Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Interview with former Defense Secretary William Cohen; New Cold War; President Obama's Tax Return; Hate Crime
Aired April 13, 2012 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: World leaders hold an emergency meeting to discuss North Korea. Was yesterday's failed rocket launch just the first shot in a new Cold War?
President Obama releases his tax return. How much did he make and how much did he pay?
The man charged with Trayvon Martin could be a step closer to getting out of jail. Let's go OUTFRONT.
Good evening. I'm Tom Foreman in for Erin Burnett. Thanks for joining us.
OUTFRONT tonight, the new Cold War. This evening, the United Nations Security Council has wrapped up an emergency meeting on what, if anything can be done to rein in North Korea. There are sharp, growing fears that the nation's new, young leader, Kim Jong Un may be planning a dangerous show of power to repair his country's image after its humiliating failure to launch a long-range rocket into space.
The primary concern, the detonation of a nuclear weapon, a test blast, which intelligence analysts believe North Korea is even now preparing. President Obama weighed in just moments ago, calling the situation an area of deep concern. The failed rocket launch was a slap in the face to the international community, which repeatedly warned the rogue state to back away from its plans.
Now, add in Iran, which security experts also believe is hiding nuclear secrets, and the big picture gets much more critical. Look at this. Look at how the nuclear map is changing. During the Cold War, there were only five nuclear nations. The U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China. Now the list includes India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and Iran may possibly be just over the horizon.
All of this has security experts wondering if we're entering the brave new world of a new Cold War, which could be much more unstable and threatening than the old one. Tonight, former Defense Secretary William Cohen is weighing in.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM COHEN, FMR. U.S. SEC. OF DEFENSE: We have a Cold War, as such, going on with Iran and North Korea right now. Namely, we've imposed sanctions, we have isolated both countries, we are contesting their ideological attempts to spread their revolution as such, or in North Korea, their theory of communism. But it's a different form now. These are isolated countries as opposed to major axis powers contesting each other. So it's going to be different. It's going to be on a case-by-case basis, those who are either pursuing nuclear weapons or those who have them. But there's a Cold War that's been in place now with Iran and North Korea.
FOREMAN: It seems like it could also be a much more dangerous one in some ways. They would have the firepower that for example the Soviets had long ago, but a lot more unpredictability.
COHEN: That is true. That raises the issue of North Korea in particular, because you have a young leader now, 28, 29 years old, very little world experience, and under the pressure now from his military, having been sufficiently embarrassed by this most recent failure, he may feel compelled to take more action, nuclear tests being one of them, or some other provocation in order to demonstrate they're still here, they're still powerful, at least from a military point of view. And the rest of the world has to contend with that.
FOREMAN: What can we do? It seems like we've tried sanctions against Iran. We've tried sanctions against North Korea. We've put on pressure, pressure, pressure, and time and again it seems as if they thumb their nose at the world and say, we're going forward.
COHEN: Well, actually, sanctions are working. Sanctions have worked in terms of dealing with Iran. I think Iran now feels the pressure really tightening around their economy and they're more willing than they have been in the past to really sit down and start negotiating. Whether they will ever come up with a policy that will be satisfactory (INAUDIBLE) remains to be seen. But I think the sanctions are really starting to bite.
I think the sanctions have also been effective with North Korea. North Koreans want to have a guns-and-butter policy, their guns and our butter. And I think the answer has to be, no, you can't have it both ways. You're not going to continue to experiment with rocket launches and nuclear weapons and expect us to provide food for your people.
FOREMAN: Well, let me ask you one last thing about those sanctions, though, because this is what troubles me about it. Even if they're having an effect, you're right, though, the march has continued. And I find it very hard to imagine that within another three or four or five years that Iran won't have a nuclear weapon and that the North Koreans won't be closer to having a means of delivering a nuclear weapon wherever they wish.
COHEN: Well, they haven't been successful thus far in terms of building this kind of an intercontinental ballistic missile capability, as far as the North Koreans are concerned. I think a bigger challenge will be Iran. But I am convinced that if the Chinese and the Russians really send the signal to the Iranians, that they can't split the U.N. Security council, that everybody is on board, that it's a bad idea for Iran to go forward, that they have an option here to have civil nuclear programs for their peaceful purposes, that can be achieved without them pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. If the Chinese and the Russians really join in full force with the rest of the countries and the rest of the international community, I think that they can persuade the Iranians to go down and choose the right path and not the one they're on now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: And that is a big if in there. Multi-nation negotiations will start again tomorrow with Iran over its nuclear program, which Iran has always insisted was with only meant to produce electrical power. I'm joined now by Jamie Rubin, the former assistant secretary of state for Public Affairs. First of all, let me ask you a question. Do you buy that assertion that sanctions are working?
JAMIE RUBIN, FMR. ASST. SEC. OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS: No, I really don't. People have very short memories. Sanctions were put in place increasingly over the last let's say decade in order to stop Iran from enriching uranium. Not to stop them from making a nuclear weapon. We're not even close to that now -- to stop them from enriching uranium at all. And they've been enriching uranium for a decade. They've been getting better and better at it.
They've gone from a three percent level, which is standard for electrical power, now up to 20 percent, which perhaps is for medical isotopes. So the purpose of the sanctions is not to just have them in place, it's to achieve a change in behavior on the part of the adversary. The adversary's behavior has not changed. For a decade or longer, they have continued to enrich uranium. They have not responded to the requests and the demands of the international community.
FOREMAN: It always seems like the same pattern, over and over again. We say we want inspectors to come in. We want you to shut down, and they say, yes, yes, yes, we're sorry, come on in. And then they get pushed back out and they go back to the same thing they're doing and they gain a little ground, a little ground, a little ground.
RUBIN: Well it's a little I think yes and no. And the no part is that Iran still has inspectors in place. They've always had inspectors in place. The inspectors are there to make sure that the enriched uranium is not diverted for some illegal purpose. But the point I'm making is that the sanctions were designed to get them to not have any enrichment of uranium whatsoever, when they were first put in place under Clinton and then Bush and now under Obama.
And they keep getting tougher sanctions, but the Iranians keep continuing to do exactly what they would do with or without the sanctions. I don't believe this regime that has gone through all that it's gone through for its nuclear program, that has gone through a war with Iraq, is going to change its decision making --
FOREMAN: You think it's a done deal that they will wind up with a nuclear weapon?
RUBIN: No, but I think it's a done deal that they are going to have a substantial nuclear enrichment program. And all the sanctions we've put in place, all the efforts we make to try to dissuade them from that haven't worked and there's no evidence they will work.
FOREMAN: Do you have any faith, that big if that the secretary raised there, the idea that we get Russia and China and everybody on the same page, does that work?
RUBIN: Well, that would be helpful. Certainly, it's better to have --
FOREMAN: But is it likely?
RUBIN: I think in the case of Iran, we had some Russian and Chinese support for this last round of sanctions, not this one. Right now, we are stiffening them by putting on an oil embargo and the Russians aren't buying that. And so this embargo is not a U.N. activity. But I think the key for an agreement, and that's what they're going to be talking about tomorrow, is the really hard part, is that if we want an agreement with Iran, if we want them to do something different. That is, to stop enriching completely at the 20 percent level, for example, what we need to realize is we're not going to get that for free.
(CROSSTALK)
RUBIN: We're going to have to pay a price. And I don't see the administration or the Republicans, either party, prepared to pay a price --
FOREMAN: But the principle --
RUBIN: -- for the -- for the achievement of the goal, and that's the hard part.
FOREMAN: But the price we all pay if we keep going is, as we said this new Cold War with much more unpredictable players.
RUBIN: You need some tough decisions in order to stop that. And that means tough politically. If we want them to --
FOREMAN: We're not so good at those slightly (ph) --
RUBIN: Right. If we want them to make a deal with the Iranians, we're going to have to give up some hard things.
FOREMAN: All right, Jamie Rubin thanks so much for coming in and joining us here. We'll keep covering it as it goes on.
Ahead, President Obama reveals how much money he makes and how much he pays in taxes. Who do you think pays more him or his secretary?
New developments in a strange murder mystery that's captivated the world -- who poisoned the businessman with ties to spies and a major merger for Brad and Angelina. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) FOREMAN: With tax day upon us, the president made a show of releasing his returns today. Mr. Obama reported $789,674 of income. Not enough to subject him to his own proposed "Buffett Rule" that taxes millionaires more, although he is a millionaire. He paid $162,074 in taxes, an effective rate of 20.5 percent. Vice President Biden paid a higher rate on less income, $87,900 in federal taxes on $379,035 in income or a 23.2 percent rate. The Obama campaign is making a point of asking Mitt Romney to share his 2011 info. This afternoon, Governor Romney filed an extension on his 2011 return.
His campaign says he will file and release his complete form some time in the next six months and prior to the election. The extension notes an estimated 2011 tax liability of 3.2 million. If Romney is taxed at the same 14 percent rate he was in 2010 that means he earned about $23 million last year. Nice work, if you can get it, for both of them, I guess.
Joining me now are Reihan Salam columnist for "The Daily", Democratic strategist Reshma Saujani and CNN contributor John Avlon. Listen let me ask you guys a question about this. First of all, Reihan, who do you think paid more taxes as a rate, the president or his secretary?
REIHAN SALAM, COLUMNIST, "THE DAILY": You know something I wouldn't be surprised if his secretary paid a little bit more.
FOREMAN: Ding, ding, that's correct. The White House spokeswoman, Amy Brundidge (ph), points out that his secretary pays a slightly higher rate on her somewhat lower income. It's very, very different in the amount, but that's -- they say that underscores their need for this whole (INAUDIBLE) program.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly.
FOREMAN: And they're coming out hard, hard, hard, hitting this idea of the big Buffett tax. What do you think? It's very popular right now with everybody paying their taxes, say yes, make the millionaires pay more.
RESHMA SAUJANI, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Look, I am incredibly supportive of the "Buffett Rule". You know, it's about fundamental fairness right now. One in four -- one in four millionaires, including Romney, pay less than many firefighters and police officers and that is just wrong --
FOREMAN: Let me raise a point here. That has to do with interest income, investment income. It's not overall income. If I'm out there, if I'm some CEO out there and I'm being paid $20 million in salary, I don't get that break, and many millionaires do pay a very high rate.
SAUJANI: But there are loopholes, carried interest is one of them and effectively they're paying a lesser rate and it's unfair. And we need to do something about it. And there's a massive amount of income disparity in our country right now and we have to do change that and the "Buffett Rule" -- FOREMAN: Avlon, jump in and say what you think about this. You buying it?
JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Well no, not really. Look, I mean I think yes, we do have a problem with income disparity in this country, but I think there's a fundamental question about whether that's best addressed through tax rates and effectively trying to move around income to address that. I think one of the problems the president's tax argument is that he's focusing on fairness instead of a message of national sacrifice. A message of -- that's -- it's that need to raise more income to restore national greatness, in effect.
So I think that there's a certain focus on fairness exclusively that doesn't end up feeling to independents and swing voters. But, look, this whole data today you see, how much of the debate we have is distorted. We're talking about raising tax rates potentially up to Clinton era rates. And we see how much lower effective tax rates are in this country. So both parties come with their talking points and they end up distorting and confusing the real issues.
FOREMAN: Go ahead, Reihan.
SALAM: Well look, I mean in 1992, if you look at the top 400 taxpayers in the country they paid to the federal government all in about $5 billion. In 2008, they paid all in about $20 billion. That's a big increase. That's about a 4x increase and yet the tax rate, the effective tax rate in 1992 was higher than it was in 2008. So, from my perspective, if the federal government is getting four times as much money yet the federal government is still broke, then I would suggest, wait a second, let's look at how the federal government is actually spending this money before we say, gosh, let's squeeze more tax revenue. And actually, another part of that is that as the effective tax rate declined, it certainly seemed as though you had more taxable income. That just doesn't mean that it suddenly, magically came out of nowhere. It means that when you change the way the tax code works, people will, for example, engage in more deductible consumptions.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: You brought up the tax code.
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: I want to ask you both something here. Listen here's the thing with the tax code, the Democrats say our tax code needs to be simplified and made better. The Republicans say it has to be simplified and made better. It's been said that way forever and it never happens. Why not Reshma?
SAUJANI: Well, it's been 25 years since we've -- more than 25 years since we've actually made you know any substantive change to the tax code. And it's because of politics, right? I mean, you have to think about tax reform almost like you have this one pie, right? And anytime you make a deduction you have to take it out of something.
FOREMAN: Yes, but Avlon, come in here on this because the question I always have whenever somebody says that, that's convenient for both parties to blame the other one and say, it's politics. We can't help it, and that's what makes voters go crazy, because they say, you both agree it's broken, fix it.
AVLON: That's right. And that's what we can't seem to do. We have 80 percent agreement, but the 20 percent keep stopping us. Look, President Obama campaigned on tax simplification. Republicans pay lip service to it every election. And yet we can't seem to get anything done. Why? Because tax simplification requires closing loopholes. And what happens when you start doing that, lobbyists in both parties start freaking out. So it is a source of major frustration for the American people and it should be. Tax code is longer than the Bible. We waste billions of dollars a year in compliance, and it should be able to be something we can get agreement on, but we can't --
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: Very fast, very fast --
(CROSSTALK)
SALAM: Cops and firefighters, if a cop and a firefighter together own a home they're paying less in taxes than a cop and a firefighter who rent their apartment. There are all kinds of crazy unfair things in the tax code. And talking about the "Buffett Rule" distracts us from a bigger ticket tax reform, where we can get Republicans and Democrats together to agree on cleaning up that unfairness.
FOREMAN: Oh now you're talking fantasyland, Republicans and Democrats getting together.
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: Thanks so much Reihan and Reshma and John for being here. Hope you have a good weekend. Hope your taxes are filed already.
Next on OUTFRONT charges are filed in that shooting spree that left three dead in Oklahoma. Terrible, terrible story. Were these people targeted because of their race?
And the FBI moves in on a cyber terrorist. Take a look. Can you find the clue that they found in this photo? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: Those two men accused of shooting five African- Americans in Tulsa last week have been charged with hate crimes now. That's on top of three counts of first-degree murder. Police say Alvin Watts and Jake England, both white, went into Tulsa's predominantly African-American north side last Friday and gunned down five apparent strangers at four locations, three of those folks died.
Just hours earlier, 19-year-old England had lamented on his Facebook about his father's death at the hands of what he referred to as an "f'ing n-word" two years prior. Watts and England were arrested Sunday and confessed to the shootings. Prosecutors could decide to seek the death penalty.
Joining me now is Reverend Warren Blakney, president of the Tulsa Chapter of the NAACP. Reverend, you said when this first happened that you thought this was a hate crime, that this was about targeting people over race. Some people had doubts. Do you feel vindicated now?
REV. WARREN BLAKNEY, PRES., NAACP TULSA CHAPTER: I was asked that earlier today and to some degree, I do. Whenever I read Facebook and some of the other social media terms that were used, I felt that. But, yes, to some degree, vindication has come.
FOREMAN: Do you feel like the community is calmer now, feeling better now that not only the arrests have been made, but that they have been designated as a hate crime?
BLAKNEY: Yes. In fact, I spoke with some folks at the funeral services for Bobby Clark (ph) today. He was the first one of the persons buried today and so some of the family members and some of the others felt some degree of really anxiety before it was announced, that it was a hate crime later on. But they felt like that's what it was. And they were hopeful this morning at the funeral services. Then to find out later on this afternoon that they are going to follow that line and they were very happy to hear that.
FOREMAN: You know, it's interesting to me, Reverend, the way that many members of the white community see shootings like this and members of the black community. I understand that many people in the black community see this as sort of the really ugly, raw edge of racism throughout society. By the same token, many people in the white community say, no, no, no, this is an ugly, raw edge of just a tiny group of people who are this way. How do you reconcile those in your head?
BLAKNEY: Well, I was asked today, when we were in a meeting with Minister Jackson, Jesse Jackson, and they were asking, are there any racial overtones in the Tulsa area? And the roundabout way to answer that question, yes, there are because the way many whites view this and the way blacks view it is totally different. But we deal with so much every day and we see so much every day from our perspective that many others do not see. And so when we get a conversation going, you talk about the same issue. Folks see it one way who are usually Caucasian and blacks see it entirely different because our life experiences are totally different.
FOREMAN: Do you find that surprising at all? You're a gentleman who has been around for a few decades, as I have, and every once in a while I keep thinking that we'll reach a point where this sort of thing doesn't happen. BLAKNEY: We're hopeful. We're hopeful. And in fact I spoke again about that again today, of trying to reach that point in our lives before we leave here, that there is some kind of just respect for each other, respect and dignity for human life, respect for human life, and just let folks live and enjoy each other and enjoy the common things that we enjoy together.
FOREMAN: All right.
BLAKNEY: And I think maybe we might see that.
FOREMAN: Well we certainly hope so. Reverend, thanks for joining us. A tough time for all the folks there in Tulsa.
OUTFRONT next, a hearing today for the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Why George Zimmerman's lawyers want the judge off the case.
And growing concerns about how vulnerable U.S. cities are to a nuclear attack. We will show you a device that could -- could -- detect the undetectable. Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: We start the second half of our show with stories we care about, where we focus on our own reporting, do the work, and we found the "OutFront 5".
Up first, the United Nations Security Council has wrapped up an emergency meeting on what, if anything can be done to rein in North Korea. Fears are growing that the nation's new young leader may be planning a dangerous show of power to repair his country's image after its humiliating failure to launch a long-range rocket into space. The news comes on the eve of new negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Former Defense Secretary William Cohen tells OUTFRONT the nuclear fears over those two countries have already started something of a second Cold War, but China and Russia still have a chance to weigh in and convince Iran to change course.
Number two, a tornado touched down in Oklahoma this afternoon as severe weather begins to move through the central United States, again. CNN has confirmed at least one tornado touched down in Norman, south of Oklahoma City. So far, there are no reports of injuries.
The real threat for tornado comes Saturday. The CNN severe weather team says there's a risk of severe weather for Oklahoma City to Wichita starting tomorrow afternoon, all the way into the overnight hours.
Number three: Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, says he felt terror as he saved a woman from a burning home. No kidding. Booker told CNN he came home last night and his security detail spotted fire at the house next door. Despite protests from his security team, Booker ran into the burning home, found the neighbor and a friend upstairs, helped them out. Booker said today, "Hey, I'm no hero." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR CORY BOOKER (D), NEWARK, NEW JERSEY: I think that's way over the top, honestly. First of all, there are people that to this every day. The police officers that I was with showed really quick action and got into the building really quick. There are firefighters that do this every single day.
I'm a neighbor that did what most neighbors would do, which is to jump into action to help a friend. And I consider all of us very lucky. There was a time when I got through the kitchen and was searching for her and looked back and saw the kitchen in flames. It was really frightening for me. I didn't think we were going to get out of there. So I feel just very grateful right now, very lucky to be here with you today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: The mayor suffered second-degree burns on his hands and the woman he rescued is expected to be OK.
Number four: China's economy is slowing down, growing at a slower rate than expected, 8.1 percent. Historically, the growth rate has hovered around 10 percent in China, the world's second largest economy. Weak exports and sluggish construction dragged down growth.
One analyst told OUTFRONT the Chinese economy is beginning to bottom out, but will bounce back.
The fears over China's economy slowing sparked a sell-off on Wall Street. The Dow lost 137 points in today's trading.
It's been 253 days since the U.S. lost its top credit rating. What are we doing to get it back?
Inflation stays in check, consumer prices rose 0.3 percent in March. The biggest contributor to the gain was rising gasoline prices.
We have some new developments tonight in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The case against George Zimmerman is off to a rocky start already.
During a brief status hearing today, Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler told the court she may have to recuse herself because of a conflict of interest. Her husband is an attorney and one of his partners helped connect Zimmerman with his new lawyer, Mark O'Mara -- a decision on whether she will stay on the case is likely before Zimmerman's bond hearing next Friday. For now, he remains behind bars.
Paul Callan is a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney who has been following the story for us. And Sunny Hostin is a CNN legal analyst.
Paul, first things first. Is this a conflict of interest? Does the judge have to step aside?
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think it's an automatic conflict of interest for her. It really depends on what the consultation consisted of. You notice, she has not recused herself from the case. She said to the lawyers: please submit papers on this issue and she'll consider their claims.
Now, if both sides like her and want to keep her on the case, then she may opt not to get off the case. And it really will come down to, what did Zimmerman say to her husband's law partner? Did he talk about the case substantively, or was it just sort of a brief conversation where they didn't get into the facts?
So we don't know enough really to know whether she must recuse herself. But obviously, she doesn't think she has too.
FOREMAN: Sunny, you had a fascinating conversation with the brother of the victim here. And the family must be watching absolutely every single turn of this case and weighing this -- is this good, is this bad, is this right, is this wrong?
SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, sure. I mean -- and they're a lovely family and I've met with them several times, and they're not watching everything, because there's great sadness there and I think it's hard for them to watch everything.
But I think what's fascinating about the interview that I had with Jahvaris, Trayvon Martin's brother, is that I wanted to get more insight into who Trayvon Martin was, his temperament, because these are all these allegations that he sort of came up from behind and attacked George Zimmerman.
FOREMAN: Well, let's play a little clip from your interview so we can hear what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOSTIN: When you found out what happened, the details of what happened, how did you feel?
JAHVARIS FULTON, TRAYVON MARTIN'S BROTHER: Confused. Everything I heard was from Zimmerman's perspective and it didn't sound like my brother at all. You know, my brother attacked him and did all this stuff. It doesn't sound like him at all. He wasn't confrontational or violent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: It seems like so much of this is going to come down to this question of self-defense or the "Stand Your Ground" law.
Paul, talk me through this a little bit. Because I still don't feel like it's clear to me what the difference is.
And we got some bullet points here. If we're talking self- defense anywhere in the country, what are we talking about? CALLAN: Well, fundamentally, in all of the states in the country that have just a standard self-defense law, if you're in fear of serious physical injury on you're in fear that some kind of a serious felony is going to be committed against you and you don't have the ability to retreat and call the police --
FOREMAN: And you're not involved in a felony yourself?
CALLAN: Well, yes. You can't be the initial aggressor. You can't be the person who started the problem -- then in that situation, you can use deadly physical force to protect yourself. That's the rule in most states.
FOREMAN: And if we bring this up full screen so you can see this again and look at the self-defense thing, the key here is in the "Stand Your Ground" law, that last line there, you don't have a duty to retreat at the end.
Sunny, do you think this really is what this case is going to be about? Or is this going to be more of a simple claim of self-defense? Which it seems like what the defense is going to go for.
HOSTIN: No, I think very much so, this is going to be about "Stand Your Ground". And I think it's very much so going to be about the first aggressor, because if you look at the affidavit here, it is clear that the prosecution's theory is really based on the fact that they believe that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin, followed him, and confronted him. They have completely disregarded George Zimmerman's version of events, which is, he was retreating, he was walking away, and he was attacked, and he had to stand his ground and defend himself.
So I think it's going to be very fact specific, but I think it's going to be very much about "Stand Your Ground".
CALLAN: That has nothing to do -- that has nothing to do with --
FOREMAN: Paul, you and I were looking at this affidavit yesterday. We went through here. And one of the things that I was sort of struck by is there aren't a lot of details about why they think he kept following him. It's nothing about him but he did.
HOSTIN: It's supposed to be very bare bones, it's an affidavit.
CALLAN: I found it to be extremely disturbing in terms of its lack of detail. You know, a lot of times --
(CROSSTALK)
CALLAN: Let me finish, OK? A lot of times the police say, we know you did it, you're a criminal. And, generally, these affidavits are for the purpose of saying to a judge, we have reason to believe that. And these are the reasons. That's what an affidavit is supposed to spell out.
FOREMAN: You don't buy that, Sunny? CALLAN: All this affidavit spells out is general theories --
HOSTIN: Let me just say this.
CALLAN: The only witness is the mother.
HOSTIN: It's very clear that a judge found that there was probable cause in this case, in reviewing this affidavit. And if you look at the second page, with it says the facts mentioned in this affidavit are not a complete recitation of all the pertinent facts and evidence in this case, but only are presented for a determination of --
FOREMAN: So, let me ask this, Sunny -- particularly in terms of the claim n here. The claim in here that he kept following him, that Zimmerman kept following Trayvon, and that he stalked him, as the family described it.
HOSTIN: Right.
FOREMAN: What do you need in court to prove that? Because right here, it's just a statement.
HOSTIN: I think you certainly need not only -- because Trayvon Martin is no longer with us.
FOREMAN: He's not around. Right.
HOSTIN: So we won't know his version of events. So you're going to need witness statements. You're going to see forensic evidence. And I suspect that this prosecution team conducted a very thorough investigation and has more evidence than we have seen.
CALLAN: Well, where is it?
HOSTIN: They don't have to put it here, Paul. You know that!
FOREMAN: Maybe they didn't put that detail in here, but let me --
CALLAN: Let me say --
FOREMAN: What if they have a witness out there right now, they don't want to tip their hand too much about it right now, but they say, I've got a witness who saw him follow him.
CALLAN: All right. Here's why I don't think that they do, all right? If these prosecutors think that he stalked Trayvon Martin, confronted him, pulled out a gun and killed him, you know what that is? That's premeditated, deliberate murder --
HOSTIN: That's not what they're alleging.
CALLAN: That is first-degree murder.
FOREMAN: But here's a good point, if that's what they think -- (CROSSTALK)
HOSTIN: But that's not what --
CALLAN: Why didn't they charge that? If that's what happened, why didn't they charge it?
HOSTIN: -- they're alleging, Paul. They're alleging that he profiled him, that he followed him --
CALLAN: And he killed him. That sounds like first-degree murder --
(CROSSTALK)
HOSTIN: And that during a struggle that ensued, he killed him. And that it wasn't justifiable homicide. That's what they're alleging.
CALLAN: Then why did he stalk him? Why did he stalk him?
FOREMAN: Let me ask you --
HOSTIN: First of all, they're not using the word "stalk."
CALLAN: Well, you used the word "stalk."
HOSTIN: No, I didn't.
FOREMAN: Hold on a second. It seems to me this is what this is going to come down. This is going to come down, as far as we can see at this point, a window of whether it's 45 seconds or two minutes where we have one person who is involved, who is living, who said, this is my version of what happened. One person who is involved who did not live, who wound up dead in the process.
And so it seems to me the big question is, was there someone else who saw it, who can say, I saw it happen this way? Isn't that key to this whole thing?
HOSTIN: Not necessarily. As prosecutors, we try cases all the time without --
FOREMAN: I understand the --
HOSTIN: The victims of a homicide.
FOREMAN: I understand you can do that on forensic evidence, but what forensic evidence would answer that question?
HOSTIN: We know there's been an autopsy, again. So I suspect there'll be evidence here. We know a friend was on the phone with Trayvon Martin, and we have 911 calls here, or there 911 calls here. There are several witnesses to this incident. And again --
FOREMAN: Are you talking about the hearing witnesses? HOSTIN: Yes, hearing witnesses. There are some eyewitnesses, is my understanding. And again, we don't know everything. We shouldn't know everything, right? We shouldn't know everything.
I suspect that there is more to this --
CALLAN: We know --
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: We're running out of time here. So last question, quickly. Is he going to get bail?
CALLAN: Well, I think probably he will get bail. The question is will he be able to make the bail?
And I also think that in the end, we still don't know what the facts are in this case. And to stake out a position that Zimmerman is guilty based on what we know, it's premature to do that. I want to say what they have.
HOSTIN: I don't think anyone -- I don't think anyone has decided --
CALLAN: And there's no evidence --
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: We have to move on. I think we'll be talking about this case a great deal.
HOSTIN: We will.
FOREMAN: Sunny, Paul, thank you both for being here, on what is a terribly serious case, as interesting as it is in many ways.
You can see more of Sunny's interview with Trayvon's brother coming up at the top of the hour on "A.C. 360." Do not miss that.
Next on OUTFRONT: a businessman with ties to spies, suspected of being poisoned. Was the wife of a high-ranking politician involved?
An exclusive investigation into how vulnerable the United States is on nuclear attack, and much more. Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: We are back with tonight's "Outer Circle", where we reach out to our sources all around the world.
And we're going to China, where a British businessman turns up dead in a hotel room. Now that discovery is turning the Chinese government upside-down. The mystery began back in November when Neil Heywood's body was found in his room in the Chinese city of Chongqing. The official cause: excessive drinking. But friends quickly said he rarely drank. Then, came new details about his unusually close relationship with a top communist party boss, Bo Xilai. The British government asked China to look again, they did, ruled the death a murder, and arrested Bo Xilai's wife and an aide, accusing them of poisoning Heywood.
Bo Xilai, a man who once appeared headed for the presidency of the country has now been booted from the communist party, questions raised about his relationship with Heywood, his wife's connections, and so much more.
"Wall Street Journal" reporter Jeremy Page has been on this story for months. And I asked him, what exactly do we know about the mysterious Neil Heywood?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEREMY PAGE, REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Basically, he was just a businessman, like many others, trying to make his fortune in China. And he came out in the early 1990s. He studied a bit of Chinese in Beijing, and then he moved to the northeastern city of Dalian.
And he started doing a whole range of different activities there. He set up a few companies. He was offering consultancy services to various companies wanting to invest in Dalian. So he's had his fingers in lots of pies.
But the most interesting thing about him and his interesting selling point was his access to the Bo family.
FOREMAN: He started making friends in very high places, very quickly.
PAGE: That's right. According to friends of his, what he did when he arrived in Dalian was he wrote a letter directly to Bo Xilai, who was then the mayor of Dalian, offering his services and helping to track foreign investment and for help in exploring business opportunities in Dalian, and the relationship sort of developed from there.
FOREMAN: And, again, so I understand, this kind of relationship between a foreign business member and a person so highly ranked in the Chinese government, this is unusual.
PAGE: Very unusual, yes. And when he began the relationship with him, Mr. Bo, of course, Bo Xilai was sort of midway through his career, he was mayor of Dalian, as I said. So not as inaccessible as he might have been later on in his career. But still, very unusual for a foreigner to get that kind of access.
FOREMAN: And then, though, there seemed to be some kind of a falling out. What do we really know about that?
PAGE: The picture that's emerging is that there was a falling out, which was caused largely by the breakdown of the relationship with Bo Xilai's wife, Gu Kailai, who according to conversations that Heywood had had with friends, became increasingly neurotic and fearful that she and the family had been betrayed by someone in the inner circle of friends and advisers around the family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: Now, let's check ahead with Anderson Cooper to see what's ahead on "A.C. 360."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "A.C. 360": Tom, we're keeping 'em honest tonight on "360". Haley Barbour's Mississippi pardon mess. The state's Supreme Court upheld the pardons he made on his way out of office, but a "360" investigation shows his office may have played close and loose with what they called facts and what they told victim's families.
Also, the latest developments of the killing of Trayvon Martin. We'll speak with George Zimmerman's lawyer about how he plans to proceed with the defense and about his client's state of mind. And what's it like for Zimmerman? He's in protective custody in his 67 square foot cell, no TV. His first jail purchases, we learned -- toiletries, clothing, puzzle books, playing cards, snack food.
More details on life behind bars, tonight's "Ridiculist", and a lot more at the top of the hour, Tom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: Thanks so much, Anderson. It sounds like a great show.
North Korea's satellite launch was a bust, but that rogue nation is still a threat as one of the world's leading exporters of weapon. And that's something that keeps counterterrorism officials up at night, keeping a weapon of mass destruction from getting on to U.S. soil through one of our seaports.
So far experts give the government a C-minus for their detection efforts. But one company says it can deliver cutting edge technology to spot the smallest trace of dangerous radioactive material. Something that has so far eluded scientists, but could play a big role in this new Cold War we've been talking about tonight.
Our investigative reporter, Drew Griffin, has that exclusive story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DREW GRIFFIN, CNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER (voice-over): In a non- descript building on the outskirts of San Diego, scientists are digging way back into the past -- to try to prevent a nuclear disaster in the future.
This is where the company decision sciences is harvesting something that started back at the very beginning of time, when muons were created.
ROBERT WHALEN, PRESIDENT, DECISION SCIENCES: When the Big Bang occurred, it gives off cosmic rays. These cosmic these cosmic rays travel through long, long distances. In fact, when they first re- enter and come near the atmosphere of the earth, they're called pions, all right? And pions decay into muons.
GRIFFIN: Decision Science called 81-year-old Robert Whalen out of retirement to help develop technology to help find shielded material.
Muons are passing through you right now, they pass through everything, a natural part of the environment.
(on camera): The leap forward technologically lie came from discovering muons or from discovering how to detect the muons path.
WHALEN: The leap forward came from -- at the Los Alamos National Laboratory about five years ago, that if you look at the muons and you look at the deflection that related to whether there was nuclear material there or not.
GRIFFIN (voice-over): In other words, muons technology can find shielded radioactive material that x-rays cannot. Decision Sciences developed the technology and claimed to have an almost fail-safe system. Uranium shielded by lead lie placed in a batch of tires that's then placed in a cargo container.
(on camera): So now that tiny piece of radioactive material is hidden and shielded in this cargo container. The problem is right now, at any port in the United States, any cargo crossing anywhere really in the world, there's no way that anybody can detect shielded radioactive material.
(voice-over): That may be about to change.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The system has just alarmed.
WHALEN: We believe now that we demonstrated that lie in fact lie you can do 100 percent scanning with this system.
GRIFFIN: To prove its case lie the company paid a lab in Nevada often used by the Department of Homeland Security to test its technology. The project manager at the lab, Gary Chilton, told CNN the equipment absolutely did detect shielded material.
(on camera): Because this is going to be underground.
(voice-over): Since then, company officials tell CNN improvements have increased the detection rate to 99.9 percent.
But the DHS is not yet persuaded.
WARREN STERN, DIRECTOR, DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE: We support the company. We support their technology. We think it's exciting, along with a variety of others. But as a steward of public finances, I can't jump to one company over another company.
GRIFFIN: DHS has had expensive flops in the past after a scathing government report it killed a radiation portal monitoring system despite spending more than $200 million for it. DHS is giving development funds to other companies exploring different technologies.
Decision Sciences is funded entirely by private investors.
STERN: There are any number of companies that have developmental funding because our objective is to protect America against nuclear terrorism. We have a pipeline of technology.
GRIFFIN: Steve Flynn was an adviser to the U.S. Commission on National Security, and he is on an advisory council for Decision Sciences.
STEVE FLYNN, PROFESSOR, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: The tools that DHS have in place to deal with this risk are not nearly sufficient lie in my view lie for mitigating that risk. That is identifying the possibility that terrorists might use our cargo container for moving a weapon of mass destruction into the United States.
GRIFFIN: Decision Sciences isn't waiting for DHS. It's deploying its equipment in the Bahamas right now and expects to begin on-site testing of cargo in the next few months.
Drew Griffin, CNN, San Diego.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: How is this possible? Friday 13th and it finally happened? Brad and Angelina are engaged! Pitts manager confirmed the news saying it is a promise for the future, and the kids are very happy. There's no date set at this time.
Brad-designed the ring. The couple confirmed the news after this picture of them looking at an art exhibit with their son Pax was released. Eagle eye viewers might notice the brad-designed ring on Angelina's left ring finger.
The jeweler said it took a year from conception to completion. No word on how much it costs but Brad can probably afford it.
Our number tonight: $270 million! That's how much in dollars Brad and Angelina are worth according to celebritynetwork.com. Individually, Brad is worth $150 million. Angelina is worth $120 million. In addition to movies, both have done endorsements for companies like Louis Vuitton and Heineken.
Gosh, I hope I'm invited to the wedding.
Still OUTFRONT, why you should be careful what you put on the Internet. Don't miss this, especially if you're wanted by the FBI. This is a real "wanted" poster. Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) FOREMAN: Finally, tonight, Anonymous is a group of Internet hackers responsible for cyber attacks on government agencies and media organizations around the world. One of the more notorious members of the group was a hacker named Wormer.
During his spree, he was able to hack into the Web sites of at least four U.S. law enforcement agencies and release information of dozens of police officers. He was anonymous except for his nickname. He was untouchable. He even taunted the police by posting this.
That's right. This shot of a woman, taken from the neck down, and holding a sign mocking authorities was posted at the bottom of Wormer's Web site. However, unfortunately for Wormer, it was taken with an iPhone.
Why is that important? Well, a lot of people don't realize, including this master hacker apparently, that embedded in every photo taken with an iPhone are GPS coordinates of where that photo was snapped.
So authorities use that information to figure out if this woman was in Australia. They found other pictures of her on other sites. Don't know what they were looking at. Including a man's Facebook page where he bragged that she was his Aussie girlfriend.
All the clues clicked into place and the FBI followed them right to Texas where they scooped up Higinio Ochoa who they say is the hacker known as "Wormer." It just goes to show you how dangerous it is to post things on the Internet especially if you're wanted by the FBI.
I'm Tom Foreman. Thanks so much for being with us this week. Erin Burnett is going to be back on Monday for another great week of shows. We hope you will be there as well. Good luck with your taxes.
"A.C. 360" starts right now.
