Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Interview with Leon Panetta; Midterms Heat Up As Election Day Draws Near; Can Democrats Hold The Senate?; Actress: Hacked Photos A "Sex Crime"

Aired October 07, 2014 - 16:30   ET

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

TAPPER: Back to "THE LEAD," I'm Jake Tapper. In our world lead, President Obama's former CIA and Pentagon Chief Leon Panetta is not being shy when it comes to throwing some shade in his new book "Worthy Fights." Panetta openly criticizes the president for not pushing hard enough and demanding that the Iraqi government allows some American ground troops to remain in the country after the war. He says that decision among others, left the vacuum that allowed the Islamic terrorists of ISIS, to grow into the menace they have become today. He also talks candidly about the original decision not to arm more moderate Syrian rebels and problems inside the U.S. Secret Service. And CNN's Gloria Borger sat down with Panetta to discuss all of that and more. Gloria.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it was very interesting interview. Because as you know, Jay, having - covering Washington for some time, in the Washington power grid, Leon Panetta was among the biggest players in the Obama administration. He's also spent 40 years in public service. Now, he's written a memoir that is full of respect and admiration for his former boss, but it also contains some really blunt criticism on foreign policy and President Obama's leadership style. I asked Panetta about the war against ISIS, and whether the president should have ruled out ground forces.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: I take the position that when you're commander in chief that you really ought to keep all options on the table to be able to have the flexibility to do what is necessary in order to defeat this enemy. But to make those airstrikes work, to be able to do what you have to do, you don't just send planes in and drop bombs. You've got to have targets. You've got to know what you're going after. To do that, you do need people on the ground.

BORGER: Panetta argues that President Obama is making up for lost time and going after ISIS now, because of the complete withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq in 2011.

(on camera): Would ISIS be as much of a threat today had we left some force behind?

PANETTA: I do think that if we had had a presence there, it might not have created the kind of vacuum that we saw develop in Iraq. BORGER (voice over): And he criticized the president for not arming the Syrian rebels back in 2012, a move most of the president's National Security Team recommended. But Obama never signed off, arguing the weapons could wind up in the wrong hands.

PANETTA: I mean, it's understandable, but at the same time, if we're going to influence the rebel forces, if we're going to try to establish a moderate element to those forces, that it was important to provide this kind of assistance in order to have some leverage over what they were going to do.

BORGER: There was honest disagreement but then no decision.

PANETTA: You know, to the large extent, it wasn't that the president kind of said no, we shouldn't do it. The president kind of never really came to a decision as to whether or not it should happen.

BORGER (on camera): What do you mean by that, never came to a decision?

PANETTA: I think it basically sat there for a while and then got to the point where everybody just kind of assumed that it wasn't going to happen.

BORGER: Is that the right way to do things?

PANETTA: I think it would have been far better had he just made the decision we weren't going to do it, and so, that everybody kind of knew where we stood, but we all kind of waited to see whether or not he would ultimately come around.

BORGER: And --

PANETTA: That didn't happen. There were these decisions that basically never were confronted that I think, in many ways, contributed to the problems we're facing today.

BORGER (voice over): The portrait Panetta sketches of Barack Obama sometimes looks more like a professor than the president.

PANETTA: He relies on the logic of his presentation, which the hope that ultimately people will embrace that logic and then do what's right. You know what, in 50 years, my experience is, logic doesn't work in Washington. You've got to basically go after people and make them understand what they have to do. And that means you create a war room, you go after votes, you have to push people.

BORGER (on camera): So, did you have a sense that the president found that distasteful or that it wasn't something he wanted to do or was comfortable doing?

PANETTA: I think it offended him that people would not really get serious and work on the issues. And I think, as a result of that, he just felt, you know, how can I deal with people that simply don't want to do the right thing for the country? Well, the reality is, if you want to govern in this country, you have to deal with people you don't like.

BORGER (voice over): And you have to keep your word, which he argues the president did not do when Syria used chemical weapons against its own people, violating the president's clearly drawn red line.

PANETTA: President very clearly should have said, you have crossed that red line. We are not going to allow that to happen. And I think initially my sense was they were going to do exactly that. But somehow they backed away from it.

BORGER: Panetta tries to reconcile the president who vacillated over Syria with the decisive Obama who gave the bin Laden raid a green light.

PANETTA: A president that made the decision to go after bin Laden, and made a very gutsy decision to do that, and I really respected that decision. I just could not have imagined him not making the same decision when it came to the credibility of the United States on drawing that red line in Syria.

BORGER: To no one's surprise, the White House has not formally welcomed this version of history.

UM: Former administration official, as soon as they leave right books, which I think is inappropriate, but anyway --

BORGER (on camera): Does he have a point there?

PANETTA: You know, I am of the view that you don't put a hold on history. History is what it is. And I would say right now, I recommend the President and Vice President Biden take the time to read the book because, I think, you know, when you read it, it's a pretty balanced presentation of what happened.

BORGER (voice over): He's not just critical of the president but he also has a few things to say about the people protecting him.

(on camera): The Secret Service, obviously there's been a lot of talk lately about the security and safety of the president.

PANETTA: I think particularly in the second term there is -- you kind of take things for granted. People don't pay attention to the details that they need to pay attention to. And that really requires tough supervision to make sure, particularly with the Secret Service and particularly where it involves the life of a president and the first family, you do not mess around with that. You make damn sure that they know what they are doing.

BORGER: Do you think that's what's happened?

PANETTA: I think - I think they got a little bit casual about protecting the president of the United States and I don't think you can afford to let that happen.

(END VIDEOTAPE) TAPPER: Wow. Gloria, there's some very staining criticism, especially considering it is coming from the president's top guy at the CIA and top guy at the Pentagon. The White House, as you know, has pushed back quite a bit.

BORGER: Sure.

TAPPER: What is Panetta's response?

BORGER: Well, you know, I asked for that - and directly whether he was being disloyal because that's effectively what Joe Biden is saying, why couldn't he just wait until the guy was out of office? And he pushed back on that very hard and said, you know, I believe that history is it history and that the day and age in which we live, you don't put a hold on it and that he doesn't consider it disloyal to tell the truth about what occurred during the White House. Now, as you know, lots of people have done that, particularly in this administration. Former Secretary Defense Gates has done that. Hillary Clinton's also written a memoir. So, Panetta is amongst the list of those who have chosen to do it while the president sits in office.

TAPPER: And these criticisms from Gates - Panetta, Clinton, all seem to kind of line up, they are all very, very similar.

BORGER: Well, they are. And they also, as you know, play into Republican hands over the question of ISIS and what we could have done to prevent the growth of ISIS and you'll be hearing from Republicans about it, using Panetta, I'm sure.

TAPPER: I'm sure. Gloria Borger, great interview. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

BORGER: Thank you. Thank you.

Coming up on "THE LEAD", the poll numbers keep rolling in and they are looking good for Republicans, hoping to win control of the U.S. Senate. Is there anything Democrats can do to turn the tide?

Plus, the seedy underbelly of the Internet put her most intimate photographs on display for the world to see. Now, Jennifer Lawrence says anyone who looked at them committed a sex crime, but should Google pay the price?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. It's time now for the Politics Lead. Believe it or not, we are now just 28 days until the 2014 midterm elections and the negative ads are starting to loop and draw blood.

An analysis by the Wesley and Media Project of Senate ads, you have 55 percent of all those ads we watch on TV are aiming below the belt, including these six, all from Democrats debuting in your living room over the last week. Democrats have been more eager than Republicans to open up the old opposition research file and use the airwaves to attack their opponents according to that same study.

But the map and the math nonetheless suggests President Obama's party still may need something of a miracle to avoid losing control of the Senate.

Here to break it all down for us, CNN chief national correspondent, John King. John, I've been on the phone and e-mailing with Democrats all day, they are a little bit worried, the math looks pretty tough. It looks as though they have the more difficult task in the next four weeks to keep the Senate.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They are still holding out some hope of keeping the Senate, Jake, but you are dead right on that point. They have a much more difficult math.

Republicans need a net gain of six seats. Remember the word net. That will be important in a minute. They need a net gain of six seats. Now where will they get them? Let's start with the easy ones.

These are 13 Senate races we're watching. States are highlighted that we're watching. Here's why it's so hard for the Democrats. The ones in blue are held by Democratic incumbents. They are really only three states held by Republicans we're watching closely.

So to get the six, the Republicans start with these three and even Democratic consultants can see Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia will likely to go red. So that gives the Republicans three right off the top.

TAPPER: Because Republicans in those states are already ahead in the polls by double digits. It looks like those states are gone. So where does that leave us? What do Democrats and Republicans have to do with the remaining states?

KING: So look at how the Republicans think they get to six. If that's three, how do they get three more? Well, they start at Alaska. They think they are ahead right now by several points.

Dan Sullivan, the Republican against the Democratic incumbent, Mark Begich. Democrat says this isn't over yet, but Republicans think that one is turning their way. That's one.

Then you come over to Arkansas. Interesting, Bill Clinton was just there the other day. He's trying to help his home state senator, the Democrat Mark Pryor, but Tom Cotton has opened up a lead. It's a small lead, but it's now been a consistent lead in that race.

Republicans think that will trend their way. The third one they think that is likely to go Republican is Louisiana. This is a little complicated, Jake. You have two Republican candidates.

Bill Cassidy is the lead Republican candidate and Mary Landrieu is your Democratic incumbent. This one might not be decided until December. You have to get 50 percent plus one to win in Louisiana. So the top two candidates could end up in a run off.

The Republicans think even if it goes to December, they get this one. Now, what if Republicans don't get to six from there? That's where it gets interesting. Then you go into the blue states.

Republicans are in a close race in Iowa leaning slightly Democratic. But the Republicans could still get that one. The Democrat, Jean Shaheen, slightly ahead in New Hampshire. The former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is the Republican up there. Still in play, but leaning Democratic.

North Carolina is a very interesting one. Most Republicans thought that one would go their way, but the Democratic incumbent, Kay Hagan, is running a pretty good race. She is slightly ahead. But again, slightly ahead in the final days of a midterm election campaign.

Republicans think even one of those could trend their way. President Obama's the issue in those states. He did win New Hampshire and Iowa big. Remember North Carolina he won the first time, lost the second time. It's the ultimate swing state.

TAPPER: What Democrats told me today is that President Obama, however much they love him, he is an albatross around their necks right now. His poll numbers are so bad, people not feeling good about the state of the economy even if there economic indicators that things are getting better. Wages are stagnant.

And then there's this wild card on the map, John. There's a weirdness going on in the middle of the country, the great plain state of Kansas.

KING: Click your heels, Dorothy. You wouldn't think that Kansas would be part of the conversation in what supposed to be a Republican year, but Pat Roberts has run a lousy campaign from day one in part not being able to explain why he spends most of his time living in Virginia, not home in Kansas.

TAPPER: Does he even have residents in Kansas?

KING: He says he does at a friend's house. That's been part of the controversy there. So he's in trouble. The poll came out yesterday showed him down ten points to an independent. Greg Orman, this is interesting. Greg Orman, the Democrat dropped out.

The courts upheld the Democrats decision to drop out. Greg Orman is an independent businessman. He's given money to Mitt Romney. He's also given money to Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Roberts is saying he's a Democrat in disguise.

But right now, Orman is ahead. We might end election night and wake up the next day with Greg Orman, in some way, being the most powerful man in American politics potentially able to decide control of the Senate.

TAPPER: And he hasn't said whether he will caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans? KING: And Roberts is trying to make that an issue in the closing weeks. He said he'll caucus with whoever would be in the majority. So he says he will choose essentially leverage for Kansas in that decision.

What if it's 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats and Orman's decision could decide the balance? What if the Democrats have Joe Biden over here and they could decide the balance? In a wacky election year --

TAPPER: Only four weeks away. It's really going to be a nail biter. John King, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

Coming up, she's disgusted not just with the person who stole her nude pictures, but at anyone who looked at them. Jennifer Lawrence's biggest complaint, the companies made money off of what she calls a sex crime.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. In our Money Lead, the big question, is Google liable for the content it shares? One lawyer is saying yes to the tune of $100 million. Marty Singer says he represents several female celebrities whose personal pictures were stolen in late August and shared on Google.

Quote, "You do nothing, nothing but collect millions of dollars in advertising revenue from your co-conspirator advertising partners as you seek to capitalize on this scandal rather than quash it." He says.

Today Oscar-winning movie star, Jennifer Lawrence, is leading a charge against hackers in this month's "Vanity Fair." She says not only was the hacking a violation of privacy. She called it a crime.

It's the first time she talked publicly about the hacking, quote, "It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime," she said. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated and the first thought that crosses somebody's mind is to make a profit from it. It's so beyond me," unquote.

Here to look at the legal issues is CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, who writes about this issue in the new "New Yorker." Jeffrey, thanks for being here.

We spoke to a domestic violence prosecutor who said that hacking, obviously horrific, but no matter how damaging it is to the life of the victim, it's not a sex crime. I don't know if Jennifer Lawrence was using hyperbole or what. But what are the legal issues here?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think the person you spoke to is right. This is not a crime that can be prosecuted in a courtroom, but certainly Jennifer Lawrence is right, it's an egregious violation of privacy.

And the question is, these web sites that linked to it, it is illegal. They are violating copyright. They are violating people's property. If you can find them, you can force them to take the photos down.

The interesting question is, can you force Google not to link to these photos? And the answer is, no, you can't do that in the United States but you can in Europe. Europe has a different law on this.

TAPPER: That's interesting. Google told us, told CNN the following. Quote, "We have removed tens of thousands of pictures within hours of the requests being made and we have closed hundreds of accounts. The Internet is used for many good things. Stealing people's private photos is not one of them."

Now the lawyer, Singer, he says more photos must still be removed or they will sue. Google, you say, is not responsible -- if I go on Google and I look at Jennifer Lawrence's nude pics and Google takes me to a site, they are not liable for that?

TOOBIN: They are not. In Europe, there is a law called the right to be forgotten where Jennifer Lawrence can go to Google and say, these photos are unlawfully obtained and Google can be forced in Europe not to link to them.

That law would be inconsistent with our first amendment. We don't tell publishers -- and Google operates like a publisher here, what they can link to and not link to.

Now Google voluntarily does not link to illegally obtained photographs, but the idea that you can sue Google to stop it is not something any American court has adopted.

TAPPER: But is it possible that this lawyer could take the case to a European court?

TOOBIN: Yes. And, in fact, it is possible and in fact likely that Google.ge or Google.es, which is Spain, those links would be removed threw but Google.com, which is the American site and the site most people use -- Americans use even when they are in Europe, you can't have them removed from there.

TAPPER: Interesting. Is there a chance that this could change the way that these cases are prosecuted in the U.S., just the fact of this lawsuit?

TOOBIN: You know, I don't think so. The first amendment in the United States is so robust and healthy and so protective of what publishers do, I don't think there's going to be any change here.

But what's happening in Europe is an interesting indication of how not everybody believes our freedom of expression laws are perfect. And the right to privacy matters more in Europe.

TAPPER: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much. That's is for THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. I now turn you over to Wolf Blitzer. He is next door in "THE SITUATION ROOM."