tv Justice With Judge Jeanine FOX News December 7, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PST
who stokes the flames of racial hatred. a man who instead of heal or nation and instead of overcoming any racial divide prefers to take sides based not on facts but on color, to prejudge situations based not on sworn testimony in evidence but on conjecture in a one size fits all resentment, t. now, every young american who loses liz life should be the concern of the man in the white house. but why is it that we only hear from him when death involve as person of color? >> when trayvon martin was first shot, i said that this could have been my son. the justice department has opened and independent federal civil rights investigation into the death of mike. brown. the attorney general himself will be traveling to ferguson. >> but james foley, an american who never committed a crime and
was beheaded is nothing more than a blink in the president's golf game. why do you send white house official to brown's funeral but no one to james foley's memorial service. i don't remember you injecting yourself in the death of a young white american or sending the attorney general on a local crime before the justice system can act, as you did with eric holder, sending him to ferguson. why not speak about young african americans killed by other african americans, black on black crime, the kind of crime for which your hometown of chicago is so infamous. instead you see racism everywhere. >> i think ferguson laid bare a problem, and that is a simmering distrust that exists between too many police departments and too
many communities of color. >> mr. president, you say we need trust between police and the african american community. police need to be sensitive to minority concerns. well, how about you teach respect for those who put their lives on the line every day, for those who protect us, for those who are the one line of defense against an otherwise barbaric and chaotic society. how about you teach that when a police officer says move along or put your hands behind your back, you do it, and teach that you don't call cops derogatory names or reach into a police cruiser to grab a cop's gun. but then again, you're the one who thinks cops are stupid. >> i think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. number two, that the cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.
and number three, there is a long history in this country of african americans and latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. >> mr. president, you demand respect. why not demand respect for police when they issue an order. it's not a suggestion, an invitation, a mediation or a request. as anarchy reigned and protesters burned buildings of hardworking americans, many african american, where were you? or do you believe that those crimes are justification for a perceived injustice. collateral damage, like occupy wall street, the tax paying americans just need to suffer through and then pay for. but, no, you fan the flames of resentment, trumpeting your own investigation that could have completed by now, only prolonging the anger,
suggesting, yes, folks, this is yet another white injustice and aim going to reverse wit a federal civil rights investigation when you know there isn't a smidgen, your word, of evidence to support the claim of that. want you going to reverse the trayvon martin-george zimmerman case. what happened with that one? absolutely nothing. have you no respect for the law and for our system of justice in if you don't like the law, change it. hell you do it all the time without congress. and you bring in the greatest shar la ten of them all, a man who makes a living inciting racial hatred, who claimed that an african american girl, raped by a white man stirring the pot of racial hatred that resulted in a defamation judgment against him to sit with you at the siu citadel of power at the white
house, to discuss how law enforcement needs to be more insensitive. now there are times when injustices occur. i know. but i also know that the system works. according to that same al sharpton, as district i convicted the first white cop of shooting an african american in the history of the state of new york. that jury, not affected by centuries of racism but by the facts, pure and simple. mr. president, if you're so concerned about racism, why don't you do something about it? it's no secret that black crime is disproportionately high. why not focus on poverty, on lack of education, on drugs, on guns and on broken families. bill clinton moved americans from welfare to work fare. you turned back the hands of time. would you, as president, things
aren't as great for african americans. poverty has gone up since you took office. fewer african americans own homes. the number of african americans on food stamps rose from 6 million to almost 11 million since you took office. mr. president, you seem to forget, you weren't just elected by one group. you were elected by all of us, republicans and democrats, blacks and whites. why don't you act like you're the president of all of us? and that's my open. tell me what you think on my facebook page or twitter at judge jeanine, #justiceopen. with me now, defense attorney eric guster. eric, thanks for being with us tonight. where did i go wrong there? >> you wrent very wrong. >> tell me. >> first of all, the president was handed an administration in
one of the worst recessions that the country has had and he's also addressed a lot of crime regardless of if you want to, want to acknowledge that or not. because he's sent federal officials, when there were school shootings, mass school shootings where little white children were killed. let's not go there. >> let's go there. let's talk about trayvon martin and george zimmerman. nothing happened. there was no civil rights case. >> you know how the fade rale government, they investigate civil rights violations all the time. many of them are not in media, whether it's white -- >> i'm talking about trayvon and george. >> i'm talking about in general. >> i'm asking a question. i'm asking you that -- >> you're talking about one or two cases. >> do you agree with me were eric, yes or no. was there a civil rights find in the george zimmerman case yes or no. >> that's an interesting point. >> answer the question. >> no, i'm not. >> then you can't be on the
show. >> the issue is whether or not there was a likelihood of one. and with those facts there was a chance. >> what was the upshot? >> there was a chance. >> let's not talk about wishing and hoping. >> you don't know unless you investigate, judge jeanine. >> i'm asking you a question. answer it. did the federal department of justice find a civil rights injustice in the trayvon martin-george zimmerman case? no. you're afraid to answer. >> they have to investigate. >> why don't you answer the question? because you don't want to. let's mo on. do you think there was something sinister that went on in the eric garner case in the grand jury? >> i can't call it sinister was that was an injustice for them not to indict the police officer who killed a man on tape, that is something that is horribly wrong with the system. when a police officer can choke a man, kill him and not be charged, and another problem
with that, judge jeanine, is that he died right there with office users standing around not giving him cpr. that's a travesty >> let me say something. my heart goes out to him. you heard, i convicted first cop in the history of new york killing an african american. >> i've defended cops, too. >> it's about justice. all right? and i was offended by that. but if there is some kind of problem -- >> you offended by it how. >> listen to me. >> i'm trying to understand the question. >> why did the grand jury or the d.a. seek to release the minutes. he wanted, the d.a. wanted those minutes released. the judge under new york law wouldn't allow it. why? if there was a problem, why would he want the minutes released? >> it was clearly a problem. it was problem fra the beginning. first of all, he gave immunity to every officer out there which means that he knew, i believe, that he knew what they were going to say. when you give people immunity
who could be culpable in a murder or a manslaughter or a criminally negligent homicide -- according to eric garner's autopsy report, there was choking as well as chest issues with chest compressions, which means that if the neck is being choked by one person and the other issues were caused by another, that means there could have been two who were responsible. you know very well that criminally negligent homicide can reach out to other people who were involved when they did not render anything. they could all be charged. >> but the grand jury didn't indict for manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide. >> they weren't given criminally negligent homicide. >> ybl they were. >> don't question me on this one. >> i may be mistaken on that. >> you are mistaken. >> but don't you agree -- >> listen to me. >> don't you agree -- >> in order -- we can't both talk at the same time. >> that's why i was asking you a question. >> here's my statement to you. >> okay. >> if you want to get someone to assist you in identifying
whether or not someone had committed a crime -- >> we had a case. >> -- community -- >> we had several recordings. what else do you need? >> they had nine weeks of investigation and said -- 50 witnesses -- >> they had several recordings. >> several witnesses said there was no manslaughter. >> several witnesses what? >> that there were 50 witnesses who tefds in that grand jury case. >> okay. right. >> civilians. >> as well as experts and doctors, as well as the cops who had immunity. this is a fraternity. police officers are in a fraternity and i don't think for one second that some of them told the truth. >> okay. well, you know what, we'll see whether or not this civil rights investigation brings up some -- >> this one, eric garner i believe will. >> we'll come back and you can come back and answer that one. thank you for being with us js thank you. >> coming u, sheriff davis clark on why he's disgusted with eric
in the coming days i will announce updated justice department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement. this will institute rigorous new standards and best safeguards to help end racial profiling once and for all. >> that's attorney general eric holder's bold response to the michael brown and eric garner cases. but not everyone agrees. with me sheriff david clark of milwaukee, wisconsin. good evening. is he right? do we need to end racial
profiling. >> he's way out of line. he hasn't produced -- judge, you know this. he hasn't produced one shred of evidence that law enforcement officers or agencies either systematically, institutionally or policy initiatives engage in racist practices. for him to paint the broad brush or use a broad brush, i should say, and indict every law enforcement officer in america, i reject that, i'm insulted by that and i'm going to continue to stick up for the men and women who put on the uniform. >> there was no racial profiling here. you've got michael brown in the middle of the street, they're , get out of the middle of the street. you've got eric garner who the local shop owners are saying the guy is selling looseys. where is the racial profiling? does anyone even know what that means? >> no. he won't define it either. he won't define it because he wants to keep a sliding scale and a moving target.
he'll move the goal post ever time we're able to reject and with evidence disprove the claim of racial profiling. michael brown and the garner case are two very different cases. but there with one parallel that winds through both of them. we have individuals who would not comply with the law enforcement officer's lawful demands were or commands. one of them, get out of the street and the other, put your hands behind your back. i would like to remind people that you have an obligation, whether you think you have to or not, to comply with an officer's lawful demands. mike brown gets out of the street we have a different outcome. if garner puts his hands behind his back, we have a different outcome. we need to talk about that as well why so many of the young black males are walking around with a chip on their shoulder and resist authority. it's played out at home with their parent bs and played out at school with their teachers
where they reject the authority and then all of the sudden it gets in the street in a situation where the person that they were going to stand up to, if you will, wrongfully, is going to push back, and that's the american police officer. once a police officer make as decision that somebody is going to jail, somebody is going to jail. >> right. right. and you know, i want to ask you, sheriff, about something that is bothering a lot of us, including me. we're going to put up a screen of eric garner. now, i want to know, is this a chokehold or is this a takedown? that's one word the cops behind him with his arm on his throat. let's show the second full screen. that's with his hand on his head. would you please tell us is this a chokehold, a takedown, why is his hand on his head? >> i don't know all of the facts of that case and i'm just looking at a couple of slides. these thing don't happen in a linear fashion. when you go to get somebody into
custody who does not want to be taken into custody, it's all over the place. you end up with body parts, you end up grabbing people in places that you didn't intend to do because they're moving all around. you can see that mr. garner there did not want to be taken into custody. he's a large man. you know, you hold things down, i don't know hand on the shoulder, hand on the head. but when the individual continues to resist arrest, you do what you have to do to get him into custody. i think it's a tragedy that both of these men died. there's no doubt about that. these cops didn't want to use deadly force. >> we're going to get cut off, sheriff. thanks for being with us. >> as always, my pleasure. coming up, an american hostage killed in a failed
american hostage luke somers, a freelance photographer was killed late friday during a rescue attempt by u.s. special forces. somers was abducted last year and being held by al qaeda in yemen. the murder raises new questions about how the u.s. military will be able to respond to a spike in overseas kidnappings by terrorists. with me now the founder of the investigative project steve 'emmer son and mike baker. all right, mike. we've got two rescues attempts, the american hostage dead. is there some truth to what the white house says about our intel not being as good as it should be? >> well, you know, it's an odd thing to say if they are in fact pushing and saying it wasn't us. part of it is they were concerned that they were getting some flack for not approving the initial unsuccessful raid quick enough. you could argue that you control very lit until a hostage rescue
situation. intel is never perfect in any of these things. we tend to be conditioned by feature films and beach book to think this is a simple thing, you find your target, go and rescue them. we've had a good success rate. but things go wrong and you can never guarantee success when you're talking about an operation like this. >> steve, same question. is it good to say that we couldn't find the guy twice? >> well, you know, it's not good to say it, but on the other hand, i will give them credit for actually trying to carry out the operations, you know. especially for a president that has chewed extra judicial operations. i'm glad they're doing it. but the reality is, as mike pointed out, you're relying on local intelligence and that local intelligence is going to shift and it's not going to stay -- it's not going to stay
stagnant. it's going to shift and you're not going to be able to rely on it when you're on the ground immediately. however, the reality is we're put in a position where we're seen as a paper tiger now. now they're going to take precautions to make it impossible now to rescue other hostages. >> that was my point, steve and mike. there's in point in saying we tried but didn't get them other than to tell the enemy we're coming after our guys. the group behind this team is al qaeda. we're not talking isis now. we're not talking syria and iraq. how were these guys different from isis in. >> well, they're not different from isis. actually, they're in competition and what they realized is isis, by the tune of tens of millions of dollars by taking hostages and getting them paid by ransom money, this is exactly what was going on with this set of hostages. they were going to get paid ransom money, had a set of demands.
and al qaeda realized isis was getting fame and recruitment. now it's open season on americans around the world. al qaeda is in rivalry with isis in the same type of tactics and you can be sure that al qaeda is going to be killing americans no matter where they are, not necessarily directedly al qaeda core but by al qaeda inspired people, like we saw just last week, a woman who was killed. and americans killed in sinai. like the israelis has been killed around the world. >> it seems that americans are going to be more at risk of being taken hostage. what can we do about this? >> well, americans and our alley, westerners all over. but we do what we continue to do. it's a little unusual to say, also, that, you know, well, this unsuccessful raid makes us a paper tiger. it doesn't make us a paper tiger. it's the reality of it.
every operation, every hostage rescue attempt presents its own difficulties. and we have the best trained personnel in the world in trying to conduct these operations. but i think we've gotten to this place in our lives where the administration and everyone else wants a zero risk world. >> all right. >> but it doesn't work that way. >> i understand, mike, that you want to take that side. i think when you tell the world that, you know, we tried and we lost twice, there's in point in it. >> of course there's a point of it. >> hillary clinton thinks we need to empathize with our enemies. what do you think, steve, real fast. we're coming up against a hard break. >> i think we should empathize with our friends first. >> mike? >> that's the problem. >> it's ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. >> i couldn't agree more. steve and mike, thanks for being with us. coming up, after months of warning by scientists, politicians and yours truly, finally something is being done the beginning of january.
john roberts fox news in baton rouge. congress has made an important first step to protect the critical infrastructures. this week the house passed unanimously the act. arizona congressman trent frank. this has been a mission of yours for many years, sponsoring legislation for at least five years. the resistance has been great. what happened and why now? >> well, i guess first of all, i just have a great sense of gratitude in my heart right now. you know, i think when the holidays approach, we all get a sense of how precious our families are to us and the nation that my children and the children in this country would have to face the aftermath of a worse case emp event in this country is unthinkable to me.
so i'm deeply grateful. vi to say to you, judge, it sometimes takes people like you to remind government that our first purpose is to protect people, protect the people of this country. you have been a clarion voice and coincidental with some of your broadcasts we began to see some movement. i'm really encouraged that we're going in the right direction. >> well, and we're all thrilled about this. but very quickly, congressman, why should americans care about this? >> well, i think electromagnetic pulse, both manmade and the potential natural occurrences could represent one of the more serious national security threats that we face. it's rather ironic to me just recently, we were given a copy that was translated by the national defense university in our country of a military doctrine by iran that mentioned
emp as a weapon more than 20 times. and recently, as you know, the president has given iran even more time in their march toward a nuclear weapons capability. so they should care about it. the people of this country should care very much about this issue because it's simply something that we cannot allow ourselves to be vulnerable to. at least we're moving in a direction of preventing that vulnerability. >> right now it's passed the house. lame duck session, goes to the senate. what's going to happen? >> well, there is an outside long shot possibility that the senate could uc this, unanimous consent, paz it through the senate and put it on the president's desk in the next couple of weeks if they choose to. perhaps the only recommendation that i would make of your listeners is that they would call their senators and ask them to do just that. this is something we all know is necessary. infrastructure protection act does things that
doesn't gore anyone's ox but yet deals with issue. it put it in the planning scenario so we can prevent and remediate the issue if i comes or try to prevent it from coming at all. it has a major national effort to give awareness and more research. and it also, most importantly, judge, it requires the department of homeland security to present and create a plan to, a strategic plan to prevent emp from impacting this country in the way that it possibly could. >> you deserve a great deal of credit for you legislative strategy on this, congressman. if it doesn't happen this term, after january i assume that you're a little more comfortable with it passing? >> i am very hopeful. there are a lot of other things that have happened. we've got new information. even recently some classified material was released that really emphasized the importance
of the issue. yes, ma'am, i'm hopeful and grateful to people like yourself and people like chairman sessions. a lot 0 people -- chairman mccall that made this thing move in the recent days. are good days ahead but we can't let up. >> we won't. thanks so much. with me now, my friend frank abany. this legislation a break through, but is it enough? >> it's a break throughout as you heard congressman frank say thanks in so small measure to your efforts. we've seen an awareness building in the congress that's gotten us to this point in the house. i want to echo what the congressman said about the necessity of everyone getting in touch with with members of the senate. there is no reason why we should have more time pass before these steps are taken, whether it's the national planning scenario or more importantly the plan
itself or hardening our grid. we or on borrowed time. you know, the good news is we've seen some movement in the congress. the bad news is this week, the 2nd of december, a group issued a report that indicated with nobody not and as we were talking about a couple of weeks ago when the director of the national security agency acknowledged to congress that the chinese are inside the control systems of our electric grid through cyber techniques. we now know that the iranians have been you heard him say they have a threat doctrine of a world without america. they seem to be interested in cyber warfare. we're on borrowed time. even in none of those things happen, i heard someone say pray for a mild winter.
if we don't have one there could be big-time blackouts in nu new england and we're seeing the environmental protection agency demand that we take coal fired plants that are critical to providing surge load capacity taken offline because of environmental concerns. we've got to get your act together on this urgently. >> clearly when mike rogers talked about this fact that the chinese, one or two other countries are using techniques to get inside the wire of our grid control systems, you know, not acting would be an enormous disaster for american people. and in fact i must tell you, frank, you know, fox just reported mary landrieu lost in louisiana. i think part of her loss -- and i sat in a hearing in washington, d.c. and watched her, you know, support the local power companies, oh, everything is okay, and shame on you for even talking about it. i think that's part of the
reason she lost. >> well, i think it should be, if it weren't. it should be. i hope this is a marker down with people like lisa murkowski who will be the chairman of the energy committee in the next congress. she was at that hearing, as you know. she was the ranking republican and she went along with the idea that the only thing we need to be concerned about is keeping the american people from knowing about this vulnerability. that's wrong. i hope every one of those members of congress, senators mostly are on notice. they need to get this fixed. we need it done now. not six months from now, not a year from now. >> if it does not pass in the lame duck session and, you know, you talk about hoping for a mild winter, how quickly do you think it will happen? mike mccall is going to be the head of homeland security. hopefully they're going to be running with this one. it won't be out of energy, is that correct?? >> well this whole legislative initiative has circumstance vented the energy committees in
the housand senate because, frankly, their eve been, i'm afraid, under the thumb of the electric utilities. >> they get their money, they get their lobbyists. let's talk straight >> they do. heefr's the big development. there is a senator ron wisconsi. she's indicated as recently as friday a the this conference that he's very intent on getting this bill handled through the senate early next year, and we want to support him in doing that. if we can't get it down in the lame duck session, which is really the priority. >> all right. frank gaffney, thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you for all of your help. coming up, do you think if it's in print it's true? think again. the latest on the rolling stone uva debacle is next.
it was an article that caused nation wise outranl and damaged the reputation of the university of virginia. but now rolling stone is backtracking on its bombshell report an rape on campus written by one sabrina rubin erdely based on one source, a come called jackie. the magazine then releases this statement. there appear to be discrepancies in jackie's account and we come to the cop collusion that our trust in her was misplaced.
with me, judith miller. all right, judy, she comes forward, says he's raped and the national magazine almost takes down a university, a fraternity. the guys in the fraternity easily identifiable. how does this happen? >> it's the question that every journalist in new york, washington, across the nation is asking. rolling stone has a reputation, well-deserved reputation for investigative hard hitting take no prisoner stories. >> really? >> it absolutely does. and i long ago wrote an article for them, one, truth in advertising within and they were great to work with and they were very thorough. they had fact checker pps well it turns out that last year, because rolling stone, like all magazines is under budgetary pressure fired a lot of the people who made the quality assurance that we've come to depend on from that magazine. and i think that something
happened here. we don't know because will dano who is the managing editor said he wasn't going to go beyond what i posted. >> what i just read. >> and so we don't really know what happened. i mean, he said that the reporter in question, who is no spring chicken. >> she's had some problems in the past, hasn't she? >> she's 42, but she's had 18 stories on the rolling stone website. she knows what she's doing. but she somehow was persuaded that she didn't have to ask the young men who she didn't name, but accused of this horrendous rape, gang rape. she didn't have to find them, she didn't have to identify them in print and she didn't even have to ask them whether or not they had carried out such an act. you know, judge, that's journalism 101. >> and i investigated these cases, rape cases, you try them.
number one, her facts were easily critiqued. they were not consistent with the reality of what happened. she misidentifies the date, place. she says she's blood spattered. yet no one seems to care whether or not any of this is corroborated. i got to tell you, the one thing that bothered me is she called them and said she didn't want it published. right before it was published. that tells me that she knows there's a problem. and they still went forward and published it. >> but it could be that if anything like this, remotely like this happened to her, judge, she would have been really traumatized by the event and have had a lot of second thoughts about having it published, realizing it would bring out the whole episode again and the trauma again. i can see that she would be very, very hesitant at some point in this process to go public. but that meant that the magazine had a double obligation to make sure that everything she was saying was true. >> okay.
on our last show, i talked about president obama's actions on immigration. your response? norman says congress should draw up the articles of impeachment. lisa says, yes, he told the nation it's okay to break the law to get ahead in life. slap in the face to our citizens. and those who came over here and did it the legal way. hey, lisa, you're right. i talked to a lot of people, and it seems the angriest are the immigrants who did it the right way. and ron says, while i agree with your premise, i have faith and hope there will never again be a president who has such little
regard for the law and the constitution. hey, ron, i too have faith. but what you're missing is that it will be years reverse that damage. greg says, come on, what happened to respect for the office of the president? hey, greg. i respect the office of the president, and the rule of law. what i don't respect is a lawless president who ignores the rule of law. jennifer says, can't believe you people. tsk-tsk, complete disregard for a man who serves his country every day to make sure you can talk freely. jennifer, really? i thought he was working on his golf game. we asked, do police need to be retrained on how to be sensitive to the minority community? overwhelming response was in favor of law enforcement. jeff says, why is it always necessary to tip-toe around the minority community? and john says, i think criminals need to not resist arrest.
whatever the community. and larry says, no, enough is enough. the general public needs to be trained to be more sensitive to the police, and show them the respect they deserve. i agree. and bill says, you don't have a constitutional right to resist arrest. most of these incidents that go bad all start with someone not following a lawful order. and cindy says, how about everybody be taught to follow the rules and the laws? would that just solve the problem? axel says, as a retired law enforcement officer, shouldn't the public be retrained on obeying lawful orders of the police? and jordan says yes, those cops were racially profiling. hey, jordan. you don't even know what racial profiling is. that's when race is used to engage law enforcement in the minority community. but offender pro filing is when an offender is i.d.ed by a description, including his race, which is the only way to
tomorrow same place and channel. thanks for watching, fox. >> new york city mayor said that black men should be afraid of the police. is that the right message to send? president obama tried to force the catholic nuns to obey his demands to provide birth control. the sisters believe they have to obey a higher power. plus we are number one. and guess what, we are now number two. that and more tonight on huckabee. (applause) and welcome to "huckabee". if you are one of the now people reading newspapers or watched television news this week, you