Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Hacking Scandal Ends the "World"; Trial by Bumper Sticker; Beware the Third Rail
Aired July 07, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN HOST: Good evening. Welcome to the program. I'm Tom Foreman.
Shockwaves are rolling through the media world tonight over what looks like a criminal enterprise operating inside of a newsroom. High-profile figures targeted for a gangster style roundup, and all of it taking place under the leadership of one of the richest and most powerful men in America.
It sounds like a Hollywood thriller, but this is real life, it's playing out in London, and sending tremors all the way to American shores.
Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX News, 20th Century FOX, the "New York Post," and a number of other vast media powerhouses, is under fire tonight, hours after he took the dramatic step of abruptly closing down one of his biggest tabloid newspapers.
It is called "The News of the World," and it is at the center of a scandal that just keeps getting wider and deeper by the hour.
Reporters there are accused of hacking into the voicemail of innocent people to get stories -- one of them a 13-year-old murder victim -- and allegedly paying thousands of dollars to police officers to get them to reveal secrets in high-profile cases.
Murdoch's son and heir apparent, James Murdoch, went on the BBC to try to limit the damage. Take a look.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JAMES MURDOCH, CHAIRMAN, NEWS INTERNATIONAL: I feel regret. Clearly, the practices of certain individuals did not live up to the standards and quality of journalism that we believe in and that I believe in. And that this company believes in.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: American are no strangers to the dark side of tabloid culture, of course. Just take a look at some of the coverage in the Casey Anthony case, for example. But in Great Britain, this reaches a whole other level. In a moment, I'll be talking about all of this with a couple of keen observers. But first, a look at some of the other stories I'll be drilling down on tonight. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: Obama under fire. They say he's too quick to cave, and that's the Democrats talking.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), MINORITY LEADER: Do not consider Social Security a piggy bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country.
FOREMAN: And the last shuttle flight. As it roars into space, it leaves behind one small American town and a love affair 30 years in the making.
Then, he's conducted over 40,000 interviews, on a first-name basis with everybody, including a wizard named Harry. That rhymes with Larry. E.D. Hill talks with the king, live.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: We have so much going on tonight. But let's get back to our top story first, because it's impossible to overstate the impact of this. This is the most widely read English newspaper on the planet. And it's under the leadership of an American media tycoon. And now it is publishing its last page on Sunday, going out of business after more than a century.
A newspaper that lived by scandal now dies by it.
CNN's Richard Quest has been covering the story from London. I spoke to him about the latest developments a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: Richard, what is the sense on the street there among people? Is this the Murdoch family finally doing the right thing or simply saying, for a long time we've been doing the wrong thing?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR/CORRESPONDENT: Well, in the sense of -- that you can take it at numerous levels. You can first of all take it that they're doing the right thing, the revulsion that is being felt by people in Britain means that closing "The News of the World" was an inevitability.
You can also say cynically that they are protecting their other assets. They don't want the cancerous contagion of this to go across to anything else. They want to lop it off and get rid of it.
And there are those who are even suggesting that, frankly, it was always intended, eventually, to lose the "News of the World," and that it will merely be replaced by a Sunday edition of one of the existing titles. In other words, one big, vast cost-saving measure.
A politician in Britain tonight said it's a smoke screen. If it is, then once again, the Murdochs have played their hand extremely well. FOREMAN: Well, you talk about a smoke screen and the politicians there. Politicians are on the run from this, aren't they? Because some of them in the past have been very fond of having Murdoch publications endorse them, get behind them. Now they're trying to say, we've had nothing to do with the man behind the curtain.
QUEST: Yes, and you see, the thing is that parties from both sides, the Labor Party, for example, the Socialist Labor Party could never have got elected, perhaps originally, if the "Sun" newspaper, one of the Murdoch staple, hadn't supported them.
They've always needed -- the current government, David Cameron, needed the "Sun" to come back on to his side. David Cameron is close friends with Rebecca Brooks. She was the editor of the "News of the World." during this scandal, and is now the top executive.
What Hugh Grant said to me basically yesterday -- the actor -- Max Mosley says, it stinks. The stench of collusion between government, politics, media is so entrenched here that once this nasty story got going, the sewage was going to seep across everybody.
FOREMAN: Is there a sense, though, that the sewage has now been mopped up or is this just the beginning?
QUEST: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And in case you didn't quite get that idea, I'll say it again. No.
Because, Tom, what we're going to get next is these two public inquiries, one into the hacking, one into the payments made to the police. And then it gets really interesting. Because then the police are going to have to start to investigate, not only who made the payments, which policemen received them, it's all against the law.
It will be a question of, come with me, please. I think you have some questions to answer. And nobody for a moment doubts that some people will find themselves before the courts, and if convicted, if convicted, in prison.
FOREMAN: And the story will no doubt roll on and you'll be there for us. Thanks, Richard.
QUEST: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: Tabloid culture in Britain holds a powerful sway in politics and culture, so it's a bombshell announcement that Britain's largest tabloid is closing.
Again, we just can't say enough about what a shock this is. With constant competition for the latest scandal, are these tabloids crossing the line into crime?
Joining me now is Phil Bronstein, editor in chief for the "San Francisco Chronicle", and Bonnie Fuller, she's the editor in chief of Hollywoodlife.com. And let me start with you, Phil, if I may. So many people in this country already think that the media is constantly in collusion, doing dirty tricks, making secret deals. What's the good news in this scandal coming out of London?
PHIL BRONSTEIN, EDITOR AT LARGE, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: Well, first of all, I mean "News of the World," it never was. And the reason that it was the highest circulated newspaper in the world is not -- does not have anything to do with news, necessarily, as it has to do with semi-naked people and celebrities and scandal, and better even if you can put them all together.
The good news, though, here because we -- you know, we don't rejoice in the closing of any newspaper these days because it could happen to any one of us. But the good news is that there are actually boundaries which in this culture, in the celebrity tabloid culture -- and I don't blame tabloids for that, it's really the culture at large.
It's nice to know that there are boundaries. And apparently Rupert Murdoch who, as you pointed out, is the last great press baron, found one of those boundaries and stepped over it. And there were consequences. So it's always good to know what the parameters or your culture are in the extremes.
FOREMAN: Bonnie, what are the parameters for the tabloid media? Because I'm not sure if I entirely agree with Phil. Sometimes when I hear about some of these tabloids closing, I'm delighted, because I've spent my life trying to be a serious journalist and I think a lot of tabloid reporting is not serious at all.
BONNIE FULLER, PRESIDENT AND EDITOR IN CHIEF, HOLLYWOODLIFE.COM: Well, first of all, I think we have a very different newspaper culture here and a very different tabloid culture. We don't have the kind of press wars, tabloid wars that were going on in Britain. I mean, there they had numerous tabloids, people buy them in the millions every day. We -- they've not had the declining newspapers that we've had here.
FOREMAN: And it's real cutthroat stuff over there.
FULLER: Very cutthroat stuff. And our newspapers have always generally been more serious. Now there's only a couple of tabloids. I mean we've got them here in New York, the "New York Post," the "Daily News," but -- and they're very lively, but nobody, I think, would feel that they have stooped to the level of what was going on, the kind of scandals, and we're not looking at any kind of allegations like these for our newspapers here. But our whole culture is very different. Our popular culture.
FOREMAN: Talk to me a little bit about that, Bonnie, this popular culture. I've watched it over years, in certain cases, the O.J. Simpson case, the Tanya Harding case, the Ramsey murder case. I mean they took over the news business, and frankly, I don't blame people for not trusting us, when we start running this stuff like evening soap operas instead of saying, there are more serious matter outs there.
FULLER: Well, people --
FOREMAN: The tabloids led the way on that, for sure.
FULLER: That's true, but listen. I mean it's understandable. It's normal for people to be -- to be interested in these major crime stories. I mean, look at the Casey Anthony story. It riveted the nation. But it rivets -- these cases rivet the nation for a different reason. People want to find out the truth. They actually are looking for that.
And also -- I mean, in the case of Casey Anthony, women, I think, were mesmerized by this, because they identified as mothers. And they wondered how can I -- you know, how could any loving mother do this to a child.
And we look at celebrities different here. We relate to celebrities as if they are our friends and to public figures. And we actually kind of measure ourselves against them.
FOREMAN: And journalists, Phil -- and Bonnie has a point there, we do that, but frankly, Phil, I'm not so certain that we don't do that because we have encouraged our readers and our viewers to do that over the years because -- and look, I remember newsrooms where we were told we're not in the business of what's interesting, we're in the business of what's important.
And so there was a natural governor on things like the Casey Anthony story or the O.J. Simpson trial at one point where we said, enough already, let's get back to other business. So we have that anymore? Or are we set up for the same thing that happened in London to happen here?
BRONSTEIN: Well, I think it probably does happen here. And it happens at various levels. I mean it wasn't that many years ago, maybe a few decades ago, that reporters and columnists for "The New York Times" were colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies.
I mean, this kind of thing is not unheard of. And this whole idea of objective, serious journalism, yes, Ochs Sulzberger, they've been doing it for 100 years. But you've got to remember, the press barons of the turn of the last century in this country, I think, were no less great marketers and occasionally engaged in some of these kinds of activities as the Murdochs were apparently in this circumstance.
And I do think that it's really about culture. I mean the culture -- we're in this sort of Roman amphitheater portion of our historical cultural curve at the moment. And I saw a reality TV show last night, two guys -- two twins who were metal workers who are making government armaments.
I'm sitting there watching, thinking, why am I watching this? It's not interesting, it's not funny, it's not dramatic, but members of the public, that is to say people who are not normally celebrities, are becoming celebrities. And are celebrities. So it's the whole culture that's kind of pushed it out.
Now you can still get serious news. You can get it a lot of places. You can get it in the "San Francisco Chronicle," you can get in "The New York Times", you can get in "The Atlantic,," and "The New Yorker".
Bonnie Fuller has put out lots of serious news in her illustrious career. So it exists out there, but guess what? In this particular moment of our culture -- of our cultural history, when people say we want serious news, there are a smaller portion of the people who actually consume news and information.
And people will be making choices, particularly with social networks, that are going on, Facebook and Twitter and so forth. It will be the public more and more making those decisions for us about what it is they want to consume. So I think we have to be a little bit careful.
FOREMAN: Let me get back to Bonnie here for a minute.
Bonnie, what are the limits for people in tabloid journalism? What would you say, if a young person came in tabloid journalism, and they said, what should I not do? What should limits be? Where are they?
FULLER: Well, of course, the limit is to obey the law. That is the most important limit. You can't do -- you cannot break the law like what has happened here.
FOREMAN: Is that the only limit though? Because there are a lot of things in our life that are not illegal, but they're sure wrong.
FULLER: Well, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
FOREMAN: Come on, you know what I'm getting at. For example, you know, victimizing a child. I mean, you know, taking advantage of the grief of somebody who, really, you know, may have no sense of it. A 5-year-old crying over her mother, something -- that's not -- doesn't seem right.
FULLER: Well, I think you have to look at what is news. I mean if something happens, do you not cover it? Do you not look into cases that -- of grief? Do you not cover families who lose people in war? I mean you could make a case that you're not going to cover anything sad.
FOREMAN: Yes, well, I guess --
FULLER: You can make a case that you're not going to cover anything entertaining.
FOREMAN: But that sounds like you're going to an extreme that I'm not sure I buy. But anyway, we're going to wrap it up here and move on. But I appreciate you coming in here, Bonnie, and talking about it, and Phil as well. I think we're going to hear more about this story from overseas and we're sure going to hear more about it if any more washes up on our shores here.
So, again, Bonnie, Phil, thanks for being here. We appreciate it.
FULLER: Thank you.
BRONSTEIN: Thank you.
FOREMAN: Coming up, Casey Anthony -- speaking of that -- gets out of jail in six days. We're going to ask the legendary lawyer who defended Michael Jackson, is justice truly blind or clueless?
But first, when Harry met Larry, E.D. Hill explains what that's all about.
E.D., what's up?
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, what would make Daniel Radcliffe, better known as Harry Potter, weep? And what amazing news can Larry King share tonight? You will find out when Larry joins us live later in the show -- Tom.
FOREMAN: All right. Thanks a lot, E.D. Looking forward to it.
And when we come back, justice itself on trial. Sure, it's a seamy case, but the serious issue is before us. Stay put.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: No justice for Caylee, arrest the jury, thanks for letting a killer go free.
On July 13th, Casey Anthony will, indeed, walk free. And judging by the protest signs outside the Florida courthouse today, plenty of people are outraged that she was acquitted of murdering her child and will be on the street so soon.
But according to my next guest tonight, this is exactly how the system should work. He is a lawyer whose client, like Casey Anthony, was presumed guilty, and like Casey Anthony, was acquitted.
The accused in that case was none other than Michael Jackson. And my guest is defense attorney Tom Mesereau.
Tom, thanks so much for joining us here. Why do you say this is how the system should work in the Casey Anthony case, because so many people obviously think this is exactly how it shouldn't work?
TOM MESEREAU, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: Well, the system is supposed to be above emotion, above the masses, above the media. It's a system that works under certain rules that are strictly applied, and we're not supposed to just knuckle under the emotions of the moment. And that's exactly what this jury did, and they're to be commended. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, in my opinion.
FOREMAN: One of the things that I was struck by, as I watch the public reaction to this was, whenever I've been in courtroom on big trials, I'm always struck by how different it is being there, actually seeing all the evidence versus sitting at home on the La-Z-Boy, getting the highlights.
MESEREAU: Well, it's not just a question of being there. They're under oath. They have a solemn responsibility over a life. They also know exactly what they're being asked to do to someone and their family and the people around them. They also know they have a solemn obligation to observe and see and hear everything and to apply the law strictly as it's given to them.
Now that is a very different perspective than just turning on the tube and having some fun or turning on the Internet and just looking at someone or something for 10 minutes or 20 minutes or whatever it is. It's a totally different perspective.
FOREMAN: I've often been struck by the notion that when you look at some of these things from the outside, it's very easy to think you know things, because you just get that -- that sort of veneer of things. But the moment in this trial when the defense attorneys stood up with that chart and basically said, did the prosecution prove this? No. Did they prove this? No. Did they prove this? No.
I watched that, and I thought, that may be the turning point. Because as a juror, if you take your vows seriously, you have to look at that and say, yes, I didn't see that stuff. So how can I find this person guilty?
MESEREAU: Well, I think these lawyers on the defense did a great job from the beginning. You know, first of all, they picked a good jury. You know, they had to work within certain parameters, just like the prosecutors did, but they got a jury that was willing to listen to what they had to say.
Second of all, I think that Mr. Baez in his opening statement gave a detailed, prepared, passionate, personable statement to the jury and gave them an alternative story and scenario that kept their eyes open.
You know people like to say, everyone's presumed innocent, but in reality in the courtroom you're presumed guilty if you're sitting at the defense table because jurors come in and they see the police, they see the prosecutor, and they think something bad happened.
What these defense lawyers did, very professionally, was they kept the jurors' mind open. They attacked the prosecution's evidence in a way which was understandable. They went bit by bit and showed they had not proven the things they promised to prove. And in the end, I think these jurors did what they had to do. They acquitted. They said this case is not proven, we don't know how she died, where she died, when she died, the defendant's DNA and hair and fibers and fingerprints are not on the duct tape. No one can tell us exactly what happened. We can't speculate. The judge told us we cannot speculate, the case must be proven, and they did their job. I commend them.
FOREMAN: It seems like some of the jurors who are speaking up are basically saying, look, we didn't say she was innocent, we said we could not convict her. And I often think that's a distinction that is lost on the general public. They feel like anytime somebody walks away that the jury is saying that person is innocent.
You're a defense lawyer, you don't even believe that, do you?
MESEREAU: Well, there are some systems where the jury has three options. They can say guilty, they can say innocent, or they can say not proven. And a lot of people think that would be a better system here. But nevertheless, not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent, although it could mean innocent.
It means, really, that they were told you must strictly apply the law. Here's what reasonable doubt means. You must apply reasonable doubt to every single element of every offense. And if they fall short on a single element of a charged offense, you must acquit.
These people had to follow the judge's instructions, they were under oath, and they did what they were there to do, in my opinion. They were not there to just to knuckle under the media or the masses or people who have whatever grudge they have. They have to follow the law, they have to look at everything that goes on in the courtroom, and do their job. They are under oath.
FOREMAN: So when you look at all these people who are complaining about this and showing signs and all that, I'm taking it you're looking at them and saying, you folks are wrong. This is our justice system and that's the way it works.
MESEREAU: Well, look, in 95 percent of criminal trials result in convictions. Ninety-five percent. I'm hearing everybody now talk about reasonable doubt is too high a standard. People don't understand it. It's nonsense. Most of the time they convict.
Additionally, over 200 people now have been released from death sentences and lengthy prison sentences because of DNA technology. How about those cases where there was no DNA to test? I mean, our system is the best in the world, our standards are the highest, we have the fairest system in the world, but even still, injustice happens repeatedly.
So you can't say this is too high a standard when you get 95 percent of convictions in criminal jury trials.
FOREMAN: All right, Tom Mesereau, some nice perspectives there. Interesting in the face of all of this public outrage about it. Good to have you with us. Thanks for being here. MESEREAU: Thanks for having me.
FOREMAN: Coming up in just a moment, the sparks are flying all around debt ceiling debate tonight as President Obama steps on the third rail. That's Social Security and it shocked his own party. Now he's taking jolts from the left and the right. That story is dead ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: In Washington today, the unthinkable. President Obama grabbed the third rail of American politics, suggesting he might be willing to reform Social Security, to reach a deal with Republicans in their impasse over the debt ceiling.
The president gathered congressional leaders around the bargaining table earlier today, hoping to come to some sort of agreement, before the U.S. defaults on its debt next month, but how far will these negotiations go?
For more on all of this, I'm joined by CNN senior political journalist, David Gergen.
David, good evening. I must say, I was really shocked that the president actually engaged this, knowing how much Democrats were going to bite back on this.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I was too, Tom.
The president is putting a lot of chips on the table right now, isn't he? He's -- he is staking a lot of his presidency on whether he can get some sort of, quote, "megadeal," as much as $3 to $4 trillion.
And right now there's a possibility of it. John Boehner, the House speaker, said to his caucus this morning before the meeting, a 50/50 chance we'll get this done in that megadeal. I personally think the chances are much less than 50/50.
FOREMAN: Even if he gets the deal, but he does it through a concession like this that Democrats hate so much, or so many of them do, I'm not sure if I understand the strategy here. Because can't the Republicans then walk away and say, we got the deal because we forced him into it?
GERGEN: I want to say one thing. From the country's point of view, if we get a big deal, a big megadeal, it will be very, very healthy for the finances. So I think we need to separate out what's good for the country versus what's good for the politics.
(CROSSTALK)
FOREMAN: Versus what's good for the party.
GERGEN: That's right. Yes. What's good for the party. And in terms of the politics of it, I have been very surprised at how much the president is conceding upfront without getting very much in return. In fact, as far as I can tell, he hasn't gotten anything in return.
FOREMAN: Is that good for the country? Because the truth is, when you have a big "Titanic" war like this, you want people to be agreeable, but you also want them to represent their interests, because they're supposed to represent the interests of a lot of people in the country.
GERGEN: Well, I'm someone who believes that the Simpson-Bowles commission report was a sound way to go. And they called for cutting $2 of spending for every $1 in tax increases or revenue increases. And I thought that was pretty sound.
In Britain, they went -- they did three-for-one in the Cameron conservative government. But there was always a one. There was always a revenue increase. So I personally think that that's the right way to go.
But Republicans are holding right on this, they feel very strongly, no tax increases, and so what's happened is, the president is conceding more and more spending cuts, and now he's starting to, you know, promise entitlement reform, Medicare and Social Security.
You and I never thought we'd be talking about this now. And progressive Democrats are saying, wait a minute. That's the issue we're going to run on. We're going to run in 2012 as saying, protect Medicare. Nancy Pelosi said just the other day there are three big issues for us in 2012 -- Medicare, Medicare, Medicare. And here now what they've got is the president saying, I'm willing to --
FOREMAN: Harry Reid, too. Harry Reid is getting on that bandwagon, saying, we've got to protect this.
GERGEN: Right. And that compromises Democrats. It takes them off the high road for 2012. And what -- I think what we're seeing is the president's interests in 2012 are not the same as members of the House and Senate, especially progressive Democrats. They all wanted -- the House and Senate people all want to run on, let's protect Medicare, let's protect Social Security from these terrible Republicans.
President Obama's interest is not in that, but having a megadeal that actually advances the economy and pleases the independent voters. He wants to get the independent voters to get his big majority. And so you've got a growing split now between a lot of the progressives -- Nancy Pelosi I think must be just furious about what she sees going on, there's a nasty letter -- I think three letters circulating among some of the liberal Democrats in the House.
And I think the issue is coming down to whether we get a megadeal. I think it's coming down not whether Republicans are going to raise taxes. I don't think they are. I think the issues coming down are the Democrats willing to accept a deal that has almost nothing in terms of tax increases.
FOREMAN: Can -- in talking about just the political side of this, let's say we get through this, and a deal is produced and the collapse of default, all of this is pushed off. It doesn't happen.
I guess my question, politically is, can the president come out of this well? I mean, if he does that, yes, maybe he wins the independents, but if he's pushed -- he's got to have the independents to get re-elected, I know that.
But if he so infuriated so much of his base that they just won't play ball, then can he get enough independents to still win?
GERGEN: It could be very hard. You've got to remember what happened to George H.W. Bush when he was running for re-election back in '92. And he accepted tax increases over the anger of the base, and he lost some of that base, some of the base stayed home and he lost to Bill Clinton.
He lost the election over it. It so could be quite possible that if the Democratic got really angry, it's too late to put up a candidate against Obama in the primaries, but they could get them to stay home.
I think the president is counting on, if you cut it enough, the financial markets will be so happy, the economy will start getting some momentum, we'll get the unemployment rate down, and overall things will be better.
And by the way, he thinks it's the right thing to do, to get these big cuts, it is the right thing to do for the country. But the question was not just getting the cuts, but what's the balance within the deal.
FOREMAN: And I must say, and we're about out of time here, but it seems like one of the things I'm struck by that in a practical sense, what's happening is people are simply running out of real estate to maneuver, particularly the White House.
They're running out of time. They're running out of space, and the clock is ticking, ticking, ticking, both to the debt ceiling and the election.
GERGEN: I agree with that. That's why I feel neither side is going to cave on this big issue of taxes and rather than getting a megadeal, we're going to fall back to a small back, a much smaller deal. The president says he might veto that. So this is a very complex, a fascinating story, a lot at stake.
FOREMAN: So much changing, so fast. David Gergen, always good to have you here. Thanks for being here with us.
Coming up, the fire from the left. We've been talking about it here. Some Democrats are screaming that this possible compromise from the president sounds more like a surrender. I'll talk to a leading congressional Democrat whose message to the president is really simple, I am not voting for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: Well, as we've been talking about, tonight President Obama is facing a brewing revolt within his own party. Democratic lawmakers are flat-out saying they will abandon him, refuse to vote for any compromise he negotiates with the Republicans on the debt ceiling, if Social Security and Medicare are on the table.
I spoke to one of the Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: Representative Schakowsky, thanks so much for joining us. Let's get this clear right up front. If the message from the White House comes out that the only way to make a deal is by talking about entitlements, Social Security in particular, and some kind of reductions, what will your response be?
REPRESENTATIVE JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: My response is that I would not vote for any deal that includes that. Number one, Social Security has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit.
It has a surplus of over $2 trillion right now and it should be, if it's going to be on a table, it should be on a very separate table, and deal with creating solvency for 75 years.
But the very idea that we would agree to cut programs that serve middle income and low income senior citizens in order to allow the Republicans to continue letting the wealthiest Americans get tax breaks on their yachts, I'm sorry. That's a no vote for me.
FOREMAN: Congresswoman, let me challenge you on that, though. Because one of the arguments to the contrary would be, this isn't about more privileges for the wealthy, this is about heading off a crisis with the debt ceiling, which Republicans and Democrats alike say is on the way. No matter who benefits or who loses, that's what this is fundamentally about.
SCHAKOWSKY: Well, absolutely, you're right and we could have a very clean vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. And raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean that it would suddenly unleash spending.
What it means is that the profit, the United States of America, would be able to pay its bills, bills it already has, obligations that it has the full faith and credit of the United States. You're absolutely right.
None of this has to be part of the discussion. It's the Republicans who have said, no way will we do what's right and raise that debt ceiling so we can pay our bills without extracting something in the way of cuts.
Well, the cuts that they've suggested are completely unjustified and hurt the people that have the least to do with causing any kind of a debt or deficit.
FOREMAN: So are you saying, then, that the debt ceiling should simply be raised with no regard for any additional expenses, that we can raise it, let's just keep raise it and keep spending?
SCHAKOWSKY: I say -- no. No, let's raise it, let's pay our bills, and then let's have a rational discussion, without having a gun to our head, about the full faith and credit of the United States.
I mean, this would plummet the country into a deep depression and probably a worldwide economic recession, if not depression. I mean, it has serious, serious consequences. But, yes, absolutely, I was on the Simpson Bowles commission. I agree that we need to do something to reduce our debt.
But to do it on the backs of moderate and low-income people, especially our seniors, no, that's not the way to go. We don't need to do it that way, especially when the wealthy are getting away with huge tax breaks left and right.
FOREMAN: How do we get past this point, though, Congresswoman? Because the problem seems to be that every time we reach this point, one of two things happen, either lawmakers on both sides say, well, let's not do it now under all this pressure.
We'll get back to it later, and you and I both know, you never do, or they say, yes, we have to cut things, but not this and everyone is saying that. That's why voters are going crazy over Congress because they're saying nobody will act like an adult.
SCHAKOWSKY: That is not true. Actually, it's the Republicans who haven't put one thing on the table. Democrats have said, you know, all kinds of proposals on the kinds of things that we could make some cuts in, you know?
And we would move forward, but the Republicans are simply saying what is unreasonable, and that is no tax cuts, none at all. And if you do any kind --
FOREMAN: But that seems to be on the table right now. There is some hint that they are willing to talk about some changes in the tax code, if you are willing to address this.
SCHAKOWSY: Wait a minute. What they said was, what Eric Cantor made very clear, yes, we may put some of those tax breaks for corporate jets or yachts on the table, but if we take those away, then there has to be other tax cuts that equal the same amount of money.
In other words, no, it's not real. He is not being genuine, that there will be a net increase in taxes that will go to paying down the debt. This is an irresponsible game that the Republicans are playing with something as precious as the full faith and credit of the United States of America.
That we will, in fact, stand behind the debts that we owe. This is not about more spending. This is about paying current debts.
FOREMAN: Last quick question about this. Look, you guys are still in charge of the White House. You've still got the Senate. A lot of people would say, you've got two-thirds of the equation here. If you want to fix it, fix it. Go ahead.
SCHAKOWSKY: Well, except that we need to have the votes in the House of Representatives, and the leadership there, dominated by people who say, well, fine, just let the credit of the United States go to pot and it doesn't really matter.
But, of course it matters. Every serious analyst says that this would have a devastating impact. So we need to get the Republicans, unfortunately, we need to get them to make some sort of an agreement. And so far, they're unwilling to face up to their responsibilities.
FOREMAN: Well, it sounds like we're not a whole lot closer, despite all the talks, but I really appreciate your time, Congressman Schakowsky, appreciate it.
SCHAKOWSKY: Appreciate it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: Well, moving on, when we come back, E.D. Hill talks to the man who's talked to just about everybody on the planet, Larry King on his latest exclusive with the pride of Gryffindor. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
E.D. HILL, CNN ANCHOR: It's the end of a magical era. That's right, as the beloved "Harry Potter" movie series reaches its thrilling conclusion. This Sunday night, our own Larry King hosts a behind-the-scenes special, days before the final chapter hits the big screen.
And joining us now from Los Angeles is the man who it was just announced today is getting a lifetime achievement award from the Emmy folks, Mr. Larry King. Welcome and congratulations.
LARRY KING, WILL GET LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FROM TV ACADEMY: Thank you, E.D. I am humbled. It's a great honor. It came out of nowhere, never expected it. I certainly appreciate it.
HILL: Lifetime achievement from the National Academy of Television For Arts And Sciences. That's got to be an amazing feeling. How did you find out that they had selected you for this honor?
KING: They called me two weeks ago and my producer, Wendy Walker, who was with me for so many years, they told her, and we had to keep it in confidence.
I couldn't tell anyone until they made the announcement today so I knew it two weeks ago. So I had to walk around with that exulted feeling for two weeks.
HILL: A little puffed up for two weeks.
KING: I know, baby! HILL: You know who I am. You know, I read that you interviewed more than 50,000 people in your lifetime in journalism so far, including the villains of the day like O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson. I've got to ask you, what did you think about the Casey Anthony verdict?
KING: You know, E.D., I have -- all my life, I have never pre- judged anything. I never had an agenda going into an interview and I never pre-judged a trial.
One, because I know the manifestations that can take place in a trial, and since I'm not present at the trial, how would I know what might have affected one juror as it might affect another?
So I don't like, I don't like the whole overblown thing. I don't like pundits giving opinions when they haven't been attending the trial every day, convicting before -- you always get shocked if you convict before trial begins.
And in this trial, you had a classic example, in my opinion, of they absolutely, definitely proved that she is not the nicest person in the world.
HILL: Right and that was about all they proved.
KING: But they did not prove a murder.
HILL: You've got this special Sunday, "Harry Potter: The Final Chapter," 8:00 Eastern. The magic began in 1997. So were you swept up from the start with this?
KING: In '97, I took my two boys to the first -- I had never read the Potter books, but I had interviewed Miss Rowlings and was very impressed with her.
I took my two boys, and at that time, one was 7 and one was 6, and they didn't get into it. So I was encouraging them, and I didn't get into it then I kind of put it away followed it with interest over the years, as I do when anything big is occurring.
Then I went to see the final picture, before doing this special and it is amazing. I was blown away by the special effects, by the way they put things together, the way they -- the makeup, the graphics, and you've got to see it in 3D.
This movie's going to make a ton. It's a great windup to a series. If you're going to do a finale, if you're going to close something, they close it great, and the ending is wonderful.
HILL: Well, I understand that people who get to watch your special are going to see things that have not been seen before. And one of the things I heard was that you talked to Daniel Radcliffe, of course, Harry Potter, and you asked him what happened the last day.
And he said that he wept. Now, did you sense that was distraught or is it, perhaps, a bit of relief, because when young actors like that, I mean, think back to Ron Howard, Henry Winkler, even Sally Field, when they get too heavily identified with one character, it sometimes makes it difficult for them to move past that.
KING: Yes, I think it's a mixed feeling, E.D. that's a good question. It's the sadness over the end, and then you have to wonder about, what happens now?
Except in his case, this is an unusual kid. I just saw him do "How to Succeed In Business without Really Trying," and you ought to go see it. He is fantastic. He's a terrific little actor/singer/dancer, but he also did ""Equus" on stage in London.
He's got a new film already in the can coming out next year, a murder kind of mystery, a ghostly kind of film. I think he'll be a director some day. I think he'll never put Harry Potter totally behind him, but he'll go on. He's the kind of kid that will go on.
HILL: Well, for all the ladies who love Harry Potter, you also asked him about marriage and children. What did he tell you?
KING: He wants a ton of kids. He's got a girlfriend, didn't tell me who it was, and I didn't pry. But he is going to get married, apparently pretty soon, and he wants a brood of kid. He's thinking like 8 or 10.
He's an only child and all my life when I met children where they're the only child, when I met children where they're the only child, when they get married, they want to have a lot of kids.
HILL: Married pretty soon? Did he drop any secrets?
KING: My guess would be 2012.
HILL: Wow. That is big news.
KING: When he's ready. He's very mature, but you ought to go see it. You're in New York. Do go see him. Go see him on stage. He's a true performer.
HILL: I will not miss that. I agree with you, he is a fantastic talent and we certainly appreciate you bringing your talent and sharing it with us tonight.
Nobody wants to miss the Harry Potter special, "Harry Potter: The Final Chapter." CNN special hosted by the one and the only Larry King, 8:00 p.m. Eastern on Sunday. Thank you, Larry.
For 31 years, one small Florida town had a front row seat on history. As the last space shuttle takes off, Tom asks, how do 43,000 people say goodbye?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOREMAN: Finally tonight, we want to close with something we all know about, the last space shuttle taking off tomorrow. It's the end of an era, no doubt about that. But we found this very touching story we wanted to share with you. It's part of CNN's In Depth series on the final shuttle mission.
We want to take you to Titusville, Florida, which has had a perfect view of the launch pad all these years, and it's now perfect place to say goodbye and remember.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ten, nine --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not just seeing the space shuttle launch --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It starts with a low rumble.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eight, seven --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And watching the vapor trail go into space --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Almost like someone beating a drum.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's also feeling it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Six --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And being close to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Five, four.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And gets real angry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Loud.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Smokey.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Magnificent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Zero.
FOREMAN (voice-over): For almost half a century --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's spectacular. It really is.
FOREMAN: Titusville has been saying goodbye. No place on earth has had a better view of Americans going into space than this small town on a strip of land just 15 miles across the Indian River from the launch pad.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at that. Don't they look like baby lobsters?
FOREMAN: And for thousands of residents such as Lorilee Thompson, a former shrimp boat captain, watching the liftoffs have become a way of life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is our space wall. So this is where we've got some autographed pictures of astronauts here.
FOREMAN: She opened the Dixie Crossroads restaurant with the training booth from Apollo and other artifacts to draw lunch crowds into her lobby.
LORILEE THOMPSON, RESIDENT: We have a population of 43,000, and there'll be several hundred thousand people here. So our population, it like triples or quadruples.
FOREMAN: But of course the town's role as the Yankee stadium of man's space flight began much further back in the 1960s, when the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions ignited the world's imagination. And when the man landed on the moon --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
FOREMAN: No place was prouder so proud that several monuments have been built here across the river, honoring not just those who went into space, but also those who put them there. Like city manager Mark Ryan's parents.
MARK RYAN, CITY MANAGER: They're retired IBMers. My father worked on the instrument unit for the Apollo rockets and my mother was in the quality control records keeping component for IBM as well.
BOB SOCKS, RESIDENT: If you take this boardwalk and go straight ahead that's the launch pad.
FOREMAN: Bobby Socks has lived here more than 40 years.
SOCKS: The accomplishment, the time frame, the ingenuity of our people to have accomplished what they did in such a short period of time, I'm still amazed by it.
FOREMAN: When tragedy struck, as it did in the terrible fire on Apollo 1 or the shuttle disaster years later, the people of Titusville mourned. Pastor Ray Johnson --
PASTOR RAY JOHNSON, FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH: We grieved. The whole city did. It was quite awful. Like some member of a family died.
SOCKS: The "Challenger" hit us hard for three years. The employment rate went up, people were laid off, and it had a dramatic effect here.
And for people like myself, I was an eye witness to the "Challenger." I was standing on the river and watched it. There are times I look out over the river and I see that same like cloud configuration or the skies as blue as it was that morning, I flash back.
FOREMAN: When danger threatened, as it did on Apollo 13, they responded with prayers and the expertise that only a town filled with rocket scientists could bring. Marty Winkel.
MARTIN WINKLE, RETIRED NASA EMPLOYEE: I was working third shift, we worked 12-hour shifts back then, seven days week, and I was at home asleep. And I got a call at home, saying, we have a problem on Apollo 13, and I explained what I thought we could do. I wish they've never had to go through that experience.
FOREMAN: But mostly for generations, they have watched and welcomed everyone who came to watch with them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chocolate cone, chocolate shake.
FOREMAN: David Hammond is a science teacher who still helps out with the family business.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it's three deluxe burgers, two, no mayonnaise. It started in '64 by my grandparents, named Moonlight because the space program across the river was being started.
We definitely feel the positive effects of the space shuttle launches. No doubt about that. I mean, if the shuttle was going off in an hour from now or just going off three hours ago, this whole street would be packed.
I mean, bumper to bumper. You know, everyone's getting ready to see it, excited, you see lawn chairs, people on top of buildings, waiting for it to go off.
FOREMAN: Now there will still be hundreds of NASA employees nearby, still unmanned rockets blasting off, but everyone knows without astronauts, the crowds won't be nearly as big.
THOMPSON: Our community is going to lose the gift of hundreds of thousands of motel rooms that we really didn't have to work very hard to fill.
FOREMAN: The town's identity will slip a little farther into the past.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For me, it's probably going to be a lot of joy and a lot of sorrow, all at the same time.
FOREMAN: And when the tourists depart this time, all that will be left is suddenly shocking empty sky.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: To all our astronauts and all of you, thanks for joining us. We'll see you on launch day. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
