tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN November 30, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
donald trump filling out his cabinet tonight, but is he leaving mitt romney hanging? this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. no word on donald trump's secretary of state pick despite the president-elect's dinner with mitt romney. with the clock sticking, is romney still in the running. plus, caught on camera a dramatic day in the trial of the white police officer charged in the shooting death of walter scott. let's get to executive editor mark preston and cnn political analyst kirstin powers. mark, let's talk about this. i know you have been talking to your sources. i'm going to put up these tweets
talking about carrier air conditioning. reached a deal to keep about 1,000 jobs in indiana and he says this. i will be going to indiana on thursday to make a major announcement concerning carrier ac staying in indianapolis. great deal for workers. then he says big day on thursday for indiana and the great workers of that wonderful state. we will keep our companies and jobs in the u.s. thanks, carrier. what do you make of this? >> big victory for donald trump. he said he was going do this. we should clarify that carrier said it is going to be about 1,000 jobs. about 2100 jobs were in two factories they were closing out there, but the fact of the matter is even if he is able to save half of the jobs, that's more than kerry was going to keep here anyway. they were going to move operations down to mexico. i'm told on thursday they are going to blow this up. they are really -- donald trump and mike pence are going to make a very big deal about this. we're focused so much on the rally he will be doing in cincinnati, but i think that at this moment in indiana will be
important, you know, even before he is sworn into office. >> kirstin, a big thing? >> i think this is something the democrats talk a lot about, but you can ask the question about why hasn't barack obama picked up the phone and called people and tried to get in the middle of it. the other part is trump himself has companies that make things overseas. so it does raise a question if you're going to pressure other people to do this, why don't you make sure it is being done with trump businesses as well. >> also people would like to see this rather than some of the other ee rattic things he says on twitter. >> you think? >> right. >> in the last 48 hours, one thing we haven't seen -- >> more of this and less of the other. >> we haven't seen the details of the deal struck between this new incoming administration and united technologies, which is the carrier parent company. but we do know this, is that u.t. has $5.6 billion worth of business before the american government. they're a big defense contractor. so you have to wonder if donald
trump want to them and said we're going to start pulling contracts. it is a lot of money. >> let's talk about this dinner with donald trump and with mitt romney and also reince priebus, very public. what is this very public meal all about? >> you know, i don't know. i mean jim acosta was sitting very close to them. you know what is interesting about this and i have talked to people who have since, you know, been briefed on this and have been discussed, apparently it couldn't have gone any better. they really got along very well. things went very well. at this point right now i think what we're looking at is donald trump looking at two people right now for secretary of state, mitt romney and david petraeus. we saw petraeus there yesterday. donald trump said very nice things about him. but mitt romney i think really is somebody that if donald trump were to make him his secretary of state would really turn a lot of heads. >> we'll talk about petraeus and the other guys in a moment, but this is what mitt romney said after that meeting. listen to it.
>> i've had a wonderful evening with president-elect trump. we had another discussion about affairs throughout the world, and these discussions i've had with him have been enlightening and interesting and engaging. i've enjoyed them very, very much. i was also very impressed by the remarks he made on his victory night. by the way, it is not easy winning. i know that myself. he did something i try to do and was unsuccessful in accomplishing, he won the general election. and he continues with a message of inclusion and bringing people together, and his vision is something which obviously connected with the american people in a powerful way. >> was that more than the high road or beyond the high road? >> well, put that in context, in perspective. there had been a lot of talk within the trump campaign that mitt romney had to come out and apologize. mitt romney as we all know and discussed over and over again, he was very critical an perhaps the most critical republican
we've seen of donald trump. that was very close to an apology. it wasn't quite an apology, but it was something that i think was, you know, certainly not something we expected from mitt romney. but in addition to that, we're talking about a domino effect for the cabinet spots. i'm told by a transition source that general -- the former retired marine corps general john kelley is now breaking into the lead to perhaps become the new head of the department of homeland security. there had been a lot of talk rudy giuliani might go over there, but now i'm told john kellie who headed up southern command and actually oversaw guantanamo in support of keeping it open, is now breaking into the lead. apparently he has trump's eye as well. >> john kelley for homeland security. so he is meeting with general petraeus which you mention, mark, with bob corker, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and let's not forget rudy giuliani. are we getting a sense of who donald trump wants for his campaign or wants for secretary
of state versus what his team, his transition team might want? >> i think it is interesting. you know, you had to sort of narrow down not to rudy, but when i was talking to trump loyalists they're saying rudy still in the lead. i think you have people on the campaign, the kellyanne conway types who are still pushing for rudy. but, look, you know, the fact he had dinner with mitt romney i think suggests that things are moving along and that there seems to be real interest there. you know, i guess the question for mitt romney is what happened, right? i mean he was a phoney and fraud and all of these things and we see him here. where is the explanation? is all it takes is to win and then none of this is true anymore? i don't know if he's going to address it at some point. >> that's a question i would ask. winning changes everything, everything you said? >> that's a little curious. his reputation is sort of on the line here. i think a lot of people thought he was showing a lot of integrity during the campaign. >> i'm wondering about this
anti-wall street message because of the populous he ran on because we learned he is tapping former goldman sachs partner, billionaire investor wilbur ross for commerce secretary. what does it do to the populous anti-wall street message platform? >> think it undermines it, but also elaine chao undermines it. he is getting washington insider times, but i don't think his supporters will care at this point. i think they're -- i think he has a lot of good will with his supporters. >> and there's something to be said past administrations including the obama administration dipped into wall street and hired wall street executives to become the treasury secretaries. in some ways you almost have to go to wall street to find somebody well versed in how to run the world economy. these are folks doing it on the private level. you're trying to put them into a public position. the question is that he has a little bit of controversy. his company has been accused and acknowledged of some fraud. again, not saying he did it but
his workers did. his company has been accused of some housing discrimination. again, there's enough votes in the senate to get anybody through right now if you're a republican. >> you mentioned elaine chao for transportation and then there's congressman and dr. tom price for health and human services secretary, a big opponent of obamacare. what is your take on that? >> well, i mean you could say it about almost any republican, but i think he's been somebody who has been putting forth alternatives to obamacare and has been front and center on the issue. so i think it shows that he's serious about repealing obamacare, not particularly surprising. this has been one of the number one issues for republicans, and so i would expect him to probably move pretty quickly on that. >> didn't tom price say he wanted to privatize medicare and donald trump said he can't do it. >> yes, democrats are salivating at that because donald trump broke with the republican party on in the election and probably reepd benefits with older white voters and probably wouldn't like the idea of privatization. >> you know, as we're sitting
here talking i received another text from somebody on the transition. john kelley, this retired marine general will be at trump tower again tomorrow. why it is important, a lot of people say it is department of homeland security, not secretary of state. this is the border, this was donald trump's whole discussion about trying to keep illegal aliens from coming in or illegal immigrants whatever we're going to describe them as, coming across the border. this would be his top job as well as stop terror in the u.s., a big job. >> do we know john kelley's record? >> he was critical of the obama administration about closing guantanamo bay. he wanted to keep it open even though when he was in charge of southern command he was going to be tasked with something he didn't agree with. >> you remember when the president met with donald trump and i see more of a practicing ma tis and not an idealogue? >> yes. >> what do you think of his choices he made so far, is it
reflective of the obama view? >> i think it is. especially if you look at fornl policy, he has a foreign policy almost to the left of bernie sanders. you look at the way he would talk about the iraq war, even basically criticizing president bush for his handling of 9/11, things that were taboo that nobody would ever really say, and yet he is looking at people that are very much in the mainstream, very hawkish people frankly. general petraeus was the architect of the surge in the iraq war. so it seems he is willing to work with people who maybe don't share his world view. >> so we should look forward to thursday as you said because they're going to make a big deal out of the carrier thing on thursday. >> but let's not skip tomorrow because i'm sure something big will happen tomorrow. >> don't get ahead of yourself, lemon. i appreciate it. when we come back we never had a president like donald trump, but are fears about his presidency exaggerated? i'm going to talk to the man who asks should you be afraid of donald trump. ♪
but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide.
i . for well over 200 years american democracy has worked pretty well, but howl will it hold up under president donald trump. let's discuss now, cnn political contributor matt lewis, an interesting column. if you haven't read it, i suggest you do. matt, thank you so much for coming on. you ask a pretty direct question in your column this morning, should you be afraid of president trump. so should we? >> well, i think we should
always be vigil. i'm of the opinion that all politicians, republican, democrat, we should always be skeptical of them. we need the media to help us to keep an eye on them and to hold them accountable. in the case of donald trump i would say there were a lot of people who were very concerned about his authoritarian tendencies, a sense that he didn't fully respect the rule of law, understand or appreciate the balance of powers. but then he got elected, and i'm starting to see a reemergence, maybe a realization this is very real and that this -- there could be a guy who has these -- this streak, who is going to be president. we are seeing it map right now with the tweets about flag burning where he wants to possibly take away citizenship. he's going after media outlets for pointing out that he's lying about voter fraud costing him the popular vote, and so this just raises questions about --
you know, we talked about tempt. that means different things to different people, but it could be very real. i would say this, i think the big threat i'm hearing from people is god forbid if there were a big event like a terrorist attack. how would a donald trump then react and how might our freedoms be curtailed in that possibility. >> it is interesting because i was watching the boston marathon documentary on hbo this weekend with friends and they were saying, can you -- they showed a clip with president obama speaking and consoling the nation. some of the people said, can you image donald trump doing this? their answer was no, but sadly we are going -- he is going to have to do it because something will happen. you say this, i write this. you say, american democracy has been blessed with a system that has largely served us well for 238 years. for the first time in my lifetime however people seem to be wondering if the system is
self-destructing. you say there are two things that hold american leaders in check, character and the system, and there are concerns about both in this case. >> i think that's right. i think that -- so american history, you know, isn't perfect. we've had presidents, even presidents considered great presidents who have done things like japanese interment in response to an attack and to a serious event. but, look, i think that that's true, right? so on one hand we need men and women of principle and character who will check themselves and not try to usurp authority. i think back to george washington who really could have made himself a king, and in fact the king of england, you know, they told him what is george washington going to do after the revolutionary war? said he's going to go back and be a farmer, and the king of england literally said then that will make him the greatest man in the world if he actually does that, because washington could
have made himself a king. instead he decides not to do it obviously. the other thing protecting us though is our system, right. so even if we have a president, maybe a richard nixon or a lyndon johnson who doesn't necessarily respect the system, he's held in check by the balance of powers. we have a federalist system where states have certain authority. we have three branches of government. the supreme court could say something's unconstitutional. what if there's a disaster and the president says, how many divisions does the pope have or the supreme court have. that's the scary thing. i don't want to get people paranoid, you know, but these are things that we need to think there. i think it is important for us to do that and for people in congress and other leaders to stand up when push comes to shove against a very powerful president and maybe, you know, a presidency that -- an executive
branch that has gotten stronger in recent years. >> yeah. and also there are concerns about, you know, the intermingling, the possibility of intermingling business with politics here, about the conflicts of interest. our system is designed to limit the power of any one player, but here is something else you say. you say the fact that donald trump has rolled over so many barriers, traditions, institutions and incompetent and/or corrupt political elites along the way suggest his future ambitions might not be so easily deterred, and you said the executive branch has gotten stronger. is that your concern, trump could continue to break the rules? >> yes. you know, breaking rules is fine. innovators break rules, all great political leaders who upset the apple cart somewhere along the way did things nobody thought they could do. that's good, but when -- when does it end? you know, so all of the elites who stood up to trump were one
by one basically taken down. will that continue into his presidency? when people oppose him, will they be coopted? you know, will people just sort of bow to him as we're starting to see people do now, people who were very critical of him in the past all of a sudden buddying up to him. you could even make an excuse for it like, hey, it is better to have them on the inside than the outside. but this is a guy who is incredibly charismatic. he has some -- definitely some authoritarian tendencies. we've had that before. look, andrew jackson, theodore roosevelt. but, you know, democracy and freedom i believe is fragile. some people think it is very resilient. i think it is more fragile than we might want to admit. i think vigilance is the watch word here. >> matt, over half of the voters did not choose him, did not vote for donald trump. as we know hillary clinton won the popular vote, but a large number did and they hate the system and love trump's character. as you said, he's very
charismatic. is this handwriting -- hand wringing, excuse me, part of the establishment types, is it warranted you think? >> well, i think that it will be greeted as, you know, pearl clutching. >> that's my phrase, the liberals. yeah, oh, my gosh, clutching their pearls. >> people playing eyore and whatever. but because -- so all of the sort of the checks and balances are unpopular, okay. so congress is very unpopular. the media is now very unpopular. interestingly, the only institutions that are actually maintaining their popularity are the military and the police, which are institutions that i believe in but also institutions that sort of fit into a more right wing world view. so basically there was a study in the "new york times" today, a research that was reported in the "new york times" today that
an increasing number of americans are okay with like a military-led government. so that's part of it, but the people who would hold a strong man accountable, congress, the supreme court, media elites, they're seen as part of the problem. that is a concern if you -- again, if you care about sort of preserving representative democracy. i would also add -- like let's also take donald trump out of this for a second. like i think that this is important to be saying really no matter who the president is. i mean i spoke out against some of barack obama's executive orders, and i think that in some ways he paved the path to expanding the power of the presidency as did many of his predecessors. >> we need to have a talk about that elite word. i have issue with that but it is for another time. stick around, matt. when we come back, donald trump makes a deal to keep 1,000 jobs in the u.s. is it a sign of things to come? ♪
just checking my free credit score at credit karma. what the??? you're welcome. i just helped you dodge a bullet. but i was just checking my... shhh... don't you know that checking your credit score lowers it! just be cool. actually, checking your credit score with credit karma doesn't affect it at all. are you sure? positive. so i guess i can just check my credit score then? oooh "check out credit karma today. credit karma. give yourself some credit." sorry about that.
generosity is its oyou can handle being a mom for half an hour. i'm in all the way. is that understood? i don't know what she's up to, but it's not good. can't the world be my noodles and butter? get your mind out of the gutter. mornings are for coffee and contemplation. that was a really profound observation. you got a mean case of the detox blues. don't start a war you know you're going to lose. finally you can now find all of netflix in the same place as all your other entertainment. on xfinity x1. donald trump making a deal tonight to keep 1,000 jobs in the u.s.
let's discuss now with jack king ton, stormer congressman and senior advisor to the trump campaign. political commentator, daily beast, sally kohm. matt also back with me. i appreciate the conversation before. representative kingston, start with you, donald trump reached an agreement with the parent company of carrier air conditioning to keep 1,000 jobs in indiana, two-thirds of the job supposed to move to mexico. it is a big victory for the workers and symbolic victory for donald trump. can he replicate that do you think? >> i think he can, and i think it is a sign of the things to come. i think he is a businessman who doesn't mind going and having an on-hands approach, getting into the weeds if you will because in a big country of 320 million people those jobs might not mean a lot in the big scheme of things but they mean a heck of a lot to those people, those thousands of people. the fact that he focused on it i think sends a good signal we want jobs to stay in america. but i think that's not -- that's not where he is going to stop,
you know, going factory by factory if you will. he wants less regulations that kill jobs, and he wants to unleash capital so that community banks can start making loans again and entrepreneurs can expand and young men and women can get into marketplace and move out of their parents' basements and good things like that. i think this is great first step. >> there are a lot of parents who would like that idea, the kids to move out of the basements. matt, will the president-elect personally be negotiating these deals do you think? >> no, i think like in this case mike pence obviously was, you know, heavily involved being the former -- current governor of indiana. but, look, i think it is interesting. i think in a way it is symbolism over substance. i think that, you know, look, we are talking about 1,000 jobs. he could go around the country doing this. not going to add up to a whole lot of jobs and you could argue that it is sort of skews the
free market and it is crony capitalism. what is he promising this company to get them to stay in indiana to make him look good politically? but it does make him look good politically, i have to say. it may be bad economics, it may be bad policy, it looks great. finally a politician who rolls up his sleeves and basically makes a company keep jobs in america? that is going to be wildly popular. >> sally -- >> well, inthis is a fearful premonition of what a trump presidency could be like. first of all, listen, 1,000 jobs, that's fantastic. i feel congratulations to those who get to keep their jobs, it is great for the state of indiana, great for the country, no doubt about it. this symbolism is how donald trump won the country. the current president, president obama presided over 55 straight months of private sector job growth, a record in the american economy, but he gets trashed
including by president-elect trump and yet president-elect trump, you know, saves 1,000 jobs and it is a really good prcoup. this sort of style over substance, you know, symbolism over significance, that really is donald trump in a nutshell. >> yeah, even saving the auto industry there were republicans who had negative things to say about that. but go on. >> i would point out that the stock market is at an all-time high since the election and thousands of dollars have been made and reinvested into the economy because of him, and there is -- listen, there's an optimism out there we're not going to have the job killing regulations and the over burdensome dodd/franks and obamacare that businesses have been shackled by in the last four to eight years. >> do you think it is because of him or because the election is resolved regardless of who is in there, and the stock market may have been a bit unstable because they didn't know who was going to be president, we didn't know who was going to be president? >> i know it did not go down and
that's what so many people predicted. >> if it had gone down i bet you would have blamed president obama and not trump, let's be honest. >> sally, how could you say that? >> joe, representative, come on, you know she is right. >> never. listen, let me tell you, we are going to have great prosperity. we are going to have infrastructure. we are going to have jobs. this is a man though knows how to get people working and the economy going. >> one can only hope you're right because it would be great for all-americans. i have to ask you this, representative kingston, what is interesting is donald trump in his own businesses out sourced jobs himself. how will he be able to convince other businesses, do as i say and not as i do? >> i think he wants to foster a better business climate in america, a better tax code and government reg laltors that work with businesses rather than i got you and you're guilty of doing something because you want to expand your businesses. you know, again, the infrastructure that he wants to build and that he's committed to, more roads, bridges and highways to move goods and services across the country,
these are good things for the economy and they're things that democrats, republicans, purple, blue and red are all going to prosper by. you know, i think there's a new sheriff in town and that's what part of the election was about, that people wanted a change, and he is going to deliver on this. if you look at his economic team he is putting together, they are people that know how to make money and create jobs. >> give someone else a chance, representative. >> sorry. i apologize. >> his economic team are a bunch of wall street cronies, number one. number two, look, the united states has the lowest effective corporate text rate, second lowest of all of the developed countries in the developed world. let's be clear. we have becauseness friendly environment. all we need to know is look at the fact that in the post-recession economy all of the economic growth, about 90% of the economic growth went to corporate profits and bottom lines, not to worker wages. so, look, we need to fix the economy, make it work better for
working people. we need to see people's wages that have been stagnant way too long across too many presidencies start to go up. what we don't need is more tax cuts for big business, millionaires and billionaires which donald trump has proposed. that is his tax proposal. we've got plenty business friendly environment. we need a worker friendly environment. >> to her point when he ran on anti-wall street and appointing someone from goldman sack is what cnn is learning here, what does it do to his argument anti-wall street and i'm going to do things differently platform he ran on? >> i don't think it hurts him with the american public, not with his base. these are people that made a calculated decision to vote for a thrice-married casino magnate as the every man conservative candidate. it is a logical thing, it is like he is going to be our man on the inside. i think donald trump if he was in a debate today and somebody said to him, you just hired this
like guy from goldman sachs, you said you were going to drain the swamp, he would say, i need people who know how -- you know, who know how the market works to take it apart basically, to fix it. so, you know, i think that this is in a weird -- it is a weird argument but i think it is consistent with what trump said the whole time, and he has gotten a lot of the american public to buy into it. >> i have to run but i think every man thing is very interesting because look at the dinner tonight. >> frog leg soup. >> google john georges' menu and see how much it costs to dine there and you'll know what matt is talking about. when we come back, the police shooting that shocked the country. walter scott, a black man shot in the back by white policeman micha michael slagger after a traffic stop. a dramatic day in the trial today. we will have the latest for you.
escape after slager stopped him for a traffic violation. the shooting caught on cellphone camera. [gunshots] [ bleep ]. >> tough to watch that video. cnn's boris sanchez in charleston covering the store. boris, good evening to you. we have seen the tape of the shooting. today michael slager gave his version of why he shot and killed walter scott. what did he say? >> reporter: hey, don. yeah, he said essentially that video doesn't tell the whole story. he says that before the cameras were rolling that he was in an altercation with walter scott. there was a scuffle. he claims that walter scott took his taser from him and aimed it back at him and that the gun fire that you see in that video was essentially his response to
that. the prosecution jumped on that. they went second by second, frame by frame, in excruciating detail over that video with walter scott's family in the courtroom. and they were asking michael slager all kinds of questions about where he was looking, how he was shifting his weight, and, again, and again, they asked him how could walter scott have been a threat to his life if he had been trying to get away. here is some of that exchange. >> would you agree that even if mr. scott had that taser it could not have been used against you at the distance depicted on that video? >> at that time i didn't have that information. so i -- i can't answer that question. >> you've seen the video. >> i have. >> and you've heard that he was 18 feet away. would you agree that he was not a threat to you with that taser, without a car trij, from that distance? >> no. >> okay. so you're gonna stick to that? >> yes. and the reason is from 18 feet
he could have turned around and attacked me again. >> reporter: and that led to a very uncomfortable moment, don. the prosecution literally handing michael slager a tape measure and asking him to hold it. the prosecutor then walking 18 feet away. that represents the 18 feet between michael slager and walter scott when slager first opened fire. the prosecutor holding the tape measure with his back turned to him, turning and and asking him how could a person this far away, running away from you have been a threat to your life? slager stuck to his guns, saying that he responded according to his training and he opened fire as quickly as he could on someone that he felt had threatened his life, don. >> and, boris, you know, this interesting moment in the courtroom we hear that slager apparently broke down over his family situation. what more can you tell us? >> reporter: right. that was during the defense portion of the questioning, when they were asking him about his upbringing, where he went to
high school, what got him into service, into being a police officer. and then they asked him specifically about his family life and his child, his wife was actually pregnant when the encounter with walter scott happened and she gave birth while he was in prison. so he got emotional when he was being asked how he felt not being there the day that his son was born. the prosecution turned that around. they actually closed their cross-examination by asking him if he cried the day that he shot and killed walter scott. so overall a very uncomfortable, very emotional day in court, don. >> all right. boris sanchez, thank you very much. i want to bring in "new york times" op-ed columnist charles blow, cnn legal analyst mark o'mara and cedric alexander author of the new guardians. mark, you first? he shot scott in the back five times. he claims scott was coming at him when he fire willed. he says the cellphone video which is key evidence here as you heard boris sanchez say, doesn't tell the whole story.
when you look at it and see him running away, not toward him, does officer slager's defense make sense to you? >> it simply doesn't. all he could say is that i acted that way because i was in -- in his mind reasonable fear of great bodily injury. that's the only way an officer can discharge his weapon, a deadly force event. he has to be in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily injury. it simply cannot exist when someone has their back turned to you unless they're armed with a firearm themselves, and when they're running away. but it literally is all he has. we have to understand that cops in these cases are often given the benefit of the doubt however. we can look at the case up in cincinnati where a hung jury just happened, and it is difficult. but in this case if there wasn't a video, then we know that walter scott was the enormous aggressor, about to turn on him, he was only 4 feet away when the shot happened, but that
videotape shows what actually happened and there was no justification to slager's reaction to take out his gun and fire that many shots at walter scott's back. it was murder. >> cedric, from a law enforcement perspective, what is your -- do you agree? you know, mark o'mara is saying it was murder. what is your biggest concern about the way the officer handled it? let me say this, i think mark is right on point, don. i have been in this business a very long time and seen a lot of various types of situations such as this. it is very clear, clearly there were some things that occurred before the video footage took place, but the video footage in and of itself i think is very point-blank clear as to what occurred and then shots being fired of the victim in this case running away from the officer. what is that immediate threat that he keeps referring to? he is going to have -- i think a challenge time trying to
convince a jury of that being the case. but, here again, we are talking about police officers who do a very exceptional type of job, and it was the threat that he says that he experienced. that's what he is going to have to convince this jury of, but that piece of footage is somewhat challenging i think. >> speaking of the footage, charles, you don't buy the self-defense claim. you say it is clearly a crime going down on that cellphone footage and we should believe what we see? >> well, i mean all i can say is what i do see, right. so with all ofness cases you have to answer for each bullet that you fire. and so with each individual bullet that he fires, walter scott is further and further away from him. so the idea that he was somehow -- thought he could have been turning back, he actually wasn't. every time he fired walter was further and further away. i think the bigger thing we always have to understand here, one think mark said which is very difficult to convict
officers, part of that is because unlike other areas of law, these particular kinds of shootings are not only about what you do but about how you feel when you are doing it. and the bigger part of that feeling is fear, and it is very profound, you know, how weak -- the idea that the fear governs so much about what is considered guilt or not guilt in these cases because we all know, anybody who studies the construction and activation of fear, you know that it is a very complicated thing. a lot can go into it, things that are actually conscious to you, things that are not conscious to you, things that may make me afraid may not make you afraid. and the idea that that is a separate kind of justice than, for instance, if we were having, you know, some sort of workplace discrimination case, it is simply about what you did. the jury doesn't want the know
how you felt when you did it, they just want to know if these people were doing the same thing, the same kind of job, had the same performance and one got dismissed and the other got promoted, then there's something wrong here. that is reason for guilt. in these cases, it is not that. you layer on top of what you did how the person felt, and that makes it incredibly difficult to ever come away with a guilty verdict. >> all right. stand by, everyone. when we come right back, what will it take to get justice in this case, we'll discuss. ♪ (vo) it's the holidays at verizon, and the best deals are on the best network. (both) yes! (vo) with no surprise overages, you can use your data worry free and even carry over the data you don't use. and right now get four lines and 20 gigs for only $40 per line.
we're back now with charles, marco mayora and cedric alexander. here is ex police officer michael slager testifying in court today. >> at that time had mr. scott done anything to escalate the situation other than running? >> no, no. >> and at that time had mr. scott done anything to threaten you other than just trying to get away? >> no, not at that time. >> mark o'mara, walter scat was unarmed and the officer says he did nothing to threaten him
other than run away. is there anything that his defense attorney can use to change the way this incident is being viewed? >> well, he's going to use what we talked about a moment ago, which is he has to try to get across to that jury that his actions, slager's actions at the moment he was doing it were justified, were okay because he was in fear. you remember from slager's testimony he said i was afraid, there was a fight. i thought he was going to hurt me, and when he got away. so that's the only way they're going to get an acquittal or something less than a murder conviction, is if they get across to the jury that this officer who obviously shot and killed this man should be forgiven for that intentional act because of what he was thinking in his heart, as charles said, and what was showing in his mind based upon his actions. i think one of the most telling parts of that whole video beyond the shooting was what he did afterwards, because that -- what he did afterwards was very telling. >> you mean the putting of --
>> that is he picks up -- >> let's put up the video because if you look closely at the cellphone video the officer picks something up from the ground where he and michael scott were apparently struggling. he walks over and drops it next to the suspect. >> because i would tell you that to me is evidence of guilt. now, he can say he was afraid, he can say he was worried, but he certainly had the consciousness of mind to pick something up and in effect plant it near mr. scott with the suggestion or the intent to say that was a weapon he had or to somehow manufacture evidence which would have supported the justification of the shooting. and i think the prosecution needs to focus on that because just like in the sam dubose killing when tensing made up the story about getting run over by the car which didn't show on the video, this is what slager did in this case and that shows what he was thinking that moment. >> mark, what do you make of that.
i'm sorry, not mark, charles. >> well, if you listen to the testimony they actually do bring it up, and his defense is, number one, i don't remember that the taser was dropped next to me. i do not remember that -- picking up the taser and dropping it next to his body, that i was in such a state of fear and shock that all of that is blocked out to me, essentially that's what he is saying. and that goes back to this idea that you can -- you can craft a defense. this is the shocking part of american juris prudence as it relates to these shootings. the shocking part of it is you can actually craft a defense that says, i felt so much fear that the things i actually did i do not -- it is black out by the intensity of that fear, and therefore i don't even remember the things the video shows, everyone sees me doing. >> cedric, so when you look at
this video, i mean do you think would an officer have a valid reason for shooting someone multiple times in the back, walking away to pick something up off the ground and later dropping that object near the subject? >> no. i mean, you know, no, absolutely not. i mean that video was troubling some months ago and it is still troubling tonight, and i think that any of us that looked at it, we see the victim running away, attempting to run away as slowly as he was running. we see the shots that are fired. we see a police officer that casually walks towards the subject. we see him disturb a crime scene by moving the taser from where it fell out of the victim's hand and moving it over towards his body. that is clearly somewhat suspect. now, here is the thing we also have to remember in all of this. >> i've got ten seconds. >> right. >> this comes down to a training situation and it also comes down to policy, how we train and how we enact our policies with our
police officers. if this is the case, to me it just appears to be poor training and it also brings up some issues about policies inside of that agency. these things have to be addressed. but slager is going to have a very challenging time trying to convince that jury. >> we have to leave it there. >> this is -- don, if i might in this is the best case justifying body cameras on every cop because without that cellphone video -- >> absolutely. >> -- this would have been a different story. >> i have to go. i'm over time. that's it for us tonight. thanks for watching. thanks for watching. see you back here tomorrow. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com
♪ all of those things combined have given me increasing hope that president-elect trump is the very man that can bring us to that better future. >> breaking overnight, mitt romney dines with donald trump, embracing the man he tried to derail a few months ago. did he do enough to convince the president-elect to pick him as secretary of state. the president-elect announced a deal with carrier air conditioning to get 1,000