Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
New Evidence of Syrian Brutality; Gadhafi's Last Days?; Power Vacuum in Yemen; Mass Exodus from Gingrich Campaign; Looming Legal Questions About Anthony Weiner Scandal
Aired June 09, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: Good evening, I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
Tonight in Syria, the Arab Spring is turning darker by the hour. Another child has apparently been tortured and murdered by government troops. And awful as it is, this boy was a friend of 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb.
You'll remember that Hamza's death has been seen as a turning point in Syria, the moment when the uprisings in Syria triggered national and international outrage.
This newest victim is 15-year-old Tamer Mohammed al Sharey. I caution you this is terribly tragic video and we're not even showing you all of it. Tamer disappeared on the same day Hamza did. The friends were apparently together. As you can see, he was brutally murdered.
Meanwhile, we obtained fresh evidence of just how cruel Bashar Assad's army is. This video was smuggled out. It shows military thugs brutalizing a protester they've detained. We're seeking to get more information on this event.
But I want to make one thing clear. The United States is now involved in two military actions in the region. In Libya and Yemen. But Syria is a country where the U.S. has done very little to intervene.
So where do we draw the line? It appears tonight that there is simply not any clear answers to that question. I'll have more on all this in just a moment, but first a look at the other stories we'll be drilling down on tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Did Anthony Weiner break the law? A prominent law professor says it's possible. Never mind if the congressman is forced to resign, can he wind up in jail?
And WikiLeaks. A rare glimpse inside an operation that spills other people's secrets, but guards its own until now. Just how reckless is Julian Assange.
Then a new breed on Capitol Hill. E.D. Hill talks to a keen observer who says we've never seen anything like these new lawmakers.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: But first, fresh outrage in Syria over the murder of another boy, this time a 15-year-old. Tamer Mohammed al Sharey was a friend of 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb. You'll remember that video of Hamza's tortured body brought children into the streets of Syria and tonight more protesters are taking to the streets as rage grows against Assad and his brutal regime.
CNN's Arwa Damon filed a report on this latest killing a shot time ago, but we must warn you some of the video is very disturbing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARWA DAMON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "My son, it's my son," a woman wails. "This scar here, I swear it's my son. I stitched the cut on him when he was little."
His name was Tamer and he was just 15 years old. His body is carried inside to be washed.
A voice curses the president. There is a visible gunshot wound below the teenager's knee. A voice says look at the marks of torture as the camera moves to show his discolored and seemingly bruised face.
An activist told CNN of marks on the boy's body and said one bullet wound beneath the knee shouldn't have killed him.
CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of this video.
Children led his funeral procession, carrying a banner reading, "The martyr Tamer, detained alive, martyred after torture."
Tamer was from the southern village of Jiza, near Daraa. The same village that was home to 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb. The image of Hamza's horribly mutilated body prompted international outrage.
Tamer was detained at the same time and at the same demonstration as Hamza according to an activist from Daraa. When residents from outlying villages marched on Daraa at the end of April to break the military siege on the city. Eyewitnesses at the time describe how security forces indiscriminately opened fire on them.
Dozens were killed and wounded. Countless others, including children, detained. Like Hamza, Tamer was finally delivered weeks later to his parents a lifeless corpse.
Two of many Syrian children caught in the crosshairs of a regime grimly determined to hold on to power.
Arwa Damon, CNN, Beirut.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Absolutely heartbreaking video, those stories just, you know, break one's heart. Arwa has done amazing reporting on what's going on, the tragedies inside Syria.
Meanwhile the brutal crackdown is causing many residents to flee for their lives. Crowds are amassing in northern Syria along the border with Turkey desperate to escape the Assad regime.
CNN's Ivan Watson joined us from there a short time ago.
So tell us what is going on on the border there between Turkey and Syria? Apparently refugees are streaming across by the thousands. What has triggered this and what is the Turkish response?
IVAN WATSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: These are desperate people, Eliot. They are for the most part women and children. So far according to Turkish official figures, a bit more than 2,400. Most of those have come in the last 36 hours streaming across the border.
They have abandoned their homes. Some of them have been living for days and nights out in the countryside along the Turkish border and the ones that we've been able to talk to all tell similar stories. They are frightened that the Syrian government will target them.
Many of them are from a Syrian border town called Jisr al- Shughour seeing some kind of bloody fighting that the Syrian government claims resulted in the deaths of at least 120 Syrian security forces. The refugees are telling us that there was actually fighting between soldiers and police. Some of those soldiers refusing to open fire on civilians.
There have been a lot of wounded people that have come across as well. Scores of them being treated at local hospitals here in Turkey. We've been seeing ambulances ferrying them across. And the Turks so far have been putting up these refugees and the grounds of an abandoned tobacco factory near the border, putting them in tents provided by the Red Crescent, and they are afraid that more will be on the way -- Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, am I right, Ivan -- first, it is virtually impossible, since we cannot be present inside Syria, the government doesn't let CNN or any other major network into the Syrian nation, but it seems to me two things are eminently clear here.
One, the brutality of the Syrian government continues unabated and, two, this is a widespread opposition at this point because we are hearing about stories of this sort geographically across, almost the entirety of Syria.
Am I right about those two conclusions?
WATSON: That's right. I mean it's been from the south now all the way up to the northern border, and we're seeing the ripple effects of that with these refugees streaming across the border.
I don't know how united the opposition movement is. What's been remarkable is talking to the activists. You've got young guys risking their lives, filming things on cell phone videos, and they'll actually give you the date -- that they're filming and then they work really hard to upload this.
A lot of the Internet has been shut off in broad parts of the country. Upload this and try to get it out to the rest of the world. And a common message I've been getting both from the refugees and from the activists is we are outnumbered when it comes to the media.
The Syrian state media is pumping out one version of events. We're trying to get our story out, but we're hamstrung. The Internet is being shut down. The phone lines are being monitored. Journalists aren't allowed in.
So they have actually been coming across the border to us trying to show videos that they've filmed and trying to get their word out to the outside world. They're saying they want democracy, they want freedom of speech and they want to do away with this government in Damascus.
SPITZER: Ivan Watson, thank you so much for that fascinating report. A new dimension entirely to the brutality of the Assad regime in Syria. Thank you so much.
Now we move to Libya where opposition forces claim or perhaps just hope that President Gadhafi's days are numbered. The United States and other countries are pledging more money to help the anti- Gadhafi forces who say they are virtually broke.
Sara Sidner is in Libya and joins us now live with the latest.
Sara, thanks for joining us.
Sara, let me ask you this question, is there any evidence, hard evidence on the ground that Gadhafi is close to either resigning, going into exile, that his son Saif is talking to either the United States or anybody else about the terms of declaring defeat?
Because that is certainly the sensibility we got listening to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today.
SARA SIDNER, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's very hard to tell on the ground here in Misrata because communications are very difficult here. But what we can tell you is that when it comes to what's happening on the front lines -- and there are three front lines surrounding this city -- we are now hearing from commanders that they have gotten new evidence that Gadhafi forces are hurting, that they don't have the kind of weapons that they used to have, they don't have as many weapons and they seem to be demoralized.
They said that they have in the past week had at least one high- ranking military official come over to their side. They have captured three people who they say were women. They say that Gadhafi has gotten so desperate he's sending women to the front lines. They said they captured those women, talked to them and then released them.
They also say that over the course of time they've had 15 people who were fighting for the Gadhafi side come over and start fighting for the rebel side. So they really said they're seeing a demoralization of the -- of the fighters on the Gadhafi side who are on the front lines.
They're seeing less and less ammunition coming from that side over to the rebel side. So certainly there is something going on when it comes to the power of Gadhafi's army in this area, and that certainly says something.
There is a lot of buzz about whether or not Moammar Gadhafi is going to make an exit any time soon. We did hear from him this week. He was defiant, saying absolutely, you know, I will die before I leave. But there does seem to be some rumblings that there could be some movement.
That certainly would be cause for great celebrations from the rebel side and certainly in this city you would see massive celebrations here and of course in the stronghold Benghazi -- Eliot.
SPITZER: You know, Sara, the interesting thing is that listening to Secretary of State Clinton today and the other voices from France and England and our allies in this effort, the NATO allies and others, the conversation was very explicitly about planning for post-Gadhafi.
They are taking it as an assumption, a given, that Gadhafi is on the way out. And yet in terms of simply the military battle fronts, as you say, there's some evidence that Gadhafi's troops are not as -- they're demoralized, but the battle lines themselves have not yet moved dramatically.
Am I correct about that?
SIDNER: Yes. I mean that is a correct assumption, especially here. But we do know that the troops here from the rebel side have been able to continue pushing a bit forward. They even said today they made it into the eastern front of Taworgha, which is a city that has been under siege for a very long time.
They were able to push all the way in but then backed up a bit saying, look, the residents have to be ready for this to happen, but they do have more power. They feel they have had more power now than they've had in the last few weeks -- Eliot.
SPITZER: All right, Sara, thank you for that report. Reporting from Misrata in Libya itself.
And now to Yemen where the United States has intensified its covert war launching new drone strikes believed to have killed at least one top al Qaeda commander. The attacks have been largely halted while protesters took to the streets and Yemen plunged closer to civil war.
But now with President Saleh recovering from injuries in Saudi Arabia, there are new fears that al Qaeda will step into that power vacuum.
I just spoke with Sudarsan Raghavan, African bureau chief for the "Washington Post" who's actually in Sana'a, the capital of Yemen.
Sudarsan, thank you so much for joining us.
SUDARSAN RAGHAVAN, AFRICA BUREAU CHIEF, THE WASHINGTON POST: My pleasure, Eliot.
SPITZER: So I gathered that in the melee and the chaos that is gripping Yemen right now, one nation that is not hesitating to step in to flex its muscles is the United States. It seems the United States is going in and increasing the number of drone attacks against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Am I reading this properly?
RAGHAVAN: You're seeing al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda Yemen branch here, really taking an aggressive stance. They're taking advantage of the chaos that's happening in Yemen. And they're actually -- they're actually taking over areas in Yemen, the rest of the south, especially in the Abian,, the southern Abian province, which is a key stronghold of al Qaeda there.
SPITZER: It seems to me that one of the arguments that we have heard with regularity for the United States support of President Saleh is that he had given his permission to basically let the United States run military operations against al Qaeda in the -- al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
But if the opposition forces as well say we will let you run those same operations even if President Saleh is gone, then does the United States care as much if in fact President Saleh stays in Saudi Arabia and never returns to Yemen?
RAGHAVAN: I mean that is a very important consideration and the opposition here has stressed that to the United States, that if they were to come into power in any new regime after President Saleh, they would certainly be willing to be as aggressive against al Qaeda as President Saleh has been. And they would be a partner with the United States in stopping and preventing al Qaeda from targeting the United States and other parts of the -- you know the West.
SPITZER: Having received this assurance from some of the opposition forces in Yemen, is the United States reconsidering what had been pretty firm and unilateral support for President Saleh? Are we modulating our position at all and are we beginning to reach out more aggressively to the opposition, do you think?
RAGHAVAN: Certainly the U.S. is speaking with all sides. You know, they have for months now they have been trying to have sort of a gradual, peaceful transfer of power. They have actively backed this proposal by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is basically Yemen's neighbors led by Saudi Arabia, who basically made a proposal in which Saleh, President Saleh, would hand over power to -- officially hand over power to the vice president and step down.
And the vice president would then create a transitional unity government, which would run the country until elections can be held. And this, many believe, including the United States. Many believed that is the best chance for a peaceful transfer of power. SPITZER: Sudarsan, thank you so much for that report.
RAGHAVAN: My pleasure.
SPITZER: An amazing arc of chaos sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East.
When we return, Newt Gingrich got off to a shaky start today. It got worse. A presidential campaign that can't get out of its own way.
And later in the show, Kaj Larsen joins us with a preview of the WikiLeaks documentary airing on CNN this weekend.
Kaj, tell us about it.
KAJ LARSEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, coming up we're going to be discussing the impending legal crisis facing Julian Assange and, no, it's not in Sweden, it's a lot closer to home. And of course I'll show you a clip from my newest documentary, "WikiWars: The Mission of Julian Assange." Eliot.
SPITZER: All right. Thanks, Kaj. That story and more, and Anthony Weiner's legal woes, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Tonight they're heading for the hills. A mass exodus from the presidential campaign of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as key staffers suddenly resign, including the campaign manager, press secretary and top strategists.
For more on this, let's go to our political panel, CNN contributor Cornell Belcher and Patricia Murphy, who covers Congress for the "Daily Beast."
Welcome to you both.
So let me get this straight. Newt Gingrich in the middle of a presidential campaign goes on a cruise to the Greek Isles and somehow when he gets back, his staff is gone poof, they're just all gone.
What -- is this the way you run a presidential campaign?
PATRICIA MURPHY, CONTRIBUTOR, THE DAILY BEAST: It was not in the middle of a presidential campaign, it's at the beginning of a presidential campaign.
SPITZER: Even worse.
MURPHY: It is even worse and it is just as tone deaf as you can get. And after coming off the Tiffany's problems that he had to go --
SPITZER: Refer to that. Refer to that. Buying too much jewelry?
MURPHY: You've heard of that. He's buying too much jewelry. He's got a half million dollar --
CORNELL BELCHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Half a million dollars.
MURPHY: -- line of revolving credit, that all of us get.
SPITZER: Right.
MURPHY: No big deal.
SPITZER: His wife had no problem with that, though.
MURPHY: Nobody be alarmed. So let's leave the wife out of it. I think she --
SPITZER: All right. Fair enough.
MURPHY: He needs to take the blame for this. So then he goes on a luxury cruise to the Greek Isles. But what's wrong with it? You just said you want to be president and now you're showing how completely disconnected from reality you are. And to the point of these campaign workers resigning, they knew he wasn't a serious candidate.
SPITZER: Well, Cornell, was there something deeper than -- some deeper tension in the campaign that led to their mass exodus, either an ideological issue, a structural issue, because this is clearly no way to run a campaign.
BELCHER: Well, look, I mean, to a person that when you talk early on when Newt announced, the Republicans I knew said discipline, management skills. It was going to be a real problem for him and that could be the implosion.
And clearly what you see is he has a discipline problem. And an (INAUDIBLE) problem. This is not the way you start off a presidential campaign running -- you know, running for the leadership. It's really embarrassing.
Once upon a time this guy was the third most powerful man in the country. He can't even put together a -- a successful campaign. It is kind of embarrassing.
SPITZER: And it also strikes me as one thing when you're running for the presidency, where stability, structure, constancy and judgment are the very core of what you have to project to the public.
When you're a legislator frankly you can be forgiven a little bit on the management side, but not the presidency. So who wins -- who wins out of this chaos that we're seeing right now?
MURPHY: Well, you know, I think that is assuming that Newt Gingrich had any real support within the Republican Party. He was pulling behind Herman Cain in his own home state of Georgia, so I don't even buy into the fact that he was a real candidate to begin with. And I think that these people on the staff knew that. And these are real serious political operatives who were looking around at the field, knew their guy was not raising money, knew he wasn't going to be able to pay them the way they were promised. They were going to be paid and they -- these are not the kinds of operatives who would stick with a losing campaign.
BELCHER: And I think the only real niche for Newt was -- early on was that there was no clear or strong frontrunner so why not throw your hat in the ring. But I'm like you, I don't see a natural niche for him in the Republican side.
SPITZER: Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. I agree. He was never going to win the race, but did he not have a role intellectually? Newt Gingrich, whatever you think about him, has a brain that sparks, that fires. He's always spitting out ideas. Some of them are crazy, but nonetheless he is there.
The intellectual ferment he brings to thing -- to things can be helpful for a party. Now has that been lost?
MURPHY: Well, you know, I haven't even heard a good idea out of Newt Gingrich in a little while to be honest with you and that's not --
SPITZER: Right. Right. Well, neither have I, but these are ideas. I mean --
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: I can say that about most of the Republican candidates.
MURPHY: Sure. Well, I think it does. I mean it certainly frees up some time on the debate stage.
SPITZER: Right.
MURPHY: Although he hasn't dropped out. I mean let's remember. And I think he will stay in because I think this is a campaign about Newt Gingrich being in front of cameras, putting his ideas out there, and being taken seriously. You do that by being a presidential candidate on the stage.
BELCHER: But he did give us one of our best sound bites for the Democrats, is this right-wing social engineering, referring to the Paul Ryan Medicare plan was a gift for Democrats.
SPITZER: Cornell, I think you're making a critical point. Just a week or two weeks ago he went right after Paul Ryan and the whole Medicare reform package that Paul Ryan had put in front of the House of Representatives, passed, virtually every Republican voting for it.
And Newt Gingrich skewered it and so I think that became a major talking point -- real animus against Newt within the Republican Party. But who does win? Of the other candidates out there, who do you now see as the leading candidate that has stature? MURPHY: Well, I think -- you know, you don't even have a leading candidate. All you have to do is go around and talk to some of these statesmen and they're like, I don't know, I could go either way. I don't see anybody I'm really excited about.
I think this really opens up a door for some of these other candidates who are out there and have not gotten in. Somebody like a Rick Perry. Two of these guys are former Rick Perry aides. This opens up the door for him to walk in and it just proves more and more that this field has not had its star come into this.
SPITZER: Wait. Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, who was touting his balanced budget only to say, whoops, we've got a $25 billion deficit on a budget that's only about twice that size?
(LAUGHTER)
MURPHY: I didn't say he could do math. I'm just saying that he -- this is a chance now for him to get into the race. And again, Newt is not out of it. Newt is still there talking. He'll be there talking, I think, the entire time.
SPITZER: He's going to reboot his campaign, he says, Cornell, I mean --
BELCHER: And Rick Perry who's decimated the public education system in Texas.
I think the upside to this, and I'm going to go on record early on this --
MURPHY: Go.
BELCHER: -- is Bachmann.
MURPHY: Yes.
BELCHER: I mean when I look at Romney, I know the Washington insiders want Romney to be their candidate, but the last time I checked, the Tea Party had a lot to say about who was the candidates and the Washington insider establishment did not. And I think right now why Bachmann's folks are trying to push Palin off the stage because she has a natural niche to the grassroots of the Tea Party.
SPITZER: Look, I don't even want to disagree with you but I just think our public -- you know, viewers have got to know, you work for President Obama. President Obama would love to have Michele Bachmann as his opponent.
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: So I can see a little devious kind of -- pushing her there. Come on, this is --
MURPHY: I don't work for anybody. I do work for "The Daily Beast." But Michele Bachmann is an electrifying candidate. All you have to do is be in a crowd that she is talking to and it is like little drops of electricity everywhere she goes.
And so that is something that is exciting to these grassroots activists and it is completely missing from the field right now. So she's the real deal. I mean she is not great on history, but she is great on the stage.
SPITZER: History, facts, logic, economic policy. All right. We know those that electricity she's got.
MURPHY: She's good at math.
SPITZER: All right. Very quickly, we got about 30 seconds left. Should the president be worried? His approval rating is below 50, sort of that magic line if you're an incumbent. Below 50 you get worried. Should he be worried?
MURPHY: He should be worried because the unemployment numbers are going the wrong direction. That's what he should be worried about.
BELCHER: He -- this number will change. More stress should be on people who have jobs not making ends meet. The president has got to stick to that. The unemployment numbers will change. This is just a bump in the road.
SPITZER: Yes, I think the unemployment numbers may go up, his approval may go down. Together they may add up -- they add up to 50. That's when the White House will start sweating.
MURPHY: He's vulnerable. Yes.
SPITZER: All right. Time is out, we'll have you back.
All right, Patricia Murphy, Cornell Belcher, thanks for being here.
Up next, so far Anthony Weiner has refused to resign, but does he have something else to worry about, like an arrest warrant? I'll ask a well-respected law professor if an indictment is even possible. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Don't murder someone who's already committing suicide. Those harsh words come from Senator Dick Durbin via Woodrow Wilson. Durbin is the number two Democrat in the Senate and he's talking about Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Tonight despite building pressure from his colleagues, Congressman Weiner says he's got no plans to resign and he can point to a new poll released this evening to make his case. Fifty-six percent of voters in Weiner's congressional district say he should not resign from Congress. But his political destiny aside, does Congressman Weiner have some legal problems ahead of him? One prominent legal scholar thinks he certainly should be concerned.
Joining me now is Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, also a criminal defense attorney, a practitioner who knows the courtroom and the principles.
Jonathan, welcome.
JONATHAN TURLEY, LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Thank you.
SPITZER: So you are a criminal defense attorney, well regarded. If Anthony Weiner walked in as a client, how would you assess his potential exposure?
TURLEY: I think it's unlikely he's going to face a criminal charge on these facts, but we don't have a lot of the facts. He already did a very clever thing in avoiding the area where most politicians are indicted on in this city and the idea is not calling for a federal investigation.
If he had done that, he would have had to speak with federal investigators. And if you lie to federal investigators, you violate 18 USC 2001, which is the common charge against people in this city. It's usually how you respond to these scandals that prove the undoing for these guys.
SPITZER: Let me stop for one second. So you're saying something critically important here. If you lie to the FBI, any federal agent, law enforcement agent, you're violating federal law, go to jail for five years, it's a felony.
He lied to the media, so he has had heaven and hell descend upon him from the media but it's not a criminal act.
TURLEY: No. You're allowed to lie to the media and you're allowed to lie to your spouse. In terms of the criminal code, it's not good. But there are problems here that you also have to worry about. And that is, you know, we have this latest picture that was sent around, which is quite graphic.
It would constitute what the Supreme Court defined as obscene under "Miller versus California." That would be the second area of concern. In that case the Supreme Court said that the lewd depiction of genitalia is in fact obscene and therefore is less protection under the constitution.
SPITZER: And just so our viewers can understand, therefore, distribution of that picture electronically across state lines or to somebody even who consented to it could be deemed illegal?
TURLEY: It could. But it's not as common. Usually what you see in terms of prosecutions are cases involving children. Either they're a depiction or you're exposing children to these pictures. But we do have some cases where people have been charged. We have the South Carolina senatorial candidate who was charged recently for exposing pictures on his computer to a college student in the computer room.
SPITZER: Here's the issue that I think most people are stumbling over when they look at this. They say, look, bad, heinous, use whatever adjective you want, but apparently consensual, you know -- and we're jumping to a factual conclusion here.
But really the people with whom he was having these conversations appear by and large to have been willing participants. Does that change and frame the legal context?
TURLEY: It certainly does. Not only because it's consensual because they're adults. Those two things are very important. What is very interesting is the article in the "New York Times" where one of the women who have been mentioned in the scandal say that she really didn't engage in this type of sex texting that it came as a surprise.
She was talking about political issues and suddenly she received a photo. Not the latest photo, the one famous underwear photo that we've seen.
If he sent the more lewd photo to women without their consent, without their solicitation, then I think it would be a serious -- it could be a serious problem. I think that the odds are that because of the two elements you identified, that he won't be criminally charged. But there is enough here for an investigation. And also we have to remember it's not just federal, states prosecute obscenity issues.
SPITZER: Let's move this to the other venue where he is certainly going to face an investigation, the congressional ethics committee. Is that tactically a good or a bad thing? In other words, let me posit why it might be good. Does it forestall criminal prosecutors who want say look, let Congress deal with it, and of course the only remedies there would be at the far end expulsion from Congress, more likely a censure of some sort.
So in a way does that provide him a little buffer of protection?
TURLEY: I'd say it's very troubling, many of us have been critics of congressional ethics rules for many years as being rather toothless. And if this follows history he'll be more likely to be cleared than to be convicted.
But there is a problem with this rule. There's a rule that says that you can't conduct yourself in a way that would bring dishonor, discredit, disrespect upon the institution. That's a rule so generally worded that it could be used for mischief.
The fact is this was a private act. Where he crossed the line was in all of these layers of lying that he did, sometimes from Capitol Hill. It's still primarily a private act. And admittedly it gets closer. The problem many of us have is if you start to prosecute people for this type of conduct, is that going to allow Congress to go after unpopular lifestyles and other individuals? SPITZER: And I think the other question that members of the ethics commission will ask themselves, maybe not overtly, is wait a minute, if this is now how we define behavior sufficient to expel somebody or even sanction them, how many other members of this body in their private lives will have participated in something that we really don't want to expose to the sanction.
TURLEY: That's right. I think that if it hadn't been for the lying, I think that this should have been viewed as a purely private embarrassing matter between him and his spouse, with him and his constituents. It would not be in my view a subject that the Congress should look at. It's only the layers of lies, and particularly the lie that suggested someone committed a criminal act by hacking that makes this a closer question in my view.
SPITZER: All right, Professor Jonathan Turley, thank you for your insights on this matter.
Up next, Julian Assange is notorious for dumping state secrets. It turns out he has some secrets of his own. Kaj Larsen with an inside look at WikiLeaks when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: War rooms, top secret documents, moles inside enemy ranks. This is not a spy novel. It's a real-life cyber war between the United States and a mostly anonymous enemy.
You know that enemy as WikiLeaks led by the ever illusive Julian Assange. A cult hero to many, Assange is on a mission to change the world, but his critics say that by exposing state secrets, he's endangering lives.
Now a new CNN documentary takes a hard look at the WikiLeaks whistleblower, it's called "WikiWars: The mission of Julian Assange."
Here with a preview is CNN's Kaj Larsen.
LARSEN: Well, Eliot, Congressman Anthony Weiner is not the only high-profile figure to be facing some impending legal charges. The U.S. Justice Department has handled out several subpoenas in a grand jury investigation to WikiLeaks associates so that signals a potential legal problem here in the United States for Julian Assange.
I've been looking into the subject for months and here's a preview of my longer investigation into the WikiLeaks subject.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARSEN (voice-over): In October, 2010, WikiLeaks releases the mother lode. Nearly 400,000 secret U.S. documents on the Iraq war.
JULIAN ASSANGE, FOUNDER, WIKILEAKS: The start of the Iraq war involved very serious lies, which were repeated and amplified.
LARSEN: The stories reveal troubling new details about the war. Numerous cases of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqi police and soldiers, and cases where U.S. troops killed innocent civilians.
And the steady leak of U.S. secrets doesn't end there. One month later, WikiLeaks publishes diplomatic cables. The U.S. government fires back. Secretary Clinton, who only months before had championed Internet freedom, is now on the war path.
HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: We are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information.
LARSEN (on camera): So what has been the government's counterattack to WikiLeaks? The CIA has established the WikiLeaks task force, known with the agency as the WTF. A cheeky acronym within cyberspace. And additionally the Justice Department has subpoenaed the Twitter accounts of WikiLeaks supporters and is rumored to be marshaling an investigation that could lead to the extradition of Assange to the U.S.
(Voice-over): Then a series of blows. Amazon.com kicks WikiLeaks off its Web site, PayPal bars donations, and Sweden issues an arrest warrant. On December 7th, 2010, Assange is put in jail. And in an ironic twist, a leak exposes the lurid details of the sexual assault allegations against Assange.
NICK DAVIES, THE GUARDIAN: By sheer fluke, somebody he had dealt within the past contacted me and said, guess what, I've got the whole preliminary police file from the Swedish investigation into these sexual assaults. Are you interested?
LARSEN: Nick Davies, a journalist with "The Guardian" newspaper who worked closely with Assange on the Afghan war logs was given a copy of the leaked report.
DAVIES: So what are we going to do? We put it in the paper. That's what journalists do.
LARSEN (on camera): What was Julian's reaction?
DAVIES: He went berserk. His attitude expressed through his lawyer, while we were writing this piece, was that we should suppress this information because he had been a source for us, for "The Guardian," and therefore we owed it to him to suppress it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LARSEN: So Julian Assange, we repeatedly asked him for another interview to clarify both his position and to tell us about the status of his organization, but he denied that request on multiple occasions. And that's an indicator that he's becoming increasingly isolated.
SPITZER: Look, Kaj, no question that not only is he increasingly isolated but he only wants to leak what he thinks is worth leaking, and what he wants to be leaked. Put that issue aside.
Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton, the entire force of the United States government, has come down on Julian Assange trying to prove that he committed a criminal act. The essence of this I think most people think would be proving that he participated in getting the documents from a government source as opposed to his merely receiving them, in which case he'd be more analogous to "The New York Times" that received the Pentagon papers and then published them.
Are there any evidence you're aware of that shows his connection to the government leak itself or was he merely a recipient of these documents? Do we know yet?
LARSEN: Well, that, Eliot, is the critical question. Obviously the government is going to try and prove that he solicited these documents from the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. If they can in fact prove that, it changes the legal situation significantly for Julian Assange.
If Bradley Manning testifies, say, that Julian Assange solicited these materials, that would definitely be a dent in Assange's legal armor. As you've indicated, he will try and use the protection of the Fourth Estate. He will try and say that he is a publisher like "The New York Times," like "The Washington Post," like "Der Spiegel" who merely received this information.
But increasingly even the media is turning against -- or is cooling to Julian Assange, so he's looking like the lone Spartan at the battle of Thermopile and the Greeks just joined the Persians.
SPITZER: All right. I'm going to have to go back to my history to understand that metaphor, Kaj. But thank you so much for the sneak peek. Can't wait to see the full story.
That's "WikiWars: The Mission of Julian Assange." This Sunday, 8:00 p.m. right here on CNN.
But coming up, battle lines are drawn here in Washington. Raise the debt ceiling or take our chances and default. I'll talk to a senator who's trying to find a solution before it's too late.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: There are at least two mega crises facing the U.S. economy right now. One of them is the jobs crisis, with employment growing at an anemic rate. The other of course is the deficit disaster.
A group of five senators, formerly six, have dedicated themselves to solving that second crisis, and Senator Mark Warner is leading the effort. But are we spending too much time worrying about the deficit and not enough time focusing on jobs?
That's what I asked Senator Warner just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: What we've seen in our bullet shot, we've used monetary policy, we've used fiscal stimulus. There's a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines right now.
I think the best thing we can do is put this debt and deficit problem at least on the downward spiral and that's why we've taken the Simpson-Bowles approach in building a bipartisan consensus to try to put that out and say that will at least break the curve.
SPITZER: So rather than another stimulus, rather than an infrastructure bank, rather than some sort of more demand size government spending driven resuscitation of the economy, you think dealing with the deficit is in fact the best way to deal with the jobs crisis.
WARNER: I think there are things we can do around the edges, like an infrastructure bank. I've got a bipartisan bill that I'm supporting with Senator Kerry and Senator Hutchison. That's very important.
I think that we -- but the idea that there's going to be the political appetite for another massive fiscal stimulus, I don't think it's there. So let's get that private capital off the sidelines. The best way to do that is put our country's balance sheet back in order.
SPITZER: Certainly there's a premise there's no political appetite for another stimulus right now, did it work? Do you think when you looked back at where the economy was and where it would have been without it, did the stimulus do what the president and you voted for? What you think it was supposed to do.
WARNER: I actually think history will treat Bush with the TARP and Obama with the stimulus as necessary evils. Maybe not 100 percent effective, but we would have been in a much, much worse shape but for both of those.
SPITZER: All right. Now let's pivot to the issue of the deficit which has been the focal point of so much of your activity group. Part of the gang of six, gang of five.
WARNER: Right.
SPITZER: The number seems to be going up and down --
WARNER: Up and down.
SPITZER: Now the word is, and I think the number you gave is $4.7 trillion over a 10-year period that you would try to cut from our long-term deficit projections. Is that what you're shooting for?
WARNER: It's more -- depending on the baseline, 4.5, 4.6, somewhere in that region. The question is -- and I think there's an immediate sense of urgency. Every day that we fail to act, we add $4 billion to the national debt. And as a matter of fact, as we go back to that issue too where some of my colleagues who don't think dealing with the debt ceiling is important, if we have an interest rate spike, every point that the interest rate goes up, we add $1.3 trillion to our debt. SPITZER: You mentioned Bowles-Simpson, the bipartisan effort led by those two individuals, that is the basis for your recommendation for the gang of six.
WARNER: That's the basis which says let's go ahead and cut spending. Let's also reform our tax code where we'll bring rates down but eliminate some of the exemptions so we can actually generate revenues. At about a 3-1 ratio of cuts and interest rate savings to new revenues.
SPITZER: OK. Now there was and is a revenue component to Bowles-Simpson and what people are predicting will come out of it, the group that you are leading right now.
WARNER: Right.
SPITZER: Will the Republicans who are not members of your group in the House of Representatives and other Republicans in the Senate go for a revenue increase of any form, shape or size?
WARNER: Well, Eliot, what we're basically saying, what Bowles- Simpson said, is let's take the Reagan approach in '86. And the Reagan approach that had bipartisan support and said lower rates and get rid of exemptions and it generated more revenues.
So, you know, I think that if they're following the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, I think they'll be hard to oppose it.
SPITZER: You're talking over a trillion dollars in revenue increases coupled with -- you hope -- lower marginal rates.
WARNER: What we're talking about is a trillion dollars of revenue that would be generated by lowering rates but also cutting back on some of the exemptions.
SPITZER: OK, now, the exemptions, loopholes. One person's loophole, another person's incentive.
WARNER: Amen.
SPITZER: So the hard part here, as with so many things, is the details. Which of the loopholes can you tell us you believe we should close to generate that additional revenue?
WARNER: I think you've seen an outline from the Bowles-Simpson report on areas where a lot of the money is. There are some very popular areas, around mortgage deductions, charitable deductions, health care exclusions.
And we're not suggesting they would be completely eliminated, we're saying you've got to cut them back. And in doing so, you've got to start paying for some of those costs which right now are absorbed.
SPITZER: But now you've put on the table just now some things that are extraordinarily popular. When people start hearing that you're tampering with, they're changing the way they get to deduct the interest they pay on their mortgage, suddenly their hands go up and say, wait a minute, I need that. So that is something that you think we need to do.
WARNER: What we're saying is, you've got to look at the close to $1.2 trillion of tax exemptions that we spend each year. That's just government spending by a different name.
SPITZER: Right.
WARNER: And if we're going to find a way to lower rates, and remember, 70 percent of Americans don't itemize, don't take advantage of any of these deductions, so they will actually see actual lower taxes by what we're proposing. But if we can cut back on some of those exemptions, that's the only way I think in this political climate that you can actually raise revenues.
And you can't do this on one side of the balance sheet alone. You've got to cut back spending but you've also got to find a way to increase revenues.
SPITZER: Look, this certainly is the modulated centrist perspective of Bowles-Simpson but the House Republican leadership has expressly refused to go along with anything that raises revenue of any sort.
So do you think that this will be a viable plan when you cross to the other side of the Congress?
WARNER: I don't see how you get there. You saw what -- give Congressman Ryan enormous credit for putting forward a plan. But not only does it completely change Medicare, but he takes spending on education, infrastructure, energy, research and development, and cuts it by about two-thirds.
No 21st century country can compete without an infrastructure network or educated population. And he does that because he leaves revenues and leaves defense off the table. They've all got to be part of the mix. There's got to be some level of shared sacrifice to this.
SPITZER: Of course, you're giving the rationale answer to a political question. We'll see how it plays out. A lot of people were disappointed 2008 when you dropped out of the presidential race. 2016, it's not that far off. Crazy as it is. Are you going to think about it?
WARNER: Eliot, all I can say that I'm focused on right now is -- there may not be a 2016 unless we can get this debt and deficit under control.
SPITZER: All right. Clever political answer, Senator. Thank you for joining us.
WARNER: All right. Great to see you.
SPITZER: Pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: All right. Let's turn to E.D. Hill.
E.D., you're looking at the new guys in town here on Capitol Hill.
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: That's right. We'll find out why they are so different from all the freshmen legislators we've seen in the past. That's coming up.
SPITZER: All right. Look forward to it. Thanks so much, E.D.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: You know how politics works. Everything is a crisis. But at the last second deals get done, everybody goes back to business as usual. But the freshman class on Capitol Hill right now is different. There is a sense that compromise is akin to colluding with the enemy and they want change.
Stan Collender, a partner at Gorvis Communications and one of the leading U.S. budget experts in the country, joins us.
Thanks for being with us.
STAN COLLENDER, PARTNER, GORVIS COMMUNICATION: Good to be here.
HILL: So they're turning this -- the whole thing upside down. They're sitting there, they're not being quiet, they're telling the leadership what they want. Why are they so different?
COLLENDER: Well, first of all, the country has become a lot more partisan. Second, these folks were elected in almost a hyper-partisan environment and with a hyper-partisan platform. But it looks as if the times are changing. The ability to communicate with your constituents directly through social media and those types of things, not to mention the -- you know, the rise of the Tea Party has made these folks do something that we haven't seen in too many freshmen classes.
That is not just refuse to be quiet but actually challenge the leadership and in many cases force the leadership to do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.
HILL: And that's going to really be impacting the -- both parties and perhaps the country to an extent with the debt crisis and the debt ceiling.
COLLENDER: Well -- yes. I mean we're actually already seeing, you know, the freshmen -- Republicans, excuse me, along with some of their other Tea Party wing of the Republican Party colleagues, you know, have clearly pushed the Republican Party to do certain things.
And right now it's, as you suggested, not compromise. They have redefined compromise as a sin. And as a result, you saw the kind of political gamesmanship on the continuing resolution that is the funding bill that, you know, almost shut the government down a few months ago.
HILL: But isn't that part of it? I mean don't they -- don't they do this? You know big bravado and they take it out to the very last second, and then they cut a deal? Aren't they going to do that again?
COLLENDER: Well, you know, that's the common wisdom, but I've been telling my clients that just because that's the way it's been done in the past doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen this time.
You know, these folks are in a take-no-prisoners attitude, kind of red meat politics. And they're saying, as you suggested, compromise is collaborating with the enemy. We didn't come here to compromise, we came here to change things.
The irony is, if they would compromise, they'd be changing the world almost immediately. If they just take half a loaf, they probably get a lot more than they're going to get otherwise.
HILL: You know I was surprised when I started taking a look at the ratings, Moody's, S&P, Fitch, and it seems that this really already has started having an impact on the market and that, by the way, means your pension fund, your IRA.
We're seeing that impact already and we're nowhere near close to August 2nd.
COLLENDER: Well, and not only would you see it in some of the investments, but interest rates are starting to rise as a result of this debt ceiling situation. Some people I spoke to said the rates on the 10 -year treasury bond are already about 4/10 of -- excuse 40 basis points higher than they would otherwise be.
That means credit cards, student loans, car loans, mortgages are all a little bit higher than they would otherwise be under the circumstances. So this is starting to have the effect that a lot of people up until now have been denying would happen.
HILL: So is this a political calculation? I mean I can see it both ways. I can see the freshman class saying we are going to take it to the very last, we're going to shut down the -- you know, the government if we need to, because people will blame President Obama. He's got a lousy rate -- you know approval ratings in the economy right now.
I can also see it from the Democrat perspective and they say, wait a second, we're ready to make a move and they wouldn't.
COLLENDER: Well, and in fact, you know, as bad as the Democratic -- excuse me, Obama's approval ratings are right now, the Republicans in Congress are even lower. And as is Speaker Boehner. So you know this is a huge game of political chicken they're playing to see who else is going to get blamed or whether the other side will get blamed.
As I said, I'm not so sure that there's a deal that's going to happen at the last minute.
HILL: So if there isn't, does the president have a constitutional card up his sleeve?
COLLENDER: Well, that in fact is one of the things that people are starting to talk about. The 14th Amendment says the debt of the United States should not be doubted and cannot be repudiated. So there are some people I'm starting to say, legal scholars and others, who are starting to look at the possibility that if the debt ceiling isn't raised, could the president in fact just instruct the treasury to keep selling bonds, bills and notes so the government can borrow more.
My guess is it would start a huge political, even constitutional crisis, perhaps even an impeachment if that happened.
HILL: So he perhaps could do it, but if he did, he'd be taken to task for it.
COLLENDER: It would be a very Lincolnesque type thing. That is, you know, President Lincoln said that he had to go to war with the south to protect the union. I could see President Obama saying something to the equivalent on the debt ceiling.
HILL: Well, it is an interesting change in Washington and we will continue watching it.
Stan Collender, thank you very much for helping us understand how that really does impact us even today. Well before the debt ceiling comes up to play.
All right, that does it for us tonight.
Eliot, what's tomorrow's show like?
SPITZER: You know what -- thanks, E.D. That is a fascinating conversation. It's going to be interesting to see if the president does find some constitution al avenue there that gives him more power than people think right now. Interesting point he just made.
Tomorrow, the new Afghan ambassador to the United States. I've got some hard questions for him about corruption in that country and what will happen when we begin to pull our troops out.
Thanks so much for joining us IN THE ARENA. Good night from Washington, D.C. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
