Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Potential Tax Probs for D. Sterling and V. Stiviano; U.S. Sends Help to Nigeria; HGTV Drops Prospective Show When Hosts' Anti-Gay Views Revealed; Airline Ticket Transparency Act Would Harm Consumers, Group Says

Aired May 08, 2014 - 15:30   ET

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

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Rosa Flores is now live for us in New York. So, Rosa, tell us the potential penalties that Stiviano could face in all of this.

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There could be some substantial penalties, Pam, and not only for Stiviano, but for Sterling, as well.

Just think about this. When you get your paycheck, on that pay stub there are some -- legally, you know, their employer has to withhold some taxes, so we're talking about federal withholding taxes, FICA, Social Security, Medicare and, in the state of California, there is also state income tax. That's the responsibility of the employer.

And the IRS will tell you that's about -- it could be up to 100 percent of the penalty of that tax.

Now when it comes to Stiviano, it kind of just runs the gamut, because think about it, so if you go to the IRS, to Uncle Sam, and say OK, I forgot to report five dollars, OK, that might not be such a big deal.

But if you do not report all of your income, that is a very serious issue, and depending on the intent, then it could be extremely serious, so the penalties would depend on that.

And, Pam, think about this. Think about the big names that have, I guess, brought down by the IRS, big names like Al Capone, for example.

It's the little things a lot of the times that will get you, specifically with taxes, because a lot of the time, we take it for granted. It's like your paycheck. You really don't pay attention to those numbers. They are there. It's the law. And there could be some serious penalties.

BROWN: The IRS is certainly paying attention. Rosa Flores, thank you so much for that report.

U.S. intelligence personnel are just hours away from hitting the ground in Nigeria where they will help its government track hundreds of kidnapped schoolgirls there.

And CNN has learned that senior officials believe that the group behind the abductions, Boko Haram, has split the girls up.

Also today, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. will, quote, "do everything possible to counter the menace of Boko Haram."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: The images from Nigeria this week have captured the public's attention about extremism in far away places. And it has also helped to focus the world's attention on Boko Haram, a concern that we have been focused on for some period of time.

Our interagency team is hitting the ground in Nigeria now, and they are going to be working in concert with President Goodluck Jonathan's government to do everything that we possibly can to return these girls to their families and their communities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: A team of seven U.S. military personnel will be in Nigeria, but much of the focus has turned to why Boko Haram had not been labeled a terrorist group until recently.

So why the delay? Here to discuss this is "New York Times" columnist Nicholas Kristof. Thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

As we heard Secretary Kerry say, the Boko Haram group has been on the U.S. radar for quite some time, but it wasn't put on the list of foreign terrorist organizations until 2013. What do you make of that?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK TIMES": You know, I think that while it's been on our radar, it also hasn't been perceived as nearly as much of a direct threat to the U.S.

You have a similar group, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, further west end in Africa, that really has tried to pursue American targets while Boko Haram has wreaked devastation on northern Nigeria, and this latest attack is pretty typical.

But it hasn't been as deliberate in pursuing Western targets, and therefore it has been a little bit out of sight and out of mind in terms of the West.

BROWN: But why should the West, why should the U.S. care about it in the sense of are certain U.S. interests at risk of being attacked by Boko Haram? Because it seems like that threat is growing.

KRISTOF: Yeah, I do think the threat is growing in a couple of ways. One is that Boko Haram has increasing links with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and there apparently is training going on back and forth.

Nigeria has a lot of ties, both with the United States and Britain. And Boko Haram is ambitious. It wants to get headlines. It wants to get attention.

It's easy to see that it would like to sponsor a terror attack in the United States or in Britain, but I guess beyond that what I'd say is that while our interests are (inaudible) have to act on interests, our values matter, too. And when several hundred girls are kidnapped because they dream of becoming doctors and lawyers, that should bother us enough that, if we can try to help locate them, we really should.

I think this is a case where our values, as well as interests, coincide.

BROWN: And the U.S., as we've mentioned, we are offering assistance in this effort.

Let's talk about that. We learned today that there are sources telling us that the girls have been separated, so there's different cells with these girls that were kidnapped. That means they could have crossed the border. They could be in other countries.

Do we know if surrounding countries, Chad, Niger, Cameroon, are helping in the effort to find these girls?

KRISTOF: Yeah, you know, I think there has been a lot of concern that girls may have been brought across those borders. Frankly I think that that would make it easier to track them down.

Northern Nigeria is a real mess and very insecure. There's no real central government control there. In contrast, once they crossed the border into Niger, into Chad, into Cameroon, you have governments that are much more functional.

And the key is to get those governments to care about Nigerian girls, but I think at this point there is enough international attention and we can help facilitate that, that that will help.

And I guess the other thing I'd say is that these girls are educated. They are assertive. They know what has been done is wrong. They will seek and attempt to escape. So they're going to have to be watched and monitored, constantly, and that's going to be harder to do in Chad, in Cameroon, in southern Niger.

BROWN: Given the sort of mass cooperation here by all of these different countries and sort of the focus on this, do you think that this is a unique opportunity, Nicholas, to cripple Boko Haram?

KRISTOF: I do. You know, Boko Haram has been able to wreak such devastation in northern Nigeria for a couple of reasons.

One is that the Nigerian establishment tends to care less about the north. It tends to care more about oil areas in the south, and so long as the people getting slaughtered are in remote areas in the north, it has been less on the agenda. I think this changes it.

And I guess the other thing I'd say is that when the Nigerian government and army have tried to tackle Boko Haram, they have done it with the most brutal counterinsurgency by rounding up young men and, in some cases, killing them.

And that has not helped suppress Boko Haram. In fact, it's turned people to become more sympathetic to it. And I hope that an international spotlight will also create a certain amount of accountability for the Nigerian military, so that instead of just randomly rounding up young men, it will actually take on Boko Haram itself.

BROWN: Yeah, clearly, that's not working.

Last question for you here, Nicholas, have they made -- has Boko Haram come out and made any specific demands? What do you think their main objective is here with kidnapping these hundreds of schoolgirls?

Is it to gain notoriety and raise their profile, do you think?

KRISTOF: Yeah, I think there are a couple of things. Abubakar, the head of it, is a very flamboyant person. I think he wants global headlines. I think that he wants attention and craves it. And I think that is -- that's why he made his extraordinary video.

I think, secondly, that he is trying to make sure that girls don't go to school, and that is one of the tragedies here. No loving parents in northern Nigeria are going to send their daughters to school if the fear is that the daughters will then be kidnapped and sent to slavery.

So -- and I guess finally he hopes that he can probably ransom them off and make some money on this.

And you know -- I -- the only way to end this cycle is for the Nigerian authorities to locate them and end the impunity in northern Nigeria.

BROWN: It's just sickening. Your heart goes out to the girls and their families. Nicholas Kristof, thank you so much.

KRISTOF: Thank you.

BROWN: Up next, it's a common theme making headlines lately, should someone's personal feelings on controversial issues matter?

Two brothers who were about to get their own cable TV show are finding out after their personal views became public, and now some are crying foul.

We will explain what happened, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: As far as house-flipping shows go, HGTV's new series "Flip It Forward" was set to be unique.

After a decade of flipping houses for profit, the sons of right-wing activist Flip Benham now help families buy the home they thought they could never afford, but with this quiet tweet, the show was over before it ever saw the light of day.

Why, you ask. It all comes after a controversial report published on the Web site, RightWingWatch, detailing the anti-gay and anti-abortion viewpoints of one of the prospective co-hosts, who admitted to protesting outside of a women's clinic last year.

The brothers have today responded with a statement that says, "We were saddened to hear of HGTV's decision.

"With all of the grotesque things that could be seen and hard on television today, you would think there would be room for two twin brothers who are faithful to our families, committed to biblical principles and dedicated professionals.

"If our faith costs us a television show, then so be it."

All right, so let's discuss this. Joining me now, CNN's Brian Stelter, senior media correspondent, and Eric Deggans, TV critic for NPR.

All right, Eric, I'm going to start with you now. What's your opinion? Do you think this was the right move by HGTV?

ERIC DEGGANS, TV CRITIC, NPR: I think it makes all kinds of sense for HGTV. Number one, it's a company that has a long standing practice of having openly gay hosts and having openly gay people who are participants on its shows, its flipping shows, its home rehab show.

So they have a history of being open to gay participants and gay staffers, and I could see why they would be uncomfortable with having people have these views being a part of their line up.

Also, these shows have a huge viewership that also is part of that. Middle-aged women and I'm sure gay people also watch these shows a lot, and they would be worried about boycotts, about backlash among viewers.

And, finally, there's a sense that homophobia is being seen as something that is socially unacceptable now. Finally we've reached a point where gay people can stand up and say, look, if somebody says that we have a lifestyle and it's socially objectionable, that that's something that advertisers and fair-minded employers should not associate themselves with.

So there's a lot of good reasons why this might have happened.

BROWN: And we have seen a similar situation to this. Brian, I'm going to go to you now. We saw it with "Duck Dynasty," A&E putting the show on hiatus after one of the stars made some controversial comments. Then they brought them back.

So what is the different here? Where is the line of forgiveability, or does this just come down to profit? What do you think?

STELTER: They did bring Phil Robertson back on "Duck Dynasty" pretty soon, and we should mention about that show, there was so much commotion about that controversy in December.

When "Duck Dynasty" came back, it still did OK in the ratings but it did not do as well as it used to have been doing. It had a pretty dramatic drop-off in the months following that controversy. And that led to lots of speculation about why the drop off happened. Was it because people had soured on Phil Robertson because of the quotes that had been published from him, or was it for more mundane reasons?

The same sort of questions will be asked about this case. Did HGTV back away from these brothers because of the quotes that surfaced, or for more mundane reasons?

I think what's frustrating to me here as a media reporter is HGTV hasn't come forward and actually talked about why they did what they did. They just, with one Twitter message, walked away from the show before it ever made it onto the air without describing why.

BROWN: And Eric, let's talk about that. We are watching serious fallout, obviously, in the wake of Donald Sterling's racist comments. We saw it with Paula Deen last year.

Some would argue that we're moving into dangerous territory here, that people are being punished for their own views or beliefs, and in this case, some would argue, look, does it matter what their views are?

This is a show about house flipping. What does it matter what their personal beliefs are?

What do you have to say to that?

DEGGANS: I'd say two things. Number one, there is an indication that at least one of the twin brothers who would be the host of the show did more than hold private thoughts or private opinions about gay people, that he participated in and led protests where gay people were targeted or named as the source of some sort of awful problem in America.

And if those reports are true, he did more than sort of express private views.

But beyond that, television is about image, and it's about advertisers wanting to associate themselves with images, and it's about people who provide TV content associating themselves with the image of their hosts.

They hire Paula Deen, they hire people like that, because they want to be associated with their image, and they want to use their image to expand their own programming.

So, if a TV channel says that a host has an image that is something that they don't want to associate with their brand or something that they think their advertisers won't want to associate with their brands, that it makes all kinds of sense for them to say, you know, you can have a show; you just can't have a show on HGTV.

STELTER: We should keep in mind that HGTV is owned by the same company that owns Food Network that, of course, bounced Paula Deen last summer after a controversy about her, you know, both owned by Scripps Networks. Maybe Scripps was trying to avoid a flare-up like they had with Paula Deen last year.

BROWN: Yeah, that's a good point.

And, Brian, going back to what you were saying earlier, we really haven't heard a lot from HGTV in this.

Do you think that the onus was on them from the get-go? If this was such a big deal to them, why -- don't you think that they would vet the people that they're going to have on their network?

STELTER: I've seen a lot of people asking that online. I think it's a legitimate question.

There is a risk here, I think, though, of matching perceived intolerance with more intolerance. If you are someone at home who's looking at this, thinking, why are they taking away these brother's TV show simply because what they believe in their personal life, the answer -- or part of the answer to that is diversity in the media.

There should be a wide variety of media owners and a wide variety of places for people to go with their shows so that these brothers, for example, can get a show somewhere else if they feel they were wronged by Scripps Networks.

BROWN: Interesting perspectives.

DEGGANS: I would point out if I could break in that if they had expressed -- if they had been at some rally where they said that black people were the root of all people in America, I don't think we'd even be having this discussion. I think people would say, good luck getting a TV show anywhere.

The point or the fact is, in TV you sell an image. And if you create an image that a majority of people find distasteful, you're going to have a hard time getting a show. It's not like there's a law against you having a TV show. People just decide that homophobia is something they don't want to be associated with.

And one big difference between this show and "Duck Dynasty," "Duck Dynasty" was a proven hit. So it was harder for A&E to walk away from that show because it already existed; it already was successful.

This was a pilot that they were considering adding to their lineup. So it makes all kind of sense that they might say, you know, we have other shows we can develop and we don't need this headache.

And if they can find some other place to do that show, I'm sure they would be welcomed by people who might willing to take that chance. There's no law against them having a show, but it makes sense for some TV outlets to decide they don't want to be a part of this.

BROWN: Right. And the network has every right to make that decision.

Eric Deggans, Brian Stelter, thank you very much. We appreciate it. And don't miss "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" tonight, the Benham brothers will be on live with their side of the story. That's at 7:45 p.m. Eastern time.

It is called The Transparent Airfares Act and if it passes it will impact everyone who buys a plane ticket online. It's supposed to make buying tickets easier to understand, but critics are slamming the bill.

We're going to tell you why, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: A proposed new law is being sold as returning, quote, "transparency to U.S. airline fare advertising."

But consumer advocates say that in reality it will make it almost impossible to compare ticket prices online.

So to break this down for us, Alison Kosik joins us now at the New York Stock Exchange.

Alison, tell us what exactly will this bill do if it becomes law, and why are consumer groups so outraged about it?

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: OK, so if this bill passes, Pamela, it would essentially allow airlines to advertise showing the base fare without the government taxes and fees rolled in.

Those taxes and fees, they would be revealed later when you go through the whole rigmarole of, you know, going through and booking the whole process of your ticket.

So let's say you see $200 listed and think, hey, that's a great price, and you keep clicking through, you'd only find out before you enter your card number that you owe, let's say, another $50 in taxes.

The way it's done now is the government taxes and the fuel surcharges, they're all rolled into one whole price, because it's helpful when you have to shop around and you see that one price and you don't have to factor in the taxes and the fees later.

What the airline industry is doing, though, it's leaning on Congress right now pretty hard to change the way this is done.

A trade organization that supports the U.S. airlines says that airlines should be allowed to show how much you're paying for your ticket and how much you pay for federal taxes, separately, instead of rolling it into one.

Pamela?

BROWN: And the airlines, they have been fighting that total ticket price ad rule, like you said, from the get-go. Two airlines actually sued over it and lost. The Supreme Court would not even hear their case. So do you think, based on what you know, that they are getting any traction in Congress with this?

KOSIK: They really are, to the surprise of many. Many didn't think that this would gain any traction, and what the airline is arguing is that it's actually pro-consumer because they are telling you exactly how much money goes to them and how much goes to the government.

And you also have to realize the airline industry has a huge lobbying arm on Capitol Hill, and we all know money talks.

OpenSecrets.org, though, found that, over the past 20 years or so, U.S. airlines have made almost $42 million in campaign contributions and seven sponsors of this bill have received some heavy campaign contributions from airlines.

And so you see there is some question as to whether or not there is a little bit of a lobbying push to get this bill through.

BROWN: Very interesting. We'll see how it plays out. Alison Kosik, thank you.

And up next on NEWSEOOM, a man was saved in the nick of time by an alert police officer, unbelievable video, more of that after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: All right, drop what you're doing and watch this video. It's really unbelievable.

A man seemed ready to end his life at a Boston subway station. Watch here. He walked to the edge and was prepared to jump on the tracks.

But wait. The quick-thinking detective saved his life. The detective practically grabbed the man in midair, as we see here, and pulled him back on the ground, back to safety. He should be commended.

Thank you so much for watching. I'm Pamela Brown.

"THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts now.