Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

New Details of Prison Escape; Interview with Rep. Mark Sanford; Interview with Rep. John Delaney. Aired 11:00-11:30a ET.

Aired June 24, 2015 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Pastries for prison favors. Law enforcement hopes it's closing in on the escaped inmates. Stunning details about what Joyce Mitchell allegedly did for the men behind bars. A former inmate who saw the relationship develop joins us live.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Any moment, the Boston marathon bomber could break his silence and address survivors. His official sentencing in court right now.

BOLDUAN: And like diving in shallow water, that's how the leaked autopsy describes Freddie Gray's death and what else it tells us about what happened in the back of that police transport van. Hello, everyone. I'm Kate Bolduan.

BERMAN: And I'm John Berman. In just a short time from now, we will get new answers. The intense search for two fugitive killers, police are expected to hold a press conference as mind-boggling new details emerge concerning prison worker Joyce Mitchell. A CNN source says that Mitchell traded baked goods to win favors for two inmates. Those favors including asking prison officials to put the inmates in

cells next to each other and asking one guard to pass along frozen meat to the killers that contained escape tools.

BOLDUAN: Meantime, law enforcement are revealing one of the inmates may be barefoot at this point after boots and other personal items were found at the cabin, the cabin that they believe the men were seen running from. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID FAURO, SHERIFF CLINTON COUNTY NEW YORK: Going through that terrain, even with mountain boots on and something with good ankle support is very, very difficult. Even walking through the better parts of that terrain is very difficult. So it's almost unimaginable to try and navigate through that without any type of footwear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Fascinating. Joining us to discuss more on this manhunt is the John Cuff, the former head of the Northeast Fugitive Investigation Division at the US Marshal Service. John it's always great to have you. Thank you so much for coming in. JOHN CUFF, RETIRED US MARSHALL: Good morning Kate. You're

welcome.

BOLDUAN: So you just heard it right there from the sheriff up in Clinton, up near Clinton. He says that it's unimaginable that someone would be able to handle that rugged, rocky terrain without boots on, without any - even if they have mountain boots on, he said it would be difficult.

Is it surprising, though, that that was over the weekend? That they haven't caught them, then, at this point?

CUFF: Well, you've got weather conditions. You've got rain, you've got rough terrain up there. It's a lot of foliage. It's one of the most densely wooded areas in the United States. You know, but keep in mind, too, the report about the boots. There's no telling that they may not have come across another pair of boots as well. No one knows that for sure, right?

But you have to treat it as what you have, the hand you're dealt. But possibly one of them is barefoot. But so long as law enforcement still has that perimeter on, time is on law enforcement's side.

BOLDUAN: That's not much time though.

BERMAN: Is it surprising because what - it's Wednesday now, the sighting was Saturday. The DNA confirmed on Sunday. We're essentially hot on their trail. They thought on Saturday, it's four days later now.

CUFF: One thing to keep in mind with the DNA, I mean, there's no - you can't conclusively say they were there on the weekend. That DNA could have been from a week or better ago. However, with the couple with the sighting of one individual running from the cabin, that kind of closes the time. What's the likelihood it could have been someone other than these two guys running, right?

So it's not out of the ordinary for the search to go that long. I mean, so long as law enforcement threw that net out in that area, so to speak, they're more or less marshaling these guys into a certain area. Time is on law enforcement's side at this point doing a meticulous search because also you got to consider these guys could be armed and dangerous. It's unknown if they acquired weapons on since they've been...

BOLDUAN: There are just - there are so many unknowns. One of the things that has also been suggested is that these men could have some kind of capability to monitor radio or communication traffic. If that's possible - again, this is a big if, because there's a lot of unknowns - if that's possible, how are law enforcement, how do they have to adjust in how they operate? Because that seems to be a huge - could be potentially a huge advantage for these inmates.

CUFF: Those - absolutely. Those are one of the challenges. And law enforcement is on top of an issue like that. For example, tactically, the tactical teams that are up there, they'll have secure communication channels for that very reason.

BOLDUAN: So they wouldn't be able to monitor that?

CUFF: Exactly.

BERMAN: You know, your job as a US Marshal was to transport and catch these guys. It wasn't to keep them in prison once they were in there already. But we're getting details from Clinton Correctional that are just, as I've said, mind-boggling, that these prisoners were given hacksaws and glasses with flashlights in ground beef.

I mean, this is stuff that really can essentially only be used to escape. Are you as shocked this could be happening in a correctional facility?

[00:11:05]

CUFF: Well, John, we've investigated many of these jail breaks. It's not uncommon. But if you have a plan and a vulnerability, obviously here they preyed on a weakness. OK. They had a weak staff employee. It is - this kind of goes above and beyond with the ground beef and, frozen ground beef and things like that. But those are internal security measures that will be dealt with by the Department of Corrections.

BERMAN: I'll say.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. She's also facing some serious time as well because of exactly that.

BERMAN: Thanks so much John. Appreciate it.

CUFF: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Thanks John.

BERMAN: Any minute, we could learn if convicted Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will break his silence and address the public before a judge formally sentences him to death. More than 30 victims are speaking right now at this hearing.

BOLDUAN: Many of them lost limbs. All of them had their lives changed forever from that terrible day along the finish line of the Boston marathon two years ago. Four people died in that tragedy and the aftermath. National correspondent Deborah Feyerick has been following this case all along the way. She was in court this morning. She's joining us now. So Deb, victims are speaking, victims' families are making statements. What are you hearing in the courtroom?

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is. There is so much pain, so much grief. But also so much hope and optimism in that courtroom as these victims, some of them amputees, some of them that was sort of psychologically debilitated because of what happened. Also parents of some of the victims that all of them testifying as to how this bombing changed their life.

Some of the jurors, Kate and John, are actually in the jury box. These are jurors who actually unanimously voted to sentence Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death. They are also in that courtroom listening to what's going on as well. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's sitting. He too is listening; he's slouched in his chair. He's not wearing a traditional prison suit. He's actually wearing his dark gray suit, the one that he wore at trial.

But one amputee, Karen Waters, she said that he couldn't possibly have a soul to do such a thing, that is, standing behind children and detonating his bomb. She said, blaming his brother, quote, what a cowardly thing to do. And she also begged him to show remorse to perhaps prevent someone else from doing a similar cowardly act, especially because there are terrorists that want to harm the United States.

Now, the father of 8-year-old Martin Richard, he said essentially that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev chose to accompany his brother, he chose hate, chose destruction, chose death. He said, the Richard family and others, they choose love, they choose peace.

And the mother of Krystle Campbell, she also was just very emotional, talking about how the death of her daughter has robbed the family of somebody who was really the center of the family. And so we're listening, we're watching. The judge expected to sentence him. We don't know.

Right now, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev does have an opportunity to make a statement. His lawyers, we've been told, plan to appeal. And anything he says could potentially harm that. So right now, he's just sitting, he's listening and he's watching. Kate? John?

BOLDUAN: It's amazing. Deborah Feyerick outside the courtroom happening as we speak. We'll be watching that closely. Deborah thank you so much.

Just moments from now, America will forever change how it deals with families of American hostages held overseas by terrorists. What does the change mean for these families? What does the change mean for all Americans? And will this new policy now put more Americans at risk? Important questions ahead.

BERMAN: Plus, new details on the actual takedown of the racist killer in South Carolina. See what happened moments before police captured that man. And if you can't be President of the United States, how about King of New Hampshire?

Donald Trump surging in the polls there, for real. And he says he's kind of angry about it for real. We'll explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:11:10]

BOLDUAN: In moments, President Obama is going to be announcing making a major announcement with changes to US hostage policy. It will give the government more room to negotiate with terrorist organizations. He's also going to announce that families of American hostages, they're going to no longer face criminal prosecution if they pay ransom for their loved ones.

BERMAN: The president will meet with the families of former US hostages. But not all lawmakers are happy with these new moves, on both sides, frankly. Joining us is Congressman John Delaney whose constituents include the family of Warren Weinstein, a hostage who was accidentally killed earlier this year in a US drone strike. Congressman, thank you for being with us.

JOHN DELANEY, CONGRESSMAN MARYLAND: Thanks for having me John.

BERMAN: Congressman, I understand you do not think this new policy, this new series of announcements; they are multi faceted, you do not think they go far enough. Explain why.

DELANEY: Well, I'm hopeful they go far enough. What I've been focused on, and this is based on my experience with Warren's case, is the government has not done a good job finding our Americans who were held hostage in the Middle East.

It hasn't been a top priority. We haven't organized our resources as effectively as possible. I've called for the creation of what's known as a hostage czar, a very senior person in government who will be able to coordinate all the assets that the government has. Our intelligence assets, our defense assets, our relationships with partners on the ground in the Middle East. And bring all this to bear to do a better job of finding these Americans who are held overseas.

And so my sense is what the president will announce takes us pretty far in that direction. I hope it goes the whole way and actually empowers a very senior person. But we need John, to do a much better job of finding these Americans who are held overseas. We're not organized well. We're not focused on it. And I'm hopeful what the president announced today will take us in the right direction.

BOLDUAN: You're focused on one facet. And with that focus, that one facet of it, of finding these Americans. Another part of this announcement that I do want to ask you about is the fact that the president is going - is expected to announce that the US government will no longer - the families of these hostages will no longer face criminal prosecution, will essentially be allowed to pay ransom for their loved ones if they choose to do so. I wanted to ask you first, do you support that though?

DELANEY: Well let me tell you what I don't support. I absolutely do not support the government paying ransoms or negotiating with hostages, full stops. And I don't think the president will do anything to change that policy.

Providing families with more flexibility to go down the path of some of these outcomes, you know, I think that could make sense. And I want to see the details of what the president lays out...

(CROSSTALK)

[00:11:15]

BOLDUAN: They're allowed to pay ransom - if it's not also, the government's not paying ransom, it's these families are paying the ransom. I want to get your take on if you support that. But also with the big question in mind, this is what this administration has said previously. Administrations before that have said previously, the reason they don't want folks to do that is because it could potentially put more American lives at risk.

House speaker John Boehner just said essentially, in a press conference earlier today, is that it could - there's a concern there. This could put more Americans' lives at risk if families can pay ransom. How - what do you think about that?

DELANEY: So there's no question if the government pays ransom, it puts more Americans at risk because every American held hostage becomes a winning lottery ticket right for their captors and for these terrorists.

As it relates to the families, again I think we need to see specifically what it says, whether it says the president, you know, the administration won't enforce, you know, laws against even having conversations. It's not clear. The data doesn't necessarily indicate that if families are involved in trying to get their loved ones back, whether that increases the number of Americans that are taken hostage.

The data is not clear on that at all. So I think providing some flexibility, whether it allows them to fully pay ransoms or not is a question but providing flexibility for them to at least have conversations or use other means to try to get their loved ones back, I do think directionally makes sense.

BERMAN: Isn't this big white house announcement that was advertised to terrorists overseas? I mean, why do they care where they get the money. Because the US government or some family. They're getting money to fund their terrorist operations, isn't it the same difference to them?

DELANEY: No, I don't think it's - I think there's a big difference. I mean, first of all, if the United States were to pay ransoms which, you know, I'm totally against and I think everyone is against, then the captors would know they would get money for every hostage, right?

If families can have some discussions - let's face it. What family is not going to do everything possible to get their loved one back? I mean, if one of your family members were held hostage, you would do everything possible, you wouldn't care what the laws say. Right? Because they're your loved ones and you want to get him back.

It's not clear to me that that tells terrorists, right you know, we should take more Americans because they don't know if it's going to be successful. They don't know if they're going to get the money. They don't know what's going to happen. The US government is different. If the US government were to pay ransoms, then the terrorists would know that every American held captive is a winning lottery ticket.

I think it's a very different case when it comes to the families. And we also have to see the details, whether this allows them to pay ransoms or not or just have conversations. You know, I think we got to look at the some of the details there. But I think we've got to really be careful around the facts here because the key is the government. The US government cannot negotiate and pay ransoms to get hostages back.

BERMAN: We appreciate your time. You know, you bring us some excellent points. We also thank you for all the work you have done with these families. And I know they are grateful to you. To Congressman John Delaney, thanks so much.

BOLDUAN: Thanks, Congressman.

DELANEY: Thank you very much.

BERMAN: Coming up, burgers, eyewear and sex, allegedly a lot of it. Shocking new details about the escaped killers' life behind bars from an inmate who saw what was going on including the most controversial prison closet in America.

BOLDUAN: Plus, high-fives and fist bumps moments after the dramatic capture of the racist killer who opened fire inside that Charleston church. The video, the 911 call that triggered the takedown is coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:11:20]

BERMAN: All right, new this morning, new information about the arrest of the accused Charleston mass murder. The police chief in Shelby, North Carolina, confirms to CNN that officers bought the suspected killer or the admitted killer of buying fast food from Burger King near police headquarters not long after he was arrested.

BOLDUAN: We're also getting new insight into those final minutes as police tracked down Roof and took him into custody. It turns out Roof's haircut might have been key in spotting him. Listen here to the 911 call.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Got a call from a Kings Mountain office. He received a call reference a black Hyundai. White male traveling westbound. Advised the suspect looks like the subject they're talking about on the news from that Charleston shooting. So that he has a bowl haircut, white male. Appears to be the vehicle they see on TV. County. We just stopped a vehicle on Plato Lee Road. Confirmed it is the suspect in the Charleston shooting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Not long after that, the 14-hour manhunt was over. Police did also find a glock semi-automatic handgun in the backseat of Roof's car.

BERMAN: Just moments ago, we learned that Alabama removed all four of its confederate flags from the grounds of its state capitol. The governor ordered the move this morning. The pace of change here is simply staggering.

Roger Wicker, Republican Senator from Mississippi, has called for that state's flag to be changed, that also this morning. The backlash against so many symbols of the confederacy is spreading. Or South Carolina legislatures have voted to bait removing the flag as well.

BOLDUAN: Virginia's governor is also making a move to ban the confederate flag from state license plates. North Carolina's governor wants to do the same and more companies are also stepping into it, banning sales of confederate flags including Ebay, Amazon and Walmart.

The pace of change, as John says, is amazing. Joining us now to discuss is Congressman Mark Sanford, former governor of South Carolina. Congressman, it's great to see you. Thank you so much for coming in. As we're talking about here and we just kind of listed out the pace of change, really even just from last week has been noteworthy at the very least.

You first last week said that it was too early to discuss and debate this confederate flag in its location. Now this week you say that it's time for it to come down. With all of that in mind, when you were governor, this change did not happen. Do you regret that?

MARK SANFORD, FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR: No, I think that politics is the year of the possible. And, you know, if you look at what occurred just prior to my coming in as governor, there's been a three-year fairly bloody debate if you want to call it that on take the flag down versus not.

[00:11:25]

David Beasley had been governor and asked to bring it down and ultimately lost his election in large measure because of the debate around the flag. Three years followed, a compromise was finally reached in the state of South Carolina wherein the flag came down off the State House dome and on to a place of memorial on the State House grounds. And concurrently an African-American monument was built commemorating the death of folks that had died in passage in the slave trade and in slavery itself.

And so for a while, people were exhausted. I came in shortly after that, and the last thing that people wanted to deal with was yet another debate on the flag. What they wanted to deal with were economic issues that would impact both African and white citizens alike in our state, a long list of other things that they thought important, whether that was sentencing reform which we were involved in, whether that was bringing in African-Americans, as we did.

I was the first governor in the state of South Carolina to have an African-American chief of staff, first governor to appoint an African-American to head the budget control board. I had the most African-Americans as members of my cabinet. So we tried to do what we could do within the context of a state being exhausted after a three- year debate.

Now we've had an amazing series of events in Charleston, tragedy of shooting but incredible grace in their wake by the nine family members that simply say, "I forgive you." A community that's come together, a state that's come together and we see the political by- product from that.

BERMAN: You know what - look I understand politics is the art of the possible. But the fact is, you know, having an opinion has nothing to do with something is possible or not. And before last week, you had no stated opinion the flag should come down, as far as I know. And now you do. And that's a very, very rapid change.

SANFORD: No, no, no. Wait, wait, I want to be clear about what I said.

BERMAN: OK.

SANFORD: What I said was we need to first bury the dead. And I stand by that. Clementa Pinckney was a friend of mine. I served with him for eight years while I was governor and he was a state senator. And to go into hot-button issues, again, where people have strong emotions on both sides of the debate, I thought, was premature prior to the burial of the nine victims of that shooting last Wednesday night.

That's what I said and that's what I believe, events have surpassed that and gone faster. I think in a perfect world, you would have these debates after these nine have been buried.

BERMAN: One of the things that's interesting, and we see this wave really sweeping over so much of the south right now, Alabama, Mississippi, they're discussing it right now, as well. But we're also seeing something else interesting. We're hearing that Internet sales of confederate memorabilia have just spiked, have skyrocketed in the last couple of days. How do you explain that?

SANFORD: Again, as I just said, emotions are strong on both sides. So in as much as some portion of the South Carolina population believes or Alabama or Virginia or go down the list of states, believes that the flag is a symbol of racism and bigotry and hate. There are other people who legitimately and just as earnestly believe that, "Wait a minute, this is a symbol of the fact that my grandfather, my great-grandfather died in the war between the states." There are 20,000 casualties in the state of South Carolina alone.

And so I think that what you have to be careful in this is that both sides hold strongly to what they believe but have genuine respect for the validity of the other person's viewpoint. And I think it's important we not go too far in this debate. I mean, the fact is, this morning I went by the Washington monument, I went by the Jefferson Memorial.

Both of those founding fathers had slaves. And if we make the mistake of completely erasing our past, I don't think we can learn from it. I think a prerequisite to moving forward in the learning is to be able to look back upon one's past, both individually and collectively as a civilization and say, "What did I get right? And what did I get wrong? So I might do things a little bit better moving forward."

BOLDUAN: Congressman Sanford, before we let you go, I want to get your take, as the debate is now going to be taking place in the state capitol, there were some state lawmakers who voted against having the debate over the flag.

Bill Chumley, he's a republican state representative. He voted against moving towards the debate. And when we - when CNN Drew Griffin asked him about his vote, he said this, listen to this. Don't have that sound for you. But I'll read it to you.

SANFORD: OK.

BOLDUAN: He says, "These people sat in there and they waited their turn to be shot, that's sad, when somebody in there with the means of self-defense could have stopped this and we'd have had less funerals than we're having." I want to get your take on that.

SANFORD: He's wrong. That's a ridiculous statement. The fact is, if somebody walks into your newsroom right now or in this chamber that I'm in right now and has a gun, I don't think any of us can predict how others will react. And to attempt to do so call somebody cowardice because somebody's shooting at you and you don't run toward the gun, I think is a bizarre statement.

BOLDUAN: And Congressman, always great to have you on. Important perspective on all of this. We really appreciate your time.

SANFORD: Yes, ma'am. Take care.

BOLDUAN: Of course, you too.