Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Netanyahu Presented Alternative on Iran; New Polling on Support for Netanyahu; Congress Divided Over Netanyahu's Warning; Progress But Gaps Remain in Iran Talks; New Details on Hillary Clinton E-mail Controversy; People in Prison; Obamacare in Supreme Court; Ferguson Justice Department Report; Clinton E-Mails

Aired March 04, 2015 - 13:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in London, 8:00 p.m. in Jerusalem, 9:30 p.m. in Tehran. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Up first, more fallout from the clash between the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister over nuclear talks with Iran. Simmering tensions between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have reached the boiling point. The Israeli leader is responding to criticism that he failed to present any alternative to the current negotiations with Iran.

After he returned to Israel following his speech before the U.S. Congress, he issued this statement, and I'm quoting, "I presented a practical alternative which would impose tougher restrictions on Iran's nuclear program extending Iran's breakout time by years. I also called on the P5 plus 1 to insist on a deal that would link the lifting of those restrictions to Iran ceasing its sponsorship of terrorism around the world, its aggression against its neighbors and its calls for Israel's destruction."

Let's bring in our Senior International Correspondent Fred Pleitgen. He's joining us live from Tehran and our reporter Oren Lieberman who's joining us live from Jerusalem. Fred, the secretary of state of the United States, John Kerry, he said today that negotiations have made progress but significant gaps remain. Update us on what you know about the state of these fragile talks.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it appears as though the outstanding issues, Wolf, are apparently in two areas. And they are two very significant areas. One of them is the area of research and development where apparently the Iranians want to develop more sophisticated centrifuges than they have in the past. That, of course, is something that worries the United States and many other countries as well because that could significantly decrease the breakout time if, in fact, the Iranians were able to make better centrifuges. There's also apparently some disagreement as to how many centrifuges the Iranians would be able to maintain.

Now, the other big area, and this is probably an even bigger one, is the question of sanctions relief. The Iranians, of course, want all of the sanctions to be taken away immediately once a deal comes into place. That's something apparently the U.S. is saying that they're not willing to do. And then, the big question is, how fast would sanctions get taken away? The U.S., of course, is for a step-by-step process but the Iranians want that to happen as fast as possible.

And I can tell you from being on the ground here in Tehran, if you speak to people here in Iran, they will tell you the sanctions are what is hurting them the most. That's what they want to see go -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What else are you hearing from speaking to regular Iranians there in Tehran? What are you hearing specifically about the prime minister's speech before Congress, what he said about Iran, the whole state of U.S.-Israeli relations at the same time?

PLEITGEN: You know, it's very interesting because many people actually did -- they didn't watch the speech but they were able to glean what the prime minister said. Of course, a speech by an Israeli prime minister would never be broadcast on Iranian television. However, it's surprising to see how well-informed people here are.

And it's not surprising to see, Wolf, that most people didn't like what they heard from the Israeli prime minister. Many people here telling me they believe that Iran was unfairly criticized by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Who a lot of people here, 70 percent of apparently, do believe that the nuclear program of their country solely is for peaceful purposes.

And they also said they believe that Netanyahu is trying to destroy Iran's way back into the international community. And, of course, that's very important to them because, as I said, the sanctions are really biting many people here. They want to see those sanctions go simply so that they can have a chance for economic development. So, it certainly didn't play very well with ordinary Iranians, also didn't play very well with the government.

There's one thing we need to add, Wolf. There was a press conference that happened earlier today by the Iranian foreign ministry where they essentially said they don't care about what Prime Minister Netanyahu said. What they're focused on right now is trying to achieve a deal -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Do you know, Fred, if on state media there in Iran whether they actually call Israel Israel or do they simply refer to it as the Zionist entity?

PLEITGEN: Simply as the Zionist entity. It's actually interesting that you say that because yesterday as Prime Minister Netanyahu was giving his speech on Iranian television, there wasn't, of course, any -- the speech itself wasn't being broadcast but there was video of him speaking without hearing the sound, of course.

And the Iranian state media labeled that as an Iranophobic speech. And they did also refer to the Israelis as the Zionist regime. So, certainly, that's the wording that is used here. And if you hear the public statements that have been going out from Iranian officials, they certainly are one that seem very combative -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Fred, stand by. Fred Pleitgen is the only U.S. television network correspondent in Iran right now.

Let's go to Jerusalem and get some reaction. The prime minister, Oren, he's now back in Israel. What's the mood over there? I understand some polls are about to be released on one of the T.V. channels.

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we just got our first look at the polls from our affiliate here, channel two, in Israel. And it's interesting what they reveal. According to the latest polls, the Zionist camp, which is Isaac Herzog and (INAUDIBLE), viewed it as Netanyahu's biggest rival in the upcoming elections, will win 24 out of 120 seats in the upcoming elections. Whereas Netanyahu's party, Likud, will win 23 seats

Now, it's interesting the insight that gives us. It means, at least from these figures, that Netanyahu's speech didn't have all that great of an effect here on the Israeli public. Those are roughly the numbers we've seen not only in the last poll but leading up to here that these are very close elections. Occasionally here, you'll see one party eke out a one lead or a one-seat vote which is what we're seeing here. And then, in the next poll, it'll shift back and forth.

But it also mirrors what we learned before the speech which was that the Israeli public was split on this. We had a poll from our affiliate, channel 10 here, that said that half the people supported it, half opposed it. And that's exactly what we're seeing in this poll which is to say then that Netanyahu's speech, as charismatic, as powerful as it was, didn't really change any opinions here on the ground here in Israel -- Wolf.

BLITZER: And normally the party that gets the most seats in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, they get first crack at forging some sort of government. We'll see what happens 13 days to go before the Israeli election. Oren Liebermann, thanks very much. Fred Pleitgen in Tehran, thanks to you as well.

Here in Washington, lawmakers are divided over the Israeli prime minister's speech before Congress. Some calling it historic, others say it was political, even condescending. The minority leader, the Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that.

Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho is a member of the committee on foreign relations also the select committee on intelligence. He's joining us from Capitol Hill right now. I take it you loved the prime minister's speech. Is that right, Senator?

SEN. JAMES RISCH (R), IDAHO: Well, it was a great speech, Wolf. I've been doing this for almost 50 years. I've heard hundreds of speeches. That certainly would be at the top, not because it was eloquent but because it hit the mark so clearly. The speech was very clear. It was full of clarity. He left no doubt about, number one, the state of play, the facts, the history and where this thing's going to go. So, having said all that, it wasn't a speech to entertain. It wasn't really a speech to call to arms. It was a speech to tell people, look, we've got to do this differently than where the administration is headed. And I think -- I think he was successful in that regard. And, indeed, if you were in the room, the room was electric. I can't recall seeing anyone get a reception like he got on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday.

BLITZER: We know the Republicans loved it. But many of your Democratic colleagues, about 50 or 60 of them, even refused to attend because they thought it was inappropriate to do so at a time when the U.S. was engaged in these very, very sensitive negotiations with the Iranians and only two weeks before the Israeli election.

But what's the alternative? Let's say these negotiations in Geneva fail. Would you be ready to support U.S. military action to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities?

RISCH: Wolf, I don't think we need to go there yet. I think that needs to be an option that is always on the table and clearly understood by the Iranians. But the sanctions are painful over there. They brought them to the table. Only, in my judgment, so that they could stall and get more time.

To your point about the people who boycotted that speech, it was really unfortunate. This is an American issue. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. Everyone understands, of course, that the president views this as part of his legacy.

But, look, we need to all be together on this. The White House is threatening a veto of the bill that we're going to try to move that includes Congress, as it should, the constitution includes Congress, for the ratification of any agreement between one or more countries. And we ought to all be pulling the wagon together on this.

And if this is a deal that's a good deal, we need to get behind it or an acceptable deal, we need to get behind it. But if it's not, we need to go back to the sanctions. And that's another bill coming down the pike.

BLITZER: I -- do you want the Senate to pass this new legislation that would require Senate approval for any deal worked out with Iran, even before the deal with Iran is worked out if, in fact, there will be a deal?

Wolf, two points. Number one, the constitution already requires any treaty to be approved. And, secondly, -- but, secondly, --

BLITZER: Well, the administration -- Senator, the administration says this is not a treaty.

RISCH: They can say whatever they want. You can look at a cat and call it a pig. But, look, this is an agreement between nations. It is a treaty.

But point number two, the Iranians when they sat down said, look, we want you to know that we're here to negotiate. We're going to work towards a treaty but it -- or an agreement. If we -- if we get there, though, it's got to go to our equivalent of a parliament, and they've got to approve it.

Do you mean to tell me that in Iran, they've got a more representative government than America? It's a bizarre situation where you have a president of the United States protecting the Iranian administration when the elected representatives of the American people want to say just what the constitution requires, that we approve or disapprove of the deal. It doesn't make sense.

BLITZER: You think you'll get 60 votes in the Senate to do that?

RISCH: You know, I wouldn't be surprised if we do get 60 votes. You know, we -- this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that was crafted last week. We have -- I think there's about half a dozen Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee that are already signed onto it. The Democrats know, as well as Republicans, that if we're going to do this, we need to all pull the wagon together. This is a dangerous regime that we're dealing with. It's a dangerous situation. We need to all be pulling in the same direction on this.

BLITZER: Senator Risch, thanks very much for joining us.

RISCH: Wolf, thanks for having me.

BLITZER: The future of the Affordable Care Act here in the United States now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. It could be, though, in jeopardy. We'll have a live report from the Supreme Court. That's coming up.

Plus, Hillary Clinton's office so far saying nothing nefarious was at play when she used her personal e-mail address while serving as secretary of state rather than an e-mail account that could have been provided by the State Department. We have new information on what's going on.

And a potential presidential contender says prisons prove being gay is a choice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. BEN CARSON: A lot of people who go into prison, go into prison straight and when they come out, they're gay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: More of Dr. Ben Carson's controversial comments and the fallout, all that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The United States Supreme Court heard legal arguments today in which, depending on how the justices ultimately rule, could put the president's Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, in jeopardy. The argument basically boils down to four words in the law, quote, "established by the state." Does the law allow federal subsidies only for states that set up their own health care exchanges? The government argues that it also applies to healthcare.gov, which is in use in 34 states, which so far have refused to start their own exchanges.

Let's sort out what happened today. Our justice correspondent, Pamela Brown, is with us here.

We're watching what's going on. Fill us in on how it sounded today because you were there when you heard the oral arguments.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I was there. And the stakes are very high in this case, Wolf. And you could really feel it sitting in that room during the oral arguments. In fact, right from the very get-go, the justices, the liberal justices, came out of the gate with some very tough questions for Michael Carvin, who's representing the plaintiffs in this case and challenging the administration's interpretation of the law. The liberal justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, challenging him saying, you can't just look at a snippet of the law, those four words you just talked about, you have to look at the context of the law as a whole. And it's very clear, according to these justices, that everyone who is a part of this, whether they're in a state, in a federal-run exchange or state-run exchange, deserve subsidies. And, in fact, one of the justices said it would cause a death spiral if those people in the 34 states with the federal run exchanges lost their subsidy.

So there was that side of the argument. On the other side, the other conservative justices, Scalia and Alito mainly, made it very clearly that they sided with the plaintiffs' attorney, that the law was sloppily written and that really couldn't this go back to Congress, couldn't they fix the law?

But what was so interesting here is for both Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, it was really tough to see what side they were on. Kennedy asked questions that could be interpreted for both sides. He was very focused on the federalist issue, Wolf, how this would impact the states. Would it injure the states if those subsidies were taken away? Did the states know that this could happen when they made the decision not to have exchanges?

But Chief Justice Roberts, you couldn't tell. He did not want to tip his hand on which side he was taking. He barely spoke during the entire time. And as you know, Wolf, he surprised a lot of people when he upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act several years ago. So, of course, all eyes were on him in that courtroom today and he barely spoke.

So it's really yet to be seen -

BLITZER: Yes.

BROWN: Sort of which way this is going to go. It was sharply divided from the beginning and it could ultimately end up being, you know, made -- the decision could be made either through Justice Kennedy or Roberts.

BLITZER: Yes, we should know by the end of June when this current session ends.

BROWN: That's right, by the end of June.

BLITZER: And it's critically - it's a critical factor. You've got four liberal justices. Presumably they will support the Obamacare.

BROWN: Presumably.

BLITZER: But then, you know, the conservative justice, but it will depend on Justice Kennedy, as you point out, or Justice Roberts. And we don't know. We don't have a clue -

BROWN: We don't know.

BLITZER: Right now how these two justices will eventually determine whether it's constitutional or not.

BROWN: Very much a mystery.

BLITZER: Thanks very much, Pamela Brown.

BROWN: Thank you.

BLITZER: Still to come, the police shooting of Michael Brown sparked months of protests, claims of racial inequality in the heartland of the United States. Today, the U.S. Justice Department's investigative report on Ferguson has been released. Stand by. We have the details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Just a short time ago, the U.S. Justice Department released its findings of an investigation into the Ferguson, Missouri, police department. If you remember, this inquiry was sparked by protests which followed the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by the white police officer Darren Wilson. CNN's justice reporter Evan Perez is joining us now from the Justice Department.

You've gone through the actual report, Evan. There are two key components we're told. First, what has the Justice Department decided about charges against that former police officer, Wilson?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, there -- Wolf, the Justice Department has decided not to bring charges against Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. The key finding by the Justice Department is this, that there is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Darren Wilson's stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety.

Wolf, this turned on a couple of key pieces of evidence, things really that have been at the center of the dispute over the shooting. Whether or not Michael Brown was the aggressor, whether Darren Wilson shot and killed him as he was trying to give himself up with his hands up. The Justice Department decided that they could not disprove that Darren Wilson feared for his life in a struggle over his gun, as he reported. And also that, in the end, Michael Brown was moving towards the officer. And, again, that is part of one reason why they decided that, you know, he had reason to fear for his life, Wolf.

BLITZER: And in a separate report, the Justice Department described what it said was a pattern and practice of discrimination against African-Americans in Ferguson. What kind of recommendations did they release to try to correct this?

PEREZ: Well, Wolf, they gave 26 recommendations to try to improve the Ferguson Police Department and now it's up to the department to try to accept these recommendations. I'll read a couple of them for you. Among them is getting the Ferguson Police to provide training to ensure that officers aren't using bias in policing, that officers get out of their cars and practice community policing, get to know people that they're trying to protect and serve. And also that they focus their searches and stops on protecting the public rather than on raising revenue. That's one of the accusations here in this 100-page report is that the city was using stops of African-Americans essentially to raise money for the city's coffers.

BLITZER: And we're going to be hearing shortly from the outgoing attorney general, Eric Holder, right?

PEREZ: That's right, Wolf. He's going to be talking about these two reports at 3:00 p.m. We expect that he'll announce that they'll begin negotiations with Ferguson for some kind of court-supervised agreement so that they don't have to sue the city to force these reforms, Wolf.

BLITZER: Eric Holder at 3:00 p.m. Eastern. Thanks very much, Evan, for that report.

And we will, of course, continue this discussion later in "The Situation Room." Cornell Brooks, the president and CEO of the NAACP, he'll be among my guests. "The Situation Room" airs later today, 5:00 p.m. Eastern.

Up next, the Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy. I'll talk about the impact and the fallout with the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Congressman Trey Gowdy. Stand by.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington.

Let's get to the controversy now surrounding the former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and her e-mails. While she was at the State Department for four years, Secretary Clinton didn't use an official State Department e-mail account. Instead, she relied on her personal e-mail account for official government business. The "Associated Press" reports that Secretary Clinton even used her own e-mail server that was run from her New York state home.