Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Defense Secretary Hagel Stepping Down; Ferguson Commission Established; Still No Decision from Ferguson Grand Jury

Aired November 24, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

Cabinet members come and cabinet members go, especially after elections that go very badly for the president's party. But the world takes note when a U.S. defense secretary makes a sudden -- and from all indications -- involuntary exit, as is the fate of Chuck Hagel less than two years into his tenure. As you may have just seen liver here in the past hour, President Obama making the announcement with the Vietnam vet and former Republican senator at his side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Over nearly two years, Chuck has been an exemplary defense secretary, providing a steady hand as we modernized our strategy and budget to meet long-term threats while still responding to immediate challenges like ISIL and Ebola. Thanks to Chuck, our military is on a firmer footing, engaged in these missions and looking ahead to the future.

Now, last month Chuck came to me to discuss the final quarter of my presidency and determined that having guided the department through this transition, it was an appropriate time for him to complete his service.

CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: It's been the greatest privilege of my life, the greatest privilege of my life to lead and most important to serve, to serve with the men and women of the Defense Department and support their families. I am immensely proud of what we've accomplished during this time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Joining me now with their insights are CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, who's in Vienna for the Iran nuclear talks, and CNN military analyst and retired U.S. Army Colonel Peter Mansoor.

And if I could start with you, Barbara, at the Pentagon, I watched that live moments ago and that did not look like somebody being shoved out. Maybe the optics are remarkable, but it looked like a love fest. BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the optics were

remarkable, Ashleigh, but I think more about a message to U.S. troops that the departing defense secretary, himself a Vietnam veteran, will be treated with dignity as he exits the door.

But make no mistake, Hagel and the president have been talking about this for weeks. We're now told it was all decided basically several days ago. The conversations may have been mutual. The decision may have been mutual. But nobody asked Chuck Hagel to stay and Hagel clearly had some reason to believe that things weren't working out too well.

You know, look, the National Security Council had floated a lot of chatter around town that they wanted to make changes in the administration after the midterm elections. No way was Susan Rice going. She's a close friend of the president. Secretary of State John Kerry, very local, very high-profile, very out there in the middle of those Iran talks. Chuck Hagel may have been the last man standing at this point.

So this really now begs the question, if you're getting rid of Hagel, dignified departure though it may be, what does this mean for U.S. policy with this new war against ISIS? Hagel had expressed his concerns that not enough attention was being paid to Syria. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs had expressed his concerns that a small number of ground troops could be needed in the future.

You get rid of Hagel, what does it mean for policy? Will policy change? Will they stick with the same policy they have, which is no ground troops and a very limited operation? And, of course, the bottom line question in all of this is, what does it mean for U.S. troops? What does it mean for the troops and for their families if there is a policy change?

So right now, today, this is just the beginning of us understanding what may be coming down the road. Hagel goes, who will come in after him and what will happen next?

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: I'll ask those questions in just a moment, because those are going to be real critical, Barbara.

Jim Sciutto, to you. It has not even been two years. I mean Chuck Hagel was being, you know, confirmed. It was a brutal confirmation process in February of 2013. Has something palpably changed since 2013? He came in to do the drawdown and to prepare for sort of a new order and to be an implementer but did that not work or was this the wrong choice?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, listen, the world changed, Ashleigh. When you look at the world two years ago, a little less than two years ago, what were the U.S., what were the administration's priority at that point? Drawing down, completing the drawdown in Afghanistan, drawing down in Iraq as well and transitioning out of that country. In the meantime -- and at the same time transitioning your focus to Asia, the rebalancing, the pivot to Asia for which Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was a key proponent. That was a focus of his.

Now, in that time period, you have a new war in Iraq and, in fact, in Syria. You have the revelation that, in fact, U.S. troops will not be, well, completely withdrawing from Afghanistan. We knew some would remain but they will also continue to have a combat role there. You have the U.S. at war on two or three fronts now. Secretary Hagel brought in with a different (INAUDIBLE), you can say, shrinking the Pentagon's presence overseas, also shrinking its budget, et cetera. And now you have very different priorities going forward. I think that is very different.

One thing I will say, as Secretary of State John Kerry just commented on this a few minutes ago ere in Vienna, he was asked. He said, one, he's very sorry that Secretary Hagel made this decision. So Secretary Kerry on point with the administration in saying that it was Secretary Hagel's decision, although I know our reporting is different. And, two, he was asked specifically about the secretary of defense chaffing at White House micromanagement asked if Secretary of State John Kerry faced the same micromanagement. He said, no, and he said that he never heard from Secretary Hagel himself that that was an issue. I mean just keep in mind, these were two - the two busiest - busiest arguably members of the Obama cabinet, Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, both veterans and now one of them gone.

BANFIELD: I want to bring in Colonel Mansoor if I can on this topic as well. Colonel, if you could weigh in a little bit on the notion that this -- Secretary Hagel was beloved by the troops, I mean, without question, the guy who was the first enlisted combat vet to lead the Defense Department, he certainly had the troops behind him. Will the next candidate need to have that same accolade or is perhaps civilian leadership more important at this point with a new direction going forward?

PETER MANSOOR, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: You know, I think when all is said and done, we're going to find out that this is -- this change is not being made for policy reasons. I think what President Obama wanted, after two very strong secretaries of defense, both of whom then went out and wrote memoirs somewhat critical of his administration, is he wanted a loyal team player who was also a strong secretary of defense. And I think what he got was a loyal team player whose skill sets as a senator never fully translated into being the secretary of defense. And I think both sides came to that conclusion. The midterms was the right time to make a change in that regard.

And if you look at the three candidates who are being vetted to replace Chuck Hagel, they're all experienced national security hands. You have Ashton Carter, a former deputy secretary of defense, Senator Jack Reed, a West Point graduate, junior officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and then most interestingly Michele Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy who could be our first female secretary of defense. And all three of them would be outstanding choices. And, you know, look, the troops are going to fall in behind whoever's nominated to be secretary of defense and they will continue with their mission. BANFIELD: All right, Colonel Mansoor and Barbara Starr, thank you to

you. And our thanks also to Jim Sciutto, who's live in Vienna for us too.

And I'm joined now from Los Angeles by the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congress Buck McKeon.

Congressman, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me at this very opportune time. Are you surprised by the news today being in the position that you're in?

REP. HOWARD "BUCK" MCKEON (R), ARMED SERVICES CHAIRMAN: I'm very surprised. This -- being in the cabinet is a really tough job. Being the secretary of defense is a very tough job. This is a man who's been a strong patriot, he's been a successful businessman, a senator, secretary, been a leader wherever he's been. But, you know, when you're in the cabinet, you just have to salute the commander in chief and move forward. And if you have disagreements, you know, he has never said one negative thing to me about this president. We've had lots of conversations. I think that he's a great man. We're going to miss him. I think the troops will miss him. But I think he's just -- it's a little hard asking somebody to carry out things that i think are not in our best interests and I think that he's done a yeoman's job. I wish him all the best in the future. We will miss him.

BANFIELD: Let me ask you, congressman, you look at a guy like Chuck Hagel, who is really well-liked all over Capitol Hill with a very storied career, long career, friends on both sides of the aisle, a moderate Republican, a guy who was liked by the troops, it kind of sounds like that would be the guy who'd be a shoe-in and wouldn't have a tough time with a confirmation process and yet it was blistering. The vote was 58-41. And I'm thinking, if a guy like Chuck Hagel had that much trouble two years ago, who on earth could actually weather this storm and get a confirmation in the upcoming, you know, new term?

MCKEON: Well, he called me this morning and told me about this and I just - I was flabbergasted. I told him we will really miss him but I think that he'll probably be there for a while because the way this president has started out since the election and what he's been doing, he's - he's digging him a hole - himself a hole on Capitol Hill. I think he's kind of in your face to the Congress. I'm not going to be there. I'm retiring at the end of this term. But I think he's going to have a very tough time getting any nominations through. So we may have Secretary Hagel there for a while.

BANFIELD: And you're saying this is going to be highly political, it is going to be ugly and it will not be an easy process to get a new sec def in place?

MCKEON: I'm just saying that it looks to me like the way he started out in dealing with Congress, what he's done with his illegal immigration problem and how he's kind of --

BANFIELD: And should that carry over to a Senate confirmation hearing for a secretary of defense when the country needs one? MCKEON: Should it? I don't know. But will it? Probably. I think that

just -- that's the way it happens. I think he was warned not to do what he's doing. He's come out full bore against the Congress when they haven't even - the new Congress hasn't even been seated yet. I think he's just asking for problems.

BANFIELD: Well, let's hope we don't all cut our noses off to spite our faces as the news (INAUDIBLE) this morning.

MCKEON: Well, yes, I think -- I agree with you on that, but I think that that's the direction he's headed.

BANFIELD: Congress Buck McKeon, thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate your perspective on this.

MCKEON: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Thank you, Sir.

And we want to move on to Ferguson, Missouri, now. A community very nervously waiting for a grand jury's deciding as to whether Officer Darren Wilson will be indicted or not. But no matter what happens, many of the underlying issues that sparked so many protests will remain in place. So there is a commission that is put in place to dig into it and fix these problems, or at least get as close to a fix as they can. Coming up next, you're going to meet one of those members. Find out why he put up his hand, how he was chosen and what he's already doing with his fellow commissioners.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Ferguson, Missouri, and communities across the nation waiting on 12 people, 12, seven men, five women, who have to decide whether or not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Michael Brown. The grand jury is reconvening today. Even though they can't read about the case or talk about the case, they have to know that there is impact on their community. They live there every day. The firestorm of controversy, the protests, the pressure, the headlines, the newspapers, it's everywhere. Local officials tell CNN, if a decision comes down today, an official announcement could come soon after. And not so much that whole 48 hours that's been talked about as the plan. It could be less. Over the weekend, protesters were marching peacefully, blocking traffic but relatively calm, except for this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DRIVER: I'm just trying to go home.

PROTESTER: Yes, all right, bro, yes. I know, but you're going to be here for a minute, bro.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, while shooting that video, "L.A. Times" reporter Matt Pierce was hit in the head by a small object and had to be taken to the hospital.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT PIERCE, "L.A. TIMES" REPORTER: So I didn't see anybody throw anything. I didn't see what it was. It just felt like a conk on the head.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: We don't really know what to expect if there is no indictment, but police are getting ready. Outside the courthouse, authorities have put up barricades to brace for backlash. And here is a sign of what may be coming to them. Written in graffiti at a park in St. Louis, a reference from the latest "Hunger Games" movie, "if we burn, you burn with us."

So what's being done to diffuse this potentially explosive situation? Well, it turns out, quite a lot. There's actually a commission that is in place. They were hand-picked. And they're working to right any wrongs in Ferguson and to find some real, long lasting solutions to the problems behind so much of the anger and the distrust in this community. And one of the people on that commission is joining me now live. Reverend Starsky Wilson is the group's co-chair and the pastor of St. John's Church in St. Louis.

Reverend, thank you so much for being with me. First, can you just give me a feel for this commission, who you all are and how you were picked and what kind of demographic you represent.

REV. STARSKY WILSON, FERGUSON COMMISSION MEMBER: Yes. Thank you very much for having me on today.

So the Ferguson Commission represents people from all throughout the St. Louis community. There are 16 commissioners. It is diverse racially and it is diverse by age and socioeconomic status. And there are folks on there who represent all sides of these issues, from folks who lead some of leading non-profit service providers for children, to those who care for health care in our region, to protesters and those who are even police and police commissioners. So it's a diverse group that's come together to focus on long-term solutions for all of the myriad issues that we've seen exposed in the August 9th shooting and those we've seen, quite frankly, in the 100-plus days since then.

BANFIELD: So have you had a chance to get together, you know, even just to meet your fellow commissioners and have you had any informal discussions ahead of what will be the formal discussions? I believe they start in December.

WILSON: Yes. So you're right, the formal discussions and our first official meeting happens in December, but we got together just for the announcement last Tuesday, had an opportunity for everyone to make connections, to put faces with names. Some commissioners were meeting one another for the first time.

But I'll tell you, one of the things I'm greatly encouraged by is that because of the level of activity and engagement throughout the community at different levels, these were folks who had a sense of one another's passion and care because this is not a disconnected group of people. There are folks who are working in volunteer roles with policing, there are folks who are working in volunteer roles in the community, folks who are working on racial equity and education. So we've had that opportunity to get together, to connect.

Rich McCore (ph) and I, the co-chairs, have had more of an opportunity to work together to begin to set some of the staffing and structure in place, to think about the strategy for community engagement, and to be thoughtful about how we will hear the many voices that are speaking now in different corners of the community in order to develop a collective vision for going forward.

BANFIELD: So, I don't know, this is probably putting the cart way ahead of the horse, but I'll ask you this anyway. You've got until, I think, September of next year to put together some kind of a report. I assume a written report. Do you have any idea at this early stage how you're going to get there and what it might look like?

WILSON: Yes. So a couple of things we should note. First and foremost, we're very clear in our engagements with the governor that as the independent commission we will be thoughtful and we will be intentional about fulfilling our commitment to provide a comprehensive report by next September 15, 2015.

But we're also very clear that we're not waiting until that point to make recommendations that make sense. So we understand that community relations with law enforcement is at the core of this. We understand that our municipal courts, as we've seen -- and how we have them structured, as we have seen over the course of different studies over the last 100 days are at the core of this. We know that racial and ethnic disparities in our region are at the core of this. So all of these things will be within the scope of what we assess and we won't wait until the end to make a final comprehensive recommendation, but rather when we have issues that have been appropriately vetted and we believe we have policy solutions to recommend, we will do those in the interim term, including as early as this legislative session, which will begins in January for the state of Missouri.

So we will be working and looking towards the long term. We'll make sure we have comprehensive study and assessment. But when we have issues that are ready and recommendations that are ready to go, we're going to make them so that we can take advantage of what we hear now, the voices of people who want change.

BANFIELD: Then you'll deliver. That's great. I wish you and your fellow councilmembers so much luck. You and 15. It's on you. I mean we have so much work and I'm sure that a lot of places around the country are going to be watching to see what you do. And I hope you'll come back and talk to us about it.

WILSON: I'd be glad to. Just like we said at the announcement, we definitely appreciate your luck. We invite the community and the nation to pray for us as we go about this very difficult work.

BANFIELD: Thank you so much, Reverend Starsky Wilson. See you soon. WILSON: Thank you.

BANFIELD: So the commission members obviously have their work cut out for them, but for the community, first order of business, the decision from the grand jury. We're going to get the legal view on what could happen, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: We were expecting a decision from the Ferguson grand jury in mid-November and we are clearly past that. But truth be told, they have until January the 7th to make their decision. And some people believe the fact that there is even a grand jury to begin with in this case is an indication that the case for an indictment against Officer Wilson is locked. Whether that's right or wrong depends on who you ask.

For the legal view on this, I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin, as well as Mark O'Mara and Danny Cevallos.

Mark, I want to start with you because you have presented to grand juries before. It is a very unique and secret thing and unless you've been in there, you really don't know the majesty and the secrecy of it. does the grand jury run the show, meaning, can they just keep this going as long as they want and keep asking to see and re-read and get another witness back? Can they do what they want here?

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: The question is yes, they do sort of run the show. They're the ones who have to make the decision. And if they want more witnesses, if they want more testimony, if they want more time to think, they get it. Now, generally speaking, in most grand juries, I'm not sure what's happening here yet, in most grand juries, it's the prosecutor who still runs the show because he or she sort of tells them what they want, customizes the presentation to get what they want.

BANFIELD: So, Sunny Hostin, from the streets in Ferguson right now, do you get the sense that it really doesn't matter at this point. Unless there is an indictment, there just will not be a feeling of comfort or understanding on the streets of Ferguson regardless of whether the evidence comes out or not?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I think that's right. Since I got here, Ashleigh, last night, this is all everyone is talking about. I'm talking about the person that rented the car to me, the person that was driving the airport shuttle, everyone at the hotel, everyone at the local stores. This is all everyone is talking about. And as you know, I was in Sanford, I was in Jacksonville covering other cases. This definitely feels different. This feels very tense. It's surprising to me how many people are keyed into this, clued in and know about it and really seem to care about it. And, remember, this is -- we're just waiting for a grand jury decision. We're not waiting for a verdict in a trial. So there certainly does seem to feel -- there seems to be a lot of unrest waiting for this decision.

BANFIELD: And what's so interesting, Danny, is that oftentimes the cases that a prosecutor with a tone of voice, with the direction that he or she presents the evidence to the grand jury can kind of -- can really shepherd the decision his or her way. But this is backwards because effectively what people think is that this prosecutor does not want an indictment for the police officer.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, that's what a lot of people are saying. But, remember, I mean a grand jury is the prosecution's show and, you're absolutely right, I mean, over time, the prosecutor will even develop a relationship with these people he's seeing over a prolonged period and they get to know each other and maybe trust the prosecution. And even if it's not on the record with the inflection, with the voice and the way they present the evidence, they can usually get that indictment and get over that very low standard. But you're right.

And isn't it interesting that with more attention, because of all this attention, the prosecution is likely showing all the evidence to the grand jury instead of just choosing a greatest hits to secure an indictment. And because of all this attention and all this evidence, the grand jury may end up sifting through and deciding that this is a no true bill situation, whereas had the -- if this had been a low- profile case, the prosecutor could have cherry-picked and gotten that indictment.

BANFIELD: Speaking of cherry picking, I don't know if this happens or not and I don't know if it's ethical or if it's standard procedure.

O'MARA: Sure.

BANFIELD: Can a prosecutor hold a piece of evidence back?

O'MARA: Yes.

BANFIELD: In case there's a no true bill and then he or she can reconvene a new grand jury with new evidence?

O'MARA: Well, the quick answer is, yes, they can do it because they customize their evidence, how to present. And if you want an indictment and you're going to give in just the evidence you want, you're not going to help the defense's case. Now, can they hold back a piece of evidence so that they know if they don't get it now they'll have it for later, that sort of falls on its own weight because if you really want an indictment now, you're going to present your best case now. You're not going to hold anything back.

BANFIELD: Right. Right.

Sunny, one last question to you, and that is this. The prosecutor in this case has said several times, whatever happens, you know, they're going to work towards making all of this evidence public, whether it's a redaction version of the evidence or not, but that is a big, big deal in secret grand jury proceedings.