Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Supreme Court Splits on Obama Immigration Action; Officer Found Not Guilty in Freddie Gray Case; Sen. Susan Collins Speaks Out on Gun Control; Democrats End House Sit-In. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired June 23, 2016 - 13:30   ET

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


[13:30:00] REP. ADAM KINZINGER, (R), ILLINOIS: Simply, the president's frustration on inaction is not an excuse to put forward an executive order.

One thing people forget is, at the point he launched this executive order, a few year ago, we were actually making progress to a bipartisan immigration reform solution. And once that happened, could we have gotten it right? I don't know. But once it happened, the executive order was put out, both sides went to the corner and there was no progress.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: How far would you go in supporting comprehensive immigration reform? We know that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, wants to deport immediately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. He says they have to go back to their countries. The good ones, he says, they say can eventually come back to the United States. He is the leader of your party. Where do you stand on this?

KINZINGER: Obviously, I have been very clear I don't agree with a lot of what Donald Trump says. I'm not supporting him right now.

It's unrealistic. It's not humane to say you are going to deport 11 million people. What we need to do is recognize that they are here. I think getting a pathway to legalizing them here, having them pay taxes, and be productive citizens is the answer to start, as well as border security. That will be essential. These are things that if we put them hand in hand together, they're an 80 percent issue with the American public. The problem is when the president says he is frustrated that he is not getting what he wants through Congress and going to do it by executive order. And the Supreme Court had their voice heard on that today.

BLITZER: The Supreme Court ruled that he didn't have that authority at least for now. He is not ruling it out down the or right now. But don't you feel bad for those four million people who began to come out of the shadows, if you will, started registering, hoping to start a new life. Some of their children are American citizens, born in the United States, were legal here, and now potentially, once again, they have to start fearing about this notion they could be deported, these families could be ripped apart.

KINZINGER: I feel bad for them. That is why I have been aggressively saying we need to do immigration reform. We need to do it in a way that we can find a solution that is going to secure the border and to allow those folks to become taxpayers. But doing that through the executive order and putting both sides in the corner, frankly, I think has done more harm than good in the long run. We were close.

Again, I can't predict whether we would have reached bipartisan immigration reform. We were way further along in achieving that until the executive order happened. I know there were people were asking the administration to delay on doing that because of the fact that we were making progress. I don't have a crystal ball whether it would have happened or not. I don't know. But it needs to happen. It needs to happen going forward but within the construct of the Constitution, which is the House of Representatives and the Senate to make those decisions.

BLITZER: I know you don't support Donald Trump as the next president of the United States, but he makes the case that if you don't vote for him, Hillary Clinton will be the president. And the Supreme Court nominee she puts forward could have an impact for 20 or 30 years down the road. Will be very different than conservative nominees he would put forward. What is your reaction to that?

KINZINGER: Well, you know, it's a very compelling case. We are concerned with what the Supreme Court looks like. I want to get to where I can support the Republican nominee. I'm not a Never Trump guy but I'm American before Republican. A lot of things he says have been concerning to me. I can't automatically support him just because he is the Republican nominee. Though, he rightfully is. Yeah, there is a compelling case to be made for Supreme Court. We will see if he makes that case, instead of some of the other outlandish things he has been saying.

BLITZER: Let me get your quick reaction to the other breaking news at the top of the hour. The Democrats have just ended their sit-in on the floor of the House. They wanted a vote on gun control. That vote is not happening anytime soon. Your reaction?

KINZINGER: I mean, of course, I'm all for having the debate. I have said that. I think we were making progress, some kind of bipartisan in terms of background checks with terrorist no-fly lists. A sit-in -- I mean, that is -- I know it's kind of inside baseball, but that's a huge break down of how the House operates. It was great for their social media, whatever they wanted to achieve there. But for long term ramifications, we have a level of respect that we debate in out here, and that allows the area to function. So I hope this is not long term because this leads to a break down of, frankly, civil debate, which is extremely important in a republic like ours.

BLITZER: Democrats are recalling, as I'm sure -- you weren't in the Congress, back in 2008, when the Democrats were the majority. Nancy Pelosi was speaker. Republicans staged a sit-in, as well, over another issue involving energy. It is not the first time this happened in Washington.

KINZINGER: That was during a recess, though. That is important to note, as well. BLITZER: The Democrats, at that time, when Nancy Pelosi was the

speaker, they just shut off the lights in the House chamber, as well, in addition to going to recess.

We will continue to watch all of this.

Adam Kinzinger, of Illinois, thanks very much for joining us.

KINZINGER: You bet, Wolf. Thanks, yes.

[13:35:05] BLITZER: Still to come, the verdict is in, in the murder trial of the Baltimore police officer who drove the police van in which Freddie Gray was fatally injured. Will it affect the remaining trials? How is the city responding? We are going live to Baltimore. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We are also following breaking news out of Baltimore where the police van driver charged in the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray has been found not guilty on all counts by a judge. The officer, Caesar Goodson, had faced several charges, including one for second- degree murder, the most serious charge of the six police officers indicted in Freddie Gray's death. Goodson was accused by prosecutors of taking Gray on a, quote, "rough ride" designed to toss a prisoner around.

CNN's Miguel Marquez has been covering the trial for us. He joins us now live. And also here with us is our legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, Danny Cevallos.

Miguel, what happened in court and what is the reaction so far from the community?

[13:40:] MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The judge saying there was just nothing to back up the prosecution assertion that it was a rough ride, saying while Freddie Gray was injured in the van, it is not clear when he was injured or if he was ever presented as sort of a medical emergency that Goodson or other officers would have thought he needed help. And even a seat belt on that matter whether or not that would have helped Freddie Gray given that he had been so rambunctious and yelling at police and hitting the van earlier.

In the courtroom Goodson just stared straight ahead at the judge as he read not guilty, not guilty, not guilty. Laying out specifically how the prosecution failed to reach that level of evidence as to convict officer Goodson. His family in the crowd crying as those not guilty verdicts were read out. Officer Edward Nero, who had earlier been acquitted, stood up and just sort of said "yes."

On the other side of the courtroom, a much different reaction. Marilyn Mosby was in the court. She had her head down saying, no, no, no, nodding her head back and forth throughout the proceedings.

A lot of frustration here in the community as well. They feel that Freddie Gray may have die in vein. But many say, look, at least a lot of attention is being put on the Baltimore police after all of this. They may not have gotten convictions but at least a lot of attention.

The question now is what happens with the other officers? Can they get convictions on any officers -- Wolf?

BLITZER: Let me ask Danny.

Danny Cevallos, what do you think? There are three more trials outstanding. How is this verdict going to impact those?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Remember, this defendant had the highest level of charges. So it sends a message to the public and to the courts and the prosecution that if you can't convict beyond a reasonable doubt to a high charge like depraved-heart murder, what does it say about lesser crimes you charge the other defendants with? It does not bode well for the prosecution.

BLITZER: Did the prosecution overreact and overcharge the six Baltimore police officers?

CEVALLOS: As a biased criminal defense attorney, it was long my feeling that that is the case, this was overreaching. When you think about crime of depraved-heart murder, Marilyn Mosby said --

BLITZER: Most people don't know what you mean by depraved-heart murder.

CEVALLOS: Right. It's a form of unintentional killing, but really unintentional in name only. The act required is so malicious, so in disregard of safety, so indifferent that it is almost as bad as intending to kill itself. And when you look at this case, the mere failure, for example, to buckle a suspect in, is that a mistake? Is it against policy? Yes. Does it rise to the level of something so reckless that it might as well be intent to kill? The judge said no.

Before we talk about intent, the prosecution had to prove what's called causation. Yes, Freddie Gray was in the truck. Yes, he was injured. But did this driver cause that injury?

BLITZER: We'll see what happens next. Obviously, huge impact in Baltimore right now. We are watching this case closely.

Danny, stand by.

Miguel, stand by.

We want to go to the U.S. Senate. The Republican Senator Susan Collins, who has introduced compromised gun control legislation, is speaking out. I want to hear what she is saying.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, (R), MAINE: Perhaps that massacre would have been prevented.

Third, our amendment provides robust due process procedures to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Any American denied a purchase under this amendment would have the opportunity to have their case heard before a federal district judge. The government would have the burden of proof in order to deny the sale and would have to present its case within a short but reasonable period of time. If the government failed to make its case, if this turned out to be some terrible error, it would have to pay attorneys fees for the person who had been denied the purchase and, of course, the purchase of the firearm could go forward. And our amendment makes sure that the applicant can have cleared counsel present to make sure that the government cannot take away a fundamental right without a legal advocate to protect their due process rights.

[13:45:19] Now, critics of our amendment have mistakenly claimed that this bill would allow Americans to be denied the right to keep and bear arms based merely on suspicion or a hunch. That is simply not true. We are not using the terrorist screening database, which has 1.1 million people on it. That is not what we are using. We are using the carefully defined no-fly and selectee list because those are the most carefully constructed subsets of all of the government's terrorist watch lists. These lists include names of individuals who pose the greatest threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against the homeland, against U.S. interests overseas. And there are, in fact, only 109,000 individuals on this list, of which only 27,000 are Americans.

Mr. President --

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: The time for the majority has expired.

The Senator from Virginia.

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: Mr. President, if I can rise to compliment my colleague.

BLITZER: So there you have Susan Collins making her case for compromised legislation to expand gun control here in the United States.

On the House side, Democrats have ended their sit-in protest. It comes after more than 24 hours seizing the House floor demanding a vote on gun control after the worst mass shooting in recent U.S. history.

When it began, the speaker put the House in recess shutting off the chamber official cameras. But one representative chose to share video stream with live streaming app called Periscope.

That is Democratic California Congressman Scott Peters, who is here with us right now.

Congressman, thank you very much for coming in.

REP. SCOTT PETERS, (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: A lot of people are asking what happened to the "No bill, no break." Taking a break right now? PETERS: We don't have control over the schedule that the Republican

leadership sets. But we felt we had a very successful day. We are able to connect with the American people on an issue that they care about and they saw the frustration we have with ineffective leadership.

BLITZER: Where does it go from here? The House is in recess until July 5th. They come back. You come back. I assume you'll go back to California during this recess. What happens on July 5th?

PETERS: I don't think the issue will go away. We will have to figure out how to continue to put the pressure on. I think we had good success yesterday in really gauging the interest of the American people in sharing this anger over these awful shootings, from schools to movies to colleges to now a night club. This is the kind of thing that is unacceptable. We know 85 percent to 95 percent of people agree with the two limited proposals we had, expanded background checks to cover gun sales and Internet sales, and make sure terrorists on the watch list can't buy guns.

BLITZER: Yesterday, I interviewed House Speaker Paul Ryan. Listen to this clip from that conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN, (R-WI), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: They are sending out fundraising solicitations like this one. "House Democrats on the House floor, your contribution will go DCCC." This is the peoples' House. This is Congress, the House of Representatives, oldest democracy in the world, and they're descending it to chaos.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That was not from my interview with the speaker.

But he said it was a publicity stunt. Today, you hear him saying you guys are trying to raise money as a result of this.

PETERS: You can call it what it wants. I, too, share a love of House of Representatives as a deliberative body. But we are not allowed to vote on these things. All Mr. Ryan has to do is put this before the body to let us take action on it. We have Republican and Democratic co-sponsors for the background check bill. For him to say that we are creating this chaos, all he has to do is let the body do its work. The congressional approval is at 15 percent under his leadership. It's time for us to do what the American people elected us to do, that job.

BLITZER: Aren't there rules in the House of Representatives? There is a majority and a minority. You're in the minority. He is the majority. He is the speaker. Just like when Nancy Pelosi was the speaker, she could determine what comes up for a vote, what doesn't come up for a vote. If you become the majority again, as you hope will be the case, you will decide what gets voted and what doesn't. Those are the rules of the House. [13:50:18] PETERS: They are. You have to look at why we have such

low congressional approval. People are angry. You see it in the elections across country at the dysfunction in Washington, D.C. They want us to vote on immigration. You spoke about that. The Senate voted yes. The House didn't take it up. They want us to vote on these gun issues. The Senate voted no on that. He is using it as an excuse not to take it up. We are not taking up the nomination of a Supreme Court justice.

We are frustrated like the American people that we are not getting a chance to do what they the American people elected us to do. All Mr. Ryan has to do is turn on the cameras, let us vote, have an honest debate.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: So there will be more sit-ins, more civil disobedience, more breaking of the rules?

PETERS: That's not the procedure we would like to follow. We came to legislate. We would like to work across party lines to make answers to these questions. But we have reached the point of frustration where, after Sandy Hook and after Orlando, we see no action in the very body, the deliberative body, which Mr. Ryan boasts is supposed to take legislative action.

BLITZER: The president tweeted his support for you on House floor. He said, "We need more than moments of silence. We need action. That's what's going on in the House right now."

Practically speaking, has anything been achieved. Will you get that vote?

PETERS: I got to see the reaction over social media to the connection. I played with Periscope in the beginning, took it down a couple times, I got this reaction, put it back up, we were watching this, we were engaged with it. I think we have changed the conversation, because we have connected the American people and shown them we are just as frustrated as they are with the leadership that won't let us --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: You support the legislation with Susan Collins to compromise legislation on the Senate side?

PETERS: I think it's headed the right way. We don't put law enforcement through the paces of proving that people should be on the watch list for purposes of flight. I don't know why we would do it with guns. But at least she is taking steps to try to work across the aisle. We have to commend her for that.

BLITZER: You came up with the idea of Periscope to use that app to bypass C-Span, which was shut down when the Congress went into recess?

PETERS: My deal was, if you put on the House cameras, I would turn mine off. It was important for the American people to see this. John Lewis was sitting on the floor as part of a protest of civil disobedience. That wasn't in accord with the House rules. I thought it was the appropriate thing to do. I think America appreciated it.

BLITZER: Congressman Scott Peters, of California, thanks for coming in. PETERS: Thanks, wolf.

BLITZER: Thank you.

Stand by. Only moments away, the Senate has just agreed to hold a procedural vote on a new gun bill introduced by Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine. We just heard her make the case. Will it pass?

Let's go back to our senior political reporter, Manu Raju, up on Capitol Hill.

Manu, what are the chances of her legislation getting the votes to move forward?

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Very slim at this point, Wolf. The vote that is happening does not require 60 votes to advance. It is a complicated procedural maneuver. It needs 51 votes to keep it pending to the actual legislation. She could potentially get to that majority threshold. Even if she does, it doesn't mean it passes the Senate. There has to be another vote in the Senate. That would require 60 votes. In essence, it is a test vote to see how much support that she has in the Senate right now for this measure.

Now, Susan Collins is pushing this. What it is, it would essentially prohibit folks on that no-fly list, prohibit them from getting guns. If the folks are denied guns, they can appeal that process after the fact.

Now, some Republicans, including the NRA, raise constitutional concerns, constitutional concerns, saying people should not be denied, initially, up front, getting a gun from a secret list. That the government should investigate before denying that purchase.

So what you are going to see actually on the floor shortly is an alternative measure put forward by other Republicans. That includes John Cornyn, of Texas, the number-two Republican in the Senate, and also a vulnerable Republican, Ron Johnson, of Wisconsin, offering an alternative to the Collins plan.

And Susan Collins was upset earlier, saying this Republican alternative will siphon off votes from her plan, which she thought was on the cusp of getting enough support to stay pending to the current legislation.

A lot of procedural maneuvering around because it shows how politically sensitive this issue is, Wolf. Even in that off chance if it were to get that 60 votes to pass the Senate, it wouldn't pass the House, as we've seen from the theatrics happening all week. But one reason Republican leaders are moving forward so aggressively,

they want to have votes on this right now and end it. They don't believe this is a good issue for them politically. They want to move on to other issues and focus on those next week -- Wolf?

[13:55:17] BLITZER: Manu Raju doing some excellent reporting on this sensitive issue.

Manu, thanks very much.

Another important story we are following, in the U.K. right now, voters are making a monumental choice at the polls. They're casting their ballots in a referendum to decide whether to stay in or leave the European Union. A record 46.5 billion people are registered to take part in this historic vote today. The issue has divided Britains, separating them into Leave and Remain camps. The polling will close at 5:00 p.m. eastern here in the United States, 10:00 p.m. London, with the first results expected about two hours later.

That's it for me. I'll see you back here, 5:00 p.m. eastern, in "The Situation Room."

For our international viewers, "Amanpour" is coming up next.

For our North American viewers, NEWSROOM with Brooke Baldwin starts right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)