Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

O.J. Simpson Dead At 76 After Cancer Battle; FBI Chief Cites Rising Threats In Push To Renew FISA Powers; Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) Talks About The Re-Authorization Of FISA; Johnson Optimistic About Path For FISA Despite Failed Vote. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired April 11, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:07]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The world is reacting to the death of one of, if not the most famous celebrity-turned-criminals of our time, O.J. Simpson, dying at the age of 76 from cancer today, surrounded by his children and his grandchildren, according to his family. Before reality TV, before court TV and true crime podcasts, there was the O.J. Simpson trial.

In 1994, the Football Hall of Famer brand pitchman and comedy sidekick was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: The gavel-to-gavel coverage of Simpson's murder trial set off a new era of class and racial divides, while riveting the nation, too. Reportedly, as many as 150 million people watched as his acquittal was read aloud on television. And despite his court victory, Simpson never regained that beloved status that he had as a football hero.

In 2008, he was sentenced to up to 33 years in prison for a Las Vegas hotel robbery. In 2017, he was released on parole. And just two months ago, he talked about his health in a post on social media. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O.J. SIMPSON: Let me take a moment to say thank you to all the people who reached out to me. My health is good. I mean, obviously, I'm dealing with some issues. But, hey, I think I'm just about over it and I'll be back on that golf course, hopefully, in a couple of weeks. But it was very nice hearing from you and hearing those good, positive words. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's get some perspective now with sports analyst and host of The Right Time podcast, Bomani Jones. And we also have with us trial attorney and legal analyst, Mercedes Colwin.

Bomani, the Simpson trial, obviously known as the trial of the century, but it really is startling to recognize that as he's passed, we're talking about his legal issues and not who he was on the football field. He - it was completely overshadowed. This transcendent star, it totally overshadowed his achievements as a sports icon and as someone that defined American culture for so much of his life.

BOMANI JONES, SPORTS ANALYST: Yes, I mean, that's what happens when the world thinks that you kill two people. It's going to take a lot more than 2,000 yards to overcome the idea that you killed a couple of people. Like the shift in how people looked at O.J. Simpson is as jarring as anything there has ever been.

It's not just simply that he was one of the greatest football players of all time. He's a legitimate pioneer in terms of taking what you did off the field and making a fortune off of the field. He was a pioneer, depending on - I mean, regardless of how you felt about the way that he did it, he was a pioneer in terms of the acceptance of black athletes and black people generally to be commercial pitchman and be beloved by a larger audience in this country.

Like he was a person that if 1994 does not happen, we're having a much different discussion about him, obviously. But the truth is, once the world thinks that you killed two people, that other stuff doesn't seem to matter that much.

KEILAR: Yes, and that makes sense. I think when there are transgressions or perceived transgressions that deep, as some people see them, he, of course, was acquitted, but then found liable in the civil case.

Mercedes, I wonder, from your perspective, from a legal perspective, we saw this entire trial. It became - it was reality TV before reality TV. And I wonder how the legal community looked at it and still kind of looks at it, especially with these moments. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. How instructive it became?

MERCEDES COLWIN, LEGAL ANALYST & TRIAL ATTORNEY: Brianna, that's such a great question because you're exactly right. We were all riveted. I was practicing law at that time. And I remember exactly where I was in the office looking at the TV with my other lawyer colleagues. It was riveting.

You got to see how really brilliant lawyers were able to outmaneuver the prosecution. That was a brilliant stroke of genius by Johnnie Cochran at the very end to try the glove that the prosecution never determined ahead of time, whether or not that glove would actually fit. And that's understandable. There's no discovery in criminal cases in terms of beginning to speak to the alleged perpetrator and getting them to have, to manipulate or actually act upon any of those props that the prosecution used.

So for us as lawyers, it was a brilliant stroke of genius by Johnnie Cochran, the defense team. You have to see also that the fact that the judge lost - Judge Ito lost total control at times of that courtroom. So there was a lot of lessons to be learned.

And on a personal note, I need to say that my sister died in a violent relationship.

[15:05:02]

So this really struck home as it strikes home to many of those around the country that have had themselves been victims of domestic violence or have had family members that were victims of domestic violence.

SANCHEZ: Mercedes, I wonder what you think the legacy of this case is from the perspective of faith and the legal system, because people were outraged when he was acquitted.

COLWIN: There was. And do you know what, Boris? I mean, I think part of it is, is that we got to see from moment to moment how that trial evolved and some of the techniques used. And - but thankfully there was, at the end of the day, just as Brianna said, there was a civil proceeding, different standard. There wasn't a standard - different standard of proof. You didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

And ultimately, people felt vindicated that at least he was found civilly responsible and then was required to pay back $30 million in compensatory damages to both the estates of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. I'm certain that's not - that's probably didn't really get them to have that much, at least, looked at - say to themselves, we've lost these two family members. This somehow makes compensation for it. I'm sure that's not how they felt.

KEILAR: Bomani, we heard this story earlier from Bob Costas who O.J. Simpson was calling repeatedly on the car phone from the white Ford Bronco, wasn't able to reach him because he was doing the NBA final, right? But later, he found out that the reason O.J. was trying to call him was because O.J. said that he was being defamed and he thought that Bob Costas could tell people basically about how great he was.

And I mean, I just wonder sort of like hearing that anecdote, what you think about that?

JONES: Well, one thing we have to remember about the infamous Bronco chase and that it went on during a game in the NBA finals on NBC is that O.J. worked at NBC at the time. Like, that's something that didn't really land with me, is that the people who are broadcasting this were his coworkers. Like, that was one of the wildest things that could have possibly gone down.

And I mean, him calling Bob about that is just obviously a sign of the massive ego that O.J. Simpson had. But I have to jump in about the question that you just asked Mercedes about faith in the legal system. And if we're all being honest about this, the trial of O.J. Simpson and the way - the reason it resonated in American society was a study in race on so many different levels happening in, what Ralph Wiley called the racial cauldron of America at that time, which was Los Angeles.

But there is something wildly ironic to a lot of black people. The idea that this one of all the trials in the world was the one that made American white people wonder if this criminal justice system maybe didn't always work the way that it was supposed to. Like, if this was the one that questioned people's faith in the justice system, then it becomes very easy to understand why that trial and everything around O.J., who ultimately himself was a very hollow man, rest in peace, but let's be honest about this. That hollow man who stood for so little became an avatar for so many other things. And that question is kind of an example of what it is, because no black person ever had to be told that the American criminal justice system can get it wrong from time to time.

KEILAR: Such a good point, Bomani.

SANCHEZ: Absolutely. And Mercedes, I'm wondering how you think the verdict has stood the test of time, because there are a lot of people that we've heard from that initially were supportive of it and took it, sort of as Bomani was alluding to, as a referendum of where race was at that moment in time, coming shortly after the Rodney King riots and the brutality that the LAPD - by which the LAPD conducted its business. I'm wondering how you think folks that now view that verdict as unfair, as a travesty, now find themselves.

COLWIN: If you look at the trial, there was so much that was on trial, law enforcement, how they gathered the evidence, the witnesses that came forward from law enforcement, the gathering of the evidence. So it wasn't just race relations, it's also a real laser focus on law enforcement and whether or not they did take the appropriate steps to ensure that the evidence was gathered in a way that was - that it was appropriate.

But you saw that once that - they were impugned, their integrity was impugned, they started to question law enforcement. That really carried the day aside from all the brilliance of Johnnie Cochran and the defense team. But there's always going to be individuals that look at the judicial system, especially for individuals of color and question whether they will get the fair shake.

I have, as a practitioner for a long time, had tremendous faith in the judicial system. I'm part of that system. I represent clients in this judicial system. I have great faith in our juries. And do they get it wrong?

[15:10:00]

Well, certainly I feel that way when I've lost trials. But I feel vindicated for my clients when I've won them.

But it really is, at the end of the day, anyone that serves a jury will tell you they did their absolute best. They've listened to the evidence and they ruled on the evidence that was presented to them.

KEILAR: Yes, I think - and I'm so glad you brought up the incident of the beating in 1991 caught on tape, which was really this first - one of the first times and it was so brutal, Bomani, what we saw as a nation. I was living there in Southern California. I think I was 10 or 11 and saw it. And it was so obvious, I think, especially being a child, how wrong it was. That was sort of - that was the bigger setting for what we were seeing, right? Even as we were going into this trial and you were seeing people react to the outcome in ways that didn't necessarily reflect the facts, right. But it reflected what was factual about their relationship to the society. In which they were living.

JONES: Well, yes, I think there's something interesting about this whole trial. And I remember after Ezra Edelman's incredible documentary "O.J.: Made in America" came out, I watched it and I came away from it from - with two very strong conclusions.

One, I was more certain than ever that I believe that O.J. Simpson killed those people and I was even more certain than ever that he 100 percent should have been acquitted. The lesson of that trial really should have been this one that if you don't have, like - I'll put it this way, credibility is like insurance. You don't need it until you need it. And the Los Angeles Police Department needed credibility at a moment in that trial and they just didn't have it with the people that were there.

What wound up happening on the back end was people blamed the jury for not trusting the police. And not enough people asked the question as to whether or not these people in the police force blew it themselves and the fact that they could not be trusted. And it was not implausible the idea that something as far-fetched as a conspiracy to take O.J. Simpson down was believable.

It wasn't because something was wrong with those people. It was because something was wrong with the way the LAPD had been conducting business and the Rodney King trial was the culmination of all of those things and they all came together. And again, as my mentor, Ralph Wiley, once wrote about this, of all - it's a paraphrase of all the terrible things that happened to black people in the criminal justice system. It was just crazy that of all people, this is the dude who got off as a result of it. But that was all the stuff that came together in this trial and everything that surrounded it just came together with this man who, again, himself stood for very little and then became an avatar for so many different things.

SANCHEZ: Yes, a case, and a story and a life that's touched so many different angles of American society.

Bomani Jones, Mercedes Colwin, thank you so much for that conversation.

COLWIN: Thank you so much.

JONES: Thank you.

KEILAR: A key surveillance program is caught up in Republican dysfunction in Congress as the head of the FBI is warning that it is critical to thwarting terrorist attacks and to protecting American lives. Christopher Wray is testifying on the Hill right now.

SANCHEZ: Plus, an effort to repeal Arizona's abortion - new abortion ban crashes and burns while the issue could hurt Republicans on the ballot in November.

Plus, the White House is trying to close a loophole that lets some people legally buy guns without background checks.

Those stories and much more just moments away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:17:51]

KEILAR: FBI Director Christopher Wray has a clear warning for Congress that the threats facing the United States are rising, especially after the October 7th Hamas attacks. He says a new surveillance tool that helps the country thwart those threats must be renewed. And timing is everything here.

A small group of Republicans just voted to block that renewal and we're talking specifically here about Section 702 of FISA, which is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is set to expire in eight days.

SANCHEZ: Yesterday, 19 Republicans in the House derailed the renewal process just hours after former President Donald Trump urged Congress to "kill FISA."

CNN's Melanie Zanona is tracking this on Capitol Hill for us. Melanie, what else have we heard from Director Wray? Is it enough, you think, to sway those 19 Republicans?

MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Well, it's not just Wray. There has been a steady drumbeat of National Security voices urging Congress to renew this surveillance law. And one of those voices includes Trump's own former attorney general Bill Barr, who told my colleague Annie Grayer that it would be "reckless to let this law expire."

But those voices are up against Donald Trump, who called on Republicans to kill this bill yesterday. And he also seemed to conflate what this section of the law would actually do. But Wray sought to clear up some of those misconceptions in the hearing today, let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: An absolutely indispensable tool that Congress can give us in our fight against foreign adversaries is the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is critical in securing our nation, and we are in crunch time with our 702 authority set to expire next week.

So let me be clear, failure to reauthorize 702 or gutting it with some new kind of warrant requirement would be dangerous and put Americans' lives at risk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZANONA: So GOP leaders are facing an all-too-familiar scenario where they see some of their best-laid plans scrambled by former President Donald Trump. Now, there is some hope for a Plan B. [15:19:59]

The new emerging idea, according to sources is that they're going to change the expiration date on the law from five years down to two years, with the hope being that they then have a Trump administration where they can achieve some better reforms in their eyes. They're also going to give some amendment votes and bill votes that hardliners were seeking. That may be enough to appease hardline conservatives, but it could jeopardize its passage in the Senate.

So you get a glimpse of just what Speaker Mike Johnson is really wrestling with here, guys.

KEILAR: All right. So what happens next? Why is Johnson still optimistic about this being renewed?

ZANONA: Johnson has to be optimistic. He does not want this law to fail. But he also knows he has to keep those hardline conservatives in his corner. And, of course, hanging over it all is a threat to Mike Johnson's speakership from Marjorie Taylor Greene. That might be why Johnson is working so hard to appease these hardline conservatives and it also might be why he's planning to head down to Florida tomorrow to do a joint press conference with Donald Trump.

So he knows he needs these key members in his corner as he looks to pass these really tricky laws. Not just on this surveillance law, but also a Ukraine aid package is something that he said he would address in the coming weeks. So a lot to talk about on Mar-a-Lago tomorrow between those two.

KEILAR: All right. Mel, thank you for that report.

SANCHEZ: Let's dig deeper now with Democratic senator Chris Coons of Delaware.

Senator, thank you so much for being with us. We should note he serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I'm curious to get your response to this debate now over Section 702 of FISA and I'm wondering how confident you are that the House is ultimately going to reauthorize it.

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): Well, Boris, this is the least productive House in modern times and we can see why. The chaos of having abrupt changes in policy based on tweets by the former president. When we worked for months here in the Senate to hammer out a tough bipartisan compromise on border security. It was on a path towards passage and then President Trump decided he'd rather have an issue for the election than security at the border.

Section 702 is a critical piece of the toolkit that helps keep America safe from foreign adversaries. It fell apart on the floor yesterday in the House because the former president tweeted against it. So I'm concerned that we may not see Ukraine aid move forward. We may not see Section 02 move forward. We may not see a lot of important things move forward. I will say that in the end we got our full year appropriations bills done and Speaker Johnson was able to pass those with strong Democratic support. It's my hope that he will continue legislating in the urgent interest of the United States. Prime Minister Kishida of Japan just addressed a joint session of Congress and could not have said more forcefully how important it is for the United States to continue to support Ukraine and that Japan pledges to be shoulder to shoulder with us in securing a democratic world that is committed to rule of law and where we push back on authoritarian and aggressive states.

SANCHEZ: Sure. Going back to FISA, what do you make of the counter argument from Republicans who argue that before they reauthorize, they want to see more protections for the privacy of Americans? Senator? Senator, can you hear me?

COONS: Sorry, the sound just cut out. You just got out.

SANCHEZ: That's all right.

COONS: You said, what do you make of the argument of ...

SANCHEZ: The Republicans that are arguing against reauthorizing this specific section of FISA, part of the argument has to do with protecting the privacy of Americans and FBI Director Wray sort of alluded to that in his remarks. I'm wondering what do you say to those who argue that there should be warrants in place to try to protect Americans.

COONS: I do think that there have to be improvements to the FISA process to ensure that this robust database of collected information from around the world is not misused in a way that targets Americans. One potential path forward is to require a warrant for the viewing of any content that relates directly to an American. That's something that's being debated here in the Senate. I don't think that's an unreasonable concern. But we should in no circumstances allow section 702 to expire.

SANCHEZ: Senator, I also want to pivot to the Middle East because Iran's Supreme Leader said that Israel must be punished. And it will be, for striking that embassy compound of Iran's in Damascus and Syria. How do you see that retaliation potentially playing out? I'm wondering if you think Iran will act unilaterally or through one of its proxies in the region.

COONS: Well, President Biden has acted strongly and many of us here in the Senate have spoken up as well to make it clear we will defend Israel.

[15:25:00]

We will provide Israel with the munitions and the material they need to intercept any Iranian strike through the Iron Dome system or otherwise. We don't know whether Iran will choose to use one of its regional proxies like Hezbollah that has been attacking Israel from the north or whether they'll use a direct strike on an Israeli diplomatic facility or possibly to Israel itself. But it's important for Iran to know that we will act to deter them and that we will not allow Israel to be at risk of a direct strike from Iran and in any way undefended.

SANCHEZ: And part of the reason I asked the question, Senator, is because Iran has pointed the finger at the United States saying that the U.S. bears some responsibility for what happened in Damascus. How concerned are you that any retaliation might cost the lives of U.S. forces in the region?

COONS: Well, look Iranian-backed militias and proxies have been causing havoc in this region for years. The Houthis, I'll remind you, who operate out of Yemen and caused great difficulty for civilian shipping in the Red Sea trained, equipped, supported by the Iranians. Hezbollah trained, equipped, supported by the Iranians has been attacking northern Israel.

I think the United States needs to be mindful that our troops who are deployed in eastern Syria and in Iraq as part of the continuing counter-ISIS mission are at risk and we need to make it clear as President Biden did now several months ago when he ordered air strikes against Iranian backed militias in the region that attacks on American troops will be met with a quick forceful response.

SANCHEZ: Sen. Chris Coons, we have to leave the conversation there. Appreciate the time, sir.

COONS: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: So Vice President Kamala Harris is about to swing through Arizona which is a major swing state in the election heading to the epicenter of the country's abortion battle. We've got details in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)