Return to Transcripts main page
PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT
New Details on Trayvon Martin Case; Interview With Rick Santorum; Interview with Mark Fields
Aired April 2, 2012 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: Tonight, what really happened on the night Trayvon Martin died?
UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Does he look hurt to you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't see him. I don't want to go out there. I don't know what's going on.
MORGAN: Alan Dershowitz says if he were defending George Zimmerman, he'd have a good chance of winning the case.
We'll also talk to a woman who knows her way around a crime scene. Best selling author and forensic expert Patricia Cornwell.
And 24 hours that could change the race for the White House.
RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's not just winning the election. It's actually changing the country that's really important.
MORGAN: Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C. vote tomorrow. And the question mounts, will Rick Santorum stay in the race? We'll ask him tonight.
Also, "Keeping America Great." The man behind Ford's rebirth unveiled his new luxury Lincoln. Mark Fields on turning down a bailout and turning his business around.
Plus, "Only in America," struck by lightning after buying his Mega Millions ticket. If it wasn't for bad luck, this guy would have no luck at all.
This is PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT.
Good evening. Our "Big Story" tonight the death of Trayvon Martin. Unanswered questions are piling up in this case. Two audio experts say the screams on a 911 call do not seem to be the voice of George Zimmerman. The surveillance video on Zimmerman at the Sanford Police Department which an outside company enhanced for ABC News seemed to show some kind of marks on the back of Zimmerman's head. Much more on that in a moment.
And just hours from now, Republicans take their epic battle to Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C. Will tomorrow's vote be the turning point of the race and how many candidates will be left standing? We'll hear from Rick Santorum very soon.
But first, our "Big Story" tonight. Trayvon Martin. What really happened the night he died? Joining me now is best selling author and forensic experts Patricia Cornwell. Eric Deggans, TV and media critic at the "Tampa Bay Times" and criminal defense attorney, Alan Dershowitz.
Alan, let me start with you. Because I've been actually wanted to talk to you for a few days now about your view of the legal process here. You've hinted that if you were defending George Zimmerman, you reckon you'd have a pretty good chance at getting him off. Why?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, unfortunately, because Florida has this absurd "Stand Your Ground" law which makes it very, very difficult to successfully prosecute even people who may have deliberately and willfully shot because all they have to do is raise a plausible claim of self-defense and all kinds of restrictions kick in.
And remember, there are really two versions of what happened here and they're both rather extreme. The Martin version, the Martin family version is that Zimmerman was following him. There was no provocation. He started the fight and then he shot him in cold blood. That would be very simple first-degree murder.
The Zimmerman account is equally simple minded. That is, the young man Trayvon hit him from behind. Jumped on top of him. Banged his head, grabbed for his gun, and said, you're going to die tonight. If that's the case, it is a simple case of self-defense.
But when the forensics come out finally, and when the autopsy comes out, we'll find it's a much more nuanced case. And it will turn largely on who hit the first blow. And since there are no real witnesses to that, there may, inevitably, be reasonable doubt under Florida law.
MORGAN: Patricia Cornwell, forensics, forensics, forensics. Never have I seen a case in recent times that could in the end have forensics be more important than this.
PATRICIA CORNWELL, BESTSELLING AUTHOR: That's exactly right and Mr. Dershowitz is exactly right. What we're waiting for now is what did the medical examiner really find? What is the trajectory of the bullet? Was it a contact wound? Was it a slightly distant wound? Is the location of the wound consistent with the handedness of the shooter and what he says about where he was positioned at the time of the shooting? Such as if he says he was on his back or they were standing up or who knows what?
But there's -- in addition, the gun. Does it have Trayvon's DNA on it? Does it have his fingerprints on it, on it or the holster that might indicate he was grabbing for it? What's on the -- the iced tea bottle? What's on the cell phone? For example, maybe there was some sort of struggle. The alleged wound to the back of the head. How do we know that wasn't caused by maybe somebody who was frightened and hit somebody with their phone because it's all they've got in the hand or a bottle. Those should be checked for DNA, for evidence. The clothing should be checked for trace evidence.
MORGAN: When you saw the FBI today, pictures of them crawling all over the crime scene, is this good or is it too late for this case?
CORNWELL: Well, you know, I'd like to think it's never too late, they may get something just from the location and -- but there can't be anything left there now. This was back in February and it was raining that night, too, which makes it difficult. Unfortunately.
You know what happens, Piers, is that when these kinds of terrible things occur, the police don't know how big it's going to be. They didn't realize that the whole world was going to be watching this case when they went out there that rainy night.
MORGAN: How significant is this enhancement here? Let's have a look at this. Because this was a video that did the rounds a few days ago. We all jumped on this and said, well, look, the guy is barely showing any signs of injury. He must be inventing his story. When you look at the enhanced video which ABC had done, you can apparently see, I mean, we have to use these qualifying phrases,. Red marks all over Zimmerman's top of his head.
Now if that is genuine and they were inflicted by Trayvon Martin, how does that change the case you?
CORNWELL: Well, you don't know still. Was that a defensive attack because someone else had been -- Trayvon had been hit first? We don't know. But by the way, you -- some -- I hope they photographed those injuries because the medical expert needs to look at those to say, how do you know they're not self-inflicted? How do you know that somebody didn't want to try to make it look like they've been attacked and sort of waiting for the police and there's a dead body on the ground?
MORGAN: Let me bring in Eric Deggans here. Eric, you're down there on the ground in Florida. The mood has been raging now for quite a while. People on both sides jumping on every new piece of information that the media releases. We can see from the debate over this video that, you know, one minute it looks like it is very beneficial to the Trayvon Martin supporters' case. On the other side, today, you may argue it is actually helpful to George Zimmerman and his case.
What is the mood now right now? Is it -- is it dangerous that the media keep putting this stuff out there and basically convicting or acquitting based on every new twist and turn?
ERIC DEGGANS, TV, MEDIA CRITIC, "TAMPA BAY TIMES": Well, what I think is dangerous is that people take the facts that reporters are digging up and they're making suppositions. They're assuming what happened. They're trying to draw inferences. I think putting out the video was a journalistic enterprise. It was -- it became public domain. People reported on it. They provided it so people could look. When commentators looked at the video and said, well, I don't see any wounds, well, the video was blurry. It -- he might have had wounds. And we did hear that he got some kind of medical attention in the back of a police car before he was taken to the police department. So blood may have been cleaned up. And cuts may have been attended to.
I think the problem is that there is a huge amount of emotion. You've talked about this. We've had protests here in the Tampa Bay area in south Florida, in Sanford. They're still going on. People are still organizing, collecting money for the family. And I think people are really concerned about figuring out how effectively did the police go after this.
Was there some breakdown? Was there some small town justice going on here? Those are the questions that people want. And I think if we have factual reporting, people concentrating on trying to find out the facts of the case, we'll be much better off.
MORGAN: Alan Dershowitz, I mean, I think my view, Alan, from the start of this has been a kind of incredulity, I guess. That George Zimmerman wasn't arrested on the night. I mean certainly if this had happened in Britain, he'd been arrested right then and there and then he would have faced a normal criminal legal process. And clearly, the authorities on the ground were split here as to whether he should have been or not.
But to let the guy just go home in the clothes he was wearing, with the -- you know, with no apparent legal process even being commenced. Is that that seem to have really angered people. What do you think of this from a legal point of view?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think there's a big difference between arrest which is a formal legal proceeding for which you need probable cause under the statute. And the statute makes arrest very difficult to achieve. But also, the other factor, they could have done much more forensically. They could have taken DNA from under his nails. They could have taken his clothing away from him. They could have taken and perhaps they did, close-up photographs.
I won a case a few years ago as a result of a photograph taken at a crime scene which purported to show a kind of killing, and then we were able to demonstrate that if you blew up the photograph, it showed something very, very different. So the kinds of real-time forensic evidence that can be obtained only within minutes or hours after the crime is absolutely essential.
If the police failed to do that, they really did fail to provide evidence that could give us the truth in this case. The arrest is a very different matter. Because arrest is a legal proceeding that is required to pass muster under certain criteria, under the statute. And this statute is a horrible statute. When you combine Florida's penchant for guns. A couple of years ago they tried to make it illegal in Florida even for a doctor to discuss gun ownership with his patients. Everybody seems to have guns and then you have your "Stand Your Ground." You combine that together, it's a prescription for disaster. But of course, for defense attorneys like me, it's wonderful because you win cases that you shouldn't win as the result of this statute.
MORGAN: And by the way, Alan --
DERSHOWITZ: And that would be the result here.
MORGAN: Yes, and it's important to note, that's exactly what's been happening. More and more people are now getting off in these kinds of situations by using "Stand Your Ground" which I do not think is --
DERSHOWITZ: But the interesting thing is most defense attorneys --
DERSHOWITZ: Right. The interesting thing is most defense attorneys I know are against the "Stand Your Ground" law. This is one thing where prosecutors, defense attorneys, police, everybody agrees, this is a horrible statute except the National Rifle Association.
MORGAN: Last thing --
DEGGANS: Can I break in for a minute?
MORGAN: I'm just going to play -- just going to play a clip here, Eric, and I'll come to you after this.
MORGAN: This is a clip we put together. It includes the screaming audio which I think has become very significant. Let's watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED 911 DISPATCHER: Do you need police, fire or medical?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Maybe both. I'm not sure. There's just someone screaming outside.
MORGAN: Who was screaming there, Robert?
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, JR., GEORGE ZIMMERMAN'S BROTHER: That's my brother.
SYBRINA FULTON, TRAYVON MARTIN'S MOTHER: People can say anything they want to. I just personally don't believe it. I know that it was my son that was crying out for help.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Eric, let me come to you. You wanted to jump in there. What did you want to say?
DEGGANS: Well, one thing I wanted to point out. I mean I'm no legal scholar but Zimmerman's defense has always been self-defense. And so I think one of the issues that we face here, is that "Stand Your Ground" may not even apply because he claims that he was attacked and he was defending himself.
I think this would be a tough case even if we didn't have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
MORGAN: Yes, but, Patricia, let's talk about this audio issue because we got both sides claiming it is on George's side, that it is him. On Trayvon's side, that it's him. Very significantly, I think, there is now been this independent study done for the "Orlando Sentinel" which seem to conclusively prove or certainly suggests very firmly, it is not the voice of George Zimmerman, compared to the other audio of him.
They haven't got audio on Trayvon Martin so they haven't been able to say it's definitely Trayvon Martin. But obviously the law of deduction says if it's not George Zimmerman, it is probably Trayvon Martin.
What do you think of that? How significant is that?
CORNWELL: Well, I think the voice print comparison is really, really interesting. It's a very old technology, believe it or not. It's been around since the 1940s when they started doing this sort of forensic work. But what I think what I'd like to see done is I would also like the same analysis done with Trayvon's voice. Maybe there's a voice, maybe something, because I can't help but think someone is going to say, well, what if you got the same results when you analyzed his?
Plus, you have the difficulty of you're analyzing high pitch screaming. And I don't know what the exemplars they compared it with but it's probably somebody speaking. I think that it would be tough in court. But I do think that forensic technology is viable as a great investigative tool.
MORGAN: I mean certainly it seem on the forensic side, the local police here have been incredibly lax, haven't they?
CORNWELL: I don't -- I hate to judge police. I just think what happens is they don't realize this is going to be a case that's all around the world and they're working it, maybe it wasn't a high priority.
MORGAN: And Eric, let me bring you in here. I mean, the question I've asked quite a few guests in the last few days is if it had been a white teenage boy who had been killed by a black man, I'm pretty certain there would have been an arrest. Isn't that a fact that is causing a lot of the anger here? That it seems to have been just as skewed on the night against a young black teenage boy?
DEGGANS: Well, that's the question that is bothering everyone. Of course there's anger in that. I would caution against -- the thing that's bothering me about this case is people are making so many assumptions. What would have happened if the races were reversed? We don't know what would have happened if the races were reversed. They still would have had a young kid who was dressed in sort of a street manner. Maybe the police would have reacted the same way because they know -- they knew of George Zimmerman and they knew that he had been helping as a neighborhood watch person.
What I want to see, TV is great at channeling emotion. And we've seen a lot of TV shows including yours channel people's emotion. And at first there was a lot of sympathy for the family because we were doing stories because they were speaking up and the local cops didn't seem to be doing their job. When the 911 tapes came out, even more sympathy.
As Zimmerman began to speak out, surrogates for Zimmerman, his family, his attorneys, that began to waiver a little bit. And I think we have to be very careful to focus on the facts and on try to pressure the authorities to tell us what happened with this murder investigation. That's the most important part.
Making suppositions about, you know, whether someone is injured or not, this 911 analysis, I'm very skeptical of it. What I want to know is I want to know facts. I would -- I would tell people, look at the "Orlando Sentinel" and the "Miami Herald" and our own paper. "The Tampa Bay Times." The newspapers have focused on facts. Let's try to tone down on the emotion a little bit and focus on what we can find out.
DERSHOWITZ: I think there's a very important issue, though --
MORGAN: Eric Deggans, I wholeheartedly endorse everything you're saying.
Alan, your last word?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think there's a big difference between facts and admissible facts. Take for example the expert voice analysis. That's very dramatic and it's terrific newspaper stuff. Not clear that that would be admissible in a trial because it has to pass a certain threshold of scientific credibility. So we may end up with a situation where we know facts, but the jury who ultimately hears the case, if there is an arrest and prosecution, won't know those facts and you would get a disparate outcome where people think he's guilty based on what they know but based on what the jury heard, there might be an acquittal.
So nobody knows how this case is going to end up ultimately. It's much too nuanced, much too complex, and we shouldn't accept the two extreme views until we've seen the forensic evidence.
MORGAN: Alan Dershowitz, Patricia Cornwell, and Eric Deggans, thank you all very much indeed.
Coming up, Rick Santorum and what could be the tipping point in his epic Republican race.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What if I told you this man's big government mandating health care included $50 abortions and killed thousands of jobs? Would you ever vote for him? What if I told you he supported radical environmental job killing cap-and-trade and the Wall Street bailouts? And what if I told you he dramatically raised taxes and stuck taxpayers with the $1 billion shortfall?
One more thing. What if I told you the man I'm talking about isn't him. It's him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: That's the latest attack ad from Rick Santorum's campaign unleashed on Mitt Romney's positions as identical to President Obama's and the candidate himself, Rick Santorum, joins me now.
Senator, how are you?
RICK SANTORUM (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm doing great, Piers. I'm pleased to be here in ripping Wisconsin. And actually at the home of the Republican Party and the little school house where the first meeting was.
MORGAN: We're going to come to the Republican race in just a moment. I want to ask you first of all about the Trayvon Martin case which is showing no sign of losing any steam. A huge national debate going on about this. Do you believe all things considered, all the information we now have, that it would be the correct thing to do for George Zimmerman to be arrested?
SANTORUM: You know what, I'm not going to weigh into the -- to the particulars of this case. You know you say all the information we know and it seems like information keeps coming out and you have conflicted information.
You know, I'm running for president of the United States. And what we have to do is trust the criminal justice system. Make sure that there's adequate oversight from the state level to make sure that there's -- that this case is being handled properly. And I'll let the local and state law enforcement authorities to figure this out.
MORGAN: What about this "Stand Your Ground" law? Because there's been so much attention now based on this law. It does seem that it's being used by a lot of the wrong kind of people now to avoid justice. Would you accept that?
SANTORUM: Well, I mean, the "Stand Your Ground" law is to -- is to allow people to be able to protect themselves and make sure that they have the right to self-defense. The idea that the "Stand Your Ground" law means that you can do anything but that is simply -- well, it's just simply that's not -- that's not what the law is there to do. And I think the law has limited application. And I think in its application, it's proper.
MORGAN: There's been another horrific incident today. A shooting at a university in Oakland. At least seven students have been killed or seven people on the campus. It raises the whole issue again of gun law in America. I'm aware that most Republican candidates run a mile from this debate.
But given the sheer number of cases now of people getting access to firearms who simply shouldn't have them, and who then go on to commit this kind of crimes, is it time for a big review of gun law in America?
SANTORUM: No, it's not. I don't run from this debate at all. I run toward this debate. I believe that the right to bear arms is an essential right for our country. And people being able to enjoy, you know, the shooting sports, as well as to use guns to protect their -- themselves from incidents like this.
The bottom line is what you're talking about here is someone who's taking a firearm, used it for an illegal purpose. We don't know how they got it. But the issue is not the availability of guns. The issue is the behavior of a particular individual with respect to the use of that gun. And that's not -- that's not a firearms issue. It's a human issue. It's a -- obviously a very sick and troubled person. But, you know, the idea that the gun is the issue here is simply off base. It's the person who's doing these acts is the issue here.
MORGAN: Let's turn to the GOP race. Obviously, a big night for you tomorrow night. You are facing potentially, according to the polls, a triple whammy here. If you were to lose all three and Mitt Romney won all three, would you not be tempted to just say, OK. That's it. I've had a great run. He is clearly going to be the nominee.
SANTORUM: Well, you know, I get that question more than how are you today. You know, this is the narrative that's being stressed out there. And, you know, look, we -- when we finished up with the great win in Louisiana at the end of March, won by 23 points, we had a great March. We won a lot of states in March, we exceeded every expectations. We've done a great job in taking -- you know, taking the seven loaves and fishes and turning it into 11 state wins.
And it's been a -- it's been a great opportunity. And yet we knew that April would be a very tough month for us. I mean this is a series of states that -- you know, Rhode Island and New York and Connecticut and D.C. and Maryland. These are not conservative states. And we have some states that we know that we can run well in. Wisconsin is one that we think we can run well in. And Pennsylvania, we know we can win.
We hopefully can be competitive in one of the other states at the end of the month but we also know that the month of May is rich with delegates and are strong states for us. States like Texas and Arkansas and Kentucky, and Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina. Those are the states that we know we can get this back right back to where it is right now, which is a lot closer than what Mitt Romney and the -- and the pundits are spinning. It's a very close race and by the end of May, we expect this race to be -- to be very close to even.
MORGAN: Isn't it time that you and Newt Gingrich did a deal? Because what impartial observers say is look, Rick Santorum will do so much better if the traditional conservative vote in the Republican Party wasn't still continuing to be split, and they're assuming at some stage, you and Newt Gingrich get in a room together, thrash it out and out of this comes one true conservative voice which could be much more successful against Mitt Romney than having his (INAUDIBLE) at the moment.
SANTORUM: Well, there's no question, you know, here in the state of Wisconsin, we're down by a handful of points. And, you know, if you take Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, they're around 20 percent. And you know if we want a majority of those votes, you know, even in the polls today, we would be either tied or ahead. You know that's -- you know, it's hard enough going up against four or five to one, being outspent, having all the Republican establishment and all the national media just focus on, boy, this race should be over.
It's the best thing for the Republican Party, which by the way I don't believe is true. We're up against a lot here in the state of Wisconsin and yet we're hanging in there. And I think it just shows you the weakness of Governor Romney's message and the messenger itself. And one of the reasons I believe we have to take this race the whole way out and try to get a conservative nominee who has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.
And so we're still committed to following this thing through. And it's not -- it has nothing to do with me. It's having to do with making sure that we have the best chance to do the most important thing for our country which is to defeat this president and put in someone who believes in limited government and the unlimited potential of the American people.
MORGAN: And final question before we go to a break. At what point would you judge as a politically astute man that this would become damaging for you to stay in the race if it was perceived that you were damaging the chances of the party to defeat Barack Obama?
SANTORUM: Yes, you know, I'm going to make the decision not based on what's good for me or not good for me. I've always been someone who focuses on what's best for the country and I believe what's best for the country is for us to make sure that we have the strongest possible nominee. Because only once since Grover Cleveland lost re-election back two centuries ago that we've been able to defeat a Democratic incumbent president.
And we didn't do it with a moderate Republican. We -- many times, the moderates and the establishment forced Republican moderates on the Republican Party in order to win an election. And almost every time, well, every time we've lost since that -- since that election of Grover Cleveland, the only time we won is with Ronald Reagan, and was a principled conservative. And that made all the difference.
MORGAN: Let's take break, Senator. Come back and talk health care.
MORGAN: A lucky strike there for Rick Santorum in Wisconsin last week. Well, maybe it wasn't so lucky a strike. Maybe he's just very good at it. Will he be as good, at the top of his game, in tomorrow's primary. He joins me again now.
So was that a lucky strike? I'm told by experts in the world of bowling that actually your technique is very good.
SANTORUM: Well, I bowled as a kid a lot. I enjoyed it. I actually had my own bowling ball when I was younger. But I have to tell you, it's been a long, long time.
We went out to Sheboygan. They had a bowling alley next to the rally that we were doing. And I said heck, I haven't bowled in years and years. Let's go out. I ended up -- the first ball, I didn't get a strike, but then I threw three strikes in a row.
We decided after that we would have a bunch of rallies. We call them rallies at the alleys. And we've been doing bowling all over the state of Wisconsin. I actually won a -- I faced up against a tough opponent, a 16-year-old girl who was a very good bowler, I might add. She had an off game and I got lucky, and I edged her by two pins.
MORGAN: I can see you're very pleased about that. Let's talk about health care.
SANTORUM: I was.
MORGAN: Here's a question. Here's a question for you: you are a Christian, famously. You are a Catholic, famously. You would consider yourself, I'm sure, because of your religious beliefs to be a caring and kind man by nature. That would be what you would perceive to be a man who follows faith as well as you do.
How could you be happy, from that position, in telling 30 million Americans who are now hoping and expecting to be brought under health care cover in America when they couldn't have afforded it otherwise, you're not going to get it; that is going to be my position; my first act as president would be to throw that out, so you guys don't get health cover?
SANTORUM: Well, I would say to 300 million Americans that my first act as president is to liberate you from a government program that is going to dictate to you not only your economic choices when it comes to health care, but also your religious choices when it comes to health care.
And that's not what the role of the government is, to take over a sector of the economy and to dictate what people are or are not going get to fashion that sector of the economy, according to the government's edict. That's antithetical to everything we believe in in America.
So what I have said, and what I've focused on in the time that I've been in Congress was making sure that everybody has the opportunity to purchase the health care that best suits them, and that the government -- and I've been very up front about this, that the government has a role and has had a role of supporting those choices.
And we've done it in the past with subsidizing employers who provide employer-provided health insurance. But we have not provided any tax -- equal tax treatment to those who don't have employer provided health insurance. Well, 15 years ago, I authored a bill along with -- actually co-authored it. Dick Armey was really the driving force behind it.
But I authored the Senate version of it, to provide better and equal treatment to those who don't have employer provided insurance. There's really no reason that health insurance is tied to employment. It made sense maybe 40, 50 years ago when people didn't change jobs very much.
But today to have employer-based insurance really doesn't make any sense. We need to move it away from the employer, give the power to the individual to go out and buy the insurance policy that best suits them, help with some tax support from the federal government to do that for all income levels, including a refundable level for lower income, and create a system where you -- you the individual, control what health insurance and access to health care that you want, instead of turning all that money over to the government and letting them make that decision for you.
MORGAN: That was a masterful political answer. But you didn't actually answer my question. What would you say as a Christian to the 30 million people who are pretty impoverished, and that's why they've been brought into this health care cover by President Obama? What do you say to them? Look at them in the eye and say, as a Christian, as a Catholic, you can sling your hope; you're not going to get health cover.
SANTORUM: No, I just answered that question. We're going to provide -- as I said, for those who are lower income -- obviously if you're very low income, you qualify for Medicaid. And even today, under certain states, you don't have to be that low income to cover. They have fairly high income thresholds, depending on the state.
But for those who are in the middle, don't have employer provided insurance, don't have enough money to go out and buy insurance on their own, what we have talked about is a refundable tax credit. What does that mean? That means you get money not just back from the taxes you paid. So you get your tax refunded.
But if you don't have -- if you don't pay enough taxes, equal to the amount of what the subsidy to be eligible for, the government would actually send you a check. So we would, in fact, provide support for -- depending on the income level, support for people to go out and purchase health care.
Far less expensive, far less government intrusive, far less regulatory in nature than what Barack Obama is doing in mandating a government-run health care system.
MORGAN: What about people with preexisting conditions who would cease to get cover if you repealed this?
SANTORUM: Yes. My feeling is that if you have insurance, you should be able to keep your insurance irrespective of where -- how you change jobs or change insurance. So preexisting conditions -- as long as you have insurance, you should never be barred from getting additional insurance.
The issue -- so that to me is carte blanche and I have no problem. Most states, by the way, already have laws in place that do that. But I would have no problem with a federal law that would do so. Although I think if we could get all the states to do it, I would rather not do a federal law.
But that to me is a no brainer. If you go out and buy insurance, you should be able to move from insurance company to insurance company without having to lose your insurance because of a preexisting condition.
MORGAN: Well, senator, you have a big night tomorrow night. Either way, if you want to come on and celebrate a fantastic unexpected victory, I would love to see you. And conversely, if it all goes horribly wrong, I'll be a shoulder to cry on for you.
SANTORUM: Piers, what a wonderful gesture on your part. I thank you very much for that. Hopefully we'll get a chance to do that and celebrate a little bit. And I'll even bring my wife. Karen is here with me and ripping today. She passes on her very best. And hopefully we'll get a chance to celebrate tomorrow night. Maybe bring her on the show with us.
MORGAN: That would be terrific. I would really appreciate that. Good luck.
SANTORUM: Thank you, Piers.
MORGAN: Coming up next, Ford said no to the bailout and made a fortune. So how are they doing it? Top executive joins me to talk about Keeping America Great.
MORGAN: Tonight, Keeping America Great. That's the new Lincoln MKZ, unveiled today from Ford. And with it, Mark Fields, president of Ford Motor Company's America division. He's helped that auto giant post a 20 billion dollar profit last year. And the recovery comes without any bailout money at all.
And Mark Fields joins me now. Mark Fields, quite an achievement. Take me back to that moment when you guys had to decide whether to go for bailout money or not.
MARK FIELDS, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AMERICAN DIVISION: Well, when the industry went through the downturn, the good part at Ford was we had a plan. We were in the process of working that plan. And that plan was all about investing in product, coming together as a team to look at the reality, and to take the actions necessary to save the business, while also continuing to invest in the business.
So when the bailout discussion came down, we were part of that discussion in terms of supporting the industry. And at the end of the day, the plan has served us very well in delivering great products to our customers and allowing the company to get back on a very firm foundation and a growing foundation going forward.
MORGAN: There was this weird anomaly at the moment, where sales of new cars are going through the roof and you guys are making huge profits as a result, along with most of your competitors. And yet gas prices have never been higher. I suppose the ignoramus amongst us about the car industry would go, how does that work? Why are people buying more cars when gas prices are so expensive?
FIELDS: Well, I think there's a couple factors running around here. I think, first off, there is a lot of pent-up demand. Over the last three or four years, the industry -- because of the economic environment, consumers put off purchasing a new car to the point where the average age of the car out there in the inventory of cars in the U.S. is over 10 years old.
So you have a lot of that pent-up demand. I think you're seeing employment accelerating. When people get jobs, they need vehicles. And when people get jobs, people who are already in jobs feel more secure. So I think that's a piece of it. That is helping to aid sales.
I think with the high fuel prices, with many consumers out there with older vehicle, they're at the newer vehicles, and particularly at Ford in terms of the fuel economy, and saying, you know what? It is maybe time to trade in my vehicle so I can get a really fuel efficient vehicle.
The great news at Ford is, a number of years ago, we took a very strong point of view that fuel prices would continue to rise. We invested in technologies, both gasoline, hybrid and electrified vehicles. And now hopefully giving consumers a reason to buy a Ford because of that fuel economy.
So I think a number of those factors are really driving the growth in the market.
MORGAN: Let's take a short break. Come back and talk the politics of all this. I want to know what you thought of the bailout in principle, which has obviously been very successful for some of your rivals. Also what you thought of Mitt Romney opposing the bailout. Was he right or wrong?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Made in America; for generations of Michigan auto workers, it's more than a slogan. It's a way of life. But when a million jobs were on the line, every Republican candidate turned their back, even said "let Detroit go bankrupt."
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Don't bet against the American auto industry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: President Obama there taking a shot at the Republicans for being anti-bailout. I'm back with Mark Fields of the Ford Motor Company to talk politics and keeping America great.
What did you make of that? Was Barack Obama right? Even though Ford didn't go down the bailout route, was he right to do what he did? Did it effectively save the industry?
FIELDS: Well, I think when we had the situation in the industry, we -- we went down to support the hearings down in Washington. And it was really around the industry dynamics. We shared a lot of suppliers with some of our competitors. And we went down supporting the industry.
So overall, when you look at it, we looked -- we worked with politicians on both sides of the aisle. And at the end of the day, I think the industry is very healthy today. I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.
MORGAN: So when Mitt Romney attacks the bailout, he got it completely wrong, didn't he?
FIELDS: Well, again, everybody has different viewpoints on this. And it could have taken a lot of different directions. In our case at Ford, we focused continuing on our plan and very importantly, continued to invest in product. When you do that and you work on your competitiveness by continually benchmarking your competition, consumers decide and the business wins.
And I think that's true for us. And I think right now, it is true for the industry.
MORGAN: One of the big problems facing Americans right now is unemployment, obviously. You have built an Escape plant in Louisville, Kentucky, which is great. You are also investing 1.3 billion dollars in a Mexico plant to build the new Fusion and Lincoln MKZ.
My argument about this is the same as is it is to Apple, with all their employees in China and so on. I had Howard Schultz from Starbucks on last week, talking about a new sense of moral capitalism, where companies like Starbucks Apple and, dare I say it, Ford, rather than building big plants in Mexico, should be building plants like that in America, shouldn't you, and bringing jobs home, even if it's more expensive to do that?
FIELDS: Well, we actually are bringing jobs back home. We are bringing jobs back from China. We're bringing jobs back from Japan. We're bringing some jobs back from Mexico. And literally over the next three to four years, we're adding about 12,000 jobs. The majority of them are hourly, some of them are salaried workforce.
And we're looking at that in terms of investing our business. And when we can make a business case to be competitive here in the United States, we will always invest here in the United States. That's exactly what we're doing, in addition to also investing in other countries where we conduct business and where we have plants and utilizing those assets.
So it really is a balanced approach to drive employment.
MORGAN: How many people do you employ worldwide?
FIELDS: Worldwide, we probably employ somewhere in the neighborhood of 160,000.
MORGAN: How many of that would be in America?
FIELDS: In the U.S. here, we employ about 22,000 or 23,000 salaried employees, and about 45,000 to 50,000 hourly employees.
MORGAN: And what was that initial figure you gave me, the 160,000, are they all salaried or are they hourly and salaried?
FIELDS: No, that's hourly and salaried. So as you can see, a large part of our employment is here in the U.S. It's obviously our most -- one of our most important markets and one where we have a lot of our research and development, as well as manufacturing facilities.
MORGAN: Do you like the ideal of moral capitalism? I know it goes against the grain of most American businesses to think that way. But the idea of taking a hit for the country, of bringing back even more jobs here, opening more factories here, not opening a 1.3 billion dollar factory in Mexico, but actually opening it here, making a stand, even though it's more expensive in the short term, in the belief that -- I absolutely believe that if companies did that, Americans would be so grateful for the contribution to the country, they would go and buy your product anyway.
They would go and reward you.
FIELDS: Well, I think overall, it gets back to the thoughts of our founder, Henry Ford, where his approach was make sure that where you do business, where you sell cars, also you can make your cars in those countries. I want to also bring us back to here in the U.S., over the next four years, we're going to be investing 16 billion dollars here in the United States.
Part of it is with our supply base. Part of it is investing in our facilities, providing great jobs and great careers for our workers. And the other third of that is investment in R&D, which is very important, driving innovation, employing engineers coming out of our universities.
So really driving that employment is very important for us. And the United States is very important for us, just as other markets where we do business.
MORGAN: You guys have done a great job at Ford. There's no question of that. And lots of people laude you as the company that didn't take the bailout and have still turned yourselves around. It's been tough. You had to let many people go. That's been part of the process of rebuilding the company.
What do you think personally, as one of the people that's been instrumental in this? What does it take to be a great American in the modern America?
FIELDS: As a business?
FIELDS: Well, I think overall, our lessons learned at Ford, as we've gone through this very interesting time in our history, is first off, have a plan and focus on that plan. And bring a group of folks together to develop that plan and really buy in and commit to that.
Secondly is, whether you're in a manufacturing business or a service business, keep investing in those products. Keep investing in those services, even during the darkest periods, because we're seeing at Ford our investments in our products, and our safety, technology, fuel economy has been really paying off for us.
And I think thirdly, it's also doing it in a way that brings a group of talented individuals in an organization together, collaborating and creating places where you can look at the data very objectively, create safe environments where you can bring up issues, and then focus on solving them. And if you do those three things, I think you'll have success.
And we've been fortunate at Ford in driving that approach over the last number of years. And consumers are rewarding us for that. And we're using that as more motivation going-forward to continue to move the company forward and provide great products to our customers.
MORGAN: Well, you certainly have, Mark Fields. And I salute you for doing that. Ford's a great American company. And I wish you continued good success. Thank you for joining me.
FIELDS: Thank you, Piers.
MORGAN: Coming up next, only in America, a real lightning strike for one lottery dreamer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MORGAN: Tonight's Only in America, I know what you were all thinking last Friday, there's more chance of being hit by lightning than winning the Mega Millions lottery. That is true. There is a one in a million chance of being struck by a lightning bolt. And there was a 656 million to one chance of winning the lottery last week.
But imagine what the odds were on the nightmare scenario: buying a losing lottery ticket but still being struck by lightning. The answer, of course, is ridiculously high. But not ridiculously high enough for Bill Aisles (ph) to escape them.
Bill purchased three tickets and actually told a friend after purchasing, I have got a better chance of being struck by lightning. He was right. Bill went home to his house in Wichita, Kansas, and was standing in his yard, praying like the rest of us he would win the cash, when boom, he was blessed by a rather different kind of act of God. A lightning bolt flashed and Bill was thrown to the ground.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have some things with my memory that are going to bother me for a while. But I wasn't burned. I had a little bit of an irregular heartbeat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORGAN: Bill recovered just in time to hear that he wasn't one of the three Mega Million winners. Now that's just unbelievably bad luck, isn't it? To put it in perspective, "The Daily Beast" says the odds of being president are one in 10 million. The odds of climbing Mount Everest is one in 50 million. You actually have a better chance of becoming a mountaineering president who gets hit by lightning than winning that Mega Millions jackpot.
But undeterred, Bill did what good Americans would do in that situation - he dusted himself down and he went in and bought 10 more lottery tickets. Bill, I wish you all the luck in the world. That's all for us tonight. AC 360 starts now.