Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Staffer Fired From Benghazi's Committee; Army Officer Opposes Jail For Bergdahl; Now: Bernie Sanders Campaigns in Colorado; Pentagon and Russia Discuss Syria Operations; Finding Boehner's Replacement No Easy Task; Finding Boehner's Replacement No Easy Task; Staffer Fired from Benghazi Committee; Highlighting the Plight of the Poor. Aired 5- 6p ET

Aired October 10, 2015 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:01:03] POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Top of the hour, I'm Poppy Harlow in New York. We begin with breaking news on the Benghazi terror attack investigation. A staffer fired from the House Select Committee looking into that deadly 2012 attack on that U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. That attack that took four American lives including Ambassador Stevens.

Joining me now, CNN investigative reporter Chris Frates in Washington. This is quite a development, Chris. What are you learning?

CHRIS FRATES, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Poppy, a former staffer with the House Committee investigating the Benghazi attacks says the panel's probe has become a politically motivated inquiry targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It's a politically explosive charge sure to resonate on the campaign trail as Clinton runs for president. Major Bradley Podliska, an Air Force Reserve Intelligence officer, says that after news broke earlier this year that Clinton used a private e-mail server, the republican- controlled committee set its sights almost exclusively on Clinton.

Podliska says he was fired as a committee investigator because he resisted the pressure to focus on Clinton and because he took military leave. He says he plans to file a lawsuit over his filing and ask a court to give him back his job with back pay. Podliska, a self- described conservative republican, tells CNN's Jake Tapper in an exclusive television interview that what was a broad probe into the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi became a, quote, "partisan investigation." He says the committee pulled resources away from other people and agencies to focus almost exclusively on Clinton and the State Department.

He says, quote, "Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do. We, however, did not need to shift resources to hyper focus on Hillary Clinton. We didn't need to deemphasize and in some cases drop the different investigation on different agencies, different organizations, and different individuals. There's wrongdoing here, and I think it needs to stop. A spokesperson for the committee said in a statement that Podliska's claims are transparently false. Podliska the statement says was terminated for cause including for trying to put together a hit piece on administration officials including Clinton. The statement says, quote, "Thus directly contrary to his brand-new assertion, the employee actually was terminated in part because he himself manifested improper partiality and animus in his investigative work" -- Poppy.

HARLOW: So Chris, obviously there's this, which is a very significant development, especially coming in the wake of those comments from Representative McCarthy, talking about the panel and what the inquiry into Benghazi, that House Select Committee, connecting it to Hillary Clinton's falling poll numbers.

FRATES: Well, absolutely. And we saw that Kevin McCarthy, the number two in the House right now, who was running to become the speaker and take over for John Boehner, he made a connection last week and said that the Benghazi's committee helped knock down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers, and he said when he pulled out of the race for speaker --

HARLOW: Right.

FRATES: -- that those comments were part of the reason why he felt like he had to step down. Here is another indication from somebody inside the committee connecting the committee with political work. This is sure to have repercussions on the campaign trail in the coming weeks -- Poppy.

HARLOW: Chris Frates, thank you very much for that significant development. I do want to point all of our viewers to CNN's "STATE OF THE UNION" tomorrow morning with Jake Tapper at 9:00 a.m. Eastern and noon eastern because Jake will have an exclusive interview with the man at the center of this, Major Bradley Podliska. Again, only on "STATE OF THE UNION" tomorrow morning. Do not miss that.

On another note, a possible setback for the army and its quest to put Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl behind bars for deserting his unit back in 2009. The officer who oversaw Bergdahl's article 32 hearing last month is recommending no jail time for Bergdahl. This is a very significant development because Bergdahl could have spent the rest of his life behind bars if he's court-martialed and convicted. He was captured by the Taliban after going AWOL from his army unit in Afghanistan. He was freed five years later in that swap for those five detainees from Guantanamo Bay after he came home, the army charged him with desertion and misconduct.

[17:05:24] CNN military analyst Rick Francona following Bergdahl's case throughout. He's with me now. So this is not a typical case in any way. But this recommendation by one of the army officers that Bergdahl should serve no jail time, how rare is something like that?

RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, it's not uncommon that the investigating officer would make that kind of recommendation. This is the second officer that has made that exact same recommendation. First was the general that conducted the investigation. And the recent one with the officer who oversaw the article 32 hearing which is like a grand jury proceeding in the civilian system, both of them have that same recommendation. It's the second officer's recommendation that might carry some weight because this is the recommendation that goes to the commander of force command. And that's General Abrams. And he's going to make the decision on what happens next. One of those recommendations is that this not be held as a general court-martial that it be knocked down to a special court- martial which would be something along a misdemeanor in the civilian world. This is a real setback for many of the army and other military people that believe that Bergdahl needs to be held accountable at the highest level.

HARLOW: Ultimately who makes the decision?

FRANCONA: General Abrams is the commander of force command, that's the command that Bergdahl is now assigned to. He'll make that decision at what level of court-martial. The level of court-martial determines what kind of punishments can be levied. I think most people -- and my personal opinion is that Bergdahl doesn't need to go to jail. But he needs to be held accountable for what happened out there in Afghanistan. And that is best done in a general court- martial. Once and if he is found guilty, then they can determine what the punishment should be, and if that includes jail time or not, that's a different matter. But I think most people, myself included, want him to be held accountable, want him to answer for his actions and not sweep this under the rug.

HARLOW: Colonel Rick Francona, I appreciate the analysis, sir, as always.

I also want to tell you the latest development in a very troubling story out of Turkey. Authorities there still do not know who is behind one of the worst attacks in the country's recent history. It is the most deadly attack in the 90-plus-year history of the Turkish Republic. The anger is now shifting towards the government. We know at least 97 people have been killed. More than 400 injured when those two powerful bombs went off during a peace march earlier today in Ankara. It comes just weeks before those parliamentary elections are set to take place. This also comes amid Turkey's growing role in the fight against ISIS. About 14,000 people gathered to take part in that peace rally today. Many now pointing their finger at the Turkish government for inadequate security.

And Bernie Sanders rallying the faithful just a few days before a pivotal debate. Live pictures from Colorado where he is speaking to a crowd of thousands at the University of Colorado East Campus. We'll take you there live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:11:40] HARLOW: Just three days left until the first democratic presidential debate right here on CNN. Bernie Sanders trying to rally the crowds as he fights against Hillary Clinton. He's pushing for support today in Colorado, rallying supporters in Boulder on the University of Colorado's East Campus. The Vermont senator is speaking about income inequality, prescription drug costs rising and his college affordability plan. But he is talking a lot about gun control in this country.

Sunlen Serfaty joins me now. Sunlen, this is what we thought he would do after seeing him in Arizona yesterday. This is a key issue that a lot of pundits say is his Achilles heel, and he's taking it on.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's absolutely right, Poppy. It seems that the campaign is very aware that this is a very real vulnerability for Bernie Sanders when you're talking about trying to woo democratic voters. This is an issue where he is on the right of Hillary Clinton.

HARLOW: Right.

SERFATY: And she's certainly a bit exacerbating that difference in recent days, really pushing for it on her own gun-control methods. And certainly Bernie Sanders has made quite the shift this weekend. Last night, as you said in Tucson, and just moments ago here in Boulder, Colorado, taking this issue of gun control head on, really almost explaining why he's had sort of a mixed voting record, more conservative than most Democrats would like him to be. So offering up somewhat of an explanation and certainly playing to this crowd here in Colorado. Mentioning specifically that they know all too well the tragedy of gun shootings, mentioning Columbine and Aurora, those massacres that happened here in their own state, and here's more of what he told the crowd just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is widespread populist support that we end what is called straw purchases where people buy guns legally and then they sell them to people who could not pass a background check.

And there is widespread support to ban semiautomatic assault weapons --

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

Guns which have no other purpose but to kill people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: Now, most certainly we will see Hillary Clinton at Tuesday's debate really bring up their differences over this policy. The campaign clearly thinks this is an issue where she can really woo a lot of progressive voters, the ones that more naturally, it seems, are going towards Bernie Sanders. So this move by the Sanders campaign to put the candidate out here this weekend talking about this issue really laying the groundwork for his defense in that debate -- Poppy.

HARLOW: And we'll see how big of a voting issue, though, gun control is for these voters when all is said and done. Sunlen, thank you very much as we continue to monitor Bernie Sanders' live comments there in Colorado.

Do not miss the first democratic presidential debate, it's right here on CNN Tuesday 8:30 p.m. Eastern.

Coming up next, we will discuss what Russia is doing in Syria. Sixty more airstrikes in the last 24 hours. What is the long-term strategy here for Vladimir Putin and how is the U.S. trying to coordinate with Russia given this? We'll talk about that next.

But first, Anthony Bourdain explores Okinawa, Japan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY BOURDAIN, CNN HOST, "PARTS UNKNOWN": So it's been a week of martial arts madness, and between the Okinawan somo and karate, there's really no part of my body that doesn't hurt. On the other hand, I've eaten really well and I've learned something. Okinawa is nothing like the Japan I know at all. Everything is different here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happiness is number one.

BOURDAIN: Happiness first.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

BOURDAIN: It's laid back. It's mellow. The food is completely different. People are expressive and open and tell you what they think.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

BOURDAIN: And what is the literal translation of that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Once we meet, we are family.

BOURDAIN: Once we meet, we are family. Oh, thank you. It's all very, very, very confusing. Also there's pork. Delicious, delicious pork. And lots of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:19:50] HARLOW: U.S. and Russian military officials speaking today via videoconference for about an hour and a half about what is happening in Syria. And frankly, how to best avoid getting in one another's way with airstrikes from both United States and Russia. The Russian military aggressively striking both ISIS targets and also rebels. Some of them rebels that are aligned with the United States against Bashar al-Assad. This week the U.S. announced it was suspending training and equipping those same rebels because there is very little to show after the half a billion-dollar program to do that was launched.

Joining us now, Michael Weiss, he is author of "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror." Let's talk first about the fact that Ash Carter came out this week and said this program hasn't worked, and this is after the head of Central Command testified in front of Congress a few weeks ago that only four or five rebels that were trained by the U.S. are actually still fighting ISIS.

MICHAEL WEISS, AUTHOR, "ISIS: INSIDE THE ARMY OF TERROR": Yes.

HARLOW: Four or five. WEISS: Well, the real nail in the coffin was the second class of the

so-called new Syrian forces dispatched into Aleppo two, three weeks ago. Daily Beast where I work, we reported on this extensively. What happened was the guy who was commanding them had not been trained by the Pentagon. And only partially vetted by the U.S. government. They dispatched these guys and about 70 of them headed by this commander. What did the commander do? He took the equipment, the U.S. provided materiel, guns, pickup trucks, sold 20 percent of it to al-Qaeda. So that was the end of that program.

HARLOW: Right.

WEISS: And you know, but it's bizarre, isn't it, that you're going to train up the sort of tactical fighters, the low-level, you know, rank- and-file guys, but the man, the person you're going to task with being in charge of them and overseeing their operations, you don't train. You don't make him your proxy. The whole thing, it wasn't just the implementation of this. The conceptualization was flawed.

HARLOW: Right. So now we know the Pentagon has changed his strategy here on what they are going to do is arm with just certain weapons because they don't know where they're all going to go. By the way, they're going to arm leaders that have been fully vetted there.

WEISS: Yes.

HARLOW: That are anti-Assad. But at the same time, now it's all much more complicated because Russia is striking ISIS targets and these free Syrian army targets, et cetera, inside -- inside of Syria.

WEISS: Yes. Well, I mean, I would put it in the reverse. The State Department came out and said, you know, more than 90 percent of Russian sortis had been against the free Syrian army.

HARLOW: Right. Right. Only ten percent against ISIS.

WEISS: Yes. And it depends on who you ask me. A British think-tank put that at 80 percent. But overwhelmingly, they're not hitting ISIS. And they're hitting more than just the free Syrian army, but units -- I mean, when we talk about free Syrian army, we're talking about, you know, hundreds, thousands of militias. But some of these guys, about 40 of them, 40 militias, the U.S. has backed in a covert CIA-run operation. And we know this because these guys are fighting the regime to this day and holding the line in Hama Province against a dual Russian-Assad onslaught against them using tow anti-tank missiles that we have provided. They have blown up, you know, over a dozen Syrian tanks. But Russia's goal here is this. It's no different from what Assad and Iran's goal has been from the beginning. Snuff out any credible military or political opposition to the rule of Bashar al- Assad and then present the west with a stark choice. It's either this dictator who we know you don't like --

HARLOW: Right.

WEISS: -- or the terrorists who you really fear because they want to come into the west and kill you. HARLOW: That's also what, as you cited in your piece, right, the

former U.S. intelligence analyst John Schindler put it that way.

WEISS: Yes.

HARLOW: At the same time, Colonel Francona who I had on earlier made the interesting point that does the U.S. need to change strategy here and realize that perhaps this dual goal of defeating ISIS in Syria and taking Assad from power at the same time is potentially not feasible.

WEISS: Well, I don't think that's been the goal at all. I mean, that's been the sort of rhetoric and the public pronouncements about what we're trying to do.

HARLOW: You don't think that's been the goal?

WEISS: No, it's been to put some pressure on Assad so that we'll him to the negotiating table and then we can inaugurate some kind of transitional government. The guys that we've given the weapons to, the CIA has given weapons to, I speak to them all the time. And they say, look, yes, we get some missiles, we get some ammunition but never enough that we can actually really plunge into, you know, Southern Damascus. The minute we actually succeed and take too many regime installations, the spigot is turned off. So you know, we're playing this very weird, ambiguous almost schizophrenic game. And yet to fight ISIS, I mean, look, John Kerry came out six months ago and said Bashar al-Assad is a magnet for jihad in Syria. I agree with that. You have to engage the regime in some credible manner. But the problem now Poppy is Russia has installed its own no-fly zone.

HARLOW: Yes.

WEISS: Out of fear that this coalition would eventually, through mission creep, begin to bomb Assad --

[17:24:25] HARLOW: Scary to hear you use the word schizophrenic as related to the war on terror in Syria. Much more to discuss. We'll have you back, Michael.

WEISS: Sure. My pleasure.

HARLOW: Thank you, as always. I appreciate it.

To politics now. House Republicans trying to pick up the pieces, trying to figure out who will be their next leader. Who will be the next speaker of the house after Boehner suddenly stepped aside in his chosen replacement said, he wasn't going to go for the job anymore. You're looking at pictures of Paul Ryan who many say they want to see as speaker, but here's the thing. He doesn't want the job. We'll talk about it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:28:06] HARLOW: The political world shocked this week when California congressman and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy withdrew his name to be speaker of the house. It was perhaps the biggest surprise since, well, just a few weeks before John Boehner announced his resignation from the post. Wisconsin's Paul Ryan has been suggested as a replacement. A lot of people say he could get the votes, and they want him in that post, but he doesn't want the job. So what now?

Daniel Halper is with me. He is the online editor of The Weekly Standard joining me from Washington. Thank you for being here.

DANIEL HALPER, ONLINE EDITOR, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Hey, it's great to be here.

HARLOW: You have a unique perspective on this. You say calm down, everyone. Calm down. This is how democracy is supposed to work.

HALPER: Totally. Look, this isn't bad. This is actually probably good for the Republican Party. What would have been bad for the Republican Party --

HARLOW: Really?

HALPER: Yes. If Kevin McCarthy were the speaker of the House, I think that would be bad. It would have come at a huge cost. He would have had to make various deals behind doors with Tea Party House Freedom Caucus members in order to get the slot. He wasn't a sure bet. And he was somewhat unpopular. It was the same regime. Look, he had done a lot of favors. He had raised a lot of money for a lot of House members and a lot of people owed him behind doors. But he wasn't a favorite. He's not an intellectual leader. He's not considered a, you know, long-term-thinking kind of guy. And I don't think he would have been a very good leader. So ultimately --

HARLOW: Here's the question.

HALPER: -- it wouldn't have been good.

HARLOW: Why you think this chaos in the public eye? This is usually something that does not play out so publicly in the public eye, on live television, we were rolling live as the announcement happened and as people walked out of that room. Our Dana Bash was live with us. What does that do to the GOP? Does it show disarray? Does it hurt them long term, or no?

HALPER: Well, it clearly shows a little disarray, but that's okay. It shows that there's a process but that people have a vote. People have a say. And that if you don't like what's going on, things can change. Look at compared to the democratic side where you have an inevitable Hillary Clinton. It's like democratic voters hardly have a choice. They're either deciding between her or the 74-year-old socialist Bernie Sanders. They don't really have much choices when it comes to their leader. The Republicans at least have a choice.

[17:30:00] And I think that shows that there's a lot more diversity of opinion allowed in the Republican Party. I think ultimately, that's good thing for political party to have a little bit of chaos.

And by the way, Friday we had a reporter on Capitol Hill, "The Weekly Standard," my colleague, Mike Warren, he was there and he was struck by how calm all the members were, that there had been this chaos, but members sort of were able to live with it. And they thought, you know, this is kind of good, and we'll figure out who the leader will be organically, and we don't know who it's going to be. Maybe it's Paul Ryan, maybe it's somebody else, but that's fine. And they were able to come to terms with it. And I think, like I said, ultimately, that's good for a democracy to have a lively debate. I think when you compare it to the other side, it's markedly different but in a good way.

HARLOW: You think it's going to be Paul Ryan?

HALPER: I'm not sure. Paul Ryan's not a sure bet. He's been on the wrong side of some issues with the House -- with the House freedom caucus, particularly immigration and, you know, the debt ceiling. He's been -- what else? Immigration, the debt ceiling. And, you know, he's not -- he's -- he's been in Congress for a very long time. And I think that's a strike against him. I think a protracted leadership battle would be a strike against Paul Ryan. Obviously, he has a lot of respect from a lot of people. I'm kind of thinking that it's going to be somebody just who we don't know much about and sort of out from the wilderness. Maybe it will come and sort of save the party, but I don't know.

HARLOW: From the wilderness. All right.

HALPER: And that's OK.

HARLOW: We'll be watching.

Daniel Halper, thank you. I appreciate it.

HALPER: Thank you.

HARLOW: When we come back, big breaking news to tell you about tonight. A staffer fired from the House Select Committee that is investigating the deadly Benghazi attack that took four American lives. What happened next?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:35:] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

HARLOW: Returning to our top story this hour, breaking news on that Benghazi terror attack investigation. The House Select Committee that has been looking into it for more than a year now, we know a staffer was fired from that committee looking into what was a deadly attack in 2012 on that U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, taking four American lives.

Joining me now, CNN investigative reporter, Chris Frates, from Washington.

What development about this major who was just fired? What are we learning? CHRIS FRATES, CNN INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: I'll tell you, Poppy,

we're learning that he was a former staff with the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. And we're learning that he says the panel's probe has become a politically motivated inquiry targeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Now, it's a politically explosive charge. It's going to resonate on the campaign trail as Clinton runs for president. His name is Major Bradley Podliska, an Air Force Reserve intelligence officer, and he says that after news broke earlier this year that Clinton used a private e-mail server, the Republican-controlled committee set its sights almost exclusively on Clinton. So that's the big news breaking this morning. Jake Tapper is going to have more with the major tomorrow on "State of the Union," Poppy. But that's what we're learning at this hour right now.

HARLOW: Chris Frates, thank you very much. Certainly a significant development, especially in the wake of those comments from Representative Kevin McCarthy about the House Select Committee.

Thank you very much.

I want to talk about it with our CNN political commentators, Tara Setmayer and Marc Lemont Hill.

Marc, to you first.

This comes in the wake of Kevin McCarthy just a few weeks ago pointing to the House Select Committee's investigation into the Benghazi attack and tying it to Hillary Clinton's declining poll numbers. Given that, given this, how significant is this for those who say that this is a political witch hunt?

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this gives people the ammo that they've been looking for. You know, Hillary Clinton had a very contentious interview just a week or so ago where she essentially said the same thing. She said that a nonpartisan investigation would yield a different result and has yielded a different result than what we've seen when the Republicans made a decision to have a very targeted partisan investigation.

HARLOW: You have Democrats and Republicans on this committee.

LAMONT HILL: Right, but it's a Republican-led investigation and she essentially says that they stacked the deck. What we're hearing now from this insider is the exact same thing. He's saying, look, I was fired on Trumped-up charges. The real reason was I resisted this making this exclusively a Hillary Clinton thing and not just a CIA thing, not just a Defense Department thing, rather, or a State Department thing, excuse me. By not doing that, he's saying we skewed the outcome. Of course, we need to vet him, too.

(CROSSTALK)

LAMONT HILL: It's worth investigating. HARLOW: That's a great point that's I was going to ask Tara. We

haven't heard from him. Jake Tapper has sat down to interview him. That will be tomorrow morning, 9:00 a.m. eastern on "State of the Union."

But, Tara, to you, this is not a whistleblower who came out and said, look, I'm walking away from this job because I don't feel right. This is someone who was fired and is subsequently saying this.

TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. And I think we need to look at this carefully and see because to me, from what's being reported so far, and we're just hearing about this now, but the committee came out and said, well, hold on a second. This guy had to be reprimanded more than once. It seems to me that he is a disgruntled employee. He was terminated with cause. And they are prepared to put forth what those reasons were. But it's going through mediation. So there's certain legal obligations, certain things that they can't say that are supposed to be confidential concerning his termination. So before we go jumping and saying, like, oh, this is a whistleblower just like you said, Poppy, he came out on his own and said I can't do this anymore. I have principles, so, he was fired. Now that he's fired, all of a sudden he's coming out and saying it's partisan, and that's why I walked away. We need to be careful.

HARLOW: In the midst of all of this, I don't want to forget the four people who died, the four Americans who died in that attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Shawn Smith, the Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. You see them on your screen there.

Really, any inquiry set up should be about getting answers as to why this happened and how it can be prevented from ever happening again, Marc.

LAMONT HILL: And that's why this is so sad for many of us. You know, we've done investigation after investigation. We've seen mistakes have been made, where errors were committed, where things could have been done differently. But to date, I still have yet to see anything that suggests that Hillary Clinton was deliberately culpable or criminally culpable or has done anything close to what has been alleged. And I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter. I don't go into investigation over the Clintons assuming they're telling the truth or assuming that they followed the law or the rules. But in this case, this does have the feel of a partisan witch hunt. They could both be true. He could be angry and bitter and he could be mad because he's fired, and he could still be telling the truth. Again --

(CROSSTALK)

[17:40:25] HARLOW: Let me ask one more thing before I let you guys go.

To you, Tara, do you believe this is a political witch hunt or not, and that is to be determined? Ultimately, you also want to have these committees in the future to get to the bottom of things like this. Do you worry that all of the political fighting over this will dissuade some from setting these up in the future?

SETMAYER: No, because it's a bipartisan committee. There are Democrats and Republicans on this committee at the same time. So any Democrats that protest what's going on, they have the opportunity to do that. But they've been working together in a bipartisan fashion. And absolutely, the reason why we're still -- we are here today is because we have not gotten those answers. Because we still don't know what Hillary Clinton said or didn't say.

We find out that she didn't -- she had private e-mails on a server that we still don't know what was on them because they deleted them whenever they felt like it. We still don't know where the president was on that night. We still don't know who it was that said it was a video that caused this when they know good and hell damn well that it was not a video.

You want to talk politics. We know it wasn't a video. We know that was a lie and we still have yet to find out who perpetrated that lie and why. Maybe because it was a couple weeks before the presidential election and Barack Obama said that al Qaeda was dead and gm was alive and it didn't fit their narrative. There was a lot of reason for people to keep this quiet and to obfuscate what was going on here and four -- we have four dead Americans and Hillary Clinton stood before the families and said -- blame it had on the video. And that was a lie.

HARLOW: Tara, Marc --

SETMAYER: So we have yet to find out why and that --

(CROSSTALK)

HARLOW: I have to get a break in. You can bet we'll talk a lot more about it.

Also, you will hear firsthand from Major Bradley Podliska. His exclusive interview with our Jake Tapper tomorrow morning, 9:00 a.m. eastern on "State of the Union."

Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR, A.C. 360: Now that we've announced the top-10 heroes of 2015, I want to show you how you can help decide who should be "CNN Hero" of the year and receive $100,000 for their cause.

Go to CNNheroes.com where you can find out more information about all of them. Each them will be honored at "CNN Heroes" this December. But only will be named hero of the year. That's where you come in with your votes. Down here you'll see photos of each top ten hero which link to a page where you can watch videos and learn more about their important work. When you're ready, simply click vote over here and a new page comes up.

Now select the person who inspires you the most. I'm going to select somebody randomly. I'm going to pick Jim Withers over here. Again, just as an example. Any of the ten tom knees would be worthy much being "CNN Hero" of the year, and that's entirely up to you. Once you select your favorite hero, his or her photo will show up down here in a separate box, under your selection, then just enter your e-mail address, type in the security code, and click on the vote box to cast your vote.

Right there. It's even easier to vote on Facebook. Just make your selection and click over here. You'll see this thank-you page where you can share your choice on Facebook or Twitter to encourage your friends to vote as well. And there's also a link where you can make a tax-free donation to your favorite heroes cause. Now, remember, you can vote once a day every day through Sunday, November 15th, with your e-mail address through Facebook or by using the CNN app. We'll reveal the 2015 hero of the year during "CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute," a CNN tradition that promises to inspire.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:48:33] HARLOW: In this week's "American Opportunity," income inequality is a major topic on the campaign trail on both sides of the aisle, but highlighting the plight of the poor in America sometimes tends to be more of a Democratic talking point. Well, one prominent conservative thinks that's a problem, and he's speaking out. Arthur Brook, president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book "The Conservative Heart," says conservatives need to speak more about helping the poor, and he argues they have the best suggestions to do it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARTHUR BROOKS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE & AUTHOR: Assets to the human family should be all around us, whether they be little kids or poor people or people with disabilities or people who are incarcerated or people who have lost their jobs or the elderly. These are not liabilities to manage unless we've got our prioritized mixed up.

(MUSIC)

BROOKS: What I learned growing up was that conservatives may be good with money and they may be hard-headed on public policy, but they don't care about poor people. I carried that viewpoint all the way through my 20s. But when I started to study economics for the first time in my late 20s, I was shocked to learn that it was traditionally conservative ideas that had done more to lift people out of poverty than traditional liberal ideas. It was a revelation to me that it was globalization and free trade and the American for enterprise system spreading around the world that had pulled two billion people out of the poverty. I started to scream from the rooftops is the way you wipe out poverty is free enterprise. People said, well, I guess you're a conservative, and after a while, I said, well, I guess I am.

(MUSIC) [17:50:01] BROOKS: The question is, what do you do? You can't just say nothing. What conservatives need to do is basically three things. We need to declare peace on the safety net. But, number two, only for people who are in poverty. And the third, and this is arguably the most important, and this is the conservative advantage, is to emphasize work. We have a culture that says just because don't have a college education, just because you have vocational skills, doesn't make you any less valuable to our society and any less moral work to the work itself. Yet, that is, of course, what we do. I mean, you'll get a dead-end job if you don't go to job. That is not only wrong, it must be wrong. Every job is important. And there's equal moral work that should be part of our national philosophy, between running a hedge fund and trimming hedges.

We discriminate against poor people up one side and down the other. If you want to braid hair in your home, no harsh chemicals, you want to do hair braiding, which, by the way, this is not a trivial example, this is a typical first job for single moms who are poor. Giving 1,500 hours to get your license, it takes about a year. That's discrimination and that's un-American.

(MUSIC)

BROOKS: There's something not right when it's too hard to get ahead, to go from the bottom to the middle class in this country where there's a greater sense of mobility in other countries out of poverty than there is in the United States today. An enlightened society, an enlightened American society doesn't see poor people as liabilities to manage. It sees poor people as assets to develop. For that matter, there's nobody in society who is not an asset to develop. This is how the country was founded. Nobody should be left behind morally, but also it's a stupid thing to do economically.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[17:50:] HARLOW: Tara Setmayer and Marc Lamont Hill are back to debate it.

Marc, to you first. Arthur Brooks was a Democrat before he became a Republican, largely over learning about regulations like that one, that it takes 1,500 hours to get licensed to braid hair. Does he have a point?

LAMONT HILL: He has a point that we make it difficult for poor people to get ahead. I don't think that's a uniquely conservative argument. Historically, I would argue it's not a conservative argument at all. I think the question becomes, to what extent do we want to regulate or deregulate? A conservative impulse to deregulate everything doesn't just lead to people being able to braid hair. It leads to hands-off regulations on corporations that allows for things like predatory lending. It allows for things like the mortgage foreclosures that we're beginning to see all around the nation.

It allows for companies to not have -- to have not only free trade but unfair trade, which is what we see in the global capital that he argued for earlier in the package. I mean, there's so many dimensions to this. It's much more complex then to say, if we were all conservative, we'd be OK. And historically, we've seen liberal and radical interventions and progressive interventions that have made things better. The white middle class was created through a G.I. Bill. That's not a conservative ideal. That's a liberal ideal. But I could name 50 more just like that. It's intervention when necessary that's critical here, not hands-off government.

HARLOW: Tara, it's an interesting point. Deregulation to what extent?

SETMAYER: Listen, Jack Kemp was the perfect example of this. When he came in and was Housing and Urban Development secretary, he had what were called enterprise zones where he said we need to get the government out of this, these strangle holds of policy, of tax regulations, tax increases, regulations, it's squeezing the life blood out of creating jobs and small businesses, particularly in urban centers. And the concept was very successful. And it's unfortunate that the Republican Party has kind of backed away from some of those principals and voicing them as much as they used to because that was partially what was responsible for welfare reform in the '90s and partially responsible for the revitalization of areas, urban centers across the country from Harlem to Washington D.C. And that's what they need to talk about. You know, the government coming in and constantly being the answer, the Keynesian idea of the government spending to spark the economy and create jobs does not work. You need to have the private sector involved and the incentives to create job and teach people, small business in their communities. That's works and that's what Arthur Brooks was talking about --

(CROSSTALK)

SETMAYER: -- and that's the model Jack Kemp used and it's been successful.

HARLOW: Let's take a look at some of these numbers. When you look at poverty, the poverty rate in this country has actually increased during the president's time in office. You see the numbers there on your screen, from 13.2 percent when he took over to 14.5 percent now. And it's fallen from 2010 right after the height of the recession when it was 15 percent. You have tens of millions of American families living in poverty right now.

Marc to you, the argument that it hasn't gotten better under this president significantly.

LAMONT HILL: It's more complicated than that. You say it's declined since 2010. He came into office in 2008 and inherited a broken economy. And we've seen poverty decrease and employment increase, not across the board but in many key sectors. Now again --

(CROSSTALK)

SETMAYER: Not for the black community, Marc.

LAMONT HILL: Well, that's the point I was going to make before you interrupted. SETMAYER: Yeah.

[17:55:07] LAMONT HILL: I think President Obama has done a poor job of addressing unemployment in the black community. That tends to be consistent across presidential administrations and across historical periods. We need targeted public policy to deal with that. But I don't Democrats or Republicans have done a good job. I think Democrats are in the executive branch right now -- I'm going to put the blame on them a lot here. It's a key issue.

(CROSSTALK)

HARLOW: It's an issue we have to keep talk about. But I have to get a break in. It's such an important issue that I really for all those millions of Americans both sides can come together a little bit more.

Marc, Tara, thank you as always.

LAMONT HILL: Thank you.

HARLOW: We have much more news after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right, an update on our breaking news. A former staffer with the House Select Committee on the Benghazi attack, who was fired, is now accusing the panel of carrying out a politically motivated investigation. His name is Major Bradley Podliska. He's an intelligence officer for the Air Force Reserves. He tells CNN that the committee focused almost exclusively on Hillary Clinton after finding out she'd used a private email server while she was secretary of state. A committee spokesperson vigorously denies Podliska's claims. His interview with Jake Tapper tomorrow morning, 9:00 a.m. eastern.

I'm Poppy Harlow. Thank you so much for being with me this evening. I'll be back here live with much more breaking news about that Benghazi investigation at 7:00 p.m. eastern.

Stay right here. "Smerconish" begins now.