Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Investigators Focus on Marriage of San Bernardino Terrorists; Protestors Demand Chicago Mayor Resign. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired December 10, 2015 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: They were actually radicalized before they started courting or dating each other.

[05:58:14] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Was never questioned about whether she had jihadist or radical views prior to arriving in the United States.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Farook and his childhood friend plotted an earlier attack back in 2012.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Focus remains on the couple and whether this marriage was designed for terror.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Holding that video clearly built up distrust.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's no question there's a crisis in confidence now in Chicago about the mayor's leadership.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You covered up a videotape, and we want you fired.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Why don't you just sit on your big lead and just let it ride?

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Because Don, I have to do what's right.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: What is the solution to mass shootings?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guns aren't bad. Guns aren't dangerous.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Thursday, December 10, 6 a.m. in the east. We have new information about the San Bernardino murders, and it makes clear this was no simple plot.

There's word now the marriage between the two terrorists may have been a sham designed to help pull off an attack. The FBI now thinks both were radicalized before they even met. And a hole in the system revealed. CNN learned that the wife was in

question about jihadist intentions before getting a visa to come here.

CAMEROTA: The focus also growing on a childhood friend and a neighbor of the terrorist, Enrique Marquez, who provided the two AR-15 rifles that were used in the attack last week.

Marquez also admitting to investigators that he was involved in a 2012 plot with Farook that they abandoned for some reason. So why hasn't he been charged with anything?

Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Ana Cabrera. She's live to San Bernardino.

What have you learned, Ana?

ANA CABRERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

The intelligence failures appear to be bigger this morning than first thought as the time line of when these killers became radicalized is becoming clearer. And testimony from the head of the FBI raising new questions about how this couple managed to stay under the radar, apparently, for years.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA (voice-over): New shocking details emerging about the husband and wife terrorists behind the San Bernardino attacks. The FBI revealing Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook were radicalized before they even met each other or started dating online two years ago.

COMEY: As early as the end of 2013, they were talking to each other about jihad and martyrdom before they became engaged and then married and lived together in the United States.

CABRERA: Malik is seen here arriving to the U.S. on a fiance visa in the summer of 2014. A State Department official says the Pakistani native was never asked about her jihadist or radical views when interviewed by a U.S. consular official in Pakistan.

Officials say it's dbecause the Department of Homeland Security found no flags in her visa application, and she passed two other security database checks.

Since Farook is an American-born citizen, officials are now wondering if their marriage was a sham, arranged to carry out a long-planned terror attack.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Is there any evidence that this marriage was arranged by a terrorist organization or terrorist operative?

COMEY: I don't know the answer to that yet.

GRAHAM: Do you agree with me that if it was arranged by a terrorist operative, an organization, that is a game-changer?

COMEY: That would be a very, very important thing to know.

CABRERA: This as investigators learned the husband may have planned other terror attacks before with another U.S. citizen. Farook's friend and former neighbor, Enrique Marquez, told investigators that they were both radicalized in early 2011 and plotted an attack back in 2012. But after terror-related arrests in the area, they stopped the plan.

Marquez also admitting to buying Farook guns, two of which were used in the San Bernardino killings. But he told investigators he didn't know about the couple's plans. He has yet to be charged with a crime.

COMEY: We're also working very hard to understand whether there was anybody else involved with assisting them, with supporting them, with equipping them. And we're working very, very hard to understand, did they have other plans?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: We've also learned this morning that the FBI has been able to access some of the couple's electronic communications, even though the couple destroyed a couple of cell phones. They also apparently took the hard drive from their computer. That remains missing. But we're learning investigators have found some data on a tablet computer and other cell phones that they discovered at the couple's home -- Alisyn and Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Ana, I'll take it. You don't have to be a terrorist official to know when people destroy computers, there's a reason. So what is it?

Let's talk about all these developments with Phil Mudd, CNN counterterrorism analyst and a former CIA counterterrorism official. And CNN terrorism analyst, Paul Cruickshank, also editor in chief of CTC Sentinel.

Let's start broad and then get specific. Paul, when you look at this, them arranging a marriage to help ingress into the country and hatch a plot. All these different tentacles growing off of this. What do you make of the situation?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, stunning new information, really, that they were radicalized before, that when they were dating, they were talking about jihad and martyrdom. I've seen that before in my reporting with couples looking to marry each other who have become radicalized. There's a litmus test for this.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that they were getting married for the primary purpose of launching some kind of terrorist attack on its face. I don't think the evidence is suggesting that yet at this point. But certainly, very new information coming to light in just the last 24 hours.

CUOMO: What do you think, it was just like a box they checked in the mutual interests, jihad as one of them?

Let me ask you something, Phil Mudd. When we're looking at this, what did we miss? This fiance visa, not being asked about interests in more extreme tendencies. What do you make sense of there?

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Well, I don't think we missed much there. We're expecting that somebody is going to show up at the visa counter and say, yes, by the way, since you asked me if I'm a jihadist, yes, I'm going to admit that I'm part of a potential terror plot with my potential husband. I don't buy that, Chris.

I think the question here, and it's been missed in Washington with the politicians talking about visas. It is not about visas. You don't decline someone a visa if you don't have negative information about them.

The questions for the Germans, the French, the Americans is are you willing to share with another government information that indicates one of your citizens is involved in radicalization? For example, looking at nasty websites? That is not illegal. It's difficult for governments to say -- let's take America, to say to Britain or France, "Watch out for Chris. He's looking at nasty websites. You might want to stop him from entering your country."

So the question for Congress and with the president is not visas. The question is are you having conversations about information sharing with partners in places like Pakistan or Europe so that countries are willing to share information on citizens who have not committed a crime? Tough question, Chris.

CUOMO: Do you think that they had information like that about her, or was she just under the radar?

MUDD: I think there's a pretty good chance. People in this situation who are radicalized and typically are radicalized by another human being. In the case of husband and wife, for example, they're talking to each other about committing an act of violence.

The Internet serves as sort of an accelerant. It usually doesn't inspire people to start down a path of radicalization, but they start looking at images or speeches, for example, that lead them to believe that the path they've taken is acceptable. So I think there's a potential digital trail for her that suggest she's radicalized. And that's one reason the Pakistani officials have raided her family's home.

CUOMO: Paul, help people understand why this friend here isn't in custody right now. He says that they may have tried to hatch a plot earlier. They stopped because of arrests. Authorities are saying they think he may be offering that up as a way of absenting himself from the current plot, that he may be using that information to help his case somehow with them. Explain that.

CRUICKSHANK: Well, I'm not sure how it really helps his case that he was plotting a terrorist attack back in 2012 with Farook. I mean, I think that is very self-incriminating and will certainly have gotten the attention of law enforcement officials, made them even more suspicious of his potential involvement in some kind of planning with Farook going all the way back to 2012.

So, before this couple got married. If he's right, he's telling the truth, they were planning something in the United States even before the marriage.

So there has also been reports, suggestion of mental health issues with Marquez. So is what he is saying true? Is it accurate? They'll be looking at all of that.

But this might not just be a couple here who can fly under the radar screen. There may be a whole extra person involved in a sort of wider conspiracy over the years. And that's certainly going to lead to more questions for law enforcement officials, because there's a bigger footprint if you have three rather than two individuals involved in plotting.

CUOMO: The theory with the officials is that he may be offering up this story as proof that he stopped his intentions, you know, and that's why you should believe him when he says he wasn't part of this.

But the fact remains the guy bought AR-15s for this guy and then gave them to him. At some point, I think he's going to have some trouble.

The other point is this. Philip Mudd, they get rid of the hard drive. They've obviously made efforts before they were killed to erase and remove different information and instruments. Doesn't that say something pretty obvious?

MUDD: It says a lot to me, Chris. The guys down at Quantico, that's the FBI lab who can break this kind of information are pretty good. But it says to me that they are obviously trying to eliminate contacts that they didn't want the feds to figure out.

That was supposition before. Now that we have someone who says he was involved in a plot in 2012, we're talking about what that plot was. As a former practitioner, that would not be my No. 1 question.

My first question would be: if one of these individuals who died a week ago, as what he perceived himself to be a martyr, tried to radicalize somebody three years ago, who else did he try to radicalize? That's three years, Chris. There's no question in my mind that he's talked to somebody else in that interim period, trying to bring them into this radicalized plot.

So on that phone, is the clue that tells us, beyond this psychotic individual, who now says he was involved in a plot in 2012, who were those other people? That's the question I would have that's in those phones that they're trying to break down in Quantico.

CUOMO: Now, when we started this investigation, investigators felt that this was probably something random. This guy did this. Maybe his wife kind of made -- got over on him.

Now, it turns into, no, this was actually the most feared and should be most commonly detected scenario: longtime radicalization. Longtime planning. A lot of reach-out. A lot of resources. What does it mean that these guys weren't discovered?

MUDD: Well, it means if you look at the threads of investigation in this case -- that is picking up the phone, typing something on an e- mail or talking to an individual -- the tracks they left so far, not clear to me in a country of 330 million people.

Remember, you're not looking at one case, figuring out what did you miss? You're looking at 330 million people, saying, "How do I boil that ocean down to determine who's involved and act like this?" That means in those three areas: e-mail, phone, contact with a person, you've got to find a thread to pull on to come up with what the fabric of the investigation is. What thread do we pull on here?

They talked to somebody three years ago who does not appear to be connected with an international terrorist organization directly. Their phones, they seem to be pretty careful operationally. And we don't have access to the hard drive to determine whether they're e- mailing somebody.

So as someone who watched a bunch of investigations, it's not clear to me yet what thread you would pull on. The question now is, what's that dude say who was involved in 2012 that indicates they're talking to somebody else, who could have given you that thread to pull?

[06:10:12] CUOMO: Paul Cruickshank, Phil Mudd, as you always say, they only have to get lucky once. Thank you very much -- Mick.

MUDD: Thank you.

PEREIRA: All right. We are hearing for the first time from the man accused of a domestic terror attack at the Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic. Robert Dear interrupting a hearing several times, declaring his guilt and saying that he is a warrior for babies.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT DEAR, ATTACKED PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINIC: Could you add the babies that were supposed to be aborted that day, could you add that to the list? Seal the truth, huh? Kill the babies. That's what Planned Parenthood does.

You'll never know what I saw in that clinic. Atrocities. That's what they want to seal, the babies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In regard to...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: Dear is accused of killing three people and could face the death penalty.

CAMEROTA: Hundreds of protesters taking to the streets in Chicago, demanding that the city's embattled mayor resign. On Wednesday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel apologizing for failures in the shooting deaths of Laquan McDonald and calling for an honest reckoning in the wake of several controversial police shootings.

CNN's Rosa Flores is live in Chicago with the very latest.

Good morning, Rosa.

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

Protesters in Chicago turning up the heat, asking for the mayor to resign after the release of multiple police-involved shootings caught on tape. Now, yesterday, those protests grew after the mayor delivered a speech about police accountability, justice and transparency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL, CHICAGO: My voice is supposed to be for those who are powerless to make sure that their voice matters as many -- as much as those who are in power or have power. And we were adding to the suspicion and distrust. And I did not fulfill the job in the magnitude of being a mayor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FLORES: Now, at about the same time, but a few blocks away from when the mayor delivered that speech in federal court, city attorneys arguing against the release of yet another video about another black teen being shot by police. This time, Cedric Chapman.

Now, he is a carjacking suspect who was shot and killed by police back in 2013, with city attorneys arguing that releasing the video would taint the jury and would be misused by the media. Now, the judge didn't rule. He said he was going to give both parties time to look at the law.

Now, we asked the city of Chicago why would the mayor be talking about transparency in one building, and yet, attorneys arguing against the release of another video. And they said that they know that their policy on these videos needs to change, that the mayor has appointed a task force that's doing that.

Now we should add that the mayor in the past two weeks has asked two officials to resign, including the superintendent. But you saw those protest videos, Michaela, people are saying that the mayor is next.

PEREIRA: Yes, they're speaking loudly. We're going to dig in a little deeper on this a little later in the show. Rosa, thank you for that report.

Condemnation, meanwhile, for Donald Trump's proposed Muslim ban now stretching as far as top officials in Iraq, Iran and Israel. The rival countries banding together, calling for the GOP frontrunner to respect the religions and rights of all citizens.

Still, Donald Trump not backing down. In fact he sat down with CNN's Don Lemon to set the record straight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: We released three national polls last week. The three polls last week: the national poll, Iowa and New Hampshire. You're ahead by far. And then you release this controversial statement. Why don't you sit on your big lead and just let it ride?

TRUMP: Because, Don, I have to do what's right. We need a dialogue in this country and throughout the world. We have a big problem.

And as you know, I have many friends who are Muslims. They're phenomenal people. They are so happy at what I'm doing. I was called by three people today. Very big. They said, "You are doing a tremendous service." Because unless people are going to be talking about it, it's never going to be solved.

The public agrees with what I said. They saw those two animals last week go out and shoot people, and the husband and wife. The wife came here on a phony visa -- on a visa that, frankly, it's disgraceful that she was able to come in. And she radicalized -- probably radicalized him.

LEMON: Fiance visa. Yes.

TRUMP: She had a fiance visa.

LEMON: Fiance visa.

TRUMP: And discussed things, disgraceful things. So the people that are with me 100 percent are the people, and that's frankly all that matters.

LEMON: Let's talk about this proposal, right? You adjusted it slightly so that it would say that you would let American Muslims who are traveling overseas return to the country. This doesn't apply to U.S. citizens?

TRUMP: It never did. From day one, it never did. I don't know why people thought it did. This applies to people coming into the country. And all it is, is a break to our politicians who are grossly incompetent, by the way, can get their act together.

LEMON: What about foreign diplomats or people from Muslim countries who are coming into the country?

TRUMP: Certainly, exceptions can be made. I mean, we're going to have -- I'm not going to say you can't come into the country.

And the one thing people didn't pick up: at the end of that sentence, it said, until we get our hands around it, essentially, until we find out what the hell is going on, which is the expression I used.

Now, that can go quickly. But you know what? It's a subject that has to be discussed.

LEMON: So you said there will be exceptions even for, like, international athletes in competitions? TRUMP: Of course there will be. You can't keep people out like that.

There will certainly be exceptions made.

LEMON: So you have been saying that, until we figure out what's going on? What exactly does that mean? Figure out what? What is there to figure out?

TRUMP: Why is there such hatred and such viciousness? Why is somebody willing to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center and go after it even prior to that. They failed, although they did tremendous damage, by any normal standard. And then, after they failed, they went and they actually took airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Where does this hatred come from? Why does it come? We have to figure it out. Because we have problems.

So when you surveil the mosques -- I took -- you know, I took a lot of heat for the surveillance of the mosques. Well, now other people are saying, "Well, we have to surveil the mosques."

LEMON: You have -- you have big business interests in the Middle East.

TRUMP: Yes.

LEMON: People are wondering, why are you continuing to do business in the Middle East if you have such concerns?

TRUMP: Because I have great relationships with people. I love the Middle East. I love the people of the Middle East.

LEMON: Are you worried about your bottom line being affected by this?

TRUMP: Look, maybe it will be. I mean, look, it's one of those things.

[06:16:45] What I'm doing now is far more important. And I'm talking about for the Muslims. I'm doing good for the Muslims. What I'm doing now is far more important than any particular business I have in the Middle East. I'm doing a big favor.

I was just called by one of the most important people of the Middle East. And just said to me, Donald, you have done a tremendous service to the Muslims, because we're making -- nobody wants to talk about it. Everybody wants to be so politically correct. They'll let everybody come in. We have a problem. And the problem has to be solved.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: All right, let's get some reaction on what you just heard. It's going to be coming up ahead. We're going to take a break right now. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [06:21:31] CAMEROTA: OK. So we just heard a little bit of Donald Trump defending his plan to ban Muslims from coming into the U.S. He was speaking to CNN's Don Lemon. So, let's explore all of that. Here this morning with us, senior politics editor for "The Daily Beast," Jackie Kucinich; and CNN political commentator and political anchor at Time Warner Cable News, Errol Louis.

Great to see both of you.

Errol, as so often happens with Donald Trump, when you dig past the headline and force him to give some specifics, it changes a little bit. So it might be a very quick ban. It wouldn't apply to famous Muslims coming into the United States. It wouldn't apply to Americans currently based overseas who are Muslim. So now where are we with this?

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'm sure it will -- it will evolve again. And just to be clear, on the day that the statement came out, a reporter went back to him and said, "Hey, would this apply to U.S. citizens who are Muslim who happen to be overseas?" The response came back from his spokesman: "All of them." Right? So now, it changes.

So exaggerations, fabrications, changes in position, it's not the cleanest way to have a debate. But, you know, you take the facts as they trickle out to you. He wants to shift on his position.

I think the gist of it is pretty clear, which is that there'd be some kind of huge exclusion for some unspecified period of time for some unspecified period or reason. The way that you would actually enact it, of course, it's what do we have? Loyalty tests? Are we going to start reading passages from the Koran, you know, by the TSA to see who knows them and who doesn't know them? It's kind of just not unworkable but, you know, sort of unpleasant, bigoted, divisive. It has implications, even just as a proposal that I think we've started to see all over the world.

So where this goes from now, Donald Trump is trying to get what he wants to get out of it. What the rest of the world gets out of it remains to be seen.

CUOMO: Although he says that the Muslims he's discussing with are thanking him. And a very important person in the Middle East, one of the most important, called him and said, "This is a great thing that you're doing."

Now, all that subterfuge aside, Jackie, he is, you could argue, doing the process a favor. He is introducing a topic. You even heard him mention it there as context with Don. We have to talk about this. Maybe he's overshooting the target of what he would call truthful hyperbole in the interest of talking about something that isn't getting enough review.

JACKIE KUCINICH, SENIOR POLITICS EDITOR, "THE DAILY BEAST": When you say that, yes I guess, but also it's how you talk about it. And it seems like the way he's talking about it is fairly divisive. I mean, you had someone like David Cameron weighing in on this, the British prime minister. You don't normally see foreign leaders weighing in on a Republican primary process.

And also, when you look at the broader Republican Party, that's where you hear so much condemnation. I mean, not only is what he is proposing unworkable; it's unconstitutional. You know -- and the tone actually matters here in a big way.

CAMEROTA: I wanted to just bring in that he says that his friends, his Muslim friends support this. Not exactly. Because one of his Muslim friends, the CEO, chief executive of Qatar Airways, has now weighed in on this. Let me read to you what he says: "Look, Donald is my friend, and we've been friends for a long time. I think this is an exercise only to gain political mileage, nothing more. This is the opportune time to excite more extremist people so that they could give him their votes."

That's not a ringing endorsement.

LOUIS: Not a ringing endorsement. And frankly, I mean, I think that's what we've got going on. Yes, as I mentioned a minute ago. Donald Trump is trying to do what's going to get him to where he wants to go politically.

Where this takes everybody else, and the fallout, the aftermath, the repercussions all across the board, I think is something that he is not particularly concerned about.

[06:25:04] CUOMO: But saying something for political gain is not something to just blame Donald Trump for. I mean, certainly, you could say he's just playing the game better.

And these poll numbers we were talking about before the segment, if you have a majority of Republicans who think this isn't a bad idea. And you have a huge slice of Democrats who think it may not be a bad idea, it's certainly something to discuss.

LOUIS: No, no, absolutely. But this is the -- this is the question. And this is the real test. This is what voters and what all of us, I think, have to really think hard about, which is that, you know, at what point does -- do the obligations of leadership require you to split from what is in your immediate political advantage?

I mean, you can go around and demagogue, as we are seeing. You can get poll numbers. You can look like you're going to win all kinds of primaries and caucuses by saying all kinds of crazy things, but should you do it? Is it the right thing? And what kind of a country are we left with if that sort of becomes the norm?

KUCINICH: And what are you fueling? I mean, you're fueling fear. You're fueling sort of the -- the lesser part of our nature as a people. So -- and that isn't -- it's not positive. And you know, what Donald Trump is doing, is -- that's exactly what he's doing. He's talking about something that people are very fearful of, in a way that just kind of makes them more scared. CAMEROTA: Jackie, Errol, thank you. Great to get your take on this.

We will have more of Donald Trump's interview next hour. We will also have Don Lemon here to talk all about his impressions.

CUOMO: And again, the timing for this, very critical. We're just five days away from the final Republican debate of the year, right here on CNN. Coverage begins Tuesday night, 6 Eastern. That's the under card. The main event, 8:30 Eastern, only on CNN -- Mick.

PEREIRA: When you say "the main event," I think of a boxing ring. Interesting. Could prove that way, right? Very similar.

CUOMO: It is time!

PEREIRA: All right. Ahead here, the first of six officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray taking the stand in a Baltimore courtroom. Did he know that Gray's life was in danger? We'll hear more about Officer William Porter's gripping testimony next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)