Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Can Co-Ops Ban Smokers?; Can Catholic Church be Sued Under RICO?; Who was Deep Throat?

Aired April 30, 2002 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello everyone and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. There's a new twist to the church sex abuse scandal today. Four alleged victims are using the RICO Act to sue Los Angeles cardinal Roger Mahoney. They accuse him of protecting abusive priests. The RICO Act is what the government used to go after the mob.

Do the plaintiffs have a case? And 30 years after the Watergate break-in, any guesses on who Deep Throat could be? And I want to hear from you on this one: Do smokers have rights? Here's the info you need: Call me at 1-800-310-4cnn and e-mail talkback@cnn.com. Here's what we're talking about:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sad so to say that the RICO laws fit the archdiocese and the officials of the Catholic church. Here we are in 2002, having to use one of the heaviest civil legal clubs that can be waged against one of the most powerful and revered institutions in our culture.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: Suing a cardinal for racketeering, does the priest sex abuse scandal rise to the level of organized crime?

And if you want to move into this building, don't pack your cigarettes. The co-op board says you can own an apartment but you can't smoke here. Would you agree to that?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would prefer to move into a nonsmoking build.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is overkill beyond anything I can imagine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: And a whole generation learned about the Watergate scandal from the movie "All Of The President's Men." Who is the source that brought down a president, after all of these years, John Dean says he knows who deep throat really is. Do you?

OK, we'll get to all of that in just a minute, but first, this late-breaking story. Federal agents have arrested the executive director of a charity group. He is accused of lying about his links to international terrorism, and right now we are going to go to CNN's justice correspondent Kelli Arena.

Kelli, welcome and tell us about this suspect.

KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, his name is Inam Arnot (ph). He is the executive director of the Benevolence International Foundation. That happens to be one of the top five Muslim charities here in the United States. He is accused of lying about links to international terrorists. The government alleges that he's had a long relationship with Osama bin Laden, and other al Qaeda leaders. The attorney general actually described that relationship just moments ago at a press conference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: The complaint which was filed today alleged that al Qaeda has an established practice of using charities for terrorist purposes, and that that executive director, a mister Arnot, has ties to bin Laden including being trusted with the care of one of bin Laden's wives in Pakistan in 1989.

The affidavit also sets forth evidence that he was -- has a relationship with Osama bin Laden and many of his key associates and that the foundation is an organization that al Qaeda has used for logistical support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARENA: Now among the other al Qaeda operatives who are -- supposed to have dealt with includes Mumdu Salem, who the government says tried to obtain chemical and nuclear weapons for al-Qaeda. He is in U.S. custody -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Kelli, clear something up for me. I understand the first suspect you mentioned, that he is allegedly suing the federal government?

ARENA: Right, he actually -- his assets were frozen at the beginning he of the year, and his premises were raided. That part all part of the anti-terrorism action taken, if you remember, against several charities here that the White House said had ties to terrorist organizations.

His organization then sued, saying that that move was unconstitutional, and as part of the court documents he said that he and his organization had never had any links to international terrorism, and so he is being charged with perjury in those documents.

NEVILLE: Of course we will be interested to see where this case goes. Kelli Arena, thanks so much for being with us.

ARENA: You're welcome.

NEVILLE: Now to our next story: did the handling of sex abuse allegations against priests add up to racketeering? Our next guest says yes, Jeff Anderson. He is one of the attorneys who filed civil RICO suit against Cardinal Roger Mahoney. Also with us, Mike Mueller, he is the chairman of the American Bar Association, Civil RICO Committee.

Welcome to both of you gentlemen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

NEVILLE: Mr. Mueller, in plain terms, explain the RICO laws.

MIKE MUELLER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: The RICO statute was passed 30 years ago, originally to address mob activity. Now, of course, they added a provision that allowed people to sue under the statute, to help act as sort of a private government, to go after things that the government would also be interested in stopping. In short, you have to run the affairs of what is called an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, which is certain defined illegal acts and that has to happen continuously over time.

NEVILLE: So base basically, in this case, maybe the suit alleges that Cardinal Mahoney in this case tried to cover up, and harbored priests that were accused of sexual abuse?

MUELLER: Let me say, Mr. Anderson can describe his complaint. I haven't seen these complaints. They were just filed yesterday but from the media reports they do allege serious allegations, but a coverup is not enough by itself. You first have to have a violation of the specific illegal acts that the Congress was trying to get at, and a coverup is not that by itself. There has to be something more serious.

NEVILLE: OK, Mr. Anderson tell us what your lawsuit says?

JEFF ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: The RICO part of the lawsuit alleges a pattern of racketeering, specifically the use of the wires and the use of the mails to defraud the plaintiffs and other parishioners. And there are three enterprises, the bishop and diocese officials, the archbishop and the priests, and the archbishop cardinal all the other bishops. So there are really three enterprises, pled and alleged here for which we have evidence that RICO applies.

NEVILLE: So if you have evidence what are your chances of winning?

ANDERSON: Well, you know, I don't think that it has been seriously tried before, and I know there is a lot of skeptics, but I have been around this for 20 years, and I have assembled a great deal of evidence and I am confident that the chances of prevailing on the RICO claims, and the others are very good.

NEVILLE: Because this is the first time you are using the RICO laws against a cardinal, in the Catholic church?

ANDERSON: That's right. I only decided to use the RICO clout, as it were, in the civil cases in the last month, and in the last month I filed four RICO cases against various bishops. This is the first time a cardinal individually, or as an archbishop has been named. That is correct.

NEVILLE: Curious, you know, we have been talking about it here on TALKBACK LIVE, and it has been in the news, there have been many people, just generic people in the public, saying hey, wait a minute, why not hold the these cardinals responsible? Does that have anything to do with your decision to file this RICO case?

ANDERSON: Well, I really thought that using some of the other civil remedies would address the problem and have tried very hard for two decades, using compensatory and punitive damage claims, and given the evidence in the breath of the scheme here, the breath of the conspiracy at the highest levels of the church across the land, I felt that RICO was compelled, and that is why we chose to use the heavy artillery of RICO, in these cases.

NEVILLE: OK, but, Mr. Mueller, I want to get you involved here, first of all, RICO has a four-year statute of limitations?

MUELLER: That's right. And it is not normally extended just because there is fraud or concealment. The supreme court said that a couple of years ago in a case involving someone who had been locked up in a psychiatric facility. And he tried suing 11 years after he got out and the Supreme Court said it was too late.

NEVILLE: So, what is going to happen in this case, if we are talking about -- Mr. Mueller, how long ago -- Anderson -- how long has it been since your clients were allegedly abused?

ANDERSON: Well, the underlying RICO claim does not related back to the abuse, it related to the pattern of pattern of racketeering, in other words, the scheme to defraud. For example, to move priests out of the U.S. of A., or keep them out of the U.S. of A. to avoid prosecution. That is called obstruction of justice.

We have evidence that obstruction of justice has continued for both of the last decade and to the present. So when it comes to the statute of limitations and the RICO violations, the RICO violations are not for the underlying abuse, but rather for the pattern of racketeering activity and the illegal acts that consist of that, which are obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting felonious conduct, and illegal use of the wires and the mail to defraud.

NEVILLE: In plain terms, what does that mean in this case?

ANDERSON: It means they are lying, and they are cheating and they are still stealing, and the RICO claims are not about the sexual abuse but about the coverup of them, and essentially the obstruction of justice.

NEVILLE: Bert (ph) from New York. BERT: As a lawyer, and former judge I think I have a difficult time in making this RICO statute stick, but the lawyers representing these people who are entitled to recover damages are in sort of a difficult situation. Up until now, the church has been paying these settlements to keep the situation quiet. Now, with the cat out of the bag, if the church is no longer funding settlements, they are left suing a bunch of clergymen who have taken a vow of poverty and from whom you cannot collect anything.

NEVILLE: And there is a good question, where will the money come from? We will talk about that. And if the racketeering is -- this sticks, how much will it cost the Catholic church? Does this open the door to even more suits and more pay outs? Much more when TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back. We're talking about lawsuits and the crisis in the priesthood. And before break, we were talking about monetary damages and where will the money come from. Mike Mueller, what do you have to say about this? Do you know anything about it?

MUELLER: Before you can get to the issue of money, you have to get to the question of whether these plaintiffs are the right people to be bringing the lawsuit to collect that money. The statute requires that people suing under this statute have suffered injury to their business or property, so the claim as I understand it, is that there was obstruction of justice and that there is money being collected. But that, as I understand it, is not money being collected from the plaintiffs.

NEVILLE: Well, go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

ANDERSON: It's a good point that RICO does requires injury to business or property. In this case, we have injury to property rights and injury to property by reason of the defrauding and the deceit that has prevented these plaintiffs, their parents as parishioners from both contributing to the church and particularly asserting their rights, their property rights under civil lawsuits.

And it is the depravation of that property right, the right to sue years ago that they were deprived of.

NEVILLE: Let me jump in here because all of the legalese we want to get to the crux of the matter here, and that is so if in fact, we are talking about monetary damages, and RICO cases are known to pay triple damages. Again, where would the money come from, where would you be seeking this money for your clients should you win this case?

ANDERSON: Well, against the wrongdoers, that is the corporation of the archdiocese, and the other corporations involved, that is a corporation's soul, that is the bishop's corporation.

NEVILLE: Are we talking about millions, hundreds of thousands?

ANDERSON: I haven't specified damages. I don't know what we are talking about yet, but there will be a date for that. I just haven't gotten there.

NEVILLE: But already there have been some parishioners who have decided not to contribute money to the Catholic church for fear that their money will be going to support some of the cases. And Jane, I know you are a Catholic. I would like to know your thoughts in all of this.

JANE: I think it is embarrassing that we have to see this. But, you know, I am not embarrassed to be a Catholic and I am not embarrassed of my religion. And it is such a small percentage of the catholic priests in this country that we have caught, we have caught 177 I think, out of 46,000 priests, and it just saddens me that there is such a strong focus on it.

NEVILLE: Let me ask you this though, what happens in the event that your parish, say they are collecting funds for, you think, for some new building on the site, yet you find out that the money is maybe going towards some of these cases, setting some of these cases?

How would you feel about that?

JANE: Um, would probably upset me, but you know, I am going to stick by my church and whatever they decide to do, I am happy with that.

NEVILLE: And you will keep contributing money?

JANE: Yes.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you very much.

I want to move back here to this gentleman in the back row. Excuse me guys, pull in the legs -- pull in the legs for me -- of stand up, Cyrus from Georgia.

CYRUS: Yes. Um I just wanted to tell her, you know, respond to that, in that it is not the amount necessarily, it is the fact that it has happened, and just that we are seeing a pattern in so many of the priests doing that, and you know just because not everyone is caught, or just because it has only been 177, that is 177 caught, not 177 times it happened, so we cannot just isolate these incidents and just think that is all that there is, because then are you only deceiving yourself and what is really going on.

NEVILLE: Thank you, Cyrus.

I have a caller that wants to weigh in on the conversation, David from California. Go ahead speak out.

CALLER: Good afternoon everybody. As much as I agree that the RICO act will give them compensatory damages in a monetary situation, I am very disappointed with law enforcement in general. From what we have heard anecdotally at this point, there has obviously been obstruction of justice, witness tampering, furtherance of the crime of knowledge, and these are situations that if you or I or any other person in this audience or listening to me on the phone right now had done, the local prosecutor would have no question whatsoever in coming and arresting you and trying you on those charges.

NEVILLE: And thank you for that comment because on that note, Mike Mueller, these are civil cases, so they cannot go to jail. What is the likelihood of this becoming more of a criminal case?

MUELLER: Well, I think you have to ask yourself why the government has not already brought the case, I do not know the answer to that, I cannot comment on the facts of this case. But it does suggest that there may be a little bit of opportunism here. I cannot say that for certain but...

NEVILLE: Opportunism in what way?

MUELLER: Well, you know, I don't know anything about the plaintiffs, so I cannot comment on whether or not their allegations are true, in fact I have not seen their complaint yet, I do not know their actual allegations.

But there is an opportunity for people to come forward under the statute if they meet all the requirements. I think the biggest problem here is whether this is even the right statute for them to do that.

NEVILLE: I want to switch gears for a second here, I -- you did not really answer my question about whether or not you think these charges should become criminal eventually?

MUELLER: But the fact of the matter is, I really cannot answer that question.

NEVILLE: Just your opinion?

MUELLER: I would say it is a stretch.

NEVILLE: Jeff Anderson, what do you have to prove to win this case?

ANDERSON: Well, we've got to simply prove that there is in serious damage to their business and property, and that there was a long-standing pattern of deceit, and use of wires, and mails, deceit of the plaintiff, deceit of the parishioners, deceit of the police and deceit of the prosecutors.

NEVILLE: You keep mentioning wires. This is the first time I am hearing about this. What are you talking about, sir?

ANDERSON: E-mails and mail, with we talk about the wires.

NEVILLE: So correspondence going back and forth to keep this inside the church and keep it a secret is what you are saying.

ANDERSON: Correct.

NEVILLE: I see.

Jeff Anderson, Mike Mueller, thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

Up next: Smokers need not apply. A New York co-op's decision hits smokers against their non-smoking neighbors. Who's right? Hmm -- don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: I get the feeling it may get a little heated up in here. In New York, one co-op board says you can buy here, but you can't smoke here. Can co-ops tell residents what to do, or not to do, in their own homes? Their own homes we are talking about.

Is this discrimination against smokers? Or is it the price you pay to be a better neighbor? Let's welcome to the show, Stuart Saft, he's a real estate attorney and the chairman of the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums. And Chris Murray, a lawyer and legal director of the Nassau, New York chapter of the ACLU. Welcome to all of you, both of you.

OK, Mr. Saft, some people might ask if these co-op board members have lost their minds. What do you say to that?

STUART SAFT, N.Y. CO-OPS & CONDOS: Not at all. They are attempting to deal with a very real problem. The people living in the building are concerned both about the health aspects of smoking in other apartments as well as potential fire hazards and have asked the board to do something about it.

Now they are not going to stop any current resident from smoking in their apartment, but hence forth people that buy in the building will be asked not to sign a document saying they will not smoke or permit others to smoke in the apartment and hopefully over an extended period of time this will create a smoke-free environment.

NEVILLE: How so? Because you have you people already there who smoke.

SAFT: Well yes, and they will be permitted to smoke but at some point in time they will move out of the apartment, they will sell their apartment or they will die, and someone new will move into the apartment who will agree to not smoke.

Now what this accomplishes is that over an extended period of time, the building will be full of people who do not smoke, but on the short-term, if you buy an apartment tomorrow, you do not have to worry that next week someone will buy the apartment next to you and smoke like a chimney.

So it is providing an assurance to people who are now going to be buying that if their next door neighbor doesn't smoke now, their future next door neighbor will not be smoking in the future.

NEVILLE: Let's say I do buy an apartment in the building and I tell you I do not smoke, and suddenly I do light up inside of my apartment. What happens? SAFT: Well, part of the purchase application will be signing a document in which you acknowledge that you will not smoke in the apartment, and that you will not allow others to smoke in the apartment, so if in the future at some time you do decide to light up and your neighbors find out about it, we then have the ability to go into court and get an injunction to stop you from smoking.

At the present time, a land lord, any landlord and in the case of a co-op , the board of directors is obligated to provide each resident with a habitable residence. Many residents have been complaining that their apartments are not habitable as a result of smoke coming in from other apartments.

NEVILLE: From other apartments?

SAFT: Exactly.

Up until this point landlords and boards did not have a way to deal with this problem, and this is a way of dealing with it without infringing upon the rights of existing residences that smoke.

NEVILLE: Chris Murry, what do you think about this?

CHRIS MURRY, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I think is terrible. You are talking about a purely legal activity in the privacy of your own home. And where are you going to draw the line? If a cop says we do not want people drinking because it is possible for somebody to get drunk?

NEVILLE: Hold on. We are not talking about a club here, but a private building. These people pay a pretty penny to live there, so really, they will tell you it is their business, not yours.

MURRY: Except it is all right to regulate things in common areas and public places, hallways, but you are talking about somebody's private individual unit, someone is sitting there watching television, sitting in their bedroom minding their own business, conducting a perfectly legal activity. They are not bothering anybody. They are not infringing on anybody else's space. And they, quite frankly, they have ownership rights. They are paying a pretty penny too, and should be able to use their apartment the way they he believe, in a legal way.

NEVILLE: All right, let's let Gale speak out.

GALE: Hi, I am a nonsmoker, but I definitely do not believe in taking away rights under your own private home, and I would not want them to take away a right of smoking or anything else. If they take away smoking, they will also take away other rights after that one gets passed.

NEVILLE: Let me ask you, Gale, so if you lived next door to someone who smokes and that smoke kept seeping into your apartment through the ventilation system. What would you do? How would you like to handle it? GALE: I think I would ask the owner to see if he could do some insulation, check on the conditions, and when you own your own home they are responsible to do the repairs that they make, so if they do smoke, let them repair it. But certainly don't take away every right that they have.

NEVILLE: All right Gale, well, thank you for speaking out here in that nice pink shirt you have on there. All right.

Now, you know what? We have been talking. And I want to talk to the residents who live in that building we are talking about. So, we are going to go to New York City when TALKBACK LIVE continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody.

We are talking about a New York co-op building's new ban on smoking. And we have a camera outside that co-op building, where we are going to go right now live and hear what Gilda has to say about this. Now, Gilda lives in the building. And Tina doesn't live there, but she also has an opinion.

I want to welcome you both.

And, Gilda, raise your hand. Let me know who are. And you live in the building, right?

GILDA ANGEL, NEW YORK CITY CO-OP BUILDING RESIDENT: Yes, I do.

NEVILLE: What do you think about this?

ANGEL: I think that this new restriction is good. I think it is good because, not only will it eliminate second-hand smoke from penetrating through the walls of a smoker's apartment into a nonsmoker's apartment, but it also potentially will protect the safety of the people who live in the co-op.

NEVILLE: Now, Gilda, do you smoke?

ANGEL: No, I don't.

NEVILLE: Now, tell me. Give me an idea. You live there. Give us an idea of what it is like to -- is there smoke coming through the ventilation system? What do you guys have to deal with there?

ANGEL: I have never experienced smoke coming through the ventilation system. But we have been in the building for two years. And I have seen about three fires within the complex, one of which was fatal. And it started from a person who was smoking cigarettes in bed.

NEVILLE: That is quite dangerous.

ANGEL: So, that is scary to me as a resident.

NEVILLE: Of course it is, absolutely.

Now, Tina, as New Yorkers are, they will speak out. It doesn't matter that you don't live in that building, but you have something to say about this, right? So tell me what you think.

TINA, NEW YORK CITY RESIDENT: Right.

Yes, I don't live in the building. And I am not a smoker. But I do believe it is discrimination against smokers. And I just believe that, if you are going to buy an apartment, buy a house, whatever, you should be able to have the freedom to do whatever you want in your home.

NEVILLE: OK, now, Tina, some people might say, well, just don't by an apartment in that building.

TINA: Well, I don't think it is right.

NEVILLE: OK. Well, hang on for me, OK, because we have got some audience members here in Atlanta who want to speak out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think it abridges anyone's rights when they know, in the first place, that they are not going to be allowed to smoke in the building, and they can just choose another apartment.

NEVILLE: And ladies, Tina and Gilda, if you have something to say about that, go ahead and respond, too.

ANGEL: I agree. If you know the rules in advance, you can comply with them and decide to live there or not live there. There are people who are in the building who are smokers who will not be affected by this decision. The cases are grandfathered. So, they are not affected by the new ruling.

NEVILLE: Chris Murry, what do you have to say about all of this?

MURRY: Well, it affects the people that live there currently because they can't sell their units to people that smoke. Thus, there is a smaller market to sell their apartments.

Also, the fact that they the are allowing people to be grandfathered in I think runs into some legal problems, because there is a basic premise in co-op law that every shareholder has to be treated equally. So, what is the situation that someone doesn't smoke when they buy the apartment, but then takes up the habit? Or maybe they are single at the time that they buy the apartment, but then marry somebody that smokes.

NEVILLE: They marry somebody who smokes.

You know what? If somebody is single and they do not smoke, they are not going to marry a smoker. But that is a different story.

(LAUGHTER)

MURRY: Well, I don't know if that is true. Love supersedes

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: They say love is blind. They didn't say it messes with the olfactory. That still works.

All right, Gilda, this is interesting, though, because what about resale value? Are you concerned, though, when it comes down to selling your apartment, if you want to, as Chris just said, it limits the list of applicants?

ANGEL: It is an interesting point. On the other hand, you may want to consider the fact that there are many families with children who would prefer not to have smoking in a building.

NEVILLE: That's true.

ANGEL: It's better for the children.

NEVILLE: Yes, because, what, second-hand smoke has been classified as a class-A carcinogen, which is as deadly as asbestos.

ANGEL: It certainly has health ramifications. And if I were concerned with my health or with the health of my family, I would very much prefer to be in a building that really cares about the health and the safety of their residents.

NEVILLE: Sure. Hang on there, because David from Georgia has something to say.

DAVID: Personally, I wonder, if the air quality and the smoking problems are already that bad, why would a nonsmoker want to move in there in the first place?

NEVILLE: Interesting.

Tina, are you listening to all this, too? Did you hear that, Tina?

TINA: I am sorry.

NEVILLE: That's all right. It is kind of loud.

Did you want to say something, Sidney (ph)? Stand up for me.

TINA: I do agree, yes, there's children in the building and there's health issues. But I just think that, if you are going to start with restricting smoking know, what else are they going to restrict? I just think it is just going to -- I think it is a bad idea. And I certainly don't agree with grandfathering the existing smokers in the building.

NEVILLE: OK. It is quite complicated, because you are right. That is a whole interesting point there.

But I want to let Kathy (ph), who is on the phone, get in on this conversation -- Kathy, welcome to the show.

CALLER: Hi.

Smokers have rights. And, yes, it is their body, their health, their choice. But all of our rights come with responsibility not to needlessly harm others in the exercise of our rights. Smokers should not -- their rights should not include the right to force everybody else to it sit in and inhale their dangerous waste. Second-hand smoke is just a waste product. And it is fair to change the air in the building by slowly replacing smokers with nonsmokers.

NEVILLE: Now, Kathy, you have throat cancer; is that correct?

CALLER: I have got the kind of throat cancer that is normally found only in women who are heavy smokers over a long period of time. But I never smoked. My parents smoked in our home. And I was a flight attendant for 20 years when passengers were allowed to smoke. They did not mean to harm me, but they did.

NEVILLE: So, you understand that second-hand smoke is a carcinogen, class A.

CALLER: I live with the damage done every day. My quality of life has been greatly altered. I don't need to go into it.

It is not worth it. The smoker's comfort and convenience is not worth living what I live with every day, or more, what my family lives with. They are the ones who pay the price.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Kathy, thank you very much for calling in and sharing those thoughts.

And, Chris, that's a not a good story. That is a sad story. Second-hand smoke does affect those people who don't smoke.

MURRY: Yes, but she is talking about second-hand smoke from people that were in her house or on an airplane. We are talking about people that are living in their own apartments and not exposing other people to second-hand smoke. If the ventilation system is so bad that smoke is coming through to other apartments, they should fix the ventilation system.

SAFT: The problem isn't the -- I'm sorry for interrupting -- but the problem is not so much the ventilation system. The smoke seeps through the walls.

Even in buildings that don't have a common ventilation system, smoke gets from one apartment to another through cracks in the wall, through the floors and through electrical outlets. And buildings have attempted to deal with this problem in the last few years by trying to plug up all of those outlets. But the smoke still manages to get from one apartment to another.

MURRY: I'm skeptical. NEVILLE: OK, Sidney from Georgia, go ahead.

SIDNEY: I think that having a smoke-free building is a wonderful idea. But to do that for a building that has already been contaminated with smoke is just ridiculous. How are they going to try to completely get rid of all smoke that is present in the building? I think, if they want that, then they need to find a new building.

NEVILLE: Good point. Good point.

Andrea?

ANDREA: Hi.

As a nurse and a patient advocate, I think that healthy choices and healthy lives are very important and that choices should be made. And having an environment like this is wonderful. And I would like to retire there.

NEVILLE: Well, you're from New York. What part of New York do you live in?

ANDREA: Rochester, New York.

NEVILLE: Well, move into the city. Move into the city.

OK, Chris Murry, final thoughts from you.

MURRY: Well, you've got to understand, this is still a legal activity. People don't like smoking. No one is a fan. I don't even smoke. But sometimes you have to tolerate what other people's choices are in how they want to live their lives. And when you have a co-op that is being so intrusive as to go into someone's home and tell them how to live, I find it to be absurd and a very dangerous precedent to set.

NEVILLE: Stuart Saft, do you think you'll be opening up a whole big old can of worms with this one?

SAFT: Well, it would seem that I already have. But I don't think that this is any different than prohibiting residents of a building from playing their stereos loudly at 3:00 in the morning.

It is true that, first of all, we are not inhibiting existing smokers or their families from smoking until they move out of the apartment and a new purchaser moves into the apartment and agrees not to smoke. We believe that this will not only provide a safer and healthier environment, but we also believe it will increase the values of the apartments, because people will pay a premium to live in a smoke-free...

NEVILLE: OK, you made that point. We got your point, Mr. Saft. Thank you very much for appearing here on TALKBACK LIVE, and, Chris Murry, to you as well.

And, Tina and Gilda, thank you for your time up there in New York City. Thank you very much.

All right, but everybody at home, don't go anywhere, because up next, Washington's most notorious celebrity still unnamed after all these years: Who is Deep Throat? We will talk about that in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: All righty.

Almost 30 years ago, someone helped reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein break the Watergate cover-up wide open. It was the scandal that ended Richard Nixon's presidency. And, in all this time, no one has revealed the name of the source known only as Deep Throat.

Well, now former White House counsel John Dean says he will publish an online brief in June and end the mystery about Deep Throat. Who could it be? And does Dean really, really know?

Let's ask our guest, CNN contributor Bill Press -- hi, Bill.

BILL PRESS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Hello, Arthel. Good to join you.

NEVILLE: Bill, OK. We all thought Woodward and Bernstein were the only ones who knew who Deep Throat is. So, how will John Dean know?

PRESS: I am not sure that he does.

First, I think we ought to be clear about one thing. We are not talking about Linda Lovelace. She died. Nobody suspects that she was that Deep Throat. We are talking about the Nixon Deep Throat. Woodward and Bernstein said they would only tell us who it was when that person had died. So, who could it be?

Leonard Garment was one possibility.

NEVILLE: Yes.

In fact, let's go ahead and show a list of the suspects right now.

PRESS: All right, you got it.

NEVILLE: We are talking about J. Fred Buzhardt, Leonard Garment, Charles W. Colson. And they were all White House counsels -- and then, of course, Alexander Haig, who was White House chief of staff when Nixon resigned, and then Rosemary Woods, Nixon's secretary.

So, what do you think about that list?

PRESS: I think the most suspicious one on that list is Alexander Haig. Remember, he was the guy a couple administrations later under Ronald Reagan who said, "I am in charge here." He was working in President Nixon's National Security Council office. So, he is a possibility. But I do not think Deep Throat is on that list. And, by the way, I have got to say about John Dean, I don't think John Dean was Deep Throat. I think John Dean, again, is just looking for some publicity. But here is what makes him suspicious. In the Nixon days, he was the first guy to go to "TIME" magazine and to "Newsweek" magazine and to tell his story. So, if he leaked to them, at least there is a possibility he could have leaked to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

NEVILLE: Hmm, so maybe...

PRESS: You want to know more suspects?

NEVILLE: Yes.

PRESS: Well, I tell you who is sort of -- first of all, don't forget John Erlichman or Bob Haldeman. Nixon tossed them overboard. So, they might have been talking against Nixon in order to get back at him.

But I think that the biggest suspect, the most likely suspect to me is Henry Kissinger. He is still alive. And nobody loved publicity more than Kissinger. Nobody curried favor with reporters more than Kissinger. Nobody was crazier than Nixon more than Kissinger. And I think that's somebody who could have been feeding the press while sucking up to the president. It sounds like Henry Kissinger to me.

NEVILLE: Juicy stuff. Juicy stuff.

Rupert, what do you say?

RUPERT: Just from a public point of view, common sense would tell me it would have to come from inside. And I was sitting here mulling around in my mind the people involved. And, really, before I saw the list, Alexander Haig came to mind and Haldeman came to mind, primarily because Haldeman was dumped from Nixon. And so, in my opinion, it had to come from inside.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Thank you, first of all.

And we always like to get you at home involved. In fact, a couple of e-mails came in with a couple of guesses. So, let's see what they had to say. Put that on the screen for me.

OK, Rich in Florida: "I believe Deep Throat is Dick Cheney."

All right, that is interesting.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Go ahead, Bill. What?

Hang on. Check this one out. Al, he says: "It was Ben Stein. He was Nixon's speechwriter. And he was also friends with Bob Woodward. Plus, there's Ben's deep voice. Think about it."

All right. Go ahead, Bill. PRESS: I was just going to say, I hadn't thought about Ben Stein. But I think Ben Stein is an excellent possibility. "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," he was the guy who was the professor there. He has got his own TV show now.

NEVILLE: "Win Ben Stein's Money."

PRESS: "Ben Stein's Money."

He writes a column. He is a big talker, loves publicity. I would certainly put him on the list. And let's not forget John Mitchell and Martha Mitchell. I mean, talk about a big mouth, Martha Mitchell, right?

NEVILLE: Well, OK, listen. You know what? This is juicy, juicy stuff. So, you all don't go anywhere. We are going to keep talking about this.

PRESS: I've got one more for you when we come back.

NEVILLE: Wait. No, no, hold it. Hold it. Hold that thought.

PRESS: All right, I'll hold it.

NEVILLE: We'll be right back in a moment, OK? Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

OK, before we went to break, Bill Press, you were dying to tell me who else you thought could be Deep Throat.

PRESS: Well, this is just a wild, wild thought, but I am a conspiracy buff, OK, Arthel? So, of all of the people there in the White House who was looking out for No. 1, how about Richard Nixon himself? They did not call him Tricky Dick for nothing.

NEVILLE: Oh, I like that. I like that.

PRESS: Playing both sides.

NEVILLE: I like that.

I've got a few guesses here in the audience.

Go ahead, Larry.

PRESS: All right.

LARRY: I think it was Chuck Colson, because I think he could not live with the guilt. And he had a real religious experience after he got out of the White House. So, I think he was just tired of the guilt and went ahead and told it.

NEVILLE: OK, thank you.

Sir, Bert, stand up.

PRESS: Excellent suggestion. He should be on the list.

BERT: It had to be somebody who was already fired, sure he was about to be fired, or someone who only worked part-time. I seriously doubt that someone like Kissinger would place his position at total risk by being Deep Throat.

NEVILLE: Thank you, sir.

Seth, stand up for me.

SETH: Yes. I was wondering if possibly it could be a group or a corporation, a group of people that were conspiring.

NEVILLE: We were talking about that earlier in my office.

Bill, what do you think about that?

PRESS: Yes. You know, I think Seth gets the prize, actually, because, with most reporters, they are never working just one source. They are working several sources all at one time. And I think the perfect way for Woodward and Bernstein to disguise their sources was to say there was only one person, to call him Deep Throat, and to keep it a secret all this time. I think that is probably the best idea of all.

But, you know, when John Dean tells us whatever he...

NEVILLE: Excuse me, I am not trying to brag, but we were talking about that in my office earlier, OK? So, thank you.

PRESS: You share the prize, then, with Seth.

NEVILLE: I will share the prize with Seth.

(LAUGHTER)

NEVILLE: Hold on.

James, what do you say?

JAMES: I think it is probably Rosemary Woods. I don't know much about the case, but it would obviously have to be someone close to Nixon from the inside. And his secretary seems like the most likely to know.

NEVILLE: And she was on the list.

All right, thank you very much.

Well, this has been fun, I tell you what, but we are out of time.

Bill Press, thank you so much for being with us. PRESS: Great to join you, Arthel.

NEVILLE: OK. We'll see you again.

And thanks to all of you at home for watching. I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE. I hope to see you then.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com