Return to Transcripts main page
THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER
D.C. Murder Suspect Caught; ISIS Advancing?; Interview With Kentucky Senator Rand Paul; Reality Stars Respond to Sex Abuse Allegations; Clinton Emails Released: Roughly 300 Mails, 850 Pages Made Public. Aired 4-4:30p ET
Aired May 22, 2015 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: More terrorist attacks from ISIS.
I'm Jake Tapper. This is THE LEAD.
The world lead, ISIS fighters hoisting that black flag over another city on the road to Iraq's capital, ISIS bombers exporting their terror to mosques now in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
We will ask Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul how he would defeat ISIS live right here in a few minutes.
The national lead, from D.C. to New York and back. Police put the bracelets on the suspect they say brutally tortured and killed a family. And now, today, D.C.'s chief of police and the head U.S. Marshal who made the arrest will tell us how they got their man.
The money lead. You turn on your TV, they're everywhere, the Duggars, all 19 and then some. They're supposed to be the image of a wholesome family. But now shocking new details in an unearthed police report detailing how one of their sons apparently, when he was a teenager, molested young girls. Now TLC is retreating.
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.
We're waiting for a press conference on those brutal D.C. mansion murders. We will bring that to you live when it happens. But we're going to begin today with our world lead.
ISIS says its terrorists sent shrapnel slicing here mosques in Yemen and Saudi Arabia today, as ISIS fighters in Iraq are rampaging their way towards Baghdad. It's a whirlwind change from January 20, when President Obama in his State of the Union address sounded confident that the coalition was winning the mission.
Now the president doesn't sound so sure, telling "The Atlantic"'s Jeffrey Goldberg -- quote -- "I don't think we are losing." The maps tell a different story. The terrorist gained ground since territory. This is the amount of territory under ISIS control on January 15, just five days before the State of the Union, including 30 percent of Syria, according to a human rights group in London. This now is the amount of territory under ISIS today. That same group
now ISIS rules more than half of Syria. Experts telling CNN that ISIS' most recent conquests in Palmyra and Ramadi are the two biggest territorial gains for the terrorists this year, gains that have these merciless killers poised to cut deeper across the Syrian countryside.
I want to get right to CNN's Barbara Starr over at the Pentagon.
Barbara, U.S. military officials, especially, it seems, some commanders of special operations, they seem flat out frustrated with the current state of the campaign.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, Jake. I would say frustrated Iraqi forces on the ground. Right now, it looks like ISIS' next objective is an Iraqi military base on that road to Baghdad, and if they get it, that is a big win in a week of wins.
STARR (voice-over): ISIS solidified its control around the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra on Friday. In Iraq, it pushed east of Ramadi, taking the town of Husaybah, Iraqi security officials tell CNN.
A desperate situation, as residents continue to flee Ramadi and other towns in Anbar province, and for the U.S., presidential rhetoric may be sorely outdated.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In Iraq and Syria, American leadership, including our military power, is stopping ISIL's advance.
STARR: President Obama says the U.S. isn't losing to ISIS, but senior U.S. military officials privately acknowledge the terror group's takeover of Ramadi is showing a key flaw the Pentagon has long worried about. Airstrikes alone can't defeat ISIS, unless Iraqi forces step up and fight, and, in Ramadi, that did not happen, and there could be political fallout.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have had now a fairly serious defeat in Ramadi, for which the prime minister and the defense minister are taking the blame. This was not a particularly stable government before that. We should be concerned about our allies in Baghdad.
STARR: Critics say it's the Pentagon that needs to step up.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The flights, the combat sorties are returning to the base without dropping a weapon. You know why? Because they don't have anybody on the ground to give them the targets that they need. This is an ineffectual air campaign.
STARR: As CNN reported earlier this week, top U.S. commanders privately again rejected recommending to the president U.S. troops on the ground to help find those ISIS targets to bomb.
The only change, more arms for the Iraqi government and Sunni tribes. The White House worry now, is now Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi running out of time to deal ISIS a decisive blow? ISIS released these pictures showing destruction at the Baiji oil refinery, critical economic infrastructure in Iraq.
But the U.S.-led coalition said Iraqi security forces were making steady progress, regaining in some areas here.
STARR: Now, if U.S. troops were to go back into Iraq, of course, for so many military commanders, the question is, are the American people really prepared to see a new round of fallen warriors, a new round of wounded warriors?
ISIS' biggest weapon today, improvised explosive devices -- Jake.
TAPPER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thanks.
Let's talk about foreign policy and national security, among other issues, with Republican Senator from Kentucky and presidential candidate Rand Paul. He also has a new book out called "Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America."
Senator, thanks so much for joining me. Very enjoyable book.
I want to get to some of the issues that you raise, but first on the national security front, what should the U.S. be doing about ISIS?
SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Well, I think we can do better. I think we also need to acknowledge that it's a very complicated situation.
If anybody had an easy answer, we'd have already come up with it. I think part of the problem is, is that there's a long war going on, a 1,000-year war between Sunni and Shiite, and that, while the Sunni towns that are being overtaken may ultimately grow to learn how to learn how bad ISIS is, they're comparing it with the Iranian- influenced Shiite militias, and they're making a judgment, at least right now, that they would just as soon fight the Shiites as they would ISIS.
So, they're not really united. During the surge, when we were successful, we had the Sunni chieftains on our side. This has been, if anything, really a political problem for a long time, that you have an Iraqi government that's not been very good at becoming a general government representing everyone. It's a government that seems to be of and for the Shiites. And that's the way Sunnis perceive it.
And so I'm not sure how there's a possibility of victory until you get Sunnis actively involved in the government, in the military and believing that ISIS is more of a threat than the government in Baghdad.
TAPPER: What would you do if you were commander in chief right now?
PAUL: Well, there's a couple things I would do.
One, I would promise the Kurds a homeland. They're the best fighters over there, and I would equip them directly with arms. I wouldn't have it go through the Shiite government. I think there's a little bit of tension between the two, between the Kurds and the Shiite government.
TAPPER: Is that worth alienating Turkey? Because they obviously are...
PAUL: Well, like I say, nothing is simple here.
PAUL: In order to do that, I wouldn't do that in a vacuum.
I wouldn't say, tomorrow, I'm recognizing the Kurds, but I would go to the Turks and I would say to the Turks and to the Kurds, I would say, what about the Kurds having a homeland within Iraq, and maybe within that little sliver of Syria up there near Kobani? But the Kurds would have to give up any pretension to wanting land in Turkey. It would have to be a three-way peace deal, where we actually had the Turks saying to the Kurds, you're giving up all claim to our land, and we're going to now have peace.
But the advantage to that is, I think you could get the Turks more involved.
PAUL: I think the Turks have been too passive in this. And if the Turks were to bring up significant forces, I think it changes the outlook for ISIS.
TAPPER: So, you think that the Turks would start fighting ISIS?
PAUL: I think that's the goal. That would be the goal, is that if you could get peace between the Kurds and the Turks and get the Turks involved, then obviously the battle is much easier. But there's all kinds of goals that are easier said than done.
TAPPER: Yes, but what about the role of the U.S.? Do you think the U.S. -- a lot of Republicans have been talking more troops, or at least in a different role.
PAUL: Yes, I think that, ultimately, the victory comes from boots on the ground, but I think those boots on the ground need to be Arab boots on the ground.
If the Iraqis are not willing to fight for their country, I don't think I would send American G.I.s to do it if America -- if the Iraqis are not willing to fight for it. But part of the solution is also saying, we need to have a stable government in Syria. So part of the solution would be Assad going into exile and having a stable government, where it's the government of Syria vs. the bad guys of ISIS. Now you have 1,500 groups there fighting ISIS and you have got bad
people on both sides of the equation. So, it isn't very easy to do. And then the third part of this is, I would get the Saudis and the Qataris and I would tell them, look, you have grown rich off our petrodollars. Why don't you do something useful? And that's help us fight ISIS on the ground with your troops on the ground.
TAPPER: As you said, a lot easier said than done.
PAUL: Easier said than done.
TAPPER: Let's talk about your book a bit, because you write quite a bit about the NSA spying program and obviously you do more than write about it. This week, you were holding up the legislation, in a way, because of your objection to the bulk collection program of metadata, which is going to expire June 1.
I want to play some sound from some of your rivals in the Republican race. First is Jeb Bush yesterday and then the next one is Chris Christie today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: I think he's wrong on saying that this is unconstitutional or saying that people's freedoms have been violated by the Patriot Act.
GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: This debate that we're having right now about the Patriot Act and whether we should have strong intelligence around the world is a very dangerous debate, because it's being done by people who have no experience dealing with what I have dealt with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Your response?
PAUL: Well, I think, for those who know their constitutional history, the Fourth Amendment is a big deal. John Adams said it was the spark that led to our revolution.
TAPPER: That has to do with search and seizure and having authority sign off on search and seizure.
PAUL: Exactly. But what the framers objected to was that British soldiers were writing the warrants and that they were general warrants.
They didn't have Jake Tapper's name on it or Rand Paul's name. They just had everybody, and the soldiers could go in anyone's house. This was a really big deal. And so the Fourth Amendment is a big deal, was to our framers, and still should be. So, if you have a warrant right now and it says Verizon on it, that to
me sounds like a general warrant. That sounds not very specific, and it sounds like you're collecting the records of everybody at Verizon. That's what was revealed by Snowden.
So, you now have a warrant that collects the information on millions and millions of Americans for whom there is no suspicion that they're a terrorist. And, in fact, the court recently, the court just below the Supreme Court, the appellate court, said that even the Patriot Act, which says that you can gather information if it's relevant to an investigation, said, how could it be relevant to an investigation in the sense that it's being collected before you even start your investigation?
So the court has said it's illegal. The president started this through executive order. I think the president ought to immediately stop it, because a court says now that it's illegal.
TAPPER: Let's take a listen to what the attorney general said today on CBS talking about your objections and what would happen if this bulk metadata program disappeared on June 1.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think his fear is that we will lose important eyes on people who have made it clear that their mission is to harm American people here and abroad.
QUESTION: You think it makes America less safe?
LYNCH: I think that we run the risk of essentially being less safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Why do you think that you are so -- you're not alone, but you're certainly in a minority when it comes to Democrats and Republicans supporting this. Why?
PAUL: Interestingly, though, when I was in the middle of the filibuster, I had seven Democrats and three or four Republicans come to the floor. So, 10 is not an insignificant number. And I think we would probably get...
TAPPER: It's still a minority.
PAUL: Excuse me?
TAPPER: It's still a minority. I mean...
PAUL: Well, I think we'd get 20 to 30, and I think it's growing.
I think, if you ask the American people, do you think the bulk collection of your records is something the government should do or shouldn't do, I think some polls show 70 percent to 80 percent of the American people think the government shouldn't be doing this. Also, I think it represents that there's a difference between outside
the Beltway and inside the Beltway. Once you get beyond Washington and you enter the rest of America, the rest of America's not so excited about this. In the Beltway, they lag 10 years. People up here are 10 years behind the times. And so they're still in another era.
Many of these people don't realize that your papers, people don't have papers anymore. We don't have a castle. We have got a cloud. Our papers aren't in the castle. Our papers are in a cloud. And we want them to be protected and we want them to be private. Particularly young people believe this.
TAPPER: All right.
The book is "Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America."
You write about a lot of issues of important to you, including expanding the tent of Republicans. I hope to have you on again. We can talk more about some of these issues.
Senator Rand Paul, thank you so much. We will see you on the campaign trail. Good luck out there.
PAUL: Thank you.
TAPPER: Coming up, fans say they're the paragon of family values, but now the Duggars, made famous on the reality television show "19 Kids and Counting" are wrapped up in a child molestation scandal involving their eldest son and young girls. Now we have new information about what this could mean for the show.
That's the money lead. And that is next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[16:17:24] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the story of my family. That's me. I'm Michelle. There's Jim Bob, my wonderful husband, and our children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: The money lead. You know them as the Duggars from a hugely successful reality television show. "19 Kids and Counting" it's called. They used the sow to showcase and promote a wholesome lifestyle, all while publicly preaching conservative Christian values.
But could their status as moral role models and their multimedia empire be about to crumble after a rather upsetting revelation?
"In Touch" weekly broke the story that Josh Duggar, the eldest of the Duggar children, was accused of molesting young girls including his own sisters when he was 14 years old. Josh's parents reportedly waited a year before they told police.
I'm joined by CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter.
And, Brian, you just learned some new information about the fate of the show?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, TLC finally weighed in, after staying silent all day. They say they're taking every scheduled episode of the show off the air for now. In a statement, they say that their thoughts and prayers are with the family and the victims in this case. They call this a very difficult time.
And this time is not over yet. You know, this situation really is a family in crisis. Discovery and TLC say it's no time for a television show.
STELTER (voice-over): For years, the Duggars have been TLC's biggest family, banking on an image of wholesome Christian values --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's important to use the bible.
STELTER: -- that have gained them the favor of high-profile conservatives. They have even appeared alongside presidential candidates.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Standing for your values.
STELTER: But now, a disturbing revelation about the Duggars' eldest son Josh could derail everything.
A report by "In Touch" weekly alleging he molested several young girls including family members. Josh apologized in a statement on his family's Facebook page writing, "Twelve years ago, I acted inexcusably for which I'm extremely sorry and deeply regret. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing."
In the same statement, Josh's parents admit they've known about his actions for years, adding, we pray as people watch our lives, they see that we are not a perfect family.
ROB VOLMER, CROSBY VOLBMER INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS: You would think it's, you know, past memory. This is child molestation. This is a family values show. I just don't see how it survives.
STELTER: With camera crews and producers watching the family since 2008, critics question whether or not TLC has also keep the story under wraps.
VOLMER: The whole foundation is about family values. At least that's how I frame it. It's about raising a family. It's about protecting children, raising children in the right way. [16:20:01] And this admission goes against everything that they talk
STELTER: TMZ reports that the Oprah Winfrey show was tipped to Josh's action in 2006, prior to an interview.
Producers reportedly cancelled the segment and notified a child protection hot line. CNN has contacted Oprah's network, but so far, they are saying nothing.
Meantime, Josh's resigned from his prominent role with the Family Research Council, a well-known conservative Christian group in Washington.
But at least one high-profile friend is sticking by the Duggars.
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They're dear friends. They're wonderful and an exemplary family.
STELTER: Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee appeared with the Duggars just last month. And in a statement today, Huckabee confirmed his continued support, writing, "Good people make mistake and do regrettable and even disgusting things. Let others run from them. We will run to them with our support."
VOLMER: Most things are forgivable in the American conscience. Child molestation is just not.
STELTER: Yes, usually, real controversies become good publicity for reality shows. Jake, this might be the rare case where it's not true. Right now, the program's not being produced. The cameramen are not there. The question is whether they'll ever be back to film more episodes now.
TAPPER: All right. Brian Stelter, thank you so much.
Let's bring in Dr. Gail Saltz. She's a psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital.
Dr. Saltz, beyond the legal implications of the family not immediately reporting these sex assault allegations to police, you have another problem with how this was handled?
DR. GAIL SALTZ, ASSOC. PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, NY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL: I do, because at the end of the day, if there is no treatment, then there is no understanding on the part of the perpetrator why they committed these behaviors. Obviously, an understanding in that family, if you can't hug, and you can't touch, and certainly what went on was wrong, and understood to be wrong.
So, why did he need to do it? Without understanding that, the likelihood of reoccurring behavior, in other words, perpetrating again, is much greater. In addition, victim whose have been abused, we know, from all the data, that they are likely to go on to suffer with depression, anxiety, relationship difficulties, much more than the normal population. And they, too, therefore, need treatment.
So, by keeping this a secret, you've essentially denied both parties in a way the kind of treatment that really they both need to go on with their lives, actually in a healthy way, and you've also kept a family secret that essentially in a way condones, like, we need to keep this a secret and we're going to keep this within, and, therefore, you know, we're not going to either get help, get treatment or deal with this in a morally and legally appropriate way.
TAPPER: When you talk about appropriate treatment, just to clarify -- you're not, you're saying going to their church and being ministered there, that's not enough. You're talking about professional psychiatric treatment?
SALTZ: I am. In other words, going to work with somebody and do hard labor and read the bible is not going to help you understand why you did this kind of act.
SALTZ: And if the urge is still there and it's not understood, it's likely to reoccur. So, I am talking about professional psychiatric treatment. And for victims of abuse, the same goes. And in a family where the culture is that women actually are subservient to the men and therefore, really, do they have a free choice about forgiving? So, coming to the abused person and saying, you know, do you forgive me, when you're the man and they're the woman, and they don't really have much of a free choice in that, it's not real forgiveness, and I would think that that would only likely aggravate the kinds of symptoms of depression and even guilt that might occur.
TAPPER: All right. Dr. Gail Saltz, thank you so much for your perspective. Appreciate it.
SALTZ: My pleasure.
TAPPER: Coming up, Hillary Clinton' private e-mails publicly released just hours ago and the former secretary of state gave her reaction to them and their release. That's next.
Plus, the suspect in that horror, horrific quadruple murder just blocks from the vice president's residence, faced a judge just minutes ago. Police now saying he did not act alone. He will on the show the D.C. police chief about the new leads they are following, as well as the head U.S. marshal. That's ahead.
TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper.
Breaking news in our politics lead today, a short time ago, the State Department released hundreds of Hillary Clinton's e-mails. They could give a better look at her handling of the horrific terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including one of the U.S. ambassadors. But this is not satisfying many Republican critics and critics in the media who are saying these e-mails were hand-picked by Clinton's own people.
CNN senior political correspondent Brianna Keilar, and her team have been poring through them for us.
Brianna, any bombshell revelations in this batch?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: There is a revelation that Hillary Clinton received now classified information about the attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi on her personal e-mail account, the only one she used while she was secretary of state. It was two month after terrorists killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three Americans in Libya and a top Clinton e-mail forward her an email about Libyan police arresting potential suspects.
Much of this e-mail is redacted, the hidden information classified as of today and Clinton actually responded to this today while she was in New Hampshire on a campaign stop.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm aware that the FBI has asked that a portion of one e-mail be held back. That happens in the process of Freedom of Information Act responses, but that doesn't change the fact that all of the information in the e-mails was handled appropriately.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: So, this is a much more nuanced version than we heard from Hillary Clinton in March, that there was no classified e-mail, no classified information in her e-mail. The State Department today backing her up on this, that it was not improper, because the e-mail, or this information wasn't classified at the time, so it wasn't improper for her to send it on this account.
But it still brings a lot of criticisms and questions about why she was using this private e-mail account on this private server that was housed at her house in New York, and we also see, Jake, in these e- mails, Clinton and the Obama administration at the time that they're struggling about he initial assessment that the Benghazi attack came from a protest.