hempel. good evening. you're the cnn news room. i'm poppy harlow thrive evening in new york. we have new developments in ferguson, missouri. a grand jury wants more time to consider whether to indict officer darren wilson in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager, michael brown. the 12-person panel will reconvene monday at the earliest, we are told. and in ferguson, some businesses are boarded up, people are on edge awaiting this decision. thousands of demonstrators are poised to react to whatever the grand jury decision is. now they must wait at least a few more days. just hours ago, michael brown's father handed out thanksgiving

turkeys to the needy. brown's family is pleading for everyone in ferguson and across the nation to stay calm and peaceful no matter what the grand jury decides. the ferguson grand jury is different than a typical grand jury. the 12 people on this grand jury have heard from many, many witnesses, including officer wilson himself. our anna cabrera sat down with the prosecutor, robert mccullough, in september and asked him about his decision on what the grand jury would hear. >> this case we thought -- i thought much more important to bring in the actual witness and say, and again the transparency, the openness, ultimately when that information is released. you're hearing directly from the source, which of course gives grand jurors the opportunity as a trial jury would to observe all the witnesses as they testify, while they testify. and how they testify. how they answer.

the sorts of things that may impact how a witness is received by a juror. the only thing we're not going to present to a grand jury -- and again it's by statute, by rule -- is anything that would be absolutely inadmissible in a trial. >> all right. let's bring in our panel of legal analysts to talk about this. defense attorneys mark o'mara, joey jackson and lisa monet whitman join me in new york. mark, the fact that it seems like this -- well, we know this grand jury has heard so much more evidence than typically a prosecutor would present. why was that decision made? and what kind of impact can it have? >> i think mccullough made the decision because he wants to be completely transparent and wants to give them everything that they can so that nobody can complain that there was a certain piece of information or perspective that wasn't given. >> because he himself has come under a lot of scrutiny. >> he absolutely has. there's a lot of people who believe he should not even be the one doing the prosecution. what's nice about it, though, we'll have the transcripts

available to us so we can watch and see if he took them down a path that he may not have taken them down. >> lisa, you made the point that not everything is in those transcripts. >> that's absolutely right. it's a really important point. that is there's a lot of conversation or what we call colloquy that goes on between the prosecutor and the grand jury reports. their questions that they ask. the charging instructions or the actual instructions that the prosecutor gives the jury, the grand jury at the end. and those are things that are not contained in the grand jury transcript. so although there is this transparency, those things will be missing. and remember, the tone of the witnesses, the demeanor, the suggestivity that can go on with the prosecutor nodding, all those things are going to be absent and not in the grand jury transcript. so we hoe it gives us a real sense of justice, but we don't know. >> joey, when we think of juries we think of people that leave the courtroom, and if they're not sequestered they cannot talk to anyone about this, they cannot watch the news. or you can have a hung jury and

you have to start over again. but with a grand jury it's different. they can go about their daily lives. they're not supposed to talk about what they've seen, but they can watch the news. >> they can. and they could be influenced by it. although we hope, mpoppy, that they're not. we hope they're influenced by what they see and hear inside the courtroom and not from outside. from a practical perspective, they've been meeting since august 9th. could you imagine if they were sequestered? not that grand jurs generally are. they're not. but if they were sequestered for that amount of time it's not probable. >> realistic. >> exactly. not realistic to be away from your family for that long a period of time. we hope they follow the instructions do what they need to do and make a decision based on the evidence. >> you know from high profile cases from your experience, given a case like in, some people say will the protests be much more exacerbated if there is no indictment? we don't know until something happens. but are you concerned at all that the grand jurors can be

swa swaied at all by saying what we decide has a profound impact on our community. >> look at it from wilson's perspective for a moment. we note grand jury knows everything that's happening. we know that the grand jury knows we're weight on them. if that impacts on them and says you know what, we're going to kick this over to a regular jury. we're going to indict because we don't want to deal with a nonindictment. that works against any criminal defendant, wilson in this case. that's not the way it's supposed to be. >> when you look at this, lisa, and you look at the makeup of the grand jury, what we know is that we've got 12 jurors, nine have to be in agreement. you don't need unanimity here. you've got seven men, five women. you've got three african-americans, nine caucasians. anything we can tell by the makeup of this grand jury? >> you really can't. i mean, all we know is that these are people who have been scrutinized to a certain extent to be a grand juror in the first place. so they pass certain things in terms of whether or not they

would be precluded. >> but just to this case, right? >> right. a grand jury that could hear any case. they're just regular people. in my experience i've tried hundreds of cases with that composition or compositions like that. i mean, it's really based upon the presentation of the evidence in this case and their deliberations together. and that really trumps everything. so that's why it's so hard to speculate. >> poppy, quick point to be made. it was interesting when you played the tape of mccullough, he said i'll introduce nothing that's absolutely inadmissible. from a lawyer's perspective -- >> we've been hearing some things that have been presented might not be admissible in trial. >> because there are a lot of things that we argue with the prosecution over whether it's admissible or not. and a judge has to rule. so the prosecutor is saying if it's absolutely not admissible i won't introduce it. but what does that mean? that's the question. maybe we'll find out in the event we see the transcripts or during the discovery process. >> do you think, mark, it was the right call to have a grand

jury hear this? >> yes. >> you do. >> i absolutely believe it a case of this magnitude, national attention on this, that a grand jury is better than a prosecution's decision by himself. i like the idea of having the community, which is what the grand jury is, look at the case, take their time and come back and say, we as members of the community think this what is we should do with this case. and i think it helps with the acceptance of it one way or the other. >> this is not the only case, right? this is what could lead to a criminal trial possibly. you also have the fbi on the ground. they've interviewed more than 200 witnesses there. you've got the department of justice doing a civil rights investigation. but those are separate. those would not result in criminal charges, is that correct? >> that's absolutely correct. the only criminal charge is going to come from this grand jury. >> if there's an indictment. >> if he's indicted. beyond that you're going to have lawsuits by the brown family against the police department, the protests against the police department potentially. you do have a civil rights investigation going on that could lead to a civil rights

lawsuit, if you will, against either ferguson and/or wilson. >> if no indictment comes, if that's the decision, can this be done again? or is that it? >> you actually can do it again. there's no double jeopardy in a case like this. for example, let's say a new witness that was never seen or heard before. a new piece of evidence. that could change the balance. but i will tell you, they've spent an enormous amount of time, effort and witnesses on this case. this should be the end of it. one way or the other. >> do you agree? have we ever heard of that happening? >> they've made calls of that will on high profile cases. jon benet ramsey was an example of that. they asked for them to come back on new evidence and the public really pushed. >> did they rehear everything? >> they rehear everything and can add the additional evidence if there is any. that's a tough one. i can't think of a high profile case or case since we've been around that trial has been done but there is that availability. >> one of the things that has made this so unique, joey,

officer wilson himself did testify. can you tell us about that happens? does he come forward and say i want to tell my side? is he urged to do so by the prosecutor? how does this happen? >> well, there's a couple of things. first of all, there are instances where we make decisions as to whether or not we want our clients to testify in a grand jury proceeding. and generally speaking we err towards not having a defendant testify in the grand jury. you're locked into a specific narrative. and obviously when you're locked into that you can't change what you say at trial. but in this particular case, he went before the grand jury. he gave the information that he gave. what that is we don't know. it could have helped him, it could have hurt him based upon what he said. by all accounts though, obviously, he said, we believe, that he felt he was in imminent fear for his life. and as a result of that he took action that he took. >> that can only come from his mouth. >> that's right. >> that's where it has to come from. if he's going to say i acted in self-defense he has to be the one to say -- >> you're a defense attorney. would you have advised him to testify?

>> in this case -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> you have to have -- >> quick break. we'll be back on the other side with much more on the four possible charges or no charge at all that could come down against officer darren wilson. quick break. we'll be right back. so you can see like right here i can just... you know, check my policy here, add a car, ah speak to customer service, check on a claim...you know, all with the ah, tap of my geico app. oh, that's so cool. well, i would disagree with you but, ah, that would make me a liar. no dude, you're on the jumbotron! whoa. ah...yeah, pretty much walked into that one. geico anywhere anytime. just a tap away on the geico app. ameriprise asked people a simple question: in retirement, will you outlive your money? uhhh. no, that can't happen. that's the thing, you don't know how long it has to last.

everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive.. confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor can get the real answers you need. well, knowing gives you confidence. start building your confident retirement today.

the mercedes-benz winter event is back, with the perfect vehicle that's just right for you, no matter which list you're on. [ho, ho, ho, ho] lease the 2015 e350 for $599 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer.

officer darren wilson could be indicted on one of any four possible charges in the shooting of michael brown from first degree murder, involuntary manslaughter or there could be no charge brought at all. if there is no indictment, the public, everyone, will get to hear and see everything the grand jury did. those transcripts, hundreds of pages, will be released. >> every witness and every bit of testimony is being recorded. audio recorded. and so that will be released so people will hear the questions, they will hear the answers. they will seat physical evidence that was presented to the grand jury. they will see the diagrams and

other evidence, the autopsy reports, the firearms reports should there be any of that information. that will all be presented so they will have an opportunity of course to hear they said the questions that are asked, how they're asked and the answers given. >> let's bring back in our legal panel to go through each one. guys, let's start with this. mark o'mara to you, first degree murder. to prove this, the person has to have deliberated the matter. however, even for a very relatively short period of time, that is key in all of this. first degree murder charge, tough one on this. >> well, tough in this case because what we know of the facts of the case. the idea that darren wilson decided premeditated i'm now going to kill this person without any justification whatsoever would be very, very unusual. that would be an absolute racist murder at that point. i don't think it's going to be a first degree murder. >> joey, lisa? >> i agree. i think that that one's a hard one. i think this is going to be a situation where he reacted in

the moment. he reacted. it was he should have known better. it was second degree. but it was not intentional and deliberate. >> unless they could establish, poppy, the hands were really up of michael brown saying why are you shooting me and he continued to shoot. is that the scenario? we don't know. >> a short period of time. >> exactly. you only need a moment, right? for pre meditation. but it is unlikely. i do a degree with my colleagues. >> let's talk about second degree murder charge. prosecutors would have to prove wilson knowingly caused brown's death. it's a subtle but important distinction, isn't it, mark? >> very much. so it is still an intentional act to cause the death and without justification. so you don't have the pre meditation to do it but you've caused the death. you don't have a justification for accomplishing it. that's why it's a serious charge. >> what do you think, lisa, on that front? >> i agree. when you're knowing something it's like i knew what i was doing, i knew it was wrong at the time and there were alternatives for me. so if it's knowingly, i think that is a more difficult one for

him to defend on. >> in terms of the third, voluntary manslaughter. for that to happen, that's the next possibility if we do see an indictment. they would have to say that perhaps he was in a fit of anger or rage. he can face up to 15 years in prison for this. and it all brings back to my mind this issue of if we do see an indictment what do prosecutors choose to do? because you don't want to overcharge, right? >> you don't want to overcharge but you're supposed to charge the most you can prove. so when mccullough is there talking to that grand jury he's got to say, i think you can take this evidence and look at it and say now it's this type of a charge in a case like that with this voluntary manslaughter, again you sort of know what you're doing or you're doing it in a way where you disregard or acting out of arrange. some people call that second degree. >> this is what's interesting to me. sort of acting out of a fit of rage or anger. but you're still acting. >> you are. but understand this, pop yes, the law criminalizes your intent.

what are your intentions? am i acting intentionally? deliberately? did i plot and plan it? it's a higher standard. now you have an a felony, 5 to 15 years in jail. >> a psychologist testifying would be key? how do they determine? >> that may happen in terms of expert witnesses. they'll examine your state of mind based on the evidence. we're talking about voluntary manslaughter. it's a sudden passion, impulse. so there was a fight at the car. as a result of this he's annoyed about that. he's in the moment. he shoots. he kills. boom. now you could argue manslaughter. but then you could get to the lesser one which is the involuntary manslaughter. >> which is the next one. when someone causes the death of another person by being reckless. >> exactly. when you talk about recklessness, you're consciously disregarding the risk of your behavior. you're engaging in activity which is irresponsible, right? because you're doing something that you shouldn't be doing. in that particular situation if they find he acted in an irresponsible or reckless way it knocks it down to involuntary

manslaughter. it's a c felony in missouri punish be by one to seven years. >> still prison time. >> still prison time. but in the event that he gets indicted on that, the stakes are far less than they would be for murder. >> what's your take on involuntary manslaughter as a possible charge here? >> if he's charged with a greater then that is a great win for the defense, if they can get him down to a charge which frankly most people will get probation on. so you're talking about something that isn't the sentence that you're going to go to prison. it's the lesser that you look at. but look, if this is a self-defense case then you don't want any of these things. you want a walk. you're saying you had a complete right to shoot and do whatever he did, and it's none of those things. i acted in self-defense. >> and that's the fifth option. >> that's right. >> no charge, no indictment at all. >> absolutely right. >> we don't know all of the evidence. anyone that says they do they don't. no one knows except for what's being presented in the grand jury. >> we know less than 5% what that grand jury is considering without question. we can name it on two hands. they have hundreds of witnesses.

>> of what we do know, would you say, mark, that the autopsies are the most important at this point? >> i don't think the autopsies are all that significant for this reason. we know he was shot six times. they're significant because he was shot in the front. i think the forensics of the scene that was there -- give you an example. mike brown was shot at the car, right? well, if he was walking away he's dripping blood as he's walking away. if that path comes back -- >> we don't know whether or not -- >> right. but if that path comes back to the car, mike brown has come back to the car. if that path is running back to the car? that's the type of forensic evidence we haven't had. >> do we know if grand juries tend to historically focus on more evidence like mark just brought up? they also have a lot of witnesses. there were witnesses. >> exactly. interestingly enough, poppy, we know as a society we're csi miami. show me the hair fibers. show me the dna. show me the blood. but at the same time there's a lot more than that as you mentioned there are lots of witnesses who have to testify. and apparently who have testified in terms of what i saw, what i observed.

there is of course that tape, remember, from glide where you hear the shots and the fashion that you heard them? so there's a lot to consider. but one final point and that's this. remember they're going to be giving a justification charge. what does that mean? they're going to be giving a charge, that is the jury, they're going to be instructed as to what self-defense means. if you find that darren wilson was in imminent fear for his life, and as a result of that his actions were reasonable, then guess what happens as to one, manslaughter or murder as to murder two, as to voluntary manslaughter, it all goes out the window. >> i think what's important about the forensics, the forensics have to corroborate the individual witnesses. so if you hear from 50 witnesses but the forensics don't lie. they're not biassed. then that's huge. and it doesn't matter what the witnesss say. >> we have to take a quick break. stick with me. we'll be back after a quick break. first this. an article in "rolling stone" magazine chronicles an alleged rape at the university of virginia. today the university's president

made a drastic decision that applies to all uva fraternities. talk about it next. quicken loans will pay your mortgage for an entire year. that is how it's done. truly amazing! get in the hole-in-one sweepstakes. enter today at pgatour.com/quickenloans and you could have your mortgage paid for an entire year.

a "rolling stone" article on rape at the university of virginia has led to a major decision by the school's president. from now until january 9th, all of uvas fraternities are suspended. the article described the

university's quote institutional indifference to sexual assault is based on a profile of the case from 2012. our joe johns has more on that article which led to today's decision. >> reporter: it's a shocking allegation of rape at the university of virginia. a report in the current "rolling stone" magazine alleging a culture of rape and sexual assault there, including a story about a first year side end said to be considering suicide after she went to a party in 2012 at the phi kappa si fraternity house and was allegedly gang raped. quote from the article "grab her legs shea herd and that's when she knew she was going to be raped. she remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony during which she says seven men took turns raping her. annie forest is a friend of the accuser. >> she was just doing what a normal girl on a date would do. then he led her upstairs where she was taken into a room and pretty much ambushed by these

men. >> reporter: since the article another student has come forward. similar story, same fraternity. >> i had to walk on campus with my rapist for the next 2 1/2 years. >> reporter: and the issue is not just one fraternity house or even one school. >> i was told that university of virginia is actually quite typical. even though the things that i discovered at university of virginia are really horrifying. what i was told is that really what happens at uva is probably fairly normal at a college campus. >> reporter: according to "rolling stone" the accuser did not report the incident at the time to police but did speak to a university official. >> when she left the fraternity house that night and called some of her friends, they actually recommended that she not go to the police. >> reporter: at the university, damage control is in hyperdrive, and piece are investigating. the fraternity chapter is suspending all activities and said it will cooperate fully with the investigation. uva's president said in a

statement that the report includes quote many details that were not previously disclosed to university officials. the university takes seriously the issue of sexual misconduct. we have recently adopted several new initiatives and policies aimed at fostering a culture of reporting and raising awareness. it's a national problem. 88 colleges and universities are under investigation for how they handle sex assault cases. a form dean at uva is now the national president of a group dedicated to ending sexual assault on campus. he says schools could be sanctioned. >> they could face a loss of federal funding which basically would decimate an entire institution. that has never been done. but there are fines. the office of civil rights can levy. >> reporter: important to say that in the case of uva, it was the university that called for authorities to get involved, including police and the virginia attorney general's office. >> that was joe johns reporting. joe, thank you for that report. coming up, when it comes to

immigration, the president is done waiting on congress. he's tackling reform himself, calling it "staking out the middle ground." his critics call it an illegal power grab. what is it? talk about it in depth next. in a race, it's about getting to the finish line. in life, it's how you get there that matters most. like when i found out i had a blood clot in my leg. my doctor said that it could travel to my lungs and become an even bigger problem. so he talked to me about xarelto®. >>xarelto® is the first oral prescription blood thinner proven to treat and help prevent dvt and pe

that doesn't require regular blood monitoring or changes to your diet. for a prior dvt i took warfarin, which required routine blood testing and dietary restrictions. not this time. while i was taking xarelto®, i still had to stop racing, but i didn't have to deal with that blood monitoring routine. >>don't stop taking xarelto®, rivaroxaban, unless your doctor tells you to. while taking xarelto®, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious bleeding, and in rare cases, may be fatal. get help right away if you develop unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you have had spinal anesthesia while on xarelto®, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. xarelto® is proven to reduce the risk of

dvt and pe, with no regular blood monitoring and no known dietary restrictions. treatment with xarelto® was the right move for me. ask your doctor about xarelto® today.

mass amnesty would be unfair. mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. what i'm describing is accountability. a common sense, middle ground approach. >> that's president obama speaking, saying he is staking out the middle ground in the immigration debate. but his decision to work around congress and issue an executive order has unleashed a new round of post-election political big. let's bring in mickey cass, columnist from "the daily caller" he joins us from los angeles. thanks for coming in. we appreciate it, mickey. >> thanks, poppy. >> what do you make of the timing here? we've heard the president say that he was going to do this

from way before the mid terms. and then it came after. obviously there's politics involved here. but was it purely political, the timing? >> well, the delay was political. it's not a popular thing. and he delayed it in the hope that some his democratic senate -- fellow party members would win. and they lost, anyway. now he's been -- he's been very impatient about this. and i think he's made a strategic blunder. it seems to me he had about a 40% chance of getting the bill he wanted through the house, and that's gone now. so he's blown that chance. and i think there's a good chance this will get overturned by the courts. the constitution doesn't say if the president doesn't get what he wants he gets to impose it unilaterally. he's supposed to have to go through congress. and the supreme court i think will be very sensitive to that. and even his own office of legal counsel thought that the 2012 program, the so-called daca program for the dreamers, was

very questionable, of questionable constitutionality. so i think it was a mistake on his part. >> do you think that there is any chance, though, that it actually does get congress to move on immigration because they don't want what he has put through himself? >> sure, there's a chance. and you never know what's going to happen in the perverse world of washington. there's a lot of money behind comprehensive immigration reform. a lot of corporations want a supply of inexpensive labor and good labor from immigrants. so you never know what's going to happen. but the base of the republican party is infuriated, even the middle of the republican party is infuriated. even the people who are for comprehensive immigration reform have to pretend they hate what obama has done. so it doesn't look good now, but he has to have a chance. >> let me get your response from this piece in "politico" arguing the president acted for several reasons but quote also in it is very possible that the president has another motive as well, blowing up the gop.

no issue has more potential than immigration to ignite the hard right base and embarrass speaker john boehner, especially after the speaker's post-election warning to obama not to play with matches or to cause headaches for the gop heading into the 2016 elections. fair? is this an attempt to blow up the gop? >> i think that's fair. it was a very smart article. i think one of obama's goals is to so-called troll the gop. that's sort of what he's best at. he's met with the birth certificate. he's very good at angering the republicans and getting them them to make fooms of themselves. he's hoping somebody like steve king of iowa will talk about how people crossing the border have calves the size of canteloupes because they're drunk runners and say things like that. unfortunately they know that he's hoping that they'll do this and they're on their best behavior. so i don't think he will trigger the sort of inflammatory statements that he might be hoping to trigger. the republicans, i think, will

behave very respectfully in this. >> mickey, don't go anywhere. we'll talk about this more after a quick break. and is the president's plan amnesty? republicans say yes, it is. the president has a different definition of that word. who's right? we'll debate ahead. i lost my sight in afghanistan, but it doesn't hold me back. i go through periods where it's hard to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. non-24 is a circadian rhythm disorder

that affects up to 70% of people who are totally blind. talk to your doctor about your symptoms and learn more by calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern.

[annit's working forny. new york state. already 41 companies are investing almost $80 million dollars, and creating 1750 jobs. from long island to all across upstate new york, more businesses are coming to new york. they are paying no property taxes, no corporate taxes, and no sales taxes.

and with over 300 locations, and 3.7 million square feet available, there's a place that is is right for your business. see if startup-ny can work for you. go to startup.ny.gov. doctors have been prescribingdecade, nexium to patients just like you. for many, prescription nexium helps heal acid-related erosions in the lining of the esophagus. there is risk of bone fracture and low magnesium levels. side effects may include headache, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. if you have persistent diarrhea, contact your doctor right away. other serious stomach conditions may exist. avoid if you take clopidogrel. nexium 40 mg is only available by prescription. talk to your doctor. for free home delivery, enroll in nexium direct today. we're talk about the president's executive order on immigration and the political

firestorm that as erupted in washington. my panel is here. president obama says his executive order is not amnesty. what do you think? >> i would ask the people that are celebrating in front of the white house with signs that said gracias president obama if they thought they got amnesty. if you're saying someone cannot be deported and the longer you've been here the better your chances are never being deported i think it's amnesty regardless of what we call >> it ben, it's not forever. >> it depends on who you ask. if you're saying that you're not going to pursue deporting individuals and you have this path to citizenship as he used in las vegas, i would ask the young people in that crowd, do you think that you're going to be deported? the answer from the president's mouth is no. you play by my new rules, not congress, my new rules, and you get to stay. >> mark? >> okay. if i don't play by the rules i never get deported. if ben doesn't play by the rules he never gets deported. do you know why?

because we are full citizens. under this circumstance they have to play by a set of rules to not be deported. the threat of deportation hovers over them. that's what makes it not amnesty. if you have to pay a fine it's not amnesty. any circumstance which results in you being deported makes it not am necessity. let's be clear here. the president is playing a word game. the president is trying to thread a very careful needle mere by saying it's not amnesty. but we've already hat amnesty. we've done nothing on immigration for decades. people don't pay taxes, flying under the radar, not being deported. they have the most perfect form of amnesty that underlies everything else. >> mick yes, respond to mark's point. is mark right on that point? that essentially what we've had is amnesty? >> he's right that they're not deported now. but obama is giving them work permits. that's the key. if i were an african-american i would be very upset about this.

56% of african-americans, only 56% with a high school degree are employed. now he's importing four or five million more people who are going to compete for jobs with african-americans, who have a hard enough time as it is? >> they're going to be competing with everyone for jobs. i mean, mickey, they're going to be competing with everyone. >> but historically immigrants have pushed african-americans out of the sort of jobs that they traditionally did. and that's going to continue. than and that's no favor to the african-american community. >> historically speaking it's important to have context here. you've heard the administration saying over and over again, presidents have done this in the past. so mickey, from a strictly factual perspective on history, how does this stack up against president reagan's 1986 move on immigration? >> well, reagan's move was a piece of legislation. so that was passed by congress. that was okayed. then he added -- >> right. >> -- a minor thing to help sort of tie up the loose ends.

bush tied up some more loose ends. they were both much much smaller. about a tenth of the size of this. and they were a furtherance of what congress tried to do. this is not in furtherance of what congress tried to do. congress blocked this bill. obama said i'm going to do it, anyway. >> ben, i'd like your perspective -- >> hold on. that's not what happens. >> guys. mark, go ahead then ben. >> that's not what happened there. people act as if the president has somehow made a sweeping immigration bill that congress can't add onto. the truth is what the president has done is within his executive power. he has simply set the imemttation and enforcement priority of the white house. there's still the possibility of deported. we still need congress to do their job. that's a fact. >> mark, just because congress doesn't do what you want them to do, it doesn't give you the right to write law. when president barack obama said this for more than three years on more than ten occasions he came out and said i'm not an

emperor. then he said i don't like what they're doing right now. i'm going to do it, anyway. that's not how our congress works. >> ben, how long do you wait for the bill that was passed by the senate to be brought up in the house? >> very simply, as long as it takes for congress to do their job. because when you're the president of the united states of america, there is nothing in the constitution that says you get to do what you want to do when you don't get your way because you don't like congress. this is a very significant purpose. hold on. let me finish this, marc. this is important. you don't get to pout and decide when your timeline is up. this is congress's job to deal with it. here's the other thing. you have a new congress coming in. so things may change. in fact, the senate's changing. but what the president saw was, i'm not going to get what i want with a new congress, i don't want a compromise, so i'm going to write my own law and they can deal with it. that's why this is a firestorm.

>> 30 seconds before the break to you, mickey here, much is the gop risking important votes from latinos at this point in terms of its stance on this? >> well, we saw that they did better among latinos in the mid-terms than they had in the presidentials. so i think they're risking some but not risking a lot. the democrats are risking a whole bunch of white working class voters who are just as numerous if not more numerous who they're alienating by their pro- amnesty stance. the house is coequal. they didn't like ill. i didn't like it. obama lost that legislative fight. now he's trying to change the rules and impose it unilaterally. not the way our constitution is supposed to work. >> ben, mark, mickey, stay with us. up next your thoughts on ferguson, missouri. new developments today. the president weighing in yesterday. should he be doing more to promote peace? should he be talking about this

even more? straight ahead. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. everybody knows that. well, did you know genies can be really literal? no. what is your wish? no...ok...a million bucks! oh no... geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. there were some really big names at the cnn heroes all-star tribute in new york. the show doesn't air until sunday, december 7th. but here's what michaela pereira

saw with a sneak peek. >> reporter: we're in the whale room. you're wondering, why right? a little hint for you. mm-hmm. the days leading up to the main event are action-packed. cameras, lighting, hd video screens and decor are put in place. and no show is complete without the rolling out of the red carpet. before you know it, a transformation. so inside this trailer my fantastic colleagues are putting the final touches on the show. dare i go in? come on. look alive, people. we're almost to show time! on this night at the museum, host ander son cooper and the cnn team honor a very spgs kind of person. >> a lot of these people, they don't have a lot of money, they don't have access to power. they're just people who saw a need in their community and set about trying to fix something. >> reporter: and here the celebs have turned out to pay them tribute. recording artist sheryl crow who performed at cnn's inaugural

event is back for another special performance. >> i'm grateful to cnn they started this program. there are so many angels on this planet that are doing god's work. >> reporter: tonight's honorees who never seek the spotlight, seeing it all for the first time is a moment to remember.

no decision today from the missouri grand jury considering whether or not to indict ferguson police officer darren wilson. the grand jury will reconvene monday at the earliest. darren wilson shot and killed michael brown in august, sparking weeks of protest, unrest and national debate. mickey cost joins us and political commentators ben ferguson and mark lamont hill. mark, you are in ferguson. white house senior adviser dan phifer said friday morning the president would not be speaking

about the grand jury. hours later, he gave this interview to abc news. obviously, they asked about it. he called for calm. the right move, or should we have heard more from the president sooner? >> i mean, to be honest, i've given up on president obama on the ferguson issue. at every moment, he has preached calm, he has tried to articulate the language of equivalence, as opposed to speaking out against injustice. i quite honestly would have rather the president said nothing than to have the statements he made previously. what he said this past -- over the past few days i think has been quite reasonable. he wants calm. the truth, though, is, there is calm out here. i'm literally here on the strip where so much of the protesting is happening. and as you see, there is calm. i've been talking to youth activists, met with the lost voices of the youth activist group out here. calm. everyone is anxious, worried about what is going to happen. but i don't see violence out here. i don't see the things that have been sort of magnified in the national media. >> ben, i would like your perspective on what mark said. do you think the president's response throughout on this

issue which has captivated and really -- captivated national attention and been the source of such national debate we should have heard more from the president on it? >> no. i think saying we should be calm and -- let's be honest. you're going to have calm until there are people that don't get what they want, and what their definition of justice is. i mean, i would expect there could be calm until then. and so, i mean, the president has sounded off on this in general. he likes to interject on major issues, and so for him to come out and say, let's make -- regardless of the outcome there is calm, that is something i think is appropriate for him to say, at this point, at least. >> what about, mickey, we have seen attorney general eric holder speak out about this. we saw him in ferguson, for example. that's a very high-ranking official. what is your take? is that who we should be hearing from on this? >> yes, i think so. department of justice has its own investigation going on into this. >> right. >> and, you know, people in

ferguson maybe don't trust the local prosecutor. but they should trust the justice department if they agree with what the grand jury says. so i think holder could play a very constructive role if he goes through the evidence that his own team found, whatever it is, and justifies whatever conclusion they draw. you know, i am a lawyer, i believe in process values. i think it's about respect, and i think people feel better about something if they feel they have been dealt with fairly. even if they lose. and it's easy -- that's the role holder could play. of course, we don't know what the grand jury will decide. maybe the people who want a prosecution won't lose. >> mark, you know, when weeard the president talking about the death of trayvon martin, some of his comments were very personal. and i'm wondering, is that what you wanted to hear more from the president? because, you know, you can't ignore the obvious. and that is that president obama is the nation's first black president. you're talking about an issue in ferguson, missouri, where

clearly there is a long history here in terms of race relations. what is it you want to hear? >> i do want that. i mean, when the president said, if i had a son, he would look like trayvon, he was making a racial signal. that resonated with people. i don't need the president to be the judge and jury here. i do need the president to speak up about an issue affecting all of us. this is a national issue. i don't want him to speak because he's black. i want him to speak because he's the president and the entire nation's eyes are fixed on this. and whenever we're talking about ferguson, he's talking about immigration. we're talking about the economy, he's talking about health care. >> that's exactly -- >> ben -- >> you need to be in step with the people. >> ben, i'd like your response. >> yeah, that's exactly what he should be doing. the president has an incredible amount of influence over individuals. and you do not want the president of the united states of america having influence or signalling what he may or what people may interpret on a grand

jury is what he wants them to do. that is incredibly unfair for the justice system. if you have a president of the united states of america spouting off and sending signals, whether they're dealing with race or not, you should want the grand jury to not think that the president of the united states of america wants a certain outcome. that's why he should be talking about these other issues. >> before we have to go, mickey, quick reaction to that. do you agree with ben's point there? >> well, yes, he got burned with trayvon martin, i think, when the case turned out to be more complicated than he implied. so he's holding back now, quite rationally. but i do think he definitely has a role to play in terms of convincing the people of ferguson that they have been dealt with fairly. and i think that's more holder's job than his. >> so you -- mickey, you want to hear more from the president. but after the grand jury makes a decision. >> i -- no, i don't have to hear more from the president. i do want to hear more from holder. i mean, it's his job. >> right. gentlemen, appreciate you -- >> i don't want either of them to influence the grand jury.

you're the president of the united states of america. you're not jesse jackson, you're not al sharpton. you're the president of the united states of america. your job is to hold that office and not put yourself in these situations where people may think you want a certain outcome. >> mark? point? good point? >> well, but if the -- if the outcome -- you can say i want justice. even when he said my son would look like trayvon martin, he didn't say george zimmerman was innocent or guilty. he was saying it's a tragedy. >> he certainly wasn't helping george zimmerman out. >> we can speak about the tragedy of racial injustice in this country without taking a side on the grand jury investigation. >> guys -- >> i want the president to be above the fray. >> we are out of time. oh what fun it is to ride. get the mercedes-benz on your wish list at the winter event going on now - but hurry,

the offer ends soon. [ho, ho, ho!] lease the 2015 c300 4matic for $419 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. ameriprise asked people a simple question: in retirement, will you have enough money to live life on your terms? i sure hope so. with healthcare costs, who knows. umm... everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor.... can get the real answers you need. start building your confident retirement today.

hello and welcome to the program. i'm michael "smerconish." as we wait for the decision from missouri, key questions you may not have heard. life and death fears among the police. i'll talk to a ferguson cop who says every police officer that he knows has received death threats. and i'll go inside a demonstration to grill a protester who says it's time to turn the tables. >> i'm praying for your death! i'm praying for your death and your death and your death. >> he wants to make the police the target. and i'm an attorney, so i'll take a hard look at the evidence with another lawyer who knows it even better than i do. i want to dig into the most important information that the jurors heard and saw. also, a journalist who is standing up