Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Is White House Giving into Pressure?; Interview with Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman of California
Aired March 30, 2004 - 08:00 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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning.
Is the White House giving into pressure, dealing up a compromise about 9/11 testimony from Condoleezza Rice?
A week of headlines about the president's record on fighting terror. Now a new poll is out showing the effect with voters, and they are interesting, too, the numbers.
And the defense trying to raise questions about the way a shotgun went off in the Jayson Williams case. Another expert expected on the stand today. What will he say this time?
Ahead this hour on AMERICAN MORNING.
ANNOUNCER: From the CNN broadcast center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Bill Hemmer and Soledad O'Brien.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning.
Welcome back, everybody.
Other stories that we're following this morning, as Lady Liberty appears on the set in the screen here. Among, of course, the many security precautions after 9/11 was closing of the Statue of Liberty. It's been two and a half years. Well, now the government has plans in place to open it back up. We're going to talk to the secretary of the interior, Gale Norton, in a few minutes, to find out exactly when.
HEMMER: Also, Sanjay Gupta this hour with us talking about a paramedic's dream -- a substitute for blood. It could save a lot of lives, but it's not a sure thing and some cities apparently already using it finding a bit of issue with it. So we'll get to that with Sanjay, the good doctor, also this hour.
O'BRIEN: Mr. Cafferty.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: How are you?
CAFFERTY: Coming up in the File, less than an hour, yesterday we found an idiot criminal in Oklahoma who robbed a couple's house and then got tired and crawled in bed with them and went to sleep. Well, today we found another moron. This one is overseas, the dumbest criminal in the world, perhaps. And we may... HEMMER: Yes?
CAFFERTY: Hmmm?
HEMMER: Yes?
CAFFERTY: And we may have the answer to why some of us are so cranky at work. Not me, of course.
HEMMER: Never.
CAFFERTY: Just some others, others.
O'BRIEN: I was going to say, do tell.
HEMMER: Not a day in your life...
O'BRIEN: He finally explains it.
HEMMER: ... I don't think, as a matter of fact.
CAFFERTY: Hey, you know what? When you get the secretary of the interior on, the Statue of Liberty, you know, they were not opening it because they said they didn't have the money and they were requiring the private sector to raise funds to open the Statue of Liberty.
O'BRIEN: Right.
HEMMER: A big in New York, too.
CAFFERTY: I mean how much money does the government spend every year? What is the new budget, two some trillion dollars. We don't have a few bucks to open the Statue of Liberty?
O'BRIEN: More like $5.9 million is what was raised by the public sector. I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CAFFERTY: But I mean why is that money coming from the private sector?
HEMMER: Well, listen, you raise a good point and a lot of folks in Manhattan were ticked off about it, trying to raise the money to get it done.
CAFFERTY: Yes.
HEMMER: So it'll be a big effort this summer, also (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
O'BRIEN: Well, we'll see what she -- I'm going to throw that question towards the secretary.
CAFFERTY: Jump right on it.
The other thing to ask her about is whether Jessica Simpson actually made the comment or... O'BRIEN: That, if we have time.
CAFFERTY: ... "I like what you've done with the White House."
O'BRIEN: I actually will ask her that if we have time in our interview, because she's coming up in just a few minutes.
CAFFERTY: OK.
O'BRIEN: Our top stories now this morning.
In Britain, eight suspects have been taken into custody in connection with possible Islamic terror acts. That is according to British police sources. Authorities say they've also seized a half ton of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be used to make bombs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER CLARKE, METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE: The men who have been arrested will be interviewed by officers from the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch. I should like to make it clear at this stage that this operation is not linked to either Irish Republican terrorism or to the recent attack in Madrid. The men who have been arrested are all British citizens. They are aged between 17 and 32.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: Some 700 officers took part in those raids.
In New York, jurors in the trial of two former Tyco executives are back in court today for another day of deliberations. A judge ruled against a defense motion for a mistrial yesterday. This after one of the jurors assured the judge that she is deliberating in good conscience. The woman has come under fire for reportedly making an OK gesture to the defense.
The media will get a little more leeway in covering the Michael Jackson grand jury proceedings. A judge lifted restrictions yesterday on photographing jurors and witnesses outside the courthouse. However, the judge warned the media to not try to take pictures of any minors called to testify or communicate with them in any way.
(WEATHER REPORT)
HEMMER: That ongoing battle now over intelligence in the 9/11 attacks makes its way to the Senate today. Two Democrats plan to introduce a resolution that will call on the White House to allow Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before the 9/11 Commission.
Meanwhile, the administration now working toward a compromise with that same Commission under which Rice would testify privately for a second time and not under oath. Any sensitive intelligence information would be taken out before Rice's comments are released as part of the Commission's report to the public. Some details still need to be worked out. Apparently they are talking again at the White House today.
With the controversy, though, showing no sign of going away, there is now evidence that it's having some effect in the polls.
And for that this morning, here's John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Welcoming seven new members to the NATO Alliance, a picture perfect event for a president whose reelection theme boils down to one word leadership.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will face the mortal danger of terrorism and we will overcome it together.
KING: But for all the celebration, Mr. Bush's stewardship of the war on terror is increasingly a campaign year question mark. Seventy percent of the American people say they are very closely or somewhat closely following former White House official Richard Clarke's allegation the president did not pay enough attention to terrorism before the September 11 attacks.
GLEN BOLGER, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: People are paying a great deal of attention to this issue. YOU can't ignore it and hope it goes away.
KING: In a new CNN poll, the public is evenly divided when asked whether they are inclined to believe Clarke or the White House and even divided when asked if the president paid too little attention to terrorism because he was too focused on Saddam Hussein.
PETER HART, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Any time you have the American public split between a bureaucrat and an administration, the administration is losing.
KING: Two-thirds of Americans do not think the Bush administration should have been able to prevent the 9/11 tragedy and the administration's hope is that come November voters will judge Mr. Bush more by his actions after the attacks.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've seen calm when calm was needed, a decision action when action was required. I'm honored to serve at his side.
KING: Despite mounting pressure, the White House says National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will not testify before the 9/11 commission in public, something strategists in both parties say is risky.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HEMMER: Now back to the CIA. It's reviewing testimony that Richard Clarke gave back in July of 2002 to a joint congressional committee looking into the attacks of 9/11. The agency trying to determine which parts must be kept classified as the Bush administration gets ready to make the rest of it public. The review was called for by congressional Republicans who want to compare Clarke's earlier testimony to the statements he made last week before that commission in D.C.
Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman of California our guest this hour, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Welcome back to AMERICAN MORNING.
Nice to have you here.
REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), VICE CHAIRWOMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Bill.
Good morning.
HEMMER: Let's put you on the record. What's a fair compromise in this, do you believe?
HARMAN: On the review of the Clarke testimony?
HEMMER: No, let's go with the classified, what should not be classified and what should.
HARMAN: Oh, well, let's start at the beginning of this. It is supposed to be a decision of the committees of Congress whether or not to ship this material to the CIA for review in terms of declassification. We haven't held a meeting. What has been done violates congressional procedure. This material was sent to the White House yesterday, apparently without the approval of Chairman Porter Goss, and then the White House, an interested party, shipped it to the CIA.
This is wrong. It's a stunning development, in my view, and it makes it look like the White House, an interested party, is in charge of selective declassification on a political basis. And this is just going to encourage leaks in the government.
HEMMER: Let me just try and take the other side here. If you can find evidence that Richard Clarke has actually doubled back on his story, isn't that not something the American people should know?
HARMAN: Yes, but it is something that Congress, following orderly procedure, ought to decide first, by vote, and then, as far as I'm concerned, a disinterested group in the CIA, not the White House, should be in charge of what's declassified. And if the material goes to the CIA, it should include all of the material that Clarke presented before our joint inquiry, not just the transcript of his briefing, which I gather some view as more damaging to him than some of the other materials.
HEMMER: But...
HARMAN: It should all be looked at, not just a selective piece of it.
HEMMER: But you're in intel. If it sacrificed intelligence for the country, should that be kept private, do you think?
HARMAN: I think that the public has a right to know about the plot leading up to 9/11 and about what actions were taken. And the only things that should be withheld are sources and methods which would compromise our ability to get intelligence in the future.
By the way, a bipartisan overwhelming group of the joint inquiry, which I was a member of, felt this way. It was the CIA that prevented us from declassifying more of the material after a six month harangue. And now it is ironic that only a piece of the Clarke material before our committee has been shipped via the White House to the CIA. This is a wrong procedure and it's going to set a very bad precedent.
HEMMER: Let me try to get to two more points quickly. Dr. Rice, you believe that she should testify publicly and under oath.
Why do you believe that's so critical in what the Commission's work is doing now?
HARMAN: Well, I actually haven't said that, but I do believe it. I think that when you're in a hole, you should stop digging. The problem was that the White House sent her out on every talk show. If they'd wanted her to keep a low profile, she would be in a different position now. But she, they, set it up this way and now even the chairman, a Republican, of the 9/11 Commission, is calling for her to testify publicly under oath.
HEMMER: And ultimately, just the final point here, Richard Clarke said last week even if there had been more done to stop al Qaeda in that first eight months of the Bush White House and the Bush administration, the events of 9/11 still would not have been stopped, he does not believe.
When that evidence is on the table, how does that change the argument about pursuing Dr. Rice's testimony or not?
HARMAN: Well, we'll never know absolutely whether something could have been changed. A lot was missed. We all know that. And I do think an apology is owed to the American people and to the families.
I think at this point, however, it is important for the American people to believe that they are learning the truth about the plot up to 9/11 and what was done. And that's why it's critical that the 9/11 Commission, which is doing a great job on a bipartisan basis, be able to tell as much of the story as possible to the public.
HEMMER: Nice to speak with you, as always.
HARMAN: Nice to see you.
HEMMER: Come back any time, OK?
Jane Harman there down in D.C.
Appreciate it. HARMAN: Thank you.
HEMMER: Soledad.
O'BRIEN: More on this topic now with Jack, because it's the Question of the Day.
CAFFERTY: This is great stuff, isn't it?
O'BRIEN: Yes, it is.
CAFFERTY: And it's not going to go away.
The e-mail this morning has to do with whether or not Dr. Rice should be required to testify again, this time in public and under oath, before the 9/11 Commission.
Lots of mail, most of it suggesting that she should be. Apparently the testimony she gave behind closed doors is not exactly in agreement with the things that Richard Clarke swore to under oath in front of the Commission. So they want to go back and revisit Dr. Rice's testimony.
Claudia writes from Safety Harbor, Florida: "It seems it should be mandatory for Dr. Rice to testify under oath. The unprecedented carnage alone of September 11 should be reason enough. The victims paid the ultimate price and we need to know the mechanics behind the failure."
Rich in Rochester has this view: "In a word, no. She's already testified before the Commission, with universal approval of her candor in that testimony. There's nothing she would add by testifying in public. This is politics, nothing more, nothing less."
And Lynn Elder-Munro writes: "Of course Dr. Rice should testify under oath. This is not your run of the mill fundraising scandal or ethics violation. Watergate pales in comparison to what happened September 11. Republicans keep insisting that 9/11 is a special circumstance requiring special measures and that's just what the 9/11 Commission is. If Dr. Rice wants to refute Mr. Clarke's testimony, she should do it under oath, just like Mr. Clarke did."
And am@cnn.com is the e-mail address if you're interested.
Tom Kane is the co-chair of that thing. He used to be governor of the State of New Jersey. A terrific guy. Couldn't be in better hands. A nice man.
HEMMER: Fair enough.
CAFFERTY: A lot of faith in him.
HEMMER: Thank you, Jack.
CAFFERTY: Yes.
HEMMER: Let's get a break here.
In a moment, could the shotgun that killed Jayson Williams' limo driver have fired without a finger on the trigger? A former lawyer for Williams joins us to talk about the defense in that case.
O'BRIEN: And is your child getting enough sleep? Are you? No. We're going to take a look at the cost of going without sleep.
That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: A defense witness in the Jayson Williams trial says the former NBA player's shotgun could have fired without a finger on the trigger. Williams is charged with manslaughter in the death of limo driver Guy Christofi.
Eric Philips has our story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Given the scenario that I talked about...
ERIC PHILIPS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Weapons expert Richard Ernest testified he'd never seen as much debris as he discovered falling out of former NBA star Jayson Williams' shotgun, a point the state disputes because Ernest did not mention the debris in his initial report.
STEVEN LEMBER, PROSECUTOR: Don't you think it would have really been pretty important to say gee, I opened up this Browning Satori shotgun and I saw debris. I've never seen that before. First time.
RICHARD ERNEST, WEAPONS EXPERT: I don't -- it's not something that occurred to me at the time.
PHILIPS: Prosecutors also leaned on Ernest to admit that his tests could not conclusively prove the gun was problematic.
LEMBER: You agree with me that you can't say to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that it did malfunction, can you?
ERNEST: I cannot say that it did. I wasn't there.
PHILIPS: Nevertheless, defense attorneys are depending heavily on testimony from Ernest.
ERNEST: If you take the mechanism with wood chip in place and shock it...
PHILIPS: He lab tested the firing mechanism from a shotgun just like the one Jayson Williams was handling when he shot and killed chauffeur Guy Christofi more than two years ago at his New Jersey mansion.
ERNEST: With a wood chip in place, some kind of debris in place, then shock the mechanism and the hammer will fall.
PHILIPS: Meaning the gun will fire, a key aspect of Jayson Williams' defense that the gun malfunctioned...
ERNEST: Flip up the shotgun.
PHILIPS: ... when Williams snapped it shut. So far, two weapons experts have testified, giving two different opinions on whether the gun malfunctioned. Who the jury believes will play a major role in whether Jayson Williams is convicted of aggravated manslaughter.
Eric Philips, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O'BRIEN: So which side got the edge in the back and forth about Jayson Williams' gun?
New Jersey attorney Brian Neary represented Williams about a decade ago on a gun charge.
He joins us again this morning.
Nice to see you, as always.
BRIAN NEARY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi, Soledad.
O'BRIEN: You know, you hear this testimony from this expert and the prosecution clearly trying to dismantle a lot of what he said earlier when he was being questioned by the defense. He sort of contradicted what he said the first time on the stand a little bit.
NEARY: Well, in his direct testimony, he was clearer. He actually said this was an accident waiting to happen. The cross- examination exposed what's the uncertainty of this kind of a science. We saw it last week when the defense cross-examined the state's witness, who was a state trooper, to concede that there was a possibility, in fact, that it could go off incidentally.
Here's the flip side, that he said that yesterday, Mr. Ernest said he couldn't be sure that, in fact, it went off that way, because it's old, it's basically, it's a possibility as opposed to probability.
O'BRIEN: Even though we were hearing in Eric's piece about, well, if a wood chip or debris -- and he testified about the debris -- had gotten in there, it could go off, but actually he admitted that in all his tests he never got the gun to discharge when -- without the finger on the trigger, which seems to be the entire focus of this -- was there a finger on the trigger or was this just an absolute accident?
NEARY: There seemed to be a concession that there had to be at least some pressure on the trigger, even the slightest amount of pressure, to let it go off. What the problem with both experts' testimony, or the inherent problem, is that there's no formula, there's no real science that allows them to test. Each chooses their own set of experiments, in essence, to make the gun go off accidentally or to show that the gun could not have gone off accidentally.
O'BRIEN: In your experience, when you're dealing with dueling experts and there's a lot of sort of scientific confusion about what exactly may have happened, do you think the jurors sort of buy into one story or the other, or do you think they take all the information in toto? Or do you think the experts just cancel each other out by their testimony.
NEARY: The experts will not cancel each other out. And one expert, I would seriously doubt that a decision is based on the strength of one expert or the other. What the common sense approach is going to be by the jury -- because that's really the test of these experts, does it make sense what they're saying? They're going to take the common sense explanations given by the experts and try to fit it with the whole rest of the story.
This is not a case of the battle of the experts. This is going to be a case about all the information being put together and the jury sorting it out.
O'BRIEN: I was sort of surprised that the prosecution started accusing Ernest of presenting the jurors with possibilities rather than hard facts. And I thought well, that's -- isn't that what they're supposed to do, essentially? I mean an expert on the stand is supposed to point out to the jurors what may have happened, what could have happened, since, considering nobody else was there.
NEARY: Well, the prosecutors are trying to show that it's basically speculation since -- and Ernest response was well, I don't know, because I wasn't there. That's the challenge.
One inside is going to say last week we heard the concession that it's a possible that it could go off accidentally. The other side, with the prosecution and its cross-examination, gets Ernest to say well, I don't know, I wasn't there so.
O'BRIEN: I know you hate to weigh in on this. Who do you think it's wining, if that's a word I can use, at this time? Who's ahead?
NEARY: No, the jury's still out on this one, Soledad.
O'BRIEN: All right. I can never get you to cave on that.
Well, we'll get you to answer it one day.
Brian Neary, thanks, as always.
It's nice to see you.
NEARY: You're welcome, Soledad.
HEMMER: All right, in a moment here, terror suspects rounded up earlier today in London -- a series of early morning raids. We'll tell you who they netted and how significant it might be.
Also, sleep and your health today. Not getting enough Zs could be dangerous.
Sanjay explains in a moment on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: A medical story for you now. It's just not the overworked adults who are sleep deprived these days, we are told. America's children also are not getting as much sleep as they should.
Medical correspondent Christy Feig has more today for us.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GWYN HICKS: Yes, I don't think he wants this right now, Max.
CHRISTY FEIG, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Gwyn Hicks, juggling 3-year-old Maggie and 6-month-old Hunter with work means sleep gets sacrificed. She says she usually only gets between five and six hours a night, often interrupted by the kids.
HICKS: I really could probably fall asleep, well, at least I think I could fall asleep pretty much anywhere, any time.
FEIG: But for many Americans like Gwyn, that could be doing more than just making you tired. Research shows it can actually increase your risk of certain diseases, like diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and even obesity.
DR. THOMAS LO RUSSO, NORTH VIRGINIA SLEEP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER: And when you don't sleep well, you may have a diminished metabolism and therefore you don't burn the calories that perhaps someone with a good eight hours of sleep may do.
FEIG: It's not just adults getting too little rest. A new study from the National Sleep Foundation says increasingly children also aren't sleeping enough. Toddlers need about 12 to 14 hours of sleep a day; pre-schoolers, 11 to 13 hours; and school aged children, 10 to 11. But on average, the study says kids sleep about 30 minutes to an hour a night less. It might not sound like much, but it adds up and can mean problems with attention and school work.
Experts say getting to bed and up at the same time every day, limiting caffeine and keeping TVs out of the bedroom can all help you get some extra Zs.
In Washington, I'm Christy Feig.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HEMMER: They say 70 percent of the kids have problems, from sleepwalking, snoring and resisting going to bed. And I think the last thing, resisting going to bed, accounts for 69 of the 70 percent problem. O'BRIEN: And then, you know, they're not...
HEMMER: Which you would know from your own daughters.
O'BRIEN: ... factoring that it's the parents who are then putting them back to bed...
HEMMER: That's right.
O'BRIEN: ... and returning them when they sleepwalk and...
HEMMER: Yes, that's your world.
O'BRIEN: ... and waking them up when they snore.
Well, while we are on the subject of kids being tired, "The Late Show with David Letterman" had a little fun last night at President Bush's expense using some clips from a recent speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "DAVID LETTERMAN," COURTESY CBS/WORLDWIDE PARTNERS)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need to maintain spending discipline in our nation's capital. I have a plan to protect small business owners and employees from (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
I actually did vote for the $87 billion.
Try it with all your heart.
Eight House members, all the local officials, a high sheriff is with us today.
Of you're worried about the quality of the education (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in which you live...
We stand for the fair treatment of faith-based groups that will receive federal support for their works (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
This will not happen on my watch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: You think that's real?
O'BRIEN: No. No.
HEMMER: Those pictures are too darned good.
O'BRIEN: You guys don't think that's real, right?
HEMMER: That's right.
O'BRIEN: No. It is not.
HEMMER: The first thing seems real, yes. It goes along with that sleep story.
In a moment here, one of America's favorite ladies is about to have her first date in two and a half years. We'll explain that in a moment here on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired March 30, 2004 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning.
Is the White House giving into pressure, dealing up a compromise about 9/11 testimony from Condoleezza Rice?
A week of headlines about the president's record on fighting terror. Now a new poll is out showing the effect with voters, and they are interesting, too, the numbers.
And the defense trying to raise questions about the way a shotgun went off in the Jayson Williams case. Another expert expected on the stand today. What will he say this time?
Ahead this hour on AMERICAN MORNING.
ANNOUNCER: From the CNN broadcast center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Bill Hemmer and Soledad O'Brien.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning.
Welcome back, everybody.
Other stories that we're following this morning, as Lady Liberty appears on the set in the screen here. Among, of course, the many security precautions after 9/11 was closing of the Statue of Liberty. It's been two and a half years. Well, now the government has plans in place to open it back up. We're going to talk to the secretary of the interior, Gale Norton, in a few minutes, to find out exactly when.
HEMMER: Also, Sanjay Gupta this hour with us talking about a paramedic's dream -- a substitute for blood. It could save a lot of lives, but it's not a sure thing and some cities apparently already using it finding a bit of issue with it. So we'll get to that with Sanjay, the good doctor, also this hour.
O'BRIEN: Mr. Cafferty.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: How are you?
CAFFERTY: Coming up in the File, less than an hour, yesterday we found an idiot criminal in Oklahoma who robbed a couple's house and then got tired and crawled in bed with them and went to sleep. Well, today we found another moron. This one is overseas, the dumbest criminal in the world, perhaps. And we may... HEMMER: Yes?
CAFFERTY: Hmmm?
HEMMER: Yes?
CAFFERTY: And we may have the answer to why some of us are so cranky at work. Not me, of course.
HEMMER: Never.
CAFFERTY: Just some others, others.
O'BRIEN: I was going to say, do tell.
HEMMER: Not a day in your life...
O'BRIEN: He finally explains it.
HEMMER: ... I don't think, as a matter of fact.
CAFFERTY: Hey, you know what? When you get the secretary of the interior on, the Statue of Liberty, you know, they were not opening it because they said they didn't have the money and they were requiring the private sector to raise funds to open the Statue of Liberty.
O'BRIEN: Right.
HEMMER: A big in New York, too.
CAFFERTY: I mean how much money does the government spend every year? What is the new budget, two some trillion dollars. We don't have a few bucks to open the Statue of Liberty?
O'BRIEN: More like $5.9 million is what was raised by the public sector. I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
CAFFERTY: But I mean why is that money coming from the private sector?
HEMMER: Well, listen, you raise a good point and a lot of folks in Manhattan were ticked off about it, trying to raise the money to get it done.
CAFFERTY: Yes.
HEMMER: So it'll be a big effort this summer, also (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
O'BRIEN: Well, we'll see what she -- I'm going to throw that question towards the secretary.
CAFFERTY: Jump right on it.
The other thing to ask her about is whether Jessica Simpson actually made the comment or... O'BRIEN: That, if we have time.
CAFFERTY: ... "I like what you've done with the White House."
O'BRIEN: I actually will ask her that if we have time in our interview, because she's coming up in just a few minutes.
CAFFERTY: OK.
O'BRIEN: Our top stories now this morning.
In Britain, eight suspects have been taken into custody in connection with possible Islamic terror acts. That is according to British police sources. Authorities say they've also seized a half ton of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be used to make bombs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER CLARKE, METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE: The men who have been arrested will be interviewed by officers from the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch. I should like to make it clear at this stage that this operation is not linked to either Irish Republican terrorism or to the recent attack in Madrid. The men who have been arrested are all British citizens. They are aged between 17 and 32.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: Some 700 officers took part in those raids.
In New York, jurors in the trial of two former Tyco executives are back in court today for another day of deliberations. A judge ruled against a defense motion for a mistrial yesterday. This after one of the jurors assured the judge that she is deliberating in good conscience. The woman has come under fire for reportedly making an OK gesture to the defense.
The media will get a little more leeway in covering the Michael Jackson grand jury proceedings. A judge lifted restrictions yesterday on photographing jurors and witnesses outside the courthouse. However, the judge warned the media to not try to take pictures of any minors called to testify or communicate with them in any way.
(WEATHER REPORT)
HEMMER: That ongoing battle now over intelligence in the 9/11 attacks makes its way to the Senate today. Two Democrats plan to introduce a resolution that will call on the White House to allow Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before the 9/11 Commission.
Meanwhile, the administration now working toward a compromise with that same Commission under which Rice would testify privately for a second time and not under oath. Any sensitive intelligence information would be taken out before Rice's comments are released as part of the Commission's report to the public. Some details still need to be worked out. Apparently they are talking again at the White House today.
With the controversy, though, showing no sign of going away, there is now evidence that it's having some effect in the polls.
And for that this morning, here's John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Welcoming seven new members to the NATO Alliance, a picture perfect event for a president whose reelection theme boils down to one word leadership.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will face the mortal danger of terrorism and we will overcome it together.
KING: But for all the celebration, Mr. Bush's stewardship of the war on terror is increasingly a campaign year question mark. Seventy percent of the American people say they are very closely or somewhat closely following former White House official Richard Clarke's allegation the president did not pay enough attention to terrorism before the September 11 attacks.
GLEN BOLGER, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: People are paying a great deal of attention to this issue. YOU can't ignore it and hope it goes away.
KING: In a new CNN poll, the public is evenly divided when asked whether they are inclined to believe Clarke or the White House and even divided when asked if the president paid too little attention to terrorism because he was too focused on Saddam Hussein.
PETER HART, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Any time you have the American public split between a bureaucrat and an administration, the administration is losing.
KING: Two-thirds of Americans do not think the Bush administration should have been able to prevent the 9/11 tragedy and the administration's hope is that come November voters will judge Mr. Bush more by his actions after the attacks.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've seen calm when calm was needed, a decision action when action was required. I'm honored to serve at his side.
KING: Despite mounting pressure, the White House says National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will not testify before the 9/11 commission in public, something strategists in both parties say is risky.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HEMMER: Now back to the CIA. It's reviewing testimony that Richard Clarke gave back in July of 2002 to a joint congressional committee looking into the attacks of 9/11. The agency trying to determine which parts must be kept classified as the Bush administration gets ready to make the rest of it public. The review was called for by congressional Republicans who want to compare Clarke's earlier testimony to the statements he made last week before that commission in D.C.
Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman of California our guest this hour, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Welcome back to AMERICAN MORNING.
Nice to have you here.
REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), VICE CHAIRWOMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Bill.
Good morning.
HEMMER: Let's put you on the record. What's a fair compromise in this, do you believe?
HARMAN: On the review of the Clarke testimony?
HEMMER: No, let's go with the classified, what should not be classified and what should.
HARMAN: Oh, well, let's start at the beginning of this. It is supposed to be a decision of the committees of Congress whether or not to ship this material to the CIA for review in terms of declassification. We haven't held a meeting. What has been done violates congressional procedure. This material was sent to the White House yesterday, apparently without the approval of Chairman Porter Goss, and then the White House, an interested party, shipped it to the CIA.
This is wrong. It's a stunning development, in my view, and it makes it look like the White House, an interested party, is in charge of selective declassification on a political basis. And this is just going to encourage leaks in the government.
HEMMER: Let me just try and take the other side here. If you can find evidence that Richard Clarke has actually doubled back on his story, isn't that not something the American people should know?
HARMAN: Yes, but it is something that Congress, following orderly procedure, ought to decide first, by vote, and then, as far as I'm concerned, a disinterested group in the CIA, not the White House, should be in charge of what's declassified. And if the material goes to the CIA, it should include all of the material that Clarke presented before our joint inquiry, not just the transcript of his briefing, which I gather some view as more damaging to him than some of the other materials.
HEMMER: But...
HARMAN: It should all be looked at, not just a selective piece of it.
HEMMER: But you're in intel. If it sacrificed intelligence for the country, should that be kept private, do you think?
HARMAN: I think that the public has a right to know about the plot leading up to 9/11 and about what actions were taken. And the only things that should be withheld are sources and methods which would compromise our ability to get intelligence in the future.
By the way, a bipartisan overwhelming group of the joint inquiry, which I was a member of, felt this way. It was the CIA that prevented us from declassifying more of the material after a six month harangue. And now it is ironic that only a piece of the Clarke material before our committee has been shipped via the White House to the CIA. This is a wrong procedure and it's going to set a very bad precedent.
HEMMER: Let me try to get to two more points quickly. Dr. Rice, you believe that she should testify publicly and under oath.
Why do you believe that's so critical in what the Commission's work is doing now?
HARMAN: Well, I actually haven't said that, but I do believe it. I think that when you're in a hole, you should stop digging. The problem was that the White House sent her out on every talk show. If they'd wanted her to keep a low profile, she would be in a different position now. But she, they, set it up this way and now even the chairman, a Republican, of the 9/11 Commission, is calling for her to testify publicly under oath.
HEMMER: And ultimately, just the final point here, Richard Clarke said last week even if there had been more done to stop al Qaeda in that first eight months of the Bush White House and the Bush administration, the events of 9/11 still would not have been stopped, he does not believe.
When that evidence is on the table, how does that change the argument about pursuing Dr. Rice's testimony or not?
HARMAN: Well, we'll never know absolutely whether something could have been changed. A lot was missed. We all know that. And I do think an apology is owed to the American people and to the families.
I think at this point, however, it is important for the American people to believe that they are learning the truth about the plot up to 9/11 and what was done. And that's why it's critical that the 9/11 Commission, which is doing a great job on a bipartisan basis, be able to tell as much of the story as possible to the public.
HEMMER: Nice to speak with you, as always.
HARMAN: Nice to see you.
HEMMER: Come back any time, OK?
Jane Harman there down in D.C.
Appreciate it. HARMAN: Thank you.
HEMMER: Soledad.
O'BRIEN: More on this topic now with Jack, because it's the Question of the Day.
CAFFERTY: This is great stuff, isn't it?
O'BRIEN: Yes, it is.
CAFFERTY: And it's not going to go away.
The e-mail this morning has to do with whether or not Dr. Rice should be required to testify again, this time in public and under oath, before the 9/11 Commission.
Lots of mail, most of it suggesting that she should be. Apparently the testimony she gave behind closed doors is not exactly in agreement with the things that Richard Clarke swore to under oath in front of the Commission. So they want to go back and revisit Dr. Rice's testimony.
Claudia writes from Safety Harbor, Florida: "It seems it should be mandatory for Dr. Rice to testify under oath. The unprecedented carnage alone of September 11 should be reason enough. The victims paid the ultimate price and we need to know the mechanics behind the failure."
Rich in Rochester has this view: "In a word, no. She's already testified before the Commission, with universal approval of her candor in that testimony. There's nothing she would add by testifying in public. This is politics, nothing more, nothing less."
And Lynn Elder-Munro writes: "Of course Dr. Rice should testify under oath. This is not your run of the mill fundraising scandal or ethics violation. Watergate pales in comparison to what happened September 11. Republicans keep insisting that 9/11 is a special circumstance requiring special measures and that's just what the 9/11 Commission is. If Dr. Rice wants to refute Mr. Clarke's testimony, she should do it under oath, just like Mr. Clarke did."
And am@cnn.com is the e-mail address if you're interested.
Tom Kane is the co-chair of that thing. He used to be governor of the State of New Jersey. A terrific guy. Couldn't be in better hands. A nice man.
HEMMER: Fair enough.
CAFFERTY: A lot of faith in him.
HEMMER: Thank you, Jack.
CAFFERTY: Yes.
HEMMER: Let's get a break here.
In a moment, could the shotgun that killed Jayson Williams' limo driver have fired without a finger on the trigger? A former lawyer for Williams joins us to talk about the defense in that case.
O'BRIEN: And is your child getting enough sleep? Are you? No. We're going to take a look at the cost of going without sleep.
That's ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: A defense witness in the Jayson Williams trial says the former NBA player's shotgun could have fired without a finger on the trigger. Williams is charged with manslaughter in the death of limo driver Guy Christofi.
Eric Philips has our story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Given the scenario that I talked about...
ERIC PHILIPS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Weapons expert Richard Ernest testified he'd never seen as much debris as he discovered falling out of former NBA star Jayson Williams' shotgun, a point the state disputes because Ernest did not mention the debris in his initial report.
STEVEN LEMBER, PROSECUTOR: Don't you think it would have really been pretty important to say gee, I opened up this Browning Satori shotgun and I saw debris. I've never seen that before. First time.
RICHARD ERNEST, WEAPONS EXPERT: I don't -- it's not something that occurred to me at the time.
PHILIPS: Prosecutors also leaned on Ernest to admit that his tests could not conclusively prove the gun was problematic.
LEMBER: You agree with me that you can't say to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that it did malfunction, can you?
ERNEST: I cannot say that it did. I wasn't there.
PHILIPS: Nevertheless, defense attorneys are depending heavily on testimony from Ernest.
ERNEST: If you take the mechanism with wood chip in place and shock it...
PHILIPS: He lab tested the firing mechanism from a shotgun just like the one Jayson Williams was handling when he shot and killed chauffeur Guy Christofi more than two years ago at his New Jersey mansion.
ERNEST: With a wood chip in place, some kind of debris in place, then shock the mechanism and the hammer will fall.
PHILIPS: Meaning the gun will fire, a key aspect of Jayson Williams' defense that the gun malfunctioned...
ERNEST: Flip up the shotgun.
PHILIPS: ... when Williams snapped it shut. So far, two weapons experts have testified, giving two different opinions on whether the gun malfunctioned. Who the jury believes will play a major role in whether Jayson Williams is convicted of aggravated manslaughter.
Eric Philips, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O'BRIEN: So which side got the edge in the back and forth about Jayson Williams' gun?
New Jersey attorney Brian Neary represented Williams about a decade ago on a gun charge.
He joins us again this morning.
Nice to see you, as always.
BRIAN NEARY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Hi, Soledad.
O'BRIEN: You know, you hear this testimony from this expert and the prosecution clearly trying to dismantle a lot of what he said earlier when he was being questioned by the defense. He sort of contradicted what he said the first time on the stand a little bit.
NEARY: Well, in his direct testimony, he was clearer. He actually said this was an accident waiting to happen. The cross- examination exposed what's the uncertainty of this kind of a science. We saw it last week when the defense cross-examined the state's witness, who was a state trooper, to concede that there was a possibility, in fact, that it could go off incidentally.
Here's the flip side, that he said that yesterday, Mr. Ernest said he couldn't be sure that, in fact, it went off that way, because it's old, it's basically, it's a possibility as opposed to probability.
O'BRIEN: Even though we were hearing in Eric's piece about, well, if a wood chip or debris -- and he testified about the debris -- had gotten in there, it could go off, but actually he admitted that in all his tests he never got the gun to discharge when -- without the finger on the trigger, which seems to be the entire focus of this -- was there a finger on the trigger or was this just an absolute accident?
NEARY: There seemed to be a concession that there had to be at least some pressure on the trigger, even the slightest amount of pressure, to let it go off. What the problem with both experts' testimony, or the inherent problem, is that there's no formula, there's no real science that allows them to test. Each chooses their own set of experiments, in essence, to make the gun go off accidentally or to show that the gun could not have gone off accidentally.
O'BRIEN: In your experience, when you're dealing with dueling experts and there's a lot of sort of scientific confusion about what exactly may have happened, do you think the jurors sort of buy into one story or the other, or do you think they take all the information in toto? Or do you think the experts just cancel each other out by their testimony.
NEARY: The experts will not cancel each other out. And one expert, I would seriously doubt that a decision is based on the strength of one expert or the other. What the common sense approach is going to be by the jury -- because that's really the test of these experts, does it make sense what they're saying? They're going to take the common sense explanations given by the experts and try to fit it with the whole rest of the story.
This is not a case of the battle of the experts. This is going to be a case about all the information being put together and the jury sorting it out.
O'BRIEN: I was sort of surprised that the prosecution started accusing Ernest of presenting the jurors with possibilities rather than hard facts. And I thought well, that's -- isn't that what they're supposed to do, essentially? I mean an expert on the stand is supposed to point out to the jurors what may have happened, what could have happened, since, considering nobody else was there.
NEARY: Well, the prosecutors are trying to show that it's basically speculation since -- and Ernest response was well, I don't know, because I wasn't there. That's the challenge.
One inside is going to say last week we heard the concession that it's a possible that it could go off accidentally. The other side, with the prosecution and its cross-examination, gets Ernest to say well, I don't know, I wasn't there so.
O'BRIEN: I know you hate to weigh in on this. Who do you think it's wining, if that's a word I can use, at this time? Who's ahead?
NEARY: No, the jury's still out on this one, Soledad.
O'BRIEN: All right. I can never get you to cave on that.
Well, we'll get you to answer it one day.
Brian Neary, thanks, as always.
It's nice to see you.
NEARY: You're welcome, Soledad.
HEMMER: All right, in a moment here, terror suspects rounded up earlier today in London -- a series of early morning raids. We'll tell you who they netted and how significant it might be.
Also, sleep and your health today. Not getting enough Zs could be dangerous.
Sanjay explains in a moment on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: A medical story for you now. It's just not the overworked adults who are sleep deprived these days, we are told. America's children also are not getting as much sleep as they should.
Medical correspondent Christy Feig has more today for us.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GWYN HICKS: Yes, I don't think he wants this right now, Max.
CHRISTY FEIG, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Gwyn Hicks, juggling 3-year-old Maggie and 6-month-old Hunter with work means sleep gets sacrificed. She says she usually only gets between five and six hours a night, often interrupted by the kids.
HICKS: I really could probably fall asleep, well, at least I think I could fall asleep pretty much anywhere, any time.
FEIG: But for many Americans like Gwyn, that could be doing more than just making you tired. Research shows it can actually increase your risk of certain diseases, like diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and even obesity.
DR. THOMAS LO RUSSO, NORTH VIRGINIA SLEEP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER: And when you don't sleep well, you may have a diminished metabolism and therefore you don't burn the calories that perhaps someone with a good eight hours of sleep may do.
FEIG: It's not just adults getting too little rest. A new study from the National Sleep Foundation says increasingly children also aren't sleeping enough. Toddlers need about 12 to 14 hours of sleep a day; pre-schoolers, 11 to 13 hours; and school aged children, 10 to 11. But on average, the study says kids sleep about 30 minutes to an hour a night less. It might not sound like much, but it adds up and can mean problems with attention and school work.
Experts say getting to bed and up at the same time every day, limiting caffeine and keeping TVs out of the bedroom can all help you get some extra Zs.
In Washington, I'm Christy Feig.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HEMMER: They say 70 percent of the kids have problems, from sleepwalking, snoring and resisting going to bed. And I think the last thing, resisting going to bed, accounts for 69 of the 70 percent problem. O'BRIEN: And then, you know, they're not...
HEMMER: Which you would know from your own daughters.
O'BRIEN: ... factoring that it's the parents who are then putting them back to bed...
HEMMER: That's right.
O'BRIEN: ... and returning them when they sleepwalk and...
HEMMER: Yes, that's your world.
O'BRIEN: ... and waking them up when they snore.
Well, while we are on the subject of kids being tired, "The Late Show with David Letterman" had a little fun last night at President Bush's expense using some clips from a recent speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "DAVID LETTERMAN," COURTESY CBS/WORLDWIDE PARTNERS)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We need to maintain spending discipline in our nation's capital. I have a plan to protect small business owners and employees from (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
I actually did vote for the $87 billion.
Try it with all your heart.
Eight House members, all the local officials, a high sheriff is with us today.
Of you're worried about the quality of the education (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in which you live...
We stand for the fair treatment of faith-based groups that will receive federal support for their works (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
This will not happen on my watch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HEMMER: You think that's real?
O'BRIEN: No. No.
HEMMER: Those pictures are too darned good.
O'BRIEN: You guys don't think that's real, right?
HEMMER: That's right.
O'BRIEN: No. It is not.
HEMMER: The first thing seems real, yes. It goes along with that sleep story.
In a moment here, one of America's favorite ladies is about to have her first date in two and a half years. We'll explain that in a moment here on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
