Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Debate Reform; O'Reilly Lawsuits

Aired October 14, 2004 - 01:34   ET

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

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


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: A deadly breach of the green zone. At least five killed, 20 wounded after explosives went off in the heavily-fortified section of Baghdad today. The bombs apparently hand-carried into the green zone by suicide attackers. Among the dead, three Americans who work for the Pentagon.
An Ivy Leaguer sentenced up to eight years in prison. Harvard grad student Alexander Pring-Wilson convicted today of voluntary manslaughter for stabbing a man during a fight at a local pizza parlor. Pring-Wilson said he was acting in self-defense. Prosecutors had hoped for a first-degree murder conviction, saying the Harvard man instigated the attack, and later lied to police about it.

And in Santa Maria, California, Michael Jackson didn't make the scene today, but his lawyers are in the courtroom right now. This is obviously file footage from another day. Another pretrial hearing under way, as his legal team assesses -- works with the judge to reveal the identity of prosecution informants. They want to find out who provided the details that authorities used to get approval to search the Neverland Ranch. They're also seeking a reduction in Jackson's $3 million bail.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Those debates are now done and President Bush is back on the campaign trail. Live pictures now as he's speaking at a rally of Republican governors in Las Vegas this hour. It's Bush's fourth trip to Nevada this year. He travels to Reno later. It's a campaign frenzy in the Silver State, not far from the president, his wife, first lady Laura Bush. Live pictures of her as she speaks to the AARP this hour in Las Vegas. John Kerry is due at the gathering next hour, while his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, campaigns in Reno.

While the candidates are counting on last-minute votes, election officials are focused on counting the ballots.

As CNN's Dan Lothian reports, chads are still sticking around in some voting booths, and the road to voting accuracy may not be paved with those new electronic machines either.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN BOSTON BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): As the clock winds down in the race for the White House, there is growing concern over what the accuracy will be of the final count.

ERIC RUSSELL (ph), VOTER'S OUTREACH OF AMERICA: David thinks he's registered to vote. LOTHIAN: In Nevada, Eric Russell, a former part-time worker for the Republican-backed group Voter's Outreach of America, alleges supervisors destroyed forms filled out by Democrats, threw out registration receipts and put pressure on workers to only sign up Republicans.

RUSSELL: If you had brought in Republicans or Democrats, you weren't getting paid. I mean, our -- bottom line.

LOTHIAN: He says he kept discarded paperwork as evidence. A Republican consultant with ties to the group says Russell is a disgruntled ex-employee trying to get even. In a statement, the Republican National Committee said, "Anyone who engages in fraudulent voter registration activities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

In Colorado, CNN affiliate KUSA found signs of fraud on registration forms, bogus names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth, and forged signatures.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm 100 percent that this is not her signature.

LOTHIAN: They spoke with this woman who claims she not only registered to vote 25 times, but also signed up three of her friends 40 times, all to help her boyfriend who was making $2 for every application, working for Acorn, a group aligned with the Democratic Party.

KIM CASON, GIRLFRIEND: You know, I was just helping the people out downtown. You know, everybody needs an extra dollar here and now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We did have incidents where there were people who were attempting to defraud us.

LOTHIAN: And across the country in key battleground states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, some worry new voting technology may result in mistakes and fraud, and where there is no paper trail, an impossible task to recount.

Already in Florida, a problem, power failure during Hurricane Jeanne may have damaged computer equipment causing a server to crash. A test of Palm Beach County's electronic voting system had to be postponed.

(on camera): All of these concerns have led to lawsuits and investigations. Various groups and officials working hard to lower the odds of irregularities with less than three weeks to go.

Dan Lothian, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: And CNN is your campaign headquarters. Undecided voters get a chance to weigh in on the candidates and the issues. Paula Zahn hosts a townhall meeting live tonight from Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The special edition of "PAULA ZAHN NOW" airs at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 5:00 Pacific.

O'BRIEN: So what would Lincoln or Douglass say if they had a chance to watch this year's batch of so-called debates? Really, they were more like tightly controlled, joint news conferences than debates in the classic sense of the word. And while there may have been some revealing moments that swung some voters this year, they happened in spite of a stifling sense of debate edicts drafted by the Commission on Presidential Debates, funded by corporate America, and controlled by the major parties. Enter the calls for reform.

Spearheading the effort is George Farah, founder of Open Debates, a nonpartisan group, looking at ways to take the partisanship out of the debate process.

George, good to have you with us.

GEORGE FARAH, OPENDEBATES.ORG: Thank you for having me.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about the good old days, I guess you would call them the good old days, back to really 1980 is probably the last time we had a pure debate environment, with the League of Women Voters. And it is this man, John Anderson, independent candidate that year, who had a great deal of popularity, for an independent candidate, insisting on being part a part of the debates. The League of women Voters, an independent organization, said sure, and that's really what started the whole thing crumbling, right?

FARAH: Absolutely. The league was put in a very difficult position. Majority of American voters want to see Anderson included in the 1980 presidential debate. President Jimmy Carter, however, refused to debate Anderson. And the League had a dilemma. Did it capitulate to the president of the United States, or does respect the wishes of the people? Well, the League listened to the American people. It invited Anderson to a debate. Carter refused to show up. The League went forward anyway and hosted the debate between Anderson and Ronald Reagan that attracted over 50 million viewers.

At that point, the League said, we don't want a women's organization telling our boys who they can participate with. Four years later, the League of Women Voters chastised publicly the candidates for vetoing 68 proposed panelists, and that was last straw that broke the camel's back.

O'BRIEN: And the rest is history. What we have now is this Commission on Presidential Debates, which is essentially the parties themselves, the two major parties, and which brings us to your bill of particulars, or at least a portion of it. let's look at some of the complaints that you have, that you see, problems with the CPD, or the Commission on Presidential Debates. We talked about this issue of excluding popular candidates. Running through the list, the CPD, created by the major parties. CPD gives candidates absolute control, and then it's financed by the corporation.

Let's talk about -- because the major party issue is fairly straightforward. Let's talk about this absolute-control issue. Clearly, there's a conflict of interest that is inherent in all of this. And what is the net result? What do we see in the actual debates that is a function of the candidates having this much control?

FARAH: First, obviously, as you mentioned, Miles, there are no third-party challengers, irrespective of popular support for those candidate; 64 percent wanted to see Nader and Buchanan in 2000 -- excluded. Three-quarters of the American people wanted to see Ross Perot in '96 -- excluded.

And in respect to format, these candidates are terrified of making a mistake in front of tens of millions of voters. So their $10,000-a-month political consultants, their high-paid campaign managers, do whatever they can to sanitize them. In last night's debates, the candidates addressed each other once. There was one follow-up question. They're prohibited from questioning each other. And as a result, they end up reciting a series of memorized soundbites -- wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, outsourcing to Afghanistan.

The American people deserve better. We're supposed to be just seeing foreign policy speeches. We're supposed to be seeing these candidate thinking on their feet in front of tens of millions of voter, and that's the way the League used to structure the debates, with aggressive follow-up questions, rebuttals and surrebuttals (ph), so you got past the memorized soundbite.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk about this notion of corporations financing the debates. I don't think a lot of people are aware of that. I think they probably assume that that little box you check on your 1040 is helping pay for the debates. Not so. And how does corporate financing of these debates perhaps taint them?

FARAH: It's outrageous to have corporations, who have regulatory interest in the White House and in Congress, financing our most public forums. Anheuser-Busch has foot the bill for debates since 1988, and you have Anheuser-Busch girls at these debate sights, wearing skimpy outfits, passing out pamphlets, denouncing beer taxes, and getting reporters, frankly, drunk in the Anheuser-Busch tent. This is not appropriate.

When the League ran the show, you had pristine sites. Second, you have CEOs sitting in audience. They get to rub shoulders with politicos and post-debate parties. The reason why these corporations are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Commission on Presidential Debates isn't just because they want to improve their public image, they see it as a bipartisan political contribution. When the League asked for corporate money, they got three or four grand; they never got this massive amount.

And it's worth noting that one of the co-chairs of the Commission of Presidential Debates, Frank Fahrenkopf (ph), is the nation's leading gambling lobbyist. When I asked him, is it all right to have Anheuser-Busch and Philip Morris paying for our most sacred public forums? He said, boy, I'm the head of the gambling lobby, you're asking the wrong guy.

O'BRIEN: Well, the key here is for the corporations, they want that quid pro quo. So in making a donation, which both parties can lay claim to, it's the perfect kind of donation for a corporation, I imagine.

Let's -- a final though here, though -- do you think that your cause was helped or hindered by the way the four debates unfolded this season? Do you think there will be renewed calls for reform, and do they have a snowball's chance?

FARAH: I think it's actually been a stellar year. This is the first year in 16 years there's been organized opposition, with my organization, a Citizens Debate commission, and 60 other civic groups part of the debate reform movement. For the first time in 16 years, and no small part to the movements' work, the memorandum of understanding, the complex, 32-page, ridiculous (INAUDIBLE) contract that was drafted by the candidates was made public. And exposing a fraud is the first step in rectifying it.

O'BRIEN: And it really was. In reading it, it was absurd reading.

FARAH: It was absurd, Miles, you know it.

O'BRIEN: It made the baseball rules look like they were, you know, something less than arcane.

FARAH: Exactly, so that was the first step.

And the second thing is, we got four moderators this time, because we bashed the commission for allowing the candidates to always choose Jim Lehrer. Bob Schieffer did a wonderful job yesterday, raising issues like income equality, immigration, gun control, minimum wage, that hadn't been touched in years, and we applaud him for doing so, despite the confines of the format.

So I think the steps forward is the beginning, and not to mention the networks having the guys to show a split screen, despite the candidates restrictions. So we've gotten three victories. It's the beginning. We're going to have a citizens debate commission in control of our most respected public forums in the next two or three election cycles.

O'BRIEN: All right, George Farah, you're obviously not done. You're work just begins now that debate season is over. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

FARAH: Thank you, Miles. Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Good luck with the cause there -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: An American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan by U.S. troops is finally released from custody. Coming up a CNN exclusive, Yaser Hamdi talks about his time in captivity and how he was treated.

Also, fighting back when the flu bug bites: what action companies are being warned to take if a worker gets the flu.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIPS: Well, he was held by the United States for three years as an enemy combatant, captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11. Yaser Assam (ph) Hamdi was sent to Guantanamo Bay, and then was the center of a landmark Supreme Court case, that ended with him being set free this week.

Hamdi is now back at his home in Saudi Arabia, where he spoke to CNN about his experience, and what he says, his innocence.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

YASER HAMDI, FMR. ENEMY COMBATANT: I believe that I'm not an enemy combatant, and I am an innocent person, and I was proving that all the time for them. I answered all the questions that they asked me very seriously, and I answered very -- and I was cooperative, and I give them all the details.

And the Supreme Court, the United States, the highest justice level in the United States, they ruled my favor, which give us the proof that I am an innocent man. And if I was not an innocent man, I would not be speaking with you at this time.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: Yaser Hamdi, in an exclusive CNN interview. There are terms to his release. He's agreed never to travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or the Middle East. Two other men also contained as energy combatants are challenging their cases in U.S. federal court.

O'BRIEN: The high-profile, high-powered case of he said, she said: a controversy involving Bill O'Reilly. We'll enter the no-spin zone after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Now to a high-profile case of he said, she said. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly suing one of his associate producers and her lawyer. He says Andrea Mackris tried to extort him. Mackris, who's a former CNN employee, also suing O'Reilly and Fox. She said O'Reilly made sexually explicit comments to her.

CNN's Jason Carroll with our story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the night of the last presidential debate, for Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly, politics would not be the first story in his show.

BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR, "THE O'REILLY FACTOR": But there comes a time when enough is enough. And so this morning, I had to file a lawsuit against some people who are demanding $60 million or they will -- quote -- "punish me and Fox News."

CARROLL: Faced with sexual harassment allegations against him, O'Reilly said he had no choice but to file a complaint claiming extortion. This in response to allegations made by Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for "The O'Reilly Factor." Mackris' suit, filed after her boss and Fox News filed theirs, alleges, on several occasions, O'Reilly made sexually explicit comments to her.

BENEDICT MORELLI, MACKRIS' ATTORNEY: And suddenly, without provocation or warning, Mr. O'Reilly said to the plaintiff, Andrea Mackris, and just use your vibrator to blow off steam. What? You've got a vibrator, don't you? Every girl does.

CARROLL: Mackris spoke through her attorney to allege O'Reilly's inappropriate comments were made in person, over dinners and over the phone. Mackris' complaint contains detailed quotes allegedly from O'Reilly. O'Reilly's attorney says he'll ask the court to turn over copies of any recorded conversations, certain there is nothing incriminating. Her attorney would not say if there were any tapes.

O'Reilly's accuser worked at Fox News from April 2000 until January 2004. During which time, according to her complaint, O'Reilly allegedly made several sexually inappropriate comments. Mackris left Fox News and took a higher paying producer position at CNN. But in July 2004, she returned to "The O'Reilly Factor," working again for O'Reilly.

On condition, her complaint says, -- quote -- "he no longer engaged in inappropriate conduct." But Mackris alleges that conduct resumed. O'Reilly's attorney says none of the actions rise to the level of unlawful activity. O'Reilly says the suit is motivated by greed and politics.

MORELLI: Let me tell you, if it was politically motivated, I would have brought the lawsuit originally and not engaged in negotiations and discussions with their lawyers for the last two plus weeks.

O'REILLY: Sixty million dollars. I really can't say anything else. I don't want to waste your time with this. The justice system has the case. We'll see what happens.

CARROLL (on camera): Mackris' attorney would not comment on Fox's claim. He demanded $60 million hush money to prevent the filing of the sexual harassment lawsuit. He did say O'Reilly's extortion claim is without merit and that O'Reilly's behavior will be proven in court.

Jason Carroll, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(STOCK MARKET UPDATE)

PHILLIPS: Coming up in our second hour of LIVE FROM, an estimated one-third of Americans will vote electronically this year. A look at the potential pitfalls and problems with the system.

LIVE FROM's hour of power begins right after this.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


Aired October 14, 2004 - 01:34   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: A deadly breach of the green zone. At least five killed, 20 wounded after explosives went off in the heavily-fortified section of Baghdad today. The bombs apparently hand-carried into the green zone by suicide attackers. Among the dead, three Americans who work for the Pentagon.
An Ivy Leaguer sentenced up to eight years in prison. Harvard grad student Alexander Pring-Wilson convicted today of voluntary manslaughter for stabbing a man during a fight at a local pizza parlor. Pring-Wilson said he was acting in self-defense. Prosecutors had hoped for a first-degree murder conviction, saying the Harvard man instigated the attack, and later lied to police about it.

And in Santa Maria, California, Michael Jackson didn't make the scene today, but his lawyers are in the courtroom right now. This is obviously file footage from another day. Another pretrial hearing under way, as his legal team assesses -- works with the judge to reveal the identity of prosecution informants. They want to find out who provided the details that authorities used to get approval to search the Neverland Ranch. They're also seeking a reduction in Jackson's $3 million bail.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Those debates are now done and President Bush is back on the campaign trail. Live pictures now as he's speaking at a rally of Republican governors in Las Vegas this hour. It's Bush's fourth trip to Nevada this year. He travels to Reno later. It's a campaign frenzy in the Silver State, not far from the president, his wife, first lady Laura Bush. Live pictures of her as she speaks to the AARP this hour in Las Vegas. John Kerry is due at the gathering next hour, while his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, campaigns in Reno.

While the candidates are counting on last-minute votes, election officials are focused on counting the ballots.

As CNN's Dan Lothian reports, chads are still sticking around in some voting booths, and the road to voting accuracy may not be paved with those new electronic machines either.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN BOSTON BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): As the clock winds down in the race for the White House, there is growing concern over what the accuracy will be of the final count.

ERIC RUSSELL (ph), VOTER'S OUTREACH OF AMERICA: David thinks he's registered to vote. LOTHIAN: In Nevada, Eric Russell, a former part-time worker for the Republican-backed group Voter's Outreach of America, alleges supervisors destroyed forms filled out by Democrats, threw out registration receipts and put pressure on workers to only sign up Republicans.

RUSSELL: If you had brought in Republicans or Democrats, you weren't getting paid. I mean, our -- bottom line.

LOTHIAN: He says he kept discarded paperwork as evidence. A Republican consultant with ties to the group says Russell is a disgruntled ex-employee trying to get even. In a statement, the Republican National Committee said, "Anyone who engages in fraudulent voter registration activities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

In Colorado, CNN affiliate KUSA found signs of fraud on registration forms, bogus names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth, and forged signatures.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm 100 percent that this is not her signature.

LOTHIAN: They spoke with this woman who claims she not only registered to vote 25 times, but also signed up three of her friends 40 times, all to help her boyfriend who was making $2 for every application, working for Acorn, a group aligned with the Democratic Party.

KIM CASON, GIRLFRIEND: You know, I was just helping the people out downtown. You know, everybody needs an extra dollar here and now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We did have incidents where there were people who were attempting to defraud us.

LOTHIAN: And across the country in key battleground states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, some worry new voting technology may result in mistakes and fraud, and where there is no paper trail, an impossible task to recount.

Already in Florida, a problem, power failure during Hurricane Jeanne may have damaged computer equipment causing a server to crash. A test of Palm Beach County's electronic voting system had to be postponed.

(on camera): All of these concerns have led to lawsuits and investigations. Various groups and officials working hard to lower the odds of irregularities with less than three weeks to go.

Dan Lothian, CNN, Boston.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: And CNN is your campaign headquarters. Undecided voters get a chance to weigh in on the candidates and the issues. Paula Zahn hosts a townhall meeting live tonight from Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The special edition of "PAULA ZAHN NOW" airs at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 5:00 Pacific.

O'BRIEN: So what would Lincoln or Douglass say if they had a chance to watch this year's batch of so-called debates? Really, they were more like tightly controlled, joint news conferences than debates in the classic sense of the word. And while there may have been some revealing moments that swung some voters this year, they happened in spite of a stifling sense of debate edicts drafted by the Commission on Presidential Debates, funded by corporate America, and controlled by the major parties. Enter the calls for reform.

Spearheading the effort is George Farah, founder of Open Debates, a nonpartisan group, looking at ways to take the partisanship out of the debate process.

George, good to have you with us.

GEORGE FARAH, OPENDEBATES.ORG: Thank you for having me.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about the good old days, I guess you would call them the good old days, back to really 1980 is probably the last time we had a pure debate environment, with the League of Women Voters. And it is this man, John Anderson, independent candidate that year, who had a great deal of popularity, for an independent candidate, insisting on being part a part of the debates. The League of women Voters, an independent organization, said sure, and that's really what started the whole thing crumbling, right?

FARAH: Absolutely. The league was put in a very difficult position. Majority of American voters want to see Anderson included in the 1980 presidential debate. President Jimmy Carter, however, refused to debate Anderson. And the League had a dilemma. Did it capitulate to the president of the United States, or does respect the wishes of the people? Well, the League listened to the American people. It invited Anderson to a debate. Carter refused to show up. The League went forward anyway and hosted the debate between Anderson and Ronald Reagan that attracted over 50 million viewers.

At that point, the League said, we don't want a women's organization telling our boys who they can participate with. Four years later, the League of Women Voters chastised publicly the candidates for vetoing 68 proposed panelists, and that was last straw that broke the camel's back.

O'BRIEN: And the rest is history. What we have now is this Commission on Presidential Debates, which is essentially the parties themselves, the two major parties, and which brings us to your bill of particulars, or at least a portion of it. let's look at some of the complaints that you have, that you see, problems with the CPD, or the Commission on Presidential Debates. We talked about this issue of excluding popular candidates. Running through the list, the CPD, created by the major parties. CPD gives candidates absolute control, and then it's financed by the corporation.

Let's talk about -- because the major party issue is fairly straightforward. Let's talk about this absolute-control issue. Clearly, there's a conflict of interest that is inherent in all of this. And what is the net result? What do we see in the actual debates that is a function of the candidates having this much control?

FARAH: First, obviously, as you mentioned, Miles, there are no third-party challengers, irrespective of popular support for those candidate; 64 percent wanted to see Nader and Buchanan in 2000 -- excluded. Three-quarters of the American people wanted to see Ross Perot in '96 -- excluded.

And in respect to format, these candidates are terrified of making a mistake in front of tens of millions of voters. So their $10,000-a-month political consultants, their high-paid campaign managers, do whatever they can to sanitize them. In last night's debates, the candidates addressed each other once. There was one follow-up question. They're prohibited from questioning each other. And as a result, they end up reciting a series of memorized soundbites -- wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, outsourcing to Afghanistan.

The American people deserve better. We're supposed to be just seeing foreign policy speeches. We're supposed to be seeing these candidate thinking on their feet in front of tens of millions of voter, and that's the way the League used to structure the debates, with aggressive follow-up questions, rebuttals and surrebuttals (ph), so you got past the memorized soundbite.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk about this notion of corporations financing the debates. I don't think a lot of people are aware of that. I think they probably assume that that little box you check on your 1040 is helping pay for the debates. Not so. And how does corporate financing of these debates perhaps taint them?

FARAH: It's outrageous to have corporations, who have regulatory interest in the White House and in Congress, financing our most public forums. Anheuser-Busch has foot the bill for debates since 1988, and you have Anheuser-Busch girls at these debate sights, wearing skimpy outfits, passing out pamphlets, denouncing beer taxes, and getting reporters, frankly, drunk in the Anheuser-Busch tent. This is not appropriate.

When the League ran the show, you had pristine sites. Second, you have CEOs sitting in audience. They get to rub shoulders with politicos and post-debate parties. The reason why these corporations are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Commission on Presidential Debates isn't just because they want to improve their public image, they see it as a bipartisan political contribution. When the League asked for corporate money, they got three or four grand; they never got this massive amount.

And it's worth noting that one of the co-chairs of the Commission of Presidential Debates, Frank Fahrenkopf (ph), is the nation's leading gambling lobbyist. When I asked him, is it all right to have Anheuser-Busch and Philip Morris paying for our most sacred public forums? He said, boy, I'm the head of the gambling lobby, you're asking the wrong guy.

O'BRIEN: Well, the key here is for the corporations, they want that quid pro quo. So in making a donation, which both parties can lay claim to, it's the perfect kind of donation for a corporation, I imagine.

Let's -- a final though here, though -- do you think that your cause was helped or hindered by the way the four debates unfolded this season? Do you think there will be renewed calls for reform, and do they have a snowball's chance?

FARAH: I think it's actually been a stellar year. This is the first year in 16 years there's been organized opposition, with my organization, a Citizens Debate commission, and 60 other civic groups part of the debate reform movement. For the first time in 16 years, and no small part to the movements' work, the memorandum of understanding, the complex, 32-page, ridiculous (INAUDIBLE) contract that was drafted by the candidates was made public. And exposing a fraud is the first step in rectifying it.

O'BRIEN: And it really was. In reading it, it was absurd reading.

FARAH: It was absurd, Miles, you know it.

O'BRIEN: It made the baseball rules look like they were, you know, something less than arcane.

FARAH: Exactly, so that was the first step.

And the second thing is, we got four moderators this time, because we bashed the commission for allowing the candidates to always choose Jim Lehrer. Bob Schieffer did a wonderful job yesterday, raising issues like income equality, immigration, gun control, minimum wage, that hadn't been touched in years, and we applaud him for doing so, despite the confines of the format.

So I think the steps forward is the beginning, and not to mention the networks having the guys to show a split screen, despite the candidates restrictions. So we've gotten three victories. It's the beginning. We're going to have a citizens debate commission in control of our most respected public forums in the next two or three election cycles.

O'BRIEN: All right, George Farah, you're obviously not done. You're work just begins now that debate season is over. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

FARAH: Thank you, Miles. Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Good luck with the cause there -- Kyra.

PHILLIPS: An American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan by U.S. troops is finally released from custody. Coming up a CNN exclusive, Yaser Hamdi talks about his time in captivity and how he was treated.

Also, fighting back when the flu bug bites: what action companies are being warned to take if a worker gets the flu.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIPS: Well, he was held by the United States for three years as an enemy combatant, captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11. Yaser Assam (ph) Hamdi was sent to Guantanamo Bay, and then was the center of a landmark Supreme Court case, that ended with him being set free this week.

Hamdi is now back at his home in Saudi Arabia, where he spoke to CNN about his experience, and what he says, his innocence.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

YASER HAMDI, FMR. ENEMY COMBATANT: I believe that I'm not an enemy combatant, and I am an innocent person, and I was proving that all the time for them. I answered all the questions that they asked me very seriously, and I answered very -- and I was cooperative, and I give them all the details.

And the Supreme Court, the United States, the highest justice level in the United States, they ruled my favor, which give us the proof that I am an innocent man. And if I was not an innocent man, I would not be speaking with you at this time.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: Yaser Hamdi, in an exclusive CNN interview. There are terms to his release. He's agreed never to travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or the Middle East. Two other men also contained as energy combatants are challenging their cases in U.S. federal court.

O'BRIEN: The high-profile, high-powered case of he said, she said: a controversy involving Bill O'Reilly. We'll enter the no-spin zone after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: Now to a high-profile case of he said, she said. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly suing one of his associate producers and her lawyer. He says Andrea Mackris tried to extort him. Mackris, who's a former CNN employee, also suing O'Reilly and Fox. She said O'Reilly made sexually explicit comments to her.

CNN's Jason Carroll with our story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the night of the last presidential debate, for Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly, politics would not be the first story in his show.

BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR, "THE O'REILLY FACTOR": But there comes a time when enough is enough. And so this morning, I had to file a lawsuit against some people who are demanding $60 million or they will -- quote -- "punish me and Fox News."

CARROLL: Faced with sexual harassment allegations against him, O'Reilly said he had no choice but to file a complaint claiming extortion. This in response to allegations made by Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for "The O'Reilly Factor." Mackris' suit, filed after her boss and Fox News filed theirs, alleges, on several occasions, O'Reilly made sexually explicit comments to her.

BENEDICT MORELLI, MACKRIS' ATTORNEY: And suddenly, without provocation or warning, Mr. O'Reilly said to the plaintiff, Andrea Mackris, and just use your vibrator to blow off steam. What? You've got a vibrator, don't you? Every girl does.

CARROLL: Mackris spoke through her attorney to allege O'Reilly's inappropriate comments were made in person, over dinners and over the phone. Mackris' complaint contains detailed quotes allegedly from O'Reilly. O'Reilly's attorney says he'll ask the court to turn over copies of any recorded conversations, certain there is nothing incriminating. Her attorney would not say if there were any tapes.

O'Reilly's accuser worked at Fox News from April 2000 until January 2004. During which time, according to her complaint, O'Reilly allegedly made several sexually inappropriate comments. Mackris left Fox News and took a higher paying producer position at CNN. But in July 2004, she returned to "The O'Reilly Factor," working again for O'Reilly.

On condition, her complaint says, -- quote -- "he no longer engaged in inappropriate conduct." But Mackris alleges that conduct resumed. O'Reilly's attorney says none of the actions rise to the level of unlawful activity. O'Reilly says the suit is motivated by greed and politics.

MORELLI: Let me tell you, if it was politically motivated, I would have brought the lawsuit originally and not engaged in negotiations and discussions with their lawyers for the last two plus weeks.

O'REILLY: Sixty million dollars. I really can't say anything else. I don't want to waste your time with this. The justice system has the case. We'll see what happens.

CARROLL (on camera): Mackris' attorney would not comment on Fox's claim. He demanded $60 million hush money to prevent the filing of the sexual harassment lawsuit. He did say O'Reilly's extortion claim is without merit and that O'Reilly's behavior will be proven in court.

Jason Carroll, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(STOCK MARKET UPDATE)

PHILLIPS: Coming up in our second hour of LIVE FROM, an estimated one-third of Americans will vote electronically this year. A look at the potential pitfalls and problems with the system.

LIVE FROM's hour of power begins right after this.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com