>> this is... >> we cannot let these cuts stand. >> nypd commissioner bratton blasting president obama's plan to drastically cut federal antiterrorism funds to new york city, and, in fact, it was a week of blasting by the police commish. he's also taking on apple, one of the biggest companies in the world, and imploring them to help cops catch terrorists and other criminals by breaking the encryption codes on iphones. our guest this morning and making the case for the nypd, deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism, our former abc colleague john miller. and good morning, everyone. welcome to "upclose." we're gonna begin this morning with the white house proposal to cut federal antiterrorism funding for new york. it would hurt the nypd, the fdny, and the office of emergency management -- this at

new york city remains a top target for terrorists. the white house wants to cut the $180 million terror funding budget in new york city -- cut it by half to $90 million. nypd's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, john miller, joining us this morning. john, welcome back to campus. former abc colleague, of course -- host of "20/20." nice to see you before we get to the antiterrorism, there's breaking news. we're recording this on a friday. i want to talk to you about what's going on with apple, and you have been the nypd's point man so far this week about this. today, late this afternoon, the justice department urging a judge to compel apple to help the fbi crack open an iphone that's locked right now that belonged to one of the san bernardino terrorists. you are joining the fight because you have cases here. you're making the case against apple, as well, though. >> well, yeah. we have a couple of hundred apple devices operating on their new operating system that cannot be penetrated, even with legal process, a search warrant signed

cases, terrorism cases, and other things, so we're certainly following this with interest. >> but this is different than me signing on to my phone carrier and you being able to see every phone call, every text, to whom right? >> it's extraordinarily different. it is actually much more similar to if you were a major drug dealer and we followed you to your bank every day and you were stuffing evidence, cash, narcotics, in a safe deposit box, we would go to a judge and get a search warrant based on -- we would establish probable cause and say, "we need to get in to that box to conduct a search." this is no different. it's about a telephone. it's not about what they say, which is creating a back door. it's about showing up with a warrant signed by a judge -- that's how we work in a democracy -- and going through the front door, which is how we access all other records. >> you do this with houses. you don't do it with cars, 'cause that's moving, but you do it with houses.

you do that with offices. why is apple saying no to you? what do you think their strategy is? >> well, a couple of things. number one, there is no rational reason in that up until -- before september 14th, we would come to apple with a search warrant. they had a key -- an encrypted key -- where they could open an apple phone. hackers didn't get that. they didn't exploit that. the parade of terribles they're suggesting never happened before, so how has that suddenly become impossible now? i don't know. the second part is i think they bet on the wrong horse. this is an older-model phone, one we could probably access through the fbi's technology if they bypassed the feature that would erase all content after 10 failed password tries, which is what the bureau is asking them to do. they have said to apple, "listen, you can do this in your own lab. you can create this key, get that phone open so that we can try passwords on it without it erasing itself, and you can

we don't want to have it, control it, own it. we're doing this on a one-case basis." i think apple's worried about the precedent. the reason i think they're betting on the wrong horse is they didn't wait for some case about a marijuana dealer in colorado. >> they took a terrorist case. >> they took a terrorist case, where more than a dozen people died, where more were wounded, and they said, "this is for the protection of our customers." i happen to know that some of those who were killed that day were probably apple customers, too. what about protecting those customers? what about the possibility, which is real, that there is information in that device that could lead us to a clue about, "was it directed? was it ordered? was it controlled by someone else? is that same someone else communicating with someone in new york?" that's how we have prevented these plots in the past, by using material found in one plot to get ahead to stop the next one. and what we're seeing here as they create more and more

is we're going dark on that. >> and what do you think is gonna be the settlement here? because there's gonna be a settlement. apple is gonna have a one-time order that they'll do this, or you'd like to have it -- from what i understand, you'd like to have it for these hundreds of other phones that you want to find out if there's any criminal information that you haven't found out yet. >> i don't think we're looking for anything remarkable. what we're looking for is to go back to normal, which is we have no entitlement to look at anything that's none of our business, unless we can prove probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, get a judge to sign off on that, and get a warrant. that's how we do it. >> so, you want to say, case-by-case basis, when this happens, we should have the opportunity, with a court order, after a judge hears the evidence, whether or not we have probable cause to get in and look at bill ritter's phone? >> just like everywhere else, and for public safety and for justice. >> what do you think the compromise is gonna be? how long does this play out? 'cause apple can't just refuse to do this. i suppose they could go to prison for this, or jail? >> so, let's take a look at that. let's say that the

federal judge to insert criminal penalties. let's say that the judge holds apple in contempt and issues a fine of $500,000 a day till they comply. well, apple exhales $500,000 when they're walking down the street -- $1 million, $1 billion. you know, it's one of the richest companies on the planet. so, it'll be very interesting to see how this plays out. at the end of the day, though, i think here's the good part. the people at apple are not evil. they're not criminals. this is a business model. it's a marketing decision. it's a lot of things. i don't think they're doing it with ill intent. i don't think they're thinking much about how to balance that against the other needs of society in the post-9/11 world or with the threat of criminal activity. i am rather positive that if a family member of an apple executive were kidnapped and we grabbed the guy at the ransom drop and took an iphone 5s off him and said, "we need to get in

able to figure that out with a lot of attention very quickly. >> well, let's hope that doesn't happen. you talked about post-9/11 mentality. this is what this is really about -- this controversy. let's talk a little bit before i -- i know it's time for you to go. let's talk a little bit about the terror funding controversy, because you've been involved with that, as well. $180 million is what you had. the white house wants to cut you to $90 million, by half. why do you need the money? why does the white house want to cut it? they must say there's some duplicate of expenses here. >> bill, there's no sense to this at all. so, first, let's start with reality. then we'll get to the parallel universe of washington. the reality is that the director of national intelligence, for whom i used to work as the deputy director for analysis, testified before the senate armed service committee that the terrorism picture is more complicated, more layered, and, with the emergence of isis and an expanded ability to do

to be more difficult every minute. they, in sum and substance, said that it's likely we'll see a terrorist attack again in the united states within the next year. that makes sense to me. i'm reading the same intelligence he is. how does that measure up with, "we're going to cut the terrorism allotment to new york city," which statistically has had more plots against it than any other city in the united states, "in half?" >> i understand and appreciate that, but neither side here has said why they're cutting or why they don't want to cut. >> so, while we still haven't gotten a rational explanation about why anyone thinks this is a good idea, what the white house has said, and only the white house -- not the department of homeland security or the office of management budget. what they said a couple of days ago was, "well, look -- we checked your accounts, new york city, and you have $225 million unspent sitting in there. so, before we give you another $180 million, we'll just give you a little bit more, and then you'll have an extra cushion and

that's not the way this works. the simple fact is that when they give homeland security grants, they know that these things have to be put out to bid, vendors have to be tested, products have to be tried, long-term projects have to be funded, like our lower manhattan security initiative, which is a growing network of cameras, license-plate readers, radiation-detection devices, biowatch. anybody who has ever done business before -- and i was in charge of a $285 million contract in the federal government -- knows when you go to one of these giant companies and you pay them the whole thing up front, you may never see them again. everything then costs more, and there's delays and there's problems with deliveries. >> how long before this is settled? >> the way you do this is you take those 2- and 3-year grants and you pay them out bit by bit. there's not one dollar in that account that isn't accounted for, and for the white house to claim, well, we're sitting on all this unspent money 'cause we can't think of what to do with it is either a very honest mistake that shows they didn't

>> john miller, head of counterterrorism for the nypd, welcome back to abc, if briefly. >> well, thanks, bill. thanks for having me. >> and a lot of controversy you've been handling this week. thanks for joining us. when we come back, a different look at presidential politics. the congressional black caucus endorsing hillary clinton for president. why not bernie sanders? we get some answers from new york congressman gregory meeks. and later, we remember monsignor tom hartman, one half of the duo known as the god squad. joining us, his god squad partner, rabbi marc gellman, talking about the remarkable friendship and what they tried to accomplish. all across america families are coming back to time warner cable for a whole new experience. that's because we've been working hard to give you better service,

we came back for internet speeds so fast even the kids are impressed. oh she's impressed. we're catching up on movies and shows on demand just as fast as we can watch them. for $89.99 a month you'll get 100 meg ultra-fast internet, popular hd channels and unlimited calling. twc's home wifi is so strong we can use all our devices at the same time. so we can all watch whatever we want. and that's kinda cool. call now. for $89.99 a month you'll get internet, tv and phone. there's no contract, no risk and our money-back guarantee. come back today and we'll give you free installation with our exclusive one-hour arrival window. feels good to be back. come back today. you'll get free installation, tv equipment and epix included. and ask how you could get a $300 reward card.

>> welcome back to "upclose." this morning we're gonna take a closer look at the so-called black vote in the race for president. will african-americans come out en masse for hillary clinton? she's certainly counting on it. the congressional black caucus political action committee last week officially endorsing the former secretary of state and former u.s. senator. 90% of board members voted to support her. clinton's democratic rival, bernie sanders, did not receive any votes, even though he says his message, in part, is aimed at african-americans. i sat down yesterday with the chairman of that committee, congressman greg meeks, from new york, and i asked him how this year's vitriolic presidential contest compares to previous vitriolic presidential contests. >> they're worse, and the most surprising. it would be funny if it wasn't so serious. the times that we live in is a very serious time with the threats that we have going about the world and the world being a much smaller place now and the

the way that individuals can transport one another. the disease -- you look at -- can go from one place to the other, just like that. this new disease, the zika piece -- it's serious times that we live in, and yet look at how polarized we are, number one, with people saying, "don't ever compromise," so how do you get things done if you don't compromise on congress? number two, when a political campaign is becoming something like a reality-tv show and folks are looking at it more for entertainment than they are for substance, it's quite a serious matter. >> what gets lost in the translation here? because one of these people that are involved in what you're calling a reality-tv show, for entertainment, less of substance in terms of the discourse -- one of these people could be president of the united states. >> absolutely, and that's what's dangerous. that's why i said it would be

>> michael bloomberg, the former mayor of the city you grew up in, and you know him -- he is looking at all this and saying, okay, so, if it's not hillary clinton and if it is bernie sanders versus trump or cruz, especially, he's thinking of getting in. what effect is that gonna have in this race? >> well, i've seen various different polls in that regard that who he helps and who he hurts, but i think it makes a statement for those that might be in the middle, and i think that's what he's counting on. he's counting on trying to draw folks in the middle together. clearly, though, i'm a hillary clinton supporter. i think she'll be the nominee and the next president of the united states. >> i'm not sure that the hillary clinton campaign feels that same way, as confident as you do. a member of the congressional black caucus. you're head of the political arm. last week you endorsed hillary clinton. there are a lot of people who think that the message for bernie sanders may appeal to low-income people more than hillary clinton's and especially, perhaps,

mrs. clinton has much more support among african-americans. why hasn't sanders' message resonated among blacks? >> well, i think that, number one, blacks are analyzing the message and what can actually be accomplished and what can't. number two, i think that blacks also look at relationships and look at histories, and, clearly, when it comes to issues that are important to african-americans, hillary has been on the right side and been an advocate for it, even in some circumstances you may say that sanders made a vote or two that were good, but you could also show, for example, his position on guns that were not good for the african-american community. and if you ask who's been more in the forefront on issues that are important to african-americans, it's been bernie sanders. bernie sanders has basically been a leader in the socialist movement, but even in the socialist movement, there's racism. >> how is it racist? how is it racist?

there are, within socialism, that just looks at class, as if that's gonna resolve racial issues. so, that is not gonna resolve problems of individuals who are african-american. he would say, to play devil's advocate -- senator sanders would say he's a democratic socialist and that, therefore, the issues of race would come in to an analysis of society, not just class. >> no, because when i hear him talking about class, that's what he's basically talking about -- ending banks, talking about making sure that individuals have equal opportunity, even if they're in corporate america or non-corporate america. he's talking about the jobs that can happen for all. in fact, sometimes what he talks about more than anything else is just the $15-an-hour jobs -- and i'm one who's a huge supporter that we need to raise the minimum wage -- but for african-americans, there are many more that are more qualified than $15-an-hour jobs,

his part in that regard. and i think that when people talk about, for example, the bill clinton era and if you look at where economic disparities were beginning to close and african-americans were closing the wealth gap and being able to really progress in american society in that regards, there was great gains there. that was not -- and that's not been the forte of senator sanders. >> and, in fact, the african-american community as a whole, the population as a whole in america, tends to support the clintons. bill clinton was a huge advocate of african-americans. what was the old joke? that he was the first black president, right? >> yeah. toni morrison said that. but what he looked at was african-american communities, and he called it new markets initiatives, so that he was talking about investing in communities that, heretofore, had not been invested in, which then created jobs and opportunities that didn't exist before. >> so, politically, though,

income inequality, the system is rigged -- this is a message that a lot of black activists have said for a long time. is that going to resonate with a certain number of african-americans as we go forward in this primary season, and do you expect there to be some swing away from clinton toward senator sanders? >> no. i think that the more that people examine the record of hillary clinton, what she's done in the past, and you put it on line with senator sanders, more people will then get rid of the hype of the language that the senator's utilizing and go with the substance of senator clinton, or secretary clinton, and i think that's what's gonna happen as we move forward into the primary season. >> new york congressman gregory meeks from queens -- we thank him for joining us. when we come back, they call themselves the god squad -- a rabbi and a priest, both from long island, but with a global message. this morning we talk to rabbi marc gellman about the death of his longtime friend and

monsignor tom hartman. you like being picture perfect. you should want your banking to be too. stop into td bank and we'll help set you up with picture perfect banking. new customers, open a checking and savings account and you can get a polaroid cube+

in new york state, we believe tomorrow starts today. all across the state the economy is growing, with creative new business incentives, and the lowest taxes in decades, attracting the talent and companies of tomorrow. like in the hudson valley, with world class biotech.

next generation technologies. let us help grow your company's tomorrow, today at business.ny.gov >> welcome back to "upclose." they called themselves the god squad, and their titles seemed like the first line of some kind of joke. a jewish rabbi and a catholic priest walk in to an abc tv studio. this morning we remember one half of that duo, monsignor tom hartman. tom and rabbi marc gellman, both from long island, fixtures on "good morning america" for years, friends of "eyewitness news" for years, preaching not so much about religion but about how all of us treat each other -- must treat each other -- with dignity and respect. tom hartman was 69 when he died this past week on long island from complications of parkinson's disease. his friend and "god squad" co-star -- more like a brother, really -- rabbi marc gellman. he joins us from kabc tv, our sister station in los angeles. marc, good morning. >> thank you. thank you, bill.

>> and thanks for your condolences. it was very, very comforting, and all the people who've called and written to say they appreciated what they did and they're so sorry about his passing. i just try to encourage everyone to do what he would have encouraged them to do if he was alive, and that is to always focus on the positive and to constantly understand that we have an opportunity to convey to people the goodness of another person's life, the hopefulness of it, and not just the pain and sorrow of his passing. >> mm-hmm. >> you know, when i called you to give you my condolences, i heard it in your voice, such a sorrow, and it hit me that you have given comfort to so many millions of people around the country and here in the tri-state area, to staff at "good morning america," where i saw you, you know, give comfort to them -- you and tom.

comfort because you got used to him dying, but it's very different when someone's actually dead, and he was such a dear friend to you. >> right. it's -- i needed a rabbi when you called, and so until someone else comes along, bill, you'll be my rabbi, okay? >> well, that is my honor to minister in my humble way to you, rabbi gellman. what was it about tom and you that had this great chemistry, and what was it about him that allowed him to bring out the best in you? >> i don't know. i try to understand things, but if you ask anybody, "what is it about your best friend that makes them your best friend?" aside from saying the simple and obvious things -- that tommy was a good man, he was compassionate, he was kind, he was sacrificial, he would do anything for anyone, never said no, was the very best that the

from the obvious things, i loved him. i loved him because i think at the foundation of it all... we were both... people who weren't exactly team players. that means he had his own style of being a priest. he was supportive of the church and built a wonderful television station, telecare, for the diocese of rockville centre. and i was active in a big synagogue and president of the new york board of rabbis and all of that, but, ultimately, it was bringing god to individual people outside of institutions that excited tom and excites me. >> mm-hmm. >> and we had such a simple message that i was always embarrassed that it was so attractive and inspiring to people, because it was really just this. we know enough about how we're different and not enough yet

and i think the fact that that message was delivered by a priest and a rabbi and that such friendships, though they were natural to us, are very rare. >> well, it came across. >> i think it was all liberating. >> yeah. it came across, marc. it really did. it came across to so many people. you know, you had a television show. you wrote columns every week. but you didn't have an agent. you didn't have an 800 number. you guys were clearly not in this for the money. >> no! >> you were in it for something far deeper than that. >> no. [ chuckles ] god, no. no. it was -- and i think that was really part of our thinking at the beginning. i was a working rabbi. tom was a working priest. and i think that gave credibility to our message. we were good on television, but that was a by-product of it, and tommy was very, very attractive. he was handsome, and i was funny. tommy could not tell a joke, and i looked like i slept under a

just the way it was. we were two very different types, but, in a certain way, we were like a duet in which the music melded when we were together. i don't know any other way to say it, but i have never met anyone like him, and i can't imagine life without him, but i have to imagine it, and we all do, in time. >> at a time when we see differences morph so quickly into vitriol, i'm reminded this past week with justice scalia's passing that one of his best friends was justice ruth bader ginsberg, who is on the opposite political spectrum as he, and yet they were best friends. their families celebrated new year's eve together. here you have a rabbi and a priest who seem to be best buds, and in this time and age when there is just so much vitriol and pushing our differences, you guys came together and didn't talk about your differences -- talked about all the things that

>> right, and you know what else was amazing, bill? we did so many lectures and speeches for charities and other people who wanted us to speak for them, and people would come up to us, and they'd say -- oftentimes two people would be holding hands. they'd say, "you know, we're a god squad, too. this woman is jewish, and i'm catholic, and we're best friends, and we're a god squad, too." and so there are other examples. it's just they didn't get televised. what was unique about us, i guess, is that our friendship was on television. the only sadness i feel is that i couldn't hand off the god squad to another team -- that, somehow, what we did was so unusual that no one did it before and no one did it after. and i'm still looking around, and if i can't find someone to hand it to, i may have to do it

would never do the god squad while tom was alive. and now i don't know. i think the message is more needed now, today, bill, where people are so angry and hostile against people they disagree with. i think our message is more needed now than when we first presented it. >> well, you've helped spread that message this morning, and we're thinking about you. so many people have written on my facebook page and called in and written us e-mails and notes. >> oh, yeah. >> marc gellman, we thank you for joining us this morning and paying tribute to your great friend, tom hartman, the two members of the god squad. >> thank you. pray for his soul, bill. >> all right. >> pray for his soul. >> nice talking to you, marc. good morning. and that'll do it for this edition of "upclose," this show dedicated to tom hartman's memory, as well, this morning. if you missed any of today's program, catch it again on our website, abc7ny. thank you all for watching. i'm bill ritter, and for all of

rest of your weekend. >> buenos d^as y bienvenidos. good morning and welcome once again to "tiempo." we are in the heart of winter, with bone-chilling temperatures that have reached the single digits. that means the united way of long island has activated its emergency fuel fund, project warmth. it helps people pay their heating bills on the island, where there is, of course, a large hispanic population. we'll tell you how that works in just a few minutes. right now, though, more historic changes in the relations between the united states and cuba. the u.s. and the communist nation have resumed commercial air traffic for the first time in 50 years. u.s. airlines will begin flying to cuba, if all goes well, by