Return to Transcripts main page

CNN TONIGHT

Hackers Stole Credentials of Sony Administrator; How Should U.S. Respond to Sony Hacking?; Fallout from Cancellation of "The Interview"; Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Appears in Court; Terrorism in the 21st Century; America's First Couple Mistaken for "The Help"; A Study on Racial Biases; Was Lennon Lacy Lynched?

Aired December 18, 2014 - 22:00   ET

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


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon.

Breaking news on the Sony hacking scandal. Officials say North Korea used old-fashioned low tech methods to gain complete access to the highest levels of Sony's corporate secrets.

We're going to have the very latest from South Korea in just a moment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich outright calls the hack attack an act of war that must be dealt with severely. He calls the White House response impotent.

So how should the U.S. respond? We're going to ask him.

Meanwhile in Boston, another case of terrorism. The Boston marathon bombing. A court hearing today for suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. A man injured in the attack shows his disgust with Tsarnaev supporters by waving his prosthetic leg in their faces.

We'll have the very latest on that as well.

And the Obamas talk about race. In a surprisingly candid interview with "People" magazine, the president and the first lady discuss their brushes with racism.

Are they playing the race card? And what if they are? I'm going to debate about that straight ahead.

But let's begin with the breaking news tonight. Sony has suspended tours of its Los Angeles studio until January because of security concerns following the hack attack. That is according to the "Hollywood Reporter."

And meantime, the Obama administration may publicly blame North Korea for the attack as the early as the tomorrow. Officials tell CNN that investigators know how the hackers got in.

CNN's Kyung Lah joins us now from Seoul, South Korea with the very latest on this story.

So, Kyung, we're learning tonight that the U.S. investigators think the hackers used a Sony employee's credentials to get in. What can you tell us about that?

KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's a targeted attack. And if you think about it from the hackers' perspective, it'd be a very smart attack.

From what we're learning from U.S. investigators they believe that they were able to hack in and steal the credentials of a system administrator. Essentially the guy holding the keys. Once they got the keys they were able to break in, have free reign, had access to all kinds of information and thereby wreak havoc. That's why this has been so successful. At least that's what we are hearing.

So how does -- what does this mean? What this means for Sony is that they now have to figure out how to button this up. But it also gives us a window into how successful they were just because they were targeted -- Don.

LEMON: Absolutely. So, Kyung, we have heard about this group called Bureau 121 North Korea. What have you learned about that group?

LAH: So Bureau 121 is, if you think about the -- the new warfare being cyberspace, these are essentially the foot soldiers. We don't know exactly how many exist. But we spoke to a defector and he believes that there are about 1800 of them, trained by Pyongyang, handpicked the best of the best, and trained in that -- I kept talking about that hard-targeted attack, trained to be hackers. They're sent out. They get their orders from Pyongyang. And what they do is try to hack into whatever system they need to.

Have they done this before? Well, the South Korean government believes that they are behind a massive attack that occurred in South Korea last year. But basically froze every single ATM in this country. So imagine that. For three days not being able to pull out any cash. Again, this is a very, very powerful group.

LEMON: Kyung, thank you.

Now to the hack attack on Sony. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, calls it an "act of war" that must be met with a "swift sand severe response by the United States government." He joins me along with Philip Mudd, senior counterterrorism analyst and a former CIA counterterrorism official.

Welcome, gentlemen. Newt.

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Good to be with you.

LEMON: Good to be with you, guys.

Newt, I'm going to start with you. After the Sony decision to pull the film "The Interview" you tweeted this, you said, "It wasn't the hackers who won, it was the terrorists. And almost certainly the North Korean dictatorship. This was an act of war."

You said an act of war. Do you think the U.S. has been caught flatfooted by this Sony attack? GINGRICH: Well, absolutely. It's been -- it was 23 days from the

initial assault on Sony to the final decision to pull the movie. Twenty-three days. The U.S. government did nothing. Made no representations. Pursued nothing. And the fact is that they now are saying the North Koreans were responsible.

When somebody comes into your country, coerces one of your companies, openly threatens to kill your citizens if they go to a theater, if that's not an act of war what is it? I mean, it just strikes me. This is -- this is a deliberate effort by the North Koreans and it's dangerous because if they get away with it, then who does what next?

LEMON: So --

GINGRICH: And how many people start deciding they can go after Americans, destroy their resources, cripple their lives, and do whatever they want to and get away with it.

LEMON: So my -- my question to Phil then is how should the U.S. respond? Should they respond immediately?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN SENIOR COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I don't think they should. I think what we have here is a problem in understanding not only who did it. And it appears today that we're starting to figure that out. But we're dealing with a new normal in cyber world. Back when I was at the agency in '01, 2001, 2003, we spun up a lot of threats and responses to terrorism because we did not have a lot of experience in working in that threat environment.

And I think we -- made a lot of mistakes in alarming the American people. Today we're sort of in the same situation in the cyber world. We do not understand how to develop policy. I agree with Speaker Gingrich on that issue. I don't think we have an established protocol on how to respond to this. So I think people at the National Security Council and elsewhere in consultation with people like Silicone Valley have to step back and say this is a new normal in the cyber world.

Let's not spin up too quickly. But let's figure out long term what we do about stuff like this because this is going to be lasting forever.

LEMON: Is a response more sanctions, as long as China is supporting them, Mr. Speaker.

GINGRICH: Well, I don't know exactly what the response is. The response could be to go in with our own cyber capabilities and close down North Korea. Simply take apart various North Korean assets that are electronic and cause them enormous domestic problems. But the real danger here is the entire rest of the world is watching.

If somebody can come into an American company, close it down so people literally are using paper and pencil, steal five movies, openly threaten to kill Americans if they go to a movie theater, and nothing is done?

Every -- every element that hates us on the planet is going to take that as a signal that we are so unprepared that we're an open target. I think it's very important that we find some very significant response to prove that it's very expensive to invade the United States with cyber capability, to try to coerce Americans.

LEMON: The counter belief is that North Korea is so unpredictable. And people are worried about it. They don't know how they will retaliate. Should that even be a concern that we don't know how they will retaliate, Philip?

MUDD: I think we -- I agree with the speaker. We've got to respond. Not just for North Korea. It's a state that's still living in some ways in the 20th century. Their people are starving, their infrastructure is limited, their technical capabilities -- beyond or very limited, Internet access is virtually unachievable in North Korea.

That said, in 2014, we've got to look to the future. What happens when Mexican cartels do this? What happens when human traffickers do this? What happens when drug traffickers do this? Iran, Russia, China. I think we've got to be thinking about where we go over the next five to 10 years in establishing a response and establishing a base line for how we deal with what is an incredible hack in the past few weeks.

And not look at North Korean isolation because we're going to have to deal with this in the new cyber world all the time.

LEMON: I want to read something that the director Michael Moore -- it's a statement he sent to CNN and it said, "Before the release of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' both the studio and myself plus some theaters received numerous threats warning us not to show it. None of this deterred any of us from releasing 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' We just hired more security."

I mean, Phil, how do you make a private company have a stiffer spine against cyber terror?

MUDD: I don't think you can tell them what to do. Let me be blunt. I would not have done this had I been them. In the world of risk and threat I sat on for years, this doesn't reach a threshold to change American culture to respond to an amorphous threat from an adversary we can beat. I understand Sony is nervous. I understand you can't predict a North Korean dictator.

But again -- and I don't have to sit in the Sony chair to figure out what happens the day after if there is an event and you go forward with the film. But in terms of how we respond, it's a rare moment where I'm going to agree with Michael Moore, I don't think we should have taken this severe response. We don't even know if North Korea has the capability to do this. I doubt it.

LEMON: Mr. Speaker, should theaters and Sony have stood up for the First Amendment? Are they in the business or just -- aren't they in the business of making money?

GINGRICH: Sure they are. But they're also in the business of defending the right of free expression. I mean, virtually everybody in Hollywood will tell you how desperately they believe in freedom of speech. They get extraordinary offended at any effort to censor them.

But this is a difficult thing because of our own laws. Imagine that a theater owner said I want to be courageous. I want to hold to have the movie tonight. And imagine that the North Koreans have been able to hire five local thugs to go in and shoot up a movie theater. Everybody in that theater would have sued the theater owner and said this was negligence. This was inappropriate.

I think that the way we have designed the system today, maximizes the risk for being courageous. And maximizes the legal exposure of people who are courageous. And we have to revisit that part of it. But I want to go a step further. This is not some local teenager, this is not some local hacker. This -- this is a nation state engaged in activities which included, overtly threatening to kill Americans if they went to a movie theater.

It's the job of the U.S. government to be engaged at that point. We had 23 days to the U.S. government to respond effectively. It did nothing. And frankly, if I had been head of Sony that would have made me very nervous.

LEMON: Speaker Gingrich, Philip Mudd, thank you, gentlemen.

GINGRICH: Thank you.

MUDD: Thank you.

LEMON: The fallout from Sony's decision to cancel "The Interview" is huge. The movie was expected to earn more than $100 million for Sony. "Variety" is reporting tonight that Sony stands to lose $75 million.

Actor Steve Carell is scheduled to star in a film that was to be set in North Korea, that film has now been scrapped. Steve Carell calls it a sad day for creative expression.

Joining me now legendary film critic, Jeffrey Lyons.

Good to have you here doubly so because you've seen this movie. We'll talk about that in just a moment. But do you think that -- do you think that Sony did the right thing by pulling "The Interview"?

JEFFREY LYONS, FILM CRITIC: Well, I don't want to sit in their chair. But they almost had no choice. When you think of the words aurora. When I was watching it at a critics screen, they didn't have it in the private screening room. They had it in a big theater. And walking out the thought did cross my mind, that boy, somebody could shoot up this place. Then I said, why am I thinking like that?

That's crazy. If you took the screenplay of the events of the last two weeks to a studio, five or six years ago they never would have bought it. It's hard to believe it's happening. I think they were just very scared.

LEMON: I want you to listen to what Chris Rock said from "The New York Times" today about how Hollywood feels about the hacking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS ROCK, ACTOR: This whole thing is just scary, man. It's like, you know, your e-mails, and it's your private stuff and -- I don't know. I mean, the whole town is scared. Everybody has got to be scared. No one knows what the -- you know.

DAVID CARR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Nobody knows what to do.

ROCK: Nobody knows what to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Is he right? Screenwriters, executives, running -- theaters running scared?

LYONS: It's true. This is mass censorship by somebody on the other side of the world using technology we didn't know they had ability to use. And it's frightening. What's going to happen to creativity, two or three years from now when somebody wants to come up with some idea for a movie that may offend some group? They'll try this too perhaps. It's really scary.

LEMON: OK. So let's talk about the movie. You are one of the few who has seen it. What did you think of it?

LYONS: It's kind of a fun, stoner movie. And it's co-written by Seth Rogen, who also co-directed it. And there are some funny moments. It's silly and it's funny. And of course the language to be take out some of the off-color word. It would be 20 minutes shorter. It's two guys who would know each other. And have worked in films before.

And it's quite an amusing film. I wish it would have been a little funnier. But here and there it gets scatological. But you kind of expect, hey, this is Seth Rogen we're dealing with and it's a fun day at the movies. It's harmless.

LEMON: Ode to film critic Roger Ebert, you give it with a thumbs up or a thumbs down?

LYONS: Not with thumbs. I would recommend people see it.

LEMON: You would recommend they see it.

LYONS: Yes.

LEMON: OK. So this is we're doing a film about him here on CNN.

So do you think another studio or production company might buy it and release it? For producer or some sort.

LYONS: Maybe someday, you know, Un is a young man, maybe when his -- when his time is over, who knows. People have said to me they'll put it on pay-per-view, they'll put it on DVD. That's going to take some time. It all depends possibly I think a way the United States reacts to all of this. The way we fight back. This is can't go on like this. Because Hollywood is only going to make, you know, family friendly musicals if this goes on.

LEMON: Was it a bad idea? Because at the end of the movie it shows the death, graphic death Kim Jong-Un?

LYONS: They're giving it away. Doesn't matter. Nobody is going to see it, by the way, right?

LEMON: But did -- in which -- what did you think?

LYONS: Yes. I was a bit surprised. It was pretty graphic. And a lot of the scenes of the movie are pretty gruesome. And I said, "Whoa they really did that?"

LEMON: I want to read this. This what Aaron Sorkin said, he said, "Today the U.S. came to an unprecedented attack on our most cherished bedrock principle of free speech by a group of North Korean terrorists who threaten to kill movie-goers in order to stop the release of a movie."

LYONS: Absolutely right.

LEMON: Is that --

LYONS: Sorkin is brilliant. And he's absolutely right. This is really scary. Every time they go to a movie, they have to say, boy I hope some group on the other side of the world isn't going to be offended by this movie. It's the repercussions that are scary to but as scary as what originally happened.

LEMON: Yes. Thanks for coming in. It's honor to have you here. We're glad your back.

LYONS: All right. Glad to be here. Thanks.

LEMON: Thank you very much. Jeffrey Lyons.

Lots more ahead here tonight on CNN. A court hearing for the suspect in the Boston marathon bombing. One of the people injured in the attack took offense at supporters of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and waved his prosthetic leg at them in disgust.

And in a surprising candid interview. The president and first lady talk about their experiences with racism. They're joining the national conversation on being black in America. Is it the right thing for them to do?

We're going to debate it the same.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Now to Boston in a deadly marathon bombing. There was a court hearing today for suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. His trial is set to begin in just a few weeks.

CNN's Deborah Feyerick was inside the courtroom.

Deb, we haven't seen Dzhokhar for quite some time. Not since his arraignment, right?

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. That's exactly right. That was 17 months ago. It was the last time that he was in the federal courthouse. He appeared today. He looked relaxed. His hair was a little bit longer. He seemed -- it was more disheveled. And the one change in the 17 months since I last saw him is he's grown sort of a small beard, it's a little bit bushy at the end and he was twirling it at times during the court hearing.

He also at several times sort of wiped his left eye, not clear whether it was watering or what was going on there. But he was wearing a black collared sweater, he had a white shirt, gray slacks. He was very respectful when the judge began questioning him. He said, you know, do you believe your lawyers have your best interest at heart. He said very much. And then the judge said, look, is there anything you want to discuss with me in private, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said no, sir.

You know, this is sort of more the guy who his friends remembered him as in high school when he was the captain of the wrestling team. We really thought that this was going to be rather uneventful.

LEMON: Right.

FEYERICK: But in fact, there was a woman who stood up and began shouting in Russian, Don.

LEMON: Yes. It was that the only dramatics in the courtroom? I understand there were -- they may have been a couple of instances where people erupted?

FEYERICK: Well, there really was. First of all, you had victims of the marathon bombing in the courthouse, sitting there, at the left of the courthouse, just watching what was going on. And, as matter of fact, one man had stopped by two women who were outdoors, basically saying, you know there is no evidence. That Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had been set up.

Well, this is what he did. At one point he actually took his prosthetic leg off and he started shaking it at women. And he said, you want proof? Here's your proof.

LEMON: So it's interesting. So these women were out in support of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

FEYERICK: Yes.

LEMON: Which may be interesting to a lot of people. Why do they think he is not guilty?

FEYERICK: Well, a lot of them don't believe that there's enough evidence. They believe he's been set up by the FBI. As the matter of fact, the woman who stood up and started screaming out in Russian, she is actually the mother-in-law of the friend of Tsarnaevs. The man's name is Ibrahim Todashev. He was apparently implicated in a triple murder that came out soon after this whole bombing. And while he was allegedly writing a confession he lunged at FBI agents and he was shot dead.

Well, this was his mother-in-law. She was screaming at the court, stop killing innocent people. Stop killing innocent boys. And she basically said, you know, "Dzhokhar, stay strong, there are supporters here for you." So there was really a lot of fireworks going on there that people did not expect.

One woman said it really well. She said, you know, and this was -- she was injured in the bombing. She said to me after court, she said, "The reason I came was not to see Tsarnaev, the reason I came was that so Tsarnaev would see us. He didn't win. And we in fact are now stronger because of what's happened. Not weaker," which was the alleged intent of this bombing -- Don.

LEMON: Before I let you go, what's next here, Deb?

FEYERICK: Well, the judge has to make a couple of rulings on several motions that are outstanding. The trial is set to begin in January. But once again, Dzhokhar's lawyers are going to try to postpone or delay the trial. They just say there's so much evidence. They need the time to go through it.

LEMON: Deborah Feyerick, thank you.

The Boston bombing and the hacking of Sony's computers, both forms of modern-day terrorism. Let's talk about that now with Juliette Kayyem, CNN national security analyst, and Kevin Mitnick, CEO of mitnicksecurity.com. He was once one of the FBI's most wanted after hacking into 40 major corporations just for the challenge.

All right. So, Juliet, let's begin with you.

(LAUGHTER)

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I'm going to be nice to him.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: Yes, absolutely.

KEVIN MITNICK, CEO MITNICK SECURITY: Be nice. LEMON: Juliette, it sounds like your voice is better. We're glad

about that. You know, we started the week worried about lone wolf copycats from the deadly hostage standoff in Australia.

KAYYEM: Thank you.

LEMON: Today lone wolf, Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was in court. Are the Sony hackers the same thing, lone wolf terrorists?

KAYYEM: No, I mean, at least now the evidence shows that it was North Korea responsible for the hack itself, right, into Sony. We don't know who's responsible for the 9/11 threat that came a little bit later. I wouldn't call them lone wolves if you're going to look at them altogether. What they really are, are a form of asymmetric warfare, or asymmetric threat that, you know, two brothers at a marathon.

One guy in Australia and 60 hackers from North Korea can essentially, you know, bring down an entire industry, the entertainment industry. And that's the nature of the kind of threat that we're facing. Part of it is the media and globalization of the media. Part of it is these attackers are more savvy about media. They pick high-profile events. They pick entertainment industries. So this is the sort of wave that we're looking at right now.

LEMON: So I wonder who is more dangerous. Is it someone with a pressure cooker or lone wolf with the pressure cooker or is it someone who can, you know, make a hacker skills that they can crack into computers, into companies like Sony or any other company -- Juliette?

KAYYEM: It's a different kind of threat. I mean, look, all of us can sit here in judgment of Sony. And the way I describe it as Sony, they acted perfectly rationally, if you are them. But as the rest of us, we have to live with the consequences of it.

LEMON: Yes.

KAYYEM: I think we don't have a good notion of how to both defend ourselves against cyber attacks and it's not just the U.S. government, it is obviously private industry.

LEMON: OK.

KAYYEM: As well as how to response. When people talk about warfare, what does that mean? I mean, how are we actually supposed to respond? And it's -- it is a new era in this regard.

LEMON: OK.

Kevin, to you now. U.S. investigators have learned that the hackers actually stole the computer credentials of a system administrator to get access to Sony's computer system. How hard on a scale of one to 10 is it to do what they did?

MITNICK: Well, it depends. It depends on their internal security and the how they shored up their defenses. But that's the first thing an attacker is going to go do is go after the system administrators because they have access to the keys of the kingdom. So in fact when I am doing a penetration test, which is illegal ethical hacking exercise, the first thing I go after is the administrator desktops to learn how the company operates, to get access to administrative passwords. So that's the first thing that any ordinary hacker would do.

LEMON: So you could have done this?

MITNICK: I don't know if I could have hacked into Sony. I believe so. And I'll tell you why is they had really sloppy security. One of -- one individual that works for the press shared some files with me. And I learned that the CEO, Michael Linton, his password to access the domain and his e-mail was Sonyml, his initials followed by number three, which is really a bad password. LEMON: One, two, three, four, right?

MITNICK: Right. The other thing --

KAYYEM: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

MITNICK: It's better than one, two, three, four, five, six.

LEMON: Right.

MITNICK: But the other issue was when the hackers released information, they pilfered from Sony it contained files that contained all the administrative passwords in plain ordinary text files.

LEMON: Goodness. OK.

MITNICK: So that means if a hacker got administrative rights, they're going to be able to get access to everything.

LEMON: So, Juliette, I saw you shaking your head in agreement that you thought that their security was pretty lax. But I have to ask you --

KAYYEM: Absolutely.

LEMON: Because, you know, he actually talked about that. But I want to ask you about this, remember the attacker said, you know, you don't want to do this. It's going to be -- make sure you remember September 11th. Do you think that that threat was credible?

KAYYEM: No, I didn't. And I don't think the government did. So when people say the U.S., you know, was on its knees, look, a private company, that is a Japanese company made this decision. It was a bad decision. But the notion that this is in somehow the equivalent of North Korea, you know, launching missiles on South Korea it just not true. And we have to just put it in perspective.

Sony should take some responsibility because any big corporation like that should have very, very strong defenses. And I think obviously, there will be consequences if we don't know what they look like but I think while this is bad and we'll have consequences, some sort of freedom of speech in the future, we should be careful with our language because we don't want to ratchet up something that can be cured by something less than calling it war.

LEMON: Kevin, what can companies do to prevent hacks like this in the future? You mentioned, you know, the password. One, two, three, four, five, six. Basically. What can companies do?

MITNICK: Layer defenses. We really need a good security industry that can come up with better innovative security products to help companies like Sony. And what I also learned about Sony is there was an internal memorandum that discussed their security monitoring procedures. And at mentioned in this memorandum that there were points in Sony's network that were not being monitored because of misconfiguration and mismanagement.

LEMON: Wow.

MITNICK: And this went up way -- this particular memorandum went all the way up to upper managements. And then they gave, you know, orders to, you know, resolve this. But if I was the bad guy breaking into their network, this memorandum would be, you know, the jackpot. Because now I know how to get into the network.

LEMON: The weakness. Yes.

MITNICK: How to be invisible but more importantly, how do these guys steal a hundred terabytes of data? So they know exactly where to send it out from and that's what probably happened in this case.

LEMON: Kevin Mitnick, Juliette Kayyem, thank you.

MITNICK: Thank you.

LEMON: President Barack Obama and the first lady offer candid observations in a magazine interview about their own experiences with racism. We're going to talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: They are America's first couple. The closest thing that we have to royalty, President Barack Obama and the First Lady Michelle Obama, but speaking to People magazine, according to the Obama's they're sometimes treated less than like royals of the first couple and more like the help.

So joining me now to discuss, Tara Setmayer, CNN political commentator and a Republican strategist, and Charles Blow, CNN political commentator and op-ed columnist for the New York Times, by the way I enjoyed your op-ed today.

CHARLES BLOW, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Very good.

LEMON: You are going to get in so much trouble for calling the Obama's royals?

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: I knew. I knew it.

TARA SETMAYER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Especially now, what is going on nowadays.

LEMON: Closest thing we have. I know it.

SETMAYER: Before a word get away from that.

LEMON: You read my mind. But I did it anyway. So, -- when they chatted about racism in this People's magazine article, they gave personal articles. (ph) So we give one and then I'll ask you a question. So, there is no black male my age who is a professional who hasn't come out of a restaurant, waiting for the car, somebody didn't hand them the car keys. That's happened to me, sure it's happened to you. President been adds that happened to him and Michelle Obama, recounted an answer, a black tie dinner, someone asked her that she was -- he's wearing a tuxedo, to get him a coffee, right? And went on to when she was at Walmart, remember, when she had a baseball cap on, someone asked her to get something off of a shelf, she said, she's the only person who came up to me in a store was woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn't see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who can help her, those things happen in life. So, this is anything new. What do you think?

BLOW: Well, I mean, all of these incidents that they're describing or this kind of what the kids not call micro-aggressions, right? They do them like really small things in the grand sweep of things. And these are -- it's not even things that you can -- completely pin down and say is this or is this not? Because no one will ever know, you can't climb inside another person's head. You don't know anybody else's motive, you don't know if that motive -- if there is motive...

LEMON: Analysis involved.

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: Really about -- the conversation -- the whole conversation always boils down to -- how does something make you feel? And that question may not be able to be answered, but if you can start with that question and the other people who are involved in the conversation which you are actually interested in getting to a better place of understanding...

LEMON: Right.

BLOW: They will engage and say -- well, you know I wouldn't have taken it that way. But I can see...

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: You have to get engaged in the conversation.

BLOW: But you...

SETMAYER: Yes, I think that is...

LEMON: Have you had a similar ex-experience to the first lady?

SETMAYER: I had an experience in the store. Actually, recently I was shopping, and this couple - white couple walked up to me and went through a lengthy explanation of what they were looking for. As if I was suppose to help them find it. And I simply said to the man, well, perhaps someone who works here would be able to answer your question for you. And I was on my merry way, they were embarrassed, then we're very apologetic.

LEMON: So this one works...

SETMAYER: Yes. LEMOM: You know, I don't work here, but I'll be more than happy to help you.

SETMAYER: Yes. I mean, it is on how you approach the situation. And I think that, that engaging about, with people in a -- from a positive perspective understanding is so important here. Because, how are we ever going to move forward, and I don't know that, these conversations and what, what the president is engage in, and I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical of the first lady's example here. Because, that target incident, she told the story completely differently in a David Letterman interview in 2012. She was discussing that incident and said that she was shopping, she was incognito, and that -- this woman walked up to her and asked her to pull something off the shelf for her, because she was tall. She said, you know, I thought my cover was blown, I told my assistant, "Uh-oh, my cover is blown. We have to get out of here." So she, she said it made her feel good that she was treated like a regular person, and the person who asked her to get it because she was short...

LEMON: OK. I understand that you --

SETMAYER: So why now is she turning it into a racial conversation. I think that's not helpful in this, we want to move forward positively.

LEMON: But she says in the article, I'm not sure why she did it.

BLOW: Right, Right.

SETMAYER: Yeah, but is It -- come on, Don.

LEMON: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: I genuinely believe that in this particular instance --

BLOW: Yes. She saw.

SETMAYER: Yes.

LEMON: Unlike the (inaudible) that she was putting it in some sort of a racial context.

SETMAYER: Right.

BLOW: Some part of her, whether it was, she always felt that way or not, she in this particular interview, she was putting it into that.

SETMAYER: Just didn't know.

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Do we have time?

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: Just give me a time for the Whoopi thing I really want to get that in.

LEMON: OK. We'll get the Whoopi thing in the next blog. But here, I'm gonna do, because Whoopi did a very -- we're talking having a conversation right? And we need to have a conversation about this. This is what Dana Loesch tweeted, she said, "The lesson is, never ask anyone for help with anything ever, no matter the need. It may be mentioned in people as a racist act."

SETMAYER: Well...

BLOW: So what does that do? That's not --

SETMAYER: Right.

BLOW: Anyway helpful, I don't think that is a person who is actually trying to...

LEMON: Yeah.

BLOW: Any of sort of conversations forward...

LEMON: Yeah.

BLOW: Whatsoever. I think you really do really do have to start with people who really want to say, I want to -- I want to understand what you are feeling what you thinking?

SETMAYER: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

SETMAYER: Life is tough.

LEMON: And Dana should know better than to tweet something like that about royalty. I mean you know what?

LEMON: I just the like guy (ph) you like to get to people.

SETMAYER: Life is tough and you are gonna -- you're gonna -- have challenges, obstacles. They're going to face you. But it's all about how you choose to handle it moving forward, and I think that's where we need to come from in this conversation.

LEMON: Hold that thought. Just being facetious by the way, to expalin you have to over explain everything here. OK. So, listen. Coming up, a new poll suggests 40 percent of Americans think race relations are good in America. But, are the Obama's parts of that 40 percent? We'll get into that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WHOOPI GOLDBERG, ACTRESS: Racism is when somebody comes up -- die, that's racism.

ROSIE O'DONNELL, ACTRESS: Yes.

GOLDBERG: Being...

O'DONNELL: But we know that...

GOLDBERG: No. No. But the difference is -- I'm going to Brooks Brothers. My mother will go into -- when it used to go into a place, and they would follow her around. Now, do I think it is Racist? No, I just think you're ignorant. You are white lady telling me what is racist to you.

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL: I'm a gay American -- what homophobia's natures looks like.

GOLDBERG: But it's not the same.

O'DONNELL: I have a black kid I raise, Whoopi. I have a kid in my house.

GOLDBERG: That is not the same.

O'DONNELL: You don't have to be black to know what racism is.

GOLDBERG: Yes you do.

O'DONNELL: No, you don't.

GOLDBERG: Yes you do.

O'DONNELL: No, you do not.

GOLDBERG: Yes you do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: That was Whoopi. Rosie O'Donnell. The rest of the View cast talking about racism. That was pretty heated. So, back with me now, Charles Blow, Tara Setmayer. I don't know what --

(LAUGHTER)

BLOW: What they were doing. Listen, one thing that I -- I think is really important to understand about bias and -- as relation to racism is that, it doesn't require malice, we constantly talk about it as if it requires you to consciously say, I hate this person, I'm nurturing this hate for different people who different than me and that is what it looks like. That is not what it looks like.

LEMON: But do you have -- I think there is a good question on those, Whoopi says a white lady is telling me what is racist what is not, and Rosie, I am a gay American, I have a -- you know, kids of color, like -- what are you talking about? Is she -- who is right there?

SETMAYER: I think that is an interesting dynamic there. Because, often times you do have a lot of white liberals who seem to think they're more offended and think that -- they know what's, what's best because of, you know, name calling or they want to be cool, so they were like, Oh we're down with the struggle or whatever. So that was an interesting, interesting dynamic, I hope that she feel all the time. But, but Whoopi has an important point there I think, and it is important to distinguish between over acts of racism, but racism -- that's the power over people. Or you know, think you believe in your inferior...

LEMON: But I think was there...

SETMAYER: Superior someone versus ignorance. There are a lot of ignorant people.

LEMON: I think was they are talking about is -- she's talking degree, right? It's not little overt. (ph) You can't, you know, you are not made to sit in the back of the bus, but...

SETMAYER: Right.

LEMON: Implicit bias.

SETMAYER: Right. And what understand the legitimate cases of racism.

LEMON: Always we're gonna waited. We gonna to work in a liberal into the conversation.

SETMAYER: No, no, it's true.

BLOW: Which is -- which is should be.

SETMAYER: They're the ones that think they're so enlightened.

BLOW: But secondly, you raise an important point, which is about this implicit bias thing. If you look at all the tests, I've looked at. How they test this. They don't give you time to think, if you take the implicit bias test on line, it's like split second decisions you got to make, It is not everybody has a to justify.

SETMAYER: Wait. Everybody.

BLOW: No, not everybody -- listen but it's not equal, right.

LEMOM: Yeah.

BLOW: So it's like 70 percent of white have a pro-white anti black bias. The Black people have a bias that is roughly split. So, it's like half, pro-black and half of it is actually pro-white.

LEMON: Let me tell you what you said.

BLOW: It is extraordinary.

LEMON: You said, you said the data shows that white and East-Asian had the strongest pro-white anti black biases. These biases were also strongest among those 65 and older, although, are those 18 to 24 ranked second among the age group and you go on for that. So, everybody has it but you some people have it more.

BLOW: Some people have it --

SETMAYER: It's generational too though, they coming from a different experience.

BLOW: Well, No.

SETMAYER: Unfortunately justifying.

BLOW: What the data showed, it was a very interesting as well, which is that older people had it, but also college aged kids were the second highest. Group with the second highest rates of bias, which is the pro-white, anti-black guy bias, which I think we need to dig into a lot more. We seem to think that it means something is solved. That it's not what is happening. In fact, the more we push it down and pretend it doesn't exist, the more it becomes a problem. It's like a weed.

SETMAYER: Sure.

BLOW: Vibrations like a weed. (inaudible) were done for the seasons never going to come back.

LEMON: I can't tell you how many years these conversations I had. And people say why are you stirring the pot? Why are you pulling the race card? Just because we are discriminating, how many times they ask you this thing...

SETMAYER: It's right.

LEMOM: Just because you are talking about it doesn't mean that you are stirring it up, you know. We talk about -- you know the -- financial industry...

SETMAYER: True.

LEMON: And it doesn't mean we are stirring up mortgage -- on mortgage crisis.

SETMAYER: That's well -- that's true. Except that this is something that is a perception versus an actual, you know, mortgage crisis you need a little more tangible.

LEMON: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

SETMAYER: Bias, you can't read what's in people's minds and hearts and that's the difference.

LEMON: The effect however...

SETMAYER: That's the difference. LEMON: Are absolutely tangible.

SETMAYER: It's true. But then if we're gonna move forward. Then we need to start concentrating on what -- what we do, when we encounter those kinds of conversations or encounter those kinds of uncomfortable situations. It starts with -- enhancing the positive experiences and also how you handle it.

(CROSSTALK)

BLOW: I do not agree with denying the fact that it didn't effect.

SETMAYER: I don't think we should deny it.

BLOW: Then I think some people asked us just be quiet about it.

LEMON: We hear about the race card. Do we all carry a so-called the race card? Do you have one?

BLOW: No.

SETMAYER: No.

LEMON: Why not.

SETMAYER: No.

LEMON: Let me show you. It's a black.

(LAUGHTER)

BLOW: I don't know if I have it. It seems that he have one. No, I don't think anybody has a race card, I even -- offended by the idea that people pretend it some sort of a game. It's actually not. Right? It -- has it, like, a historical precedent and it has presence in his -- in empirical data. This is real. All I'm saying that, let's constantly talk about it so we can get to a point we don't have much to say about it.

LEMON: Do you think that the first family says the president should talk more about race, because he gets criticized for not doing more, not talking more about the subject, what do you think?

SETMAYER: None of you -- no. I think this is difficult for him. He is The President of the United States first. And you know some people are going to say, no, a black man first. No he is not, he's the President of the United States first, and it's very difficult...

LEMOMN: He is obviously both.

SETMAYER: Why? I understand that. But I'm saying that he's -- you know, he starts veering off into having these racial conversations all the time, in the way he has been doing it. It further divides this country. He is not doing it from a, from a point of -- you know, what do we need to do to move forward.

BLOW: How can you say like that?

(CROSSTALK)

LEMON: Quick, quick, quick.

BLOW: I'm serious now, I'm very curious on how could...

LEMON: We just said we can't climb into somebody's mind.

SETMAYER: That's true, but in every one of these situations where it has been racially charged.

LEMON: Right.

SETNAYER: Has fallen on the side of -- non White America, but black American...

LEMON: I've got to go, but everybody says the black man isn't gonna do it, whose gonna do it, right? So, I got to go.

(LAUGHTER)

LEMON: But we will be back. I'm sure we will be talking about this more. Thank you, guys.

When we come right back, 17-year-old African-American Lennon Lacy's death was ruled a suicide after he was found hanging from a swing set near his home in a small North Carolina town. But his mother says, something does not add up. And now, the FBI is involved, my interview with Lennon's mom, Claudia, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: A suicide in the small town in Bladenboro, North Carolina may not be what it first appeared. Lennon Lacy, a 17-year-old African- American was found hanging from a swing set not far from his home. Lennon's mother doesn't think he killed himself. And now the FBI stepping in.

Joining me now is Claudia Lacy, Lennon Lacy's mother, and the Allen Rogers, the Lacy family attorney. Thank you very much.

ALLEN ROGERS, LACY'S FAMILY ATTORNEY: Thank you.

CLAUDIA LACY, MOTHER OR LENNON LACY: thank you.

LEMON: What do you think happened to your son?

LACY: At this point I have no other choice but to believe it was a hanging. Lennon was a -- a vibrant child. He just -- with into his football, focused on -- that was his main objective. He loved football. Even from a young toddler. Redskins were his favorite football team, and that's what he tried to become an NFL football player, and play for the Redskins one day, hopefully.

LEMON: So, you think that he had everything to live for? LACY: He did.

LEMON: So, it's beyond your imagination that he took his own life.

LACY: Yes, it is. It is.

LEMON: You called it a lynching and that has racial overtones. Do you think that his death was racially motivated?

LACY: It could have been, in the community that I live in is not -- likely not to have been, because like I said it is separated. It's desegregated, you can sense it. No to so much to see it, but sense it and could you see at the certain point if you lived there long enough.

LEMON: He was -- he just broken up with his girlfriend who is an older white woman, right?

LACY: Yes.

LEMON: 31-years-old.

LACY: Yes.

LEMON: She was a white woman. How do you think that factored into this. Do you think it factored into this at all?

LACY: It could have.

LEMON: How so?

LACY: Her background for one, the company she kept, and also the fact that she was older. And more experienced, and ex-husband.

LEMON: And a different ethnicity. That she's white, he's black?

LACY: Yes, yes.

LEMON: Did that make a difference?

LACY: Yes.

LEMON: Was that an issue in the town?

LACY: It was an issue in the town, also with the family.

LEMON: Her family?

LACY: My family.

LEMON: Is your family?

LACY: I own personally talked to her one-on-one as a mother to another mother. She has three children in the home, 11-year-old daughter. And I put it to her like this. I said, if my 17-year-old came to your house, and wouldn't talk to your 11-year-old, how would you feel? -- Same scenario, thinking that she would think of it as, from my point of view.

LEMON: You know, and?

LACY: There was nothing really to say it, except -- either change stop and it didn't.

LEMON: You said that there -- you believe there were too many inconsistencies like the sneakers he was wearing when he left. You said the sneakers were different when they found him, the ones that he had on when they found him.

LACY: They weren't his is. Two sizes too small, no shoelaces. That's not feasible, it's not logical. Many (ph) denied would not put himself through that kind of tennis shoes that were two sizes too small, why? He left home with a brand new pair of Jordan's that I bought him for school.

LEMON: Allen. You have lost all confidence in local law enforcement, is that correct? Why is that?

ROGERS: It's correct because -- you know, what this family just wants is a diligent, a professional, unbiased investigation. And what you had here was an investigation that only lasted for a few hours, before they were ready to term it as a suicide. An investigation that didn't even include photos of the scene, going to the medical examiner's office, nor all the evidence of -- for example the shoes. An investigation that didn't include any forensic tests being done or even recommended, we saw in the reports that the -- that the medical examiner indicated the local police did not want to do an autopsy. And the local police did not provide the dimensions of the swing, and, you talk about a police department that has never had an African-American.

LEMON: Right. He's found in the swing set. And then someone, someone, there was woman, right? Who was a small, small in size, called 911, helped get him down and everyone is wondering, how can someone, as small as her, get him down.

LACY: Yeah.

ROGERS: That's right. They expect this family again to believe, this -- very small woman was able to talking to the 911 operator -- take him down from that swing, while talking on the phone. And then, supposedly attempted more CPR on him, though, he had rigor mortis that already had set in. There were some suspicious ant bites, what so basic ant bites, suspicious scratches as well confusion on his forehead.

LEMON: Yeah.

ROGERS: This -- they didn't acknowledge.

LEMON: So, what happens now? The FBI, how do you think the FBI can help?

ROGERS: Well, I think the FBI can help. Because, they can thoroughly investigate the leads that -- that have come from the community. Certainly, there is forensic testing that can be done. All along, one question has been -- you know, the manner in how, how is it possible that he could do that to himself. And you know?

LEMON: How did he get up there, right?

ROGERS: that's right.

LEMON: On top of all of this, Lennon's grave was desecrated. When you found out -- found that out, what did you think?

LACY: I was in shock, of course. The question was why? He's already dead. Let him rest. Why would you do that? It's not going to bring him back. It it's not gonna change anything. He is where he is. I didn't understand it. I didn't get it. Why would you do something like that? Unless it was -- anger. You know from him dying or whatever the reason may be.

LEMON: Thank you, Claudia.

LACY: Thank you.

LEMON: Thank you.

ROGERS: And thank you, Don.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: That's it for us tonight. I'll see you back here on Monday. "AC360" starts right now.