Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Oregon Occupiers; San Bernardino Investigation; President Obama Unveils New Gun Control Measures. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 5, 2016 - 15:00   ET

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


[15:00:02]

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: He has not done what he wanted on guns. And I think the frustration of that really came through today.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Mike, to you, on just the specifics now as we talk about the gun show loopholes or if you're trying to buy guns online, because I have talked to a lot of people, and they say, listen, this is, yes, executive actions, but it's really not a whole lot. How do you interpret this and how will this then also be enforced by ATF?

MIKE BOUCHARD, FORMER ATF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Well, it's a start.

It's unfortunate we couldn't have done this the conventional way, through Congress, but this is -- the president decided time was up, it's time to do something about it. It doesn't close the gun show loophole. Only Congress can require background checks on every buyer.

But it will define who is involved, engaged in the business. So those people who sell guns at gun shows may now become engaged in the business. Therefore, they have to have a license. And by being required to have a license, then they have to do background checks.

So it's kind of going around through the backdoor to close the gun show loophole. It doesn't officially do it, but it will certainly restrict the number that are sold without background checks.

TOOBIN: Just isn't it sort of amazing? That was -- this is going to be a defining moment of the president's term in office, this scene today.

BALDWIN: Sure.

TOOBIN: And it was a big moment. But what he actually did was pretty small, because that's all he can do. If you want to change gun control in the United States, Congress has to do it, not the president.

So I was just struck by the contrast between this really sort of bureaucratic step in the direction of closing the gun show loophole and this incredible emotion that we see. Just, it's a contrast.

BALDWIN: So, given precisely that point, that it wasn't this massive, sweeping change, then are we to assume that someone still along the line is going to challenge this, and then where would that play out, the challenge?

TOOBIN: Well, I don't think this action today can really be challenged in court, in part because it's so minor.

BALDWIN: Really?

TOOBIN: All he really did was, he said, this is the definition we're going to use in deciding who is a gun dealer.

If someone is arrested and then convicted under this new definition, that person can then challenge his or her conviction in court. We're talking about something that would take months, if not years to work its way through the legal system. This isn't even like his immigration regulation, where he issued a binding interpretation of law that could be immediately challenged in court.

This is just a clarifying instruction. It is not that big a deal.

BALDWIN: Even though it's not going to be interpreted that way out on the trail?

TOOBIN: Well, sure. That's right, because it's part of the politics of the day. And there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not something that is going to wind up in the courts any time soon.

BALDWIN: It's interesting.

Mike, also with ATF, what they are adding, some 200 ATF agents to enforce this, is that even enough?

BOUCHARD: In my opinion, no. But, again, Congress is going to have to approve the funding for that. And it's going to be interesting to see where the efforts in this country go. Are people just going to spend all their efforts trying to defeat this or say why it's wrong and make sure it doesn't succeed, or are they going to put all their efforts into helping develop solutions?

This is a first step. Criminals are still going to get guns, no matter what you do, but it's a first step in limiting access to guns. So, if Congress funds it, that's going to be certainly a step in the right direction to give ATF some new resources they will need to enforce this.

TOOBIN: ATF has been a real target of Republicans in the House and Senate. The ATF -- Michael, correct me if I'm wrong big -- was bigger in the 1970s than it is today.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: That's exactly what Evan Perez was saying last hour.

TOOBIN: And the country has got 50 million more people.

So this is -- any law enforcement agency with firearms in it is not going to be popular with the Republican Party, and that's why this will be controversial, the adding of agents.

BALDWIN: Thank you for the segue, Mr. Toobin.

TOOBIN: Always a pleasure.

BALDWIN: Thank you, Jeff Toobin and Mike Bouchard.

Let me move on and let's talk politics. Politics, what really stood out today, as we mentioned off the top here, was the president's emotion, but then it will be how this is all interpreted on the trail as well.

Let me bring in CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger. Has a very close eye on not only this president, but others.

Gloria, was it -- just watching all this today, was it a surprising moment for you?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's always a surprising moment, Brooke, when you see a president of the United States wipe a tear from his eye.

And I think, however, we have known that since Sandy Hook this has been one of the great frustrations of this president. After Sandy Hook, he put Vice President Biden in charge of gun legislation that would have called for serious background checks. And it was serious reforms and of course that failed. But it not only failed because of Republicans, Brooke.

[15:05:15]

Remember, it failed in the Senate because of four Democrats who were afraid of taking on their voters in pro-gun states.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Gloria, let me stop you there. Stay with me.

I want to turn now -- I'm told that there's an FBI news conference just under way talking about the aftermath of the San Bernardino shootings. Remember, 14 people killed there. Let's dip in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

DAVID BOWDICH, FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: And the chief of Redlands police department Mark Garcia, and then the head of counterterrorism in L.A. Steve Woolery for the FBI.

First off, I want to tell you that, through the holidays, our folks were working this investigation. They continued to work it. This is -- as I said from day one, this is a priority investigation and will continue to be such.

To date, we have conducted over 550 interviews. We have conducted -- or collected, rather 500 pieces of evidence. We have also executed 29 search warrants on this investigation to date. We have scrubbed a number of social media. As I told you from day one, that was one of our big focuses to ensure that we are able to hopefully determine the motivation of Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife.

Based on a variety of sources, we have determined at least to some extent the movements of Syed and Tashfeen that day after the actual incident, before and after the incident occurred. We have accounted for three hours and 42 minutes of their time. We are missing 18 minutes of their time.

So why is that 18 minutes so important? It's important because we want to ensure that we know whether or not they stopped at any locations, any residences, any businesses that we don't already know about. We want to ensure that if they made contact with anyone that we don't already know about between those hours or between that time that we're able to fully investigate those matters.

I have told you from day one we will leave no stone unturned in this investigation. This is not an average investigation. We all know that. That's obvious. But for that purpose, that's why we're really here today. We want to talk to -- directly to the public and we want to ensure that they understand what we're missing.

And I'm going to go through a timeline very quickly for you. And then I'm going to ask the public to hopefully help us out with this investigation and to -- if you have information, to come to us with it.

So, the timeline, as we know so far, they left their house at 8:37 a.m. on December 2. They arrived at -- or he -- he left his house at 8:37 a.m. He arrived at the IRC at 8:47 a.m. He left the IRC at 10:37 a.m. He then returned -- there was about 19 minutes later -- he later to the IRC at 10:56 a.m.

And over the next few minutes, the attack took place inside the IRC, where multiple people were shot and 14 people were killed. They then visited Lake Seccombe at approximately, roughly 11:45 a.m. that morning. The missing timeline I have -- and this is where I asked the public's -- for the public's assistance -- the missing timeline we have is from 12:59 p.m. from 1:17 p.m. on December 2.

Again, 12:59 to 1:17, that's 18 minutes of time we're missing. Now, how do we account for this? We accounted for this from a variety of sources, traffic cameras, surveillance cameras, witness accounts and other techniques and that's the time that we're missing.

And we just want to make sure that if the public has any media in their holdings, witnessed any sightings, that you come to us and please give us that information, because we want to make absolutely certain that we know as much as we can possibly know about their activities both before and after the attack that day leading up to the point where the police engaged them and ultimately killed them both.

I'm going to point out the map. And the map is here, as you can see. The L shape that you see is -- goes through the city of Redlands and the city of San Bernardino. That is the area that we know these two were in following and prior to the shooting. They went back and forth. And it's a whole route that they took and

there's no rhyme or reason that can make for it yet. However, again, that 18 minutes is critical. We know they went and they parked at certain places and we know they spent some time at those places. We don't know necessarily what they were doing at those places, but that route is important for you to understand.

[15:10:10]

In the spirit of leaving no unturned -- no stone unturned for the victims, that's why we're here and we ask the public to call. The number that I'm going to give to you for the public is 1-800-225-5324. That's 1-800-CALL-FBI. When you call in as the public, you hit option four. Once you hit that option, you will be directed to a physical person and they will assess your call and if necessary they will send you a URL or a place you can upload any media that you have.

I will say to business owners and to homeowners and citizens, if you have already been talked to and you have already turned this information over, thank you. That's helped us construct this timeline. If you have not been talked to by the FBI, because we have talked to a number of people -- those 550-plus interviews don't even account these types of interviews.

If you have not been talked to and you have some sort of media in your holdings or you have surveillance camera footage or cell phone footage, please give that to us. So, please call that number, again, 1-800-225-5324. Operators are available right now. And they can help you determine whether your material can be sent to us.

The additional display of photos we have to help you hone in on that information are here. This is the suspect vehicle. The license plate is very different from our area. Obviously, that's a Utah plate. That's the plate that came back to that rental car that Tashfeen and Syed were driving that day.

At this point, I'm going to ask you -- I'm going to thank you, first of all. Thank you for your continued support for this investigation. I'm also going to thank you for those of you that have given the families their privacy. The families have been through a lot. We have engaged with them once already. We will continue to engage with them again very soon.

We want to keep them updated. They went through a tremendous amount of trauma and will continue for months and ultimately years and their holidays were not the same as many of yours and ours. Thank you and I will take questions.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: No, I don't have that today. I'm not going to go through it because it's very convoluted. We can essentially trace their route. And they went back and forth and back and forth and up and down. It's very difficult to discern from... QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: Well, that's the area, the box within which they stayed. And just within that box, we don't have anything that indicates they left that box, but we're missing about that 18 minutes of footage. We're dark.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: That's correct.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: We do not at this point.

QUESTION: What did you recover from the lake that belonged to them? And what did you recover off it, if anything?

BOWDICH: We recovered a number of items from the lake, none of which to this point seem pertinent and relevant to this investigation.

However, because we know they stopped there right next to the lake, we did feel it was worth the investment of our time and resources to go out and search that lake. And I think we would have been remiss had we not done so.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: Good question. As of today, we do not see any indications of a foreign-directed terrorist act. This seems to be an inspired terrorist attack.

QUESTION: I have a question about the -- I guess so they showed up at the IRC and started shooting at 10:46. They were there for a few minutes and they got to Lake Seccombe Lake at 11:45 a.m. So, that's 45 minutes. Were they just driving around the whole time?

BOWDICH: Yes, they were.

QUESTION: And is there evidence that they stopped anywhere else?

BOWDICH: There's not evidence that they stopped. There's not evidence that they stopped anywhere. There is evidence that they stopped at a parking lot and they also stopped at the lake, yes. Other than that, it was a lot of driving around.

QUESTION: What parking lot?

BOWDICH: I don't recall the exact location.

QUESTION: And did they stay there awhile?

BOWDICH: No.

QUESTION: OK.

What does it tell you, when people go in there and shoot 36 I guess it was people and then they just remain in the area? (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: We don't know what to make of it. As we have said from day one, they were obviously heavily armed. They had a lot of ammunition.

[15:15:01]

We do not know of any secondary targets that they intended to hit that day. But it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. But we're unaware of any secondary targets.

QUESTION: Do you know why they went home and how long they were there?

BOWDICH: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Why they went home and how long they were there, what they were doing at home?

BOWDICH: We do not.

QUESTION: Two questions. One, will you be releasing Enrique Marquez's 911 tape?

BOWDICH: Not at this point. We're still discussing it at this point, but, no, not yet.

Yes, ma'am. You have been trying.

QUESTION: Yes. Two questions. The first is, where were they last seen at 12:59? Because you say that's where the gap starts.

And the other question, it's critical to account for these 18 minutes. Is it critical just to know the timeline or why is it critical? Do you think this is going to lead you somewhere else, to some other person or other charge in this case?

BOWDICH: I don't have the exact place where they were last seen at 12:59. They were within that box.

But, yes, again, why is that 18 minutes critical? It's critical because it's possible, again, possible, that they stopped, whether it be a storage area, a residence, a business. It's possible there was a contact made. We just don't know. It very well may not be an important fact, but until we close that gap, we just don't know for sure.

Yes.

QUESTION: What did Syed do while he was in the meeting in the morning? And did he take anything with him that was part of the attack? BOWDICH: He did. He took a backpack in with him and he left that

backpack. Inside that backpack is where the pipe bombs were.

QUESTION: And that happened early in the morning, before the shooting, before he even left?

BOWDICH: Yes, it did.

QUESTION: And then at 1:17, where the 18-minute gap is, where are they or where are they at that point?

BOWDICH: Again, they are within that L shape. Because they moved around so much, it's hard to tell exactly where they were at every single point.

But we can track generally their movements to some extent based on all those indicators I talked to you earlier about and other techniques, but those indicators would be traffic cameras, surveillance cameras, witness accounts, that type of thing.

QUESTION: At either end of the 18 minutes, you don't have at least a vague idea of where they were at?

BOWDICH: I don't have that with me.

QUESTION: What was the exact time they were picked up by police?

(CROSSTALK)

BOWDICH: Well, they were initially seen on the surveillance at 2:52 p.m. That's when the surveillance initially caught them driving up to the house. Shortly thereafter, the engagement with police took place and that's when you had the firefight and ultimately their demise.

QUESTION: Do you have any better idea of why they did this?

BOWDICH: We definitely believe this was an inspired act. We don't again have any indications of a foreign-directed act as of today.

QUESTION: Any personal grievances that you have come to learn about (OFF-MIKE) and why did they choose this particular target?

BOWDICH: Well, you can read the complaint on Enrique. There's some indications in there.

As to why they chose this intended target, this particular target, I do not know that. I know there was a lot of chatter early on about workplace disputes. We don't see any indications of that. We don't see any witness accounts where there was a fight or an argument with Syed inside the venue at which this act occurred.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: Correct. QUESTION: Except for the 18th. During that time, do you have any

records, cell phone contact that they had with other people during that time or text messaging? Did they go inside the house where they lived?

BOWDICH: I don't have that available to me. They did not go inside the house.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) What surveillance camera is that?

BOWDICH: No, no, that was -- the 2:52 p.m.?

QUESTION: Yes.

BOWDICH: That was surveillance. That was the actual detectives who saw the vehicle driving.

I'm going to take three more questions. That's it.

QUESTION: Can you please characterize just this whole time? You have described it a little bit. But were they just sort of zigzagging around? Were they stopping?

BOWDICH: A lot of zigzagging around, going back and forth on the highway, going up, going down. There is no rhyme or reason to it that we can find yet. Maybe that 18 minute closes that gap. Maybe it doesn't.

QUESTION: And between 1:17 and 2:52, just more of the same?

BOWDICH: More of the same, yes.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) local schools or any other targets for (OFF- MIKE)

BOWDICH: Other than what you see in the complaint for Enrique Marquez that's already out there, and that -- the Riverside Community College, other than that, we see no indications of any intended attacks on schools.

I will take two questions.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Where was Tashfeen during his initial visit to the...

BOWDICH: Good question. We don't know the answer. It's possible she was in the vehicle the whole time. We just don't know for sure.

One more question. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can you talk what, from witnesses that were in meeting with him (OFF-MIKE) that he was there, what was his demeanor?

BOWDICH: The demeanor seemed to be OK. There are photographs with him inside the venue. Seemed to be OK.

[15:20:00]

Again, originally, there were accounts that there was some sort of a dispute, that there was some sort of an argument. We have found no legitimate accounts of anything like that at this point.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BOWDICH: Correct. He sat there with him. There's photographs with him, yes.

So, at this point, I'm going to end it. Sure.

BALDWIN: So, the FBI, you know the shootings. We covered them live here on the show, the shootings in San Bernardino just a couple weeks ago, 14 people killed, so many others injured.

That was the FBI essentially saying, listen, this investigation has been of course our priority. Even through the holidays, they have gone through hundreds of pieces of evidence and witness interviews and have scrubbed social media. The key is this 18-minute stretch of time and they are asking the public if you knew anything, if you have media, if you saw these folks, pictures, whatever, they want to hear from you from when -- from that day.

I have Evan Perez with me, our justice correspondent. We're bringing Mike Bouchard back, former assistant director at the ATF, because I think it's interesting how they are talking to the public, Mike, and I'm going to ask about that.

But, first, Evan, to you, why is it so important? I have to imagine to get every single second of that ticktock day to answer the question of the why, right?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right, exactly, the why and really whether there's anybody else that they don't know of who had anything, anything at all to do with this.

Brooke, that's what the big question remains. And as long as you don't have those 18 minutes, you can't rule out they might not have met with someone, that they might not have been communicating with someone, taking a phone call on one of their cell phones. As you recall, they did have one cell phone they were able to track and they were able to find that they went to this lake and this park, this regional park where they did that search that we carried the pictures of.

They knew a little bit about where they have been. And as you can tell, they saw where they were. What they don't know exactly about is this 18 minutes. It's a very big leap for them to even get to this point because, if you remember, after this event at first they didn't know about the four hours. There was a lot they didn't know about the four hours in between the time that they carried out the attack and the time that they finally engaged in the final shoot-out with those federal agents. So this 18 minutes is very, very crucial to try to just determine

whether or not anybody else, and again right now, there's no evidence that indicates that there's anybody else that had anything to do with this. They believe this is an inspired attack that these two people carried out based on the fact they were radicalized. But again you can't rule out any of that possibility without knowing about these 18 minutes.

BALDWIN: So, then, Mike, to you. I'm curious, how unusual is it to have the FBI hold a news conference and straight up ask the public we need your help because we need to know what happened in these 18 minutes?

BOUCHARD: This is unusual. That 18 minutes, I think they want to just close the loop and make sure there's nothing they missed, that they didn't meet with a co-conspirator. There's no evidence that they were going to attack any other places. And they just want to make sure they didn't meet with someone else and discuss some future plans.

But none of this really makes sense. When active shooters go in and conduct these acts, they expect that they are going to get killed at the end of the -- when the police arrive. These two, he left the backpack with pipe bombs earlier in the morning. They did the shootings. He knew he would get caught probably that day.

So it's odd that he would try and dispose of evidence because he was going to get caught by the police because they knew who he was. I think they were just driving around. And my belief is they were just waiting to engage the police and finish it off in a different way.

BALDWIN: But, again, hearing from the FBI, appears to be truly a self-inspired terror attack, not foreign-inspired, which is what essentially they were saying more or less from the get-go. But they want the information from the 18 minutes for now.

Evan Perez and Mike Bouchard, thank you both so much.

BOUCHARD: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Now this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What the airstrikes and the ground offensive didn't destroy, ISIS rigged to blow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Inside war. CNN goes straight to Ramadi, the ISIS stronghold reclaimed by Iraq forces -- what we found there from tunnels to booby traps to families left with nothing.

Plus, if the armed activists who have taken over this federal building in Oregon were, say, Muslims or members of the Black Lives Matter movement, would the feds be responding differently? My next guest thinks so. We will talk to him coming up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:28:01]

BALDWIN: When will it end? A group of armed protesters say they are prepared to occupy this federal wildlife refuge in Southeastern Oregon for as long as it takes.

They have told our correspondent it could be days, weeks, perhaps months. In a tweet that has since been deleted, the man leading this group says that they will pack up and leave only after the government gives up control of this land, and this father/son duo, Dwight and Steve Hammond, until their set free.

The father and son ranchers reported to federal prison yesterday to serve out their sentences for arson on federal land. Even though the Hammonds have distanced themselves from this armed occupation, the protesters say they are staying put until their demands are met, all of this despite pleas from local authorities to leave.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We came very well-prepared. We're in it for the long haul.

DAVE WARD, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON, SHERIFF: You said you were here to help the citizens of the county. That help ended when a peaceful protest became an armed occupation. It's time for you to leave our community, go home to your families and end this peacefully.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: With these protesters vowing to stay for the long haul, experts say law enforcement should just wait them out. Others beg to differ. They say it would be a much different story if the occupiers were, say, Muslims, African-Americans.

My next guest, David Love, just wrote an article addressing that very issue for TheGrio.com.

David Love, great to see you, sir. Welcome.

DAVID LOVE, THEGRIO: Thanks a lot, Brooke. Great to be with you.

BALDWIN: Let me -- let's get right to it and let meantime, just read part of what you have written here.

You say flat out -- quote -- "Here's a question worth asking right now. What would happen if 150 armed Black Lives Matter protesters occupied a federal building?"

Go on to write this. "If Black Lives Matter protesters were to take over a federal building armed to the teeth with firepower -- and they certainly would not do this -- they would wind up dead or in prison for life on terrorism charges."

So, you're calling out the double standard here in Oregon.

LOVE: Oh, yes, no question.

It seems that this country has a double standard. I would say it's a color-coded system when it comes to defining terrorism. Throughout the years, black people have been criminalized. And it seems that white people, when they have guns --