Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Obama to Take Executive Action on Guns; "Affluenza" Mom Could Face Prison Time; Survivor Recounts Murder of TV Journalists. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired December 31, 2015 - 10:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:07] DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. I'm Deborah Feyerick, in for Carol Costello. Thanks so much for joining me.

Well, breaking news: a White House source has revealed to CNN that President Obama is set to announce a new executive action with the aim of expanding background checks on gun sales. The announcement is expected to happen in the coming days. The set of executive actions would reportedly fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps that would help curb gun violence.

Let's bring in our panel: CNN political commentator Peter Beinart and CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein. Gentlemen -- Happy New Year to you both. Thanks for being with us.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Happy New Year.

PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Hi.

FEYERICK: Ron, is this something that we expected?

BROWNSTEIN: Well, it had been kind of floated for the last several weeks. They went through an initial round of scrubbing of the gun laws a couple of years ago and concluded they could not take this step, but now have reconsidered.

Look, Deborah -- it continues a pattern we have seen in President Obama's second term of moving very aggressively to use unilateral executive authority on issues from immigration to climate and now potentially guns and essentially daring Congress or the courts to stop him. And I think we're going to see another confrontation like that.

What we've learned is it's very tough for Congress to stop him. The courts are another question.

FEYERICK: And so Peter, how does this change the dynamic of the 2016 race, especially when it comes to gun control being such a heated issue?

BEINART: Well, it's really interesting, you know. A few election cycles ago, the Democrats were so skittish about gun control but they didn't make it. They were concerned that it would hurt them among white working class voters especially in the Midwest.

But the rash of gun shootings moved the Democratic Party generally to the left. It meant that Hillary Clinton has really embraced this issue, taking her lead from Barack Obama.

And so I think that we're seeing this setting up to be a very, very hot and divisive issue in the general election.

FEYERICK: And so let's turn the tables a little bit and go to Donald Trump, who is now lashing out at Jeb Bush -- you never know who he's going to be lashing out at any given moment. He tweeted just moments ago. "I would feel sorry for Jeb Bush and how badly he's doing with his campaign other than for the fact that he took millions of dollars of hit ads out on me."

The latest dispatch from the Bush campaign might make Trump smile. Bush's campaign now canceling $3 million in ad spending in Iowa and South Carolina in favor of sort of a more direct approach with campaign staffers going out on the ground; and you know, it's one month until the Iowa caucuses.

But gentlemen, let me ask you. Trump going after Jeb Bush -- Jeb is just not polling very well, obviously. What does Trump gain by this? Ron -- let's start with you.

BROWNSTEIN: Well, a couple of things. I think for Trump, I mean defining himself against Jeb Bush has been critical all the way through, in essence making Bush the embodiment of the Republican establishment of a more centrist approach that he is consciously playing off of. So Bush has been a foil for him in his attempt to basically say to his supporters, I will say and do things that no other candidate will do which I think is an important part of his appeal to the most disaffected elements of the Republican Party that he's willing to go beyond boundaries. Bush I think becomes a counter point in that.

The other point about this Deborah though that's worth noting is, you know, presidential politics has always been the level of American politics where paid media matters relatively less compared to the free media and the coverage. This year that balance has shifted more than ever because all of the money they spent on advertising by candidates so far is being overwhelmed by the sheer level of national attention to this particular race, particularly around the debates. Those are creating the images and the moments that are driving the electorate I think more than the paid advertising.

FEYERICK: Yes. Really remarkable in that every time Trump tweets, he gets on air.

But let's go back -- quickly we've got about a minute left. Let's get back into the time machine and go back over the past year. If you were predicting something unbelievable to happen this year, what would it have been? What has really just taken you off guard? Peter -- you first.

BEINART: Well, obviously, the revolt inside the Republican Party manifested by Donald Trump. Also, the toppling of John Boehner -- you've had a full-scale rebellion against the leadership of the Republican Party and you won't know until 2016 whether that revolt actually succeeds.

FEYERICK: And so, Ron, how about you?

BROWNSTEIN: Yes. I think that was a big story. I agree but I think the biggest story is the resurgence of threat of terror as a central concern both in the U.S. and Europe and something that is going to be driving our politics in 2016 and beyond.

FEYERICK: Interesting. Very quickly you think it favors one party over another -- Ron?

BROWNSTEIN: I think -- well, I think the challenge for the Democrats is to prove that they can keep the country safe. I mean the paradox here is that the public viewed Bush's approach as largely a failure by the time he left office in 2008. I think they have a largely negative verdict on Obama's approach as well.

They're sour on both the iron fist and the velvet glove. And it's not (inaudible) that either has a convincing answer to this concern and for that matter, the concern about the stagnation of living standards. A lot of issues where the public isn't sure either side really has the answer.

[10:35:11] FEYERICK: No question.

All right. Gentlemen -- unfortunately, we have to leave it there. Peter Beinart, Ron Brownstein -- thanks so much and Happy New Year to you both.

BROWNSTEIN: Happy New Year.

BEINART: Happy New Year.

FEYERICK: And still to come, handcuffed and in custody. That's Momma Tonya Couch back in the U.S. as her son fights extradition from Mexico. Why she could be facing a decade behind bars.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Well, the so-called affluenza teen, Ethan Couch, is in Mexico fighting extradition. His mother, Tonya, is back on American soil today. She was seen there at the Los Angeles Airport in handcuffs in the custody of U.S. marshals. Her son, Couch, is expected to fight the extradition. She's going to be heading back to Texas where she could be facing as many as ten years in prison for her role in helping her son flee the U.S. to avoid prosecution after he violated the terms of his parole.

To discuss we're joined by CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson. Joey --

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good morning, deb.

FEYERICK: -- the son was accused of being an indulged child and then his mother and he go on the lam. What's her defense?

JACKSON: More indulgence. Well, she has defenses, of course, regarding her apprehension and hindering apprehension.

[10:40:01] I don't know how successful those defenses will be, however. Obviously we know that based upon her harboring him and knowing that he was on probation and then fleeing to Mexico, him missing his appointment -- that becomes problematic. And so what she is going to have to argue I think is more mitigation.

When I say mitigation, I mean this. Any mom would do the world, of course, for their son, and based upon that, she obviously was very concerned what the system would do to him if he were back. Perhaps she didn't know or understand at that time that his exposure would only be four months. In light of that she felt it was best and appropriate to be there.

She certainly may make the argument that she was in Mexico having a vacation and just enjoying her son, et cetera. I don't think that's going to go too far.

FEYERICK: Except that he was supposed to show up for a hearing, which he didn't do. And so, you know, when we think about this, he is willing to stay in a Mexican jail and take his chances with that system rather than come back to the United States. Is this just a stalling tactic, a time delay?

JACKSON: It is. I mean that's a short-term type of solution. I wouldn't even call it a solution. What happens is that Mexico has this writ of Amparo, it's similar to what we do here which is our writ of habeas corpus. And English all it means is it's a measure protection to ensure that your rights as an individual are not being violated in any way.

And so he's making the argument that, I'm in Mexico, I violated no Mexican law, so to what extent should I now have to leave Mexico and be deported back to the United States?

The reality though is that we have a treaty with Mexico. We have very good relations with Mexico and in light of that I think it's going to be respected. What's it? It is the law of the United States -- the extradition of the United States.

And there's really three things that need to be established. The U.S. will say, we had jurisdiction over him because he was in the U.S. in Texas. Number two -- it's an extraditable offense when you violate probation. Number three -- there's probable cause to believe that you violated some offense in the United States.

And I think once we do that, certainly he'll be on his way back here. So justice delayed will not be justify denied as it relates to the person we're looking at -- Deb.

FEYERICK: And do you think that more charges will be brought? And for that matter, do you think that the court system is just running out of patience with this young man? JACKSON: You know, I certainly think that many people are

running out of patience because if you look at the underlying offenses and we've talked about this, there was a real feeling that there was a miscarriage of justice done initially.

FEYERICK: He killed four people -- drunk-driving.

JACKSON: Four people dead -- absolutely. In addition to which, the two that were significantly injured, one brain dead, and the feeling was why give him probation? The justification for that -- and we're looking at the beautiful people who are dead now -- the justification was look, he's 16 years old. It's about it's rehabilitation when you're a juvenile.

But that didn't sit well with many people. And the fact that he's doing this now, which is basically flouting the system and, you know, thumbing his nose at the system becomes problematic, too.

So I think he'll face really the four months that he'll do, maximum, because remember the juvenile detention only has jurisdiction of him until he reaches the age of 19, which is in April. After which, of course, you know, he'll remain on probation.

I think what they want to do, though the authorities in Texas when they get him, is they want to transfer that to adult court by virtue of that it will be much stricter. The adult proceedings are predicated upon punishment and deterrence whereas the juvenile is all about rehab, rehab, rehab. He'll be back.

FEYERICK: Yes, it's interesting because if he thought he had problems before, now that he fled to Mexico, clearly the courts are not going to look very favorable on that.

JACKSON: It's tougher. Exactly.

FEYERICK: And he's setting himself up.

JACKSON: You know, it shows a consciousness of guilt. Why leave if you didn't do anything wrong. It just makes it much more difficult for him to do it. And quite frankly, puts the families in a horrific situation.

FEYERICK: Absolutely. All right. Joey Jackson, thank you so much.

JACKSON: Thank you Deb.

FEYERICK: We appreciate your insight as always.

JACKSON: Always Happy New Year.

FEYERICK: To you, too, my friend.

And still to come, four months after she was shot in the back on live TV, Vicky Gardner is finally finished with surgeries and she's almost ready to return to work. What she's saying now after surviving a very public shooting that

left two journalists dead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:47:16] FEYERICK: It was one of the scariest scenes to play out on live television -- unscripted and horrifying. A beloved TV reporter and photo journalist gunned down as friends, family and viewers watched. Alison Parker and Adam Ward from CNN affiliate WDBJ were shot and killed in august. The shooter: a disgruntled former coworker. Four months later, the lone survivor in the attack is finally finished with surgeries and is nearly ready to return to work.

Vicky Gardner talks to our Brian Stelter about how she's moving forward.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA: On the day of the attack you were standing with Alison in what was supposed to be her last live shot of the day. Did you see the attacker approaching coming up to you, in the cameraman's position?

VICKI GARDNER, SHOOTING SURVIVOR: I did. I did. Of course, who would have ever guessed in a million years what was about to happen.

STELTER: You didn't think he was threatening. He just came out in your peripheral vision?

GARDNER: It was definitely peripheral vision again, we were speaking live and as he approached, I could see it. And I was a little distracted but I was not concerned. When he open fire, it was still very difficult to even understand, to comprehend what was happening.

It was something that one does not expect to happen. Your mind very quickly goes into a lot of scenarios. But it was very horrific.

STELTER: Initially he shot at the cameraman, Adam, he shot at the reporter, Alison. Alison fled and he chased Alison. Did you think the threat for you was over?

GARDNER: No. I dropped to the ground and I had not been hit. I just laid very still. He did come back and he did shoot me. It is my mental thought that he had run out of bullets. I think that he would have continued to shoot. But he -- it was just one load of bullets, but I didn't hear him leave. So, there was much concern there.

STELTER: Maybe that's what people misunderstand when they hear about these stories. It all happened so quickly that you can't process or understand or do anything about it.

GARDNER: And that's exactly right. As I relive this, in my mind, was there anything that I could have done that would have made a difference? Absolutely not. I had to just lay very still. And I thought that perhaps I'm not going to be here by the time help does arrive because the stores and everything didn't open for another two hours.

But it was just a matter of minutes before law enforcement came and they were truly the heroes. They put their life on the line to protect mine. And got me up and gout me out of harm's way not knowing where this shooter was.

[10:50:04] STELTER: You said something in an interview after the attack that surprised me. You said you have watched the live broadcast to see what actually was televised. Why did you decide to watch it?

GARDNER: Your mind can play a lot of tricks. My memory, I want to make sure that my memory matches reality. And you can convince yourself of a lot of things, but seeing it and just having a clear understanding of exactly what transpired and so, yes, it was -- it was horrific to watch, obviously, but it gave me great insight.

STELTER: Did you also watch the gunman's point of view, the sick that video he recorded on his own body and uploaded to Twitter and Facebook?

GARDNER: Saw parts of it.

STELTER: Does part of you almost resent the fact that this was so public, that he wanted everyone to see it?

GARDNER: I'm still in disbelief that anyone could do that. It is hard to even accept that a human being could do that.

STELTER: Reporter: you've been interacting with journalists for many, many years. I wonder if this makes you think differently at all about journalists, about the exposure sometimes they face when they're out doing a live shot or about the risks they might be taking without even knowing it.

GARDNER: That's true. Who would have ever guessed that something this would happen, but it did. And I think that journalists, they are an amazing group of people, they have a job to do and they do it all.

STELTER: There's been this disgusting phenomenon after shootings, on the Internet there are people who say they're truthers. They say that all of the shootings covered by the press are fake -- are made up.

GARDNER: I read that.

STELTER: You've seen this?

GARDNER: I have.

STELTER: It's appalling to see it. I wonder what it's like for you to see it.

GARDNER: Why would you give contradict to somebody that is just looking to create chaos. We already have a horrible situation where people are impacted, where families have lost family members. How dare someone come in and second-guess. Yes, I saw a few of them. I did not take the time to read them. I Live it and I didn't think that I needed to prove -- that the families that have lost, go to the funeral. Just go to the funeral of those people. Or for myself, I did have someone that wrote and said, if you could just show us pictures of your wounds.

STELTER: they wanted proof.

GARDNER: They wanted proof. And my proof was, "delete".

STELTER: You know what happens after every shooting nowadays, there's media talk about gun regulations or shouldn't be gun regulations.

GARDNER: I sat back and thought about it. We know gun legislation is taking place but it does take time. If you look back on some of these shootings, there are mental health issues that need to come into play that may serve to prevent something horrific like this from happening in the future. But I also think that immediately tomorrow, today, that we can take a look at what we allow in our house. We've become desensitized. While I was in the hospital and I turned on the TV. The three shows I happened to click on, each and every one of them had a violence component to it, which at that time, of course, I really didn't care to watch.

It made he me think, gee, have we become so desensitized to violence that it is now part of our entertainment, our daily entertainment?

STELTER: The attack happened four months ago at this point, but you're still living with it every day. You recently had a final surgery.

GARDNER: I did, I did. Had three surgeries so far. And I think it's over with now. It is the recovery, the physical, gaining the strength back, mental, all of the above.

STELTER: Have your doctors given you any sense of when you can maybe go back to work?

GARDNER: Well, we're still working through that. I'm still in somewhat the healing process.

STELTER: But you're determined to go back?

GARDNER: Oh, I'll be back. Of course, I'll be back. I'm so looking forward to it.

STELTER: You'll be going back -- you'll be going back to the lake. You'll be going back to the building where this shooting happened. Do you have any hesitation about returning to work there?

GARDNER: I don't. Not at all. It's such a joyous place. Again, something horrible happened, but that is not defining where I work. And it was right outside my window that this tragedy happened, and there is this wonderful monument, so to speak, with a plaque on it "In Memory of Alison Parker and Adam. And it's binoculars. That's exactly what was chosen.

So rather than Instead of people coming in, pointing to the sight, that's where it happened. They're walking up and saying they're saying, "I can see what they were looking at, what they were talking about." It has become a focal point now with a positive nature to it, just the way that it was done.

I'll be looking out my window and seeing that. When I'm back at work, I'll be seeing it every single day and seeing people take a look at our lake as a result.

STELTER: At the end of this year, what are you most thankful for?

[10:55:04] GARDNER: Oh, goodness. That's a broad range. I am so thankful, first of all, to be here, to be surrounded by the community that we have. It has been an eye-opening experience. I've seen the worst that society can do, and I have seen the best that society can do.

99.9 percent of the population out there is so positive, so helpful. When I think about the cards, the letters, the gifts, the outpouring of support and prayers, it just is amazing. I would have never guessed that there was so much good in this world. I have seen it up close and personal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: And checking our top stories -- deadly, violent storms in the North Sea now prompting At a BP oil field. The company says a barge broke loose and is drifting out of control. This after, at least one worker for a Norwegian company died when a wave crashed into a drilling rig. Two others were hurt in the incident. BP shut down the oil field this morning as helicopters flew workers to safety.

A federal grand jury indicts a friend in the San Bernardino shooter on conspiracy charges. Authorities accuse Enrique Marquez of working with Sayd Rizwan Farook to provide material support to terrorist. He's accused of buying the rifle the used in the shooting by Farook and his wife. Authorities say Marquez and Farook planned terrorist attacks together but they never carried them out.

Later today more e-mails will be released from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state. This is the eighth of nine batches being in put on the Internet for the public from the State Department. This release over 8,000 pages is the largest to date.

Thanks for joining me. I'm Deborah Feyerick, wishing all of you a very Happy New Year and a great 2016.

"AT THIS HOUR" with Berman and Bolduan starts right now.