Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Earthquake Hits Nepal Again; Cleveland Officer Awaits Verdict; Jeb Bush Defends U.S. Invasion of Iraq. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired May 12, 2015 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00] IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: In the mountains, in the countryside to evacuate some of the more than 1,000 people that the government says have been wounded. They're getting some help from the Indian air force, which was already on the ground there from the April 25th earthquake. The Indian military say they've already evacuated at least 11 injured people, and the earthquake only happened about five, six hours ago, Alisyn.

The eyewitness accounts are of this frightening shaking of the earth shortly before 1:00 p.m. local time. And in the capital, virtually the entire population of the capital rushing outdoors and into the streets as the earth was shaking. They're following the advice and the instructions of the Nepalese authorities who are saying, you've got to get out from underneath things that could fall on you, that could hurt you, and you've got to open up the roads at the same time to allow the emergency workers to get where they need to be during these critical hours after this earthquake struck.

Alisyn.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Ivan, now last time around, you'll remember that the earthquake there triggered a deadly avalanche on Mt. Everest, and this time we understand the epicenter was also close to Mt. Everest. Do you have any word yet on what the situation is on the mountain?

WATSON: It's supposed to be a town called Namche, in the east of Nepal, which is kind of the homeland of the Sherpas who work on Mt. Everest. Now, the expeditions up the mountain had been suspended after April 25th. Most of the foreign tourists have left. So the guides that I've talked to, they're worried about the indigenous Nepalese population. And so far the head of the Everest board has not been able to get through to this town called Namche, which is very close to the epicenter. We've gotten some good anecdotal accounts suggesting that while people are really frightened, while people are living out of doors right now and out in the open because they're afraid to go into their houses, that initially - initial reports are not of - of terrible loss of life in that area. But again, it's - the sun is about to set in Nepal and a lot is going to depend on the next 12 to 24 hours.

Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. Let's hope they can make contact with that community. Ivan, thanks so much for that. For more information on how you can help the victims of the Nepal

quake, go to cnn.com/impact. You'll find everything you need there.

Michaela.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Alright, Alisyn.

A Cleveland police officer charged with shooting and killing two unarmed people is awaiting his fate. He was among 13 officers who fired shots, so why is he the only one facing a severe sentence? We're going to speak with a leader of a group who is supporting the officer.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:36:48] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Officers should still be held responsible for their actions. And the only way to do that in this case, to hold defendant Brelo responsible for his actions, is to find him guilty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: That was the prosecutor wrapping up the state's case against Cleveland Police Officer Michael Brelo. Brelo is charged with two counts of voluntary manslaughter for the 2012 shooting deaths to Timothy Russell and Melissa Williams. Brelo shot 15 times through the victims' car window after a police chase. The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund has been supporting Brelo. Their president, Ronald Hosko joins us now.

Mr. Hosko, thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

RONALD HOSKO, PRESIDENT, LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: Good morning.

CAMEROTA: So let's remind people about this case, particularly the numbers involved in this case because they are so staggering. This happened November 29, 2012. There was a police chase through Cleveland. Sixty police cars gave chase of these two suspects. Once the suspects were surrounded, 137 - well, during the course of this, 137 shots were fired at these suspects by 13 separate officers. It turns out the suspects were unarmed. Is your - is your point about supporting Officer Brelo that he should not have been charged at all or that he shouldn't have been the only person charged?

HOSKO: Well, we would argue that Mike Brelo should not have been charged at all. If your viewers are unaware, this chase started with what police believed to be a gunshot. It exceeded, by some accounts, 100 miles an hour and maybe up to 120 miles an hour through all manner of traffic control signals. So it was highly dangerous to everyone involved. When the chase suddenly turned around in a dead end area, and the subject vehicle started coming back at the police who were chasing, that's when the gunfire started after the subjects drove into police cars. So -

CAMEROTA: Uh-huh. I mean, look, it clearly, clearly was a high-stakes, high-pressure situation. No one disputes that. By the way, what police officers thought was a gunshot that it begins with may - may have been - it was a pop. So that's what they heard, a pop. It might have been a car backfiring. It might have been a gunshot. But either way, once the car was surrounded, it was Officer Brelo who then jumped on the hood of the victim's car and shot 15 more times.

HOSKO: Right. Actually, he first retreated. Both he and his partner shot because of their fear. And I reviewed the videotaped statements of all the police officers involved. Because of their fear for imminent harm to themselves and their partners, they shot through the windshield of their own car many time, and then they bailed out, as did other officers who engaged in this shooting with the blare of sirens, with blazing lights and strobes, and it was incumbent on Mike Brelo to act reasonably so sayeth the Supreme Court in Graham (ph) versus Conner (ph), the Seminole (ph) decision about these sorts of cases. Did he act reasonably is the question?

[08:40:00] CAMEROTA: I mean the prosecutor says no. The prosecutor says it was not reasonable for Officer Brelo to then jump on the hood of the victim's car and to shoot 15 times at the victims. I mean that's what - that - the prosecutor says that that wasn't fear necessarily, that sounds like anger.

HOSKO: Well, this entire round of gunfire, the entire event, took place over the course of 18 seconds, and that included gaps in the fire. So we're talking about an officer who believes he is about to be hit by the subject vehicle, who believes both his - people in the car have weapons who - where gunfire has already started by other police officers, and Mike Brelo is essentially in the middle of this as depicted in the state attorney's general report.

CAMEROTA: And he did have some reason to believe that the suspect had weapons. They did not. But here - there was - there were conflicting reports coming over the police scanner. Let me play you an illustration of that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Use caution, occupants are armed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He does not have a gun. They've got black gloves on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He does not have a gun in his hand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: OK, so they heard two separate things. The suspects are armed, and then he does not have a gun. He has a black glove. He does not have a gun. But given that no shots were ever fired from the car, why was that car hit with a barrage of bullets?

HOSKO: Well, this is really the case depending on the belief of Mike Brelo and I think heavily on the belief of other police officers who were involved. And from the statements that I reviewed, each and every one of them had a reasonable fear that they were in imminent jeopardy from the subjects. Not only from the potential of weapons in the hands of the subjects, but also when the car turned back towards the pursuers, that the car became a weapon, too, and hit the car adjacent to Brelo's and was rolling towards his car as well. So the car is then a weapon as well.

CAMEROTA: I mean no doubt, no doubt this was a high anxiety moment, but how is 60 police officers giving chase through the city of Cleveland, 13 officers firing, 137 shots fired, 15 of them by Michael Brelo, how is all of that not excessive force?

HOSKO: It -- again, this - this case hopefully is going to be judged by the standards laid out by the Supreme Court. And that is, what would a reasonable police officer have done in Michael Brelo's shoes? Now, my starting point for that analysis is, what did a dozen other police officers, who were close to the center of this chase, what did they do? And they started to fire as well. Based on all of these beliefs, based on this lengthy chase, not knowing what was in the car but strongly suspecting that a gun had been fired and that a gun had been raised during this lengthy pursuit. The question is not for you and me, Alisyn, because we are citizens. The question is, what would a reasonable police officer do in that circumstance?

CAMEROTA: And, in fact, this is not a jury case. That judge has heard all of the facts and the sides of this and a judge will be deciding, we understand, as early as May 18th. How do you think this case is going to end?

HOSKO: Well, I hope, and the judge has said this, he is going to put the extraneous voices, like yours and mine this morning, to the side and make his decision based on the facts. And my hope is that Mike Brelo is acquitted of these charges. I don't think he should have been charged. I think 12 other police officers, given the radio transmissions, the high-speed chase that occurred, they may have been wrong, but as, according to the Supreme Court, you can be wrong and still be reasonable if you're a police officer. That does happen. This defines policing in our country today where police are approaching these situations. It just happened in Hattiesburg, Mississippi -

CAMEROTA: Yes.

HOSKO: Approaching these situations not knowing who's in that car, what their intentions are and trying to figure it out and wishing they had more time to make a better decision.

CAMEROTA: Yes. It sure does. I mean this is the national conversation that we seem to be having every week about policing in this country. And Mr. Ronald Hosko, we thank you for having the conversation with us this morning. Thanks for being on.

HOSKO: My pleasure.

CAMEROTA: Let's get to Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: All right, in political news, Jeb Bush is raising a lot of scratch (ph). Some estimate as much as $100 million. That's good, right, if you want to be president? So why are his polls dipping? What he just said about his brother may explain it.

[08:44:24] We'll explain, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH, FORMER GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA: In retrospect, the intelligence that everybody saw, that the world saw, not just the United States, was faulty. By the way, guess who thinks that those mistakes took place as well? George W. Bush.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Your brother.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Jeb Bush telling Fox News he would have made the same decision as George W., his brother, when it comes to Iraq. This has some key poll numbers looking not so great for the elder Bush. What's going on here?

Let's bring in CNN political commentators Ana Navarro and Paul Begala. Ana is a Republican strategist and supporter of Jeb Bush. Paul is a Democratic strategist, also a co-chair of a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC and long-time advisor to President Clinton. So neither of you are impartial. We know that. That's why we are here.

Let me ask you this, Ana, the scoop is that your friend, Jeb Bush, misheard the question from Megyn Kelly and answered it the way he did because of that?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think he did. I think he was referring to what we knew then, not what we know now. It's the only way that the entire answer makes sense, because then he goes to say what you just posted him saying, that the information was faulty.

Look, the only person probably running in this race who did see the information and the intel was Hillary Clinton, and she voted yes. So I think that based on that intel, a lot of people would have voted yes and that's what he said.

CAMEROTA: But, Paul, the question was, knowing what we know today, what's happened in Iraq, would you have still done what your brother did to invade? So it was knowing what we know today, and he said, yes, he would do the same thing that George W. Bush did.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right. He may have misheard. I didn't know he had a hearing impairment and we pray for his swift recovery. But the question was, knowing what we know now, knowing that we've lost almost 4,500 heroes in George W. Bush's war, over a trillion dollars, tens of thousands of troops wounded, would you have done it? And of course, the only answer is, no, God no, of course no, certainly not.

[08:50:11] CUOMO: Yeah. But he's the only guy, Paul, if he gives that answer, all of us run with it as he doesn't agree with his brother. It's not really a fair premise for questioning him. Right? Everybody wouldn't do -- Why would you make a bad decision? Nobody is going to say, yes, I would go ahead and make a bad decision. But he is the only one that is being held to a standard that no one else is, where - you know what I mean? Is it really fair to ask that to him?

BEGALA: Yes.

CUOMO: Because?

BEGALA: He wants to be our president. His brother's decision to mislead us into Iraq was the most consequential, and I think, disastrous foreign policy decision since Vietnam. It's essential that we ask these people. By the way, Hillary Clinton, she fessed up to it in her book. She said it was a mistake, plain and simple, she should not have cast that vote.

CUOMO: But it doesn't mean as much for her to say that as it does for him to say it because of the stint (ph) about it being his brother. That's what I'm saying.

BEGALA: But it's the biggest disaster that we have had in this country. His brother is the worst president in my lifetime. He is a fine man, he is lovely guy, but he is the worst of our lifetime.

CUOMO: I love how he puts those two things together there.

BEGALA: He's a very nice guy, but he's a -

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: But Ana, hold on -

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: Let's put it in context here. He gave a very solid interview on a bunch of different issues, and the one thing we are focusing on is that Iraq question --

CAMEROTA: Well, because that was the most eyebrow-raising one.

NAVARRO: -- because Chris is right. The media and people are just, you know - People are salivating to see Jeb throw his brother under the bus, to see some space in between them, and I think Jeb loves his brother and that's going to be something that's going to be very hard for him to do. Now, should he have answered this question the way he did? No. Nobody running for elected office should be answering hypotheticals. You treat hypothetical questions that same way you treat sexually transmitted diseases: you avoid them. You don't answer them. But he did --

(LAUGHTER)

CUOMO: Let me write that down.

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: He answered it the way that Hillary Clinton answered it when the intelligence was put in front of her.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: Hold on one second. But Ana, do you think that he should issue a clarification saying, I misunderstood the question? Because as it stands, he is saying he would have done exactly the same thing. Do you think we will hear a clarification from Jeb Bush?

NAVARRO: I don't know if you will hear it. I can tell you that I e- mailed him this morning and I said to him, hey, I am a little confused by this answer, so I am generally wondering, did you mishear the question? And he said, yes, I misheard the question. So I think when you hear the entirety of his answer and he talks about the faulty information, it's hard not to conclude that he misheard the question instead of hearing --

CUOMO: So what is his answer?

NAVARRO: -- if we knew what we know now. He must have heard if we knew what we knew then --

CUOMO: So what is his answer?

NAVARRO: I didn't ask him that second question.

CUOMO: So you had that first question and you didn't the second part?

NAVARRO: That's one for his spokesperson, not for me. Listen, it's too early in the morning, okay, for me to be exchanging e-mails and being coherent about something that happened ten years ago.

CUOMO: Well, you look good.

NAVARRO: Frankly, the last thing he should be doing is relitigating this.

CUOMO: You look deceptively fresh.

CAMEROTA: Let's talk about another issue that came out in the interview, and that's about immigration. He said that he would reverse President Obama's executive action, executive order, on letting dreamers stay in the country. What do you think of that, Paul?

BEGALA: Well, he is going to have to run on that, and I think that's going to really not be looked well upon, certainly by Latino Americans and also by Anglo-Americans and others. The notion that we should take children, who have done nothing wrong themselves, and deport them, who have known no other home except America - many of whom who are really excelling, some of whom are joining our military, many of whom who are going to college now - and we should deport them?

CUOMO: He didn't say that they should all be deported. He said that he would withdraw the executive order. Many are taking that to mean he doesn't think executive action was the right way to achieve this and we don't know yet what he believes about immigration reform. NAVARRO: Nobody on the Republican side thinks that executive action was the right way to achieve that. What he also said was that he would pass immigration reform and that the executive orders wouldn't be repealed and affect those that are right now being held by them, so not to disrupt their lives.

What I interpreted it to mean is, look, I want to repeal them, they should be repealed but this is not the way to do it, but we need to pass immigration reform and not leave those folks in limbo. There's a bunch of folks who are in limbo now. Remember, part of the executive orders that were passed are in litigation right now, and have not been put into effect. This is not the way to solve immigration - the complex immigration problem.

BEGALA: Everybody wants legislation, and of course legislation would supersede an executive order. That goes without saying. Everybody wants that. The problem is we have a Republican Congress, a Tea Party Congress, Mr. Bush's own party, that is blocking reform.

[08:55:04] In the absence of that, the president said, well, at least, I as Commander in Chief, will say we are not going to deport children, who have really done nothing wrong. Mr. Bush now probably wants to deport them.

CAMEROTA: Alright. Paul, Ana, thank you. And thanks for all the medical advice as well. Great to see you.

(LAUGHTER)

CUOMO: "The Good Stuff" is coming up. Stick around for that, please. It's a good one.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Time for "The Good Stuff." This is a story about treasure. So this dresser, Emil Knodell picks it up for $100, marble top, good deal. Right? They put it in the truck, it doesn't fit, let's put it sideways.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMIL KNODELL, FOUND TREASURE IN DRESSER: We leaned it sideways and it sounded like a slot machine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we opened it up, the three of us looked in and it was like the Hardy Boys.

KNODELL: Holy smokes! Jackpot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Oh my gosh!

CUOMO: Why? There was a hidden drawer in the back holding diamonds, rubies, emeralds. Nobody knew about it.

CAMEROTA: Wow.

CUOMO: All good for Emil Knodell, right? Wrong. He is doing the right thing.

PEREIRA: Of course, he is.

CUOMO: He picked up the dresser at an estate sale, he is giving the find, all of it, to the former owner's son.

[09:00:01] CAMEROTA: Oh, that's Wonderful.

CUOMO: And rare.

CAMEROTA: That's a great story.

CUOMO: Legally and ethically rare.

CAMEROTA: Nice.

PEREIRA: Alright. Let's carry on with the day. It's time for "NEWSROOM" with Carol Costello.