Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Cosby Admits to Getting Drugs to Give to Women; Prosecutors Charge Suspect in Pier Murder; Iran Talks Hit Another Snag on Deadline Day; Obama: U.S.-Trained Troops Making Gains in Iraq, Syria; 1 Dead, 4 Injured in Ice Cave Collapse. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired July 7, 2015 - 06:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He forced your hand on him.

[05:58:40] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Were you drugged?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: After so many allegations, Bill Cosby himself has admitted to obtaining drugs.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bill Cosby testified back in 2005 that he got Quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women that he wanted to have sex with.

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: This negotiation could go either way.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The tense negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are in the final stages.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I wouldn't set any expectations at this point.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Agreement or coercion?

COOPER: Francisco Sanchez charged with murdering Kathryn Steinle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is an issue of illegal immigration.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sanchez should not have been in this country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hillary Clinton's first major TV interview since the start of her presidential campaign.

MARGARET HOOVER, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: There was supposed to be this new era of relations between the Clinton campaign and the press.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: She keeps reporters on a short leash, literally. I didn't know that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Chris Cuomo, Alisyn Camerota and Michaela Pereira.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Tuesday, July 7, 6 a.m. in the East.

Up first, Bill Cosby says he obtained sedatives with the intent of giving them to women he wanted to sleep with. These revelations coming to light in newly-unsealed court documents that date back ten years. That's when Cosby was being sued for sexual assault. That's a suit he eventually settled.

CAMEROTA: So now, Cosby, it's revealed, admits that he gave at least one woman Quaaludes. But he stops short of admitting that he drugged anyone. This is the closest thing to an admission that Cosby has ever made since more than two dozen women have come forward accusing him of sexual assault.

Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Sara Ganim.

Sara, what do we know this morning?

SARA GANIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

You know, this is truly a fascinating admission, given that so many women have not just accused him of sexual assault, but have also said that they believe that they were drugged first. Many of the women coming forward saying that they believe they remember Cosby fixing them a drink and handing it to them before they became incapacitated.

Now in these court documents, Cosby is very careful with his words. But given that he was silent and denied this for so many years, denied everything, this is the first time we're hearing him admit to anything.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GANIM (voice-over): A bombshell in the ongoing Cosby sexual assault controversy, shockingly revealed in his own words. The admission surfacing in newly-unsealed court documents. The embattled comedian testifying under oath that in 2005, he had obtained seven prescriptions of Quaaludes, a powerful hypnotic sedative, admitting his intent: to drug young women he wanted to have sex with.

His confession, testimony from a civil lawsuit filed by Andrea Constand, a former Temple University employee, that was settled in 2006.

In the deposition, obtained and made public by the Associated Press, the plaintiff's attorney questioning the now-77-year-old Cosby. Question: "When you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?"

Cosby answering, "Yes."

"You gave them to other people?"

"Yes."

When the attorney goes on to ask him, "Did you ever give any of those women Quaaludes without their knowledge?" Cosby's lawyer objects, telling him not to answer the question.

The woman in that case, accusing Cosby of drugging and molesting her, giving her three blue pills.

The documents also include Cosby's recollection of a 1970s encounter with a woman in Las Vegas. "She meets me backstage," he says. "I give her Quaaludes, we then have sex. We then have sex."

According to the newly-released court documents, Cosby's lawyers insisting that two of the accusers were aware that they were taking Quaaludes from the comedian.

Over the past 40 years, more than 25 women have publicly alleged that Cosby raped or assaulted them.

BEVERLY JOHNSON, COSBY ACCUSER: It was very powerful. It came on very quickly. The room started to spin. At that point, I knew he had drugged me.

GANIM: But Cosby, who Starred as the lovable Dr. Cliff Huxtable on "The Cosby Show," has long denied drugging and sexually molesting these women and has never been criminally charged.

Barbara Bowman, one of Cosby's accusers, who many credit for paving the way for others to come forward, calls the revelations a game changer.

BARBARA BOWMAN, COSBY ACCUSER: I think we're going to be heard now. And I think this is just the beginning.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GANIM: Now, Cosby fought the release of these documents, saying that their revelations would be embarrassing to him. His attorney could not be reached for comment.

But throughout these documents, in these chunks of deposition that were released, he and his attorney both hint to the fact that Quaaludes were a popular party drug in the 1970s. They talk about that a lot, seeming to give his side of the story a little more.

CAMEROTA: OK, Sara. Thanks so much for all of that background.

So could Bill Cosby be prosecuted now that these drug revelations have come to life? Here to discuss, with their expert analysis, Mel Robbins, CNN commentator and legal analyst; and Danny Cevallos, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. Great to have both of you this morning.

The reason this is a bombshell is because it's the first -- it's the closest he's ever come to actually corroborating what all of these women have said. That they felt drugged, and there are at least 25 women who have come forward. He had never admitted to anything until now. This document has been revealed that, yes, he bought -- he got seven prescriptions for Quaaludes, he said in order to give them to women to have sex -- Mel.

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST/COMMENTATOR: Yes, I mean, I don't think there's any doubt that what he's just done is corroborate their story. Because what we've seen is over and over women coming forward, and what was the key element? That the sex was un -- sex was not consensual and that they were drugged.

And so now, you have this motion that is citing depositions where he's actually admitting it. And that is the bombshell. Although I'm not quite sure it's a legal bombshell.

CUOMO: The pushback from his camp is, no, he's admitting to a drug culture, to practices that were common then, not that this was predatory. How do you make that case?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: As someone who defends drug cases, I recognize that people today simply have no awareness of Quaaludes. They are a drug of the past.

But in the '70s and before that, they were a party drug. So, the revelation that Bill Cosby may have been using Quaaludes recreationally back in the '70s would have been probably no revelation at all, especially for someone who was...

[06:05:08] CAMEROTA: Recreationally is different than giving them to women in order to have sex.

CEVALLOS: Exactly. And again, if I'm playing the Bill -- wearing my Bill Cosby defense hat, that's going to be their position. That that's the only thing he admitted to, was that "I had Quaaludes, and I used them recreationally," which in itself is a bit of a crime; but in this case, it's far better than admitting to what we're all saying this transcript really means.

CAMEROTA: Mel, you're saying he can't be prosecuted at this point?

ROBBINS: No, he's not going to be criminally prosecuted unless you have somebody...

CUOMO: Unless you have somebody that falls within the statute now.

ROBBINS: Correct. Correct.

CEVALLOS: And this wouldn't apply.

CUOMO: Tell people the law. There's something very tricky about this type of law with the statute of limitations with these crimes that goes through refreshness (ph) of recollection, something that triggers a memory.

ROBBINS: Yes. Yes.

CUOMO: How does it work? ROBBINS: So basically, what you could have is you could have somebody who's been sitting back, who actually was a victim and who now sees this revelation and sees this coming forward; and you have a triggering event.

In some states, if this were to happen, and you have a psychologist certify that their revelation is now new; it's substantiated clinically and that it's based on this new information that's come out, like, "Oh, my gosh, he said three blue pills. That's exactly what happened to me." Now you might be able to bring a claim.

Another thing: there could be somebody that -- there could be somebody -- I'm not saying that there is -- that was attacked more recently within the statute of limitations. We have the case that happened in L.A. in 2008 that was investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department that happened, allegedly at the Playboy mansion. You might have the police take another look at it.

But you know, here's the main thing. I mean, for me, this is not likely to result in a criminal prosecution. It's not likely to result in a new civil prosecution -- or civil litigation.

But what could happen is you've got these defamation claims. You have these women that are now suing Cosby current, and what are they suing him for? They're basically saying, "You called me a liar in the press? You came out and said that what I said was not true? I am suing you for the damages that that has caused to my personal reputation."

Now, let's talk about how this plays out.

CAMEROTA: But hold on, because Danny, does this -- do these revelations help their case, that he called them liar, and they say he's lying?

CEVALLOS: The defamation case itself is based on the idea that, when Cosby's attorney came out and said, "These women are not telling the truth," that he somehow harmed them. That in itself is a bit of a stretch. It's a difficult case to make out. But...

CUOMO: Why?

CEVALLOS: Why? Because basically, if you read the transcript, if you read what the attorney actually said, he's basically saying they're not telling the truth. And the liability against Cosby is premised on respondeat superior. Basically that you are responsible for what I think it is. I thought it was something like that. But it's based on the idea that what your employee said, you are liable for.

CUOMO: What they say you're responsible for, and they come at you. It's a bit of a stretch.

ROBBINS: Let's talk about the nuance of this. Does the fact that this sentence in this deposition cited in the motion, the fact that Cosby has admitted that he bought Quaaludes, that he was giving them to women before having sex, does that mean they're going to win the defamation case? Not necessarily.

But let me tell you what it does mean. If I'm Cosby's attorney, I'm saying, "Oh, my God, I do not want this guy deposed."

CUOMO: Again.

ROBBINS: Because what's going to happen -- again.

CEVALLOS: And here's why.

ROBBINS: What's going to happen is when you sit down in a civil deposition and you've got your attorney next to you, there's a wide scope. If I'm now representing these women, and I've got that statement, I am going to cross-examine Bill Cosby for days. "What do you mean? So you gave these 30 women, but did you give my client? You called her a liar. But are you lying then or are you lying now? What do you mean you don't recall?" On and on and on.

CAMEROTA: Can he avoid a deposition?

CEVALLOS: Well, probably not. But here's why. If he -- Mel is absolutely right: if he ends up in a deposition, then red flags. Here's why.

The scope of a deposition is so much broader than what you can ask somebody on the witness stand at trial. His attorneys are going to have a very difficult time limiting the area of questionable material at a deposition.

Most civilians don't have any experience with depositions. But they can be, in a way, scarier than a trial, because the sky is the limit, essentially, in a deposition.

CUOMO: There's no judge.

CEVALLOS: Yes, there's no judge. They are the wild west of civil litigation tools. And that, as Mel said, give Cosby attorneys pause.

CAMEROTA: It will be very interesting to see what happens with that legal case and these depositions, now that this has been revealed.

CUOMO: And how they spin it going forward from his camp's perspective. Because this is about the court of public opinion, as they're saying. This is what people believe about Bill Cosby, not necessarily what has been proven.

ROBBINS: The case is closed there.

CAMEROTA: Danny, Mel, thank you so much for all that background.

So this morning, we will speak with three of Cosby's accusers. Victoria Valentino joins us in our next hour. And in the 8 a.m. hour, we will speak with Barbara Bowman and Beverly Johnson about these bombshell revelations that they call a game changer this morning.

CUOMO: Court of public opinion matters for someone like Bill Cosby. So what do you think? You are the jury. Tweet us using the hashtag #NewDayCNN or post your comment on Facebook.com/NewDay -- Mick.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: A lot of opinion on our next story. The man who confessed to gunning down a 32-year-old woman on a San Francisco pier is expected in court today. Prosecutors are charging Francisco Sanchez with murder as big questions are being raised now about San Francisco's sanctuary city status. Does it provide too much cover to undocumented criminals like Sanchez to hide from the law?

CNN's Dan Simon is live in San Francisco with the very latest -- Dan.

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Michaela, the mayor, trying to quell this growing national debate, says all agencies need to review the decision that were made. He says San Francisco's sanctuary policy is not meant to protect serious, violent and repeat felons.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SIMON (voice-over): Now charged with murder, 45-year-old undocumented immigrant Francisco Sanchez awaits his arraignment later today in San Francisco.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We entrust our sister, Kathy, to your mercy.

SIMON: As loved ones mourn the loss of 31-year-old Kate Steinle, authorities say Sanchez, a seven-time convicted felon, shot and killed Kate on this popular California pier nearly a week ago.

NICOLE LUDWIG, KATE STEINLE'S BETS FRIEND: Kate was an amazing soul. Everyone that met Kate knew she was very special.

SIMON: Sanchez had been deported five times to Mexico, a fact that has inflamed a long-simmering national debate over immigration reform.

SHERIFF ROSS MIRKARIMI, SAN FRANCISCO CITY: I believe that ICE needs to catch up.

SIMON: The sheriff's department declined to notify Immigrations and Customs officials when Sanchez was released from jail back in April, because San Francisco is a so-called sanctuary city. Generally speaking, the city won't hand over nonviolent undocumented immigrants without a court order.

MIRKARIMI: We need a court order or a warrant, and ICE has been told this many, many times. And they have yet to produce that document.

SIMON: The California attorney general saying immigration policy, quote, "should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct."

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They're bringing crime.

SIMON: Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is not backing down, now saying it was, quote, "The Mexican government who forced Sanchez back into the U.S., because they didn't want him in Mexico."

(END VIDEOTAPE) SIMON: And the suspect, Francisco Sanchez, says he actually chose San Francisco, because he knew it was a sanctuary city.

We should note that Steinle's family thus far is staying clear of this debate, saying they just want to focus on Kate and who she was as a person.

CUOMO: As well they should. Thank you, Dan, very much.

We also have news coming out of the Iran negotiation. Today is the deadline for that deal. But will it get done? Iran is demanding an arms embargo be lifted at the U.N. So the question is, will the U.S. walk away if it can't deliver on that?

CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson live in Vienna, which is where this is going on -- Nic.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: John, at the moment, the P5+1 -- Chris, rather, at the moment, the P5+1, which is Secretary Kerry meeting with the foreign ministers of France, of Germany, of Britain, of Russia and of China. They're just into their second meeting of the day. They went into the late hours, early hours this morning meeting also with the Iranians. This meeting and this series of meetings that we're seeing at the most high level and concentrated for a long time in these talks.

It gives you a sense of the urgency at the pace of the talks. But what we don't have any sense of at the moment is, really, what's being discussed behind those closed doors.

We do understand that the Iranians have drawn, if you will, a new red line. That is the lifting at the U.N. Security Council resolution that would lift the arms embargo placed on Iran. They won't sign the broader nuclear deal unless that issue is addressed and that arms embargo lifted.

There are other issues: research and development, nuclear technology, site inspections across Iran. The big issue, of course, with Secretary Kerry, the importance here to get a deal done by Thursday so he can get this in front of Congress. Any delay on that would mean that Congress would have 60 rather than 30 days to look at this and the chance, therefore, of increasing problems, perhaps, being raised with whatever deal is being negotiated or has been agreed.

But at the moment, we certainly seem to be going into extra time on this -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. Nic, thanks so much for that update. We'll check back in with you.

Beating ISIS will take a long time. That's the message from President Obama during a visit to the Pentagon. He says U.S. troops trained -- he says U.S.-trained troops, I should say, are making gains in Iraq and Syria. But at the same time that he was speaking, the terrorists managed to retake a key Syrian town.

CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr is live now with the latest developments. Good morning, Barbara.

[06:15:04] BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

The battlefield very fluid as these towns continue to exchange hands. But there have been dozens of coalition airstrikes over Syria in the last few days. Interestingly on July 4 alone, 18 airstrikes over Raqqah, Syria, the ISIS capitol, if you will. A very heavy round of strikes, somewhat unusual for the U.S. to engage in all of this, striking bridges, targets. Possibly the U.S. now also looking at the fact it may have been able to kill some ISIS leaders. That is not confirmed.

But President Obama, after his briefing here at the Pentagon, came out and made a very interesting statement about the situation in Syria. It caught our attention. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're intensifying our efforts against ISIL's base in Syria. Our airstrikes will continue to target the oil and gas facilities that fund so much of their operations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STARR: Intensifying efforts over Syria. What officials are telling us this means is look for more airstrikes. Syrian Kurdish fighters are now about 50 miles just north of Raqqah. That is putting pressure on the city, putting pressure on ISIS. If ISIS starts to move its troops and equipment and weapons around, the U.S. hopes it will be able to spot them from the air and conduct even more airstrikes -- Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Barbara. Thank you very much.

We also have breaking news out of Afghanistan. The Taliban claiming responsibility for a suicide car bombing in the capital of Kabul, targeting a NATO convoy. This happened just a few hours ago. It is not clear. This is a new event with new information. We don't know yet if anyone was killed in the attacks.

There are also reports emerging of a second attack. The more we learn, the more we'll tell you.

PEREIRA: Back here stateside, also breaking overnight, one person has been killed, four others seriously injured after an ice cave collapsed at a popular hiking destination in Washington state. Conditions there are still unstable as rescuers are scrambling to recover the victim's body.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHARI IRETON, SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: The operation changed from a rescue to recovery. PEREIRA (voice-over): An outing in this national forest in Washington

state turning deadly Monday evening. Part of the Big Four ice caves in northwest Washington came crashing down, shattered ice pummeling at least five people, one person killed.

The ice cave collapse, similar to this partial collapse near the Big Four ice caves that was caught on camera Sunday. While authorities say it's not illegal to enter into the caves, they do warn that with the hot weather, the ice can be severely weakened.

The county sheriff's office says three people were airlifted to the regional trauma center with severe crush injuries and lacerations. A young girl has also been hospitalized.

SUSAN GREGG, HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER: Leg fractures, shoulder pain, lacerations to her leg, head. The fracture part, you know, that's what we're sorting out now.

PEREIRA: One person was killed. Crews were unable to get close enough to identify the person and recover the body.

IRETON: Teams and other search and rescue volunteers are looking at the conditions of the ice just to see how safe it is before they go in.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: Scary.

All right. Another big story to report, Florida State quarterback Deandre Johnson dismissed from the team after authorities released disturbing surveillance video showing him punching a woman in the face during an altercation at a bar last month. The 19-year-old was later arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery.

In a statement, his attorney, Jose Baez, says Deandre is, quote, "extremely embarrassed" and apologizes for his actions.

PEREIRA: When you have the video...

CAMEROTA: Harder to make the case.

PEREIRA: It really is.

CUOMO: It's impossible to make the case. You being embarrassed is irrelevant. You know, you punched somebody in the face. The sports, the schools, the leagues, they have to start making determinations about who they want playing and who they don't, and what they're going to accept and what they don't.

PEREIRA: Character matters.

CAMEROTA: Absolutely.

CUOMO: You know? All right. What do you think? Tweet us. Hit the social media. Here's the question this morning when it comes to the Iran deal. Will

the U.S. really walk away from the table if a deal doesn't happen? Is it even possible? What would happen if the U.S. did walk away? We have experts in the field that will give us the answers, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:23:04] CUOMO: Today is the deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran. False urgency you say? Maybe so. It's just hours away, but there still are all these issues that remain, including a demand from Iran that the arms embargo at the U.N. be lifted. Now, what happens if the U.S. says no? What are the options?

Let's bring in people who know. Hillary Mann Leverett, co-author of "Going to Tehran." She worked for the State Department, negotiated with Iran. And Mr. Peter Beinart, CNN political commentator, and an associate professor at the City University of New York.

Hillary, it is good to see you. The question is obvious, but complex. Can the U.S. walk away and say, "Enough is enough, we're done"?

HILLARY MANN LEVERETT, CO-AUTHOR, "GOING TO IRAN": A decision by the United States to quote, unquote, "walk away," to cut off talks with Iran would be just as strategically damaging, if not more so, to the United States than the decision to invade Iraq.

It would have enormously devastating consequences for the United States in the Middle East, keep us on a trajectory to get into one never-ending, unwinnable war after another. And it would have repercussions for us globally, in economic terms and military terms.

CUOMO: Well, Hillary, I know that you worked for multiple presidential administrations and have studied nothing but this for 20 years, but Marco Rubio disagrees. Put it up on full screen. And he is running for president, not that he'd say something provocative just because of that.

"The president, if he were serious about negotiating a deal that advances our security and protects our allies, such as Israel" -- buzz word there -- "he would walk away from the table and impose new sanctions on Iran until the regime comes to the table ready to negotiate seriously." Very compelling -- Peter Beinart.

PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, the problem is, even if the U.S. were to impose new sanctions, it's quite likely that our partners, whose sanctions in many ways matter more than ours, would start to erode their sanctions. The world only...

CUOMO: Why? Why does that happen?

BEINART: Because a lot of these countries do a lot more trade with Iran than we do. They have jobs at stake in places like France. The Chinese and Indians want a lot of oil from Iran. They have agreed to limit their oil purchases and constrain other economic relations with Iran as part of pressure for a deal. [06:25:15] But if they see no deal on the horizon, and they believe

America has walked away, they're not going to injure their own economies indefinitely forever.

So Rubio is imagining that we can walk away and increase the pressure on Iran. I think, in fact, the pressure on Iran would go down.

CUOMO: Politically expedient, not practical, what Senator Rubio says. Is that your take on it?

BEINART: Right. It's always politically expedient to say we can get Iran to capitulate completely. But America in the real world is not actually all-powerful.

CUOMO: Be strong, Hillary. That's the message we keep hearing from many in the presidential field. The administration is weak, and Iran smells it. And that's why there is no deal. Is that true or is that just huff and puff?

MANN LEVERETT: You know, we have tried their version of strength -- invading Iraq, invading Libya, occupying Afghanistan for more than a decade, arming, training and funding various jihadis in Syria and all across the Middle East. And all it has brought us is damage to ourselves.

The real strength would be, just like Nixon and Kissinger went to China and accepted the People's Republic of China, we need to go to Tehran, as we wrote in our book, and make -- make our peace with Iran. It will help us. It will resurrect our position in the Middle East and around the world.

And if we don't, we will see ourselves continue to flail across the Middle East and around the world.

CUOMO: Quitter. That's what you are, Hillary; you're a quitter. That's what people will say.

These are bad people in Iran. They don't like us. The ayatollah says he doesn't like us. They're messing around in Yemen. They're messing around in Iraq. They're messing around in Syria. They're coming at us on both sides of the ball in these different warfronts. The U.S. people say, no, you can't be nice to them.

BEINART: Right, but I think it's important to recognize that overwhelmingly, the dissidents in Iran, the people who have been brutalized by this regime, the people who want to replace this regime, support this deal. Because they know that an opening to the west is actually the worst thing that could happen for this regime and the thing that would empower them most. The regime uses this cold war to justify its brutal crackdown on its own people.

So I think this deal, of course we need to be as tough as we can in terms of all the nuclear details. But I think if you listen to the voices coming out of Iran that hate this regime, they want this deal.

CUOMO: So they're taking a page out of the Castro playbook is what you're saying?

BEINART: I think it is some of that, yes. But look, the Castro cold war for 50 years didn't work, either. To make -- to make a deal is not to say we like this regime. In fact, it's to say that what this regime benefits from the most is a cold war with us. What it can't probably sustain is a real engagement, a real rapprochement with the west that empowers its own people.

CUOMO: Don't throw French at me, Beinart.

Let me ask you something, Hillary. Give me the last word on this. The politics are obvious. That's why I'm laying it out obviously to you. The -- what is playing in the United States is these are bad people. You have to treat bad people in a bad way. So strength and walk away, and then tighten the screws, and they'll come back to the table, begging for a better deal.

MANN LEVERETT: You know, we don't say that about Saudi Arabia today. And if we had said that about Stalin during World War II, we may all -- we might all be speaking German today. So I think that -- that type of -- that type of rhetoric is a proven loser.

But I would also disagree with my colleague, Peter, who I otherwise greatly respect. I think it's a fantasy to think that the system in Iran is going to change radically. The Islamic Republic of Iran is here to say, like the People's Republic of China.

What we need to recognize is rising Iran, just like rising China, is a strong, independent power. And we need to work with them, not constantly try to bring them down and align with other countries like Saudi Arabia that gets us into strategic disaster after strategic disaster.

CUOMO: And Peter's point is obviously that you also want to harness the domestic discontent in Iran, because that will help create pressure on both sides of the ball. Hillary, thank you very much.

As always, Professor.

MANN LEVERETT: Thank you.

BEINART: Thank you.

CUOMO: You owe me for that. Michaela.

PEREIRA: All right, Chris.

The murder of a woman in San Francisco is igniting controversy over the so-called sanctuary cities. Are they to blame for a five-time deportee walking free on the streets? We'll have that debate ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)