tv On the Record With Greta Van Susteren FOX News August 10, 2016 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
facebook.com/seanhannity. thank you for being with us. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. breaking tonight, the focus back on hillary clinton's multi-billion family charity reigniting lingering questions over blurred lined between the clintons' public service and their own personal gain. welcome to "the kelly file." i'm sandra smith, in for megyn kelly tonight. first, unconfirmed new reports the obama justice department may have spiked an fbi request to investigate the clinton foundation. fox news is digging on this, but so far, the doj will neither confirm nor deny this report. also tonight, a conservative watchdog group forcing the release of dozens of previously unseen e-mails from former secretary of state clinton's private server. these e-mails were not included
among the 30,000 already made public. the messages show conversations between a top executive at the clinton family charity and clinton's closest aides at the state department. including an urgent appeal to help a controversial foreign businessman, and a request to find a job for a mystery person whose name is being kept secret. then, just hours ago, as we have seen repeatedly during her run for the white house, mrs. clinton's missteps forcing the obama administration to handle the time, at a contentious state department briefing. watch. >> can you tell us why the state department redacted that name? and whether or not this person wound up getting a job or not? >> okay, well, i can't speak to a specific case, cases. >> i need a little help understanding why this person's name cannot be shared. >> i can't speak to specific cases. >> would it be wrong to assume
that, then, that this is a case simply of nepotism or something like that? >> i can't speak to specific cases. justin. >> you don't feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the clinton foundation and the state department? >> we talked to a wide range of people at my level, at various levels. >> has the department looked into this and determined there was no impropriety? >> the department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum. >> that's not the question. am i not speaking english? the question is whether or not you have determined there was nothing improper here? >> we feel confident that all of the rules were followed. >> in moments, we will be joined by the man who quite literally wrote the book on the clinton foundation, peter schweitzer is president of the government accountability institute and author of the "new york times" best seller clinton cash. but trace gallagher has the latest developments on this. >> when she was appointed
secretary of state in 2009, hillary clinton took a pledge to remove herself from any clinton foundation business. but these e-mails raise serious questions about whether the foundation and state department were instead working hand in hand, providing jobs for associates and favors to big donors. frampt, in 2009, dug bend, a long time adviser to bill clinton and former head of the clinton initiative e-mailed secretary's senior aide, huma abedin and sheryl mills asking for a, quote, favor, because an unnamed associate needed a job. he writes, quoting, it's important to take care of blank. abedin responds, quote, we all have him on our radar. personnel has been sending him options. today, the state department refused to identify the person or say if they got hired. but days later, doug band e-mails abedin again, requesting a big-time clinton foundation donor be put in contact with the american ambassador to lebanon,
quoting again, we need gilbert to speak to the substance person reference lebanon. abedin assures doug band he will speak with the ambassador. records show gilbert, a nigerian citizen of lebanese descent donated between $1 million and $5 million to the clinton foundation and is known for his association with nigeria's military dictator, but the clinton campaign says, quote, neither of these e-mails involve the secretary or relate to the foundation's work. they are communications between her aides and the president's personal aide, and indeed, the recommendation was for one of the secretary's former staffers who was not employed by the foundation. today, donald trump responded to the release of the new e-mails. watch. >> a couple of very bad ones came out. and it's called pay for play. and some of these were really, really bad and illegal. if it's true, it's illegal. you're paying, and you're getting things.
>> and judicial watch, the conservative watchdog that obtained these e-mails accuses mrs. clinton of hiding the documents because she knows they contradict her pledge, and show a conflict of interest. >> thanks, trace. here now, peter schweitzer is the author of "clinton cash" which has now been adapted into a graphic novel. peter, what did you learn by looking at these 44 new e-mails? >> well, i think judicial watch did a great job of getting them released. what it does is it's further confirmation to what we have been talking about for more than a year. there's been pay to play at the clinton state department related to the clinton foundation, and the clintons have failed to deal with any of the substance of these issues. heck, trace talked about the agreement that hillary clinton had when she wept in to become secretary of state. part of that agreement was that they were supposed to disclose all donors to the clinton foundation. they still haven't done that.
there's more than 1,100 foreign donors that we don't even know the names ability. this is further confirmation and the new noose is tightening. >> they put those 30,000 e-mails out there and said that's it, nothing else to see here. here, 44 new e-mails that reveal a lot about what was going on at that time. where is this going to go? are we going to see more of these? are there more e-mails where these came from? >> yes. i know there are more e-mails. there are e-mails that are being produced almost on a weekly basis for both judicial watch and citizens united. you have julian assange saying we're probably going to see more e-mails. look, here's the bottom line. you saw a little bit of it today with the state department, but the media has to hold hillary clinton accountable and ask her to answer these questions. here's why this is so troubling. this is not a typical money in politics story. we're used to wall street oil companies, et cetera, giving donations to politicians, getting access.
but federal law prevents foreign businessmen and governments from doing so. the clinton foundation is a gateway around that. gilbert is a perfect example. he's getting access to the u.s. ambassador. he's not a u.s. citizen. he's not a u.s. businessman. he's getting access because he gave money to the clintons. and to have foreign oligarchs talking to our ambassadors about policy is simply not appropriate, and it's probably illegal if it was pay to play. >> then the state department, and even going to the clinton response on this, i mean, they're basically saying that mr. band, who was working as an aide to bill clinton at that time, was acting in his capacity as former president bill clinton's personal assistant. not in his role overseeing the clinton global initiative. they're going to have to spin this for some time if it actually stays in the news cycle, i should say. >> look, if you look at their statement, my first question
was, how stupid do they think we are? because bill clinton's top aide talks to hillary clinton's top aide. that's not the secretary of state talking about clinton foundation business. so there's nothing to see here. come on. this is how it works in washington. this is the role that aides play. they're gate keepers. doug band knows who is important to the clintons. in this case, a nigerian billionaire who has given them a lot of money, and cheryl mills knows he's important to them as well. that's the role aides play. their response is a total non sequitur and has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of this. >> what about the state department response, in addition to saying we talked to a wide range of people, but being asked, who was that associate who was looking for a job, a favor? what was their name? who are they? why has that been deleted and why won't they comment on that, and if this person was ever given a job? >> that's a great question.
and why is the state department struggling and resisting on the release of other e-mails? look, you talk to judicial watch and citizens united, the state department is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any e-mails from coming out. federal judges are forcing them to do this. the state department's not doing the bidding of the american people. they're doing the bidding of the clintons, and it has to stop, and god bless these federal judges for forcing them to release this material. >> peter, you have always been in charge in your book of not having the smoking gun. you had the story and you had a lot of details. was this your smoking gun? >> well, i never had access to the e-mails. now that we're getting access to the e-mails, yes, the smoking guns are appearing and the pattern of evidence is overwhelming. and again, two things to point out. number one, the clintons, no one at the democratic national convention never mentioned the word clinton foundation. it's toxic. they're running away from it.
>> and coincidentally, all 44 of these newly released e-mails had to do with the clinton foundation. thank you very much, sir. good to have you. >> here now, richard fowler, nationally syndicated radio host. >> good to see you. >> how will the clinton campaign continue to defend this smoking gun, as peter just labeled? >> i don't think peter has a smoking gun. i think, you know -- >> he doesn't. the e-mails that were just released are. >> and sandra, i don't think those e-mails are a smoking gun, either. they point to some causation, but causation doesn't equal correlation. or correlation doesn't equal causation in this case at all. these are e-mails that are not from the secretary. they're from close aides to secretary clinton and close aides to bill clinton, who let me remind you, are married. they communicate just like michelle obama aides communicate with the president's aides. >> i know that is going to be
you your talking point, that this didn't directly involve hillary clinton. what are the optics of this? whether it's illegal or unethical, what are the optics of the 44 e-mails that were just released? >> the optics, the more and more people bring up the e-mail thing around hillary clinton, we have seen this over and over again. she testified for almost 12 hours on the hill about e-mails. i think republicans for some reason think this is the field go or their pot of gold, but i'm here to tell you there's no rainbow on this one. when they keep focusing on e-mails and the american people are worried about jobs and regrowing our economy, they're worried about their kids going back to school in a couple weeks, they don't care about e-mails. and donald trump has not pointed to any real substance with his campaign. anything he's going to do for the american people. he's a narcicisstic maniac -- >> let's get back to the story, that is we're talking about the e-mails. and let's talk about the lebanese businessman, that he pledged a billion dollars as part of his commitment to the
clinton global initiative. he donated between $1 million and $5 million to the clinton foundation. then he asks for a favor, richard. what does that tell you? >> he asked to be put in contact with the ambassador from his home country. >> is that okay? >> here, listen. anybody who has worked in politics say if you have a friend in politics, you ask them to help you out. if i'm trying to reach out to the ambassador and the friend knows the ambassador to jubuddy, i'm going to ask them to reach out. it happens all the time, democrat, independent, republican. >> so if it's just any old thing, how about the associate who asked for a job? >> that also happens all the time. we saw it happen in the bush administration when george bush hired dick cheney's daughter to work for him. i mean, isn't that not the definition of nepotism? >> there's no problem here, then? >> here's the thing. i think the e-mails overall are problematic, but i think republicans are overplaying
their hand. they'll keep doing it over and over again. they'll lose this election because of it. talk about issues. talk about how you close the gap for the american people. that's what they want to hear. they don't want to hear about e-mails. and donald trump knows it. he can continue talking about it, though, and he'll lose, and it will be funny and we'll laugh. >> i wish we could. richard fowler, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thanks, sandra. there's also breaking news today in the leak of internal e-mails from the dnc, as we hear suggestions that seth rich, who was mysteriously murdered back in july, may have been leaking or about to leak information to julian assange and wikileaks, and while assange says wikileaks doesn't comment on its sources, his unprovoked comments about rich's death are raising some serious questions, as the clinton camp deals with yet another embarrassing e-mail headline. correspondent rich is live with us from washington.
hey, rich. >> good evening, sandra. the wikileaks editor is coyly implying a young democratic national committee staffer shot and killed last month may have leaked information about the dnc and may have lost his life over it. late last month, wikileaks released nearly 20,000 pages of stolen dnc e-mails. the embarrassing content showed dnc favoritism to hillary clinton over bernie sanders and forced resignations including that of then chair debbie wasserman schultz. now, julian assange, unprompted, brought up the murder of seth rich, the 27-year-old worked for the dnc for two years before he was shot and killed around 4:00 a.m. july 10th in washington, d.c. the dutch anchor then asked assange if rich was one of wikileaks' sources at the dnc. assange said he refused to comment on any wikileaks sources. the anchor following by asking why assange would even raise rich's case. >> because we have to understand
how high the stakes are in the united states. and our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks. that's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity. >> wikileaks then announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in seth rich's murder. local reports claim police officials believe rich's murder is the result of a botched robbery. in a statement, the washington metropolitan police department says, quote, at this time, there is no indication that seth rich's death is connected to his employment at the dnc. assange critics say he's promoting a conspiracy theory. back to you. >> rich, thank you. >> growing questions over a doj investigation into one u.s. police force, as the department releases a scathing review of the baltimore pd just two weeks after all charges were dropped against the officers accused in freddie gray's death. plus, hillary clinton fires off
a sharp reaction to donald trump's second amendment comment. >> words matter, my friends. and if you are running to be president or you are president of the united states, words can have tremendous consequences. >> since words have consequences, we look back at a controversy causing remark hillary clinton made back in 2008 and discuss whether the media is treating both incidents equally. howard kerts and katie pavlich howard kerts and katie pavlich your car insurance policy is 22 pages long. did you read every word? no, only lawyers do that. so when you got rear-ended and needed a tow, your insurance company told you to look at page five on your policy. did it say "great news. you're covered!" on page five? no. it said, "blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah..."
everywhere we work. defeating malaria. improving energy efficiency. developing more clean burning natural gas. my job? my job at exxonmobil? turning algae into biofuels. reducing energy poverty in the developing world. making cars go further with less. fueling the global economy. and you thought we just made the gas. ♪ energy lives here.
if you build it, he will come. a girl discovered magic. a revolution began. welcome, to the wonders that happen, everyday. welcome, to it all. comcast. fallout from donald trump's off-handed remark linking gun rights to his democratic oppone opponent, hillary clinton. the controversy spilling onto to the campaign trail, where his opponent called the comments out of line. for more on that, we turn to carl cameron following mr. trump and this story for us today. hey, carl. >> hi, sandra. and mr. trump here in sunrise, florida, right now was talking about how hillary clinton will appoint liberal judges. and if republicans, if american voters want strict
constitutionalists and conservative jurists they should definitely not vote for hillary clinton, which is what started his remark yesterday that so many people took as offensive and hillary clinton herself suggested was over the line because he suggested that those who support the second amendment should mobilize. of course, critics, democrats particularly, said that was some sort of a threat, and today on the campaign trail in iowa, hillary clinton picked up on it. listen to how she put her counterattack. >> we witness the latest in a long line of casual comments from donald trump that crossed the line. his casual inciting of violence. every single one of these incidents shows us that donald trump simply does not have the temperament to be president and commander in chief of the united states. >> well, trump keeps talking about potential for a pivot, said he's not going to change his ways. he's going to continue what he's
been doing. just a little while ago in talking about this very controversy, he said there may be something actually worse than hillary clinton, what he calls her crooked dishonesty, and he's referring to the media. watch this. >> i would actually say that the media is almost as crooked as crooked hillary clinton. i mean, look at the way they covered that story yesterday. was that disgusting? was that disgusting? by the way, we have our second amendment. we need our second amendment protected. >> donald trump clearly not backing down, and there was a report today from the media, cnn specifically, that said the trump campaign and the secret service have had a conversation about this, and that the trump campaign had said there was no intent to incite violence. donald trump tweeted today and the campaign have said no such
conversation has happened. the only public statement the secret service has made about this, that they were aware of the remarks, not that they were investigating anything. sandra. >> carl, thank you. >> well, donald trump is standing by his headline-making comments, but he's not the only presidential candidate facing criticism this week. the clinton campaign also stumbling into controversy when it was revealed that the father of orlando terror attack shooter omar mateen was in attendance at mrs. clinton's florida rally. now, a new report from the media research center shows that coverage of the two mishaps was far from evenly split. with trump's second amendment comment drawing four times as much attention. for more on that, i'm joined by howie kurtz, host of fox news media buzz, and katie pavlich, fox news contributor. howie, what do you make of that? that image of seeing that orlando nightclub shooter's father's face standing behind
clinton at that rally, and it got, what was it, just over a minute of coverage on the major networks on tuesday night, versus seven and a half marks for trump's remarks. was that fair? >> i really don't think the two stories are comparable. while the media in the past have been guilty, the crooked media, as donald trump calls them, of taking small trump controversies and blowing them up into major firestorms. in this case, it is trump's own words that created this controversy. i don't believe he was trying to incite violence against hillary clinton but at the same time, even a generous interpretation would suggest he said something many people, including some republicans. found inflammatory, raising questions about his discipline as a candidate. i don't see how hillary clinton can be held responsible that at a public event, this guy -- >> they're not even talking about it. katie, i want to get you in here because i want to get to the core of donald trump's words and how you perceived them before we talk about the media coverage. how did you perceive his remarks
on the second amendment? >> it's quickly to point out omar mateen's father has supported the taliban in the past so that's a whole other issue. in terms of donald trump's comments, he was absolutely referring to second amendment voters going out and mobilizing against hillary clinton. and this is well documented within the nra. the nra has entire campaigns dedicated to moving voters to the polls. they have bumper stickers that say, i am the nra and i vote. it's no surprise that the mainstream leftist media and hillary clinton herself would take a comment about second amendment people, as trump said, and immediately think that he's referring to violence, because the media has portrayed second amendment supporters as violent and unhinged gun nuts for decades. even though there's no evidence to support their claim. >> it's amazing the left is using a word like assassination attempt labeled in there. that being said, hillary clinton had one of these moments
herself, hillary's 2008 bobby kennedy assassination remark, howie, i know you have thoughts on that. let's listen to that and talk about why that was different than now. >> my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the california primary somewhere in the middle of june. right? we all remember bobby kennedy was assassinated in june in california. you know, i just -- i don't understand it. and you know, there's lots of speculation about why it is. >> okay, so howie, clinton did later apologize for those remarks. did that make it different that time because the media quickly moved on? >> yeah, having covered this campaign, that campaign, there was a media furor over that dumb and insensitive remark, bringing up bobby kennedy's assassination, but it was her apology that stopped the fire from ranging more out of
control. i think the tsunami of coverage over trump's remarks, whether you think they were, you know, in any way he's suggesting implicitly violent or not, has affected and overshadowed one important story. the story you led with. the story about the e-mails, about the clinton foundation and the state department, not so much this whack job of a father of a killer showed up uninvited at a public event. >> we do know that donald trump's campaign continues to go after the media, the trump campaign statement issued yesterday. statement on dishonest media. so he is not letting go of this one. >> well, and that's fine. i will admit that i think donald trump has done himself a disservice by indignantly standing by all of his past statements that could be perceived as inciting violence, talking about protesters being taken out on a stretcher, talking about maybe shooting someone on fifth ave. and still having support. those in the background does not help him, but again, this isn't about trump and the second amendment. this is about the media and
democrats like hillary clinton equating second amendment people and supporters with violence, which is exactly why he's calling and the nra is calling for people to get to the polls and vote against her on election day. >> they did, and took out a $3 million ad buy attacking clinton as a hypocrite, calling her out of touch. howie and katie, good to have you both tonight. up next, donald trump's path to victory this november is narrowing by the day, but are reports of a defeat premature? perino, starwall, they're here on how the new york businessman can get to 270 electoral votes. >> plus, you may have been glued to the screen today as this 20-year-old used suction cups to climb trump tower in manhattan. we'll show you the moment new york's finest got him down from there. plus, two women brutally murdered 200 miles and just one week apart. is a serial killer targeted
young women out for their daily jog? t "the kelly file" investigates. >> the whole entire world knows what a pathetic, puny, weak piece of filth [ bleep ] that you are. you won't see these folks at the post office. they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
at no time did he express he wanted to hurt anybody. his sole intention was to meet with mr. trump. >> that was top new york city police department detective speaking to reporters after cops arrested a man who was, believe it or not, scaling trump tower this afternoon. he was 20 years old, and he managed to get all the way to the 21st floor, after an hours-long standoff, police removed a window and grabbed the climber, yanking him into the building, as you can see, and as you heard police say, the man said he just wanted to meet donald trump. also developing tonight, brand-new polling suggesting an uphill climb for donald trump against hillary clinton in key 2016 battleground states. that gap is why many republicans now say trump has no room for error. this all coming as the fox news
decision desk is predicting 13 states will be toss-ups this november. the question now is how does trump negotiate an increasingly tight window in the race to 270 electoral votes. our panel joins us now. chris stier wald, dana perino, co-host of the 5, and former white house press secretary, and deputy chief of staff to president bush, karl rove. you must be so excited you get to talk about this because your whole hour was dominated earlier on "the five" by the person scaling trump tower. i want to get your take first. >> thank you so much, because we did study very hard for our show today. >> you always do. >> then shepard smith took over for us. as i believe karl and chris will back me up, most people believe hillary clinton looking at the electoral college map, starts at 242 votes. so if the goal is to get to 270 so you can win it, yeah, she's
got a pretty easy path unless donald trump can pull a rabbit out of the hat, and the state-by-state numbers, they don't look good. i believe the race will tighten up in september. even right after labor day when people start to come back. but right now, in the battleground states, it's going to be very tough. that means also that trump's team is having to spend money in states where they wouldn't have had to spend it before, like in georgia, arizona, and probably missouri. maybe even utah. >> you talk about georgia. the real clear politics average right now, clinton holding a 1.8 lead in georgia. a state the gop has carried since 1996. chris, is there time for donald trump to turn things around? >> lord, yes, there's time. the question is is there the means? i think the means are available, but to dana's point, we don't have to start worrying about the past, and we should point out, we don't say there's going to be 13 states that are toss-ups in
november. there's 13 states we have identified as potentially up for grabs in this cycle. we don't need to really start worrying about those states until, unless, it gets closer. because if trump is really trailing by nine points and an average of real polls would indicate, then we don't have to worry too much about states because he would get smoked like a ham. if it does get closer, if it does get closer, then we start looking at interesting states like pennsylvania, new hampshire, maine, minnesota. states that normally aren't in the deck for republicans, where trump does well with working-class white voters that maybe, maybe, maybe, there's an interesting different path for him. >> kart, let's talk about florida and ohio, because he is in striking distance there, as you say. and quinnipiac has clinton up just one point in florida and ohio, clinton is up four points. what does he need to do there? >> well, you know, if you look at the real clear politics average of those polls, he's in striking distance in both ohio and florida, as you say, and also is in striking distance in
north carolina. he's down by 2.6 and 1.3. he's ahead in the real clear politics average in iowa. in those states, which he needs to win, if he loses florida, dana is right. the democrats have carried 242 electoral votes in the last six elections. he win -- she wins florida, he loses it. she's at 271, and she's president. if she carries the rest. he's got to win florida. he's got to win ohio, and he's got to find 17 more electoral votes. either 20 from pennsylvania or 17 from some of these other battleground states. the key to winning these states is attention, needs to focus on them. he needs to have a concrete plan that has day-by-day what he's going to talk about from a messaging perspective. not just simply what is he going to say this day, but how does he build that to be sort of the arc of the narrative that draws people to his side. he needs to have somebody monitoring hillary clinton so that when she says things that give him an
jumps on them rather than letting them go. and finally, he needs to watch what he says from the podium and get his fingers off the twitter -- that twitter account. >> not helping him? >> well, i like it, but he gets himself into trouble with it. it causes him to miss opportunities. i was sitting in the green room while hillary clinton was being interviewed. her interview with chris wallace is playing. i look down at his twitter feed, and he's talking about how he was attacked viciously by the khan family on thursday night. doesn't he have a right to defend himself? he should have been tweeting about what she was saying in the interview, which would have gotten the e-mail scandal, gave him a big opening. >> all right, i wish we had more time with you guys. good to have you, dana and chris and karl. thank you. well, could a serial killer be targeting young women in the middle of their workouts? trace gallagher has the latest on two brutal murders just a week aheart and 200 miles away from each other that has put a chill running through a hot and
new questions tonight as to the timing of a scathing doj report into one u.s. police department. the department of justice's civil rights division leveling some serious charges today against the baltimore pd. accusing officers there of violating the civil rights of baltimore residents, particularly african-americans. for years. the new report dropping exactly two weeks to the day after prosecutor marilyn mosby announced after two officers were acquitted in the death of freddie gray, her office would be dropping all of the remaining charges. doug has more on this. >> hello, sandra. this report is a damning
indictment of the conduct of the baltimore police department over the last six years. it found the force engaged in a pattern of discrimination against african-americans. subjecting them to, quote, disproportionate rates of stops, searches, and arrests. it also found officers routinely used excessive force and retaliated against people using constitutionally protected speech. blacks were arrested for drug possession at five times the rates of other ethnicities. >> many of these stops and the resulting frisks lacked constitutional justification. and many of the discretionary arrests were simply street clearing activities. supervisors at bpd central booking rejected over 11,000 charges made by pd officers because they lacked probable cause or did not merit prosecution. >> the city asked for the investigation after the death of freddie gray and the rioting that ensued. it blames no one in particular, but their zero tolerance
policing began under then-mayor martin o'malley. it reduced the homicide rate by 16%, but it came at a cost. arrests soared at a high of 108,000 in 2005. the equivalent of one sixth of the city's population. with this report' release, the city of baltimore and the department of justice entered to an agreement in principle which sets in motion numerous reforms including better training, better equipment, and better community relations all monitored by doj observers, but it doesn't come cheap. with an expected cost of $5 million to $10 million a year. there is another potential cost -- the so-called ferguson effect, where less aggressive policing has resulted in more cities, an increase in violent crime. that apparent lay is a risk that the city of baltimore and the department of justice are willing to take. sandra, back to you. >> doug, thank you. is the timing of this just a convince dns or not? joining us to debate this, dimitri roberts, a former chicago police officer who has worked on fbi task force.
joe hicks, a former civil rights leader and vice president of community advocates, and eric guster, an attorney and political commentator. i want to get to you first, dimitri, using your long history in law enforcement. there are specifics in this report of officers conducting unlawful stops, using excessive force, routinely violated constitutional rights of the citizens of baltimore. your thoughts reading through that report? >> my initial thought is that the citizens of baltimore as well as the leadership there have a real decision to make and a very critical one. that is, are they going to allow this report to further divide them or are they going to allow this to be a point for unification. and my hope is not just in baltimore but throughout the country that we can look at this report, understand where the issues have been that have divided our country and our communities for way too long, and get back to some real community policing with the service first mentality. >> joe, what politics are at play here, particularly with the
timing of the release of this report? >> well, it's very interesting. anthony, the former police chief in baltimore, entered into a special program the department of justice under obama of only eight selected cities that looked at special training and other kinds of programs to do exactly what this report, lengthy, 163-page report claims now needs to be done. it's very interesting that obama administration, while they're working with mr. batts, didn't somehow seem to find anything there that was unnerving to them. now, after this miserable, you know, attempt in baltimore to prosecute these six police, all of whom now have been found not to be guilty of anything, all charges dropped, now it seems like this attorney general is acting more like a legal arm of black lives matter and now is the clean-up team. it's very odd that this drops at this point, and i'm very suspicious that there's some
politics at aim here coming from the obama white house. >> eric, and as far as the specifics, this is a 163-page report. it cites a specific example of supervisors who ordered officers to arrest all the black hoodies in a neighborhood. and that is a quote from the report. you say it mirrors ferguson. >> yes, this report mirrors the ferguson report, because what the department of justice was ask said to do was going into baltimore, see exactly what's going on, and educate people about the statistics. and this report is scathing in that it shows a pattern of discrimination. it shows police officers knowingly and intentionally discriminating against asary aspect of the population, the african-american population, and the supervisors were showing the younger cops how to do it. there was even one example, several examples of them showing them what to do and how to do it, but there was a fill in the blank example of how to write up an arrest to make it stick, even if there was no probable cause.
that's a shame. >> but dimitri, to go back to your original point, now it's what they do with this. okay, so what is the solution? >> well, it's really simple. diversity, inclusion, and emersion in both cultures. there are a lot of cultural differences at play. there are community differences and police cultural differences as well. where we have a real opportunity here is to bridge the divide between those two cultures, respectfully bring each one to the table, and put forth some sustainable solutions that we all can agree to, because at the end of the day, regardless of what hashtag anybody promotes or what political agenda someone may have, we can agree to two things. no one wants to see any more killing. at the end of the day, everybody bleeds the same color. >> thank you. up next, "the kelly file" investigates the brutal murders of two young women just a week and 200 miles apart. could a killer being targeted could a killer being targeted young women on their
mapping the oceans. could a killer being targeted young women on their where we explore. protecting biodiversity. everywhere we work. defeating malaria. improving energy efficiency. developing more clean burning natural gas. my job? my job at exxonmobil? turning algae into biofuels. reducing energy poverty in the developing world. making cars go further with less. fueling the global economy. and you thought we just made the gas. ♪ energy lives here.
women. trace gallagher has the latest on this for us. hey, trace. >> even though these killings were 190 miles apart, they have eerie similarities. both women lived in new york, were avid runners, jogging in broad daylight, and both bodies were found in heavy underbrush. the latest victim was up visiting her mom in princeton, massachusetts, about 40 miles west of boston. she went for a run sunday afternoon and never came back. her body was found later that night in a wooded area about a half mile away from her mom's house. she was found without clothes, burns on her feet and hands and head. police say it's unclear if she was targeted. and just five days before her death, a 30-year-old woman was murdered during an evening jog in queens, new york. she was found by her father face down in some weeds in a park that's known as a dumping ground for trash and bodies. she had been sexually assaulted, strangled, and beaten.
karina's mother lashed out at the killer, calling her daughter a force. >> i guarantee you, you [ bleep ], that you will be reckoning with that force. not only for the rest of your pathetic life, but for the rest of eternity, as you [ bleep ] burn in hell. >> so far no suspects or persons of interest and nothing to connect the killings, but police in new york and massachusetts are certainly comparing notes and sharing evidence. we are told they may also be checking out some dna evidence in this case. >> i can't imagine what the families are going through. trace, thank you. all right, we'll be right back.
tomorrow. thank you for watching tonight. good to have you all. i'm sandra smith, and this is "the kelly file". welcome to "red eye." hello, everyone. i'm tom shillue. let's check in with tv's andy levey at the tease deck. >> hi, tom. thanks for coming on the big show. tom will tell you why it matters and i will be back to tell you why it doesn't. plus will donald trump's second amendment comment prove the limitations on the first? finally a 12-year-old was accepted to cornell university. i would be impressed, but i went to columbia. like her