Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Will Netanyahu Reveal 'Sensitive' Information?; Iran's View on Netanyahu's Speech; Was Deadly Force Justified in LAPD Shooting?

Aired March 03, 2015 - 07:00   ET

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: So, what will the prime minister say when he stands before Congress this morning?

CNN global affairs correspondent Elise Labott has that preview from Washington.

Good morning, Elise.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

Well, the prime minister's aides are promising information that has never been revealed before. The prime minister is hoping to paint the administration as rushing into a bad deal with Iran without briefing Congress, Israelis say between talking to the U.S., but other parties at the negotiations, their own intelligence, they know exactly what is in this deal. Enough to conclude it's a bad one for Israel and for the world.

And the prime minister is hoping what he reveals today will scare Congress enough to stop this deal from going through or move to pass sanctions if it does.

But you know, now that the president and national security adviser, Susan Rice, laid out the broad strokes of the deal last night, kind of to preempt the prime minister's remarks, Netanyahu has really raised expectations. You know, is there a bombshell he has up his sleeve?

U.S. officials I speak to, they don't think do. They think he's going to give a general characterization of the deal. But in a sense, Netanyahu doesn't need that any more.

There are reports this morning that Iran is rejecting what the president said about a deal that will freeze its nuclear program for ten years, calling it unacceptable. So if the prime minister's goal is to torpedo these negotiations going on in Geneva, in the final days leading up to that deadline, all of the drama and the brinksmanship that's surrounding the speech may, in effect, do just that -- Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Good word, because you're saying that the talks are kind of stalled anyway at this point. But it's really about what is the context for those discussions, what Congress may or may not know. That may come down to what the sensitive information is. Here's what's for sure. This speech has divided our Congress and our political parties. But

also somewhat the community of Jewish people here in the states and in Israel. So let's get both sides of what is certainly a debate.

We have Jeremy Ben-Ami. He is president of J Street, a group that opposes the prime minister's speech. And Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, founder and executive director of the group This World. He is strongly supportive of the prime minister and these efforts.

Let's start with this. Benjamin Netanyahu says, Rabbi, "My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama on the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both."

Doing this is by definition disrespectful to the president. Why hide that fact?

RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THIS WORLD: Well, no one wants to disrespect the president, and no one wants to breach protocol. But you have a tiny little country that is facing annihilatory threats by the government, which is the largest state- sponsor of terror in the world. What's he supposed to do, remain silent? This is an historic day. In Czechoslovakia in 1938 they weren't even consulted about a deal between France, Britain and Germany that utterly undermined their security, dismembered their nation.

This is an historic day, because America allows a foreign head of government to speak out and say...

CUOMO: Right.

BOTEACH: ... that this is a bad government. A bad deal.

CUOMO: But it's not America, Rabbi and that's the point to you, Jeremy. America, you know, what does that word imply? It must imply a unified position. And it isn't. And we assume the prime minister knew that. There were stories that maybe the prime minister was told, you know, both sides of Congress wanted this. And he was a little hoodwinked. But assuming he now knows what he's getting into, he's still going forward. Is this a dangerous move?

JEREMY BEN-AMI, J STREET: Well, the question is whether or not for those of us who care deeply about Israel's security, does undermining the bipartisan basis of support for Israel in this country, damage Israel's security in the long run?

And the risk is that this issue is becoming a partisan football just like every other issue on the American political scene. If you have a speech that is supported by the speaker of the House, in an effort to embarrass the sitting president of the United States, not telling him, going behind his back instead of coordinating it with the White House, and it's done also to advance the prime minister's own political agenda in the state of Israel, which, where he has an election in two weeks, you have to question whether or not this was done to advance Israel's security or to advance two political agendas, and that's not good for Israel in the long run. CUOMO: The prime minister says, "The last thing I would want is for

Israel to become a partisan issue." Do you believe that, Jeremy?

BEN-AMI: Well, it's become a partisan issue, and the speech will be looked back at a generation from now as possibly the moment when it really shifted the conversation here from broad bipartisan support to making it just like every other issue. And I think that's a terrible legacy and a really unfortunate thing for the state of Israel.

CUOMO: Rabbi, the way you're setting this out was somewhat undercut by the idea of sensitive information being shared. That's scary. It seems threatening. It seems destabilizing to the White House. Why go there?

BOTEACH: First of all, I think that more information should be revealed about this deal. This deal affects the security of the United States of America. The American people are being kept slightly in the dark about this deal. We are the great Satan. It was American hostages, not Israeli hostages that were held for 444 days by the mullahs. It's "death to America" which they chant. Why shouldn't the American people need this? Why should they know this? We don't need the prime minister to reveal this.

CUOMO: It's when they know, though, rabbi. It's not whether they know; it's when they know. Isn't it? I mean, you don't want to give people information, sensitive information while the talks are going on. Otherwise, you may lose your momentum. You understand that.

BOTEACH: We need to know whether this deal is going to leave Iran with a break-up period of 12 months, which is being reported. Some are saying less than that. Some are saying more than that. We need to how many centrifuges are going to be spinning.

But more than anything else, we need to know why it is that an oil superpower like Iran needs nuclear energy at all. This is an energy exporter. They have enough oil to last them decades. Why do they even want this energy?

And finally, we need to know, why is the government of the United States, which is profoundly anti-genocide and a believer of democracy, negotiating with a government which still continues to threaten Israel with annihilation. A precondition of these talks should have been that Rouhani had to utterly repudiate the constant threats of his boss, the spiritual leader of Iran, threatening Israel with annihilation.

To ask the leader of Israel to be silent amidst those threats is to put him back in the position of Czechoslovakia and not be party to negotiations that will determine the future of his country (ph).

CUOMO: How is it productive, Rabbi, for you to call Susan Rice someone who is blind to genocide? I know yesterday you said she's the one who should apologize. I know you're taking heat for this. You're a thoughtful guy. You and I have known each other for a long time. That was something that was at least unproductive. Do you agree with that? BOTEACH: Well, let's be fair. We used the expression "bystander to

genocide." That came from her successor.

CUOMO: Anything about genocide.

BOTEACH: Who called her that. Just -- but just a moment. It's Israel being accused -- being threatened with annihilation. It's Israel that's being threatened with genocide. It's Israel that's already faced one genocide.

When Susan Rice said that the prime minister of Israel can't even speak because it will destroy the fabric of the relationship, come on; that's almost a form of censorship. It's a lose-lose situation.

CUOMO: Jeremy, when the best ally that Israel has is accused of being blind to genocide, how does that help things?

BEN-AMI: Well, it doesn't in the slightest. And if there's one thing that's unifying in the Jewish community, and I thank Shmuley Boteach for that, we are united wall to wall in condemnation of this kind of attack.

The folks who have called on Shmuley Boteach to apologize have ranged from the far right to the far left of the Jewish community. This is outside the bounds of American politics. It really should be a disqualifier from being on national TV like this to speak on behalf of the Jewish community. Because we are all really disgusted by this approach.

And I do urge the rabbi to take a good hard look inside himself and ask whether or not his approach to this has really been in keeping with the values of the Jewish people he's supposed to represent and teach.

CUOMO: The metaphor, Rabbi, is that the threat is very real. You lay it out. So does Jeremy. Really, so do all of us, the existential threat to Israel. But the tactics -- the tactics, whether it's Netanyahu or what you said about Susan Rice, wind up almost frustrating the efforts of moving forward together.

BOTEACH: Can I be clear? Yesterday at a forum with Elie Wiesel, who won the Nobel Prize, my dear friend who I am taking to the prime minister's speech this morning, I did apologize to Susan Rice if anything took what we said as being personal.

That doesn't mean that Jeremy Ben-Ami, who's been attacking the prime minister of Israel nonstop, not the leadership of Iran. Speaking about a disqualifier, the principle disqualifier of someone who, speaking on behalf of the Jewish community, is someone who seems to be supporting the -- a deal that could undermine the very security of Israel and telling the prime minister he can't speak.

Jeremy, what is your issue with a simple speech by the prime minister? Why are you taking out ad after ad in the "New York Times," undermining the Democratically-elected leader of Israel? Why are you impugning his motives? Why are you saying he's doing this only for political purposes? Are you a prophet? Do you know?

CUOMO: So give him a chance to answer, Rabbi.

BOTEACH: On the 28th of March, that's the day that this deal -- that's the deadline for the deal. What's he supposed to do? When is he supposed to give the speech? The 23rd of March?

BEN-AMI: This is the kind of filibustering and unhelpful rhetoric that comes when you try to have a serious discussion.

The question is whether or not this deal and this approach of negotiating is actually the best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I don't think any of us have a different goal in mind.

The president of the United States, the national security adviser, the prime minister of Israel, our No. 1 goal across both sides is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

And the question is whether or not this speech at this time is a mistake on behalf of the government of Israel and trying to make its case, and the very people that the prime minister needs to reach, the swing Democrats in the center of the party, who are going to ultimately have to decide whether or not they support this deal or not, are the very people that he's alienated by doing this speech in this way. And...

CUOMO: Jeremy, do you want Netanyahu out?

BEN-AMI: I don't take a position on exactly what happens in Israeli politics. That's for the Israeli voters to decide. I live here.

What I say is that, from the American point of view, the American Congress has the right to debate this deal. The American Congress will see the deal once it's made. The types of questions that Rabbi Boteach is raising are not known yet, because the negotiations haven't been finalized. We're in the final stages right now. So it's not as if there's a secret deal that hasn't been revealed yet. Once it's done, once there's a deal, then there will be a time to review.

CUOMO: And -- and even the president says, Rabbi -- even the president says right now talks seem less than 50/50.

So we know what the stakes are heading into the speech. Let's hear what the prime minister has to say. Especially in the United States, that's the way we analyze these things. Let's hear what he has to say, and we'll bring you gentlemen back and feel if we're on even ground as a result.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, Rabbi Shmuley, always a pleasure. Thank you for being on NEW DAY.

BOTEACH: Thank you.

BEN-AMI: Thank you. CUOMO: Chris. That's me. We're going to have special coverage tonight of the prime minister's speech, anchored by Wolf Blitzer. It's going to begin at 10 Eastern. So we'll lead you up to the speech, tell you what to expect, and then you'll get full coverage right here, Mick.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Chris. Thanks so much.

While the Israeli prime minister is blasting a potential nuclear deal with Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart are picking up the pace of their talks in Switzerland. How is all of this playing inside Iran?

Let's bring in CNN's Fred Pleitgen. He is live in Tehran -- Fred.

FRED PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting, Alisyn [SIC], because you know, many people here in Iran are actually saying they want to know exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu has to say.

Everybody here seems to have an opinion on the speech. But many people here in Tehran told me they believe that Netanyahu is trying to derail these negotiations. And if you look at, right now, at the mood here in Iran, it seems as though there's a lot of people who are cautiously optimistic that perhaps some sort of agreement could be reached.

But there's a lot of other people who say that there are still a lot of things that could go wrong.

Now, interestingly enough, if you poll Iranians, which has been done recently, a majority of them would say they believe that their country has the right to have nuclear technology. Their country has the right to develop nuclear technology. The Iranian government, of course, says that it's only for peaceful purposes.

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency says that so far, Iran has not answered all the questions that it needs to answer, to determine whether its nuclear program is really solely for peaceful purposes.

So there are lots of questions still out there. Nevertheless, people here say they want this deal to come through -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Fred, thank you so much for that background.

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan government says the U.S. has two weeks to dramatically cut its embassy staff in Caracas. They want America to downsize its diplomats from 100 to just 17. This move comes after Venezuela's president claims America had been meddling in Venezuelan affairs. He also compiled a list of conservative U.S. politicians who are banned from the country.

PEREIRA: A North Carolina district attorney says he plans to seek the death penalty against the man accused of killing three Muslim students. The victims' families suggest it's a hate crime, but police blame the shootings on a long-running parking dispute. Court documents say Craig Stephen Hicks kept photos and notes on parking activity in the Chapel Hill complex where they lived.

CAMEROTA: Second-guessing that third cup of coffee? Well, don't worry: It could be good for your heart. Yes, study alert. A new study out of South Korea says people who drink between three and five cups of coffee a day are less likely to have calcium in their arteries, compared to those who drink no coffee at all. But if you go above five cups, then there's calcium again.

PEREIRA: Yes, but if you have five cups, then you're scraping me off the ceiling, so that's kind of an issue.

CUOMO: You need the calcium, then, because you need the strong bones when you fall off the ceiling.

PEREIRA: It's a whole cycle.

CUOMO: It gets you. It gets you. It's part of your lifestyle, basically.

PEREIRA: It really is, pretty much.

CAMEROTA: Well, the LAPD says the -- it appears that the videotaped fatal shooting of this homeless man, they say, was justified after the suspect went for an officer's gun. Still, witnesses say it was excessive force by the police. We will debate this.

CUOMO: And Hillary Clinton used her personal e-mail account for official business. The entire time she was secretary of state. Do you care? Should you care? Is there a rule? Did she break it? John King breaks it down for you on "Inside Politics."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMMISSIONER CHARLIE BECK, LAPD: I think that this is an awful tragedy. But you know, the officers took, on the face of it, reasonable steps to avoid it. Had the individual not grabbed the officer's pistol, we certainly wouldn't -- would not be having this discussion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: The chief of police of the LAPD there reacting to the fatal police-involved shooting of a homeless man in L.A. Should police have used deadly force on a man with mental illness?

We want to bring in Charles Ramney [SIC] -- Ramsey, pardon me, commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department and the co-chair of President Obama's task force on 21st century policing. Cedric Alexander is also with us, president of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. He's also a member of the president's task force. And gentlemen, we want to talk about the important work that is coming

out and the report that came out of the task force research and study in a moment. But I think we have to begin with this situation, very troubling in Los Angeles.

And we know, Cedric, that a big component in this case is mental health, the chief of police there in L.A. talking about his officers getting some extensive training on dealing with this population. I'm just curious, your thoughts on if overall you believe police officers are generally equipped with how to deal with mentally-ill people?

CEDRIC ALEXANDER, PRESIDENT, NOBLE: Well, it's become clear that LAPD had trained some of its officers in working with people with mental health conditions. I think one thing, Michaela, we don't want to jump ahead of is the fact that, in this particular case, involving a person who reportedly had a mental health illness, is that we truly have to wait until all the facts are in...

PEREIRA: That's fair.

ALEXANDER: ... before we can really post any judgment as a term to what occurred.

And I think that's fair to the community there in L.A.

PEREIRA: Sure.

ALEXANDER: It's fair to the gentleman that died and his family and also to the police officers, as well, too. So I think that's very important.

PEREIRA: I think that is a very important thing. But if it does do anything, Commissioner Ramsey, it does bring about a conversation about policing when mental health components are involved.

What kind of procedures are officers to follow when they encounter a situation like that?

CHARLES RAMSEY, COMMISSIONER, PHILADELPHIA POLICE: Well, it really raises a larger issue in our country of how we treat the mentally ill, period.

PEREIRA: Fair enough.

RAMSEY: And what kind of treatment that they get. I mean, we have officers that have gone through crisis intervention team training, almost 2,500 to date, to be able to recognize people who may be going through some kind of mental health crisis, ways in which you try to deescalate situations. But we also encounter people that can be very violent that are also suffering mental illness.

So it's really not easy when a police officer becomes involved. I think that, as a country, we need to look at mental health treatment...

PEREIRA: Sure. RAMSEY: ... on a much larger context and provide support for people who are suffering from that illness.

PEREIRA: I couldn't agree with you more, Commissioner.

Cedric, and I fully understand that this is a scenario that changes entirely if someone is -- if the suspect is said to reach for the gun. We know the "L.A. Times" says the video from the body cam, they're reporting is that it is heard from one of the officers saying, "He's got my gun." That changes the whole affair.

ALEXANDER: Well, certainly it does. Because regardless...

PEREIRA: Go ahead, Cedric.

ALEXANDER: Regardless of the amount of training that you may have received, I think it's important, too, that under of those particular circumstances that are being reported, and we still have more to learn, that certainly, I think we all are reminded of the fact that these officers have to protect themselves and protect those that are in and around them that are innocent bystanders, as well, too.

PEREIRA: Let's pivot to the task force and the work that has been done and the research and what you have found, the task force on 21st century policing. Both of you are part of that.

Commissioner Ramsey, and speaking of body cameras, this technology is being widely explored by American police stations and companies and chiefs across the nation. But the report stopped short of fully endorsing it. Why is that? What are the concerns?

RAMSEY: Well, we do devote an entire page in the narrative to discuss the issue of body cameras. But we made a decision early on that we would look at the broader issue of technology. Today we're talking about body cameras. Technology advances so quickly. A year from now we'll be talking about something entirely different.

PEREIRA: Fair enough.

RAMSEY: So we need to really kind of like set the guidelines in terms of how we apply technology, make sure that we have these discussions up front, that we're not infringing upon privacy rights of individuals.

I mean, everyone wants body cameras today. But tomorrow, when a manufacturer decides to put facial recognition software on that camera, are we still going to feel the same way?

I mean, we need to really think about what we're doing, how we're applying technology. Not just body cameras, but any kind of technology that we may find useful in policing.

PEREIRA: We've only got about 30 seconds, so Cedric, I'm just curious what your thoughts are. I know this is bigger conversation, not fair to have it in 30 seconds, but one of the things that the task force was to look at is the state of policing in 2015 and going forward. Have we made any progress since Ferguson, in your estimation?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think we're in the progress of making some real progress, as you just heard Commissioner Ramsey speak about, when we talk about technology, we talk about body cameras.

One other issue we had to take under consideration, we had a lot of discussion around that as well, too, are some of the legal issues that are associated that vary from one state to another as it relates to body cameras.

But I think what we have here is a document that is going to really move us forward in terms of 21st century policing. And I would like to publicly think Lori (ph) Robinson and Commissioner Ramsey, who led the leadership. And it was a great and a pleasure working with them, because their experience and their brilliance in and around these issues really helped this task force and help us to move a document forward. That I truly think is going to be critically important going forward.

PEREIRA: A very important first step. I think we can agree on that. Commissioner Ramsey, we appreciate it. Cedric Alexander, always a pleasure to have you. Gentlemen, keep up the good work, and we will speak to you again soon, I'm very sure.

ALEXANDER: Thank you very much.

PEREIRA: Chris.

RAMSEY: Thank you.

CUOMO: All right, Mick. Jeb Bush is in Vegas, baby, Vegas. And he's trying to get in the swing of being on the campaign trail, talking with voters, maybe even raising some serious money, and not just on the craps tables. John King will take us on the road with Jeb Bush coming up on "Inside Politics." Put it all on red, baby.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's controversial speech to Congress begins less than four hours from now. The White House warning him not to divulge sensitive information from the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran. About 50 lawmakers say they plan to boycott the prime minister's speech.

CUOMO: All right. So we have the Israeli prime minister in Washington, saying don't make a deal with Iran. And we have the secretary of state, John Kerry, in Switzerland, trying to do just that, meeting again with Iran's foreign minister. We're told nuclear talks are accelerating, but Kerry has cautioned Israel not to undercut those negotiations while they are in this very early stage.

PEREIRA: The latest now from Cleveland and the latest in the police shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice. Later this morning Tamir's mother will speak out about the city's response to the family's wrongful death lawsuit, blaming Tamir for his own death. Cleveland's mayor has apologized for what he says was insensitive language. However, an attorney for the Rice family says that wasn't enough. You'll recall last November a rookie officer shot Tamir within two seconds of arriving at a recreation center where he was playing with a toy gun.

CAMEROTA: Well, an 11-year-old's wish comes true after her letter goes viral. Jordan Leopold missed her dad, pro-hockey player Jordan Leopold, so she wrote a letter begging the coaches from the Columbus Blue Jackets to trade him, saying she was, quote, "lost without my dad."

Well, she got her wish. Her dad was traded to the Minnesota Wild, and that's perfect, since her -- his family lives in Minnesota. The letter was never actually sent to the NHL, but her mom posted it on social media.

PEREIRA: So sweet. But can I just say, are you not glad that we did not live as children in the age of social media? I had some really sketchy letters to Santa that could've - you know what I mean? I'm just saying, whew.

CAMEROTA: We dodged that?

PEREIRA: We dodged that one. Kids, we're sorry.

CUOMO: What's more frightening to have kids who are in the age of social media, because at least I can control what I would've done.

All right, time for "Inside Politics," on NEW DAY with John King, the Hillary emails, come on, John, what you got?