Return to Transcripts main page

In the Arena

Case Against DSK Falls Apart

Aired July 01, 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. Welcome to the program. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Tonight extraordinary, even unprecedented developments in the case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Just six weeks ago Dominique Strauss-Kahn was head of the international monetary fund and a leading candidate for president of France. That all ended back in may when he was pulled off an air France plane at Kennedy airport by New York city police.

He was charged with assault of a chamber made. Dominique Strauss-Kahn suffered the public humiliation, first a perp walk and then incarceration at Ryker's island. Today there's serious questions about his accuser and if the charges are even valid.

Here's Ben Brafman, attorney for Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN BRAFMAN, ATTORNEY OF DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN: At each appearance in the last six weeks we ask you and ask the world not to rush to judgment in this case and now I think you can understand why. We believed from the beginning that this case was not what it appeared to be, and we are absolutely convinced that while today is a first giant step in the right direction, the next step will lead to a complete dismissal of the charges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: The accuser's lawyer Kenneth Thompson was quick to push back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNETH THOMPSON, LAWYER OF THE ACCUSED: The victim from day one has described a violent sexual assault that Dominique Strauss-Kahn committed against her. She has described that sexual assault many times to the prosecutors and to me. And she has never once changed a single thing about that account.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Our question tonight in this roller coaster of a case is we guilty of a rush to judgment of both the accused and the accuser?

But first here's a look at the other stories I'm drilling on tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER (voice-over): Diplomatic mission or ego trip, an American congressman on his own in Syria for a rare meeting with a brutal dictator.

He says he's promoting peace. But is he making things worse? And what makes a superpower?

I'll talk to a man who says technology and social media are the new weapons. And guess who is stockpiling them? It isn't China.

Here's a clue. Then, once the fireworks on the fourth are over the real fireworks begin. With the debt ceiling deadline cling in, will Congress stop the bleeding or end up with a band aid solution?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Back to our stop story the dramatic twist in Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. Joining me here now from New York from the court house, Susan Candiotti and from Paris CNN Correspondent Jim Bittermann.

Susan, let's start with you. Tell us, what happened in court today?

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What a stunning turn of events in the last 24 hours, Eliot.

Prosecutors said that in the beginning the hotel maid in this case said that after the alleged incident occurred, the sexual assault in the hotel suite, that the maid repeatedly told them and investigators that she remained in the hallway outside of the suite until she saw Dominique Strauss-Kahn leave the suite and go into an elevator and leave and then she reported to it a supervisor.

And that she stayed in that one spot. Subsequently they said she admitted that that isn't exactly what happened, that instead she said that after the alleged incident, she went on to clean another room and then went back to clean the suite where the attack allegedly occurred and then reported the incident to her supervisor.

There was another incident involving lies according to prosecutors that she lied and admitted to lying on her political asylum form from her native guinea when she came to the United States.

SPITZER: Susan, just for the folks who are watching to understand. This is a case that would hinge entirely on the credibility of the victim versus the testimony of DSK, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, because the evidence, the tangible evidence, the forensic evidence makes it clear there was a sexual encounter, the only question really is going to be was it consensual and it's her word versus his.

Am I right? That's why these challenges to her credibility are so disruptive in the prosecution's ability to try the case?

CANDOITTI: It is in exactly. You pinpointed it. Because if you have a problem with an alleged victim in this case, if they have to acknowledge that they lied at some point then it's very difficult to try to convince a jury that well you can believe her on this point even though you can't believe her on, in other areas. And that's a problem as you well know for any prosecutor.

SPITZER: All right, Susan, thank you for that update. Certainly a roller coaster of a criminal case and who knows what will come next.

All right, thank you so much.

Let's go to Jim in Paris for the reaction from France. Thanks for being with us.

Now, you just hear. You know what happened in court today. I gather the prevailing wisdom and view in Paris is that DSK was set up?

JIM BITTERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that has been the prevailing wisdom among a lot of socialists, his party members for some time because they couldn't believe this had actually had happened.

SPITZER: Let me push back a little bit here. It seems there was a rush to judgment at the beginning. Maybe now maybe an unfair rush to exoneration on the other hand going on right now. Because yes the victim here has credibility issue over the course of her career but on the other hand there doesn't seem to be anything that I've heard that necessary proves she's lying about the under lying allegation. And there are these other claims that still are out there about DSK having arguably assaulted women in the past.

How do people there deal with those facts?

BITTERMANN: The one other charge that has been pointed to relates to a young woman here who accused him of some sexual aggressions some years ago. She never pressed charges at the time and she hasn't since although she could.

So, I think that at least if it looks like it's just a matter of having affairs on the side or something like that that in French political terms is acceptable and is not the kind of thing that would lead to the end of a political career.

However, if there was aggression involved that's a different story. So if the maid's story ends up being proven true in court that would again finish him. But I don't think at the moment, I think there's been a lot of talk here about reviving his political career particularly among his longest colleague in the social alley.

SPITZER: Let's talk about that for a moment. Let's say this is far from happening.

But let's say on July 18th the district attorney's office were to drop the charges in their entirety, would it then be too late for him to go back to Paris, to go back to France to resuscitate his run for the presidency of the nation?

BITTERMANN: It could be. At the moment it is because the date to put in his bid for presidency, for the application, official application for the social party candidacy has to be put in any13th of July. So the 18th would be after that.

However there are some leading socialists today that have been talking about the idea of putting off the socialist party primary perhaps by a matter of months in order to let things settle down and give him a chance.

And the reason why so many socialists are interested in having him run is before he was arrested he was the leading candidate. He was one of the only people that could beat president Sarkozy and the socialists have been out of power for a long time, Eliot

SPITZER: And I think you would always (inaudible) it's perverse and twisted as this is, if he was exonerated he would return to France, I gather, almost the returning hero. And that would certainly then make seem to be sensible then for the socialist party to try to bring him back in to the poll to that point. Am I wrong about that?

BITTERMANN: Not only a hero but also a martyr because the American justice system has gotten widely criticized here and I think there would be a feeling that he was totally unjustly dealt with and that would help him I think in the election.

SPITZER: All right, Jim thanks so much for joining us.

One last note, just any French listeners I'll take our judicial system over theirs any day of the week. But on that note, before the July 4th weekend, I'm sure the media is on its way to the flag...

Thanks for being with us.

SPITZER: Now, for more of our lead story.

But what precisely is our lead story? Is it wealthy man attacks chamber maid? Or media rush to judgment?

Joining me to discuss the latest hairpin turns in this roller coaster of a case is a defense attorney Phil Bronstein and editor of large of the "San Francisco Chronicle".

Phil, let me start with you. Do we live in such an age of immediate gratification we don't give ourselves that second or minute of careful critique so that DSK was convicted the moment he was charged and now there's a rush to exonerate on the other side the moment there's flaws in the accusing witness?

PHIL BRONSTEIN, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE EDITOR AT LARGE: Yes is the short answer, Eliot. I mean, you were in the room, amphitheater period of our culture. We have cycles of these things. And we do rush to judgment.

SPITZER: Let me put you in the hot seat. You are the media. You've run one of the most prominent newspapers in the United States, the bastion of the first amendment and wise thoughts for Journalism. What would you say is as senior editor, how do you turn this clock back? How do you get people to pause before this rush or is technology simply not permitting us to do it?

BRONSTEIN: I think technology is creating a huge amount of pressure for us not to do it. But I also think that, you know one of the ways -- one moment of restraint I think was the American press and the American press was really bashed by the French press, the American press didn't name this woman. And so I think that was a moment of restrain and we need more of those moments of restrain.

And we have to remember particularly in this day and age with everything happening so quickly and you tweet, you blog, you post, you write, that newspapers, for instance are still one medium where you can take a minute and do an analysis. People might actually read it.

SPITZER: And Phil, that's exactly why you think a couple of years ago you, said they will go bankrupt and people won't buy them any more. But I hope that's not case obviously.

BRONSTEIN: Not yet.

SPITZER: Paul, let me turn to you. This switch from the media in terms of rush to judgment to the D.A.'s office. Did the D.A.'s office either act too quickly in bringing the initial charge or alternatively are they moving back too quickly now in jumping to exonerate although they haven't done that the moment there are flaws in the accusing witness's background?

BRONSTEIN: You know what's interesting? We started out talking about the media because they are interrelated questions.

The media always rushes to judgment. You hope you have a public prosecutor and a system that will not do that that will carefully make a decision about bringing criminal charges that are so destructive, particularly charges like this.

And I think that's the criticism that will be directed towards the Manhattan district attorney's office. They moved too quickly on this case without vetting the background of complainant because Strauss-Kahn was about to leave the jurisdiction on an airplane. I mean, there were circumstances presented and he done a normal American citizen leaving in New York. They might have spent a couple of weeks investigating the background before putting the charges.

SPITZER: Phil, let me comeback to you. Do you think there has been a rush to exonerate too quickly? In other words, everybody is saying the case has collapsed.

None of the failures, the flaws in this victim's alleged victim's story go to the underlying truthfulness of her claim against DSK. So, how should the media deal with that?

BRONSTEIN: Well, first of all, let's be clear that DSK himself has some flaws as were pointed out endlessly in the beginning when this complainant was being portrayed as a hard-working poor Muslim immigrant woman.

So I mean do his flaws make him guilty any more than her flaws make her guilty in that case. I'm not a lawyer or prosecutor. You guys are.

But let me just read you a headline from a CBS AP story that I pulled out just before I came on here. DSK's political life revived among case stunner.

Now, there's a question mark at the end of that headline. But there you have it. There's already -- I think he's probably ahead of Anthony Weiner in the redemption waiting line. If he'll get in there first, you know he'll redeem himself faster if in fact he's found innocence if the case thrown out.

But, yes there's a rush to judgment because again it such great high drama and we just have to accept the fact that it's part of the media landscape.

SPITZER: Is it now going to be the case that somebody who has some failures in his or her past can't be a legitimate victim, can't go to the D.A.'s office and say I was subject to a terrible crime because of those failures of the past will be so used against him or her to make it impossible for this person to be a witness. There's nothing I've seen that her case isn't true.

BRONSTEIN: No, but I think prosecutors have to look and see can we win this case in front of a jury. You know I've read the disclosure that was turned over by the Manhattan D.A.'s office today. And one of the things it says basically is she made up a gang rape allegation in her asylum petition.

She was given a cassette which gave her a series of lies, she memorized the lies and she used them repeatedly and one of those lies was about a rape. Now you have to say in the end when this is a case about two people alone in a room, he said-she said her credibility has been so damaged by that. I find it so difficult to believe that a jury of 12 would ever convict Strauss-Kahn.

And I think ultimately, Manhattan D.A.'s office will walk away from this case. They won't take the flack and try it. I think you're going to see this case dismissed in short order.

SPITZER: Phil, let me ask you this. I want you to put on a different path. Pretend you're on a jury. I'm going to put you as a quick essential juror. If you knew the victim the alleged victim of this rape had lied about rape in the past, could you believe her beyond a reasonable doubt in this case?

BRONSTEIN: Well, to be honest, Eliot, I probably couldn't. I probably would not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt. But, you know, I think that the roles of law, obviously and journalism and the media very different, very different objectives, very different methods but they kind a converge a little bit when you talk about a jury trial because as much as jurors are supposed to only look at the facts and judge on the facts there's an emotional component. So I think that you know the press no matter how much you grill prospective jurors the press was going on at that moment will have an influence in how jury's view these thing. Right now it's swinging in his favor and way against her.

SPITZER: Paul, something real quick.

PAUL CALLAN: Yes, the real tragedy of the case from the world standpoint, the whole world was looking at this case and saying what a great country America, a poor hotel maid can make an allegation against such a powerful man and in public she will get a fair trial and now a few months later the whole thing is falling apart and we look horrible.

If this gets dismissed Strauss-Kahn walks back to accolades in France, our system looks like a joke. And I think we look horrible.

SPITZER: Let me play devil's advocate. I'm not sure we look terrible. Maybe the system works. But there's an inherent credibility. She was tested, survived initial test.

And then when we put to it the hardiest test and it failed. Then case was dismissed. Maybe that's how justice should work. Anyway, I hate to say it but we got to end their (inaudible)

Thanks so much for being with us.

SPITZER: In a moment French retook this latest turn in the DSK case. France loves Jerry Lewis movies but our justice system not so much.

I'll get the view from Paris when I return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: More on our top story.

Shock and outrage in France today when the news of Dominique Strauss-Kahn's release. Many in France believe the former IMF director is innocent and if the case is dropped some even expect him to make a political come back.

But Elaine Sciolino says not so fast. She's a "New York Times" correspondent in Paris has written a book on role of seduction in French politics. It's called 'La seduction'. And the French play the game of life.

Elaine Thanks for joining us.

ELAINE SCIOLINO, AUTHOR: Thank you for having me.

SPITZER: Our pleasure.

So let me get your view, bottom line if on July 18th the next court date charges against DSK are dropped, can he return to France as a conquering hero or does he return as a blemished villain? SCIOLINO: Might be somewhere between the two, because Dominique Strauss-Kahn has a different history now and also the socialists have moved beyond Dominique Strauss-Kahn. There are two viable candidates for the socialist nomination for president. One of them Francois Hollande(ph), who used to be the head of the socialist party has vowed to run as the normal candidate.

Even if Strauss-Kahn were to come back as a hero, it doesn't necessarily mean he would have the same power on the political landscape. He would be criticized on the right by Marine Le Pen (ph), the head of the Ultraright Nationalist front because she's very moralistic, she's taken other politicians to task for having less than stellar personal behavior and he would be criticized on the left because the left was really shocked when Strauss-Kahn and his wife were able to spend so much money in New York for their house, for their security, for their lawyers, and the French don't like to talk about money.

SPITZER: We will get to tissue of wealth in just a moment. And that is one of the fascinating observation you have made. But you've also observed that the sexual aspect of this has almost been par for the course in French politics, and so if as I think the polls showed close to 60 percent of the French public believes there was a conspiracy behind his being charged and as you have said the sexual aspect of this part of the course why wouldn't he go back stronger position than you have fantasized?

SCIOLINO: Let's not mix a lot of different things into one big pot. The poll that you referred to was a poll that was done the day after Strauss-Kahn's arrest. And it was a poll that was faultily done. In fact, it was declared illegal and done as people were still trying to adjust and absorb the reality that one of the most powerful men in the world who could have been president could have committed such a crime as he was about to announce his nomination.

So, I disregard the importance of that poll that said early on that a majority of the French thought that he might have been the victim of a plot.

As for France having different sexual morays, seduction is not criminality. And flirtation, seduction is playful, should be enjoyable. Committing a violent crime against a woman which was what was alleged to have happened is appalling for any French person and so one has to make that distinction.

What is the bridge between seduction and a violent crime is the potential abuse of power which is -- which is also something that is endemic in French life.

SPITZER: You make a fascinating point when you say that perhaps even more troubling is the demonstration of wealth that DSK has put on here in New York City, the capacity to buy or rent an expensive townhouse, the flaunting of enormous wealth. Why is that so problematic?

I'll tell you from this side of the Atlantic there's a sense within European politics there's almost a desire to see some degree of nobility among officials.

SCIOLINO: Nobility is different from 'bling-bling' new wealth. Everybody knew Strauss-Kahn and Claire, his wife were people of means were people of wealth.

But the fact that such wealth and that so much money could be spent so openly shocked the French especially on the left which is his political base.

SPITZER: Since the last time the Guillotine fell, the let them eat cake has not been a good political cry in France or else where in the world for that matter.

Elaine Sciolino, than you so much for joining us.

SPITZER: Up next the battle over the debt ceiling.

What if there simply is no way to reach agreement?

Republicans and Democrats are not even talking except on this program.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: The tone in Washington is toxic right now and negotiations to raise the debt ceiling appear to be going nowhere. Could the run up to solving one of the nation's biggest problems be any worst?

I'm joined by Rick Lazio, former Republican Congressman from New York and Ari Melber, correspondent for the Nation Magazine.

Welcome to you both.

Let me start this in a sort of quick exotic place perhaps. This whole thing should have been avoided last December when the President and Congress negotiated the extension of tax cuts. The White House should have included back then a raise in the debt ceiling because everyone knew back this we would hit this junction. Isn't this our new vision defend wise? Isn't this a lose incompetence on the negotiating side?

ARI MELBER, NATION MAGAZIN CORRESPONDENT: They made a mistake here. And I think they allowed the fiction that this is something to debate over become a reality. The truth is as you know, Rick, nobody wants the United States to default. So unlike shutting the government down this isn't a real end game. You have to call out the hostage negotiators for what they're doing.

SPITZER: But Rick, let me put here. When Congress passed the spending that has approved over a couple of years and passed the tax cuts everybody knew these lines kwon verge at a certain point in time. So this was a very predictable moment. Why wasn't it dealt with through negotiation? RICK LAZIO, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: I mean there are so many different points at which you could say there was failure. No budget being reached when Obama had both houses of congress.

SPITZER: I agree with you on that.

LAZIO: Erskine Bowles and Simpson coming out with the blue print. He had the opportunity there so give it some oxygen.

SPITZER: The President.

LAZIO: Choose some leadership. He turned his back on his own fiscal commission. He submits a budget that he later repudiates and every member of Congress from both parties votes against. These were all missed opportunities where he loses credibility on dealing with this budget deficit issue and the debt issue which obviously is what we're talking about now in terms of the cap. So there's a long line of missed opportunities.

SPITZER: Very fair critique.

All right. Let's deal with the current crisis.

It is toxic. Everybody down there is like a bunch of cats clawing at each other. What happens next? When do the grownups emerge and say, OK guys how do us clawing at each other. Now it's time to sit down. Who does it and when?

All right Ari, what do you think?

MELBER: I would like to see the president give a final offer and give an address to the nation. We have a lot of national speeches about terrorism, about foreign policy. But this is something that affects people's lives, affects their livelihood and the White House has to draw a line and say that's it.

SPITZER: If he does give that speech does he have to do a lot more than he did in the press conference the other day? Speak directly to the issue to entitlements, Social Security, Mediaite, Medicare.

He hasn't said anything about that. And I think Rick, Am I right? I usually try to defend with him because I grilled the (inaudible). There's a void.

LAZIO: There's an absolute void. And I think this is what the Republican beef is. You know the Republicans say, whether you like it or not at least we have a plan. We speak to the entitlement issues which everybody agrees is a large driver of the problem that we're going to have not just today but over the next ten to 20 years.

And it's not credible for the president not to have a position on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security in the case of the health care program growing twice the rate of the economy. So the president is really the only person now who I think can bring people together and he's going to have, to in my view to do that he's going have to compromise with his own party in the Senate.

SPITZER: Rick, hang on.

MELBER: Rick makes some points on policy but I have to disagree on tactics. We won't have a 40 year solution on entitlements with a gun to your end over default. You don't want to see the U.S. default, right?

SPITZER: OK, I want to move on, but I think Rick's legitimate point is the president hasn't yet put anything on the table that's substantive and real and that's not to his credit in terms of filling the mantle of leadership.

Let's switch gears. We'll back to doing this more in the weeks ahead. I want to put up some numbers on the screen there in terms of who's to blame. Blame is an ugly word, a useless word.

But from terms of pure politics who is to blame for the current state of the economy, Bush 26, Wall Street 25, Congress 11 Obama only 8. He's not being blamed.

On the other hand other numbers, you approve or disapprove of the way he's handling the economy, 39 approve, 52 disapprove. So am I right, Rick, let me start with you, am I right the public say we don't blame you for getting us here, but you're not solving it.

LAZIO: That's exactly I think what the public is saying right here. We know there are a lot of things that led to the point that we are at now. But you've had your opportunities to lead and to solve some of these problems and bring people together and you failed to do that.

They're saying you needed to bring the same level of focus and concentration to these issues as you did to health care in which case he was able to, whether he jammed it through or got it through able to get a bill done.

SPITZER: So what's his best response, guys were actually making progress. What's his best argument now?

MELBER: I think his best argument is if you care about the economy, if you care about where we're headed then obviously you don't want to default. So let's step back from this crazy brinkmanship and say this to these Republicans who voted to raise the debt ceiling over and over for their guy.

And you had Herman Cain on the other night. I like Herman Cain so it was bitter sweet for me watching you spanked him with facts because --

SPITZER: I didn't spank him. I just asked some questions.

MELBER: He didn't have facts for your facts. You said how much? He couldn't give you an answer. He said this isn't enough, but I can't tell you how much. That's not a Tea Party that you can negotiate with and we're well past the point of rhetoric. LAZIO: One point with Ari here, the idea that we're going to get the whole thing done, meaning we're going really have a blueprint to get to a balanced budget before you have to raise the debt ceiling is not realistic. But neither is a trillion dollars when you look at a $19 trillion cumulative publicly held debt over the next 10 years.

SPITZER: Can I say in the seconds disappear, but I think the ideological battle and they haven't figure how to resolve this is Republicans are saying we will agree to massive cuts to increase the debt ceiling.

The Democrats are saying we will agree to massive cuts if you agree to additional revenues. The Republicans and the Democrats still are nowhere close to an agreement on whether revenue will go up as part of this deal.

That's an ideological line in the sand for both sides that somehow we got to figure out how to cross and I don't know if we can. I grabbed the last second. I apologize for that.

Rick Lazio, Ari Melber, as always thank you for being here. Just ahead the congressman who has gone where few dare to go, Dennis Kucinich on his face to face meeting with President Assad, the strong man of Syria.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: In Syria, chance for freedom has once again been met with bullets and bloodshed. Throngs of protesters took to the streets today calling for the downfall of the Assad regime though Assad's forces retaliated with their now familiar brutality.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich traveled to Syria this week and spoke to Assad. He joins me from Beirut. Congressman, thanks for joining us.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO: Good to talk to you. Thank you.

SPITZER: So you had a very rare meeting with Assad, not many western diplomats or elected officials had that meeting recently. You looked into his eyes. What's your judgment? Is he a brutal tyrant that kills at will or does he genuinely want to reform governance in his country?

KUCINICH: I can't look into his soul, but I can tell you in the two lengthy meetings I had with him. He is aware of the need to bring democratic reforms. He said that he's been ready to work with those who are pro democracy activists. He recognizes there are some in the opposition who will not be placated, who want him out and he understands that time is running short.

SPITZER: Congressman, what steps should Assad take right now in your view to prove that he actually wants to reform Syria?

KUCINICH: Well, you know, he certainly has to move forward and meet with the pro democracy activists and hear from them about the measures that must be taken to move Syria towards a democratic country.

People are concerned that if Assad is not able to deliver on his reforms. Who replaces him, does it degenerate into a civil war and sectarian strife? This is a concern in Libya and frankly, it ought to be a concern in the whole region because with Turkey -- yes.

SPITZER: Congressman, there's no question what happens in the aftermath of Assad being deposed, if that were to happen is something everybody has to be concerned about.

But this is a brutal dictator who over the course of his and his father's regime has murdered tens of thousands of people. You can't possibly be saying that somehow the concern of disruption after his departure should in any way excuse or permit to us support his continued reign of terror.

KUCINICH: No one can support a reign of terror. This regime, however faulty it has been, however closed the society has been, has accepted that democratic freedoms are sweeping the region and that it has to go with that flow and if it goes against it, it's going to be out. There's no question about that.

SPITZER: But, Congressman --

KUCINICH: No one can excuse their conduct prior to that and I don't do that. Don't put me in a position where I'm suddenly endorsing a regime whose human rights record has been abominable and there's violence in the streets.

What I'm saying is, let's think about the interests of the people of Syria and how to make sure that they're able to see their democratic aspirations fulfilled.

And don't be so sure if we just see Assad pushed out the door, even a violent overthrow that will bring about the very reforms of that those of us in this country and many of the western democracies want to see happen.

SPITZER: Congressman, where I disagree with you fundamentally is you seem to accept as a premise that this Assad wants reform and yet when you say he had a meeting with some of the pro democracy forces he too this very moment is slaughtering people, shooting them, his security forces are torturing. He has tanks on the border of Turkey. There isn't yet one demonstrable piece of evidence you can show us to show that he's changed his behavior.

And it seems to me that the same rhetoric we've heard from him, that you heard from him when you met with him is exactly what he used to try to charm the west over the years. He's western educated, listens to western music and then he murders so none of that carries the slightest bit of water with me.

I've seen con men like this in the financial markets. I've seen him in international diplomacy. He's no better and I don't think you'd given -- to suggest otherwise. KUCINICH: Let me respond. Look, I'm talking about now. So, you know, we've got to be very careful. We distinguish between what's happening now and what has happened in the past.

Again, you know, I think you and I would agree on a lot of things here, but where I part company with you is that you want to say let's get rid of Assad without saying what comes next. You have a responsibility in your position to state exactly what comes next.

Are you concerned about sectarian violence or should we overlook it. Should we overlook what elements might be involved there and how that would affect the region? I'm saying let's support the aspirations of the Syrian people.

Promote the democracy movement and also be very mindful of other elements, which may have an anti-democratic agenda, which may work against the United States so America as well as all the countries in the region. That's what I'm concerned about.

KUCINICH: All right, Congressman, well said. We may disagree on certain points, but certainly always enjoy talking to you and wish you well. Have a great fourth of July weekend. Thanks for joining us.

KUCINICH: Thank you.

Up next, a radical makeover for American politics as we head into the holiday. Is it time to ditch our political party and declare a whole new independence? A provocative case for change when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Gridlock in government. From the deficit to health care to education, Republicans and Democrats are too out of touch and too busy blasting each other to dig us out of the mess we're in. That's the premise behind Declaration of Independence, the new libertarian manifesto from Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch of "Reason" magazine.

They argue both parties are useless and the solution to our problems is to get government out of our lives. I spoke with Nick and Matt just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SPITZER: Thank you guys for being here. I've read your absolutely fascinating book. And you, in this book try to make an overwhelming argument against the status quo.

But I'm not as persuaded you make an argument for pure libertarianism in here. Do you recognize that we need a government that does many things and you acknowledge --

NICK GILLESPIE, EDITOR IN CHIEF, REASON.COM AND REASON.TV: First off, I think the government is doing a pretty good job of making an argument against the status quo. It's broken every possible level and virtually every possible way.

And that's really explains the pun and title that why independent voters, people refuse to affiliate with either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is either growing, definitely growing and by many polls it's actually the single largest bloc.

You know, we're libertarians, were not anarchists. So in a lot of ways, the book is less about kind of foundation arguments. We're not saying, OK, let's start a moon colony or live on Mars. How do we begin society?

It's more in the situation we're in. Mark, said that we make history, but not under circumstance of our own choosing. How do we get to be more free? How do we give people more choices? How do we get to have more options in how to live our lives and express ourselves?

That's where the libertarianism comes in because I think looking at our policy solutions, our suggestions based on what we've seen in the private sector or the non-government sector. There are very obvious ways to do.

SPITZER: What interests me most about this book, the whole thing is interesting and fascinating, but what I find most intellectually challenging is try to understand then the status quo is broken. Everybody agrees with that.

Both those who are Republicans, Democrats, independents, those who support Michele Bachmann or Barack Obama, the status quo was broken. How do you define what government should do I think is the most interesting question. So how do you perceive and how do you define what we do need government to do?

MATT WELCH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, REASON MAGAZINE: Well, part of this is we don't actually sketch those lines out in the book. It's a great libertarian parlor game where do you draw the line, are you going to have roads or libraries or not.

We're actually interested in talking about the world that we live in and talking more about less about libertarianism as a hard philosophy and here are the tenants and here's how you quality to be that.

And more talking about in the world we live in, how do we devolve decision-making more into the individual, how do we be consumer led resolution everywhere else here?

GILLESPIE: We do talk about three major areas where government -- I mean basically, you know, the question is where are the places that government or a one size fits all type of solution is still in play.

And that includes K through 12 education about 90 percent of students go to traditional location assigned schools despite massive increase in per pupil spending, decreases in the number of teachers, students per teacher, bad results. How do you fix that? Health care is a place where the government spend 50 percent basically of all health care spending and it's only going to get bigger over the next few years. What's going wrong there? Nobody is staffed with the way health care is delivered.

We like the product pretty well and the same thing with retirement. Then can you talk about things that everybody agrees are functions of government such as defense. Defense spending is up about 100% over the past 12 years.

There's absolutely no reason to think that we needed to, we need to be spending $800 billion or what Obama would say would be a trillion dollars in 10 years on defense to make us safe.

SPITZER: Let me go to a different domain, discrimination laws. Should there be statutes that say it's illegal to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, whatever?

GILLESPIE: Certainly from the government, yes. You know, one of the grossest misjustices, injustices throughout American history is the fact that publicly funded institutions denied blacks or denied women or denied other minorities equal and free access.

No question about it. I think when you get to private discrimination laws it's a more difficult issue. One of the things that we can talk about for now is like we don't necessarily even have to revisit that question. It's more should we have hard quotas of where the next person hired has to look a certain way.

SPITZER: Quotas are not legal, but the notion of outlawing discrimination at certain institutions that are of certain --

WELCH: For my money, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was passed four years before I was born is not as relevant today as it was in 1964. I mean, I don't wake up in the morning thinking about it. In context it should have been passed that you need to change the situation there. Some people --

SPITZER: Again, I'm not talking about that. I'm trying to get the parameters what you as libertarians think.

GILLESPIE: Where are the incidences of anti-discrimination laws and how are they enforced because all of this matters. In general, this is -- we're not foundational thinkers. We're not trying to create the world from the ground up, but it's where we live. What is the status of affirmative action and what forms does it take?

WELCH: Give you one example. Again to take L.A., a lot of cities say you have to have ex-percentage of government contract work that's taken up by minority owned-businesses. I don't think we live in a world where that's necessary any more.

I could be wrong. I don't think so. You see it as a way a lot of brokers set up. These kind of shadow companies. We're using government expenditures as a social engineering project and that drives up the cost of things. SPITZER: Whether or not you can have this debate and I would disagree with you, but whether you think it's necessary now you agree at a certain point it was necessary and appropriate thing.

WELCH: If I can go back to 1964 I would vote yes in the Civil Right Act.

SPITZER: -- would surprise many people. I think you're both conservative Democrats. What you really are is you have core values that government can only do certain things, but it's got to do those things.

WELCH: In the mean time we're totally out of money at every level of government. The government is in businesses. There's not a day that doesn't go by where we have a terrible swap rate of somebody, a raid, a 7-year-old doesn't get a lemonade stand. We've gone too far.

SPITZER: Fascinating stuff. Nick and Matt, thanks so much for being here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SPITZER: Up next, one of America's leading wise men. He thinks we're facing a global economic threat from the east a major power from the future, but guess what it's not what you might think.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Tonight on the big idea, these days everyone is afraid of China and its growing economic power. But what if China is actually it's own worst enemy because of fear of information technology.

That's the theory of Walter Isaacson. Isaacson is one of America's big thinkers. He's written biographies of Kissinger, Einstein and Ben Franklin.

And as president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, he's hosting this week's Aspen Idea Festival, an annual gathering of everyone from Supreme Court justices to founders of Twitter.

I recently spoke with Isaacson from where else Aspen. Walter, thanks so much for joining us.

WALTER ISAACSON, CEO, ASPEN INSTITUTE: Good be with you, sir.

SPITZER: Look, you've been running this ideas forum for about seven years. Have you had to look back over the entirety of it, which single idea was most intriguing and has played out in the most remarkable way?

ISAACSON: I guess, the big idea that's happened over the past seven years, run through everything we've done is the intersection of technology and creativity. Usually in life the scientists and technologists are on one side and the artists, imaginative, creative people on another. When you bring them together whether it's social media, education, environment or even things like Middle East investment funds, you can see technology transforming everything.

SPITZER: So I guess one way of looking at this is scientist whose have gone from being geeks to being cool?

ISAACSON: Yes. I think the geeks have taken over the earth. But, you know, it's good to get out of Washington a bit too. Everybody is worried about the thing of the moment and to say, you know, we all should have certain values. We can actually solve some of these problems.

SPITZER: Has there been any consensus among the wise folks at your conference about whether the revolutions that are sweeping North Africa and the Middle East could possibly have happened without the social media, sort of driving and permitting the multitude of people to talk to each other absent or in keeping out the involvement of the autocrats above them?

ISAACSON: Yes, I think there's a consensus the revolutions could have happened without social media. Social media made it happen much faster and really did circumvent what is at the core of every authoritarian regime, which is the control of the free flow of information.

So even if the Arab spring has setbacks and then advances, the arc of history whether it's from Gutenberg to Twitter, when you allow the free flow of information happen you lessen the control of autocrats.

SPITZER: The question then becomes, you look at a government like China's, does China have any possible way of holding back this desire for freedom as effective and powerful and you autocratic as they maybe on the political side or are they looking at this tsunami of information flow and they too will fall prey to it in the near team.

ISAACSON: I would not bet on China having a smooth road over the next 10 years. Tom Friedman is here and we were talking about that very issue, which is in China they are still controlling the free flow of information.

You look at "Voice of America," all of our international broadcasts they try to block it where a place like India even though the infrastructure is not very good they are very comfortable with a vibrant media, very comfortable with democracy.

In the end, in the information age, it's going to be hard. I would rather bet on a country like India where every kid in Bangladesh is trying to invent a Google app than bet on a country like China where they're trying to censor Google.

SPITZER: So India has a substantial lead over China, is that really what folks are saying?

ISAACSON: Absolutely, but I'll add to that. Every now and then we say is America in decline? My answer is no. We actually are the best still and will be at creative thinking and connecting to it technology.

Who is inventing Google? Who's inventing Facebook? Who is inventing Twitter? Even if it's immigrants coming in, Google as an immigrant, this is a country in which we have and we celebrate the free flow of information, the free flow of ideas, creativity.

In China, it's hard for them to be creative in the information age and that will continue to the comparative advantage of the United States.

SPITZER: Such a hugely important point. Andy Grove wrote a powerful piece in "Business Week" perhaps a year ago now, which he talked about the need to keep the manufacturing here.

Not for the foundation of jobs, but also because manufacturing generates the innovation because if you manufacture stuff elsewhere it's on the floor of the manufacturing facility that you get the ideas about what comes next second and third generation creativity.

ISAACSON: Steve Jobs was talking about that to the president about that just the point you were making, which is that if you put an apple factory in China soon the engineers have to be over there.

Eventually you're doing the research and development over there. So you got have both the engineers, the capacity to do the manufacturing here if you want to innovation, the research and development to stay over here.

SPITZER: Absolutely right. Walter Isaacson, thank you so much. Fascinating conversation. Sounds like an incredibly creative and challenging conversation you're having out there in your ideas conference in Aspen, Colorado. Thanks for joining us.

ISAACSON: Thanks for having me sir.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SPITZER: Thanks for joining us IN THE ARENA. Enjoy your holiday weekend. Good night from New York. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.