Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

White House to Netanyahu: 'Don't Betray Us'; New Round of U.S.- Iran Nuclear Talks Today; Did Hillary Clinton Violate Federal Rules?

Aired March 3, 2015 - 06:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There could be some sensitive information revealed.

NETANYAHU: Today we are no longer silent. Today we have a voice.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm less concerned, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu's commentary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iran will never have a pathway to a weapon. Not on my watch.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hillary Clinton may have violated federal rules when she was secretary of state using a personal account to conduct all government business.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm told 1,000 feet, that's the last thing that I remember. I had no idea what was happening.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota, and Michaela Pereira.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, welcome to your NEW DAY, it is Tuesday, March 3rd, 6:00 a.m. in the east. And the White House is warning Benjamin Netanyahu, do not betray our trust. There's a real concern that the prime minister may reveal sensitive information about America's ongoing nuclear talks with Iran.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: The controversial speech polarizing Americans. His appearance so divisive that dozens of lawmakers plan to boycott it and the White House says the president will not watch it we have this story covered the way only CNN can.

We begin with senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. So the president is not making this appointment viewing -- Jim.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Not must-see TV for President Obama. He is all but acknowledging there has been damage done to the U.S.-Israeli relationship, but he said that the damage will not be lasting. The White House is now bracing for the impact of Israeli Prime

Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress later this morning. One major concern, as you mentioned, is that the prime minister will divulge sensitive details from current U.S. talks with Iran over its nuclear program. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday that that would be a betrayal of U.S. trust.

Now, Netanyahu insists that those talks will pave the way for Iran to have a nuclear weapon soon. But in an interview with Reuters, the president said Netanyahu has been wrong before, and he's off the mark this time. The president maintains he does not take this rift with Netanyahu personally.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think it's permanently destructive. I think that it is a distraction from what should be our focus. And our focus should be, how do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

I think that, in the meantime, negotiators are going full speed ahead. Ultimately, what's been remarkable is the international unity we've been able to maintain in saying to Iran, "You have to show the world that you are not pursuing a nuclear weapon."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Now, the president went on to say there is less than a 50 percent chance that the nuclear talks will actually produce an agreement. He wants to delay Iran's capability to quickly produce a nuclear bomb for ten years.

As for Netanyahu's host, House Speaker John Boehner, his office says the demand for tickets to this morning's speech is like nothing they've ever seen before. But dozens of Democrats will be skipping the speech, and as you know, Vice President Joe Biden will not there be. In his place, Utah's Republican senator, Orrin Hatch, Chris. That will only add to the Republican look, the partisan look of this speech later this morning -- Chris.

CUOMO: It's interesting. The demand is greater than ever, but there's more supply than usual also, because of those who aren't going. Jim, we'll check back in with you in a little bit.

So sensitive information, what does that mean? What will the prime minister actually say? CNN global affairs correspondent Elise Labott has that part of the story from Washington. Morning, Elise.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Morning, Chris.

Well, the prime minister, let's be clear, has a single sales objective today. That's to stop the agreement shaping up with Iran, and his aides are promising information that has never been revealed before to paint this information as rushing into a deal with Iran without briefing Congress, a deal that will not stop Iran from being able to develop a nuclear weapon, as Jim said. Netanyahu has not only talked to the U.S. about these negotiations,

but other parties in the talks. Israel also has very good intelligence. So the prime minister's aides say they know exactly what's in this deal, enough to conclude it's a bad one. And the hope is that Congress will move to pass sanctions if that deal goes through.

The prime minister has really raised expectations about what he's going to reveal. And after the president and national security adviser, Susan Rice, last night sought to preempt him by laying out the broad strokes of the deal, U.S. officials I'm speaking to say they aren't sure Netanyahu has the kind of bombshell that's really going to make a difference.

But this morning there are reports Iran is now rejecting what the president said, what adviser Rice said about Iran's claims to refute. And that's exactly what the prime minister wants. He wants to put a wrench in these negotiations, however he can. And this whole drama surrounding the speech seems to be doing just that -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Elise Labott, thanks so much for all that background.

Let's dig a little bit deeper on whether Prime Minister Netanyahu will reveal sensitive details of the Iran negotiations during the speech today, because that is what Obama officials are warning. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIE HARF, DEPUTY STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON: We were incredibly disappointed, that some Israeli officials were saying Prime Minister Netanyahu would reveal sensitive information.

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are concerned by reports that suggest selective details of the ongoing negotiations will be discussed publicly in the coming days.

SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: I'm not going to get into all the details about ongoing negotiations. Nor should sensitive details of such a negotiation be discussed in public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Let's bring in senior editor for the "Atlantic," David Frum; and Peter Beinart, CNN political commentator and contributing editor for Atlantic Media. Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here to talk about the Netanyahu speech and to preview it.

Peter, why would Prime Minister Netanyahu reveal sensitive information when Obama officials are warning him not to?

PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, because of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu is here to try to derail these Iran negotiations. And perhaps he thinks he has some information about concessions that the United States has made that would turn the American public or the American Congress, in his mind, he would hope, against the deal.

CAMEROTA: David, what do you think he's going to do? And what do you think the tone of this speech will be this morning?

DAVID FRUM, SENIOR EDITOR, "THE ATLANTIC": Can we complete the verb, reveal to whom? The Iranians know everything that's been proposed to Iran. It's revealed to Congress. That's what the administration's afraid of. That Congress will know.

The administration is -- behind its negotiating or after its negotiating strategy, it has a congressional strategy, and that strategy is don't tell them; don't let them vote. Prevent -- keep Congress out of this.

So the secret, the point of protecting the secret is not to protect American national security interests, because the Iranians know all the things that have been proposed to Iran. It is to protect the administration's political agenda.

CAMEROTA: So that's interesting, David.

I mean, what do you think, Peter, about that?

BEINART: Obviously, Congress should know, once the detail is finalized, everything that's in the deal. But to suggest that Benjamin Netanyahu is a good-faith broker of what's in the deal is absurd. His entire point here is to try to destroy the negotiations. Are we really going to take seriously the idea that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to give a fair appraisal of everything that the Iranians have conceded on, in addition to the things they have not conceded on?

CAMEROTA: David, some people have suggested that the prime minister might even somehow try to overblow what he claims the evidence is to make the case against Iran.

FRUM: You know, the administration could easily defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in that case by briefing selected members of Congress about what it's doing and keeping Congress in its confidence.

Look, this is a treaty in everything but name. Treaties are supposed to be ratified by the Senate, and the -- the administration is trying to create a narrative here where it's Benjamin Netanyahu against America. But again and again, it is the administration that has been at odds with Congress, not with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The reason we -- the only reason we have these negotiations so far is because in January 2012, Congress passed tough sanctions that the president fought tooth and nail to stop. When he was overwhelmed -- defeated, the Senate voted 100-0 in favor of the Menendez-Kirk sanctions. That's when we got progress.

The administration says Benjamin Netanyahu has been wrong. They have been wrong. They have been -- they have said things won't work that, in fact, produce exactly the positive outcome the administration has discredited. BEINART: Benjamin Netanyahu also said that Iran was two or three

years away from a nuclear weapon in 1990. So he said that -- he said that Iranians don't wear blue jeans. So neither side has perfect credibility here.

The issue is, once a deal is completed, then absolutely. Congress should know what is in that deal. But it is not for a foreign leader to come here and selectively, while the negotiations are taking place, selectively give certain pieces of information in order to try to torpedo the deal before it's concluded.

CAMEROTA: David are you comfortable with whatever Netanyahu is going to say today?

FRUM: Well, I don't know what he's going to say. So obviously, there are things that he could say that I would not be comfortable with.

CAMEROTA: If he were to reveal some sort of sensitive details of the deal is that -- it sounds as though you're saying that he's only revealing them to Congress, and they should know, anyway.

FRUM: Look, if he reveals -- if you've been following the negotiations very closely through "The New York Times" or CNN, you already know enough about this deal to be very disturbed.

For example, you know that the administration, because these are their own leaks, is proposing leaving Iran with 6,500 centrifuges, which is more than Pakistan had when it broke out of the nuclear arrangements in -- in 1998, I think the year was. So he may tell Congress things that have been publicly presented but have never been drawn together into one picture.

If I'm guessing that what he's going to do, I would suspect that's it. It's not what the revelation is going to be: hearing it all in one place from an authoritative source, rather than in dribs and drabs from highly offbeat or boutique publications.

BEINART: We know that John Kerry said those leaks were not reliable.

What I would hope the standard from Benjamin Netanyahu would be, would be what is your alternative? I don't think most people are claiming this deal is perfect. What is the alternative? Do you think military action is better? Since most of his own security officials have said it would be a disaster. Do you think more sanctions would be more effective? Most people who know Iran well think those would destroy the Riyadhi (ph) team and, in fact, strengthen the hardliners. So what's the alternative here?

CAMEROTA: David, some parallels are being drawn between this speech and the one that Colin Powell gave in the days leading up to the Iraq war, in front of the U.N., where he offered up what ended up to be erroneous evidence. Do you -- what do you think the tone of today's speech will be and do you think it will be a warning, a la the Colin Powell speech?

FRUM: Well, let's remember, Prime Minister Netanyahu is only there because Congress invited him, although a lot of people around the planet who would like to speak to Congress, you don't get to invite yourself. They have to invite you. And that is one difference with the U.N. speech.

And I think the tone will be magnanimous and inclusive. Prime Minister Netanyahu has always made a point of speaking to the whole country, the whole Congress, and of giving President Obama due credit.

When he last spoke to Congress, he began by congratulating President Obama for the killing of Osama bin Laden. So I suspect he will not be provocative.

And ln Peter's lists of concerns about credibility, let's remember in 2011, during the last round of battles about whether we should have more sanctions, the administration said then that more sanctions would be a catastrophe. The sanctions were passed in January 2012, and the results have been, in fact, that Iran came to the negotiating table. It has been the proponents of sanctions who have been proven right again and again, and the opponents of each round of sanctions who have been proven wrong.

BEINART: Right. And what about the credibility of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Republican allies, who said that the -- Iran would not abide by the interim agreement at all, and the sanctions agreement would collapse? That hasn't happened. The -- in fact, I think if you look at -- if you look at the record of Netanyahu on Iran, I think it's actually been flawed again and again.

CAMEROTA: We asked David, last thought?

FRUM: I noticed two days -- two days ago, Peter, that the International Atomic Energy Agency said they still have not received the information they need to have to confirm that Iran is complying with its obligations, so there's a lot of Iranian secrecy. And Iran, what we know has never been revealed willingly. It has been obtained by surreptitious means.

CAMEROTA: All right. We have to leave it there. We'll see what happens this morning. Very interesting, Peter Beinart, David Frum. Thanks so much for helping us to preview it.

CNN will have special live coverage of the prime minister's speech, anchored by Wolf Blitzer, beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern. Stay tuned for that -- Chris.

CUOMO: All right. So you heard the debate there. Now, all indications are that Israel's prime minister is going to blast any idea of a nuclear deal with Iran today.

Now at the same time, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will be full speed ahead, trying to make deal with Iran, meeting with Iranian leaders in Switzerland for a new round of talks. CNN's chief national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, is there in Switzerland with more.

Jim, good morning. JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Good morning,

Chris.

You know, I just saw Secretary Kerry. A few minutes before that the foreign minister, Javad Zarif, taking a break on this beautiful day after a busy morning of meetings. And both said that they're still working hard at this deal, that the gaps are still there, but they're narrowing those gaps, working towards an agreement.

It's just another indication that these talks here, that are the center of the controversy with the Israeli prime minister, are continuing independently and aggressively, you might even say accelerating. They had two long meetings last night. They're going to be meeting face to face all day today. That's going to continue into tomorrow.

So for all of those politics back home, here they're trying to make a deal.

I will tell you the one way, the one place where that speech is injecting itself into these talks, are real concerns from the U.S. side, Secretary Kerry expressed them in detail yesterday, about what details Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to reveal; and already push- back saying any details independent of the broader agreement are by definition misleading. Because you have to see them all together, all the concessions, to know exactly what the agreement is.

But I will tell you, Chris, they are nervous about how far he's going to go. And State Department officials have made clear that, if he does reveal some of this secret information, private information, that that could change the intelligence sharing relationship going forward. It's a pretty remarkable thing to say between these two close allies -- Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Jim. Thank you very much. We'll check back with you, as well. Those talks just getting started. But let's see where they head -- Mick.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, may have violated federal record-keeping rules by using her personal e-mail account for government business during her entire tenure as the nation's top diplomat.

"The New York Times" reports that her aides took no action to preserve those e-mails on State Department servers. They've since turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails to comply with federal record-keeping practices. A Clinton spokesman tells "The Times" that Clinton has been complying with the, quote, "letter and spirit of the rules."

CAMEROTA: The U.S. air traffic control system is at risk for a hack attack, according to a just-released report by the federal government. It finds the FAA has taken steps to decrease vulnerabilities, but it has not fully addressed flaws in critical computer systems for years. Auditors say the shortcomings put systems tracking -- systems that track flights around the world in jeopardy. CUOMO: All right. Here's a wild one for you. You remember this

mysterious tunnel that was discovered in Toronto? Canadian authorities were scratching their heads? Well, no more. Two words: man cave.

An underground bunker was discovered in Toronto, dangerously close to a stadium that will host the Pan Am Games, so it frightened authorities, and they launched an investigation. But Toronto police say the chamber was dug by two men for personal reasons, to hang out in. They're both in their 20s, and they won't be charged.

PEREIRA: Look, what you guys don't understand is that real estate is really expensive in Toronto. It's really costly.

CAMEROTA: Are men that desperate, Chris, for alone time?

CUOMO: I feel that man cave is a...

PEREIRA: It's literal.

CUOMO: It's symbolic. You know what I mean? You don't usually dig a hole.

They must have been married for a very long time. Only safe, cool space.

CAMEROTA: They were in their 20s. How long since they have been married?

CUOMO: Marry young in Toronto, I've heard.

PEREIRA: Well, cold winters up there.

Speaking of winter -- nice segue there -- a messy winter storm tracking across much of the country tonight through Wednesday. Who is expected to get the hit hardest? And is more snow on the way after this storm? Meteorologist Chad Myers, you know, I'm thinking of making part of my ensemble an over-the-shoulder strap with a shovel and snow boots and just wearing it until May.

CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Right. You know, people are selling their houses so they can buy one close to their work, so they don't have to travel very far. This is just getting insane.

It's snowing in Chicago right now. Over 10 percent of the flights out of Chicago are already canceled this morning. That's 100 in and out, both ways. And the snow is coming to New York tonight and more snow to Boston. I think there's no way Boston doesn't break their all-time record. They only need about three more inches.

Then it changes over to rain. Then it changes back over to snow again. It just can't make up its mind. And Atlanta goes to 74, then back into the 40s.

Chicago, there's your snow. It changes over to ice later on today as the warm air pulls in behind this storm, because there's a warm front here. There's your snow. There's your ice, and then eventually all rain.

New York City, you get a snowy evening commute, but then it rains again overnight as the warm air comes in. But that's a warm front, and this is a cold front. And behind it, more snow comes in for the next couple days and by Thursday morning, a lot of snow coming in.

Philadelphia, you could get six to ten inches of snow with this. Boston, you're on the southern edge. We'll have to see what happens there. But New York, you're going to get snow, as well. The winter that won't end.

I'm going to find that furry little Phil and tell him what I think of him. First the snow...

PEREIRA: He knows (ph).

Here's the thing: either we fight it or we accept it. I'm clearly in the fighting it stage, and I refuse to accept it.

CAMEROTA: Right. I mean, I had surrendered to it until March.

PEREIRA: Yes.

CAMEROTA: And now I'm fighting it.

PEREIRA: It's now March.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

PEREIRA: It's going to continue.

CUOMO: Never surrender. Never surrender.

PEREIRA: We've got so much fight left.

CUOMO: Fight the snow. Eventually, you will win, and that will a glorious day.

CAMEROTA: In June.

All right. Meanwhile, we are going to take a closer look at that controversy involving Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Did she violate federal law as secretary of state, and how could this impact her plans for 2016?

CUOMO: All right. Jumping out of a plane, scary. Having a problem when you jump out of a train -- plane, scary. Train, whatever. Nine thousand feet and this happens, a seizure. What do you do if you're the instructor? We have both men involved in this ahead. You will not believe their story. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Sometimes you can't make it up in politics. Turns out the secretary of state of the United States used a personal e-mail account for official sensitive business for four years. That's what "The New York Times" is reporting this morning about Hillary Clinton, that she did not have a government e-mail address for her entire tenure.

Now this could be considered no small thing. Because you know, as we all know, personal e-mail accounts, not only are they unsecure, certainly compared to government e-mails, but lost things, buried things, you know, disclosure. Does it violate the law?

Let's discuss. Richard Socarides, former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and a Democratic strategist; and Mr. Ben Ferguson, CNN political commentator and host of "The Ben Ferguson Show."

All right, Socarides, convince me that this is OK, because it smells terrible.

RICHARD SOCARIDES, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think we have to remember that -- that what the story really is about is whether or not she used the right e-mail account, right? And I think that we don't know exactly what happened.

But well, first of all, the real thing that this raises for me is how hard it is going to be able to talk about real issues if she decides to run for president. Because here we are. The story -- "New York Times" has this as breaking news. The press has lost all sense of proportion.

An e-mail account. I got an e-mail message, an alert on my phone last night, that breaking news, Hillary Clinton used the wrong e-mail account. I mean, come on, the press has gone mad around Hillary Clinton.

And this is why I think there's some people who are urging her not to run for president, because she's never going to be able to talk about any real issues. It's going to be hard to break through.

On this e-mail thing, listen, I don't know what happened. But I can certainly understand the situation where someone told her...

CUOMO: Ben, hold on a second.

SOCARIDES: ... where someone told her not to use official e-mail to conduct diplomatic business, that she was doing exactly what Colin Powell did while he was secretary of state, and that -- and that after the fact...

CUOMO: I don't know that he did it to this extent, though.

SOCARIDES: But listen, but after the fact, I just want to say one last thing.

CUOMO: Go ahead.

SOCARIDES: After the fact, she -- after the fact, she turned over all of these e-mails to the archives so that we do have all the records. So at the end of the day, I think this is a story that is about nothing, really.

CUOMO: Two things, Ben. One, my head is dizzy, because Socarides is putting a spin game on me. Second of all, we don't know that Powell did it to this extent, and the 55,000 are at their discretion, aren't they? That the Clinton team's discretion?

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. First of all, she didn't turn over every e-mail. They didn't even claim that. They said they got a bunch of e-mails, and they turned some over. So let's not -- let's not rewrite history here.

The other thing is everyone knows when you get a new job you get what? The first thing, a "come and set up" is your e-mail account, so let's not act like this was some sort of accident. This was done on purpose.

CUOMO: Why?

FERGUSON: This was a decision made by Hillary Clinton to choose to not have a State Department e-mail address, because there's obviously e-mails she didn't want us to see. And if she did play by the rules, which by the way, the government rules say that you're supposed to have an e-mail address at the government, especially in a high-ranking position, not only for national archives, but also for national security purposes, because of hacking.

And I guarantee you Hillary Clinton's private e-mail address did not have the protections that a State Department government official's e- mail would have. So this could easily be considered a national security issue, as well.

But why did she ultimately choose to do this? It's because she wanted to have total control over what the public could and could not see. That is so that you can hide things. And if this was happening with a Republican, the media would be freaking out the same way that he's now claiming that the media is freaking out Hillary...

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: Make sure -- make sure you tell your listeners today before, you know, they start the hate parade on my social media accounts, we're covering it here and it's at the top of the morning. Now let's listen...

FERGUSON: Absolutely.

CUOMO: Let's take a read on what Hillary's own team says. This is their response to the situation. We'll put it up. "Hillary Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the rules. Had every expectation e-mails to other officials would be retained."

First of all, Richard, this means that the White House had to know, right? Because every time they tried to contact Hillary Clinton, it would be on personal e-mail.

SOCARIDES: And that's one of their points. Their points is that...

CUOMO: What was that e-mail address? Do you know? Did you use it? You're a Clinton... SOCARIDES: You know, I suspect that she wasn't sending me -- she definitely was not sending me a lot of e-mails during this period.

CUOMO: Any e-mails? Ever get any e-mails?

SOCARIDES: I have gotten e-mails from Bill Clinton, but I have never gotten an e-mail from Hillary Clinton. Because I don't think she sends a lot of e-mails. I don't think she actually has really gotten a lot of...

CUOMO: Fifty-five thousand.

SOCARIDES: You know how many you send in a day, it would be surprise -- it would surprise me how many e-mails you send in a day.

CUOMO: What do you think -- what do you think the screenname was? Not Hillary Clinton? Not the Real Hillary?

SOCARIDES: HillaryClinton@gmail.com.

CUOMO: I hope it wasn't. Imagine how frightening that would be, with all the sensitive things going on. In all seriousness, I do think -- you know, I think there is an explanation for this. This story is about ten hours or 12 hours old, and we will know it.

But I think that we really have to retain a sense of proportion about this. I mean -- all of these records, all of these, all of the official records, I think when it was clear that she was -- was sending messages that may have been official or quasi-official, that they were turned over for record-keeping.

CUOMO: But it just doesn't smell good.

FERGUSON: The e-mails that she wants to turn over. Let's not be this naive to imply that this is everything. It's not everything.

CUOMO: Because it fuels this. It fuels Ben's ability. Ben has high ground here in saying, "Why would you do this if you don't want to control it?"

SOCARIDES: I wouldn't say he has high ground.

FERGUSON: I want to say this...

SOCARIDES: Go ahead, Ben.

FERGUSON: When George Bush was president, he did not send e-mails. Do you remember the controversy over Barack Obama, whether he would or would not have a BlackBerry account or e-mail account?

CUOMO: Yes.

FERGUSON: This is something that you don't just accidentally not set up. You are in charge of the State Department. This is a purposeful decision to make sure that you are in ultimate control of what the government and/or what other people may find out about your legacy. And she ran for president before. She's not an idiot. She knew this

was going to come up. But she said it's worth the risk to hide the information.

CUOMO: If it were such a big deal, though, this is my head on other side of it -- people had to know this. People within the State Department had to know, people in the White House had to know. Maybe people in Congress had to know. So people must have thought this was OK on some level. Because you would think that this information would have gotten to someone like you a long time ago, don't you think?

FERGUSON: This is risk assessment. They decided -- and I'm sure Hillary Clinton ultimately and her campaign people ultimately decided when she was going do that job, "You know what? I would rather go on TV and defend or say, "Oops, we're sorry for prime e-mail," then people actually see what you're writing while at the State Department. Because it would be less damaging on your chances of running for the White House.

SOCARIDES: The point -- the point...

CUOMO: Finish the last point, Richard.

SOCARIDES: The point that they made in the "Times" story is that any e-mail sent to a government official was directed to that government official's official government e-mail address so that there would be a record of it nonetheless. So if I'm e-mailing someone...

FERGUSON: But how do you know they didn't have a private e-mail account, too.

SOCARIDES: It goes to their official account. There's a record kept of it. So I mean, we will hear -- we will hear, certainly, a lot more about this today, but I think we have to remember, proportionality of what this campaign has got to be about, if she decides to run, is how we can help America get America moving again and that this kind of discussion will not help us.

CUOMO: I got you, Ben Ferguson. We'll be listening to what you say and others say about it. Today, we'll have you back to talk about it if you want. Ben Ferguson, Richard Socarides, we know one thing for sure. Perception is reality in politics. You've got Jeb Bush, who immediately came out and said transparency matters and look at all my e-mails whenever you want at JebBush.com.

What do you think of that?

Let us know what you think. Tweet us.

SOCARIDES: Can I see your e-mails?

CUOMO: Yes, whenever you want. It's called -- it's called notthebigman@gmail.com -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: They are fascinating, Chris.

Meanwhile, Russian opposition leader laid to rest in Moscow. The search for his assassin and what a key witness is saying.

PEREIRA: And this is just incredible. A sky-diving student has a seizure at 9,000 feet in the air. His instructor saves his life. The whole remarkable rescue was caught on video. Both men join us on NEW DAY straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)