tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN December 22, 2016 8:00pm-9:01pm PST
you've got to ensure that you do things right, environment included. learn how you can save at pge.com/save together, we're building a better california. an unprecedented move by the president-elect. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. donald trump sidestepping the white house and going public with his disapproval of an impending vote on a council resoluti resolution. i want to begin on the latest in the search for the suspect on the berlin market attack since erin mclaughlin is in berlin's capital tonight. erin? >> reporter: we're learning more about the tunisian national amri
who was here in germany. the fbi arrested five members of that network on terror-related actio actions. cnn had a chance to look at 5 500-page document where amri is mentioned carrying out terror attacks. it raises the possibility that there could be more members of this network out there hiding him now. today throughout germany we saw a number of raids, including a raid at a port in denmark. no arrests so far, though there is new evidence tying amri to the scene of the attack. his fingerprints were found both inside the truck cabin and on the door. authorities now saying they are certain they're looking for the right man. don? >> erin, thank you so much for that. and tonight there is
late-breaking news in germany. police in essence say they have foiled a planned terror plot that was to be carried out in a shopping mall. two suspects are in custody now. police say they are brothers from kosovo. now i want to get to the israeli government calling on donald trump to intervene ahead of a vote on a u.n. resolution on activity. elise, this is really remarkable. walk us through what happened. >> reporter: don, we're talking about a very contradictory u.n. resolution that was supposed to be voted on today about u.n. settlements. it's a very strong resolution, unprecedented language, that would call israeli settlements a fl flagrant violation of international law. we understand that president obama was prepared to let this resolution go through, either by abstaining on it, or by basically voting for it. you know that the u.s. usually,
for decades, have used its veto power in the security council against israel. so when the israelis have been working on the u.s. with this for week trying to get them not to go ahead when they realized this resolution was being voted on, the israeli government warned the obama administration, in essence, an israeli official told me they warned the administration, if you were going to let this go ahead, we're going to have no choice but to reach out to president-elect trump to intervene. and i'm told that's exactly what they did. there was a message, a discussion with president-elect trump, and he in turn -- you saw that statement this morning by the president-elect saying that the u.s. should veto this resolution, that negotiations should be done between israelis in settlements not by imposing at the united nations. then we understand that there was a call between the president-elect and egyptian president fata el sisi.
this was an vipegyptian resolut, and we understand after the conversation between the president-elect and the egyptian president, the egyptians took it off the table. so that interference by the president-elect very welcome by israel. today you saw the israeli ambassador tweeting a thanks, saying they really appreciate this call by the president-elect to intervene. >> you said unprecedented. nothing like this has happened before, elise? >> usually a president-elect waits to take office before, you know, engaging in foreign policy. and when president obama was the president-elect and he was asked questions about president bush's foreign policy, he said there can only be one commander in chief at the time. but as unprecedented as this seems to many, and it is in some effect, if you look at it from the israeli point of view, they feel that this was an unprecedented move by an administration that is walking out the door to hamstring the
president-elect coming in and from what he might do with the peace process, if he was going to try to negotiate peace, which he said he would like to do between israelis and palestinians, that this would tie his hands in some way. and so this israeli government feels it was abandoned by the united states, not only on the iran deal but on this vote, and it was pretty clear that this was a parting shot by the obama administration as it was leaving office, not only between the two leaders, prime minister netanyahu and president obama have a very rocky relationship, but to what the u.s. was against on the settlements. we understand secretary kerry was supposed to lay out a speech for his vision on mideast peace. remember, he had those failed negotiations. so the obama administration was looking to put their finger on the scale and have some outcome as it was leaving, and the president-elect and the israelis felt that this would tie a future u.s. president from
trying to make peace. >> elise lavid, i appreciate that. i want to bring in author, and peter biner. and nationally syndicated talk show host. dennis, i'm going to start with you. you were surprised that israel called on the trump team to weigh in. >> no, i'm not surprised in either direction. however, your correspondent beautifully stated it. the unprecedented nature of all of this is really the unprecedented nature of the obama administration leaving with a final kick at israel. one can only say that one wishes that the president had as loving a relationship to the democratically elected president and prime minister of israel as he did with the dictator of cuba. so whether surprised or not, remember the final call was made by the president of egypt.
so, obviously, something very persuasive was stated in that phone call, and i think most americans support, ultimately, what the president-elect did. >> alan, i spoke with you earlier and i think you're looking at this question this way. you don't want president obama to tie the incoming president's hands by making policy changes in the final weeks, but he is still the president. shouldn't he, if he wants to change policy, shouldn't he be able to do it as he sees fit? >> he can change policy, he can make speeches. what he should not do is change america's policy 40 years at the united nations. if the security council resolution goes through, it completely ties the hand of an incoming president. you can't undo a security council resolution. you can't take away a veto. and this security council resolution is an invitation to the international criminal court to go after israel. it's an invitation to the bds movement to start sanctioning israel. it's a very, very bad resolution. and there is a big difference
between an outgoing president making a speech and changing the policy, which can then be changed by the incoming president, and doing something permanent and irrevocable, and that's why i think donald trump did exactly the right thing. he said to the president, you do what you want in the last days of your administration, but don't tie my hands. i actually wrote a piece about this before the election, urging the president not to tie who we then thought would be the new president, hillary clinton's hands. i'm confident, by the way, if hillary clinton has been elected, she would have called the president and said, do not tie my hands. this president is acting undemocratically. 88 senators were opposed to this. the vast majority of congress, the vast majority of the american people. this is a parting shot by a frustrated president who thinks more of his own legacy -- let me just finish -- >> enough of that. alan, alan, alan. you have no right -- you have no right to slur the president.
you don't whknow what his motivations are and that's beyond the pale. >> peter, hold on. i understand, but there are other people on the panel. quickly, go ahead. >> the peace process makes it much harder for the palestinians to come back and negotiate when they think they can get a stay through the u.n. >> first of all, with all due respect, you're both wrong. this is not unprecedented. the bush administration, at the very end of george w. bush's term, abstained from a u.n. resolution on benghazi. the reagan administration supported a u.n. resolution criticizing israel when it attacked in iraq and withheld weapon sales. it's not unprecedented, first of all. it's not even known. in fact, the bush administration did it at the very end of the bush administration. you're wrong, it's not unprecedented. second of all, we have to understand what settlements
mean. you're entrenching military control. they are not citizens in the state in which they live and like to vote for the governor of their country. we jews have many of those rights. many settlements are built on individually owned palestinian land. they used the fact that these are not land owners to take the land from them and give them to settlers. this is very bad for israel. >> name me one who supports the u.n. resolution, because you can't. >> what i do know is that four israeli leaders, both barack, omar, rashad who said this is leading israel into an apartheid future. >> go see a city with not a single israeli policeman, not a
single israeli soldier. israel is not the only country that has occupations. there are 22 countries that are worse. half a million people are being killed in syria and aleppo. what they're doing is providing a double standard to israel, and that has to stop. >> just because other countries are doing things that are worse doesn't mean a legal system in which one religious group has rights and the other doesn't is not morally wrong. >> i am against the settlements. i am also against taking it and putting it in the united nations which has shown it has no capacity of being even-handed when dealing with israel. >> this is the israeli government under benjamin netanyahu. without pressure, they will continue destroying the possibility of a two-state resolution. >> i don't believe that. you can put pressure on them but don't tie the hands of the future president. that is undemocratic. >> they said it's not unprecedented. do you want to add to the conversation here? >> yeah, i do.
it is morally bankrupt to blame israel for the lack of peace in the middle east. they're in the history of the world when there has been a conflict of a democracy and hypocrisy, there is not a single instance where the democratic and free state were an obstacle to peace. this would be the unique exception in human history that the free people wanted war and the hypocrisy wanted peace. it is morally sick to blame israel for the lack of peace this the middle east. >> in the west bank -- dennis, dennis. >> who do you blame? who do you blame? >> the fallacy in your argument, talking about israel, a country you and i both love, israel is not a democracy in the west bank. in a place where the vast majority of people who are palestinian live under israeli control and lack the right to vote for the state that saved their lives. >> they rejected a state. >> the palestinians turned down
a peace offer from barack, the palestinians turned down repeated peace offers. if there is anyone to blame for the continued situation, it's the palestinians who won't come to the negotiating table, so why blame israel? >> i do not blame israel. the palestinians certainly deserve blame. it is not the palestinians who are massively subsidizing, paying israeli jews to move to the west bank that you also oppose because you know it's a very dangerous future and undemocratic. >> you're complicating this whole thing. >> yes, maintaining it, they're making it harder and harder. that process is dangerous for israel. >> why can't 20% of israel be palesti palestine? >> jews can live on the west bank, but they have to live
under the same law. you're missing the point. >> and offering the palestinians a state which they have rejected under three presidents. >> the palestinians rejected the israelis, and the israelis rejected a palestinian offer. if you look at the kerry negotiations, if you look at what the united states itself said, the u.s. officials said, that settling by building netanyahu is the second biggest reason why negotiations failed between netanyahu and the president. >> the point isn't what is right and what is wrong, the point is if the united nations should be where this issue is resolved. the united nations had 20 issues against israel and four against the rest of the world. the issue that president-elect trump stepped in on was not who is right and wrong, but whether the united nations security council should tie the hands of an incoming president and make a
peace process more difficult. trump was right, obama was wrong. >> there is no peace process. i wish there were a different way. i wish we had an israeli leader who was willing to negotiate seriously. this israeli has not put a single plan on the table in terms of a map. we know he has not put a single map on the table. he has not negotiated seriously according to american government officials. it is true, the u.n. is disproportionately critical of israel. they were also disproportionately critical of apartheid. >> i have to jump in here -- >> you can be disappointed but still be wrong. >> donald trump picked david freedman as american ambassador to israel. the west bank opposes a peace resolution and accuses barack obama of anti-semitism. what does that tell us about where donald trump is going with the administration, dennis? >> well, it looks like this administration understands the reality at present, at present.
at present, even liberals in israel are aware of the fact that there is no palestinian peace partner. let me just make one assertion because i know the time is limited. if tomorrow israel announced, we are dropping all of our a armaments, we are letting go of our army, no more armaments. if palestinians said no more war, no more terror, no more armaments, there would be peace the next day. >> let me respond to that. for years now the palestinian authority has been doing good security cooperation with israel. what have they gotten for it? the greatest settlement growth. >> they honor every terrorist. every terrorist is given the name -- >> i'm really out of time. alan, go. >> we have homonyms against the
president of israel who has offered to have negotiations against muhammad in jerusalem. >> they don't have a plan. >> you don't have a plan, you negotiate. that is what they do. >> does anyone on the panel have a problem with moving the embassy to jerusalem? >> i don't think moving the embassy to jerusalem is that big a deal. cht bigger deal is that netanyahu will not accept the 55 parameters which would define the whole negotiation. >> we should move the united nations to saudi arabia. >> i have to go. thank you, gentlemen. coming up, a major conflict of interest the moment donald trump is sworn in. and who knows more about draining swamps than a newt? with the geico app you can get roadside assistance, digital id cards... or even file a claim. do that.. yeah, yeah that should work. it's not happening...
just try again. uh, i think i found your problem. thanks. hmm... the award-winning geico app. download it today. i'm all-business when i, travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro.
the president-elect has a big real-life conflict of interest coming into the white house. he is carrying a $300 million vallone from deutsche bank, a bank which is under investigation by the justice department. i want to talk about that with senior analyst jeffrey toobin, writer from vanity fair, and emily from cnn money. you wrote a peace today, emily, and it's about this deutsche bank issue that donald trump said is worth millions of dollars. this is a quote from you. if the matters aren't settled by the time trump is sworn in, which would seem unlikely, then the investigation into the bank that trump has personally guaranteed outstanding loans will be overseen by trump-appointed attorney general. what can you tell us about that, emily? >> actually tonight deutsche settled some of its issues with
the justice department, but there are still issues outstanding. donald trump owes $300 million, including for the trump hotel in d.c. deutsche bank is being investigated by the justice department. so when president trump appoints an attorney general, that attorney general will be taxed with investigating those issues. it's not a good look that when a president that owes $30 0 millin there are to a bank, he is being cast as a major appointee. >> it's just so obvious. the justice department is either going to be tough with deutsche bank, or they're going to be easy with deutsche bank. there is no way for anyone to say, well, it has nothing to do with a $300 million loan. it may well not. but the appearance of conflicted
interest renders any decision suspect. that's why people have had, p presidents have had, in the minor era, blind trusts, so their personal interest cannot be bound up with what the government does. >> what has been the response from the trump campaign? have you gotten any with regard to this? >> they said they're going to do their best to avoid conflicts, flush out as many as they can. we haven't received those details yet. >> are they saying something and doing anything about it? >> we're not seeing a lot of doing. we're seeing, over and over with each new pick, a new conflict of interest. you have wilbur ross and has investments in u.s. steel, and they could be putting tariffs on chinese steel. >> and icon, which is where the regular tories are, owns among other things, a refinery. as soon as he was named head of regulations, the stock went up
because they thought, oh, the regulations are going to go away. oil refineries don't like enenvironmental regulations. these are obvious and egregious conflicts of interest. >> we, meaning the country, what have we gotten ourselves into here? what's going on? >> i think, with at least some of the cabinet appointees, there are laws with what they must disclose and deal with their contacts. the president, and this is an important point to make, the president is not covered by these rules. so it's only a political problem for the president, it's not a legal problem. >> these things have to be taken care of before the things -- it's got to be before the 20th, no? this is not even the business part of it? >> under the law, he could have two deaths in the oval office, one for president, the other for the trump organization. legally, there is no requirement that he divest. but it is a political problem when the whole world can see that he has all these business
interests that are affected by what he does as president. >> it raises so many questions about how diplomacy will deal with the administration, with business, or are former diplomats going to feel pressured to stay at the trump hotel in d.c.? will companies feel they need to peddle interests with his commerce secretary, with his state secretary pick rex tillerson. he has influences in russia. is that going to influence his decision making? are these leaders going to use their new power to use that for decision making that will benefit the american people or deepen their own pockets? >> speaking of business interests, donald trump's original campaign manager just set up shop as a washington consultant. in other words, he put his relationship with donald trump up for sale. this is a quote from him. i will not be a swamp creature. what else can you call him? >> you know, drain the swamp has become sort of a joke.
also, when you think about how much donald trump criticized hillary clinton for the pay to play situation, that, you know, people paid -- they contributed to the clinton foundation and sought meetings with the state department, which they didn't get. now we have situations like ms. mcmann, who gave millions of dollars to donald trump's foundation, getting appointed head of the small business administration. we have other campaign contributors and big money people getting apparent rewards. it does seem like pay to play. >> it's not really draining the swamp, is it? by listening to our conversation it sounds more like the wizard of oz. >> it's like taking a big cowboy to drain the swamp rather than draining the swamp. >> simple as that. more with this panel. don't go anywhere. hi, we're the hulford quads.
(laughter) we're in 8th grade. technology is the only thing that really entertains us. i'm gonna use this picture on sketchbook, and i'm going to draw mustaches on you all. using the pen instead of fingers, it just feels more comfortable for me. be like, boop! it's gone. i like that only i can get into it and that it recognizes my fingerprint. our old tablet couldn't do that. it kind of makes you feel like you're your own person, which is a rare opportunity in my family. (laughter) hey, evan. so, you're stuck at a work thing. with directv and at&t you can stream all your favorite shows without using your data. that makes you more powerful than a table for 60.
tadirectv now. stream all your entertainment! anywhere! anytime! can we lose the 'all'. there's no cbs and we don't have a ton of sports. anywhere, any... let's lose the 'anywhere, anytime' too. you can't download on-the-go, there's no dvr, yada yada yada. stream some stuff! somewhere! sometimes! you totally nailed that buddy. simple.
don't let directv now limit your entertainment. only xfinity gives you more to stream to any screen. back with my panel now, jeffrey toobin, emily jane fox and patrick gillespie. this was an awkward moment. remember this, when newt gingrich said drain the swamp was off the table. now listen. >> i want to report that i made a big boo-boo. i talked this morning with president-elect donald trump and he reminded me he likes draining the swamp. i mischaracterized it the other day. i'm going to be straightforward and tell you i blew that one. draining the swamp is in. president-elect wants to do it, and you're going to get to be part of it. >> given our conversation and everything we've been talking about, what exactly does draining the swamp mean at this point? do you have any idea? >> getting rid of democrats. i think that's what it means.
i think it means that his people will be in charge, and anyone associated with barack obama or the democratic party will be out. i'm not being facetious, i think that's what it means. >> emily, do you -- >> i think it may be meaningless at this point because the definition seems to have shifted, but to them i think it just means anyone who is not on team trump. whether that's a democrat or not, i think it's anyone who is appointed by donald trump or supported by donald trump or who supports donald trump. >> whether or not they're more or less qualified. >> yes. >> part of it, i think, is getting rid of some institutional norms. trump's pick for labor secretary has criticized the way the labor department calculates the unemployment rate, so i think it's about shaking things up not only personnelwise, but also action and policywise as well. >> patrick, i want to take a look at the editorial. this is an editorial from the "washington post." it's about donald trump and the impact these conflicts of interest could have. it says, his order of philosophy may have been wonderful in real
estate, but in public life, he will be held to a high standard. in order to satisfy that and retain public trust, he cannot leave the back door of the white house ajar for influence peddlers. will we ever announce a plan for presidency for his business interests? >> we're waiting for him to come forward. >> so far you don't think so? >> so far we haven't heard so. he had a press conference that was scheduled in december. that got pushed back into january, and the clock is ticking. inauguration is january 20th. >> is this going to be like the tax returns that never happened? >> tax returns. there is a famous new yorker cartoon with a guy with his phone looking at his calendar, and he says, how is never? is never good for you? that's about where the tax returns are. >> i mean, but the plan to separate these. will we ever see a clear separation? >> he said we're going to see a plan, but, you know, the clock is ticking. he's going to be president in a
month. i think they'll come out with something. remember, he was also going to have a press conference. he hasn't had a press conference since july, either, to talk about this. >> a major press conference. >> yeah, a major press conference. >> he said the separation. i imagine the separation will be his children. the children are still trump's. >> he's been saying that for months that his children were going to take -- >> is that a real separation? >> no. there's no question. that's not a blind trust, that's not a separation. >> but i think, you know, what he will say and what he has said is everybody knew when they were voting for me that i was not going to completely divorce my family from the trump organization, so i ran on this platform. deal with it. everybody knew, i'm not changing. i think that's the real position. >> so these conflicts of interest, this problem, it happens for just about every
president. maybe not to this extent because he's such big business. even jimmy carter sold his peanut farm back in the 1970s when anthony scalia was a white house lawyer. he wrote a memo for gerald ford. scalia acknowledged that the rules didn't cover the president. he said, failure to observe these standards will furnish a simple basis for damaging criticism whether or not they technically apply. would donald trump be smart to listen to that? >> i mean, his position is is, my business is too complicated to sell. jimmy carter could sell his peanut farm. >> his business is my business is really what it is. >> it is, but he's just not going to sell. yes, that is the solution to the problem. the trump organization could simply put itself up for bid, sell itself for a billion, 2 billion, whatever it's worth, then they could take that money and put it in a blind trust. that would solve this problem completely. but they're not going to do it. >> if they were going to do it,
he would have done that by now. there is no indication he has any plan of doing that. >> the post reports that he sent more than a dozen letters to scotland's top minister, lobbying him to kill a plan to put a wind farm offshore from a trump golf resort. in one letter trump wrote, he says, you seem hell-bent on destroying scotland's coast lines and therefore scotland itself. i will never be on board with this insanity? he's going to use the force of his office to keep windmills away from his golf club? >> it's hard to say what he will do as president, but he took a meeting with people who could lobby for this two weeks after he won the election. regardless of what he does, there is an appearance of being able to use his office as advancing his business interests, and the appearance of that is enough to be a problem. whether or not it actually happens is even more problematic. >> scotland, i understand they may not have a lot of interests in listening to his claims now.
he promised lots of jobs at that golf course and they haven't really come. far fewer jobs have been created at that golf course than he promised. so there isn't necessarily as much of an incentive, i think, on their part to listen to him after they've had quite a negative experience with the golf course there. >> it seems like a lot of what we've been discussing here, you said his appearance, right? because as president he could have two desks. do you think he really cares about appearance? >> not enough to do anything about it. i think you're right, is that he has decided that it is worth keeping his business interests and getting the criticism. >> what does it say to you that the business means so much when you are now leader of the free world, which is unarguably a more important position to have? >> it means he cares deeply about his business. and in his mind, or at least for
public consumption, he is saying i'm concentrating full i on the job of president of the united states. it's my kids who are going to be doing business. >> it doesn't say that the money means more than the service to the country. >> i don't think, in fairness, that's exactly what it means. >> just asking. go. >> he's a man averse to change. he flies home from campaign stops to sleep in his own bed. he's 70 years old, he's run his companies for decades. it's no wonder he's having trouble giving it up. a man calls police after she allegedly assaulted her so. he ends up getting arrested. it's all on tape.
caught on video, an african-american mother of a seven-year-old boy in ft. worth, texas called police after a white man allegedly put his hands on her son because he said the boy littered. from there it escalates to a point where this happens. take a look. >> we are on live. don't grab her! don't grab her! >> so here to discuss this is lee merritt, the attorney for jacqueline craig, the woman in that video. thank you for coming on. >> good evening, don.
thank you for having me. >> your client jacqueline craig called the police for help. she wanted to file a report of assault on her seven-year-old son. tell us what happened next and how did you get to that point? >> well, the police arrived to the scene after receiving a complaint from a mom that her son had been choked by a neighbor for littering. this is her seven-year-old son. and so the first person that the officer spoke with on the scene was the person accused of the assault, and the person accused of the assault admitted to doing it. he confirmed with the officer that he had grabbed the kid because he had littered in his yard. and so the officer turned to miss craig and said, why don't you teach your child not to litter? and as you can imagine, that incensed her. >> and then? >> okay. and so she told the officer, why are you so focused on whether or not my child litters and not the
fact that this man is not allowed to choke my son in any circumstances? and in the video you hear the officer say, why not? and, of course, as any protective mother, her anger began to build, and even despite sort of the circumstances, she was able to maintain her relative cool. she said, what you're saying is really upsetting me. and the officer turned to her and said, if you continue to raise your voice, you're going to upset me. and at that point her 15-year-old daughter intervened and stepped in between her and the officer, facing her mother, and began to try to calm her mother down. but the officer then escalated the situation by throwing the young lady out of the way and executing a brutal arrest we've all seen on tape now. >> before i play sgrks i waomet this a prior arrest or is this something new? >> this is something new. they have seen each other
. >> so, lee, i have to ask you, as her kocounsel, the first question from the officer is, why don't you teach your son not to litter? what do you make of the response from that officer? >> it shows the officer came to that scene and he saw a white man and a black woman, and he made up his mind before really asking any real questions, that the white man was not going to be guilty of anything and that he was going to find a reason to be upset with the complaining witness, the black mother. >> jacqueline was arrested for failure to have an i.d. and resisting arrest. bria was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and interfering with public work. how are they doing tonight, and have they been released? >> they have been released. they were held over -- that happened about 4:00 yesterday
afternoon. they were taken and processed down at the local penitentiary, local jailhouse, and then transferred early, early this morning, about 3:00 a.m. this morning, to another location. and that happened only after an internal affairs investigation began into the officer's conduct. >> they're doing okay right now because i asked you on the break and you said they're doing better now. but both of them are tired, obviously, and distraught about this. >> sure. >> i have to ask you quickly, was a report ever taken on the assault of the boy by the police? >> there was no report taken for the original call. that report has not been made to date to our knowledge. >> lee merritt, thank you very much. i want to discuss this with my panel, so i'm going to get to the break and do that. thank you very much. i appreciate you coming on. >> thank you. we'll be right back. hi, i'm paul
why pay twice as much for only a 1% difference? we'll take this one. can you hear that? (vo) don't let a 1% difference cost you twice as much. happy holidays to you and your family. for people with hearing loss, switch to sprint today. visit sprintrelay.com has been a struggle. i considered all my options with my doctor, who recommended once-daily toujeo®. now i'm on the path to better blood sugar control. toujeo® is a long-acting insulin from the makers of lantus®. it releases slowly, providing consistent insulin levels for a full 24 hours, proven full 24-hour blood sugar control, and significant a1c reduction. and along with toujeo®, i'm eating better and moving more. toujeo® is a long-acting, man-made insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. allergic reaction may occur and may be life threatening. don't reuse needles or share insulin pens, even if the needle has been changed.
the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be serious and life threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily while using toujeo®. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose or type of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor if you take other medicines and about all your medical conditions. insulins, including toujeo®, in combination with tzds (thiazolidinediones) may cause serious side effects like heart failure that can lead to death, even if you've never had heart failure before. don't dilute or mix toujeo® with other insulins or solutions as it may not work as intended and you may lose blood sugar control, which could be serious. toujeo® helps me stay on track with my blood sugar. ask your doctor about toujeo®.
getting handcuffed, pushed to the ground and she and her daughter arrested. what is your reaction? >> i think it's very painful. before got to the officer's decision to arrest her for raising her voice, not a crime. had what has to be a traumatic episode in the life of the family and neighborhood for the child. to be choked by anyone, by your parent is unlawful. i bet if the call had been that the woman was choking her son she would have been going to jail and guy who called called a hero but mom does the right thing, doesn't take into her own hands. calls police. and police instead of putting guy on trial for choking kid, she's put on trial or how she's responding. this is the kind of stuff that happens frankly all too often and goes to lack of trust and
respect shown from law enforcement all too often to african-americans. >> it doesn't happen all too often don. this is a rarity. 750,000 police officers across the country having dozens of contacts, each of them, with citizens and suspects and victims every day. >> this particular incident? >> millions of contacts and very rarely do we see things go ugly like this obviously did. >> what's your assessment of the video? >> i'm with van. disturbing video. some of the things that officer says are as9, again as i say, we don't know anything from the video. looks like the officer had just gotten done talking to the person allegedly assaulted the kid and already gotten his side of the story and maybe overly
influenced by it because of the way he was talking to the mother just didn't seem appropriate. seemed to escalate the situation. >> van, you've been with on a county director of citizen safety. with cnn. entire thing not up there but said the wofrs piece of police work seen in my life. lot of proet coal went wrong. goes on. unfortunate that -- very fortunate that no one was injured in the incident. the video tape, just looking at first question was why don't you teach your son not to litter? and that's really -- wasn't question. police officer never saw him littering. if you thought he did write him or mother a citation for
littering and also handle the person accused of choking the little boy as well. none of that happened. >> yeah. and i agree that most of the time if you are in law enforcement, you come in contact with all kinds of situations in which maybe there was a crime committed, maybe there wasn't. it's hard to know. but you're in position to be officer of the peace. that's the whole point. you're there to bring peace and order and understanding to the situation because you have the authority, and badge and guchblt you have the ability to be the adult in the room. don't go into a food fight situation being on one side or another when the only crime alleged is choking a child. there's disagreement in the country how often this happens but tell you, it happens enough
that you have an entire community of people that tends to be very wary of law enforcement. african-americans in particular because of that whole idea that you are guilty until proven innocent. >> that's because the media told them that. >> i want you to respond when you get opportunity. i didn't need the president or media to tell me. i'm from law enforcement family. dad a cop in the military and uncle a police officer. i've had experiences just driving down the street with wife pulled over, taken out of the car and talked to in crazy way and white friend it's rarely happens, if they're drunk maybe but rarely had a drink. idea that no one would think this if the president hadn't pointed it out is false comfort for people who don't want to look at facts. >> jeff? want to respond?
>> sorry. waiting for van to get done. it does happen no doubt. but it is the exception, not the rule. and this one bad video doesn't prove that all cops are bad or racist any more than the fact that darren wilson got exonerated proves that cops get things right all the time. look at case by case. this doesn't look good, cop has a lot of questions to answer. don't know it's racially motivated or what the other person involved told him. maybe he said that woman assaulted him or something preceded that. >> never know because wasn't a police report taken according to lee. >> looks like body cam so maybe more video later. >> thank you very much and we'll continue to follow. that's it for us. thanks for watching. good night.
the following is a cnn special report. >> police. 755 15th street. >> what's going on there, ma'am? >> it is one of the greatest unsolved crimes in history. >> we have a kidnapping. there's a ransom note here. >> a little girl vanishes from home christmas night. >> it's just like you got hit in the stomach. where's my child?
Uploaded by TV Archive on