Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

California Governor Signs "End Of Life" Bill; Football Sites Scramble To Block Cheating In Fantasy Football; Mom Schools Textbook Publisher On Slavery; 20 Years Later: CNN Revisits O.J. Simpson Case. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired October 6, 2015 - 12:30   ET

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


[12:30:00] DAN DIAZ, BRITTAN MANYARD WIDOWER: Yeah, very not knowing what the decision he might make, but recognizing that it would provide a huge amount of comfort to a person like Brittany Maynard and not wanting to stand in the way. I am so grateful for that.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And Dan we're...

DIAZ: We're keeping that (inaudible).

BANFIELD: I'm so sorry have a little bit of breakup in your signal, but you can hear me pretty clearly?

DIAZ: Yeah.

BANFIELD: I wanted to ask you about something I've read that you had written, and that is this was Brittany's last dying wish.

DIAZ: Well, it was one of the wishes that this would be legal in California, our home state so that nobody else would have to go through what she went through of having to leave home, establishing a new medical team, and finding a new, rent a house, residency up in Oregon. So it is certainly something that she was fighting for so that nobody would have to endure what she did at the end of her life.

BANFIELD: Do you also as you have gone through the terrible odyssey, do you also recognize what the governor was referring to in his letter and that is that the critics and what they say about the right to end your own life. They are concerned about people who are like greedy heirs who might speed the process and take advantage of this sort of an opportunity for their own gain.

Can you still hear me, Dan? I think that we have lost your audio and signal, and I am only hearing little bits, I'm so sorry it so critical, I really want to hear this answer from you, and let me find out if we can get your signal up and get you back up and running. Unfortunately, you know, we still got a frozen signal. I tell you we are going to work on that and try to get Dan back to answer some of those questions about this very important moments in California history, the signing of the right to end your life bill.

In the meantime, I'm going to move on and that is to insider trading, you know, it is not allowed on Wall Street, but what about fantasy football? A lot of people probably had not thought about that until today, because there is a very big scandal brewing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:36:32] BANFIELD: That way that you can say things are starting to get real in the world of fantasy football. It is a multimillion dollar industry that is dominated by two website FanDuel and DraftKings which has tens of millions of players who compete for weekly jackpots well into the millions of dollars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FanDual has definitely changed my Sundays and made it more interesting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: It sounds so much fun already. What could possibly go wrong? Well, here is one thing. An employee at DraftKings inadvertently they say Tweeted some private information the very same week he won $350,000. On the other site FanDuel. I know that sounds weird, doesn't it? Until now the companies had barred employees from playing on their own web sites, but they could play on the other guy's web sites, and that is OK.

And now they're not suppose to do that at all. But that's now. And since when is sports betting legal anyway, except in Nevada? Has been apparently a long time, as long as you're good at it, let me clear it up. I want to bring my expert CNN Sport Anchor Rachel Nichols and CNN Legal Analysts Danny Cevallos.

And before I go on, I should note that Time Warner our parent company, CNN is an investor in FanDuel, so with that caveat, first to you it is legal to do this, because apparently, you have to have some skill. I don't do this, but it is not just gambling.

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN SPORT ANCHOR: Where there's controversy over it. You've got skills, Ashleigh first of all.

BANFIELD: I don't have skills, I will tell you (inaudible).

NICHOLS: OK, in 2006 Congress passed a law that said no internet gambling, except they created a loophole for fantasy sports because at that point fantasy sport was basically just, you know, bunches of friends who would kind of meet up on the internet, old college friends maybe who would draft different players from different teams and then compete with each other.

BANFIELD: But you have to know stuff. But you have to be smart enough to know what they're sport (ph), right.

NICHOLS: It was basically at that point you'd, you know, you guy from Poughkeepsie AL would win $200 off of the college's buddies or something or they had to get each other tattoos or something like that and Congress didn't want to regulate that.

Well, since then, this has turned into as you point it out a multibillion dollar industry and the difference is that people go on this website sites and they basically make their picks for the day in which players they think going to do well. They're competing with everyone else, millions of other people, and then if they win, they have the best lineup they'll win the huge payout.

The problem here is that the guys who work at the company, they know all of the inside secrets about whose name is going to be coming up as the winning teams or the sleeper picks, things that really win you the big money, and they were going out and using the insider information or at least the allegation is that they could or did, and they were using that to win on other sites. Basically call the whole thing in question, if you are going to be putting down your $20.

BANFIELD: Yeah.

NICHOLS: Do you want to compete against the guy who's got all the answers?

BANFIELD: Who's got all the information? That's sound a lot like insider trading.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Isn't it interesting that the very thing that makes fantasy sports legal which is that it is a game of information knowledge and skills that predominates over chance like a roulette wheel, just spinning, flipping a coin.

Isn't it interesting that very thing that makes it legal is what somebody is what people are complaining about today, that somebody used not just information, but superior information to everybody else in order to do better than everybody else. Yes, you know, we can make the analogy to insider trading, but that is all it is, it's an analogy, because the industry of securities is simply not the same as the industry of fantasy sports, They are not the same thing, so the fact that somebody had superior information especially that information was available to other people or it something they've could be intuitive of figure out.

[12:40:08] Then really there doesn't seem to be a proper, we can make a theoretical analogy, because the industry of securities.

BANFIELD: So on wasn't going down for this.

CEVALLOS: I don't well, here's the problem. And let me say this and I'll Rachel jump in, was that. The idea that UIGA somehow legalize his fantasy sport, it's not exactly accurate. It doesn't supplant, it doesn't replace local state law. Local state law can continue to make it illegal so I a creative federal or State Prosecutor could still find the violation of state or federal law, it's not immunity.

BANFIELD: OK, so you've got a couple of seconds to answer that.

NICHOLS: Well, here's the issue, this is become a huge moneymaker, all the sport league is involve on this in one way or another. You mentioned that Time Warner being invested in this. And there could be the beginning of some blow back here. Major league baseball, I want to put up the statement that they just came out with just a few minutes ago, they said that they have a policy where they don't let their own employees participate and finish the sport.

And then here's the key. They investor in DraftKings and they say "We list the price to learn DraftKings allowed it's employees to participate in daily finish the game. We've reach out to discuss matter with them. That's basically means hey we're the money guys behind for this operation.

BANFIELD: Yes.

NICHOLS: And the hammer might be coming down. There's also a move by a Congressman in New Jersey to maybe close that loophole in 2006 legislation, maybe that is the sport daily fantasy sport gambling analysis, it's going to get some attention from OK, now.

BANFIELD: OK. Stay tune to her site. That's all I'm saying. Rachel Nichols on this and Danny Cevallos you're invited back when she report more about this. Thank you both. I appreciate it.

Coming up next. I bet you had never heard of slaves being referred to as immigrants or workers. Neither had a 9th grader until he read it in his school textbook. And no joke, he even took the photo the prove it. Find out what happened next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:46:22] BANFIELD: What I'm about to say should as kind of standard to anybody, right? In fact, this shouldn't be news even to a high school history student, but here you go. Africans brought to the new world against their will, who were bought and sold like property and treated like livestock or worse for more than 300 years were called slaves. That was what their names were, they were slaves. They were not called immigrants. I'm an immigrant, and they were not called workers. I'm a worker. And they were called slaves. Very cut and dry. And future editions of a McGraw-Hill geography textbook are go going say that, but only because there is this 9th grader in Texas who could not believe what he was reading in class last week.

Centuries of slavery reduced to a paragraph on immigrant workers. Colby Burren (ph) texted his mon who is a former high school herself, now pursuing a doctorate and language arts, and to Roni Dean-Burren word matter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONI DEAN-BURREN, CHALLENGED HIGH SCHOOL GEORGRAPHY TEXT: The Atlantic salve trade between 1,500 and 18 hundred. We've got million of workers from Africa to the Southern United States to work on agricultural plantation. So it is now consider immigration

BANFIELD: Yikes. A couple of Facebook posts and a few hundred thousand likes, and the publisher promised a rewrite and to quoting McGraw- Hill, to communicate these facts more clearly, we will update this caption to describe the arrival of African slaves in the U.S. as a forced migration, and emphasize that their work was done as slave labor. Join joing me now from houston is Roni Dean-Burren, wow. Did you ever expect that this would happen because you got angry or saw something and you went to social media on it?

RONI DEAN-BURREN: No, I guess, you know, and it's important to sort of characterize that it's not anger it was just really, look what this is. It is sort of a matter of ridiculousness. When I posted the original text for my son, then people asked about the book. They said, who is the maker, and I tough well, instead of taking pictures I'll just sort of walk people through the book with the video. And I just thought, you know, my 25 friends would like it or something, and say, that's a shame, and it would be over.

BANFIELD: It wasn't. I mean, this is the massive change. They are re- doing the whole kit and caboodle. Did they just get wind of your viral post or did you end up having a lengthy discussion with them, certainly with your background you could have told them a thing or two about writing textbooks.

DEAN-BURREN: Well, maybe a little bit. I mean, I have an English language arts and journalism background, so maybe not the history book but I know some people...

BANFIELD: And the whole doctorial student thing that's kind of big deal to me.

DEAN-BURREN: Yes.

BANFIELD: So did you talk to them about that, Roni?

DEAN-BURREN: I didn't talk to directly to McGraw-Hill, I just posted the video and a lot of the followers and the people who saw the they video shared it, and I know people call, they were posting their number, and then McGraw-Hill responded last Friday initially they since responded again as well. But I haven't spoken to them directly, no.

BANFIELD: So there is an interesting anecdote that you can recount right here live on TV about the moment that you found out that things were going to change, and that quickly, and can you recount that?

[12:50:04] DEAN-BURREN: Yes. So my son sort of -- once we sort of knew that things were going to make this change and the publisher said hey we're going to move into a direction of using better language, my son gave me a call, and he was sitting right next to me, and he said "Mom answer the phone. I said, you are sitting right here". He said "Just answer the phone." So I answered my phone and he said "Mommy, you tell me to call yu when I knew I could change the world with my voice, and so I know that now so I'm calling you to tell you were right. So, that was great moment, that sort of makes all the craziness that is happening now worth because he gets it.

BANFIELD: Yes, that's a mommy moment I think to end a lot of mommy moments. Well, congratulation. I think that's fantastic. Where in from this immigrant worker to you, I think you did excellent work and thank you for doing that.

DEAN-BURREN: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Thanks Roni Dean-Burren joining us live, wow talk about changing the world.

Coming up next, can you believe that it's been 20 years since the trial of the century, a look back at the O.J. Simpson Verdict and all of the hype that surrounded it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:55:18] BANFIELD: Speeding White Bronco, tight black glove and a bigger than like football legend. The trial of O.J. Simpson. I hope you got a seat beat on right now. It happened 20 years ago. Feel little old, same here. But still it's on many of us can't forget.

And tonight CNN is taking a look at how that case unfolded, that drama inside the courtroom, and how people across the nation were committed and even felt connected to O.J.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Was that verdict about murder or was it about race.

TOM LANGO, FORMER LOS ANGELES POLICE DETECTIVE: The verdict was undeniably about race.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not guilty.

JIM MORET, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: The people saw what they wanted to see. And it's interesting how it was divided in this case right along the racial lines.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, O.J. SIMPSON'S ATTORNEY: I'll never forget when it was over, a woman came over to me, and said that the verdict was like being punched in the stomach, and I said, you don't know any of the people, and why was it like being punched in the stomach, she said, it was as if this were my brother and sister. Everybody was involved, and everybody took sides.

PHILLIPS: Everyone had an opinion. And now.

How do you feel 20 years later? Did he do it?

KATO KAELIN, WITNESS: In my opinion still is, I think he is guilty, that has not changed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I found him innocent, and I believe he's innocent.

PHILLIPS: With all your heart?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of my heart.

PHILLIPS: What's the one thing that you can't get out of your mind 20 years later from that trial?

FRED GOLDMAN, RON GOLDMAN'S FATHER: Oh, that is easy for me.

PHILLIPS: What's that?

GOLDMAN: Son of a [inaudible] got away with it. Simple as that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: And I bet you recognize the reporter right here, Kyra Phillips leading that special report.

PHILLIPS: 20 years ago I was covering that verdict.

BANFIELD: How could you possibly you're only 30?

PHILLIPS: Oh, that's so true.

BANFIELD: So here's the thing, you know, if you had polled people black and white right after that verdict...

PHILLIPS: Oh.

BANFIELD: ... it was literally black and white how people felt about that verdict.

PHILLIPS: Look, you and I were covering this.

BANFIELD: Yes.

PHILLIPS: OK, we remember this very well. This case became about race.

BANFIELD: Yes.

PHILLIPS: Bottom line. I mean, it was not about two people that were brutally slaughter. The country was divided it was black against white, white against black, everybody had an opinion because of race. Rodney King, and the public thought that the LAPD was racist, and then Mark Fuhrman dropping the N-word on those tapes, and I mean, the whole dynamic changed. Did you know in 1995 when this verdict came down 60 percent of African-Americans thought that O.J. Simpson was innocent. 60 percent.

BANFIELD: 60 percent, yes.

PHILLIPS: And now, 20 years later...

BANFIELD: How different is that?

PHILLIPS: More than 50 percent of blacks say, oh, he's guilty. And 83 percent of all of us say he's guilty.

BANFIELD: So, you know, we've had that criminal trial in Las Vegas that might have besmirched his character somewhat as well. But I mean, you know, kidnapping and robberies, one thing murders is quite another.

PHILLIPS: You know you bring up a good point. Tom Lange who you will see in this documentary, I remember interviewing him 20 years ago, he was crusty fiesty detective. He always laid it out, right? He was even more blunt with me now. And he's like, you know, what, I knew he did it. We have the evidence that he did it and he said yes, he's going to rot in jail, but for the wrong crime.

BANFIELD: But for the wrong crime and a lot of people said that's exactly what, you know, the process was in Vegas. It was the punishment for the other crime in the state next door.

PHILLIPS: Sure.

BANFIELD: The question about is, he got position tapes but it keep circling.

PHILLIPS: Oh wow. Yes.

BANFIELD: The Bruno Magli shoes you look under the age of 40, Bruno Magli where anything anybody every talk about, you know, in that (inaudible).

PHILLIPS: Very expensive.

BANFIELD: Because a footprint in the blood were Bruno Magli shoes and he was asked that question in the deposition in '96 by Daniel Petrocelli about if ever brought Bruno Magli shoes and Simpson said "No." But he goes on he said I know that Bruno Magli make shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that's involve to this case. I would never have worn those "ugly-ass" shoes.

PHILLIPS: "Ugly ass" shoes.

BANFIELD: And then.

PHILLIPS: It was so blunt and so confident about it, right?

BANFIELD: Yeah.

PHILLIPS: Oh, yeah. And then Petrocelli and this picture of this, suave, you know, broadcaster wearing those shoes, and the deposition tape is fascinating because here he is. I mean that, literally this is his face. He's just caught. He has caught red-handed, and he knows darn well he was wearing those shoes.

BANFIELD: And then since the trial, thousands of pictures of him wearing the same shoes of him...

PHILLIPS: All over the place. But he wouldn't wear those those ugly ass shoes. Let's not forget.

BANFIELD: I thought there were really nice shoes. But, you know, I can't afford those shoes. And great work as always.

PHILLIPS: Thank you.

BANFIELD: You've been sort of the lead voice on this and you have followed it for 20 years, and again I don't know how being the age you're.

PHILLIPS: I know.

BANFIELD: Watch here at special O.J. the Verdict that airs tonight 9:00 Eastern Time. Thank you Kyra.

PHILLIPS: You bet.

BANFIELD: And thank you everyone for watching tonight to have you with us. Stay tuned. WOLF starts now.