Return to Transcripts main page

Campbell Brown

Getting Tough with Iran on Nukes; License to Kill?; Why Confederate History Month?; Stopping Bullying; Finance Execs Apologize

Aired April 10, 2010 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN HOST: Hey there, everybody. It has been a very busy news week, and this hour we're going to catch you up on everything you need to know.

Our top international story, is the START treaty a giant step toward a nuclear free world or will Iran be a major bump in the road?

We'll also discuss tonight whether our government has a license to kill an American citizen, a Muslim cleric who has been linked to terrorists.

And the story so many parents are talking about this week, the suicide of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince. Should the teens accused of tormenting her be charged with felonies?

We'll talk about all of that and a whole lot more. But we start tonight with the "Mash-Up".

President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the START Treaty this week in Prague. The agreement cuts the number of American and Russian nukes by a third, but the treaty also sends a pointed message to Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He won the Nobel Peace Prize and there were critics, there were skeptics around the world saying he doesn't deserve it. Now the White House is saying, look, he's got this one under his belt.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is a danger to people everywhere, from Moscow to New York, from the cities of Europe to South Asia.

BROWN (voice-over): The treaty cuts each country's nuclear arsenal by 30 over seven years, though hundreds of warheads will still be left.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, that's still a lot. That's enough to destroy both nations many times over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looming over all of this is Iran and it's own nuclear ambition. OBAMA: The United States and Russia are part of a coalition of nations insisting that the Islamic Republic of Iran face consequences because they have continued - continually failed to meet their obligations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But before a single nuclear weapon is destroyed, the treaty must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, a prospect the White House appears to be somewhat nervous about.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: But a serious potential bump in the road, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bowed out of President Obama's 47-nation nuclear summit next week, reportedly over criticism of Israel's failure to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

In the political world, a bit of a revelation this week from John McCain. In an interview with "Newsweek", the Arizona senator said that, quote, "he has never considered himself a maverick."

Well, that really flies in the face of pretty much everything we've been led to believe since at least 2008. Here's a little refresher.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I've been called a maverick.

SARAH PALIN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: He has been known as the maverick.

MCCAIN: Sarah's a maverick. I'm a maverick.

When two mavericks join up, we don't agree on everything, but that's a lot of fun.

PALIN: He's a maverick, and that's what our opponents are afraid of most.

OBAMA: I know that Senator McCain likes to call himself a maverick.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, maverick. I'm a maverick. You're a maverick. We're the maverick team, right?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: McCain tells "Newsweek" he does consider himself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities.

And that brings us right now to "The Punch Line". This is courtesy of Jay Leno. Behold his take on the spectacle of Tiger Woods' return to golf.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAY LENO, NBC TALK SHOW HOST: It's being reported while playing at the Masters Tiger Woods will be accompanied by the largest security force ever gathered at Augusta. It's the tightest security they've ever had.

You know, he was practicing earlier today. Look at the security. Take a look. Take a look here.

You see that? That's the biggest - tremendous security. That's tremendous security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Jay Leno, everybody. And that is the "Mash Up".

Coming up, President Obama, Russian President Medvedev and that historic treaty they signed in Prague. Will the road to a nuclear- free world hit a big roadblock in Tehran?

Plus, an American marked for death by his own country. Does the U.S. government have the legal right to order the assassination of an American citizen linked to terrorism?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: This week saw the signing of the historic nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia, now awaiting approval in the U.S. Senate and Russian parliament, and it came with a warning to Iran from both President Obama and Russian leader Medvedev.

The agreement is part of a broader strategy in which the U.S. will not use its arsenal against non-nuclear states that comply with nonproliferation agreements and will try to pressure Iran with help from longtime allies and unlikely partners, like China.

With me tonight to hash out whether this strategy could work is former Assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin, who is now an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs. Also, former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, now a Resident Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.

Welcome to both of you.

Richard, let me start with you here. The administration hopes this new nuclear strategy will tighten the screws on Iran, further isolate Iran from the international community. I know you do not think that is true. Explain why.

RICHARD PERLE, FORMER ASSISTANT DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, I wish it were true. It would obviously be helpful, but there's no logical connection between an agreement to reduce the American and Russian arsenals and the decision, which is what is needed, to put such pressure on Iran that Iran will actually abandon its nuclear weapons program.

I don't believe that's going to happen. I don't think that the president has any commitment from Mr. Putin nor any other Russian that that's going to happen. So I'm afraid if the administration thinks of this as a way of dealing with Iran, they're going to be severely disappointed.

BROWN: We have certainly seen no signs from Iran that there is any movement or any willingness to - to be flexible here.

JAMES RUBIN, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: First of all, there are no great options with respect to Iran. The Bush administration was obviously terribly bedeviled by Iran as well.

I think the idea here is to unite the world against those countries that are outside the norms, outside the mainstream, and I think this treaty, along with other statements, other actions the United States has taken, is likely to increase the pressure on Iran through a new security council resolution. That's a step forward.

It isn't, as Richard said, likely to yield an immediate response from Iran. On the contrary. But I do think it's important to punish those countries who violate these norms. And so, having a security council resolution that imposes significant consequences on Iran is the right move, while we should have our eyes open that it's not likely to make Iran give up the program it values so much.

BROWN: And to that point, Richard, I mean if - if it is a step forward, doesn't that alone make it worthwhile?

PERLE: I'm not at all convince it's a step forward, and Jamie's rather lukewarm prognosis should - should be quite telling.

Look, the fact is that Iran is moving ahead with its nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration didn't come to grips with it. This administration is not coming to grips with it. And unless there is a radical change in policy, Iran is going to become a nuclear weapons state, and that's very troubling on almost every dimension.

BROWN: Jamie -

PERLE: So we need a strategy to do something about it, and this isn't it.

BROWN: And let - let me ask you, President Obama hosting this summit, 47 world leaders participating to talk about nuclear weapons. We just learned tonight that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided not to attend now, obviously at a time of great tension between the U.S. and Israel.

Explain to us what's going on here.

RUBIN: Well, a meeting of the world designed to deal with nuclear proliferation isn't a great place for Israel to be. They have an unacknowledged nuclear weapons program of some size and significance.

And since the goals of the United States are to put the pressure on outliers like Iran rather than Israel, I think it's just as well that Israel isn't going to be there, because when the Arab countries in the region are looking out at what they face and we're working with them to try to deal with the potential of a nuclear Iran, Israel is a complicating factor.

So I think it will help us unite the world against Iran and not have to explain the very complicated situation that - because of Israel's threat it faces from Arab neighbors, et cetera, we don't expect them to - to give up their nuclear weapons until there's peace in the Middle East.

That's more complicated than the world needs right now. We need the world focused on Iran. So, from my standpoint, it's just as well.

BROWN: Gentlemen, we've got to end it there. Richard Perle and Jamie Rubin, as always, thank you very much for being with us. Appreciate it.

One of the most heated arguments in the country this week was over the legacy of the Civil War. Is it insensitive for the South to continue honoring the Confederacy?

Plus a stunning admission from the Obama administration about an American citizen marked for death. Does our government have a license to kill?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In a stunning development this week, a U.S. official confirmed to CNN that our government has targeted an American citizen, a Muslim cleric, for what amounts to illegal assassination.

Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to hiding in Yemen, has been linked to the accused Fort Hood shooter, the accused Christmas Day Bomber and two of the 9/11 hijackers. He also has a huge following in Britain where followers say he's like Osama bin Laden.

But should our government mark an American citizen for death?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Joining me right now is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind who's with us from Washington; former CIA operative Fred Burton in Little Rock, Arkansas tonight; and CNN Senior Legal and Political Analyst Jeffrey Toobin here with me in New York.

Jeff, let me start with you. The American government putting an American citizen on an assassination list, do we do this?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, in 1975, Gerald Ford signed an executive order that said we do not assassinate, period. Well, after 9/11, that really became obsolete.

BROWN: Right.

TOOBIN: We have been targeting Osama bin Laden and everyone associated with him for quite some time.

It is not surprising, and it is not illegal that an American is now on that list, because the argument is our military requirements are that we kill al Qaeda leaders, and if it's an American, so be it.

BROWN: So - so, Fred, is this the first time that you have heard of a - of an American being targeted?

FRED BURTON, FORMER CIA OPERATIVE: No, Campbell. If you look, we've had Azzam the American, which is Adam Gadahn, has been a high- valued target for quite some time. And I think that if you look at this from a strategic perspective, this is to be expected, and if you think about it from the concept of these predator drone strikes hit, they're going to take out whoever's in that building or hut or cave.

So I think you're looking at just a counterterrorism strategy here where this individual has placed himself in a position where he's going to be at the receiving end of a missile strike.

BROWN: That - that may be the case, Ron, but that doesn't change the fact that I think a lot of jaws dropped today hearing this news that - that it's not capture this guy but kill this guy, an American. And - and I know, as Jeff pointed out, the rules certainly changed after 9/11, but - but were you surprised to hear that this administration would be taking this step?

RON SUSKIND, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR: You know from the very start, Campbell, I think the thinking was this administration would be moving in the other direction rather than going further that the Bush administration essentially had, which is what they have done at this point.

You know, it's interesting because what you're in, again, is the same sort of problem the Bush administration faced. I don't think the Obama administration's doing much better about it in terms of these wider issues of American principles.

You know, the fact is is that how this whole traffic around the world, the United States is now willing to kill American citizens that oppose it. Now, obviously nobody wants this guy to be out there creating the trouble he has been creating.

But think about what does, what happened today. Essentially, it raises the profile of - of Awlaki, who is a real problem. It makes him something of a rock star, he's already celebrated, and - and probably 10 times as many people will start reading his - his virulent matter online, on - on the vast world wide web.

You know, this issue of - if identifying in a kind of "we're going to get you" way, these - these terrorists or these folks, encouraging terrorism, has - has been shown not to be particularly effective. What happens is essentially they become enlarged, they become actually more prominent, and what they say becomes more prominent. And now, he is in a kind of peer status with the United States. There are much better ways do this. The Bush administration found this out at the end of their tenure, to work quietly, to not essentially act in this sort of blustery way, and - and that goes to the heart of this hearts and mind struggle.

It seems the Obama administration still hasn't figured that part out.

BROWN: Go ahead.

TOOBIN: This was a news leak. It wasn't an announcement by the Obama administration.

Now, I know sometimes news leaks are intentional, but I don't know, the idea that the Obama administration raised his profile, the journalists of "The New York Times" did a good job in ferreting this out.

I don't think that's the same thing as the Obama administration intentionally raising this profile and turning him into some kind of hero. He was already a pretty big hero to start with.

SUSKIND: Well, look - look, to be fair, you know, the fact is in the news cycles and the way they operate now, if you do something, it's going to get out. You've got to think about the fact if we make this step and we - we essentially put this guy in a kill list, it's going to get out. Actually, reporters in January, "Reuters", 'L.A. Times", others have been on this story for months.

You know, I think we're not thinking as clearly as we might be thinking as to how the United States can say we stick to our principles and there's certain things we do not do and we try not to engage with these people in a kind of us or them way, which I think, frankly, we are now with Awlaki.

BROWN: OK, Fred, I'll give you the last word, very quickly if you can.

BURTON: Well, I think it boils down to still an intelligence problem, which we've been talking about at Stratford for quite some time. You still have to find him. You lack the human intelligence to be able to find him.

BROWN: All right, guys, thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: A new battle this week over one of the nation's ugliest chapters - slavery. Why did Virginia's governor leave out any reference to that when he proclaimed Confederate History Month?

I'll talk with former governor Doug Wilder.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BROWN: A long simmering controversy heated up again this week, harkening back to the Civil War. Virginia's Governor, Bob McDonnell, a Republican, was forced to apologize after declaring the month of April Confederate History Month.

The proclamation, issued quietly on the governor's website, failed to mention anything about slavery. Well, that omission infuriated civil rights activists.

The proclamation has been a hot potato for years. Virginia's past two Democratic governors refused to issue it.

And this week, I spoke with former Virginia governor, Doug Wilder, the nation's first African-American elected governor.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Governor Wilder, welcome to you.

L. DOUGLAS WILDER (D), FORMER GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA: Campbell, always good being with you. I wish you were back here in Richmond.

BROWN: Sometimes I do, too.

So tonight, before we get to Governor McConnell's (ph) statement that he just put out this evening, I want to go back to how he defended his proclamation to "The Washington Post" earlier, and he said, quote "There were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery, it involved other issues, but I focused on the ones that were most significant for Virginia."

Now, I'm guessing, Governor Wilder, that to African-Americans living in Virginia, slavery was a pretty significant issue. But, you tell me -

WILDER: I think so.

BROWN: -- what did you think when you first read that?

WILDER: Well, when I first read it and heard about it, I - I knew that it was not right. I knew that it was wrong. I knew that it had to be revised. I knew that there had to be a change, and I knew that there would be a reaction, and all of that has come true.

BROWN: You - you spoke with Governor McDonnell this afternoon as he was putting this statement together.

WILDER: Yes.

BROWN: What did he tell you?

WILDER: Well, he called and he - he pretty much said that he was going do what he's done in terms of revise this statement and ultimately revise the proclamation itself. And I reminded him of what he said to me, when he said to the people of Virginia during the inaugural. He pointed to me while I was in the stands and said "This nation - this state has come from a place where Doug Wilder, the grandson of slaves, could be a governor."

Now, that is what slavery was about. We came from a period of deprivation, of denial and dehumanization and uplifting. That's the Bob McDonnell that I thought would have been a part of this proclamation.

That's why I think he should be commended for being man enough and strong enough and straightforward enough to say, look, I made a mistake. It was a mistake. I should have included things in it that I didn't. Now, I shall do so and make it even in this proclamation.

BROWN: So you're satisfied with what he said now?

WILDER: I am pleased to the extent that he's let it be known that he is not acting as if this was something that a glorious period of our times. He's called it an abomination. He said it was a sleight.

He's likewise recognized that he made a mistake and not fully letting people know what he really meant and what he was attempting to do.

BROWN: So - so do you think now that it's OK to - to celebrate Confederate History Month?

WILDER: No, I don't, and that's - that's where we get past.

Celebration to me is a time of joy. It's a time of fulfilling suppressed desires, of getting over it, and say, oh, boy, this is good.

What is there to celebrate when you consider half million of the people during that time were Africans in slavery? People who had no - no hope to believe that anything was going to happen?

This was the celebration of the beginning of the Civil War? What would have happened had they been successful?

BROWN: Governor, I got to ask you, you did refuse to endorse the Democrat who ran against Bob McDonnell last year. Do you regret that?

WILDER: That's correct.

BROWN: How do you - how do you think -

WILDER: No, I don't -

BROWN: -- this whole episode reflects on him now?

WILDER: I don't regret that at all. I think that the Bob McDonnell that spoke at the inaugural, when he was sworn in, is the Bob McDonnell that's beginning (ph) to amend the proclamation that he issued.

He's recognized the mistake. He's not the Bob McDonnell that was a part of that thesis that (INAUDIBLE) focused upon. No, the candidate for Democrats, in my judgment, did not represent the values that I think most Virginians believed in, and I think that this hiccup, as far as the McDonnell administration, is something that could be and should be cured. I hope that it is.

BROWN: Governor Wilder, it's always good to talk to you. I really appreciate your time tonight.

WILDER: Thank you so much always, Campbell.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: The man whose group asked for that proclamation in the first place will be here next to defend it.

Also Citibank executives were pummeled for failing to understand how their gambles crippled our economy. This week, they apologized, but will they change their ways?

The author of a bestselling book on Wall Street gives me his take.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: As we continue our conversation about the controversy surrounding Virginia's declaration of Confederate History Month, here are a couple of facts. There are more statues of Confederate soldiers in Virginia than any other state, more than 100. And it was only 13 years ago that Virginia stopped using as its state song "Carry Me Back to Old Virginia," which includes some racially offensive lyrics. Lots of history.

This week, I talked with Virginia state senator Donald McEachin, Brag Bowling of the Virginia division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and historian Doug Brinkley.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Brag, let me start with you. Your group has been pushing for Confederate History Month for a long time now. Make your case. Why do we need it?

BRAG BOWLING, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS: Virginia was a Southern state. The Confederate soldier was the person who defended that state against a huge invasion by the North, and he hasn't been honored. And it's very similar to what's happening today with the Vietnam veteran. It's like a chapter of history has been erased.

And we felt like -- and Governor McDonnell said it perfectly. There's education that will benefit everybody and tourism will help the state and make people money. And the Confederate soldier needs to be honored and remembered.

BROWN: So what do you make, then, of the governor's decision to add this anti-slavery language to the proclamation today? BOWLING: Well, as you can see from Governor Wilder's statement, it really doesn't matter if that's in there or not. He's still against it. And that makes a good case, I think, for the need for Confederate History Month because the opposition, the people who are making the most noise about this, don't even want to hear it. That's bad education. That doesn't move the ball forward.

BROWN: But I think the point of my question, though, is don't you think that slavery ought to be a part of the conversation if you're going to talk about Confederate History Month?

BOWLING: The language of the resolution was an omission by Governor McDonnell. We didn't create the language. All we asked for is a truthful and accurate history of the period.

BROWN: OK. But this -- before I get to everybody else, very quickly...

BOWLING: And that includes slavery.

BROWN: Do you think -- that's what I was going to say. If ...

BOWLING: It does. It includes slavery.

BROWN: If you want an accurate picture of the period, you've got to include slavery, right?

BOWLING: Right. But I think what Governor McDonnell was looking for, since it was a resolution asked for by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is an organization which represents Confederate -- ancestors of Confederate soldiers, it would be more geared towards the soldier. And I think that's where he was coming from. And it was an omission on his part, something that our organization is not opposed to. Any sane person in the 21st century is opposed to slavery. But we've got to look at the period of the time. You look at Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant...

BROWN: Right.

BOWLING: ... at the end of the war. Who owned slaves? It was Grant.

BROWN: All right, Senator McEachin, you were opposed to Confederate History Month before. I'm assuming you have not changed your mind in the midst of all this, have you?

A. DONALD MCEACHIN (D), VIRGINIA STATE SENATE: No, I haven't. You know unfortunately, Virginia has been in a very bad new cycle for the past 24 hours. And it's regrettable. If you're going to do something like this, you ought to be -- it ought to -- first of all, it ought to be Civil War history that we're looking at and the sacrifices of people on both sides, both the North and the South.

But you know, the real problem we have here is that we have a governor who has failed to embrace a non-discrimination statute. That's put us on a negative light. We've had an attorney general who has sued the federal government over health care. That's put us in a negative light. And now we have this.

BROWN: Doug, let me bring you in. And take us, I guess, to a little broader perspective here. First of all, when you first heard about this proclamation, did you think it would survive the day as is...

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, RICE UNIVERSITY: No.

BROWN: ... or clearly, we were headed down this path?

BRINKLEY: Well, I think, as soon as you read the language of Governor McDonnell, you realize he made a terrible mistake. Whether it's purposeful or not, I don't know. But it was obvious he was going to have to put in a -- some slavery language.

This is the "lost cause" scenario, that somehow the South -- there's a big neo-Confederate movement, groups like the League of the South, the Southern Party, United Daughters of the Confederacy -- you can rattle off 20 of them -- feel that the winners, the union, has somehow dominated the history books and that Confederates never get their fair due. And they tend to build it up on Lincoln as a Marxist and that slavery wasn't the real cause of the war.

So it's part and parcel with the kind of neo-Confederate literature that comes out, and it's a revisionist at its heart.

BROWN: And to that point, Doug, it comes out every time this issue comes up involving flying a Confederate flag. I mean, it's like we repeat the same debate over and over again.

BRINKLEY: Well, look, we're in a big states' rights movement now. There's a real anti-federal government feeling, particularly in the Republican Party. Governor Rick Perry of Texas talked about Texas seceding from the union. And the people in New York (ph) said, Gosh, what a mistake, but he ended up beating Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Governor McDonnell's a shrewd man. He figured that there was some political play in this, that it was going to solidify him with the right of the Republican Party and show them that he was a true Virginian in this regard. It was a mistake. I'm glad he fixed the language and we can move on with it -- things because it wasn't a helpful day for anybody.

BROWN: Brag, do you agree with that sentiment, at least? I mean, given what you were trying to achieve here, where are you on this?

BOWLING: Well, I mean, I think the professor is completely wrong. And I think Governor McDonnell did this...

BROWN: But wrong about what? Be specific that -- I mean, what's your -- I mean, you don't agree that we don't continue having this conversation over and over every time this issue is raised?

BOWLING: Well, I mean, the issue is, does Virginia honor the people that fought for the state, who had to fight armies three times their size that basically destroyed the state and killed thousands of our citizens? Our organization represents the descendants of Confederate veterans. We view them honorably, whether the national media does or not.

BROWN: Let me give you the last word here, Senator.

MCEACHIN: Well, you know, we're hired in Virginia to solve the problems of Virginia. We've got huge problems in terms of transportation, education, any number of -- any number of other issues. And things like this, things like this proclamation and the other things that Governor McDonnell has done over the past 60 days, are not advancing the ball in that regard. We need get back to solving the kitchen table problems of everyday, ordinary Virginians.

BROWN: All right. Gentlemen, appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much for joining us.

MCEACHIN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Coming up, CitiBank says it's sorry, but is that enough? Best-selling author Michael Lewis weighs in on avoiding the next big meltdown. And three teens facing felony charges in the alleged bullying death of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince -- well, they got their day in court. We're going to tell you why none of them showed up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Tonight, bullying on trial. It's the case we've been telling you about, the suicide of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince allegedly after months of torment by her classmates. This week, lawyers for three of the nine teenagers accused of bullying her to death pleaded not guilty in a Massachusetts court. Each faces a variety of felony and lesser charges ranging from statutory rape to criminal harassment. But is prosecuting teens as felons an effective response? That's the question for Po Bronson, co-author of "NurtureShock," a book on the science of child development, and former prosecutor and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

Po, before I get to you, I just want to start with Jeff on this one point a little bit. The teenagers actually weren't in court today. The lawyers entered pleas on their behalf, and that's a little bit unusual, right?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Massachusetts has an unusual law where defendants of this age don't have to attend an arraignment. It's odd because arraignment, the whole purpose of one is to inform the defendants formally of the charges. But the lawyers understandably didn't want to subject their clients to this sort of attention, didn't want to get their pictures in the paper again. So they chose not to attend, which was their right. BROWN: So we're talking about felony charges right now, but legally, I guess, it's possible or probable that these could be reduced, or we don't know at this stage?

TOOBIN: Well, it's very early in the case. And certainly, a plea bargain is possible, especially in a situation like this, where you don't have a law that fits squarely with the alleged conduct. Massachusetts, unlike many states, doesn't have specifically a bullying law, so they're using laws like harassment. And that does certainly seem to raise the possibility of a plea bargain to lesser charges, which would keep these kids out of prison.

BROWN: So Po, let me go big picture with you a little bit and talk to us about what the science says here, I guess as much as there is, about the effects of bullying and the possibility that it can lead, as it did in this case, to suicidal behavior.

PO BRONSON, CO-AUTHOR, "NURTURESHOCK": Well, big picture, the anti-bullying legislation, I'm sorry to say, is not going to have a big effect. Almost all the existing bullying programs have -- occasionally are effective, usually are not, and 15 percent of the time actually make it worse in schools because kids become afraid to report things to supervisors or authorities because they know it's going to now create really serious consequences and kids are going to really get in trouble. And also, kids who are identified in these programs as victims are often now subject to further retaliation and further victimization.

We can't overlook the parenting factors here. We warned about this in "NurtureShock." The paradigm has come true, which is parents think, My kid couldn't be an anti-social schoolyard thug. She's popular. She's well liked. She's revered. She has lots of friends. In fact, it's the forces of popularity and social dominance that turn good girls into the kind of mean girls who do things like this. I'm not saying I know these particular girls.

And also, it starts at home. And bullying behavior does start between siblings. There's a lot of social dominance and cruelty and teasing that goes on in homes, and kids bring that kind of relationship template to their relationships at school and begin to tease each other equally, and it sort of starts.

BROWN: So I mean, I got to say what you're saying is going to stun a lot of people because in light of this case, there's all this emphasis now in the legislation on trying to get these anti-bullying programs into schools.

BRONSON: Right.

BROWN: So go back to the root of it, which you're pointing out is parenting. What are parents supposed to do here?

BRONSON: Well, two things. First of all, not all bullying programs don't work. There is a new one, it's only a couple years old out of Finland, and I've just seen a couple weeks ago incredible new data on this program. It's called Kiva, K-I-V-A, and the people there in Massachusetts should be studying this program, implementing it there throughout Massachusetts.

It is a kind of a cradle-to-grave program. The kids hear about it in 1st grade, again in 4th grade, and again in 7th grade. So by the time they're in high school, it's not just that they treat the bullies, it's that they treat the onlookers, the bystanders. It tells them, You're part of the problem, and you are the solution. You need to stop rewarding aggressive behavior with awe and respect. When you see aggressive behavior, you don't have to intervene, just walk away. Stop feeding the social centrality that leads kids to turn to anti- social behavior to achieve popularity.

And parents and teachers need to teach our kids that they can achieve that kind of popularity through pro-social activities, for doing nice things. Kids respond to that just like grown-ups do.

BROWN: All right. I've got about literally 10 seconds, Jeff. I know there have been calls for the resignation of the superintendent and the principal. Could there possibly be any charges for any of the adults in this case?

TOOBIN: It certainly seems unlikely that there could be criminal charges. Yes, there could be a lawsuit, a civil lawsuit for damages. But failing to do something, failing to protect someone, the criminal law rarely deals with that, and I doubt it would apply here, even.

BROWN: Jeffrey Toobin and Po Bronson, really appreciate your time. Thank you, guys.

BRONSON: Thank you. Thank you, Campbell.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Best-selling author Michael Lewis explains how Wall Street gets rich with your money. The bigger the risk, the bigger the payoff. That's all part of his new book "The Big Short," next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Two former CitiCorp execs at the helm when the bank lost billions want you to know they're sorry. Citi, of course, was just one of several banks that gambled it all in the subprime mortgage market and helped bring our economy to its knees.

Well, this week, in a joint appearance before Congress, former CEO Chuck Prince and Citi adviser and former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin testified they just did not understand the risks. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES PRINCE, FORMER CITIGROUP CEO: Let me start by saying I'm sorry. I'm sorry that the financial crisis has had such a devastating impact on our country. I'm sorry for the millions of people, average Americans, who have lost their homes. And I'm sorry that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us.

ROBERT RUBIN, FORMER U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: We all bear responsibility for not recognizing this, and I deeply regret that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Author Michael Lewis has probably dug deeper into the culture of Wall Street risk-taking than almost anybody. He has already written one legendary book on the subject, "Liar's Poker." And his latest is "The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine." It's already number one on "The New York Times" best-seller list. And he is joining us right now. Michael, great to have you here.

MICHAEL LEWIS, AUTHOR, "THE BIG SHORT: INSIDE THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE": Oh, well, thanks for having me.

BROWN: So I want to get into the book in just a second, but let me just ask you about what we just heard. You had these two extremely well-paid executives, who, you know, some would argue ran that company into the ground, apologizing now, or at least taking some responsibility for it. What do you think?

LEWIS: Yes. It's the first I've heard of that. And it's -- you know, it's better than -- it's better than not apologizing. I mean, but I think that one of the really curious things about this little episode in financial history is that -- that even the people who were really wrong about what was going on in the financial system, who didn't understand it, themselves got rich.

And I think that there's, like, this danger now in the evaluation of what happened, in trying to blame individuals. While there are plenty of individuals who did a lot of wrong things, I mean, essentially, all these people were paid not to understand the risks. They didn't have any incentive to understand the risks. So just pillorying a few executives is not going to fix the problem.

BROWN: And you hear them say that the people who were involved in making these bad deals now -- you know, well, there were all these factors here. The credit ratings were good. Housing prices went down. Nobody told us this was going to be a bad debt. Do you think even now, they really understand what happened?

LEWIS: Well, it's been interesting to me to watch. Since the crisis began to unfold, the pose of the people who were at the top of the system -- and not just the people who ran the big Wall Street firms, but also people in the Fed and the Treasury -- has been that, you know, We're not culpable, we're victims, that it was this kind of tsunami washed over us that no one saw coming. And it was -- it's spoken of almost as a natural disaster when it -- you know, when it wasn't, it was a man-made disaster.

BROWN: But let's go to some of the people because this tees up perfectly your book.

LEWIS: How did that happen?

BROWN: It does!

LEWIS: I don't know how that happened! BROWN: You thought that through. "The Big Short" is about these few unusual characters who did understand what was happening, who predicted the crisis and who made a ton of money betting against everybody else. What did they know that everybody else didn't?

LEWIS: Yes, that's sort of the question that animated me in the very beginning of working on this book, in that here there -- it wasn't that many people, a dozen, 15 investors who set themselves up essentially in opposition to the entire financial system. And what became clear to me is in each case -- none of them knew each other, really. They were all operating as sort of sane men in an insane world and trying to figure out how on earth the system had got itself so contorted so that it was doing these crazy things.

And in each case, it was something different that led them to see -- to take the set of facts that were out there in the world and to arrange them into a more accurate picture of reality. And I think that one of the sort of lessons of the story is the incredible degree of conformity and sort of group think inside the financial system, that it didn't tolerate a diversity of views, as a healthy market would.

BROWN: But there were also no consequences for bad behavior of any sort.

LEWIS: That's why, yes.

BROWN: I mean, so -- so how do you -- when -- and in many ways, that still seems to be the case. How do you sort of scare people into doing the right thing, when they are so unbelievably well rewarded for doing the wrong thing?

LEWIS: Yes, this is the point, right? I mean, if you could do -- if you could get just as rich making bad decisions as you could making good ones, why make the good ones? Why go to the trouble? And that's sort of the lesson of the last five years.

But your language is interesting. I think that if you try to scare people into doing it, it's not going to work. That sort of implies, take the existing system and just lay on it a bigger police force that will run around and terrify people. The problem is that traders even now are rewarded for taking risks that in the short term makes sense, but in the long term do not. This is not a problem just the last four or five years. The seeds of this catastrophe go back 30. So you're talking about really profound, wrenching change that needs to happen on Wall Street.

BROWN: But let me ask you to not go back 30 years, but go back to when you wrote about liars -- when you wrote "Liar's Poker" about Wall Street in the '80s and sort of the legendary excess of that era. Talk to me about what's different from then to now, what you think has changed the most.

LEWIS: Well, one of the odd things is that Wall Street on the surface has become much more socialized, much better behaved. I mean, "Liar's Poker" was filled -- it was kind of an "Animal House" environment. And it was one -- the surface behavior was outrageous. The financial behavior was actually much less outrageous.

I mean, there's a story in this book I've written about a single trader at Morgan Stanley making a single bet that cost the firm $9.4 billion. And nobody -- and nobody knows his name. There were examples of traders back in the '80s losing a couple hundred million dollars and ending up on the front page of "The Wall Street Journal."

BROWN: That's amazing. It really is.

LEWIS: The scope of things has changed quite dramatically.

BROWN: And I read, too, that in investigating the people behind the subprime crash, you also found out that "Liar's Poker" had inspired many of them to go on Wall Street in the first place.

(LAUGHTER)

LEWIS: Yes. No, it really was sobering to find that when I was talking to people who actually had gotten their firms in trouble, a lot of them were willing to talk to me because they said "Liar's Poker" is why they got into the business in the first place. And I really did -- some part of me did think actually -- because I knew I didn't know what I was doing when I was getting paid to give financial advice -- that this is the catastrophe I would have created if I'd have been allowed to run a Wall Street firm.

BROWN: I mean, what's your take? Do you think that the real part of the problem that you get out in this book is truly being addressed in any serious way

LEWIS: Not yet. My take is this, that both the Bush and the Obama administrations took the position that the banks couldn't be nationalized and they couldn't be run into bankruptcy and the creditors couldn't take hits. So the strategy is essentially to gift money to them until they're out of their problems and back on their feet.

And so having adopted that strategy, I suspect that the thinking is -- although nobody will say this, is, We can't actually address -- we can't attack them with reforms, attack their revenues with reforms because we need them -- we need them to make lots of money and get out of their hole. So I think that's part of the reason reform has been delayed.

Another part of the reason, though, is that essentially restored to strength, the firms themselves are fighting the reforms that need to be enacted. And this is -- that's outrageous. I mean, it is amazing to me that these firms essentially -- they would not exist had it not been for the government intervention, that they're even at the -- that they're at the bargaining table talking about what should be done about them. I don't even think they should have a voice.

BROWN: Great to have you here, Michael Lewis. Appreciate it.

LEWIS: Thank you. BROWN: LARRY KING LIVE starts in just a few minutes. But up next: Why is just about everyone having to say they're sorry these days?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Finally tonight, this week's big apology from the top players at CitiGroup sparked a discussion around our newsroom about all the apologies we've heard from famous people of all kinds lately. Saying "sorry" used to be the hardest word. Well, not anymore.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES PRINCE, FMR. CHAIRMAN AND CEO, CITIGROUP: Let me start by saying I'm sorry.

TIGER WOODS, PROFESSIONAL GOLFER: I'm deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior I engaged in.

AKIO TOYODA, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF TOYOTA: I'm deeply sorry for any accident that Toyota drivers have experienced.

JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), FMR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I made a very serious mistake.

GOV. MARK SANFORD (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: All I can say is that I apologize.

ALEX RODRIGUEZ, NEW YORK YANKEES: I'm very sorry.

DAVE LETTERMAN, "THE LATE SHOW": My wife, Regina, she has been horribly hurt by my behavior.

SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R), NEVADA: To all of them, especially my wife, I'm truly sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And that's all for now. Thanks for joining us. "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.