Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Clinton Gives Feds E-mail Server; Brady & Goodell Battle in Court. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired August 12, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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


[12:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's the idea that we're at least going to begin to talk. And, yes, certainly there's changes that we all sort of have to keep an eye on and keep on sort of advocating for -

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Especially my generation in particular to make sure that what happens as we move forward, moves in the right direction. But it is - it is the beginning. I mean certainly it's an end of one era.

BOLDUAN: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it's the beginning and a lot more work to do. A lot of more talking to do. And I - and I always - I say it's kind of like -

BOLDUAN: Richard -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sometimes like, you know, a married couple who may be living in the same - in the same house but haven't talked to each other for years because (INAUDIBLE), you know, just in a stalemate.

BOLDUAN: And they begin - begin that conversation - then they can start talking again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But finally they're going to talk.

BOLDUAN: Exactly. Richard Blanco (ph), thank you very much for your time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly. And I think - yes.

BOLDUAN: Thanks so much, Richard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: And thank you all - and thank you all for joining us "AT THIS HOUR." LEGAL VIEW with Ashleigh Banfield starts right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tom!

(INAUDIBLE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't settle, Tom!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Patriots fans cheering on Tom Brady, not on the field, instead as he heads into federal court today to huddle with a judge over a possible settlement in the fight over his four-game suspension.

Also this hour, what happened inside that New York prison after two killers made their big break? Inmates left behind claiming they paid the price for it, accusing guards of shackling, beating, even torturing them to get answers about the great escape.

And Wall Street and the rest of the world reacting badly to China's unexpected currency move. Your portfolio and 401(k) are smack in the middle of the crosshairs.

Hello, everybody, I'm Ashleigh Banfield. Good to have you with us. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

First up, you can delete an e-mail but a scandal at the start of a presidential campaign season does not go away quite so easily. But Hillary Clinton sure is trying. Five months after the world found out that she used a private e-mail account and only a private e-mail account while secretary of state, she has agreed to give her private e-mail server, based in her home, over to the Justice Department.

The aides say there's nothing left on it. Personal e-mails were deleted and tens of thousands of work-related e-mails were handed over to the State Department late last year during a Benghazi probe. They also say none of the information was classified at the time, though an inspector general who's investigating says some of it is classified now. And a couple of messages would even be considered top secret.

CNN's Elise Labott is on the case.

So give me a sense, Elise, if you can, of the timing, why Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Clinton, has been resisting giving over that server until now.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ashleigh, the original request, as you said, was from that Benghazi committee, the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which the Clinton camp has really viewed as a political witch-hunt. And now basically the Justice Department is voicing concerns about the server. They don't have it in government hands. They're concerned about anything that could be - have classified material outside of government control. And so the Justice Department asked Secretary Clinton to hand over that server and her spokesman, Nick Merrill, says Clinton that has pledged to cooperate with the government inquiry, making that distinction between legitimate concerns about security that she wants to comply with and adding any fuel to the fire over these Republican investigations.

Ashleigh. BANFIELD: OK. So be real clear with me because sometimes in the confusion of all the reporting, there are only like things that stand out in a word cloud. And the word cloud can be kind of deceiving. What are we actually looking at here? Did she have e-mails that she was keeping or sending that were classified or even, say, at the level of top secret at the time that she did it? Meaning, when did she know and what did she know?

LABOTT: Well, it gets very confusing. OK, just to say, you can't take classified information from a classified server. All the department - at the State Department, but all government agencies have their own classified server and you can't take material from there and then send it in an unclassified form. The material that we're talking about in these e-mails, four of them were found to be so far found to be classified, two of them top secret, were not marked or identified as classified by the State Department.

Now, it's unclear if Secretary Clinton knew that she was handling information that should have been on a secure server. It could have been that the information was never classified to begin with. It also could be that someone that was sending her e-mail read it on a secure system and then talked about it in an unclassified form but didn't say this is classified material. So it gets pretty confusing.

[12:05:16] BANFIELD: And I think we wait until we actually know how this settles and what the facts are before people weigh in on who's to blame and what could happen, especially when they start talking about criminal potential, you know liability.

Elise Labott, thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Needless to say, those legal points may be lost in the political din that surrounds a figure who had her share of baggage to begin with. While Clinton's decision to give up her server after months of insisting she wouldn't, House Speaker John Boehner said, and I will quote him directly, "it's about time. Secretary Clinton's previous statements that she possessed no classified information were patently untrue. Her mishandling of classified information must be fully investigated," end quote.

Joining me now to gauge the impact of all of this on 2016 are CNN political analyst and editor-in-chief of "The Daily Beast," John Avlon. And also live from Charlottesville, Virginia, the director for the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, Larry Sabato.

So, John, I want to start with you and I just want to give some numbers to make this make a little bit more sense when, you know, the rubber hits the road. And they're poll numbers. A couple weeks ago Quinnipiac asked its voters whether they considered Hillary to be, quote, "honest and trustworthy." And look how they weighed in. Thirty- seven percent said yes but 57 percent said no. That looks troubling on its surface, but if she's matched up with Donald Trump, it's almost virtually identical. He doesn't get much in the way of honest and trustworthy either. He's at about 33 percent yes and 58 percent no. So does that matter? JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, it matters when you're in the

same ballpark as Donald Trump on trustworthiness. That is not good for a career public servant versus a, you know, a reality show snake oil salesman. So that's not good news for the campaign.

But it just goes to show, politics is perceptions, Ashleigh, you know that. And this - this is not just a distraction as the campaign has described it, it's done real political damage, particularly in swing states. So it's something the campaign needs to deal with. She needs to deal with and they have apparently changed their tactics up and to this point because they know they've got to get it out in order to be able to move on.

BANFIELD: So, Larry, maybe I can ask you this. When other polling asked what people thought about the personal e-mailing, you know, more than 50 percent, it was actually 51 percent, thought that she used it for convenience, not for something nefarious. And yet months and months went by before this decision was finally made. You know, is it the - is it the perceived cover-up that is more damage than anything that might have actually transpired?

LARRY SABATO, CENTER FOR POLITICS, UNIV. OF VIRGINIA: People don't fully understand this problem or scandal. Naturally, they look to the behavior to see if there's anything suspicious or sneaky. Well, this looks sneaky. And, Ashleigh, anybody who's been around for a while, anybody who watched carefully in the 1990s recognizes the Clinton's M.O. here. The M.O. is to give out as little information as possible, to hunker down, to hope that the storm passes. And unfortunately for them, what happens almost every time is the drip, drip, drip, drip, drip of additional revelations, they elongate the scandal and thereby increase their problems and difficulties.

BANFIELD: Yes.

John, if I could ask you this, if Hillary's deficit right now is the trustworthiness or the honesty issue, because let's say, you know, she's got the liberal vote pretty much sewn up, possibly the black vote. She's doing pretty well. The women's vote. Who would she choose as a running mate to maybe help balance out where she's lacking?

AVLON: I mean, you know, that's what Al Gore tried to do with selecting Joe Lieberman in 2000, to take some of the stink off association with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Obviously, you know, let's preface this by saying it's way premature to be talking about VP nominees. But if you want to play that game, I mean, you know, let's do two ends of the spectrum. I mean there is no constitutional reason that Joe Biden, who's viewed by all as being honest to a fault couldn't be a VP nominee. And if you want to go to the other end of the spectrum, someone like Corey Booker who has an authenticity and a youth and an energy to him. But, you know, those sorts of conversations, this thing she's got to deal with herself. She can't hope that association with someone else is going to wipe that stain away.

BANFIELD: And while it may be early for the three of us to discuss it, I have a feeling that her camp has probably had lots of discussions already about it as they look forward.

Thank you to the two of you. Really appreciate it, John Avlon and Larry Sabato. See you soon.

AVLON: Thanks, Ash.

SABATO: Thank you.

BANFIELD: All right. Coming up next, Tom Brady put a suit and tie on today instead of suiting up for practice and he headed into a federal courtroom, all because of a fight over his four-game suspension. So what about that whole "don't settle, Tom" that they yelled? Will he?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:13:33] BANFIELD: Tom Brady and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell are in a federal courtroom right now. It's weird to say that, I know. But they're in a mandated attempt to settle their differences, shall we say.

Now I'll just say it, it's a legal battle over the quarterback's four game suspension for his role in Deflategate. The two men got very different reactions from the crowd when they showed up to court this morning in New York. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tom!

(INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't settle, Tom!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't - don't settle!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a liar.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Liar!

(INAUDIBLE)

CROWD: Boo.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The liar has arrived!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, I don't know that anybody would expect differently. You know, they love that guy, Tom Brady. The judge wants both of these sides to come to a compromise, but both of these men seem to be really digging in their heels.

In the meantime, guess what's about to start? Yup, the NFL season. It's just less than 30 days away. Is that going to matter?

Joining me now is CNN Sports anchor Rachel Nichols, who's been following today's proceedings closely, along with HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson and CNN legal analyst Paul Callan.

Rachel, I'm going to start with you. A lot of people don't understand why they're in court in the first place. I'll get to that whole legal schmaltzy stuff. But what's really at issue right now?

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Is that what we call it on this show, legal schmaltzy stuff?

BANFIELD: Yes, schmaltzy stuff.

NICHOLS: I think - I think we have a new show name, by the way, but anyway.

BANFIELD: Prime time, baby.

[12:15:00] NICHOLS: Exactly.

Hey, look, these are two men who are sitting at opposite sides right now and cannot agree. And Judge Berman wants them to reach a settlement. He's known among his colleagues as the settlement judge. He wants them to meet in the middle. But right now, on the NFL side, they want Brady to admit some fault. And on Brady's side, not only does he maintain his innocence, he wants the NFL to come off this idea that the procedure was fair because they feel that not only was Roger Goodell judge, jury and executioner here in a way that overstepped his powers, they feel and they've alleged that evidence was sort of manufactured and bent the way it had to be for the NFL's case and that the rules were changed in the procedure as they went. So that's what they're knocking heads on right now. And Judge Berman met earlier today with both parties separately in his robing room - we need a robing room, right, Ashleigh, definitely?

BANFIELD: Oh, I have one. No, I have one.

NICHOLS: Oh, OK. A perk of anchoring this show, no question.

BANFIELD: It's in my contract.

NICHOLS: Exactly. Roger Goodell got about 20 minutes. Tom Brady's side got a little bit more, about a half hour, to hear both of their cases privately. Then they've had some discussions in open court. Judge Berman saying that he wants to continue going on two tracks here. They are in federal mediation separately from this court case and that he also wants to continue the litigation that they are now trying to reach some sort of agreement. But as you can see, they haven't gotten close yet.

BANFIELD: No, no, it hasn't. So let me dig in a little bit on the procedural stuff you were talking about.

Paul and Joey, this is a little complicated because as we went into this disaster for these guys, it seemed to be just an NFL issue. The NFL has ruled and the players have to abide, private organization, private entity, it's a business. I'm not sure how that jumps out of, "do what we say or you get in trouble," into a federal judge telling these guys what to do. So take me down that very complicated path in a simple way first.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it shows when you throw a bunch of really smart, highly-paid lawyers at a problem, they come up with a way, a work around. And here's what the NFL did. They were afraid this case was going to wind up in Minnesota if Brady ended up starting a lawsuit and there's a judge in Minnesota who's very friendly to the players' union. They were looking for home field advantage. So what better place to put a New England Patriots quarterback than New York City?

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: New York.

BANFIELD: Right.

CALLAN: So they file an action under federal law, there's a federal law that regulates labor management relations, and they filed the action under that law to get the case into court in New York and hopefully get a favorable judge who will rule in their favor.

BANFIELD: Anyone know if that judge is a Giants' fan? And that's a real concern.

JACKSON: Looking - looking too - and, of course they were doing that Ashleigh, to confirm the award.

BANFIELD: Yes.

JACKSON: To in essence say that what they were doing, that is the NFL as an entity, was appropriate and right. And remember at issue here is whether or not this procedure is really workable, viable and fair. So, you have the two sides to this.

BANFIELD: But you sign on for it.

JACKSON: Exactly.

BANFIELD: When you sign that contract with Goodell and his friends, you signed on to it.

CALLAN: Yes, but here's what these lawyers did, OK, and why I say it's a really clever move. This act governs the relationship between an employer and the union, the whole union.

BANFIELD: OK.

CALLAN: They're not saying that Brady's decision individually has to be set aside. What they're saying is that there was an illegally involved and that will affect the entire union. So they're saying this is a big labor question.

BANFIELD: OK, it's a bigger issue. So, Joey -

JACKSON: But - yes, but therein lies the issue, because what illegality? And here's what it boils down to. When you negotiate an agreement, both sides of that agreement negotiate, whether it's the employer and the employee, and it's called a collective bargaining agreement, a CBA. And in accordance with that collective bargaining agreement, you develop what rights, procedures are going to be followed. What are your protocols? What are your policies? And as long as the commissioner follows those policies, says the commissioner, what have I done?

Of course, on the union side, it's inherently flawed. It's inherently improper to have all points stop at the commissioner. He is the judge, the jury, the executioner. There has to be a better way. And so, in essence, will there be a better way coming out of this? There's two schools of thought. On the within hand, negotiate a better agreement. You want a better deal, negotiate a better collective bargaining agreement. On the other hand, it's inherently flawed, should not be a procedure like this in the first place. It's overturned. Tom Brady goes on to that field. Maybe they win another Super Bowl.

CALLAN: You know what it's really about, Ashleigh, settlement.

BANFIELD: Well, timing. It's also about timing.

CALLAN: No, it's about - no, it's about settlement because Judge Berman, the federal judge who has the case, is a settling judge. He's got a reputation for settling cases. And they want to get it in front of him. They're all meeting behind closed doors and I'm betting you're going to see them hash out an agreement behind closed doors and we'll never here all of the details of the evidence against Brady.

BANFIELD: Agreed.

JACKSON: Briefly, here's the problem. There is so much entrenched interest. You have Tom Brady's legacy here.

BANFIELD: Yes.

JACKSON: And it's a non-starter for the commissioner to say, accept the findings of the Wells report when they said, it was more probable than not that you cheated. You think he's going to do that?

BANFIELD: Well -

CALLAN: And so - so the secret sealed settlement, end of case, (INAUDIBLE), all right.

JACKSON: Nothing is sealed. Nothing is secret.

BANFIELD: In - in a nanosecond. That's how he's supposed to be on the field. So I can't wait to see what happens. You'll have to come back when we hear what the judge has to say and if we have some resolutions. I say it's about timing, too.

[12:20:04] JACKSON: Key word, resolution, if there is one.

BANFIELD: Resolution. Love you guys. Thank you.

Rachel, good to see you, my friend.

NICHOLS: Thank you. BANFIELD: I hope you get back to New York soon.

And, Paul and Joey, as always, thank you, I appreciate it.

NICHOLS: And a robing room.

BANFIELD: And a robing room. You've got to work that into your deal, girl. It's awesome.

Coming up next, the investigation is in and the rookie cop who shot and killed an unarmed 19-year-old in Texas, he's no longer a rookie because he no longer has a job. We're going to explain that in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: That Texas police officer who killed an unarmed college football player is not a police officer anymore. He's been fired. The chief of the police in Arlington, Texas, took Officer Brad Miller's badge for what he calls, quote, "exercising poor judgment." Miller was still in police field training when he shot dead 19-year-old Christian Taylor. Taylor had crashed through the windows of a car dealership and, prior to that, he'd been seen on camera damaging and jumping on cars in that lot. Miller's boss said that officer made wrong decisions, that he didn't communicate and that he went at it alone without a plan.

Cedric Alexander is a CNN law enforcement analyst who's also on the president's task force on 21st century policing.

All right, Cedric Alexander, at first blush we don't know all the details yet, but we had a rookie who discharged a weapon. Ultimately the person who's dead did not have a weapon. Is this a no-brainer?

[12:25:00] CEDRIC ALEXANDER, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, you know, I've been in an out of this profession for the past 38 years, Ashleigh, and I tell you, one thing that rookies never do in their training is that you never leave the side of your field training officer. And under no circumstances do you do that unless you're directed to do so. It just doesn't happen.

BANFIELD: No. So - and we know for a fact that's what happened here? I mean ultimately I think that the - the trainer had a Taser and the trainee discharge a weapon and the suspect is dead.

ALEXANDER: Yes. And, you know, there - Arlington specific -- and I've just talked to some of my law enforcement contacts there, they do seven months of training, academy training there in Arlington. In addition to that, another three months of training alongside a seasoned officer. In this case a trainer. And that was the case there.

But under this particular set of circumstances, everything that we know and we've gathered is that the subject came towards the officer, but there was just no reason under the sun to have gone to deadly force when less lethal force could have been deployed in this case. BANFIELD: Well, potentially, although we don't know all the facts yet,

the camera angles, as we're looking at right now, are all outside of the dealership. And after he cashed the vehicle through the windows, there's no more surveillance videos. So - but more importantly, he may have lost his job, he may have been a rookie who's now off the force, but is there some potential here for criminal charges and a grand jury?

ALEXANDER: That will certainly be left up - there's two investigations going on here. One administratively is probably what he was fired up under, administrative charges, where he went rogue, went off and did his own thing. The other piece is, the criminal charges, and there's still an ongoing investigation. Once that investigation is completed, the police department would send that over to the local D.A.'s office there in Tara (ph) County and they will make a determination as to whether it goes forward to the grand jury or not. So there could be potential for that.

BANFIELD: I can't imagine - well, I was going to say, I can't imagine, first of all, what it's like being a police officer. I think, you know, you guys are heroes. Clearly there's some bad apples in the lot, as they are in every profession. But the guy who was doing the training, the officer who was the training officer, I understand that when things get harry, maybe there's not time to bark commands. But is there any liability for the trainer? Should that person bear any of the responsibility for this death?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think at the conclusion of the investigation we'll know more of that. But based on what we know, based on what we heard the chief say in an earlier press conference and everything we've seen written so far, I seriously doubt it. The training officer did exactly what he was supposed to do. It appears that this officer himself who did the shooting went rogue, went off on his own without any direction and entered that building, confronted that subject and was by himself and did not have his trainer with him. I seriously doubt if anything's going to happen here to this trainer. But here again, let's wait and see what the full investigation reveals.

BANFIELD: Wait for the facts. Always sage advice. Thank you. It's always a delight. Cedric Alexander, thanks for being with me.

ALEXANDER: Thank you for having me.

BALDWIN: So, next up, hold on to your wallet and try to resist losing your lunch. Those are the numbers, folks, on Wall Street. Stocks are taking a beating right now. And if you want to know where to point your finger for blame, you're going to have to point a long way. All the way to China. I'll explain in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)