Return to Transcripts main page
White House Reveals 2nd Trump-Putin Talk; 8th Person In Trump Jr. meeting Identified; Book Goes Inside Trump Campaign. Aired 11- Midnight ET
Aired July 18, 2017 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:25] DON LEMON, CNN TONIGHT NEWS SHOW HOST: Will we ever find out exactly what President Trump and Vladimir Putin talked about in that newly revealed G20 conversation? This is CNN tonight. I'm Don Lemon. Only three people know what was discussed. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and a Russian translator. It happened at the end of a dinner with world leaders. The White House says it's all above board. But after switching their stories so many times when it comes to Russia, how much credibility does the administration have? Let's get right to CNN global affairs analysts David Rohde, a former counterterrorism Philip Mudd former CIA official, and John Sipher a 28- year veteran of the CIA who served in Moscow in the 1990s and later ran the CIA's Russia program for three years. Good to have you all on. I can't wait to hear your expertise on this. We're now learning about the previously undisclosed meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin, it was at the end of the social dinner on the G20 on the same day they had their two-hour meeting. You say this is totally bizarre. Why do you say that?
DAVID ROHDE, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I don't understand the incredible amount of time and focus President Trump spends on Russia. This was 2-1/2 hours of meetings with Putin. And Russia just is not that critical. The road to sort of economically in the world, the road to new American jobs, the road to defeating terrorism isn't through Moscow. Russia has the 12th largest economy in the world. New York State alone, Texas alone, California alone, each of those states has a larger economy than Russia and maybe it's innocent. There's no clear evidence of collusion here. It's just strange that he spends so much time for this on Putin and the disclosure problem.
LEMON: If the conversation should be about anything, it's about terrorism and meddling in the election. That is what the conversation should be about.
ROHDE: yes, I mean look, the war on Syria should stop. We have Arab allies in the Middle East that will help us stop with terrorism. Europe is our closest allies. China is a far bigger issue economically, why so much focus on Russia by this White House?
LEMON: John, the White House says when President Trump spoke to President Putin, they used a Russian translator, because the American translator did not speak Russian that means there is no U.S. government record of this, of the second meeting, does that concern you?
JOHN SIPHER, THE CIPHER BRIEF: Certainly concerns me, this probably wouldn't be an issue under any other President but we're concerned because President Putin obviously has a good take on President Trump and has a lot of experience in the international arena and President Trump doesn't. So having them one on one is of concern and of course politically, when vows all of our allies. And to spend all your time on Russia, it really sends a bad signal, especially when all of this is happening at home at the same time.
LEMON: Phil, are you surprised they didn't disclose this second meeting sooner, because, you say, it makes President Trump looks strong?
PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I do, I have a different perspective here. This is through translation. So he spent two plus hours with Putin beforehand. That is three plus hours. That is an hour 1/2 in translation, 90 minutes. Think of the issues that they are talking about, presumably the election fraud issue, the meddling by the Russians, and the issue of the Russian activity in Crimea. What is going on with Iran nuclear deal, I presumed they spent a lot of time talking about Syria. They discuss the deal. Maybe they talked North Korea. That is a lot of turf to cover. We have a President -- you were talking about how little attention he is paid to health care in terms to details. I look at this and say why do we think it's a bad thing the President had a lengthy discussion with Vladimir Putin if you actually discuss detail? Maybe there is a problem here but I don't see it.
ROHDE: So the summit occurred just after North Korea launched what's said to be an intercontinental ballistic missile and that was the amount of time he spent with Putin was vastly more than President Xi of China. I don't understand the focus on Russia all this time in terms of geo politics. There are many other important issues.
LEMON: Do you want to respond?
MUDD: Sure. The President met President of China, President Xi at Mar-a-Lago. He had never met President Putin. I can see again going through translation, 90 minutes to talk to one of the top leaders around the world about issues specially Syria and a profound interest to America, again I say 90 minutes because it's in translation. I don't see why we're spending so much time on this.
[23:05:09] LEMON: David, let's talk now about this Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting. CNN identified the eighth person in that meeting last June and he works for the Agalarov family, the Russian oligarch connected to Putin. He studied in Moscow. He is now a naturalized U.S. citizen. And back in 2000 he was under congressional investigation, a possible billion dollar money laundering scheme tied to Russian brokers. He claimed no wrong doing at the time and was never charged with a crime. Why are we just learning about him now?
ROHDE: This could be the meeting that Donald Trump Jr. has described that nothing came out of it. But to start without a description that it's about problem with children being adopted. They said it's not that important a meeting to them and now a close associate of them is attending the meeting as their representatives so again it is a communications problem. The drip, drip, drip of Russia's stories. Could they just disclose how many meetings, when they occurred? They could be innocent of collusion but by not disclosing these things, the story continues and continues.
LEMON: Phil, in that room we have a Russian lawyer who may have ties to the Kremlin, though she denies it. One accused of hacking of a company and that was later dropped. And one person accused of money laundering was dropped too, all in the same room with Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. and it wasn't disclosed.
MUDD: Let's take a look what happen here, this is about dirt, a four letter word in Washington D.C., dirt. There are two things that could corrupt you in the city, sex, money, power. This is about power. It's not about adoptions. The lawyer who wanted to talk about adoptions knew that would never get her in the room. She said if I want access to power, I've got to promise them dirt. So she comes in with lobbyists who have credibility with Don Jr. and they say we have access with somebody who's the son of the potentially the incoming President of the United States. We want as many people in that room as possible, because there's a chance that access will grow over time. This is about power and dirt and it looks pretty simple to me.
LEMON: John do you disagree with that?
SIPHER: I do disagree with that. This to me has all the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation. The bluntness of the email suggests to me that there was a pre existing relationship. This was the first reach out that you would have to someone you're interested in. You wouldn't want them to be that aggressive for fear they back off or say no. It's not so much what happened in the meeting or that it took place, it's that it took place and Don Jr. And Manafort did not bring the FBI. That sent a powerful signal to Moscow. When I put bait in the water, you took the bait. You had a chance to tell the FBI that is why you would send people who were access agents rather than Russian intelligence agents in case there's the FBI there. The fact they didn't tell the FBI, you've sent a powerful signal that you're willing to play ball, you are willing to compromise yourself and the Russians would think about how to move forward from there.
LEMON: What are you saying? Is it the hallmarks of trying to see if you're susceptible to this? John?
SIPHER: Oh, you're asking me? Oh, yes, sir. I use a dating analogy but this is sort of what an intelligence officer does. They're trying to see if they can move that relationship increasingly in a conspiratorial way so that eventually your source and they're helpful to you or they put out information that can be use later to embarrass you and the Russian in this case could have gone either way. So what they did, they sent that email. Most people would either run away or invite the FBI. The fact they agreed to the meeting and had the meeting, nobody got arrested, nobody got in trouble, sent a powerful signal to the Russians that it's worth taking the next step to see if these people are willing to work against the interest of their own country. LEMON: It sounds like you're saying the same thing. But they needed
dirt in order for them to get in the room. Phil, am I reading that correctly?
MUDD: Mud is saying they only need dirt. Yeah. I'm halfway there with John. Regardless whether you think the Russians orchestrated this as an intelligence operation. There is one clear signal here.
[23:10:00] Jay Sekulow the lawyer for the president has been saying, look nothing illegal happened here. That is not the point. The point is the message to Moscow would be even if they heard about the meeting afterwards, that a political player in the United States, the potential President is willing to accept dirt from hostile foreign intelligence power. If you got that message in Moscow, the lesson might be let me direct my intelligence resources against the Democratic Party to collect information so that I can feed that into a campaign. I don't care if that is legal or not, that is not what we want in American politics.
LEMON: thank you gentlemen, when we come back, the inside story of team Trump. What Chris Christie did on election night that made Donald Trump furious and may have cost him a job in the Trump White House?
LEMON: An explosive new book goes inside the relationship between President Trump and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, it is called Devil's bargain. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and the storming of the presidency. Here to discuss, Senior CNN Correspondent Bryan Stelter, CNN political commentator, Matt Lewis and CNN political analyst Tara Palmeri and Kurt Bardella, former spokesman for Breitbart news. This is juicy. Let's talk. Bryan you first, Joshua Green's book is full of anecdotes from the campaign. Here's what he told about, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie got chewed out on election night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[23:15:00] JOSHUA GREEN, AUTHOR DEVIL'S BARGAIN: Christy had been working a lot of people in Trump's inner circles. Trump advisor told me that Christie was smothering the President and on election night, Christie had somehow arranged with Obama's people that if Trump won, Obama was supposed to call Christie's cell phone and he would hand it to Trump. Trump didn't like the fact that he was exerting himself in this pivotal moment and he is a Germophobe and didn't want to take Chris Christie's cell phone. He disappeared pretty quickly -- that moment in the days that followed, he wound up going from being in charge of the transition and maybe ticketed for some high level job in the Trump administration to being completely on the outs sent back to New Jersey.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So Chris Christie is trying to dominate. And a germ latent phone to a President who doesn't like germs -- who is a Germophobe. BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: This explains the
mystery around Christie drop and what happen after on election night. And Joshua Green is very well resourced. It's number one on Amazon today. I think they're taking us behind the scenes of what really happened.
MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I saw Christie on another network today, disputing this specific story and his argument rings true. This is going to be Barack Obama calling Donald Trump if he won, basically not a concession. Does anybody think that Donald Trump will be upset, wanting to receive a call after he had won. I don't know. Sounds like a great book. I'm inclined to think --
LEMON: But I don't want to touch your phone. I have to ask you. This one is about House Speaker Paul Ryan who Bannon feared would try to take the nomination from Trump and Green writes in his book that Bannon used his role to trash Ryan and waves his thumbs up on him at Breitbart, he is calling him a lefty who was born in a (inaudible) at a Heritage Foundation, what do you think about that man?
LEWIS: The limp and the mf thing are contradictory. I don't think you can do both. Having said that, this one actually rings true to me, we know that Steve Bannon --
STELTER: This is Bannon. Sounds like Steve Bannon.
LEWIS: He doesn't like Paul Ryan. And the thing that interested me is it supposedly happened at the heritage foundation. That is a weird place to be dropping this kind of language.
LEMON: A pretty dish --
STELTER: Right, but when we think about all the rivalries in the Republican Party. Bannon verses Ryan is something to keep an eye on as they try to get the health care bill through.
LEMON: The man we should be asking about this is Kurt, you worked there. What do you think?
KURT BARDELLA, MEDIA CONSULTANT FOR BREITBART NEWS: This is vintage Steve Bannon and if you remember at the campaign was heading to the closing sides, there was story after story that Paul Ryan was colluding with Hillary Clinton to help her win at the expense of Donald Trump. And I think Bryan is right this is one of the more consequential relationships to watch and as Trump's legislative failures continue to wrap up at some point I fully expect a full tilt turn against Paul Ryan. They've made it no secret they don't want Paul Ryan in as a speaker. They had the idea they would replace those leadership figures with people aligned like them as Steve has artfully put it. Paul Ryan is part of the very establishment that Steve wants to destroy.
LEMON: Interesting. I have to say we have invited Steve Bannon on but he always declined. Steve Bannon came in to lead the campaign after Paul Manafort got fired. In the book, Green tells as story about a negative article said. You treat me like baby. Am I like a baby to you? I sit there like a little baby and -- and watch TV and you talk to me. Am I a f'ing baby, Paul? All I'm thinking is nobody puts baby in a corner. Am I funny ha-ha? But it's well known that aides talking to the President via TV.
TARA PALMERI, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure. They want to get their message across. They tend to speak to him on television because they know he is watching. I've heard from many aides that Trump does have a salty mouth and he is used that foul language not just on Paul Manafort but on Steve Bannon himself. He is undressed him in front of aides as well. He is done this to Reince Priebus. He has a very direct way of speaking to his staff and Steve Bannon has the same sort of style as well. At the end of the day aides say they feel they have to manage Trump in some ways and the only way to plant an idea is to say it through the media or to make it seem like his idea which is very typical when you're dealing with someone who tends to think they have the best ideas. But Trump does rely on Steve Bannon. He carries the torch for his bait. He has the heart of the people he is supposed to be delivering his campaign promises for. And at the end of the day I think Steve knows and Trump knows they need each other and Steve actually does need Steve and he could turn the entire Breitbart apparatus on Trump and that could be damaging to him.
LEMON: Are we surprised foul language is used in a campaign? Does gambling happen in Las Vegas?
STELTER: But it's helpful to hear.
LEMON: The Hillary Clinton campaign book, the Clinton people were not happy. But we're not done yet because we're going to talk about Megyn Kelly, his treatment of women. All of that was written about in this book. We'll be right back.
[23:25:51] LEMON: We're talking about Devil's Bargain, the explosive new book about President Trump and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon. Back with me, now my panel so Bryan, it was on full display during the campaign, especially where Kelly pressed him about his treatment with women. Green writes that Bannon called her pure evil. What more do we learn about that?
STELTER: Pure evil. This would partly explain why Breitbart is very frequently very critical of Megyn Kelly. They still publish stories about her ratings. Never skips an opportunity to criticize Megyn Kelly, speaks to Bannon and his idea to seek media targets. Megyn Kelly was an early preview of what the presidency was going to be like with these attacks against the media. This book has fresh insight about how Bannon thinks about the press. He doesn't think much about but his attacks on the media.
LEWIS: And shows you Steve Bannon are more interested in attacking figures more center right than the left. There's nothing bad about Nancy Pelosi but attacks on Paul Ryan, attacks on Megyn Kelly, that is what Steve Bannon likes, I think that is one of the big things Breitbart has done is this struggle between the Paul Ryans of the world and the Donald Trump's of the world. STELTER: And what did we see today? Donate a dollar we'll give you a
fake media, fake news bumper sticker.
LEWIS: You're also going of a Jeff Blake. It is not really the left that much.
LEMON: It reminds me of my dad when I hear him say fake news and then he said bozanga and you're like you've said that 14 times. Every time I come home you've been telling me the same story. I don't care. We shouldn't care. Go on. Who's that? Kurt?
BARDELLA: It reveals there's a certain amount of pettiness in that they are so consumed and obsessed with demeaning and beating down anyone they feel has slighted them in life and they crave and want the acceptance so much of the mainstream press. They want the adoration from all these people that have shunned them. Breitbart was a laughing stock and it almost served to motivate them even more because they feel so slighted that they are obsessed with trying to get everyone else to come around to the idea they've been right all along and praise them.
LEMON: Well, that is what people in the middle of the country may not understand or people not in New York City or a media center is that he craves media attention. That is part of the reason he is so upset with CNN because CNN should do all positive stories. He sees CNN as an institution like Coca Cola and he loves stars and he wants to be part of that. So someone who does just shower love on him, he gets upset. I am glad you said that, it really is petdy and beneath the dignity of the office. Bannon came in the White House wielding enormous influence over the President but found himself on the outs after you appear in a cover a Time magazine, being touted as the master manipulator. And here is what Green says about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREEN: Bannon had a lot of influence. I don't think he was ever the puppet master he was portrayed as being. He was Trump's idealogi and his pit-bull. And it enraged Trump, obviously because eventually it cost Bannon a seat on the National Security council. He got put in the dog house and didn't get out until a month ago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: that was because of the public perception?
GREEN: Trump does not want to have anyone costarring alongside his presidency, particularly not someone seen as pulling Trump's puppet strings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DON LEMON, CNN TONIGHT NEWS SHOW HOST: That was the best way of pitting a so starring, right, since he came to prominence in a big part because he is a reality TV star, but Bannon was rumored to be getting fired , he is still there, I mean is he has powerful as he used to be?
TARA PALMERI, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: He is kept a low profile and he has someone from outside of the administration who helps manage inquiry. He has a following but her role is basically to keep them out of the press because it does not serve him in any way. One criticism I do hear from the colleagues. A lot of say that he is a person who wants to cross them out and he is the one keeping Trump on track but one criticism is he gets distracted easily and while he has great ideas, he is not an executer in the same way that Gary Cohen is or some of the other aides and he is losing some of these battles over the way the policy should be moving forward. He has five people. He has two deputy assistants. He have a body man, two other assistants and outside. He has five people underneath him. He has a war room.
LEMON: Bryan what can you tell us, I understand you have learned the Next people magazine cover.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: We are talking about the Time magazine, the cover of Bannon. It comes out tomorrow. This is heartland magazine, Celebrity magazine. And the banner that says Trump family secrets and lies. So it's another example of the torn of negative press not just about the president but about Don Jr., about Eric, about Ivanka. There's a quote from the magazine from a source saying, Don Jr. he is miserable his dad run the country and after the last 10 days all the speculation about the Russia meeting, can't blame him.
LEMON: Can you imagine, I mean think about it all of you, if you were a very wealthy family, the family business, you could basically do whatever you want, fly around your private plane. Nobody ask you questions, nobody dug into your personal business in your life, why on earth would you ever want to be the President of the United States or the first family?
STELTER: Or to be the first family, right?
MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That is why they're so bad at this.
KURT BARDELLA, MEDIA CONSULTANT FOR BREITBART NEWS: They've lived in that bubble for so long. They're used to not being challenged, scrutinized. They're used to being able to do whatever they want. It was their brand and what they say goes. Now they are not in that situation.
PALMERI: They didn't even have to report to share holders or a family business.
STELTER: But it's been six months and two years since the campaign began. So at what point does the novice argument start to fade away?
LEMON: We shall see. In "30 rock" I want to go there. I want to go back to there." coming up, new details on another Deli Police shooting. Why was a bride to be killed by a police officer after she called 911?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [23:38:18] LEMON: Another deadly police shooting, this time in
Minneapolis. A bride to be called 911 Saturday night to report a possible assault in an alley near her home, minutes later she was shot to death by a police officer. We are learning more tonight on what happen, but are still far more questions than answers. Joining me to discuss, from the Minneapolis star tribune, the lead reporter on the story, Andy Mannix, Andy thank you so much for joining us, let's talk about this. The Minnesota department of public safety, the bureau of criminal apprehension released new details tonight. What can you tell us?
ANDY MANNIX, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE: There's still I think a big appetite for an explanation that helps us make sense of it. What we're able to find out today was and sometimes confirming what we had already gotten from sources over the past couple of days but giving us a skeleton chain of events that happened, which is basically just seen, this woman calls 911. She believes there's possibly an assault taking place near her home. The officers show up. They were a little bit unclear but there was a loud noise. It might have been fireworks, might have been something else but it put them on edge and suddenly the woman comes up to the vehicle, to the driver's side and the passenger shoots out the window. So, across his partner and hits her in the abdomen and she died on the scene.
LEMON: Unbelievable. And officers are looking to talk to a man on a bike?
[23:40:00] MANNIX: Yes, it is really unclear. There aren't many witnesses. We have the officer Harrity and we have officer who shot and we have the woman who's dead. So they're looking for any witnesses. There was a guy that came by on a bicycle but unclear how much he actually saw. So they're trying to track him down because that is the only other person they know of in the area.
LEMON: And the officers didn't have their body cameras on and their squad cam was off as well. I mean what is standard procedure in Minnesota. What should have happened?
MANNIX: It's unclear. You know there are certain instances for example if they are doing a traffic stop, making an arrest, where they have to have their body cameras on, in this situation they are in the car, there is a little bit more of discretion, if they can turn them on if it's appropriate. You think when an officer's drawing their gun that is something you want to record, that is what body cameras is for. So unclear exactly if policy was broken, but certainly a lot of questions about whether or not they were following procedure.
LEMON: So take us there, what's the reaction like? I know we see family and friends and they're sad and grieving. But what's their reaction like from the community?
MANNIX: Like I said, a lot of people who are angry, curious what happened on its face. We got more information today but we really didn't have much to go on for the first few days. Not a lot from law enforcement. On its face you have a woman who calls police because she thinks a crime is occurring, and then they show up, shoot her and kill her. That sends a very troubling message to law abiding citizens. So people are really trying to make sense of that. We had the shooting in Minneapolis, in the suburb. Different police department that was your -- your viewers may remember that because the passenger his girlfriend Facebook streamed a lot of that, kind of the aftermath. So that officer was actually was charge with the crime and acquitted just a couple weeks ago. Before that we -- this is going on about a year 1/2 ago. An unarmed black man shot by Minneapolis police and killed. So that was -- in that case no charges for the officers. But all of these have created a response where community members are questioning police, questioning use of force, questioning training, so for this to come in such a short time period, from those other incidents, you know a lot of stirring relationships between law enforcements, city officials and the community.
LEMON: What can you tell us about the one involved in this shooting? He has been in the department for 21 months?
MANNIX: He is new to the department, 31 years old, he is Somali. I'm not sure exactly was he born here or maybe came as a young man. As far as we know he was a good police officer. He had a few open complaints against him with internal affairs. A lawsuit related to an incident where he detained someone and brought her to a hospital. But no resolution on that either. So none of them we can draw too much conclusion. It's not like he has a long history of being violent or anything like that or at least that we can confirm.
LEMON: Andy Mannix from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, thank you, sir.
MANNIX: Thanks for having me.
LEMON: I want to bring in CNN Legal analyst Mark O'Mara, Wesley Lowery CNN contributor, the author of they can't kill us all, Ferguson Baltimore and a new era in America's radical racial justice movement. And the former LAPD officer David Klinger the author of "In to the kill zone." it's so good to have all of you. Where do we start Mark, why do you think there is such a lack of transparency around this case?
MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: In one sense I'm ok with him doing the job properly because although we want to hear every snippet we get, it needs to be done in a good way. Having just said that, I'm getting frustrated that they are starting to let out these snippets, that there was a noise, I even saw a report one of the officers was quote startled by it. I don't like it's being left out in snippets but I am much more concerned with what seems to be an obvious violation of the policy. We've talked about the need for body cameras and it's unconscionable that neither had their body cameras or the dash cameras rolling because at the very least they were coming in at night looking into a potential sexual assault. This needs to stand as a case to show every cop should have a body camera and every cops should have it on when interacting with the public, because at least then we have had some evidence. Not just the officer's interpretations.
[23:45:21] LEMON: I see you nodding your head there, Wes. Why wouldn't these cameras be operating? Especially considering what we've been dealing with the last five or so years, at least what's been in the news?
WESLEY LOWERY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: We know so little. We're reading tea leaves base on statements being got from one of the two officers and so the precision with which we understand what was going on or not, we don't have it yet. I can see or understand, perhaps depending on what these officers had been told. Someone thinks they're hearing someone outside, why they might not have their body cameras on. Why they might not be running. This is something a lot of police unions talk a lot about when they are supposed to be on verses not. We know there's a use of force but both officers weren't expecting to use force but one of the officers would. It speaks to some of the difficulties with body cameras. We've seen the preponderance of body cameras. But what we've yet to see is a full set of best practices of when they should be used and beyond that, had there been a camera in this case. There are huge questions about whether the public or the family would be able to see it.
LEMON: And maybe they should be turned on automatically. They should be triggered by something automatically. David, what did you say?
O'MARA: They have a policy in place and it suggests in an event which could become critical, you should use it. A traffic stop for example. So I would think if it's enough to suggest a body camera should be turned on, an event where you're showing up there's no reason not to have it on and at the very least they were fully trained. Officer Norris going to be looked at very closely and if he happens to be an officer who is not properly utilized his camera like he was supposed to, because we now know how often officers are supposed to use their cameras, it's going to be really questionable both him and other officers. This needs to be a learning point for officers that when they have cameras, they have to use them.
LEMON: David, What's your response to this?
DAVID KLINGER, FORMER LAPD OFFICER: Real quickly. I basically agree with the notion that body cameras are a good thing, so on and so forth, however, one of the key issues that people don't seem to think about is the issue of the privacy rights of citizens. That is something that bothers me. Perhaps if you think about, if you were a police officer getting a call to a sexual assault and you see a female flagging you down, maybe this is my sexual assault victim. I don't want a body camera on, because I don't want to get that information. So maybe that could be an explanation. The shooting is a whole other thing and I have problems with things going on with that. But there could be a legitimate reason for not having the camera activated. And the second things is, I have colleagues around the country doing studies and we know it's taking a little time for officers with that in learning curve to know when they should turn it on, turn it off so on and so forth. So I agree this should be an example of we really need think more thoroughly and get officers on the ball more rapidly.
LEMON: Mark disagrees with at least part of what you are saying. We'll hear from him on the other side of the break. We will be right back.
KLINGER: Sure. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:52:58] LEMON: We're back with now my panel. David Klinger was making a point about the body cameras. Mark, you disagree with him about that, about privacy or a rape victim or assault victim.
O'MARA: Yes. There are a couple of logistic problems with body cameras. One is storage. Its enormous data and then redaction because some criminal defense attorney like me is going to make a request to get it and the police have to go through the process of redaction. I understand the logistical concerns. I disagree with David if he is saying an officer can somehow make this determination I may be coming upon a sexual assault event and may not want to turn my camera on. Those cameras are now the standard for retention of evidence. It should be on at any time they're going to interact with the public. I agree, if in fact it catches something of a victim of a sexual assault, so be it. But that is not the right basis to say we're not going to retain the evidence. That can be protected but it needs to be retained first.
KLINGER: As long as there are statutory provisions in the state where the officers are working where it can be redacted I agree with you. I have to problem with that, but I have responded to three or two depending how you want to count them rapes in progress as a young police officer many years ago. I remember those three cases very vividly. None of those three women wanted to have anyone see them in the conditions that I am my fellow officers found them in. I'm very sensitive to that point.
O'MARA: Agree. But as law enforcement and knowing that you have to prove that case in front of a jury, having that video is significant evidence that would help a conviction.
KLINGER: I don't disagree. I don't want to get too far afield with the body camera. It's a little bit of a red herring versus the core issue of deadly force.
LEMON: Exactly, which is what I want to talk to Wes about this? Just real quickly David, this guy, the officer is accused of shooting across his partner sitting in the passenger seat. Under any circumstances, and you train officers, you would not train officers to do that, would you?
[23:55:07] KLINGER: Well, there would always be a very narrow window where one officer could shoot across the body of another. But once again, very narrow, but this doesn't seem in any way, shape, or form to fit that. And so it's one of those things I would never say never. As soon as I heard he shot across his partner, I'm thinking this is just beyond bizarre.
LEMON: Wes, the shooting is making the front page headlines and stirring outrage, Australia and across the world. Not surprising considering the circumstances. LOWERY: No, not at all. I mean, the reality is you've got two to
three fatal police shootings each day. This is the 547th of this year. There are certain cases that obviously draw headlines, right? And they begin with people who are unarmed. We very often look to see what is the person armed, obviously not. Is it a woman? Only one of 24 women shot and killed by police. It's understandable why there's so much attention being given to the case. It is not the only fatal police shooting this year.
LEMON: Thank you gentlemen I appreciate it. That is it for us tonight. Thanks for watching us. I'll see you right back here tomorrow.