Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
"The Washington Post": No More Than Six Senators, Handful of House Members read 92-Page Report Iraqi WMD Programs
Aired April 27, 2004 - 09:00 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.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Trying to pry open closed doors. This morning the question of secrecy and the vice president in the hands of the Supreme Court justices.
The fighting in Iraq moving closer to one of its holiest cities as dozens are killed on the edge of Najaf.
And in New Jersey...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILLY MARTIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The shotgun alone did not kill Gus Christofi. The shotgun alone did not load itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: The Jayson Williams manslaughter trial about to go to the jury. The last words from the lawyers on this AMERICAN MORNING.
ANNOUNCER: From the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Soledad O'Brien and Bill Hemmer.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, welcome back here on AMERICAN MORNING. 9:00 in New York. A lot of news and high-profile cases today on the legal side. Jayson Williams trial. A jury may begin deliberations on that.
Also a key hearing continues in the Kobe Bryant case and the Michael Jackson case is still out there. Jeff Toobin, the legal roundup.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: Also this morning, Sanjay Gupta is going to be back with a new warning for people with a heart condition. Smoking, don't do it, don't go near anybody who does do it. We'll talk to him about some of those details as well.
HEMMER: All right. And Jack Cafferty again. Good morning.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Bill. Supreme Court of the United States may force Vice President Dick Cheney to reveal and make public the record of those energy meetings he had back a couple of years ago with corporate types, including some of the folks from Enron. Be interesting to see interesting how... (CROSSTALK)
HEMMER: All right now. Top stories here at the top of the hour. A major decision for two Wisconsin sisters. They're deciding whether or not to return to their National Guard units in Iraq. Rachel and Charity Witmer have been given the option to be reassigned from the war zone. Their sister Michelle was killed in a convoy ambush in Baghdad earlier in the month. An announcement expected a bit later today there.
Congress is said to be criticized for not paying enough attention to intelligence reports. In an article today in "The Washington Post," a 92-page report outlining Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was available in the fall of 2002. Congressional aides say few lawmakers read more than its executive summary. We'll talk with one lawmaker in a moment here. Her reaction forthcoming.
Singer Michael Jackson offering his account on the reasons for the shake-up of his legal team. In a statement released yesterday, Jackson thanked lead attorneys Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman for their work, but said new lawyers must devote their, quote, "full attention to the matter." Thomas Mesereau, who also represented actor Robert Blake, will now defend Jackson. The pop star expected to return to court for a second arraignment on Friday, end of this week.
Also from California, heat wave scorching so many parts of that state. Residents flock to the ocean looking for a way to cool off. Triple digit temperatures in late April, we are, reported up and down the coast. There could be some relief in sight.
(WEATHER REPORT)
O'BRIEN: The Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney. It tests the constitutional balance between the right to private confidentiality and public scrutiny for government leaders. CNN's national correspondent Bob Franken live for us at the Supreme Court this morning with a little preview. Good morning to you, Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning -- Soledad. And obviously there is some very strong boilerplate politics involved here. But also some boilerplate constitutional law.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRANKEN (voice-over): The fight over Vice President Cheney's right to confidentiality is a battle that goes all the way back to 1803 and the Supreme Court's decision supporting judicial review and oversight over the White House.
The vice president claims this time the lists of participants in his meetings to formulate energy policy are the business of the executive branch alone. Court involvement, in effect, is meddling.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We start down that road, we're setting a terrible precedent. We're saying the vice president cannot have confidential meetings.
FRANKEN: The vice president has refused to provide a list of those who participated. His adversaries argue it would show heavy influence by corporate energy interests, including the likes of ousted Enron chief executive Ken Lay.
DAVID BOOKBINDER, SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DIRECTOR: The final report of the energy task force reads as if it was written by the energy industry.
FRANKEN: Add to the intrigue one adamant Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia who has rejected demands to remove himself from the case after disclosures Cheney had taken him on a duck-hunting trip. If it is reasonable, said Scalia, to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.
BOOKBINDER: This is a question of public confidence in the courts.
FRANKEN: The entire matter, says the Vice President, amounts to a tempest in a teapot.
CHENEY: It's a classic sort of feeding frenzy in Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FRANKEN: And the Supreme Court justices will be feeding on some fundamental constitutional questions. All nine of them will be deciding this case which really is about whether they have a role in this case -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Interesting. All right, Bob Franken for us this morning. Bob, thanks -- Bill.
HEMMER: Now to those lingering questions about what members of Congress knew and did not know about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction before the war. According to "The Washington Post," no more than six senators and only a handful of House members read a 92- page report on the programs.
Democratic California Representative Jane Harman, vice chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee, back with us today morning on AMERICAN MORNING. And welcome to you from D.C. Did you read that report?
REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), VICE CHAIR, INTELLIGENCE CMTE.: I did. I think that the general thrust of the article in today's "Post" is right, that congressional oversight needs to be more robust.
But the fact that was cited, which is reading this 92-page classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, would not have led members of Congress to be better informed because that document turned out to be substantially flawed.
The real problem is several fold. First of all, we get caught up, as the article says, in the minutia of the annual budget when we should be focused on the missions that our intelligence community has to perform now which is counterterrorism and counterproliferation.
Secondly, this administration funds most of the counterterrorism activities of the government through supplemental appropriations bills. And they barely touch our committee. And that's absolutely wrong and we need to fight against that as well.
HEMMER: You said three things. let me go back to your fist point. Are you -- whether the report was flawed or not, it was the only report that Congress had in late 2002. If that's the case, it is deemed to be so critical, what explains why so many members of Congress, overwhelming majority did not take the time to read it?
HARMAN: Well, again, to read it, they would have to come up to the dome of the Capitol, sign a secrecy pledge and plunge into something that would be very hard for an average member to read. It's not that I'm so special, but I have been trained over the years. I've served on the Intelligence Committee since 1996 to read these kind of things.
I think that many members, first of all, did not want to go through that. Second of all, did not want to be bound by the secrecy. And third of all, relied on those of us who were on the committees to tell them generally what we thought.
And I believed the WMD case. Now I know, looking back, that the documents were flawed because the sources weren't adequate and the analysts thought it was their duty to support a decision that had basically been made.
HEMMER: As we look back in hindsight, OK, I buy your argument there. But to take time to go up into a certain section of the Capitol building on a matter that's deemed so critically important, are you suggesting that members of Congress are too overwhelmed and too busy to get around to something like this that ultimately led the nation and the world for that matter into war?
HARMAN: Well I think members of Congress took their role in deciding about a resolution very seriously. And I think many members reviewed all kinds of materials, not precisely these materials, to make their decision.
Remember that resolution we all voted on was not a resolution to go to war immediately. It was a resolution to use maximum effort to resolve this issue diplomatically through the United Nations. And many members thought that that's where would come out. And the war was to be a last resort.
So I can't explain other's motivations. I can understand why in a busy world when they have lots of sources to draw on, they wouldn't think to go here...
HEMMER: So the suggestion then in the article is that Congress is to blame every bit for as much as what happened in the argument leading up to the war, etc. Let's put that behind us. You mentioned a few things in your first answer. What do you recommend to improve this system? Tim Roemer who sits on the 9/11 Commission essentially said that members of Congress are too busy to get around to all of it. You refer to the budget battles, etc. Your solution is what then?
HARMAN: My solution is to stop business as usual in the intelligence committees. I've discussed this with Republican Chairman Porter Goss. I think we should go to mission-based budgeting. i think we should focus on the real threats against us which are terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
And I think we should make a big fuss right now about the fact that most of the counterterrorism funding going forward is not in our annual budget. It will be in a -- in a supplemental that will be submitted next March, six months into the fiscal year, by this administration.
That's absolutely wrong. I think we should be prepared to hold up budgeting until we get those counterterrorism funds explained and our committee can seriously focus on them.
HEMMER: Thanks for coming in, especially on short notice. Jane Harman, Democrat from California.
Dana Priest wrote the piece today in "The Washington Post." Nice to chat with you. Here's Soledad.
HARMAN: Thank you.
O'BRIEN: Turning to Iraq now where we are concentrating on two hot spots this morning, the cities of Najaf and also Fallujah. Our Ben Wedeman is standing by for us in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, with details. Ben, good morning.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, good morning, Soledad. Well overnight there was a fairly intense battle outside of Najaf just in the northeast of there where, according to a coalition spokesman, at least 43 insurgents were killed. According to our sources there, a reconnaissance patrol ran into a group from the so-called Mahdi army which is loyal to Moqtada Sadr, that rebellious Shi'ite cleric. And therefore this battle ensued.
But what we're seeing in Fallujah, as well as Najaf, is what appears to be a somewhat changing American tactic, that they are giving diplomacy a chance, giving local leaders an other intermediaries the opportunity to try to work out a peaceful solution and not press the situation in the town of Fallujah, that Sunni hot spot to the west of Baghdad.
We saw that today has been relatively quiet. The rebels there did not hand over their weapons as was hoped by the coalition. The joint patrols between the Iraqi police and the U.S. Marines did not take place.
But, by and large, they seem to be taking a much less confrontational approach, hoping that they'll be able to talk their way out of the situation and avoid the kind of blood shed we saw earlier in the month -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: But some military officials, Ben, say as the Marines sort of wait it out, what they're actually doing is giving the insurgents time to regroup, get that their act together and actually get stronger. Have you heard a similar thing?
WEDEMAN: Well we're hearing two different things, actually. That's one criticism we're hearing that this is really just giving them an opportunity to regroup, to rest and get ready for the next phase.
On the other hand, we are seeing for instance, in Najaf, that what they're doing is they are allowing certain amount of competition between rival Shi'ite leaders to play itself out. And we are seeing in Najaf that gradually others are coming forward.
And many of the Shi'ite leaders are very weary of Moqtada Sadr and his political ambitions. They're almost more afraid of Moqtada Sadr than the Americans are because they're afraid that he could eclipse them and really take power in a way he doesn't have it at the moment.
So it is a somewhat more delicate approach. But it has the possibility, many people believe, more chance of success than going in there with the military and upsetting Iraqis across the board -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Ben Wedeman joining us from Baghdad with an update on Fallujah and also Najaf this morning. Ben, thank you.
HEMMER: In a moment here, were tens of thousands the target of an enormous terrorist plot? The sting that went down this week and what we're learning now in a moment.
O'BRIEN: Also the controversy around Senator John Kerry and his Vietnam war medals. How is the presidential candidate firing back?
HEMMER: Also deliberations may start today. The fate of former NBA star Jayson Williams almost in the hands of a jury. Ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: Jurors in the Jayson Williams manslaughter trial are expected to begin deliberations today. Yesterday, the prosecution and the defense had their final say leaving the jurors to decide if a limo driver's case was a case of reckless disregard or just an accident waiting to happen. Deb Feyerick is live for us in Somerville, New Jersey. Hi, Deborah. Good morning.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Soledad. Well the judge says he needs just one hour to read the charges against Jayson Williams. Then after three long months, the jury will finally get to talk about this case. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK (voice-over): Tying their case together, lawyers for Jayson Williams argued there was no motive, no credible firsthand witness, no reason for Williams to kill limo driver Gus Christofi.
MARTIN: It was an accident. Try as they may to make this a crime, it was not.
FEYERICK: His lawyer says Williams was not taunting and cursing the driver, as prosecutors tried to prove, insisting instead the driver was having a good time, treated to dinner by Williams.
MARTIN: If he was afraid, he wouldn't have gone in the house later. If he wasn't having a good time, he wouldn't have come into the room again.
FEYERICK: Another lawyer stressed only one witness saw Williams with his finger near the trigger. That witness, Benoit Benjamin, allegedly demanding Williams later give him money and a job.
JOSEPH HAYDEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There's a name for what Mr. Benjamin tried to do, and that name is shakedown.
FEYERICK: Williams' lawyers say the former NBA star was distraught, never expecting the gun to go off. The prosecutors blasted the tactic of blaming the shotgun.
STEVE LEMBER, PROSECUTOR: The shotgun alone did not kill Gus Christofi. The shotgun alone did not load itself. The shotgun alone did not fly from the gun cabinet. The shotgun alone did not crack itself open. The shotgun alone did not point itself directly at Gus Christofi.
FEYERICK: Prosecutors stressed there was no direct evidence from anyone that the gun misfired, as Williams maintains, and that what Williams calls an accident was a conscious disregard of the risks.
LEMBER: When you have loaded weapons in your gun cabinet and you take one down in the presence of three or four guests, you better look. You better look real hard and real carefully.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: Jayson Williams arrived at the courthouse early this morning. Experts will tell you that this is the moment when they realize that there's nothing more they can say, nothing more that can be done because it is in the hands of the jury.
At times it was a particularly bitter trial. Defense lawyers accusing prosecutors of everything from racial bias to misconduct. Now, the jury will get to decide who it believes most -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Deborah Feyerick for this morning in New Jersey. Deborah, thanks. Let's go right to CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, for his take on not only this, but, you know, we got a lot to talk about. So let's talk about all the trials we've been...
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: In the Jayson Williams case, of course, the $64,000 question is was this an accident or not? How do you think the defense and the prosecution did in their summaries as this is handed off to the jury?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This has been such a peculiar case. I've never seen a case where a jury was out of the courtroom in a three-month trial for three straight weeks. I mean, you had this long dispute about prosecutorial misconduct.
I think the jury instructions are going to be unusually important in this case because you've got two concepts. Recklessness and accident which are really not all that different from one another. And I could see the jury really reaching out for some clarification there. I expect jury deliberations might be quite complicated.
O'BRIEN: If I had to get you to guess, how long do you think the jury will deliberate for and also do you think Jayson Williams is going to prison?
TOOBIN: Several days at least, I think, given -- the O.J. precedent, I believe, has led jurors in high-profile cases never to come back too early. They really do want to take a few days.
As for whether he's going to prison, I think he's in bad trouble on the obstruction of justice counts. I don't see how he really gets around, you know, having jumped in the pool, changed his clothes.
As for the real serious counts on the homicide, the manslaughter counts, I got -- you got me. I don't know.
O'BRIEN: Not willing to go out on a limb...
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: Let's talk about Kobe Bryant. The debate now is should she be called, the accuser in this case, a victim or an alleged victim? And it does make a tremendous amount of defense, certainly if you ask the defense.
TOOBIN: Well it's an interesting problem again that only arrives in a high-profile case because in an ordinary rape case they simply call the victim by her name because there's no one following the trial from the benches. No one really -- there's no real privacy issue because no one is following it. Here, of course, if her name is used in court, it is likely to be repeated.
You know, I'm not sure how big a deal it is. The jurors, I am going to assume, are going to be smart enough to know that their obligation is to find whether she is a victim or not. And whether the prosecution refers to her as a victim, uses that label, I'm not sure it's going to make that great a difference.
O'BRIEN: Michael Jackson ditches his attorneys. Now he's saying that it's because he didn't feel like the attorneys he had were devoting their full attention to him. Does this make any impact whatsoever on the fact that he's got a second arraignment coming up right around the corner?
TOOBIN: You know, I think that is an utterly silly reason. I mean he knew Mark Geragos had the Scott Peterson case when he hired Mark Peterson (sic). Ben Brafman has no such obligation.
I think it's some sort of manufactured reason to cover up the real reason. There are all sorts of machinations in the extremely bizarre Jackson defense camp/family.
I would not bet the farm that Tom Mesereau is going to be the lawyer this goes to trial.
O'BRIEN: He may not be the guy we hear from. Is that what you're saying?
TOOBIN: There are many more months to go, and many machinations as well.
O'BRIEN: All right, Jeff Toobin, thank you very much -- Bill.
HEMMER: Soledad, while the two of you were talking over there, looking at a picture from northern Mississippi, just south of the border with Tennessee. WMC our affiliate out of Memphis, Tennessee. Watching a prop jet here, a prop plane, rather, operated by Federal Express.
The word we have is the pilot reported trouble right about 7,000 feet, forced to land along this highway in northern Mississippi. When the plane was coming down it literally clipped the top of a semitrailer.
We're told two people on the plane are board OK, no injuries there. Neither are the injuries for anyone inside that semitrailer truck. So all good news.
Just a damaged plane with a left wing heavily damaged after hitting the pavement there in northern Mississippi.
Let's get a break here. In a moment on AMERICAN MORNING, dozens of Iraqis said to be dead after fierce fighting near the town of Najaf. Details on that in a moment.
Also, arguments today before the Supreme Court centering on Vice President Cheney's energy task force. Questions and a few answers, too with Jack in a moment after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: Back to the "Question of the Day" -- Jack. CAFFERTY: Thank you, Bill. You may want to make a note to order the home video version of this. The Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments today on whether Vice President Dick Cheney should have to come clean on his energy task force meetings.
A lower court ordered Mr. Cheney to disclose these documents two years ago. So far, he has refused. The solicitor general argues the White House should be able to meet confidentially with private citizens.
But opponents say the meeting may have been heavily influenced by corporate interests, say like maybe those worms from Enron. The question is should the Supreme Court force Vice President Cheney to release information about his energy meetings?
Rich in Rochester writes, "What's important to Americans is the energy policy put forward to the public, not who was consulted to formulate it. This business of who was at Cheney's meeting was raised by Democrats and is pure political posturing by the sore losers of the 2000 election."
Liz in Chadron, Nebraska writes, "I believe Mr. Cheney's meetings should be made public. After all, I pay his salary, and he is accountable to me, the tax payer."
Brian from Pennsylvania weighs in with this: "asking Vice President Cheney for full disclosure is like asking Jack Cafferty to become a Jesuit. It ain't gonna happen."
Actually, Brian, I've been thinking about joining a monastery and I may leave this morning.
(CROSSTALK)
HEMMER: The DVD version is going to be out sometime soon so I was thinking for weekend maybe Carol and yourself could sit down and watch that, listen to the oral arguments there.
CAFFERTY: Either that or I have some old videotapes of when you were doing local news in Ohio.
(CROSSTALK)
CAFFERTY: Tell out viewers what is behind that nickname.
HEMMER: Well what happened was every time there was even the threat of a weather storm moving into the Ohio area, I was also sent out to the big salt piles there in the city of Cincinnati.
(CROSSTALK)
HEMMER: I had the latest updates on spreaders and chains on the trucks. Salt Pile Willie.
CAFFERTY: There you go.
O'BRIEN: Brother Cafferty, thank you very much.
Still to come this morning, fighting words from Senator John Kerry about the current flap over his Vietnam War medals. Stay with us. You're watching 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 April 27, 2004 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Trying to pry open closed doors. This morning the question of secrecy and the vice president in the hands of the Supreme Court justices.
The fighting in Iraq moving closer to one of its holiest cities as dozens are killed on the edge of Najaf.
And in New Jersey...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILLY MARTIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The shotgun alone did not kill Gus Christofi. The shotgun alone did not load itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: The Jayson Williams manslaughter trial about to go to the jury. The last words from the lawyers on this AMERICAN MORNING.
ANNOUNCER: From the CNN Broadcast Center in New York, this is AMERICAN MORNING with Soledad O'Brien and Bill Hemmer.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, welcome back here on AMERICAN MORNING. 9:00 in New York. A lot of news and high-profile cases today on the legal side. Jayson Williams trial. A jury may begin deliberations on that.
Also a key hearing continues in the Kobe Bryant case and the Michael Jackson case is still out there. Jeff Toobin, the legal roundup.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: Also this morning, Sanjay Gupta is going to be back with a new warning for people with a heart condition. Smoking, don't do it, don't go near anybody who does do it. We'll talk to him about some of those details as well.
HEMMER: All right. And Jack Cafferty again. Good morning.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Bill. Supreme Court of the United States may force Vice President Dick Cheney to reveal and make public the record of those energy meetings he had back a couple of years ago with corporate types, including some of the folks from Enron. Be interesting to see interesting how... (CROSSTALK)
HEMMER: All right now. Top stories here at the top of the hour. A major decision for two Wisconsin sisters. They're deciding whether or not to return to their National Guard units in Iraq. Rachel and Charity Witmer have been given the option to be reassigned from the war zone. Their sister Michelle was killed in a convoy ambush in Baghdad earlier in the month. An announcement expected a bit later today there.
Congress is said to be criticized for not paying enough attention to intelligence reports. In an article today in "The Washington Post," a 92-page report outlining Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was available in the fall of 2002. Congressional aides say few lawmakers read more than its executive summary. We'll talk with one lawmaker in a moment here. Her reaction forthcoming.
Singer Michael Jackson offering his account on the reasons for the shake-up of his legal team. In a statement released yesterday, Jackson thanked lead attorneys Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman for their work, but said new lawyers must devote their, quote, "full attention to the matter." Thomas Mesereau, who also represented actor Robert Blake, will now defend Jackson. The pop star expected to return to court for a second arraignment on Friday, end of this week.
Also from California, heat wave scorching so many parts of that state. Residents flock to the ocean looking for a way to cool off. Triple digit temperatures in late April, we are, reported up and down the coast. There could be some relief in sight.
(WEATHER REPORT)
O'BRIEN: The Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney. It tests the constitutional balance between the right to private confidentiality and public scrutiny for government leaders. CNN's national correspondent Bob Franken live for us at the Supreme Court this morning with a little preview. Good morning to you, Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning -- Soledad. And obviously there is some very strong boilerplate politics involved here. But also some boilerplate constitutional law.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FRANKEN (voice-over): The fight over Vice President Cheney's right to confidentiality is a battle that goes all the way back to 1803 and the Supreme Court's decision supporting judicial review and oversight over the White House.
The vice president claims this time the lists of participants in his meetings to formulate energy policy are the business of the executive branch alone. Court involvement, in effect, is meddling.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We start down that road, we're setting a terrible precedent. We're saying the vice president cannot have confidential meetings.
FRANKEN: The vice president has refused to provide a list of those who participated. His adversaries argue it would show heavy influence by corporate energy interests, including the likes of ousted Enron chief executive Ken Lay.
DAVID BOOKBINDER, SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DIRECTOR: The final report of the energy task force reads as if it was written by the energy industry.
FRANKEN: Add to the intrigue one adamant Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia who has rejected demands to remove himself from the case after disclosures Cheney had taken him on a duck-hunting trip. If it is reasonable, said Scalia, to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.
BOOKBINDER: This is a question of public confidence in the courts.
FRANKEN: The entire matter, says the Vice President, amounts to a tempest in a teapot.
CHENEY: It's a classic sort of feeding frenzy in Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FRANKEN: And the Supreme Court justices will be feeding on some fundamental constitutional questions. All nine of them will be deciding this case which really is about whether they have a role in this case -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Interesting. All right, Bob Franken for us this morning. Bob, thanks -- Bill.
HEMMER: Now to those lingering questions about what members of Congress knew and did not know about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction before the war. According to "The Washington Post," no more than six senators and only a handful of House members read a 92- page report on the programs.
Democratic California Representative Jane Harman, vice chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee, back with us today morning on AMERICAN MORNING. And welcome to you from D.C. Did you read that report?
REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), VICE CHAIR, INTELLIGENCE CMTE.: I did. I think that the general thrust of the article in today's "Post" is right, that congressional oversight needs to be more robust.
But the fact that was cited, which is reading this 92-page classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, would not have led members of Congress to be better informed because that document turned out to be substantially flawed.
The real problem is several fold. First of all, we get caught up, as the article says, in the minutia of the annual budget when we should be focused on the missions that our intelligence community has to perform now which is counterterrorism and counterproliferation.
Secondly, this administration funds most of the counterterrorism activities of the government through supplemental appropriations bills. And they barely touch our committee. And that's absolutely wrong and we need to fight against that as well.
HEMMER: You said three things. let me go back to your fist point. Are you -- whether the report was flawed or not, it was the only report that Congress had in late 2002. If that's the case, it is deemed to be so critical, what explains why so many members of Congress, overwhelming majority did not take the time to read it?
HARMAN: Well, again, to read it, they would have to come up to the dome of the Capitol, sign a secrecy pledge and plunge into something that would be very hard for an average member to read. It's not that I'm so special, but I have been trained over the years. I've served on the Intelligence Committee since 1996 to read these kind of things.
I think that many members, first of all, did not want to go through that. Second of all, did not want to be bound by the secrecy. And third of all, relied on those of us who were on the committees to tell them generally what we thought.
And I believed the WMD case. Now I know, looking back, that the documents were flawed because the sources weren't adequate and the analysts thought it was their duty to support a decision that had basically been made.
HEMMER: As we look back in hindsight, OK, I buy your argument there. But to take time to go up into a certain section of the Capitol building on a matter that's deemed so critically important, are you suggesting that members of Congress are too overwhelmed and too busy to get around to something like this that ultimately led the nation and the world for that matter into war?
HARMAN: Well I think members of Congress took their role in deciding about a resolution very seriously. And I think many members reviewed all kinds of materials, not precisely these materials, to make their decision.
Remember that resolution we all voted on was not a resolution to go to war immediately. It was a resolution to use maximum effort to resolve this issue diplomatically through the United Nations. And many members thought that that's where would come out. And the war was to be a last resort.
So I can't explain other's motivations. I can understand why in a busy world when they have lots of sources to draw on, they wouldn't think to go here...
HEMMER: So the suggestion then in the article is that Congress is to blame every bit for as much as what happened in the argument leading up to the war, etc. Let's put that behind us. You mentioned a few things in your first answer. What do you recommend to improve this system? Tim Roemer who sits on the 9/11 Commission essentially said that members of Congress are too busy to get around to all of it. You refer to the budget battles, etc. Your solution is what then?
HARMAN: My solution is to stop business as usual in the intelligence committees. I've discussed this with Republican Chairman Porter Goss. I think we should go to mission-based budgeting. i think we should focus on the real threats against us which are terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
And I think we should make a big fuss right now about the fact that most of the counterterrorism funding going forward is not in our annual budget. It will be in a -- in a supplemental that will be submitted next March, six months into the fiscal year, by this administration.
That's absolutely wrong. I think we should be prepared to hold up budgeting until we get those counterterrorism funds explained and our committee can seriously focus on them.
HEMMER: Thanks for coming in, especially on short notice. Jane Harman, Democrat from California.
Dana Priest wrote the piece today in "The Washington Post." Nice to chat with you. Here's Soledad.
HARMAN: Thank you.
O'BRIEN: Turning to Iraq now where we are concentrating on two hot spots this morning, the cities of Najaf and also Fallujah. Our Ben Wedeman is standing by for us in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, with details. Ben, good morning.
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, good morning, Soledad. Well overnight there was a fairly intense battle outside of Najaf just in the northeast of there where, according to a coalition spokesman, at least 43 insurgents were killed. According to our sources there, a reconnaissance patrol ran into a group from the so-called Mahdi army which is loyal to Moqtada Sadr, that rebellious Shi'ite cleric. And therefore this battle ensued.
But what we're seeing in Fallujah, as well as Najaf, is what appears to be a somewhat changing American tactic, that they are giving diplomacy a chance, giving local leaders an other intermediaries the opportunity to try to work out a peaceful solution and not press the situation in the town of Fallujah, that Sunni hot spot to the west of Baghdad.
We saw that today has been relatively quiet. The rebels there did not hand over their weapons as was hoped by the coalition. The joint patrols between the Iraqi police and the U.S. Marines did not take place.
But, by and large, they seem to be taking a much less confrontational approach, hoping that they'll be able to talk their way out of the situation and avoid the kind of blood shed we saw earlier in the month -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: But some military officials, Ben, say as the Marines sort of wait it out, what they're actually doing is giving the insurgents time to regroup, get that their act together and actually get stronger. Have you heard a similar thing?
WEDEMAN: Well we're hearing two different things, actually. That's one criticism we're hearing that this is really just giving them an opportunity to regroup, to rest and get ready for the next phase.
On the other hand, we are seeing for instance, in Najaf, that what they're doing is they are allowing certain amount of competition between rival Shi'ite leaders to play itself out. And we are seeing in Najaf that gradually others are coming forward.
And many of the Shi'ite leaders are very weary of Moqtada Sadr and his political ambitions. They're almost more afraid of Moqtada Sadr than the Americans are because they're afraid that he could eclipse them and really take power in a way he doesn't have it at the moment.
So it is a somewhat more delicate approach. But it has the possibility, many people believe, more chance of success than going in there with the military and upsetting Iraqis across the board -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Ben Wedeman joining us from Baghdad with an update on Fallujah and also Najaf this morning. Ben, thank you.
HEMMER: In a moment here, were tens of thousands the target of an enormous terrorist plot? The sting that went down this week and what we're learning now in a moment.
O'BRIEN: Also the controversy around Senator John Kerry and his Vietnam war medals. How is the presidential candidate firing back?
HEMMER: Also deliberations may start today. The fate of former NBA star Jayson Williams almost in the hands of a jury. Ahead on AMERICAN MORNING.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: Jurors in the Jayson Williams manslaughter trial are expected to begin deliberations today. Yesterday, the prosecution and the defense had their final say leaving the jurors to decide if a limo driver's case was a case of reckless disregard or just an accident waiting to happen. Deb Feyerick is live for us in Somerville, New Jersey. Hi, Deborah. Good morning.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Soledad. Well the judge says he needs just one hour to read the charges against Jayson Williams. Then after three long months, the jury will finally get to talk about this case. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK (voice-over): Tying their case together, lawyers for Jayson Williams argued there was no motive, no credible firsthand witness, no reason for Williams to kill limo driver Gus Christofi.
MARTIN: It was an accident. Try as they may to make this a crime, it was not.
FEYERICK: His lawyer says Williams was not taunting and cursing the driver, as prosecutors tried to prove, insisting instead the driver was having a good time, treated to dinner by Williams.
MARTIN: If he was afraid, he wouldn't have gone in the house later. If he wasn't having a good time, he wouldn't have come into the room again.
FEYERICK: Another lawyer stressed only one witness saw Williams with his finger near the trigger. That witness, Benoit Benjamin, allegedly demanding Williams later give him money and a job.
JOSEPH HAYDEN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There's a name for what Mr. Benjamin tried to do, and that name is shakedown.
FEYERICK: Williams' lawyers say the former NBA star was distraught, never expecting the gun to go off. The prosecutors blasted the tactic of blaming the shotgun.
STEVE LEMBER, PROSECUTOR: The shotgun alone did not kill Gus Christofi. The shotgun alone did not load itself. The shotgun alone did not fly from the gun cabinet. The shotgun alone did not crack itself open. The shotgun alone did not point itself directly at Gus Christofi.
FEYERICK: Prosecutors stressed there was no direct evidence from anyone that the gun misfired, as Williams maintains, and that what Williams calls an accident was a conscious disregard of the risks.
LEMBER: When you have loaded weapons in your gun cabinet and you take one down in the presence of three or four guests, you better look. You better look real hard and real carefully.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: Jayson Williams arrived at the courthouse early this morning. Experts will tell you that this is the moment when they realize that there's nothing more they can say, nothing more that can be done because it is in the hands of the jury.
At times it was a particularly bitter trial. Defense lawyers accusing prosecutors of everything from racial bias to misconduct. Now, the jury will get to decide who it believes most -- Soledad.
O'BRIEN: Deborah Feyerick for this morning in New Jersey. Deborah, thanks. Let's go right to CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, for his take on not only this, but, you know, we got a lot to talk about. So let's talk about all the trials we've been...
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: In the Jayson Williams case, of course, the $64,000 question is was this an accident or not? How do you think the defense and the prosecution did in their summaries as this is handed off to the jury?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This has been such a peculiar case. I've never seen a case where a jury was out of the courtroom in a three-month trial for three straight weeks. I mean, you had this long dispute about prosecutorial misconduct.
I think the jury instructions are going to be unusually important in this case because you've got two concepts. Recklessness and accident which are really not all that different from one another. And I could see the jury really reaching out for some clarification there. I expect jury deliberations might be quite complicated.
O'BRIEN: If I had to get you to guess, how long do you think the jury will deliberate for and also do you think Jayson Williams is going to prison?
TOOBIN: Several days at least, I think, given -- the O.J. precedent, I believe, has led jurors in high-profile cases never to come back too early. They really do want to take a few days.
As for whether he's going to prison, I think he's in bad trouble on the obstruction of justice counts. I don't see how he really gets around, you know, having jumped in the pool, changed his clothes.
As for the real serious counts on the homicide, the manslaughter counts, I got -- you got me. I don't know.
O'BRIEN: Not willing to go out on a limb...
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: Let's talk about Kobe Bryant. The debate now is should she be called, the accuser in this case, a victim or an alleged victim? And it does make a tremendous amount of defense, certainly if you ask the defense.
TOOBIN: Well it's an interesting problem again that only arrives in a high-profile case because in an ordinary rape case they simply call the victim by her name because there's no one following the trial from the benches. No one really -- there's no real privacy issue because no one is following it. Here, of course, if her name is used in court, it is likely to be repeated.
You know, I'm not sure how big a deal it is. The jurors, I am going to assume, are going to be smart enough to know that their obligation is to find whether she is a victim or not. And whether the prosecution refers to her as a victim, uses that label, I'm not sure it's going to make that great a difference.
O'BRIEN: Michael Jackson ditches his attorneys. Now he's saying that it's because he didn't feel like the attorneys he had were devoting their full attention to him. Does this make any impact whatsoever on the fact that he's got a second arraignment coming up right around the corner?
TOOBIN: You know, I think that is an utterly silly reason. I mean he knew Mark Geragos had the Scott Peterson case when he hired Mark Peterson (sic). Ben Brafman has no such obligation.
I think it's some sort of manufactured reason to cover up the real reason. There are all sorts of machinations in the extremely bizarre Jackson defense camp/family.
I would not bet the farm that Tom Mesereau is going to be the lawyer this goes to trial.
O'BRIEN: He may not be the guy we hear from. Is that what you're saying?
TOOBIN: There are many more months to go, and many machinations as well.
O'BRIEN: All right, Jeff Toobin, thank you very much -- Bill.
HEMMER: Soledad, while the two of you were talking over there, looking at a picture from northern Mississippi, just south of the border with Tennessee. WMC our affiliate out of Memphis, Tennessee. Watching a prop jet here, a prop plane, rather, operated by Federal Express.
The word we have is the pilot reported trouble right about 7,000 feet, forced to land along this highway in northern Mississippi. When the plane was coming down it literally clipped the top of a semitrailer.
We're told two people on the plane are board OK, no injuries there. Neither are the injuries for anyone inside that semitrailer truck. So all good news.
Just a damaged plane with a left wing heavily damaged after hitting the pavement there in northern Mississippi.
Let's get a break here. In a moment on AMERICAN MORNING, dozens of Iraqis said to be dead after fierce fighting near the town of Najaf. Details on that in a moment.
Also, arguments today before the Supreme Court centering on Vice President Cheney's energy task force. Questions and a few answers, too with Jack in a moment after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEMMER: Back to the "Question of the Day" -- Jack. CAFFERTY: Thank you, Bill. You may want to make a note to order the home video version of this. The Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments today on whether Vice President Dick Cheney should have to come clean on his energy task force meetings.
A lower court ordered Mr. Cheney to disclose these documents two years ago. So far, he has refused. The solicitor general argues the White House should be able to meet confidentially with private citizens.
But opponents say the meeting may have been heavily influenced by corporate interests, say like maybe those worms from Enron. The question is should the Supreme Court force Vice President Cheney to release information about his energy meetings?
Rich in Rochester writes, "What's important to Americans is the energy policy put forward to the public, not who was consulted to formulate it. This business of who was at Cheney's meeting was raised by Democrats and is pure political posturing by the sore losers of the 2000 election."
Liz in Chadron, Nebraska writes, "I believe Mr. Cheney's meetings should be made public. After all, I pay his salary, and he is accountable to me, the tax payer."
Brian from Pennsylvania weighs in with this: "asking Vice President Cheney for full disclosure is like asking Jack Cafferty to become a Jesuit. It ain't gonna happen."
Actually, Brian, I've been thinking about joining a monastery and I may leave this morning.
(CROSSTALK)
HEMMER: The DVD version is going to be out sometime soon so I was thinking for weekend maybe Carol and yourself could sit down and watch that, listen to the oral arguments there.
CAFFERTY: Either that or I have some old videotapes of when you were doing local news in Ohio.
(CROSSTALK)
CAFFERTY: Tell out viewers what is behind that nickname.
HEMMER: Well what happened was every time there was even the threat of a weather storm moving into the Ohio area, I was also sent out to the big salt piles there in the city of Cincinnati.
(CROSSTALK)
HEMMER: I had the latest updates on spreaders and chains on the trucks. Salt Pile Willie.
CAFFERTY: There you go.
O'BRIEN: Brother Cafferty, thank you very much.
Still to come this morning, fighting words from Senator John Kerry about the current flap over his Vietnam War medals. Stay with us. You're watching 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
