Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Interview With Marty Meehan; Interview With Vito Fossella

Aired January 24, 2002 - 19:30   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.
BOB NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight, Congress opens its investigation of Enron. But should lawmakers be investigating themselves? Are they to blame? And later -- the CROSSFIRE court is in session. Two lawyers join us to argue the case of John Walker Lindh.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the crossfire, Democratic Congressman Marty Meehan of Massachusetts and Republican Congressman Vito Fossella from New York, member of the Energy Committee. And later, former federal prosecutor Doug Gansler and Criminal Defense Attorney Ron Sullivan.

NOVAK: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Congress is back in town. And today it began the first two of nine investigations of the Enron scandal. Today one in the House, the other in the Senate.

But wait a minute. Aren't members of Congress implicated in these scandals? Congressman self-righteously grilled Arthur Andersen auditors today, but 49 of the 70 members of the House Financial House Committee have pulled in $300,000 worth of political contribution from Andersen and Enron in the last decade. And two-thirds of the Senate committee that opened its hearings today collected more than $70,000 from the investigation targets. Their number including Chairman Joe Lieberman. And some of the lawmakers were lobbying for easier auditing rules. Who will investigate the congressional investigators? We will. At least in the next few minutes -- Bill Press.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: And, Congressman Fossella, let me start with you. Three times, the former chairman of the SEC, Arthur Levitt, went in front of Congress with proposed regulations to tighten up controls over the big accounting firms. According to your press, Secretary, told us today, you opposed those proposals. At the same time, you accepted $85,986 dollars in campaign contributions from the big accounting firms. Will you look me right in the eye and tell me there's no connection between the money you took from those firms and the support you gave those firms?

REP. VITO FOSSELLA (R-NY), ENERGY COMMITTEE: Yes, but beyond that, I think what was driving this debate and this topic right now is obviously what's happened in very a sad situation at Enron, where the business imploding and bringing down a lot of other folks. What you have, and I feel terrible for folks who have lost their life savings in some instances, but what has responded in kind, is not only the congressional investigations that Bob has just alluded to, but you have the SEC, you have the Justice Department. And ultimately, if there is a criminal element to this, those individuals should be prosecuted.

But it does not mean that everybody who works for an accounting firm or everybody who works in corporate America is a bad person. I don't share that view. There are a lot of hard working Americans who work for these firms. And I think Congress should establish the rules under which those firms should govern, and when the penalties are severe enough, it would deter them.

As for the SEC, that you brought up the rule, I think what happened basically was in July of 2000, the SEC wanted to change those rules within a couple of months on the eve of the November elections. And what we suggested at the time was just to open this up for part of the debate, not speaking to the merits of this case.

PRESS: Now congressman, it started long before that. And what we saw with Enron, I think, the problem is that Andersen was in bed with Enron. I mean -- and what Levitt was saying is you can't be an accounting firm and a consulting firm to the same company at the same time. If had happened, would you have to agree, if that rule had passed, the Congress had passed it, A, Enron would not have happened. And B, by not passing those rules, Congress is to blame partly at least for Enron's collapse.

FOSSELLA: I don't see how you can draw that conclusion.

PRESS: I think it's evident.

FOSSELLA: If -- basically, as I understand Enron, and it's unfolding day to day. You couldn't say today what could have been said two weeks. And I suggest that 10 days or two weeks from now, the story's going to continue to unfold. Evidently there were some very stupid people or bad people working with Enron, that made some risky schemes, risky investments, trying to hide it from not only honest employees of Enron, but their investors, shareholders, perhaps the board, we don't know. I don't know how what you're suggesting would have solved that problem at this point in time.

NOVAK: Martin, you Democrats been having a field day for a couple weeks, blaming the economic catastrophe on Republican administration. But in fact, if John, I agree with Bill. Congress is to blame, Democrats and Republicans alike. If you -- partially to blame. If John Ashcroft, the attorney general of the United States, recuses himself from this investigation, shouldn't all the members of Congress who have received Enron funds, just as John Ashcroft did, recuse themselves, instead of getting up there and flicking their lapels and saying we're holier than thous to the Andersen auditors?

REP. MARTY MEEHAN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Well, if we did that, it wouldn't probably be enough people to conduct the investigation in Congress. But the reason -- the legal standard is different.

When you oversee a criminal investigation, there are grand jury minutes involved, there are a lot of secrecy to a criminal investigation. That's why the attorney general decided to recuse himself. And it's probably best that he did.

Look, members of Congress have a wonderful opportunity to do something positive in light of all of that. We had 218 people, as of today sign a discharge petition to pass campaign finance reform, to end the soft money system.

Do you know Enron contributed $4 million over the last decade in soft unregulated money. That's not the individual contributions that they contribute. That members of Congress run every two years. And they can defend whatever they took and why they took it. We have unique opportunity to do something positive and that's pass campaign finance reform.

NOVAK: See, Congressman, it's very interesting. The Democrats have not wanted this administration to escape the past. And I'm not going to let the Democrats in Congress escape the past, including St. Joseph. You know who St. Joseph is?

MEEHAN: Me.

NOVAK: No, that's Joe Lieberman.

MEEHAN: Oh, all right.

NOVAK: Joe Lieberman, who received Enron contributions and lobbied the SEC to go soft on the auditing. And I'd like you to listen to what one of the great heroes of Massachusetts, Ralph Nader, has to say about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RALPH NADER, CONSUMER ADVOCATE: Senator Joe Lieberman has carried the water big time for the accounting firms and was very antagonistic to Chairman Levitt of the Securities Exchange Commission's effort to reform that profession.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: How could Joe Lieberman in good conscious conduct this investigation?

MEEHAN: Well, first of all, all these hearings are going to be in public. Everyone who takes any contribution from anyone will be accountable for their actions, both in the public sector and the money that they took. And we should really not jump to conclusions on either side here.

PRESS: Oh.

MEEHAN: Let's conduct a competent investigation and see what happens.

PRESS: That's a change.

MEEHAN: In the meantime, Bob, can you and I agree that we should pass the Shays/Meehan bill in the House of Representatives? And wouldn't that be something positive for the Congress could do? You know?

PRESS: Well, it does seem to me, Congressman Fossella, that there are lessons we learn from these crises that we face in this country. Let's look at the Enron crisis. Certainly one of the lessons learned.

When you look at the last -- since 1990, you mentioned Enron's contribution, $53 million across the Congress and the Senate, from the big accounting firms. I mean, clearly, the Congress is awash in money. A lot of it's soft money. A lot of it direct money to members of the Senate and the members of the House. Doesn't this prove, if anything ever did, the need to pass this Shays/Meehan bill? Are you for it now?

FOSSELLA: Well first off, this costs a lot of money to run political advertising on this network, as well as others.

PRESS: Is that a no?

FOSSELLA: And I happen to believe it's a healthy thing for this country, unique thing, to have Americans be able to participate, whether through voting in their own right, to hand out literature.

MEEHAN: We're talking about precinct's money though. We're talk about corporations.

FOSSELLA: Or might I might add the right to participate and spend money to support candidates of their choosing, notwithstanding all the millions...

MEEHAN: Well, unlimited.

FOSSELLA: Well...

MEEHAN: But not as unlimited amounts of money. Vito, the question is whether or not, we should...

FOSSELLA: So I think there's a misnomer here that people are not for campaign finance reform. There are different ways to reform the system. Marty has his way. There are other people, I think, of goodwill on theirs. And for those who want to reform it, as I would, we'd probably focus more on disclosure and encouraging people to participate in the system, which is what America's all about. Don't you think so?

PRESS: Do you realize what it looks like? I mean, it looks like to the people of this country that you're for sale. And I'm saying you are, but it looks that way. And so let me ask you, why do you think Enron and Andersen and Deloitte Touche and all those other firms, why do they give that money if not to buy your votes and get your access?

FOSSELLA: Well, you'd have to ask them.

MEEHAN: Vito, can't we agree, though -- can't we agree that the unlimited amounts of money... FOSSELLA: Let me just finish answering Bill's question. I think at the end of the day, you have to be accountable to the people who send you to office. And people judge you on the decisions you make. If there are those who in Congress or any other office are in it for a quid pro quo, then ultimately the people who should...

MEEHAN: Who's going to hold these parties accountable? Both parties took $4 million? Who holds them accountable? They don't run every two years.

NOVAK: We just got one more minute left, before we take a break. You talk about...

MEEHAN: Is that our minute?

NOVAK: Yes, you talk about campaign finance reform. And I'd like to talk about chutzpah reform. I don't know if you were watch C-SPAN this morning, but Peter Deutsche, Democrat of Florida from the famous Palm Beach district, was on. And he was just attacking the administration for saying this is responsible when he received contributions from Enron himself.

Now he said it was just a little bit of money. But surely, as a reformer, that takes a lot. You had to say that takes chutzpah to say I'm only a little bit pregnant, isn't it?

MEEHAN: Well, look at, I think we have to wait and see where the facts and the evidence lead in the investigation. But surely, we can agree, Vito. The passing...

NOVAK: You didn't answer my question.

MEEHAN: Look at, there has to be investigation that takes place. And I think the investigation should be based on facts and evidence. There are a lot of members of Congress who take a lot of money from a lot of different places. We're trying to pass a bill that I think goes -- heads in the right direction.

PRESS: That minute is up. Congressman Vito Fossella, thanks for coming in. Congressman Marty Meehan. I'm sure we'll see you again. The debate in campaign finance reform. And Enron is just starting.

But when we come back after this break, it may be months before John Walker's trial begins in federal court, but you don't have to wait that long. In just a couple of minutes, his trial begins right here in the CROSSFIRE court. Two lawyers make the cases for and against. Bob and I will wield the gavel. Order in the court.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: Hear ye, hear ye, all rise. The CROSSFIRE court is in session. The honorable Bill Press and Robert Novak presiding.

PRESS: Order in the court! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you're about to hear the case of the United States of America versus John Walker Lindh, charged with conspiring to kill Americans and providing assistance to a terrorist organization. In court today for the defense, representing Mr. Walker, attorney Ron Sullivan. For the prosecution, representing the United States, attorney Douglas Gansler.

Mr. Gansler, you've got the first word. In 60 seconds, what is the government's case against Mr. Walker?

DOUGLAS GANSLER, ATTORNEY: Every American has the right to their religious beliefs. but when those religious beliefs transcend into conduct that jeopardizes people's lives, they no longer are protected by our constitution. That's what we have here with Mr. Walker.

He's a traitor. He's a terrorist. He joined with Osama bin Laden, knowingly. And he fought alongside the al Qaeda against American soldiers and American people. We know that because he provided a full confession, talking about what he knew, when he knew it, and the intent upon which he committed these acts. In short, he fought in a war against the United States. Fortunately his side lost. And now he must be punished for those acts.

NOVAK: For the defense, Mr. Ronald Sullivan.

RONALD SULLIVAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, this is not a case about a terrorist. This is a case about a very young, very impressionable teenager who converted to Islam very early in life. He traveled overseas to Yemen, then to Afghanistan, then to Pakistan, then to Afghanistan. And during the course of those travels, he came into contact with some very zealous fundamentalist persons who practiced Islam.

He then went to fight against the Taliban, I mean against the Northern Alliance, not against the United States. Indeed, when the facts are out, the facts will demonstrate that John Walker never engaged in any offensive act against an American citizen, nor did he aid, abet or facilitate an offensive act against an American citizen.

PRESS: Counselor, quick rebuttal?

GANSLER: Well, the problem with the counsel's position is that Mr. Walker's own words belie that. He said this is what I did, I was proud to do it. I knew that Osama bin Laden had sent suicide people over to the United States to commit these acts. I then went to defend Osama bin Laden against American troops. And I acted and I fought alongside the al Qaeda against the United States people. And many people died.

NOVAK: Rebuttal, Mr. Sullivan.

SULLIVAN: That's actually not quite accurate. When expressly given the opportunity to go and fight against Americans and Israelis, John Walker declined. He said no, I will go to Afghanistan and I will fight against the Northern Alliance.

Significantly, as soon as the U.S. dropped bombs when Walker and his comrades were fighting against the Northern Alliance, what happened? John Walker retreated to Kandahar, I believe it was. Maybe Konduz. And shortly thereafter, surrendered. There's no evidence that he did any offensive act, ever shot anything at any American soldier or airplane.

NOVAK: May it please the court and, I'm the court. Isn't it true that he told his interrogators, he told the -- CNN that he had gone to fight with them against the Americans who were invading. He said that himself.

SULLIVAN: He said he was going to fight and wanted to fight against the Northern Alliance.

NOVAK: He said the Americans.

SULLIVAN: His view was that he wanted to help the Taliban establish a pure Islamic state in Afghanistan. Once the Americans came, the facts will clearly demonstrate that he did not fight against them, but rather he retreated and he surrendered. And I defy anyone to give one example of Mr. Walker's shooting or doing any offensive act against an American. It doesn't exist.

PRESS: Here's my problem, counselor. And I want to add that unlike my fellow jurist, the honorable Robert Novak, this is probably the only time, by the way, that Bob Novak or I will be called the honorable.

NOVAK: In your case anyway.

PRESS: That I'm trying to keep an open mind in this case. But I've got a problem with the fact that Mr. Walker -- or the part the team, says that for 54 days, he asked for an attorney. He asked to see an attorney. He wanted an attorney. He was denied that right by the United States of American. Isn't his case therefore invalidly in front of court?

GANSLER: Well, that's what they're going to say. They have to say that because he decided that would waive his constitutional rights, both orally and written.

PRESS: But he says he didn't, counsel. So your case collapses. You don't have a case.

GANSLER: Well, he can say whatever he wants. Except for, he actually signed the form. And besides, even if his confession is somehow suppressed, and will not. We would argue, there's no constitutional grounds to do so, the confession he gave to CNN and the full interview to CNN. They're not a state actor. That comes in. And if he takes the stand, his entire confession would come any way.

NOVAK: Isn't it irrelevant and should be thrown out of court these claims that I didn't know what I was signing? He signed it. He wasn't tortured.

SULLIVAN: Well, we don't know that. I mean, a judge much like yourself, will have to make that determination.

PRESS: God forbid.

SULLIVAN: He says that he asked for a lawyer and was denied access to a lawyer. Once he asked for a lawyer, invoking his right to counsel, then as Doug well knows, the government cannot then keep asking you well, do you want to waive your rights? Do you want to talk to us?

That in of itself is a violation. It's a problem because our system has learned through the years that we do not trust the reliability of statements that are given, either under coercion or that are not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given.

PRESS: Point of order, counsel, one of your many charges is that John Walker Lindh is guilty of conspiring to kill Americans. What evidence do you have that John Walker ever took up arms against an American, ever fired a shot at an American, ever had specific intent to fight against Americans, specific evidence?

NOVAK: I object to that question and...

PRESS: I overrule you.

GANSLER: It's a fair question. The problem is it's not consistent with the law. What he's been...

PRESS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Evidence is consistent with the law. Without the evidence, there is no law.

GANSLER: But he's not being charged with murder. He's being charged with conspiracy to commit murder. And all he has to do is take one act in furtherance of that. That would be knowingly participating, for example, in seven weeks of a terrorist camp, meeting privately with bin Laden and then going out and fighting Americans.

PRESS: Counsel, I also went to law school. I know that he has to have -- I'm sorry specific intent to kill Americans. You don't see it. Where is it?

GANSLER: Yes, you do see it in his confession.

NOVAK: All right, when he says, counselor...

PRESS: Which is invalid.

NOVAK: When Mr. John Walker Lindh says that he knew, he knew about Taliban and al Qaeda going to America to kill people, isn't he part of the conspiracy? And that's conspiracy to commit murder?

SULLIVAN: Not necessarily. For conspiracy, you need three elements. You need an agreement. You need for the defendant, the specific defendant, to join the agreement. And you need one...

NOVAK: Well, I rule that out of order.

SULLIVAN: ..one of the conspirators to engage in an overt act. He never joined the agreement. The second element, I think, is going to be difficult for the government to prove because when given the opportunity, he expressly, absolutely expressly declined to engage in any acts against Americans and/or Israelis. He said no. I'll fight against the Northern Alliance. There is no conspiracy.

NOVAK: Well then what was he doing fighting, when he knew that the Americans were going to be there? He knew was going into combat against Americans. He told CNN that.

SULLIVAN: If you recall at the time, Americans were not in the ground. They were in the air, they were primarily in the air. He was fighting against Afghans.

NOVAK: He talked to the CIA and who was murdered.

PRESS: It does seem to me, counsel, that you are trying to reinvent the entire system. Here you are in this federal court saying that you want this young man sent to life, because of what he said on CNN. I mean, is this now the entire system of law in this country is based on what people like you or like John Walker or us say on CNN?

GANSLER: He should spent the rest of his life jail, because he's a traitor and he took up...

PRESS: So why don't charge him with treason, counselor?

GANSLER: Because it's unclear whether he fits under the definition of treason, as defined by the United States.

PRESS: Then you can't call him a traitor?

GANSLER: But he certainly fits under the commonsense definition of a traitor. And he will be probably one day tried for treason because there's some evidentiary problems that the United States have to get over. And we think they'll be able to do so.

PRESS: Isn't it true, counsel, that they didn't charge them with treason because...

GANSLER: Not at this point.

SULLIVAN: I agree. Well, said.

NOVAK: All right, this trial is over. And we now submit the case to the jury. The people out there. They'll have to vote. Bill Press and I -- thank you very much counselor Sullivan, counselor Gansler -- Bill Press and I will return with fired up. Laura Bush faces Hillary Clinton on Capitol Hill.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Welcome back. On September 11, Laura Bush was about to testify about children's learning before Senator Ted Kennedy's committee, when the terrorists attacked. And she was taken to a secret bunker.

Today, she delivered her long-delayed testimony before the Senate committee that includes Senator Hillary Clinton. That raising some questions. Is the present First Lady getting softer treatment than her predecessor? And does she deserve to? Bill?

PRESS: Bob, you know, I admire First Lady Laura Bush. I think she is getting good treatment. I think she deserves it because what she's about reading, about early education. But you know, Bob, you and those Republicans on the hill are going to burn in hell for the way you treated First Lady Hillary Clinton. Unfair.

NOVAK: You know enough about theology to know that wasn't a sin, because she was Madame Defarge. She is a mean lady who has done a lot of bad things. Laura Bush is some kind of person that you can really admire. I grant...

PRESS: But you still can't give Hillary her dues. She was a great First Lady. And now she's a great U.S. senator, Bob. Stop being so mean and personal against her.

NOVAK: She's a better senator than she was a First Lady. She was a disgrace to the country as a First Lady.

PRESS: You've just (INAUDIBLE).

NOVAK: And the reason Mrs. Bush gets better treatment, she's a nicer person.

PRESS: No, no, no. Hillary's a great person, Bob. You just didn't like her politics. OK. Hey, that's it for us now, guys. But remember, we love to hear from you. Want to hear from you. Send us your e-mails to crossfire@cnn.com. We'll read as many of them as we can on the air starting tomorrow night. And from the left, I'm Bill Press. Thanks for joining us. Good-night for CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: The right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com