Return to Transcripts main page

@THISHOUR WITH BERMAN AND MICHAELA

Clinton Campaign Ready to Launch; Closing Arguments Begin In Tsarnaev Trial; Pesticide Blamed for Making Family Ill; Obama Defends Iran Nuclear Deal. Aired 11:30-12p ET

Aired April 6, 2015 - 11:30   ET

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


[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All eyes on Hillary Clinton today, or all political eyes, we will say. According to those close to Clinton, she could launch her second bid for the White House at any moment. As CNN has reported, Clinton's team made a big move, towards just that, by leasing campaign headquarters, leasing out space in Brooklyn for her campaign headquarters.

So, what will a Clinton run look like this time around? What does it tell us? All of the details that are coming out by our good reporters, Senior Washington Correspondent, Jeff Donnelly, he is here and Senior Political Correspondent, Brianna Keilar, is here as well. So, let's work through this because the time is ticking. And everyone says we're all waiting, at any moment, to hear this announcement. So, Jeff, what are the details that you're learning about what a campaign, the Clinton campaign, will look like this time around. How is it going to be different?

JEFF DONNELLY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Hey Kate. It's going to be a lot smaller and that's by design. Not that she can't attract big crowds and draw big rallies, but intentionally, her aides tell me she's going to have a smaller campaign. A lot of one-on-one conversations and small group conversations. They're really trying to pop this balloon of inevitability that is, kind of, hanging over her, so they're trying to, you know, say she's going to fight hard for this nomination.

She's going to work voter-to-voter. And those activists that love so much time and attention, she's going to spend a lot of time with them, so she's really going to intentionally try to shrink her campaign, if you will, and try to reintroduce herself to the voters, who she's not had a conversation with, you know, for some eight years.

BOLDUAN: You know, that's a really good point. But Brianna, when you talk about shrinking the campaign, no big crowds, no soaring rallies. Less mentions of her own ambitions. Trying to get rid of this air of inevitability. Do those close to Clinton really think those are failings from '08 that they need to correct this time around. That is what sank her campaign? BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, I think

they think that's part of it. If you talk to people close to Hillary Clinton or who were involved in the 2008 campaign, Kate, I think you can say they are haunted by it. That's really just part of the mistake. One of the big mistakes was that Hillary Clinton had so much animosity with the press. And you're starting to really see her press team-in-waiting take shape, and a lot of the folks that she has tapped and close to her have tapped to be on the team, are people who maybe are not necessarily Clinton loyalists, but they are Democrats operatives who are considered to be very capable, and also get along very well with the press. They have good relationships with reporters. And that's actually one of the reasons that many of them have been brought on.

BOLDUAN: And, Jeff, you mentioned this kind of air of inevitability. There was always talk about this. They don't want this to be a coronation, if you will, that she's not, maybe nor, going to face a serious primary, if she faces one at all. But isn't it unavoidable the fact that there is going to be this air of inevitability surrounding her. The fact hat we're already talking about it, doesn't it already exist? How are they fight that?

[11:34:34]DONNELLY: Your right. It does exist. That's because she doesn't have someone, who at least as emerged as an equal right now, as an equal. But let's not forget what happened eight years ago right at this moment. She was so far ahead of then Senator Barack Obama in the polls. Nobody, at this point, thought he had any chance at all. So, now we don't see anyone like him coming up. She still is going to have a campaign. And in many respects, she's running against herself.

She's going to have to overcome all of those things from her past, and put out a message of why voters should elect her. And, one reason that she's trying to do to overcome this, sort of, sense of a coronation, is fighting hard for the vote. Taking questions from voters. Rally going back out there to show that this is not about her own aspirations.

If we look back to how she announced in '08,she's like, I'm in and I'm in to win. Her advisers tell me, the letter I is not going to be part of this. It's about you. It's about the voters. So she's just being, sort of, repackaged a little bit and really going to try to reintroduce herself. But it's an open question if that works. You have a dozen Republicans who are trying to define her and trying to attack her to build their own credibility. So, she's walking into this tough situation.

KEILAR: And do the primary, Kate, kind of ends up looking more like a general, right? Because, a general election, you've seen Hillary Clinton get dinged a lot by Republicans one after another. They'll be running, not just against each other, but against her, and part of her primary is going to be responding to some of those charges.

BOLDUAN: She's going to be running a very long general campaign is what it looks like at this moment. That's why primaries are sometimes a very good thing. Jeff, Brianna, it's great to see you guys. Thanks so much. KEILAR: You bet.

DONNELLY: Thanks, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Alright. Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, the attorneys in the Boston bombing trial, they get their last chance to sway the jury before deliberations begin. This is part one of a very important two- part process in this case. Did the prosecution make its case? More importantly, is he going to face death or life in prison?

Also, a Delaware family fighting to survive AT THIS HOUR. Poisoned by pesticide at a tropical resort. How did it happen? We're talk to the EPA about it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:00] BOLDUAN: Closing arguments now under way in the Boston Marathon bombing trial. The defense, not trying to convince the jury that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent, but trying, rather, to convince the jury that he was acting under his older brother's influence. Almost entirely, that basically, he was Tamerlan's puppet.

The jury could get the case later today. If they convict, if they convict Tsarnaev, he could face the death penalty. Let's bring in CNN Commentator and Legal Analyst, Mel Robbins, to discuss. She's in Newton, Massachusetts for us AT THIS HOUR. So, Mel, when you look at this, we have discussed this quite a bit, but I want to get your take. This is part one of two parts of this trial. This is a critical phase that they're in. The closing arguments. Then they would move into sentencing. What are you expecting in closings today?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR: Well, basically, I'm expecting a very long, very emotional graphic, in terms of the photos. Remember Kate, that what the prosecution did is they ended this case with devastating photographs showing the injuries that killed the three folks that died at the bombing scene. Those photographs left many of the jurors in tears. The closing line was, he was just 8 years old, referring of course to Martin Richard, the youngest victim of this terrorist attack.

And so, I think you're going to see them lay out a methodical, completely solid case where they argue to this jury, not only did he plan this, not only was he involved, not only was he downloading these magazines, not only was he thinking about this and he was radicalized, but he did it of his own volition. And they're going to point out that photograph, that we've all seen, of Dzhokhar standing behind the Richard family, right before he put that backpack down and walked away.

They're going to show how callus he was when went to the Whole Foods Market to buy milk. They're going to talk about the plan to get away, the fact that they then car-jacked somebody. They killed Sean Collier, a police officer that worked at M.I.T. And that they led the state of Massachusetts and federal authorities on a multi-day manhunt. They'll also going to point to that boat and where he scrawled out the fat that they did this intentionally. And then they're going to close their case and they're going to ask them to convict him on all 30 counts, Kate.

BOLDUAN: The general assumption, correct me if I'm wrong, he will be convicted. Will it be on all 30 counts, maybe, is a question. But then, really, doesn't the attention very quickly move to sentencing and exactly what he's going to face? That seems to be a bit more of where there seems to be greater question as to what's happening. Massachusetts, Mel, correct me if I'm wrong, is not a death penalty state. They haven't had an execution in that state since 1947. That got to have an impact on this, right?

ROBBINS: It does, except for this is a federal case, Kate. 68 percent of Massachusetts residents, this is from a prior poll so it could have gone up, could have gone down, but majority of us are not in favor of the death penalty. However, the prosecution has done an amazing job painting this, as not a murder, this is a terrorist act where 260 people were injured. Four people were killed. They picked an historic event. They wanted to terrorize people. It's something else entirely.

And if anything did raise to the level of justifying the death penalty, it would be a case like this. Now, keep in mind, though, this is what's going to happen. When we get a conviction in this case and there will be a conviction, we'll move to the sentencing phase. What happens first is the prosecution prevents aggravating circumstances underneath the Federal Code U.S. 228, and those circumstances are things like the actual act itself, the callousness of the defendant, two of the victims, Sean Collier was a police office, Martin Richard was a child. Those are aggravating factors.

Then the defense comes on. They put on mitigating factors. And that's where your going to hear the defense talk a lot about the influence of the older brother, the age of Dzhokhar and then finally the case ends with witness impact statements. Now, in the state of Massachusetts, in a federal case, you have to have a unanimous verdict for the death penalty. So, all they need in this case is one juror to say, you know what, life in prison is what he's going to get. I'm not doing the death penalty. So we're going to have to wait and see what happens.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely have to wait and see what happens. And remember, you can keep in mind as we look at it, obviously, you have to through a legal lens, this as you well lay out, just another chapter in what has been such an emotional really difficult roller coaster for everyone in Boston. Everyone impacted, especially all the families who are now reliving this moment by moment throughout this trial. Mel, thank you so much.

ROBBINS: You got it.

[11:44:55] BOLDUAN: Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, poisoned by pesticides. A Delaware family in critical condition after a trip to paradise. Now, the EPA and Justice Department are demanding answers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: It started as vacation in, really, paradise and now it is truly a life or death struggle. Two teenage brothers, they're in a coma. Their father unable to move or speak. Their mother in occupational therapy. That's the latest that we heard about this family. All of it blamed on a pesticide used at the vacation resort where they were staying in the U.S. Virgin Islands. A criminal investigation is now under way.

The pest control company, Terminix, we all know that name, they told CNN that they are cooperating with authorities in its investigation. The pesticide that we're talking about is called methobromide. It's illegal to use indoors in the United States because of this simple fact of just how toxic it is. Let's learn more about this case.

Let's learn more about the dangers here with Judith Enck. She's the Regional Administrator for the EPA at the office that covers the U.S. Virgin Islands. Judith, thank you so much for coming in. You were telling me in the commercial break before we came on, that you were able to go to the site to see exactly what we're talking about in this case. First off, have you heard any update on the family?

JUDITH ENCK, REGIONAL ADMIISTRATOR FOR EPA: Well, just generally, the family is not doing well. We're particularly concerned about the two teenage boys and the dad. We had hoped to see improvements by now, but it's a pretty serious situation. They're getting good medical care and our thoughts and prayers are certainly with them.

[ 11:50:01] BOLDUAN: And this is just horrific when you consider the circumstances, no matter how it came about. But how did this happen? What are u learning?

ENCK: Yea, so family of four from Delaware went on Spring Break to St. John. Family vacation. The day before they checked in to their condo that they were staying at, the apartment actually immediately below them was applied with methobromide, a potent neurotoxin which EPA very clearly has banned for indoor use since 1984. So this was applied in the apartment below them, and it rose up and affected their health.

We have a comprehensive investigation going on. Where looking at two tracks. One is, how do we help this family? We have medical experts in touch with their doctors. We want to get justice for these families. But also, how do we make sure that doesn't happen again?

BOLDUAN: And how do you? It's kind of, I'm sure, scares anyone to think there's no way for this family to have known that this was applied in a condo, below them, when they're just going on vacation. How can people be sure it's not going to happen to them?

ENCK: You know, I think this illustrates why you need a really strong Environmental Protection Agency and local enforcement of environmental laws. All of the EPA--

BOLDUAN: Do you think that was where the problem was, local enforcement problems?

ENCK: Well, the applicator was a certified applicator. He or he should have known that it is illegal to use this toxic pesticide in an indoor use. So, certainly were training, particularly people who do this everyday for their job. We also want to protect their health. We don't want them to be expose in their occupational setting.

And then, secondly, I think consumers need to be aware, when you book travel you might ask the question of where you're staying. When you get there you might open the doors and the windows. I know I do that. Problem is in the Caribbean, often you open the sliding door, and there's no screen. So, there are some common sense steps that people can take. We really want hotel owners and resorts to look at something called integrated pest management. You can deal with pests without using such poisonous materials. You can look at less toxic, nontoxic things to use.

BOLDUAN: At the very least, what they need to be looking at. I mean, this really does come to light, something that folks, I would say, I never think about when I'm going on vacation is what pesticides people use.

ENCK: No one does.

BOLDUAN: No one does and clearly we need to think a lot more about it. Criminal investigation under way. Your going to be on top of it. Really appreciate. Thank you for coming out. We'll be following that for us.

Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, the proposed Iran nuclear deal, is it the best bet to avoid a nuclear Iran or a threat to Israel's security? We're going to look at the White House's hard sell to win support for the framework. Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:56:35] BOLDUAN: President Obama is going on the offensive as he begins a hard sale of the proposed Iranian nuclear deal. He took his fight to "The New York Times" over the weekend. The President calling the plan a once in a lifetime opportunity to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And he pushed back against the plan's critics. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm not interested in seeing folks is folks who are hell bent on just defeating any deal, aren't interested in listening to the nuclear scientists, aren't interested in listening to the experts, but are viewing this purely through the lens of partisanship. I'm not interested in endangering a very critical international agreement on that basis.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Let's discuss more with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, of course, the host of "Fareed Zakaria at GPS". Fareed, there's a million different ways you can talk about it. It's a lengthy interview that the President gave to Toms Freidman. But, the big question, I think, a lot of us have, you encompass it your op-ed's, that when you saw a nuclear deal with Iran is the best option. A lot of folks in Washington, though, don't think so. Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't think so. Why? What are the other options, you think, at this point when they've got the framework in place.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN'S FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: I think that's the important thing to focus on. Which is, what are the alternatives. So there's one alternative we know which is to bomb Iran, which would be a massive military undertaking, it would be essentially going to war with a major country in the Middle East and it would set the program back, probably most experts think, three years, no more. Maybe --

BOLDUAN: I think that would surprise a lot of people to hear that.

ZAKARIA: Yes, because at the end of the day, Iran is an oil rich country. There's only so much you can bomb and they can rebuild this stuff. So that, let's say you put it back three year, this agreement freezes it for ten years. So you get much more out of the deal than you do out of the bombing. So then, Netanyahu says no, what I want is just a better deal, more sanctions and a better deal.

Well, first of all, it would be hard to put more sanctions in place. The U.S. could, but other countries will balk at it. The other countries supported this deal. Remember, they're going to say we put a good deal on the table and the U.S. vetoed it. Even if they got more the sanctions, here's the key question: will it stop Iran's program? So far, over the last twenty years, Iran has been able to build this program under sanctions.

BOLDUAN: In the middle of having only (INAUDIBLE).

ZAKARIA: Because, again, their sanctions are leaky, they're a rich county. They get $50 billion of oil revenues any way. And here's the big danger. By holding out for the best, for the maximalist position, what we've noticed is, Iran keeps building, and then you get a worse deal. So in 2005, they offered to cap at 164 centrifuges. Today they're offering to cap 5,000.

BOLDUAN: What do you make then of the other big issue I'm hearing from Republican law makers; more than just Republican law makers. The issue of inspection. How can you trust Iran. They say, you can't trust Iran. That inspectors are going to be able to get everywhere they want. How can you? That's a huge part of this.

ZAKARIA: The inspections regime is much stronger, frankly, than any other we've ever seen before. And there's one very crucial element to it, which is that it doesn't just look at the laboratories or the facilities where the uranium would be enriched, it looks at the places where it's been mined. It looks at the supply chain. You can inspect anywhere because what used to happen is, yes, you're looking at this factory, factory A, but secretly they're building a factory B.

[12:00:03]