Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Spears Speaks Against her Conservatorship; Manuel and Patricia Oliver are Interviewed about their Pro-Gun Control Group; "Reality Check" on New York Mayor's Race. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired June 24, 2021 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:25]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: A dramatic court hearing in Los Angeles. Pop star Britney Spears pleading with the judge to end the court- ordered conservatorship that she has lived under since 2008. She calls the situation abusive. She told the judge, quote, I just want my life back.

Let's bring in Angelina Chapin, senior writer for "New York Magazine's" "The Cut." She's written extensively about Britney's conservatorship.

Angelina, what did you think about this hearing?

ANGELINA CHAPIN, SENIOR WRITER, "NEW YORK MAGAZINE'S" "THE CUT": I thought it was absolutely shocking. A huge bombshell. Nobody expected this. Not even her fans who have been ringing the alarm bells for years. I think nobody thought the details would be this horrific. I mean even though we've all suspected maybe some things going on, someone as rich, as powerful, as privileged as Britney Spears, you just don't hear that this kind of abuse is going on. Obviously, it happens to other Americans, but not famous, rich, white women. So I think just the details, the IUD not being taken out.

KEILAR: Can we -- can we read that real quick?

CHAPIN: We should. Yes.

KEILAR: She says -- she said in there, I want to be able to get married and have a baby. I was told I can't get married. I have an IUD inside me but this so-called team won't let me go to the doctor to remove it because they don't want me to have any more children. This conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good.

CHAPIN: Right. So this is completely dystopian. This is like "Handmaid's Tale" type of controlling her reproductive system. Again, it's just not the type of thing you hear happening to celebrities. And I think that's in part why people are so shocked.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: It was horrific. As you say it was stunning, largely because we haven't heard this from her yet and there were new details. But it's also hugely legally relevant.

CHAPIN: Yes.

BERMAN: It was as if line by line she has an understanding of what conservatorships are supposed to be and legally supposed to be and she was poking holes in that. They're not supposed to be able to control your body.

CHAPIN: Yes.

BERMAN: They're not supposed to be able to tell you, you have to take this drug, like lithium, right. And she's basically saying they are.

CHAPIN: Right. To me she sounded like an activist. I felt like it was a stump speech of kinds poking holes, like you said, in the conservatorship system at large. She was of such sound mind. She was so articulate. Not only speaking about her own experience in a very declarative sentences, this is abusive, I want out, this shouldn't be happening, but also she said, this happens to thousands of Americans. And in what state do we have a system where I can go on stage, I can perform, my albums go platinum and yet I'm paying people to control my life?

KEILAR: Yes.

CHAPIN: And I just thought, that was such a contrast to the persona of Britney we see on Instagram, which is very demur. She speaks in a baby voice. She basically just twirls in little outfits. This is Britney in control. This was Britney angry. It felt like the 13 years of silence were just pouring out of her.

KEILAR: And she explained some of that. I wondered, why didn't she say something before. And she talks about being in denial. That she's embarrassed by not having this kind of control.

However, there's this free Britney movement, which has gained so much steam since "The New York Times" documentary. And a lot of what they have said is essentially this.

CHAPIN: Right.

KEILAR: But we hadn't heard that from Britney. So I think there were a lot of people out there who said, oh, come on, that's -- this is kind of -- what is this movement? It sounds like this movement may have nailed it, at least according to what we're hearing from Britney.

CHAPIN: They were completely vindicated. I think the free Britney movement feels like for years people have just said you're conspiracy theorists. You just look at Instagram for cries for help. You treat it like a piece of Morse Code. This is insane. You're amateurs. You sort of don't have the credentials to be doing any sort of investigation.

And everything they said was right and more. I mean I still think their methods were probably suspect, but they did turn out to be completely validated in what they said. BERMAN: I mean what's next at this point? One of the things that

surprised me is she -- and for as much as she does know about what's clearly happened to her and about conservatorships in general, she didn't seem to realize she even had the power to petition specifically. How can that be? I mean this lawyer -- what was this lawyer telling her for the last however many years?

CHAPIN: Well, I think we have to remember, she was not allowed the right to her own lawyer.

BERMAN: Right.

CHAPIN: She was denied that right initially when the conservatorship was put in place. So this is someone court appointed who was paid a lot of money to represent her. This is lucrative for Sam Ingham. So I think if you speak to people in the free Britney movement, he's the villain of this story.

[08:35:04]

And the narrative would be, or their thoughts would be, that he -- he didn't tell her because it's not beneficial for him to see this situation dissolve.

KEILAR: How is it that there are so many people -- because whatever -- look, whatever -- and there's -- I'm sure we'll hear another side of this story. But so many people, everyone in control of this conservatorship has a conflict of interest, right?

CHAPIN: Yes.

KEILAR: There is money in it for them. And that is problematic that there isn't someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.

CHAPIN: Yes. And I think that speaks to the wider issue that the movement and Britney sort of spoke to yesterday. This is -- in every conservatorship there seems to be some sort of conflict. I mean the people being paid are being paid by the conservatee. They're making a lot of money off of this. You don't often get to choose your own lawyer. It's a very flawed system, whether it's, you know, Grandma Josephine in Cleveland or Britney Spears.

BERMAN: There's supposed to a judge and court investigators.

CHAPIN: Right.

BERMAN: And we'll see how much more active they become in this now.

CHAPIN: Yes. I mean the world is watching. I think that, you know, maybe in other cases this sort of thing could be swept under the rug. But everyone's heard the testimony. They've got to act.

KEILAR: Yes, it will -- the judge said, I hear you. That's essentially what the judge said. I hear you. It took a lot of courage. So we'll see what happens moving forward.

Angelina, thank you so much.

CHAPIN: Thanks for having me.

BERMAN: A former NRA president thought he was delivering a taped commencement speech to a high school. The school didn't even exist and he was being duped. So who set him up?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:40:41]

KEILAR: It was a fake high school graduation. David Keane, a former president of the NRA and a current board member of the gun group, thought he was practicing his address to James Madison Academy. But that school does not exist. And the rows of empty chairs that Keane was speaking to were placed there to represent the estimated 3,044 victims of gun violence who would have graduated this year if they had not died.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID KEENE, FORMER NRA PRESIDENT AND CURRENT BOARD MEMBER: This year you focused on one of the most important of Madison's amendments, the Second Amendment. There are some who will continue to fight to gut the Second Amendment, but I'd be willing to bet that many of you will be among those who stand up and prevent them from succeeding.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's cool. That's cool.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. You know how many people are entered?

KEENE: So my advice to you is simple enough. Follow your dream and make it a reality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Joining us now, Manuel and Patricia Oliver, who are the co- founders of Change the Ref, a pro-gun control group that organized this fake graduation. Their son, Joaquin Oliver, was killed in the Parkland shooting in 2018.

I want to thank you both so much for being with us.

Manuel, first to you.

This is the first time that your organization has confronted someone directly involved with the NRA. And I wonder why you decided this was so important.

MANUEL OLIVER, FATHER OF JOAQUIN OLIVER WHO WAS KILLED IN PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING: Well, thank you for having us here.

I think that we have tried different things and different levels of disruption. At some point we needed to get here. And I'm not saying that this is the last level of disruption. It's just something that it's working really good, that the whole answer from everyone has been great, the reaction. So, you keep trying things. And one of them will work better than others. I love this project and I think we're going to do it more often.

KEILAR: Patricia, it is disruptive. The images, they -- they work to convey the message. This is very powerful. Can you tell us about the logistics, about carrying this out? How did this happen where you have a former NRA president who is speaking before all these empty chairs?

PATRICIA OLIVER, MOTHER OF JOAQUIN OLIVER WHO WAS KILLED IN PARKLAND SHOOING: Well, the logistics was pretty complicated. But at the end we got everybody in place. Every single detail, we considered it as a, you know, as a very important one. And we got the point that we were looking for. So bring them to the graduation, and we just said to them that they were going to be on a rehearsal day. And that's why had -- get them, you know, there, speaking for more than seven minutes, each of them.

KEILAR: Yes.

Manuel, they, obviously, didn't know. Keane didn't know what this was. He thought this was a rehearsal.

M. OLIVER: They didn't know. But they do know what they said. And this is what I'm thinking while everyone is reacting to this campaign. This is not about bragging ourselves that we were able to trick these guys. No, they said the speech. Those are their words. They believe that. And they bring it to where we were.

So there was no editing. In this case, or in some cases, things are so bizarre that there is no need for editing at all. This is what these guys believe and what we did was call it out and put it out there so everyone knows.

KEILAR: Have they responded?

M. OLIVER: Well, they haven't responded to me, and I haven't asked them everything -- anything to none of them. I understand that some media is trying to contact them. I don't have -- I already heard everything that I need to hear from them. So I don't have any questions.

They might be mad.

[08:45:00]

They might feel like fools. Honestly, it's not about them. It's about the 3,044 chairs that were missing a student because of gun violence. And those two guys were part of the problem and they are far away from being part of the solution.

KEILAR: Can I ask you, I know --

P. OLIVER: And this was the whole point of this campaign.

KEILAR: Yes. Can I ask you, finally, you know, I think for this nation, Parkland is something that is now a distant memory. But I know for you it isn't. I know that's not how you experience it.

Tell me about -- tell me about your life and the absence of your son and what that means, day in, day out.

M. OLIVER: This is our life, all right. Our new life. It's about representing our son, which is exactly what we did before Parkland. So the parenting role has not changed. It becomes harder to play it. But we refuse to think that passing the page, moving forward and assuming that this is a normal situation is the only option that we have.

What we did here in Vegas that, by the way, didn't stay in Vegas, and I love that, it's something that might be inspiring to other parents. That's the goal here. Mothers like Patricia saw that thing and they go like, well, we can do that. We -- now they'll listen to our voices. That's the point. We're going to work on this together. There was no reason for a tragedy -- for me to have an interview, and that, my friend, is something that I never saw happening before.

KEILAR: Manuel, Patricia, thank you so much to both of you. We are eternally sorry for your loss, and we appreciate you coming on this morning.

P. OLIVER: Thank you for having us here. This is very important.

KEILAR: We have some breaking news that we're keeping an eye on north of Miami. At least one person has died in this catastrophic condo collapse. We are awaiting another update from authorities who are on the scene. So stay with us for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:51:18]

KEILAR: They're still counting, but the results of the New York City Democratic primary for mayor so far seem to be revealing a lot about where the Democratic politics in this country are and urban politics stand right now. And it may not be what some people think.

John Avlon with a "Reality Check."

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Stereotypes break down upon closer inspection. Take New York City, often seen as the essence of big city liberalism. And there's no question that it is a Democratic city with a 6-1 Democratic registration advantage over Republicans. But that deep blue hue conceals a real diversity of opinion. And that's what Tuesday's Democratic primary for mayor showed.

It was a crowded field to succeed the unpopular incumbent, Bill de Blasio. But first round results show that center left candidates captured more than 67 percent of the Democratic primary vote, while self-called (ph) progressives in the far left lane captured 30 percent. And this broadly parallels national splits between the Democratic

Party. But as Tip O'Neill famously said, all politics is local. So let's dig a little deeper.

Now, the clear leader at this point, Eric Adams, he's a former police officer and current Brooklyn borough president, who promised to be tough on crime, rejecting calls to defund the police. And that message resonated because violent crime is on the rise in New York City. Get this, last year, New York City saw a 97 percent increase in shootings and a 45 percent rise in murder. And it's continued to spike in 2021. That's much higher than when de Blasio took office, though it's well below the city's murder peak in the early 1990s under Mayor David Dinkins. And that may account for why Dinkins' successor, Rudy Giuliani, had an approval rating of 55 percent, nearly 20 points above where de Blasio's approval rating is now, and that was before the attacks of 9/11. Giuliani was succeeded by Republican turned independent Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who served three terms.

Now, de Blasio defenders will point out that he was elected in two not landslides. That's true. But those were general elections with record low turnout. And that's how elections get skewed when the race is effectively decided in closed partisan primaries. It's no secret the Trump years decimated Republicans as a political force in most big cities. They ain't coming back any time soon.

The result is that cities like New York have gone from having competitive general elections to being one-party towns. But consider the fact that de Blasio won the 2013 Democratic nomination with 40 percent of the vote, but only 22 percent of Democrats participated in that election.

And so, follow me here. As "The New York Times" Sam Roberts pointed out, it meant that only 3 percent of all New Yorkers voted for de Blasio despite being put on a glide path to city hall.

And while turnout is up this time around, still only roughly a quarter of Democrats participated in this week's primary. With Adams currently having less total votes than de Blasio did in his primary eight years ago.

Now, thankfully, this year New York experimented with rank choice voting. A system used in cities like London where voters rank their top five choices. This at least ensures a more representative outcome. It's a step in the right direction. But it's not enough. Even though Curtis Lee was the Republican nominee, we'll still likely see a far smaller number of voters deciding the mayor of America's largest city than when we had a competitive open general election in years like 2001.

And here's where America's current debate about strengthening democracy through election reforms could come into play. To insure a more robust and representative general election, New York City should embrace open primaries, allowing all registered voters to vote, including the city's 1 million independent voters who are effectively disenfranchised in closed partisan primaries. Rank choice voting could then allow the top three candidates to compete in a general election runoff, allowing a real choice for all voters to focus on for the next five months, instead having a mayor-elect selected by a quarter of the voters in one political party in a city of 8 million people.

[08:55:01]

Now, if this sounds radical, it might surprise you to know that 80 percent of America's mayors are elected in non-partisan elections, including in 22 of the nation's 30 biggest cities. But all this is a reminder that democracy is always a work in progress. And we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with ways to ensure that more voters can meaningfully participate in the process because representative electorates lead to representative results.

And that's your "Reality Check."

BERMAN: John Avlon, thank you very much for that.

On the other side of your screen there you can see the aftermath of this devastating condo collapse in Surfside, Florida. This condo building with 100 units collapsing, a big chunk of it, overnight before 2:00 a.m.

KEILAR: Yes, 12 stories and, as the mayor said, buildings just don't collapse in America. But this is what many people are waking up to near Miami.

BERMAN: We're awaiting new details on what might have caused this and an updated on the search and rescue efforts for people who might still be trapped under that rubble. Our live coverage continues, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)