Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Josh Earnest Press Briefing; Ferguson P.D. Guilty of Discrimination; Fight over DHS Funding Starts Again; Hillary Clinton Used Private E-Mail at State Department

Aired March 3, 2015 - 14:33   ET

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


ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. We've been listening in to Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, addressing a range of topics today, everything from Hillary Clinton e- mails that are drawing controversy to, of course, Netanyahu's visit, his speech to Congress today. We'll talk about all those issues in just a moment.

But first, we have some breaking news just into CNN. The U.S. Justice Department has found systematic discrimination against African- Americans by the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department.

I want to go right to our justice reporter, Evan Perez; and our CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

Evan, first to you.

What can you tell us about this new information?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Ana, this is some really stark findings by the Justice Department, civil rights division, against what it said were systematic discriminatory practices by the Ferguson Police Department and the city's municipal court. I'll give you some statistics that the Justice Department findings say show how much African-Americans were targeted for tickets, for jail fines, for municipal court proceedings and so on. Eighty-five percent of vehicles stops between 2012 and 2014 were of African-Americans. Ninety-three percent of people who were arrested were black during the same period. And here's another couple statistics. Ninety percent of all citations were against African-Americans during this time. Ninety-five percent of jaywalking tickets, which are a manner of walking in roadway citations, were against African-Americans.

This is all a pattern that the Justice Department says shows the Ferguson police were targeting African-Americans. They only made up 67 percent of the population of the city, but they were disproportionately being targeted for tickets and for jail in the city's court system -- Ana?

CABRERA: And I understand that the Department of Justice went back a couple of years and went through the archives to come to these conclusions and these specific findings. When you talk about 85 percent, 90 percent, 95 percent of citations, violations going towards African-Americans, some might say, well, the population there is predominantly African-American, but important to note, the population there is somewhere in the realm of 60 percent to 65 percent African- Americans. So these are still above and beyond that. I understand there were also some e-mails that were used as evidence of this racial profiling and discrimination.

PEREZ: Right. That's exactly what they found. They went through the e-mail system of officials there working for the Ferguson police and the court system. They found some really racist jokes. I'll read you a short one from 2008 after President Obama took office. There was an official apparently who e-mailed this joke around. He said, President Obama would not be president for very long because, quote, "what black man holds a steady job for four years?"

And there's another one, Ana, from 2011. Again, this is a joke that was making the rounds on the city's e-mail system, according to the Justice Department. It tells a story of how an African-American woman has gone to the hospital in New Orleans for an abortion, and after she goes back home, two weeks later, she receives a check for $3,000. She called the hospital to ask what it was for, who it was from, and the hospital says, quote, unquote, "Crime Stoppers."

Again, this is to prove, according to the Justice Department, that there was a real racial discrimination problem at this city police department in Ferguson. All of this beginning after the shooting death of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson last summer.

CABRERA: Evan, stay with me.

I want to bring in Jeffrey Toobin.

First, Jeffrey, what's your reaction? You've been part of our Ferguson coverage for months now.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, this is not a surprise because the anger that came after Michael Brown's death was not just about Michael Brown's death. It was about African-Americans in Ferguson and in other surrounding communities around St. Louis saying that we are tired of being mistreated by the police. And these numbers bear out what they had been saying, that this was a really toxic relationship between African-Americans and police officers in Ferguson. And so the question now becomes, what is the Justice Department going to do about it?

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: And that is a good question, Evan. Do you have the answer of what's next?

PEREZ: We expect tomorrow, Ana, that the Justice Department will present these findings publicly, as soon as tomorrow. And then it will begin the legal process of trying to get a consent decree whereby the city will agree to some kind of court ordered supervision of the police department and the court system to improve the way they do things.

The city, for the record, says they've been working with the Justice Department civil rights investigation and that they already are making some of the fixes the Justice Department is looking for. They expect this is not going to be a very litigious process, but it is something that's going to go through the court system just to make sure that a judge is going to enforce any changes that the city makes.

TOOBIN: Ana, just to follow up on what Evan says, that is -- has happened often in recent history because of efforts by the Justice Department. Cities like New Orleans and Cincinnati have been essentially forced by the Justice Department to make changes in their policing policies because of these sorts of investigations. We can expect that the Ferguson Police Department will have to make the same kind of changes.

CABRERA: And we know the Cleveland Police Department is another example back in December when the Justice Department came out with a ruling against its police department.

I want to bring in our Donna Brazile, who's standing by with us.

Donna, what's your reaction to this news?

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'm not shocked at all about these findings. I guess what's disturbing is that it took a young man to die for us to even unravel the horrible story that we hear in community after community, this police department using its power to disproportionately arrest people to find them, almost as if to collect fines and fees from people of color simply because they could do it. So many of the protesters over the last couple of months in Ferguson and elsewhere discussed this happening, discussed how police officers just pulled them over. Some of them getting fines for walking across the street and everybody says, oh, they're just blowing it up out of proportion. Now we know this report will bear witness to what they've been going through.

And I hope the Justice Department follows up, as they did in my beloved hometown of New Orleans, so that the police department can begin to reform itself and we can rebuild the trust between the department and the community at large.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: When I was in Ferguson, back when all of the drama was playing out with the protests following Michael Brown's death, I sat down with the police chief who said certainly there's been no intention to discriminate against African-Americans. And he -- you know, he said, I welcome the Justice Department, I welcome outside minds, experts in the area of how we might better reform our department to bridge the gap between these communities.

And so I want to make sure we throw out their side of the story as we don't have a whole lot of their reaction because this news is just breaking right now.

But to Donna's point, Evan, this has to feel like a big victory to those protesters. PEREZ: Yeah, it does. I'm sure it feels like at least a measure of

victory. You know, a lot of those protesters also were looking for Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, to be in handcuffs and to go on trial. That, of course, never happened. There was no finding in the state investigation, and we expect tomorrow when the Justice Department announces its findings, that they'll also say that they could not find any proof of -- to bring charges against Darren Wilson for federal civil rights charges.

So it's going to be bittersweet for the supporters of Michael Brown and his family because those people wanted more than just this. This is something that Attorney General Eric Holder had promised down there. He said they were going to bring justice on behalf of Michael Brown. And this is going to have to be it. It's going to have to be a reform of the police department because in the end, Darren Wilson is going to remain a free man.

CABRERA: Jeffrey, how do you suspect the Justice Department will hold officials there accountable?

TOOBIN: Well, I think it's more going to be looking forward than looking back. And that, of course, is a mixed blessing because it doesn't have the accountability that so many people want. Certainly, improved training. Certainly, improved recordkeeping. Certainly, changes in leadership structure, if not changes in the actual leaders of the department.

But there's one point I'd like to just draw special attention to, which is the issue of fines. This isn't just a Ferguson story. This is a story around the country where communities that don't want to raise taxes arrest people, instead, and use them as revenue sources and say, you know, we're going to fine you or we're going to lock you up. It's something going on around the country. It has a racially divisive impact. It's something that everyone should keep an eye on because it's a big change in law enforcement around the country.

CABRERA: Donna, what do you think would make a difference in terms of implementing perhaps new court procedures? Are there some specific steps that you would like to see?

BRAZILE: Well, thank you, Jeffrey Toobin, for saying that because I've heard it, I've witnessed it, and yet painfully people simply believe you're blowing a situation out of control when, in fact, you see the disproportionate number of especially young black males arrested. When you hear of grown black men and others, and Hispanics, complain about being pulled aside, getting these fines and tickets, I'm glad that this will be brought to light.

Hopefully, we can try to get at what's happening across the country so that we can alleviate this kind of pain and discomfort, but hopefully -- we cannot bring Michael Brown back, but hopefully this will lead to the community -- better community policing. It will lead to better training, more people of color on police forces and, of course, the community itself believing that they're not targeted simply because of the way they look but rather that our law enforcement officials are there to protect us, to keep us all safe. CABRERA: Ferguson is just a slice of a much bigger story, for sure,

across the country.

Thank you to all of you for that information and insight.

Up next, more breaking news involving several other stories. Retired General David Petraeus expected to plead guilty to leaking classified secrets to his lover. What this could mean for the former head of the CIA.

Plus, Edward Snowden currently a fugitive, but his lawyer says the NSA leaker is now in talks to return to the U.S. We'll discuss that.

And did Hillary Clinton violate federal rules by using her personal e- mail to conduct State Department business?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Now to the other headline from Capitol Hill and more breaking news. The House is getting the wheels rolling yet again on the fight over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Debate just getting under way again for a clean bill. This would fully fund the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year. It's what Democrats have been demanding and what conservatives have been fighting against.

Let me bring in Dana Bash on Capitol Hill.

What do we expect to happen with this vote on the House floor?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I sort of with hesitation say we expect that this is going to pass. Of course, I say with hesitation because I said that on Friday because that was what the Republican leadership in the House believed as well until it blew up on the House floor when conservatives really revolted. This is not going to be the case, we don't expect, for various reasons. Namely, I've actually personally spoken to a lot of those conservatives who voted no. Many of them are going to vote no again, but not enough to take this down.

And you might ask maybe the obvious question, why now on Tuesday, when this wasn't OK just a couple days ago, on Friday. And there's no maybe simple answer to that except that what Republicans who voted against even a short-term spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security said on Friday was they wanted the opportunity to at least try to sit down in what's known as a conference committee, a negotiation with the Senate and the House to try to work out differences.

And the Senate Democrats yesterday voted against even going to that conference committee, voted even sitting down to compromise at all because they say that there's no way they're going to give an inch on what Republicans have been demanding, which is don't fund the Department of Homeland Security without also trying to stop the president's immigration plans. So therein lies the standstill where we are right now.

The House speaker met with his rank and file this morning, said to them, look, we are where we are, and we've got to move on. There are other fights to fight. And our sources are telling us that there actually wasn't even any conservative who stood up to argue with him. So now they're kind of going through the motions, as you said.

The difference also in today's vote is that you're going to have Democratic support, which is going to help a lot. So we're expecting this to happen likely in the next hour to see this finally go to a vote and pass in the House.

CABRERA: Dana Bash, I want you to stand by with me. We'll be talking to you.

Up next, Hillary Clinton did not use a State Department e-mail when she was secretary of state. Instead, she used a personal e-mail account. The Clinton camp says she followed the letter and the spirit of the law. Others say that using a personal e-mail is like hiding e- mails. We'll debate that next.

Plus, reaction pouring in to Benjamin Netanyahu's controversial speech, including strong words from President Obama just moments ago. Two Jewish Democrats are going to join me live, one who boycotted the speech and one who supported it, as the reaction continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Critics are pouncing on Hillary Clinton over a private e- mail account she used while she was secretary of state. Now, like other top diplomats before her, Clinton did not always use a government accounts, like hilaryclint@state.gov. Instead, she always used one of her own personal accounts. But that means it's possible not everything she wrote was preserved for the public record, as what happens with a government account. That's leading critics to question how transparent she's being and whether she's trying to hide something.

Joining me now, CNN political commentators, Donna Brazile and Ana Navarro, and our CNN senior political correspondent, Brianna Keilar.

Brianna, I want to start with you.

We're talking about 2009. Why use a private account, not a government one?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: We don't actually know, Ana. I've e-mailed Hillary Clinton's spokesperson multiple times and called today, and I haven't gotten an answer to this question of why she would use it. I heard someone speculate maybe it's because that would allow her to centralize her communication so she could combine personal as well as her official e-mail. But at the same time, it's really this outstanding question. She solely used a personal account. She didn't have this government account.

We know somewhat recently there were 55,000 pages of e-mails turned over from this account to the State Department, which then went through them and pulled 300 e-mails that were turned over to the select committee on Benghazi. At the same time, you're hearing -- we have heard a statement from her spokesperson, which is that she was adhering to the spirit and the letter of this law, perhaps the letter. Having spoken within experts, that's the impression I get.

But the question is really the spirit of the law, because it's about transparency, and it's about security. A personal e-mail account is certainly less secure than a government account. On the issue of transparency, it appears the first line of discretion here on whether to turn over an e-mail would be for Hillary Clinton or for one of her aides. Then you have this issue of if an e-mail is deleted, there may be no way to know it. There's not necessarily a backup on a personal e-mail account like there would be on a government account.

CABRERA: Ana, Clinton is not doing something that predecessors of hers haven't done, so what do you make of this?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think the problem here for Hillary Clinton, frankly, is that this builds on an already existing narrative. The Clintons tend to push the envelope that, rules are not for them, they're for other people. We see it when it comes to foreign donations to the foundation. Some of them were not even submitted for vetting to the State Department. It comes to this thing with the e-mails where I think most people draw the conclusion that they were skirting, trying to skirt the records act. Interestingly enough, is a charge that my friend, John Podesta, who's reportedly going to run her campaign or be one of the senior advisers, that's the claim he made against Bush administration officials back in 2007. So, yes, she was probably trying to skirt the Records Act. The reason they're not responding to Brianna is because there's no good answer as to why she wasn't using a more secure, transparent government account.

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: First of all, there's more than sufficient --

CABRERA: Go ahead, Donna.

BRAZILE: There's more than sufficient information out there from the Clinton spokespeople about what occurred. And there's so many links out there that I hope we can get the truth out there. First of all, this law was not changed, modified until 2014, long after she had left the State Department. She has complied with the spirit, the letter. When it was requested that she give that information last October from State Department trying to preserve these records, she turned it over. So this notion that somehow or another this is a gotcha --

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: How would we know if it wasn't turned over?

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: You know what, just like Jeb Bush e-mails --

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Sure, he used his discretion, which I think is --

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: And many of his e-mails that he is releasing.

But look, there's a larger story here. And the narrative is, when it comes to the Clintons, there's not enough disclosure. They want us to disclose everything. Why don't we see what handwriting they put on the toilet paper so that we can disclose that, too? She's disclosed this information. And she has complied and --

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: But I think the question, Donna --

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: No, she hasn't, Donna.

(CROSSTALK)

NAVARRO: That's why it's such a big story.