|
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Republicans Celebrate Election Victory; Winona Ryder Found Guilty
Aired November 6, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, HOST: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung.
Tonight: The Republicans are still celebrating. Winona Ryder is not.
ANNOUNCER: For the first time in half-a-century, the Republicans will have outright control of the White House and both chambers of Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NORM COLEMAN (R), MINNESOTA SENATOR-ELECT: When you see the energy in this room, you know that the future is in and with the Republican Party.
SONNY PERDUE (R), GEORGIA GOVERNOR-ELECT: You have stunned not only me. You've stunned Georgia. You've stunned the nation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, how sweet it is!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, a look ahead: what it means to you, what happened to the Democrats, and what it means for the 2004 presidential race.
A verdict in the Winona Ryder shoplifting trial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, find the defendant, Winona Ryder, guilty of...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight: a look back at celebrities in the hot seat who got a second chance.
The royal butler tells his story of life inside Buckingham Palace. Tonight: the queen's warning.
Legendary rocker Rod Stewart changes his tune.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROD STEWART, SINGER: It's a lifelong ambition, so it's a work of love.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Rod Stewart opens up to Connie about going back to the music of his youth.
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York: Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
Tonight: a milestone win for the Republicans and a landmark shift in the course of America's future. As he raced around the country, President Bush said that, to achieve his priorities, he needed to get Republicans in control of Congress. And he got it. Did he ever.
Republicans strengthened their hold on the House of Representatives last night and they took control of the Senate from the Democrats. Democrats got a few consolation prizes in gubernatorial contests. But now, for the first time in a half- century, a Republican president will be sending his proposals to a Congress entirely controlled by his own party.
Republicans, including the once and likely future Senate majority leader, portrayed the results as a mandate for the Republican agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-MS), MINORITY LEADER: We've got a lot we need to do for the American people. They gave us this opportunity. They showed that they trust this president. They want the Congress to work with him to produce results on homeland security, our national security and economic security. They want a national energy policy. They want us to quit talking about doing some of these things and actually get it done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Not surprisingly, Democrats, including the now departing Senate majority leader, suggested it had a lot more to do with President Bush's unprecedented campaign push, hitting 40 states and raising $140 million.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOMAS DASCHLE (D-SD), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: I think that the president deserves good credit. He campaigned hard in the states that he largely won two years ago. He had some coattails. He focused more on the war on terror, on Iraq, North Korea. People were concerned about national security and that precluded us from having the opportunity to break through on the issues that we cared most about -- the economy, education and health care.
(END VIDEO CLIP) CHUNG: So what do these results mean for the country?
CNN's Judy Woodruff, anchor of "INSIDE POLITICS," is at the CNN election center in Atlanta.
Judy, thanks for being with us. You did such a great job last night.
JUDY WOODRUFF, "INSIDE POLITICS": Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: Tell me, Judy, do you think that this incredible victory for President Bush is a testament to his campaign abilities or is it more? Is it his popularity, his prestige?
WOODRUFF: You know, I think, Connie, it's a combination of at least three things.
No. 1, let's give him credit. The Republicans had some good, solid candidates across the country, from one end to the other. And these were candidates who found a way to make a compelling argument, whether it was about domestic or economic issues or even international issues, and to contrast their views with the Democrats'. That's No. 1.
No. 2, you had a situation after 9/11, after September 11 where, frankly, the country, our political universe was turned upside down. I think people felt differently about this country. They feel differently, in a way, about how vulnerable we are. And I think that sent set a completely different political stage, if you will, and certainly helped the Democrats.
Finally, yes, President Bush. He deserves an enormous amount of credit. He helped recruit some of these candidates. He was out there campaigning. He was raising records amount of money, something like $140 million over the last year, campaigning in 25 states over the last month. You've seen all the statistics. So, all of those ingredients, but the president himself deserves enormous credit.
CHUNG: All right, so the good news for George W. Bush is that his party controls Congress. The bad news is, he has no one to blame, Judy.
WOODRUFF: Yes. And that's exactly right, Connie, because what we've been hearing going into this election on a number of issues, whether it was homeland security in the way the White House wants it, which is so that the employees of the department don't have certain civil service protections that they might enjoy now.
Whether it's that issue, whether it's energy or any number of other issues that are out there, pension reform, the Republicans wanted it, they said, but the Democratic-controlled Senate has denied it. Now they're not going to have that excuse anymore or that explanation.
Now, having said that, do the Republicans have a blank check? No. They're not going to get everything they want, because we know there's this peculiar sets of rules in the Senate. They can still filibuster. They can still prevent some things from passing. But no doubt question it, having control of both houses will make a big difference.
CHUNG: Thank you, Judy Woodruff, from "INSIDE POLITICS."
Right now, I want to bring in one of the winners: New Hampshire senator-elect John Sununu.
Thank you, sir, for being with us. Congratulations.
REP. JOHN SUNUNU (R-NH), NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATOR-ELECT: Thank you. It's great to be here.
CHUNG: Now with the Republicans in control of the Senate and the House, what three big issues do you want to tackle?
SUNUNU: Well, in my campaign, I talked a lot about the importance of a Homeland Security Department. We weren't able to get that through the Senate. We voted on it and passed it in the House. I think that will be one of the first items up on the agenda -- made the tax cuts permanent.
We do need a focused economic legislation to help get the economy going again. I think that's critical -- and adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, again, a piece of legislation we passed in the House. I think, with a Republican majority in the Senate, we'll be able to make progress on it. Those are three important pieces of legislation. It will take a little bit of time, but I think you can expect votes on each of those in the first six months of 2003.
CHUNG: Congressman, how is President Bush going to deal with the fact that, sure, he's got a majority in both the Senate and the House, but many of the races were very close -- in the Senate, certainly -- and he actually will not have anybody to blame. And everybody knows that, but is that going to work against him?
SUNUNU: I don't think it will work against him. That was the situation he took on at the beginning of his first term.
People said, because of the divided nature of the election for the presidency, he wouldn't be able to get his tax cut passed. Well, he did get it passed. He got it signed into law, historic legislation. He worked in a bipartisan way on education reform. So, he's shown his ability to get things done with a working Republican majority in the House and Senate, but also to reach across party lines when we see consensus that could be built on something like education reform or trade promotion authority.
He did so in both cases. And those aren't easy pieces of legislation.
CHUNG: Do you think that there are a lot of people out there who underestimate this president?
SUNUNU: Absolutely. I think that's one of his great strengths. He knows that. I think the folks in the White House understand that. There are a lot of people on Capitol Hill that understand that.
CHUNG: And if they weren't believing it before, they believe it today, don't you think?
SUNUNU: To a certain extent, though, it just enhances his ability to exceed expectations, to work across party lines. If people underestimate him, that's fine. He stays focused on his agenda, on economic issues, energy policy, making the tax cuts permanent, on national security issues, terrorism insurance, getting a homeland security bill passed.
I think that's a pretty full plate to start right there. But I think his focus and his resolve to move that kind of legislation has been one of the keys to his success.
CHUNG: Do you really think that the Republicans have a mandate in the Senate, because I think a lot of people would dispute that?
SUNUNU: Well, I don't know if it's a mandate. It certainly looks like a majority.
CHUNG: You've got an edge.
SUNUNU: Without question. It enables you to control the agenda, to bring the pieces of legislation to the floor that you want.
At the same time, the Senate rules do make it difficult. There's a 60-vote hurdle on a lot of pieces of legislation outside of the parameters of the budget. And that means just it takes a little bit of extra effort to negotiate, to work your way around those procedural hurdles in order to get things done.
CHUNG: All right, Congressman, soon-to-be Senator Sununu, thank you. And say hello to your dad for us.
SUNUNU: Will do, Connie. Thank you very much.
CHUNG: All right.
So, what happened to the Democrats? Democratic consultant James Carville pretty summed up their mood with his choice of post-election head gear. Look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": I can see why you feel that.
PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": I've never met this guy.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Mr. Carville, if he could take his mask off just briefly
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: So, joining me now from Boston, we have Robert Reich, who lost his race for governor in the primaries, and Bill Richardson, who won his race and is now governor-elect of New Mexico. Both are veterans of the Clinton White House.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.
And congratulations to you, Ambassador Richardson.
BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR-ELECT: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: And hello to Robert Reich.
ROBERT REICH (D), FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Hi, Connie. How are you?
CHUNG: Nice to see you again.
REICH: And, Bill, my congratulations to you.
RICHARDSON: Thank you, Bob.
REICH: A great job.
RICHARDSON: Thank you, buddy.
CHUNG: Ambassador Richardson, outgoing Majority Leader Tom Daschle said that the reason why the Republicans did so well was in part because the Democrats' message on the economy did not get out.
Do you really believe that the Democrats had an economic plan? And I know you're going to say that Daschle presented it on the floor of the Senate, but I don't know that anybody really got that message.
RICHARDSON: Well, Connie, I think two reasons were responsible for Democrats not doing well.
One was President Bush's frenetic campaigning. He was good at it. And he made a difference. He went to one county in New Mexico. Although I won in a landslide, the one county he went to, I didn't do well.
The second reason is, I think the majority leader is doing a good job, but I don't think the Democrats had an economic message. I was able, here in New Mexico, just at the local level, to talk about economic growth, competitive tax reform, even tax cuts to make our state more competitive. People care about bread-and-butter issues, putting more money in their pockets, economic growth, entrepreneurship. And I just don't see nationally the Democrats talking about that.
CHUNG: Yes. I know. But don't you think, in this election, basically the people were concerned about terrorism? They were concerned about having the country support the president if he invades Iraq. Those were the concerns. The economy, of course, was important, but, apparently, they weren't voting that way.
RICHARDSON: Well, I think national security was important.
But I do believe that Republicans fielded a bunch of good candidates. That was another factor. At the same time, I think Republicans now, Connie, they're sounding awfully cocky. They have got the House, the Senate, the presidency. But if things go wrong in the next two years, with the economy not doing well, they'll face what we faced when I was in the House and President Clinton, and we had both the House and Senate, the Democrats, and things went wrong.
They can't blame the Democrats for any mistakes in the next two years. The heat will be on them. So there's a lot of pressure on them to really perform well. And the indicators in the economy, although I wish the national economy gets better, are not very good, especially if they want to make these tax cuts permanent. I think the budget surplus is gone. Bob Reich is an expert on this issue.
CHUNG: Well, let's go to him, then.
Robert Reich, tell us, what do you think? Is 2004 going to be a tough one for the Democrats, because we can't see the light right now today?
REICH: Well, Connie, it is going to be tough for the Democrats.
It is going to be tough for the Democrats unless the Democrats learn one very important lesson from the election just had. And that is that they need to have a national message, particularly on domestic policy and on the economy. I agree with Bill Richardson entirely.
You know, the economy begged for a Democratic response, because it is fizzling. There is not a real vigorous recovery. In fact, we could be going into a double-dip recession right now. Most people in most polls showed that they were more concerned about the economy than about terrorism and Iraq. So it was a natural issue. And the Democrats have a very strong record on the economy.
CHUNG: Then what happened?
REICH: Look at what happened. In the Clinton administration, you had a great economy. In the Bush administration, you have a lousy economy.
CHUNG: But what happened? I mean, do we blame Daschle? Do we blame Gephardt? Was it the leadership?
REICH: Well, one of the problems here is that the Democrats don't have a united view of what the problem is with the economy and where we ought to go.
Remember, you have got 12 Senate Democrats who voted for the Bush tax cut. Many of them -- in fact, Max Baucus is a good example -- touted the fact in this election that not only did he vote for the Bush tax cut, but he wants to extend it permanently. You have got other Democrats who are saying, "No, we're in favor of the tax cut, but we don't want to extend it permanently because it creates deficits." You have got other Democrats who are saying, "No, the tax cut ought to be repealed." Ted Kennedy takes that position.
So, if the tax cut becomes the centerpiece of the economic argument -- and I don't think it should be -- but what Bush has successfully done is make the tax cut the centerpiece of the economic and domestic policy agenda. And the Democrats just don't know what to do with it.
CHUNG: Now, there have been a lot of names that have been thrown out for the Democratic candidate for president in 2004. Would you be willing to extend yourself, Mr. Reich and Mr. Richardson, to give us a name that you think is a real possibility in 2004?
RICHARDSON: I think the issue is not the candidate, but the state of the economy, which we don't know where it's going to be, and,secondly, whether that candidate can really develop a strong message. Two years in politics is a century.
CHUNG: OK, you know what? I'm going to need to jump over to Robert Reich to give me a 15-second answer.
REICH: Well, Connie, I would say my Massachusetts loyalty dictates John Kerry. I'm a big supporter of John Kerry.
But let me also say, the Democrats don't have a national messenger. It's not just not having a message. There is no messenger. If you don't have a message and you don't have a messenger, you are in trouble.
CHUNG: Well, you can't beat that. You are absolutely right.
Robert Reich and Ambassador Richardson, thank you so much for being with us.
Coming up: the butler said it; plus, the Hollywood trial we've all been watching with bated breath.
We'll be right back.
ANNOUNCER: A verdict in the Winona Ryder shoplifting trial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, find the defendant, Winona Ryder, guilty of the crime of vandalism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: We'll look at others who have brushed with the law: Hugh Grant, Halle Berry and Robert Downey Jr., celebrities who stepped out of hot water and back into the spotlight -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We, the jury, find the defendant, Winona Ryder, guilty of the crime of vandalism, over $400 in damage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: Winona Ryder found guilty on two of three counts today.
It was a surprise ending and, for a leading Hollywood star, a sad ending. The jury convicted Ryder of grand larceny and also vandalism because she removed tags from clothing at the Beverly Hills Saks Fifth Avenue. She was acquitted of burglary.
There had been speculation that Ryder could get off, despite some damning surveillance tape of her, because her former producer sat on the jury. But that didn't happen.
Joining me now are Court TV legal analyst Roger Cossack from Washington; and, from Los Angeles, Pat LaLama, who has been covering the trial for "Celebrity Justice."
Roger, how could she be found guilty of vandalism and grand larceny, but not of burglary?
ROGER COSSACK, COURT TV: Well, Connie, as inconsistent as it sounds, there really is a consistent answer.
The definition of burglary, under the California Code, is that you enter into a commercial place -- in this particular instance, it's Saks Fifth Avenue -- and, as you enter into that place, you have the intent to commit a felony, whether that be stealing something or some other kind of felony. Grand theft means you simply took an item that was of $500 or more worth of value. And vandalism is, as we think it is, is the notion of cutting off the tags on the merchandise.
Now, what the jury decided was, beyond a reasonable doubt, they said: "Yes, we believe she did take this merchandise and, yes, we believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she did cut off those tags. But we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, when she entered, at the time she entered Saks Fifth Avenue, she entered with the intent to steal."
Now, remember, was there evidence, of course, that she had purchased some items before she began what the jury has concluded was her foray into stealing things from Saks Fifth Avenue. So the notion of when did she form that intent became the operative factor. And the jury said, "You know, we're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, when she walked into that store, she walked in with the idea of stealing."
CHUNG: But there was that reported kit, in which there were scissors, etcetera. So the jury, I guess, didn't think that that was enough to create reasonable doubt.
On to Pat LaLama.
Pat, I was surprised that she didn't react at all to the verdict. Was she looking at the jury or was she looking at the judge? PAT LALAMA, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": I think it's hard to say where she was looking. She had a very stoic face. There wasn't a lot of emotion. There was no acting. She behaved very, very well.
And I want to just follow up on something that Roger had said about the difference between her intent or not her intent, because I just got this from Steve Cooley's office. He's Los Angeles's district attorney.
And he said: "The jury trial verdicts indicate that justice is blind regardless of the status of the accused and that it is the hope of this office that the court addresses the problems of the defendant which may have led to her to engage in this criminal conduct."
And I think what the DA is saying: "We didn't pick on her because she was famous. We didn't try to make a statement because she has a big celebrity name. And, in fact, we think that maybe she needs some help." So, therefore, I don't think that the jury thought that she was just a bad person out to do a lot of bad things. It's just, at the last moment, something kicked in and she couldn't control herself. And I think we might see that represented in the sentence that she gets.
CHUNG: Well, Roger, what kind of sentence do you think she will get? She is found guilty of a felony.
COSSACK: Connie, it's my belief -- and the district attorney has already said so -- that she doesn't believe that this is a case which warrants time in jail. I guess that's what everybody's thinking about.
But I have to bring up one thing. Steve Cooley, the DA, says this now after the verdict is over. But, in fact, it's very rare that someone is charged with a felony for this kind of case. Normally, I think, if you're not a celebrity, some kind of plea-bargain is made, where you end up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, obviously making restitution back to Saks Fifth Avenue, perhaps being banned from Saks Fifth Avenue, and perhaps doing community service.
But very, very rarely, I can't even think of another case where someone like this, or somebody who has done what she has now been convicted of doing, gets started off as a felony charge. It's really unusual.
CHUNG: Pat LaLama, was she given the opportunity to plea- bargain?
LALAMA: Well, I have to tell you, none of us were in those rooms, though we know there was negotiation and talking going on.
But I have to tell you that a lot of the conventional wisdom out here at the Beverly Hills courthouse is that it was really about her own attorney who didn't allow it to happen. There's a big debate. The prosecutor's office -- Mark Geragos claims the prosecutors wouldn't go for anything less than a felony, and he was not going to allow his client to get convicted of a felony. And the DA's office may be suggesting that they would have been willing to wheel and deal, so to speak. So I think it's hard to say. I think it's really hard to analyze. But I have to tell you, yes, Steve Cooley did make a statement now about trying to be easy on her. But a lot of people have been damning the prosecutor's office, because they say they go after this celebrity and it's not fair and she's been overcharged.
A lot of people don't know that there were prior acts that weren't allowed in this case. The prior acts she was not convicted and she wasn't charged. But she was stopped at two other Beverly Hills stores, where she was stopped and spoken to about allegedly unpaid for items. So maybe the idea is, enough is enough.
CHUNG: All right, Pat LaLama, Roger Cossack, thank you so much for being with us.
Of course, just because she was convicted of a nonviolent crime hardly means Ryder's career is over.
As CNN's Anne McDermott reports, other stars who have been in much worse trouble have been able to come back.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNE MCDERMOTT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Silent star Fatty Arbuckle was one funny guy, but no one was laughing when he was arrested in the death of a starlet. The courts acquitted him, but his career was over.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")
JAY LENO, HOST: Ladies and gentlemen, Hugh Grant!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCDERMOTT: These days, more often than not, stars get a second chance. Did you dally with the prostitute? Tell it to Leno.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")
LENO: What the hell were you thinking?
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCDERMOTT: Well, he was thinking, "Time to come clean."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")
HUGH GRANT, ACTOR: I did a bad thing. And there you have it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCDERMOTT: And that's how you get back on top, say Hollywood experts. You fess up.
PETER BART, EDITOR IN CHIEF, "DAILY VARIETY": Just say yes, say: "I did the deed. I'm sorry. I'm going into rehab."
MCDERMOTT: Now, in old Hollywood, that wasn't always possible. But bad boys like Errol Flynn often got second chances. After he was acquitted of rape charges, he kept right on swashbuckling. Ingrid Bergman may have been the victim of her good-girl image. She simply had an affair and was banished from Hollywood for seven years.
But times change. And by the time Liz Taylor had her own public affair on the set of "Cleopatra," well, let's just say the lady stayed a star.
ELIZABETH TAYLOR, ACTRESS: I guess I'm a survivor.
MCDERMOTT: So's Halle Berry. She pleaded no contest to leaving the scene of an accident.
HALLE BERRY, ACTRESS: I have taken this matter very seriously from the very beginning.
MCDERMOTT: And then she wins an Oscar.
BERRY: Thank you so much. Thank you.
MCDERMOTT: Naked pictures are more problematic. And Vanessa Williams lost her Miss America crown because of hers and then became a star.
Rob Lowe was a fated star when seen in this naked video with an underaged girl. But you can recover even from that, as Rob Lowe of "West Wing" well knows.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE WEST WING")
ROB LOWE, ACTOR: Yes, he does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCDERMOTT: So does Robert Downey Jr.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he was arrested for possession of the drugs.
MCDERMOTT: Now, here's a guy who's been given second, third, even fourth chances, in part because Hollywood thinks he's just so talented.
Now, sometimes lesser talents find their crime is their second chance. Zsa Zsa had been out of the limelight for decades when she slapped the cop in Beverly Hills and was jailed for three days.
ZSA ZSA GABOR, ACTRESS: The food was absolutely horrible for me.
MCDERMOTT: But the spotlight faded. She never said she was sorry.
He did. And he did some public squirming. And he got that second chance.
Anne McDermott, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Next: The royal butler finally tells his side of the story, a look at life inside Buckingham Palace -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: The only problem with having a butler, I think, is that some of the dirty laundry tends to find its way out of the house. That's what's happening in Britain right now, where Princess Diana's former butler has been revealing some of her secrets, at least according to a newspaper that reportedly paid him to spill the beans.
And CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson has picked out some of the juiciest beans for us tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "Outcast," "Sensational," eye-catching headlines tempting British readers to find out what the royal butler, Paul Burrell, saw. Only one newspaper, however, with the exclusive story, the tabloid "Daily Mirror," but at a cost of almost half-a-million dollars.
PIERS MORGAN, EDITOR, "DAILY MIRROR": Paul Burrell has explosive secrets.
ROBERTSON: Pierce Morgan, editor of "The Daily Mirror," says Burrell is not motivated by money, rather setting the record straight and settling scores with Diana's family, the Spencers.
MORGAN: The Spencer family have a lot to answer for. And they all cued up to give evidence to try and get him jailed. And, as he says, he was closer to Diana, certainly later in her life, than any of the family.
ROBERTSON: This day's biggest revelation from Burrell's three- hour meeting with the queen two months after Diana's death. The queen feared for her former butler's safety.
MORGAN: She looked at him and she said: "Be careful. There are powers in this country of which we have no knowledge. And you were very close to Diana, the closest there has ever been."
ROBERTSON: According to Morgan, however, Burrell will not be telling all he knows, nothing bad about the queen, whom he says was reaching out to Diana, and nothing ill either about Diana and her sons, William and Harry. MORGAN: We have just seen the tip of the iceberg. If he really wanted to unleash hell, as he would say, in terms of the secrets about Diana and the royals, there would not be enough newsprint in the Amazon rain forest.
ROBERTSON: In a nation accustomed to checkbook journalism, there seems to be few raised eyebrows so far.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As moral as possible and as honest as possible. He's not tried to cash with all his secrets. I think he's done the decent thing.
ROBERTSON: Indeed, some are left wondering what all the fuss is about.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing he could say could shock us, could it? Who cares?
ROBERTSON (on camera): Who cares? Well, no doubt "The Daily Mirror," who plan to continue their serialization of their near-half- million-dollar scoop, and very likely, Diana's family, the Spencers, whom "The Daily Mirror" says will be featured Thursday, although not in a positive light.
It seems who has the last word in what the butler saw is still far from over.
Nic Robertson, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Joining me now is the BBC's Washington correspondent, Justin Webb.
Justin Webb, thank you for being with us again. We love having you.
Tell me, the butler was really quite upset that the royal family wasn't defending him. And then, all of a sudden, the queen came through for him. What's the backstory? What's the inside story?
JUSTIN WEBB, BBC WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: I wish I knew, actually.
It is the most mysterious business. And it has people across Britain scratching their heads and really wondering what on Earth was going on, because, when you look at it in the plain light of day and what has happened now, then, obviously, the queen had an alibi for Paul Burrell. And she had that alibi not only when she revealed it, but also long before.
So, why was it that the police went ahead and prosecuted him? Why was it that, when he was going to be prosecuted -- and it was publicized, after all, in all the British papers -- why didn't the queen or someone in the royal family intervene at that stage? Why was it that all of this was allowed to get to the stage that it got to? And there are various explanations. I guess probably the commonest explanation is not necessarily the right one. But the commonest explanation people have is simply that the royal family was kind of frozen in the headlamps. They just didn't know what to do. They knew it was going to be embarrassing if this came to court. But they knew also that, if the queen stepped in at an early stage and effectively said to the police, "Halt, you cannot prosecute this man," then that wouldn't have look too good either in this modern democratic age.
So they let it go and go and go. And only at that last minute did they intervene and stop it happening. But she was going to look bad either way. And I suppose, for the queen, this was the lesser of two evils, to wait a bit.
CHUNG: Now, according to Burrell, the queen warned him that, if any of this information gets out, that he and his family should -- quote -- "be careful."
Now, what do you think that was? Was she really warning him or was she threatening him in some way?
WEBB: This is straight out of a novel by Jeffrey Archer, another amazing English creation of recent years.
I think people will simply -- people across Britain, again, are simply scratching their heads and thinking what an extraordinary thing. We think of the queen as such a level-headed person. We really do respect her. And widely, right across society, people regard her as a common sense sort of a woman. Yet she seems to be talking as if she's taking part in a kind of cheap thriller.
And Britain is a strange place. We have a royal family. We have Orders of the Garter. We have footmen and all the rest. But, at the end of the day, it's a pretty ordinary place. You don't tend to get hauled off the street and disappear forever saying something that upsets a member of the royal family.
So quite whether she was threatening him -- he certainly doesn't seem to think it was a threat -- or whether she was warning him about something that she felt was genuinely going to happen to him, or whether she was just sort of making conversation, I don't know. Nobody knows.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: I doubt it, that she was just making conversation.
Now, there is one report that is too delicious not to follow up on. And that is that Princess Diana was sneaking men into Kensington Palace and that the butler was helping her.
WEBB: Yes. I supposed that's something that butlers do.
But, yes, we knew that Princess Diana was unhappy in her marriage. We knew that she had relationships. The butler, in his court deposition, this statement he made to the court mentions a particular man, Hasnat Khan, a heart surgeon, says that he used to smuggle him into the palace in the trunk of his car, that the police never knew about it.
He talks about intimate details of the relationship between the princess and him. Also, he even reveals at one stage -- I say reveal. We don't know that this is fact, but it's what he is telling us. And it went into the court as a document. He says that, at one stage, Princess Diana was so obsessed with this man that she asked the butler to find a priest in order that they could get married, which I suppose shows you, A, her obsession, but, B, also, at that stage, frankly, her lack of touch with reality, if she thought that was really going to happen.
CHUNG: Oh, dear.
Justin Webb, we thank you so much for being with us. And do come again.
WEBB: Always a pleasure.
CHUNG: When we come back, Rod Stewart is in the house and we are going to tell you what he's up to.
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead: Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Famer Rod Stewart changes his tune -- when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: When we come back, we're going to hear from two men who helped shaped popular music: Rod Stewart and the legendary Clive Davis. Wait until you see what they're up to together.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: It's no secret that rock stars do some mindboggling stuff. Well, we are about to talk to veteran rocker Rod Stewart and the legendary Clive Davis about something truly wild that Rod has just done. And he's been in the business for 40 years. So, what has he done that few rock stars have ever even attempted? One word: retro.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): This is the Rod Stewart you probably recognize. But after selling 120 million records, what does a rocker do at age 57? For Rod Stewart, he goes back to the music he remembered hearing as a boy, the standards his parents listened to in Scotland.
STEWART: It's an album of all the great Gershwin, Cole Porter songs, an Ella Fitzgerald song, Billie Holiday, all the great standards. It will never sell, but some of these things you've just got to do and get them off your chest.
CHUNG: But it has sold. And this week, "It Had to be You" entered the album charts at No. 4, completing another career comeback. STEWART: I think, with suits and clothes, if you keep them long enough, they all come back in fashion. It's like me. I've been around long enough and I've come back in fashion.
CHUNG: Since his first solo album in 1971, Rod Stewart has been the British rocker with the sandpaper voice, the spiked blond hair, with songs like "Some Guys Have All the Luck, "Forever Young," and "Downtown Train."
STEWART: There's no reason why I should retire. And I don't intend to. I thoroughly enjoy it. And I shall keep singing as long as I've got air in my lungs.
CHUNG: But in 2000: two major setbacks. First, he split with Rachel Hunter, his wife of nine years and mother of two of his five children. Then, in April 2000, during a routine checkup, doctors found a cancerous lump on his throat. He had surgery the next day.
STEWART: It was a small, very slow-growing cancer on the thyroid. You never think it's going to happen to you. And then someone says, "Guess what?" It's absolutely earth-shattering.
CHUNG: For nine months, he couldn't sing or even talk. He recovered, regained his voice, and, in February, signed with Clive Davis' new record company and finally recorded those old American standards he remembers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: And he joins me now to talk about that labor of love. He's the one that's nodding -- "It Had to be You: The Great American Songbook" -- along with the man who made it all possible, the legendary Clive Davis, on his new label, J Records.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for being with us.
STEWART: Thanks for having us.
CHUNG: It's an honor. And when I began listening to your CD, all I wanted to do was dance.
STEWART: Well, why don't we?
CHUNG: Will you?
STEWART: Yes, indeed. I'd love to have a little dance with you. I've never done this before on the television, you know.
CHUNG: Neither have I.
Tell me, how did this retro record come about, because you've got some great oldies.
STEWART: Yes.
Well, I've been planning to do it for a long time, not just now. I plucked up the courage and also found the record label, J Records. And they were interested in doing it. So, it's all come together with time.
CHUNG: And...
STEWART: So we...
CHUNG: Yes.
STEWART: Just by way of a change.
CHUNG: But you know what? You actually started -- you started recording this with a synthesizer a long time ago, about three years ago, right?
STEWART: Three years ago, yes.
CHUNG: But it was awful?
STEWART: Well, I sort of liked it, but Clive didn't like it. Clive had a totally different approach, didn't you, Clive?
CHUNG: What was wrong with it?
(CROSSTALK)
CLIVE DAVIS, PRODUCER, J RECORDS: ... the two of you are doing right now.
CHUNG: What was wrong with that version?
DAVIS: It was a little somber.
CHUNG: Somber?
DAVIS: It was a little somber. He was singing it great, but it was not the lilt that I think that he's come upon with this incredible album.
STEWART: Is this putting you off, Clive, us dancing together?
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: You can't talk and dance with us at the same time.
STEWART: I've seen Clive dance.
CHUNG: Oh, really?
STEWART: He's an excellent foot.
CHUNG: He's probably much better than you.
STEWART: He is. You want to give him a try?
CHUNG: Oh. (LAUGHTER)
DAVIS: No, no, no.
CHUNG: Sit down.
So, Clive, why do you think that his album has gone to No. 4 in the first week?
DAVIS: I think, first of all, he sings these songs like no one else.
He grew up with the material. You can feel that he grew up with the material. And he's chosen the copyrights. I mean, it's a brave thing to do to stand for great songs that parents want their kids to hear, that kids know their parents will love -- and so 14 great classics as sung like no one else can sing them.
CHUNG: Was it a touch intimidating to do it?
STEWART: Well, yes, it was really scary, because you never know what the outcome was going to be. I've sung rock 'n' roll all my life. And to make this extreme left turn, it could have gone down the toilet. But it didn't. And I am overjoyed, overjoyed.
CHUNG: Quite a shock, would you say?
STEWART: It certainly was to me. I mean, Clive had more confidence in it than I did.
CHUNG: So why did you do it?
STEWART: Because, as Clive said, I've lived with these songs. They've been the backdrop to my life. My parents played them. My brothers and sisters played them. And I just always wanted to sing them, because they're beautifully-crafted songs that you can get so much song into. You can really breathe some song into them.
CHUNG: Are those the kinds of songs that you actually sing in the shower, or do people who sing for a living not sing in the shower?
STEWART: Well, I've sung them in the shower.
CHUNG: You have?
STEWART: I just love these songs.
CHUNG: These?
STEWART: Yes.
CHUNG: You don't sing your songs in the shower?
STEWART: No.
CHUNG: No, you don't? STEWART: No, no, no. I sing these songs and a few of mine. Then I'll go out and do "Hot Legs" and "Maggie May " and "Do You Think I'm Sexy?"
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: So now I can do these songs and those other songs. It's such a wonderful difference between the two.
DAVIS: You might have to do a sequel at some point.
STEWART: Well, I would love to. I really would.
CHUNG: So the both of you had been with other companies for an eternity, more than 20 years. And then you came together.
Certainly, you, with the golden ear, discovered Alicia Keys. Do you think that this was sort of meant to be, that you would come together, you would do something very unusual, and it would be such a big hit?
STEWART: Yes, I tell you, because, when we started this three years ago with the co-producer, Richard Perry, he said: "We've got to get this to Clive Davis. Clive Davis will want this."
CHUNG: That's when he was with Arista?
STEWART: Yes.
DAVIS: For me, it's an incredible story to see someone like Rod be an inspiration now to young musicians, to established artists, to show how a timeless old-timer really can have a career that goes on for years and breathe fresh excitement into the greatest songs really written in American history.
So, this is a very inspirational story, I think, far beyond what an album is. It really sends out a signal for copyrights, for great songs to live on for hundreds of years. And for a rock 'n' roller like Rod, it's brave. It's courageous. And that's why the payoff is so huge right now.
CHUNG: I agree with that, don't you?
STEWART: Absolutely, Clive. So beautifully put.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: Eloquent.
Thank you so much, Rod Stewart. But I'm going to ask you to stay around for a moment, because I have a request. May I do that?
STEWART: Yes.
CHUNG: Clive Davis, thank you so much. Please stay as well.
DAVIS: Thank you. I will.
CHUNG: And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: We are back here with Rod Stewart and Clive Davis.
And I have a request. Would you sing one of the songs from your CD? Which would you like to sing?
STEWART: Now?
CHUNG: Yes.
STEWART: OK.
CHUNG: Will you sing a cappella for us?
STEWART: Yes. I can sing on my own as well, if you wish.
(LAUGHTER)
CHUNG: Badda-bing.
STEWART (singing): Some day, when I'm awfully low and the world is cold, I will feel a glow, just thinking of you and the way you look tonight.
That's enough.
CHUNG: No!
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: I was singing a lot last night, so I'm a little fragile in the voice.
CHUNG: It was great.
Rod Stewart, thank you so much.
STEWART: Thank you, Connie.
CHUNG: And thank you, Clive Davis, for being with us.
Tomorrow: new details about Robert Hanssen, one of the most notorious spies of the 20th century.
And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE," they're all over the Winona Ryder verdict.
Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night and see you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com Guilty>
|
