Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Violent Protests on the Streets of Charlotte; The Shooting of an Unarmed Black Man in Tulsa; Learning More About New York Bombing Suspect; Why is Brangelina Splitting? Aired 7-8p ET
Aired September 21, 2016 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:00] (START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Violent protests erupting on the streets of Charlotte, North Carolina. The clashes breaking out following the fatal shooting of a
black man.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a terrorist. He was taken alive. That his life mean more than our black men across the nation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His name was Keith Lamont Scott. He was 43 years old. Now, police say Scott was armed, and that they recovered a gun at the
scene. His family says he was carrying only a book.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our brother Scott, they say he had a gun. Somebody said he had a book. We need to do our own independent investigation to see if
that is actually true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DREW PINSKY, DR. DREW ON CALL SHOW HOST: A father of seven killed by an officer in Charlotte. His daughter`s gut-wrenching reaction to the news
live screen on Facebook. Take a look at this.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My daddy is dead! They just shot my daddy! He`s dead! My daddy is dead! My daddy is dead!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Joining us, Anahita Sedaghatfar, attorney; Areva Martin, also an attorney; Spirit, psychotherapist; and via Skype John Cardillo, former NYPD
officer. And in Charlotte, I have Ed Lavandera, CNN correspondent. Ed, what did they say led to the shooting?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was a team of four police officers that were serving a warrant in this apartment complex. It was for
another person. It was not for Keith Lamont Scott. When they got there, according to police, they say that Lamont came out of the car that he was
in twice with a handgun. And that`s when they confronted him.
What exactly led to the -- to the shots being fired hasn`t been detailed just yet. But this is in stark contrast to what the family members had been
saying late yesterday afternoon, that Mr. Scott was simply just there reading a book. So two very different versions of what unfolded. And that
is what we`re faced with here today.
PINSKY: Ed, thank you for that update. Anahita, the family insists and has said he was reading a book. The police chief said no such book. But there
was a weapon.
ANAHIA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY: Right. We`re hearing conflicting stories now. And at the end of the day, we don`t know as of now what the true facts are,
Dr. Drew, other than this was a young man, he was a father of seven kids. And he was shot and killed.
And I think the family deserves answers. The community deserves answers. They all deserve answers. And there should be a thorough and transparent
investigation, I think, by local authorities and possibly the DOJ. And transparency is key here.
PINSKY: Areva, we were talking yesterday, the DOJ review seems to be almost part of the script now, right?
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: Absolutely. And so many of these cases we hear the outrage from the family like we heard from this man`s daughter. We see the
community activists. And then there`s the call for the Department of Justice to get involved. But people are sick and tired, Dr. Drew, of this
narrative and of this playbook approach to these shootings.
And I think in Charlotte, we have to keep in mind, this isn`t the first time that an African-American has been shot by a cop. They`re dealing with
recent shootings involving a 20-year-old kid, as well as a woman who was shot. So this community is suffering.
PINSKY: Now, in this case, the officer has been identified as Brentley Vinson. He has been with the Charlotte Police Department since 2014. That`s
him in this picture. He`s a black man. Police say he was in plain clothes but did show a badge. He was not wearing a body camera though. Other
officers were in the area. John, anything stand out to you about this situation?
JOHN CARDILLO, FORMER NYPD OFFICER: I think it`s a textbook good shooting. A suspect with a gun, you have an African-American cop, an African-American
chief, multiple independent witnesses beyond the family are -- are giving testimony that comports with the police story. They have evidence. They
have the gun. I don`t understand how looting trucks on a highway is social justice. This is a textbook good shoot.
PINSKY: Now, listen, I think, Spirit, let me have you take look at this video. This is, I think, where the rubber hits the road in Charlotte. This
is a comment from a protester, sparking some conversation. Take a look at this.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But as far as my child, my nephews, I am concerned, I`m worried about them. Something has to be done. There was a terrorist,
New Jersey, New York, he was taken alive. They say they wanted to question him. So because of, you wanted to question him, does his life mean more
than our black men across the nation? It doesn`t make any sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Spirit?
[19:05:00] SPIRIT, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: You know, like she said, Dr. Drew, it doesn`t make any sense. In the same way with all due respect, when I hear
John talk about a textbook good shooting, as if there`s such a thing. It`s disgusting for us at this point. And people of color are tired.
They are exhausted. They are tired of being hash tags. They are tired of being questioned. How do you go somewhere looking for one person and
another man ends up dead and you still say that it is a good shoot. That is outrageous.
SEDAGHATFAR: I think he meant a justifiable shooting.
SPIRIT: It doesn`t matter. The language is -- I think he hit it on the head, that`s exactly what he meant. And that is part of the problem. That
is why people feel less than human because it is this desensitized conversation about life. And this is what people of color are talking
about. Black lives matter. All lives matter.
PINSKY: John, go ahead.
SPIRIT: All lives matter here, John.
PINSKY: John, go ahead.
CARDILLO: What about the -- what about the black cop? Should he have been killed by this guy? So he didn`t have a narrative of a black suspect shot?
Whose life matters more?
(CROSSTALK)
CARDILLO: His life matters more to be.
(CROSSTALK)
SPIRIT: How does his life matter more to a man, to an innocent -- John.
CARDILLO: How do you know he`s innocent?
SPIRIT: . on that day, he was not looking for him.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Okay, hold on. All right. Hold on.
SPIRIT: It doesn`t matter across the board then. Your life, my life, we can walk out in the streets today and be killed, and it doesn`t matter, it`s
justifiable because of what the past was, not because of what you were looking for today. That`s not justice, John. That`s not justice.
CARDILLO: You pull a gun on a cop, you`re going to get shot.
MARTIN: Can I say something?
PINSKY: Areva, go ahead. Areva, go ahead.
MARTIN: First of all, John, there has been no evidence that he pulled a gun on a cop. You`re being extremely loose (ph) with the facts. The fact that
he had a gun doesn`t mean he pointed the gun. In fact, the chief of police said there is no evidence that Mr. Scott pointed the gun at the officer.
We`re talking about a carry state, so he had a right possibly to have a gun.
But let me just address your comment about the cop being African-American. That`s also a false narrative here. The issue isn`t whether the cop is
African-American and the victim is African-American. We`re talking about the color of authority and police officers using the color of authority to
target and shoot and kill African-Americans.
It doesn`t matter what the color of the cop is. The question is, he had a superior position because he is a police officer, and that is what this
narrative and this conversation in America is about. Protecting African- American men.
CARDILLO: So let the cops get shot, Areva. He doesn`t have to point the gun. Let the cops get shot. In every instance, even the African-American
cop should let the suspect point a gun and shoot first and let the cop die.
MARTIN: You`re assuming so much, John. You`re assuming so much.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Hang on.
SPIRIT: Even in a neighborhood where you`re minding your own business and a man not even in uniform comes up to you, are you kidding me? You don`t live
in this community. You have no idea what he was thinking. You`re assuming so much. And you already convicted him. That`s part of the problem is that
when people die here nowadays, we are convicting the victim. And that is ridiculous.
PINSKY: All right. Obviously, a lot more to say here. We`ll keep going. Later, Angelina versus Brad divorce. Hot off the press and it is getting
ugly. Back after this.
[19:10:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Protest erupting in North Carolina after Charlotte police shot and killed a man while looking to serve a warrant Tuesday. The
demonstration to the Charlotte following other protests in Tulsa, Oklahoma after the fatal shooting of unarmed African-American man Friday.
Police video shows 40-year-old Terence Crutcher walking to his vehicle with his hands up followed by officers. He stands for a moment beside the SUV,
then.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Shots fired!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: . Crutcher lies on the pavement fatally wounded after one officer fires. Officer Betty Shelby now on paid administrative leave.
Her attorney defending her actions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He gets to the window of the SUV and his hands in the air and his left hand goes into the window.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That attorney for Tulsa officer, Betty Shelby, says she feared Terence Crutcher was reaching for a gun inside his vehicle. Today, however,
the attorney for Crutcher released this screen grab. His driver side window appears to be closed. Back with Anahita, Areva, Spirit, and John. Anahita,
this is gonna be a problem for officer Shelby.
SEDAGHATFAR: It might be. And I can tell you they`re making a big issue about drugs in this case. They`re saying maybe he was possibly on drugs. We
don`t know that yet. We know the police found some drugs in the car, but even he was on drugs, Dr. Drew, that does not make this a good lawful
shooting.
Because the issue becomes that that officer that shot him, did she fear for her life or did she fear imminent harm and was her force in proportion to
that fear? So whether he was on drugs on wasn`t on drugs, that`s not a definitive answer in this case.
PINSKY: And Spirit, I - I feel the hair going up on the back of your neck whenever someone uses that term again of a good shooting, good shot.
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, yeah, and I didn`t mean that any positive way. That`s the legal term and that`s the term that we use. But that`s not.
PINSKY: It is a legal term.
(CROSSTALK)
SEDAGHATFAR: That`s not to diminish. Justified shooting is what the word is, but it is also a term to good shooting in the law.
CARDILLO: It`s a law enforcement term. We use it in law enforcement. It`s a good shooting, it`s a bad shooting.
SPIRIT: We need to change the language. When you are responsible for having people who are afraid to leave their homes, who now can`t even stay out in
their apartment complex as in their car without being afraid of being murdered. We need to change the rhetoric.
PINSKY: Do you -- and the controller, do you have that footage of Sherri Shepherd talking about her fear of this? Can we move forward to that or
bring it down whatever it is? I want to show you some -- a friend of mine was, I think, "The Talk" this morning, I`m sure recently.
And she was talking about exactly what Spirit is describing, is that it`s hard for some people to understand the level of fear that certain community
members are feeling. So, let`s go ahead and play that video. Here it goes.
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Remember, there are good police officers out there. And the ones that are not, they need to go to jail. They need to go to
jail. We are black. And I`m afraid to drive my damn car because if they don`t know who I am, I can be shot. This ain`t never going to stop until
you all who aren`t black -- this is not going to stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[19:15:00] PINSKY: So, Areva, there`s that sentiment. And yet nothing does ever seem to change.
MARTIN: Yeah, one of the things I think that was so powerful about what Sherri said, one of the panelists said that the officers needed training in
how to deal with African-Americans. That really set her off. She said, look, cops don`t need training in how to deal with white citizens, so why
should they have the special training in dealing with African-Americans?
And I think that is the sentiment that is just so hard for people to understand. And I agree with Sherri. This isn`t a black versus white
situation. This isn`t a cop versus community. This is an American problem. If my life is threatened, if my son`s life is threatened, if my husband`s
life is threatened, that means no one is safe in their communities.
I really wish that people like John would try to put themselves in the shoes and the place of African-American men who do feel threatened. Because
maybe we can advance this conversation and wouldn`t be so polarized.
PINSKY: Well, to that end -- to that end, Areva, I want to ask John this. It`s getting clearer for me what people are asking for. They don`t want
police who are under suspicion of having done something wrong to be treated differently than the average person who is also under suspicion of doing
something wrong.
Even if it`s a house arrest. Why isn`t there an arrest? Why isn`t there a third-party review of whatever happened? Why is it done internally? Those
two things would go a long way to changing things, no?
SPIRIT: It`s deeper than that, Dr. Drew. It is how when a law enforcement.
PINSKY: Hang on, Spirit. Please, Spirit, I want to have John a chance to answer first, then I will get to you. Go ahead, Spirit -- John, I`m sorry,
John.
CARDILLO: I think in the Tulsa case, that`s going to be the case from what I`ve been told, from my sources in the area. This will probably go to grand
jury. The prosecutors will present it to a grand jury. When I was involved.
PINSKY: But John, but the community is going, why -- she killed somebody. Why isn`t she at least arrested while this is going on. What do you say to
the community when they ask that?
CARDILLO: Because a police officer is given a certain benefit of the doubt because of training, because of experience.
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, every defendant is. Every potential criminal.
PINSKY: Let him finish. Let him finish. Go ahead, John, please.
CARDILLO: Yeah. They`re given a certain benefit of the doubt because of the totality of the circumstances. In this case, we do see the guy`s hand
dropping. The window does look up, like it`s raised. So, we have to send the case most likely to grand jury. Let the grand jury review all the
evidence.
What a lot of people are asking for which is also wrong is for a police officer to be immediately arrested. A private citizen, claiming self-
defense in this case, would not be immediately arrested. Nor do I think they should be.
SEDAGHATFAR: That was exactly my point. I was actually agreeing with you that they are supported the same due process rights as ordinary citizens.
PINSKY: Okay. All right. Spirit, go ahead.
SPIRIT: That`s not what citizens are asking for. I want to be really clear on this. What citizens are asking for is for the officers` biases to be
addressed. I`ll give you a great example because, John, you just did it here. When you were talking about that man that lost his life, you stated
things as if they were facts.
He had a gun. He pointed a gun. That officer deserved to go home. He was in the right. But now when you just talked about the window being up or down,
even though you actually saw footage of the window being up, you said allegedly. It appeared to be.
So, you give the benefit of the doubt in a direction that goes towards one person, without giving it in the benefit of the doubt in the direction of
the victim who had lost his life.
PINSKY: I think we heard John say specifically that`s policy in a weird way, right, John? That`s what you said. That the police get the benefit of
the doubt.
CARDILLO: Right. Because the assumption is, you`ve been through the academy, you`ve had some training, and that you do have the ability.
PINSKY: I`m not sure that -- I don`t know.
MARTIN: You know, Dr. Drew, I`ve been writing about this lately. I`ve been advocating that we revisit this 1985 supreme court case that established
the standard by which police shootings are evaluated. And which make it, you know, really difficult for some prosecutors to feel like they have
enough evidence to move forward with prosecutions.
I think with the dawning of body cams, dash cams, citizens with cameras, we`ve got to really revisit how we are holding police officers accountable.
Because what we`re doing now, it`s not working. Every time we see one of these videos, we are traumatized. African-Americans, people with good
conscience, we`re traumatized.
PINSKY: We`re gonna unfortunately leave this conversation here. Next up, we are learning more about the bombing suspect from New York City and New
Jersey. His past. Should someone have seen this coming? And later, was Brad Pitt blindsided by Angelina Jolie`s divorce filings. After this.
[19:20:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is out of New York City. There`s been an explosion that has taken place in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explosions in New York and New Jersey may be linked.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After a shootout with police on the streets of New Jersey, the prime suspect in the New York and New Jersey bombings is in
custody.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The bombing suspect Ahmad Rahami has been charged with federal charges, including use of a weapon of mass destruction, bombing,
destruction of property, and use of a destructive device. He bought some of the bomb items used over E-bay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those materials considered by experts to be high explosive had a potential explosive power bigger than what was seen in the
Boston marathon bombings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Before we get into the segment, I want to apologize in the last block, I had not seen that tape with my friend Sheryl Underwood in it. I
thought it was Sherri Shepherd we were about to see. And then I didn`t correct myself. So, I apologize. That was of course was Sheryl Underwood.
Accept my apologies. I`m sorry about that.
Now, we are learning more about the bombing suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami. First this, the FBI is seeking two men seen on surveillance video allegedly
removing an explosive device from a suitcase left in the New York Chelsea neighborhood. They`re not suspects, but they are wanted for questioning.
Joining us, Loni Coombs, attorney; Jena Kravitz, neuropsychologist; Aaron Cohen, former special forces operator specializing in counter terrorism,
founder of Cherry`s counter terror projects; and via Skype, Steve Moore, retired FBI agent; and investigative reporter, John Lieberman. Steve, it
has been four days. Why haven`t they been able to find these two guys?
STEVE MOORE, RETIRED FBI AGENT: They didn`t have the benefit of having their fingerprints on the bomb apparently. And they`re kind of late to the
party in putting out the need for them. And I`m sure they`re probably -- as soon as they can identify them, are going to issue some material witness
warrants.
PINSKY: Aaron, what is it they they likely want from these guys?
AARON COHEN, COUNTER TERRORISM EXPERT: They want to know if there`s any connection to Ahmad. Did they assist him? Could this lead to potential,
more terror attacks being stopped?
It`s just building the intelligence mosaic so they can prevent future attacks and then make sure that this guy gets put away, you know, and
finagle his way out, you know, these years of legal that he`s going to start going through. They want to build up the case as much as they can.
PINSKY: And apparently, he`s intubated now, he`s still in the hospital, he`s unconscious. But, Loni, Aaron refers to these years of legal. When I
started hearing all the charges, I started thinking the same thing like, oh, boy, it`s gonna be a big defense, it`s gonna take forever.
LONI COOMBS, ATTORNEY: Oh, yeah, this will take a long time. But look, we`ve got investigations still going on. And they`re looking at these other
people. And there may still be family members involved in this. They`re looking at other people to see, did he do this by himself or did he do it
with someone else.
PINSKY: Authorities recovered a journal found on Rahami when he was arrested Monday. John Lieberman, tell me, do we know what was inside that
journal?
JOHN LIEBERMAN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: We do, Drew. We know a lot of the content of this bloody and tattered journal. And it appears to give us a
window into this suspect`s thinking, and his allegiances. One passage that he wrote in there, accuses the U.S. government of slaughtering Muslim holy
warriors in Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq.
And perhaps even more telling, Drew, the entries suggest that he drew inspiration not just from Al-Qaeda, but from the Islamic state as well. And
I want to read you a couple of quotes from inside of this journal.
The final passage in the entire journal says, quote, the sounds of bombs will be heard in the streets, gunshots to your police, death to the
oppressors. In another part of the journal, he praises, quote, brother Osama Bin Laden.
As you mentioned, he refers to the Boston marathon bombings. And as I mentioned, Drew, Mr. Rahami in the notebook refers to dalla (ph), meaning
state, which is a reverential way in which ISIS supporters refer to their movement. This journal is telling investigators a lot about his mindset,
his allegiances, and his apparent beliefs.
PINSKY: And Steve, is this sort of typically formally radicalized guy, or is it somebody who`s sick and radicalized? How do we understand what this
is?
MOORE: Well, I think we have to come to an agreement here that somebody who puts bombs out to kill people and puts BBS in them, or nails in them or
something to cause death and destruction is already sick. They may have strong beliefs in a particular religion or ideology, but a lot of people
do, and they don`t kill people randomly.
So I think this -- his radicalization, yes, I think it`s standard. Even the writing of the manifesto or the journal, whatever you want to call it. We
see that so much of the time when somebody is suicidally bent on violence.
PINSKY: And Jena, do you -- I look at that journal. The only time I`ve had patients journal in blood or something like that, there is usually severe
mental illness in there. But this has a formal kind of quality to his thinking. What do we make of all this? Steve is saying sick. But, I don`t
know, formally mentally ill? I don`t know.
JENA KRAVITZ, NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST: Well, I always wonder about the mental health of people who become involved with extremists or fundamentalists or
become one themselves, and what is underlying them. Typically it`s the feeling of needing to be a part of a community or belonging. It`s about
power and feeling strong and authoritative.
So, I don`t know that he`s mentally ill so much as he probably has a pretty weak ego. This is not somebody who felt like he belonged to anything. And
he latched on to this.
PINSKY: He`s vulnerable and had a grudge. Aaron, do you agree with this conversation?
COHEN: I do to a certain extent. But I -- I -- it`s hard for me to put this in a box when I know there are hundreds of thousands, if not a million
people who subscribe to this same ideology. Does that mean that they`re all psychologically wounded? Does that mean that they all go into some C or B
category that a psychologist would typically put them into?
[19:30:00] How do you categorize somebody with that type of manifesto, when there could be up to a million people spread throughout Africa and the
Middle East and Asia who believe in the same type of Sharia supremacy.
Remember, Sharia is not a law, it`s -- it`s an ideology. It`s not a religion, it`s an ideology. It`s anti-American in its ideology and it`s
supremacy, the way Hitler saw himself as a supremacist. So, I just don`t know if it`s got the same psychological categorization.
PINSKY: I agree with you. John, it`s almost like there`s a historical vulnerability here much like we`ve had previous periods of history that
create people that have a vulnerability to be influenced by this.
LEIBERMAN: Well, that`s right. That`s exactly right, Drew. Keep in mind, this investigation is still very much in its infancy. So we`re going to
continue learning about this guy`s past, about how he thinks, about what he was thinking about.
And if he speaks to investigators, and we have seen before in the past, terrorism suspects actually enjoy speaking to investigators, because they
want it known what their thoughts are. So I wouldn`t be surprised if he does speak to investigators once he`s given the go-ahead by doctors.
PINSKY: And Loni, I see you nodding to that. But also, we have some footage of him sort of doing a practice bomb in his backyard or something and other
people seeing that. Is that would those people be sort of prosecuted as well?
COOMBS: Here`s the really interesting piece of information we got from the complaint. And that is, on a family member`s cell phone, they pulled off
this video that they figured out was taken two days before the bombings. In the suspect`s backyard. And apparently it shows him lighting this little
pipe bomb type thing. It goes off. And there`s smoke. And then there`s laughter. And he comes back on it to take it down.
The question is, though, was the family member actually taking the video, was the family member involved, was the family member aware of the plan
that was going down, and that this was sort of a practice for these bombs going off. We don`t know any of that information.
However, if they were, they could be considered a co-conspirator. If they did anything to help facilitate or encourage the plan that he put into
place, they could be a co-conspirator for all of these crimes.
PINSKY: Okay. More to the story. And later, Brad Pitt fights back. He may have learned about this divorce just like the rest of us, with no warning.
Back after this.
[19:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was outgoing, funny, and looking forward to a future in law enforcement. In high school, though, he got his girlfriend pregnant.
And Ahmad struggled to make child support payments. Friends of Ahmad Khan Rahami point to a life-long feud between the eldest son and his strict
father.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He stabbed my son. He hit my wife. And I put him to jail four years ago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A neighbor apparently heard the father call his son a terrorist and notified authorities. The FBI interviewed his father who
we`re told recanted. But apparently the FBI did not interview Rahami who was in jail at the time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, he`s a -- he`s a terrorist. He`s doing bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: We`re learning a lot about the suspected bomber. Back with Loni, Jena, Aaron, Steve, and John. Court documents reveal a history of legal
issues with Rahami and his family dating back to 1999, at least. For John, tell me more.
LEIBERMAN: Yeah, we have all the documents right here, Dr. Drew. The real question is, did anything in this suspect`s past or in the family`s history
of brushes with law enforcement portend what we just saw in New Jersey and New York.
Of course, the latest run-in that Rahami was when his father made comments calling him a terrorist, comments his dad later recanted, those were in
2014. The bureau investigated it, but found he had no ties to terrorism.
And then as you see on the screen, in 2014, he was arrested for stabbing his brother in the leg, and unlawful possession of a gun. His sister also
told cops she was assaulted, but didn`t want to press charges. In that incident, a cop told the court he believed Rahami was a danger to himself
and others and property, but a grand jury didn`t indict him.
Then in 2010, his mother was accused of child abuse by knowingly causing harm allegedly to a 7-year-old. It`s not clear who the child was or what
happened in that case, according to the documents obtained by CNN. In 2005, the family business was sued for failing to pay a distributor who provided
food for the family business.
And in 1999, a judge dismissed a 10,000 judgment against Ahmad`s father. The details of that case were not released. And again, the FBI looked into
him a couple of years ago. They ran him through all the databases. And their findings were that Rahami had no links to terrorism at that time.
PINSKY: Although they did not interview Rahami, they did as you say go through the database. But, Jena, you talk about vulnerability, boy, that is
vulnerability, what John just described there.
KRAVITZ: Right.
PINSKY: And so much of the vulnerability I keep hearing about is aggression and violence and physical abuse. These sorts of phenomena in a family seems
to.
KRAVITZ: I`m glad you brought this up because I was actually going to say in our last segment we were talking about the vulnerability. And is this a
combination of someone who`s mentally ill, or just an extremist, or a little bit of both?
I think we can add the variable, this is somebody who is exposed to transgenerational violence. This is a learned behavior. You know,
obviously, his mom is being accused of child abuse. His father had legal issues in the past. This is not somebody who necessarily is one or the
other. I think this is a combination.
[19:40:00] PINSKY: And he traveled for extended periods to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the last few years. In 2011, he married a Pakistani woman.
Authorities say she left the U.S. before Saturday`s attack. But Aaron, she is expected to return to the U.S. today, and is reportedly cooperating.
What are we likely to get from her?
COHEN: Well, I don`t think that she`s -- what we`re going to find out from her is whether or not he`s connected to a larger terror cell, that`s what I
would want to know. I do want to know do these tentacles reach beyond a home-grown lone wolf, or is this guy connected to something larger. I mean,
this guy, Drew, is red-flagged strudel. I`ve never seen a more red-flagged profile, if I may.
He travels to Pakistan on the border, which is known as a Taliban hotbed. Marries a woman, spends a year there, ends up coming back. The body
language in the video, if you were to play that roll, the way he`s white knuckling the cargo sack, walking down the street in a predominantly gay
and lesbian neighborhood, there couldn`t be more red flags.
So, what I want to know from her is he connected to something broader, what and who did he speak to when he was in Pakistan and who are they. I would
start bugging and surveilling and start to track all those threads because that`s the bottom line here. How do we prevent the next chubby Jihadi from
trying to kill people on the streets of New York.
PINSKY: Right. There`s that, and why we can`t monitor the guys engage in those kinds of behavior. And there`s this from June 20th, August 10th, he,
this guy, Rahami, registered as an E-bay user, Ahmad Rahami. He purchased items associated with bomb making. They were shipped to a business in New
Jersey where he`s believed to have worked until September 12th. Steve, any way to track this kind of thing?
MOORE: Well, there`s going to have to be ways to track this. We don`t have a standard thing. I just checked all the major -- the E-bays, Amazons,
stuff like that. I could buy the precursors to this bomb right now and have it delivered in two days.
And right now, there is no database that tracks small amounts of this. Because some of the stuff, I mean, you`re talking about peroxide. You can
go down to a beauty shop and get it for dyeing hair. That`s one of the major precursors.
PINSKY: Hold on, Loni is going nuts. Go ahead, Loni. What do you want to say?
COOMBS: Yeah, that`s what I always hear. Each of these items by themselves are legal to purchase, yes, but when you put them together, the way you
make a bomb. I don`t understand why the FBI or some of our law enforcement agencies don`t have the code to be able to put a little tickler on this
guy`s name, because he was, you know, brought up to the FBI.
When he starts purchasing these things, under his own name, sending them right to where he works, and he put two or three of those items together,
hey, this is going to be probably a bomb. Somebody isn`t having a red flag go off and say, we need to go in and see what this guy is doing. It doesn`t
make sense to me.
PINSKY: Go ahead, Steve.
MOORE: Pretty simple here. Number one, you can`t just delve into somebody`s life without probable cause. You can`t -- you can`t start tracking their
Amazon purchases. Number two, you only have 10,000 FBI agents. You would need about a half million to keep track of everybody.
And on an average day, when I was running Al-Qaeda in Los Angeles, we would get 25 to 30 people that would fit a potential profile, just the way this
guy did.
PINSKY: Okay, hold on. I want to hear from John. John, what do you want to say?
LEIBERMAN: And he had no -- and just to go along with what Steve said, look, this suspect had no criminal convictions. That`s the bottom line. So
it wasn`t that he was fully entrenched in the system.
COOMBS: No, but he had -- he had issues with law enforcement. He had been traveling back and forth. I mean, look, you count up the red flags. I`m no
terrorist expert and I would have had a red flag go off in my head if I see something.
PINSKY: Yeah. And Aaron was going off like a Roman candle. So, we`ve got to leave it there. Next up, thank you, panel, Angelina versus Brad. Could this
be one of the divorces of the century? Back after this.
[19:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt`s divorce announcement even catching close friend George Clooney by surprise.
GEORGE CLOONEY, ACTOR: I feel very sorry to hear that. That`s the first I heard of it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jolie citing irreconcilable differences in divorce documents filed against Pitt. According to her attorney, it was a decision
she made for the health of the family. Jolie is seeking physical custody of all six of their children. Pitt saying in a statement he`s, quote, very
saddened by the divorce, but what matters most now is the well-being of their kids.
BRAD PITT, ACTOR: It means something. It`s not just a piece of paper.
ANGELINA JOLIE, ACTRESS: Like everybody, we -- you know, we have our challenges. But we`re fighting to make it great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: People are trying to figure out what is behind the breakup of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. I`m back with Jena, joined by Anneelise Goetz,
attorney, and Jasmine Simpkins, hiphollywood.com. Angelina reportedly claims that Brad`s pot use was her final straw. Jasmine, he denies this,
right?
JASMINE SIMPKINS, HIPHOLLYWOOD.COM: He does. He -- he denies that the pot use was the final straw. But he`s had a documented history of smoking
marijuana, being a supporter of marijuana smoking. So, it`s safe to say that definitely was the straw that broke the camel`s back.
Among other things. These two haven`t been happy for a while. And I think that a lot of the evidence has been shown on red carpets like this one,
and, you know, it was the ticking time bomb, was counting down for these two unfortunately.
PINSKY: You know, Jena, it`s interesting to me. I think people think that somehow as you go up that A-list food chain, if the two top of the heap A-
listers get together, well, that`s a perfect fit. But these two people are human beings with their own vulnerabilities that are not conducive to
chronic or ongoing stable intimacy. How about that?
[19:50:00] KRAVITZ: Right. So, it`s well known and documented in the media that Angelina Jolie has a long history of mental health issues, including
self-mutilation and -- and cutting and has been labeled maybe a borderline personality disorder. She`s been impulsive at times.
So, I would assume that she`s not an easy person to be married to. And then Brad Pitt has his own band of issues, potentially a narcissist, potentially
somebody that has his own issues with loyalty.
PINSKY: And I will say that -- let me get Anneelize to this. I predicted back in 2010, based on looking at some of these liabilities. I thought when
they do break up, which is inevitable because of their own -- God bless them -- but it just was seemed inevitable to me, that`s my article, it`s
going to be a bad breakup. And aren`t we seeing the first shots of a war that is likely to escalate?
GOETZ: We are. We`re seeing -- we`re seeing Angelina come out guns blazing with what she`s requesting. When you`re asking for the sole physical
custody of the kids, you have to establish by clear and convincing evidence to the judge that the other parent, that the father is not in the
children`s best interest for them to have shared custody.
PINSKY: Anneelise.
GOETZ: Which means -- remember, I said evidence. She has to prove it. She has to show it. Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: Well, but let me ask you this. If you were, let`s say, you are the attorney in this divorce, would you advise that as your first shot across
the bow, like come out with, you know, frontal assault and go for the juggler, is that where you start?
GOETZ: Honestly, I wouldn`t. I would say with these two A-list celebrities, the best thing you can do is try and work this out before it goes public.
And come to an agreement before it goes public. I think the best case scenario of this is when you saw Tom and Katie and their divorce.
The whole thing happened very quickly and you know what? The kids weren`t hurt as a result. We have six kids right now that are about to watch
something unfold on -- in the national landscape, and it`s sad for them. It`s sad for them.
PINSKY: Yeah. Jasmine, that`s what bothers me. People see them as these iconic figures, but these are eight lives. These are eight humans. It`s
such a sad chapter.
SIMPKINS: It is. But no one is surprised in Angelina`s camp that she is even asking for sole custody of the children. I mean, if you remember, she
began adopting some of these children before she got with Brad. So, I think, it`s not shocking by anyone in her circle that she`s asking for sole
custody of these children, you know.
And she`s a mother, a lot of times this is what happens within this type of split, the mom asks for sole custody and then, you know, a judge comes in
and makes a decision.
PINSKY: Anneelise.
GOETZ: That -- we saw that decades ago. In this day and age, it`s 50-50. You`re splitting custody, unless you can really show a good reason why you
shouldn`t. So, that was kind of back in the day when we thought, oh, the children are always best with the mother and let the dad just come and see
them once in a while.
That is no longer the position of the court. And you have to prove that it is in the best interest not to have these kids to be with both parents.
PINSKY: We`ll be right back. Got to go.
[19:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(START VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In the face of Donald Trump`s presidency, Bradd and Angelina`s marriage was the last hope for immigrants to be welcomed into
this country.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, they broke the story, they broke the story every week for the last 11 years.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Angelina Jolie has filed for divorce from Bradd Pitt. They are explaining it to their kids, okay, everyone gather around.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s pretty scary when even Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are like, I can do better.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Bradd Pitt and Angelina had to be physically separated at the Wax Museum in London. Their figures are now featured, quote, at a respectful
distance from one another. Angelina has been moved to a spot next to Nicole Kidman and Brad near to Morgan Freeman. Back with Jena, Anneelise, and
Jasmine. So, Anneelise, you were starting to say there, if she wants full custody, it doesn`t matter?
GOETZ: Well, no, it doesn`t matter. She`s got to go in there and prove that she deserves it. Not that she deserves it, I should even say, but it`s in
the best interest of the kids. When we were talking about in the last segment, what you and Dr. Jena were talking about, is that they`re both a
little bit unstable.
So, the fact that the -- the ability for her to go and prove that she is the better parent to spend all of the time with, that to me would be a
stretch with her history of mental illness.
PINSKY: And Jasmine, what Anneelise said is I think what you guys at Hip Hollywood and others are going to be reporting going forward, there`s going
to be a lot of accusations going back and forth. Is anyone sort of hearing the rumblings of what`s likely to come here?
SIMPKINS: Well, definitely you can tell by the way that she even phrased this divorce, you know, for the safety of the children, for the safety of
their family.
PINSKY: Dramatic, very dramatic.
SIMPKINS: Very dramatic. She`s already -- her legal team, they are already getting themselves prepared for what is probably going to be a nasty
divorce.
PINSKY: Oh, yeah.
SIMPKINS: Specifically around these children. And the rumblings about his marijuana are just probably the beginning of things that are gonna start to
come out about Brad Pitt. And we are probably going to hear a lot about Angelina on the other side.
But you already know she`s definitely getting herself and getting the strategy together, because she wants those children, and she`s not going to
take 50-50. She wants sole custody, period.
PINSKY: In 2010, Jena, I saw all this and I said, this is going to be a nuclear explosion when this thing erupts and it`s going to erupt.
KRAVITZ: It so unfortunate because it`s so looks like Angelina Jolie has come with the guns blazing in a place of anger. I mean, the wanting
physical custody of the children, I just think that this wreaks of impulsivity, anger, irrational thinking.
PINSKY: Right. That`s right. It`s a rational minded person. Let`s just do what`s right for these kids and let`s just be grownups about this, I don`t
care how mad I am at the other partner. But as you well know, everybody, that`s not the way divorces go. Not the first couple to do this.
[20:00:00] GOETZ: Right. But coming out with blazing guns like that is also not good.
PINSKY: Got to go. Please tune in to our last show tomorrow night and stay tuned for Nancy Grace.
END
