Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

California Chrome Can Use Nasal Strips; Utah Lawmaker Intros Death By Firing Squad Legislation as Backup; Global Hacker Crackdown; Nasal Strips Approved

Aired May 19, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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


MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks for joining us at this the hour.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: May he well (INAUDIBLE).

PEREIRA: I'm Michaela Pereira.

BERMAN: And I'm John Berman. "Legal View" with Ashleigh Banfield starts right now.

PEREIRA: Got a little outrage in -

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: The U.S. cyber war escalating to a whole new level this hour. The Justice Department says it now has positive proof of the Chinese military -- in fact officers of that military -- hacking and infiltrating America's leading industries. And if that's not bad enough, hundreds more arrests right here at home and abroad for hacking into your bank accounts, peopling through your webcams and even worse than that.

Also ahead, Oklahoma's botched lethal injection has a Utah lawmaker lobbying for a more humane form of execution. And that would be, bring back the firing squad. No joke here. I'm not joking. Neither is he. My guest will be live this hour.

And big news just breaking in the biggest horse racing story in years. A monumental decision at the Belmont has the next potential triple crown winner breathing a whole lot easier today.

Hello, everyone, I'm Ashleigh Banfield. It's Monday, May 18th, and welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

We've got two major hacking cases to tell you about this hour. And it should be a really big wake-up call to the seriousness of the threat to your cyber security, your security online. Number one, and you're hearing this first on CNN, the FBI and police in several countries have arrested more than 100 people. And they've conducted hundreds of searches in recent days in a global crackdown on hackers linked to a software called "Blackshades."

Some people know it better as "creepware," and it's aptly named. It's where complete strangers can take control of your computer remotely. They can turn on your webcam. They can record video of you, take pictures with your own camera. They can access your hard drive. They can capture your keystrokes and thereby steal your passwords when you're getting into your bank account or even when you're logging into your social media accounts.

And if all of this sounds familiar, it should, because that young woman was one of the people who made it very public. She's Miss Teen USA, Cassidy Wolf. And she got an e-mail from an unidentified person that included some nude photographs of herself that she had never taken. They were taken of her in her bedroom from her own laptop.

The e-mail had a very creepy message. I'll read it for you. "Either you do one of the things listed below or I upload these pics and a lot more on all your accounts for everybody to see and your dream of being a model will be transformed into a porn star." It turns out a 19-year- old computer science student was behind the attack on this young woman. That person was arrested on federal extortion charges.

The second major story, again involving computer technology, this one from the U.S. attorney. Attorney General Eric Holder just announced that members of the Chinese military hacked and infiltrated America's leading industries. Economic espionage involving everything from steel and renewable energy to nuclear trade secrets. And Attorney General Holder plans to bring the suspects to trial in the USA.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is a case alleging economic espionage by members of the Chinese military. The range of trade secrets and other sensitive business information stolen in this case is significant and demands an aggressive response.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So I want to bring in CNN's justice reporter, Evan Perez, CNN technology analyst Brett Larson, the editor of techbites.com, and also CNN analyst and defense attorney Danny Cevallos.

First off, guys, I want to mention some of the companies that are involved here because they are - I mean they are the majors. This, again, involves the Chinese hacking story that we just reported. They include U.S. Steel Corporation, Westinghouse, Alcoa, Allegheny Technologies, the United Steelworkers Union and Solar World. And, by the way, China has just responded to these allegations and calls the charges fabricated, fictitious and absurd.

Evan, I want to begin with you as the justice correspondent here. The Justice Department doesn't just throw these kinds of allegations out frivolously. We are talking about a major nation and a major set of crimes.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Right. This is a big deal because they've been working on this for a couple of years now and, you know, one of the things that their -- I think they were ready to announce something on this probably just over a year ago and then Edward Snowden happens and suddenly the U.S. has to face the accusations, frankly, that the NSA was doing its own espionage all over the world. And so --

BANFIELD: OK, so it's delayed, big deal. So now we're there.

PEREZ: Delayed. But now we're -- yes.

BANFIELD: What -- where does the attorney general get off saying (ph), we intend to bring them to justice in the United States?

PEREZ: Right.

BANFIELD: We're talking about the Chinese military. They're not going to extradite top officers of the Chinese military for trial in the U.S.

PEREZ: Oh, no. That's right. I mean these people - you know, as long as they stay in China, they don't go on vacation, for instance, in the Philippines or in some country -

BANFIELD: Yes.

PEREZ: Where the U.S. extradition treaties and can get them arrested, they have no problem. This is really about the U.S. sending a shout across the bow, to try to show China that they know what's going on. The PLA has been doing this, there's a secretive unit in Shanghai that we've talked about on air before, that is basically focused on economic espionage, trying to steel secrets from big U.S. companies to try to advance the Chinese economy.

BANFIELD: You know, Brett, when you hear that list of companies, does anything -

BRETT LARSON, CNN TECHNOLOGY ANALYST: Right.

BANFIELD: I mean, U.S. Steel Corporation, Westinghouse, Alcoa, Allegheny Technologies -

LARSON: Right.

BANFIELD: You know, United Steelworkers Union, could it be said, and I will play the devil's advocate here, although people will throw things against the television set right now whenever defending China, could it be said for the Chinese defense that, hey, those industries work with the U.S. government. They manufacture things like steel. They could be working towards our disinterest in terms of our security. They could be supplying the U.S. military with things that could hurt us.

LARSON: They -- you could make that argument. But then that's, again, you're crossing that line into stealing trade secrets where it's - you know, why do they need to monitor them to see what our military activity is? More than likely what's happening is they're monitoring them because China's going through their own industrial revolution, they don't know how a lot of the things that we've perfected over hundred years works and it's easy to just kind of poke around on our computers and our servers and say, oh, OK, so that's the secret formula to make stronger steel or that's how you make a bulletproof side of a tank or what have you.

But it's -- this is where the Internet of things becomes a very scary reality because not only - I mean we talked about extraditing people. But what we have in the case of the Internet is this world wide web to, you know, use that term in a different light. But we have people all over the world with web access who can be in any countries, anywhere in the world, whether they're a friend of ours or not, and they can do things like this and there's not a lot we can do. Eric Holder can say, we're going to bring all these people to justice, but if they're hiding in Pakistan -

BANFIELD: Good luck with that. Send a plane. See how far he gets.

LARSON: With a satellite Internet connection, we're not going to get them.

BANFIELD: And I just, Danny, want you to weigh in on the other side. This is a duel pronged story and they're related but not. One involves creepy people here, you know, hijacking Miss Teen USA's computer and people of her ilk and anybody's computer and spying, steeling, extorting, doing all sorts of things, bank fraud, et cetera. Is this toothpaste out of the tube? You can announce 100 arrests. You can do all of that. But can you really stop this mess that's already out there?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the study of the crimes code, at least the federal crimes code as it relates to cyber hacking and computer crime, is really a fascinating one, even though it's very young, we're only talking about back in the mid-80s. And it was originally enacted to protect national security and some financial institutions. But you look at the -- some of these federal laws and they've been amended almost every year. Why? Because the very crime itself evolves almost daily as hackers are always a few steps ahead of the law.

BANFIELD: Yes, you're behind the 8 ball if you're amending it yearly.

CEVALLOS: Well, even - even yearly, you're absolutely right.

BANFIELD: Right.

CEVALLOS: And so what happens is the crime has to evolve and be more and more broad. For example, you don't need to download information anymore. If you even view it on a screen under federal law, you are violating federal law and you can be convicted. So you can see, over the last just 20 years, the federal government has increasingly had to evolve and amend federal legislation to try, try desperately to keep up with the hackers.

BANFIELD: Wow.

CEVALLOS: But you never can.

BANFIELD: That's changed since we last talked, I think, about that issue, by the way. I have to stop the conversation there, but clearly CNN is on this as we continue to learn more about these arrests and the evolution of the crimes and the treatment of them as well.

PEREZ: That's right.

BANFIELD: Evan, Danny, Brett, thank you all.

There's a big conversation going on right now about one California Chrome. California Chrome has won the Kentucky Derby. California Chrome has won the Preakness. But look at his nose. Se those flashing (ph) things. Yes, that's like Breathe Right. Everybody's wondering if he's going to be able to win the triple crown. But that little thing on his nose has been a bit of a hurdle. So what's the outcome? Can that horse wear those breathing strips and get that triple crown? We have an answer to the issue coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: You have probably seen athletes wear them. You may have even wore them yourself to bed. You know those nasal strips that help you breathe a little bit better, maybe stop you from snoring? Turns out horses can wear them too. And for a champion horse like California Chrome, those little strips, well, they could have been the difference between winning the triple crown or not.

And we have just learned that the New York State Racing Association, after hedging on this, is now going to allow that horse to wear those nasal strips for the upcoming Belmont Stakes. California Chrome, by the way, is a rock star. Plain and simple, a total rock star. He's already won the Kentucky Derby and Saturday's Preakness Stakes and he was wearing the nasal strip during those races. They help improve his breathing. They help prevent fatigue related injuries. They help him cool down after races like that. You can only see that so many times, right? No, we can never stop seeing that.

Those nasal strips are legal in Kentucky and they're legal in Maryland, but in New York, the home of the Belmont Stakes, they are not normally allowed. So when we're talking about the triple crown, we had an instance in 2012 where the horse named "I'll Have Another" also won the first two legs of the triple crown, but his owners were told the nasal strips were prohibited in New York. But it turned out the horse couldn't run anyway because of a leg injury, but still, it could have happened again to California Chrome and his owners may have not let him run at all. The co-owner, Steve Coburn, talked to Chris Cuomo on "New Day" this morning about just how special this horse is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE COBURN, CO-OWNER, CALIFORNIA CHROME: I saw him when he was a day old. I saw him in a dream three weeks prior to that and he was exactly like my dream. And I told my wife, I said, this horse is going to do big things. I don't know what yet, but he's going to do big things. And he's proven us right so far. We believe in our horse. We believe in our trainer. And he is proving to America right now that he is America's horse. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, he just might be that triple crown winner. And he's going to wear those strips during the race.

I want to bring in CNN's senior correspondent Richard Roth, who knows a thing or two about horse racing.

So what is the story here? Why is it that New York wouldn't allow these strips? Other states would. And, PS, that's not the only regulation that's very unusual and varies from state to state.

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Ashleigh, this is a problem with horse racing, which has seen thousands, millions of fans sort of disappear from the sport and then they come rushing back at triple crown time. There's no national commissioner of horse racing, unlike in basketball, football, hockey and baseball. And many have pleaded for years that this is what is needed.

Individual racetracks can set their own rules. There are different systems for the use of drugs, the type of racing surface, whether it's dirt or synthetic in nature. Every region has a different system. They tried to tighten up on the drugs by putting horses before big races in a so-called "quarantine barn" so that there's no tampering, but horse racing still sometimes shoots itself in the foot.

And in the last 24 hours, this nose-strip controversy certainly brought needed attention to the sport, but it's sort of a black mark that's not needed. So now, as you mentioned, California Chrome, barring any injury, is set to run June 7 for the Triple Crown.

BANFIELD: So let me ask you this, Richard. I've always wondered if those nasal strips really do make a difference in performance. Some people swear by them, say they stop their snoring. But do they make a difference? Can they give you the edge? And if that's true, why doesn't every horse wear them?

ROTH: I'm not going to run in 1:54 and win the Preakness, but for these horses, they can have more wider-open breathing passages, and it can stop some bleeding, and trainers say there's a slight advantage. It's not really the big factor in winning a race. And the New York state racing association said we never really had a ban, it was up to the stewards.

Look, it helps. Who knows what's been inside many of these horses over the years? There have been suspicions about several horses that tried for the Triple Crown and failed. It's just a messy situation that they refuse to tighten up on a national scale.

BANFIELD: We'll have to watch and see what happens in this final race of the three big ones.

Richard Roth, always nice to see you, thank you, sir.

For years, Michael Jackson has made our LEGAL VIEW newscast and a lot of other legal newscasts, and let's say it, all newscasts, because of the lawsuits that he's faced, suits against his estate, the legal fighting within his family, the suit against his promoter, and then of course all of the allegations about misconduct with young boys.

But last night, last night it was just all about the man and his music. Take a look. So that was the King of Pop, really seemingly back. I mean, really, this was so realistic, all of it thanks to technology. He appeared in front of this audience in a hologram.

His new song was featured as part of the Billboard Awards that aired on ABC. It is hard to believe that he's been dead for five years now.

Digital Spy is reporting that Michael Jackson's new album, "Xscape," again, posthumous, that new album, "Xscape," has topped the digital charts in more than 50 countries. I don't know if you've seen holograms before, but that one takes the cake.

I want to switch gears now and talk about something different. There have been many reports of lethal injections going wrong in this country. In one state in particular, there's a lawmaker who has another idea. Maybe not the electric chair. Maybe, instead, bring back the firing squad.

Anything wrong with that? He's going to answer that, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: After a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma last month, a Utah lawmaker says bringing back the firing squad would actually be a more humane way of executing criminals.

Utah State Representative Paul Ray says he plans to introduce legislation legalizing death by firing squad next year.

And Representative Ray joins me live from Salt Lake City to talk about this method of execution.

He's also joined alongside CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who's live with me in New York.

OK, Representative Ray, a lot of people are stopping and watching their TV screens right now, because any time you hear, maybe we should bring back the firing squad, it seems really barbaric. And most people would say there's a reason we did away with it in the first place. Why would you think it's good to bring it back?

PAUL RAY (R), UTAH STATE HOUSE: Well, Ashleigh, in Utah, our last execution was actually in 2010 which was a firing squad, so it's something we've used here in Utah in the past.

And it's been upheld by the Supreme Court as a means to do this. And with the problems we're having currently with the drug cocktail and lethal injection and the access to it, it makes sense to have a backup. And that's what this would be, is just a backup.

We're going to try lethal injection. If we're challenged in court, if we can't get the drug cocktail, if something doesn't work, then we can move over to the firing squad and have that as an option just in case.

BANFIELD: But isn't it just as bad? I mean, it is not fail-safe either. We have definitive proof. I think there was a case in 1897 where it took almost a half hour for a condemned man to die after being fired upon by his fellow Americans.

It just seems really odd to -- in this day and age -- have a man face down five of his fellow citizens who are all holding guns as a means of execution. No matter what your argument, it just seems odd, doesn't it?

RAY: No, it doesn't. You've to understand, 1987, or 1887, '97, they did not have the means that we do. We strap the individual into the chair at this point. There's no twitching or flinching. You're tied into a chair and those five people are not just civilians. They're actually police officers.

BANFIELD: So, Jeffrey, I want to you in here. There's a chorus across the United States of those who support -- and it's roughly 50 percent and a little bit more, depending on which statistic you cite, who support the death penalty.

And many will say, hey, they're not on death row for singing too loud in church, and it's hard to feel sympathy for many of these condemned people, if in fact they're guilty.

But at the same time -- and this is more of a moral question I'm asking you, not a legal question -- don't we occupy in the United States a higher moral piece of real estate in the world, given our Constitution, our "stick-to-it"-iveness with the Constitution, our land of laws, our commitment to law and order, and yet we kind of do the same thing that Saudi Arabia does in the center square?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, this is the tension about the death penalty, which is we, at least a majority of states, feel like some crimes are so terrible we want to kill people to punish them.

But at the same time, we want to do it in a way that honors the humanity of our system of laws. How do you reconcile those two? It's very difficult.

Frankly, I don't think the firing squad is out of the question. The Supreme Court upheld it a long time ago in 1878, but they have basically said to the states, you know, you can do it and make your own rules. And lethal injection, electric chair, gas chamber, I have every expectation that the courts would allow firing squads.

BANFIELD: So Representative Ray, if you're listening to what Jeffrey Toobin is saying, and of course we've all listened to what the Supreme Court has said, and we all respect the Eighth Amendment, and cruel and unusual punishment is not part of our DNA. Shouldn't be, anyway. Why not go with the guillotine? Only takes 10 seconds or so to die at that point with a guillotine.

RAY: There's a lot of options. The reason I chose the firing squad is simply that's what we've done in the past. We have the facilities. We have the equipment. We've done that. So that's why it's kind of a natural flow to go to the firing squad in Utah because that has been our means of execution in the past.

BANFIELD: But would you be against the guillotine if it also falls within the parameters of not being cruel and unusual punishment? It's pretty instant.

RAY: It's whatever a state chooses to do. My choice here is --

BANFIELD: No, I asked your choice. I asked your choice. I want to hear your choice.

RAY: My choice is the firing squad.

BANFIELD: Yeah, but would you be -- I just want to hear it from you. Would you be averse to, say, the guillotine, and if so, why?

RAY: You know, let's look at the Oklahoma issue, and we can answer it through that. You have a guy that raped a 7-year-old girl, buried her alive and allowed her to die. It doesn't matter to me how we take that individual out. That person deserved to die. And if a state chooses the guillotine, that's their choice.

BANFIELD: OK, notwithstanding, but this is why I want to get your answer. This is why I want to get your answer. Let's just stipulate to the heinousness of the individual and the heinousness of the crime. That's there. Would you be averse to the guillotine as a manner by which we execute people?

RAY: If a state chooses the guillotine, I have no objection to that.

BANFIELD: So, Jeffrey, is there something to that, just the notion that, have we evolved as a humanity? I mean, this is something that still happens in the center square in Saudi Arabia, countries like that.

Have we evolved as Americans to something other than that, even though it may fall within the parameters of not being cruel and unusual, or no more cruel and unusual than taking 27 minutes to die by firing squad?

TOOBIN: I think the states see this very differently. About almost 20 states say we will not execute anyone for -- no matter how heinous the crime. And there are a lot of people in the country who have a deep moral objection to the death penalty.

A lot of people, like the representative here, say, look, you know, these are horrendous crimes and, frankly, I don't care how they die. Their victims died a much worse and undeserving fate.

BANFIELD: Without question.

TOOBIN: And, of course, undeserving, which is the key fact, is the victims of crime didn't do anything wrong.

BANFIELD: But we as Americans decided eye for an eye is not part of our m modus operandi.

TOOBIN: That's right. And that's why the Supreme Court and all of us have such a tough time with these issues, because we do allow death by execution, but we want to do it in kind of a nice way.

BANFIELD: Yeah. It's hard.

TOOBIN: Keeping those two things --

BANFIELD: Representative Ray, I don't envy you. You've got to come up against me. I've got to challenge you. I don't like these people anymore than you do.

And I've often said on this program this is not about always the morality of it. I'm always very concerned about those who might be innocent. This is my biggest beef. But it's a very difficult decision. They didn't sing too loud in church. And yet we do like to consider ourselves evolved or at least further evolved than --

TOOBIN: If I could just add one point, the death penalty is down in the United States. The number of people --

BANFIELD: (Inaudible), but it's still high.

TOOBIN: But it's way down from where it was in the early '90s, almost half as much -- half as many executions as there were, and I just think that's worth keeping in mind about how --

BANFIELD: It is?

TOOBIN: -- how the laws have evolved.

BANFIELD: It is definitely on the decline, but I will also always add the fact that it is still half-and-half-ish in this country. And that's a very significant number of Americans to consider.

Hey, Representative, will you come back on the program and let me know what your progress is on that?

RAY: I sure will, Ashleigh. And also understand, this is not a debate about the death penalty. This is a debate on how to carry out the death penalty, and that's what we're talking about.

BANFIELD: No, I'm with you, 100 percent. That's why I brought up the guillotine. Thank you, sir. It's good to see you. I appreciate your perspective, and I'd like to see you again.

RAY: Thank you. Will do.

BANFIELD: In the wake of major scandal -- oh, by the way, Jeffrey Toobin, as always. I love your perspective.