Return to Transcripts main page
Did ISIS Bring Down Russian Jet?; Donald Trump Tops Brand New GOP Poll; Tarantino Not Backing Down From Comments; Thousands Sign Petition Asking NBC to Drop Trump From 'SNL.' Aired 10-11p ET
Aired November 4, 2015 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00] DON LEMON, CNN TONIGHT SHOW HOST: It is breaking news and there is new cell phone video tonight, here it is. It's from the Russian media outlet life news of the smoking ruins of a Russian jetliner that crashed with 224 people on board. Did ISIS bring down this plane?
This is CNN Tonight. I'm Don Lemon.
Here is what we know right now, U.S. intelligence points to a bomb planted somewhere on the plane by ISIS or its affiliates. Britain calls it a significant possibility. The U.K. and Ireland suspending all flights from the popular Sharm el-Sheikh Resort, stranding thousands of tourists and the candidates are also weighing in tonight.
In the meantime, Donald Trump tops a brand-new poll just ahead of Ben Carson, and NBC releases this Saturday Night Live promo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CECILY STRONG, SNL STAR: Donald had promise that for the whole show he is not going to brag or he's the best at anything, right Donald?
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That's right, Cecily. And I'm going to do the best job anyone's ever done not saying it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: All this plus Quentin Tarantino breaks his silence tonight. There is a lot to get to a whole lot and we're going to get to all of it.
But we're going to begin to our breaking news. CNN's Ben Wedeman is live for us in Cairo. Also, Pamela Brown working her sources from the CNN World Headquarters in Atlanta.
Ben, to you first. It is almost dawn on Thursday morning in Egypt. If this was terror, as officials believe. What did ISIS do and how were they able to bring this plane down? What do you know about the plot?
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we know is from these unnamed American sources, officials who say that somehow ISIS managed to smuggle an explosive device on board the plane when it was at the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh. And that somehow or rather it exploded 300 kilometers north of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Now, this is what American officials are saying. It's not at all clear what actually happened. The Egyptian civil aviation authority put out a very brief statement today saying they are running the investigation and further information will be made available in due course.
The Egyptians have been very tight lipped and about this investigation. And generally, downplaying the possibility that this could be terrorism, terrorism by ISIS, obviously, tourism is a mainstay of the economy here, particularly in the Sinai Peninsula.
So, Egyptian officials are very wary of creating an atmosphere in which tourists start to cancel their vacation plans, although the fact of the matter is, given the media attention, probably that is already afoot, Don.
LEMON: Yes. Speaking of that, I want to know what the security is like, Ben, at the Sharm el-Sheikh Airport, if there could be -- if we could there, would they do -- would it do other places as well, what are they doing there?
WEDEMAN: Well, Don, you know, I lived in Egypt for 14 years and I've been through that airport more times than I can count. It's a resort destination. The security is very relaxed, shall we say. We don't add -- we're not able to see what's going on behind the scenes.
But the only person I know who was ever stopped at the Sharm el-Sheikh Airport was a friend of mine who was stopped by Egyptian security, they said because she wasn't smiling when she left.
LEMON: Oh, goodness. All right, Ben. I want you to stand by. Let's go Pamela Brown now. Pamela, you know, what changed today to make both the British and U.S. authorities to say this is one of the leading theories as to why this plane crash?
PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, to be clear, no conclusion have been reached but we've learned from officials there was chatter intercepted by the U.S. intelligence community after that plane crash. Suggesting ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula could have been responsible for putting a bomb on the plane, which is at least part of the reason why officials are leaning to the bomb theory that is also based and part on monitoring of internal messages of the terrorist group.
But because there hasn't been corroboration with forensic evidence from the crime scene there, U.S. officials are still being very cautious. But it is clear, just from talking to people they're extremely worried that this could be a reality that ISIS could have planted a bomb on that plane. Don.
LEMON: And if it is confirmed that ISIS is behind this, what does it say about how their operations and their capabilities are expanding?
BROWN: It would be very significant for the U.S. intelligence community if it turns out that ISIS was capable of building a bomb that could bring brown an airplane. Up until now, Don, the U.S. intelligence community is known that ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula there one of the most active brands of devices has bomb-making capabilities.
But bringing down a plane takes another level of sophistication that is a departure from what the U.S. intelligence community has seen from the terrorist group.
[22:05:03] That would raise the concern substantially because a lot of what ISIS has been focused on is taking over territory. This would indicate that its goals are expanding if turns out that the group was responsible for that crash.
LEMON: Why do authorities believe it was an inside job?
BROWN: There is additional a classified intelligence, according to my colleague, Elise Labott, that supports this theory, Don, of an airport worker putting the bomb on the plane.
Now we don't know what that intelligence says. But what we do know is that officials have scrubbed the passenger manifests and the crew and the passengers have checked out.
So, that as lean investigators to believe a possible theory that someone planted a bomb on that plane that would detonate once it reaches a certain altitude and only certain people would have access to the plane. Don.
LEMON: All right. Thank you very much. Ben Wedeman, Pamela Brown for that and our breaking news.
Now, to other breaking news story. Donald Trump back on top in a brand new national poll of republican voters.
And joining me now to discuss is Charles Hurt, a columnist for the Washington Times, Mercedes Schlapp is also here, she is the co-founder of Cove Strategies and former media spokesperson for President George W. Bush. And CNN political commentator, Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent for The New Yorker.
It's good to have all of you here. Ryan, there is a new poll out tonight, as I mentioned; Fox News has conducted entirely after the CNBC debate.
Let's put the numbers now. It shows Trump is on top, 26 percent, that is followed by Ben Carson, 23 percent. You know, it's a persistent lead at the top of the polls. He's not going anywhere, no matter how people try to write him off. We talk about that. Why do people try to write him off and he's not going anywhere?
RYAN LIZZA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, Sony did tried to write him off occasionally in the past. I think you're absolutely right, Don. His staying power...
LEMON: That was meant for you, Ryan. I'm coming for you tonight. LIZZA: His staying power is a constant in this campaign, big story of
the campaign. He has now been at the top of the polls with an occasional number two placement in a few of the state polls in a few of the national polls, longer than any of the so-called fad candidates in previous cycles, right?
Howard Dean, or Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachmann. All of the candidates that kind of surge and then dropped hasn't happen with Donald Trump. He gets a steady quarter to a third of the republican vote.
And, you know, I think at this point you have to believe that's going to -- that's going to continue until someone starts spending some money to make a strong, sustained case against him. That's how a candidate -- that's how a front runner gets taken down and so far none of his opponents have been willing to do that.
LEMON: Yes. They have spent a lot of money. Listen, there are cleared tiers to these candidates here, Mercedes. At the top, Trump and Carson.
MERCEDES SCHLAPP, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Sure.
LEMON: And then the more establishment candidates led by Rubio and Cruz, each with 11. Rubio has 11, Cruz has 11 percent, as well. Jeb Bush at 4, and the rest of the pack in single digits. The debate seemed to help Rubio and Cruz, just a little bit, but it didn't hurt Trump and Carson, even though people said, you know, they were -- they don't talk much. Carson was kind of lackluster. It didn't hurt them.
SCHLAPP: No. Well, you have to think about it this way, both Trump and Carson, they survived the debate. So, they didn't have a stellar performance but they didn't bomb either. So, you know, the debate have...
LEMON: Is it better in some of these debates if they really don't say that much?
SCHLAPP: Sometimes it's better to be quiet than say something and put your foot in your mouth, don't you think, Don. So, I think in this case what is fascinating about Donald Trump and we saw this even yesterday when the first set of polls came out that Ben Carson was ahead.
What did Donald Trump do? He went out and basically changed the narrative. When he spoke to George Stephanopoulos in the morning he basically said, you know what? Ben Carson doesn't have the right temperament to be president.
So, again, he is masterful at being able to change people's perception about these different candidates. You know, he goes on the attack with Marco Rubio on his finances, questioning whether Marco is able to manage the economy because he can't manage his credit cards. Again, putting these doubts in the voters' minds. And guess what, when
you look at this race in Kentucky where Matt Kevin won, it said something very powerful. This is a political noble, a wealthy man.
LEMON: My old friend, Matt Bevin.
SCHLAPP: Yes. And guess what? What does this show that there is urge that this want that the GOP voters are out there and that they want this sort of outsider type of personality.
LEMON: OK. Let's get Charles Hurt heard on here. Charles, my colleague, Dylan Byers, points out that Chris Christie now has 2.25 percent, that's an average in the last national polls and he may not make this main stage. Everyone said, you know, he has -- he hit back so hard against all the candidates. And why are you talking about Fantasy Football and all of that, but Jeb must -- Jeb Bush be counting his lucky stars that he is still up there.
CHARLES HURT, WASHINGTON TIMES COLUMNIST: Indeed, I think he is. And really and truly, that last debate was Chris Christie's absolute best performance of the campaign so far. He's been a huge disappointment to everybody. And so, for him to get this news, you know, tonight, today, basically, that it looks like he, and perhaps even Mike Huckabee won't make the main stage next week for the debate is really bad news.
[22:10:08] But, you know, looking deeper into the numbers, you know, I think that obviously the top line numbers about the horse race numbers in that -- in that Fox poll are the most important lines. But if you go one layer deeper, I think you get into something that is even more interesting and that is that the number of people who pick Donald Trump as their second choice, Ben Carson, leads that pack.
Donald Trump is in second place right behind him. What that means is, that there are -- he has the second highest number of people who are presently with a different candidate but willing to fall back to Trump. And that really puts a lot to the whole establishment argument that we have heard from the beginning, Don, about how there is this hard-set ceiling that Donald Trump can never reach above.
Well, that is not true. There is a whole another, you know, if something happens to Ben Carson, for example, there are a lot of voters apparently, who will then turn to Donald Trump as their second choice.
LEMON: There used to be a saying in news that you want to be the most liked and most hated person. That was the perfect position to be in if you are a commentator or a newscaster. So, maybe that's Trump's position and that's a good position to be in.
But let's talk about these terror attacks and ISIS claiming responsibility. The other candidates spoke out about it. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JEB BUSH, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: ISIS has a desired
strategy to put the black flag of ISIS in the White House. And a plan to destroy Western civilization. That's a law enforcement exercise this. We need strategy to take them out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: But you know what, Mercedes, the GOP front runner, Dr. Ben Carson was asked how he would respond as president to make sure that ISIS doesn't get a bomb on the plane coming to the United States. Here's how he responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN CARSON, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, you know, I think our people are actually doing a very good job already and we haven't had any bombs on our planes for that reason. Obviously you don't want to relax the surveillance that we have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: That was -- that was his entire answer.
LEMON: But to be fair he was speaking after a book signing. But does that answer raise any concerns for you about his grasp on terror and foreign policy?
SCHLAPP: Well, I think I've been concerned for a while about Ben Carson's foreign policy positions. I think just recently, he spoke about how, you know, Saudi Arabia should have turned in Osama Bin Laden to the United States if we would have threatened them with saying we wanted to go energy independent.
I mean, these are not necessarily very well thought out foreign policy positions. And I think that you can't afford to be a -- especially as a Commander-in-Chief with that a prime -- when the primary roles of a president to really you have to have a deep understanding of what is going on, especially in areas like the Middle East. And I just find that his answers are pretty much half baked.
LEMON: All right, every one. Stay with me. When we come right back, Donald Trump is getting ready for his gig hosting Saturday Night Live this weekend. And having some fun this in this promo with cast member Cecily Strong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STRONG: Due to FCC regulations Trump can only appear in this promo for less than four seconds. Isn't that right?
TRUMP: That's correct, Cecily. I'll be hosting Saturday Night...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUAN ESCALANTE, DIGITAL CAMPAIGNS AMERICA'S VOICE DIRECTOR: I think it's very regrettable that they are putting they're prioritizing their ratings over, you know, the comments that Mr. Trump has said about immigtants and Latinos all across the nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So, a petition signed by thousands of people delivered to NBC tonight demanding the network drop Donald Trump from Saturday Night Live, but with Trump topping the latest poll, the protesters are really fighting a losing battle.
So, back with me now, Charles Hurt, Mercedes Schlapp, and Ryan Lizza. OK. Let's get me just get a raise showing of hands here. Who's going to watch on Saturday night?
LIZZA: Under the debate rules for the show, you said no raising of hands, Don.
LEMON: You have to...
SCHLAPP: I'm raising -- I'm raising both hands.
LEMON: But that's point. I mean, doesn't that get more people to tune in, Mercedes?
SCHLAPP: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think, you know, there's such an entertainment value to Donald Trump. How can we not watch? I mean, it's going to be better than watching Hillary Clinton play Hillary Clinton.
LEMON: Ryan Lizza.
LIZZA: I have to be honest, you know, maybe I don't have a very good sense of humor, but the clips that they've showed from SNL so far...
LEMON: Yes, are not funny at all.
LIZZA: ... they're terrible. I don't think they're funny at all.
LEMON: Go ahead, Charles Hurt. Because we think a consensus after we were like to that, was that funny and...
LIZZA: No. But I would rather watch a Donald...
LEMON: But it's such a promo.
LIZZA: ... I would rather watch a Donald Trump speech which in their own ways are entertaining, than the kind of canned thing they were doing in at least in the promos.
LEMON: Go ahead, Charles.
HURT: I think this is a great opportunity for Donald Trump to show us what he can do with a disaster of a situation. I don't remember the last time I saw something funny on SNL. So, if he can make SNL great again, then just maybe he can make America great again.
LEMON: No. That was -- no. Who wrote that for you? Was that an SNL writer? Listen, Mercedes.
LEMON: I think Hillary Clinton introducing -- who was it, Miley Cyrus recently, I thought that was pretty, you know, good TV.
LEMON: Yes. Hillary, where she lives, is that -- was her name then. So, Mercedes, 520,000 signatures.
LEMON: Just delivered tonight to NBC. There it is, 522,080, it says. NBC -- the protest Donald Trump hosting SNL this weekend. Is he hosting it the height -- he's hosting the height of hypocrisy for NBC News considering they fired him from "The Apprentice" cut ties with the Miss Universe pageant over his comments about Mexican immigrants.
SCHLAPP: Look, Don, this is business. I mean, this is how it's played, right? So, we know that...
[22:20:00] LEMON: So, it's only ratings that matter? Is that what you're saying?
SCHLAPP: I think for -- I think at the end of the day it's how they are going to bring in money to the network and I think when you look at SNL in particular, I think it's Lorne Michaels who -- he's the one that calls the shots. He's the one that wants to bring in the people he wants to bring in.
And so, I think that they are going to, you know, find an easy to play ball and if they want to get Donald Trump they are going to get Donald Trump. So, you now, this is just the way business is. You got a -- you got a full take away the feelings out of it. You got to call it hypocrisy. It's just it is what it is.
LEMON: Go, Ryan.
LIZZA: No. I was just going to say, if there is hypocrisy it's that Trump is agreeing to go on NBC...
LEMON: To do it, yes.
LIZZA: ... which he is constantly bashing and he's suing and all the rest. LEMON: Yes. But don't you think he's like, I mean, for him doing
that, and I think we would be like, you know, now you are calling me back.
LIZZA: It's a business transaction on both sides, right?
SCHLAPP: That's right.
LIZZA: And it's mutually beneficial.
LEMON: Charles, you said that you don't think SNL is funny, but I'm going to play some promos for you. Take a look. At least one, a couple of them I should say. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STRONG: I wish there were some real men around here, you know.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You read my mind, girlfriend. I would kill for a real man.
TRUMP: Hi, ladies.
STRONG: Oh, hi, Donald Trump.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, nice to meet you.
STRONG: Donald Trump is hosting Saturday Night Live this week with Ms. Garcia. And because of equal time rules for television, Mr. Trump can only speak for four seconds in this promo.
TRUMP: So, let me just say this, Ben Carson is a complete and total loser.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: All right.
LEMON: So, NBC now says they didn't mean to release that Carson promo that it was an accident. Trump is a natural entertainer, though. But this is really a critical point in the campaign. He is neck and neck with Ben Carson. Are there any pitfalls for him here?
HURT: I'm with Ryan, by the way. I would find far more entertaining just listening to Donald Trump rip into all the other candidates on stage. I mean, you know, as we've seen with -- as we've seen with one of these debates. I mean, that -- you can't get better entertainment value than that.
LIZZA: They shouldn't have released it because it wasn't that funny.
SCHLAPP: I have to say, Charles and Ryan, you guys have been in D.C. for too long. You guys are like two grumpy men.
LIZZA: That's quite true.
SCHLAPP: Come on.
LEMON: I can't wait to see it. But I hope...
SCHLAPP: I can't wait to see it, Don. We'll bring the popcorn.
LEMON: I know they're going to scoop all of you. I hope.
LIZZA: Way too -- way too late for me, I'll be in bed.
LEMON: Yes, they're going to -- late. They are just going to -- OK. So, Ben Carson responded. Do you, guys, want to hear? Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN CARSON, (R) U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I discovered when I was in grade school that those tactics really are for grade school and I've gone far beyond that now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Regardless, Ryan Lizza, are all the candidates going to need a sense of humor and thicker skin on Saturday night?
LIZZA: For the Saturday Night Live for the show?
LEMON: Yes. They're going to be skewered or roasted by everyone including Donald Trump especially?
LIZZA: Yes. But usually the tradition is when you go on a late night show is you make fun of yourself, right?
LIZZA: It's one -- it's one of the things I've always had a question about Trump, is he doesn't seem to be that self-aware, and he doesn't -- he's not always able to make fun of himself.
I think a setting like Saturday Night Live that's the -- that's what you do. You got to -- you got to make some self-deprecating jokes and jokes at your own expense not go after the other candidates.
LEMON: All right. So, if you're in New York, Mercedes, let's hang out and watch in my place.
SCHLAPP: All right, Don. I would love it.
LEMON: All right.
LIZZA: We're not invited?
SCHLAPP: No, not the D.C. crowd. We don't want the D.C. crowd there.
LEMON: No, You, guys are Debby Downers. You know, that's what SNL.
SCHLAPP: I agree.
LEMON: All right. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it.
LIZZA: Thanks, Don.
LEMON: Coming up, Quentin Tarantino speaking out tonight and refusing to back down from his comments about police in the face of a threatened boycott of his latest film.
[22:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: More breaking news tonight. Quentin Tarantino is not breaking down from his comments at an anti-police brutality rally here in New York City. In fact, in appearance in MSNBC, the director may have doubled down tonight citing specific cases in which he believes police were guilty of murder.
Gavin Polone is here to discuss. He's a film and television producer. Good afternoon, Gavin. Thanks for joining us tonight. First thing up, I want you to take a listen to the comments that started all this. Here they are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUENTIN TARANTINO, HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR: What am I doing here? I'm doing here because I'm a human being with a conscience. And when I see murder, I cannot stand by and I have to call the murdered the murdered and I have to call the murderers the murderers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: OK. Now to him tonight, defending himself and clarifying who exactly he says he was talking about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TARANTINO: Because I was referring to Eric Gardner, I was referring to Sam Dubose, I was referring to Antonio Guzman Lopez, I was referring to Tamir Wright. That's what I was referring to.
Yes, in those cases in particular that we're talking about I actually do believe that they were murdered. Now in the case of Walter Scott who was shot the young -- the man running in the park and was shot in the back and the case of Sam Dubose, I believe those were murdered and they were deemed murdered. And the reason and the only reason they were deemed murdered is because the incidences were caught on video.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Gavin, does this help?
GAVIN POLONE, FILM AND TV PRODUCER: Does it help the dialogue about police brutality in this country?
LEMON: Yes. Does it help Quentin Tarantino's case about what he says tonight in trying to clarify it?
POLONE: Well, I mean, it depends on how you, you know, define what his case is. I mean, I disagree with him. I don't think all of those cases are murdered. I think that they are elements of, you know, lethal mistakes and I think we got to be addressing that in this country and we have to be addressing racism.
I really don't agree with the tone of the protest which were referred to genocide in connection with, you know, the police in this country and were generalizing about most police. I mean, the fact is, there is now a news story about the 99.99 percent of police officers who don't do anything wrong and who are out there doing a good job for the rest of us.
But at the same time, I would also say that I am slightly inspired by Quentin Tarantino and the fact that he is not doing what so many people in the entertainment industry do which is ultimately phony.
[22:30:03] They get themselves into a scrape that could affect their career.
LEMON: And do a fake appalling...
POLONE: Something like this where people -- people want to boycott and then all of a sudden, they're, you know, going to meet with leaders from the police union if he were to do that or the offended party. And they're begging for forgiveness and they are promising that they are going to do something in the future to help them.
And he is kind of sticking by his guns. And clearly, this is not going to help his career and not going to help the release of this movie. It's not the kind of publicity that he wanted to get...
LEMON: So, you don't believe because people say, you know, there is no such thing as bad publicity because that may just make people want to go see his movie even more. You don't think so?
POLONE: Well, you know, tell that to Mel Gibson. There is bad publicity and you can drowned out of the business if you touch on certain kind of topics that people -- especially the higher ups and the powerful people in the business think are going to be detrimental to, you know, the revenue generators that they have like their movies.
And so, people invested a lot of money, the Weinstein Company invest alot of money in this movie. And I'm sure this is not what they were hoping for when they were thinking about what they wanted publicity for the movie and the marketing for the movie.
LEMON: So, Gavin, why do you think that his comments, Quentin Tarantino's comments have gotten so much more backlash than many other celebrities that have spoken out?
POLONE: Probably the use of the word "murder." I don't know that I've heard that. The rise of October, you know, protest in itself was particularly incendiary when you start using the term "genocide" in connection with these lethal tragedies that happened but weren't necessarily murdered, they weren't premeditated. I'm sure some were.
But I think that and also just the fact that there has been some violence against police also and they seemed to be connected to some of the protests that are taking place. So, I feel it was the nature of what he was saying and I think it was the nature of that particular protest where he went to speak.
And now the fact that he is not backing down is probably just enraging -- enraging people further. But, he does have a right like the rest of us to express himself.
POLONE: That's what freedom of speech is all about. Freedom of speech is not about when someone talks about something and you agree with them.
POLONE: It's about when you don't agree. And I think it's commendable that if he really believes in all of this, even though like I said I disagree with a lot of what he's saying, that he is standing up and that he's not backing down.
LEMON: OK. That said, for me, it was surprising. And this is just strategy. Why would he go on MSNBC which is essentially preaching to the choir, preaching to the chorus. But when he go on some place like Fox or someplace like CNN, where he may not be preaching to the people who necessarily feel the way he feels?
It was an audience that was like, OK, we're already with you. Why do that? So, that's why when I asked you do you think it help his case, was he just speaking...
POLONE: Oh, it helped this case about -- it helped this case that he was trying to make that -- I mean, what was that case. I mean, he basically reiterated what he had been saying before. He only backed off a little bit by saying that not all police are murderers.
But in the context of that protest and what he was saying at that protest it certainly came off that he was making a vast generalization like everybody else at that protest that the police in general are murderers.
POLONE: So, maybe he backed off a bit, a little bit. But I agree with you, I think it was a weak explanation on his part to go on MSNBC and say what he said. I don't think it changed -- I don't it changed anything and I think the people that are going to boycott his movie are going to boycott his movie.
The people that might protest this movie are going to protest his movie. On the other side, probably some other people who really agree with him have been activated and will probably go see the movie in protest to the protesters.
LEMON: Yes. Good point, Gavin. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Please, come back.
POLONE: Any time.
LEMON: And when we come right back, Quentin Tarantino refusing to back down as we have said, but has he gone too far or not far enough?
[22:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Quentin Tarantino now doubling down tonight on the comments that launched a police boycott of his upcoming film "The Hateful Eight."
Joining me now is David Klinger, a professor of criminology, justice, former police officer and author of "Into the Kill Zone," and also with me CNN political commentator, Mr. Marc Lamont Hill.
Hello, gentlemen. So, Marc, you said this last night. You said that you don't think Tarantino went far enough. You said you wished that he had named names, well, he did tonight and he is standing up to his critics. Let's hear someone -- some of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUENTIN TARANTINO, HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR: I was under the impression I was an American and I had First Amendment rights and there was no problem with me going to an antipolice brutality protest. And speaking my mind. And just because I was at an anti-police brutality protest doesn't mean I'm anti-police.
And basically, there, you know, there was a lot of people at that rally and we were all crying for -- we're crying for a lot of things but there was one thing in particular, which was stop shooting unarmed people.
We want justice but stop shooting unarmed people. But they don't want to deal with that. They would rather -- they would rather start arguments with celebrities than examine the concerns put before them by a citencenry that his laws trust them in.
LEMON: Is that what you wanted to hear, Marc?
MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's exactly what I wanted to hear. First, I wanted to hear him name names. One, because I think because people who go around shooting unarmed people should be named and spotlighted, but also, because it allows us to target the population of law enforcement officers who are actually the problem.
If you don't want to blanket everybody, you name names and I think that's helpful. Tarantino wasn't saying all police officers are murderers. He was saying some are and we need to deal with it.
And once again, I think the bigger problem here is that police officers have operated with such impunity forever in America that when you critique them at all, when you go to an antipolice brutality rally it's made to believe that you are anti-police, when you're in fact, you're just anti-brutality.
LEMON: So, David, I want you to weigh in on this because last night, Harry Houck is here, he's a former New York City police detective said, it is really a fallacy to say that police officers can't shoot unarmed people if they feel threatened. So, what do you make of what he said, of what Tarantino responded to tonight? What does he said?
[22:40:04] DAVID KLINGER, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: Well, first of all, when he talks about the First Amendment the state is not coming in and arresting him. He is exercising his First Amendment right and it drives me nuts that someone as educated as he is, and has a high profile individual he is who doesn't understand what the First Amendment is.
You have an absolute right to say whatever you want and the government can't stop it. But other people can an absolute right in their First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights to not associate, so on, and so forth. So, that's a canard and he should know better.
The second things is, in the terms of the issue of shooting unarmed people, it doesn't happen very often, and most of the times when it does once the evidence comes out it's clear that what the officer did was correct.
There are times and places where officers shoot unarmed people and it's absolutely wrong. And so, for the best example is, the situation in South Carolina in North Charleston. But let me give you an example of a justifiable shooting of unarmed individual.
A police officer is pinned down and an individual has him around on the throat and he's punched him in the face fracturing his eyesight and his cheek bone. Is the officer supposed to sit there, lie there and take it? Absolutely not.
The standard for using deadly force against someone is not whether they have a gun or knife or unarmed. Is there is a reasonable belief that their life is in imminent jeopardy or the life of another innocent.
And so, shooting unarmed people is a legitimate police option, if and only if, however, there is a reasonable belief, not just, I think, maybe, but a reasonable belief, objectively reasonably that someone's life is in jeopardy. That's the issue.
LEMON: OK. So, more harsh words from his police critics. Here's what else he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TARANTINO: They want to demonize me. They want to slander me, say -- imply that I'm saying things that I didn't say. And then -- and for what reason? Well, the reason is because they want me to shut up. And they want to make sure that no other people like me, prominent citizens will stand up for that thought.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Marc, what do you -- what do you make of that?
HILL: I think there is a kind of bullying that happens when people have the courage and sometimes audacity to stand up and challenge police brutality and in some neighborhoods police terrorism. I think that's the key issue here. And I agree that there are moments, based on the law where the police have the option, and maybe even a duty to protect themselves even when the person is unarmed.
For example, in the case that was painted where someone is on the ground, you know, punching someone in the face, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That could be a circumstance. Obviously, in the case of Trayvon Martin, it's a little more complicated.
But we absolutely can -- police absolutely do have that option. But I disagree with the idea that there is some object --- some objective reasonable standard at which we can say you can kill a person. And here's why it's problematic.
Because the notion of the reasonable man, the notion of the reasonable man standard is invoked by jurists, it's invoked by everyday citizens. And everyday citizens have biases. In other words, a jury may say, yes, in the same circumstance I would have shot Trayvon Martin. Yes, in the same circumstance, I would have shot Mike -- I would have shot Michael brown.
The problem is, oftentimes, we are shaped by white supremacy, we are shaped by fear of black bodies. So, just because a jury of people has the same irrational white supremacists or fear of black people doesn't mean that it's OK to shoot them, it may be legal but it's not OK. And that's part of what we're trying to do. We're trying to learn some of these things.
LEMON: Go ahead.
LEMON: Go ahead, David.
KLINGER: marc, the constitutional standard in Gran versus Connor says objectively reasonable. And if you want to argue with the Supreme Court, that's fine. HILL: Yes. That's what I'm doing. Yes. I'm disagreeing -- I'm
disagreeing with the law. I'm saying that the law is not engineered at its core to deal with this fundamental issue of white supremacy. That's what I'm saying. Yes, I agree...
KLINGER: How did white supremacy come in here? Because the situation I'm talking about was a white officer in Kansas City who killed a white guy who was in the process of pummeling him.
HILL: Right. But the issue that I'm talking about was Quentin Tarantino talking about the death of black bodies. And I'm saying that is the overarching issue. There are moments where police use excessive force against the white people. Absolutely.
But I'm saying as an example of where the law does -- where the law is inadequate is the case where juries and police officers invoke a reasonable man standard to decide to kill a person, not because they wake up in the morning and say I'm going to kill a black person. I think they're reasonably afraid of black people. But the reasonable -- the reasonable fear of black people is an artifact of white supremacist.
LEMON: You're not saying that all police officers are...
HILL: Black people should kill white people, too.
LEMON: Marc, but you're not saying that all police officers are afraid of black people?
HILL: No. I'm not saying all -- I'm not saying all police officers are afraid of black people. And I'm not saying all people are afraid of black people. I'm saying we see cases where this does become a fact. And as black people who are afraid of black people, it's white people who are afraid of black people. And I'm saying both those things are artifacts of white supremacist and there is a problem.
LEMON: David -- OK, David, I'll give you the last word?
KLINGER: The issue, however, is not just that someone doesn't like black people or who's afraid of black people. The issue before a jury is, can the officer articulate a standard to say I was in reasonable fear for my life, not measured against racism that necessarily thing, but measure against what the law says.
And if you say I was afraid of him because he stood there and said he was going to beat me and so I shot him, that is not objectively reasonable.
[22:45:02] If you're pinned on the ground and someone is pluming you, black, white, Asian, male, female, it doesn't matter. Any reasonable person would look at that assault and say that person was trying to kill a cop and the officer was justified in shooting. That's all I'm trying to say, Marc.
LEMON: OK. Thank you.
HILL: I hear you. We can talk about it later.
LEMON: That's it. Thank you, guys. I appreciate it. Great conversation.
Coming up, U.S. intelligence suggests that an ISIS bomb brought down a Russian jetliner. What evidence do they have? And does it mean that ISIS is far more dangerous -- far more dangerous enemy than we first thought?
LEMON: There are some chilling new information tonight about the crash of a Russian passenger jet with 224 people on board. U.S. intelligence now suggests that ISIS or one of its affiliates planted a bomb on a plane. And a U.S. official says someone at the Sharm el- Sheikh Airport may have helped.
Joining me now to talk about that is CNN safety analyst, David Soucie, author of "Malaysian Airlines Flight 370," also Jill Dougherty, a researcher for the International Center for Defense and Security, and CNN terrorism analyst, Paul Cruickshank, co-author of "Agent Storm, My Life Inside Al Qaeda and the CIA."
[22:50:00] David, to you first, intelligence gather after the crash that officials are thinking that ISIS may have bombed this plane. Does that support at least the facts that we have now, do they support that?
DAVID SOUCIE, "MALAYSIAN AIRLINE FLIGHT 370" AUTHOR: I think they do, Don. Although no one has come forward with anything factual or any concrete evidence from the scene and said, look, we found explosives, we found this, we found that.
It's based from what I know now that it's based mostly on chatter that they picked up which is fairly common. This chatter goes on a lot. There is a lot of people with a lot of ill intent but not a lot of capability.
So, if this is indeed a bomb from there and we've match that we've got the intent with the capability and it's pretty frightening.
LEMON: So, what forensic evidence do we need to confirm that a bomb brought this plane down?
SOUCIE: What we have to see is the actual -- either the incendiary device, the fuel from that device, the trigger from that device, or you can look at the metallurgy at the plane itself. From that you'll be able to see if it was a sudden explosion all at one time or if it was torn if it became over time. For example, if the repair that they had done before had failed you'd
see this propagating over time. And you can tell that through metallurgy. If you look at the scene you see these guys with the black magic marker, he is marking the tear patterns on what's going on. Those are well documented now and they'll take that and build their own case from there.
LEMON: Paul, I want to know why you say that -- this is, you said this is the most significant terror attack since September 11th. Why is that?
PAUL CRUICKSHANK, "AGENT STORM" CO-AUTHOR: Well, for a number of reasons. Number one is, it's the deadliest attack since 9/11, if you exclude the school siege in Russia in 2004, another reason is it can benefit ISIS really turbo charge their standing and their supporting the global Jihadi movement. Because there is so much anger against Russia in the Sunni Muslim world because of their air strikes in Syrian support of the Assad regime.
Also the target, the fact they took out an airplane, perhaps, that could really hurt the regional economy over there. And also the geopolitical reverberations because this could deepen Russian involvement in the Syrian war lead to pivot towards launching more strikes against ISIS. And ISIS could use that as a recruiting source.
LEMON: So, ISIS claimed responsibility on Saturday. You said that this was a strange reaction. Why is that?
CRUICKSHANK: Well, they claimed responsibility in an eight-line statement with no detail corroborating the attack and all other statement coming out today. Again, no detail. They are basically saying you have to figure out yourself. We're not going to provide the details.
Well, the possible explanation for those very baffling statements would be they were trying to protect an insider at the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh that they had recruited, a mole at the airport.
LEMON: Interesting. To Jill Dougherty now, Jill, you know, this was a flight full of Russian families on vacation. What kind of pressure does that put on Vladimir Putin?
JILL DOUGHERTY, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DEFENSE AND SECURITY: You know, I think it's a very big, potentially a very big political problem, domestically for him. Because as you said, you know, these are people from his hometown, he comes from St. Petersburg, and notably, President Putin really hasn't said anything on camera.
There was a statement from the Kremlin that basically he's been silent on this. So, you have to ask obviously, he is maybe at this point not quite sure what he should say because the implications are, remember, at the beginning of the bombing in Syria, he said the reason we're going into Syria is to hit them in Syria so they don't come back to Russia and attack us.
And now although this did not take place in Russia, if it is terrorism, again, it hit Russians. And it hit vulnerable, middle- class, regular, average people with children. It's really shocking. I don't think we can really fully understand how deeply shocked people are.
So, my question would be, what do they do about President Putin? Do they blame him for not protecting them? Or do they rally around the flag and then also what does Putin do?
LEMON: So, yes, what does Putin do in Syria now? I mean, how does this change the fight against terror?
DOUGHERTY: You know, I would go back to what President Putin said a long time ago, when he was dealing with Chechnya and he is, you know, the breakaway of Republic in Russia and he has said things like this subsequently.
I think -- when and back in Chechnya he said "I'm going to wipe them out in the outhouse." That is what he said verbatim about the terrorists. So, conceivably he could really double down, get much harder and take much more action in Syria which changes the equation again.
LEMON: Yes. Paul, you're shaking your head in agreement?
CRUICKSHANK: Yes. It really would change the equation if they pivot towards hitting ISIS. Right now, 90 percent of their strikes are going against groups which are not ISIS in Syria.
LEMON: What's ISIS' motivation?
[22:54:58] CRUICKSHANK: ISIS' motivation, I think one, is to hit back against Russia because there are some strikes in Syria, but also to boost its standing and support in the global Jihadi community. This could really lead to a surge in foreign correspondence, that's going to be tremendous excitement in the Jihadi movement if ISIS was really responsible.
LEMON: David, I have a quick question for you. If ISIS can pull-off an attack like this, how vulnerable is global aviation?
SOUCIE: Well, it depends on how they got this on to the airplane. If it was an insider at that particular, it is frightening because now they've infiltrated the actual system that's design to protect us. So, it could be very, very damaging, not only there but in the United States as well.
LEMON: David, Jill, Paul, thank you very much. I appreciate it. We'll be right back.
LEMON: We have some news tonight about the tragic shooting, death of 9-year-old Tyshawn Lee in Chicago. A man police are calling a person of interest has turned himself in. Tyshawn was found dead in an ally on Monday night with multiple gunshot wounds. Police were investigating whether the fourth grader may have been deliberately targeted. His death, adding to the tragic total of gun violence in Chicago. There were 421 homicides in the city so far this year.
[23:00:01] That is it for us tonight. Thank you for joining us. I'll see you back here tomorrow night. AC 360 starts right now.