Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Saudi Arabia Cuts Ties with Iran After Embassy Attack; Sources: Obama May Expand Background Checks. Aired 6-6:30p ET

Aired January 3, 2016 - 18:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:01:49] JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, in today. Poppy Harlow is away.

Breaking news right now out of Saudi Arabia, the kingdom, severing all ties with Iran after this week's attack on its embassy in Tehran. And it's giving Iranian diplomats 48 hours to leave the kingdom entirely.

This all stemming from the execution of some 47 prisoners by Saudi Arabia, most prominent among them a prominent Shia Muslim cleric. Iran, a Shia Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, Sunni Muslim protesters around the world showing their frustration, including in London where CNN senior international correspondent Frederik Pleitgen is right now.

Frederik, when you look at this case at the root of this really, is this Shia cleric a terrorist? The Saudi say he is, or was he simply a critic of the Saudi government? I mean, that really gets at the root of this conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia now.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, the Saudis, Jim, have been saying that this cleric, Nimr al-Nimr, is someone who stoked tensions inside Saudi Arabia. They accuse him of having a call to violence. The Iranians are saying that is not true. Actually, the head of the human rights body for the United Nations also very critical of Saudi Arabia's decision to put this man behind bars initially and then to execute him.

So, by and large, the reaction to this man's execution has been quite negative from most countries around the world. If you're looking at the European Union for instance, you look at the regional countries as well, it is however, of course, Iran's reaction to all of this that now has stoked this decision by Saudi Arabia. Last night, we had that ransacking of the Saudi embassy there in Tehran.

And the Saudis in that press conference today came forward and said that they believe that Iran is trying to undermine Saudi Arabia's security. The Iranians for their part are saying that is not true. And you did have the President Hassan Rouhani come out and actually criticize those who stormed the embassy and Iran saying they arrested 40 people who were part of that siege.

SCIUTTO: Thank you, Frederik Pleitgen, giving us the latest on this from London.

I want to bring in our CNN analyst on this, military analyst, Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, and intelligence and security analyst Bob Baer, he's also author of "Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul to Saudi Crude." Might be relevant to this discussion.

Bob, if I could begin with you, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say often times things happen in the Middle East with ulterior motives. When you look at this case here, I mean, there's already been deep tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia, some of it religious, the Sunni-Shia divide.

But Saudi Arabia making this decision to execute a prominent Shia cleric on its soil by beheading I believe, was there a reason behind that in terms of sending a message, for instance, to Tehran?

BOB BAER, CNN INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY ANALYST: Oh, I think there's a -- it's a message. I think that Saudi Arabia is feeling, let's put it this way, insecure with the war in Yemen. It's not winning it. Its forces in Syria, the forces at back, are not doing well.

[18:05:03] Saudi Arabia is not doing well in Iraq as well. It looks like it's surrounded. And it's worried about its Shia minority. It's the Shia Twelvers. They are not particularly active but they're very worried about them.

And also, you have a problem, you have de facto king in this country is a 30-year-old man, the second crowned prince. He doesn't have much experience. He's running the economy, national security, defense and the rest of it.

And I think clearly, the Saudis are making mistakes because Sheikh Nimr wasn't a violent man. And if he was involved in terrorism, Saudi Arabia did not make that case. And that's the real problem. That's the reason there's this outrage across the Middle East.

SCIUTTO: General Hertling, if you can ask you, you have two countries here with very big military, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, of course, armed by the U.S. And you have them already in effect in military conflict in a country such as Yemen where the Saudis supporting the existing government there and the Iranians supporting the Houthi rebels who are Shia as well.

Do you see a potential here as tensions escalate for military conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran?

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Absolutely, Jim. That's the key issue, that this is spiraling very quickly. And I agree with Bob, that -- I think that perhaps the Saudis were doing something to placate not only their own public but to take care of internal security matters.

You know, the focus has been on Nimr al Nimr over the last two days and his execution, but they executed 47 people in that 24-hour period, and the majority of them were Sunnis. And the majority of them were linked to al Qaeda organizations. They were all linked to insurgencies against the Saudi government.

I've talked to some of my contacts in Saudi Arabia today and the word on the street and in the Arab press is, hey, they were trying to clean up within Saudi Arabia. Nimr al Nimr was just one of many and as Bob said the case against him is suspicious and suspect in a few ways. But they indicate, the Saudis indicate, that this guy has been trying to conduct terrorist activity in the eastern provinces since the 1980s. He has been given a chance.

Obviously, the evidence against him is a little bit -- it's not enough to show that he has done these things. But the Saudis are saying this guy was at the base of terrorist activity, insurgency and the word for terrorist in Arabic is the same as banditry.

So, all of these people were countering what the new Saudi king is attempting to do, and that's quash internal revolt as he looks to the outside and all the threats in the area around him.

SCIUTTO: Bob, let me ask you about a different relationship, that's between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. It already has its troubles recently, one being the Iran nuclear deal with the U.S. Saudi is very of the uncomfortable with that. But also this talk of decreasing U.S. dependence on Saudi oil.

Does something like this continue, a decline, a deterioration in the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia?

BAER: I think it does, Jim. Look, this war in Yemen has turned out to be a disaster. Yemen as a country is being blown into rubble right now. You're having 20-some million people that are facing starvation at this point.

Washington does not support this war, nor did it support a lot of Saudi policies in the Middle East. But there's nothing we can do about it. And, you know, Washington would love to find a way to tone this down as General Hertling said. The possibility between a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is getting better by the day. And it's a war we couldn't control. Bring the whole gulf down.

And as well as Saudi oil supplies very quickly. I don't see how we can stop it, but I can tell you there's people burning the midnight oil figuring out what to do about this.

SCIUTTO: General Hertling, do you agree about the prospect of war between Iran and Saudi Arabia?

HERTLING: I absolutely agree. And, Jim, the other factor is we were on the cusp, when I say "we", I'm talking the United States and all the other coalition, run a cusp of getting both Saudi Arabia and Iran in the same room to discuss the issues in Syria, the thing that's causing the refugee crisis, that's causing hundreds of thousands of people being killed, and now, with the withdrawal of the Saudi Arabian ambassador and diplomatic team and the expulsion of the Iranian team, you're going to see no talk between these two countries unless something happens very quickly to get them back in a communications zone. And that's not only going to have deleterious effects between these

two countries even more than it already is.

[18:10:00] But it's also going to affect other players in the region. Syria most importantly, we've already seen condemnation from Iraq and Lebanon, as well as support from UAE and other Sunni countries.

This is going to cause sides to be taken in the Middle East, and I hate too say this, but again this seems an awful lot like what happened in one incident that caused the beginning of World War I. I don't want to see that happen, but I think we're very close to that occurring.

SCIUTTO: A lot of groups would love a Sunni/Shia battle there, one of them being ISIS, right? Something they're fighting for.

General Hertling, Bob Baer, both who know just a little bit about the Middle East.

And for more on Saudi Arabia, you can read Bob's book, "Sleeping with the Devil".

Some Republicans say that President Obama is testing the limits of his executive power with plans to tighten up gun rules by executive order. Up next, our political panel dissects the president's plans, two men, both fathers of young children, tell you how they feel about gun safety laws.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: President Obama is kicking off his final year in office with a monumental task, tackling gun control and the epidemic of gun violence in this country. The issue has stymied his presidency for years. Now, he will go at it alone and take executive action to tighten up gun restrictions and background checks.

CNN is hosting an exclusive town hall with President Obama on Thursday. You can expect the president to make his biggest pitch yet on gun control to viewers here in the U.S. and around the world.

I want to bring in Chris Frates in Washington.

And, Chris, tell us exactly what the president hopes to accomplish with this executive plans?

CHRIS FRATES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, he's trying to do a couple of things, Jim. He's kicking off his new year with a very aggressive push for tighter gun control and sources are telling us that expanding background checks will be a keystone of the president's actions.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A few months ago I directed my team at the White House to look into any new access I can take to help reduce gun violence. And on Monday, I'll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options. Because I get too many letters from parents and teachers and kids to sit around and do nothing.

FRATES (voice-over): Sources say President Obama's expected to announce new executive action soon expanding background checks on gun sales aimed at closing the so-called gun show loophole, which allows some gun sellers to avoid conducting a background check.

[18:15:04] Gun control advocates have also pushed the White House to tighten regulations on the reporting lost and stolen guns, and want the president to prevent more alleged domestic abusers and passengers on the no-fly list from buying guns.

But before the president has even announced the details of his actions, Republicans running to replace him were seemingly competing on who would undo them faster.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So, he's going to sign another executive order having to do with the Second Amendment, having to do with guns. I will veto -- I will unsign that so fast. So fast.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All these executive orders he's going to come out with tomorrow that are going to undermine our Second Amendment rights, on my first day in office, they're gone.

FRATES: And Jeb Bush argued there was no need to expand background checks because --

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The so-called gun show loophole, which is I think what he's talking about, doesn't exist. People that want to sell random, you know, occasionally sell guns ought to have the right to do so without being impaired by the federal government.

FRATES: Democrats have applauded the president's efforts. On Sunday, Bernie Sanders, whose Democratic rivals have called him weak on gun control, endorsed increased background checks.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think most gun owners in this country understand that people who should not own guns should not be able to buy them. And we do need to expand the instant background checks. I don't think that's an onerous burden on anybody.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FRATES: Now, measuring Americans' attitudes on gun control seems to depend on how you ask the question. In a recent CNN poll, a majority said they don't support stricter gun control laws or the president's handling of guns. But in a Quinnipiac survey, an overwhelming majority, 89 percent, said they support requiring background checks for all gun buyers, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Chris, look at the most recent mass shooters how they obtained their weapons, would enhanced background checks have kept them from getting their guns?

FRATES: So, that's a great question. We took a look and we found that the bulk of the guns used in recent mass shootings, they were bought legally and with federal background checks. For instance, all the guns used in the San Bernardino shooting were purchased legally, two handguns were purchased by the shooter and two assault rifles by a friend.

Now, the National Rifle Association which is a very pro-gun lobbying group, very big nationally as you know, argues that tightened background checks wouldn't have prevented these recent mass shootings. But President Obama says, if the reforms could prevent one death, then it's definitely worth doing, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Chris Frates in Washington, thanks very much.

FRATES: Nearly every weekend, there is a gun show in this country, where Americans can buy and see all sorts of hand guns, shot guns, rifles, ammunition clips.

CNN went to one in Chantilly, Virginia. That's not far from here in Washington, and asked people there to weigh in on the president's plan too take executive action on gun control. Here's what they had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNETTE ELLIOTT, OWNER/PROMOTER, THE NATION'S GUN SHOW: I think it's reasonable to have background checks. And I think in -- I don't think that we should do away with all background checks, but I don't think trying to enforce background checks on every gun sale in the country, I think we will end up making the -- that's so they can confiscate our firearms. I don't think it's to protect people because in every country they've done if before, history has proven that they have confiscated the firearms.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like a driver's license, you should have a gun license. There's no reason why that shouldn't be on the table.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe people are doing them on the -- just to the one side of ignorance based on a fear and again a lack of perception about how dangerous firearms really are in the American community to the individual American citizen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: In addition to opposition to gun control, some Republicans are accusing the president of abusing his power with his plan to tweak gun restrictions without any input from Congress using an executive order. Republican governor and candidate Chris Christie says Obama is acting, in his words, like a king or a dictator.

Now, the Constitution itself grants the executive power to the president and Americans differ on how to interpret the Constitution's division of power.

Let's talk it over with political commentators Ben Ferguson and Marc Lamont Hill. Ben, I want to ask you, first, just on the specifics of background

checks as a means of gun control, you personally, do you support or oppose the notion that everyone who buys a gun should as a first step go through a background check?

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think background checks are important. I bought a gun the other day and went through a background check. But I also think that background they can be too extensive when it comes to me inheriting a gun from my father or trading a gun with my family member. If there are multiple times I have had guns given to me, one from a grandfather, one from my dad.

[18:20:00] I also traded a gun with a cousin one time. And when you do that, I don't think we should have to go through that paperwork. That is one of the big issues here is, people are acting as if people are going to gun shows buying AR-15s or AK-47s without a background checks. The reality is that is not happening.

A single shot 22 rifle, for example, for young child, if I'm buying that from an individual for my kid, I don't think that needs to be a background check type of scenario. It's far too cumbersome and actually just strangles commerce when it comes to something that's not a big deal.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Just on that point, Ben, so we give marc a chance to respond. I mean, on that part, that's a fairly big concession because, you know, you're kind of getting into the specifics of when and how often. But on the big picture idea, that is, a basic first step, a background check, you don't see as a violation of Americans' Second Amendment rights. Do I have that right?

FERGUSON: I don't. I think the background checks we currently have are adequate enough. And you look at these mass shootings that happen, none of the laws that President Obama is advocating through executive orders would have stopped any of these mass shootings. The guns that were used were bought legally.

SCIUTTO: Ben, I want to give Marc a chance to respond. Ben, that's true. Marc, I should say that's true. We just had a -- we just had a report on air that we looked at San Bernardino, we look at Newtown, et cetera. Those guns were bought legally.

I mean, they were machinations. For instance, the San Bernardino shooter, there was a reason why he got his friend to get a gun in San Bernardino, so they didn't attract attention.

But, Marc, I want to give you a chance to respond to that argument which you often hear when things like this come up. Even if you had that law, it wouldn't have prevented this or that shooting. How do you respond to that?

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think the measure of whether or not a piece of gun control legislation is legitimate is whether or not it would stop a mass shooting. I would love to stop mass shootings, and mass shootings can be stopped through a range of factors, a range of variables.

But even if they don't stop any mass shootings as President Obama said, sensible gun legislation and gun control legislation more specifically will stop somebody from dying. And Ben made a point. He said, I don't think that I should have to fill out paperwork to pass something from a relative to another, from a cousin to an uncle or a mother to a son or what have you.

But this is only said but no reason is given. The only reason given for not willing to do is, is that it's a pain. No evidence is ever given that somehow commerce will be stilted by having to do more paperwork. Yes, paperwork is cumbersome, but it might stop one father from giving a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. It might stop one uncle from bequeathing a gun to someone with a severe mental issue.

(CROSSTALK)

SCIUTTO: Ben, we've got to do a lot of paperwork for everything. I've got to take my car in, again, to get it inspected, you know, two years after it was expected. And I got to go through that rigmarole. I mean, we got to do that for so many things. Why is that an entrenchment on the right?

FERGUSON: Well, the problem that Marc just descried is a problem that's already been dealt with the law that's are currently on the books. If I give a gun to a family member who's a convicted felon, I go to jail for that, if I'm caught or he commits a crime with that weapon. We already have laws on the books that do not allow for that transaction to take place. So, therefore, that fear or concern that Marc just described by saying, you know, we want to make sure that a family member doesn't give a gun to someone with a mental problem or has an issue with the law or has a conviction as a felon, we already have laws on the book that deal with that.

HILL: Here's the problem --

SCIUTTO: Marc, go ahead.

HILL: Hold on, we're trying to stop a problem, not punish a problem. That's like saying, well, we don't have to do anything because killing is illegal. Sure, it's illegal but people still do it. That's we try to control guns. Yes, giving a gun to someone who was a felon is illegal. But we don't want to punish someone who commits the crime. We want to prophylactically deal with this. The way to do that is that background checks which prevent the person from getting the gun in the first place. That's the whole point.

SCIUTTO: Marc, I may have it wrong, Ben, just on that broad point, and I know there are disagreements that sort of the micro level. But at the macro level, it seems you are at agreement, Ben and Marc, that background checks -- I want to give a chance, I'll give you the final word, Ben -- the general idea of background checks not a bad thing, not a significant infringement on rights.

FERGUSON: No, it's not. That's the reason why I support the current background check system we have.

But let's be clear: we're not going to stop any of these mass shootings by doing executive action that President Obama is wanting to deal with. I think the part is he's missing is that we have gun laws that deal with the issues that he's somehow claiming is going to be a silver bullet and fix.

And also I say this, though, if the president really wants to deal with the issue of gun violence in this country, let's start with mental health. That is the one thing that we keep seeing in all of these cases where we see these mass shootings.

If he came out and said, I want to deal with mental health only and allowing it where if you were committed against your will by the state, you cannot buy a gun for X number of days, I would be in favor of that.

[18:25:00] Allowing family members to, you know, wave that flag and say, hey, this person has been committed against their will. We don't want their guns or to be able to buy a gun. We think they're a threat. That would be no problem, but that's not what the president is doing.

SCIUTTO: Marc, hold your thought. We're going to bring you both back in a moment. I appreciate this conversation. I think it's a very healthy one. Do stay there with us.

I want to remind our viewers that this Thursday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, President Obama will join Anderson Cooper for a CNN exclusive, live town hall event about guns in America. He'll discuss the executive action on guns that he's expected to announce this week. He'll also take questions from a live studio audience, Thursday night 8:00 eastern only here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Armed anti-government protesters are showing signs of backing down as they occupy a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. The group is led by a man named Ammon Bundy. Members claimed to be taking a stand against the federal government's control and use of the land. Ammon is the son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher well known for his anti-government views.

It all started because two Oregon ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, are set to go to prison tomorrow because of arson. The Hammonds say they lit a controlled blaze to try to protect their property from wildfires. Authorities say the Hammonds did it to cover up poaching.

Ammon Bundy spoke to CNN earlier today about his motives and how long he's willing to stand out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMMON BUNDY, LEADING OCCUPATION: It may be days. It might be weeks. It might be longer than that. What we cannot do and what we must not do is just allow what is going on to go on. I mean, people need to be aware that we've become a system where government actually is claiming and using and defending people's rights, and they're doing it against the people.

And we cannot allow that to happen. I mean, in order for us to prosper as a people, we have to have access to the land and resources.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: It's important to note that the Hammond family at the center of this wants nothing to do with the protest and released this statement

[18:30:00] through an attorney, quote, "Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond family."

Ammon Bundy insist they're not terrorist, Ben and Marc are now back with me.

So, Ben if I could start with you armed men and women take over a federal building, is this domestic terrorism?

BEN FERGUSON, HOST, THE BEN FERGUSON SHOW: I think it's a really dumb idea. If you want to call it domestic terrorism, that's fine with me.

SCIUTTO: I'm asking you.

FERGUSON: I think what you're going to see is that you're not going to see politicians come out and back the Bundys like you did last time. These guys, no pun intended, are off the reservation. And I think the way that they're doing this is only going to isolate them and put people's lives at risk. All over something that has nothing to do with them with the Hammond family. And they're saying, we don't even want to be a part of the Bundys. They don't represent us. We didn't ask them to come. They're not doing this on our behalf.

And so, I hope this ends to the very peaceful way. I think the Bundys have enjoyed the fame that has come with their first standoff with their ranch and they're continuing it on and I think it's pretty dangerous.

SCIUTTO: Marc, I talk to the FBI a lot. They will often say that the cases of domestic anti-government extremism are more common than Islamic extremism, not any way to minimize the Islamic threat because it is major. But that you have this other problem we don't about a lot.

I wonder from your perspective how dangerous are movements like this particularly when weapons get involved?

MARC LAMONT HILL, PROFESSOR, MOREHOUSE COLLEGE: Well, I think as a general rule domestic terrorism is just as in fact more dangerous because of its prevalence than other forms of global terrorism. It's something we need to keep our eyes on and never sort of stray away from. I think it something in this particular case that we should we think about because they've been very clear and saying, we don't want violence, but if they attempt to remove us we accept there are people who are willing to die for this.

Once you start hearing that language my red flag goes up. Do I think these people are domestic terrorists necessarily? No, I do not actually. I think there has to be space for people whether you're a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal what have you to offer resistance.

Now this could turn into something ugly if don't -- if things moves forward. But right now, I don't think they're being domestic terrorists, what I find fascinating though is how quickly we are to assign the language of violence and the rhetoric of terrorism into certain people and not others.

I can image a group of black people occupying a building with or without us and not already being in jail or tear gas more bomb. We seen it Philadelphia with movements 78 and 85, we've seen in Ferguson when we where tear gas with our hands up. I mean, I could go down the list of times where this has happened.

SCIUTTO: Ben, I want you to hold your thoughts. Because we're lucky we have you both back. After this break, please stay with me. I want to show you now live pictures of Hillary Clinton getting ready to take questions from a live audience in that key early voting state of New Hampshire.

Tomorrow, Bill Clinton starts his run on the campaign trail for his wife. But will baggage from he's own presidency get in the way? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: A potentially pivotal moment in Hillary Clinton's campaign for the White House comes tomorrow. Her husband, former president, political heavyweight Bill Clinton, he will hit the campaign trail with an appearance in New Hampshire. He's popular and polarizing and brings of course baggage of his own to the campaign.

In fact, Donald Trump tweeted about this just a few minutes ago. He said "The worst thing Hillary could do is have her husband campaign for her. Just watch."

Ben Ferguson and Marc Lamont Hill they join me back again. So Ben, we know that Bill Clinton good for bring out the Democratic base still popular there, even with some independence also good for, you know, firing up the conservative base against the Democratic Party. On balance, a positive or negative for Hillary Clinton?

FERGUSON: Well, it depends on how Hillary Clinton uses this. When Hillary Clinton goes after the other side on the war on women or saying that they're trying to hold women back or equal pay or any of the issues with women, it exposes her to the reality that Bill Clinton has a lot of issues with women. It also exposes Hillary Clinton to the way that she demonized women that accused Bill Clinton of extramarital affairs.

So this is fair game in politics and she's the one that's going to go out there and claim that she's setting up for women when she did everything in her power to silence women that came out against Bill Clinton, I think she's opening herself up for an attack that's a fair attack, it's a fair topic to discuss. Bill Clinton was a former President, obviously a public figure.

And I think it was a really dumb move for her to attack Donald Trump and try to go after him on the war on women. And I don't think she realized how much it was going to backfire. It obviously has.

SCIUTTO: Marc, on the specific issue of Bill Clinton campaigning for Hillary, on balance, positive or negative for the Clinton campaign?

HILL: Absolutely positive. Bill Clinton projects energy. He's likeable. With black voters and particularly he seems to resonate much more than Hillary does. He brings back this idea of a golden age of Democratic politics in the same way that a Reagan would if he were alive for Republicans. Many people look to the moment where Bill Clintons was president as a sign posted that.

So I think it's a great thing. And quite honestly even when it comes to the issue of marital affairs, when the word Lewinsky comes up, Hillary Clinton becomes more sympathetic. I don't disagree with much what have been said, I think Hillary Clinton does has some problematic relation as well and some issues that we need to uncover. But I think when the whole Hillary Clinton wins when Bill Clinton's on the trail.

SCIUTTO: Ben, do you think that is -- that she gets a benefit out of that when the Lewinsky story, Paula Jones, et cetera, when those names come up? I'll just remind our viewers that Donald Trump himself brought those names back up last week. They're back in the political conversation.

FERGUSON: Well, that kind of that, you know, is it worth the risk of exposing yourself to the negatives of Bill Clinton?

Look, we know that the longer presidents are away from office the more people are liked. We've seen that with Bill Clinton, we've seen that with George Bush 43, we've seen it with George Bush 41, we've seen it even with Jimmy Carter. When he had incredibly low poll numbers when he left office.

But when you look at the details and really get into the issues that the Clintons have in their past, I think that starts to remind people of the Clinton presidency in the negative way that were around it and I think that actually hurts Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton isn't running for office. Hillary is. And I think Hillary Clinton really allows herself to be exposed for the issue that we talked about women. When women came out against her husband, she did everything she could to demonize them and to shut them down.

And if you're claiming you're going to protect women when they're saying things that may not be politically correct or may be the inconvenient truth in society, when at the same time you are shutting those women down when they were making accusations of are your husband, it's going to open you up. And I don't think the risk is worth it. SCIUTTO: Marc, I want to ask you a question because some -- if Rand Paul made this very point on our air.

[18:40:05] Then in the past 17 years that attitudes toward sexual harassment have changed in this country, certainly less tolerance today than there was then of course, I mean, not a great amount of tolerance then because it went to impeachment hearings. But you know what I'm saying here that -- there is less, you know, deference given many effect. Do you think that bringing those issues up today, are they potentially more incendiary in the year 2016 than they were in 1999?

HILL: No, absolutely and remember, you know, we went to hearings because of the lie. You know, when we look at someone like Clarence Thomas we see people becoming appointed to the Supreme Court despite allegations. Allegations 20 years ago weren't enough. I think now they might be -- I hope we have progressed enough where

gender justice and sexual equality and anti-sexism is something that we take seriously in the workplace. I think, though, at this moment we have to be very careful and walk a tightrope. I do think it's important to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for things she does with the issue of gender. But I do think it's troublesome to talk about her husband's indiscretions when she's running for office. That also marks -- that also reach him a kind of sexism that says, we're going to assess you base on who you're husband is and what your husband did.

And so I think it's a very fun aline here and we have to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for public policy that is against women. And there's plenty of stuff we can hold Hillary Clinton accountable for. I'm all about that. But I don't think going into her personal affair and talking about how she responded to her husband cheating on her is how we should deal with her or assess her as a president. I think that's a very troublesome position to take. And I would say that for anybody.

FERGUSON: And I agree with Marc on...

SCIUTTO: Marc just a quick -- what then point (ph) there.

FERGUSON: Yeah. I agree with the point of Marc's making. But again when Hillary Clinton is now running for president, it's now going to be, the story is going to be about her reaction to women that were saying that they were somehow wronged by Bill Clinton. And when she tried to shut them down and then claimed she's an advocate for women, that's where her campaign is going to get in trouble because she did try to shut those women down.

SCIUTTO: Ben Ferguson, Marc Lamont Hill our cup runs us over. Great to have you comment on so many topics today. I appreciate you coming in.

And don't miss Donald Trump. He will be on "New Day" tomorrow talking about his campaign for the GOP nomination, just four weeks from the Iowa caucuses. Tomorrow morning "New Day" on CNN.

And Steve Jobs a CNN film debuts tonight about the man who of course co-founded Apple and who brought the world products like the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. Find out what you may not already know about Steve Jobs and what it was really like to work with him. An interview with the film's director is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:47] SCIUTTO: In the past 50 years, it's unlikely we've seen an entrepreneur as important as Steve Jobs. COE and founder of Apple, computers was many things a visionary, inventor and man who drastically changed to help many of us live our very lives. Just think about your phone, how you use it today. To Steve Jobs, it was something you just use for phone calls. After him, the device on which you probably organized and digitally life much of your life. Jobs is also the subject of a new CNN film documentary "The Man in the Machine."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE JOBS, FOMER CEO AND FOUNDER OF APPLE: They will tell you it was the hardest they've ever worked in their life. Some of them will tell you it was, you know, the happiest they've ever been in their life. But I think all of them will tell you that it certainly is one of the most intense and cherished experiences they will ever have in their life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, they did.

JOBS: So, you know, some of those things are not sustainable for some people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I ended up changing my entire life. I lost my wife in that process. I lost my children in that process. I lost the whole structure of any life was just a changed forever by going to working on the Mac.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because the work became so intense?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The work was intense. The commitment needed to do it was intense. I would go in to work on a Tuesday morning and half the people would hate me. And I'd come back on Wednesday morning and half the people hate me but it was the other half. There were an awful lot of prima donnas in that outfit. So I was in conflict.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Our Pamela Brown sat down with the director of that film Alex Gibney.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The tag line for your movie is "Bold, brilliant, brutal." how did those three words sum up Steve Jobs?

ALEX GIBNEY, DIRECTOR "STEVE JOBS, THE MAN IN THE MACHINE": Well, he was bold. He had a knack particularly with those magnificent presentations for which he was the writer, director and star of giving us these bold new advances. He was brilliant. I think he was incredibly smart and had a way of understanding the way the Zeitgeist worked, the way he could almost sense what we wanted before we wanted it. But he was also brutal in terms of the way he dealt with people, in terms of the way he attacked other companies and corporations, how he dealt with his workforce. So he was always those things, and I think it's important to reckon with all of them.

BROWN: There have been other biographical films about Steve Jobs. So what makes this film different?

GIBNEY: One of the things that makes this film different is that Steve Jobs is the co-narrator of the film. I think that, you know, throughout you hear a lot of my voice because a lot of what this film was about is to ponder some of the things that Steve brought, both who he was, what the value of his companies were and what the values are of these devices that he was so much a part of creating.

But Steve Jobs is in there present almost all the time, including a very interesting deposition with the securities and exchange commission, so that you feel Steve Jobs throughout. So it's quite intimate in a funny way, and you really get a sense of Steve Jobs, but you get both the front angle, what he wanted you to see, and you get the other angle of what he didn't.

BROWN: And let's talk about that. What do you as the biggest difference between the public Steve Jobs and the private man?

GIBNEY: The public Steve Jobs was a carefully crafted persona, very cuddly in some ways. Steve really in person wasn't a very cuddly guy, at least not to a lot of his co-workers and employees. He could be extremely cruel. He could be ruthless. I think he did push people to do great work and a lot of people, you know, including the person that was on briefly before that, an engineer Bob Belleville, both reflects on the fact that he is proudest of the work that he did at Apple because he was pushed to do something great, but it also cost him tremendously in terms of what he lost.

[18:50:02] So I think that that translated also in terms of the values of his company. Steve Jobs' didn't give at the charity. He as I said, the way his company operated was under extremely ruthless manner.

So I think we have to see -- and the devices connect us all and they're fantastic in terms of being extensions of ourselves which is Steve Jobs' genius in terms of making us feel like they were part of us. But they also disconnect us from each other, as Sherry Turkle, a wonderful author says in the film, by using these devices we're very often alone together staring at the screens instead of at each other.

You can't blame that all on Steve Jobs. But I think in some way it's a kind of reflection of his personality.

SCIUTTO: Don't miss "Steve Jobs: The Man and Machine." It's great and powerful documentary at CNN. It airs tonight at 9:00 eastern here on CNN.

As the president prepares to unveil new action on gun control, we'll look at what led to this crucial moment as he begins his final year in office.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: President Obama is kicking off his final year in office with a monumental task, tackling gun control and the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

It has been one of the most crucial issues of Obama's presidency. He has made at least 12 public speeches in the aftermath of mass shootings, oftentimes calling on congress to take action.

Here's a look back at some of those many statements.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there's some steps we could take not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don't happen.

I've had to make statements like this too many times. Communities have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.

[18:55:00] We come together filled with sorrow for the 13 Americans that we have lost. With gratitude for the lives that they led, and with the determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

I have come here tonight as an American, who like all Americans, to pray with you today and we'll stand by you tomorrow.

And the federal government stands ready to do whatever is necessary to bring whoever's responsible for this heinous crime to justice.

All of us are heartbroken by what's happened, and I offered the thoughts and prayers not only of myself and Michelle, but also for the country as a whole.

And each time I learn the news. I react not as a president, but as anybody else would, as a parent. In the hard days to come, that community needs us to be at our best as Americans, and I will do everything in my power as president to help.

The lives that were taken from us were unique. The memories that our loved ones carry are unique and they will carry them and endure long after the news cameras are gone.

Any shooting is troubling. Obviously this re-opens the pain of what happened at Fort Hood, five years ago.

The country has to do some soul searching about this. This is becoming the norm, and we take it for granted in ways that as a parent are terrifying to me.

The good news is I'm confident that the outpouring of unity and strength and fellowship and love across Charleston today indicates the degree to which those old vestiges of hatred can be overcome. And each time this happens I'm going to bring this up. Each time this happens, I am going to say that we can actually do something about it but we're going to have to change our laws.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. Thanks for joining me today.

The next hour of Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield starts right after a quick break.