Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Cosby Admits Plan to Give Women Drugs for Sex; Confederate Flag Fight in South Carolina. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 07, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:07] ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm Ashleigh Banfield and welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

We begin with breaking news on Bill Cosby. If more than 25 women publicly accusing him of rape or assault over the past 40 years wasn't enough, the comedians own words now seeming to back up what some of what we've heard from time -- time and time again from those accusers. In a just-released deposition Bill Cosby never wanted you or me to see, he admits the incredible, that, yes, he did get prescription drugs to try to dope women that he wanted to have sex with. He stopped short of saying that he drugged them without their knowledge, but still a stunning revelation. Our Sara Ganim takes a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARA GANIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A bombshell in the ongoing Cosby sexual assault controversy, shockingly revealed in his own words. The admission surfacing in newly unsealed court documents. The embattled comedian testifying under oath that in 2005 he had obtained seven prescriptions of Quaaludes, a powerful hypnotic and sedative, admitting his intent to drug young women he wanted to have sex with.

His confession, testimony from a civil lawsuit filed by Andrea Constand, a former Temple University employee, that was settled in 2006. In the deposition obtained and made public by the Associated Press, the plaintiff's attorney questioning the now 77-year-old Cosby. Question, "when you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?" Cosby answering, "yes." "You gave them to other people?" "Yes."

When the attorney goes on to ask him, "did you ever give any of those women Quaaludes without their knowledge," Cosby's lawyer objects, telling him not to answer the question. The woman in that case accusing Cosby of drugging and molesting her, giving her three blue pills.

The documents also include Cosby's recollection of a 1970s encounter with a woman in Las Vegas. "She meets me backstage," he says. "I give her Quaaludes. We then have sex."

According to the newly released court documents, Cosby's lawyers insisting that two of the accusers were aware that they were taking Quaaludes from the comedian. Over the past 40 years, more than 25 women have publicly alleged that Cosby raped or assaulted them.

BEVERLY JOHNSON, COSBY ACCUSER: It was very powerful. It came on very quickly. The room started to spin. At that point I knew he had drugged me.

GANIM: But Cosby, who starred as the loveable Dr. Cliff Huxtable on "The Cosby Show," has long denied drugging and sexually molesting these women and has never been criminally charged.

Barbara Bowman, one of Cosby's accusers, who many credit for paving the way for others to come forward, calls the revelations a game changer.

BARBARA BOWMAN, COSBY ACCUSER: I think we're going to be heard now. And I think this is just the beginning.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GANIM: Part of the reason, Ashleigh, that this is so fascinating is because many of the women who have accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault have also said in the past that they believe that they were drugged first, that they remember Cosby fixing them a drink and giving it to them, in some cases taking a few sips and then feeling incapacitated. Now, of course, he's very careful with his words here, but this is the first time we're really hearing any kind of his side of the story. He fought the release of these documents for several years saying that it would be embarrassing to him.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Well, that it is without question, but it didn't seem to matter to that judge. We're going to get into that, Sara, actually in a little bit. Thank you for that, Sara Ganim reporting for us.

You know, Mr. Cosby's stunning admission is giving some credence to the possibility that the popular comedian may just be a serial rapist. And if he ever goes to trial for these alleged crimes, there will be likely a long, long line of women waiting to testify against him. Their testimony could be critical in establishing a modus operandi of drugging women then having sex with them. I want you to listen very closely to this list of people you're going to hear from and the similarities in all of these accusers' stories.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA BOWMAN, COSBY ACCUSER: I never saw any drugs but I woke -- would wake up completely confused, half dressed and knowing that my body had been touched without my permission.

JOAN TARSHIS, COSBY ACCUSER: We went up to his bungalow afterwards. He made me a drink and very shortly after that I just -- I passed out. I woke up or came to very groggily with him removing my underwear.

[12:05:05] TAMARA GREEN, COSBY ACCUSER: He had gone from helping me to groping me and kissing me and touching me and handling me and, you know, taking off my clothes. BEVERLY JOHNSON, COSBY ACCUSER: And after that second sip, I knew I

had been drugged. It was very powerful. It came on very quickly. The room started to spin. My speech was slurred. I remember him calling me over towards him as if we were going to begin the scene then and he placed his hands on my waist. I remember steadying myself with my hand on his shoulders and I -- I just kind of cocked my head because at that point I knew he had drugged me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: I want to bring in our CNN legal panel. Our analyst Mel Robbins is here and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson to talk about whether Cosby might just be facing down not only embarrassment but possible criminal prosecution.

Guys, I know that we hear over and over again that statutes of limitation have run out in so many of these cases.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

BANFIELD: But it is not quite that simple, is it, Mel?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, it's not. But let me explain to you exactly what would have to happen in order for there to be charges brought. You would have to have an accuser in New York alleging that she was attacked by Cosby, raped by Cosby from 2006 forward. In California, it would have to be somebody alleging that they were attacked in 2009 forward. Now, these are adults that are being attacked. The whole game changes as soon as it's a minor that's being -- that's alleging this.

Also, there are a number of states, at least 13, that currently do not have a statute of limitations for rape charges. However, I could not figure out in the amount of time before we got on air exactly when those statute of limitation, you know, waivers went into effect and they don't go in forever. So in states like Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, where there is no statute of limitation for rape prosecutions, that's another state where he could face exposure if a woman comes forward and alleges an attack.

JACKSON: What happens is this, Ashleigh. It's very critical to know when an attack actually happened. And the reason it's critical, piggybacking off of what Mel said, it's because it's the statute of limitations that's in effect at the time of the offense. A lot of legislatures throughout the country have been very progressive in terms of extending statute of limitations, protecting victims and doing things in the victims' interest. That, however, would not give any women who Mr. Cosby is alleged to have engaged in improprieties any help because you can't retroactively grandfather someone in who's been attacked or otherwise molested or abused prior to the statute of limitations being passed?

BANFIELD: So there is the possibility, as some of the accusers have said is, with what he has said now publicly, others may now come forward. I mean we have 24 now, 25 I think some odd accusers now who have been public -- JACKSON: Right.

BANFIELD: But there could be so many more and perhaps someone may actually fall within a statute. But aside from the criminal possibilities, the civil exposure that this man has now, what is he possibly facing here from the many women we know want some kind of justice?

ROBBINS: Well, there's another statute of limitation in civil cases. So you don't get to just sue anybody forever. And in a lot of these women's cases, the claims, as Joey has talked about, have already run out. However, if you look at the three defamation cases that have been brought, so you've got three of his victims who have now joined in a lawsuit saying that you've ruined our reputation, you caused us harm.

BANFIELD: Yes. So, Mel, be clear here.

ROBBINS: Yes.

BANFIELD: I mean this is not a, "you raped me" suit.

JACKSON: Yes.

BANFIELD: This is a, "you raped me and told me -- you told everyone I lied about it."

ROBBINS: But what's the defense?

JACKSON: But that's --

ROBBINS: The defense is -- for him is truth. So in order for him to actually defend himself in a defamation case, he's going to have to take the stand and argue, "but I was telling the truth," which then exposes him to having to talk about all of these issues and it allows his attorneys to say, "hey, wait a minute, this motion right here --

JACKSON: But -- but --

ROBBINS: But -- here we go.

JACKSON: There's an issue. And the issue is, was it Mr. Cosby who has been saying that you're a liar, it's untrue, or have his lawyers or representatives been saying that?

BANFIELD: Isn't that the same thing?

JACKSON: There's a major distinction. It's not. If I'm a public advocate and I'm out in the public addressing issues that are against my client, I can deny them and I can engage in legalistic and lawyerese. But if my client says it, it's another matter. So are you going to be able to get to Mr. Cosby through what his lawyers are alleging occurred and then you have to address the issue to the damages of the reputations of the individuals who he's alleged to have engaged in these sexual improprieties.

BANFIELD: Yes. Well, and it's -- that's a very, very tough thing to measure. But one thing is certain, there's a lot of damage that's been done to these women.

JACKSON: Yes.

BANFIELD: Joey and Mel, stick around, there's still a lot more to talk about. Thank you for that.

[12:09:58] What does it take for this to actually come to fruition? Strangely enough, something like pound cake. I'm not kidding here. What pound cake has to do with the release of Bill Cosby's damning deposition, quite literally. We're going to explain, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: For years, Bill Cosby was a role model, a model television father, a committed husband, a doctor of education. He's also made public statements about his views on parenting, sexuality and crime. I want you to take a look at this clip from what became known as Cosby's "pound cake" speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL COSBY: If the pound cake is there, I'll take it. So you take the pound cake. What is the pound cake worth? It's not worth your life.

And something you want and you have no money for it, when you have that love and respect, you begin to think, I don't want to get caught.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: In an ironic twist, Bill Cosby's moral high ground is the very reason why the judge in this most recent releasing of the documents, Judge Eduardo Robreno (ph), released the comedian's stunning admissions that he acquired drugs to give women for sex. I'm going to read you a quote from the judge's ruling. These are his words. "This case, however, is not about Cosby's status as a public person by virtue of the exercise of his trade as a televised or comedic personality. Rather, Cosby has donned the mantle of public moralist and mounted the proverbial electronic or print soap box to volunteer his views on, among other things, child rearing, family life, education and crime. To the extent that defendant has freely entered the public square and 'thrust himself into the vortex of these public issues,' he has voluntarily narrowed the zone of privacy that he is entitled to claim."

[12:15:20] Those are very fancy words, but they mean something very simple. They mean if you put yourself out there as a moral leader --

JACKSON: Right.

BANFIELD: And then you ask to have things suppressed because they might embarrass you, you don't get to have it both ways.

ROBBINS: Yes, that's true. And, you know, when a judge is deciding a motion like this, you have the A.P. coming forward asking for motions, not the full depositions, but motions that were filed in court to be unsealed and released to the public, it's a balancing act. What's in the best interest of the public? What's in the best interest of the two private parties that were parties to this suit? And as you just so eloquently said, by putting himself out there, by standing on his soap box and pontificating and moralizing and advising everybody else on how to live their lives, he clearly has an interest in these issues, which means his privacy on them is certainly narrowed. And also the victims have also an interest in these coming out.

JACKSON: The victims, absolutely, have an interest in it. It's interesting, though, in looking at this decision, Ashleigh, the -- they also cited that, as Cosby's people said, that, wait a second, this is a confidential settlement and we resolved this with the understanding that it would remain confidential. The judge said uh-uh, but you didn't come to me at the time, you didn't ask me to retain jurisdiction over the case and you didn't ask me to seal the documents and the records at that time. The judge did him no favors. But clearly, based upon Cosby moralizing and taking the moral high ground and being Dr. Huxtable and the father to the community, he injected himself into the public domain, and as a result the judge said uh-uh, disclosure.

BANFIELD: Disclosure. But in the argument that Cosby and his legal team made to keep these things secret, to keep them sealed, this one line that has just blown up so big in this entire case, he said it would cause embarrassment. And the judge had a pretty pointed answer to that.

JACKSON: Yes, he did.

BANFIELD: What was that, Mel?

ROBBINS: I don't even remember -- well, I think he's already -- how could it possibly be even more embarrassing?

BANFIELD: (INAUDIBLE).

JACKSON: Right. The cat's out of the bag.

BANFIELD: You're already as embarrassed as you possibly could be. What more damage could be done?

ROBBINS: I'll tell you what more damage could be done. That one line that we're all kind of blowing up and highlighting and focusing on corroborates the statements of 24 women who claim that they were raped.

JACKSON: It really does.

ROBBINS: So this isn't really a guy that says, hey, I did recreational drugs and I like to party with the women before I have sex with them. This is him corroborating that he was getting drugs beforehand.

JACKSON: And here's the --

ROBBINS: That he was giving them the women.

JACKSON: Sure. ROBBINS: And now you have these women all saying, and that's the exactly what he did to me.

JACKSON: And that's huge.

ROBBINS: That's why it's a big deal.

JACKSON: And just as a brief point to make here. Remember, in the event that there is a victim that is within the statute of limitations and there is a criminal prosecution or even a civil case that moves forward, the question becomes, what will these similar acts do in that litigation and will they come in and will they otherwise be admissible?

BANFIELD: Oh, you mean prior bad acts?

JACKSON: Prior bad --

BANFIELD: Would you like to have that conversation with me in just a few moments?

JACKSON: I would love to.

ROBBINS: Sure.

BANFIELD: Because I had that planned. Thank you to you both.

And also ahead, we've got new developments in another story as well that we're working on. The confederate flag in South Carolina. A big, big vote just wrapped up in the state senate. Want to know what the result is? You will, in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Just about an hour ago, South Carolina's state senate passed a bill to remove the confederate flag from the statehouse grounds.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GERALD MALLOY (D), SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE: And what we have done is that we have spoken, one voice here, with unity. And we are not being divisive and we are not -- I told them, there is no time for victory laps. There is no time -- there's no winners and losers. We're just trying to end up making sure that we move this state forward.

BANFIELD: It was an emotional session as the widow of the late Senator Clementa Pinckney received hugs from every member of the senate. Reverend Pinckney was among the nine shot and killed at Charleston's Emanuel AME Church during Bible study last month. The bill passed 36- 3. But now it goes to the state house where it's unclear how much opposition it might face.

I'm joined now by Dan Rice. He's a graduate of West Point, as well as an Army veteran, and he's written extensively about the history of the confederacy. Dan, I wanted to bring you in on the whole discussion of history

versus the confederate flag because there are vocal opponents -- as we go into the house vote, you will probably hear some of the vocal opponents of getting rid of the confederate flag -- who say it's about preserving history. And you have a very, very interesting take on preserving what happened, when Lincoln looked at a divided nation and wanted reconciliation.

DAN RICE, AUTHOR, "WEST POINT LEADERSHIP: PROFILES OF COURAGE": Yes. It's a -- it's a fascinating subject that's been ongoing for 150 years, reconciliation, basically. And in Lincoln's second inaugural address he said "with malice towards none," basically trying to bring the country back together. And this is another step forward in the removal of that flag, the confederate battle flag, from state grounds.

BANFIELD: Which is interesting because effectively what Lincoln and other leaders wanted to do -- and you're great at how you position this thinking -- is that there was a need to honor those who were lost on the confederate side.

RICE: Yes.

BANFIELD: Honor the generals. Name those bases after the generals. There's a nuclear sub named after --

RICE: Yes, the Stonewall Jackson.

BANFIELD: The Stonewall Jackson.

RICE: Yes.

BANFIELD: And try to be as inclusive as possible. You hit a nail with me where you said, "I went to Iraq and preached reconciliation to the Iraqis among Sunnis and the Shia and realized --

RICE: Yes.

BANFIELD: We haven't done it at home.

RICE: No, not at all. It's still -- 150 years later, it's still a very passionate subject for Americans. And for us to be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, places -- I've been to all of them, and -- and it is a very difficult subject. It's very passionate. If it's in the immediate present to have it 150 years later in the U.S., it is still a very passionate subject.

And it took 100 -- it took 99 years for us to have civil rights after the -- after the civil war, let alone removing the battle flag. So it's just a progressive step towards reconciliation.

BANFIELD: So some will say, well, then that's the argument for the confederate flag representing history and, you know, why tear down this history? But you look at it differently. You say, honor the fallen.

RICE: Yes. BANFIELD: Honor the soldiers who fought valiantly, perhaps. Perhaps not the politicians. Perhaps not the leaders.

RICE: Yes, absolutely.

BANFIELD: And the flag may represent that.

[12:25:02] RICE: Absolutely. The soldiers that fought on both sides fought valiantly. And the way we reconciled as a nation after the war, to recognize those who fought for the confederacy, those who fought for the union, we have bases named after confederate generals like Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Polk. Bases where Americans soldiers were staged to go to World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they were brought together under the premise that if we -- if we honor the soldiers that fought from both the south and the north, the Stewart Tank, the Stonewall Jackson, that we will reconcile as the group.

Now, the politics behind the war, the reason that we had a divided nation, slavery, right, state's rights versus federal right, all of those issues we should not honor, especially in a federal or a state courthouse, in my opinion. And that's why removal of these -- these symbols -- and the flags represent -- they symbolize things. And so they symbolize their values. And so removing them from a lot of the state pictures is one issue.

The other issue is freedom of speech and being allowed to hold the flag up. There's 400,000 reenactors in the United States that go out and reenact civil war battles. And that's a great way to remember history, to remember the issues, because those who forget history are bound to repeat it and --

BANFIELD: Yes. Always -- always important to remember reconciliation takes all sides.

RICE: It does.

BANFIELD: And if someone's in pain, that needs to be reconciled, you know, as well in this whole debate. Great to have you. Thank you for coming in. Appreciate it.

RICE: Great -- great to see you again. Thank you.

BANFIELD: Dan Rice for us.

RICE: Thanks.

BANFIELD: And we just learned, by the way, that Dylann Roof, the man accused of killing those nine people at that South Carolina church, is going to be facing even more charges now. The South Carolina solicitor has released a statement saying that Roof has been indicted for three attempted murder charges. That's for those who survived the attack. And it's also in addition to the nine counts of murder, as well as weapons charges that Dylann Roof will be facing.

Can the six Baltimore police officers who have been charged in Freddie Gray's case get a fair trial in their hometown? Their lawyers say, not a chance. So what is behind their fight for a change of venue?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)