Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

National Protests; ISIS Threat at Home; Obama's Response to Ferguson Events

Aired December 01, 2014 - 16:00   ET

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

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Reaction to what happened in Ferguson spreading to pro football, and to the White House, maybe even to your workplace today.

I'm Jake Tapper. This is THE LEAD.

The national lead, hands up, walk out. Dozens of protests across the U.S. disrupting work and school, maybe even your commute, in honor of Michael Brown. One week after the grand jury decision, has this become about something bigger?

Our politics lead, urgent meetings at the White House, as President Obama calls together Cabinet secretaries, clergies, civil rights leaders and key members of law enforcement to discuss Ferguson -- new details on what he wants to change.

And the world lead, the ISIS threat at home, the FBI warning members of the military to be careful about what they post online, for fear they will be attacked here in the U.S.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

We're going to begin with some breaking news in the national lead. One week after the grand jury decided not to seek charges against Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, protesters today spilled out of their offices and onto the streets of cities not only in Missouri, but across the United States, in at least 60 different locations.

And since that grand jury decision ignited outrage and fury on the streets, it's becoming clear that these protests aren't really only about the killing of one unarmed 18-year-old, but about what the Michael Brown represents to so many people.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER (voice-over): It was hands up, walk out across the country today. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets at 12:01 p.m. Ferguson, or Central, time to mark the moment Michael Brown was killed. From New York to Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., to San Francisco.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But a tremendous group gathered here.

TAPPER: After a few days of violent reactions in Ferguson to the grand jury decision, today, protesters around the country, largely peacefully, voiced their opposition to not only what they perceive as the specific injustice in the Michael Brown case, but larger issues of social injustice for minorities.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The point is to disrupt business as usual.

TAPPER: While the president at the White House was meeting behind closed doors to discuss what to do post-Ferguson, blocks away, protesters lay in the streets blocking traffic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike Brown's life stopped, and everybody else needs to take time to realize that.

TAPPER: The controversy did not take a holiday for Thanksgiving weekend.

JAMES KNOWLES III, MAYOR OF FERGUSON, MISSOURI: We have severed ties with officer Darren Wilson.

TAPPER: After months of pressure and negotiations, officer Darren Wilson resigned his post over the weekend as a Ferguson police officer, saying he did not want to cause harm to other officers. The mayor of Ferguson said it was time for the officer and the city to move on.

KNOWLES: There is no severance agreement with officer Wilson and the city of Ferguson. The city of Ferguson will not be making a severance payment to officer Wilson.

TAPPER: The controversy even reared its head during Sunday football, when protesters got a boost from some Saint Louis Rams. Five players walked out of the tunnel before the game assuming the hands-up, don't- shoot pose in solidarity with the protester, though, as a matter of evidence, witnesses for the grand jury gave vastly different accounts on whether Michael Brown's hands were, in fact, up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We wanted to come out and show our respect to the protests.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just wanted to let the community know that we support them.

TAPPER: The move angered the Saint Louis Police Officers Association, which quickly asked the NFL to discipline the players.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not only are Saint Louis police officers mad, but friends in law enforcement from across the country were calling me last night.

TAPPER: An NFL spokesman said the players would not be disciplined.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Now, the Saint Louis Rams steamrolled the Oakland Raiders 52- 0 yesterday. But all anyone is really talking about is what those five players did in that pregame scene. The Saint Louis police officers union was furious at the gesture,

releasing a statement saying it is -- quote -- "profoundly disappointed with the members of the Saint Louis Rams football team who chose to ignore the mountains of evidence released from the Saint Louis County grand jury this week and engage in a display that police officers around the nation found tasteless, offensive and inflammatory.'

Joining us now, CNN Sports anchor Rachel Nichols joins me and here in studio with me, "Washington Post" columnist Clinton Yates.

Rachel, let me start with you.

The league released a statement after the demonstration saying, "We respect and understand the concerns of all individuals who have expressed views on this tragic situation."

It looks like there's not going to be any punishment. What's the team saying today? What are they doing today?

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Rams are playing at the epicenter of all of this raw emotion. Many different factions. So it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they are meeting with some of those who are concerned about their players' actions.

But don't expect those meetings to turn into any kind of public apology or discipline. They will take the NFL's lead on this, is what everybody expects. And you have got to understand, too, the perspective of the organization criticizing the Rams players.

We have to know where everyone is coming from here. You had Jeff Roorda's voice there in your package. And he was the one quoted in that letter from the police officers association. And his track record is that he used to be a police officer. He was fired from his job after false testimony against a witness and then a false report against his own superior.

He then became a member of the local state legislature and earlier this year supported a bill that basically says that police officers involved in shooting civilians on the job should be allowed to keep their names secret. Now, that bill didn't go anywhere.

But that's the perspective he's coming from. So it's not surprising to me or many of the people watching that somebody with that background might have an issue with the Saint Louis Rams players and the fact that they were, in their words, not necessarily specifically protesting Michael Brown, but, as you noted in your package, this has become about a larger issue, about the way police interact with minority communities.

Doesn't shock me again that someone with that track record would have a problem with the way that the players feel on this issue. And the has NFL basically said, we're not getting involved.

TAPPER: And, Clinton, one of the other points that Jeff Roorda made in that letter was during the unrest, when there was looting and rioting going on, the Rams were looking to the police for help. And now here's a different situation where the police felt stabbed in the back by some of the very same people.

CLINTON YATES, COLUMNIST, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Think about that analogy.

We're talking about five guys walking out of a tunnel with their hands in the air. And that's somehow a threatening pose to the entirety of the police force in Saint Louis? Get out of here. I'm just not buying that.

I don't understand how they can feel so entitled as to request such a thing from a team. They're showing solidarity to many people who believe in what this cause is about. And I just don't think that it makes sense to look at the say that there's somehow a violent or dangerous position when, hello, again, their hands are in the air. The entire purpose of the gesture is to indicate...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Obviously, they don't feel threatened by these five players. But I think they feel like these are public people that everyone looks -- everyone in Saint Louis looks up to, especially before such a stomping of 52-0. Why are they not supporting the police? That's their, the police perspective.

YATES: I don't know that necessarily showing that you're in support with people who have an issue with the way police treat people is, by default, a direct threat to police. That's the problem there.

To equate those two things, I think, is extremely harmful. People want to feel safe around police officers. People want to feel as if they're being respected as individuals, as human beings, not just as non-police or non-authority entities. And that's what the real issue is here.

TAPPER: Rachel, there's this threat of a police boycott of the Rams right now. The NFL of course is a huge moneymaking machine, thanks to TV money. Is the NFL worried about that at all?

NICHOLS: I don't think the NFL takes kindly to being threatened, frankly. And I don't think that we have seen that big boycotts in the NFL do much.

We haven't seen that they have been not only very effective, but then a lot of people just haven't participated in. We saw a huge wave of people in this country upset about the way the NFL does business earlier this fall with the domestic violence issues that we saw and the lack of punishment to certain players. The NFL, as a business, they didn't suffer at all from that. Ratings have been up, money has been up, ticket sales have been up.

I wouldn't see a few police officers being upset about a gesture on a football field as something that's going to have any kind of economic impact on the NFL.

TAPPER: All right, Rachel Nichols and Clinton Yates, thank you so much.

Clinton, stick around. We're going to talk more about this and the political dimensions of it.

The politics lead this, President Obama clearing his schedule for three different rounds of meetings with his Cabinet, elected officials, law enforcement, civil rights leaders, and we're getting some new details on just what President Obama wants to see change with police officers across the country. And that's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to the lead.

The politics lead now, specifically the politics of what happened in Ferguson dominating discussions at the White House today, not just the shooting itself, but the community and initial police response in August.

In fact, a new federal review released today looked into the $18 billion in resources handed down to local law enforcement nationwide, some of it including high-powered military weapons and tactical vehicles. You saw some of this equipment used in Ferguson back in the summer, when crowds protested how Michael Brown was shot and killed by Darren Wilson.

CNN White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski joins us now with what happened at today's meetings.

Michelle, the issue of whether police forces are too militarized isn't much in the headlines today. But it's one of the issues the president discussed with his team today?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, definitely.

And it would seem that the fact that White House commissioned this big review giving federal money and military equipment to local law enforcement, commissioning it after what happened in Ferguson, that the White House must view that militarization, as some see it, as contributing to the unrest.

But the White House isn't going so far as to say that exactly. The White House says what it wants is a national dialogue on this issue, a closer look at policing in America and a lot more police body cams.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KOSINSKI (voice-over): The White House today is focused on Ferguson, the president's Cabinet arriving for a closed-door meeting, then a meeting with young civil rights leaders from around the country, another with community and faith leaders, as well as law enforcement, to look at ways to build trust.

That breakdown of trust between police and people in the community is how the White House views the continued unrest in Ferguson and beyond. The president himself expressed that last week. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fact is, in too

many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color.

KOSINSKI: At this point, the White House says the president does not have plans to go to Ferguson himself. Why not?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president wants to have a discussion about some of these issues that have been laid bare in Ferguson, but that directly apply in communities all across the country.

KOSINSKI: Is he perhaps worried that his appearing there will escalate the situation? The White House says no. What the administration is doing now on that issue of trust is asking Congress for the funds to give police officers body cameras, some 50,000 of them, that could answer in the future some of those difficult questions that surfaced in Ferguson.

And the White House commissioned a broad review of federal money and military equipment that has been given to local police. Nearly half a million pieces of equipment over the last five years, including ammunition, planes, mine-resistant vehicles and more than 5,000 Humvees. The report released today shows a glaring lack of consistency in these grants, as well as needs for training and community input.

With the effort all the meetings that the White House has organized since Michael Brown was shot, the unrest remains. The key to easing such an outpouring that spills over to violence has yet to be found.

EARNEST: These are the kinds of issues that I don't think anybody expects are going to be resolved overnight, because he recognizes that not just one presidential trip to Ferguson is going to solve the problem here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KOSINSKI: The issue with the equipment is a tough one, too, because you may have areas that might have a lot of crime. They might have low resources for police. So, you give them these grants and the equipment, they might not even have the training. And then when they try to use some of this stuff, it could blow up in their faces, figuratively, that it just escalates the situation.

But the White House says that some of this equipment has proved really useful in situations, like after the Boston marathon bombing. So, this is something we're going to see more recommendations on after this broader review over the next couple of months, Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Michelle Kosinski live for us at the White House, thank you so much.

From the president's day-long summit on Ferguson to countless protests, is it all too little too late? Let's bring in three very distinct voices on this discussion. We want

to bring back Clinton Yates, columnist for "The Washington Post". We're also joined by Jay Carney, CNN senior political commentator, and former White House press secretary. We also have Bill Kristol, he's the editor of "The Weekly Standard."

So, there are two tracks going on here today, what's going on in the streets and what's going on at the White House. Let's just start with the White House for now.

Jay, I can understand the president delivering public remarks as he did last week a couple of times. But why have all these closed-door meetings and it's all hush-hush what's really going on?

JAY CARNEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think it's appropriate to continue to touch base with civil rights leaders and others who have been so expressive about their concern over what happened in Ferguson and how what happened in Ferguson reflects a broader problem across the country when it comes to a racial bias in law enforcement. And I thought his response to the verdict itself -- or the failure of the grand jury to indict itself was extremely tempered. You know, the problem with that circumstance is a grand jury looks at a set of facts and in the end, the key issues were a matter of, you know, "he said, she said", and one of the principal witnesses, obviously, was the officer himself.

But you can't dispute that there's a bigger problem. You can isolate a singular case. But there is a bigger problem. It's reflected in study after study after study. And I think that it's entirely appropriate to have these kinds of discussions, public and in private.

TAPPER: Clinton, what's the most that President Obama can accomplish?

CLINTON YATES, THE WASHINGTON POST: I think symbolically what he's doing today says a lot because I think it shows that a lot of people aren't just willing to admit, hello, we live in a fundamentally flawed society in which a lot of people of color are treated separately from those who are not. And I think him saying something about it, talking about using money for body cameras, at least admits that there's not just a problem, so we can sit in room and talk about the discussion we need to have. There's a very real thing that can be done.

Will it fix everything? Obviously not. But it's a step forward toward letting people know, hey, we're working in the interests of everybody, not just people who have guns and badges.

TAPPER: Bill, you disagree. Not only do you think President Obama is not the right person to be injecting himself in this. You disagree with his push for money for body cameras.

WILLIAM KRISTOL, EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Yes, strong policing is in the interest of everybody. Policing is a success story in this country. Over the last 20 years, crime is down 50 percent, countless lives have been saved, countless lives of African-Americans, and Caucasian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have been saved. And for everyone in the media and society to be suddenly beating up on the cops is really ridiculous, honestly. And the body cam, that's not been seriously studied. I think it's a terrible idea.

But, you know, fine, if we put body cameras on cops, let's put them on President Obama when he meets in private with civil rights leaders, let's them on congressmen, their public elected officials, they have to make decisions that affect everyone's life and death. It's just ridiculous the enlightened liberals who benefit, of course, from police protection but now are willing to beat up on police in a pretty indiscriminate way, I would say.

YATES: I don't think it's fair to qualify holding people accountable as beating up on anybody.

KRISTOL: Who are you holding accountable?

YATES: Anybody who's involved. That's the whole purpose of the cameras.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: There was a grand jury investigation in this case. They chose not to indict this particular police officer who made a snap judgment, maybe wisely, maybe unwisely. We don't know.

What's the issue? What do we need body cameras --

YATES: The issue is there's a body in the streets of a young man who wasn't armed who can't defend himself in the judicial system because, hello, he's dead. That's the point --

KRISTOL: The judicial system investigates this is in an appropriate way.

YATES: You do understand that a lot of people do not inherently trust the judicial system in this nation because it was not set up for or by them.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: I'm sorry. It was set up by them in many cases.

CARNEY: But, Bill, let me also say, isolate the case. The grand jury made a decision not to indict based on the information it had. Body cameras, if appropriately regulated, can be enormously effective on behalf of police officers as well as those police officers' encounter. There wouldn't have been the dispute. Maybe the body camera would have proven that, in this case, Michael Brown had moved forward aggressively toward the officer, maybe, or maybe not. And that's why I think it's an incredibly valuable thing. I think it's a neutral thing if appropriately regulated.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: -- serious studies -- CARNEY: I don't hear you calling for study.

KRISTOL: I'm happy to have studies. The president of the United States wants to appropriate (INAUDIBLE) million dollars for the 50,000 body cameras.

(CROSSTALK)

KRISTOL: -- serious studies of police experts, the people who study policing.

CARNEY: Should we do away with cameras that are on police cars that have shown us a lot of information about --

TAPPER: Dash cams.

CARNEY: The dash cams that show information about what happens then -- I think this greatly benefits police as well as individual citizens, what happens when police pull over individuals. I hardly think that we should go back to not knowing what technology can give us information about.

TAPPER: Let's -- I want to take it to the other issue of the day, which is the protests in the street and questions about, there's a lot of energy, a lot of people involved now, a lot of people motivated.

Clinton, again, I put it to you, I asked you what the president can accomplish. What can these protests accomplish?

YATES: I mean, obviously, you can shut down businesses. There's been a lot of that here in D.C. alone. You've seen people blocking highways, blocking bridges. You can also just let people know, this isn't just about poor people in random areas, urban areas in America. I think that's one of the most important things about this story. The fact that this happened in a place like Ferguson, Missouri, shows people it's not just the urbanized areas on the coast, where there's already a lot of media attention.

This is a standard operating procedure thing in a lot of this country. And so, when people are out in the streets yelling, closing down shopping malls and all that, it simply informs the average person sitting in their living room, yes, this is a real problem that we need to pay attention to.

KRISTOL: It deprives working class and middle class Americans of their jobs, of their incomes --

YATES: What makes you think these aren't working class and middle class Americans that protest?

KRISTOL: You think it's a good idea to shut down stores, clog traffic, to make it harder for people to get to work, for what? For what?

YATES: For what? To point out there's a major inequality in this nation. The subconscious biases that people have about the impressions of black people very much go (ph) into how we enforce laws.

KRISTOL: You think it's going to help that subconscious biases --

YATES: Absolutely.

KRISTOL: Those things on television.

YATES: Yes, and that's certainly not a reason not to do it beyond that.

TAPPER: Jay, before we go -- this is a conversation we could spend two hours on. The president's been criticized by many members in the African-American community for not doing enough for the black community during his time as president. Situations like this must put him in a spot that is very uncomfortable for him?

TAPPER: I don't think it's uncomfortable. I think it reminds him, of course, of two things. One, he is the first African-American president of this country, and that is very meaningful. He is also president of the United States. He has to react to situations like this in a way that speaks to all Americans.

There's a problem. The protests reflect the fact that there's a problem. There's a sentiment in communities of color that is borne out by surveys that there is discrimination in law enforcement across the country. He needs to address that.

But he also needs to make the point that police officers all across the country do extraordinarily good work and put their lives on the line doing it, protecting us and that's something the president needs to recognize.

TAPPER: All right. Jay Carney, Clinton Yates, Bill Kristol, thank you so much. We're going to be discussing this for a few more days I suspect.

Coming up, the difference between a threat and freedom of speech. The Supreme Court today hearing a case that could impact what you may post online. Will your comments or messages be censored?

Plus, more than a dozen new U.S. airstrikes in Syria and it wasn't just ISIS militants targeted this time. What else was the U.S. military targeting? That's ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.

In national news, can the U.S. government regulate what you post on Facebook or Twitter? Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that questions your free speech on social media. It centers around a man named Anthony Elonis and his rant on Facebook about his now ex-wife. He said he, quote, "wished her dead". His comment so violent that she asked for a protective order. He said he was just kidding but he was sentenced to nearly four years in prison.

The question now, can you write whatever you want online about whomever you want even if your posts are perceived as a threat?

CNN justice correspondent Pamela Brown joins us now.

Pamela, this case could impact what we're allowed to write online.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It really could, Jake. This is a groundbreaking case that could decide the limits of what you post online. As you say, we live in a digital age, and this is the first time that the high court is taking up this issue of social media and free speech rights, whether an online rant can constitute a crime.