On Wednesday's New Day, CNN's Chris Cuomo acted more like a pro-Planned Parenthood prosecutor than a journalist in his ten-minute-plus interview of David Daleiden. Cuomo repeatedly badgered Daleiden – who managed the undercover project that uncovered the abortion giant's sale of aborted babies' organs and tissues – over the summary videos of the footage his organization shot. He also touted how "Planned Parenthood – and other people who see [them] – says no; you doctored them. You're doctoring it to make it seem like what you want it to be." [video below]
The anchor led the segment by pointing out how a court ordered the Center for Medical Progress to "turn over the supporting documents. You got to show what you did. You got to show how you did it." Cuomo continued, "You're fighting that....Why not turn over everything?"
When Daleiden explained that he was complying with the congressional investigation and state investigations into Planned Parenthood, the journalist hyped that "I am a lawyer, as you well know. I'm raising it because it doesn't smell right – because you are about exposing, but you don't want to expose everything. It makes it seem like there's something that you want to hide. It feeds the perception that you selectively edited. Do you understand that criticism?" The pro-life guest replied, "I don't think that that's really a fair representation of what's going on in that court case. And I'm sure that you're familiar that sometimes, discovery can be used as a fishing expedition."
Cuomo then began his first extended exchange with Daleiden over the summary videos:
CHRIS CUOMO: Did you edit the videotapes?
DAVID DALEIDEN, PROJECT LEAD, CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS: You know, we – we create summary videos similar to the summary videos that you produce for a news broadcast...like this one. But the full footage of the conversation with Planned Parenthood directors and executives – that's always been posted to our YouTube channel, in addition to the summary videos-
CUOMO: But it's not the same as the summary video. I've had the pleasure, the mispleasure – whatever – displeasure – whatever you want to call it – I've watched a lot of the raw. I've watched what you put out there. They're not the same. When you edit, you make choices. Is it fair to say that you did match certain questions with different parts of conversations, and move things around to show what you think matters?
DALEIDEN: No – absolutely not; no. The – the edits that are made in the summary videos are just to serve as the highlights of those tapes. There's no changing in the ordering of the conversation whatsoever.
CUOMO: But do you believe it changes the context of what the conversations were?
DALEIDEN: No! No – not at all. And for statements – you know, when you're talking about using ultrasound guidance to know where to put your forceps on a late-term fetus in order to harvest the brain or harvest the lung or harvest the heart – there's no context in which those statements become – you know, inoffensive or acceptable to most people.
The CNN anchor shot back, "Well, not most people – right? Because you have 65 percent of the American people don't want to defund Planned Parenthood. So what you're talking about is conservative Catholics like yourself, and people who are pro-life." Daleiden underlined that the poll in question, which was released by USA Today and Suffolk University, "didn't mention anything about the videos or the baby parts scandal that Planned Parenthood is embroiled in right now." Cuomo tried to claim that "of course, it does, because it's about whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood. That doesn't come out of nowhere." The guest replied, "No. I looked at the cross-tabs. The poll only asked about Planned Parenthood. It didn't specify the context at all."
Daleiden was actually correct. The poll question asked, "Do you think all federal funding for Planned Parenthood should be cut off – yes or no?" But this didn't stop the anchor, who just moved onto his talking point from Planned Parenthood:
CUOMO: But what other context could there be? All right. That's a conversation for another time, because that's just between your and my reckoning. That's not what's relevant to-
DALEIDEN: Well, half the American people haven't seen the videos yet, according to most polling. So, it's pretty significant-
CUOMO: But – that's true. But the question is – however, that assumes that seeing the videos informs you of the truth...and what Planned Parenthood and other people who see it – says no; you doctored them. You're doctoring it to make it seem like what you want it to be.
The Center for Medical Progress leader pointed out the "new forensic analysis – an actual forensic analysis, not a – not a report produced by a political opposition firm – which is what Planned Parenthood paid for a few weeks ago....an actual forensic laboratory and actual forensic report that found that the videos are authentic." Cuomo contended that the analysis from Coalfire Systems "have funding things that are a little curious also," and changed the subject yet again to the controversy over Carly Fiorina citing the project's videos in the last Republican presidential debate:
CUOMO: Carly Fiorina, very passionately in the debate – very cogently brings across this image of an aborted baby on the table, the heart beating, the legs moving – look at that video and tell me what you think. Let me ask you about that image: is that an aborted fetus that's on that – in that image?...You know what I'm talking about, David. It's a miscarriage. You know the mother was interviewed. You know you didn't ask her for permission for it, but that's beside the point-
DALEIDEN: That's not what Carly Fiorina was – that's not what Carly Fiorina was referencing. Carly Fiorina was referencing the sequence in our video that shows footage of a – of a born-alive infant from a late-term abortion actually moving in a specimen pan, while Holly O'Donnell – who used to work at Stem Express – is talking about the harvesting of a brain of an infant of the exact same gestation point....If you're showing the image of the Walter Fretz right now, that's not the image.
CUOMO: All right. That's – I don't know the names. I don't own the material the way you do. I just know what I've seen. I know it comported with what Carly Fiornia was describing, and that it seems like something that was certainly taken out of context by whoever put the video together – because the mother says....you know what I'm talking about, right? There was a mother who had a miscarriage – a stillborn....and you used that in the video right?
DALEIDEN: I've spoken – yeah, I've spoken with Lexi Fretz, the mother.
It should be pointed out that Mrs. Fretz appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday, and disclosed to anchor Thomas Roberts that "my husband and I are actually extremely pro-life," and that "I have talked to them [the Center for Medical Progress] directly – and we've cleared the air, and my husband and I are fine that it's been used." Cuomo might have been unaware of this detail, as he hounded Daleiden over the usage of the stillborn baby to "illustrate exactly – exactly the kind of late second trimester baby/fetus that – that we're talking about in these cases of organ harvesting," as the guest put it.
Near the end of the segment, the CNN anchor zeroed in how "there is a charge against you that you did illegal things to procure these videos." He asked, "Do you believe that that will be substantiated on any level, or do you defend against that charge on every level?" Daleiden answered that the "Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work." Cuomo then returned to harping on the summary videos:
CUOMO: Do you – if you could go back, would you not summarize the videos? Would you not edit the video? Would you have just put out the raw, and avoided what is certainly criticism of the production result?
DALEIDEN: You know, I think even if we just put out...the raw files – which is quite a difficult thing, actually; they're pretty hard to work with – Planned Parenthood and their allies in the media are still going to have problems with it; are still going to accuse them of being doctored; are going to try to say they're not real – because that's the only thing that they can say. They can't defend the actual content that's on the tapes. And so, they're engaging in just straight up denialism right now – trying to say the videos are fabricated; they're not real – when a forensic analysis shows they're completely accurate-
CUOMO: But you gave them that – you gave them that ammo by doing the editing. And look, I mean – you know, you're talking to a guy who does this all the time. There's nothing easier than putting out raw footage, David. There's nothing easier than doing that. You could have easily produced the raw footage. It's the editing that takes time. That's what takes discretion and selectivity, right?
DALEIDEN: You know, I think it's important for the – for the public – you know, in order for – for the information to be accessible; to make sure that you're presenting the highlights, and presenting the most important pieces of what are....two, three, four-hour long conversations-
CUOMO: To you – what's most important to you. And that's the point. It comes down to discretion and subjectivity.
The full transcript of Chris Cuomo's segment with David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress from Wednesday's New Day on CNN:
CHRIS CUOMO: Let's bring in the man who produced the videos and started all of this: David Daleiden from the Center for Medical Progress. Good to have you with us, as always-
DAVID DALEIDEN, PROJECT LEAD, CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS: Good to be with you again-
CUOMO: So, court says you've got to turn over your stuff, David. You got to turn over all the videos. You got to turn over the supporting documents. You got to show what you did. You got to show how you did it. You're fighting that, to quote or paraphrase Representative [Jim] Jordan from Ohio, you want have it both ways. You want to expose the videos for what you want them to be, but not turn over everything. Why not turn over everything?
DALEIDEN: Interesting question – you know, we're – CMP is complying with all of the congressional investigations and all of the state investigations that have requested – that have requested footage from us. And actually, in that court case that you mention, there's an unconstitutional prior restraint – temporary restraining order against us that prevents us from actually complying with a federal subpoena from the U.S. Congress to hand over all of the materials to the Oversight investigations committee that is conducting the investigation right now-
CUOMO: Three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ordered you to participate in discovery – turning over those things. I think they understand what a T.R.O. is. Are you going to comply?
DALEIDEN: Yes. So, we're – we're complying with the – we're engaging in the discovery in that – in that lawsuit. I really – I can't say too much about the legal specifics because I'm not – you know, I'm not an attorney. So I can't say so much about the litigation. But, you know, I think – you know, I think that we're happy to talk about – you know, what we did and how we did it, so long as the other party in that case is willing to talk about their fetal tissue sales contracts; their illegal late-term abortion presentations – things like that. I think it can go both ways-
CUOMO: One – right – but one thing has nothing to with the other. The reason I – I am a lawyer, as you well know. I'm raising it because it doesn't smell right – because you are about exposing, but you don't want to expose everything. It makes it seem like there's something that you want to hide. It feeds the perception that you selectively edited. Do you understand that criticism?
DALEIDEN: You know, I understand the criticism. I don't think that that's accurate, and I don't think that that's really a fair representation of what's going on in that court case. And I'm sure that you're familiar that sometimes, discovery can be used as a fishing expedition. You know, there's oftentimes – you know, multiple motives there. So that – you know, I don't think that's an accurate representation of what's going in that case right now.
CUOMO: Did you edit the videotapes?
DALEIDEN: You know, we – we create summary videos similar to the summary videos that you produce for a news broadcast – you know, like this one. But the full footage of the conversation with Planned Parenthood directors and executives – that's always been posted to our YouTube channel, in addition to the summary videos-
CUOMO: But it's not the same as the summary video. I've had the pleasure, the mispleasure – whatever – displeasure – whatever you want to call it – I've watched a lot of the raw. I've watched what you put out there. They're not the same. When you edit, you make choices. Is it fair to say that you did match certain questions with different parts of conversations, and move things around to show what you think matters?
DALEIDEN: No – absolutely not; no. The – the edits that are made in the summary videos are just to serve as the highlights of those tapes. There's no changing in the ordering of the conversation whatsoever.
CUOMO: But do you believe it changes the context of what the conversations were?
DALEIDEN: No! No – not at all. And for statements – you know, when you're talking about using ultrasound guidance to know where to put your forceps on a late-term fetus in order to harvest the brain or harvest the lung or harvest the heart – there's no context in which those statements become – you know, inoffensive or acceptable to most people.
CUOMO: Well, not most people – right? Because you have 65 percent of the American people don't want to defund Planned Parenthood. So what you're talking about is conservative Catholics like yourself, and people who are pro-life. Let me ask you something about the video-
DALEIDEN: Well, no – the poll – the poll that got those numbers didn't mention anything about the videos or the baby parts scandal that Planned Parenthood is embroiled in right now.
CUOMO: Of course, it does, because it's about whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood. That doesn't come out of nowhere-
DALEIDEN: No. I looked at the cross-tabs. The poll – the poll only asked about Planned Parenthood. It didn't specify the context at all.
CUOMO: But what other context could there be? All right. That's a conversation for another time, because that's just between your and my reckoning. That's not what's relevant to-
DALEIDEN: Well, half the American people haven't seen the videos yet, according to most polling. So, it's pretty significant-
CUOMO: But – that's true. But the question is – however, that assumes that seeing the videos informs you of the truth-
DALEIDEN: It does-
CUOMO: And what Planned Parenthood and other people who see it – says no; you doctored them. You're doctoring it to make it seem like what you want it to be.
DALEIDEN: Right. There was just a new forensic analysis – an actual forensic analysis, not a – not a report produced by a political opposition firm – which is what Planned Parenthood paid for a few weeks ago – but an actual forensic analysis produced yesterday-
CUOMO: Which one?
DALEIDEN: That showed that the videotapes – the one from Coalfire Systems in Colorado-
CUOMO: Aren't they, in part, funded by a conservative group? Wasn't that study, in part, sponsored by them?
DALEIDEN: No. CMP has – has no connection to Coalfire Systems. But that's an actual forensic laboratory and actual forensic report that found that the videos are authentic-
CUOMO: But they have – they have funding things that are a little curious also.
Here's what really created a flash point I want you to speak to. Carly Fiorina, very passionately in the debate – very cogently brings across this image of an aborted baby on the table, the heart beating, the legs moving – look at that video and tell me what you think. Let me ask you about that image: is that an aborted fetus that's on that – in that image?
DALEIDEN: You know, actually, in the studio, I don't have a visual of what you're showing me. So I'm not sure exactly what you're showing me. But-
CUOMO: You know what I'm talking about, David. It's a miscarriage. You know the mother was interviewed. You know you didn't ask her for permission for it, but that's beside the point-
DALEIDEN: That's not what Carly Fiorina was – that's not what Carly Fiorina was referencing. Carly Fiorina was referencing the sequence in our video that shows footage of a – of a born-alive infant from a late-term abortion actually moving in a specimen pan, while Holly O'Donnell – who used to work at Stem Express – is talking about the harvesting of a brain of an infant of the exact same gestation point-
CUOMO: Oh, so you don't think – you think it's a different image – you think it's a different image than the one that was pointed out by the mother-
DALEIDEN: If you're showing – yeah-
CUOMO: Okay-
DALEIDEN: If you're showing the image of the Walter Fretz right now, that's not the image.
CUOMO: All right. That's – I don't know the names. I don't own the material the way you do. I just know what I've seen. I know it comported with what Carly Fiornia was describing, and that it seems like something that was certainly taken out of context by whoever put the video together – because the mother says-
DALEIDEN: No, no, no – not; not-
CUOMO: The mother says – you know what I'm talking about, right? There was a mother who had a miscarriage – a stillborn-
DALEIDEN: Yeah; yeah – no – yeah, I've spoken with – yeah-
CUOMO: And you used that in the video right?
DALEIDEN: I've spoken – yeah, I've spoken with Lexi Fretz, the mother. Yeah – absolutely-
CUOMO: And what do you use it to show – to show what?
DALEIDEN: And those images were used to – used to illustrate exactly – exactly the kind of late second trimester baby/fetus that – that we're talking about in these cases of organ harvesting.
CUOMO: But if you are talking about organ harvesting and abortions and how terrible they are, why would you use a stillborn fetus, which is not a function of an abortion?
DALEIDEN: Do you think the fetuses are different somehow?
CUOMO: I think it's-
DALEIDEN: It is the same gestational age. It's the same baby, whether it's born dead or alive, or its organs are harvested or not-
CUOMO: It's also – it's also-
DALEIDEN: That's the same kind of infant.
CUOMO: Absolutely. It's also completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make – which is, look at what they do to these babies. It was born stillborn. It was not aborted. Doesn't that matter to you if you are talking about abortion?
DALEIDEN: What – I think what matters is – is the fact that this is – that's an example of an – of an 18 to 19 week fetus, which is the exact same gestational age that Planned Parenthood routinely aborts and harvests the organs from.
CUOMO: Right, but you used it as an example of – look at the babies that they abort; look how it's a real person; look how it is; look what they do. But it wasn't aborted. Isn't that misleading?
DALEIDEN: No, because – because the subject, the creature that's being aborted is – is the – is the same kind of thing. It's the same kind of fetus. That is not misrepresenting at all. It's just to illustrate-
CUOMO: Look, to make your point, it's not a creature. It's not a thing. It's a little person. And the point is, if you want to represent a little person, do it fairly! Because this is such an emotional thing – it's so religious for people; it's so moral for people. That baby was not aborted. It matters in the context of your conversation.
DALEIDEN: It's – it's the exact same gestational age fetus. I don't see – I don't see how you could say that that's not fair to show an illustration of what a fetus, at 19 weeks, looks like – because that's the exact same gestational age-
CUOMO: My point is context. You're saying what they do in abortions. This wasn't an abortion. That's my point.
Let's move on to a different point though: the – one legal aspect of this – I don't know how important this is – but the law does matter, so let's discuss it. There is a charge against you that you did illegal things to procure these videos. Do you believe that that will be substantiated on any level, or do you defend against that charge on every level?
DALEIDEN: Yeah – no, absolutely not. I don't think that that's going to be substantiated. The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work.
CUOMO: And the idea that you obtained them illegally – that there wasn't consent to the subjects; that you needed the consent for them – what's your response to that?
DALEIDEN: Yeah, no. The – most of the recording laws that are relevant – I mean, all of the recording laws that are relevant to the conversations that we taped – they're either taking place in one-party consent states, or in situations where the consent of one party is only necessary in order to – in order to record conversations that are held in a public area – that are public conversations that you can reasonably expect people are going to overhear. Those are not private conversations that are prohibited from being recorded.
CUOMO: And you know that that often is a question of discretion. You're going to have to fight that out legally. You know that-
DALEIDEN: We're prepared to do so-
CUOMO: Do you – if you could go back, would you not summarize the videos? Would you not edit the video? Would you have just put out the raw, and avoided what is certainly criticism of the production result?
DALEIDEN: You know, I think even if we just put out the – you know, the raw files, which is – which is quite a difficult thing, actually. They're – they're pretty hard to work with. Planned Parenthood and their allies in the media are still going to have problems with it; are still going to accuse them of being doctored; are going to try to say they're not real – because that's the only thing that they can say. They can't defend the actual content that's on the tapes. And so, they're engaging in just straight up denialism right now – trying to say the videos are fabricated; they're not real – when a forensic analysis shows they're completely accurate-
CUOMO: But you gave them that – you gave them that ammo by doing the editing. And look, I mean – you know, you're talking to a guy who does this all the time. There's nothing easier than putting out raw footage, David. There's nothing easier than doing that. You could have easily produced the raw footage. It's the editing that takes time. That's what takes discretion and selectivity, right?
DALEIDEN: You know, I think it's important for the – for the public – you know, in order for – for the information to be accessible; to make sure that you're presenting the highlights, and presenting the most important pieces of what are-
CUOMO: To you-
DALEIDEN: You know, two, three, four-hour long conversations-
CUOMO: To you – what's most important to you. And that's the point. It comes down to discretion and subjectivity. But I'll tell you this: David Daleiden-
DALEIDEN: That's why the full tapes are posted-
CUOMO: Well, but post them, right? And then, that takes us to the lawsuit where you're not putting everything out. I think the more disclosure there is, the better – because you've started a very important conversation in this country that goes beyond the law – that goes to things that are very visceral – so people need to have the full information. David Daleiden, as always, thank you for representing your side – appreciate it.
DALEIDEN: Thank you, Chris.
