Return to Transcripts main page


Sisters Defend Josh: He Made Bad Choices; Republican Candidates Get a Jump Start in Iowa; Personal Data on 4 Million Federal Employees Stolen. Aired 4:30-5p ET

Aired June 6, 2015 - 16:30   ET


[16:30:00] JESSA SEEWALD, SISTER OF JOSH DUGGAR: But, really, the extent of it was mild inappropriate touching on fully clothed victims.


POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about it with former L.A. County prosecutor, Loni Coombs, and also our psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, Dr. Gail Saltz.

Thank you both for being here, ladies.

Loni, what's your biggest takeaway from this -- hearing from the family, hearing from the daughters who are victims standing by their brother's side?

LONI COOMBS, FORMER L.A. COUNTY PROSECUTOR: Well, I think the biggest takeaway they would like to us have is this is very minimal interaction and they have put it behind them, and that they now want everyone to focus on the great injustice here they feel which is the disclosure of these police reports.

And that is an area of discussion, I think is worthy of talking about because it seems like the law in that area is not real clear. Some people say the law shouldn't have disclosed these police reports, some say the law said it was OK. But I think the focus still is on not minimizing the behavior that was done in this case.

HARLOW: You bring -- you bring up these documents. Look, he was a juvenile at the time. "In Touch" said they put forth the Freedom of Information request. That's where the police department released the records. And Arkansas official came out and said it looks like indeed it was illegal for them to be released.

Where does the law fall on this, Loni?

COOMBS: It's not clear. What's interesting both police departments because we have two different reports that were released by two different police departments, sought out legal couldn't swell their city attorneys, their state attorney general's opinion and in the past that's been held that it was okay to release juvenile records under the FOIA when the juvenile offender is an adult now and the names were redacted, which is what happened with these police reports. So, they felt they were on legal basis to go ahead and disclose the

reports. There's the moral and ethical question what does this do to the victims and their feeling of trust over the confidentiality. But as far as the legal part itself, there's still this argument that law enforcement people said, look, we have these legal opinions that say we're OK to disclose these.

HARLOW: Gail, you say very clearly, this revictimizes the victims. Coming out, speaking on national television.

GAIL SALTZ, PSYCHIATRIST & PSYCHOANALYST: Exactly. It puts the spotlight on them, makes them rediscuss, re-examine, dredges it up for starters. But really I think in addition the big, big issue is it's a betrayal, it's another betrayal.

They were led to believe as they should believe that this would kept under wraps and then it was released which is a betrayal of them and, of course, you know, it's taking their family through all of this upheaval. I think the problem is that for people who are being victimized, for children, for adults who are being victimized and feel that they want to be able to report what's going on but are afraid, this is what they are afraid of, this really prevents those people from coming forward.

COOMBS: Right. What does this do to families in this country who are dealing with this right now and deciding do we report our child for this? We want them to have help. But look what happened in this case.

I mean, what is your advice, Gail, to families?

SALTZ: You know, look, I do feel that this goes on enough and this is dangerous enough. This is really -- I mean look, in many cases this could happen, it might start in a family, it might move outside of a family. Anyway, it's not OK to have happen and it should be reported. It certainly should be reported at least to Child Protective Services so someone can come in and assess, whether it's really safe to have the person who is perpetrating in the house. That's very important.

But most important is that everybody is getting treatment and that's both the perpetrator and the victims and that they are getting the kind of treatment they need from someone who specializes in this area, from someone who is really qualified to do that and I don't think that's been entirely clear in this case whether that happened or not.

And I think the question becomes confidentiality is really the corner stone of treatment for psychiatric purposes, it's also the cornerstone for legal purpose when people are going to report. We have to keep that in mind or we really destroy the trust on which the system is built.

HARLOW: Loni, do you think that the family has a legal case here? They talked about possibly bringing charges against the police department for releasing these records. Is there a case?

COOMBS: You know, once again because it's so unclear in this area of law, there's a lot of experts on the Freedom of Information Act that will say, no, they don't have a legal basis. What I think is the most important thing this discussion is being had. If it's that unclear, the law needs to be changed. There needs to be definitive opinion out there that says this is when we don't disclose and this is when we do so, so that victims and family can have some confidence in the system going on in the future.

[16:35:05] HARLOW: That's true. That is why there's a juvenile justice system and some people are tried as juveniles and others are tried as adults.

Ladies, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

We'll be right back.


HARLOW: Several Republican presidential hopefuls jumping on, what else? Their Harleys, and barbecuing in Iowa today. It is a chance for candidates to get a jump start in that early caucus state in what may become the next big annual political tradition.

Let's bring in CNN national political reporter, Maeve Reston. She is live in Boone, Iowa.

So, Maeve, Scott Walker -- aside from a lot of bikes there, there's a lot of politics and important politics going on, and a lot of people who want to go up in the polls. We know Scott Walker is on top of the polls in Iowa.

But what kind of opportunity are we seeing for other candidates?

MAEVE RESTON, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, right now, for example, we've got Ben Carson, who is a popular favorite here in Iowa, who is speaking to the crowd. You had Rick Perry come in on his own motorcycle ride this morning and then, of course, Scott Walker come in with Joni Ernst.

So, someone said to me recently in the crowd, it's like a roulette wheel. You don't know where it will end up and who will do well. And there is a lot of opportunity for these second tier candidate to rise here in Iowa even though Scott Walker has been leading in the polls for several months, which is kind of unusual in a state that goes back and forth between its candidates.

HARLOW: What about a Carly Fiorina, for example, right? She's the one who's been trying to get more and more traction in Iowa. This state just elected Joni Ernst, you know, the strong, outspoken woman. You see the same in Carly Fiorina. Do they like they are there?

RESTON: They do. We're seeing a lot of bright red Carly t-shirts out here today. There are a lot of people in the crowd. They really like her. The ones that have seen her, there's still a lot of people who don't know much about her.

But she's working really hard in Iowa and New Hampshire, getting her people organized, talking around at events around the state, and she was just up here. She goes right after Hillary Clinton and that's what a lot of people like about her. They think she will have a much easier time taking on Hillary Clinton than a lot of the male candidates here.

[16:40:05] So, that's what she's playing right now. That's the card she's playing.

HARLOW: All right. We'll be watching. Have fun. Be careful. Wear a helmet if you get on one of those motorcycles.

RESTON: Thanks so much. I will.

HARLOW: Maeve, thank you.

RESTON: I will.

HARLOW: One issue that could prove challenging for some of these candidates is whether or not -- where to fall on social issues, whether or not to support gay marriage. It is a dilemma that one prominent California Republican knows very well. Hewlett-Packard Meg Whitman opposed gay marriage when she ran for governor of California. Well, this week, I sat down with her in Las Vegas, and she told me why she has changed her position.


HARLOW: When you were running for governor of California you opposed gay marriage.


HARLOW: And recently, you are one of about 300 conservatives who filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage. Why did you make that decision and what does that tell us about society and the convergence of politics and these issues?

WHITMAN: Yes, yes, you're right. I was a proud signer of the amicus brief in support of gay marriage.

So, my point of view on this evolved. You know, gosh, living in California, society changes. You know things change, your perspective changes as you get a little older and society changes.

And I basically decided that this makes sense. It's the right thing for gay people, for lesbians to be able to marry just like everyone else.

And in many ways it's a civil rights issue. And so as I thought more about it, as I, obviously, went back to work as the CEO of a Fortune 20 company here in Silicon Valley I said, you know what? This is the right thing. You make a mistake, you fix it.

HARLOW: Interesting as you look at your fellow Republicans running for office what we're going to see them do on some of these social issues, where the country is clearly moving one way. WHITMAN: Yes, yes, yes.

And, you know, listen, it's -- I think you have to -- you ultimately have to do what your heart tells you, whatever place you are in your life. And as you probably know, I was a pro-choice Republican and that was different. But I had thought that issue through. I thought it made a lot of sense. So, you know, on those social issues it has to be more what's in here, I think.


HARLOW: Meg Whitman, CEO of Hewlett-Packard, there.

Coming up next, it could be the largest data hack in history. But it took the U.S. government four months to even realize that it happened. We're going to speak with the so-called hacker about why it took so long. And how much danger are these people in now that their information is out there. That's next.



MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, RODRIGUEZ GUITARS: My name is Manuel Rodriguez. I'm a third generation of this company, Rodriguez Guitars. My great- grandfather was a flamenco player and he played to the czar of Russia in the 18th century. My grandfather taught me to make guitars from my great-grandfather.

HARLOW: Back then, they were making about 25 guitars per year. Today, they say production has increased to 15,000. Five thousand here in Spain, each one three to four months in the making and sold up to $20,000. Ten thousand in China, each just a month in the making, and sold at around $200.

Ninety percent of Rodriguez Guitars leave Spain, exported to 120 countries.

RODRIGUEZ: They have lost some income. They're (INAUDIBLE) playing flamenco. I was there, and sometimes they play very Spanish playing flamenco.

HARLOW: The classical guitar market is a niche. So, the value really lies in the craftsmanship. To stay competitive, Rodriguez is constantly fine-tuning his operation.

RODRIGUEZ: Our plan is to build all the production of the low price guitars from China, move it back to Spain. We moved too much to China, and we have a huge building here, and we want to do that in about one year.

People will buy more on instruments made of Spain than in China.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:48:42] HARLOW: It is possibly the biggest cyberattack in U.S. history and U.S. investigators believe they can trace the breach back to the Chinese government. Personal data on 4 million federal workers stolen. The data breach believed to include Social Security numbers, along with names and addresses of government agents going back as far as 1985.

Chinese officials say the allegations are irresponsible. They say it wasn't them. But perhaps the most frightening is that it took the U.S. government four months to figure out this data was stolen. Let's talk about it with ethical hacker and social consultant David Kennedy.

David, thank you for being here.

1985, information on 4 million plus Americans. How dangerous is this?

David, can you hear me?

All right. David Kennedy cannot hear me. We're going to try to re- establish the connection with him. This happens in technology and we'll continue to talk about this story.

Still ahead, American pharaoh hours away from possibly racing into the history books. It is the big race day. That may not be the only record broken tonight if he gets a Triple Crown. We'll explain, next.

Sad face.


[16:50:00] DR. SANJYA GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Isaiah Austin is blind in his right eye due to a detached retina that he suffered as a teenager. But that didn't stop him from dominating the court as a Baylor University basketball center.

ISAIAH AUSTIN, FORMER BAYLOR UNIVERSITY BASKETBALL PLAYER: I knew that I had to perform at a high level in order for people to really respect me, and I did that.

GUPTA: In 2014, he was a top recruit for the NBA draft. But just days before that draft, Isaiah was told he has Marfan syndrome. It's a genetic disorder that affects the body's connective tissue. Doctors said he could no longer pursue a career in basketball.

AUSTIN: Toughest moment of my life.

GUPTA: Isaiah had to be tough, especially for his younger siblings.

AUSTIN: I just knew that I had to handle myself right in front of them because they look up to me like no other.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The NBA selects Isaiah Austin.

GUPTA: The NBA commissioner recognized Isaiah with an honorary draft pick and a job after he graduates. For now, Isaiah is working with NBA Cares and bringing awareness to

Marfan syndrome through a foundation he started. In his book "Dream Again," Isaiah shares his personal journey in the hopes of encouraging others.

AUSTIN: I could have been playing in the NBA right now and there could have been a high chance that I would collapse on the court, but my new passion really is to inspire people with my story.

GUPTA: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, reporting.



HARLOW: All right. We have re-established the connection. We're talking about this huge data breach where 4 million plus U.S. workers, dating back to 1985. Their private information including their Social Security number has apparently been hacked. Investigators believe it was done at the hands of China.

Let's talk about it with ethical hacker and security consultant David Kennedy.

David, when you think about this hack, people that worked for the U.S. government all the way back in 1985, their information getting released, you know, to who knows where, how dangerous is this?

DAVID KENNEDY, SECURITY CONSULTANT: I mean, we're seeing a concerted effort from different government agencies to collect intelligence. And I'm actually one of the individuals impacted by this.

[16:55:01] I had a security clearance as well in 2001. And you're seeing these types of attacks happen, whether they're stealing data from Anthem Premera, and U.S. government, in order to collect this intelligence to possibly do, you know, harmful things.

HARLOW: Well, what would -- OK. Let's say it's China. The White House isn't saying that yet. That's what U.S. investigators believe.

But if it is, what would they want to do with this information?

KENNEDY: They are getting a lot of information on personnel that work in DOD and work in very sensitive areas, you know, top secret programs and, you know, we do the same thing when it comes to signal intelligence and how we actively go and look for individuals in other governments. So, they can use this information to bribe DOD personnel or potentially try to impersonate them to get access to sensitive data.

So, it's a very much ongoing campaign we're seeing from these types of countries trying get that type of information.

HARLOW: But you've warned we shouldn't rush to judgment in pointing the finger at China. KENNEDY: That's right. You know, when it comes to these attacks you

can make yourself anybody you want to. I can make myself look I come from North Korea, Iran, anywhere. So, you know, it's really hard to say this country did this. We need to step back and analyze the evidence and look at who come out and did this before we actually start pointing fingers.

HARLOW: Representative Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee told me last hour, look, we the U.S. government are pouring billions and billions of dollars into this. So, it doesn't seem like a resources problem.

What is the problem that the government's data isn't secure?

KENNEDY: You know, Poppy, I sat on Capitol Hill, I testified in front of Congress a number of years talking about how vulnerable we are in the federal government. And the problem is we're so far behind on security right now, we're years and years behind any other private- sector industry that's out there and they are not doing a good job when it comes to security.

We have to stop treating security as kind of a car parts in the federal government, we need to step up our ability to attack these attacks and stop these attacks and go after individuals that did it. Unfortunately, we're so far behind. It's going to take a number of years to get there.

HARLOW: To hire the best of the best, but that's always so hard because the private sector always pays more. So, how do you get the best of the best to come in and work for the government on this?

David Kennedy, thank you --

KENNEDY: You hit it right up on the head. They're trying right now. They set up cyber command which they are getting thousands and thousands of cyber hackers that are supposed to come out and help.

HARLOW: Right.

KENNEDY: What I'm seeing -- I do some training for the government, but what we're seeing is they do to cyber command and may go there for a year or two, and then they got and get a six-figure job in the private-sector.

HARLOW: Right.

KENNEDY: So, it's really hard to maintain talent.

HARLOW: We see it all the time. David, thanks. Appreciate it.

KENNEDY: Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: It was back in the '70s when the world of horse racing saw it's last Triple Crown winner. There were three Triple Crown winners in the '70s. Secretariat in 1973. Seattle slew in 1977. And Affirmed in '78, that was the last one until maybe -- maybe tonight. We will see if American Pharoah can race into the history books. The 3-year-old colt is the 3-5 favorite going into today's Belmont Stakes.

As Vanessa Yurkevich tells us, there's a lot of money riding on this race.


VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN MONEY: The Triple Crown is the biggest event in U.S. horse racing. It's where the best of the best race for the glory. Let's face it a big payday. Not just the purse but the potential eight figure stud fees that might come after.

But you've got to be in the race to win it and that requires two things: a winning track record and deep pockets.

Take the Kentucky derby. Probably the most famous of the Triple Crown races. Owners are required to pay a $25,000 entry fee and $25,000 starting fee just to get into the gate. But there's no bigger purse. It's a guaranteed $2 million. But it's split between the top five finishers. So, first place gets $1.24 million, and fifth place still gets 60,000.

The Preakness and Belmont meanwhile has smaller stakes, just $1.5 million each. The entry fee is $15,000 and starting fee is the same. The Preakness pays out the top five finishers, the Belmont, the top eight. That means the winner just gets 800,000 and eighth place takes home 30 grand, essentially reclaiming their fees.

Whatever you win, it's an automatic 10 percent to the jockey, another 10 percent to the trainer. So, even if an owner wins the Kentucky Derby, they take home about $942,000 after everyone gets their cut.

But the real winning comes after the race, from stud fees. Street Sense won the Kentucky Derby in 2007, and commanded a $75,000 stud fee the next year. Today, it's $35,000 to foal.

Smarty Jones won the Derby and Preakness in 2004 and commanded $100,000 per foal the year after. And sires usually produced 100-fold per year. That could be $10 million.

But no horse has made more money after his racing days than 1964 Derby and Preakness winner Northern Dancer. His stud fee reached a record $1 million. Not a bad retirement gig.