Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Moussaoui Performs More Courtroom Antics; Has Congressional Action Resulted in Stock Market Gains?; How Many CEOs Actually Face Jail Time?
Aired July 25, 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.
DARYN KAGAN, GUEST HOST: And welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Great audience.
Hi everybody, I'm Daryn Kagan. Arthel Neville is still on assignment to "AMERICA MORNING."
We begin with accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. He is back in court this afternoon. If you haven't been following this, you have got to catch up. This has been a crazy day.
Moussaoui started by pleading guilty to four of six counts of conspiracy, and then he said never mind, I don't really want to do that. And then he got angry when the judge started to question him.
Among other things that Moussaoui told the court, quote: "If I admitted to everything the prosecutors allege, then I, myself, would seek the death penalty."
Let's get right to our guests. That includes former federal prosecutor and deputy assistant attorney general Victoria Toensing, also former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey.
Thanks for joining us.
First let's get to the facts. Our Deborah Feyerick has been following the events inside the courtroom. She needs a scorecard to bring us up to date on everything that has taken place.
Deb, how do you explain it all it?
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well certainly, Daryn, it did not go the way Zacarias Moussaoui wanted it to go. He entered that courtroom saying he was pleading guilty to counts one, two, three and four, all of them involving terrorism conspiracy, and conspiracy to use planes as weapons of mass destruction.
But then as the judge began questioning him on each and all of those counts, he began realizing that he couldn't give her the information she was seeking because he continued to deny any involvement in 9/11.
It seems as if he wanted some sort of generic indictment that he could enter a plea of guilty to and then, in his words, he would convince the American people about what he did when he was here in America.
The judge said, you're not ready to plead guilty to these counts. Moussaoui then asked for a recess. When he returned he said a prayer to Allah, and then he said, I have to withdraw my plea, because to enter a plea of guilty would mean certain suicide, and suicide is prevented -- prohibited under Islamic law.
So certainly not exactly where Moussaoui thought he was going to be at the end of the day today.
But this is exactly what the judge was warning of him last week when she said, Mr. Moussaoui, you have to think about this guilty plea. You cannot pick and choose what it is you will plead guilty to. If you plead guilty, then it has got to be to everything in the indictment, all the charges that the government is alleging.
It seemed that Moussaoui understood that. But then, again, as the judge began questioning him, he said he was not ready to do that, even though he walked into that court, Daryn, saying he was ready to plead guilty to 90 percent of the indictment.
So certainly a big change of mind for Zacarias Moussaoui.
KAGAN: Deb, part of the problem here -- maybe a major part of the problem -- this guy insists on representing himself and not taking legal counsel. Where does he stand on that?
FEYERICK: Well, very interesting. He actually, for the first time in months, acknowledged his standby counsel positively, asking them to do something for him. He tried firing them several months ago. He's refused to talk to them; he's refused to take any visits with them.
The big question is: Does this open the door now that he can begin meeting with them? The evidence that he is going to have to go through right now is overwhelming. If you just look at the evidence from Norman, Oklahoma and from Minnesota, where he was taking flight lessons, that constitutes some 70,000 pages of evidence. And that's not even what's included on hundreds of CD-ROMs, hundreds of videos, hundreds of audio tapes.
This is a three-month window in which he has to now prepare himself to go to trial.
His mother, Daryn, actually was also if court. She had asked the judge earlier to not accept any sort of a guilty plea from him. But now that's all off of the table, because Moussaoui just saying that he would condemn himself to certain death if he pleads guilty.
KAGAN: So the next step is trial?
FEYERICK: The next step appears to be trial.
A question is: Will it happen when it's suppose to? It's supposed to begin at the end of September. That's when jury selection is. The judge refused to put it off, even though it's clearly going to be an emotional time of year, because it is the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
And so then we can start hearing opening statements mid-October.
KAGAN: Deb, can you hang us just a minute while we go to our guests so we can fact-check with you?.
FEYERICK: My pleasure.
KAGAN: Great. So you hang with us. Let's bring our two guests in.
Kendall, first let's go to you.
Can this guy do this? Can you say you're guilty and then you're not guilty without creating a huge legal problem for yourself?
KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, a defendant can't pick and choose like that. And a judge does not have to -- and generally will not accept -- a guilty play that is less than that, where somebody, for some tactical or other reason says yes, I will allow myself to have a guilty plea, but I really didn't do the key things that you accuse me of. That's not a true guilty plea in our system.
KAGAN: And of course, a part of the problem here, as I pointed out before, he's not using any legal counsel. Let's just say you got a phone call from this guy -- and you're probably not going to get that phone call -- put could you even imagine taking this on at this point?
COFFEY: It's unimaginable at this point, in part because a lot of what Moussaoui has done along the way, from his own mouth, are additional statements of evidence that are very incriminating.
We all remember when he got into court, basically pledging and swearing to field to (ph) loyalty to Osama bin Laden, to al Qaeda. At other times he's advocated the destruction of the U.S. and Israel.
Not great stuff if you're trying to convince a U.S. jury you're a good guy.
KAGAN: Absolutely not.
Now Victoria, let's bring you in here.
With the things that Kendall is pointing out, it would appear to be something that is just walking right into the hands of prosecutors. And yet it looks like this whole justice system, this whole court system is being made a mockery of by this alleged 20th hijacker.
VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, that's exactly what he's doing because he has no respect for our court system. He has said that he hates America, he hates Jews, and he wants Israel and the United States to be destroyed. So, you know, we start from there.
The interesting issue -- and I'm sure Kendall will agree, we can elaborate on this now a little more -- is now, when the prosecution really takes him to trial, assuming that's what occurs, he -- will all of these statements that he's made be admissible against him? Will the prosecutor be able to say to the jury, well he got up in court and said he was guilty of at last the first four?
KAGAN: Yes, on that point I want to bring Deborah Feyerick in one last time before we have to let her go.
This was something that the judge was talking about last week when Moussaoui went off and said, watch out what you say, because you can't take those words back.
FEYERICK: Right. And, you know, the judge came under a lot of criticism for not accepting the guilty plea. However, she knew exactly what she was doing, because all of the motions that Moussaoui had filed led the judge to believe that he didn't want to plead guilty to everything that was in the indictment; that, in fact, he did want to just pick and choose the parts that he could plead guilty to.
And that's why she kept trying to interrupt him and stop him when she said, I'm a member of al Qaeda, I swore a loyalty oath to Osama bin Laden.
But his point is that swearing an oath to Osama bin Laden doesn't mean that I took part in the 9/11 conspiracy. What it may mean is that, you know, I did serve food in one of al Qaeda's training camps; does that make me a terrorist?
Well, certainly this morning he was willing to plead guilty to being a terrorist. But now he says when faced with the details, well, no, I can't plead guilty because it would mean certain death. And the reason I'm trying to avoid the death penalty is suicide's not allowed under Islamic law.
KAGAN: All right, Deborah Feyerick in Arlington, Virginia, thank you so much.
I want to bring Kendall in here one more time. Explain to me why this rule works this way. Why can't you just plead guilty to part of it? Why wouldn't that be enough?
We saw the plea agreement for John Walker Lindh last week. He came up with part of it.
COFFEY: Well, but what he came up with is a true guilty plea to the two charges that, at that point, he faced. That's how plea negotiations work.
There obviously has been no plea bargain with Moussaoui. He's not going to cooperate with the U.S. in any way.
So what he is facing, what he is looking at are six counts. And the core of them is that he was knowingly involved in a conspiracy that was focused on the killing, the destruction of U.S. civilians.
He wants to say otherwise: that he might have been a loyal al Qaeda kind of guy, but he was not, in any sense, bent on murdering helpless, unarmed civilians.
And so from the judge's standpoint, where there is no guaranteed right to have a guilty plea accepted, she's suppose to consider: Is this a stunt? Is this some kind of strategy? Or is this someone who sincerely says, yes, I did these things.
Obviously he's not sincerely acknowledging guilt. He continues to say that he had nothing to do with the atrocities of 9/11.
TOENSING: And Daryn...
KAGAN: Victoria, can you hold that thought because I do need to get a break in. We'll come back to you in just a moment. Time for a quick break.
Want to let you know that later this hour, we're going to be talking to Charles Barkley about his new gig here at CNN. You never know. Look for Charles, we'll say. And we are inviting him to sound off. You're going to want to stay tuned for that.
More on this topic, though, just ahead. Stay with us.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
KAGAN: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are talking about the fascinating if somewhat strange events taking place in Arlington, Virginia courtroom involving Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker. Let's go to our guests, and Victoria, I think I kind of cut you off right before the break, so there's your chance to make your point.
TOENSING: Yes -- no, my point is I wanted to give the legal basis for why the judge couldn't just take four out of the six counts, because if she took four, what do you do with the other two?
You can't go to trial on them because constitutionally it would be double jeopardy. You see, each count isn't just really separate. He's been charged with the whole kit and kaboodle in those six counts, so the legal, the constitutional argument would be he couldn't have to go to trial on the other two if he pleads guilty to just those four, so that's what the legal dilemma is, and I don't know who criticized this judge, because I think she's done exactly the right thing all along.
KAGAN: You do think this judge has done the best of her ability, the way the system is supposed to work.
TOENSING: Yes, she has got somebody in there that has no respect for her, because she is a she, and who has no respect for our legal system.
KAGAN: You think it would be different if there was a male judge up there?
TOENSING: Oh, I think he would still be doing something, but this is an added dimension.
KAGAN: Kendall, what do you think about how the judge has done so far?
COFFEY: Very well. This is -- you talk about a bad day at the office.
KAGAN: Yes.
COFFEY: Every day is a difficult day with this guy. And frankly, I think this case is going to be, in effect, the poster boy for why self-representation is not such a great idea. That's a doctrine that the current Supreme Court has continued to accept.
It's tried to limit it, but after this trial experience, and with the specter of maybe more terrorist trials where someone is constantly trying to use our judicial system to preach anti-U.S. propaganda to whoever wants to listen it overseas, hopefully the courts may have to take a hard look at whether self-representation in a criminal trial is really such a good thing.
TOENSING: But Kendall, there's a statute -- there's a statute in the federal law, so that's -- it's not really a court decision, there's a federal statute that allows that -- I think it's more of a poster boy for why we shouldn't be bringing in people who are affiliated with al Qaeda and the terrorism to...
KAGAN: You'd have this kind of military tribunal instead?
TOENSING: Right.
KAGAN: OK, I want to go to the audience now, and Melody from Ohio.
MELODY: I just want to agree with some of what your guests are saying, Kendall and Victoria. I think we do have to be careful. This is the first major prosecution, it might be the only prosecution that we have in this case. And we can't have people pleading guilty to all sorts of crimes because for whatever reason people would do that. I think that the justice system, the judge is doing the right thing.
We need take our time, we need to figure out whether indeed this particular person was involved in the 9/11 conspiracies or maybe involved in some other crimes, but I do think we need to proceed with caution and not rush to judgment, even though there are some questionable antics that this person has committed.
KAGAN: Well, Melody makes a good point, you guys. This might be the only one we get. He's an alleged 20th hijacker, this might be it.
How do you -- looking back 20 years from now, do you think this will be judged in how the justice system worked?
TOENSING: Well, I don't think this is the basis for how the justice system works. But if you look at it, it is working very, very well, thank you, as well as can be expected. My only point is that, look, first of all, there is no rush to judgment, he had to give a factual basis for the court.
He didn't do it, he didn't fulfill what he had to do, so the system is working, but it shows what a problem it is when somebody does not respect our court system, and is part of a group that has threatened to kill us all, what happens when you...
KAGAN: Victoria, I need to just butt in here. This is Zacarias Moussaoui's lawyers, his court appointed lawyers speaking. Let's listen in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They'll address the death penalty motion someday. We'll be fine. McMahon, Edward McMahon.
KAGAN: We went to that a little bit late. OK, let's bring our guests back in. Kendall, let me go to you.
Let's talk about this gray, kind of funky area that we are in with this man. He is incompetent, not incompetent, mentally able to represent himself. Clearly there is something kind of not working there, but apparently not so much that the judge can call him incompetent to stand trial.
COFFEY: That's right. Here's the dilemma that the judge is in. There's a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case -- Peretta (ph) -- it says there's a constitutional right of self-representation, so if the judge were to say sit down, shut up, let's have a real lawyer represent you, she would be running the very real risk that if he were convicted at the end of that road, the whole thing would be thrown out because it violated the Constitution.
On the other hand, what is the standard for someone being competent to refuse to have court appointed counsel? And that is essentially the same standard is competency to stand trial, and we all know that is a very low standard, and as a result the judge in effect would have a very difficult time saying he is incompetent to choose whether to represent himself without having to say that he is incompetent to stand trial in the first place.
KAGAN: Clearly...
TOENSING: Under the case law -- under the case law, under the statute actually, the Peretta (ph) case is based on a state constitution, but under the federal statute that says a person is able to represent himself, there are exceptions, and the exception is if the person tries to be disruptive in the court, and so...
KAGAN: Well, we'll bordering on that, aren't we?
TOENSING: Absolutely...
KAGAN: If we're not there.
TOENSING: She doesn't have to find him incompetent to take away his ability to represent himself. She can say you're trying to make a farce out of this, and it is no longer acceptable, and that would be upheld.
KAGAN: We go to the audience...
COFFEY: I think there is a lot of risk to taking away his right of self representation, and interestingly, at a couple points in these hearings, when he thinks the judge is come very close to having the marshals grab him because he has gone too far, he's backed off a little bit.
So he is trying to get right to the edge, but he is trying to avoid being so physically abusive in disruption that he loses his right to continue to represent himself.
KAGAN: Let's get -- let's get a viewer comment in here. Audience member Linda (ph) from New York has something to say.
LINDA: Well, I think that he's probably going to be determined to know the difference between right and wrong, but in my opinion, from long time ago, he is reminding me of Charles Manson, who made a mockery of our legal system and our media, and I think he's trying to manipulate things the same way.
Perhaps an attorney would be assigned to him in court to control him, to advise him so he can say -- can't say later on appeal that he wasn't advised or given statutes or guidance in the trial when he is defending himself, that he didn't get the proper help, that the court will determine that he is trying to make a mockery of the court, and a court attorney will be assigned to guide him along the way so appeal will be groundless. I hope that will happen.
KAGAN: Linda (ph) from New York, thank you so much.
COFFEY: That's a great point, and that's essentially what the judge is doing with the concept of stand-by counsel, and you're right about the appeal. Because he can bounce around and make a fool of himself at the trial level, but there is no right of self representation at the appellate level.
So there could be some brilliant professor from a fancy law school picking apart the trial court record and trying to get a conviction reversed. So I think your concerns are very, very valid.
KAGAN: Unfortunately it looks like this soap opera will continue.
Want to thank our guests, Victoria Toensing and Kendall Coffey, thanks for joining us, both of us, all of us today. Time for a break.
Don't forget, once again, later this hour you're going to have a chance to talk back to Charles Barkley. Get your questions ready. We'll be back after this. (APPLAUSE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KAGAN (voice-over): Still ahead on TALKBACK LIVE, what's it going to take to clean up corporate corruption and get the stock market back on track?
REP. DICK GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: And when the market saw that the Congress is finally going to take action to make the accounting information valid, I think that's what had the major impact on this market.
KAGAN: Does it take an act of Congress, or just a bunch of handcuffs?
Stay with us. TALKBACK LIVE continues right after this.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: All right, welcome back everybody.
Rhonda Schaffler is not going far. We're going to bring her back in just a moment. Why? Because we are talking money, Wall Street and greed.
And you saw what happened to the former corporate officers at Adelphia yesterday: arrested, accused of using company money as if it was their own personal piggy bank.
And as the scandals pile up, you wonder how many more corporate- types could be trading their cufflinks for handcuffs.
Congress today overwhelmingly passed legislation to crack down on corporate fraud. The president is set to sign.
So where does it go from here?
Rhonda stay with us. Also joining us, CNN congressional correspondent Kate Snow, and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
We get to them in a moment. First to Rhonda to once again give us a stock market update, if it looks as good as yesterday, and what the reaction is to all those Rigas arrests -- Rhonda.
RHONDA SCHAFFLER, CNN SENIOR BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hi there Daryn.
Well, you know, yesterday we did see that huge rally, due in part to the fact that there was some significant movement on that bill. And, of course, there's even more significant movement today. And yes, some say those arrests did make a difference.
What investors want to see is that this is not going to happen again. It's one thing for the market to go down, and for investors to lose money; it's a different thing for people to feel that they're losing money because the people that were supposed to be minding the store are not doing that.
So these are steps that, some say, does move investor confidence a little bit higher. And that's been the real problem here. Investors just haven't felt confident enough about what's going on to do some real serious buying. Yesterday, of course now, changed the equation a bit -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Rhonda, I'll tell you one thing investors would like to see again -- and I can show you just by this audience -- we were talking in the break. How many people they do want to see again, in the audience, how many people like seeing those pictures of the Rigas family and the executives from Adelphia being led off in handcuffs yesterday?
(APPLAUSE)
KAGAN: So the investors like that, Rhonda.
What's the buzz on Wall Street?
SCHAFFLER: Well, it's interesting. I actually talked with somebody yesterday who said what investors want to see, in his words, was a high-profile perp walk. And that's what you're seeing at the moment.
So as far as, you know, people feeling there needs to be -- somebody has got to pay the price, again, if there is wrongdoing, this is a huge issue. This is not just the case of a market that is coming off a bubble.
I mean, that's part of the problem too. The market has some unrealistic gains.
But investors feel like they got into a game, and in some cases the game was rigged against them. That's the sort of anger that you're hearing from people. And that's why some of these developments are going to be very closely watched to see what the investors start feeling and thinking and how they start responding to these latest developments.
KAGAN: Let's bring in out Capitol Hill correspondent Kate Snow.
Kate, what a difference a few weeks makes in terms of a bill going through, you throw in a few more scandals, you throw in some frustrated investors and voters, and you get some movement, don't you?
KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely.
A few months, even, beyond a few weeks. Remember. it was back in April when the Republicans in the House first acted on this. They put forward a much weaker -- what many people consider a much weaker bill. And then last week after all these scandals kept coming out, day by day by day, you had the Senate vote unanimously to pass a much tougher bill. Today they came up with a compromise. It's already gone through the House this morning. We expect it to go through the Senate later this afternoon.
And this is a compromise that provides some really tough penalties, Daryn. Let me take you through a couple of them. For securities fraud, there's going to be a new category of crime; up to 25 years in jail for people who commit securities fraud. Mail and wire fraud, and also shredding documents: right now you get five years in prison, you might get up to 20 years in prison.
And CEOs are being put on notice in this bill. The way it's written: If they willingly certify false financial reports they could then get 20 years in prison or a $5 million fine. If they file false statements with the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, they can get up to 20 years, again, or $5 million in fines.
Now, maybe that's not so much for a corporate CEO, but it's a message. And certainly these lawmakers, familiar with what you were just talking about with Rhonda, the voters wanting to see some action; wanting to see some threat out there to these CEOs that they better get their ships in order. And you see the politicians acting on that, knowing that those voters are going to vote this fall.
KAGAN: Yes, and I want to bring Jeffrey Toobin in. Jeff, some people are making the point, you don't need longer sentences, you need better prosecution. You need to see people going to jail.
For a CEO, it doesn't matter if he's going for one day or 20 years; just the idea that he or she might go is enough to keep them in line?
TOOBIN: That's true. But you have to remember that no matter how long these sentences are, these cases are very hard to make as a prosecutor, for one simple reason: All of these white collar crimes require the government to show that the CEO, the white collar person on trial, intended to violate the law. They are what are called specific-intent crimes.
And that's very tough to prove. It's very tough to prove that a corporate executive intended to violate the law. They'll say, look, I had my lawyer with me, I consulted my board of directors. I talked to 15 people. How could I be intending to violate the law if I talked to all these people?
Juries -- you know, it's one thing to talk about these cases in the abstract, but juries are reluctant to convict these people. That's why prosecutors, who are reluctant to lose cases, don't bring them very often.
They're bringing some of them -- the Rigas case is one -- but don't count on a long parade of CEOs going to prison.
KAGAN: Yes, I have some more questions about the Rigas case for you in a second.
But first I want to bring Rhonda back and talk about the long string that could have -- we're hearing about WorldCom, other investigations.
Any more criminal charges as the buzz on Wall Street we might still see?
Rhonda?
Can Rhonda hear us?
All right, Rhonda can't hear us. We'll let Rhonda go.
Let me bring Jeff back and talk about this Rigas case. They're throwing the book at these guys: criminal charges, a civil suit by the SEC, and then Adelphia, which is their company, is suing them back, including the wife of Rigas, and also one of the sons that didn't even work for the company.
They have a lot of trouble going on.
TOOBIN: They do have a lot of trouble going on. But I think, you know, you have to remember also, there is a lot of political theater happening here.
This idea of increasing all the sentences. You know, most white collar crimes now have a maximum sentence of five years. Now they're moving them up to 20. Well currently they don't even get five years for most of these crimes, so what difference does it make if they go up to 20?
This is -- these cases, realistically, are not going to be brought in any great numbers. There will be some of them, don't get me wrong. Rigas is going forward. It looks like WorldCom, those people are going to be prosecuted.
But the idea that there are going to be even a dozen CEOs going to prison is just simply unrealistic.
KAGAN: It's not going to happen.
This has brought a lot of comments from our audience.
Jim has something to say.
JIM: Yes, I'd like to say that I think the problem has been caused because we -- Congress repealed a lot of regulation in the 1990s that was related to financial industries and responsibilities of corporate officers.
And I think the other thing that's happened is that our corporate governance systems don't work as well as they used to. We've got boards of directors with obvious conflicts of interest. We've got executives with obvious conflicts of interest. Nobody is looking out for them, and they're looking at these companies like their own little piggy bank and they can do whatever they want to do.
KAGAN: Kate, what is the mood on Capitol Hill here? Jim is making the point about, hey, in the '90s, it was freewheeling, just strip all that regulation away. Is that reversing?
SNOW: Well, I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that maybe he is a Democrat, because he sounds a lot like what the Democrats on Capitol Hill are saying, which is just that.
They are saying that, back in the '90s, you had this movement towards deregulation. They say that the Gingrich revolution -- remember when Newt Gingrich came in and had that Contract with America, that part of it was getting rid of massive government regulations on business. They say that that created an atmosphere that allowed business leaders to feel like they could bend the rules, push the limits.
Now, Republicans, on the other hand, say: "No, no, that is not what we did. We were trying to help the free market. We were trying to open up business, but that is not the same as saying, 'You go ahead and commit crimes or break laws.'" They have said: "This is about individual responsibility. These guys did bad things. And that has nothing to do with regulations or laws. They broke the laws."
So, it's a debate that we are hearing up here on Capitol Hill. And it is interesting, Daryn. Today, talking about this bill that has passed the House and probably going to pass the Senate later tonight, which increases rules, again, some -- there are a few -- not a lot saying this, but a few Republicans who have voted against it today and are going to say: "Are we really doing the right thing here? We are doing a one-size-fits-all kind of approach now, regulating accounting firms. And they are not all the same size. They're not all the same. Maybe we should take a breath before we start increasing all these regulations again."
KAGAN: Hey, Kate, by the way, good guess. Jim tells us he is a Democrat from Texas.
(LAUGHTER)
KAGAN: So, you smelled him all the way to Washington, D.C.
Roger, we know you are on the phone calling in. We are going to take your call when we come back and continue our conversation.
Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Welcome back. Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
We continue talking about corporate greed and what is happening in Congress and on Wall Street and in the courts.
Roger, you have patiently waiting on the phone. Go ahead. What is your comment?
Roger, go ahead.
CALLER: That the CEOs are all arrested in a demonstrative way doing this. But the CEO is one guy. And I believe that my faith is going to be renewed when they start to simplify accounting so that they can't have all these guys using abstract formulas that nobody understands to be able to do the books, so to speak.
I think there should be one way to do the books for an industry. And the government should set that guideline. It doesn't move outside of that guideline.
KAGAN: Jeffrey Toobin, let's bring you back in here. That seems to go to the point you're making, that these cases, even if you can get them as far as court, are really hard to prove.
TOOBIN: They are very hard to prove.
Let's talk specifically. Remember the Arthur Andersen obstruction-of-justice case? That is the first prosecution, actual trial to come out of this whole recent line of scandals. Remember, Arthur Andersen was caught, seemingly red-handed, destroying all kinds of documents relating to their work in the Enron case.
Well, the government said, "OK, let's have a slam-dunk case first and then we'll move on." Well, it turned out that case was very difficult. The jury was out for almost two weeks. They came up with a whole new theory in order to find Arthur Andersen guilty. And that was a case where they caught them red-handed destroying documents.
It just shows, again, that once you get away from the abstract idea of, "Oh, let's all lock them up and throw away the key," and focus on individual people, individual people who look very nice in the courtroom, who are churchgoing, members of the society, the same society the jurors are, it is very tough to lock these people up.
KAGAN: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much for your legal expertise. Appreciate it as always.
It is time to meet our newest member of CNN's family. And that would be TNT sports analyst Charles Barkley.
(APPLAUSE)
KAGAN: Charles, can you feel the love?
CHARLES BARKLEY, CNN COMMENTATOR: What's happening?
KAGAN: Yes, I have got to tell you, Charles, these are not just sports fans that are happy to hear you and happy to hear that you are actually going to be a regular commentator right here on CNN and TALKBACK LIVE.
BARKLEY: Well, I'll tell you what. We are going to have a lot of U.N..
KAGAN: I bet we are. You are not going to be holding back, right?
BARKLEY: Nah, I definitely won't hold back. You know me better than that.
KAGAN: I do. I do.
I want to explain to people how this is going to work. Of course, they have been watching you on TNT. And if they have, on "Inside the NBA," they know that you do not hold back in talking about that league, your former profession there as a ballplayer.
So, you are going to continue doing that. And then you are also going to come on here and talk about topics even way beyond sports.
BARKLEY: Well, you know, there's a lot of stuff happening in the world. You got those major, major crooks who are running these corporations really bugging me. And that's unfortunate and sad.
And just so much is happening in the world. I get tired of talking about sports all the time. People think I have nothing to say but other than sports. But I do.
KAGAN: We know better than that, Charles.
OK, here's your first chance. We're going to go. This is Zacarias Moussaoui's mother, the alleged 20th hijacker. She's speaking. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
AICHA EL-WAFI, MOTHER OF ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI (through translator): When I visited my son in June, he told me that he had not been involved in the September 11 attacks.
And when I heard last week that he had decided to plead guilty, I was really, really scared. That is why I decided to come back. And I'm really happy of his decision.
After 11 months in such detention conditions, not being able to sleep properly, not being fed properly. S, after such detention conditions, he is no longer able to think rationally.
My son has changed since he's been detained. And, above all, the world has changed a lot since September 11. But Zacarias, my son, is not able to realize how much the world has changed since September 11.
My son has lost a lot of weight. I mean, if you have seen him, you have seen that he has changed a lot. And I am very, very happy that there will be a full trial, in which it's going to be -- well, truth or facts are going to be established. And it is going to be possible to establish what Zacarias did and did not do.
My son said he didn't trust the system. He wants to say -- but he wants to be able to say what he knows.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the security to protect your son?
EL-WAFI (through translator): Well, I don't know. But the American justice system is very complicated. It is very powerful. And my son is standing on his own, facing this very powerful and complex justice system.
To defend yourself, you need a specialized lawyer. There are some lawyers who are specialized in federal court or in other courts. And my son doesn't know anything and he is facing the system on his own.
KAGAN: We have been listening in to Aicha el-Wafi. She is the mother of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker, who has, some people believe, made a mockery of the federal justice system in Alexandria, Virginia, pleading guilty, then taking it back, and now apparently going to trial on those six counts.
She also interrupted us in the middle of talking for the first time with Charles Barkley, who is going to be a regular contributor.
Charles, hang tight, because we are going to get to you. But guess what? Now we get to go to the pope.
Are you still with us?
BARKLEY: He's big. The pope is big.
KAGAN: The pope is big. There is Charles, but then there is the pope.
So, let's check in on Pope John Paul II. He's now arriving in Toronto, Canada. The pope had taken a day off. He was spending a day off on a remote Canadian island. Later today, he is going to join as many as 200,000 pilgrims at a World Youth Day event in Toronto.
Our national correspondent Frank Buckley has been covering the pope's visit. And he joins us now -- Frank.
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, that is the helicopter believed to carry Pope John Paul II.
It is circling over the Toronto area now, about to arrive at what is called Ontario Place. When he lands, just in a couple of moments, the pope will be boarding the Pope Mobile that is so famous. And then he will be coming through a very large crowd here at Exhibition Place, which is essentially across the street and down the road from Ontario Place, where the helicopter is landing.
Hundreds of thousands of people -- we don't have a official crowd estimate yet -- but hundreds of thousands of people gathering here at Exhibition Place to see the pope. He will be here as part of the welcoming ceremony. He has been here for a couple of days now. But this will be the official welcoming ceremony.
Of course, he will be participating in a vigil on Saturday and then celebrating mass on Sunday, several hundred thousand people, once again, expected for that. You can get a sense of how many people are here, some young people from 169 nations gathered here for World Youth Day activities, a great deal of excitement and almost a concert-like atmosphere here -- people describing these World Youth Day events as pope-stock events, in a sense, young people gathering.
And you can get everything from souvenirs to hot dogs as you walk around the grounds. There are musical performances. And, of course, the primary focus is the pope and young Catholics and their faith, as they discuss their faith and celebrate their faith. That is what this event is about.
You can see the pope's helicopter about to touch down. He was escorted into the area by several -- three military helicopters as he came in. Also, an ambulance, a helicopter ambulance was a part of the group of helicopters that flew in with the pope. As you may have heard, the pope, who is 82 years old, suffers from the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. He has found it very difficult in recent months, years to walk and to stand. But he surprised all of us when he arrived the other day.
We were told that, when he came on the plane, the Alitalia aircraft from Rome, after a several-hours-long journey, that he would not be deplaning from the front of the aircraft; he would not be coming down the front stairs, but would instead be leaving from the back of the aircraft on a hydraulic lift, what is called a scissors truck, and that he would be coming down that way, and then he would be escorted around the front of the aircraft on a platform.
And, after that, he would be appearing with the prime minister and then coming forward to the stage. He surprised everyone, however, including, it seems, his own aides, when he decided on his own to come down the steps, 27 steps in all. He came down one step after another, very determined as he came down, surprising everyone. Those people who were at that welcoming ceremony at the airport said it was a very moving and spectacular ceremony for them, something they appreciated very much.
You can see the crowds cheering. They are seeing things on screens as well, I believe, in this concert area, which, again, is just -- you could literally walk over to Ontario Place from where we are, which is the Exhibition Place. But, as I said just a moment ago, the pope will actually be coming over on the Pope Mobile. When he comes through, he will go through the crowd and he will be going through the crowd for about a half-an-hour.
And so that is what we are expecting shortly. And, Daryn, we will toss it back to you for now.
KAGAN: All right, Frank. And we will check back with you in Toronto, Canada, and check in on the pope's visit.
Well, we've covered the pope and we've covered Zacarias Moussaoui's mother. And now it is time to get back to Charles Barkley. We are going to hear his thoughts after this break.
Charles, you stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: Hold him down no more, Sir Charles Barkley joining CNN as part of his new deal. He will still be on "Inside the NBA," but he also going to be joining us at least once a week here on TALKBACK LIVE.
Charles, you were so patient. Appreciate that.
BARKLEY: Yes, just for the pope, not for that other lady.
(LAUGHTER)
KAGAN: How is your French, Charles?
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: You know, I feel bad about his mom. But there is nothing, really, she can say to me to make me not want her son to get the death penalty.
KAGAN: We are talking about the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui. So no sympathy for him?
BARKLEY: No sympathy for him. There's too many innocent people who lost their lives who had nothing to do with this entire situation.
I know their are flaws in the death penalty, but I am just in favor of the death penalty.
KAGAN: All right, Charles, I am going to go down a number of other news topics and get your take on these, OK?
First, we just -- you showed respect for the pope and that we took some time out there to see him landing safely in Toronto. But some people are critical of the pope that he is going to Canada, Guatemala and Mexico, but not stopping by here in the U.S., given all the strife that has taken place in the church. Do you think he should be stopping by?
BARKLEY: Well, I think, obviously, they need to be more concerned about addressing those problems in the Catholic Church.
I mean, they obviously got some problems. That is unfortunate. I don't think you should obviously judge all Catholics by the sins of a few, but they have to address their problem. That is just horrible, what the priests have done to these kids in the past, I guess you can say in the present also.
But I have no problem with the pope going to -- he can't go everywhere. He is obviously -- I am impressed, at his age and with symptoms of Alzheimer's, that he has got the energy and the forthrightness to go on and travel. But he can't go everywhere.
KAGAN: I want to move on to your political ambitions. Are you still thinking about running for governor of Alabama?
BARKLEY: No time soon.
KAGAN: That is good news for us, because we would have to kick you off the air, if you were.
BARKLEY: You know, you have to live in Alabama for seven years. And I've got to buy a house there, I guess, because can't run next time, when I was thinking about doing it. I know they got a big election coming up in will fall. I am going to meet with both guys and hopefully pick out a winner, because Alabama needs a lot of help. We are way behind the times.
KAGAN: But for now your home base is still Phoenix?
BARKLEY: My home base is Phoenix. And I love Phoenix. It's a great place. And that was the best time I ever had playing basketball in my life.
KAGAN: I appreciate that, because when I first met you, I was in Phoenix.
But we have someone. Gary from Philadelphia has a bone to pick with you.
BARKLEY: OK.
GARY: Charles, my son and I just flew in today to watch the Braves -- the Phillies kill the Braves this weekend.
But my question to you is, are you 100 percent a Sixer? Have you purged yourself of that Phoenix blood and that Houston blood? You've got to get rid of that stuff.
BARKLEY: Well, you know, Phoenix is my home. I enjoyed playing in Philadelphia. I didn't enjoy dealing with the press in Philadelphia. They are just evil people.
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: Hey, Allen Iverson, he's going through the same thing I am going through now -- not to defend Allen Iverson. I think he is a great player. And I don't know the man. But this is going to be a tough city for Allen Iverson to survive in. But I'm a Philadelphia 76er forever.
KAGAN: Gary appreciates that.
Hey, our time is short. I have to ask you, being in Phoenix, you are not that far away from where Ted Williams is being held. What do you think about that whole situation, being frozen after you are dead?
BARKLEY: You know, if it was not for the Williams family and Jerry Springer, I thought it was -- hey, you know what? I thought it was only my black relatives that were crazy. It is good to know that white people are crazy, too.
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: But thank God for the Williams family. And thank God for Jerry Springer. Now I know white folk got just as many problems as black folks.
(LAUGHTER)
KAGAN: Appreciate that. And before we let you go, I need to know what you think about the baseball players threatening to go out on strike -- a bunch of spoiled millionaires. The fans are sick of it, Charles.
BARKLEY: Well, they are not more spoiled than the owners.
I just hope and pray that they do not go on strike, because the way the economics are in this country right now -- and the fans are down on us as players -- because I am a player first. I just hope and pray they don't go on strike, because it would be devastating.
KAGAN: But you are friends with the baseball players. What do you say to them?
BARKLEY: Well, it a little bit, Daryn -- it is not that simple. The owners are crooks. We know that. But the players, we are always going to get a bad rap because we make so much money. But they always talk about how much the average salary is. You got about 50 guys making $10 million, $15 million. Then you got 500 guys making $100,000. So that averages out to about $2 million.
KAGAN: Yes, people are not going to cry for them, Charles.
Our time is real short. Let me get Josh in here. We have a kid in the audience who wants to ask you a question. I promised
(CROSSTALK)
JOSH: Do you think that Michael Jordan is going to be playing next season?
BARKLEY: Hey, on Michael Jordan, I love Michael Jordan as a brother. He has always been there for me. I hope he does not come back and play, because, No. 1, he is old.
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: I don't want -- everybody makes money on Michael Jordan. They want him to come back. But he is the one doing all of the work. I want him to sit back and enjoy the best time of his life right now.
KAGAN: Well, Charles, you sit back and enjoy your time with CNN. We are thrilled to have you as part of the CNN family.
BARKLEY: Thank you.
KAGAN: We look forward to seeing you next time.
BARKLEY: Thank you.
KAGAN: Charles Barkley, part of CNN. Thank you for watching. I'm Daryn Kagan. I will see you tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
