Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NEWSROOM
Market Braces for Rough Open; Hillary Clinton Adds to Campaign Press Team; White House Trying to Sell Nuclear Deal; Closing Argument in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Trial; Columbia Journalism School's Scathing Report on "Rolling Stone"; What is the Obama Doctrine? Aired 9-9:30a ET
Aired April 6, 2015 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00] CUOMO: A new letter is being designed for Michael's league and the principal says if it looks like the other one, that's OK with me.
PEREIRA: Yes, it is.
CAMEROTA: There you go. That's a good, good stuff.
CUOMO: Respect it, people. Thanks for being the good stuff, my man.
PEREIRA: Happy Monday.
CAMEROTA: Time now for "NEWSROOM" with Carol Costello.
Hey, Carol.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: OK. Happy Monday, everyone, if that's even possible.
(LAUGHTER)
Just kidding. Thanks so much. NEWSROOM starts now.
Happening now in the NEWSROOM, new hires for Hillary Clinton as she prepares to launch her presidential campaign. Her new tactic for 2016, downsize. Will that resonate?
Plus closing arguments for the Boston bomber. What will his attorneys say to the jurors who will decide life or death?
Then retraction. "Rolling Stone" yanked its article about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia over new concerns about its reporting. But shouldn't -- someone get fired over this?
Let's talk. Live in the CNN NEWSROOM.
And good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me. We begin this morning with an eye on your money.
Thirty minutes before the Opening Bell and the market is bracing is for a very rough opening. Dow futures down more than 100 points. All of this in response to Friday's disappointing jobs report. Alison Kosik is at the New York Stock Exchange.
Good morning, Alison.
ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Yes, we are seeing those red arrows. As you said we expect the Dow to plunge at least 100 points at the open when that Opening Bell rings in about a half hour. You know, traders and investors had the day off on Friday. And it looks like they spent the weekend not only digesting their chocolate marshmallow eggs but they were also digesting that very disappointing jobs reports from March showing that only 126,000 jobs were added to the economy compared with an expectation of 244,000.
So the big worry today as we begin this Monday is that perhaps not only the jobs market is losing momentum but also other areas of the economy. Plus you pile on the fact that earnings season begins on Wednesday. It's not expected to be stellar as well.
We will keep an eye on the numbers for you and be back when that Opening Bell rings -- Carol.
COSTELLO: All right. Alison Kosik, we'll get back to you. Thanks so much.
Hillary 2.0, she's got big plans this week to reintroduce herself to you. A first on CNN this morning, some new hires for Hillary's "dream team."
CNN's senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, is breaking the story.
Good morning, Jeff.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. Well, Secretary Clinton is on the verge of making an announcement. It could be days away later this week but we're told certainly by next week really going forward and jumping into what we've all expected for a long time, a Democratic presidential campaign. But you're right, she is hiring new staffers.
That is the latest sign that she is actually going to do this. She signed an office lease and she is adding more people to the payroll. But what we're really getting a sense of how she's going to run, and it's going to be significantly different from eight years ago. Not the big rallies, not the soaring crowds and speeches, going to at least start her campaign by having one-on-one conversations with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire.
She's sent some envoys there to have private conversations with activists and asking them what they want. And they said look, she needs to come out and campaign door-to-door, she needs to sort of shake off this image of a coronation around her and actually fight hard and fight hard for that nomination. Even if she doesn't have an opponent she has to act like she has one -- Carol.
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: So are we to expect a warmer fuzzier Hillary Clinton this time around as well?
ZELENY: Well, we'll see. I mean, a lot of her friends and advisors said that she really has come a long way in the eight years since she ran the first time and really wants to be herself. She really wants to, you know, meet voters one-on-one. And we remember that from, you know, when she first started running for office back in the Senate, that U.S. Senate seat, more than a decade ago in New York when on a listening tour across the state with voters.
It will look more like that, I'm told. Of course the challenge here is all those Republican candidates, nearly a dozen of them are trying to make names for themselves by attacking her. So the question is, will she ignore that, will she, you know, just present her own message here. So she's not going to have the space all to herself here. She's going to be attacked left and right. How she handles that of course is going to, you know, show how she does in this race.
COSTELLO: All right. Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much.
History making or historically bad? That's the issue facing the White House when it comes to a nuclear deal on Iran. And now the hard sell both for and against the framework of the deal has begun. President Obama opening up to the "New York Times" and pushing back on critics who say the plan doesn't go far enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What I would say to the Israeli people is, however, that there is no formula, there's no option to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward. And that's demonstrable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[09:05:08] COSTELLO: On the opposite side, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking on American television slamming a potential agreement with a country he says cannot be trusted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think the alternatives are not either this bad deal or war, I think there's a third alternative. And that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure until you get a bettered deal. And a better deal would roll back Iran's vast nuclear infrastructure and require Iran to stop its aggression in the region, its terror worldwide, and its calls in action to annihilate the state of Israel. That's a better deal. It's achievable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: CNN global affairs correspondent Elise Labott is in Jerusalem this morning with more.
Good morning.
ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: Good morning, Carol. Well, the prime minister of Israel did not stop there. Him and his Cabinet is on a full-court press really to try and change this deal, what the prime minister called a very bad deal not just for Israel but for the rest of the world. This morning, I was invited to a briefing by the intelligence minister, Yuval Steinitz, and this was the start of laying out a kind of 10 questions that Israel has with the deal, saying that it leaves too much of Iran's nuclear program intact, it lifts sanctions too soon and it also basically allows Iran to continue its destabilizing behavior throughout the region, in Yemen, for instance, in Iraq, in Syria.
Now the intelligence minister laid out eight points that it liked to improve upon the deal specifically stopping Iran's research and development, which is allowed in this framework that was announced last week. It also -- he asks that too much of the nuclear infrastructure is to remain intact. And other areas particularly related to Iran's weaponization, wouldn't be able to kind of fit a nuclear warhead on a weapon and then deliver it.
That's also been a point of contention. That really wasn't addressed in this deal. So now laying out these points that the Israeli government has, it's going to start making a full-court press, not just with the U.S. government and U.S. Congress, but also other parties to the deal -- Carol.
COSTELLO: All right. Elise Labott, reporting live from Jerusalem, thanks so much.
Closing arguments are set to begin any moment now in the Boston bombing trial. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces 30 criminal counts, 17 that carried the death penalty. A swift verdict could come in phase one of the trial. The defense has admitted Tsarnaev's guilt but the jury will decide whether he deserves the death penalty.
Alexandra Field is outside the courtroom in Boston.
Good morning.
ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. That courthouse upstairs in the Moakley Federal Courthouse behind me is absolutely packed with members of the public who have been wanting to see this day finally nearly two years after the Boston marathon bombings.
In just a short while we're told that both sides will give their closing arguments about 90 minutes for both sides then a rebuttal period. After that, Carol, the jury will get their instructions, that could take another hour and then finally the jurors will be set to deliberate. We have heard from 96 different witnesses over the course of this trial. It took about 16 day is in total. The defense putting up just four of those witnesses. The jury will have to consider 30 different charges for Dzhokhar
Tsarnaev. If they find him guilty of just one of 17 charges which bear a possible death sentence then this trial goes into phase two, and Carol, that's essentially a reset of this trial in which we will then proceed again to opening statements, a number of witnesses being called to deliver their testimony before the jury would then deliberate again on a sentence.
The second part of this trial, Carol, is the phase of the defense has been most focused on. They played the long game from the beginning. They essentially admitted guilt on behalf of their client in the opening statements of the first phase of the trial, saying, yes, it was him. He was the one who stood there with the backpack and put it down in front of the Forum restaurant.
But also on the second part of this trial trying to show jurors that he was influenced by his brother and, Carol, we've said it so many times, they're hoping to elicit some kind of sympathy from the jurors in that phase which could help to spare his life.
COSTELLO: So when phase two begins, could Tsarnaev take the stand?
FIELD: It certainly isn't impossible, though that isn't to say that it would be likely. Certainly, the defense does want to give jurors a better picture, a better impression of who Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is, although a lot of legal experts say that it would simply be very, very risky to put him on the stand himself after his attorneys did say in fact that he did it. You know, anything he could do could be decidedly unsympathetic up there.
What we do expect to hear would be from people who can speak to the fact that Tamerlan was really the, quote-unquote, "evil brother," who masterminded this. So you might hear a lot of sort of character testimony about Tamerlan and how he had this very powerful influence, the defense would say, over Dzhokhar.
COSTELLO: All right. Alexandra Field, reporting live from Boston this morning.
[09:10:01] After nine weeks and 131 witnesses, the prosecution in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial wrapped up its case. Today the defense gets to work and it could wrap it up all up by the end of the day. Expected to take the stand first a DNA expert to challenge the evidence. Most of the evidence against Hernandez is considered circumstantial.
Hernandez is charged with first-degree murder in the killing of Odin Lloyd. Jury deliberations could begin as early as this week.
Still to come in the NEWSROOM, "Rolling Stone" retracts. A new report slamming the magazine for major failures in its controversial rape-on-campus story..
CNN's Brian Stelter is following the story for us.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Carol. There's real shock about what happened at "Rolling Stone," but maybe the biggest shock is what the magazine is not doing after all of this.
I'll tell you all about it after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: "Rolling Stone" admits it committed journalistic malpractice in its discredited UVA rape story but despite a litany of errors no one will be fired or even reprimanded. This after a scathing new report by the Columbia Journalism Review, detailing glaring editorial breakdowns in the magazine's reporting. "Rolling Stone" has now retracted the controversial article.
Three of the biggest failures that were found? "Rolling Stone" fell short in its efforts to get the fraternity side of the story. It didn't contact the alleged assailant and it failed to corroborate the alleged account with the accuser's friends.
CNN spoke to the accuser's friends, by the way, who say they were with Jackie the night of the attack and what they remember is very different from what "Rolling Stone" reported.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[09:15:00] SARA GANIM, CNN CORRESPONDNET: The article says she was beaten, hit in the face, that she was barefoot, that she was bloodied and that her face was obviously beaten. Is that true?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I didn't notice any sort of physical injuries. I didn't notice a lack of shoes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: CNN media correspondent, Brian Stelter, joins me now with more on this. And it's just mind-boggling, the litany of mistakes that this "Rolling Stone" reporter made.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: It is. I think people -- journalists all over the country are now reading this report and they're baffled by some of the findings. The idea that these friends were not contacted, that more efforts weren't made to reach them is the single most glaring error in the report.
We can put on screen what I think is the most damning sentence from the entire 1,200 word report. It says, "The editors invested "Rolling Stone's" reputation in a single source."
Now, when you're covering something so sensitive like this, Carol -- you're covering an alleged, horrific rape -- you do want to believe the victim. You do want to confirm their account. But unfortunately "Rolling Stone" actually hurt this alleged victim by not doing the checking. They actually did her a disservice by not doing the checking. And as we now know, there's no evidence, unfortunately, that supports the account of her rape. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it means there's no evidence to support it.
COSTELLO: Even Virginia authorities say something happened to this young woman; they just don't know what, right? So had "Rolling Stone" -- I guess the thing that baffles me is one of the attributes you need as a reporter is curiosity. So if someone tells you this horrific a story, wouldn't you want to go after these fraternity guy who allegedly did this?
STELTER: Curiosity is the word we talk about in Journalism 101. We can combine that with skepticism. You're curious about the world and you're skeptical about what your sources are telling you. You want to confirm it, you want to verify it, and that just didn't happen enough in this case.
The UVA president came out last night and talked about how this has actually done harm to her campus and to her community. She said this did nothing to -- this story, even though it was trying to -- did nothing to combat sexual violence and it damaged serious efforts to address the issue. She went on to say, "Such false depictions reinforce the reluctance of sexual assault victims already feel about reporting their experience lest they be doubted or ignored."
I mean, that gets to the heart of this issue.
COSTELLO: That's actually the saddest part of all, right?
STELTER: And we should mention there are clearly issues on campuses like UVA involving sexual assault. On Friday, we learned that a student at UVA on Thursday reported being sexually assaulted by a male student there. Now, this was not a horrific, brutal gang rape the way that the "Rolling Stone" magazine described on that campus. This was an acquaintance sexual assault. This was a situation where the couple had been dating, they broke up, and the man continued to try to contact her and allegedly sexually assaulted her in an apartment nearby.
COSTELLO: And that's actually the way most sexual assaults happen, not only on college campuses.
STELTER: That's right. Experts say that's the norm. Now that was informed -- UVA was informed about that, the campus was informed on Friday. That's an example, according the university, of the reforms that were put in place because of this tension around this issue. People say UVA is taking steps in the right direction. But there were clearly real failures by this university and others in the past, and this article really did damage by not being able to highlight that and by having all these verifications in the article.
COSTELLO: The fraternity mentioned in this article, I would assume that they're thinking of taking some sort of action against "Rolling Stone"?
STELTER: They say they are considering suing. They wanted to read the Columbia report first; so now they've been able to digest it, they may actually come out today with a statement. I think it's no coincidence that the editor of "Rolling Stone", Will Dana, specifically mentioned the fraternity in his apology, tried to send a message of apology to the university in his statement. We also heard an apology from the writer of the article. But the big surprise this morning, Carol, is that nobody is being
disciplined. Nobody's being suspended or fired at "Rolling Stone". I think in some ways that's the biggest shock of all in the journalism world this morning. Now, you could call that loyalty on the part of "Rolling Stone's" publisher or you could call that ineptitude.
COSTELLO: I know what I'd call it. Brian Stelter, thanks so much. I appreciate it.
Still to come in the NEWSROOM, the Obama doctrine -- what exactly is it and how does it differ from former presidents? And does it explain why the president is trying to cut this deal with Iran? We'll talk about that next.
[09:19:13]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: For the first time, we're learning exactly what the Obama doctrine is all about, and the definition is coming straight from the president. In a "New York Times" interview designed to help sell his Iran nuclear deal, the president says his doctrine can be described as, quote, "We will engage but we preserve all our capabilities0."
That's a bit of departure from President Bush -- actually that's a big departure from President Bush, whose doctrine according to a 2002 national security briefing, looked like this. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur."
This is the principle and logic of preemption. In other words, Bush acted first and talked later. Obama talks first and acts later.
Here to talk about this, Van Jones, CNN political commentator and former Obama administration official, and Rich Galen, a Republican strategist. Welcome to both of you and thanks for being here this morning.
RICH GALEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You bet.
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good morning.
COSTELLO: OK, I want to talk doctrine first. So, Rich, when President Obama says we will engage but we preserve all our capabilities, in your mind what does the president mean?
GALEN: Well, I think it means what Friedman indicated it means. By the way, I need eight seconds here. Van Jones ran into my son at SXSW a couple weeks ago and treated him so nicely that my son texted me about it. That tells me a lot about Van Jones' character, which is pure gold.
JONES: And your son. And your son.
(LAUGHTER)
GALEN: Now, you blithering idiot.
(LAUGHTER)
COSTELLO: No, no, no. That's not what that means.
GALEN: The -- so here's the thing. I think that actually -- I think that President Obama's doctrine is a lot closer to the Reagan doctrine, which was trust but verify. And the underlying tone of the Reagan doctrine was we got a lot of planes and boats and people that we can throw at this thing if we need to, which is exactly what the president said to Tom Friedman on Saturday, that we have -- he even made the case that the Iranians said about, I think it was 6 billion on defense, or 5 billion on defense, we spend 6$600 billion. So the example was that either you do what I say, either you get into the 21st Century, or we can still come after you, which I think is a pretty powerful message.
COSTELLO: So let me get this straight, Rich.
[09:25:01] You're comparing President Obama's doctrine to President Reagan's?
GALEN: Yes.
COSTELLO: Van, do you agree?
JONES: Yes.
GALEN: It's why I'm not employed very much.
JONES: I do. It's so interesting. When the deal first came out, you had the traditional reaction, oh my god, Obama is trying to destroy America from the far right. But over the weekend, more and more reports have been rolling in not just in America but across the world saying this is a really good deal.
Another doctrine that it reminds me of is "speak softly but carry a big stick". In other words, what Obama is saying is we're so overwhelmingly powerful militarily, we can start a war with anybody; it's just hard to stop a war. So why don't we preserve our ability to go to war but really push for peace?
And one thing that's so amazing about this deal is that you do have a situation where, when you talk about trust but verify, you don't have to trust Iranians any more than you did, before but you have many, many more tools to verify -- and not only for a year but for decades out. That is a tremendous concession from Iran, because President Obama was able to put together such a massive coalition to strangle them economically that they're basically saying "Uncle" on some of their weapons desires.
And I think we should be very, very proud of the president. And, again, it was the reaction early on, bad deal. But there's now a better reaction coming from --
GALEN: But we have to -- even Mrs. Clinton, Van, said the devil is in the details. I don't know who wrote that for her, but they need a new writer. And the idea is that -- and I think this is right -- that they've got until June 30th to hammer out the details. There will be ups and downs between now and then. But the important thing, I think, the crucial matter for the Iranians to believe is that the second half of the doctrine, that we've got a lot of tools that we can bring to bear, that we're the big tuna in the sea, on behalf of -- go ahead, I'm sorry.
COSTELLO: Here's the thing and here's why Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned, and here's why some Republicans and some Democrats are concerned. So this is framework, this framework of this deal prevents Iran from quickly building a bomb, right? But it leaves Iran's nuclear program in place. Inspectors can go any place in Iran if there are problems. But even the president could not clearly define what any place meant. Aren't those major concerns, Van?
JONES: Well, listen, there are but let's be very clear. The Republicans -- we had 1,000 centrifuges over there. We went to 20,000 under the Republicans. This deal takes us back down to 6,000. This is real progress without going to war. We really only have three options here -- I'm sorry, centrifuges.
We really only have three options here. One is we go to war. Two is we let Iran have a bomb, which is not acceptable. Or we come up with some deal. Everyone looking at this now is saying this is one of the best deals that you can imagine. Some Republicans think if you just hold out forever, you'll get a better deal. The problem with that logic is that we have a coalition we've got to hold together to keep the economic sanctions in place. At some point, that coalition begins to break apart and then we've lost the leverage that we have. So we have the leverage now, we can use to it now to get the best possible deal. That's what the president has done.
GALEN: Let me just diverge a little bit. I think that's a false equivalency that the president is clearly making, and cleverly making, that either you do it my way or the only other choice is war. I don't think that's right.
COSTELLO: So are you for this idea - ?
JONES: You think it's a much better deal, though?
GALEN: I can't (ph), because I'm not that smart.
COSTELLO: Are you for the idea Senator Corker has that Congress should have on the ability to reject this deal? Rich, do you agree?
GALEN: Are you asking me? What the bill, I think, says is that the sanctions can't come off for 60 days, so that the Congress can have a chance to fully digest it and understand it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the president can't -- doesn't have the prerogatives to do it. It just says that the Congress is saying we need 60 days to take a look at this. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request. And I think a lot of Democrats in the Senate agree.
COSTELLO: All right, Rich Galen, Van Jones, thanks to both of you. I appreciate it.
GALEN: Bye-bye.
(MUSIC)
COSTELLO: Good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me. We are moments away from the opening bell, the market bracing for a rough day following Friday's disappointing jobs report.
Let's head down to Alison Kosik; she's on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Good morning, Alison.
ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Carol. And as we hear the folks here at the New York Stock Exchange clapping, not thinking there's a lot to be cheerful about, especially when you look at that dismal jobs report that came out on Friday. Investors are expected to hit the sell button today because of that disappointing jobs report that showed only 126,000 jobs were added to the economy in March, compared to an expected 244,000.
(OPENING BELL RINGING)
[09:30:02] And although it could be just a fluke, it is causing concern because the worry is that it's creating doubt about the strength of the economy.
