias. The officer shows up, finds a woman upset. He admits there's no crime.

[06:55:01] He then walks over to Michelle Cooks, treats her completely differently. She's upset. But one of the things that happens is he asks for her name. She actually gives him her name. She says my name's Michelle.

And then she says I want to call my boyfriend and see if I have to give you my ID. Within 20 seconds he's grabbing her for absolutely no reason. He treats her completely differently.

CUOMO: Right. Now, Harry --

(CROSSTALK)

ROBBINS: People talk about implicit bias.

HOUCK: I agree, the arrest -- it was a bad arrest. I agree 100 percent.

CUOMO: No, no, I'm moving a step past it.

HOUCK: OK.

CUOMO: The point of disagreement will be, you say once you decide to place me under arrest I have to submit.

HOUCK: Yes.

CUOMO: Now, I often see the value in that proposition when there are situations where it's a man and another man and, you know, there's some dispute about it now you're going to put me under arrest and now my behavior toward you as the officer is going to determine the outcome of that situation.

HOUCK: Exactly.

CUOMO: Even if it were a traffic stop for a broken taillight, once I give you 'tude, everything changes in that dynamic. I get it.

But it's not a man. It's a very pregnant woman. And it's a situation where he has no reason for suspicion except arguably the color of her skin.

HOUCK: But the officer thought he was acting in good faith. All right?

CUOMO: Where? Where's the good faith?

HOUCK: I can't read his mind.

CUOMO: You just said --

HOUCK: He thought -- I'm assuming he thought --

CUOMO: You're assuming he thought.

HOUCK: Right, I'm assuming he thought --

CUOMO: So you are actually reading his mind.

HOUCK: I guess I am. I'm sorry.

CUOMO: All right. OK. What are you reading into?

HOUCK: What I'm seeing is the officer thought he was acting properly. The officer's got a cam on, so he knows everything he's doing is being recorded. So, he believes what he's doing is right.

CUOMO: Or he forgot.

HOUCK: Now, whether or not they have interpreted that law correctly in California on when you can show somebody ID and when you can't show somebody ID. Now, that article by the ACLU yesterday that came out, all right, is a little bit misleading.

CUOMO: Why?

HOUCK: Because it basically says you don't have to show your id to a police officer when he asks for it. You do.

ROBBINS: Yes, but --

CUOMO: You do under certain circumstances.

HOUCK: You under circumstances, but those circumstances --

CUOMO: Were not in play here.

HOUCK: No, but the fact is you have to -- you should do that. Any level headed person would show ID. I would have. And the reason why that woman wasn't spoke to, Mel, is because she was the complainant. All right? She was the one who called the police. The police responded --

ROBBINS: Yes, but you know what, Harry?

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: No, just one second --

ROBBINS: No, no, no, Harry --

HOUCK: Responded to the police and they responded to her.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Yes, except even though she's the 911 complainant, when he showed up on that situation, he had just as much reason to question her as he did the other lady because he decided this was just two people fighting and no real crime.

HOUCK: And he did question her.

CUOMO: Mel, what about the aspect of the police department taking the officer's back and saying they believe the arrest was justified? Do you think that's the right posture for them to have here?

ROBBINS: Well, I think that that's the only posture they're going to take because of course they knew this was likely going to go to a lawsuit.

But let's back up a minute. Let's look at the context. This isn't a suspected drug deal. This is an elementary school parking lot where both women have grounds to be there. And the police are there not only to get the facts, guys, but to de-escalate the situation.

HOUCK: I agree.

ROBBINS: If you're a trained police officer and you show up to an elementary school and there's no crime that's committed and you have two women that are a little upset because of some verbal issue that happened, the police shouldn't be the one escalating the situation. That's exactly what happened in this case. And it was wrong, Chris.

CUOMO: Mel Robbins, Harry Houck, thank you very much. There will be more discussion on this. You get after it online with us as always.

This is just one big story. There's lots of news, let's get to it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PEREIRA: A former House speaker indicated, accused of lying to the FBI.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As well as trying to hide large financial transactions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's going to be a lot more story to be told here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The FIFA Congress has gathered.

CUOMO: Going ahead with an election for its next president despite a growing corruption crisis.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We -- or I, cannot monitor everyone all of the time.

(GUNFIRE)

CAMEROTA: The Obama administration is considering a new strategy to fight ISIS.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do we help the Iraqis move faster?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ten years since Natalee Holloway vanished in Aruba.

You were the last person to see Natalee Holloway alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So where have you been?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I read the statement and thought, my gosh.

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota and Michaela Pereira.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: Good morning everyone. Welcome back to your NEW DAY.

We are following breaking news this morning. Two separate scandals in the first in the sports world, the other on Capitol Hill.

This morning in Switzerland, soccer's governing body, FIFA, deciding whether to re-elect its president in the midst of a huge corruption investigation. We'll get to that story shortly.

CUOMO: But first, an indictment involving a man who was once second in line to the presidency, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. He's accused of paying $3.5 million in hush money and lying to the FBI about it. The question is, why?

So CNN is going to take on both of these stories fully. We begin with senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns live in D.C. this morning.

Joe, what do we know?