Return to Transcripts main page


Obama Administration Changes U.S. Immigration Policy; Jerry Sandusky's Defense Strategy?

Aired June 15, 2012 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. It's 10:00 here on the East Coast on Friday.

And we begin tonight "Keeping Them Honest" with a major change in immigration policy, a decision to stop deporting some young immigrants who came to the United States as kids, some of them as infants, long before they even knew what immigrant meant.

The Obama administration announced today that it will stop deporting people younger than 30 who came to the United States illegally before they turned 16 as long as they have clean records and were successful students or served in the military.

Those young people can apply for a two-year deferral for deportation and if they're accepted they can now have the chance to work legally in the United States.

In a speech at the White House today, the president said it's a step towards lifting the shadow of deportation from young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary, stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.

It is the right thing to do.


COOPER: Well, there was swift reaction from Republicans. We want to tell you about that in a moment.

But we want to show you some heated reaction that came before the president's speech was even over. A reporter from the conservative Web site "The Daily Caller" yelled out some questions along the lines of what about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners? He was yelling these things while the president was still speaking. Take a look.


OBAMA: It is the right thing to do.


QUESTION: ... foreigners over American workers?

OBAMA: Excuse me, sir, it's not time for questions, sir.

QUESTION: Are you going to take questions?

OBAMA: Not while I'm speaking.

And the answer to your question, sir -- and the next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question -- is this is the right thing to do for the American people. They -- I didn't -- I didn't ask for an argument. I'm answering your question.


COOPER: Well, that reporter, Neil Munro, says he didn't have any intention of interrupting the president, that he thought the speech was wrapping. He also told CNN that he has to -- quote -- "ask the questions you all won't ask."

So do with that what you will.

Meanwhile, one of the more temperament responses to the president's speech actually came from Mitt Romney today. Listen.


MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis, so they know what their future would be in this country.

I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution, because an executive order is, of course, just a short-term matter. It can be reversed by subsequent presidents.


COOPER: Well, just for the report, the change is actually not coming from an executive order, but a change in Department of Homeland Security policy.

Still, Romney's point that it's a temporary solution, that is accurate. And it's something President Obama himself actually acknowledged today and something that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida criticized as well today.

He said -- and I quote -- "Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short-term answer to a long-term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short-term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long-term one, also a pretty measured response when you take a look at some of the reaction from other Republicans today.

Some say they're worried about rampant fraud.

From Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas -- quote -- "Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children. And the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true."

Others insist it's an issue for lawmakers to decide. Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted -- quote -- "President Obama's attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise and possibly illegal."

Congressman Steve King of Iowa went even further saying he plans to sue the Obama administration, saying -- quote -- "This is no longer a debate about immigration policy. The debate is now about the Constitution and the rule of law. I'm preparing to bring suit against the president and ask for a court to enjoin him from implementing his unconstitutional and unlawful policy."

Now, the president repeatedly has called for Congress to pass immigration reform legislation. And again today, he called on lawmakers to pass the DREAM Act which would put into law steps for children of illegal immigrants to continue to live and work in the United States.

Today's policy change accomplishes that goal at least temporarily. But "Keeping Them Honest," we should point out there was a time not too long ago when President Obama said the onus fell squarely on Congress' shoulders. In fact, he said that he couldn't just decide to make the change and he was obligated to enforce the laws that existed.

Listen to what he told a town hall-type gathering broadcast on Univision in March last year.


OBAMA: The notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.


COOPER: As we said, today's change is not an executive order. But in that club, the president did say it wouldn't be appropriate to ignore mandates from Congress.

Joining me now to talk about it, get into the "Raw Politics," CNN political contributor and Democratic strategist Paul Begala. He's also an adviser to a pro-Obama super PAC. Also, CNN contributor and Republican strategist Ana Navarro, and Alice Stewart, former spokesperson for the Santorum and Bachmann campaigns. So, Paul, what happened? The president said basically this was up to Congress last March. Now, less than five months to Election Day, just as Mitt Romney is amping up a play for Latino voters, there's this directive from Homeland Security. Republicans say this is all about politics, all about getting reelected and shoring up support among Latinos.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, this is -- everything we do in this election year is going to be intertwined between government and politics. In terms of government, the president and other reformers really wanted a comprehensive bill.

They understood that if you just pulled out the popular provisions, like this one, it makes it harder to pass the unpopular provisions. That's why he was waiting on Congress. I'm sure he's concluded Congress is not going to act in an election year.

But of course this is timed politically. And this notion that everybody has the vapors, oh, this is political. Duh. It's an election year. By the way, Abraham Lincoln withheld the Emancipation Proclamation for political reasons. He waited until we had a victory at the Battle of Antietam. He held onto it for months.

So if you can do for the Emancipation Proclamation, surely you can do it for the DREAM Act.

COOPER: But, Paul, why in March was it something that you had to wait for Congress to do and why now -- why that switch?

BEGALA: Right. Well, that was March a year ago. There's another provision, by the way, that you may see, this H-1B, which a provision by which very highly educated immigrants are allowed to stay past their visa. So right now, believe it or not, if you graduate and you're an immigrant and you have a student visa, you have to leave the country as soon as you get your degree.

That's crazy, right? A lot of reformers want to basically staple an application for citizenship on to that. That's popular. There's two or three really popular things in comprehensive reform. There's two or three really unpopular things. So I understood. But that was a year ago March he said it. He has got to now eat that. It is a flip-flop. But I think both substantively and politically, he's got the better of the argument here.

COOPER: Anna, do you agree with what Mitt Romney said today, that this is actually going to make it -- it's a short-term solution, which is what the president said, but it's going to make it harder to get a long-term solution?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think it is going to make it harder.


NAVARRO: I think one of the things that we may see as a direct result is Marco Rubio may not be introducing his bill because it takes away the sense of urgency.

This was a very popular -- this compelling story of the DREAM Act is something that may have been able to get bipartisan support if led by somebody like a Marco Rubio, who has so much political capital on the right.

And I think that what he did today, bypassing Congress, Congress gets angry when that happens. And it does complicate it. But, Anderson, the question you have been asking Paul as to why, well, the why is very simple. Even though Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney in the polls by a wide margin, the turnout, the enthusiasm, the fire, the passion that Latinos had four years ago just wasn't there.

So he had to give something to create that. And that's what makes it so political. That's the why.

COOPER: Alice, Romney's response today was somewhat muted. And for a guy who, you know, was pretty opposed to the DREAM Act during the primaries, he wasn't really talking about that today. He was just talking about just kind of making it harder to get a long-term solution.

ALICE STEWART, FORMER BACHMANN CAMPAIGN SPOKESPERSON: Well, he was out, as you know, on his bus tour, traveling around the country, talking about jobs and the economy and what he plans to do to turn the economy around.

But when he was asked about this, he made the point that this is a long-term problem. Sure, everyone's heart goes out to the young people who are here by no fault of their own. But to find the answer to this, this is a long-term problem.

COOPER: So you're saying he didn't want to be knocked off- message today? Is that why you're saying he didn't really say much?

STEWART: He answered the question. He was asked about this and he answered the question just as Reince Priebus, the head of the RNC, answered. This is politically motivated.

And what he did, and to address your point of this not an executive order, this is a unilateral executive action that undercuts Congress, bypasses what the will of the American people are, and imposes a policy on the American people that is simply not what we need to do.

And what he's doing is he's taking illegal immigrants in this country and putting them in the line for jobs that American citizens are trying to get. Why doesn't he come up with some kind of unilateral executive action to help the 23 million Americans who are out of work? That's what we need to do in this country.

COOPER: Paul, do you think this is going to hurt him in terms of people saying, well, look what about American jobs?

BEGALA: Well, in fact, Mr. Romney I think is going to be hurt by this. He's somehow -- and this is a difficult thing to do -- annoyed both the left and the right today, because he gave that mealy-mouthed, kind of cowardly statement where he didn't take a position.

But we know, because we have it on tape. He came on CNN. We had that Tea Party debate. It was on September 7 of 2011. He called the DREAM Act then a handout. He attacked Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, for singing a Texas version of the DREAM Act.

And he said this. That only attracts people to come here and take advantage of America's great beneficence. So, we know he's bitterly opposed to the DREAM Act. But he didn't say it today. So now he's alienated progressives and moderates who want to have immigration reform and who like the DREAM Act, but he's also annoyed the conservative base that he was just a few months ago saying that this was a handout.

COOPER: Alice, do you think he is going to now somehow kind of change his position on the DREAM Act? Because he now basically seems to be agreeing with Rubio. At another point today, he said, I agree with what Marco Rubio said.

STEWART: He made his position clear on the DREAM Act. He opposes that. He supports a pathway to residency and not necessarily a pathway to citizenship.

And he's made that quite clear. But in the overall immigration issue, he's right on that. We first and foremost need to secure the border. But what he's doing -- and he's addressed this issue. He's been asked about it. But he's embarking on a tour across this country talking about the number one issue that people are discussing. And that's jobs and the economy.

And that's why people trust him more than President Obama to create jobs and turn the economy around.


COOPER: OK. We got to leave it there. I want to look at the politics of this.

Paul Begala, appreciate it, Ana Navarro, Alice Stewart as well.

I want to look at how this might impact the Latino vote.

Joined by CNN national correspondent John King.

So, John, the president says it's the right thing to do from a policy perspective. What about the politics on the ground?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they certainly hope it helps, Anderson.

Let's start just by looking. If you look at our electoral map right now, these seven states that are yellow or gold, they are our tossup states, true tossups. The president has a slight advantage in the Electoral College. If he can win just a few of these, he's the next president of the United States. He gets four more years.

Where might it matter? Let's switch maps and take a look. You certainly know one of the huge states where the Latino vote matters is Nevada. The president won it last time. It's a tossup this time. Look at this -- 26 percent plus of the vote are Latinos. That's up a little bit from last time around. And this is a wow. President Obama won more than 75 percent of the vote last time.

Nevada's economy is tough. The president needs every last one of those votes again this time. That's one place where the White House thinks frankly this helps them politically. Let's move on from Nevada and bring in another one. Obviously, Florida, obvious the Latino population matters. Again, Obama won it last time. Anderson, it is a very tough state for the president this time. More than 20 percent of the vote is Latino, up again by a bigger slice than Nevada from 2008.

This is a tougher state for the president. It's a more complicated Latino vote. Conservatives tend to be more Cuban. You have a lot of Puerto Ricans, as well as the Mexican and South American. Look at this. The president probably needs to do better than that, better than 57 percent this time, so again another state to watch. The White House thinks it will help in battleground Florida.

I will give you one more example of a smaller state where the slice of the Latino population is smaller where we can watch this play out. Virginia, the president carried it last time. Just 8 percent of the vote is Latino. But look how much it grew from 2008, 1.9 percent. The president got two-thirds of the vote last time in Virginia. If he can match those numbers again, he can probably keep Virginia in play this time. That's another fascinating state to watch in a place where even some Romney advisers tell you today's announcement probably helps the president some.

COOPER: Well, is there anything Romney can do to try to close the gap among Latinos?

KING: It will be interesting that both the president and Governor Romney appear at the same event, a leadership conference of Latinos, next week.

Let's see if Governor Romney changes his position at all. But here's what they think. Number one, Governor Romney will argue the economy. And he will try to move this away from immigration to economic issues. But number two, if you talk to the Romney people, they think one reason, Anderson, the president is doing this is because he needs to gin up the base, right, he needs to get all the base voters out, because they think he's hurting among white working- class voters that could flip some other states.

So, we just mentioned -- I'm going to move back to this map -- we just mentioned Nevada, Florida, Virginia as states where this might help. That's because the Romney camp calculation, they think that maybe the president's worried about Wisconsin, if you take that away. Maybe he's worried about Michigan and maybe he's worried about Pennsylvania. So he's looking at these other states. If you take those states away, look at that, Governor Romney is in play. So, what the Romney campaign sees is a tradeoff, the president making a play for more Latino voters because they think they see more and more trouble, the Obama campaign, among white working-class voters in the Rust Belt.

Everything in politics is about math and tradeoffs, Anderson.

COOPER: Yes. Interesting. John, thanks.

Let us know what you think. We're on Facebook, of course. Follow me on Twitter right now @AndersonCooper.

Jerry Sandusky's lawyer laid the groundwork today for their defense strategy, including a diagnosis called histrionic personality disorder. The judge is going to allow evidence on this. We will talk about it next with Mark Geragos.


COOPER: "Crime & Punishment" now: Jerry Sandusky's defense team gave us a preview today of its strategy for next week.

The judge ruled an expert may testify to the former Penn State defensive coordinator's alleged psychological state. Lawyers say Sandusky has histrionic personality disorder, and that his diagnosis explains what prosecutors allege as grooming behavior.

Now, prosecutors of course accuse Sandusky of cultivating relationships with his alleged victims to pave the way for sexual assaults and abuse. Sandusky has pled not guilty to molesting young boys from his Second Mile charity.

Eight alleged victims testified against Sandusky this week.

Want to about it now. From Washington is former FBI Special Agent Mary Ellen O'Toole, author of "Dangerous Instincts: How Gut Feelings Betray Us" and criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos joining us on the phone.

So, Mary Ellen, according to National Institutes of health, histrionic personality disorder is a -- quote -- "condition in which people act in a very emotional and dramatic way that draws attention to themselves."

Why would that have somebody grooming children to assault them?

MARY ELLEN O'TOOLE, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, I think that's the important point here, is that histrionic personality disorder does not result in the kinds of behaviors that you hear being presented in the courtroom.

There's no cause and effect between histrionic personality disorder and a sexual interest in children, and particularly predatory behavior. There's no cause and relationship there. COOPER: Mark, the prosecution said that letters Sandusky wrote to alleged victims were part of grooming behavior toward victims. The defense is saying the letters are consistent with his histrionic personality disorder.

Do you think that's a strong defense, a wise defense, or is that all they got?

MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don't think it's necessarily a defense.

I think what they're trying to say -- look, they're not going to get in there and argue to anybody with a straight face that he did these sexual acts and he did it because he has this personality disorder.

I think what they are trying to do is to say when the prosecution is showing you this documentary evidence, which are the letters -- and the letters look bad if they're viewing it through this prism of grooming -- and they're saying, no, it's not grooming. The guy's got this personality disorder that manifests itself in things like this letter.

And then they're going to argue, but he didn't do the sexual act. They're not for a second, if their -- all their neurons are firing, they're not going to be arguing that the histrionic personality disorder is somehow an excuse for the sexual act. It's just to explain, to give the jury something to hang their hat on to explain away the letters themselves.

COOPER: Mary Ellen, what are the characteristics of someone with this disorder?

O'TOOLE: Well, some of the features of the disorder include -- these are individuals that are very theatrical. These are individuals who want to and need to be the center of attention.

They form relationships that they view as far more intimate than they actually are. They're actually very seductive in their interactions with people. But I think if you look at all the literature on histrionic personality disorder and you look at their interactions with others, the presumption is it's not with children who are underage. It's with adults.

And, again, it's that absence of predatory behavior. And it's the absence of that profound sexual interest in children who are underage.

COOPER: Right.

Mark, you think the defense may actually put Sandusky on the stand. Why?

GERAGOS: Well, you know, I -- last night, when you asked me, I said it wouldn't surprise me. Let me tell you why. There's been a couple of things. First of all, he went out and did the Costas interview. He did that "New York Times" interview. During jury selection, he actually, over his lawyer's objection, like we talked about at the time, I would have elbowed the guy in the head -- he said, no, I want to accept this person.

So I think there's a real sense on his part that he -- this is his trial, he's going to do it his way. And a lot of times, I have been there, where I have told the client, look, it's suicide for you to take the stand. You're never going to be able to compete with a seasoned prosecutor. You know, you don't understand how this courtroom works. And you don't have any control over it. Nobody, I don't care who you are as a defendant, can compete with a really good prosecutor's cross-examination. Innocent, guilty, it doesn't matter.

But, ultimately, it's the defendant's decision. He's got a constitutional right. And the lawyer doesn't make that decision.


GERAGOS: And I just have a sinking suspicion he may decide he's going to get up there and he's going to tell it like it is.

COOPER: Wow. That would be something. We will watch.

Mark Geragos, appreciate it, Mary Ellen O'Toole as well.

Coming up: revolution interrupted in Egypt, really dramatic developments, not only yesterday in Egypt, but today as well and this weekend, a runoff election, presidential election. There have been violent protests, allegations of a coup. The parliament has been suspended. We will talk to two reporters who are on the ground, CNN's Ben Wedeman and David Kirkpatrick from "The New York Times" next.


COOPER: A woman under fire accused of seeking donations to save animals, but were the pets ever rescued? It's part of our ongoing investigation. We're "Keeping Them Honest" ahead.


COOPER: Hey, welcome back.

A 360 "World View" tonight: Protesters are back on the streets in Egypt, along with the riot police and accusations of a coup. The military council, which has been running the country since Mubarak's ouster last year, dissolved the first freely elected parliament just yesterday.

The country's high court, packed with Mubarak-appointed judges, we should point out, threw out most of the laws the parliament has passed. Now, that cleared the way for Mubarak's former prime minister to run for president, since the law that blocked former regime officials from running no longer exists. So, that's a poster of the guy. His name -- His last name is Shafiq. Now, if you're wondering how all this is playing with the public, tomorrow's runoff election between Shafiq and the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate is going to bring a president to power without a constitution or a legislative body, with a far cry from the goals of the so-called Arab spring.

Let's bring in senior international correspondent Ben Wedeman, who is in Cairo, and "The New York Times"' David Kirkpatrick, both in Cairo.

Ben, the fact that parliament has been dissolved, what exactly does that mean?

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, really what it mean is, it's quite a body blow to the Muslim Brotherhood, which had almost 50 percent of the seats.

The Brotherhood saw parliament as its stronghold and was looking forward to possibly getting the presidency as well. Now it's lost that. And it's got no guarantee that it's going to lose the presidency.

In addition to that, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces have come out and said that they will hand-pick the 100 members of the constituent assembly that is going to write up the constitution. That was a body that twice the parliament tried to form, but failed to reach a consensus on.

So, really, the Brotherhood suddenly finds itself with a lot less cards to play in the political game. Now, the Brotherhood last night put out a statement calling for a million man march to the ballot boxes. So they really do see this election that begins tomorrow as a critical step to try to maintain their foothold in the power structure in Egypt -- Anderson.

COOPER: David, you wrote in "The Times" that there's grave doubt over what could happen next regardless of who wins the presidential election. I mean, regardless of who wins, is the military going to remain the real power?

DAVID KIRKPATRICK, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, we always knew the military wasn't about to disappear.

They have made it clear that they intend to have a major voice in their own affairs, probably including foreign policy, as well as defense policy. And now it's more clear than ever that the preceding months -- the following months and years are going to be a long slow political struggle to try to wrest power from the old business and military elite.

So, it's not going to be a quick flip of the switch when we have a political transition at the tend of this month. It's going to be a long slog.

COOPER: And, Ben, in terms of demonstrations, what's been the reaction since the parliament was disbanded?

WEDEMAN: Well, surprisingly muted, given the importance of this development.

We were outside the constitutional court yesterday when the ruling was announced. There were only about 200 people there. And after a while, they said, let's all go to Tahrir Square to carry on this demonstration. And Tahrir Square, frankly, was fairly empty yesterday. There have been more demonstrations today, but nowhere near sort of the crowds of hundreds of thousands we have seen.

COOPER: David what do you think is going to happen at the ballot box this weekend?

KIRKPATRICK: That's a very good question.

What we have -- what we have seen since Egypt start holding elections is that they have a tendency to sap some of the energy from the street protests. That people put their emotions into the ballot box instead of the streets. Which is probably healthy from a democratic perspective.

I would say that it's reasonable to suppose that, in a free and fair vote, based on the results in the first round, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood would have a commanding lead. Islamist candidates of one sort or another got nearly 50 percent of the vote in the first round. He just needs to pick off a few more of the anti- Mubarak voters, which shouldn't be hard.

But at this point, after all these political decisions, there's a real haze of doubt over just how free and fair that vote is going to be.

COOPER: And Ben, if Shafik, who's considered a Mubarak ally, wins, where does that leave, basically, the Arab Spring protests? Where does that leave all the work done during the Arab Spring protests?

WEDEMAN: Well, that's a good question. I think there still is a certain amount of energy left in the street despite the sort of exhaustion of the last year and a half. And it really hinges on the Muslim Brotherhood.

When the Muslim Brotherhood says, "We are going to fill Tahrir Square," they can do it. Unlike the revolutionaries who have elegance and imagination when it comes to protesting but they simply don't have the numbers.

COOPER: Ben Wedeman, appreciate it. David Kirkpatrick, appreciate it very much, thanks. We'll see what happens this weekend.

There's a lot more happening tonight. Tom Foreman is here with the "360 Bulletin" -- Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Anderson. The head of the United Nations observer mission in Syria says the latest escalation in violence is preventing his team from doing its job. The U.N. official is renewing its calls for peace. He says neither side is implementing the peace plan that the U.N. is there to monitor.

Hurricane Carlotta is now a Category 2 storm with sustained winds of 85 miles per hour. It's gaining more strength as it heads towards Mexico, the southwestern coast. Forecasters expect Carlotta to make landfall later tonight or maybe tomorrow morning.

And a "360 Follow." Police in Germany now say they have solved the forest boy mystery, and it is a hoax. He claimed to be a teen who spent five years living in the forest. Police now say he's 20 years old. He left his home in the Netherlands. He's not what they said he was.

COOPER: Oh, forest boy. Tom, thanks very much.

Coming up, our continuing investigation into charities that take your hard-earned money, claim to help abandoned animals or veterans. Drew Griffin has some new information about one woman who's been accused of soliciting money to save animals that weren't actually being saved. We're "Keeping them Honest."


COOPER: "Keeping Them Honest" tonight with our continuing investigation into charities that collect millions of dollars in donations from people who want to be generous and good-hearted, want to do good, want to help. People who aren't aware that very little, if any, of their money is actually helping anyone for some of these charities.

This week, we've been talking about charities that claim to help abandoned animals. We've gotten a huge response to this. People really angry, obviously, when they find out where the money trail leads, not to helping the animals, but to a fund-raising company called Quadriga Art.

Tonight, we're digging into a program called Baghdad Pups, which has raised millions to allegedly reunite military dogs with personnel they served with overseas. But as far as we can tell, they don't really do that at all.

And as we're focusing on a woman behind that program, her name is Terry Crisp with SPCA international. We'd heard of her before. In fact we did a story about her. She started a foundation to save pets after Hurricane Katrina. More on that in a moment.

Terry Crisp was on HLN's "Morning Express" with Robin Meade last march with two bomb-sniffing dogs that she said she rescued after they were abandoned by a U.S. Contractor in Iraq. Watch.


ROBIN MEADE, HLN: How is it that they fall through the cracks and get stranded there? That's unthinkable to me.

TERRY CRISP, BAGHDAD PUPS: It is unthinkable. And that's why SPCA International is making sure that these dogs don't get forgotten.


COOPER: Well, turns out there's a lot more to the story than what Terry Crisp would have you believe. I spoke with Drew Griffin, who's been investigating.


COOPER: Drew, she claims or claimed on HLN that these dogs were abandoned by the contractor, but that's not what you found.

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, the contractor says in no way were these dogs abandoned. They were working dogs in Iraq, Anderson. And the company, Reed Incorporated, basically retired them, because the specific contracts these dogs were working on ran out.

The company says it found homes for Ivy and Nugget, good, vetted homes is what they told us, for these two dogs in Kurdistan. And they were about to give them over to their new families in Kurdistan when Terry Crisp showed up and asked that the dogs be donated to SPCA International. The company agreed to do that. But says in no way were these dogs abandoned. They just flat out say no.

COOPER: Have you been able to talk to Terry Crisp about this?

GRIFFIN: No, the spokesperson for C -- SPCA International is telling us that Crisp is in Thailand, unavailable. But they're still sticking by the claim that Ivy and Nugget were rescues, even -- even though the company told us flatly no.

COOPER: I mean, I spent a lot of time in Thailand. They've got phones there. It's ridiculous that they're saying she's unavailable in Thailand.

Are they -- are they sticking by the claim that the dogs are military dogs and that they're saving them?

GRIFFIN: You know, this is the fine line. They say they are saving military members' dogs and cats.

According to the SPCA International, this $26 million that's been donated has allowed them to bring home, home, 447 animals. Of which, they claim, 26 are contractor dogs. None of these are military dogs. The rest would be strays. But all of this comes from them. We don't know what to believe.

And it wasn't just on HLN. Terry Crisp, Anderson, has been pleading for dollars for this project, selling a book, just about anywhere she can. Even trying to make sure her case that the program is helping soldiers fight posttraumatic stress. Here's what she told CBS News last October.


CRISP: SPCA International is, you know, certainly going to do everything we can to continue to support the military. Hopefully, the wars will come to an end, and we won't be doing anything as dramatic as this.

But you know, we've become real attached to the fact that military personnel love their animals. And we want to do everything we can to keep them together.


GRIFFIN: You know, Anderson, we asked Bob Ottenhoff of Charity Navigator, a watchdog group, to just take an independent look at this, the financials and the claims. Here's what he said.


BOB OTTENHOFF, CHARITY NAVIGATOR: What worries me about this one is that the numbers don't compute. I can't understand how to connect the dots between how much money is spent on fund-raising to how much money is spent on programming and what the sources of those revenues are.

And I also can't really measure the impact of this organization. What difference are they really making?


COOPER: What's remarkable here, I mean, this isn't the first time that Terry Crisp has perhaps deceived the public and, quite frankly, the media, in efforts to allegedly save animals.

We profiled here in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. And she was telling us back then Noah's Wish, her charity, was saving thousands of abandoned pets from the hurricane. Was any of that true?

GRIFFIN: Anderson, we just don't know what is and isn't true with this woman. What I can tell you is Noah's Wish, it's a charity based in California. And based on her pleas during Katrina, that charity raised $8 million in donations.

Well, California's attorney general must have been skeptical, because according to a settlement agreement out there with the attorney general, that forced the charity to give back half of those dollars, the state of California was conducting an investigation to determine if contributions made to Noah's Wish for the purpose of rescuing and caring for animal victims of Hurricane Katrina were not used for that specific purpose.

That's straight out of their settlement agreement.

Now, because the settlement was made without any kind of investigation going forward -- in other words, Noah's Wish tried to stop this investigation by just settling. We don't really know what the final conclusion was. But we can tell you an agreement of giving back $4 million of the money. The charity agreed to also make sure that Terry Crisp would not be an officer, a director, or any kind of board member of a charity, for five years, with any nonprofit organization.

And I can confirm to you right now, based on our reporting, the California attorney general is taking a strong look at this, to see if Terry Crisp hasn't violated that settlement agreement -- Anderson.

COOPER: So that's amazing to me, that she agreed to not be involved in any other charity, and clearly, she seems to be with this SPCA International. We'll keep on it, Drew. Thanks.


COOPER: Just remember, the group's name is SPCA International.

Now, a family barbecue turns tragedy -- turns into a tragedy for a Texas family. A father killed a man that he said that he caught molesting his young daughter. The question now is could the father actually face murder charges? We'll take a closer look next.


COOPER: "Crime & Punishment" tonight, a case rocking China, Texas. A place calling itself the cleanest little city in Texas.

During a family barbecue last Saturday, a 23-year-old dad experienced every parent's worst nightmare. He says he caught a family acquaintance in the act of molesting his young daughter. And that's when he did when a lot of parents in this situation imagine doing. He punched the man repeatedly and ended up killing him.

The community in Shiner is standing by the dad. And when asked if authorities would press charges, the sheriff reaffirmed the man's right to defend his daughter and said that decision will ultimately go to a grand jury.

For a closer look at the case, I spoke with Randi Kaye in Shiner, Texas, and senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin earlier.


COOPER: So Randi, what have you been able to find out about exactly what happened on the farm?

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, according to the sheriff, Anderson, the father and the grandfather of this little girl were working on the family farm here behind me. They were working with the horses and setting up for a barbecue.

The little girl was apparently in a pasture area behind the barn. Maybe even working around the chicken coop when suddenly her father heard her screaming.

He ran towards the screams that he was hearing. And he found this 47-year-old man, according to the sheriff -- this is what the father told him -- attempting to rape his 5-year-old daughter.

So what he did was pulled this man off her and started punching him repeatedly in the face, and that ended up killing him.

COOPER: I mean, Jeff, is it possible the father could be charged with this killing?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is technically possible, according to the letter of the law. In the real world, they're more likely to build a statue in his honor than they are to prosecute.

COOPER: It would be up to a grand jury?

TOOBIN: It would be -- they would have to get a grand jury to indict him, which I can't imagine a Texas grand jury doing that. Or practically any other state. And then they would have to go to a regular, you know, petit jury. I can't imagine him being convicted. I just think this is never going to lead to a criminal prosecution.

COOPER: Randi, what do we know about the father?

KAYE: Well, according to the neighbor, who has known him for years, he says he's a respectable guy. He's a good guy; he's a family man just trying to raise his children. He's a single father. He refers to the men around the neighborhood as "sir."

And the general feeling is that justice was served in this case. They don't think that he should be charged. In fact, one man, who I spoke with, a neighbor here, I asked him -- I said, "Well, what would you do if it was your daughter?" And listen to what he told me.


KAYE: If this was your daughter, what would you have done?

MICHAEL JAMES VEIT, NEIGHBOR: I would have killed him ten times worse. I mean, it seems cruel but I mean -- I mean, anybody would have snapped. But it's just, it's unspeakable. It should have never -- this person's not right in their mind for them to even do something like that, you know. It's terrible.


COOPER: And Randi, what's known about the guy who was killed?

KAYE: Well, the sheriff's office and the Texas Rangers who also are involved in this case, Anderson, investigating it, they're not releasing the name. Neither is the district attorney in this case. So it's hard for us to figure out if he had any history of doing this.

But we do know that he and the father in this case, the father of the little girl, knew each other casually, because he had been to the farm before, and he had done some work for the little girl's grandfather.

COOPER: Jeff, would it make a difference, I mean, if the man knew he would kill -- because he told the sheriff, apparently, that he didn't know he was going to kill this guy. Would that make a difference if he intentionally...

TOOBIN: It might, but frankly, given these circumstances, I don't think -- I don't think it would either.

I mean, you can play around with hypotheticals. What if it was five minutes later? What if he didn't see it happening? What if he just heard about it from the daughter? That, I think, would be a different circumstance. But actually seeing your 5-year-old daughter, an attempted rape, I think basically anything goes and...

COOPER: There's also a self-defense law in Texas similar to stand your ground, the castle...

TOOBIN: Right, it's broader than just self-defense. The wording is a little ambiguous. And I don't think there have been a lot of interpretations of it. But it suggests that self-defense can extend to a member of your family as -- like this.

So he might even have a legal defense as well as a factual defense. But in the real world, I don't think any prosecutor, any grand jury, is going to bring charges...

COOPER: Randi, do we know how the little girl is doing?

KAYE: We understand that she was taken from the farm. She was taken to a local hospital. She was examined. They're not releasing any information about the nature of the attack. But she is now back home with her family, Anderson.

COOPER: Well, all right. Randi, appreciate it. Jeff Toobin, thanks.


COOPER: We're following a lot more tonight. Tom Foreman joins us again with the "360 Bulletin" -- Tom.

FOREMAN: Hey, Anderson.

Three masked men apparently tried to break into the Philadelphia home of Democratic Congressman Robert Brady today. He wasn't there, but his wife was. Police say phone lines to the house were cut. They're searching for the men who fled the scene.

A federal judge has ruled a JetBlue pilot who had a midair meltdown is mentally fit to stand trial. During the March incident, Captain Clayton Osman allegedly ranted incoherently about terrorism and the plane crashing. Osman is accused of interfering with a flight crew. His lawyer says he plans to use an insanity defense.

Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi may get out of prison as early as Tuesday after serving 20 days of a 30-day sentence for using a Web cam to spy on his gay roommate and his partner. The roommate, Tyler Clemente, committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge.

Don't worry. Lindsay Lohan is not hospitalized tonight. Yes, paramedics were called to her Los Angeles hotel room when she didn't wake up from a nap. According to her publicist, Lohan was simply sleeping and is suffering from exhaustion and dehydration.

And history made at the border tonight near Niagara Falls. There is aerialist Nik Wallenda from the famous Wallenda family, walking over Horseshoe Falls toward Canada on a two-inch tight rope. The more than 700,000 gallons of water per second pouring over the falls below him. It took him about a half an hour.

Thousands of people on hand cheered him on as he completed this dangerous task. He wore a safety harness trailing behind him there for the stunt, but he never lost his footing, and he stayed calm under pressure the whole time.

And yes, he showed his passport when he arrived on solid ground -- Anderson.

COOPER: All right. Tonight "The Shot." Tom, tonight we are celebrating one of the joys of childhood, the popsicle. Two little girls know they love the tasty frozen treat. If only they could figure out how to pronounce the word. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What were you guys trying to learn?



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pop-ki-do. Pop-ko-pol.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is that? What is that? How about popsicle?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Popsicle. I have popsicle.


Avery, can you say popsicle?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You guys both said it!



COOPER: There they go.

FOREMAN: That's an anchor in training if I ever saw one.

COOPER: Yes. Exactly. All right, Tom. Thanks very much.

If you've got a foul mouth, you may want to clean it up. Swearing in one town could land you in trouble with the police. "The RidicuList" is next.


COOPER: Time for "The RidicuList," and tonight we're adding all you foul-mouthed punks. That's right: I've had it with all your cursing, and so has the town of Middleborough, Massachusetts.

Now, you remember the other night we told you about a Colorado homeowners group trying to ban a three-year-old from drawing in chalk on the sidewalk. Well, folks in Middleborough must have been watching, because they have raised the bar in the grumpy old men Olympics.

Townspeople have voted to impose a $20 fine on anyone who swears in public. And by anyone they mean you, you pesky kids. Concerned citizens say that vulgar teens are a big problem downtown and are making life -- pardon my language -- darn unpleasant.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's intimidating to my customers, to the people who are out here downtown, and I think that -- I think it's a good thing that they're doing something to try to curb it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't think it will solve the problem, but I think it will make them understand what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

COOPER: I've got to be honest: I'm sympathetic to that. Residents probably have a point. Groups of cursing teens can't be good for business, and it's upsetting to hear what some kids scream on the street right in front of little kids or others. Who wants to hear that?

But don't police officers have better things to be doing than writing tickets for "F" bombs?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a lot more important things to do, but these are things that -- quality of life issues, community policing issues that a lot of people don't want to see downtown.


COOPER: All right. Fair enough. I buy that. Quality of life is important, both on the streets of your community and in the hallways of your workplace. That's why I'm proud CNN is so squeaky clean.


ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: At no point were you running a gym?

ANDREW DICE CLAY, COMEDIAN: No, no. Running a gym.

CHERNOFF: You didn't take the time out?

CLAY: Jesus. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) We -- with these guys. I come on the news for two seconds. And you want us to -- every time I do an interview, a guy wants to open his (EXPLETIVE DELETED) mouth.

CHERNOFF: All right, Andrew. Thank you very much.

CLAY: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) You know what? Go (EXPLETIVE DELETED) yourself. You know what?

CHERNOFF: All right. We'll go back to...


CHERNOFF: ... talking about...


CHERNOFF: And we'll be back in just a moment, fill you in on the Art Carney situation.


COOPER: I feel bad for Allan Chernoff there. He tried to get things back on track. It was not meant to be.

By the way, the "Art Carney situation" that Allan referred to was that Art Carney was, in fact, dead. That was the situation. He was 85 years old, and he had died.

Also, that interview was a clip from CNN's old financial channel, CNNfn. So I just want you to stop for a second and consider that on that particular day, the lineup for CNN's financial news channel included the following two segments: Andrew Dice Clay interview and Art Carney obit. CNBC, yes, they're still jealous.

Anyway, maybe the folks in Middleborough, Massachusetts, are going about this swearing ban all wrong. Don't waste your time nickel-and-diming the locals. Just invite Mr. Andrew Dice Clay to town. At 20 bucks a curse, you'll be rolling in cash.

Just don't ask him if he owns a gym, or he'll be running his foul mouth at the rest of those punks on "The RidicuList."

That's it for us. Thanks for watching. "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.