Return to Transcripts main page

AT THIS HOUR WITH BERMAN AND MICHAELA

SC Senate Votes to Remove Confederate Flag, House Votes Next; Cosby Admits He Got Drugs for Women; Does City of San Francisco Share Blame in Immigrant Shoot of Woman. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired July 7, 2015 - 11:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:32:05] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, the South Carolina State Senate making a very strong statement today, take it down. Voting in favor of removing the Confederate flag from state capitol grounds with a 36-3 vote. It's a major step in the years'- long fight over the Confederate flag in that state that recently picked up so much momentum following the horrific mass shooting at a Charleston church.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Now we have for you a live picture of a special session of the South Carolina state house. You're looking at the vote board right there. The decision to remove the flag now sits in the House chamber.

We're joined right now by South Carolina state representative, Mia McLeod. She literally ran from that session to be with us for just a few minutes.

Thank you so much, Representative.

I know you have your job to do and we'll let you get back to it in one second, but I have to ask, if I had told you one year ago that the South Carolina state Senate would vote 36-3 to remove the Confederate flag from the capital grounds, what would you have said?

STATE REP. MIA MCLEOD, (D), SOUTH CAROLINA: I would have said it wasn't possible. It wasn't foreseeable certainly for the majority of us. and it's so unfortunate to be in this position -- to have the reason, you know, that we're here, of course, was because of the Charleston massacre, and, you know, I wouldn't have believed it, that we would be in this position today.

BOLDUAN: And now the question is before you and your colleagues in the state house. The Senate sending a very strong message. What are the conversations that you're having with your colleagues in the House? What's goings to happen today? What do you think?

MCLEOD: Well, I'm not sure about what's going to happen today. We are still in the process of dealing with the governor's budget vetoes and may possibly get to the flag issue today. We had a press conference this morning because there are some efforts to amend the flag resolution to, you know, come up with yet another so-called compromise, and we're not for that. We are for taking down the flag. We support, of course, the clean bill that the Senate --

(CROSSTALK)

BOLDUAN: What could be the compromise at this point?

MCLEOD: Exactly. There is no compromise. The compromise at this point is to take down the flag and the flagpole. That's what the Senate did. We came into this week believing and hoping and trusting that our colleagues in the House would do the right thing and follow suit, but so far we are still -- we still have an uphill battle in that regard.

BERMAN: You're not there yet. I mean the Senate vote is certainly a sign of things that may be to come. If the House does vote in the next few days to take the flag down and the flag does come down as soon as this week or say next week, what then? Would you like to see more discussions about Confederate symbols in South Carolina? Will you talk about statues or things like that or will this be it for now?

[11:35:24] MCLEOD: Well, I apologize. I'm having a little bit of difficulty hearing you because of the background noise. But I think what you've asked is whether I would like to talk about or see more discussions about the other Confederate monuments and memorabilia that still adorn our state house grounds and some of our state buildings. Is that what you've asked?

BERMAN: Yes, yes.

MCLEOD: At this point, we are focused solely on the Confederate flag and trying to make sure that it does come down. It doesn't represent all of South Carolina. It's past time we bring it down. Out of tragedy, we're here, and we have an opportunity to show this state who we truly are and what we're really about, and this is an opportunity to do that. But we are focused solely on the Confederate flag.

Now, what happens after that, you know, I personally would love to see the attitudes and the hearts and the minds of my colleagues and other elected officials in this state change. I know that that is a much slower process, but it's something that we have to work on if we are planning to move our state and all of its people forward.

BOLDUAN: State Representative Mia McLeod, thank you very much. All eyes are on you and your colleagues in the state house now to see what you will decide and what to do with the Confederate flag. The Senate has voted.

Thank you so much for your time.

MCLEOD: Thank you so much for having me.

BOLDUAN: Of course.

Coming up for us, a stunning admission, Bill Cosby says he obtained prescription drugs to use on women for sex, so now what? Could Cosby face legal trouble because of this? BERMAN: And he admitted to killing a woman on a San Francisco pier.

Now the undocumented immigrant will appear in court today. How much blame should the city take for this murder? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:35] BERMAN: New today, the stunning revelation that Bill Cosby admitted acquiring drugs to give to women whom he wanted to have sex with. During a deposition for a civil suit in 2005, Cosby was asked, when you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with? His answer, yes.

BOLDUAN: He was also asked then this question, did you ever give any of those young women the Quaaludes without their knowledge? Cosby's lawyer stopped him from answering that several times.

So what now in terms of the legal path forward following this bombshell coming out about Bill Cosby and his accusers?

CNN legal analyst, Danny Cevallos, is here with us.

Danny, we pointed out and lots of folks have been pointing out the statute of limitations have passed for most of these cases, but do these revelations change anything?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They do. Legally, not so much. Morally, a lot. And you better believe that the lawyers for the accusers are going to scramble to come up with creative ways under the rules of evidence to crowbar this information into a civil suit even if it may not at first blush be either relevant to their claims or admissible at trial. You might see them try to get it in by means of prior bad acts, which can come in under certain limited circumstances, but whatever the case may be, it is a moral victory. The lawyers for Cosby's accusers now have to figure out a creative way to make it a victory under the rules of evidence.

BERMAN: It's so interesting when you see this deposition to look at what Cosby's lawyers were doing then. They step in several times and won't let him answer the question, did you give drugs to women for sex without them knowing. Why did they step in and stop him from answering that question?

CEVALLOS: As an attorney, I am guilty of doing that at times myself. The reality is the public doesn't generally encounter the animal that we call a deposition. We've seen plenty of movies on trials. We've seen plenty of movies on police investigations. The deposition is an interview where the other side gets to download what is in your brain. Attorneys defending depositions have very limited roles. They are rarely supposed to instruct their clients not to answer. You have to put yourself in the place of that attorney. This is no ordinary client. An errant answer could devastate his client. You can imagine he felt the pressure to instruct his client not to answer. Most courts and judges will tell you that rare is the instance where a lawyer may instruct his client not to answer, but the key in depositions is there's no judge present. It's two misbehaved lawyers fighting with each other with no parent to tell them to knock it off and go to your corners.

BOLDUAN: That even furthers -- makes a better point -- a lot of folks have been wondering why did this stay quay yet so long? This happened in 2005?

CEVALLOS: Because it was sealed. The thing people need to understand is so far we aren't seeing the deposition transcript itself. That's probably in banker's box in a lawyer's office somewhere. Instead, we're seeing portions that a lawyer incorporated into a motion filed with the court, and an answer to your question is up until recently the court file was sealed, and you can seal the court file if you have a very good reason, but courts hate sealing documents because the original --

(CROSSTALK)

BOLDUAN: Was there a good reason here do you think?

CEVALLOS: Pardon?

BOLDUAN: Do you think there was a good reason to have this sealed for so long?

CEVALLOS: Maybe originally, but under the local rules -- and I practice in this jurisdiction of eastern Pennsylvania -- under local rules, court records that are sealed must be reviewed every two years to see if they should continue to be sealed because the presumption is against sealing. After all, courts want records to be public. Whatever the attorneys choose to keep confidential in discovery is up to them, but if you file it with the court, it's supposed to be part of the public record.

BERMAN: A defamation suit still possible from these victims?

CEVALLOS: Absolutely. You go back to anyone can be sued at any time and the stakes are so high we can expect a defamation suit to be maintained, and for these lawyers, as I said before, to come up with any creative way they can to take these devastating statements that are contained in a transcript and get those into their case-in-chief.

BERMAN: Not the last we've heard of this.

CEVALLOS: Not at all.

BERMAN: Danny Cevallos, thanks so much.

BOLDUAN: Thank you, Danny.

[11:45:00] BERMAN: An undocumented immigrant in court today accused of murdering a woman at a popular tourist spot. So what does the city of San Francisco need to do? Do they need to accept some of the blame? We're going to look at a controversial immigration policy that a lot of people think need to change.

BOLDUAN: Down to wires in negotiations, and a glimmer of hope, it appears today, in the Iran nuclear talks. Talks are being extended once again. So what are the chances for a last-minute agreement? What's the extension for this time?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Happening now, the man accused of shooting a woman on a crowded San Francisco pier will face murder charges this afternoon. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is an undocumented immigrant and a repeat drug felon, who has been deported five times to Mexico. He says the shooting was an accident after he found a gun wrapped in a T-shirt, and he says it went off in his hands.

BOLDUAN: A big question now, how did this guy fall through the cracks? As John says, he's a convicted felon, convicted seven times. Does the city of San Francisco face some blame?

Joining us is Julie Myers Wood, former assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Julie, thank you so much for coming in.

He is deported five times. We've said this over and over again. In your view, how did this guy fall through the cracks?

JULIE MYERS WOOD, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: He fell through a lot of cracks here. First, he shouldn't have been in the country five times. To be deported that many times certainly means we need to focus more attention at the border to stop these re-entries into our country. He was here, he was looking for work. I think we need to focus on the illegal employment that's drawing him back into the country and get more attention at the border to stop these re-entries into our country. He was here, he was looking for work. I think we need to focus on the illegal employment that's drawing him back into the country and get that back under control. But finally, San Francisco did not cooperate with ICE. ICE said, "let us know if you're going to release him and we can pick him up" but San Francisco chose not to do that.

[11:50:20] BERMAN: San Francisco is a so-called sanctuary city. That's a broad term. A lot of people don't like it. It means a bunch of different things in a bunch of different places. But basically -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- it means the city doesn't feel as if it has to comply or assist in federal immigration issues and investigations or prosecutions. And that's what they say here. They say it's not their role to be involved here. That's what makes it a sanctuary city.

In this case, as you point out, the federal government turned the guy over to San Francisco and said "hey, if you're going to let him out, let us know. And they still didn't do it. Now I understand bureaucracy, but at some point does common courtesy require them to say, "Hey, we're letting him out"?

WOOD: You would think so. ICE was not asking San Francisco to do its job. It was not asking them hold this individual beyond when they were already going to hold them for the city warrant. They're just saying, hey; give us the courtesy of picking up the phone. And that can help public safety. So I think there are a lot of different sanctuary cities. San Francisco is one of the strictest and has one of the oldest policies and unfortunately since the time I was at ICE, San Francisco has gotten stricter and stricter and more restrictive in rebuffing any cooperation with ICE.

BOLDUAN: Now, the city has really said, the sheriff especially, has been outspoken saying they're just doing what their jobs are and the city need a court order in order to hold on to this guy. When you look at his rap sheet, how many times he's been deported, what he's kind of obviously his entire kind of story and his background, doesn't it seem -- it doesn't seem like a tall order to get a court order from the feds, do you think?

WOOD: A court order was not required in order to pick up the phone and the sheriff knew that. In this instance, the kind of court order the sheriff is suggesting would have been a criminal search warrant or arrest warrant which wouldn't have been appropriate for someone who had just served time on criminal immigration charges. ICE did have a removal order. They could have brought that forward. But the sheriff knows that the civil immigration system -- and this individual was going to be removed civilly -- does not require the kind of warrant the sheriff wants. They're in a tough, tough position and I think the mayor of San Francisco has said let's come together and see if we can agree what's a way we can do information sharing that can prevent things like this from happening again? That's what we should focus on. Not pointing fingers and blame at this point.

BERMAN: It sounds like you have the feds and cities not agreeing with what the law is. Is there a quick way to fix this or, again, is there a way to fix this on a comprehensive level, comprehensive immigration reform, if you will?

WOOD: Over time, sometimes tragedies ignite the right kind of debate and get entities to come together so I hope that would happen in this case. If not, I think the federal government needs to look at how can we incentivize San Francisco to cooperate? What sort of carrot cans we hold throughout in terms of federal funding or other things that might change their mind and have them change their tune just to protect the community.

BOLDUAN: Julie Myers Wood, thanks so much for your time.

WOOD: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

BOLDUAN: And talk about a mess, to say the least. And topped off by this horrible tragedy for that family.

Coming up for us, it's overtime for the Iran nuclear talks. Talks being extended once again just hours ahead of a deadline. But could these late talks lead to a good deal?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:57:29] BOLDUAN: Right now, the U.S. and allies are making more time to hammer out a nuclear deal with Iran. The State Department saying the deadline to broker an agreement has now been extended to Friday. BERMAN: This is the second time in less than a month that this

deadline has passed without a deal. So much for deadlines. Secretary of State John Kerry will remain in Vienna where negotiators claim they have made a lot of nothing from a lot of areas.

Our senior international correspondent, Atika Shubert, is in Vienna with the latest.

Atika, I suppose, if you don't meet your deadline, just change your deadline.

(LAUGHTER)

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There's always that. I think the best thing to compare this to is a sports match when you stop the clock. Basically they're saying we need more time for foreign ministers to head back home to their capitals, discuss it there and come back here for a final decision. That's when they start the clock back up again.

Here's how the E.U. foreign policy chief phrased it when she came out. She was the first one to deliver the news of the extension.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FEDERICA MOGHERINI, EUROPEAN FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF: It is difficult, but we all know that we have a very important responsibility we must face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHUBERT: Everybody wants to do a deal here but they want to make sure they get the right deal so they say even though the talks have been extended, there is progress being made, having said, that Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian reporters there were eight out standing issues. Which may seem like a lot but a lot of this may be quibbling over the wording of text in the actual agreement the U.N. Security Council resolution being bundled in with this. So likely still a lot more heated discussions in the days ahead -- John?

BOLDUAN: So, Atika, is there any suggestion from what you're hearing -- and it's obviously impossible to read the tea leaves here -- that the clock could be stopped once again beyond this next deadline?

SHUBERT: I don't think anyone is reeling that out. But what we keep hearing is that they want to see a deal done in Vienna. Nobody is saying that these talks should be suspended and everybody go home. This is the time to do it. The question is can they get over those hurdles and there's some new ones that have been added in such as Iran wants the lifting of a conventional arms embargo. This was something that was never up for discussion before but is suddenly now in the mix. So there's a lot to discuss still.

BERMAN: Meanwhile, Vienna hotels making a lot of money.

Atika Shubert, thanks so much for being with us. Deadline extended. Thanks so much for joining us AT THIS HOUR.

BOLDUAN: "LEGAL VIEW" with Ashleigh Banfield starts right now.