Return to Transcripts main page
Out in the Open
O.J. Simpson to Face Trial; Interview With Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo; John McCain and the B-Word
Aired November 14, 2007 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: So, here we go.
All right, tonight, everybody talking about O.J. Simpson, armed robbery and a kidnapping case.
Here you see O.J. Simpson. In fact, we have got tape of him. He's leaving the courthouse just a little while ago, not saying anything to reporters, this happening, again, and just within the last hour. We understand the attorneys have come out now. The judge has ordered him to stand trial on charges that could send him to prison for the rest of his life, that could send him to prison for the rest of his life. Obviously, that's extremely important.
Let's stay with this shot, if we can, Danny, as we go to Ted Rowlands. Let's bring Ted in while we stay with this shot. And, if there is anything else going on, we will take you back to the scene.
All right, Ted, catch us up, as best you can. What is the decision? What happened? And what reaction have you been able to get so far?
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rick, the judge correctly pointed out that the burden of proof in a preliminary hearing is very low. He went through the defense arguments for them to throw -- for him to throw the charges out, and basically said, no, the prosecution has met this low burden of proof.
And he not only sentenced -- or told Simpson that he's going to have to be held over for trial, sending him to the next level, but also to the other co-defendants, the other two that were standing trial in this preliminary hearing as well. They will go to trial as well.
The judge did acknowledge that there was a lot of inconsistencies during this four-day preliminary hearing through the witnesses that took the stand. We heard a lot of different stories. We heard a lot of name-calling throughout this thing.
Afterwards, Simpson's lawyers came out and said they are very pleased with what they heard during this preliminary hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YALE GALANTER, ATTORNEY FOR O.J. SIMPSON: ... haven't seen some of their parts. We have seen all of their parts. I mean, they have called every essential witness in this case. And my only regret about being in Vegas and trying this preliminary hearing over the past four days is that we didn't have a jury seated now, because if there was a jury seated now, my client would be on the way home and this would be over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROWLANDS: And O.J. Simpson presumably is on his way home now back to Miami. But he is expected back here on November 28, where he will be arraigned now with these 12 felony counts. And then from there it will be a jury trial unless there's a deal copped.
But Yale Galanter, who is still having a press conference now, O.J.'s attorney, said, we're not interested in any deals here unless the prosecutors say you are free to go. They're not going to deal. They're going to go to trial and roll the dice in front of a jury.
SANCHEZ: All right.
Hey, Ted, we have got Mickey Sherman standing by. We're going to go to him. And we have got a couple other people set up close to this case.
But, before you go, Ted, just set up for the viewers what the actual charges are that O.J. will now go to trial and face and what the possibilities are, sentencing-wise, in relation to these charges.
ROWLANDS: Well, he's looking at conspiracy to commit burglary, armed robbery, and kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The kidnapping charges alone have a potential life sentence on them. Whether or not these charges will still be intact once the trial starts -- I'm sure there will be motions to drop some of these -- remains to be seen.
But right now, as it stands, O.J. Simpson and these other two co- defendants are looking at the possibility of life sentences, spending the rest of their lives in jail, if -- and it's a big if -- they're found guilty.
SANCHEZ: All right. Ted, I know that there are attorneys out there who have been talking. And I know you probably want to be able to go over and get some information from them. If you get anything new, just come right back to us. We will put you on the air right away.
Let's go to Mickey Sherman now. He has been standing by on this to bring us up to date.
You know, what is surprising about this, Mickey, as I'm sure you know, you have been following this, former prosecutor and defense attorney, is that most people were saying that because these guys had so much baggage who testified against O.J. Simpson, there's no way the judge would go along with pushing this case on. Most of the people who said that, they were wrong.
(CROSSTALK) SANCHEZ: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
MICKEY SHERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: ... at the trial and help O.J. during the trial.
But the bar, as everyone says, is so low in a probable cause hearing or a preliminary hearing, as it's called, that all they have to do is say that a crime was probably committed and that he probably did it. It would have taken some major, major chutzpah on the part of this judge not to find probable cause.
And, as Yale Galanter said, they got a lot out of it. They got some great discovery. But, more importantly, they got some of these jokers locked into some incredibly absurd testimony, Walter Alexander in particular saying especially that he's going to basically sell his testimony or shave it to who pays him the most.
SANCHEZ: Hey, is the bar -- I mean, you mentioned the bar is real low in cases like this. But is the bar even lower because it's O.J. Simpson? And we talked, Mickey, about the baggage these witnesses had. How about O.J. Simpson's baggage and what he brings to this case? And, yes, I'm talking about Nicole.
SHERMAN: Well, Rick, it's very simple. Would we be watching any proceeding right now, would there be anybody on this screen if the guy's name was not O.J. Simpson?
Clearly, all he had to do was spit on the sidewalk. Don't forget, they put him on trial for a three-second road rage. We know about his hitting a manatee in a boat. This guy is cursed. No matter what he does, if he looks crooked, he's going to be on trial for the rest of his life.
And you're right. He's not on trial for knocking off these guys who stole his stuff. He's on trial because it's catchup time, it's O.J. Simpson, and they want to right the wrong, are going to correct the injustice that was allegedly done back in 1995.
SANCHEZ: But wait a minute. You're talking about our judicial system, man. That's supposed to be blind. You're a lawyer. You're within the system. You're saying that people who make decisions in this justice system are swayed by things that sometimes have nothing to do with the facts of the case themselves?
SHERMAN: Hello, McFly?
(LAUGHTER)
SHERMAN: What can I tell you, Rick? Absolutely I'm telling you that.
The justice system is -- as people say, it's not great, but it's the best one we have. But there is justice, and then there is the O.J. Simpson school of justice. And that means that whenever a prosecutor can get him in their sights, they're going to go after him. It's like they can't help themselves.
SANCHEZ: So, it's incredibly subjective. Thank you for confirming that for us, by the way.
SHERMAN: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: All right. There is another part to this that I think is really important. As we move forward, now it goes to trial. And a lot of people would say, hey, this guy could end up spending the rest of his life in prison.
But you mentioned that some of these guys are questionable in their testimony. I mean, give us an objective answer, Mickey. How questionable from what you heard are these guys? How much are they tainted from a credibility standpoint?
SHERMAN: Yes.
Enormously so. And it's not a question that they're bad people, OK? Don't forget, John Gotti was convicted on the strength of Sammy "The Bull" Gravano's turning. He was a guy who killed 19 people, allegedly -- or not allegedly, apparently.
But these guys, not that they have so much criminal records, but they were switching sides like the Balkan states in 1918. They kept switching allegiances. They said, I want O.J. arrested. No, I want to help him out.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
But, hey -- but one thing I got to tell you, before I let you go...
SHERMAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ... these are the kinds of people O.J. hangs out with. He doesn't hang out with decent people, does he? He doesn't hang out with nuns. I mean, that's who they had to work with.
(CROSSTALK)
SHERMAN: OK. Those are the bad guys.
The problem is the guys they ripped off are worse guys. And they're the same ilk. As I say, he didn't rob Jerry Lewis from the Muscular Dystrophy proceeds.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
SHERMAN: He didn't rob a little old lady from Ontario. He robbed bad people of the stuff that they had stolen from him.
I'm not trying to be O.J.'s advocate. But this is not a conventional case. He is not a conventional defendant. Certainly the system has it out for him. And the people who are going to be testifying against him have more baggage than a Samsonite factory.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Boy, you're good tonight. You're full of them, man.
SHERMAN: Well, I will think up more cliches if you give me more time.
SANCHEZ: No, we can't right now. But certainly we will get back you to. Mickey Sherman, you're the best. We appreciate your candor in this case.
SHERMAN: OK, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Again, we have got breaking news, the decision coming back in the O.J. Simpson case. A judge has ruled to the really dismay of many people we have had on our air talking about this that indeed this case will proceed. O.J. Simpson goes to trial. We are going to talk to a prosecutor when we come back.
And, by the way, the McCain story is still out there. He's blaming me. He's blaming CNN. Next, he uses the B-word -- pardon me -- he allows someone in his presence to use the B-word, and then laughs about it, and said it was a good question. Now he's attacking CNN. We are going to be all over this.
Also, what is it about Hillary Clinton that makes people hate her enough to want to use this word and think it's perfectly fine?
Well, we will be right back. We will be getting into both of these issues. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GALANTER: I can tell you that one of the things defense lawyers do at these preliminary hearings is try not to use all their cards. And I can assure that you that Gabe and I did not. So, what you saw was just the tip of the iceberg.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Counselor Galanter. He represents O.J. Simpson.
Back to the matter at hand with the O.J. Simpson case. In case you're just now joining us, we have got breaking news. A Las Vegas judge has just ruled that he will stand trial for armed robbery, that O.J. Simpson will stand trial for armed robbery. If he goes to trial and he's found guilty on all the counts, he could end up spending the rest of his life in prison. That's how serious this is for him.
It's a bit of a surprise for many of the analysts that we have had as we followed this case.
Let's turn to one of them now, John Burris. He's a civil rights attorney has consulted with Johnnie Cochran, Simpson's defense attorney in the past. In fact, it was during his back in 1995.
Are you surprised by this decision?
JOHN BURRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Oh, absolutely not.
In a preliminary hearing, it doesn't really take much for a court to hold a person to answer, and particularly in a case like this, where you had at least three witnesses, maybe five witnesses, who all testified as to what O.J. Simpson allegedly did.
So, in a case like this, the credibility of the witnesses is not being judged by the court at the time. All the court does is look at it in a light most favorable to the prosecution's case. So, it's not a surprise as to it happening way it did. Obviously, the case has to go to trial and O.J. Simpson is going to present his defense then.
SANCHEZ: Do you agree with Mickey Sherman that these witnesses are so tainted that it's going to be real difficult to actually get a conviction?
BURRIS: Well, I certainly believe that they're tainted. They all have credibility issues. And the question is whether the total sum of them putting together, even though they all have negative aspects to them, is enough for a jury to believe that it happened where they said it id.
I, for one, would like to think that a jury would be prepared to see through all of this and see that O.J. Simpson essentially has fallen into a trap. On the other hand, a jury could find him guilty, particularly when there's guns involved, and there's no dispute about some of these facts that have taken place.
But I would like to think that given the unscrupulous nature of all of the -- just about all of the witnesses, that a jury would find that there's real credibility questions with these individuals and not find him guilty. But they could.
SANCHEZ: John, what I want to do with you now, because I know people are tuning into us and watching this case right now as it unfolds, this very important decision by this judge that this case moves forward.
If a jury is named and they are able to reason that O.J. Simpson knew that there was a gun in the room, may have actually asked for the gun to be in the room and had something to do with the planning of going into that room, is he in big trouble?
BURRIS: Absolutely in big trouble, because if you accept those set of facts as being true, then, of course, you have a criminal mind, a criminal conspiracy, the planning, and then the acting out of that conspiracy by bringing the guns and then telling people what to do, regardless of how incredible the individual witness and incredulous the witnesses might be, that they could look at O.J. Simpson and say, you knew about this, a crime took place, and you're responsible for it. So... SANCHEZ: So, it's all going to be -- it's the same story we had before. It's about O.J. Simpson's attorneys trying to create doubt in the minds of jurors as to who these people are.
I mean, it's almost like the same case where you can't believe this detective because, after all, he had used the N-word before. Does it come down to that?
BURRIS: Well, it's a little bit different than that. It's not police officers here.
This is about the credibility of the individual witnesses. And if you think that the witnesses are incredulous in their beliefs, then, yes, you could do. But most cases turn on the credibility of the accusing witnesses. O.J. Simpson may or may not even testify in this case.
So, the work that has to be done is cross-examination of the witnesses. The problem that O.J. Simpson has is there are at least five witnesses who will tell a similar story. And so then even though one -- you may not like any one of them because of their backgrounds, if all the stories make sense, then it will be difficult to say that they're not telling the truth, even though they may be scurrilous-type people.
SANCHEZ: All right. You know what we're going to do? We're going to stay on top of this story. We have got Ted Rowlands standing by. If there is any news coming out of the case out there, we will get back to Ted and we will bring it you to right away, a lot of the details still unfolding, obviously a lot of the reaction still unfolding as well, as we get more interviews with people who are close to this case.
John Burris, as usual, thanks for being dead on.
BURRIS: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Thanks for being on the air and joining us with your insight on this.
All right, Tom Tancredo, he goes OUT IN THE OPEN. He is getting hammered by the mainstream media over this ad. But he is right about part of this?
And also the John McCain story.
Stay with us. We're coming right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Want to welcome you back to OUT IN THE OPEN. I'm Rick Sanchez. Obviously, there's a decision in the O.J. Simpson case. And we're going to be covering that as breaking news. If there's any further developments, we will bring it to you right away.
But there is also another big story that people have been talking about across the United States. It's this political commercial that's put out by presidential candidate Tom Tancredo.
Before we do anything else, let's all look at it together. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, TANCREDO CAMPAIGN AD)
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R-CO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hi. I'm Tom Tancredo, and I approve this message, because someone needs to say it.
NARRATOR: There are consequences to open borders beyond the 20 million aliens who have come to take our jobs.
Islamic terrorists now freely roam U.S. soil, jihadists who froth with hate here to do as they have in London, Spain, Russia, the price we pay for spineless politicians who refuse to defend our borders against those who come to kill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Tom Tancredo is good enough to join us now. He is standing by.
As a matter of fact, let's get that picture off there and see the -- great.
Congressman, good to see you, sir.
TANCREDO: Yes, sir.
SANCHEZ: What's going on?
TANCREDO: It's good to hear -- I can't really see you, but it's good to hear your voice, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Man, you're getting a lot of heat.
TANCREDO: Yes.
SANCHEZ: People have been going after you over this. What is your reaction to that?
TANCREDO: Pretty much, that's been the history of my time in politics, to tell you the truth.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
Well, are they right? I mean people say, you know, you're a little over the pale here. I mean, this is a little bit -- this is scare-mongering.
TANCREDO: I know. I know I hear it.
SANCHEZ: Is it?
TANCREDO: And I knew they were going to -- people were going to say it. Look, what I'm trying to do is to get across a point. And the point is this. We have a problem, and it's a problem caused by the fact that, for so many years, we have ignored our borders and our immigration policy.
And, as a result of it, now we have people in this country who are planning to do very bad things. And that's not just me saying it. Four days ago, there was an ABC News report that the FBI had sent out an alert saying that al Qaeda -- they had credible evidence that al Qaeda was planning an attack on two malls, one in Chicago and one in Los Angeles. This is not just something I pulled out of the air.
It's -- these things are true and they have happened in other places around the world. What makes us think they wouldn't happen here? And why shouldn't anybody running for the president of the United States address it?
SANCHEZ: You are so right, sir. And when you say there are spineless politicians out there -- I don't care on what side of the immigration issue you're on -- you're absolutely right. Either side is afraid to tackle this...
TANCREDO: Oh, yes.
SANCHEZ: ... because they might lose votes. Someone may not think of them. They might lose their cushy jobs. Isn't that the fact?
TANCREDO: It is a fact.
And we haven't done it. And I'm telling you that if something happens, and it occurs as a result of the fact that somebody's coming into this country illegally...
SANCHEZ: Right.
TANCREDO: ... or is here on a visa and overstayed it, and we don't know because we don't even have an exit system yet, the blood of the people killed in that event, whose head should it be on but the people in the Congress, the president of the United States?
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: I'm with you. It's the administration. It goes all the way down the line.
TANCREDO: Yes.
SANCHEZ: People just seem to have backed off because they're afraid of this issue, especially during an election year. And you're saying we need to get something done.
What if everybody got together and they came up with a plan that said, look, we're shutting down the border; from now on, if anybody comes in after a certain date, and you hire them, we're taking you to jail; I mean whatever the laws are... TANCREDO: Bet your life.
SANCHEZ: ... but comes up, Congressman, with a plan that somehow gives some kind of fast track to the people who are here, the decent, hardworking people? I mean, would you be willing to compromise?
TANCREDO: Here's the problem. Here's the only problem with that.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
TANCREDO: And that is that you can't say to some people who have come here illegally, you can stay, even though there are millions of people trying their best to get into the country the right way...
SANCHEZ: Right.
TANCREDO: ... millions more who have done it the right way. The minute you say that people who have...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: OK. But let's talk compromise.
If you stick with all or nothing, we as Americans end up with nothing. So, we got the guy over here, like Kennedy, saying we got to come up with a plan and maybe we should give these people some kind of fast track. And then we got you on the other side, saying, no, we don't give them nothing. So, we get nothing.
TANCREDO: Here's what we can -- why can't we do this? Why can't we just enforce the law? If you go after employers -- you know, you actually alluded to it...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
TANCREDO: ... the fact that, if you go after employers, believe me, people self-deport.
Oklahoma is a good example. This is not just theoretical. Oklahoma has passed legislation that really does go after...
SANCHEZ: Oh, no, I have seen it. Are you kidding? We have been covering it. We have been reporting it here.
TANCREDO: OK.
SANCHEZ: It's a matter -- but you do wonder, though, who gets victimized in this.
TANCREDO: And it's working. It's working.
SANCHEZ: And do they really deserve it?
You get the last word. Go ahead. You got 15 seconds. TANCREDO: All I'm saying is, it is working. And they have to leave. And then they can come back through a door. It's called immigration.
We need to know to who you are. I need to know why you're coming into this country and how long you're going to be here.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: It's called immigration, if we had an immigration policy.
TANCREDO: Ah.
SANCHEZ: And that's the problem, Mr. Congressman. Thanks for being with us, sir.
TANCREDO: All right. I won't argue with you there, buddy.
SANCHEZ: Always good to talk you to.
All right, you have been waiting for this one, Senator John McCain and the B-word. He is not apologizing, when someone used it in front of him, seemed to laugh it off. So, now he is still not apologizing, and now attacking me personally and CNN.
Stay with us. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We welcome you back to OUT IN THE OPEN. And we thank so many of you for being such ardent viewers lately.
Tonight, John McCain is not apologizing, not apologizing. Last night, we showed you a clip of one of his supporters calling Hillary Clinton the B-word that rhymes with witch. You know the word well.
Well, the senator, he laughs and then he calls it a good question. All right. So maybe he made a mistake. And most people in this situation would normally come back the next day and say, you know, I probably should have distanced myself from that comment. I shouldn't have laughed, and maybe I shouldn't allow any woman to be called such a demeaning word.
No! Instead, today Senator McCain is e-mailing the comment with the Hillary bash to donors and asking them to send more money to his presidential campaign. He's also, of course, shooting the messenger, blaming me personally and CNN for his present plight.
Our staff has put out several statements, I should say, his staff has put out several statements today. None of them offers an apology to women in general or to Hillary Clinton specifically. No matter what you think of Hillary Clinton, and we know that she can be very polarizing, she is a U.S. senator, the former First Lady of the United States. Should her being called that be turned into a joke by a presidential candidate? Fair question. There's a lot to get to here. But before we do anything else, I want to draw -- I want you to be able to draw your own conclusion here.
Here now, the unedited version of John McCain's reaction as it happened and as you saw it first right here on CNN. Does he distance himself or play along? You decide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do we beat the bitch?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: May I give the translation? The way that -- the way --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John, I thought she was talking about my ex- wife.
MCCAIN: But that's an excellent question. You might know that there was a -- there was a poll yesterday, a recent poll identified that shows me three points ahead of Senator Clinton in a head-to-head match-up. [APPLAUSE] I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democratic Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right. That was Monday. So here's what Senator McCain is saying now. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: You know, I walked into a restaurant in South Carolina, there's a number of people there. They asked questions. She made a comment. I made light of the comment and then I said very seriously, I have treated and continue to treat Senator Clinton with respect. And I've said that many times. I'm sure that's good enough for the American people, even if it's not good enough for CNN.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right. So now it's all about CNN and myself. McCain's campaign is also sending out a long e-mail bashing me and CNN. I want to read you to a couple parts of that "Simply put, CNN is scared that John McCain will beat Hillary Clinton. They are right to be scared. We are not going to back down."
Quoting again, this time to his donors. "We are asking you to help us fight Rick Sanchez and CNN and stand with John McCain. Please make your most generous contribution."
Here to talk about all this, Democratic strategist Julian Epstein and Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus. I'm not quite sure I know where to start with this. Maybe we'll start with this.
His main point today other than attacking me was the fact that he does have an amicable relationship with Hillary Clinton. He stressed that many, many times today and so have his staff members. If he had such an amicable relationship with her, why didn't he defend her when someone called her the B-word? Cheri, start us off.
CHERI JACOBUS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Because he didn't call her that word. A member of the staff didn't call her that word. It was somebody else in the audience. He's not responsible for that. And you did see how he then kind of recovered after being somewhat flustered and said that he has a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton. But he knows that, you know, she's got to start acting like a grown- up.
He knows there is a fellow senator. He probably figures he had to take a lot of hits. It's not that big a deal. But, Rick, could I just address you for one second?
SANCHEZ: Oh, please do. Yes.
JACOBUS: The role that you play in this --
SANCHEZ: Bring it on.
JACOBUS: This is the best thing for the McCain campaign because every time you bring this up and you play that tape over and over and over again, what the American people get to hear is that there's a poll out there that has John McCain three points ahead of Hillary Clinton.
SANCHEZ: That's good. That's good. If it's news, if it's news, it's good. I mean, I don't
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBUS: Wait. They should be -- they should be picking a fight with you left and right to get you to play this.
SANCHEZ: I don't have a dog in this fight. We've done this kind of story with people in my business, with athletes, with celebrities, with everybody else. Speaking of good-looking celebrities, Julian Epstein is standing by. Your take on this Julian.
JULIAN EPSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think it's an unfortunate moment for Senator McCain, and I've always like McCain. I don't ascribe the views of the questioner to him. But I think the way he responded shows how far he's declined as a candidate since the year 2000. Remember the state straight talk express in 2000? Had he been asked a question like this, McCain in 2000 would have said, this question has no place in American politics. It's totally out of bounds.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
EPSTEIN: Instead, what he did in this case was he laughed. He chortled. He said it was an excellent question. And then later, he kind of gave the obligatory, well, I respect her. And then the worst thing about this is his staff goes attacking CNN and you, which keeps the story alive for day after day. This is not a good story for John McCain, and it's not a good story for Republicans.
SANCHEZ: Well, let me ask you --
JACOBUS: Julian, you know what, that's not true.
SANCHEZ: Go ahead, Cheri.
JACOBUS: First of all, John McCain didn't laugh and chortled until the other guy in the audience made some comments about the ex- wife. So let's just be honest about that. He clearly --
EPSTEIN: That makes it better?
JACOBUS: This is not his fault.
EPSTEIN: That makes it better, Cheri?
JACOBUS: This is not -- this was not -- this was not a remark made by John McCain or anybody on his staff. And you cannot speculate his response.
EPSTEIN: But it's how he reacted to it. No. No.
JACOBUS: He reacted just --
EPSTEIN: It's how he reacts to it.
JACOBUS: You know what?
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: It's how a politician reacts to it.
JACOBUS: Reacting --
EPSTEIN: A politician should say -- a politician should say it's got no place in American politics. He ought to say --
JACOBUS: Did you not hear him say that he respects Hillary Clinton?
SANCHEZ: Well, hold on. Hold on. Hold your thoughts.
EPSTEIN: This is an afterthought and it's smarter --
JACOBUS: What did you hear?
EPSTEIN: Look, the smart thing for him to do, I don't ascribe these views to him. I said that. The smart thing for anybody to do is to say this has no place in American politics, period, the end. And here's the point. Then he attacks the media.
SANCHEZ: Let me get in here for just -- let me get in here -- let me get in here -- hey, guys.
JACOBUS: You know, I think he has in fact, he handled it very well.
SANCHEZ: Let me get in here for just a moment. He wants to be the leader of the free world. And one of the things we took into consideration as we made the decision or one of the main points to this is, Cheri, what kind of judgment does he have? Will he be able to stand up to something that's wrong when he becomes the president of the United States?
JACOBUS: You know --
SANCHEZ: What was his reasoning at the time?
JACOBUS: He only --
SANCHEZ: And as you watch it, I mean I think Julian does make a good point. There are some -- it's interesting how he reacts to this. You say he reacted perfectly well?
JACOBUS: Yes, I do. Because he made the point that he has a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton. Clearly this woman in the audience is not like --
SANCHEZ: I'm going to stop you. I'm going to stop you right there. No. I'm going to stop you right there because he did make that comment. But then he went on to say I would have the same respect for anyone who gets the nomination of the Democratic Party.
JACOBUS: Right.
SANCHEZ: So he wasn't specifically singling her out. He's just saying I respect all my opponents.
JACOBUS: Well, he didn't want to make it seem like it was a fated (ph) that he was necessarily the nominee. Although I think everybody think that's so. He was being all inclusive but also making the point about her.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
JACOBUS: And I think that is very clear. Look, he did he not do anything wrong. This is great for him that you keep playing it over and over again. The only thing that would have been wrong on his part is that that woman had been planted there the way Hillary Clinton planted a questioner in one of her audiences.
EPSTEIN: Let me start to come full circle if I can, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Go ahead.
EPSTEIN: I think it is good that you played this because you hear Republicans like Cheri and you hear McCain saying how much they respect Hillary Clinton. But to go, to come full circle on this, just to make the point and underscore the point here, this really shows how Hillary Clinton and John McCain deal wish issues. I mean, John McCain really flubbed this. Look how Hillary Clinton responded to this. She basically wouldn't respond to it. She said sticks and stones may break my bones. I'm going to get attacked like this from all these kinds of silly folks.
JACOBUS: Boys club, I think is the term she likes to use.
EPSTEIN: But what am I going to do? What am I going to do? I'm going to try to give the American people a much better deal than they've been getting for the last eight years.
JACOBUS: Well, that's not what she thinks.
EPSTEIN: That's exactly what she ought to do, and she totally outplayed him on this.
SANCHEZ: And by the way --
EPSTEIN: That's exactly what she thinks.
JACOBUS: She's getting her husband out there to defend her. She's been saying that she's just this girl in a Boy's Club. You know, they are all adults.
(CROSSTALK)
EPSTEIN: She didn't respond to this.
JACOBUS: This is how she's been dealing with it. I think the problem is that there's too many people out there feeling they need to defend Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman.
SANCHEZ (ph): I get the feeling.
EPSTEIN: I don't think Hillary Clinton feels that at all. I think it was water off her back.
SANCHEZ: Let me stop you guys there and just --
EPSTEIN: I'm going to give the American people a better deal than they've been getting for the last eight years.
SANCHEZ: Julian, thanks so much. Cheri, thanks so much. Let me just close by saying, by the way, when it comes to the subject of Hillary Clinton, we were the ones who were doing the story here. It is the one that was first presented here on the fact that she had apparently set up some questions in the audience. So we really do play it on both sides of the aisle, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat.
JACOBUS: Fact on.
SANCHEZ: You saw the story here on CNN. Just to be fair. Next, we're also going to be taking a closer look at when if ever -- because this is interesting this B-word thing. I mean, some people say, well, it's OK if you say it as "bitchy" as an adverb or as an adjective. But when you use the B-word as a noun, then it's a little different. We're going to have that. Stay with us.
All right. Don't forget, tomorrow at 8:00 Eastern right here on CNN, the Democratic president candidates' debate in Nevada. Wolf Blitzer is the moderator, and you're going to see it right here on CNN.
Also, what do you think about McCain and the B-word in and of itself? Now we want your response. We want you to go to CNN.com/Rick or e-mail OUTINTHEOPEN@CNN.com right now, and finish this sentence.
If I were John McCain, I would... if I were John McCain I would? What would you do? Let us know. We want to know right away, please. And we'll read some of the responses here right here as we keep it going on OUT IN THE OPEN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back to OUT IN THE OPEN. Why are some people comfortable with the use of the B-word when referring to women like Hillary Clinton? Isn't it just wrong? Even if you don't like her, if a woman becomes successful or succeeds in what used to be a man's world, does she suddenly lose her protection against words like that? That's an interesting thing to think about, isn'that it?
With me now is syndicated radio talk show host, Stephanie Miller, who's probably been given this a lot of talk, a lot of thought. And before you get on me for this, let me go ahead and say that we reported yesterday that Hillary Clinton's staff had actually asked someone to ask her a specific question. And it was not Hillary Clinton herself who asked the person to ask the question. She said she knew nothing about it, by the way. Just to be clear, just to be appropriate and just to be exact.
STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: First of all, Rick, did you have me on because -- Stephanie Miller who's probably been called a "bitch" several times herself, is that what your point is?
SANCHEZ: No.
MILLER: Because I've been called that several times since I got here to CNN, and I don't know why. Just hair and makeup people notoriously touchy.
SANCHEZ: Well, it's something about, I think, actually in this case. But, no, this is serious. I mean, it really got -- I mean, did you -- did you watch the tape? The whole McCain thing?
MILLER: I did. I did. And you make a good point though, Rick. Any woman that has ever, you know, had been strong or had a career has been called this. It is the double standard. If you're strong and you're a man, it's fine. If you're strong and you're a woman, you're a bitch. And this is what the first female candidate for president is going to have to deal with. Is that, you know, this is you know what is being said behind closed doors, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes. But it's one thing to do something like this behind closed doors. It's something else to be a guy who wants to be the leader of the free world and that he would allow it and then joke about it and then say that was excellent question. I mean, somewhere along the lines, something he should have said.
MILLER: This is the boys club.
SANCHEZ: I just heard a horrible word, a demeaning word about women, and I should react to it, right?
MILLER: But that's what I'm saying, Rick. As you know, this is the boys club. This is the club, you know, this is what happens behind closed doors. Right?
SANCHEZ: You think so? Because --
MILLER: I mean, you're right. I think his reaction was --
SANCHEZ: But John McCain's really, generally a really good guy who cares a lot about this country.
MILLER: Right.
SANCHEZ: And I don't think -- I don't think he's a bigot. I don't think he's the kind of guy who hates women. I don't think he would normally use this word in his own life. So why then did he take in somebody else's opinion like that?
MILLER: Oh, come on, Rick. You don't think in private strategy sessions Republicans go, how are we going to beat this bitch? Come on. You know they do.
SANCHEZ: John McCain? You think so? Is that fair? Huh?
MILLER: Come on. You know, I'm just saying I think there is -- there is something political debate today, Rick that there is behind closed doors and there is in public. And I got to tell you, you know, I know as a woman. You know, there is a sisterhood of women that support other women. And then there some women that really don't, Rick. There are some women that really think you're going to steal their husband or their job.
And let me just say as someone that's never been capable of stealing a husband or a job, that's misplaced.
SANCHEZ: Is this a --
MILLER: But a lot of women have that. They have that. You know, this was a woman that asked this question, right?
SANCHEZ: Finally, though. You said it was a Republican thing, or do you think it's a political thing? Do you think these guys would just really take over in Washington, whether they're Dems or Republicans?
MILLER: I know this will come as a shock to you, Rick. But I think politics is sometimes dirty. And yes, I think behind closed doors because it is, the frontrunner is a woman. Yes, I think that there are a lot of things said behind closed doors about her on the Republican side. They're probably not so nice. Let me defend your delicate ears, Rick. Not mine, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Well, listen. My delicate ears are done. I mean, I learned so much about the way Washington works and everything else today as I was following this story through.
MILLER: Here's the thing. By the way, here's the thing I learned about the planted question. It's OK to ask a planted question, just don't wink after you ask it because that will run on every news channel everywhere. Don't just go, I asked the question because then CNN will run that.
SANCHEZ: Oh, good point. Hillary Clinton. There you go again. Stephanie Miller, thanks so much. We appreciate it. It's great to have you on.
MILLER: Thank you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: What do you think about Senator John McCain cane and the B-word yourself? We want to know what you think. So here's a chance to do. Go to our CNN.com/Rick or e-mail OUTINTHEOPEN@CNN.com and finish this sentence. OK.
Given what you know about this situation, this story. If I were John McCain I would... I would...
And finish the sentence for us. We really want to know what you think, and we're trying to give you enough time so we can read some of these. Stay with us. We're going to be all over this.
Now let's take a business break if we can on Wall Street. The Dow lost 16 -- pardon me -- 76 points. The Nasdaq is 29 lower, and the S&P dropped 10 points.
There's a new develop in the ongoing stagehand strike that shuttered most of Broadway. Producers today confirmed that they're going to hold talks with the union this weekend. Stagehands went on strike last Saturday over the dispute that focuses on how many stagehands are required to open a show and to try and keep it running.
Also, labor peace in Detroit. United Autoworkers have ratified a four-year contract with Ford. It sets lower pay for some newly hired workers and puts retiree health care debt into a union trust. That's important for the union. Workers at GM and Chrysler have already ratified similar deals.
A disgraced publisher sues her former bosses at the parent company of FOX News. She says that they pressured her to lie to protect Rudy Giuliani's candidacy. What about that? Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back to OUT IN THE OPEN. I want to bring you a story now that could be huge. It hints at a major media company, the company behind the FOX network, trying to engineer the election of Rudy Giuliani to the presidency of the United States. This comes out in a $100 million lawsuit. It's filed by a former news corporation executive. They're called News Corp., who was fired last year. Here's Carol Costello with the story tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's a 70-page lawsuit that reads like a political thriller. Judith Regan, the publisher fired by a division of News Corp. last year, alleges she was pressured by executives to lie about an affair with Bernard Kerik when he was New York City police commissioner. She claims News Corp. wanted to protect its favorite presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani who hired Kerik.
Reaction was quick. News Corp. which owns FOX News telling me, "We believe her claims are preposterous." And Giuliani --
RUDY GIULIANI (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't respond to the story at all. I have -- I don't know anything about it and sounds to me like kind of a gossip column story more than a real story.
COSTELLO: But Regan thinks it's an important part of the suit against News Corp. claiming unfair dismissal and defamation and $100 million in damages. And those who know her reputation say she won't drop the suit easily.
JOSE MARTINEZ, NY DAILY NEWS: She's known to be feisty. She is known to be a woman who doesn't pull any punches. Aggressive, take no prisoners. She's hard driving, and there is a reason she got to the top of her profession.
COSTELLO: Regan said she told the News Corp. executive in 2001, she was having an affair with a very married Bernard Kerik and they used an apartment near ground zero. One some New York City workers claim was donated for use for weary workers at ground zero. It's something Kerik won't talk about.
BERNARD KERIK, FMR. NYC POLICA COMMISSIONER: The only thing I'll say is the apartment was not for rescue workers at ground zero. That's all I'll say and leave it at that.
COSTELLO: But those allegations and the fact that Kerik has now been indicted on fraud charges have been dogging Rudy Giuliani who suggested him for Homeland Security secretary in 2004.
GIULIANI: I regret the fact that I didn't do a better job of vetting him. And I've apologized to the president for that.
COSTELLO: In her lawsuit, Regan alleges News Corp. executives knew Giuliani would catch political heat for recommending Kerik if her affair came to light. She claims an executive advised Regan to lie to investigators concerning Kerik. COSTELLO (on camera): But keep this in mind, it is unclear for the lawsuit, whether federal authorities ever questioned Regan about Bernie Kerik or whether she had to lie. We do know this, though. Roger Ailes, the head of FOX News, is close to Rudy Giuliani. He was Giuliani's media consultant in his first run for mayor. But as I told you before, News Corp. told me Regan's allegations are preposterous. Back to you, Rick.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: All right. Thanks so much. By the way, we want you to go to CNN.com/Rick. Fill out this sentence. Ready? I'll give you the first part. You do the last part.
If I were John McCain, I would... if I were John McCain, I would...
This after he laughed off a comment made yesterday about somebody in his presence about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. We asked you to e-mail us and finish some of the sentences. If I were John McCain I would... and here's what you said.
Let's start with Mallory Miller. She says, "I would have done exactly the same as Sen. McCain; ignore the reference rather than draw more attention to it. After all, the appellation is apparent. Lots of people think that of Senator Clinton."
Marie says, "If I were Senator McCain, I would back out now before any more embarrassing outburst or out-takes come out."
JCL writes, "If I were Senator McCain, I would say, 'Shame on you Rick Sanchez.' And I suppose Rick has never used any bad words in his life."
James from Idaho now. He says, "If I were Senator McCain, I would have answered the person's question, told them the term was inappropriate and unappreciated, and then told them to face the camera and apologize to Senator Clinton. Anyone with manners, consideration, or any knowledge of chivalry and decency would have done the same."
By the way, we got a program note for you now. A couple of them, a couple of notes. First of all, we do want to underscore that while we've been doing this story, we have offered invitations for Senator McCain or any of his staff to come on this show and talk to us about it. Thus far, they have declined. The offer is still there.
If anyone from the McCain camp is watching right now and would like to come on and talk about this tomorrow, we will gladly give you as much time as we think you need. By the way, we've got another one coming in now. "Apologize Senator McCain because what was said was wrong, however, we have to lighten you know. Great candidates and leaders are not going to run for public office when every word, nuance and reaction is inspected under the media microscope. Ease up."
That's what Stephen Harris says. Good comment. Fair.
Also, be here tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. Eastern for the CNN Democratic debate. Tomorrow at 8:00 Eastern, right here on CNN. The Democratic presidential candidates' debate from Nevada. Wolf Blitzer is going to be the moderator along with CNN's John Roberts and Campbell Brown.
We're going to be following it and bring you the very latest on this. In the meantime, we're also going to give you updates on the O.J. Simpson decision. The fact that a judge has now made the decision that O.J. Simpson will, in fact, go to trial.
The possibility is if he's found guilty on all counts and he could actually end up doing an awful lot of time behind bars. Expert say he could actually end up with life behind bars. That's it for us. Thanks so much for being with us. I'm Rick Sanchez. Hasta manana. The King as in Larry starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
