Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Is Jared Loughner Legally Insane?; Steve Jobs Takes Another Medical Leave

Aired January 17, 2011 - 20:00   ET

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


KATHLEEN PARKER, CO-HOST: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CO-HOST: And I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.

We have three urgent questions to drill down on tonight.

It is now pretty clear that Tucson shooter Jared Loughner has some kind of mental illness. But just how sick is he? Is he crazy enough to plead insanity? In his case, both state and federal laws may apply. So, exactly what standards would he have to meet and how stiff would his punishment be in both scenarios?

What happens when the fate of a $300 billion company is tied to the brilliance of one man? Is there an Apple computer without Steve Jobs? It has survived without him before, but Wall Street's most prominent tech analysts told us why this time may be different.

And, is health care repeal step one in a radical attempt to revive states rights on steroids? We'll talk to a conservative legal scholar Randy Barnett, who is leading the charge to the federal government's hands.

PARKER: But, first, more encouraging news on the condition of Gabrielle Giffords, with doctors saying she could be discharged in, quote, "days to weeks." We've learned that Giffords underwent minor surgery to repair fractures in her eye socket and Giffords' husband Mark Kelly reports that not only is Giffords is smiling at him, she even reached over and rubbed his neck while he sat by her side in the ICU.

SPITZER: Meanwhile, the best way for experts to gauge the severity of Jared Loughner's mental state is from the bizarre writings and videos he left behind. Loughner filmed a video on the campus of Pima Community College so creepy and frightening that it led to a suspension from the school.

The voice on the tape is Loughner's. Let's take a close look at it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JARED LOUGHNER, SUSPECTED SHOOTER: This is the police station. This is where the whole "shaboozie" goes down with illegal activity. If the student is unable to locate the external universe, then the student is unable to locate the internal universe. Where is all my subjects?

I could say something sound right now but I don't feel like it.

All of the teachers that you have are being paid illegally and have illegal authority over the Constitution of the United States under the First Amendment. This is genocide in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Well, while creepy is the word, it's obvious, of course, that Jared Loughner has some kind of mental illness. But the big question is: does that mean he can't understand what he did? Because that would be the standard for a plea of insanity.

Here to help us analyze: this is Dr. Gail Saltz, professor of psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital; and defense attorney and former prosecutor, Paul Callan.

Welcome to you both.

PAUL CALLAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nice to be here.

PARKER: Gail, let's start with you. Even though you have not seen Jared Loughner, based on what you know and what you just heard and seen, does he qualify as paranoid schizophrenic?

DR. GAIL SALTZ, PROF. OF PSYCHIATRY: Well, I can't say that. But I can say, for instance, in the video, that what you're hearing are loose associations. One sentence that doesn't go with the next one that doesn't go with the next one, which is evidence of disorganized thinking, which is a symptom of schizophrenia in general.

So, the things that you can hear him about social isolation, being increasingly withdrawn, a lot of aggression and anger, this great change in personality, the sort of strange facial, you know, staring or smirking, faces that don't really fit with whatever is going on, talking impulsively, having outburst when nothing appears to be going on as if maybe he's responding to something in his mind.

And, of course, the paranoid part is the stuff that you're hearing the government is doing brainwashing or mind control and I can't trust the, the sort of "out to get me." That would mean the delusions, the things that don't fit with reality have a paranoid flavor and would make you concern that those --

SPITZER: OK. Paul, you've been both a prosecutor and on a defense side, does that video, if you were the prosecutor, in any way make a case for insanity defense? Cross examine Gail for a moment and say, wait a minute, this guy understood the wrongfulness of what he did. Is that the standard?

CALLAN: It is the standard. And I think what a lot of people have trouble maybe understanding is, and you look at a picture of this fellow, you know, he looks as insane as anyone you could possibly imagine. You hear his rantings and his ravings, and you say, he's mentally ill beyond belief.

However, the legal system doesn't view it that way at all. The legal system really has one thing it looks at. Was he capable of planning and did he understand the difference between right and wrong?

So, Doctor, when he pulled the trigger, did he understand the difference between right and wrong?

SALTZ: Right. And the question is --

CALLAN: No, no. I'm asking you a question, ma'am. Could you answer that yes or no? Did he understand the difference between right and wrong?

SALTZ: If he told me that he was having a delusion that the devil said I have to do this or the world is going to explode, it's the right thing to do, the voice in my head said, I would say, no, he didn't understand that what he did was wrong because he had an actual psychotic delusion.

(CROSSTALK)

CALLAN: -- was telling him to do it, doesn't that suggest that he knew it was wrong, he knows the devil directs us to do incorrect and wrong things, does he not?

(CROSSTALK)

SALTZ: You got to let the witness, that's right. If the delusion is that the devil is all-knowing and all-powerful and the most important being, and really knows the right thing for him to do, then it is right. In other words, you take the Andrea Yates case, OK? She not only had schizophrenia but she had a delusion.

SPITZER: A classic case that was.

SALTZ: OK. So, the case of the woman in Texas who drowned her children. It wasn't just that she had schizophrenia, it was that she specifically had a psychotic delusion that told her this was the right thing to do to save her children.

SPITZER: Gail, let me interrupt for one second. There's nothing on the tape as evil, creepy and as average as it is that would go to the point that Paul was making, that he didn't understand that acts such as murder were wrong.

SALTZ: Correct. There's no evidence --

CALLAN: And he went out. Of course, he went out and bought a gun.

SALTZ: Yes.

CALLAN: He went out and, you know, he posted things on the Internet, suggesting to his friends that he was going to die. There's everything to indicate that there was planning that was going on.

I think what we have to remember here is, you know, the doctor may disagree with what our legislature has done with respect to insanity defense. They decided ultimately that so many of these serial killers, so many of these horrible people who commit crimes are insane, they don't want them all getting off.

SPITZER: OK. And the reason for that is because by nature anybody, who would do that is not normal and is in a way insane. Isn't that the case, Gail?

SALTZ: No, because there are people who are sociopaths who derive pleasure from hurting others and injuring others and killing others who have no empathy, who have no guilt, who are not psychotic -- were not psychotic and they are responsible for the crime. And by the way, let me say, in my mind, if he did understand right from wrong in this instance and he did this, then obviously, this is a punishable crime, not that he doesn't still also need treatment for an illness that he has.

CALLAN: But you heard interviews with some of his college friends saying that he subscribed to this philosophy of nothingness and that he wished --

SALTZ: Right.

CALLAN: -- that his happiest moment would be to admit that he knew what he was doing, because it was part of this philosophy that he adhered to. So, I don't -- you know, I really think that this case is going to be a very difficult case to prevail with the insanity defense.

PARKER: But, Gail, I want to go back to something else which is that I'm not so sure -- I watched that tape and I just see someone who's trying to -- he's got a lot of grandiosity. He's trying to be important, trying to get attention.

SALTZ: Right.

PARKER: And a lot of what he has said doesn't sound so much crazy to me as trying to be somebody.

SALTZ: OK. Well, you bring up a really important point. That is this. Unfortunately, for many people who have done this, the David Chapmans, the John Hinckleys, they are trying to gain notoriety, which is why, to be honest even though I'm sitting here on CNN, we should be talking about mental illness, we should be talking about legalities, we should be talking about prevention and not the individual, because we don't want to encourage people and let them know that this is a way to become infamous or notorious.

So, who cares about him in particular? But, unfortunately, that desire can be incorporated with psychosis and become, you know, both sick and pursuit of the person.

SPITZER: Look, we don't want -- we don't want copycats obviously, and to the extent that this heinous individual managed to become famous because of this, we don't want to encourage that. No question.

Let's go back to the actual legal process. He will be prosecuted. If he wants to make an insanity defense, you, your brothers and sisters in the field, will be called as witnesses. A jury will then hear the evidence and a jury will make the determination about whether or not the threshold is met, is that correct, Paul?

CALLAN: That's correct. Although, Eliot, it starts, of course, with a judge, because the judge first has to decide whether he's competent to stand trial and that decision will be looked at initially, and then a jury is going to look at this issue of whether he understood right from wrong, and whether he fits the insanity test.

SPITZER: And if there is a determination by the jury, that he's not guilty because he's insane, what then happens? He is then held and treated?

SALTZ: That's right. He would go to a hospital and he would be treated -- he would be committed to that treatment. Whether or not he wanted it actually is something the judge and jury has the ability to do. And then he's technically kept until he's well enough.

Now, that is not --

SPITZER: Then what happens?

SALTZ: Well, what technically could happen is he could be released -- but in truth that's not what happens, because John Hinckley is still, you know, essentially incarcerated in a mental hospital. So, in reality, these people, particularly when there's someone political involved, do tend to just simply stay.

CALLAN: Well, John Hinckley is still incarcerated because of the fame in the case. What people worry about, suppose it's not a famous case, what happens to that person? Does five months down the line some psychiatrist come in and say, well, he's no longer a threat to himself or society, let's release him on substantial dosage of Zoloft?

SALTZ: Yes, that is an inherent problem. That is a problem because we have no way of forcing a person to take medication once they are released. It is true. And this is a particular problem.

PARKER: In a related question, Paul, I want to ask you -- you know, one of the big problems here has been that there were people who were aware that this fellow had big problems. The school itself didn't want him to come back to class. They kicked him off campus.

Is it time to have some sort of mandatory policy where people, if you have an institution who's concerned about a person to the extent where they will keep him off campus, should they have an obligation to then report him to someone else, in a mental health field or some agency? CALLAN: Yes. You know, I think we could craft some kind of legislation that would impose that, especially in a situation where someone looks to be potentially violent.

But remember the flip side of this. They say that almost 10 percent of college students suffer from some sort of mental illness. Mostly it's low level depression. But if anybody who goes to a psychiatrist to be treated for any kind of a condition was worried that they were going to wind up in a national data base and stained forever, wouldn't it discourage psychological treatment?

So, it's very hard to craft a law that works to grab this kind of guy.

SPITZER: In New York, we had a terrible situation. (INAUDIBLE) pushed in front of a subway car by a mentally disturbed person. It wasn't the question of reporting. People knew about his problems. The question is: when do you have the legal power to force somebody to take medication or involuntarily restrained them?

Have you ever had a case, Gail, where you have gone to the authorities and said, this person should be restrained? And what is the threshold for your doing that?

SALTZ: Well, the problem is that in this state at least, you have to be an imminent threat to yourself or someone else. So, someone has to say to me, I'm going to kill myself or I'm going to kill someone else, in order for me to have the police bring them in.

That being said, a lot could be done much earlier down the road than this, so that if there were more things in place in high schools for instance where this kind of thing often presents, if there were more guidance counselors, more money for education, more people in place who would know this is the beginning. These are the signs before someone is so psychotic that we can't get them to go.

CALLAN: But you know something? Here's the problem, because we've created a system now where we try to protect the rights of the mentally disabled and people are so afraid they're going to get sued if they make an allegation against somebody.

SPITZER: This is one of those tough areas we got to break, but where the balance is critically important. At a minimum -- at a minimum threshold, why should someone like that get a gun, is the question I ask. That's again to open up a can of worms.

PARKER: Gail Saltz, Paul Callan, thanks so much for joining us. Fascinating.

CALLAN: Nice to be here.

SALTZ: Thank you.

SPITZER: Coming up: does Apple computer lose its magic without its main man? Steve Jobs announces he's taking another medical leave. He's done that before, right? Well, this one unfortunately maybe different.

Listen to what American's premiere tech analyst has to say when we come back.

(VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Apple CEO Steve Jobs today stunned the tech world, announcing his second medical leave in just two years. In an e-mail to employees, Jobs said he was leaving to, quote, "focus on my health," unquote, giving no word when he might return. Jobs has a history of health problems and despite assurances he would remain involved in major strategic decisions, customers and investors are clearly concerned.

Well, U.S. markets were close today for the holiday, Apple stock took a 7 percent hit on the European markets.

PARKER: Jobs is a Silicon Valley icon. From the very beginning, he encouraged us to use our computers as tools to achieve our dreams, challenging us to, quote, "think different."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them.

About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward.

And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: Well, it makes me want to think different, but I might want to add an "ly."

Of course, Jobs is seen as integral to Apple's product development and his continued health problems beg a number of questions.

Here to discuss the future of Apple is Henry Blodget, a former Wall Street technology analyst and current CEO and editor in chief of "Business Insider," a news and analyst Web site.

SPITZER: All right, Henry. Give us your best tech analysis of what happens to Apple tomorrow morning at the open of trading here in the United States. HENRY BLODGET, CEO, BUSINESS INSIDER: Well, I think the European markets gave you a hint. The stock is obviously going to come down. People don't know how serious it is. If Steve were gone for good, the hit would probably be much worse to Apple shares.

But in the near term, people think the company is going to be fine. I think it is going to be fine.

PARKER: Well, we all know he's had serious health problems for a number of years. We want to make sure to say this is not a memorial service. We're just interested in him and this amazing company he created.

What is it about Steve Jobs that makes him so unique to his own company? Obviously, he created it, but he's more than just the inventor of Apple computer. What is it?

BLODGET: Right. He's the spiritual leader. But this is somebody for four decades has been bringing out products that people absolutely love. This isn't a tech gadget. It's something that people just get -- just insanely in love with products and so forth.

He's done it again and again and again. He resurrected the company from basically just death on the side of the road and has brought it all the way back to the most valuable tech company we've got. And I think he's instrumental for that. He is the product --

PARKER: Well, every time you think, there can't be anything else, then there's something else.

BLODGET: That's right. There was iPod, the iPad -- the iPhone, the iPad. Each time people say, there's no way. And suddenly, it's a huge new category of product that goes on to dominate.

SPITZER: Well, why do people think this departure may be different than the last one?

BLODGET: Well, I think, obviously, Steve has been very sick with pancreatic cancer, liver transplant. So, it's very serious stuff we're dealing with. I think the wording in his note to employees today was different in a very significant way. He said, I love Apple so much. I hope to be back soon.

His prior note a couple years ago was, I will be back. I will see you in the summer.

Obviously, it was much more serious then than people knew at that point. But I think today, to me, just reading into the memo, these are tragic heartfelt words of somebody who's not sure he's going to be back. I don't know anything there.

PARKER: I hope I see you again soon.

BLODGET: Exactly.

SPITZER: What's fascinating is the ad that we showed on the screen about thinking differently. Thinking different as the ad said.

He is going to be added to that litany of characters in there who saw the world in a different way. I mean, the very early introduction of Macintosh, when he said we're going to break an Orwellian control of information, he understood he was a purveyor of information that would change the way we think. And he's done that.

BLODGET: Absolutely. And his genius in this intersection of technology and people. You got -- so many people are great at technology. So many people are great at media. But it's usually separated. And he has brought it together in every device that Apple comes out with. It is that technology for people. Obviously, everything he's done all along the way. And that's so hard to replace.

PARKER: But it's not just technology because anybody who's been to an Apple Store knows what that's like. You're sort of entering a world. You know, and I am an Apple person. I have my original Macintosh from, whatever, 1980, early '80s, what was it, '84? And I do have all those -- I have every little gadget now, of course.

But I feel cooler, you know? When I made the conversion from PC to Apple, I felt like a more enlightened human being.

SPITZER: But it goes beyond the marketing, right? I mean, this is not just cooler stores and they are. You walk into the store here in New York City in what used to be the G.M. building and you are just infused with this spirit. But what he understood, Henry, as you said, is how people want information, how they will get that information and then use it and broke it down in a way no one else ever has.

BLODGET: And just the word that Steve himself has used is magical about the iPad. The iPad was so hyped when it came out. It couldn't possibly have exceeded expectations and yet as soon as people saw that device, they fell in love with it and nobody else has been able to do that.

PARKER: Didn't Apple invent the term user-friendly?

BLODGET: Maybe.

PARKER: No, I think -- I mean, the mouse was all about user- friendly. And that was, you know, that was the beginning.

SPITZER: OK. So, what happens next? You are Steve Jobs. You have these issues that you have to deal with. Has he not prepared a succession tree within the company? There are other brilliant creators who write code, who understand marketing.

BLODGET: Apple is an extraordinary company, tens of thousands of employees around the world. There's the question the company will be fine for six months to a year. I think the issue is that right now, we're just seeing an incredibly tumultuous time in the technology media and telecommunication industries are all colliding. Nobody has steered the ship better than Steve Jobs through that and I think that product sense is critical. So, the real question is: if Steve leaves, is there somebody else who can steer with that sense of vision through this.

PARKER: Well, he approved every product, correct?

BLODGET: Absolutely.

PARKER: So, there needs to be that person next in line who can do what he did.

SPITZER: This is about reinvention. And what he did was reinvent the company. Every time a product had ran its course, he'd come out with another one.

Other companies have done it. Think about IBM, which was, you know, main frame computers. Nothing could be more antiquated. IBM has come back and has gone gangbusters.

So, other companies have done it. How did IBM do it?

BLODGET: IBM reinvented itself as a services business, catering to major corporations. And, obviously, it's built an incredible company. Lots of companies don't make that transition. There are plenty of technology companies that have just been outmoded.

But I think the amazing thing about Apple is it was dead when Steve got back to it. And it was his product vision that came out with so many different products as you say, again and again, that were completely new class of product. And that's where we are now.

PARKER: We just got the iPad. Is there something else in the works that we don't know about?

BLODGET: Well, the iPad 2 will come out very shortly and then iPhone 5 and those are baked I would imagine. I think those will come out on schedule. But after that, people will wonder.

And the big -- the next big thing is the collusion of TV and devices like iPad. And Steve, they've already won the first round on that. Apple TV is very good. And so, it will be very interesting to see where that goes.

SPITZER: Last question: how many years does it take between idea and idea hitting a market? So, for how many years is their revenue protected because they've already got stuff in the pipeline?

BLODGET: I think this year's revenue is certainly protected. These products take a long, long time to develop and refine. They're on the next version of every one of them.

But, again, it's planning the next version of that product. It's getting everything going. And I think Apple will be fine for six months to a year. If Steve doesn't come back, the question is then: what happens after that?

SPITZER: All right. Henry Blodget, as always, thanks for being with us.

Just a quick note, I hope everybody has read the commencement address that Steve Jobs gave at Stanford University in 2005. Go to our Web site. It is there. It is remarkable.

PARKER: Ahead: the island nation of Haiti has survived devastating earthquakes and other natural disasters. But can it weather the return of its former dictator, Baby Doc Duvalier? We'll ask one of his alleged victims when we come back.

(VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: Tonight, former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier is holed up in a hotel in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The exile leader is known as "Baby Doc," a man Amnesty International has accused of crimes against humanity. Duvalier returned to Haiti last night after 25 years in exile, shocking the world community but greeted with cheers by hundreds of supporters.

Some Haitian-Americans tonight said they are haunted by his return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEAN-ROBERT LAFORTUNE, HAITIAN-AMERICAN JUSTICE COALITION: Those of us who grew up in the era of the dictatorship, we still remember those nights and we still remember those shootings. We still remember those friends and family members that -- who have gone. In some instances, Francois Duvalier himself, the father of Baby Doc, he was conducting his own killings with his own hands. The presence of Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti doesn't bring good news.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: The U.S. State Department today said it's surprised to Duvalier's sudden return. But there are reportedly WikiLeaks documents that indicate officials suspected this could happen.

Duvalier's return comes amidst ongoing chaos in Haiti, allegations of fraud in the recent presidential elections leave the country's government in question and, of course, its people are still reeling from the devastating earthquake a year ago.

PARKER: During Duvalier's regime, journalist Michele Montas and her husband, Jean Dominique, ran a radio station in Haiti that was attacked several times and shut down by Duvalier. In 2000, Jean Dominique was killed and the crime remains unsolved.

But Michele believes her husband's death was politically motivated. We're joined tonight by Michele Montas. She's also former spokesperson for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Michele is with us from Haiti.

Welcome, Michele. MICHELLE MONTAS, JOURNALIST: Thank you so much.

SPITZER: What has been the public response to the fact that he has returned? Are people outraged? Do people remember his tenure as a period of mass murder? What is the public response?

MONTAS: Well, I think that the public response is very different from one end of the spectrum to the next. I mean, there are a number of young people who really, where I would say are riding to impunity. They'll use the fact that justice is never brought to anyone in Haiti. So -- and a lot of them, those young people don't even have the memory of what happened under Francois Duvalier and under Jean-Claude Duvalier. But a number of voices were raised today in the media, you know, from former political prisoners, from people who really suffered from the regime and who actually could recall the instances of torture. And we have -- I have personally a very fond memory of a friend of mine, a journalist, a friend of Haiti who was tortured on November 28th, 1980, when they thought they could actually shut us down. And he was killed two years later when he tried to come back to his country and he was killed by the same political police.

PARKER: Well, Michele, there are -- you know, he was greeted by some number of people when he arrived back in Haiti. And as you say, a good number of the -- a good portion of the population doesn't even remember him or remember who he was or they weren't alive when he was in power. But do you think that there's enough support for him in Haiti? Is there any possibility whatsoever that he could rally people behind him for some sort of political movement?

MONTAS: Not in any way. Even though there are a number of Duvalier (INAUDIBLE) or people from his party who are now members of other political parties, he's well on the scene right now. So they have been back, you know, on the political scene for a while. However, I think the return of Jean-Claude Duvalier himself has shocked a number of people. We have the support to change the political situation in Haiti, not at all. I'm convinced we cannot possibly do it.

SPITZER: What are you going to do to see that he is brought to justice? Is there any legal authority that could currently arrest him and try him for his crimes against humanity?

MONTAS: Well, what happened is that for a number of years for those 25 years while he was in exile, there were a number of action brought against him in different courts but abroad. That's how, you know, a number of accounts were seized abroad because the Haitian government actually went ahead and pressed charges against him but in foreign courts where he actually had wealth. Nothing was ever introduced in Haiti against him, which explains that he could come today and could come yesterday and not actually be arrested. And we do expect that some former political prisoners and people like myself will actually press charges in the next few days.

SPITZER: How will you do that and when will you do that and to whom will you go and what document will you give them to initiate this because this is an international war criminal? MONTAS: Yes. Actually there is -- we have enough proof and I think Amnesty International is right now pulling out all its archives on that time in Haiti. We have enough proof. There are enough people who can testify. And what I will do is go to a public prosecutor and there is a public prosecutor that could actually accommodate our own, you know, our complaints and I think this can be done as soon as we can legally have our peoples ready (INAUDIBLE) is going to be done.

SPITZER: Has there been any official statement by the current government of Haiti? I've not seen any about his return and about the fact that this war criminal really needs to be held to justice, brought to justice.

MONTAS: There has been no statement yet.

SPITZER: And can you reach out into the public and use all of your media contacts and your popularity to begin to build a political movement that would get the public involved and say we must not permit this to happen?

MONTAS: That's what we're starting to do. We're starting to do is with a number of, as I've said, former political prisoners or some journalists where themselves victims and what we're seeing is not that -- those are not personal appeals. Those are, you know, things we are saying about teaching, about freedom of the press, which was battled (ph) for so many years. And a number of young people who actually right now have forgotten what Duvalier did it's because right now they enjoy freedom of the press. They don't know how much it costs. And I think it is our duty to remind them how much it costs in human lives, how much it costs in term of sacrifices.

Let's remember also that the day on November 28th, 1980, when our station was destroyed and a number of other people were arrested, that date was commemorated all the years that followed. And on November 28th, 1985, there were demonstrations asking for our return and the return of the journalists who have been banged and in exile and at that time the political police had to open fire on some young people and that was the end of the House of Duvalier. That was the end of his regime.

SPITZER: All right. Michele Montas, thank you so much for talking with us tonight. No doubt we will talk more with you in the days ahead.

PARKER: Yes. Thanks, Michele.

MONTAS: Thank you so much.

PARKER: Still ahead, remember when the WikiLeaks document dump embarrassed world leaders? Hillary Clinton spent an entire weekend apologizing. Nobody is laughing now. The secrets keep coming and they're wrecking havoc with countries from here to Africa. More in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PARKER: Those notorious WikiLeaks document dumps are sending fresh shockwaves around the world today with headlines from Africa to Haiti. Julian Assange first released his classified cables a month ago, but now we're beginning to see the real impact in a world in which technology makes secrets a thing of the past. Today, four countries are in turmoil as a result of what was exposed in some of the formerly secret documents.

SPITZER: In Tunisia, riots in the streets as the people rebel against corruption, the cables exposed to the highest levels of government. Many believe the documents played a key part in the toppling of the leadership there.

In Zimbabwe, the attorney general is launching a probe into whether he can prosecute embattled Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai based on WikiLeaks revelations. The A.G. will try charging the country's co-leader with either treason or conspiracy.

PARKER: In Switzerland, a banker handed over thousands of documents to WikiLeaks that the whistleblower claims will shed light on illegal activity, including money laundering and tax evasion by senior political and business leaders around the world. And in Haiti, indications that the U.S. State Department predicted the exiled leader Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier might return complicating an already fragile situation. WikiLeaks cable show the U.S. has discussed that scenario for some time despite the surprise, many officials expressed today.

SPITZER: And still ahead on the program, state's rights on steroids. How a new repeal amendment could give states the power to strike down any federal law they don't like. We'll speak to the constitutional law expert Randy Barnett who drafted it coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: The House of Representatives is expected to vote this week to repeal President Obama's health care overhaul. But is it just a first step in what would be a radical shift in power some Republicans are now pushing as so-called repeal amendment giving states the rights to overturn any federal law they don't like?

PARKER: Randy Barnett helped draft the amendment. He's also a constitutional scholar and a law professor at Georgetown University.

Professor, thank you for being here.

PROF. RANDY BARNETT, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: It's great to be here.

PARKER: OK. So why do we need a repeal amendment? Just explain that to us.

BARNETT: Well, originally in the original constitution, states did have a formal role in checking federal power. It's when they selected senators. Senators were selected by state legislators and with the enactment of the 17th Amendment, it ended that former role and as a result federal power has no formal constraint on it. You have to rely entirely on the courts. And they haven't really done a very good job in doing that.

PARKER: But as I understand it, if your -- the way your repeal amendment would work is that if two-thirds of states don't want a certain federal statute, then they can repeal it.

BARNETT: Right.

PARKER: If two-thirds of the states decide to repeal a particular law or regulation, then it would be repealed. But if Congress really wants that law, they can reenact it.

PARKER: They can by a simple majority.

BARNETT: Right.

PARKER: So if you can just -- wouldn't we just be going back and forth all the time?

BARNETT: It actually amounts to a second look. It would require Congress to take a second look. Congress passes a lot of things, the part of omnibus bills that they don't really pay close attention to, or sometimes maybe they just get off the rails politically. It doesn't happen very often but it could happen. And in this case, if Congress really thinks they're right and the states are wrong, they can reenact it.

SPITZER: Randy, really what's going on here is that you have drafted what you call a state's rights, bill of rights 10 amendments to the constitution. The critical provisions of which would let states repeal congressional enactments, eliminate the income tax, and basically it would be a return to the articles of confederation which was dysfunctional government.

Now, there's no question it could be done. There's a constitutional mechanism for doing this, but wouldn't this just turn us into a dysfunctional set of 50 states without any coherent government and if anything today we need the capacity to act more quickly and with greater certainty in the world we live in?

BARNETT: Well, I'm not in favor of returning the articles of federation. The bill of federalism that you reference actually dealt with a lot of individual rights not just state's rights. But in fact what we did when we passed the 14th Amendment was we put a federal check on state power which was essential. In fact, I wouldn't be in favor of the constitution if it didn't have a 14th Amendment. But what we really lack is the reciprocal state check on federal power. So it basically just equalizes the playing field.

SPITZER: We do have that check. It is the fact that we elect members to the House of Representatives and the Senate. But I want to come back to the two key provisions here. States can get together and override a congressional enactment and you want to take away the power of the federal government to tax which, as we all know for better or worse, is the income tax which is the critical provision and you take those away, the capacity of the federal government to lead us in a coherent way disappears.

BARNETT: Well, that proposal, which was one of 10 proposals I put together on forbes.com is not on the table today. But what that proposal did allow for was a national sales tax. So it wasn't no tax at all. It was no income tax.

SPITZER: But let's come back just to the repeal.

BARNETT: Nobody is debating that today.

SPITZER: OK. But let's come back just to the repeal amendment because what -- I have heard from the more conservative side of the political aisle recently is that what business needs is certainty. What business needs is to understand what the laws are and what the tax rates will be, what the regulations will be. If you create this enormous question mark where states after a bill has been passed signed into law by the president, the states can then get together and at any time in the future repeal it. Doesn't that from your own political perspective create the most massive uncertainty possible?

BARNETT: Well --

SPITZER: Wouldn't that be devastating?

BARNETT: I'm not pro-business. That's not my thing. I'm pro- liberty. And what we -- and the way we get liberty in this country, the way we had liberty in this country is by checks and balances. So I think I'd ask anybody who's considering this proposal just to ask themselves a question. Does this make the constitution a better constitution or does it not make it a better constitution?

PARKER: Is this really a way though to repeal the health care bill? Isn't this really a vehicle for that and why would you do that, anyway, since we have 20 states arguing this, you know, challenging our constitution?

BARNETT: It could be used for that. But I think really what a lot of people amongst the general public now are very concerned about are runway federal power that actually started at the end of the Bush administration and it continued in the beginning of the Obama administration. It's really made a lot of people upset. And I think rather than pass thou shall not provisions in the constitution that then have to be relied on the courts to enforce, an internal structural checks and balances the way we've done things in this country, and I don't see any reason why you can't trust the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to exercise their judgment as elected representatives of the people.

PARKER: Go ahead, Eliot, then I have a question.

SPITZER: The premise and I've read your articles -- and as I said, there's no question mechanically you could do it if the public wanted to. You can amend the constitution to create the structure. But the premise of your argument is that somehow state government has been more rationale and more seasoned and reasonable over the last 50 years than the federal government. BARNETT: I don't necessarily believe that, Eliot.

SPITZER: But that is why you're giving this huge additional power to state legislatures.

BARNETT: I'm skeptical of government, whether a state government or federal government. We have federal control of state governments under the 14th Amendment and other provisions. That already exists. I'm all for it. What we don't have is any constraint on federal government. So where are you going to reside the constraint if the courts won't do it?

SPITZER: Let's bring this down to a specific situation. Let's take perhaps the civil rights laws in the mid-1960s. Would you have wanted state legislatures? And that was an incredibly difficult political moment. Tonight, I hope you would agree those were good laws that have moved freedom forward.

BARNETT: Absolutely.

SPITZER: Wouldn't you have wanted states that was intentionally unpopular to be able to override that and take it back?

BARNETT: It was only unpopular amongst a very small number of states. Never anything close to amounting to two-thirds of the state.

SPITZER: Oh, I disagree with you.

BARNETT: It had overwhelming bipartisan support by both Republicans and Democrats. It's only the southern Democrats that didn't like that idea.

SPITZER: But bills like that would then be subject to the second look when we have done things that were transformative that often were. I disagree about the politics of the moment. Put that aside, when we have done the things that were transformative, the politics of the states were very, very difficult. Everyone of the -- from the new deal to the civil rights act to, in fact, President Reagan's tax rollbacks which you probably supported and I don't question that right now, those all would have been subject to a second look so the capacity of the government to be governed, for the country to be governed would have been challenged.

BARNETT: A second look when 34 state legislators that are bicameral, so you're talking about 68 state legislators this in the Senate, the Upper House and Lower House, get together and there's going to be a red state/blue state. You can't get to two-thirds of the states without having it be red states and blue states. But there are things that the federal government does that interfere with the internal operations of the states. Those aren't particularly popular. There's things that may be done accidentally and inadvertently as part of big bills. And states would have an opportunity, for example, to fight back against unfunded mandates. That's not the kind of thing that the general public is all that riled up about but state legislators are concerned about.

SPITZER: All right. Fascinating stuff. Randy Barnett, thank you for being here.

BARNETT: My pleasure.

SPITZER: Coming up, why one of the stars of last night's Golden Globes may never work again if some in Hollywood have their way. We'll have that story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: The day after the Golden Globes the buzz in Hollywood is usually about who won, who lost, who knocked them dead on the red carpet. But today, one story trumped all that. Will host Ricky Gervais ever work in Hollywood again? In case you missed it, he attacked almost everyone in town. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICKY GERVAIS, COMEDIAN: It's going to be a night of partying and heavy drinking. Oh, as Charlie Sheen calls it, breakfast.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: All the stars were there bedecked in bejeweled in their designer outfits celebrating themselves. But Ricky would have none of it. Here's what he said about the stars of "Sex in the City."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICKY GERVAIS, COMEDIAN: Nothing for "Sex in the City 2." No. I was sure the Golden Globe for special effects would go to the team that airbrushed that poster.

Well, great job. Girls, we know how old you are. I saw one of you in an episode of "Bonanza."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: So what does all this mean for Gervais who, by the way, will be on Piers Morgan Thursday night presumably with bodyguards?

Joining us now is "Showbiz Tonight"'s A.J. Hammer. Welcome.

A.J. HAMMER, HOST, "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT": Great to see you, guys.

PARKER: All right. So even the "Foreign Press Association" would Gervais -- says he went over the top. What do you think?

HAMMER: He hit a home run. He was unbelievable. You know, he's not playing to the audience that's sitting right there. He's playing to the millions and millions of people who are at home. And they were engaged and they're watching this. The recurring theme in everything that I was reading about this today that kept resonating with me was there's such a great deal of sanctimony in Hollywood. The Hollywood A-listers know it. The people at home know it. So have fun with it. And that's exactly what he was doing.

SPITZER: And was there a colonel of truth or more than a colonel of truth in everything he said?

HAMMER: That's why he can get away. He was telling the truth, guys. Wake up. So what's the big shock?

PARKER: I saw that episode of "Bonanza." I know what he's talking about.

HAMMER: Chris Noth from "Sex in the City" kind of gave a little nod. Yes, of course, that's exactly the deal.

SPITZER: So does this mean the reaction? And it was a powerful gasp and people are pushing back. Does Hollywood have no self- reflective capacity?

HAMMER: Certain members of the Hollywood community no question about it. And that was evident when you watched the show last night when he would jab at the person that was about to come out on stage and they wouldn't even react. Bruce Willis walks out there stoically after Ricky Gervais called him, introduced him as Ashton Kutcher's father. He came out and didn't say anything. Robert Downey Jr. is the only one who took the ball and run with it by reacting and saying something.

PARKER: Yes, but I think if you noticed when the joke was someone else, everybody in that audience was laughing too. Right?

HAMMER: Well, sure. It was kind of like a roast in that way. And the people -- look, everybody is in on the joke. And the people who got it, got it. And the people who don't want to deal with it, don't deal with it.

SPITZER: OK.

PARKER: What is all this whining about?

(CROSSTALK)

PARKER: Seriously.

SPITZER: OK, so we like it. The public may or may not have liked it. We'll find out what happens to Ricky in Hollywood over the next couple of weeks and months. Is he thrown out like a --

HAMMER: I don't think -- I mean, the president of the Foreign Press Association, Hollywood Foreign Press Association even said during the show last night, next time you are coming for approval on one of your movies, don't come to me.

You know, the people at home don't care that he made fun of the head of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association at all. The stars in Hollywood that matter to Ricky, they got a kick out of it. And honestly, it's not like he's going to get black balled as a result of this.

PARKER: Look, when you're among the richest people in the world, you're among the most beautiful, the best dressed. You get to hang out with other movie stars all the time. You've got to be able to laugh at yourself. Come on, that's ridiculous.

HAMMER: And the really smart ones do. There's no question about that.

SPITZER: Yes, but the question I still have is will there be a power structure in Hollywood that says, you know what, maybe it was fun for one night but we don't need that tearing down of the image that we create so carefully. Because this is a community that wonderfully creates its own image and markets itself beautifully.

HAMMER: Certainly. I think it brings attention to the fact that people do need to lighten up. You know, would this ever happen at the Oscars? Absolutely not. I mean, I think there's a certain level but the Golden Globes, as we know, have always been known as the award show that people love to go to, have fun, knock a couple back which is what they do. They're serving booze at the table and people have a good time with it.

PARKER: Sounds like a pretty good breakfast to me. So tell me what your favorite line of the evening was? You have one?

HAMMER: Well, particularly the Ashton Kutcher line when Bruce Willis who was coming out on stage for people who don't know, of course, Demi Moore, current wife of Ashton Kutcher, former wife of Bruce Willis.

PARKER: He's 12, right?

SPITZER: We're not going to that. But let me ask you. Were the awards last night predictive of the Oscars? That is a lot of reason people watch them. They kind of get their bets in now for the Oscars, right?

HAMMER: In a certain way. In the last six years, only one film has shared both the Best Picture for Golden Globe and Best Picture for the Oscar. Actors and actresses have more of a shot, you know. "Black Swan" win for Natalie Portman not out of the question come Oscar time.

SPITZER: Out of the question, come on. Natalie Portman has it going away, no?

HAMMER: Not necessarily. Not necessarily, but I'd say she's going to be high on the odds makers list.

SPITZER: And who wins on the male side?

HAMMER: I think Colin Firth has a great shot in that.

SPITZER: That was a spectacular performance.

HAMMER: Unquestionably, unquestionably. I thought it was great time last night.

SPITZER: I enjoyed it.

HAMMER: It's really a fun show.

PARKER: All right. A.J. Hammer, thank you so much for being with us.

HAMMER: You got it.

PARKER: Lots of fun. Come back, please.

HAMMER: Sure.

SPITZER: And that's it for us tonight. But make sure and stay right here because it's time for the big show we've all been waiting for. The premiere of "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT." Piers starts right now.