Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
Interview With Eliot Spitzer; Americans Distrustful of Government?
Aired April 19, 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 ANCHOR: Hey there, everybody.
A brand-new snapshot of our country that explains a lot about the state of the nation right now. Only one in five Americans trust our government to do the right thing, one in five. And, tonight, we are going to try to find some answers as to why so many Americans, according to some of these polls, seem so dissatisfied.
There were lots of examples of that today. Gun rights activists took to the streets in Virginia. Protesters held what they called a restore the Constitution rally. Part of the call to action did encourage people attending the Virginia protest to openly carry their guns.
Tonight, we will also talk to the founder of a group called Oath Keepers. They were part of another protest today on the Mall in D.C. on this issue.
It is also no accident these rallies are taking place on Patriots' Day, commemorating the start of the Revolutionary War. But, of course, April 19 has another, more somber significance -- 15 years ago today, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.
Later in the show, we will hear from some of the youngest survivors of that, and dig in to the shocking case of a pair of homegrown extremists that some are calling the new McVeighs -- that coming up as well.
And then, on another front, one big reason I think a lot of people distrust our government, Wall Street chicanery like the fraud the SEC charges may have taken place at Goldman Sachs. We're going to talk to one man who says he saw all of this coming, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, once known as the sheriff of the Wall Street, who later resigned amid something of a scandal. He will be here as well.
So, we have got a lot to go get to tonight. But we begin, as always, with the top stories of the day in our "Mash-Up."
And the big international story tonight continues to be -- no surprise here -- a worldwide disruption because of the huge cloud of volcanic ash hovering over Europe. A handful of planes did take off today and more flights are due to depart tomorrow.
But, after five days of travel chaos, the Icelandic volcano that started it all is not done yet. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: European officials announced plans to partially reopen the skies to some flights tomorrow. The volcano in Iceland is still -- yes, it is still erupting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: British Airways, Lufthansa and several other airlines sent up their own test flights and landed without incident, their engines showing no damage. They believe it's safe to fly.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Europe tomorrow morning, will be broken into three zones, open skies, a so-called caution zone, where some flights will be permitted and a much smaller no-fly zone than we have seen in recent days.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The new rules come after furious complaints from the airlines that the blanket shutdown was an overreaction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The airlines say they're losing at least $200 million every day that they're grounded.
From eruptions from Iceland to the eruption on Wall Street, our top domestic story, questions about the timing of the SEC's lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. At least one top Republican is questioning whether the Democrats are using the lawsuit to push passage of their sweeping financial reform bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Democrats seized on the government's new fraud suit against Goldman Sachs as one more reason to pass their financial reform package now.
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: This comes right down to this basic question. Whose side are you on?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those words come after those bombshell allegations that Goldman duped clients into investing in a mortgage product put together by another one of Goldman's own clients, hedge fund giant John Paulson, who was allegedly looking to profit when that product then failed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president will travel to New York City Thursday to pitch financial reform in the shadow of Wall Street. Bush, today, the White House spokesman denied the government's fraud case against financial giant Goldman Sachs was timed to provide political advantage.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The SEC is by law an independent agency. It does not coordinate with the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BROWN: Goldman's stock fell nearly 13 percent Friday on the news the suit, but gained 1.6 percent today.
Our number-one political story, the state of relations between the Obama administration and Israel. Today, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned of what he called the growing alienation with the U.S.
But, in an interview with "Good Morning America," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to downplay any tensions. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC ANCHOR: It's pretty clear that the U. S. -Israel relationship has hit some hard bumps in recent weeks. Who's to blame for that?
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I think with any family, with any relationship, a relationship of allies, even your relatives, you have ups and downs. You have disagreements. But I think this relationship between the United States of America and the people of Israel is rock solid.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You met with the president on March 23rd. It was an extraordinary visit to the White House -- no public pictures. The president apparently kept you waiting while he went up and had dinner and left you waiting in the Roosevelt Room.
NETANYAHU: I don't know how the meeting was perceived, but I don't think there was any such intention on the part of the president. I think we have some outstanding issues. We're trying to resolve them through diplomatic channels in the best way that we can.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Netanyahu also said that Israel wants to resume peace talks right away.
And the story getting a lot of buzz tonight, Bush and Clinton together again. But, this time, it was Jenna Bush interviewing former President Bill Clinton in her role as a correspondent for "The Today Show."
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNA BUSH, NBC: I'm sure this is a rarity, at least for me, a Bush interviewing a Clinton.
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: But...
CLINTON: I was thinking, if your family fed in questions, I would be cooked.
(LAUGHTER)
BUSH: No way. They love you. In fact, they joke that you're my grandfather's stepson. Have you heard that?
CLINTON: Yes, I have.
BUSH: Because he talks about you more than he talks about anybody else in the family.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: Yes, but your mother -- I mean, your grandmother always says every family has one, a black sheep that strays, so...
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: The president, or the former president, also talked about his daughter Chelsea's upcoming wedding, saying he has gotten involved in some of the planning.
And that brings us tonight to the "Punchline." This is courtesy of Wanda Sykes. She thinks there's something funny about the president's plan for a mission to Mars.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WANDA SYKES, COMEDIAN: Clearly, President Obama, you know, he must know something we don't, you know, because it can't just a coincidence that the same week volcanoes were erupting and meteors were falling, he started saying, NASA should start planning a trip to Mars.
(LAUGHTER)
SYKES: Come on. I don't know about you all, but I'm keeping an eye on the White House, because the second I see Michelle packing up her Bowflex, I'm heading for the hills.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Wanda Sykes, everybody. And that's your "Mash-Up" tonight.
All those questions about the case against financial giant Goldman Sachs and the political fight to push through Wall Street reform in Congress.
Coming up, we have former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. He has faced down the Wall Street titans before, and says none of this is a coincidence, by the way -- when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: The White House today denied having anything to do with the timing of the civil fraud case against Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs. Some Republicans claim that Democrats are trying to politically exploit the charges to build a case for their financial overhaul bill currently stalled in Congress.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shot back today. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIBBS: The SEC is by law an independent agency. What it does, it doesn't coordinate with the White House, and we received no advanced notice of any enforcement action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: President Obama is going to Wall Street Thursday to push the plan that would tighten the reins on banks, including limiting predatory lending and making banks hold on to a certain percentage of the loans they make.
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said today that the suit against Goldman is no coincidence, something he might know a little bit about. Spitzer very aggressively went after Wall Street and won a historic $1.4 billion settlement from 10 different financial firms, including Goldman Sachs. He's joining us now to talk through all of this.
Welcome to you.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Let me ask you to start by just explaining to viewers what it is that Goldman allegedly did in the simplest terms.
ELIOT SPITZER (D), FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: Sure.
Well, in the simplest term, pretend I'm Goldman Sachs and I'm selling you a very complicated financial instrument, and I pretend when I sell this to you that it's a good investment. But what I don't tell you is that somebody else chose the elements of that instrument, put it together, and the person who chose it wants it to fail.
I didn't tell you that. I didn't tell you that there is an ulterior motive underlying the construction of this. You're depending upon me for my sound judgment. In fact, somebody else's judgment made the fundamental determinations, and his judgment was...
BROWN: And that's John Paulson, a very successful hedge fund guy.
SPITZER: That's John Paulson, who made a huge sum of money betting against subprime debt. There's nothing wrong that -- nothing alleged to be wrong with him participating that way. The failure was Goldman not explaining to you that your...
BROWN: So I trust you, right, and you're misleading me.
SPITZER: You trust me.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: That's right. This is called a failure to disclose a material fact, that material fact being he made the choice, not me.
BROWN: I have got to ask you this, because this made a little bit of news today.
SPITZER: Right.
BROWN: You said earlier that you thought the timing of this, coming out this week, was a little bit suspicious, given that the administration is trying to get their financial regulatory bill through. It's a little bit stalled right now. And suddenly this...
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Right, here we go.
BROWN: You know, here we go.
SPITZER: Well, look, I didn't say suspicious. And...
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Well, OK. I got your words right there.
SPITZER: Right. Oh, you got my quotes. Good. There are no coincidences.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: You were ask if it was a coincidence. And you said there are no coincidences.
SPITZER: Precisely.
No, but I didn't say suspicious. I think what's happening -- and this is legitimate -- the SEC is saying, we need to make cases that will both enforce the law, and tell the public we're enforcing the law, and participate in the public discourse. This is a hugely important case.
Now, they may win, they may lose. The materiality -- to speak like a lawyer for a moment, the materiality of that failed item that they didn't disclose is something the courts will fight about. Goldman has now been cast in a very negative light, not just because of this case, but for other reasons we can talk about.
But I think the SEC did the right thing in making this case now, saying to the public, here's a way of acting that we believe was improper.
BROWN: So, you're not making any sort of accusations that the White House was in cahoots with the SEC or anything?
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: No, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Because some people are certainly going to leap to that conclusion.
SPITZER: Oh, well, people will leap to all sorts of -- just so it's clear, I think the SEC understood we have got to make cases that will be of -- make us a participant in this debate and will tell the public we're enforcing the law vigorously.
That's why they did it now. They knew they needed to do it within this window of opportunity, and they did it.
BROWN: OK, so Goldman's defense here in the most basic sense I guess is buyer beware.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Right.
BROWN: These investments are inherently risky.
SPITZER: Correct.
BROWN: If you're going to put your money, you should know that going in.
SPITZER: Their defense is that you, a European bank, are incredibly sophisticated. It doesn't matter to you whether I made the decision or somebody standing over there in the corner. You have to evaluate it on your own. And don't pretend to us that that's a material fact. It wasn't and it isn't. And only now in retrospect does it appear material because you lost a lot of money.
This is sort of post hoc analysis. The problem for Goldman is that most materiality decisions are made after the fact, when somebody who lost money claims that something wasn't disclosed to them, in this case, the fact that John Paulson made these decisions, John Paulson, as you have already said, being somebody who bet against the subprime market in a big way. And they're saying -- you're saying to me, hey, why didn't you tell me that?
And I think that Goldman in the fullness of time will lose that issue before a jury or a judge. They will drag it out for a long time, and they may want to settle it two or three years from now. Right now, their greatest risk is reputational.
People are looking at them saying, what are you doing? What are do you stand for? Can we trust you? We just gave you hundreds of billions of dollars, not just the $12.9 from the AIG...
BROWN: Right.
SPITZER: ... but all of this huge sums of money. And people are saying, what do you do that is useful? What purpose do you serve to help our economy? And it's a good question.
BROWN: So, a fair question. Let me jump forward a little bit here, because answer this for me. The financial regulatory reform bill, in its current form, is there anything in it that would have prevented this?
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Look, I don't think so. I know Senator Dodd has said there is. I don't see what in that bill would prevent Goldman from marketing this product without disclosing who was involved along the way in picking the component parts of the synthetic CDO. So, I don't think there is.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: If the problem here was just a bad actor, you can't legislate against people doing bad things, right?
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Look, you're making a critical point, that there's only so far you can go through regulation to stop outright fraud.
Fraud is going to be committed by bad people in the market, who will lie and deceive, whatever the laws may be, which is why you need institutions to have a certain ethic about the way they do business. It all comes down to words that are really boring, fiduciary duty.
To whom did they owe a duty? Was it you who was purchasing this instrument? Was it John Paulson, who was paying them a fee? Was it ACA, another party involved? I don't get into too many details.
So, that confusion is at the center of this. And part of that is because we have financial institutions that are doing so much for so many different people. They're too complicated, too complex and there's no clarity about who they owe that duty to.
BROWN: OK. You alluded to this, but let me ask you this.
SPITZER: Sure.
BROWN: As a politician, as a former politician, at least, you mentioned Chairman Chris Dodd, Banking Committee chairman, saying today -- and here are his exact words, that failure to enact his financial overhaul bill would leave the American public vulnerable to shenanigans at Goldman Sachs, other large firms?
(CROSSTALK) BROWN: Is he being a little disingenuous? You also have -- if you Google this -- Politico did a story on this. If you Google Goldman Sachs and SEC right now, what pops up? BarackObama.com. I mean, the DNC is using this to raise money.
As a politician, does it bother you a little bit that Democrats are jumping on this to make political hay in order to try to get this bill passed?
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Look, everything you do is going to be used for political purposes, even if you do it with the purest of motives. We -- I spent many years, as you said earlier, pursuing impropriety on Wall Street, trying to do it for the right purposes, doing it, taking some real hits from people who disagreed with us.
We obviously thought we were doing the right thing. People always imputed ulterior motives. You just have to disregard that. I'm not worried about the ulterior motives that may or may not swirl around Washington. They're omnipresent. People will impute them to everything you do.
I think the issue now is, how do we get the best bill that does the most to restore capitalism as we need it to survive? What we had before was some crazy notion of libertarianism swirling through the halls with Alan Greenspan and even Bob Rubin and certainly Chris Cox, the prior chair of the SEC, people who didn't understand where the rules needed to be enforced, and I'm afraid with Tim Geithner and Larry Summers also.
What we need is rules that are clear that restore capitalism, so that we create jobs.
BROWN: So, before we take a break, given the connections, as you said, Summers, Geithner, that they have to Wall Street, that the Republicans have to Wall Street, to the average person, to me, with no -- I mean, how do you -- how do any of us have faith that our members of Congress in Washington are going to come up with a bill that addresses these issues?
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: What you need is to read and think and look across and read things such as "The Big Short," such as Simon Johnson's the "13 Bankers." Read Paul Krugman or Joe Stiglitz, writers who every day articulating what the rules should be.
Paul Volcker, who is not so much of a writer as a great eminence, who has said, in the Volcker rules, which I think we should embrace, take apart these multipurpose investment banks that have so much power concentrated in them, and sort of disaggregate that power.
BROWN: But that -- the bill doesn't do that.
SPITZER: No, it doesn't, which is why, is it progress? Yes. Does it answer the problem? No. Does it go far enough? No.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: So, should they blow it up and start over? You know this stuff as well as anybody.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Look, I don't want to say blow it up and start over. But do they need to go further than they have? Absolutely. Do they need -- the biggest issue, four letters, TBTF, too big to fail.
These institutions that are too big to fail that have now explicit federal guarantees behind them, so they can borrow, and there's an asymmetry. When they lose money, it's on our shoulders as taxpayers, if they go bust. If they make money, they keep it and give it to themselves as bonuses. That asymmetry creates a desire for risk that is dangerous. That is what got us here in the first place. This bill doesn't go anywhere close to where it should go in terms of eliminating that asymmetry, breaking up these institutions that are too big. And that is where we should be thinking about this.
BROWN: And you're a Democrat. All right, hold on. We're not done yet.
Coming up, we're going to get in to what may be next for Eliot Spitzer, along with quite a lot of other things, as well as the question everybody is asking: Will he run again?
Right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: And we are back now with former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.
Most people know you had quite a reputation for going after Wall Street very aggressively in your role as attorney general. A recent article argued that none of this would have happened if you had still been attorney general.
SPITZER: I don't believe that.
This stuff was sort of emerging, and it was the crest of a wave that was the product of 30 years of deregulation and 30 years of bad judgments on Wall Street. The subprime crisis -- now it is true my office and many others, we tried to look at subprime debt and go after it and were shut down by the SEC and the OCC and others. It was unfortunate.
This was during the presidency of President Bush. And we had to litigate that to the Supreme Court and win, but it was too late. But put all that aside. This stuff was a convergence of so many forces that I think anybody who says we could have stopped it individually...
(CROSSTALK) BROWN: But you saw a lot of this coming in...
SPITZER: Well, what we saw, Campbell, was a structure in an industry where so many pieces were coming together in individual banks that created conflicts and tensions that precisely the sort of case that the SEC brought against Goldman was going to emerge, because nobody knew where the loyalty was supposed to go.
They were serving one client or another client. They claimed it was synergistic, but it was really just fraught with conflicts. And bad things were going to happen. And the leverage ratios increased to astronomical levels. People believed their own rhetoric. No regulator to stepped into say this is getting dangerous. And it was doomed to collapse.
BROWN: So, I have got to ask you this. I know you know I do. And I'm going to shift gears here, because you had all this potential as attorney general, as governor. You destroyed your own career.
SPITZER: Right.
BROWN: There is a new book coming out now and a documentary that looks very closely at you, at your enormous gifts and flaws, I think it's fair to say.
SPITZER: Right. Right.
BROWN: And you are going to have to sort of go through all of this again as the book is released and the documentary, as is your family. So, why are you sitting here with me? Why aren't you hiding in a closet somewhere?
SPITZER: Just so it's clear, that won't serve any purpose. And to the extent that I'm asked -- and I have never once picked up the phone and said, gee, can I come on your show? If I'm asked...
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: No, no, no, I know. But you could certainly not have to address this stuff over and over again by laying low for a while.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Of course not. Absolutely. You're absolutely right. And I did.
But, then, when the financial crisis struck and people asked my views, I said, look, I will share my views. I write. People can read my columns or not, based upon their views. And I have tried to contribute in a small way to the thinking about where we should go.
And, again, there's a range of views. And people will agree or disagree with what I have said. But based on the experiences I had and some sensibility about what the market should look like, I have tried to contribute.
And the downside now is, of course, what I have to go through.
BROWN: Much has been made about you leaving open the door to a possible future run for public office.
SPITZER: Right.
BROWN: Are you doing that? Are you seriously considering that?
SPITZER: What I have said is that this is not something I'm thinking about now. What I'm thinking about now is contributing in some way, having a great time with my wonderful wife and three kids, and building a career that will make me feel challenged and engaged and do something useful. And that's what I'm doing.
BROWN: So, you're not ruling it out. I mean, is it in your blood? Do you love politics and...
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: I would like to think that, at the age of 50, I'm not so young that I rule anything out. Probably, I couldn't be a fighter pilot in the Air Force at this age or an astronaut.
But you always say, look, I have no idea where I will go down the road. What I want to do is contribute. There are many different ways of doing that. I love teaching. I teach at City College of New York, which I love. I write. I'm involved with a family business. I will do charitable things. And so these are things that I love doing.
BROWN: Appreciate you being here, Eliot Spitzer.
SPITZER: Thank you so much.
BROWN: Thank you.
Coming up: Today is known in some parts of the country as Patriots' Day. Tonight, backers of gun rights sending a strong warning to Washington, but are some of them ready to go beyond civil discourse? We're going to talk to an expert on extremist groups when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Today is April 19, which marks a variety of significant milestones.
Supporters of gun rights used this anniversary that marks the start of the Revolutionary War to send their own anti-establishment message: They intend to protect the Second Amendment and their right to bear arms at all costs.
And there were two very distinctly different pro-gun rallies held today, one in Virginia, where protesters were openly and legally carrying guns, the other just across the river in Washington, D.C., which bans openly carrying firearms. The only weapon they had in the nation's capital, their words. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We still believe in God and guns and guts.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not real happy with the direction that the government is going right now. And I believe that our Second Amendment rights are in trouble with the political atmosphere that's in Washington right now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why are you here today?
CATHY MCNICKLE, VIRGINIA: I'm here because I'm a supporter of our Second Amendment rights. And I thought it was important to take the time off of work today, like a lot of people don't do and listen tot his people and support the cause.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We belief the Second Amendment is the government's enforcement of a God-given right to defend ourselves. So we are here to basically let the politicians here in Washington know that we are very, very -- feel very, very strong about keeping that right.
BRYAN TOROK, OHIO: We have moved towards more and more restrictive firearm laws, some of which in some areas like Washington, D.C., for example, had gotten to the point where, for all practical intents and purposes, the average person couldn't own a firearm.
DAN TRACY, VIETNAM VETERAN: Is there a problem? Yes, the problem is up at the street in the White House and the capitol. There are too many liberals up there that don't believe in the U.S. constitution. They want their way. They don't believe in truth. They never let the truth get in the way of what they want.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: So we had planned to bring you a debate tonight. We invited the head of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, to join us. And he had agreed but he canceled moments ago. After watching CNN today, he said he did not believe that our coverage was fair and so he was not going to appear on the program.
With me now, we have Robert Churchill, who is the historian with the University of Hartford and an expert on the growing militia movements across the country, joining us solo instead.
Robert, apologize that you're not getting the debate, but I'll do my best to play devil's advocate.
ROBERT CHURCHILL, HISTORIAN: All right.
BROWN: The first thing I want to ask you to get your take on is where this fervor is coming from do you think? What is it really about? Because it's not as though gun rights is a huge issue at the moment. There are no bills being debated, per say. The Democrats, Republicans, nobody is pushing any sort of gun control bill at the moment. What is this about?
CHURCHILL: Well, I think that there's a -- there's sort of an intersection of a lot of different issues here. I think that the gun rights movement has very much coming out of a sort of a libertarian politics in which concerns over big government, concerns over government expanding its powers, and hence eroding civil society. And so to the extent that you have a Democratic administration, to the extent that you have an administration that has just really sort of expanded the welfare state in a pretty significant ways with the health care reform bill, I think in some ways that's standing in for the issue of gun control in a lot of people's minds.
BROWN: So it's really hardly even about guns. It is striking, though, that that, you know, that one rally in Virginia, demonstrators were carrying guns openly, which is legal there but very much an in- your-face kind of demonstration. Not the first time either that we have seen this kind of thing.
CHURCHILL: Well, and that's right. I mean, and I think there's a couple of things going on there as well. It seems to me that for some folks in the gun rights movement, they're really trying to bring back an earlier era in American politics in which guns were actually a normative part of the practice of politics.
If you look at this country's history in the late 18th century and the early 19th century, a lot of politics revolved around militia musters (ph) where guns were present. Guns were a part of political festivity.
BROWN: But let me --
CHURCHILL: And I think they're trying to bring that back.
BROWN: Let me ask you to drill down a little further and look at kind of the larger trend.
CHURCHILL: Sure.
BROWN: Because it does appear that we are seeing a rise in right wing extremism recently. There are a number of studies that have looked at this. The Department of Homeland Security came out with a study last year saying that perhaps it's the economy or possibly the president's race. What do you see as driving recruitment right now beyond just sort of the generic more -- or not generic, but more general libertarian view?
CHURCHILL: Well, I think we have to really be careful to distinguish what's going on on the right end of American politics right now. It is absolutely correct that there's a lot of activity in what I'd call the Christian patriot public sphere. That is to sort of say that part of the political spectrum that kind of casts out beyond the mainstream. There's lots of political organizing going on. There's lots of groups that are emerging or old groups that are getting stronger again.
One of the new groups is Mr. Rhodes Oath Keepers. One of the older groups that apparently is picking up steam again is the John Birch Society which has been around for a long time but apparently is enjoying a resurgence. All of this is political organizing and I don't see it as being particularly threatening.
BROWN: You don't? That was going to be my question. Are there examples -- I mean, there aren't real examples but we -- you know, this is also the anniversary of the, you know, bombing in Oklahoma City. So that has a lot of people thinking about this.
CHURCHILL: Right.
BROWN: Does that worry you?
CHURCHILL: Well, I mean, I guess there are things to be concerned about, but I think we have to pay attention to the right things. We have had a tendency in the last 10 years to be really very concerned about insurgent violence. And sometimes what we forget is that state-sponsored violence can be much more devastating.
It seems to me that we do have some degree of revival in the militia movement, which emerged in the 1990s and then really went dormant during the Bush administration. We do see some increase in the numbers of militia groups, but nothing close to what was happening in the 1990s. So there again, I think that although there are, you know, groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center that are sort of ringing the bells of warning --
BROWN: Right.
CHURCHILL: -- I think they're exaggerating the actual degree of what's happening out there.
BROWN: Robert Churchill, we really appreciate your time tonight. Again, our apologies to our viewers and to you as well that our other guest didn't show up. Many thanks.
When we come back as I mentioned before, this is the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City attack. So we are going to take a look at whether there is a possibility of homegrown terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh waiting in the wings. A closer look when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Oklahoma City 15 years ago today, an act of terror jolted the nation. A bomb detonated by an American against his fellow citizens, federal workers and their children, took the lives of 168 people. The killer, Timothy McVeigh, was later executed for his crime. But what about today's McVeighs?
This year, two other young men fueled by hatred for the U.S. government admitted they plotted to kill black children and assassinate Barack Obama when he was president-elect. Here now, CNN's Jeffrey Toobin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): They met on the Internet. A common gathering spot for skinheads, white supremacists and neo-Nazis. It was the come height of the historic presidential campaign of Barack Obama. 20-year-old Daniel Cowart came from rural Tennessee. 18-year-old Paul Schlesselman hailed from Arkansas. They bonded over admiration for the Third Reich, hatred of Obama and the U.S. government, and their car.
JIM CAVANAUGH, RETIRED ATF AGENT: These two guys were driving a car with a giant swastika painted on them. On the side was painted "Seig Heil, honk if you love Hitler."
TOOBIN: But with Cowart and Schlesselman, it wasn't just talk. Federal authorities detailed how the pair amassed a large cache of weapons, a sawed-off shotgun, rifles, handguns, swords and knives. And according to investigators, Cowart and Schlesselman had an audacious and chilling plan to use those weapons.
CAVANAUGH: They plan to burglarize a gun shop in Tennessee that they'd already identified and get more weapons and ammunition. And then what they wanted to do was take those guns and go to a school and kill 88 black children.
TOOBIN: Eighty-eight children. The number is a common neo-Nazi reference to the eighth letter of the alphabet. H.H., for Heil Hitler. But their plan only started there.
Jim Cavanaugh was the lead agent on the case for the federal bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
CAVANAUGH: Then their grandiose plot was to go on and try to assassinate President-elect Obama. So they were extremely dangerous. I think that they clearly could have gotten into a school and killed a lot of children.
TOOBIN: But before the skinheads moved into action, a team of agents arrested them. Paul Schlesselman's father Mike talked to reporters right after his son's arrest.
MIKE SCHLESSELMAN, FATHER: He was very sorry they did all this. He said man, I was stupid. Never going to do anything like that again.
TOOBIN: Earlier this year, the skinheads pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy and threatening to kill and inflict bodily harm upon a presidential candidate and possessing a firearm. And just last Thursday, Schlesselman was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Cowart is still awaiting sentencing.
The two skinheads are only a few of a handful of violent homegrown extremist who Cavanaugh says have the potential of causing mayhem along the lines of Timothy McVeigh, the mastermind of the Oklahoma City bombing exactly 15 years ago.
Anti-hate groups note that the skinheads' plot was half-baked, but the case comes amid a spate of incidents that has authorities concerned. One involving the Michigan militia members called the Hutaree, arrested for plotting to murder police officers. And Joe Stack, who took his own life when he crashed his small plane into an IRS building in Austin in February.
The law enforcement officials say all these groups crossed the line between free speech and crime.
CAVANAUGH: You can hate, but you cannot hurt. And you cannot plot to hurt or conspire to hurt. Be it a militia in the woods plotting to overthrow the government, you can't do that. You can't plot to overthrow the United States. You can't plot attacks on federal law enforcement officers or police officers. You can't plant bombs. You can't conspire to murder people.
TOOBIN: Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center says there's been a significant surge recently of anti-government hatred and of groups pushing for violence against the government.
MARK POTOK, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER: I think we're in a very worrying moment right now. I think it is really quite similar to the period in '94, early '95 leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing. The reality, though, is that I think that actually the movement or the anger out there is both broader and deeper than it was in 1995. That I think is really scary.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TOOBIN: The trials of the eight Hutaree militia members are yet to begin in Michigan. They pleaded not guilty to conspiracy charges -- Campbell.
BROWN: So talk to me about the law. Obviously, we all have the right to free speech.
TOOBIN: Very good.
BROWN: But when it cross the line? When does it cross the line?
TOOBIN: Well, that's always a subject of controversy. But when you have weapons, when you have specific targets, when you have intentions to use those weapons against specific targets, then it's pretty clear it's criminal.
BROWN: I can't let you go before I ask you quickly to comment on something that President Clinton said when he was asked about his wife as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court. Let's listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL CLINTON, 42ND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She would be great at it. But, and I think at one point in her life she might have been interested in it. But she's like me. You know, we're kind of doers. We like to be out there doing things, rowing our own boat and making changes we can see happen. And again, I think she would ask you or advise the president to appoint someone 10, 15 years younger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: So what did you think of that?
TOOBIN: Well, I thought the emphasis on youth was interesting because you know what, he appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the court, she was already 60 years old. And I think she is the last 60-year-old we're going to see. So Elena Kagan who's 49, that certainly suggests that someone like that would be in Clinton's -- in Clinton's list.
BROWN: Plus age, women, like don't go there. Just generally.
TOOBIN: I don't know.
BROWN: I'm kidding about that. I'm kidding. Jeff Toobin, thank you. Good to see you. A fascinating piece. Appreciate it.
TOOBIN: All right. Thanks.
BROWN: And next, a bittersweet day for the Vatican. The pope on his fifth anniversary as head of the Catholic, Roman Catholic Church after getting an emotional earful from sex abuse victims. We're going to take a closer look when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Today is a day of celebration at the Vatican, marking five years since Benedict XVI became pope. But the priest sex abuse scandal continues to follow the pope wherever he goes, including an emotional trip to Malta over the weekend. During his visit, the pope expressed shame and sorrow directly to some of the abuse victims. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He listened to us. You know, he told me, I'm very proud and I pray for you to have the courage to tell your story.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was fantastic, really fantastic. We were waiting for it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pope cried?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. He had tears in his eyes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And joining us right now is Father Jim Martin, who is a Jesuit priest, culture editor for "America Magazine" and the author of "The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything."
It's very good to have you here in person, finally, Father Martin, and talk to me a little bit. This is clearly an emotional meeting. The pope himself tearing up, as we heard people say. How important was this?
FATHER JIM MARTIN, JESUIT PRIEST: Well, I think certainly for the victims it seemed very important. I think when you have the head of the Catholic Church coming to you and saying in the same of the church I apologize to you, and when you have the victims seeing the pope tear up, I think they get the sense that at least it's touching him on an emotional level and so there's some recognition in them that they are being heard.
BROWN: But there are still going to be critics who say, you know, in the middle of all this has felt like a PR move to some people and that that more still needs to be done from him specifically, I mean, to make it feel more than a gesture. What --
MARTIN: Well, yes, I mean, it's one thing. I mean in philosophy, they say it's necessary but not sufficient. It's not the whole thing. But I think certainly apologizing in a meeting is one thing he has to do. The rest of the Vatican also needs to look at zero tolerance. And they've just put on the Web site all their regulations and their procedures for confronting sex abuse. So, no, it's not the only thing that the pope needs to do, but it's an important step.
BROWN: And let me read some of that because after yesterday's meeting, the Vatican did release a statement and said that the church is doing and will continue to do all in its power to investigate allegations to bring to justice those responsible for abuse and to implement effective measures designed to safeguard young people in the future. But I guess specifically, though, just from your perspective, what would you concrete wise like to see changed?
MARTIN: Well, I'd like to see them adopt what the U.S. bishops adopted in 2002, which would be, you know, zero tolerance for abusers, safe practices being placed in all church institutions. Certainly very strict requirements in terms of who gets into the priesthood. So basically I'd like to see the church frankly become the leader in protecting children and young people. I think there's an opportunity for the church to really take the lead and to go forward and even seek out victims. Find victims rather than waiting for them to come, you know, with their sad stories, really look for them and try to, you know, get their stories. So I think we have to be pro-active.
BROWN: Father Martin, appreciate you coming in. Thank you so much.
MARTIN: You're welcome.
BROWN: And coming up, healing scars of Oklahoma City, one child at a time. You're going to hear firsthand from two of the fortunate few who survived. Right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: "LARRY KING LIVE" starting in just a few minutes. Larry, what do you have tonight?
LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": Campbell, we've got Ryan and Simon and Ellen and Randy and Kara all with us tonight. They're going to tell us about "Idol Giving Back" and let us in on the season of "American Idol" number nine. They'll be answering my questions, some of yours. The idol crew on "LARRY KING LIVE" next, Campbell.
BROWN: Big show. All right, Larry. We'll see you in a few.
When we come back, they were the youngest survivors of the Oklahoma City attack. What they remember and what they have to say today. Right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Some of the most heartbreaking images and inspiring stories from the Oklahoma City bombing involved its youngest victims. One of the 168 people killed in the attack, 19 were children. Somehow there were six children rescued from the ruins. They were bloodied, they were battered, but they did make it out alive. And CNN's Don Lemon sat down with two of the survivors.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DON LEMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Is it emotional to you at all when you walk through this building? What type of experience is it for you being in this building? And on these grounds?
REBECCA DENNY, OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING SURVIVOR: It's just really sad at times. But at the same time, I'm happy that I'm alive.
LEMON (on camera): Where's your name? Where's your name?
Do you ever wonder why you survived?
DENNY: Yes. A lot. I wonder. But I don't know, I guess I have something important to do.
LEMON: What would you say to Timothy McVeigh if you could talk to him?
DENNY: I would ask him why and what was going on in his head at the moment. And then I would tell him that I forgive him for what he did even if he doesn't want me to forgive him.
LEMON: Can you forgive?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
LEMON: You can forgive?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
LEMON: Where you old enough to remember September 11?
DENNY: Yes.
LEMON: And?
DENNY: Oh, that was hard. That was very hard. Because we had just been through that whole scenario about tragedy and loss, and then just seeing other people go through it, it was hard. Very terrifying.
LEMON: When you hear about things like the guy flying the plane into the IRS building and other acts of possible terror, what runs through your mind?
DENNY: First thing that runs through my mind is like, what is the government doing to stop it? But then I'm just like, I guess we have to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
LEMON: People talk about homegrown terror. People talk about terror from overseas. What have you? Is there a difference to you?
DENNY: Terror is terror, no matter where it comes from. You know? So, I think it kind of hurts more when it comes from home because, you know, that's one of us doing all this. So it's just like, whoa. But, you know, it's the same, terror is terror.
I really want people to understand that when you go through something like this, it just doesn't go away, like, the next day or the next year. It affects you for your whole life.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: And that's going to do it for us for now. You can follow me anytime at Twitter. Log on online. Send us an e-mail to talk about anything you saw on the show.
That does it for us tonight. "LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now. We'll see you tomorrow.
