Return to Transcripts main page


Government Shutdown; SUV Attack

Aired October 8, 2013 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Hey. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to "AC360 Later."

A lot on the table tonight to talk about with our panel, breaking news, an off-duty NYPD detective arrested in connection with that attack on an SUV driver by a group of bikers.

Also, is it time for the Washington Redskins to dump their name?

We begin, though, of course, with our other breaking news. On day eight of the government shutdown there's a possible, possible glimmer of hope for the other looming mess, the debt ceiling.

With me on the panel tonight, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin, CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Ana Navarro, and in the fifth chair, "New York Times" op-ed columnist Frank Bruni.

Let's get the latest though from chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash in Washington.

Dana, what's happened? What's this glimmer of hope?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The glimmer of hope -- I'm glad you emphasized maybe, maybe glimmer, we will see, because it really is unclear if this is going to get anywhere.

But it is Republicans in the House sort of latching onto what the president seemed to have opened the door to in his press conference today, which is perhaps a short-term increase of the debt ceiling. Two senior Republican sources in the House have now said, well, maybe that is something that they could agree, to use that time, four to six weeks, maybe, to negotiate some of what Republicans have been demanding or at least something that they could frankly take home to their constituents and say, see, we didn't just raise the debt ceiling for nothing, we got something that addresses the debt and deficit.

Who knows what that is. That's one of the big problems here. Another big problem is that that information came to us and not directly to them, because they're not negotiating. They're not talking. And it is primarily because the president has made clear that he's not going to negotiate on this, and he wants to stick to that line.

So Republicans sources have to go through us to get to them. And they're using other means as well. JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Dana, it's Jeff here. Can I just -- what about the Obama administration in terms of like four to six weeks, will they negotiate during that period? Or will they then say again, we don't negotiate about the debt ceiling? So what does the four to six weeks accomplish, other than maybe ruining Christmas?

BASH: Again, for however many year in a row.

What it would accomplish perhaps is a time for all sides to sit down and figure out parameters of issues that they can address. Everybody has been talking about the big issues for years, really since Republicans took over the House back in 2010.

Whether they can do that in four to six weeks, who knows. But the other big thing is that we don't even know if this is that much of a viable option, because again they're talking through us and through outside sources.

COOPER: Which is no way to have a negotiation at all.


BASH: No, not at all.

FRANK BRUNI, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I don't know what SHORT-TERM means. A short-term deal, if that means a couple weeks or a couple months and we're just going to go through this all again, how many times are we going to go through this?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have to say -- and the president said it today in his press conference, every time we go through this kind of thing, every time we do this, our credibility is knocked abroad. And again, you have got really upstanding, not rags, but the "F.T." and others saying, look, here we have the U.S. again acting like the Great Gatsby, being really careless, hurting the rest of the world, more than hurting themselves.

China and Japan, China, the landlord is calling. They want to make sure that America's not going to default on its debt. France is saying America's beginning to look like Italy.

TOOBIN: Yes, I saw that column, yes.


COOPER: And would House Republicans go for this? Because there's so much distrust, would they trust Obama to -- would they trust the president to negotiate without a threat like this?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think they can work with it. They should be able to work within this frame and do it in a way -- you know, if you read in between the lines of what President Obama said, he gave a little.

TOOBIN: What? But what did he give?


NAVARRO: He said, I will negotiate. If you pass a clean C.R., I will negotiate.

OK. Now, he may not want to negotiate about the debt ceiling. He may not want to negotiate about the government shutdown without the clean C.R.

So then they should negotiate about what they're going to negotiate if and when...


TOOBIN: That makes my head hurt just to hear you say that sentence.

NAVARRO: Well, take two Advil because it's not going away and this is a solution.

COOPER: I want to bring in Republican Congressman Michael Grimm, who is joining us on Capitol Hill.

Congressman, thanks for being with us late at night. Do you see a glimmer of hope here in what the president said today?

NAVARRO: Michael's a New Yorker. He's used to late nights.

REP. MICHAEL GRIMM (R), NEW YORK: You're absolutely right about that. I am used to late nights.

But, no, I think there is a glimmer of hope here. But it is going to take leadership from every side. Listen, all of this has been coming to a head for awhile. This is three years in the making. It's a lot of things. I actually think that the fight isn't with Republicans and the president on this one. I know a lot of people might disagree. But I think it's a lot about the fight is between the House and the Senate.

A lot of us feel that the -- they're acting like the House of Lords, that they're the upper chamber and they can dictate or they can ignore us. And we have seen this with four years of no budgets and so on and so forth, and we can go on and on. But I think this is about the House standing up and saying you're not going to dictate. And we are going to force you to sit down at a table. And we do want regular order. And I think there is a glimmer of hope, though.

TOOBIN: Congressman, what you're saying is that hundreds of thousands of people are out of work. The government is shut down because you're offended by the Senate? They're not nice to you?

GRIMM: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Let me be very clear. That sounds silly and I'm not going to let you frame the argument that way, because this is very serious. When we don't fund our government properly, and we have C.R. after C.R., that's detrimental to the American people.


GRIMM: When we're at a situation where we can't even talk to each other and we're facing the debt ceiling, that is detrimental to the American people. The president today said, we need to get back to a sense of normalcy.

Well, normalcy means passing appropriations bills. That's how we form -- and then, by the way, if we did that, we wouldn't be here tonight with a shut-down government, because there'd be no C.R. If we pass appropriations bills, there's no need for a C.R. That's how our government is funded. That's how the Department of Defense needs to be funded. That's the way things should be done.

But if you're constantly ignored, if they table everything or just don't take it up, then the House has to act. Here's to just add one other thing to this. The idea that we don't use a debt ceiling or a crisis to get things done is simply absurd. Unfortunately, on both sides of the aisle, there is not the political courage to do the tough things like deal with entitlements.

Anyone that disagrees with that doesn't know our history. Anytime we have got something of substance done, it has been in a crisis.

COOPER: Let me ask you, though. What I don't understand just strategically, why shouldn't the Republicans allow a C.R., a clean C.R. to come up for a vote? Because the Republicans are saying the votes aren't there. The votes aren't there. If that's really true, why not let it come to a vote and take away that argument from the Democrats?

Because the Democrats are continuing to hammer that argument. If there's not the votes there, why not let it come up and fail?

GRIMM: Well, one of the problems is, you're asking the wrong guy because I didn't think that the fight should have been on the C.R. I was for a clean C.R. I think that the levels of sequestration...

COOPER: Right. You want the shutdown to stop. You're willing to let it stop.

GRIMM: Exactly. I'm one of those that did not want a shutdown in the first place. I thought that sequester levels was a win for Republicans and that's were we should have -- and we should have taken the fight to the debt ceiling, where it belongs, where you actually -- you have a valid point to say if we don't have reforms, then we're going to have a debt crisis in the future. Let's be responsible.

Let's do the difficult thing and actually do some reforms and avoid a real debt crisis, where we don't have the luxury of just raising our debt ceiling because no one will buy our debt in the first place.

COOPER: Ana, does it make sense to you? Why not take that off the table? Why not put it up to a vote? Because Republicans are saying, why shouldn't we? But why shouldn't you?

NAVARRO: For the same reason that Harry Reid won't put up the repeal of the medical device up for a vote, because the votes are there to pass it, but they're a majority of the other party. You want to talk truth? That's what it is. Are the votes there to pass a C.R.? Yes. But it will be a majority of Democrats in the House.


TOOBIN: So, you shut down the government?


NAVARRO: Harry Reid is doing exactly the same thing on the Senate side, and you guys are just not seeing it.

TOOBIN: But that's the law. That's the existing law right now. You want to see a change. Perhaps other people want to see a change. But as I understand the way the American government is supposed to work, you don't shut down the entire government because you want one tax changed.

NAVARRO: But this is exactly what the negotiation about the negotiation that makes your head explode could be about, OK?

Let's sit down and say, OK, these are the things that are going to be brought for an up-or-down vote in the House and in the Senate, including things like the medical device tax, in exchange of us passing a C.R. for three weeks or four weeks. I mean, how does that sound to you, Mike?

GRIMM: No, I absolutely agree with you.

Listen, there's obviously a political element to this. But I think another bad precedent being set here is that when the president of the United States, who, when both sides dig in, is supposed to play that vital role of coming in and say, all right, let's sit down and figure something out, if he walks away completely, that certainly doesn't help the United States look good on the international stages.

He's the leader whether he wants to be or not. He has to be the one to bring us together.


TOOBIN: You would like to see the president of the United States every 90 days for the rest of his term negotiate about the debt ceiling? Because that's what you're saying. You're saying over and over again, like, let's do a short-term thing.


TOOBIN: How can this country function that way?

GRIMM: Absolutely not. I never once, I never once said I want to do a short-term debt ceiling. It was just put out before that Harry Reid said he wants to go to December 2014 on the debt ceiling. Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to that. That's obviously a political ask, because we don't need to go to 2014, December 2014. But if he wants to sweeten the pot, I would say, OK, what's in it for Republicans? Are we going to put Keystone pipeline in the package? Are we going to put some other things that Republicans have asked for?

That's how this works. If you think that this country hasn't been built on horse trading and each side giving, then, again, you just haven't been paying attention to history. That's the way it's done.


COOPER: One at a time.

NAVARRO: Michael Grimm comes from Staten Island. He comes from a purple district. This is what you're hearing. You're hearing a man who needs to compromise in order to represent his district or he won't get elected.


AMANPOUR: Compromise to run the country, to run the government.

BRUNI: To say the president just walked away I don't think is fair.

You can make many criticisms with the way this president has dealt with Congress over time. And many of them are fair. But to characterize what is going on right now as him just walking away, he's saying I won't be dragged to the brink, I won't be threatened with cataclysm, and then give a concession.

He's saying, if you want to negotiate about things, let's do it in the proper context. But if every time extreme threats are made, I say, OK, I give you this, it's going to set a precedent not only for this president -- and he said this at his news conference today -- it's going to set a precedent for everyone who comes after. And I think that's a fair point of his, don't you?

GRIMM: Well, then I just have a question, though. What president has ever not negotiated on the debt ceiling? Which president has taken that stance that they won't negotiate with the debt ceiling? I don't know of any.

BRUNI: What president has been threatened several times with default? Actually, this is a unique situation.

We have not had a president serially threatened with the country going into default unless he did what a minority of people in one of the chambers of Congress wanted. Let's remember that.

GRIMM: But, again, if you look at prior debt ceiling negotiations, the president negotiated all the way through up until that point and didn't have to be threatened. There was never a president that came out and said my way or the highway. There was never a president that came out and said I will not negotiate.

So you're changing the facts of history to fit your argument. And it simply isn't going to work.


NAVARRO: The reason that President Obama today opened the door a crack is because we are in a government shutdown, is because of the threats, it's because of what the public the stress and the public disappointment.

BRUNI: It's because he's the president and he has to take ultimate responsibility.

It's also because you can all read opinion polls. Right now the American hates everybody. We argue about do they hate Democrats more or do they hate Republicans more? When I read those polls, what I see is they hate everybody. There's a whole new yardstick for judging people in government, and it goes not from odious to excellent. It goes from odious to bearable.

And what The president doing at his press conference today was trying to stay in bearable or get a little above bearable.


GRIMM: Can we ask the question, though, what is the purpose of a debt limit? If we're always going to rubber-stamp it, if it's never a mechanism to force reforms when needed, then what's the purpose of it?


TOOBIN: We shouldn't have it. Most countries, virtually every country in the world doesn't have a legal debt limit. End of story. Shouldn't have one.

GRIMM: OK. So then what you're saying is we should never address our long-term debt, because the only way in today's political world...


GRIMM: But then why hasn't it been addressed for the last three years? You tell me what Democrat proposal came forward. You might not like Paul Ryan's budget. You might disagree with those things. I disagree in Paul Ryan's budget.

But he had the courage to step forward and at least attempt to deal with our long-term debt.


COOPER: Let me give you the final thought.


BRUNI: The final thought is, I agree with you entirely that we have not been serious about the debt in this country. I just want to make very clear you're absolutely right. And I would like to see Washington deal with that debt, but this is not the way to do it. This is not the context.


BRUNI: You don't do it on the edge of cataclysm. It's crazy. It's not the way a normal country operates.

GRIMM: Then tell me what the way is. You still haven't answered the question. How do you do it?

BRUNI: The way is for you all to negotiate budgets in a normal way, and not one group refuse to go to conference, one chamber refuse to even write a budget for years.


BRUNI: Sorry.

COOPER: No, no, I'm sorry

Congressman Grimm, good to have you on again. Appreciate it.

When we come back, a war of words over the government shutdown, one word in particular we're hearing a lot, hostage, why each side is accusing the other of taking them hostage.

We will be right back.


COOPER: Hey. Tweet us using #AC360.

Later tonight, some breaking news, a glimmer of hope for the looming debt ceiling crisis. Some senior House Republicans telling CNN's Dana Bash reporting Republicans may be willing to go for a short-term hike as long as the president agrees to negotiations during that time. That's a big may low.

Despite late word on the possibility of a limited agreement to try to ratchet down the budget standoff, the overwhelming tone is still incredibly hostile. Some lawmakers tossing Hitler and Holocaust analogies around, one comparing his role in the assaults on Obamacare to the attempt to take United Flight 93 back from terrorists on 9/11. "Let's roll," he reportedly said.

And both sides, both carrying on a verbal love affair with the word hostage. Listen.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You do not hold people hostage or engage in ransom taking to get 100 percent of your way.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: They're trying to hold veterans hostage to force Obamacare on the American people.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: You cannot negotiate with a hostage situation.

OBAMA: We have got a group of folks who think that they can hold America hostage.

REP. JEB HENSARLING (R), TEXAS: The president somehow wants to keep this hostage.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: They have taken hostages.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: No president should be held hostage.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: Holding our government hostage.


SEN. MARK UDALL (D), COLORADO: Hold the entire country hostage.

CRUZ: Hold them hostage.

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D), WASHINGTON: Don't hold anyone hostage.

PELOSI: They took hostages.

OBAMA: Hostage taking.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Stop taking hostages.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: They had to take the country hostage.


COOPER: Back with our panel, again, in the fifth chair "New York Times" op-ed columnist Frank Bruni, who has been writing recently about all the trash talking.

Since many of the top figures in the standoff seem so fond of the word hostage, we thought we'd bring in an expert, former lead FBI international kidnapping negotiating director Chris Voss. These days, he's managing director of Insight Security and CEO of the Black Swan Group.

Chris, I have heard you say when you were actually negotiating with a hostage taker or hostage takers, you should try to identify the one who you can actually maybe get some sort of actual negotiation with and empower them. Explain that. CHRIS VOSS, FORMER FBI HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR: Well, you find a person whose position is closest to yours or may possibly be the most reasonable and then you make a small concession. Small concessions to try to get big gains in return for your side is a mark of a shrewd negotiator. So you pick out who you want to make a small concession to and you make that concession. They become empowered. They look good to their side because their side needs victories.

And then you begin to get some organization instilled in the other side around the person you would like to deal with.

COOPER: Whether or not it's correct to kind of use the hostage terms by politicians, when you see this, as somebody who's negotiated a lot, when you see what's going on in Washington what jumps out to you?

VOSS: Well, there's two things about that.

On a personal note, I like that they use the word because then it gives me a chance to be on your show.


VOSS: But -- and the other thing that's fascinating about it is there are words that we teach hostage negotiators never to use word. One of them is hostage.

So no seasoned hostage negotiator would ever use that word, because it's an emotional. It's hurling a accusation. It triggers emotions in sort of an uncontrollable way. You don't like the way that word rebounds and resonates. We have a saying that if the words that you're getting ready to say, you know how good they're going to taste when they roll off your lips, they're probably wrong.

And they're not following that rule in this case.

COOPER: So you don't want to say to somebody who has taken a hostage, you don't want to use the H-word to them?

VOSS: We refer to it as the H-word. And we absolutely would not use it.

COOPER: What do you say to them? Instead of -- would you use the negotiate word?

VOSS: Well, conversation. I mean, negotiation is a dirty word if it is tantamount to capitulation in the way you negotiate.

COOPER: Which it certainly is in Washington these days. A lot of people consider negotiation capitulation. You would say, what, conversation?

VOSS: Yes, conversation, communication. We have always coached government officials to say we're open to talking to anybody just to get a dialogue started. You can negotiate with people. You can also negotiate against people. If you look at it as a way to gather information and a way to gather influence, negotiation can be a very strong thing. That's the way I look at it.

COOPER: Frank, how do you see all the rhetoric that's flying around?

BRUNI: What the gentleman was saying very rightly is that when you use loaded words you raise the temperature of a situation rather than lowering it.

What I think is happening in Washington with a lot of the words that are used is it just raises the temperature. I don't have the biggest problem with hostage. It's fairly calm in terms of the words going on.


BRUNI: When I was watching the intro, I thought what Washington needs right now is a thesaurus, because they have got to come up a different word.

NAVARRO: What you're seeing is talking points, political talking points in action from both parties. But I do have a problem with the word hostage.


BRUNI: We have talked about people having guns to their head. That's even worse.

NAVARRO: A lot of the same politicians and elected officials that I have heard asking for more civilly in Washington are the same ones that are using words like this.

Yes, today, Senator Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, talked about the gun that was being held at the Senate or President Obama's head. Well, that's just -- you're going to interview Malala tomorrow. Why don't you ask her if she thinks it's appropriate to use...


COOPER: Also, the Nazi stuff is...

TOOBIN: I haven't been able to focus on anything. This company is called the Black Swan Group. That is the baddest-ass name I have ever heard. I love that. What is the Black Swan Group? That's like the coolest -- what is that?


VOSS: Thank you very much.

A black swan is something unusual that has a great impact. And we like to think that the way we negotiate has a great impact. TOOBIN: See.


TOOBIN: Cool, right? Oh, man.


NAVARRO: Frankly, what Congress and the administration need to do is realize that they are not hostages. What they are is a marriage, OK? The White House, the president cannot do anything without the help of Congress. Congress can't do anything if the president doesn't sign it into law.

So they should forget this hostage taking mumbo jumbo, they should call in marriage counselors, bring in Dr. Phil, bring in Oprah and get on with fixing your very bad marriage.

COOPER: What other inflammatory language to you has been -- because you wrote about this.


BRUNI: Yes. You mentioned some of them. You hear 9/11 references made, you hear Nazi references made all the time, Gestapo, Third Reich, all of that.

Just today, Stuart Stevens, who was Romney's campaign manager, wrote an interesting piece in The Daily Beast about the way in which Democrats who engage in this too call Republicans murderers when they come out against food stamps or call Republicans racist anytime they oppose anything that the president suggests.

These are really loaded words. When you use language to vilify your opponents, you begin to see each other as villains. There's never going to be conversation that way and there's certainly never going to be a resolution to this situation.

AMANPOUR: It is kind of -- many of us have grown up rightly to be sensitized about using, for instance, Nazi words and Holocaust and all of that. We just don't fling those around.


AMANPOUR: Well, no, but if we did that in our jobs, Jeff, we'd be taken to task.


TOOBIN: I worry about being a little too fastidious here. If you look back at American history going back to John Edwards -- John Edwards.


TOOBIN: Boy, there's a Freudian or weird -- John Adams, I meant. But, anyway, John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson...


COOPER: But the language back then...

TOOBIN: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, they were calling each other criminals.


AMANPOUR: Criminal is one thing.

TOOBIN: Criminals and murderers. I'm a little less worried about the language.


COOPER: You're saying -- we're just a long, proud tradition?

TOOBIN: This is a long, proud tradition.


AMANPOUR: I disagree. There are certain limits, really.

BRUNI: They call them those things, but did it ping around with the velocity that it does today?


BRUNI: With the social media today with, with the hyped-up speed of the media, I think those words end up kind of attaining a velocity.


TOOBIN: The hashtags in the elections of 1800 were so vicious.


AMANPOUR: You desensitize people from the serious meaning of those words and the serious things that happened. There's a reason why we're not allowed to fling that stuff around with impunity.

NAVARRO: And you make the polarization in America that much wider.


AMANPOUR: And then it becomes normal.

NAVARRO: Exactly.

COOPER: Chris, as a negotiator, where do you see this going? Ultimately, is this two sides having to give? VOSS: Well, unfortunately, some people think that the mark of a good deal is that both sides are unhappy. I would like to see them do better than that.

But they will hopefully take some gains and they will appreciate the gains that they have made, and then they will be able to recalibrate and figure a way to get to a more common goal.

AMANPOUR: One of the things that maybe Chris said or somebody else said was this notion of unconditional surrender and what is a negotiation.

The idea of compromise has simply gone out of the window from all sides. And it's one thing that this is happening and it's a real crisis. But it's also reflective in foreign policy and negotiations, let's say, with Iran's nuclear program, right? If there's no attempt to compromise and everybody's just going to be demanding unconditional surrender, it's just not going to work. So you can take it from the government shutdown and to these other things that the United States has to deal with.

BRUNI: Everybody is playing to their Twitter following, rather than to actually good policy.


Chris Voss, great to have you on. Maybe we will see if the government will call in Black Swan on this. Appreciate it, Chris.

VOSS: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Up next, breaking news, a major arrest in the bikers vs. SUV clash, a stunning arrest really here New York. We will tell you about it ahead.


COOPER: Welcome back. Breaking news in the investigation of that violent confrontation between a group of motorcyclists and the driver of an SUV.

Get this: An off-duty undercover New York City police detective who was riding with the bikers has himself been arrested and charged with riot and criminal mischief. A law enforcement official tells CNN he was caught on video pounding on the Range Rover when it came to a stop on a Manhattan street.

Also tonight, yet another suspect arrested, facing gang assaults and other charges.

Joining our panel are CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos and Sunny Hostin, a former New York city prosecutor, who's also a CNN legal analyst.

Mark, what do you make of this? New York City undercover. MARK GERAGOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: We were saying, I love how the story is unfolding. We said a couple of days ago, geez, I was giving prosecutors all kinds of credit. They're not rushing to judgment.

Then yesterday we said the rumor is there's a bunch of cops out there. Today they arrest one of the cops.

My feeling is that the only reason they didn't come in and arrest a bunch of people is because they knew early on that there were cops involved.

COOPER: But apparently, the police did not fess up right away that they had been there.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right. These undercover officers, I think one, it took him three days to come forward. And his...

GERAGOS: After his video showed up.

HOSTIN: Right. And basically he's saying, "Listen, I didn't want to blow my cover." I just think that's absolutely ridiculous.

GERAGOS: Really? You think when he's banging on this truck, he didn't want to blow his cover?

HOSTIN: I work with undercover agents. I'm sure you have as well, Toobin. The bottom line is you can still be a human being without blowing your cover and get in between an assailant and a victim and say, "Let's all let cooler heads prevail."

GERAGOS: But you know what's -- you know what's the interesting thing? You know where this thing is headed? This thing is headed where the cops are going to say that they thought -- they thought this guy had done -- they were apprehending a suspect. And that's why he was banging.

COOPER: The police officer could make the argument, "Well, I saw this guy run over somebody."

GERAGOS: "I saw this guy. He ran over somebody. It's a hit- and-run."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is the argument?

GERAGOS: The argument is going to be -- the only place this cop can go is, because he's on there banging on the car. And what I said early on. If they think this SUV driver was hitting and running, they were apprehending somebody. That's why he was banging on the car.

HOSTIN: You said early on, actually, Mark Geragos, is that the SUV driver should be arrested and indicted. Are you still there? Still there?

GERAGOS: I said early on -- understand something. Because I know you're an SUV driver on the West Side Highway. But understand something. This guy can be and most likely in any other jurisdiction would be charged with a hit-and-run.

It is a defense for him to say it was coercion, duress, fear. That's a defense. It's not up to the prosecutor to analyze that at the get-go until they've drilled down and figured out the facts.

COOPER: You're saying anywhere else he would have been arrested?

GERAGOS: Anywhere else, they would have arrested first, asked questions later. That's why they didn't in this case. They didn't arrest first because there were cops.

TOOBIN: Mark, you seriously think they should have arrested the driver?


HOSTIN: He's serious. He's serious, Jeffrey Toobin.

GERAGOS: The driver is by definition committing a hit-and-run. I mean...

AMANPOUR: What about the guys who assaulted him?

GERAGOS: They'd get arrested, as well, and they let them sort it out. And that's -- that's the frustrating...


HOSTIN: You have someone in self-defense fleeing.

GERAGOS: You are -- Sunny, you are assuming right now that the video tells the whole story. You don't know that.

What you do know is that the video shows that the SUV is running over a motorcyclist and then accelerating out of there.

HOSTIN: That's what I see.

GERAGOS: Now, yes, when they bash the car and pull him out, does that give everybody who drives the SUV...

COOPER: We should point out that Susan Candiotti reported earlier tonight that an attorney for the motorcyclist who actually had the helmet cam and videotaped this claims that the SUV driver -- that he turned on the video when the SUV driver opened up the sun roof and threw a water bottle out that hit one of the motorcyclists.

Now, we don't know why that would have occurred, if something occurred between them before, if he was just feeling threatened or what.

GERAGOS: That upsets the narrative that we have right now. The narrative right now is bike gang bangers who were surrounding this poor guy who's got a 2-year-old in the car, and the media has just rushed to judgment on it.

HOSTIN: Those are the facts. Those are the facts.

GERAGOS: There's nobody who's out there questioning whether or not...

AMANPOUR: Has anyone here been surrounded ever by a gang?

GERAGOS: Yes, I have been surrounded by a mob.

AMANPOUR: It's one of the worst places. It's one of the worst places, and it's terrifying.

GERAGOS: I will tell you something. I will tell you, I've also defended people who have been lynch mobbed with words like that. And it's terrible when there's a rush to judgment, as well.

AMANPOUR: What is the police involvement? What do you think?

HOSTIN: You know, it's hard to tell at this point. But I really believe that you have some officers that were motorcycle riders that got involved in this.

COOPER: That's right. Susan Candiotti was reporting that her understanding is that this was not some undercover operation but these were motorcycle enthusiasts who were taking part in this.

GERAGOS: And these cops -- all of a sudden these cops just decided "I'm going to throw my career away. I'm going to beat on this guy's car because I think I'm a crazy..."

COOPER: I see your argument, that it could -- The police officer could very well argue, "Wait a minute. I believed this was a hit-and- run driver, and I was banging on the window to get them to stop."

GERAGOS: Exactly what the defense of this case is going to be is "I was apprehending a fleeing felon."

COOPER: In fact, he can also argue, "I was banging on the window to get them out of the vehicle and protect them from all the other..."

GERAGOS: That's what's going to be here.

HOSTIN: The video here...

GERAGOS: The video stops just like Rodney King, too early and too late. For both sides.

COOPER: Which is very suspicious that the video happens to stop. I'm understanding from what I've read in "The Times" is that the police are suspicious about why the camera operator turned the camera off. Camera operator's lawyer said, well, there was a battery problem. He turned it off.

But the police -- I mean as soon as they start pulling him out and beating him that's when it turns off.

HOSTIN: No video. GERAGOS: I'm going to suggest the possibility that both the person who was driving the SUV and most of the bicyclists or motorcycle enthusiasts, whatever you want to call them, both thought they were doing the right thing. I don't think this is the gang bang whatever that everybody has made it out to.

HOSTIN: It is assault. You do know that. And you said four days ago that this was not a gang situation. And I still disagree with that. I think it's very clear that this is group mentality. This is not a motorcycle bike swarm. This is a motorcycle gang. They've been charged with gang assault.

COOPER: But it's not an actual gang. I mean, it's...

HOSTIN: What is an actual gang? What is that?

COOPER: Well, a gang is the Hell's Angels or a gang that actually has a place. I would assume. Maybe there's another definition.

HOSTIN: They meet the definition.

GERAGOS: In criminal court, you have to meet a definition of what a gang is. You know that.

HOSTIN: The definition of a gang.

GERAGOS: Right. This is not necessarily the definition of a gang.

HOSTIN: So the charge is wrong now? The charge is wrong?

GERAGOS: Well, the charge is up to the jury to decide. What I'm telling you is before we convict these people and say this is what it is and everybody kind of chimes in in the media that it's obvious this poor SUV driver -- he may be a poor SUV driver. I'm not denying that. But I'm saying at the same time this could very well be a situation where both sides perceive something completely at odds with each other.

COOPER: It's also not a question of two sides. It's a question of 40 different sides. I mean, because each of those riders could argue the piece that they saw justifies their behavior.

TOOBIN: And not every drive -- not every motorcyclist was banging on the window.

COOPER: Right.

TOOBIN: So some of them probably were just driving along and, you know, were not involved in any criminal activity.

Mark, I guess the thing that I find puzzling about your position is, what -- what would possess a guy driving an SUV with a kid in the back to start committing crimes in a way that -- I mean, it just seems unlikely. GERAGOS: I'm not saying -- I'm not saying he was committing crimes. What I'm saying -- understand my position. This guy is driving an SUV. There's bikes out there. He either comes too close, swerves into a bike, somebody thinks that he's driving crazy.

We've already -- and I base that on one of the bikers who's already given an interview who seemed very credible to me when I saw him. He says this guy was driving crazy.

They think he's then trying to hit people. They think they're coming to try and slow him down. The guy who was in front of him going like this was trying to get him to slow down, pull over, you're driving crazy. Next thing you know, this guy who's in the SUV thinks, "Oh, my God, I'm being surrounded." Freaks out, runs him over and goes.

HOSTIN: They do surround him. They start spiking his tires. They start assaulting him.

COOPER: They tried to open up his window. They tried to open up his car door.

HOSTIN: Yes. That's assault.

GERAGOS: I still believe, based on what I've seen, based on the motorcyclists, that the motorcyclists thought this guy was hitting bikes and were trying to apprehend him. And that's...

HOSTIN: Does that justify the criminal behavior?

GERAGOS: The criminal behavior when you say pull him out and beat him up? I said this the other night. It reminds me -- the one thing I think of is when they caught the Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, in East L.A. They pulled him out of his car. They beat the holy sin out of him until the cops got there.

HOSTIN: That's like comparing apples and elephants. That's apples and elephants. Come on.


GERAGOS: I'm not justifying it.

TOOBIN: The Night Stalker?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The good is you're going to be debating this for weeks and months.

COOPER: It's a fascinating case. Because I mean, I think everybody can put themselves, certainly, in the position of the SUV driver, even the motorcyclists in some case.

Coming up what's in a name? For the Washington Redskins, a lot of trouble. Is it time for them to drop a name that many Native Americans find very offensive? President Obama has weighed in. Our panel does the same next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: New developments tonight in the U.S. relationship with Egypt. National security correspondent Jim Sciutto joins us with the latest.

Jim, what are you hearing?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, let's be very precise here about significant developments tonight.

Just to start, the White House has released a statement this evening saying that an announcement will come in the coming days on U.S. military aid to Egypt. That not all U.S. military aid will be suspended.

But at CNN, information from U.S. officials that some military aid to Egypt will be suspended. Certain things will be exempted -- counterterrorism aid, security in the Sinai Peninsula.

We've also been told that the Egyptians have not yet been notified. And this is a decision that the administration has been struggling with for some time. It's been pushed back a number of times.

And just to be clear, the U.S. aid relationship with Egypt will continue. It's about $1.5 billion a year, which encompasses other things beyond military aid. Economic aid, for instance.

But still, Anderson, a significant decision affecting one of the longest-standing U.S. relationships in the region, one of the longest- standing aid relationships in the region and one we will be following very closely in the coming days.

COOPER: So bottom line from the information we now have, it's some U.S. military aid, not all U.S. military aid.

SCIUTTO: Some, a significant portion. Some things being excepted, for instance, counterterrorism. But still a significant move.

COOPER: All right. Jim Sciutto, appreciate the update.

Our panel takes on the Washington Redskins controversy next.


COOPER: Welcome back.

A Native American tribe is asking the NFL to, quote, "stop using a racial slur as the name of Washington's football team."

For 80 years that team has been called the Redskins, which obviously is offensive to many Native Americans. President Obama was asked about this. Here's what he told the Associated Press. Quote, "Obviously, people get pretty attached to team names. Mascots. I don't think there are any Redskin fans that mean offense. I've got to say, if I were the owner of a team and I knew there was a name of my team, even if it had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I'd think about changing it. But I don't want to detract from the wonderful Redskins fans that are here. They love that team and rightly so."

Back with our panel: Frank Bruni, Christiane Amanpour, Jeffrey Toobin and Ana Navarra. And on the phone, Lanny Davis, an attorney for the Washington Redskins and the author of "Crisis Tales: Five Rules for Coping with Crisis in Business, Politics, and Life."

So Lanny, do you believe this term is offensive? Redskins? And why not change it if it is?

LANNY DAVIS, ATTORNEY FOR WASHINGTON REDSKINS (via phone): Well, first of all, sorry I can't be with this great panel. I wish I could have joined you, Anderson.

And secondly, I do understand that's offensive to some Native Americans. And the Redskins respect that. And regret that.

But we have overwhelming love as fans. I speak now as a Redskins fan. Love of a team. And we don't have any intent -- intent to disrespect or disparage. And the only data that we can come up with is both anecdotal and statistical.

Ana is a great pollster. And she knows the Annenberg Institute, the only poll ever taken of 30,000 people, 1,000 of them randomly selected identified as Native Americans, found nine out of ten were not taking offense to the name Redskins.

The Atlanta Braves have a tomahawk chop. The Cleveland Indians, the world "Indian" is very offensive to Native Americans. And I think what it's all about, the fans who love those teams are the reason why we fans love the Redskins. There's no racial intent here.


DAVIS: And we just love the team. But they're sensitive, and we're aware that some people are offended. And we hope that we can reach out to them and...

TOOBIN: Lanny, you know -- you know that "redskin" is a completely different kind of epithet than "chief" or "Indian" or "brave" or "Blackhawk." "Redskin" is a slur.

Let me ask you this, Lanny. Remember there used to be a restaurant chain called Sambo's? And you know, basically, people didn't think about it, just like they didn't think about Redskins for a long time. But eventually, people realized, you know, you can't have a restaurant change in the United States called Sambo's. It's derogatory.

Isn't it time for the Redskins to just recognize it's the same thing? That it's just -- it's just -- it's wrong to have a name like this. DAVIS: You know, I hate, in a historic moment, that I would ever disagree with Jeffrey Toobin on anything. But Jeff, if you ask Native Americans, "Are you offended by the word 'Indians,'" they didn't come from India. We're calling them Native Americans tonight on the show because we don't say "Indians" any more.

TOOBIN: That's not true. A lot of -- a lot of Native Americans don't mind "Indian."

DAVIS: The focus is on the Redskins rather than the Cleveland Indians. It's about a sports team. And we mean no offense.

I take your point. Some people are offended. But the only data we have, and in Virginia the Virginia tribes are uniformly against changing the name.

COOPER: There are other tribes -- native tribes against it.

DAVIS: Most Native Americans. And most Americans...

Bruni: OK, first of all...

DAVIS: ... nine out of ten Native Americans, eight out of nine in 2013, Jeff, all Americans say don't change the name.

BRUNI: Lanny will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the polling he's referring to is many years old. I'm not sure.

COOPER: The poll in 2004.

Bruni: So it's so old that I don't know it should be brought up.

But also you keep on saying, or Lanny keeps saying no harm is meant, no harm is meant. I don't know that intentions are what we're talking about here. We're talking about effects. If harm is taken, I don't think it matters if no harm is meant.

NAVARRO: I'm -- I come from a minority group. I'm a minority group. So I'm -- you know, I can be a squish (ph) about this political correctness and not offending people.

And I was feeling that way this morning until I read this piece by Rick Riley, who's an ESPN writer. Of course, I know nothing about sports, so you just told me he is a very well-known writer.

COOPER: Very well-known writer.

COOPER: OK. And he is married to a woman whose father is a Blackfeet Indian. He's a member of that. He doesn't mind it.

And then he goes on to talk about two high schools in -- one in Oklahoma, one in Washington state. One has 92 percent Native American population. The other one has 52 percent. And they have -- what is their football team at their high schools called? The Redskins.

COOPER: But a lot -- a lot of colleges have already made these changes. The Fighting...


TOOBIN: Also, Dartmouth and Stanford used to be known as the "Indians," and they've changed their names. I mean, it's been done.

BRUNI: ... doesn't get national coverage on TV in the papers. Their high school team, the word doesn't get repeated in the media all the time.

AMANPOUR: I guess I keep thinking, and I fully accept if people find it offensive, but I just keep thinking of the "Invictus" film, the Springbok rugby team. I know it's different. But in Africa, they were the symbol of white South Africa. And many black South Africans considered the rugby team, with their all-white team and their jerseys, to be a symbol of oppression and apartheid.

And it took Nelson Mandela simply to walk out onto the pitch during the World Cup of rugby with the -- with the jersey on and to go and shake each man's hand and to reconcile right there and then. And that sort of solved it. I mean, you can deal with it in different ways.

COOPER: That's the tradition of the sport. That was a sport which wasn't popular among black South Africans.

AMANPOUR: It was popular. It was a symbol of white -- white racist oppression.

NAVARRO: But now, Lanny -- I want to ask Lanny a question. Lanny, you know, I'm from Florida, and there was an issue with the Florida Seminoles. And the Florida...

TOOBIN: Florida State Seminoles.

NAVARRO: OK. The caveat was I don't know sports.

COOPER: The Seminoles are actually the name of a Native American tribe, as opposed to "Redskins." And they actually came onboard with the team and actually consulted with the team.

The difference is -- and I'm not taking a position on this. I'm not really a sports fan. But is that this is not a name of a tribe; this is -- Jeff, to your point, this is a slur.

NAVARRO: But my point was, what the Seminoles did, what the university did was reach out to the tribe, negotiate something that was acceptable to them. Because they had issues with this thing. They do this ritual they do where, you know, a white kid comes out on a horse pretending to be an Indian.

COOPER: We've got to -- we've got to leave it there. Lanny Davis, appreciate you calling in. Thank you very much.

Our conversation continues. We'll be right back.


COOPER: Welcome back. At this point we usually have the "What's Your Story?" segment. We ran out of time tonight, because frankly, once Sunny Hostin and Mark Geragos got going, it's virtually impossible to get them to stop talking.

NAVARRO: Weren't they awesome (ph)?

COOPER: They are (ph). It's been a long day. That's it for "AC 360 LATER." I really appreciate you joining us and tweeting with us. Thanks to everybody on the panel. Thanks for watching.

CNN's continuing coverage of the government shutdown continues. "SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN WITH JAKE TAPPER" is next.