Return to Transcripts main page
CNN TONIGHT
Ambassador Slashed in Syria; Boston Marathon Bombing Trial; Justice Dept: Racial Bias in Ferguson PD; Dr. Carson's Controversial Comments
Aired March 4, 2015 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: You saw Anthony Bourdain talking with Russian opposition figure, Boris Nemtsov, who was shot to death in Moscow Friday night, but we have breaking news on another brazen attack. This one targeting an American ambassador.
This is CNN TONIGHT. I am Don Lemon. The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Mark Lippert, slashed moments before he was about to deliver a speech in Seoul.
We're going to have the very latest on the attack.
Also, the Boston marathon bomber goes on trial. Dramatic and emotional testimony from the survivors and a blunt admission from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's attorney. It was him. Nearly two years after the deadly attack, will the victims finally get justice?
And this has everybody talking.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR, NEW DAY: You think being gay is a choice?
BEN CARSON, POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: Absolutely.
CUOMO: Why do you say that?
CARSON: Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight, and when they come out, they're gay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: That was, of course, the man a lot of Republicans think might run for president. Dr. Ben Carson talking with our Chris Cuomo this morning. He is walking back those comments now but does the GOP have a problem with gay problem?
We'll talk about all of that tonight but I want to begin with our breaking news, the attack of the U.S. ambassador in South Korea.
CNN's Paul Hancocks is live for us now in Seoul with the very latest.
So, Paula, tell us what the latest on the attack is.
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, we know that the U.S. ambassador is currently in Severance Hospital, a large hospital in central Seoul. He has been in surgery. The hospital cannot give us any more details at this point. But what happened at about 7:40 in the morning, so a few hours ago now, was he was attending an event for the reunification of North and South Korea.
He had just sat down to his breakfast, was about to start eating, and a man named Kim, in his 50s, attacked him with a knife on his right cheek and also on his hand. Now the man that was overpowered, he has been detained. He also now, we understand, been taken to a clinic himself as he'd been injured, but the ambassador was rushed to a local hospital before being transferred to a larger hospital.
Now, as for the motive, we heard the suspect as he was being transferred on a gurney from the police station where he was being questioned to a clinic, he was shouting about the U.S. military drills with South Korea. He was condemning those drills saying that they prevent family reunions between North and South Koreans.
We also know that this is not the first attack this man has made. Back in 2010 he attacked the Japanese ambassador to Seoul. He tried to throw a piece of cement at him. That didn't hit him. The ambassador was fine, but he does have a precedent of attacking ambassadors.
And we also know that on February 24th he was photographed -- he's put that photo on his blog, shown protesting outside the U.S. embassy. Protesting against these military drills. So, of course, the question now is about security, the fact that this man was able to sit at the table right next to the U.S. ambassador during this event -- Don.
LEMON: Paula Hancocks in Seoul, South Korea for us.
Thank you, Paula.
I want to bring in now CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem.
So, Juliette, you say this is a highly unusual attack, and it's very alarming. Why do you say that?
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, you know, most of these countries have different threat assessments. That's how the State Department judges who's going to get what kind of diplomatic security. You can imagine the ambassador in Iraq is essentially surrounded by a military to protect him.
South Korea, despite everything going on in North Korea, is relatively calm. This is an ambassador who wanted to as well as often acted like a member of the public. He is seen walking his dog. He is very accessible. That's what we want from our diplomats. And so this attack, while just one person who had a sort of political vengeance, happened. It happened in a country that almost everyone didn't sort of anticipate it. And that's what makes it sort of nerve-racking.
I guess the other thing, I'd say, Don, is just quickly ambassadors are hard targets, and they are very public targets. We have 25,000 troops in South Korea. Those are easier targets in some ways because there's just more of them. So this was very much of a statement towards Obama and his administration, and an ambassador who essentially represents Obama in South Korea.
LEMON: Yes. And the question is, why was this man allowed to get so close to him? Tell us about -- what about his security detail?
KAYYEM: So the security detail would be both some State Department security detail, state diplomatic service detail, but most -- under most rules, the host country is responsible for the security of the ambassador, so this was a public event. It was an invitation event, and Kim, the person who attacked him, was sort of a ticketed member of the breakfast -- of the event. And so he got in just surreptitiously and then made the attack, got that close to the ambassador.
Obviously, there's going to be a new threat assessment about protecting our ambassador there and anywhere elsewhere where there are public debates about the presence of U.S. troops. This is also true in Japan, of course.
In South Korea there is just a strong sentiment that the time has come for the U.S. troops to leave, that they are -- that they represent a hostile environment vis-a-vis North Korea, and we're in the middle of these annual training exercises that occur in almost every country, and they are -- were viewed at least by the perpetrator as hostile and that's why he used this opportunity.
LEMON: Juliette Kayyem, I want you to stand by because now I want to turn to the Boston marathon bombing. The trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev began today with emotional and disturbing testimony about the bloodshed at the finish line of one of the world's great sporting events.
CNN's Alexandra Field is in Boston for us. And I should warn you some of the video that you're about to see is very graphic. So there she is.
Alexandra, you know, a powerful first day in court. We're watching this new video that jurors saw today. What did some of the victims testify to?
ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: These were truly wrenching moments, Don, because this city has lived the aftermath of those events, but when they saw those images displayed on those screen today, when they heard the voices, saw the victims, and then the suspect all in one room, it was truly moving and in a very heartbreaking way.
You saw one video in particular which seemed to really stir the courtroom. We heard from the manager of a running store. They showed video from inside that store at the time of the blast, you see the glass shatter and then you see the managers start to snap into action. People have run into the store looking for cover. And the manager takes clothes and goes out on to the street, and he testifies, Don, about taking T-shirts and other pieces of clothing and using them as tourniquets to try and triage just the massive people splayed out there on the sidewalk of Boylston Street. These are stories we know, but the jurors got to hear them right after
the prosecution laid out their case against their suspect. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who faces 30 charges, 17 of those charges, Don, carrying a possible death sentence.
LEMON: We're not in the courtroom, you are, so what about Tsarnaev's demeanor as he listened to the victims and watched this graphic video, Alexandra?
FIELD: His demeanor, Don, in this case is going to be so key, so critical, because when the prosecution laid out their case, then the defense got to make their opening statement, and I think in a move that sort of shocked maybe a lot of people, the defense conceded to the facts of the case. They said, yes, in fact, Dzhokhar was involved in this string of heinous crimes, but the defense case here really now rests on who is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
They are trying to say that he was the pawn of his older brother, who was the evil mastermind in this case. They're trying to build some kind of sympathy for Dzhokhar for when the jury has to decide on whether or not there is a death penalty applied in this case.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he didn't do anything that you wouldn't have expected today perhaps. He was quiet in the courtroom. There was no opportunity for him to speak. He didn't take any opportunity to draw attention to himself. He sat there. He watched the proceedings. At some point he appeared to sort of straighten up and watch as everyone else did when those very graphic images were shown on those screens -- Don.
LEMON: All right. Alexandra, stand by.
I want to bring back in Juliette Kayyem to weigh in on this.
And, Juliette, you and I both covered the Boston marathon bombing for weeks and weeks. Why is this important that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial is happening in federal court and not in a military tribunal?
KAYYEM: Right. Yes, it's important to take everyone back immediately, you know, sort of in that week after the marathon when there was a lot of debate and a lot of politicians coming forward saying why are they going to put him in a federal courtroom? The military tribunal should be used for this, and there was a strong statement by the U.S. attorney Carmen Ortiz, as well as President Obama, that our justice system can handle these types of trials.
So sort of just as a starting point, how important it is to make a statement to the world that whatever you do to us, our criminal justice system can work to effectively prosecute an individual even if they're accused of a crime, so I think it's an important statement not just to ourselves and to Boston, but obviously to the world.
LEMON: What statement is the Obama administration making -- by making this a death penalty case, Juliette?
KAYYEM: Yes. Well, I have to admit, I have been wrong on this throughout. I have been saying that this is going to plea, that there was no facts contested, we're just going to get to the -- to the sentencing phase.
Clearly there's just a disagreement about Dzhokhar's guilt, and I describe the defense strategy as good brother, bad brother. And the one that's living is the good, in quotes, "brother," the one who was sort of, you know, moved to terrorism because of his older brother who had no choices, who was, you know, malleable and young and all of these things that they're going to try to claim to keep him off death row.
And I think the prosecution just simply believes, no, this was the bad brother. This was also the bad brother, and that's where the proof through the witnesses and others is going to come out, and that's why the defense attorney conceded at the first second there's no -- there's no question here. He is guilty. And it's just whether he is, you know -- he is guilty enough to put him to death.
LEMON: All right. Juliet Kayyem and also Alexandra Field , thank you very much.
We're going to have a lot more on the Boston marathon bombing trial and the survivors. Shocking testimony when we come back.
Plus, Dr. Ben Carson, who just might be running for president, has a case of foot and mouth disease when he talks about homosexuality being a choice.
Does the GOP have a problem with gay people?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: They wanted the Boston marathon bombing trial, and one by one survivors took the stand to tell their stories of the terror attack.
Joining me now is psychologist Xavier Amador of the LEAP Institute. Juliette Kayyem is back with us, and also John Tlumacki, the "Boston Globe" photographer who captured this iconic image. Look at that. Of the bombings.
Thanks for all of you for joining us and welcome back to you, Juliette.
John, does seeing all this new video that was played in court today bring you back to that day?
JOHN TLUMACKI, BOSTON GLOBE PHOTOGRAPHER: Not only does the video, but the testimony. I was watching the Twitter feed come in from our reporters of Sydney Corcoran describing what happened to her, and I was there when it happened to her. You know, I saw her, you know, the two guys who saved her life, Matt and Zach, wrapped her legs in tourniquets and stopped her from bleeding to death.
And how she described how she felt and her life, you know, leaving her, and she felt even peaceful that she thought she was going die. And I remember seeing her laying on the sidewalk, and she was pale as a ghost. And it's just brought -- you know, it was very emotional for me to read what she had to say.
LEMON: I can only imagine because as we were getting the news, you know, we thought it was bad, but then as we heard more, the longer it went on, the worst -- the worst it got. It really was a horrible time.
Dr. Amador, were you surprised by Judy Clarke's blunt opening statement that we know Tsarnaev did this?
DR. XAVIER AMADOR, PSYCHOLOGIST, LEAP INSTITUTE: No. No, not in any way. I mean, this is -- this is the guilt phase of the trial. The evidence is overwhelming. And you know, Judy Clarke and the defense team has to build relationship with these jurors. They can't argue that he is innocent when there's such overwhelming evidence, and when they get to the punishment phase, when they are arguing for reasons that the jury should vote to save his life.
So what she did is actually very unusual in my experience, extremely unusual, but it's very much not a surprise for me knowing Judy Clarke and knowing what that defense team is up against.
LEMON: OK. So you were talking about the opening phase here, Dr. Amador. What important points did Judy Clarke make during her opening that you think will come up again in the penalty phase as you mentioned?
AMADOR: Well, you know, Juliette's comment about good brother versus bad brother, I -- with all due respect, I think you're touching on a little bit of a theme there, but there are much stronger themes that Judy Clarke and the team clearly is pressing. One of them is the -- and it has to do with mitigation factors. You know, under federal statutes there are a number of mitigating factors like duress, like other factors, like his relationship with his brother and the undue influence. That actually can play a large role.
And the other piece of it is, is that she planted a seed a bit in reference to the note in the boat about martyrdom. There's a really important issue here that's come up in other terrorism cases I've worked on over and over again, which is, if you decide, speaking to the jurors, during the penalty phase, if you decide to put him to death, remember that note. He will get what it was he was looking for, or what he believed he was looking for, which is --
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Do you think that will weigh on the jury -- do you think that his age, being a martyr, all of that? You think that's going to weigh on the juror -- jury?
AMADOR: It will weigh on the juror who has a hardened heart, who's angry and wants to punish him, and will think, hmm, you know, life in prison actually would be a better deal, but the bigger job and the bigger focus, I think, with Miss Clarke's opening statements was to begin the process of humanizing this man.
I mean, he started out with these horrific pictures, and Miss Clarke immediately said this is a tragedy that brought us all here together -- all us here tonight together.
LEMON: Yes.
AMADOR: Horrific tragedy. And she is going to have to humanize him and that means telling his story and getting people interested in who is this young man.
LEMON: Juliette, can I read a part of a note that Tsarnaev left in the boat and then we can about it? Let's see it here. I don't have one of my glasses.
It says, "The U.S. government is killing our innocent civilians, but most of you already know that. As a Muslim, I can't stand to see such evil go unpunished. We Muslims are one body. You hurt one, you have hurt us all. Now I don't like killing innocent people. It is forbidden in Islam, but due to said," and unintelligible, "It is allowed. All credit goes to," and then we can't understand it here.
But, Juliette, he's, you know, saying he doesn't like doing it, but he in some way feels that he has to do it.
KAYYEM: Right, and that -- I mean, this is going to be why the boat itself has come up as sort of evidentiary debate and what pieces of what he said or what he wrote on the boat are going to be relevant.
I read that as a sort of, you know, if I were the defense attorney, it's a lot of cliches. It's a lot of cliches of someone who has been fed something about what they think martyrdom or Islam or Muslim terrorism is. And it's not terribly unique.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: And it will come up --
KAYYEM: And it will come up in court. And so part of this is the point Xavier made about martyrdom is that if you give him the death penalty, he gets what he wants, and then Clarke raised a different issue, which was sort of interesting about jealousy that maybe Dzhokhar was sort of jealous that his brother was now facing or had martyrdom because he had died both by gunshot wounds and because he had been run over.
And so it's just raising enough issues so that we all know he is guilty, she has admitted it. We're essentially done with this part but so that at the sentencing part there's enough questions about whether the death penalty is the best or right solution for what's going on, and plus, let's remember, this is a state that has not executed someone for a very long time. A couple of decades. I think 60 or 70 years. And a state that is predominantly anti-death penalty.
So to move a jury that might be ready or willing to impose the death penalty to actually do it, she's trying to put sort of dents into that momentum.
LEMON: Yes.
John, I know that you were struck today by the testimony about Crystal Campbell. Why?
TLUMACKI: I photographed Crystal Campbell when she was still alive, and I remember there was one moment when I first got to the sidewalk when the smoke had cleared, and she was hugging her friend, Karen Rand, who testified about that moment, and I looked at my footage of the photos that I took, and about three or four minutes after I took that photo, Crystal was, you know, passed away.
And I was struck by what Karen said that, you know, she was holding her hand and Crystal said, my legs hurt, and then her hand went limp, and I just remember that day, and I remember that moment, and I just, you know -- those are some of the worst, darkest days in Boston, and, you know, I just feel so bad that, you know, the victims had to go up there and say what they had to say.
But I think, you know, I got a text from Sydney after, and she told me that she feels good, and I think this has been building up inside some of the victims that they needed to tell this story and face Tsarnaev in person.
LEMON: Yes. So -- many people lost loved ones. They have -- they lost limbs. But over the year you have been having to deal with this as well. Having to capture the images doing your job, and then having to live with those images, and I wonder today what was the most poignant one. Was there one that really just brought -- you said it brought it back to you, but that really just hit home for you.
TLUMACKI: Well, there was -- there was two moments. There was a moment of -- that wasn't even at the courthouse. It was across the street. And it was a construction site, and the workers were lowering this retaining wall down into the ground to pour concrete, and somebody had spray painted Boston Strong in red on that wall, and I photographed it, and I thought, you know, that claim really never went out, you know, that Boston Strong is still there, and I thought how resilient -- you know, this city is that we can deal with it.
We can face this adversity, we can look a terrorist in the eye today. And then I thought of how strong that Sydney Corcoran was to be able to go up there and sit and -- you know, Tsarnaev is 25 feet away from her. They're almost the same age. She's 19 years old, and he is 21 years old. And having her mother Celeste sit in the front row, and she lost both her legs. And to have to give a half hour of testimony of what she went through was one of the bravest things I think -- I've ever heard of anybody doing.
LEMON: Yes. John Tlumacki --
TLUMACKI: You know.
LEMON: Juliette Kayyem and Dr. Xavier Amador, thank you.
TLUMACKI: Thank you.
LEMON: Dr. Ben Carson has his eye on the White House, but did he hurt his chances by saying that being gay is a choice? He is apologizing but is it a sign of trouble for the Republican Party? We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: All right. This should be an interesting segment. Dr. Ben Carson is a retired neurosurgeon who also is a potential candidate for Republican nomination in 2016. And he is walking back comments that he made just this morning here on CNN when he said quite definitively that being gay is a choice.
Our Chris Cuomo was questioning Carson about his position on various issues when he said this about gay people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Do you think they have control over their sexuality?
CARSON: Absolutely.
CUOMO: You think being gay is a choice?
CARSON: Absolutely.
CUOMO: Why do you say that?
CARSON: Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they're gay. So did something happen while they were in there?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Well, tonight Carson is apologizing saying that his words did not fully reflect his stance on gay issues.
In a statement here's what he writes. He says, "I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended."
Carson is moving ahead toward a possible run for president. Even launching an exploratory committee which allows him to raise money.
So did he hurt his chances, his own chances?
I'm joined now by Ben Ferguson, CNN political commentator and host "The Ben Ferguson Show," and Sally Kohn and Marc Lamont Hill, both CNN political commentators.
So I'm going to ask you all before we start this.
So, Marc, you're a heterosexual man. Can you choose to be gay?
MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think that people can choose particular acts, but I don't think people can choose their desire. I don't think people can choose who they love. I think that's a biological reality, and I think that's part of the problem what Ben Carson is talking about. He is confusing with what people do, with what people are and how people feel and I think that's really dangerous.
LEMON: Ben Ferguson, can you choose to be homosexual or can you choose --
BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think people choose to do different things every day, including if they choose to be gay or bisexual or transgendered or whatever it may be. There are a lot of people that choose different things. I don't think that is some shocking new revelation.
LEMON: You yourself -- you can choose to be gay?
FERGUSON: If I decided one day --
SALLY KOHN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Do it, Ben. Do it.
FERGUSON: If I decided one day to choose to be gay. No, I'm not gay, that's pretty obvious. I'm heterosexual. But I think there are people that choose to be --
HILL: It's not obvious.
FERGUSON: For example, bisexual. Can you choose to be bisexual?
LEMON: I asked you about --
FERGUSON: The answer is yes.
LEMON: I asked you about -- I asked you about you, but anyways, go ahead, Sally.
FERGUSON: No. I mean, --
LEMON: Can you choose to be straight?
KOHN: I mean, look. Here's my point, and I wrote a piece about this today, saying that I agree with Dr. Carson, sort of. You know, look, I don't think -- this isn't to me a practical issue of, you know, let's parse every gay person, every straight person in America as to when was their sexual identity formed? Was it in utero, was it in kindergarten, was it in college -- as orange the new black and prisons are the new women's colleges? I'm a little confused there. But, to me that's not the issue. The issue is what should be in the future, and in my -- in my case and in my vision for the future, I hope all of our vision of the future, if it is fully, morally, socially, culturally and politically equal, 1,000 percent equal to be gay, then -- by then by conclusion it should be 1,000 percent perfectly fine to choose to be gay, whether or not an individual chooses to or not. I don't, however, think that's exactly the argument that Dr. Carson was intending to make.
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: He brought up - he brought up the prison thing and Marc, I think your point is right on is that, just because you may have a sexual experience or a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, that does not make you gay. It's whether you choose to live with that person, have a relationship with that person, have a family with that person, and that's more -- that's more about being gay than a sexual act. OK.
KOHM: Well.
LEMON: So I want to talk about this.
FERGUSON: But you just probably, you just used the word choose, that's what's interesting to me and you literally just said it, depends on what you choose. If you choose to have a relationship with someone with the same sex, if you choose to have a family with them, if you choose to live with them, you just said it's a choice that people make if they choose, so why was it shocking earlier?
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: That's not what I'm saying.
KOHN: Because the difference --
LEMON: It's not what I'm saying.
KOHN: The difference Ben is...
HILL: No.
KOHN: What Dr. Carson is referring to is an argument that comes out of the right wing anti-gay mentality, that if you choose to be gay, you can therefore, and should therefore, choose not to be gay...
LEMON: Right.
KOHN: And the fact that that sexual identity is a fungible choice is an argument for denying equal rights and fair treatment, which by the way, Dr. Carson agree --
FERGUSON: Sally, if you think --
KOHN: Went on to -- so I don't think the choice thing isn't the issue here. The issue is why don't we treat people equally, regardless of their identity, however they come to it?
FERGUSON: Sally, if you listen to what Conservatives saying what Ben Carson said, if you listen to what he even said this morning, he said, "I have no problem with having civil unions. I've taken heat from Conservatives who say that I'm giving in, because I'm in favor of civil unions." His point was he does not want to redefine marriage between one man and one woman in any way outside of that setting...
KOHN: Look, and -- Ben --
FERGUSON: He thinks there should be a right and --
HILL: That was the second point.
FERGUSON: There should be all of the things --
HILL: That was the second point.
LEMON: That isn't --
HILL: That was --
LEMON: Alright. This is not about the --
HILL: That was the second point.
LEMON: There is no -- there is no definition of marriages between a man and woman. Marriage is between two people. OK. So, Marc --
KOHN: Well, also so marriage was --
FERGUSON: I definitely disagree with you Don.
KOHN: Well, also Ben, once upon a time marriage, literally, originally meant that women were the property of men. I had no problem redefining that. Did you?
FERGUSON: I have no problem redefining that.
LEMON: OK.
FERGUSON: Of course not, Sally. You know what to say.
LEMON: Let's move on. Let's not talk about marriage. The court said -- the courts in many states and the Supreme Court has decided that marriage is between two people, whether it's the same sex or opposite sex. So we'll move on. That is settled. That is not even the question anymore. I spoke with Shaun Attwood earlier tonight. He is an author who writes about his experience in a U.S. prison. Here's what he told me, listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAUN ATTWOOD, AUTHOR, "PRISON TIME": There are all kinds of stuff going on in prisons from gang rape and prostitution to people who are openly, having a gay relationship to some people who have wives and girlfriends visiting them, yet they having secrets gay relationships in the prison. And when they get out, they then go back to their wives and girlfriends and don't continue in the homosexual lifestyle, and that's actually called, gay for stay, that's the term for it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So now that Carson has apologized, where does this take the conversation, whether or not a gay is a choice? Go ahead, Marc.
HILL: I hope that -- I hope that conversation in a more interesting and complex direction, rather than decide whether gay is a choice or not. Again, Ben Carson was saying, it was essentially saying that gay is not a natural state, right? That straight is a natural thing. People make other choices, and in prison is an example of that. But I think when you listen what happens and it is sort of transitional moments, whether it's prison, whether it's rehab, whether it's the military. All the studies, all the evidence, all the anecdotal accounts as well show, that people make all sort of interesting and complex sexual decisions. Women often talk about college been a place of their experiment. Men often experiment in college too, but don't have the kind of public space to talk about it in the same way, because of how we think about masculinity. The overall point here is that sexuality is complex and exists on a complex scale, and that's the conversation we need to have. We need to create a space for people to be able to do that without being stigmatized or marginalized, or in the case of Ben Carson, I mean, many people in the right, demonized. Because remember, he didn't just say that this was just something that was unnatural. He also compared it to bestiality at one point. This is a very, very dangerous conversation if we don't mature --
LEMON: But what is this to -- I got to run, but I want to know -- I want to know Ben, what does this do for Republicans who wanted to get out of that space of talking about social issues and now, Ben Carson...
FERGUSON: I think --
LEMON: Has dragged it back into --
FERGUSON: Look, I think it's gonna move on pretty quickly. I think most candidates have worked with their staff and made sure they understand exactly how they're going to describe it. One of the reasons why Ben Carson is here is because, he is not a guy that's like a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney where he practices every single answer...
LEMON: Yeah.
FERGUSON: In a room...
KOHN: Maybe he should start --
FERGUSDON: For 28 hours. He's a (inaudible) guy...
HILL: Maybe he should.
FERGUSON: He's gonna learn from this.
KOHN: You know what? --
LEMON: Alright.
KOHN: What's scary is --
LEMON: I got to go.
FERGUSON: Wonder and hopefully he will get better.
LEMON: I --
KOHN: He's --
LEMON: Quickly...
KOHN: He's the number two --
LEMON: Five seconds.
KOHN: Number two Republican candidates, though in some polls, and that's really scary.
FERGUSON: And people like him because he is blunt.
LEMON: Alright.
FERGUSON: Remember Hillary Clinton was --
LEMON: Thank you.
FERGUSON: At the White House, we forgetful (ph) for that.
KOHN: Good luck with that, Ben Carson.
LEMON: Thank you, guys. Officials in Ferguson, taking action in the wake of the scathing Justice Department report on engaged in a pattern of discrimination. A city worker accused of sending racist e-mails was fired, and they are maybe more to come, that's story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: With Breaking News out of Ferguson, Missouri, tonight. Three employees of the Ferguson police department will lose their jobs. That is according to a source, close to the investigation of racially bias e-mails. Well, two of the individuals are officers, and one is an employee at the department.
CNN Sara Sidner has more on the fall-out in Ferguson, after the Justice Department report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ferguson officials responding to a scathing federal report, highlighting racism at its worst.
JAMES KNOWLES, FERGUSON MAYOR: We must do better, not want only as a city, but as a state and a country. We must all work to address issues of racial disparity in all aspects of society.
SIDNER: With the Department of Justice investigation blasts Ferguson police and its courts, saying they helped lay the ground work for the unrest that erupted after the police killing of Michael Brown.
ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: And of course, violence is never justified, but seeing in this context amid a highly toxic environment, defined by mistrust and resentment, stoked by years of bad feelings, and spurred by illegal and misguided practices, it's not difficult to imagine how a single tragic incident set off the city of Ferguson, like a powder keg. SIDNER: The DOJ points to the statistics for proof. Blacks in
Ferguson, twice is likely to be searched during vehicle stops than whites -- whites were found to have more contraband. At least 85 percent of those pulled over, arrested, or ticketed for traffic violations were black, and the Justice Department is saying, it was money, not public safety that the department and city focused on, blacks paying the highest price.
HOLDER: The city relies when the police force to serve essentially as a -- as a collection agency for the municipal court, rather than as a law enforcement entity.
SIDNER: That comes as no surprise to Reverend Derrick Robinson, who became a protest leader in Ferguson. He says Ferguson police once pulled him over saying his taillight was out, but then, asked to search his car.
REV. DERRICK ROBINSON, ACTIVIST: And I told him no. I said that you have no reason to search my car. I will not. So then he would say, I will charge you with failure to comply.
SIDNER: So you got a ticket?
ROBINSON: Yes, ma'am.
SIDNER: For failure to comply?
ROBINSON: For failure to comply.
SIDNER: Failure to comply what?
ROBINSON: With the search of the vehicle.
SIDNER: Now residents say they are vindicated, but also disgusted after seeing the damning e-mails unearthed by the DOJ, including racist jokes, several targeting the president and first lady. One includes a photo of bare-chested women dancing in what appears to be Africa with a caption saying, "Michelle Obama's high school reunion." Another shows President Obama as a chimpanzee and yet another says Obama won't be in office long because, what black man holds a steady job for four years?
KNOWLES: Let me be clear, this type of behavior will not be tolerated in the Ferguson Police Department or in any department of the city of Ferguson.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER: And the mayor made clear that, during that press conference that one of the people who -- was accused of sending those e-mails has already been terminated, and then I spoke with a source who has knowledge of the investigation, who said the two others will also no longer be working for the department. We are -- you know, hearing some protesting now -- this is the first real public response that we've heard. We've heard from other folks in the political realm who were very upset with what they heard coming out of the DOJ and out of the Ferguson Police Department, but you can hear there are about 15 to 20 people who have come out and protesting outside the police department right now. These are a very strong core group of protesters who have protested for many, many, many months now. We're familiar with all their faces, but certainly the situation here, people still upset because of all that information coming out from the DOJ. Don.
LEMON: We can see them right over your shoulder there. Thank you, Sara Sidner. We appreciate that. Coming up, Ferguson taking action but, is it enough? We're going to talk about that when we come right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Three Ferguson Police Department employees will lose their jobs, but is this enough to fix what Eric Holder calls a highly toxic environment? Joining me now Mark O'Mara, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. Kevin Jackson, executive director The Black Sphere and the Black Conservative Coalition. Neil Bruntrager is the attorney for Officer Darren Wilson, and Charles Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Thank you for joining us. When last week spoke, Neil, I want to ask -- you said you wanted to get more information from the Justice Department. The report came out today. Does that change anything -- change your mind, or did you learn anything new? What do you think of it?
NEIL BRUNTRAGER, ATTORNEY FOR OFFICER DARREN WILSON: I was glad to see the report. I was glad to see 86 pages where they literally went through witness by witness and took it apart and said, look, this is the unavoidable conclusion. What I'd really like to see Don, is for them now to go forward with that and say to everyone who had any doubt about this, you should have confidence in this investigation. This is the unavoidable conclusion. What I really would have liked to have seen today, is for the attorney general to say, look, it was justifiable. He avoided those words. He avoided carefully those words. And that is the only conclusion that you can reach here. I'd really like to see the same vigor now as he had when he was coming to Ferguson during the protest, and say, have confidence in this report. I haven't seen that yet.
LEMON: Alright. Charles Ogletree, the attorney general said that the protesters were right about police abuse in Ferguson. He called the police department, "highly toxic", that's a quote. Holder said the constitutional rights of residents were repeatedly violated. What is the most troubling finding for you?
CHARLES OGLETREE, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT HARVARD SCHOOL: All of its troubling. I think Ferguson has -- only four -- 50 members of the police force, very few people in the city council. People been going to jail locked -- it is just wrong, and I think that this report is the beginning, but we have to understand that we have to really transform Ferguson, what's going in Ferguson, and make it become one of the greatest cities in the world. Right now, it's not that, and I think the people want that to happen, but I think we got a lot of work to do before that happens.
LEMON: Alright, to Mark O'Mara now...
KEVIN JACKSON, BLACK CONSERVATIVE COALITION: Wow.
LEMON: Mark, needed the findings are disturbing. Who said wow? Was that you, Kevin?
JACKSON: Kevin Jackson.
LEMON: No?
JACKSON: Yeah.
LEMON: Yeah. Kevin --
JACKSON: Very disturbing.
LEMON: Why did you say wow?
JACKSON: You know, spoken -- spoken like a person who knows nothing about Ferguson. That's exactly what the Harvard professor talked about. Look, the fact of the matter is this, this is --
OGLETREE: Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Don't say a Harvard professor. I grew up in a community just like Ferguson. I grew up in a community where my family --
JACKSON: I don't care whether you grow up here. I happen to be --
OGLETREE: My father, my mother --
JACKSON: I happened live here. You know that. (ph)
OGLETREE: I want you to understand the two. Don't --
JACKSON: Listen, I'm not gonna --
OGLETREE: Don't be talking about the Harvard professor. It's not the issue.
JACKSON: I'm not gonna argue with you.
LEMON: One at a time, one at a time.
OGLETREE: It's not the issue.
LEMON: One at a time.
JACKSON: I'm not --
OGLETREE: That the reality --
LEMON: Professor, I'll --
OGLETREE: Of what's happening here is --
LEMON: Professor --
JACKSON: The fact is -- LEMON: Let Kevin --
OGLETREE: On what we need to do.
LEMON: Let Kevin speak. Professor, let Kevin speak.
OGLETREE: Yeah. He can speak.
JACKSON: He knows nothing about the --
LEMON: I'll let you respond.
JACKSON: The fact is --
LEMON: So Kevin, go ahead.
JACKSON: He knows nothing about what he -- what he is --he knows nothing about Ferguson and what's happening here. Eric Holder -- right now, the attorney general of Missouri is suing nine different jurisdictions that are run by blacks. They are double the egregious nature of what you would call Ferguson, they're double that. They're doing 30 percent of their income or more from the overwhelming number of black constituents in their jurisdictions, and some cases 50 percent of these cities revenue comes from 90 percent of black folks, and --
LEMON: So what are you saying?
JACKSON: The ratio's --
LEMON: So what are you saying?
JACKSON: Of what could doing make Ferguson -- what I'm saying is if Eric Holder wants to make a poster child out of what's going on in the community in terms of black policemen -- policing, he should be looking at these other jurisdictions. He is looking at Ferguson...
LEMON: OK.
JACKSON: As if they're some (inaudible).
LEMON: Charles Ogletree, go ahead.
OGLETREE: Are you finished? The reality is that Eric Holder is attorney general --
JACKSON: Yeah, I won't interrupt you.
OGLETREE: Is looking at, in fact, the communities -- can I finish? Looking at their communities that are not functional, looking at people who are not going to school, looking at people who are being arrested, saying something is wrong in Ferguson, something is wrong with a lot of cities across America and I think that's the problem, and that's what I have been talking about. We need to address the issues of education, jobs, make sure people have homes, make sure that we're prosecuting people who are not doing the right thing that they need to be doing, and that's what I have been doing. My whole life, that's what I'm teaching about. Talking about the realities of what's happening in communities...
LEMON: OK.
OGLETREE: Not just the theories about what's happening in communities.
LEMON: Alright. We need to let Mark O'Mara say a word and also Neil Bruntrager to get something back in. So Mark, the findings are disturbing, alright? They talked about one man...
MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Of course.
LEMON: Arrested for not wearing a seat belt and giving his name as Mike instead of Michael. Others arrested for a manner of walking along the roadway. Are you surprised by this? Do you think it's an ugly truth in many minority neighborhoods?
O'MARA: Well, I see that's the thing. There is a disease to the American criminal justice system, and it's below the surface, but it is sort of rising to the surface, blistered, if you will, in Ferguson. We cannot believe or make believe that Ferguson is the only town that has a racist problem as far as law enforcement. What I think we should do is take Ferguson and make it an example. There's no question that it's an indictment by the Justice Department to say that Ferguson did everything that they've done for the past several years but, now that it is the focus, just because of Mike Brown's -- Mike Brown's death, now that it's the focus, we have to look at it and say we can do better. We're going to take Ferguson. It's got to go from ground zero up. There's nobody in that department -- I know Neil will disagree, nobody in that departments should survive for this reason. Not that they're all bad, there's absolutely no trust in that department and everyone in the nation is looking at it. Start from ground zero. DOJ monitoring, and five years from now we can look back and say, Ferguson was what it was? But look at what it is today.
LEMON: OK. I've got -- I've only got --
BRUNTRAGER: What an insult to Ferguson.
LEMON: I want --
BRUNTRAGER: What an insult to Ferguson.
LEMON: I want to take --
O'MARA: It's not an insult, it's an acknowledgment.
LEMON: A little bit.
O'MARA: It's not an insult to Ferguson. You cannot look at those statistics and say that I'm insulting Ferguson. Ferguson insults itself, and we have to fix it.
LEMON: Neil.
JACSKON: Mine hurts (ph), mine hurts (ph) --
LEMON: How is your client?
JACKSON: How did has stopped --
LEMON: Neil Bruntrager, not Kevin Jackson. Neil Bruntrager --
JACSKON: In Ferguson.
LEMON: How is your client feeling today finding out that he will not be charged?
BRUNTRAGER: Relieved. He's glad it's over. It's been a long road for him. It's changed his life. It will change his life forever. But he is now got to get on with that life, and we now have to get on with our life. Let me just throw in really quickly Don, if I may. My biggest concern about...
LEMON: Five seconds.
BRUNTRAGER: The events that have happened today, is that the attorney general made it sound like the violence was OK, because of these allegations of systemic problems.
O'MARA: Yeah.
BRUNTRAGER: The violence is never OK. We have to deal with these problems, but we don't deal with them through violence.
LEMON: Yeah.
BRUNTRAGER: And it made it sound like --
LEMON: You are talking about the violence --
BRUNTRAGER: That was a just -- and the whole --
LEMON: You are talking the violence...
BRUNTRAGER: What we saw over the --
LEMON: Will be the protest and riot...
BRUNTRAGER: Yes.
LEMON: Yes.
BRUNTRAGER: Yes. And if you --
LEMON: Yeah.
BRUNTRAGER: You were there, Don, if you went out -- you talked to people that were out there doing the protesting, if you asked 10 people why they were there, you've got 10 different answers. They weren't out there because...
LEMON: Yeah.
BRUNTRAGER: They were mad at the municipal courts. They were mad at many, many, many things. So look, let's --
LEMON: And I got to run.
BRUNTRAGER: In order to have these conversations, let's make sure we're talking about the true problems.
LEMON: OK. That is it for us tonight. I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for watching. I'll see you back here tomorrow night. AC360 starts in just a few minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
