Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Romney Wants More Drilling, Less Regulation; Clinton Sees Clear Choice Between Candidates; Obama Says Romney/Ryan Bad for Classrooms; Ex Penn State President Speaks Out.
Aired August 23, 2012 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Carol Costello, thank you so much.
Hi everybody, good to have you with us. It's 11:00 right here on the East Coast and it's 8:00 on the West Coast.
Let's get started with this. A warning. And it comes from the feds that anarchists, extremists might have their eyes on the upcoming political conventions. And a bulletin has now been issued by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. And it says that infrastructure is the target.
Specifically, it mentions a group that could be planning to blockade bridges like the Sunshine Skyway, bridges around Tampa. That's the site of the Republican convention. It's only a few days away.
CNN's Fran Townsend and Jill Dougherty, joining us now with details on this unsettling development.
Let me start with you, Fran. This is unusual to have this kind of a warning, not a lot of specifics, and, if I'm one of the 50,000 or so people on my way to Tampa, I want to know specifics.
FRANCES FRAGOS TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Sure. The fact that the warning itself is not very specific. That's par for the course. They rarely tell us what's causing, what's behind these sorts of warnings.
But, Ashleigh, I will tell you state and local police train for these sorts of events 365 days a year. We saw these sorts of protests in New York and in Boston around the conventions there.
This is kind of -- I'm not surprised to see this sort of warning and, frankly, these are the sorts of anti-globalization kinds of protests that we're accustomed to.
In fact, U.S. officials are much more adept at handling them than, say, our Italian counterparts during the G-8 summit where the protests really got out of hand by these groups.
So, I think you'll find that police are very well-prepared for it. BANFIELD: Jill Dougherty, weigh in, if you will, for me. The nugget that I seized upon in some of this information was that there may be possible IEDs and, when I hear IEDs, I think Iraq, I think Afghanistan, I think death, I think destruction and, yet, Jill, I don't know that we're hearing about people being targets.
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that I think is the most worrisome thing of this.
I totally agree with Fran that this is not unexpected. I mean, living here in D.C., you see it whenever they have anything at the World Bank or the IMF.
But this notice about the improvised explosive devices is worrisome. They're not talking necessarily about having these groups target people. It's more the infrastructure and, as they point out, things like bridges or means of transportation, things like that. And that's the worrisome thing.
They do also, the FBI and DHS, also say that one kind of telltale sign is surveillance by these groups. They're usually pretty good at checking out locations beforehand and that might be one thing that they would be watching for in advance.
BANFIELD: So, Fran, as our national security contributor, maybe you could advise me or get me to feel better about all of my colleagues and everybody else going to the convention on Monday.
What do the feds do to help the locals or have they already done this and we're just getting the information now? But how do the feds take what they're giving us now and help the locals and the authorities in Tampa to translate into action to make sure we're all going to be OK?
TOWNSEND: Well, both conventions will be deemed what we call it at the Department of Homeland Security a "national security special event." That means there's a flood of federal resources way before the ever convention starts.
There will be an on-scene federal commander who links up with the state and locals that feeds them any specific intelligence. We're not, in the public, being told about that, but the state and locals will be.
The state and locals will have an increased presence both, you know, on infrastructure, around. They, themselves, will be doing counter-surveillance, looking for anybody who may be trying to plan an incident against infrastructure.
And I think that you'll see a large, police, uniformed presence. In addition, there'll be undercover folks doing counter-surveillance, law enforcement folks, there, and they will be very closely linked up, real-time sharing information between federal officials and the state and locals.
And, so, they'll be -- it will probably be the safest place to be, frankly, because of the extraordinary amount of resources that get flooded in advance and then through the event.
BANFIELD: Yeah, well, I sure hope so. Fran, Jill, thank you both. I do appreciate it.
So, for folks at the RNC, my heart really goes out to them because they're not only dealing with this garbage, the threat of violence. They're dealing with the threat of Mother Nature, as well, because Tropical Storm Isaac is barreling now towards the Dominican Republic.
Have a look at all that red on the map. Guess what else is in the crosshairs here? Haiti. There could be deadly flooding here. There could be mudslides. All of this possibly before slamming into the Florida Keys as a Cat 1 hurricane on Sunday.
You know that this is not the first time that Florida has faced a major storm threat, but Governor Scott is saying it is different this time. As we just said, 50,000 people either on trains, planes, automobiles, on their way to Tampa for the Republican National Convention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT (R), FLORIDA: Isaac's a unique storm in this regard. It has the potential to threaten a major convention designated a "special national security event."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Chad Myers?
CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Yes?
BANFIELD: Serious enough for me to come over and join you at the weather wall because we talked yesterday and it looked like there was a big window.
Is the window getting smaller? Is it getting more at risk for the folks who are planning this convention?
MYERS: This is a pre-planned cone. They plan how out this cone is, how big it is here, how big it is here, here and here.
So, the closer the storm gets to you, the smaller your cone is, the smaller your error is. So, we are getting closer and this is the latest trek. This is the very, very latest. This is the 11:00 advisory from the Hurricane Center.
They have shifted the storm about 100 miles to the center of the line, a hundred miles west of Tampa now, just a little bit left of where it was yesterday. That's good because the models are kind of in consensus over here somewhere into the Gulf of Mexico.
That does not bode well for the people on the Gulf Coast, if it truly does miss Florida, but you have to understand this is still a possibility. There are still models over here. And this is still a possibility. There are still models over here.
In fact, let me show them to you. There is the storm right now. It's very impressive. It's a lot more purple than it was yesterday. That means the tops of the storms are much higher, colder and more intense.
BANFIELD: Why is that a problem?
MYERS: It's a problem because that shows that this thing will eventually will intensify. It's kept at 40-miles-per-hour. Well, you thought, 40-miles-per-hour, I drive faster than that. That's no big deal.
But when that thing starts to get red and orange and purple right over the top of the center of circulation, that's when you begin to get an eye and that's how it can form rather quickly.
There are the models, many of them right over Haiti.
BANFIELD: And that - yeah, the narrow cone, it went right - it almost skipped the bottom part of the Dominican Republic and then it hit almost all of Haiti.
MYERS: That's exactly what we're worried about next. It's 200- miles south of Puerto Rico. There's still - there's squalls and showers in Puerto Rico. That's OK.
The people of - it'll hit Port-Au-Prince. I mean, you're talking 400,000 people that live in tents.
BANFIELD: Two-and-a-half years ago and they're still in the tent cities?
MYERS: They're still in tent cities.
BANFIELD: And they can't stand a rain storm, let alone a tropical storm, let alone a hurricane.
MYERS: If you can imagine these tents that are up there being blown around in 80-mile-per-hour winds and people in the way ...
BANFIELD: No, I can't.
MYERS: ... and that's what we're dealing with now.
BANFIELD: OK, notwithstanding what's coming and we're going to be reporting on that, just quickly, because clearly, 50,000 people about to fly in or take a train or drive to Tampa, if it's bad, if it's a hurricane, are they safe inside that center?
Is that the safest place to be? Will they ever be able to get out of there? I mean, what are the real implications for this convention?
MYERS: Great question and I have a great map to show you. Here's Tampa itself and if you ever - you ever gone out of Tampa on a cruise ship?
BANFIELD: Well ...
MYERS: I have.
BANFIELD: I've been to Tampa ...
MYERS: Well, there you go.
BANFIELD: ... in a row boat, but thank you.
MYERS: I hope it wasn't the (INAUDIBLE) - but there you go. That is where the cruise ship terminal is. Here's downtown and everything you see in here in red will flood in a Category 1 hurricane and that's what we are talking about now, a Category 1 hurricane.
Here's the air force base and, so, we're not talking about areas north in Pinellas County and Hillsborough. You get away from the bay itself and Tampa's OK, but you start putting people down here in the convention center zone, they are going to have to get out ...
BANFIELD: OK.
MYERS: ... if this happens.
BANFIELD: If this happens. If it doesn't happen and I'm just going to sort of push it over here.
MYERS: Sure.
BANFIELD: If it really is in the weakest outer bands, can they -- they can withstand ...
MYERS: Absolutely. No problem.
BANFIELD: ... terrible outer band storms and they're safe in all those structures and we're not going to have this kind of flooding.
MYERS: And then we'll be talking Pensacola, Panama City, maybe over toward New Orleans.
BANFIELD: Transportation, though, could be a really bummer.
MYERS: Oh, certainly.
BANFIELD: So, everybody's got to get on with their flights and know what they're doing.
I knew you'd have the answers. All right, Chad, thank you. Keep a look on this for us.
MYERS: I will, of course.
BANFIELD: All right, well, while Chad does that, we also want to keep you posted, as well, on the very latest as Tropical Storm Isaac makes its path. Just go to CNN.com, always a good place to go. Back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: A Navy SEAL using a pen name -- that's not your own name -- has written a book that gives a firsthand account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The publisher of the book says it's due out on September 11th. That is a convenient date.
But there's a catch to all of this. The U.S. military has not approved it. In fact, the U.S. military hasn't seen it.
We've got Barbara Starr live with us from the Pentagon. I have a question. How on earth does a SEAL publish a book without a security review?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, that is a good question. Look, there's freedom of speech in this country, Ashleigh. He can publish whatever he wants, but his problem is going to be if there's any inadvertent disclosure of classified information in the book.
That's what military commanders are worried about. That's why they want to read it and see what's in there because most of the team members, we're told, that were there that night are still serving in the SEAL community in very much secret positions.
So, there's a lot of concern that this could disclose information and that it could inadvertently disclose identities.
You see the cover of the book there, "No Easy Day." That's kind of the watchword right now for the U.S. special operations community.
They have been through a ton of publicity about this raid and they are increasingly concerned that there could be these inadvertent disclosures.
Mark Owen is the pen name, but I have to tell you. Inside the SEAL Community, they know exactly who this guy is.
BANFIELD: Oh, I would think without question.
So, I've got a two-parter here. Number one, if it's already - I mean, we're a couple of weeks from publishing. Does that mean the Pentagon's probably not going to get a copy before it goes out and, if they get a copy and they don't like what's in it, can they do anything about it?
STARR: Well, we have talked to a number of very senior military officials and they believe they will get their hands on a copy of this book within hours, if not the next 24-to-48 hours, so that they can have a look at it.
What can they do? You know, that becomes a legal question. I don't think they can stop publication of the book, per se, but the SEAL who wrote it could be subject to disciplinary action, even though he is out of the military. Again, because it was a classified mission and, once you're on a classified mission, it's classified forever. You don't get to decide that you want to disclose some of the information.
The word is that, you know, they say that the SEAL and the writer he worked with tried very hard not to disclose anything, but top-level commanders want to see it with their own eyes.
BANFIELD: But that was my point exactly, Barbara. Once a SEAL, always a SEAL, even when you're not a SEAL, when it comes to the code.
Barbara Starr, thank you.
Also, in addition to what Barbara just said, there is a movie that's coming out about the hunt for bin Laden. You've probably heard a lot about the complaints, you know, the Obama administration leaked information.
Well, aside from that complaint of leaking information, the movie is from the same folks who brought us that movie, "The Hurt Locker." That won an Oscar for best picture and that movie is coming out in December.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: When is a rape not a rape? Think about it. You've been watching the news this week. It has become pretty darn clear. Rape is rape. You can't sugarcoat it.
Even the GOP vice presidential candidate has come out, firmly stating, rape is rape, period, no splitting hairs.
However, that is not exactly Paul Ryan's stance just a year ago. In fact, it's not what he has stood behind three different times over the last three years.
Back in 2010 and 2011, Congressman Paul Ryan cosponsored a bill called "The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It barred any federal funding for abortions, except in specific cases, different kinds of rape, like forcible rape, as opposed to, say, statutory rape.
So, that term, "forcible rape," was eventually dropped from the bill, but critics said it didn't include the victims of stat rape or victims of rape who'd been drugged. The bill passed the House, but it didn't get through the Senate.
And guess who the co-sponsor of Paul Ryan's bill was? I'll give you like three seconds. It was Congressman Todd Akin, the man behind this week's "legitimate rape" debate, that gaffe heard around the world, a man the Republicans, including Paul Ryan, are now desperately trying to distance themselves from.
And that distance could not have been more cavernous than when Paul Ryan was pressed by a reporter yesterday on just what exactly, Mr. Congressman, you meant when, you know, you and Mr. Akin were talking about forcible rape in that bill. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You sponsored legislation that has the language "forcible rape." What is forcible rape?
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN (R), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Rape is rape, period. End of story.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, that "forcible rape" language meant nothing to you at the time?
RYAN: Rape is rape and there's no splitting hairs over rape.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: And there you have it. No splitting hairs over rape.
This is not the only instance. In 2009, Congressman Ryan also supported the, quote, "limitations on abortion mandates," end quote, an amendment that also included the term "forcible rape." It was also deleted.
So, joining me now is CNN legal contributor, Paul Callan, because he's the person I call when I need to get off the ledge. It's been driving me crazy. The minute this thing came out, it's been driving me crazy.
Define for me, legally, sir, if there is such a thing as "forcible rape."
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, and I just want to start out and be a little bit of a contrarian with you here, Ashleigh, and that is, Akin probably agreed with Obama when Obama opposed gay marriage in 2008.
So, I don't think just because Ryan might be consistent with some of Akin's positions makes them, you know, two peas in a pod. It may or it may not.
And on this issue of rape, it's a real nuanced question. I mean, up until the 1970s, a woman basically had to prove that she was maimed practically during the course of a sexual encounter. She needed corroboration of her complaint of rape.
And, of course, these statutes have been changed, radically, in recent years as we've taken a different look at it. They are different from state to state as to what constitutes a rape.
But the one thing that's very, very consistent is that, if a woman does not consent to the sexual encounter, if she's not married, it's probably - even if she is married, by the way, if she does not consent, it's still rape and, certainly, if force is used, it is rape.
BANFIELD: OK, so ...
CALLAN: The reason ... BANFIELD: ... I just think force can be so many different things. It can be a "rufie." It can be threats that are verbal. There can be all sorts of things that are "force."
My question is, is "forcible rape" or this notion of it the same sort of thing as the difference between assault and aggravated assault?
CALLAN: It's -- the law, basically, has eliminated that difference with respect to rape. The law basically says that any kind of force that overcomes a woman's resistance to having sex is rape. And the only way that we consider force really in the criminal law is at the time of sentencing.
But you had mentioned earlier statutory rape which is another very, very interesting thing because ...
BANFIELD: Like a 13-year-old who has so-called "consensual sex" in her mind or his mind, with, like, I don't know, a 20-year-old?
CALLAN: OK, or how about a 40-year-old or 50-year-old? People would say clearly that's rape. That should be punished heavily and maybe she should have the right to have an abortion, if you believe that abortion should be readily available.
But let me give you a harder question. California, I think the age of consent is 18. Let's say a young man is maybe 20- or 21-years old and has sex with a woman who's one day from her 18th birthday. Is that rape?
BANFIELD: OK, so, let's just be clear ...
CALLAN: In California, it might be, you know?
BANFIELD: Let me just be really clear. It's almost a yes-or-no question here and I do need it in that timeframe.
So, the 13-year-old who has the sex with the 19-year-old and that's considered statutory rape. Under this "forcible rape" clause, it would mean you don't qualify for that exemption of, you know, rape, incest or health of the mother?
CALLAN: You're absolutely correct about. You would not. That would not qualify as a rape under that definition.
BANFIELD: I'm back up on the ledge now.
Paul, don't go anywhere. I've got a lot more for you. In fact, later on in the hour, I want to get you on that detail that's come out overnight about the death of Travis Carter. There's some forensics that you and I need to talk through and maybe it'll shed some light on this. Or maybe not. Can you stick around?
CALLAN: Excellent. I look forward to it. Yep.
BANFIELD: Back in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: If you are leaving the house right now, don't worry. We've got a reminder for you.
You can keep on watching us from your mobile phone. It is very cool. You can also watch CNN, live from your desktop once you get to work or wherever it is you're going. Just go to CNN.com/TV. All of the instructions are there for you.
Wow, this is awesome. Front page of "The New York Times" today, a huge, eye-opening, revelation about something we've been talking about in the last decade-plus, the cause of autism.
And the revelation is tossing up a long-standing assumption, tossing it out the window, in fact. The study is saying that it is not - it is not the age of the mom, it's the age of the dad that contributes to an increased risk of autism.
You probably already have heard the rates have skyrocketed. They've increased 78 percent in the last five years alone and scientists say, guess what? This actually might be the explanation.
Our Elizabeth Cohen, the first person I knew would have some answers on this, joining me now, live. First of all, holy cow. Wow.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: This may be part of the explanation for that increase, you know? We have more kids with autism now. We also have more dads fathering children after the age of 40.
And what these researchers did in Iceland has been described by other scientists as elegant, the way that they went about addressing this problem, right?
BANFIELD: Why?
COHEN: They looked at - because they looked at the genes. They didn't just look at the people. They looked at their genes.
So, they took 78 families and they looked at the mom's genes, the dad's genes and the child's genes. And some of the children had autism or schizophrenia and some of them didn't.
And they looked at mutations. You know, men make thousands of sperm a minute. It's - you know, some of them are going to be mutated. The question is, are you more likely to have more mutations associated with autism as you get older. Sperm gets older, right? Eggs got older. Bad things happen. Sperm get older..
BANFIELD: This is 2012. Why have we not been looking at that or, at least, known more that we are leaning towards this in research?
COHEN: Science does not always move quickly, but this is pretty astounding. And take a look at these numbers. They looked at these dads and they found at age 20, the children of these dads, if the dad was 20, the child had 25 random mutations could be linked to autism.
At age 40, they had 65 mutations, these random mutations that could be linked to autism. That is a huge difference and it's just - you know, one of the authors even said, you know, maybe men ought to start banking their sperm. You know, put it away when you're 20.
BANFIELD: But is it the same as banking your eggs? Are they the same?
COHEN: It's actually much easier, in many ways, to do sperm. We have been freezing sperm a lot longer than we've been freezing eggs, so one of them said, maybe we should think about this.
Guys, freeze your sperm when you're 20 and then you can use it, you know, when you're 40 and you're using younger sperm. It's an interesting idea.
BANFIELD: I've got to wrap it up before I ask you. This is not a message to men over 40 out there, you shouldn't have children, and, conversely, women, you're in the clear. 50? Go for it.
COHEN: Women are - you know, what we've show here is it is much more of a male issue than it is a female issue.
No, I mean, still, if you're a man who's around 40, you've got a 2 percent chance of maybe having a child with autism or schizophrenia, at the most. Two percent is still really tiny.
So, no one's saying, hey, guys, stop at 40. Just don't do it anymore.
But it is interesting, maybe you should figure this into your family planning, just as you figure maternal age into your family planning.
BANFIELD: Like, honey, you're in the conversation now. It ain't just me.
COHEN: It used to be 100-percent mom, mom, mom. No one ever thought about dad.
BANFIELD: I had my babies at 38 and 39 and I was terrified. I'll tell you, right about that, so that's why I did the "ah-ha" moment this morning.
Elizabeth, thank you so much. I do appreciate that.
Also, for more information on this for help with children with autism, CNN.com/empoweredpatient. It's great.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: Mitt Romney says he can free the United States from dependence on foreign energy in eight years. Woo-hoo. He will tell us how he will do it at a campaign stop in the next hour in New Mexico.
Wolf Blitzer had the skinny on it earlier. He's joining me now live.
OK, Wolf, I love the stump speeches of the candidates. I try to follow everyone.
(SNORING)
BANFIELD: Not quite. But this seems to be different from the middle class speech we have been hearing from the governor.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, THE SITUATION ROOM: He is laying out the speech about getting energy independent. He wants to open up oil drilling, for example, make it easier off the coast of Virginia or North Carolina, even Florida. There is a lot of resistance in Florida, as you know, as a result of the tourism that could be affected. Everybody remembers what happens with the B.P. oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He would like the U.S. to be weaned off foreign oil by 2020. That is in eight years. He wants to give the states a lot more control of how to deal with drilling on federal lands. He wants to deregulate, if you will, remove some of the deregulatory process, fast-track permits as they're calling it, and deal with the C.O.2 emissions from the Clean Air Act a lot differently than the Obama administration would like to see some of these plans.
The biggest criticism I have heard so far not only from the Democrats, from the Obama official of what Mitt Romney's energy policies have in place, is from Boone Pickens, who is an authority on this subject. He doesn't see a whole lot in terms of natural gas. He thinks natural gas is the way to go down the road. He says that there is a total silence for all practical purposes in the Romney plan as far as developing natural gas, especially for big trucks and cars and other vehicles. He thinks that's a deficiency.
But this is a good, important debate. There are serious differences between Romney and Obama on the issue. I'm thrilled they will be debating something important like this.
BANFIELD: We should also note that the Congressional Budget Office has said 70 percent of the oil and gas reserves are already open. Maybe this claim of a $1 trillion boost in revenues is a little bit over the edge. But let's wait for the governor to talk about it and we can look into it tomorrow, perhaps.
But I want to say there is a new commercial out. Been at least one news cycle, which is an eternity, since we heard from Bill Clinton. But he is back in a Democratic ad today. Let's have a look at it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper-income people and go back to deregulation. That's what got us in trouble in the first place. President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Wolf, the Republicans seemed to have harnessed him -- I don't know, was it a week ago -- suggesting his welfare policies meant work for welfare and that the president has moved away from that. Is this the president trying to reharness was is great ammo? Bill Clinton is election gold, isn't he?
BLITZER: He is. He will do a lot to energize that Democratic base. He is still loved by huge chunks by the Democrats out there and the Independents, if you will. Not by so many Republicans. He will help the president. He will speak, as you know, at Charlotte at the Democratic National Convention. He will do an exciting job energizing the convention hall and the millions of people who will be watching. But he is a great asset for the president in the final two-plus months to go before the November 6th election. I'm sure he will be out there, pretty aggressive and working pretty hard on behalf of the president of the United States. I know the Obama campaign is grateful to the former president for doing it. That new ad is very, very strong.
BANFIELD: He will have some big shoes to fill at the convention because we've got a big, long list of awesome speakers coming up at the RNC.
Wolf, we urge our viewers to tune in to your show.
BLITZER: Thank you.
BANFIELD: I know you have a lot of live stuff you're going to have to analyze.
"The Situation Room," live at 4:00? You still on? Live at 4:00 every day?
BLITZER: Every day, until they take me off the air. But right now, I'm still on the air.
BANFIELD: You'll never go. In a box, that's it.
Wolf Blitzer, thank you.
All right. When it comes to campaign issues, there is the economy and then there's everything else. But included in that everything else is education. The Obama campaign claims Romney/Ryan would be bad for American classrooms.
But our Tom Foreman checks the facts.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(CROSSTALK) TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Class size and what it means to how kids learn has been a long and hotly contested issue. President Obama and many educators clearly believe smaller classes with fewer students per teacher are the way to go. So his latest ad tries to school Mitt Romney on that subject.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Some of our children's greatest experiences have been in the smaller classrooms.
AD ANNOUNCER: But Mitt Romney says class sizes don't matter. And he supports Paul Ryan's budget, which could cut education by 20 percent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: But let's dig into the lesson plan. Did Romney really say class sizes don't matter? No.
MITT ROMNEY, (R), FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR & PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you had a class of five, that would be terrific. If you had a class of 50, that's impossible.
FOREMAN: Addressing Philadelphia teachers in May, Romney cited an international study showing that sometimes schools with small classes fail. Sometimes schools with big classes succeed. Therefore, he says, class size should not be given excessive weight when we consider how to make schools better.
(on camera): Certainly, the president's education advisors would not agree, or would they? In a 2010 speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, sure, class size may matter up to third grade.
ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: But in secondary schools, at the high-school level, districts may be able to save money without hurting students while allowing modest but smartly targeted increases in class size. In fact, teachers in Asia sometimes request larger class sizes because they think the broad distribution of students and skill levels can help accelerate student learning across the board.
FOREMAN: As for Paul Ryan's plan to cut education funding, the truth is, while education may suffer under a Ryan budget, how much would be cut and where is not clear.
So the grade for this ad? I'm tempted to give it an "F" for false. We'll go with "M" for misleading.
Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: Quick note for you. If you are heading out the door, you can continue watching CNN live on your mobile phone. You can pop us up on your desktop at work. Very easy to do. It is seamless and fabulous. Go to CNN.com/tv.
There is a reason and a good one that millions of us across the country are dog owners. And there is a reason why big famous anchors talk about their dogs all the time, and actors and everybody else. But now, bad dogs are going viral.
And the only person who can tell you the story best is our Jeanne Moos.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Humans aren't so appealing when they get shamed for bad behavior, but when a dog confesses, I hid meat in the couch, there is no hiding the cute factor.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, he looks guilty.
MOOS: Here at the blog, dogshaming, doggy sins ranging from sex -- I hump every stuffed toy I find -- to gluttony are celebrated. I eat trash. The grosser the cutter. I ate baby poop.
Owners pose their pets behind shaming signs, often with evidence included in the photo. Sometimes they send a tag team of transgressers. I puked in our crate and I ate it. I pooped by the elliptical machine. I ate Herman Melville novel.
There are even murder confessions. We killed a mocking bird.
Sure, some say, aw, poor dog, and complain of dogsploitation.
(on camera): Some people think this is mean to the dogs but --
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it isn't. No, if you take it with a grain of salt, for crying -- I mean, look at that little thing.
MOOS (voice-over): Dog owners and dog walkers in Central Park had their share of shame-worthy stories. Take Kona. He has a habit of jumping into dirty fountains.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I took him to the Hudson River last week and he started swimming to Jersey.
(LAUGHTER)
MOOS: She had to practically drag Kona out.
Barking is a popular dog-shaming topic. I bark at door bells on TV. We've never had a door bell. I have beautiful eyes. I bark at any stranger who looks into them. Ruff.
One of the most common misbehaviors seems to be eating underwear. I am an underwear-eating jerk, accompanied by the chewed up boxer briefs to prove it.
It is not eating, but drinking that gets Daphne and Augustus into trouble at the toilet.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She uses her nose to pry the seat up. She lifts it, he comes right behind her and they start drinking from the toilet bowl.
MOOS: As with humans, sex leaves many dogs astray. II humped a blind cocker spaniel's face. I like to hump this cat.
But Romeo here has a different source of shame. Some dogs are scared of thunder.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is scared of his own (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Whenever he does, he literally leaps up from where he is and then searches around.
MOOS: Actually, Romeo is a two-sign dog. He doesn't just like to watch his owner in the bedroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was licking my feet. They were hanging off the bed as I was --
MOOS: Who's giving who a tongue-lashing?
Jeanne Moos, CNN --
(on camera): I see why they call you Romeo.
(voice-over): -- New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: It has been a year and a half, give or take, since the name Jerry Sandusky became burned into our national consciousness. What a year and a half it's been. The former Penn State assistant football coach has been charged, tried and convicted of child rape, many of them.
Two former top university officials are awaiting trial for allegedly hiding Sandusky's crimes. Legendary Head coach, Joe Paterno, has passed away soon after being fired amid the scandal. The school, itself, has been pummeled with athletic sanctions.
And now there's this. Penn State's disgraced and ousted president is fighting to redeem his reputation. Graham Spanier is now openly rejecting all of the findings from the so-called Freeh report -- former FBI, Freeh. That report was commissioned by Penn State. That report says, in part, "Four of the most powerful people at the Pennsylvania State University failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade."
Ex-president Spanier sat for an extensive interview with the "New Yorker" magazine. Have a listen to part of it here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM SPANIER, FORMER PRESIDENT, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY: The Freeh report is wrong. It's unfair. It's deeply flawed. It is as many errors and omissions. I know they had a lot of very good people on that team working on this. They interviewed 400 people. Many of those folks have spoken to me about their interviews. Many of them described those interviews to me as a witch hunt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: The "New Yorker" interview was conducted by CNN's own Jeffrey Toobin. He joins me live now from New York.
Jeffrey, why --
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Ashleigh B.
BANFIELD: Oh. Lord, god, tell me this man is not free from the threat of prosecution. Why is he -- I mean, I'm glad he is speaking to you, and you and I can talk about it, but why for his sake is he talking at all?
JEFFREY: I think he is pissed off. It is as simple as that. He feels like his reputation has been destroyed. I think he is right about that. I think he feels like it is unjust.
He has a case to make. I'm not sure if I'm persuaded. I'm not sure if anyone should be persuaded. But it is not as if his guilt, culpability in a moral or legal sense is a clear thing, because it's not.
BANFIELD: No, I get that. But there's a lot of stuff here. Some people like to call that bad facts in a case. Some people call a lot of speculation, but this is what we do know. In the Freeh report, there is a highlight, a spotlight on this president's agreement not to report Sandusky to police over what Mr. Spanier considered horseplay in that locker room in 2001. And we know it was not horse play, but rape pure, and simple, and a conviction on it. But here is the problem for Spanier. there is an e-mail that he sent to then-athletic director, Gary Schultz, and he says to the e-mail, "The only downside for us" -- and again, this is about not reporting it -- "if the message is not heard and acted upon, and we become vulnerable for not having reported it, but it can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
I should remind our viewers that the way to proceed was not to go to Child Protective Services. To go the Jerry and the charity and tell them to, hey, buck up.
But here is my problem, Jeff, when you did the interview with Mr. Spanier, he said something to you about, you know, my antenna was not raised about anything. I want people to hear how he said it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SPANIER: I think that what people -- many people wanted to read into it, it was humane for us not to turn him in for being a known child predator, but I never, ever heard anything about child abuse or sexual abuse or my antenna raised up enough to even suspect that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BANFIELD: Jeff, can I remind you that he said that the only downside for us, there is a downside, a downside is an antenna. I don't get this.
TOOBIN: Well, look, that e-mail as you point out is the main piece of evidence against Spanier, but again, just to repeat what his version is, 2001, Jerry Sandusky was no longer an employee of Penn State, and he had access to the gym. To the athletic facilities, but he did not work for Penn State anymore, but according to Spanier, all he heard was that there was horseplay involved. And there is corroborating evidence of that, that Mike McQueary who saw that horrible apparent rape take place. That message did not get all of the way up the chain to Spanier. So his point is, look, all I heard was horseplay. And horseplay is not illegal and we went to the second mile, and we said cut this out, and we don't want him in the showers anymore and we don't want him in the facilities, and that was not something that we could go to Child Protective Services about.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Believe it or not, that is his story.
BANFIELD: Yes, sure, this is from a sociology professor -- that's what he was before he was an administrative -- specializing in child abuse. Fascinating.
And, by the way, I just want to --
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: And he, himself, an abuse victim, himself.
BANFIELD: And he, himself, an abuse victim. Exactly. And that downside, he was going to assess down the road -- and I don't have to time to go down this with you -- civil exposure. Enough said.
TOOBIN: Enormous.
BANFIELD: Yes.
TOOBIN: Enormous, Enormous.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: And that has not even started yet.
BANFIELD: Heck, what a can of worms.
Jeffrey Toobin, good stuff. BANFIELD: Thanks, Ashleigh.
BANFIELD: Great interview.
By the way, people, if you are keeping track, Jerry Sandusky is awaiting sentencing. His exposure is a minimum of 60 years in prison.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BANFIELD: Update on a story we brought to you yesterday. The man who murdered John Lennon, Mark David Chapman, denied, denied parole for the seventh time. In a ruling, the Department of Corrections said this, "Despite your positive efforts while incarcerated, your release at this time would undermine respect for the law and tend to trivialize the tragic loss of life which you caused as result of the heinous, unprovoked, violent, cold and calculated crime." He will be up for parole in two years. We'll follow it.
And now I want to turn to the Chavis Carter case. Death has now been ruled a suicide but we have a lot more forensic stuff. The details have come out from the police, not all of them, but a lot. In a new release from the Jonesboro, Arkansas, Police Department, they describe the blood spatter and the phone calls he made in the back of the police car and as well as how Carter got the gun, but also is striking is what the police didn't do and whether that is going to prevent us from knowing what truly happened.
Paul Callan, our legal contributor, back with us.
And that is where I want to start. They did not check his hands for gunshot residue. The police bagged his hands, which is standard protocol, but the M.E. did not test for GSR or test the police officer's hands either. Oh, Paul, why?
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it is shocking they didn't. They claim that there is a policy in place at the department, and they are issuing a memo, which is going to explain the policy in great detail. But obviously, whether he had powder burns, or GSR, as it is known in the trade, on his hand, it is really, really important. I mean, did he fire the gun or did police officers fire the gun? This is the test that everybody was waiting for and apparently never conducted, so it is a shocking admission.
BANFIELD: Yuck. We don't have it. But we have blood spatter. And we know from Dr. Henry Lee and everybody else before him, it was critical. The big Phil Specter piece of evidence. There is blood spatter on the hand of the deceased and blood spatter on the passenger side of the door of the car. Does it help?
CALLAN: It helps the police considerably, because the blood spatter pattern would be consistent with a self-inflicted wound. And they are saying that he fired the gun from the right hand and in an attempt to kill himself. And blood spatter would support that. And I don't know if we have time to get there, but the big thing, of course, is the powder burns on the temple. And a gun has to be within 18 inches of a person's head in order for that to be present. And I think that there are powder burns indicated in the temple area, and that would support the claim of a self-inflicted wound, as well as the angle of entry of the bullet. So there is a lot here to support the police claim that this is some kind of a bizarre suicide. And --
(CROSSTALK)
BANFIELD: You know, we just scratched the surface, so we have a lot more to talk about this case, and we will do that.
Thank you very much for that today though. Appreciate it.
CALLAN: Thanks, Ashleigh.
BANFIELD: Paul Callan, in New York.
Thank you for watching. NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL starts right now with Suzanne Malveaux.
