Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Army Helicopter Crashes Near Eglin Air Force Base; Hillary Clinton Holds Press Conference on Private Email Account Used During Tenure as Secretary of State; Could GOP Letter to Iran Derail Nuclear Deal?

Aired March 11, 2015 - 08:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An army Blackhawk helicopter from Eglin Air Force Base has crashed in the Florida panhandle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First responders are currently forming near the scene.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Seven marines and four soldiers are missing at this hour.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Whose names were not on that letter?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that criminal? Is it treason?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We believe it's harmful to America's national security.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Looking back, it would have been better had I simply used a second domain name.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The company that she registered her domain with was hacked in 2010.

CLINTON: At the time this didn't seem like an issue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The firestorm over the video extending to a Dallas community.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is not something that has been ongoing in this chapter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota, and Michaela Pereira.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to your NEW DAY. It is Wednesday, March 11th, 8:00 in the east, and we do have breaking news. Eleven members of the U.S. military missing after an army helicopter crashes near Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: A base spokesperson saying the Blackhawk

helicopter went down over water and the wreckage has been spotted. CNN senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns joins us with all the breaking details. Joe, what do we know?

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chris, this was some type of training mission involving the marines special operations unit from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. It's a Blackhawk helicopter that apparently went down. The aircraft assigned to the Hammond Louisiana army national guard participating in a training exercise overnight. The soldiers on board, the air crew apparently with the army National Guard as well. Andy Borland, the public affairs officer out there, talked to us just a little while ago on NEW DAY.

We may not have that. The first debris from this chopper was located around 2:00 this morning, we're told, by a search and rescue team. This is still being described as a search and rescue operation. A second helicopter was also involved in the exercise, but the chopper's personnel on the second aircraft have returned and are accounted for at this time, so there's no reason to think there was a midair collision that caused that apparent crash. No word on the cause, of course. The names of the air crew and the marines on board were being withheld until the Department of Defense could notify families of the personnel involved, Chris.

CUOMO: Of course, Joe Johns, that's very frightening language when we're waiting for families to be notified, but it is still search and rescue. That means there's hope. Appreciate the reporting. Let's get the latest on the phone from Eglin Air Force Base, chief spokeswoman Sara Vidoni. What can you tell us about what's happening right now?

SARA VIDONI, PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPECIALIST, EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, (via telephone): Good morning. We're getting some daylight this morning, which is good news as it has been darkness since the incident had occurred. It is still very foggy, which is impacting search and rescue efforts of course. But multiple agents are on scene including the coast guard who has secured the waterways and the efforts do continue.

CUOMO: Best sense at this point as to what may have caused this? And as you're answering, I want to put up a picture of the fog that's down there so people can understand the conditions that may have been at play overnight as well. This is what it looked like in the early morning, the haze obvious. So what's the best sense right now?

VIDONI: At this point the accident is obviously still under investigation. There was heavy fog last evening. We don't have any official weather reports at this time and there is no report as of now as to whether that fog impacted the incident. But, you know, as details become released we will provide them as available.

CUOMO: What was the pilot or crew on the other chopper able to tell you about the situation and when they lost contact?

VIDONI: We do know, of course, that the second helicopter and the personnel on board have returned and are accounted for at this time. We have not received any updates from that team at this point.

CUOMO: And obviously that will be part of the investigation. The area, the topography that you're dealing with there, what are the chances of survivability if the bird went in the water?

VIDONI: At this point we know that the incident occurred over water. We're still at this point in our office we are unsure whether it occurred over the sound or over the Gulf of Mexico. But they have had debris washing up on both sides. It is a 20-mile strip of beach area that's used for military test and training missions, and so debris has been washing up on both sides of the shore.

All right, and we know that you're able to track helicopters with great efficiency. Any sense how far over water they may have been, again just to give some kind of calculation about survivability, how far they would have to swim or what kind of water they'd be floating in.

VIDONI: Sure. The sound is not -- at that point is not very far. It's not very wide. I couldn't tell you exactly in miles, but it's a pretty -- you can see the other side of the land, the main land. And of course, you have the Gulf of Mexico on the other side of the water.

CUOMO: Obviously things floating up already, debris, that's somewhat of a promising sign about proximity to shore. And just to be clear, you have no reason to believe at this point that anything suspicious happened that made this crash become an event? Right now you're just investigating it as an accident, true?

VIDONI: That is absolutely correct. And all 11 on board are still considered missing.

CUOMO: All right, Ms. Vidoni, thank you very much. Not an easy conversation to have to have. Hopefully there is some good news that comes out of this. We'll stay on the story. Appreciate the latest.

VIDONI: Thank you.

CUOMO: Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: OK, Chris, there's also new concern this morning that a political fight over the letter that Republican senators sent to Iran could undo the progress being made towards a nuclear deal. A big focus this morning on the senators who did not sign that letter. CNN's Sunlen Serfaty is following developments for us live at the White House. What's the latest Sunlen?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, that's right. Just as important is who didn't put their names on this letter. Seven Republican senators were approached and refused to sign on. And they're just now speaking out about why they did this, made this decision. And they're saying that of course they want Congress to have more say in this agreement, potential agreement with Iran, but they just don't believe this letter is the way to go about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, (R) MAINE: I did not think it was appropriate for us to write to the ayatollah and try to explain to him our constitutional system of government.

SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) TENNESSEE: I didn't view the latter as helping achieve an outcome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: Now the 47 Republican senators who did sign on to this letter, they're really doubling down here. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida, he says that he has no regrets. He'd sign another letter again. He said he believes the threat from Iran just requires this sort of unusual move.

Now one person who's coming out for the defense of the administration on this is former secretary of state and potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She gave a forceful defense of the administration on this one, saying that the letter was out of tradition and calling into question whether these Republican senators wanted to be helpful to the Iranians or hurtful to the administration. Michaela?

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Sunlen, thank you for that.

On the topic of Hillary Clinton, let's stay there for a second. Also in that speech finally addressing the firestorm over using her private e-mail address while serving as secretary of state, saying it is all about convenience. However, she is refusing to turn over her personal e-mail server. CNN senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny is here with us with the very latest. Anything new at this hour?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Michaela. Hillary Clinton said she did nothing wrong and she vigorously defended her right to keep private e-mails private. Even though she has broken her silence after eight days she has still not swept away the controversy that's overshadowing her campaign in waiting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: On the eighth day she talked.

CLINTON: Looking back it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two e-mail accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously it hasn't worked out that way.

ZELENY: She defended her use of private e-mail insisting any mistakes were innocent ones.

CLINTON: Even if I had had two devices, which is obviously permitted, many people do that, you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official. So I did it for convenience.

ZELENY: But Republicans weren't buying that defense. SEN. JIM RISCH, (R) IDAHO: She talks about convenience. All of us

carry at least two cell phones, at least two communicating devices. That really isn't much of an excuse.

ZELENY: At the United Nations on Tuesday Mrs. Clinton took questions for nearly 20 minutes. The same two words came up again and again.

CLINTON: Looking back.

Again, looking back.

ZELENY: But now she's looking ahead to a second presidential campaign, and she finds herself in the middle of a new political firestorm with Republicans smelling new blood on a favorite old target. Congressman Trey Gowdy, chairman of the committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said he would call her to testify at least twice. Mrs. Clinton has already said she would appear but said she had already deleted her personal e-mail and has no plans of turning over the private e-mail server for an independent review.

CLINTON: When the search was conducted we were asking that any e-mail be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal records, and that's exactly what we did.

ZELENY: But this doesn't necessarily put the questions to rest. Mrs. Clinton was policing herself, making her own determination of which e- mails should be turned over. With the presidential campaign just weeks away, she dismissed the criticism.

CLINTON: I went above and beyond what I was requested to do. And, again, those will be out in the public domain and people will be able to judge for themselves.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZELENY: But long before voters can judge for themselves, she faces more Republican criticism and demands for more answers, but one thing is clear, all of this is certain to carry over into her presidential campaign which I'm told is only weeks away. Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: OK, Jeff, thanks for all of that background.

So did Hillary Clinton's press conference help or harm her in putting this issue to rest. Let's bring in Patti Solis Doyle. She served as Hillary Clinton's chief of staff during her Senate run and later ran her presidential campaign in 2008. Ms. Solis Doyle, thanks for being on NEW DAY.

PATTI SOLIS DOYLE, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Thanks so much for having me. It's great to be here.

CAMEROTA: OK, you were a long-time senior adviser to Hillary Clinton. Would you have advised her to do this press conference yesterday?

DOYLE: Look, I think no matter what she would have, could have said yesterday, she would never have really quieted her critics on the right and she probably could not stop the subpoenas that are forthcoming given the Republican controlled Congress. But absolutely she should have done this press conference. I think people needed to hear from her directly, and she did that. She explained why she had one e-mail address, and I think people needed to hear that. I think my only thing is I would have done it last week as opposed to this week and maybe we could have moved on a little sooner.

CAMEROTA: Yes. People thought eight days was too long to wait. However, some also say, not just her critics, some sort of political observers this morning say that she not only didn't answer questions, she sort of raised more questions, and in fact it plays to some of the negative perception about her, that she is above the rules. Why didn't she have to follow the guidance that everyone else in the state department had to follow about conducting government business on a government e-mail server?

DOYLE: Well, I think she -- she responded to that in her press conference. She said that it was allowable. It was not an issue at the time. In retrospect I'm sure she believes, and she said this, she would have had two e-mail addresses. I think it would have saved her a lot of this, what's going on now, a lot of this political firestorm.

CAMEROTA: I just want to interrupt you. Yes, it was allowable. It wasn't against the law, what she did. But we have this memo here from 2011 sent from her office and the State Department where she advises everyone at the State Department to, quote, "avoid conducting official department business from your personal e-mail accounts because of online adversaries." So why does she only get a pass? I mean, that's the complaint about her, that she wasn't even following her own State Department guidance.

DOYLE: Well, other secretaries of state, Colin Powell came out this weekend actually and said that he used personal e-mail. And when she wrote e-mail, you know, that was work related, she wrote it to people at the State Department on their dot.gov e-mail addresses. So the emails were being held in the State Department records. Again, she said it was for convenience sake. Whether -- you know, look, I've carried two devices before and it's not convenient. It really isn't. You know, I have to use one e-mail device to send an e-mail to my kid and one e-mail device to send an e-mail to my work colleagues. Again, in retrospect, I don't think she would have done it that way.

CAMEROTA: Sure. Everyone can relate to not wanting to juggle many devices. But she also didn't answer the question of why she set up a home personal server and if she got it authorized from anyone in government or the State Department that she would be able to keep using her home e-mail server instead of government. There were some questions that lingered. I mean, in others words --

DOYLE: I think she did answer that. I think she did answer that. You know, the server was set up back in 2001 when her -- her husband, the president, was transitioning out of office and he needed an e-mail setup for his operation, for his work. And it wasn't set up for her. She was just added on to that.

CAMEROTA: Let me show you a moment that's also getting attention because people felt that there were times that she got snippy and sort of defensive during all of the questioning from reporters. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you wait two months to turn those e-mails over? The rules say you have to turn them over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you delete the personal e-mails, Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: I'd be happy to have somebody talk to you about the rules. I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Did you feel she was too defensive?

DOYLE: You know, I thought she was actually quite good in the press conference yesterday. I thought she was measured. I thought she was calm. I thought she answered each question.

I disagree. I thought she was pretty good, and she hadn't done it for two years so I thought she was actually quite good.

CAMEROTA: Well, not many people know her better than you. We appreciate getting your perspective this morning. Patti Solis Doyle, thanks for being on NEW DAY.

DOYLE: Sure. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Let's got to Chris.

CUOMO: All right. Two former University of Oklahoma students are apologizing after they were expelled from participating in a racist fraternity chant caught on video. One student, Parker Rice, says his actions were wrong and reckless. The family of another student, Levi Pettit saying their son made a mistake. The fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon, SAE, shut down for good on campus last night.

CAMEROTA: And an update to a story we're following. Federal officials delaying a plan to ban an armor-piercing bullet in the wake of intense opposition from Republican lawmakers and tens of thousands of gun users. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives no longer planning to restrict the armor-piercing M-855 green tip rifle bullet as a way to protect law enforcement.

PEREIRA: There is a police manhunt underway in Washington state for a suspect who tried to kidnap a toddler as he played in a park with his two siblings. The dramatic scene all captured on surveillance tape. The boy's brother and sister are newly minted heroes.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PEREIRA (voice-over): This surveillance video shows the terrifying moments as a man scoops up a toddler from his stroller at a park in Washington state.

CALLER: A man grabbed a little one. A man grabbed a 2-year-old baby child and was running with it.

PEREIRA: The unidentified kidnapper runs from the park gripping the little boy but Owen's quick thinking 8-year-old sister chases after the man, her 10-year-old moment after chases after, rousing anyone in earshot to do the same.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I told that little girl, honey, you did exactly the thing you needed to do, scream your head off. That was what saved that baby was her screaming and us running.

PEREIRA: The children were playing unsupervised in a park near their baby-sitter's house in a small town of about 500 residents. Thankfully, the kidnapper dropped baby Owen in a vacant lot, fleeing the scene and so far evading police.

The children's father urges anyone with any information to come forward.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am remorseful for everybody out there that has to go through this situation because now that I've done it, been through it, you know, I don't wish it upon anybody.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PEREIRA: So, the parents were out of town. They were staying with a baby-sitter, the three kids. They were unattended at the park. This baby-sitter was a trusted family friend. They were playing at a park when all of this happened and those quick thinking kids did exactly what they need today do.

CAMEROTA: They did. Obviously the fear is that if they had chased an abductor that he would abduct them, too.

PEREIRA: It got the attention of other adults that were nearby which was wonderful.

CAMEROTA: Thank goodness.

CUOMO: Showed some rare bravery. Usually kids are scared of a situation.

CAMEROTA: Sure. Great stuff.

CUOMO: Take good outcomes where you find them.

All right. So speaking of good outcomes, not so much, the 47 Republican senators who signed that letter to Iran are under fire. Has the letter already affected negotiations with Iran? The latest ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Welcome back to NEW DAY. We are told negotiations with Iran continue unabated at this hour over its nuclear program despite the letter from Republican senators. But there are serious concerns this morning that the letter did damage those negotiations.

So, let's discuss with people who know. Hilary Mann Leverett, former U.S. negotiator with Iran, and co-author of "Going to Tehran"; and Michael Singh, senior fellow and managing director with the Washington Institute.

The first main point here -- Hilary, was this letters justified?

HILARY MANN LEVERETT, CO-AUTHOR, "GOING TO TEHRAN": I don't think it was justified either on the substance or on the process. Substantively, it's very difficult to justify sending a letter, even under the purported argument that its authors make, that it was to get a better deal. There is no better deal to get with Iran than one that will be negotiated with Iran other than regime change, overthrowing the government there, and imposing it.

So, in substance, this letter is not justified. Of course, procedurally, it seems pretty clear that it violates both the Logan Act and the Constitution's delegation of foreign policymaking to the executive.

CUOMO: Do you think there's any chance that there is an indictment, let alone a prosecution on the Logan Act, Mr. Singh?

MICHAEL SINGH, SR. FELLOW & MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE: Well, Chris, honestly, I don't know. I have a different point of view, I guess, on both the substance and the process here.

Look, on the substance, I think you hear a lot of discomfort with the substance of the negotiations right now, a lot of reservations about the deal that we seem to be headed to, towards -- with Iran not just from Congress but also from our allies in the region, not just the Israelis but our Arab allies as well.

And, right now, we're in an environment here in Washington where the Congress feels as though it's been sidelined on this issue. The president clearly feels that Congress is interfering in foreign policy, making in a way that he wasn't. Seems to me the solution is for more outreach between the two sides, but that's unfortunately not what we're seeing.

CUOMO: Michael Singh, was this the right way to do it? Congress is supposed to be side lined during foreign power negotiations with the executive. Everybody would pretty much agree to that. So, was this the right way to insert themselves?

SINGH: Chris, I think, you know, look, no president wants to see Congress getting involved in foreign policy, and you've seen that complaint from the White House with sanctions as well as with this letter.

At the same time, again, I think we have to look at it in context. We have a lot of disagreements right now over the power of the executive versus the power of Congress, whether it's on immigration, on this AUMF on Syria and Iraq.

And while, again, as president you don't want to see Congress get involved in foreign policy, you also can't really expect Congress just to accept being sidelined on a matter which they feel is within their purview. They think they should have the right to review any agreement with Iran and they also think that when it comes to lifting sanctions, they naturally have a voice in that.

CUOMO: Right.

SINGH: And so, again, I think you have to as president accept that you've got to keep your domestic coalition together and keep Congress sort of on side. Do congressional relations, which we don't see here.

CUOMO: Hilary, the pushback to you would be, this deal stinks and you're not letting us help you with your stinky deal and the American people, 71 percent say that this agreement with Iran will not prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, not that Americans in general are experts, but it says something that 71 percent says it stinks and you won't let us get involved. We're going to take it into our own hands because it's that important.

Is that a good enough basis?

LEVERETT: Well, I mean, this is the reason why the Constitution delegates leadership in foreign policy. Foreign policy making to the executive, so that we don't end up with demagoguery here in the United States, where it's rule of the mob versus diplomacy and leadership of the president. There's a reason it's in the Constitution.

And what Congress has done is weakened America's hand. It's so farcical. There's a parody in "The New Yorker" yesterday, holding out that Ayatollah Khamenei and Iran is offering to actually hold talks in Tehran between Republicans and the White House because they actually are communicating more with Iran than with each other.

So, what Congress has done here is just made themselves a farce and weakened our hand at a time when U.S. leadership is critical, not only in terms of reaching a good settlement with the Islamic republic of Iran, but in terms of the global order, where you have both China and Russia involved in these negotiations and themselves sending their presidents to Iran this year.

We're going to see Russia and China make a lot of hay while the United States sits here and has petty fight over real presidential decision making.

CUOMO: Is there any way that this move, Michael Singh, does not make the U.S. look weak to the Iranians and the other members of the P5- plus-1?

SINGH: Well, Chris, look, I think when you put aside the politics of this, when it comes to the substance, it really is no surprise to anybody that there's a lot of opposition in the United States to some of the elements of the proposed deal. There's opposition as well in the Middle East amongst our allies to the deal. And that's a reality that we need to contend with.

I think one thing that the White House needs to bear in mind is that, you know, as it sort of addresses skeptics and critics of the deal here in the United States, also our allies in the region are watching and listening. We have to prepare not just for getting a deal but for the aftermath. How are we going to reassure allies about the enforcement of the deal? How are you going to reassure allies about the enforcement of the deal --

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Michael, you're treating your own Congress as an ally that you need to deal with. You know what I mean? We're not talking about a foreign entity doing this, and weighing in and saying they don't like the deal, you better include us in the process also. You're talking about the Congress of the United States saying they don't like the deal and going around the president. Doesn't how this was done matter?

SINGH: Well, look, Chris. I think if you have domestic skepticism, and you cited a poll, saying that 71 percent of Americans are skeptical about this deal, the Congress -- the skepticism in Congress about the deal isn't just amongst Republicans, it's also amongst Democrats.

I mean, I think that that is a reality that the White House has to contend with. You can't just contend with it like a political campaign, by attacking the critics or by attacking the skeptics. You have to deal with the substance of it.

And I don't see that yet. We should be talking about the elements of this deal. Are they right or are they wrong? Is there a different approach to the negotiations? Instead, we see this sort of politicking around it.

CUOMO: Right.

SINGH: And I think that's not going to achieve our aim.

CUOMO: Right.

SINGH: It's not going to advance our interests.

CUOMO: I'm stuck on the politics. This was a political move, Michael. That's what I keep saying it.

Hilary, let me ask you something. I know not having to be any great historian, you will not find me another president for Congress ever doing this in any foreign matter the way they did it here. What do you think the Iranian's reaction will be at the table? You've been there.

LEVERETT: Yes, I mean, look, in a lot of ways this is as if the Republicans and Congress during the Kennedy administration had written to Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis saying we're going to bomb you in two years when we get elected. In Iran, this is perceived as farcical, that there's real weakness here in Washington and a level of incompetence that I think they didn't even appreciate.

But that's why the Iranians are negotiating not just with the United States but within the P5-plus-1 context. I think what you'll see from Iran is certainly not leaving the table, not negotiating. They've been committed to negotiations for a long time. I think what they'll focus on is trying to get more international guarantees through the Security Council rather than relying on the word of the United States, which is very dangerous for a super power. Our word used to mean something on the international stage, but now for it to be made such a mockery by our own Congress is dangerous, not vis-a-vis the negotiations with Iran but our negotiations with any country.

CUOMO: Ms. Leverett, Mr. Singh, thank you very much for giving us two sides of this situation. Appreciate it.

Mick?

PEREIRA: All right. Ahead, we're going to look at this e-mail controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton. Is it going to affect a potential run in 2016? We're going to fact-check what it said during that news conference and find out if her words helped her or hurt her.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)