Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
House Republicans Launch another Benghazi Inquiry; Attorneys Say FBI Violated Miranda Rights of Tsarnaev; Richard Sherman Speaks Out on Race; Did U.S. Drop Ball Years Ago on Boko Haram?
Aired May 08, 2014 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: House Republicans are launching another inquiry, their biggest yet, into the deaths of four Americans in Libya, Benghazi to be exact, September 11th, 2012. Democrats argue that questions have all been answered. They say the Republicans' goal isn't getting to the truth but getting to Hillary Clinton. She was secretary of state when the killings occurred and has testified already. You might remember this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON JOHNSON, (R), WISCONSIN: -- we saw sprang out that, we saw sprang out of that. And that was easily --
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: -- ascertained that that was not the fact.
HILLARY CLINTON, (D), FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: But, but, you know --
JOHNSON: And the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.
CLINTON: And with all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans.
JOHNSON: I understand that.
CLINTON: Was it because of a protest? Was it because of al Qaeda went out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans. What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent from ever happening again, Senator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Clinton is quoted as saying, "Enough already," that she is confident she knows what has happened there.
House Speaker John Boehner, no answer from him, the question regarding Republicans raising money off of Benghazi. That would be House Republican political arm, the campaign arm, as this new investigation is launched by the House of Representatives.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Senator Boehner, four Americans died in Benghazi. Should the NRC fundraise off of your efforts with a Select Committee?
REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Our focus is on getting the answers to those families who lost loved ones, period.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE QUESTION)
BOEHNER: Our focus, our focus is getting the truth for these four families and the American people.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But the campaign committee that you are very involved in is fundraising off of this. Why is that happening?
BOEHNER: Our focus is on getting the truth for the American people and these four families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: All right. Gloria Borger, our chief political analyst.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: He didn't answer the question.
(LAUGHTER)
KEILAR: No. Three times, and he would not engage on that.
I wonder what you think here. Do Republicans have to be careful? Does it get to a point where it's like too much is -- it's just too much and voters tune them out?
BORGER: Sure. There is always a danger of overreach particularly when you're fund raising over this, which is why Speaker Boehner would not answer that question. And if you go back to the day of Bill Clinton and impeachment, and Republicans suffered as a result there, of overreach. But the game that Republicans are playing, Brianna, and you know this as well as I do, is more of a short-term game with some long-term implications, maybe for Hillary Clinton, but the play they're making is in the midterm elections. Midterm elections are not about the persuadable voters in the middle. It's all about getting out your base, of the 40 percent or so. None of them are undecided. They go out because they want to vote for a Republican or a Democrat. If enemy number-one is Obamacare and they can turn Benghazi into enemy number-two and nick Hillary Clinton along the way for 2016, they will be happy to do that.
KEILAR: Let's talk about the ramifications for Hillary Clinton should she decide to run. I talked with some people in her camp who say this is not an election that will be won or lost on foreign policy. What do you think? What kind of effect does it have? BORGER: Her tenure at the State Department is a very important line item on her resume, and it's something that she will talk about when she talks about her experience. I think, at some point, Hillary Clinton will probably produce another robust explanation. You are showing her there before the congressional committee. She did it once. A very detailed explanation of what went wrong and what needed to be corrected. And the State Department went back and corrected it. But I do think this is an issue that she is going to have to deal with over and over again. In the meantime, what Republicans are doing here is they're saying this is about our voters right now. The question for Hillary Clinton, in 2016 should she run, is whether Independent voters will care an awful lot about Benghazi. We don't know the answer to that. But I would also argue this is why Democrats are to participate in this committee. They're deciding right now whether they should. And they ought to participate so they can defend Hillary Clinton because that's what they want to do.
KEILAR: Yeah. I think we'll get a sense of what her argument is June 10th when her book comes out.
BORGER: That's right.
KEILAR: We'll be waiting for that.
BORGER: We will.
KEILAR: And we'll be talking about that.
Gloria Borger, thank you.
BORGER: Thanks.
KEILAR: A U.S. citizen was handcuffed to a hospital bed railing unable to speak due to several gunshot wounds. His jaw was wired shut. He was on heavy duty painkillers. And at the same time, FBI agents interrogated the man for hours without reading his right first. I'm talking about Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Dzokhar Tsarnaev. His attorneys say all of Tsarnaev's hospital statements should be tossed out because the FBI violated his rights and he was groggy from painkillers. Government officials suggested that Tsarnaev was questioned under a public safety exception to the Miranda rule.
Joining me now to discuss this, legal analyst, Sunny Hostin.
Sunny, most Americans don't have a lot of sympathy for Tsarnaev. But if it were you or me being questioned, as we framed it above, you wonder were his rights violated? Does he have an argument?
SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The law applies equally across the board to everyone. It doesn't matter if it's me, you, or Tsarnaev. I think that the government is on really firm legal footing here because there is always an exception to the Miranda law. And that is the public safety exception. There certainly was a public safety concern here. They knew he was somehow involved with this act of terror. What you have to do when you're a law enforcement official -- and the Supreme Court has made it clear you can do this -- you have to make sure that the public is safe. You are allowed, in a limited way, to question a suspect about that public safety concern.
(CROSSTALK)
HOSTIN: Again, I think the government is on pretty firm footing here
KEILAR: They are on firm footing, even though he wrote the word "lawyer" 10 times. He even circled the word, because he was communicating with them by writing.
HOSTIN: Yes.
KEILAR: Is that him asking for help. You think the exception would overrule those requests.
HOSTIN: That's a great question. Absolutely. The exception applied even in the face of someone asking for an attorney for the same reason that someone isn't Mirandized because of this public safety concern.
The one area where I think the defense has a bit of leeway, a bit of legal footing is that they are saying the statements couldn't have been voluntary because he had been drugged up. He was in the hospital and in pain. Any questioning that happens when you're in this law enforcement world, it has to be voluntary. You can't compel a statement. You can't force a statement. You shouldn't be getting statements from someone under the influence of drugs. But the Supreme Court has dealt with this, too, but I suspect that is where we'll see some litigation. We will see testimony from the doctors as to whether he was really in his right state of mind when he answer the questions.
KEILAR: The painkillers may be an issue.
Sunny Hostin, thank you.
HOSTIN: Thanks.
KEILAR: Now coming up, Richard Sherman. You remember him? He's the football player that went on that rant? Now he is speaking out again, questioning the NFL's stance on race relations in the wake of the Donald Sterling controversy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Well, the fallout surrounding L.A. Clippers owner, Donald Sterling, and his ban from the NBA is forcing owners and players of other sports leagues to answer some tough questions about race.
Seattle Seahawks star cornerback, Richard Sherman, recently told "Time" magazine how he feels about the controversy. You'll remember Sherman from this rant that went viral.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD SHERMAN, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS CORNERBACKS: I'm the best in the game. When you try me with a sorry receiver like Crabtree, that's the result you're going to get. Don't you ever talk about me!
UNIDENTIFIED NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Who was talking about you?
SHERMAN: Crabtree. Don't you open your mouth about the best or I'm going to shut it for you real quick.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: Sherman was fined nearly $8,000. But when it comes to the Sterling controversy, "Time" asked him if an NFL owner made similar comments similar to the ones Sterling made, would Roger Goodell ban them for life, and Sherman said, quote, "No, I don't, because we have an NFL team called the Redskins. I don't think the NFL really is as concerned as they show. The NFL is more of a bottom-line league. If it doesn't affect their bottom line, they're not as concerned."
Joining me to discuss this, former Atlanta Falcon, Chris Draft; as well as sports agent, Drew Rosenhaus.
Drew, you first.
The owner of the Redskins, he said that the team name was not an issue. But that's something Native Americans, many of them feel that it's a racial slur. Is there a double standard here?
DREW ROSENHAUS, SPORTS AGENT: Well, let me just say I have a lot of respect for Richard Sherman. He's a great player and I think he does a lot for the game in which he speaks up. It's my opinion, my view that if an owner made similar comments that he would be banned, that the NFL would take the same action. I'm confident that the players association, the players would be up in arms and they would do the same thing that the NBA did. That's my take on it based on my 30 years of experience in dealing with the players from the NFL, the owners, and the executives of the NFL teams and also the union. The NFL P.A. would never stand for that.
KEILAR: What do you think, Chris?
CHRIS DRAFT, FORMER ATLANTA FALCONS PLAYER: I think it is very similar. You're looking at two different issues. You know, what happened with Donald Sterling is so far outside the box. As an owner of the team and the things that he said, it's clear that it has to be dealt with in a different situation. If you want to see how the NFL might respond you have to look at the New Orleans Saints and see with the bullying scandal that they were very swift in their action. But that's not even close to what happened with Donald Sterling. If the NFL had an owner like that, you would probably see the same thing happen in the NBA.
KEILAR: So, Drew, let's talk about another incident. Eagles wide receiver, Riley Cooper, was caught on tape and used the "N" word at a concert. It was caught on tape. How do you feel about the way the NFL handled that? He was fined. What do you think about that?
(CROSSTALK)
ROSENHAUS: OK, Chris, go right ahead.
DRAFT: Go ahead.
ROSENHAUS: My take on it is that the Eagles organization, the players, the rest of the NFL players, they made the determination that what Cooper did was wrong. It was not acceptable. Cooper was very apologetic. He was sent home for a period of time and frankly it sounded like a lot of people inside the organization who knew Cooper gave him a second chance. I'm not sure the NFL itself got directly involved as much as the NFL team, the Philadelphia Eagles were involved.
KEILAR: The team fined him.
And, Chris, I know that you have a strong opinion about this and maybe you also feel those comments are perhaps a little more -- can you compare them more to what Sterling said?
DRAFT: You can compare them in that they are both basically racial comments, but I think it's a lot different when you're an owner of a team. You're basically saying I don't want this group of people to even come to the game. I could care less if they come to the game, when a majority of your team is that color. That's where the different is. Rodney Cooper said what he said. It was worked out. More with the team, as Drew said. It was a big issue. It was dealt with. When you're talking on an ownership level, this is completely different. Also, Donald Sterling had a history. He had a history that showed that kind of guy so it really blew up in his face.
KEILAR: He did.
(CROSSTALK)
ROSENHAUS: And I think this Sterling --
KEILAR: Go ahead.
ROSENHAUS: I think the Sterling comments have had an impact on the entire sports world, football, hockey, baseball. It put owners on notice, everyone on notice. That racism will not be tolerated. There's no place for it. And whether you're an owner, a billionaire, whatever you're going to be ostracized if you say racist things. And hopefully, sets a standard if this happens again in any other professional football or other league, for example.
KEILAR: Some important soul searching that needs to go on and on.
Chris Draft, Drew Rosenhaus, thank you.
Coming up, we have been talking about Boko Haram, the group that claims responsibility for abducting hundreds of schoolgirls in Nigeria and for other deadly attacks. Critics are saying that the U.S. dropped the ball years ago when discussing whether to closely monitor the group. We will have that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: "The beginning of the end for terror" -- those were the words of Goodluck Jonathan that Boko Haram's kidnappings will be the group's ultimate down fall. This just in, senior U.S. officials say the girls who were kidnapped have likely been split up. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is offering her thoughts about the kidnapping. During a speech last night in New York, Clinton said the Nigerian government has been, quote, "somewhat derelict" in protecting its children.
But some are now questioning whether Clinton, when she was secretary, was serious enough when it came to tracking Boko Haram. "The Daily Beast's" Josh Logan writes, "The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group, Boko Haram, on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for years. And now lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government's ability to confront the Nigerian group."
CNN foreign affairs reporter, Elise Labott, joins us.
Elise, what I want to ask you, and I know that you have been really digging into this, it's not quite that simple, right?
ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's not. And we did a lot of reporting of Boko Haram over the years, including in 2012 when Secretary Clinton went to Nigeria and there was a robust administration debate about whether the group should be designated. There was a lot of back and forth between the State Department, Congress, members of the CIA, the Justice Department, a very big debate about whether the group should be designated. There were a lot of concerns at the time that because Boko Haram was focused on Nigeria, was considered a domestic terrorist group, doing a U.S. designation might make the U.S. a target ,and they wanted to see if they could try to deal with the threat locally.
There was also concern that the Nigerian military would use this as a green light to further ongoing -- human rights groups like Amnesty were accusing the Nigerian military of human rights abuses and there was a concern, particularly within the State Department, that the Nigerian military would take that as a license to further its human rights abuses.
Lastly, there was uncertainty at the time as to whether the Nigerians wanted the U.S. to do that. They thought it would give the group legitimacy. What the U.S. settled for at the time, the State Department designated the leader of the group and a few of the senior officials of the group as members of a terrorist group. But they didn't take that ultimate step.
KEILAR: Worried it would make it legitimate. It could help with recruiting. I have heard that was a concern as well.
Thank you for breaking it down. Very complex subject.
Our foreign affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, thank you.
Up next, more of Anderson Cooper's explosive interview with Cleveland kidnapping survivor, Michelle Knight. She describes what she did when police officers arrived at a house that had been her prison for 11 years.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: Michelle Knight says life is amazing one year after her incredible rescue from captivity in Ariel Castro's Ohio home. She has endured after being held hostage for nearly 11 years, beaten with chains, tortured, sexually assaulted over and over and over again.
Knight sat down with Anderson Cooper and talked about her incredible rescue and why, even when police were pounding on the door, she kept hiding.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHELLE KNIGHT, FORMER HOSTAGE: I hear a noise but anybody can say police. And then I notice some form of a big person. I was like, OK, maybe this might be. And I see a badge and numbers. And then I hear the police radio. I just said -- I ran right into her arms and I literally choked her.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, A.C. 360: Into the police woman's arms?
KNIGHT: Yeah.
COOPER: Did you say anything?
KNIGHT: I said please don't let me go. Please don't put me down.
COOPER (voice-over): The man who had held her for nearly 11 years was indicted on 977 counts and sentence to life plus 1000 years. Just a month into that sentence, he was found hanged in his jail cell.
KNIGHT: I understand why he did that. He couldn't face what he did. He had to face it like a coward because he was ashamed and embarrassed of what he done. And he didn't want what he did to us to happen to him.
COOPER: Today, Michelle is focused on starting over. She has changed her name to Lily after her favorite flower. And she is also back in school with the hope of opening her own restaurant some day.
(on camera): What do you see for your future? What do you hope?
KNIGHT: I see beautiful and amazing things coming to me.
COOPER: You deserve them.
KNIGHT: Yes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
