Return to Transcripts main page
WOLF
What Incited Ferguson Riots; First Hand Account of Treachery In Kenya; The Next Top Defense Chief; Police Investigating Michael Brown's Stepdad; Ashton Carter Likely Choice; Coalition Hits ISIS; Johnson Defends Immigration Action
Aired December 2, 2014 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: (INAUDIBLE.)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, police are looking into whether this incident -- this incident, right here, was the moment when riots were incited in Ferguson, Missouri. We're taking a closer look at where this new part of the investigation stands right now.
And a brutal attack in Kenya, 36 bodies are found in a quarry. Christians separated from Muslims and then executed. Our Nima Elbagir and her team went undercover into this embattled area and they observed the dangers firsthand.
And Ashton Carter, do you know who he is? He might be the next secretary of defense of the United States. We're taking a closer look at who he is, what he's done and the massive work that would be ahead of him.
Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, it's noon in Ferguson, Missouri, 8:00 p.m. in Jerusalem, 9:00 p.m. in Nairobi, Kenya. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.
Let's get right to the developing story in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael Brown's stepfather is now being investigated by the Ferguson police department for possibly inciting a riot. And it's over the comments he made moments after the announcement that the police officer, Darren Wilson, would not be indicted not case. Michael Brown's mother was speaking to a crowd of supporters and as she broke down. As she broke down, he stepped in to console here. Here's what happened next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOUIS HEAD: Burn this (INAUDIBLE) down! Burn this place down! Burn this place down! (INAUDIBLE.)
(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Let's go live to Ferguson right now. Ed Lavandera is standing by. Ed, so, where does this part of the investigation stand, this investigation into whether the stepfather of Michael Brown potentially could be charged with incitement?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're told by the police chief here in Ferguson that that formal investigation has been launched, that they have spoken with several friends of the stepfather, but that they have not interviewed him or talked to him yet. So, obviously, it seems like it's in the very early stages of becoming a formal investigation.
And we spoke with Ben Crump, the attorney for the family, last night, and he was asked if he was worried about any charges stemming from that video being filed against this stepfather. He said he wasn't worried, that it was an emotional moment and that he should not be judged or condoned for inciting the riot at that -- at that time. But he did say, Wolf, that they were not worried about charges being filed. But the lieutenant governor here in Missouri has talked about it and suggested that that should be looked into. And that's what it sounds like the police in Ferguson here are doing now.
BLITZER: And are people already complaining that this is even a formal investigation right now?
LAVANDERA: You know, there are a lot of people, especially when you talk to, like, business owners who lost their businesses that are very much angry about seeing that video and that sort of thing. But, Wolf, you know, there are also a lot of people who are probably going to feel just the opposite, who are going to say, you know, this is not something that will be celebrated and will probably anger a lot of people. So, it'll be interesting to see how reaction to this continues to come in now that more and more people are hearing about it.
BLITZER: And tell us, for viewers who are watching here in the United States and around the world, you're standing in front of what?
LAVANDERA: This was one of the businesses that was burned down here along one of the main stretches where we saw several buildings that were torched and set ablaze last Monday night in the hours just after the announcement of Darren Wilson not being indicted was made. But, Wolf, you know, I should also point out, this is about two miles away from where the video was taken of that stepfather. And all of this was set on fire just moments after it.
So, I think one of the things you're probably going to hear, from those supporting the stepfather or the attorneys for him or the Brown family, is that a lot of the people who were on this street would not have been aware of the comments that he had made there about two miles away in front of the police station. And it was in that immediate area where there was plenty of violence and plenty of destruction that was done. Several police cars were set on fire and a lot of businesses had windows broken out. But the main two areas where a lot of this damage was done was about two miles away from each other.
BLITZER: All right. Ed Lavandera on the scene for us. Good explanation, thanks very much.
What happens now that the police have launched this formal inquiry, this investigation? Let's bring in Joey Jackson, he's HLN's Legal Analyst, also John Gaskin, a community activist who often joins us on this story in Ferguson as well. Joey, what do you make of the legal arguments that, potentially, there could be a charge filed against the stepfather for inciting the riots, the looting, the fires that developed in the aftermath?
JOEY JACKSON, LEGAL ANLYST, HLN: Well, Wolf, there could be merit to them. And as an initial matter, obviously this is something that is extremely disturbing. It's disturbing because the reaction -- I don't think anybody would support a reaction like that. But from prosecutors' perspectives, here's what they'll say and I'll tell you what the defense will be. The prosecutors will say that whenever you instigate, whenever you encourage, whenever it's your intent, really, to motivate a crowd to do something that would be unlawful or inappropriate, that's when it rises to the level of inciting them to engage in that unlawful activity.
From a defense perspective, of course, Wolf, the argument will be, wait a -- wait one moment, this was expressive conduct. It was conduct that was engaged in the midst of something that was very profound. And that is in a lack of an indictment for something that was so significant. So, A, he was simply being expressive. And, B, which is Ed Lavandera's point that he explained, when you talk about rioting by people who may not even have heard the comment at the time. And so, how then could you ascribe that to him? But certainly the police will investigate, as they're doing, to see if there's merit and claim to him, that is Mr. Head, being somewhat responsible for what occurred.
BLITZER: John, what's your reaction to this new development that there is this formal investigation underway right now?
JOHN GASKIN, COMMUNITY ACTIVIST: Well, Wolf, one thing that I've done, along with the family, is to promote peace and encourage people to react in a peaceful and dignified way. Those were the requests of the family. But there really is no way to excuse or validate the actions of Mr. Head that day when the announcement was made. However, one thing that we do have to consider is that the announcement was made at night which angered many people.
And if you listen to the prosecutors, really, he is almost op-ed to "The New York Times" as he spoke and explained, you know, why Michael Brown -- you know, why Darren Wilson was not indicted, et cetera, it angered many people. However, that does not excuse what Mr. Head went on to say. But we must also take a look at what the family of Michael Brown has done. His direct parents, Leslie McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. And they've been sincere and they have been consistent in promoting peace, asking the community to act in a dignified way.
And since this whole ordeal, since, really, August, this is what we have feared was that there would be rioting and looting. And so, I think it's almost -- I think it's a little early to say that Lewis Head's statements is what caused all the rioting and looting because from what I've heard, many of the people that came over there to the police station to listen to Bob McCulloch's statement and the press conference, many individuals, not all, but some, came prepared to riot and to loot.
So, I don't think it's fair to say that his statements is what caused all the rioting and looting that took place on West Florissant which was, you know, a number of miles away from the police station.
BLITZER: Do you know, John, if Mr. Head, the stepfather, apologized, expressed remorse for those obviously very angry comments he initially made?
GASKIN: No, I don't know if he has. But I would certainly hope that he, you know, does feel some remorse for that and would reach out to the community and simply apologize and make it known that he was, you know, speaking with emotion and in anger because this has been a very troubling situation for them. You know, they have not been treated the best way from the prosecutor's office, from what I understand. They really weren't even notified properly prior to the grand jury making their decision.
So, I can understand where his anger comes from. But I certainly hope that he'll reach out to the community and simply apologize and ask for forgiveness. But I do understand his anger. I understand the family's anger because this has been a very rough and difficult situation because they have, obviously, tragically lost their son.
BLITZER: Joey, would it make, legally speaking, any difference if he were to apologize, express remorse, do something to say, look, I was so angry, so upset and I spoke stupidly at the time but that -- but that's not me? Would that make any difference in this formal police investigation?
JACKSON: I think it certainly could, Wolf, and here's why. At their core, prosecutors are -- it's a political entity. You're elected by the people and you're elected to pursue justice. And certainly, at this point, I think the community may be more interested in healing than in finding someone to place blame on something that tragically occurred.
Now, obviously, the statement's deplorable. It shouldn't have happened. Rioting, that shouldn't have happened. Looting, that shouldn't have happened. The issue is, who caused that? Who brought that about? And was he, that is Mr. Head, a central figure in doing so? If no, then it's another story. But I think an apology goes a long way in just calming people and showing it was emotional and it certainly wasn't meant to entice people to violence.
BLITZER: Yes, last night, I spoke with an African-American woman who owned a hair salon there that was completely looted and burned down. She had employed seven people. All of them now out of work. She had limited insurance. She doesn't know what's going to happen to her or what's going to happen to her employees, certainly what's going to happen to that hair salon. That's just one story. There were, obviously, many businesses -- small businesses that were destroyed in the aftermath of that announcement that no indictment would go forward against the police officer in Ferguson.
All right, guys, thanks very much for Joey Jackson, John Gaskin --
JACKSON: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: -- helping us appreciate what's going on.
In just one week's time, the Obama administration may have already made its choice for the next secretary of defense. Up next, we're going to learn more about Ashton Carter, his time over at the Pentagon. Who is he? What does he want to do? Plus, the one key element that he lacks that both of his predecessors have.
And are the president's actions on immigration reform legal? The secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, he was up on Capitol Hill today in front of the House leadership. Representative Peter King is standing by. We'll get his reaction to what he heard.
And dozens of people killed in Kenya. Our CNN team went undercover in the same area. We're going to hear about the dangers that exist right now, especially for Christians.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Israel will soon have new elections after the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, sacked the finance minister, Yair Lapid, and the justice minister, Tzipi Livni, and called for the dissolution of the country's legislature. And Netanyahu said, and I'm quoting him now, "During the last few weeks, and in particular the last few days, the ministers have intensely attacked the government that I am leading. I will not tolerate ministers attacking the government's policy and its head from inside the government." Early elections coming up in Israel.
It seems that President Obama has settled in on his nominee to replace the outgoing defense secretary Chuck Hagel. Barring any last-minute changes, administration officials tell CNN that Ashton Carter is the president's choice. He's a former deputy secretary of defense. He certainly was on the short list when Hagel was picked nearly two years ago. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was also reportedly on the short list. While Ashton Carter does not have any military experience, his time at the Pentagon over the many years is certainly expected to help bolster his resume. The U.S. Senate is expected to take up the nomination next month. We expect to hear from the president about this nominee in the coming days.
The first thing on the new defense secretary's plate will certainly be the battle against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and the questions about the administration's strategy in both of those countries, Syria and Iraq. Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Pennsylvania Democrat Senator Bob Casey.
Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
SEN. ROBERT CASEY (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Thanks, Wolf. BLITZER: I know you have strong views on ISIS, Syria, Iraq. I want to
get to that in a moment, but give us your reaction to where the president is likely to name Ashton Carter to be his nominee over at the Pentagon.
CASEY: Well, Wolf, in he does name Ashton Carter, I think it would be a great choice. He's got broad experience in the Department of Defense, knows it well and also knows Capitol Hill and the dynamics of dealing with all of the complexities of the Department of Defense, especially now when we have a major engagement against ISIS and have other challenges that are -- other national security, as well as fiscal challenges. So he'd be a great choice. I have to say, Wolf, as a Pennsylvanian, we're particularly proud if the president names him. He's -- Ash is a native of southeastern Pennsylvania. We're very happy about that.
BLITZER: Yes, I'm sure you are.
All right, let's talk a little bit about this important op-ed you wrote in "The Washington Post" the other day about the Obama administration's strategy as far as ISIS is concerned. Among other things you wrote, "a recognition that the Bashar al Assad regime in Syria also must go and a strategy to address the underlying issues that created the space for the Islamic state to emerge and metastasize." You said those are missing elements in the president's strategy. You want him to get a whole lot tougher with the Assad regime, right?
CASEY: I do, Wolf, and that's based upon my record. I've been calling for a much more aggressive posture as it relates to Mr. Assad now for a couple of years.
I will say this. First and foremost, the president has done the right thing to take on ISIS, to work very hard to build a huge coalition, something on the order of 60 countries. So he's done a lot of good here and we've made progress. A lot of air strikes, a lot of intelligence, a lot of training and a lot of effort making sure that our folks aren't doing the fighting on the ground, which I think is an important part that folks in the region have to do the fighting.
But I do think this part of the strategy on Assad doesn't seem to make sense to me when, on the one hand we're saying, we want the well- vetted Syrian opposition to be trained and to be helped so they can take on the fight against ISIS, and at the same time Mr. Assad is able to bomb the opposition almost with impunity. There should be some degree of pressure, some pushback on that. And if the administration has ideas about that, as to why they can't go in the direction that I would seek or that I would hope, I hope - I wish they'd explain that to us.
BLITZER: Well, you want air strikes, U.S. air strikes to target Syrian military positions loyal to Bashar al Assad?
CASEY: If our military suggested that would advance the strategy as it relates to ISIS, I would certainly favor that. But to have almost no pressure of any kind, even diplomatic or other kinds of pressure against Mr. Assad, when our stated policy has been, and what I believe to be the right policy, which is that he must go, it doesn't seem to make sense. So I think that part of the policy needs some work. And that's why this review that the administration often has undertaken will continue to, as well as the role that Congress has to play.
We've got to debate these issues. We've got to make sure that we're engaged with the administration in asking the tough questions and demanding answers.
BLITZER: Senator Casey, thanks very much for joining us.
CASEY: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: Still to come, clashing over the president's immigration actions. The Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, gets grilled today by members of Congress. We're going to talk to one of them, Congressman Peter King. He's standing by live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Up on Capitol Hill today, the Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, faced off with critics of the president's executive action on immigration reform. That included questions about the legality of the president's action. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEH JOHNSON, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: This is not a permanent solution, but it is in our existing legal authority to issue, to fix the broken system. And we feel that we had no choice.
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: What do you say to someone who believes the president took action to change the law?
JOHNSON: We did not change the law. We acted within the law.
I believe that if we could just strip away the emotion and the politics on this issue, and you brought me the right group of members of the House of Representatives, I could negotiate a bill with you. And I'm offering -- I'm issuing that invitation again. I believe we could do it. It's really not -- it should not be that difficult.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Joining us now, the New York Republican congressman, Peter King. He's a member of both the House Homeland Security Committee, as well as the Intelligence Committee.
What did you think? Did the president act within the law?
REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: No, Wolf, I strongly believe that he acted outside the law.
And let me just say, I have great respect for Secretary Johnson. He's a very good lawyer and a very honest person. But I do believe, in this case, the executive order went beyond the constitutional powers that a president has, and beyond that.
When you have a -- at best a gray area for the president, why he issued the executive order now, he could have done it any time in the last six years. If he thought this was such an important issue, he could have made - he could have signed the executive order before the election. So it could have been a campaign issue so the American people could have let their views be known.
Republicans won both houses of Congress. Why didn't the president say he was going to wait till next July to do it and when the new Congress comes in, try to sit down and negotiate a real bill. Instead, by doing it this way, it really, to me, breaks down the faith that's needed between the government and the people.
BLITZER: Did Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush break the law when they revised the regulations as far as immigration -- illegal immigration to the country was concerned?
KING: No, to me, Wolf, it's a question of degree. And also, at that time, for instance, what Ronald Reagan was doing was basically continuing enacting of legislation that was already passed. In other words, he was clarifying and expanding what had already been passed.
In this case, we have such a sharp disagreement in the country. And for the president to take this unilateral action, to me, it defies not just (INAUDIBLE) letter (ph), but also in the spirit of what a president's powers are. I don't think it's right to equate what President Obama did with what previous presidents did because of the nature and scope and how far his existing order - his executive order went.
BLITZER: I believe it was then President Bush who did change the regulation and allowed about 40 percent of the illegal immigrants who were then in the United States to remain as a result of what was then widely seen as amnesty.
KING: But at that time there was very little objection, there was little objection from the American people. The fact is now, this is such a controversial issue, there's so much difference between what the president wanted and what Congress wanted. We've just gone through an election where the American people, I believe, voted against the president's position.
Having said that, I do want to see legislation. And I think that if the president had waited until January - conceding all the points you just made, if the president waited till January and said, I'm going to do it July 1st, an extra six months is not going to matter that much. It would have enabled him to focus attention on the issue and we could have had constructive legislation. And, if not, then the president has an issue to use against Republicans. So, to me, he was, I think, just trying to score political points here and it's going to cause much more harm in the long run than good.
BLITZER: Well, the president keeps saying, go ahead, House of Representatives, pass some legislation, pass what - or at least take up what the Senate bipartisan -- in a bipartisan fashion passed. Go ahead and take it up and I'll negate that executive action and there will be a new law that he will be happy to sign on the books.
KING: But I don't think he has that prerogative to tell us what to do. The fact is, the American people elected us. And under the Constitution, we have the powers as far as naturalization. And, again, if the president wants to get it done rather than just scoring political points, he would have his opportunity between January and July. That would be an opportunity for real negotiations. And if at that time it doesn't work, then he can issue his executive order. Congress can take what action we want to take in reaction to that. But he would have had the opportunity to deal with the new Congress. And I do believe that Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell do want to have immigration reform. If nothing else, just for the selfish purpose of this not being a major issue in the 2016 presidential race.
BLITZER: All right, Peter King, the Republican representative from New York. As usual, thanks for joining us.
KING: Wolf, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
BLITZER: Still ahead, some surprising numbers just coming out. Our brand-new presidential election polls. John King is here with me. We're going to break down the numbers. I think you might be surprised.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
