Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Duke Lacrosse D.A. Hearing
Aired June 15, 2007 - 10:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MIKE NIFONG, DURHAM COUNTY D.A.: My experience in sexual assault cases in particular is that the attitude of the first officer on the scene is important in establishing the baseline, the facts from the case, because he's often going to be talking to someone who has just been traumatized and been through something very difficult and might be having trouble communicating precisely what happens.
And so to the extent that the communications are further hampered by the fact that he doesn't understand something has taken place, or maybe he doesn't believe that he's dealing with a rape, or believes that he's dealing with an intoxicated person, that can be reflected in how carefully he takes down what is said and how closely it reflects what was actually told to him.
In addition, the standard protocol for sexual assault kits does not include either a liquid blood sample or a urine sample. So when there came a question later with respect to whether or not there might be some -- the use of a drug in this case or some type of question of impairment, we didn't have anything from which that could be established because that hadn't been looked at initially.
And so we were kind of starting off in the hole because there were a lot of things that, had they been done initially, we might have been able to get more evidence early on that we now might not have the opportunity to get. So we had to come up with alternate strategies of trying to deal with that, because the best methods were no longer available to us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'd like to have you, if you would, please -- where in the week of March 27th do you think that that situation you just talked about, where you made that comment, where was that in the course of that week?
NIFONG: I don't know specifically. I would guess probably -- if I had to pick a day, I would say most likely Thursday.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From Monday through Thursday, do you recall what your involvement might have been on the case at that time?
NIFONG: Well, the first thing, of course, that happened is, shortly after the briefing, the media began to come to my office, local television stations and newspapers. I don't recall everybody who came, but there were some people who started coming I think early afternoon. And they were asking me about the non-testimonial order, and I attempted to restrict my comments to them to the matters contained in the public record. But it was fairly clear on that date that there was some of the interest that I had anticipated. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, let me stop you right there. I believe you previously testified that one of the reasons you thought it was important to be involved in the case, because it would garner significant media attention. Is that right?
NIFONG: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you explain to the panel what you meant by that, and why that was important to you?
NIFONG: Well, Durham is a -- is a very diverse community. It is a community that prides itself, I believe, on being progressive in many matters. And things that are said that have racial connotations maybe carry more weight in the Durham community than they might in some other communities, just in the way things look at them.
My concern, which kind of came about was that, based on the allegations that were made and the identities of the people who were involved, that this might be something that would press some of those buttons.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you could, walk me through on a two-track level, if you could -- first, finish up what steps you believe you had in relation to the investigation for the week of the 27th through April 4th.
NIFONG: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understood your question.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I went back and asked what you did from Monday the 27th up until Thursday. Did you have any involvement with the investigative process from that Monday until that Thursday, or was your involvement in the case more related to the media at that time?
NIFONG: Well, there was some of both, because sometimes I would be asked a question by a media consultant that I would not know the answer to, and so I would not comment. But then I would ask the investigators, you know, what about this?
One that comes to mind is I remember being asked in some interview if I believed that the call that had caused an officer to go to that house was a legitimate 911 call or was one that was made up. And I had no idea. That was not something that had ever been discussed.
And so at some point after that I asked one of the officers, and they told me that they did believe that that call had been made by the other driver -- pardon me. The other dancer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me ask this -- from March 27th up to April 4th, was the Durham Police Department that was in charge of the investigation, or was it the Durham D.a.'s Office that was in charge of the investigation?
NIFONG: It was the Durham Police Department. As a matter of fact, on Tuesday morning, which would have been the 28th of March, Mr. Robert Eckstrand (ph), who is a Durham attorney who had apparently appeared with the players at the time that the non-testimonial was executed, and indicated that he represented them, came to my office. And I thought this would be an opportunity for me to talk to him about the case and about any information that he might have.
He actually had come to ask me what I intended to do with the case. And I told him that the case was still under investigation, that I knew that the police department was attempting to contact, to talk with the players that were involved, or might have been involved in the party to see what they knew about that. At that point, to my knowledge, the only people that had actually talked to the police were the three residents of that address.
And I told Mr. Eckstrand (ph) that if any of his clients wished to speak to the police, we would love to hear what they had to say, that he probably needed to go to the police and have them talk directly to them, because I really didn't have enough information about the case at that point that I felt that I would be able to ask the right questions. And so I asked him if he would go to the police with any information that he had. Mr. Eckstrand (ph) didn't answer directly, but the impression that I had was that he wasn't going to do that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you learn whether any of the people that he represented ever made voluntary statements to the police?
NIFONG: As far as I know, none of them did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What do you remember -- you talked to the media for a period of time at the beginning of this case a lot, didn't you?
NIFONG: Yes, sir. And I believe that it might have been -- of course, the initial information -- or the initial media interest was based on the non-testimonial order itself. At some point -- and I think it was the same day, Tuesday afternoon -- I wanted to let the public know a couple of things.
You know, one was that the case was a case that was being looked at very carefully by somebody who would try to take the interest of the community at heart. That being the elected district attorney. And the second thing was that we were appealing for any information from people that might know something about the case.
I wanted people to come forward. It was our belief, after this initial incident, that -- well, if I could back up just a second.
One of the things that really struck us about this case as being very much different from any other incident involving a Duke party that we had seen was that normally when there is a call for police to go to a party in the vicinity of the Duke campus, where there's either drinking or loud music or noise or something like that, is that when the police arrive, that party is still going on. And that's the normal scene that we see.
In this case, after the call came in, I believe that it was less than five minutes before the officer, the first officer, arrived at the scene, and there was nobody at the scene. There was evidence that a party had taken place, but even the residents of the house were not there. And we thought that was very unusual.
It was my belief that what had happened was that everybody had said -- had been told, evacuate the house immediately, and that probably a lot of people who were at the house had no idea what had happened, if anything had happened, or anything like that. And so we were hoping that some of the people who might have been at the party who would not have had anything to do with any activity that was of the nature alleged in the non-testimonial order, would come forward to tell us what they knew, either to clear their names or to let us know that something did not happen, whatever was the case.
But we hoped that people -- we had no reason to suspect that most of the people at that party had any involvement in what had allegedly taken place in the bathroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you recall making statements to the media in the early part of this case about the players' wall of silence or something to that effect?
NIFONG: Yes, sir. I do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you recall making statements about, if they didn't do anything, why did they need a lawyer?
NIFONG: Yes, sir. I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And other matters about them exercising their right not to testify? Do you remember making those statements?
NIFONG: I'm not sure specific on testifying, but I did make statements to that effect. Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And are those statements you would have been able to make to a jury?
NIFONG: No, sir. They're not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you think through that process before you made those statements back in the beginning of March?
NIFONG: Clearly not as much as I should have. I mean, I was certainly not intending or attempting to make proper statements. But I think clearly some of the statements that I made were improper.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were violations of the rules of professional conduct?
NIFONG: I would have to say so at this time. Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did you have any thought process back when you were making the statements to the news media in the early part of -- the latter part of March, early part of April, as to what effect that could have on damaging any subsequent prosecution in the accused rights to a fair trial? NIFONG: At that point we had no suspects. No one had been identified. And so I was hoping to get information that would enable us to identify some suspects.
I think that -- well, during this period of time, I did not actually see the broadcast of many, if any, of these statements for a number of reasons. The primary reason being that during this period of time I was also involved in a political campaign, so that when I left the office, I would normally be going to some sort of function or meeting or something that had to do with that.
Very rarely saw television coverage. I saw, for instance, a clip earlier this week that I had not seen before. And it made me cringe.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It made you cringe. Did you think it was improper?
NIFONG: Yes. I mean, it did not come across at all like what I was trying to do, and maybe if I had seen some of those things I would have shut up sooner. But my intention at the time that I was making those comments was to maybe make someone who did have information about this that could help us with the investigation feel a sense of duty to come forward. That was really what I was trying to do, was to get people to cooperate with the law enforcement investigation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You made multiple statements which might have had you talking about the racial aspects of this case back during that period of time, didn't you?
NIFONG: Yes, sir, I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you believe that those statements were proper?
NIFONG: I would have to say, in balance, that I do not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And why were you making those statements?
NIFONG: Because of the nature of the allegation and the identities of the parties that were involved, there was almost immediately an outcry -- well, I'd say actually two outcries within the community. There were people that were saying, somebody needs to be put in jail. One of the most quoted comments was, "If these were members of the North Carolina Central team, they would already be in jail."
So I had that sentiment being expressed on one side.
On the other side, I had a sentiment that could best be expressed by people who are strippers or exotic dancers by reputation are not people that can be raped, and that would not be sexually assaulted by people like the Duke lacrosse team. And what I was trying to do was keep anybody from making decisions based on either of those points of view.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You mentioned that you didn't have an opportunity to view the tape because you were involved in an election campaign. Is that correct?
NIFONG: That's why I didn't see anything initially. And the reason that I never watched anything after that was I was tired of hearing about it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you saw the tape that was played yesterday where you were at a candidate's forum, is that right?
NIFONG: Yes, sir, I did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the issue of race came up in that tape, too, didn't it?
NIFONG: It did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you think that was appropriate?
NIFONG: No, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did you do it?
NIFONG: I believed it to be part of an honest answer to a question, but I think that, in viewing that -- and, of course, I was at the forum. I had never seen a tape of the forum.
I think that that crossed the line, to make a comment about what Durham looked like in the eyes of the world. I thought that many of the comments I made were appropriate, the fact that we believe that most of the people at the party were not guilty of any crime, that we needed to establish that to remove that shadow as well. But the comment about race was not a comment that should have been made.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You made -- what effect did the fact that you were in a political campaign have on the way that you approached the Duke lacrosse case?
NIFONG: My fervent desire was to keep the Duke lacrosse case from either being affected by politics or affecting politics in Durham. That is, I did not want the decisions in the case to be based on politics. I didn't want the political climate to be based on the case.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The -- you also made statements to the media during the early period of time in this case about the fact that you may charge other individuals that were at the location as aiders and abettors, and that the stonewall of silence may come crumbling down when that occurred.
Do you recall that?
NIFONG: I recall both of the comments in general. I don't -- I recall that the first -- the first part of that comment about aiders and abettors came up in response to a question from a reporter. She was asking me if I expected to charge people as aiders and abettors.
And I explained to her the best I could what the law about aiding and abetting was in North Carolina, that mere presence was not enough to constitute aiding and abetting under most circumstances, that if there were a special relationship it might be the case. I gave kind of a textbook definition that took five or six minutes.
And the only thing that got reported was that I said that some people might be charged. And that was kind of a lesson, an early lesson in what I said to a reporter not necessarily being fully reported. So I did make a statement about that.
My understanding of the statement I made was not that we were likely to charge anybody, but why we likely would not be able to charge anybody unless we had specific evidence. And that's not the way it came out.
After that, I was asked about specifically the fact that people were not commenting. And I said that if we had made arrests, that that might change that. I wasn't referring specifically to aiders and abettors. I was referring, I believe, to people who were involved directly with the offense.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me. What was the last part of that? I didn't hear that.
NIFONG: I think my stonewall of silence comment was directed more generally to the whole question of anybody getting arrested in the case at all, as opposed to specifically charging aiders and abettors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You also made some comments -- and these are all -- a lot of these are stipulated facts. These turned (ph) into multiple stipulations in this case, is that correct?
NIFONG: Absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And of those stipulated facts, you also made comment about the use or nonuse of a condom in relation to a sexual assault.
What do you recall about that?
NIFONG: Well, a couple of things. The first thing I would say that is, with respect to that, I believe I was responding to a hypothetical question. That is, are there reasons that DNA evidence might not be found?
And of course there are many reasons that DNA evidence might not be found. And the one that I said -- certainly, you know, one example would be if a condom were used, we wouldn't expect DNA to be found. I mean, I could have also said something like, if an ejaculation didn't take place, we might not expect it to be found. Or I could have said, if there was no assault, we might expect it not be found.
There are many things that could have happened. I chose that one hypothetically, and that was taken as my indication that condoms were used, which was never what I intended to say. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But at the time you made that statement, you had had in your possession information from the same (ph) nurse in this case. Didn't you?
NIFONG: Well, yes, sir. I had seen the same (ph) nurse's report, and I knew that it was checked that condoms were not used specifically in this case.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you still made the analogy with the condom?
NIFONG: As I indicated, I made the analogy with the condom because I thought I was responding to a hypothetical question. And that was probably an unfortunate choice.
I would say, in addition, that I thought that unprotected sex, under these circumstances, was not a high likelihood. That's just a personal opinion based on the circumstances under which this assault allegedly took place, the people who were involved, the identities of the people who were involved.
It's been my experience in other cases that victims are not always sure about whether condoms were used. But I always thought that it was unlikely that there would be unprotected sex in this case.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prior to getting involved in this case, had you ever been involved personally with a case that garnered national media attention where you had to deal with media sources from all over the country?
NIFONG: Not me personally. The office had been involved in a case similar to that -- well, it turned out not to be nearly as significant as this in terms of media attention. But we have had a case in -- I believe it was tried in 2003. So I'm not sure.
Maybe it took place end of 2001 or something like that, involving Michael Peterson (ph). And that case did garner significant media attention. I was involved in the case early on in kind of an advisory capacity, but primarily during that case my responsibility was to run the office.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in those duties and responsibilities you weren't dealing with the national press and making statements?
NIFONG: Well, I wasn't. Plus, in that case, very early on the judge in that case had issued a gag order and had forbidden anybody to discuss any of the case. So there were no comments being made, but it was pursuant to that gag order.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At some point in the early portion of this case, did you attempt to limit your comments to the media?
NIFONG: Do you mean the scope of the comments or...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just involvement with the media on making comments. What period of time do you believe you were talking to the media on the first part of this case?
NIFONG: The -- 98 percent of the comments that I made to the media about the case were in the period from March 27th to the morning that -- I think I had an interview that was scheduled the morning of April 3rd that was scheduled before I said we're not going to schedule any more interviews. I had essentially quit by the end of that week, but I did indicate I think I had one more on April the 3rd.
I had also attempted to limit my comments to the press to matters in the public record, although I think that sometimes I got off that, either because I got confused about what was in the public record, or maybe got carried away a little bit. But at any rate, it became clear by the end of that week, by the end of the week of March 27th, that my comments trying to get somebody to come forward had not had any effect.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think that your comments during that week of the 27th to April 3rd increased the media attention on it?
NIFONG: Well, it's certainly possible. I think that the media attention would have been tremendous anyway, but I guess if they hadn't had somebody who was willing to talk to them, they might not have spent as much time.
I mean, obviously the media hasn't been talking to me very much since then, but they're still involved in the case. So it's certainly possible that that was the case.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you intend for your statements to have that effect?
NIFONG: No, sir. It was not my intention to do anything other than try to get the case resolved quickly and to not get anybody to do anything rash based on assumptions about what might have happened.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you acknowledge that, as a result of making many of the statements that you made to the media in this case, that this panel will find that there were violations of the rules of professional conduct that will get us to the second phase in this case?
NIFONG: Yes, sir, with respect to the media statements, I do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's move forward to the results...
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: All right. You've been listening to the testimony of Mike Nifong.
It has been admitted by his attorneys, Mike Nifong suggesting through his attorneys, that mistakes were, in fact, made in the way he handled the Duke University lacrosse rape case. But that he admits now -- we heard it just moments ago -- Nifong himself admitting that he, in fact, violated rules of professional conduct, A, in the way he talked about the case to the media.
We will continue to follow this and the testimony of Mike Nifong. And when we come back from a quick break, we will talk to our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning once again, everybody. About 11:30 now.
I'm Heidi Collins.
HARRIS: And I'm Tony Harris.
Welcome back, everyone, to the CNN NEWSROOM.
Witness for his own defense. The Duke lacrosse prosecutor on the stand rate now at his ethics hearing.
The state bar has charged Mike Nifong with breaking rules of professional conduct in the case. He admitted as much when asked whether he made inappropriate statements to the media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIFONG: I was certainly not intending or attempting to make improper statements, but I think, clearly, some of the statements that I made were improper.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were violations of the rules of professional conduct?
NIFONG: I would have to say so at this time, yes, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Earlier, one of the three lacrosse players accused and later cleared of rape took the stand in emotional testimony. Reade Seligmann described a conversation he had with his mother.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
READE SELIGMAN, EXONERATED LACROSSE PLAYER: I said, mom, are you alone right now? She said, yeah. What's going on? I said, she picked me. I could hear her on the other end of the phone. The life was sucked right out of her. And then I tried to calm her down and I just told her everything was going to be all right and that, you know, we were going to prove that this didn't happen. And she didn't need me to tell her that, but --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Nifong could laws his license to practice law in North Carolina.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, NEWSROOM: Want to go ahead and take a moment to talk a little bit further about this and what it means to have the Durham district attorney Nike Nifong on the stand at this time in his own defense. Jeffrey Toobin is standing by to do that. Jeffrey, I know you have been watching this and monitoring it. How did you think he's doing?
VOICE OF JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, he's throwing himself on the mercy of the court. He is admitting that he violated the rules of professional responsibility when it comes to making improper statements to the press. What he's really doing is saying, look, I did that, but I didn't do the more serious thing, which is withhold evidence and really distort the criminal process. You know, this is a lesser offense than the other thing I'm charged with and I'm just not going to fight this one, but I will fight the issue of whether I withheld and distorted the investigation itself.
COLLINS: So good point. That's kind of how I saw it, too. You've got this issue of professional conduct and then a much bigger issue of ethics violations. But remind everybody, Jeffrey, exactly what this is about by way of the DNA that apparently they say Mike Nifong knew about and yet said that he had turned over to the defense.
TOOBIN: One of the sacred responsibilities of a prosecutor is to turn over to the defense information that's helpful to the defense. If you know that a DNA match did not come through regarding a defendant in the case, you are obliged to advice the defendant of that fact. What happened here is somewhat in dispute. There is a claim that Nifong withheld temporarily at asked a scientist to withhold temporarily DNA evidence that was helpful to the defense. That's going to be the core of his real defense in this case, because that really isn't an offense if it's proved where he could lose his law license. I think he's figuring correctly that improper statements to the press could get him a censure, could get him criticism, but he's not going to get disbarred. If it's found that he intentionally withheld evidence from the defense, that really is a kind of offense where he could lose his law license.
COLLINS: So what will he need to say, specifically, Jeffrey, to make sure that he doesn't lose his license?
TOOBIN: Well, he'll have to say that, I did not tell any scientist or anyone else to withhold evidence that the defense was entitled to. I think it will be somewhat to Nifong's advantage that the facts get murkier when you start talking about the dna in this case, that when the tests were done, what was helpful to the defense, what was turned over, when, the facts get a little more complicated and it's not going to be like this issue of statements to the press where it's just an open and shut case. He made improper statements. The complexity will be to Nifong's benefit, I think.
COLLINS: Quickly, just to remind everybody what we're talking about here specifically in this case is genetic material that was apparently found in the accuser's underwear and body from several males but none from any Duke lacrosse players. If you had to, Jeffrey, what are the chances -- how do you see this thing winding up?
TOOBIN: Well, I think, at a minimum, Nifong is going to be highly criticized. He has admitted serious misconduct. I think disbarment probably on the unlikely side, but a lot of facts still need to be dealt with in this case. And there's a lot more we have to learn about what really went on here. COLLINS: Absolutely. So we appreciate your insight, Jeffrey Toobin, our senior legal analyst. Want to remind everybody, if you would like to continue watching this hearing, you can do just that at cnnpipeline.com.
HARRIS: Putting the Palestinian crisis in perspective for you, CNN chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour coming up live in the NEWSROOM
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Hamas militants now in control of Gaza. They've ousted U.S.-backed Fatah fighters. The triumph for Hamas may mean trouble for the U.S., Israel and other parts of the region. CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joins us now live from London. Christiane, great to talk to you. Here's the first question -- from the perspective of the west, the United States, Europe, is this rout of Fatah by Hamas and Gaza a clear victory for Syria, Iran in the region, and a clear defeat of the United States policy in the region?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tony, I really don't think it's a victory for anybody, but I do think it's a demonstration of the failure of western policy toward the Palestinians, U.S. policy towards the Palestinians over the last several years, particularly in the last year since Hamas won the elections there. If you remember, Hamas won the elections. The Palestinian authority, the western-backed Mahmoud Abbas didn't want to have those elections at the time, knowing that it could turn out to be a Hamas victory. But the U.S. insisted. It was very pro-democracy as the U.S. must be. It didn't want to stop those elections. It insisted that they go ahead and Hamas won. Now, everybody was surprised by the victory and the scale of that victory. But what happened was then the U.S., Europe, Israel basically punished Hamas and the Palestinians because of Hamas policy and squeezed them and created this real division between Hamas and the PA, which has exploded now.
HARRIS: So Palestinian authority President Abbas, says he is going to install a new government. Here is the question -- to govern what? Are we talking about just the west bank? And the question then becomes, can he even consolidate power there in the west bank or is that the next target for Hamas?
AMANPOUR: Well, I think certainly the U.S. and Israel, from what they've been saying today and yesterday, is they hope that they can do business with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Already Israel has said that they want to deal just with the moderates. They conclude that Abbas is the moderate there. They want to be able to funnel aid to him, stuff they haven't really done in any meaningful way over the last -- long time. They're glad that the unity government, the one which had Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas in it is now not a reality anymore. They think they can just deal with Mahmoud Abbas.
Now, it's unclear whether this is going to work because obviously Hamas has quite a lot of strength. It has a lot of people. It's in Gaza. It's really unclear how this is going to shape up. Are they just going to be two rump Palestinian entities and is that going to be tenable in any way? I think for sure the west and Israel wants to isolate Hamas. The question is, what will that mean? There are 1.5 million people in the Hamas area of influence, which is now Gaza. What about those 1.5 million people who face a humanitarian crisis at the very least?
HARRIS: And Christiane, is supporting Abbas the only answer for the United States and the EU right now? Because for a lot of people he is looking a lot like Nouri al Malaki in Iraq.
AMANPOUR: Well, the thing is the Palestinian authority has been the one that's been engaging with the United States and the west ever since 1993 and the Oslo accords when Yasir Arafat engaged in a situation of recognizing Israel, pledging to do the kind of things that he was asked to do, renouncing terrorism and the like in order to get statehood for the Palestinians. As you know, that process went very very slowly. There was a huge number of - there was a lot of time that elapsed without enough progress being made on all sides. So that has led to this situation.
But by and large the Palestinian moderates would be those in the Fatah camp. But right now what's happening is the Fatah camp being backed financially, militarily and with other diplomatic support by the U.S. and its western partners and the Hamas group are being backed by whoever they have in the region, whether it be Iran, Syria, or whoever it is, weapons are pouring in to all sides from all sides, and this is an explosive situation.
HARRIS: From what you hear from your sources in the region, what is the best posture for the United States right now?
AMANPOUR: Well, it's very hard to see right now what one does because clearly the United States and Europe wants to isolate Hamas, does not want to consider and contemplate dealing with Hamas in any kind of diplomatic way because Hamas is expected to fulfill certain obligations such as recognizing Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism, agreeing to all the previous basic agreements that the Palestinian authority had made with Israel prior to Hamas winning those elections. And Hamas hasn't done that. So the west doesn't want to deal with Hamas in that kind of way. So what does it do now? The fact of the matter is, like it or not, the only country with the clout and the influence in the region, both with Israelis and Palestinians is the United States.
This Bush administration, though, has decided that it did not want to expend American power and prestige on what it considered a fairly lost cause and that is, the Palestinians. Having seen what happened when President Clinton tried to make peace at Camp David in 2000 and that was rejected. So the Bush administration came in and said, enough already. Let them deal with it. Let them get it sorted out. When it's ready for peace, then we will do what we can do. Unfortunately, though, the whole thing has fallen apart rather than come together. And without the United States active involvement on a constant level, nobody has much hope of seeing it come back onto anything that remotely resembles an even keel. HARRIS: CNN chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour for us. Christiane, thank you for the perspective.
What stake does Iran and al Qaeda have in the region? Stay with CNN NEWSROOM throughout the day as we explore the issue and be sure to catch a special edition of "Your World Today." Where does the Middle East go from here? That comes your way at noon 16 minute from now Eastern time right here in the NEWSROOM.
COLLINS: We are following double trouble in space this morning. Computer problems on the international space station and that nagging thermal blanket issue on shuttle "Atlantis." Our space correspondent Miles O'Brien has his finger on all of those issues. Hi there, Miles. There's a lot to ask about. Which do you think is the most important, let you get there first.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, short term, the blanket, long term, the computers. Let's start with the computer situation first. I'll tell you some astronauts are getting ready for that space walk and that's coming in just a moment. The computers. NASA and the Russians are frankly, mystified as to why the core computers on the Russian side of things refuse to come back online. Take a look at what was going on overnight. Crew members on board the station and shuttle going through all the wires, putting all kinds of scopes and sensors on there to see.
That means a lot if you're an electrical engineer. And if it's noisy power, if there are too many squiggles in there, some gear can take that. But apparently these Russian computers, which are actually built by the Germans, by Daimler Benz, are susceptible to voltage which isn't as predictable as some voltage can be. So the thinking is, back Monday when they installed those big solar arrays, somehow the power that they were generating wasn't quite as clean a wave as they'd like, might have a few too many squiggles. And that might have started this cascade of failures on those computers which are, after all, the heart and soul of the Russian operation, controls everything from the oxygen generated to the carbon dioxide scrubbing to the lights that come on to the temperature. That's on the inside. Then on the outside, making sure that the solar arrays are pointing at just the right direction so they're gathering the right amount of sunshine. Without that computer, the space station, over the long run, is out of business. This is a fundamental -- this is like losing the heart.
COLLINS: Right.
O'BRIEN: That's a big deal. So what happened was, overnight, they isolated, they got rid of the power from the U.S. side, running things strictly on the Russian solar arrays, which are right there, and thought, well, if we put on a new array and that caused the problem, let's use the old Russian array, see what happens, same problems, same problems. So that took away -- they really didn't find a smoking gun. They had hoped to find the smoking gun was there. Back to square one. The Russians are down in the ground now going through their data. They've shut everything down because they don't want to send any more commands that might cause even more problems later. Now they're talking about what's next, including one of the thoughts that they've just reported is they may accelerate the arrival of a Russian cargo vehicle, which would bring up some supplies anyway. It was due to go up in August. It might be able to get to the launch as late as the third week of July and perhaps put some hardware on there to get this thing back up and running. But yesterday we heard from the guy in charge of manned space flight from NASA and I've never heard this before. He was talking about the unlikely but possibility of de-manning the space station. Listen to Bill Gerstenmaier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL GERSTENMAIER, NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR: We're still a long way away from where we would be to de-man the space station. But, I mean, we've got -- and we're getting more creative as we go. We're figuring out other ways to operate the station that will keep us manned for an expended period of time. SO I think we're a long way from that scenario, but if we got there, we would leave station in the configuration where we could come back to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'BRIEN: There you go. So it's nothing that happens in the next day or so. Even with the shuttle head pulls away and these computers are still not operating, it's not like they're going to fall out of the sky.
COLLINS: Right.
O'BRIEN: But over time, they're going to lose their orientation to the sun. They won't be able to have that precise pointing capability they need to have. And eventually that station gets into some trouble.
COLLINS: What kind of time frame, Miles? Any idea? How long do they have before something like that could happen?
O'BRIEN: Well, by the fall we're talking about. It would lose enough altitude where they would start to take notice, perhaps lose 30, 40, 50 miles of altitude. Then things might get more critical, hard to predict.
COLLINS: Quickly to the thermal blanket.
O'BRIEN: Let's talk about it really quickly, take a look, live shots from space right now. Inside the air lock, as the space walkers get ready -- there's a shot right now if you take NASA TV, there's a shot of the shuttle. By the way, did you know that inside those doors, those are radiators? That's how they --
COLLINS: Miles, I did not know. I know now.
O'BRIEN: Really quickly, this is the point of concern, right up in here. That's where the blanket problem is. I think you can almost spot it right there. You can see the little gash in there where the blanket has lifted up. Basically what happened was, during launch, little piece of the blanket lifted so. Take a look at my prop there. It's four inches by six inches, just a piece of blanket like this. They're going to go out, push it down and they're going to take a surgical stapler, designed to close the wound if an astronaut got cut to heal the shuttle. Staple, staple, staple. They hope that will be done in about an hour or so and the thermal blanket will be good to go for the return to earth.
COLLINS: All right very good, our space correspondent Miles O'Brien. We're going to be watching both these stories for us. Thank you.
HARRIS: And quickly back to Raleigh, North Carolina now just to tell you that we are continuing to monitor the testimony from Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong. Nifong is right now as you can see answering charges that he violated his professional code of conduct in the now debunked Duke lacrosse rape case. He has already admitted as much. If you'd like to watch the testimony right now, just go to cnn.com/pipeline. You can do that right now.
Still to come in the NEWSROOM this morning, talking with Barack Obama. The Democratic presidential candidate sits down with CNN contributor Roland Martin for a TV-1 interview. Roland, good to see you on the big show, a live report coming up in the NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: U.S. Senator Barrack Obama in the race of his lifetime. He wants to be the next president, but he is still trailing Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton in most polls. CNN contributor Roland Martin is also a commentator for TV-1. He spoke with Obama in an interview to air on TV-1 in its entirety on July 2nd at 10:00 p.m. and he joins us from Chicago. Roland, great to see you.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Glad to be here, Tony.
HARRIS: You know what? I know that there is a question out there that perhaps the shooting star is starting to lose a little bit of altitude and there are some claims that recently his campaign and the candidate has been a bit boring. You asked him about it. Let's listen to his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When folks say I'm boring, nobody thought I was boring at the 2004 convention. Nobody thought I was boring down in Selma when I made my speech. You know, there are different times for different forum. When I'm in a town hall meeting, for example, I want to spend time listening and dialoguing. I'm not going to get up in people's faces and deliver a sermon because that's not my job. In a debate, unfortunately, the formats are such where you've got 60 seconds. You can come up with some clever sound bytes but that's not going to inform. My job right now is to inform.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Roland, are the rigors of the campaign starting to bring the shooting star back down to earth a bit? MARTIN: Well, I think you have to keep in mind he was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, and so he is very methodical when he speaks. He's not a sound byte kind of guy. I think what he's going to have to do, he's going to have to play the game. The first debate, people said he did well, Clinton did well, but pretty much all the attention was on Clinton. The last debate all the attention was on Clinton, Senator Joe Biden, Governor Bill Richardson. He's going to have to figure out how to pick his spots, how to be able to make a quick statement. I know that's not his thing, but he has to figure that out. The debate with Soledad O'Brien, there was a question asked. He gives a seven-minute answer about poverty. Even I was saying, man, that was a long answer. Great information, but he has to break it down because the reality is we live in that kind of world.
HARRIS: And Roland, quickly, how does he feel about where he stands in the race right now?
MARTIN: Well, he's comfortable where he stands. More and more people are getting to know him. The interview with TV-1 was focused on African-Americans because that's who TV-1 targets and most of the questions came from the viewers. And so what he is trying to do, he is now shifting from this sort of bright light to now more public policy. Most of his speeches are now focused now on policy. That's where he's trying to hone in on because that's where his critics are attacking him. He's in a very critical spot right now. He has to be able to connect with people now with public policy, but he's got to be able to master the sound byte because that's what people deal with when it comes to those debates.
HARRIS: Roland, great to see you. Your interview with Barack Obama to air once again onTV-1 in its entirety on July 2, 10:00 p.m. Eastern time. Come see us again in the NEWSROOM. Visit often sir. Thank you.
MARTIN: Give me a call. Anytime, I'll be here.
HARRIS: All right.
COLLINS: Where does the Middle East go from here? Be sure to catch a special edition of "Your World Today." That comes your way at the top of the hour right here on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Quickly want to show you just a couple of pictures that we've been watching all day long. You are looking at Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong taking the case in his own defense, taking the stand I should say in his own defense for the hearing that is going on right now regarding whether or not he will be able to hang on to his law license in the Duke lacrosse case. (INAUDIBLE) We will continue to follow the story for you. You can always go to cnnpipeline.com if you'd like to watch it yourself. For now though, CNN NEWSROOM does continue just one hour from now.
HARRIS: A special edition of "Your World Today" is next, covering the latest developments in the Middle East. I'm Tony Harris.
COLLINS: And I'm Heidi Collins. Have a great weekend everybody. Happy Father's Day.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
