Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsnight Aaron Brown
Taliban Walker Meets Parents; After Enron Reform Advocates Speak up
Aired January 24, 2002 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, NEWSNIGHT CORRESPONDENT: Good evening again everyone. Funny how sometimes the less someone says the more interested you get.
Today, as it turned out, seemed to prove that point, not once but twice. There was David Duncan, fired as the top Andersen auditor handling the Enron company. He said exactly 87 words in a hearing at the House today, taking the Fifth and refusing to answer questions.
Committee members were happy to fill the void, one of them calling the document shredding that went on, "criminally stupid or stupidly criminal, or both." But again, the man who knows most about that, Mr. Duncan, said but 87 words. Now compared to John Walker Lindh, Duncan was running off at the mouth.
In Alexandria, Virginia, the 20-year-old American Taliban listened to the charges against him, charges that could send him to prison for life. "Do you understand the charges, asked the judge. "Yes, I understand. No, I don't have any questions."
Not many words there, but plenty enough to work with tonight, and while perhaps there is a lesson for us in their brevity, we do have an hour ahead and 87 words will not get it done, although it might be an interesting thing to try someday.
So we won't count the words in our whip or anything else tonight, but we will keep in mind that sometimes less is more. The Walker story, Susan Candiotti, the headline please.
SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, it was one of those times in the courtroom where you could feel the anticipation, getting a firsthand look at the one they call the American Taliban. Nothing like the image the world's been seeing, John Walker Lindh meets a judge and a packed courtroom. Aaron.
BROWN: Susan, thank you. Back from the dead on Capitol Hill, a big development in campaign finance reform. Jonathan Karl covering the story. John, a headline.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, House Republican leaders had insisted there would be no vote on campaign finance reform this year, but in an extraordinary development, 20 Republicans defied those leaders, joined with Democrats and signed a petition that will guarantee a big battle on money and politics just as those Enron hearings are getting underway.
BROWN: Jon, thanks, back to you shortly. We haven't talked much about the shooting war in Afghanistan. We do today. Martin Savidge, outside Kandahar, Marty a headline from you please.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It looks like the shooting war is back in business here in Afghanistan. We're learning more details about a major operation that was by all accounts a very nasty firefight. We're going to tell you about the U.S. forces that were involved, who got shot, who got killed, and also who got captured, and what they found dealing and tangling with Taliban and al Qaeda forces north of here. Aaron.
BROWN: Marty, thank you, back with you, back with all of you shortly. Big mix of stories on the table tonight. A lot of developments in the Enron case to report, you'll hear from the head of the House Energy Committee, Congressman Billy Tauzin. We'll also look at what may be the real outrage in all of this and it's all perfectly legal, the lobbying that Enron did, what the company and what other big companies get for their money.
A disturbing story tonight from our investigative reporter Mike Boettcher, documents that suggest al Qaeda was attempting its own version of the Manhattan Project. In this one, just for the sheer wonderment of it all, one review of the movie (inaudible) was titled "how do you solve a problem like Mariah." Her record company has an answer, pay her $28 million to go away. We'll talk with media reporter Alex Kucyzinsky a little later in the program. All of that in 25 words or less. OK, I made that part up.
We begin with John Walker Lindh's day in court, a routine hearing, hundreds like it across the country every day. Often the defendants, like Lindh are young. Often they are looking at a world of trouble, and often their defense seems shaky. But virtually never are we talking about a young American who, it would appear, joined the enemy in a war. So back to Washington and CNN's Susan Candiotti.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDIOTTI (voice over): Driven before dawn, about two blocks from jail to courthouse, John Walker Lindh sandwiched between Federal agents. Looking far different than he did after his capture, the American Taliban's beard and long hair gone, his head close shaven.
He looked around briefly when he walked into court, without glancing at his parents seated in the second row. The charges were read, including conspiring to kill U.S. nationals overseas. The possible penalties including life behind bars, laid out"
Magistrate Curtis Sewell: Do you understand the charges?
Walker Lindh: Yes, I understand.
Sewell: Do you have any questions?
Lindh: No, I don't have any questions. Walker Lindh's attorneys, hired by his parents and approved by their son, charge that after his capture, he was denied early medical treatment and access to a lawyer before talking with the FBI.
JAMES BROSNAHAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He began requesting a lawyer almost immediately, which would have been December 2 or 3. For 54 days, he was held incommunicado.
JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: He chose to waive his right to an attorney, both orally and in writing before his statement to the FBI. Mr. Walker will be held responsible in the courtroom for his choices.
CANDIOTTI: Legal experts call Walker's statement to the FBI crucial to the government's case. In it, he allegedly admits training in al Qaeda camps and being told about planned suicide attacks in the U.S.
Also part of the government's case, a CNN interview with Walker Lindh shot shortly after his capture. Both pieces of evidence expected to be challenged by his lawyers.
Walker Lindh met his parents for about 20 minutes before the hearing, separated by a mesh screen in a small room with an FBI agent present.
MARILYN WALKER, MOTHER: It's been two years since I last saw my son. It was wonderful to see him this morning. My love for him is unconditional and absolute.
FRANK LINDH, FATHER: John did not take up arms against America. He never meant to harm any American and he never did harm any American. John is innocent of these charges.
CANDIOTTI: For now, Walker Lindh's being held in this city jail, confined to a seven and a half by seven and a half foot cell, equipped with a bed, sink and toilet, joined to a common area with a TV.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CANDIOTTI (on camera): Will he watch it? We don't know. The sheriff describes his latest charge as very quiet. He says Walker Lindh was hungry last night when he arrived. He didn't know what he ate, and the sheriff adds, one of the deputies told the new inmate which direction was east so, as a Muslim, he could face Mecca. Aaron.
BROWN: Two quick ones, what's the next stop in the legal proceedings, Susan?
CANDIOTTI: He has a bond hearing coming up, slated for February 6. However, it is widely expected that could also turn into an arraignment, if indeed a Grand Jury indicts him on various charges.
BROWN: And do we now know who the lawyers will be that will defend him? CANDIOTTI: He has a very solid team of defense attorneys representing him, all of them Federal prosecutors, including one from this very area, the rest mostly from California. And so, they'll be representing him and they can meet with him in that jail as often as they like.
BROWN: So a formidable legal team for him. Susan, thank you very much. As you saw in Susan's report, the lawyers had very little to say after the hearing.
But what they said was noteworthy. They are operating under very tight restrictions about making statements that might taint a jury. Ponder to think about that for a minute.
Walker's lawyer did promise things will not be dull saying, don't miss the trial. Until that begins, we'll talk strategy with experts like defense attorney Roy Black. Mr. Black joins us tonight from Miami. It's nice to see you.
ROY BLACK, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good evening, Aaron.
BROWN: Can you - maybe this is naive or too complicated. I'm not sure which. Can you explain what the government in a sense must prove? When they talk about harming Americans, do they have to have a witness who says he shot at Americans?
BLACK: You know, Aaron, that's an excellent question. I would think that it's crucial to the government's case to get his confession into evidence, because the confession has him voluntarily joining, first the Taliban and then al Qaeda.
I think the important part of that is al Qaeda. I think joining the Taliban is much more defensible because al Qaeda's a terrorist organization and he can have no real good excuse for that.
If they can not use that confession, I don't imagine they have any other witnesses. Who else are they going to have to say that this man was engaged in some type of offensive action against America. So I think the confession is crucial.
BROWN: The government talks about that Mr. Lindh or Mr. Walker Lindh was being told about planned suicide attacks against Americans. Is that in and of itself a crime, being told about it?
BLACK: No, not being told about it, but knowledge is an important function here, because when you take an action based upon a certain amount of knowledge, you are then responsible for what happens.
So if he knew prior to or when he was a member of al Qaeda, or went to their training camps, he may well be responsible for being part of a terrorist group and thereby responsible for the actions of that group.
BROWN: Because any one action makes you part of the conspiracy. As long as you take a single action, you are then a conspirator. BLACK: Right, so long as you agree to join that organization and you generally know the aims of that organization, you will be held responsible for it. So just joining is not enough, but you have to know about their illegal activities.
BROWN: His lawyer said today that he repeatedly requested a lawyer. You don't have to be Perry Mason, I suppose, or even Roy Black to figure out this is the first battle line being drawn. How do you prove that?
BLACK: Well, you know, courts are used to proving this all the time and we have police officers testify, defendants testify, and it's usually a battle of who to believe, and a judge is going to have to sort this out. Is he going to believe the Army people, the FBI agents, or is he going to believe Lindh. And let's face it, in the end result, who do you think the Federal judge is going to side with?
BROWN: Yes, I mean right. I think we know the answer to that. And presumably General Ashcroft is not making it up when he says he has a signed release, that Mr. Lindh at some point in this waived his rights.
BLACK: I have no doubt that he has a signed release, but the question is how did they get it. If he was asking for a lawyer prior to signing that document, that document may be worthless. So, it's very important and that's why Jim Brosnahan went into court today and said that Lindh was requesting a lawyer as early as December 2 or 3, and the FBI agents showed up on the 9 and the 10. So that's the timing there that's extremely crucial.
BROWN: Now, maybe this is arcane. Does it make a difference if he made a statement to, let's say the CIA or to the Army, as opposed to the FBI?
BLACK: Aaron, that's an excellent question. It makes a big difference, because the CIA and the Army are looking for intelligence. They're not looking to prosecute him for a crime; whereas the FBI agents are there gathering information for a criminal case.
The courts will say that getting intelligence from him to continue the fight to protect American soldiers, you don't have to give him a lawyer for that. But when the FBI is there, looking to prosecute him, then he has the right to a lawyer.
BROWN: I've got a minute left. I'd like to try for two more. Do you think it's possible to find a jury that is truly impartial?
BLACK: Absolutely not. There's not a man, woman or child in the United States who doesn't have the opinion that this man is guilty. Let's face facts. He has an extremely uphill battle of trying to find a single impartial juror, let alone in the northern district of Virginia, where - or the eastern district of Virginia where the Pentagon is located.
BROWN: Mickey Sherman, who is in your business, opined yesterday that he thought this is one they'll try and plead their way out of. Would you try and plead your way out of this one?
BLACK: Oh, yes. If you could get a plea bargain in this case, you're going to jump at it. The problem is, I think that the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney are going to want to make this like a show trial. They want to put this man on trial. They want to put their evidence out, and they want to make a statement.
BROWN: Roy, it's good to talk to you. Roy Black who is in Miami today.
BLACK: Thank you.
BROWN: One of the country's best-known and most formidable defense attorneys. Now onto the other detainees and yet another one of the oddities that sometimes turns up in America's New War.
The detainees at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo are religious zealots. They consider themselves holy warriors. How strange then, how American in a way, to give them the very thing that inspired many of them to kill.
From Guantanamo tonight, CNN's Bob Franken.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): At 5:17 in the morning and at four other assigned times of the day, the detainees of Camp X-Ray are hearing both something new and ancient. The call to prayer was led by the new chaplain of Camp X-Ray, the Muslim chaplain Abuheda Saiful-Islam and Navy Lieutenant (inaudible).
After prayers, Abuheda Saiful-Islam spent some time strolling through the prison camp, speaking with some of the detainees.
ABUHEDA SAIFUL-ISLAM, MUSLIM CHAPLAIN: One of the things they said, they were very appreciative of me being there and early in the morning at 5:00 and call for the prayers, and also some of the anxiety that they have of not knowing what lies ahead of them.
FRANKEN: No one has offered an answer to that question, but officials decided that for the duration, however long that would be, the U.S. armed forces would need one of its 14 Muslim chaplains here.
BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL LEHNERT, COMMANDER OF SECURITY: First, as a chaplain, he is my advisor on all religious matters. His background as a Muslim makes him exceptionally well qualified for the unusual circumstances of this mission. Second, he is here to minister to the religious needs of the detainees.
FRANKEN: The religious difference permeate the entire operation. For example, a short distance from Camp X-Ray where a fleet hospital called a fleet hospital is quickly springing from the dust to handle detainee medical needs, a podiatrist surgeon watched, who has already participated in two of the prisoner's surgical procedures at the base hospital. The surgeon is a woman. LIEUTENANT SONYA KURRICH, NAVY PODIATRIST SURGEON: Generally when you're talking to the detainee, you tend to - their eyes will tend to be like downward position, because they're being seen by a woman. I've heard some of them mutter prayers, while I'm touching them or looking at the wounds, maybe because they feel like I'm contaminating them.
FRANKEN (on camera): These detainees are a world apart from where they fought, an untold worlds apart culturally. Officials here have concluded it is in everybody's interest to try and close that divide. Bob Franken, CNN, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Back in Afghanistan, more evidence their fellow warriors are trying to regroup, whatever's left of them. We learned today U.S. Special Forces raided a Taliban outpost north of Kandahar. That was earlier this morning and they did run into resistance. No U.S. lives lost.
They did carry the day, but it is a reminder of something General Tommy Franks said a couple of weeks ago that this part, this mopping up part of the operation may well turn out to be the most dangerous part. Again, CNN's Martin Savidge is in Kandahar for us. Marty.
SAVIDGE: Well you're absolutely right, Aaron. It is a clear indication of the dangers that still exist for U.S. forces. The more and more that we learn about this altercation that occurred about 30 hours ago, the more we realize this was no minor skirmish. This was an all out battle that took place.
It happened involving U.S. Special Forces, coalition forces, and friendly Afghan forces in an area that's about 60 miles north of the Kandahar Airport here. What they were doing was going in to investigate two suspected sites, believed to al Qaeda and Taliban forces.
When they got in there is when the shooting broke out and a lot of shooting it was by all accounts of people who were there and have come back. When the dust finally settled, they had 26 prisoners, they believe either al Qaeda or Taliban forces.
They have brought them here to the Kandahar Airport and they're interrogating them to find out what they know and exactly who they are. They also had 15 dead Taliban and al Qaeda on their hands, and at least one U.S. Special Forces soldier was wounded. It is not said to be a life-threatening injury. He was shot in the ankle. He was treated on the scene, then brought here. He's been moved elsewhere to get specialized treatment.
Not only ground forces were involved, but also from the air. An AC-130 gun ship opened up, said to have destroyed a large amount of ammunition and weapons. This is not the beginning. This is not the end, according to Secretary Rumsfeld. It is merely a continuation.
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: There are a lot more of these pockets. We are going to pursue them. We are pursuing them now. We pursue them alone. We pursue them with coalition forces. We pursue them with Afghan forces, and we're going to keep at them until we get them.
SAVIDGE: Last night, we were out at the point of the spear of Kandahar Airport, Charlie Company 2187 101st Airborne, (inaudible). They're the ones that guard the perimeter. They've been out there for two weeks, after they took over from the marines.
They know probing is going on and it's not just curiosity seekers that are trying to peer over the fence. It is clearly someone trying to read the defenses of this position, for what reason right now isn't clear. The 101st says they'd be glad to welcome them warmly when they come in.
When you look out at the perimeter here, in a lot of ways it is like Afghanistan itself, raw, rugged, austere, and at times beautiful. Some of the finest sunsets anywhere, but it also belies the danger that is still very much here. Aaron.
BROWN: Marty, I want you to go back to the numbers for a second. How many al Qaeda or Taliban forces were involved in this firefight, at least what you're being told and are they telling you at all what the American numbers were?
SAVIDGE: No, they are not. The details that are coming from the 101st here, the army in control of the airport there by the public affairs people are the ones giving out the information, very, very closely guarded on any detail. In fact, you're likely to get more information coming from the Pentagon obviously, because it is the Pentagon and they don't want to step on any turf.
We don't know how many forces were involved. We only know that it was a mixture of forces, ground and air, and not just all American forces. We also don't know the numbers of the opposition on the ground or whether anyone was able to get away. Aaron.
BROWN: Marty, thanks. Martin Savidge who's in Kandahar, a reminder that there is still a war out there. Back home, and this story played out most of the day and many of you may have followed it.
Sort of a nightmare scenario for what should have been a normal school bus ride. We're obviously happy it ended well. A school bus driver went off course, if you will, 13 kids on board, he and they missing for more than five hours, until the driver turned himself in to an off-duty police officer.
The bus started its run in Pennsylvania. It ended up in Maryland. The driver had a loaded semi-automatic rifle behind the driver's seat. He's facing Federal kidnapping charges. Tonight, as best we can tell, nobody really knows why this happened at all.
In a moment, the accountants, the Fifth Amendment, and the Enron hearings. We'll also talk with the man running those hearings. All that and more when NEWSNIGHT continues back home in New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We've got a lot of ground to cover on the Enron story today, the campaign contributions, the laws and regulations that allowed Enron to tell investors it made more and owed less than it really did.
But it seems to get to Enron, in order to get to the core of this, you first have to get past its auditors, the Andersen company, and their lead guy on Enron was not helping a single bit. Here's CNN's Kate Snow.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATE SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The panel's first witness, the man who seemed likely to have the most information, David Duncan, was Andersen's top partner on the Enron account in Houston.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM GREENWOOD (R) PENNSYLVANIA: Did you give an order to destroy documents in an attempt to subvert governmental investigations into Enron's financial collapse?
DAVID DUNCAN, FORMER ANDERSEN AUDITOR: On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question based on the protection afforded me under the Constitution of the United States.
SNOW: Duncan refused to testify, leaving current Andersen officials to do all the talking. They pinned the blame on Duncan, saying he had called a meeting last October and told others to use the shredder.
C.E. ANDREWS, ANDERSEN PARTNER: I agree that the action that took place on October 23rd and the subsequent elimination of e-mails and destruction of documents is an action that is totally inappropriate.
SNOW: Lawmakers wondered about the finger pointing.
REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF STEARNS (R) FLORIDA: Is Mr. Duncan being made a scapegoat here?
SNOW: But he wasn't the only one under fire. Attorney Nancy Temple wrote an October 12th e-mail about the company's policy on retaining documents. Duncan has told investigators he was following her advice. Temple was grilled on why she wrote that memo. Did she know Enron was being investigated? Did she know a whistle-blower had raised questions about the company's practices?
NANCY TEMPLE, ENRON ATTORNEY: To my recollection, I don't -
UNIDENTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE: Just yes or no.
TEMPLE: -- recall seeing a letter from Ms. Watkins.
UNIDENTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE: Is that a no? So you're saying no, you did not know about Sherron Watkins' letter on October 23rd? You knew nothing about it? Is that your answer, that no? TEMPLE: I was aware that she had made allegations.
SNOW (on camera): After the hearing, investigators released another memo they said showed Andersen employees were encouraged to work overtime to destroy documents. Committee leaders believe up to 80 Andersen employees got the word to start shredding. Kate Snow, CNN, Capitol Hill.
BROWN: Writer Michael Kinsley has a great way of looking at scandals, we think. The real scandal, he believes, is what's perfectly legal. That notion played prominently when we talked earlier today with Congressman Billy Tauzin, who chairs the committee. We began though with his take on this first day.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Congressman, let's begin with this. Tell me what's the most important thing that you learned today?
REP BILLY TAUZIN (R), LOUISIANA: I guess we learned that corporate accounting policy needs to dramatically change when it comes to the way in which documents are preserved and are reported to the public.
What we learned today was that the policy of retention and destruction is much too vague. It's left up to accountants to decide whether to keep or destroy documents, when really you know, somebody with a legal background ought to be advising them.
And I guess we learned third that there appears to have been either gross stupidity or perhaps even worse conduct at Arthur Andersen in this case. We have a lot of documents missing.
BROWN: On the subject of the destruction of documents then, is it possible, sir, that we're going to go through this set of hearings and come to the conclusion that everything they did, while maybe wrong in a kind of moral way, was perfectly legal?
TAUZIN: I don't think so. I think there's a fair shot that there may be at least severe negligence and perhaps even some criminal activity involved here. You know, you can not under our current law destroy documents that are relevant to a pending or about to be commenced investigation, for example by the SEC.
If you intend to keep those documents from the investigators by destroying them, that's (inaudible) of justice, so I tried to warn all the witnesses today as we went through this that they need to be careful about their testimony because the FBI and Justice are looking at this too.
BROWN: Why not immunize Mr. Duncan and find out what he knows, what he did, and that immunity covers only his testimony to Congress. And if broke the law, then that's Justice's problem.
TAUZIN: Well, we might end up being there, but we're not going to do that without the consent, after consulting with Justice. I don't want to do anything in the course of our hearings that would in any way impede their opportunity to seek a criminal indictment if they feel one is necessary.
So we're constantly consulting with them. We're working hand-in- glove with the SEC and its chairman to make sure we're not stepping on each other's toes, and frankly I think if we did more of that, we'd probably get better results in the end.
BROWN: I wonder, sir, if some viewers watching might be thinking, how is it exactly that the investigation in to the collapse of Enron turned into the investigation of Arthur Andersen. Where's Enron in all of this?
TAUZIN: Well, we intended to start with Enron, and we still intend to hold the first hearing on Enron on February 6th. Our problem was that, as our investigators began gathering the documents, bingo we got an announcement that they've been destroying documents, perhaps not only at Arthur Andersen, but maybe even at Enron.
Our investigators next week are focusing on those allegations, that perhaps Enron destroyed documents as well. But on February 6th, we commence the full committee hearing on the Enron scandal itself.
BROWN: I want to ask you a question that's similar to the one I asked earlier about Arthur Andersen. Is it possible, do you think, that at the end of the day what we'll find out is that everything that Enron did, not paying Federal income taxes over the years, being able to hide debt in these partnerships, that everything it did was perfectly legal because Congress passed regulations and laws allowing such things?
TAUZIN: Well, as I said, I don't think we're going to find that. But if we did, it would mean that we have an obligation to change those. If you recall, Aaron, when we did the Firestone-Ford hearings, we readily admitted that we had not done a good enough job of empowering NITSA with the authority to have the information to enforce safer rules on the road and safer products.
We had to change our laws. It may well be we have to change policy on the way we regulate accountants, in the way in which business practices are reported, disclosures to the public.
In the end, we've got a single goal and that's to make sure that investors have more information, that when people are pulling these kind of crazy financial schemes, that at least Americans know about it so they can make wise judgments about whether to invest in those kind of companies.
BROWN: And just the sidebar to that question, sir, is maybe when people talk about campaign contributions, and what companies get, this is what they get is that they get regulations that are favorable, that allow them to do the very kinds of things we're talking about now.
TAUZIN: Well, you know, you can follow that fact if you like. I can tell you from experience here on the Hill that none of these people get any extra slack because they contributed to one party or another or candidate or another.
The bottom line is that in the end they're all going to get similar treatment. If they do wrong, they have to answer for it. And if regulations aren't tight enough, we'll tighten them.
And, you know, I -- I don't think, frankly, that will solve this problem of solving the Enron debacle or straightening out the laws for us to be throwing be stones at each other for who contributed to whom. I think that's pretty irrelevant now.
BROWN: Sir, I know you had a very long day. We appreciate your time very much. Thank you.
TAUZIN: Good talking to you, Aaron.
BROWN: Chairman of the House Energy Committee. Coming up next on NEWSNIGHT, a major win for campaign finance reform, not unrelated to. Enron. This is NEWSNIGHT on Thursday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Well, we don't mean to sound cynical. But you can imagine the most committed supporters of campaign finance reform secretly felt just a little bit glad that Enron happened. Not happy that people lost their retirement, not happy that thousands of people lost their jobs, but happy that an issue that seemed dead has been given new life because of Enron.
And today the people who are pushing for campaign finance reform scored a huge win in the House. They have been working on it a long time. Collecting signatures since last summer. Today they got enough, 218, to force a vote -- finally -- on the issue. Here's CNN's Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It was no coincidence that after languishing for months, reform advocates prevailed on the very day of the year's first Enron hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTY MEEHAN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: We teach hearing. We teach through revelation. The evidence becomes overwhelming. We must end the soft money system.
The Shays-Meehan bill would prohibit the kind of unregulated political contribution Enron was famous for. The company gave $1.7 million in so-called soft money to the Democratic and Republican parties during the last election alone. But reform critics say this debate should have nothing to do with Enron.
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) KENTUCKY: Enron is a perfect example how soft money gets you nothing. They -- you know, it was a huge corporate failure but their contributions to both Democrat and Republican parties clearly got them nothing in return.
KARL: The Enron scandal has undoubtedly given the reformers political momentum in the same way the scandal surrounding Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich helped John McCain and Russ Feingold get the bill passed in the Senate last year. But even if reform becomes the law, there will be other legal ways to buy political influence.
THOMAS MANN, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Enron would have -- would have navigated those sort of Washington shores even without resort to soft money. They have other tools.
KARL: After all, Enron became a political powerhouse by spending millions to hire top lobbyists with close ties to people like Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressman Tom Delay and even Bill Clinton.
None of that would be affected by campaign finance reform. Neither would the donations given directly to candidates, so-called "hard money." In fact, the reformers would increase that limit from $1,000 to $2000 per election.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's no way that passing campaign finance reform means that we won't have any scandals in the future. What it does mean is that big corporations like Enron will have a lot less influence in that they won't be able to give $2 million, $3 million, $5 million to both political parties.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
KARL: Although campaign finance reformers have won a chance to get a vote on their bill, they now face the hard part: figuring how to get it passed. Not everybody who signed their petition has promised to vote for their bill. Jonathan Karl, CNN, Capitol Hill.
BROWN: Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, Mariah and the money. One record company pays a lot to make the world safer from another "Glitter." That was so cold. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: It's not so often the "New York Times" devotes 1500 words -- we seem to be into counting words today -- in the front page no less -- on a pop star saga.
But it did happen today. The pop star we're talking about is Mariah Carey, and the saga involves a very messy and expensive breakup with her record company.
EMI paid Ms. Carey $28 million to end its deal. They day I've had, I'd be fired for half that kind of dough. Anyway, that all happened after she made a movie that was horrible, "Glitter". Her own personal "Ishtar."
Alex Kuczynski shared the byline on that "Times" story, and joins us solo tonight. Nice to see you again.
ALEX KUCYZINSKY, "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTER: Nice to see you.
BROWN: This is a story that's in part about her, Ms. Carey and her career. But it's also part of how the record business itself has changed, the music business has changed.
KUCZYNSKI: Right. Well, you know, the record industry -- record sales dropped, CD sales dropped by five percent across the board last year. And record companies are really looking at ways to get young teenagers, you know, involved in the music. They're afraid the people like Mariah Carey might not be young enough, even though she's only...
BROWN: She's cute, is that it?
KUCZYNSKI: Well, she's only 31. But it's a youth-obsessed industry. I mean, you know, David Bowie got dumped from his label last year. Mick Jagger's album, huge flop. And I mean, Mick Jagger's what, you know, I mean, he's been -- he's been around for a while.
But still, there's definitely an emphasis on youth.
BROWN: And in -- in the way the bean counters figured this out. She owed them four albums. Right?
KUCZYNSKI: Right.
BROWN: That -- it would cost them more than $7 million an album.
KUCZYNSKI: Yeah, well...
BROWN: So they might as well pay her out.
KUCZYNSKI: You might as well. And it's promotional costs. It costs millions and millions of dollars to promote an album for a worldwide star like Mariah Carey.
You've got to take, you know, millions of dollars for travel, videos, other promotional needs, multiple that by dozens of worldwide territories. And you can have, you know, $20 million in promotional fees, you know, for one album, which is what you paid her. And if it bombs, you're completely, you know, left without oars.
BROWN: You talked to her?
KUCZYNSKI: Yeah, I did. Yeah.
BROWN: Were you surprised she was willing to talk? That's kind of a bad day, in some respects. Being fired.
KUCZYNSKI: I was really impressed that she talked, because she's known as a person who's not comfortable dealing with the media. And I thought it was a really good tactical idea for her to talk.
It really -- I mean, I do think it actually made her fans see that she's a real human being. She spoke very candidly about, you know, the way the media portrays her. I thought that was very sweet.
And I'd also like to add, though, that she has done a pretty good deal for herself here. She got paid 21 -- $21 million for the first album, which she already produced: "Glitter," the bomb. And then another 28 million on top of that. So she's got basically $50 million now.
BROWN: Well, but I'm sure she has expenses, too?
KUCZYNSKI: She does have expenses but she has paid $49 million not to sing.
BROWN: I mean, sure, we always emphasize, you know -- but she's got costs. Those -- clothing and stuff.
KUCZYNSKI: The eyelashes, you know. Yeah.
BROWN: There you go.
KUCZYNSKI: I know it's a lot. I know.
BROWN: Is she angry?
KUCZYNSKI: Well, you know, she said to me -- I said, God are you, you know, upset with those guys, with Alain Levy (ph), who's the new head of EMI Virgin? And she quoted from A Tribe Called Quest. She said, "Alex, I think the lyric goes like this. "Rule number 480: record company execs sure are shady." And so that reflects, I think, her feeling about her former husband, too, Tommy Mottola.
BROWN: Which is a whole -- sort of her discovery and that whole thing.
KUCZYNSKI: It's a saga.
BROWN: Now, she'll get work, right? She'll take the 50 million and someone will sign her?
KUCZYNSKI: She's going to be fine. She has a beautiful voice. She's young. She's incredibly -- if -- if she is confident enough, she's going to be fine.
The next movie, I hear, is very good. She's in a movie with Mira Sorvino and she plays, like, a Mafia-friendly waitress from Queens. It got really good reviews at Sundance. I think "Glitter" was a misplaced idea for her, maybe, and...
BROWN: So she's going to do the national anthem at the Super Bowl?
KUCZYNSKI: And she's doing the national anthem at the Super Bowl on February 3rd. I mean, that is one of the most massive honors a singer can have.
I spoke to the NFL about that. And they said, "look, we don't care that she got...
BROWN: Yeah.
KUCZYNSKI: ...you know, her contract was terminated. We just wanted somebody really powerful for this, the most important Super Bowl that we've done in a long time. The American Super Bowl. You know, very important post September 11th.
BROWN: 20 seconds.
KUCZYNSKI: Yeah.
BROWN: Inside baseball question. Were you surprised the "Times" put the story on the front page today?
KUCZYNSKI: That is an inside baseball question. No. I think -- I think it was a larger story. It's -- it's a large business story, which is grounded in one woman's individual saga.
BROWN: Yeah.
KUCZYNSKI: So I'm not surprised.
BROWN: Pleased, though?
KUCZYNSKI: Yeah. It's -- it's a fascinating story, and I think a lot of readers liked it.
BROWN: Yeah, it was. As always, it's nice to see you. I hope you'll come back next time you come up with something cool.
KUCZYNSKI: Thank you.
BROWN: Thank you. Coming up on NEWSNIGHT, following a document trail left behind by al Qaeda -- that's kind of a change of pace, isn't it? This one's a bit scary. Talking about nuclear weapons. We'll talk with investigative reporter Mike Boettcher as NEWSNIGHT continues from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: We heard the FBI director say yesterday that the al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners had provided valuable information that had prevented additional terrorist attacks.
Today we learned a bit more about just how capable that terrorist organization is of causing destruction -- potentially massive destruction.
A CNN investigation of documents discovered in an al Qaeda house in Afghanistan has uncovered details of a sophisticated weapons program. We'll talk in a moment with correspondent Mike Boettcher, who's been working on this story.
But first, an excerpt of his report dealing with al Qaeda research into high-tech conventional explosives as well as nuclear and those so-called dirty bombs.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
MIKE BOETTCHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The documents don't reveal if al Qaeda tried to build such a weapon. But after reviewing several hundred pages of terrorist documents, our experts believe al Qaeda was working on a serious nuclear program.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, NUCLEAR PHYSICIST: The program appears to have existed for a long time. And that -- that's one of the things that has to give you pause, is that -- is that they've been thinking about this a long time. And -- and so the question is when did they start in earnest to learn how to make a nuclear explosive?
BOETTCHER: In the same garbage bag, other documents detailing other plans.
ALBRIGHT: Explosive work is key or core to al Qaeda. And that's also in the documents. It's just the importance of high explosives to all their objectives. And so they -- so that the idea of a super bomb could just have been some icing on the cake.
BOETTCHER: Put together, the documents offer an A to Z look into al Qaeda's quest for murderous expertise. Training manuals for virtually any kind of explosive.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
BROWN: And correspondent Mike Boettcher is with us. Mike's in Atlanta tonight. Good to see you again, as it was this morning, I think, when I ran into you down there.
BOETTCHER: Absolutely. What are you doing up there?
BROWN: Trying to make a living.
BOETTCHER: Oh, you anchor up there.
BROWN: A couple of -- I think I'm into the baseball things. How long have you been working on this story?
BOETTCHER: Well, since mid-November when Producer Ingrid Arnesen (ph) got those documents. And we've been deciding how to analyze these and showing them to people around the world, frankly. And put together experts in this country. And it's a daunting task, Aaron, because there are thousands of pages and we haven't got to everything yet. And -- go ahead.
BROWN: I'm sorry. And you talked about how Ingrid found the documents or came into possession of the documents?
BOETTCHER: Well, in that chaotic time, in mid-November when frankly only spies and reporters were going through the trash in Kabul, Ingrid was told by neighbors and by authorities who had stayed behind who not really sympathetic to Taliban, more sympathetic to those coming in, that there were several houses in a neighborhood -- an upscale neighborhood that were al Qaeda houses. And they took her there.
And in several of the houses, she found documents left behind. Some in garbage bags, some stacked in sheds. And she found a bunch of them.
BROWN: And at what point in the process, Mike, did you begin to have a sense of what you had?
BOETTCHER: Early on, when I had Ingrid meet me in a Middle Eastern country -- not Israel, but an Arab country -- where we met with some people there who were experts in this field, and their eyebrows went up. And that's when I knew that this was something big.
Ingrid knew it much earlier, when she was with the satellite technician Eddie Maloof (ph), who speaks Arabic -- the CNN technician -- and he said, "these documents are important."
He said the title -- and here's the title. Here's the title page Aaron. Right here, in magic marker, it says "super bomb." And he said, "these documents are important."
BROWN: A little bit on the substance here. It does seem that to -- to put this sort of thing together, you have to have a considerable amount of scientific expertise.
Is it surprising to American intelligence or other intelligence agencies that you've been trying to deal with here that al Qaeda has the kind -- or had the kind -- of scientific expertise to at least get this far down the road?
BOETTCHER: Yes, they are surprised. They are surprised that they had really been this serious about a nuclear weapons program. Now, they had known they were trying to acquire nuclear materials, that they had certain plans, but they didn't think they were that sophisticated.
Because basically what we have here, Aaron, is a chain of evidence. We have source material used by professors who knew what they were talking about, who then taught it to students.
And we have all of their notes. They all match. Left behind on purpose. They mimieographed a lot of this, photocopied it, and if it is a serious document or serious documents, there were short cuts in there that our experts said they were very surprised that they knew about.
BROWN: Michael, congratulations. It's a terrific story. Nice work for you and all the people who work with you. Thank you very much.
BOETTCHER: Thanks a lot.
BROWN: Mike Boettcher in Atlanta with us tonight.
Coming up, "Segment 7." We go back to Enron. One storyline that's been a bit overlooked and under-reported. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Finally from us tonight: "Segment 7." We're all taught in this business to follow the money. And that's pretty much what we're doing here. It occurred to us that at some point, in all the talk of shadow partnerships and pictures of shredded documents, that perhaps we're missing a key part of the story.
It seems that most of what Enron did was perfectly legal. It had something like 900 offshore entities or companies that allowed it to avoid federal income taxes in four out of the last five years. Legal.
It wasn't required by law to show all its debt, or even clearly state what it earned. And maybe that is the worst part of it, that the company -- and it's not alone in this-- simply worked the finance system to perfection.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
BROWN: Life would be simplier if it worked this way: Enron gave millions of dollars to politicians, and those politicians bailed the failing company out. But life is rarely that simple. So consider this instead.
JIM THURBER, PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Enron spent hundreds of thousands of dollars -- maybe millions of dollars -- lobbying over the last decade to keep issues off the agenda that would hurt them.
BROWN: Jim Thurber is a political science professor who is an expert on the art of lobbying.
THURBER: They kept committees from -- in Congress from doing oversight hearings of their activites. They pushed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- a regulatory agency that is very important to their company -- from regulating their activites.
BROWN: What Enron did was, more or less, what many huge companies have done, and are doing in Washington today: spending a great deal of money to ensure, as best they can, that their interests are protected.
CRAIG CRAWFORD, "THE HOTLINE" EXECUTIVE PUBLISHER: It's not just about contributions to campaigns, and in many ways that's one of the least things they do.
The $7 million Enron spent on lobbying expenses in Washington in the last couple of years, things like writing legislation -- companies write the laws, many times -- and did that in -- in this case for deregulation of their various industries.
Plane trips for politicians. President Bush rode on Enron jets. Reimbursed them -- we don't know how much, if it was enough -- and also hiring aides. Aides like Lawrence Lindsay, now the president's chief economic advisor, who did work for Enron.
Spouses of important people were hired, too. Congressman Tom DeLay is from Houston, Enron's headquarters. His wife worked for an Enron lobbying firm. Senator Phil Gramm's wife, Wendy, was on Enron's board, named after she resigned as chairman of the federal commission which regulates commodity futures trading.
THURBER: Enron was dealing with the future prices of kilowatts. It's gambling of sorts, but you know, if you know what's going to happen in the future, it's not much of a gamble.
And the Futures Commodities Board, which handles regulation over commodities, decided not to regulate it. They knew that ahead of time. A senator's wife, Wendy Gramm, was the chair of that -- of that board. She was hired after she was chair of the board by Enron.
BROWN: That's just the way it's been in Washington, and the way it's likely to stay.
CRAWFORD: I think members of Congress would rather swig hemlock than actually change the way they raise money. So I don't really think we're going to see significant change.
But there will be something called campaign finance reform. And it may do some good on the edges, but in the long run, controlling the flow of money in Washington is really a fool's errand. It's not going to stop.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
BROWN: Not a very cheery note to leave you on. But we'll leave you on it nevertheless. We'll see you tomorrow at 10:00. Good night from all of us at NEWSNIGHT.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
