Return to Transcripts main page
Parker Spitzer
Loughner Indicted by Federal Grand Jury; Obama Hosts Chinese President at State Dinner
Aired January 19, 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 will get to President Obama's historic summit with his Chinese counterpart in a moment. But first breaking news. A federal grand jury has just returned an indictment against the Arizona shooter, Jared Loughner. It charges Loughner with attempting to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her two aides, Ron Barber and Pamela Simon. Prosecutors indicated these are potentially death penalty charges. U.S. attorney Dennis Burke said, and I quote, "Today's charges are just the beginning."
PARKER: This news comes on the same day that we learned that Giffords now has the strength to stand on her own. What's more, her doctors said she was actually able with a bit of help to walk to the window in her hospital room and look out at a view of the mountains around Tucson.
SPITZER: Let's bring in our senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin. Jeff, thanks for joining us.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Hi, Eliot.
SPITZER: Jeff, first question is, why are these just the attempted murder cases? What's happening to the murder charges? There were people killed in this outrageous shooting. And why not death penalty charges yet?
TOOBIN: Well, this is really the beginning of a long legal process. Under federal law, the grand jury has to issue some indictment within 30 days after his arrest. This has been a little more than a week. So the initial charges are, frankly, the simplest ones to bring.
The death penalty case under federal law is going to be somewhat complicated because the murders, for example, of the non-federal employees, little Christina Green and the retirees -- those are not federal crimes. Those are going to have to be prosecuted under Arizona state law.
The case about murdering the judge is somewhat more complicated legally because the government will have to establish that his activity by the shopping center was part of his work as a judge. Now, there is the possibility that that's true because he was apparently going to see Congresswoman Giffords, but that's going to take more information, more investigation.
This is really what you think of as a placeholder indictment. There's a long way for the grand jury to investigate before there's a trial, and it's certainly possible they will add death penalty (INAUDIBLE)
SPITZER: Jeff, let me ask you to explain something you just said that maybe only lawyers would understand. Why does the charge against (SIC) the judge have to be related to his official work in order for it to be a death penalty case?
TOOBIN: Because federal law only covers murder of federal employees in the course of their duties. Now, fortunately, Congresswoman Giffords survived, so it's not a murder count, it's an attempted murder count. But federal law applies to federal employees who are working, not just federal employees who happen to be walking down the street. And the factual issue that needs to be investigated is, was Judge Roll's visit to Congresswoman Giffords just a casual encounter by accident, or was it part of his duties, trying to get support for the court? That is a factual issue that will take some investigation.
There's no impediment to the federal government going back to the grand jury and adding those counts later. But I think at this initial stage, they wanted to get the simple counts, which were attempting to murder the congresswoman, which, given the evidence that's come out already, seems like a very straightforward case legally.
PARKER: Well, Jeff, that all sounds very complicated to me. But given what we know about the case, do you expect there will be death penalty charges against him on some of these other cases eventually?
TOOBIN: Absolutely. In fact, the accompanying statement by the U.S. attorney, said that the death penalty review process, which is what any death penalty case has to go through in the federal government -- the Justice Department has to prove the seeking of the death penalty. That is now beginning. And also, the state of Arizona, which has the death penalty, very well could seek the death penalty in an entirely separate case covering the murders of the individuals who were not federal employees, including, of course, the little 9-year-old girl.
PARKER: Right.
SPITZER: And Jeff, something that is just basic for you because you were a federal prosecutor for many years -- the fact that this is an indictment doesn't mean that there won't be subsequent indictments. Indictments can be amended, added to, other charges. Explain how that works and what the likely timeframe would be, based on your experience as a prosecutor.
TOOBIN: Well, as I said, the initial indictment had to be within 30 days, and they are well within 30 days. This could certainly go on for many more months. There is no rush. Jared Loughner is certainly not going anywhere. He's not getting out on bail. He's not a threat to anyone where he is. And it's very important for the government to do a thorough investigation. It could easily take several months.
And in the course -- if they issue further indictments, those are known as superseding indictments, and it could be more than one superseding indictment. That is common in complicated cases.
But I don't think the federal government is going to be in any rush to get him on trial before they have investigated this case to a faretheewell because, obviously, it's extremely important. And with the death penalty on the table, they're going to be subject to a great deal of scrutiny, a great deal of defense effort, and there really is no rush at this point because Loughner isn't going anywhere.
PARKER: Jeff, just on these three counts, what are the maximum penalties that he could face?
TOOBIN: It's 20 years, I believe -- I don't have it in front of me -- 20 years on each count. But it could easily be a life sentence if they were lined up consecutively.
PARKER: I think right. I think 20 years, what I saw in one of the documents. And oddly, Jeff, I think I remember seeing shortly after the shooting, somewhere the assertion was made that the judge was going to meet the congresswoman in order to discuss with her how to get more resources to clear up the backlog in the federal court system, which I presume -- and tell me if I'm right about this -- would then be a sufficient basis to make -- put him within the ambit of his work, make this a federal death penalty case. Am I correct about that?
TOOBIN: That's -- that would be the government's theory. And it's an unusual setting. Obviously, it is -- the statute is usually meant to -- more directly about someone, a federal government employee, doing his job. For example, a judge on the bench. But a judge who is seeking to get more resources for the court could be seen as someone doing his job. But it's no surprise that they didn't put that charge in yet because it is more factually legally complicated. It needs more investigation. And there's no reason to put a charge in now when it could easily be added down the road when the investigation is complete.
SPITZER: And as you and I both know, having been -- you a federal prosecutor, I a state prosecutor -- there's always this dance that goes on between the two jurisdictions. Do you think that because the federal government has now brought the first indictment, the state is likely to act more quickly to show that it's on the case, that it's doing things, it is pursuing justice as aggressively as the federal government?
TOOBIN: You know, I don't think necessarily that's the case. I think there is going to be a lot of coordination between the Pima County district attorney and the local U.S. attorney. There really is no reason for the jurisdictions to have any sort of race. This case is too important. The emotions are too raw. I am sure there will be a coordination here. The very important point is that Jared Loughner is in custody. He's not going anywhere. There is plenty of time for both the jurisdictions to proceed. And so far, there's been good coordination, and I see no reason to believe that will end.
SPITZER: I want to cycle back to something you said a few moments ago, which is there's a very careful process at main Justice -- how people refer to the Justice Department in Washington -- before any of the U.S. attorneys' offices can bring a death penalty case. Explain why that is and how that process actually is likely to go.
TOOBIN: There are lots of federal crimes that are technically eligible for the death penalty, but the Justice Department very rarely seeks the death penalty because, of course, it is the ultimate sanction and it is not something any jurisdiction, particularly the U.S. government, does lightly. One goal of the federal government is to have some consistency of application.
The U.S. attorneys' offices operate very independently. They make a lot of decisions on their own. But the death penalty is so important that the attorney general, and the attorney general himself, gets involved in all death penalty decisions, makes sure that a crime that gets the death penalty in one jurisdiction also gets it in another, and doesn't get the death penalty in one jurisdiction also doesn't get it in another. Consistency of application is the goal, and that's why it's -- that decision is centralized at the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney on his own or her own can't seek the death penalty without the OK of the attorney general.
SPITZER: And not only is it the right thing to do, of course, to make sure that there's consistency across all of the districts, but we all know that every decision -- that every case that produces a death penalty verdict by the jury is going to be appealed all the way up, and every decision that has been made by the Justice Department will be scrutinized. And so they're very meticulous in how they do this to make sure that it will withstand that appeal.
TOOBIN: That's right. Death penalty cases get a completely different level of scrutiny by appeals courts than any other kind of cases. They are much more heavily reviewed. They take much longer to get through the legal process. That's why we so often hear about people who've been on death row for 10 and even 20 years.
SPITZER: Right.
TOOBIN: So every step of the process is conducted in a very careful manner. Doesn't mean it's always done correctly...
SPITZER: Right.
TOOBIN: ... but they try to get it right the first time.
PARKER: Jeffrey, it's understandable it has to be very carefully approached. But when you -- as you know, there's a film of this act taking place. We see the shooter coming out and walking up to the congresswoman. We see the whole thing happen. How hard is it to prosecute a case when you've got it all on film?
TOOBIN: Well, I -- I don't think this is going to be a very difficult case to persuade the jury that the gunman was Jared -- was Loughner. But I mean, when you're looking at a case where his state of mind is likely to be very much at issue, you are going to need to look at issues about premeditation. You're going to need to look at psychiatric issues. He's going to be undoubtedly examined both by prosecution psychiatrists and defense psychiatrists.
It's more complicated than it seems, and it will take -- it will take some time. And a delay of a few months is a small price to pay for getting case right the first time, rather than perhaps making a mistake and having a retrial, subjecting the community, subjecting the witnesses, subjecting the victims' families to a second tumultuous, painful trial.
SPITZER: All right. Thank you so much, Jeff, for helping us understand this breaking news.
In a few minutes, we'll be talking to a defense attorney about what Jared Loughner would have to do to avoid the death penalty. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: We'll have more on the indictment of Jared Loughner in just a moment, but first we're turning to the state dinner at the White House tonight. President and Mrs. Obama host Chinese president Hu Jintao. The two presidents are joined by even more presidents, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and a load of other luminaries, like former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, singer Barbra Streisand with her husband, James Brolin, Goldman-Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. My goodness. The guy eats our lunch, and now we buy them dinner. I want to go to Goldman tomorrow. Give me a job, please!
(LAUGHTER)
SPITZER: The great musician Yo-Yo Ma is also there, as well as Hollywood action star Jackie Chan.
PARKER: There are also some noteworthy no-shows tonight, Senate majority leader Harry Reid traveling back from Nevada today, and Speaker of the House John Boehner, whose spokesman told me that the pomp and circumstance of a dinner with the inside-the-Beltway crowd is just not his thing. So two of the most important men in Washington are sitting this one out.
We're looking now to see if there's anything more to the story.
SPITZER: Tonight's dinner is the third state dinner held by the Obamas, the main event for this week's meeting with the Chinese delegation. On the menu, because I know we all care, surf and turf. More specifically, poached Maine lobster, dry-aged rib-eye steak, and on a classic American note, old-fashioned apple pie with vanilla ice cream. Do they deliver? I want some right here. I'm hungry! PARKER: All right. Well, I care what they're eating. So other than a great meal, though, what came out of this week's meetings? According to the two presidents, a frank and candid conversation on human rights, a pledge of cooperation on key issues, and a chance to lay a foundation for the next 30 years of Sino-American relations.
Well, that and a hundred bucks will buy you a large bouquet of pink, purple and green flowers, which, by the way, is the centerpiece for tonight's dinner.
SPITZER: And as the 200-plus guests raise their glasses high, here are the big questions we want to drill down on tonight. The president surely looks in control up there on the world stage, but has anything happened this week to change the fact that China's economy is booming while ours continues to flatline? China's egregious human rights violations clearly are front and center. Is President Obama copping out? Is he failing to confront China out of fear for what they might do to us?
And on this, the night of the White House state dinner, we ask the burning question on the minds of all Americans. Will our favorite party crashers be in attendance once again? Remember the Salahis? They are -- well, sorry to disappoint you. The answer is they will not be at the White House. But here's the good news. They're here with us and ready to tell you what those dinners are like from the inside.
PARKER: But first, what, if anything, will President Obama walk away from (ph) in this historic meeting? Indications so far suggest no major breakthroughs on the core economic issues, like trade and currency manipulation. As for human rights abuses, both presidents answered questions on that contentious topic at the press conference earlier today. But it was President Hu's comments that raised eyebrows. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. HU JINTAO, CHINA (through translator): China is a developing country with a huge population and also a developing country in a crucial stage of reform. In this context China still faces many challenges in economic and social development, and a lot still needs to be done in China in terms of human rights.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: That obviously was the voice of the interpreter, and that was, indeed, a surprising admission by the communist leader, one that probably didn't go nearly far enough for our next guest, who earlier today blasted the Chinese regime, and I quote, as "the world's worst human rights abuser."
Joining us from Washington, Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Welcome.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Glad to be with you. PARKER: Congressman, I agree with you completely that the United States has to continuously push for human rights. But you used some pretty harsh language on China this morning. Is that the best way to start a state visit?
ROHRABACHER: It certainly is when you're talking to a gangster. If you treat him like a nice guy, he's not going to respect you at all. Our trouble is we've been dealing with these people as if they're Englishmen or Belgians or something like that, when in reality, this is a gangster regime that murders their own people and should be treated in that way, or they won't respect us.
SPITZER: Well, just to sort of set the record so that our audience can know what you're referring to, detail for us, if you would, what you think the most egregious human rights violations are by the Chinese government. And then also answer the question, has it gotten better or worse over the last 10, 15, 20 years?
ROHRABACHER: Certainly. Now, let's take a look at China as compared to Russia, for example. There's been no reform in China, liberal reform at all. And what we've had -- there's no freedom of speech, no freedom of press, no freedom of assembly. Now, in Russia, you have some of that now and you have opposition newspapers and parties. There are no opposition parties in China. Anybody who sticks their head up in China is immediately thrown into prison, and worse than that.
I think the worst part is in Russia today, the former communist country, the churches are full. In China, what you have is an ongoing repression of religion. People like the Falun Gong, who are nothing more than people who believe in yoga and meditation, are being thrown into prison by the thousands and are sometimes -- and there's all sorts of evidence suggesting that they are being beaten to death in order to steal their organs and sell their organs. It doesn't get much more ghoulish than this.
SPITZER: I think we all agree that there are very significant things and monstrous human rights violations in China that need to be dealt with. The question I would ask you is, have not presidents of both parties, Democrats and Republicans going back now for 30 years, concluded that the best way to extend human rights in both China and Russia -- and I'm not sure that I agree with your characterize of what goes on Russia these days, but have concluded that the best way to do this is to bring both countries into the international economic world, to permit technology and information to flow to those nations, and over time, we will see a gradual increase in human rights in both Russia and China as a consequence?
ROHRABACHER: Oh, that's absolutely wrong about Russia. We never had that theory with Russia at all. Our theory was to isolate Russia economically, and that's what worked. Our theory -- you did just explain what the theory has been to China, and it has had just the opposite effect. What we have now is no more freedom in China. We've created a Frankenstein monster. We have built up their economy so they're prosperous and they have wealth now and power, and they're going around the world making alliances with other criminal regimes. They are a threat because -- and the theory you just described does describe what our -- what the policy was. It's called "hug a Nazi and make a liberal." Well, it doesn't work, hasn't worked with China, and it's -- now we're being threatened. Our prosperity is being undermined and our security is being threatened.
SPITZER: Well, look, I -- look, we can put the historical record with Russia aside for another day. What I want to do -- you were a speech writer for President Reagan, and what I want to do -- and I of course don't know if you wrote the words that we have on a tape we're about to play for you, but what I want you to do is listen to these words from President Reagan, and then I want to ask you the obvious question. Was President Reagan wrong to begin to engage the Chinese in a way that is remarkable similar in both tone and substance to what we see from President Obama today. Let's just listen to this tape first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But what we have in common, what we can accomplish working and building together is vastly more significant than those things that separate us. This, of course, does not mean progress will be easy. Few things worthwhile hardly ever happen without commitment and effort by good people. We can be proud, considering our differences, of how much has already been accomplished. If you'll permit me, we believe even greater progress can be made if our future efforts are based on "huzhing, huwei (ph)," mutual respect and mutual benefit. If we have the will to live up to it, "huzhing, huwei" can make our countries more prosperous and more secure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Congressman, I just want your response to that tape. And I guess the obvious question, was President Reagan also wrong in his decision to engage China and the Chinese government in a way that seems to be similar to what President Obama is doing?
ROHRABACHER: All right. Well, first of all, let me let you know that I worked with the president on that very speech, as well as several of the other speeches that he gave in China on that visit to China. So I know those words very well.
And I also know what you haven't shown your viewers, which is the context of other speeches that Reagan gave on that -- on that trip to China, as well as in the very speech that you're talking about. There -- there -- what we've got here is, yes, I agree with what you cut out. That is a portion of what Reagan believed in.
But you also left out the part where Reagan made it very clear to the Chinese -- and I know this because I worked with him on the other speeches, as well -- that our relationship would continue to expand as long as the liberalization continued in China, as long as people were freer and there was more free interaction with the world and you had a liberalization going on. Reagan made that very clear because that was the point that I worked with the president on that he wanted in his speeches. You haven't shown that part.
But what happened at Tiananmen Square was -- is there was a liberalization, a liberalization as Ronald Reagan is alluding to during that speech that you clipped. But what happened, it came to a head at Tiananmen Square. Unlike in Russia, where the communist party collapsed, the communist party slaughtered the democracy movement, and it's been getting worse ever since then. Reagan would have called off all of the Most Favored Nation status-type of agreements that we have. He would have -- he would have told -- called them up and said, No more entry into our markets. No more loans. No more technology transfer if you slaughter the democracy movement.
Our presidents since then have not been willing to make that stand, and Herbert Walker Bush set us on a horrible path towards the rebuilding of power in China, which is to our detriment.
SPITZER: First, Congressman, we did not mean in any way to clip out other parts of his speech that you think may be important. We'll get whatever we can get and post the whole thing on our Web site so everybody can see the entirety of it. We certainly want everybody...
ROHRABACHER: By the way, it's not just that speech. He gave several speeches that I worked on in China that had that message.
PARKER: On the human rights issue, of course, the United States -- we depend on China for a whole range of issues, including trying to work with North Korea and Iran and beyond. And so aren't those also human rights issues that we have to work with China on?
ROHRABACHER: Yes, they are, and they're playing a horrible role. You think they're playing a positive role in North Korea?
PARKER: Well, no...
ROHRABACHER: That's a -- that's a game! Think they're playing a positive role in Pakistan? These are the guys who've been behind the scenes proliferating nuclear weapons throughout the world and allying themselves with the murderers down in Darfur or Burma or throughout the world. They haven't been playing a positive role at all.
PARKER: Well, now, I agree with you they have not, and of course, the goal is to try to get them to do that and to cooperate with us. And I'm just not sure...
ROHRABACHER: Oh, yes, if we treat them so nice, they're going to do . You know, when you treat tough guys nicely, they don't understand it. They think you're weak. That's the trouble with China, with the people leading -- who lead China today. They rule their country with an iron first, and we're trying to reach out to them with an open hand. It doesn't work that way. That's not what -- how tough guys react. If we're going to have progress, we've got to lay down the law and say, basically, to the Chinese people, We're on your side, and not the side of your oppressors.
PARKER: All right, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, thank you so much for being with us. ROHRABACHER: Thank you.
PARKER: Well, he was in a feisty mood.
Coming up, America's favorite party crashers. The Salahis may not be welcome at the White House, but we invited them here. Who better to given us an inside look at what's going on at the state dinner right now. Don't go away. We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: As we've been telling you tonight, right now at the White House, Barbara Streisand, Jackie Chan, former President Clinton. Hundreds of other Washington A-listers sitting down to dinner with President Obama and the Chinese leader, Hu Jintao. As we mentioned, this is the president's third state dinner since taking office and hopefully his staff has had time to work out the kinks. After all, I'm sure you remember his first dinner caused an international uproar when a couple of surprise guests, D.C. socialites Tareq and Michaele Salahi waltzed past the cameras and into the president's party. They have now become legends, the world's most famous gatecrashers.
KATHLEEN PARKER, HOST: But no matter how they earned the title, the Salahis got a first-hand look at the social event of the season and they join us now from Washington.
Tareq and Michaele Salahi, thank you both for being with us.
TAREQ SALAHI, CRASHED A WHITE HOUSE STATE DINNER: A pleasure.
MICHAELE SALAHI, FEATURED ON "THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF D.C.": Hello. Thank you.
PARKER: You look gorgeous.
T. SALAHI: Thanks for having us on the show.
M. SALAHI: You both look great, too. Thank you. Happy New Year.
PARKER: You look like you're going to a dinner party, no? A fancy one?
M. SALAHI: We are.
T. SALAHI: We got an invite here to CNN.
PARKER: All right. There you go.
All right. Well, let's get to the most important issue of the night. What did we think of Michelle's dress?
M. SALAHI: Stunning, beautiful, in Chinese culture, that's good luck, red. And I'm a big fan of red, so I think she did -- she hit it perfect.
PARKER: I agree. I thought it was fabulous.
SPITZER: Wait a minute.
PARKER: Come on, it's beautiful. It's fabulous.
SPITZER: I don't want to talk about, you know, who's wearing what. It's not my area of specialty, but I did notice that President Hu Jintao was not wearing a tuxedo. I mean, what's going on here? Is this a slight? Is this the next big diplomatic uproar?
M. SALAHI: No, I think the Chinese people are understated and elegant and very reserved, and I think you would agree, Tareq.
T. SALAHI: When we were in Hong Kong last, you know, we noticed, you know, the way the men wear, you know, dress very simply. Simplicity is elegance. And Michaele also loves that simplicity look too.
M. SALAHI: Right. That's right.
PARKER: I don't think tuxedos are big on the list of, you know, what they have in their closet. Right?
M. SALAHI: Yes.
T. SALAHI: Yes, yes.
PARKER: Understated.
T. SALAHI: They are fashionable. They definitely are.
M. SALAHI: Yes.
T. SALAHI: But I think it's simple elegance, you know. I was studying the wine list and the menu myself. That's where my antenna jump up, you know. And they're serving some nice wines tonight.
PARKER: All right. Well, let's talk about that because you have a degree in winemaking, is that right?
T. SALAHI: I do. I have a degree in neology from the University of California Davis.
PARKER: I have a degree in wine drinking.
(LAUGHTER)
M. SALAHI: There you go.
T. SALAHI: You'll have to come down to our winery. We have a small winery here in Virginia.
PARKER: Is that a real invitation? Because I don't want to crash.
T. SALAHI: You're invited. You're invited to crash, too. PARKER: Wonderful. Tell us about the wine list tonight? What did you think of it?
T. SALAHI: Well, you know, they're actually serving some beautiful wines. You know, they picked a nice chardonnay also from California and a cabernet from California. Russian River chardonnay.
SPITZER: What is the name of that? A Russian River chardonnay? I mean, this is -- a little hard diplomatically. A Chinese president to be served Russian wine. What does this mean?
T. SALAHI: Well, that's a Russian River. You know, it's a nice cool climate area in that part of California so it makes great (INAUDIBLE), great wines. You know, look, Virginia makes the best wines but, of course, California makes beautiful wines as well. So we love our friends there. It would have been nice to see a Virginia wine on the wine list. They, in fact, did serve a Virginia wine at the first state dinner the president had -- a sparkling wine from Virginia. I think, you know, at the White House they should always have one Virginia wine but they are serving some beautiful wines there. You know, that chardonnay is about $50 a bottle retail. That cabernet is about $100 and a quarter, $150 a bottle depending where you can buy --
PARKER: I was worried it was cheap wine.
T. SALAHI: No, they're big wines.
SPITZER: The CEO of Goldman is there. I'm sure Goldman is picking up the tab for this, with our money, no doubt.
PARKER: All right. So you've been to another state dinner and now you've seen this menu. How do they compare?
T. SALAHI: You know what? They're both, you know, again, lovely dinner. Obviously serving a large group of 200 people or 300 people. You've got to keep, you know, the menu simple. You've got to keep it three or four courses. You can't have 12 courses. I thought the chef did a great job. I thought the wine pairing is lovely. The only thing I would have added, you know, because it's China, I would have added maybe a Reisinger or (INAUDIBLE) because the Chinese like sweeter wine and that would have been a nice, maybe addition.
I think they did a great job in the food wine pairing. Again, you know, I'm always in support of Virginia wine industry. I wish we saw one Virginia wine on there.
SPITZER: Tareq, you told us that you had some stories you hadn't told about what happened at the state dinner that you ended up at, that you crashed. What -- bring us in inside. Tell us something we don't know about the dinner you were at.
T. SALAHI: Well, that's true. That's true. You know, when Michaele and I were at the White House for the state dinner last November, you know, we walked in. Of course --
M. SALAHI: Not crashing.
T. SALAHI: Yes, yes. That's right.
M. SALAHI: Yes.
T. SALAHI: And, you know, of course, the chitchat that goes on is always the most fun. You know, what's behind the scenes.
M. SALAHI: We're girls. It's for ladies, the dresses. You know, everyone with outpouring of love and each lady in the room, you know, we were all exchanging compliments and, you know, each person had a different vision whether it's a pin to honor the country. In my case it was the entire dress was, you know, the symbol of the country.
PARKER: What did you put in your hair?
M. SALAHI: What did I do with my hair?
PARKER: Yes.
M. SALAHI: Then?
PARKER: No, I mean, you've gotten it cut. Yes?
M. SALAHI: Oh, it did. No, yes, I did.
PARKER: Yes, it looks real different. So what would you be wearing tonight, unless you're already dressed for the occasion?
M. SALAHI: I know. I think that she did it well with red, Chinese, that's the color of good luck. So I love that our first lady wore red. I think it's elegant. It's beautiful on her. She's always done to a tee perfect. Black is always conservative for D.C. and always looks elegant. So I know Barbara Streisand wore that. And she looked beautiful. It's fun to see, you know, people honor the color too. So you can't go wrong with black and red is the color for Chinese. So I would have worn red, for sure.
PARKER: All right. Well, we can't let you go without asking you the big drill-down question of the decade. Did you or did you not crash that party? Admit it?
M. SALAHI: We did not, but we had lots of fun.
T. SALAHI: We really didn't.
M. SALAHI: Yes, Katie Couric was great. She's one of the first people on the night I connected with. And she said to her significant other, you know, get Michaele a glass of champagne, you know, if you'd get us both. So it was really fun. You know, Vice President Biden, he was from Scranton, where my mother's from.
T. SALAHI: Yes, they shared some great stories about Scranton, Pennsylvania.
M. SALAHI: So a lot of great people in Scranton, Pennsylvania. And for me meeting him was such a huge high.
SPITZER: So you had dinner recently with Katie Couric and the vice president or not?
M. SALAHI: We went to the event and had a lot of great conversations.
SPITZER: All right. You both dodged on that one.
PARKER: I can't wait to come have wine with you all because I can never get enough of those stories from Scranton.
T. SALAHI: Oh, there you go. All right. Well, you're both invited, Eliot and Kathleen.
SPITZER: All right.
T. SALAHI: We look forward to seeing you.
PARKER: Thanks a lot.
SPITZER: Tareq and Michaele, thank you both for being here.
T. SALAHI: Cheers.
M. SALAHI: Thank you for having us.
T. SALAHI: Cheers. Bye now.
SPITZER: When we come back, we'll have more on the indictment of Jared Lee Loughner. We'll hear from a leading defense attorney about the attempted murder charges against him and the chances he'll face the death penalty. Coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: More now on the breaking news we're following tonight. As we reported, a federal grand jury has just returned an indictment against the Arizona shooter, Jared Loughner. Charges Loughner with attempting to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her two aides, Ron Barber and Pamela Simon.
Joining us now for more on the charges and how this is likely to play out, defense attorney Paul Callan. Thanks for being here.
PAUL CALLAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nice to be here.
PARKER: Well, Paul, let's start with the obvious question. How does -- how do you defend a person like this against the death penalty?
CALLAN: Very, very difficult defense for any defense attorney. And he's got a really spectacular one in Judy Clark who's adept- qualified, very, very experienced attorney in this field. But you've got to I think in a case like this, we obviously know that he committed the offense. Usually that's a big battle in a death case, to try to show that the person is innocent. Factually, there's no question that he did it. So the focus here is going to be in the sentencing phase to say that mental illness caused and contributed to this crime and that death is not an appropriate penalty.
PARKER: But how do you even make a case for mental illness of this case? I mean, originally he looked so wild you'd think well, of course, he's mentally ill and he does seem to show symptoms of various afflictions. But, he did leave a very distinct trail. He left notes where he have his intent. He even put in earplugs to protect his own ears from the sound of the shots. So where do you go with that?
CALLAN: Well, it's very, very hard for the defense to go any place with that because yes, he did plan and he clearly knew what he was doing. And I think that's why he doesn't have a good insanity defense. But on the other hand, juries are very hesitant to put people to death when they think that mental illness caused or contributed to part of the crime. I don't think anybody can look at this guy and say he's not mentally ill. And as a matter of fact, many, many serious criminals are mentally ill. But he goes beyond the pale. I mean, he's clearly someone who's disturbed. Do you want to put that kind of a person to death?
SPITZER: You know, Paul, in so many of these instances, what is being litigated really is nothing more than an effort to get the jury nullification. Is having a jury as you just said, play upon the emotions of the moment rather than on the technical charge they are given. It is clear you said he committed this offense. The paper trail, the notes, the videos, the earplugs -- everything indicates he intended absolutely to do this as an act of premeditated menace and a threat to our society so you've got to somehow turn him into a sympathetic character. How can you begin to do that with somebody who just exudes evil?
CALLAN: Well, I think what you have to do is, I think you just have to concede guilt in the fact part of the trial. Did he do the shooting? Was he planning the shooting? Yes, you're going to concede that. And then you move to the penalty phase. And here, I think the trump card for the defense is going to be the person that he killed, the federal judge that he killed, he killed Judge Roll, very, very well respected, beloved -- I mean, they moved the trial out of Tucson because he was so well liked by his colleagues. He didn't really set out to kill him. He set out to kill the congresswoman. That killing was a reckless killing. He clearly committed a criminal act, but I think you're going to see the defense say should he be put to death for having accidentally killed a federal judge? And, by the way, he may not have even known that Roll was a federal judge when he fired the shots.
SPITZER: Oh, you are correct in the federal case.
PARKER: Wow.
SPITZER: That case against the murder of the federal judge would be hard to get a death penalty. I predict on the other hand, I'm going to mention one name, Christina. In the state case which will relate to Christina, it seems almost impossible to me to overcome the emotional impact of that 9-year-old. Look how the nation as an entirety was just gripped by that picture of her and her story. I just don't know, as marvelous a defense attorney as you might be, where you go. Forget the federal judge, Christina, what more do you have to say?
CALLAN: Well, I would have to agree with you that that's the toughest thing that the defense is going to face in this case. They may have a shot at least with these federal charges at making some arguments that a jury might listen to. And, believe me, a jury is never going to be sympathetic to this guy. But they're just going to say does he deserve to die for an unintentional killing of a federal judge? But when you get to the little girl born on 9/11, wonderful family, yes, the sympathy there, he's going to have a hard time avoiding the death penalty on the state level.
PARKER: When you say unintentional killing, does that just simply mean just by letter of the law because he didn't actually set out to kill him, but the fact that the fellow died as a result of his shooting wildly into the crowd?
CALLAN: There are two kinds of killings. We talk about, for instance, the first degree murder usually is when you actually point the weapon intending to kill a specific victim. There is a second kind of killing that the law, by the way, views as virtually the same called the reckless killing. And if you fire that shot into a crowd, any reasonable person would know that someone might die so the law will hold you just as culpable. But I think people and ordinary jurors look at it differently. They're going to say well, he was out to assassinate the congresswoman. And I'm not saying that anybody is going to buy these arguments, but I'm saying these are the only arguments that defense attorneys have. They're going to say he set out to kill the congresswoman. The other killings were accidental killings. He doesn't deserve death for that. That's the argument they make.
SPITZER: Not surprising. The prosecutor he's coming at, I don't think you're going to have any success with that type of argument in this case. What we talk about is depraved indifference killings where somebody traditionally would be driving 80 miles an hour down a road and somebody is killed in a car accident. That's depraved indifference to the standards of ordinary behavior. Holding a gun, firing it at point blank range at a federal judge is not going to be viewed as reckless. That's going to be viewed as intentional.
CALLAN: I --
SPITZER: And so, I think you're doing the best you can do but you've been dealt a very weak hand based on these facts.
CALLAN: There is a very weak hand for the defense here, but there's one other thing that they may hope for. And that is during jury selection now. The jury selection rules are so liberal they require basically that even people who have conscientious problems with the death penalty have to serve on a jury if they can answer the questions properly. They might get one or two jurors who oppose the death penalty and maybe would vote against it. You need a unanimous verdict here.
SPITZER: Right.
PARKER: Right.
SPITZER: All right. Paul Callan, thanks for being here.
CALLAN: Nice to be with you.
SPITZER: Coming up, it may look like China won the economic war and we're the losers, but not so fast. As long as America can innovate, reinvents itself, some experts say we still have a chance. A look at our economic future when we come back. Stay right here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PARKER: As we've been telling you, President Obama is hosting a state dinner tonight for President Hu. It caps off a day of both substance and ceremony as President Obama declared the rise of China, quote, good for America. He backed up the claim with the announcement of $45 billion in new exports to China.
SPITZER: But after all the handshakes and photo-ops, has anything really changed? We're joined by Jeff Sachs, s leading international economic adviser, professor at Columbia University, and Nina Hachigian, senior fellow from the Center for American Progress.
Welcome to you both. Let's cut right to it. A lot of photo-ops, press releases. What changes in terms of currency, human rights, the big blockbuster issues that are driving our relationship.
NINA HACHIGIAN, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, you know, it's in the nature of the relationship that progress is going to be incremental. We are rivals, but we are rivals that need to work together. And so on issues where we don't agree, we can't expect blockbusters. We can expect slow progress. And I think that we saw that today. I think we saw some significant progress both on intellectual property where they have agreed more forcefully and put money behind it that the government will now buy proper legal software. And secondly, we talked about -- you mentioned the deals that will create, you know, on the order of half a million -- quarter of a million new jobs for America. So that's significant.
SPITZER: Jeff, do you agree? Real progress or just papier-mache masking old problems?
JEFF SACHS, DIRECTOR, EARTH INSTITUTE: Well, I think the world is changing and China's becoming an incredible force in the world and that's a process that's under way. There's going to be lots of meetings in the years ahead. Nothing decisive is changing from these meetings, but the world is changing and that's what's important for everybody to understand. This is not in the U.S. control. This is a global process that's way beyond the United States ability to control.
PARKER: Jeff, we keep hearing this forecast that the Chinese economy is going to overtake ours in 10 to 20 years. Is that inevitable? Is there anything we can do to turn that around?
SACHS: I think it's going to happen. It doesn't mean that an average Chinese person is going to have the living standards of an average American because China has more than four times America's population so when economies reach the same level, it means that the average Chinese person will have one fourth of the income than an average American. So China is not catching up in living standards but an absolutely size of the economy is very likely to overtake the United States in the next two decades.
PARKER: But how does that affect our standing in the world?
SACHS: Well, I think geopolitics is fundamentally changing right now. We had for two centuries the, quote unquote, "western leadership of the world" that really meant what we call the North Atlantic, the United States and Western Europe. And the center of gravity of the world will shift towards Asia because that's where most of the people live. And Asia is catching up. And it's a kind of deep but rather natural process that literacy, scientific expertise, quality of education, we know, is outstanding in parts of China. They're saving a tremendous amount. We're consuming. They're saving, they're investing, they're building fast rail. They're doing lots of things that are part of that catching up process. So I don't think that it's -- first, I think it's very likely. And second, I think we have to get used to the fact that there was a kind of accident of American dominance of the world economy that came from history and that's fading.
HACHIGIAN: But can I just say a couple of things? First of all, our economy is still three times the size of China. Half of Americans think China's economy is bigger than ours but it's simply not the case. We are still by far and away the most powerful country, you know, in the world. It's also that we shouldn't think of this as a zero-sum game. It's not. The fact that we're experiencing economic hard times is not because China is rising. There's not a causal relationship here. And the fact is that if we do our homework at home, if we make investments in education that we all know we're supposed to make in R&D, in infrastructure and all these things that have pretty bipartisan agreement, actually, then we're going to be fine no matter how much China --
PARKER: It's so important -- go ahead, I'm sorry.
SPITZER: We're not doing those things. And you referred to the deal. And I think Jeff got it right. It is now beyond our capacity to control the future of the international, the global economy. The deals that we were refer to, the $45 billion, they're buying airplanes from us but on the same day that was announced, GE sold to them the avionics and the technology that will permit them to make the airplanes in the future. So in other words, we're getting a moment to one-time sale. They are buying the future and the technology. They may enforce intellectual property down the road, but only because they've already stolen everything. In other words, we have lost every bargain we've made with them. Do we have an outlook? What leverage do we have on them now? HACHIGIAN: We have a lot of leverage. I mean, we're a very important export market to them. We are still the most powerful country. They really want a stable relationship with us. And, you know, it's a combination of making ourselves more competitive, of getting our own house in order, of raising our game and then continuing to insist on a level playing field and not just doing it bilaterally but doing it with other partners through the G-20 process, for example. It's important for China to hear Brazil also doesn't like the fact that their currency is undervalued. It's not just the United States.
PARKER: I think the zero-sum game is so important because the new poll is just out with the "Washington Post"/ABC poll shows six and 10 Americans see China as a threat to American jobs and the economy.
HACHIGIAN: But I read a poll, I think it's the same poll that also said that very few Americans see China as an enemy and also that something like 58 percent want a stronger relationship with China. So, you know, I agree that there's a lot that they need to do differently in terms of our economic relationship. And I think today, again, was incremental progress toward that goal.
SACHS: I think what Nina said about raising our game is really the key. We're not raising our game. Let's be absolutely clear. And we have an onslaught against government right now, especially led by the Republicans. But there's a lot across both the parties that is pretty attractive in terms of raising our game. If we really want to compete effectively, we have to raise education standards.
You know, China and Shanghai came number one in the world in the recent international comparative testing. The United States came in 31st in math among 15-year old students in this roughly 60 countries that participated in the study. We came in 31st. That's not raising our game. And what do we have right now in Washington? Oh, we've got to cut, we've got to slash. We've got to do all the things of buildings science, education and so forth that would cost money. No, no, no. That's all going to be swept aside. This is a quite serious issue.
SPITZER: Let's also go back. Maybe you say there's incremental progress. We heard the nice words that would be uttered in any summit, especially one, where after the G-20 where the president frankly came back with his tail between his legs. I think the Chinese knew that President Obama needed to look good at the summit or else they wouldn't have a partner over the next couple of years. But I didn't hear him say anything about the currency valuation issue that was meaningful. And that for the next couple of years is a real impediment to selling our products certainly to China and even elsewhere in the world.
HACHIGIAN: Well, first of all, the currency on a yearly basis has appreciated now of 10 percent this year because of inflation in China.
SPITZER: We have a 40 percent gap there. HACHIGIAN: No, I agree. I'm just saying, progress -- you know, incremental progress. Also, you know, the currency is not -- it's one piece of the problem but it's not the whole problem.
SACHS: That's true.
HACHIGIAN: It's only one piece of it. And so it's clear that the Chinese are taking steps to create more demand within their country and have their economic growth be more powered by domestic demand. Over the long run, that's going to affect the trade and balance and over the long run they're going to need appreciate their currency in order to do that successfully.
SPITZER: Spend hours on that alone. Let me ask this. Human rights, we've had all sorts of voices today saying the president has not been nearly tough enough, Jeff. Should the president be more forceful? Can it be more forceful on that issue?
SACHS: I think no and no. I think that this is a reasonable posture and we're not -- China is going to do what China is going to do right now. I think it's also important to say contrary to what the congressman said earlier in the show, this is not a game. The way that it's characterized is so crude, so thoughtless and so offensive, it is important, I think, for all of us to understand that China's had the most successful economic progress of any large country in history over the last 30 years and that's not been on gimmicks. That's actually been on sound economic strategy. And that's not been because they've done something terrible to us. That's because they have done sensible solutions to what was an impoverished country, helping to bring it into high levels of technology and raising living standards. And, by the way, raising freedom in China because people are free in a way in their daily lives, not in their politics. It's not that you can go out and start a party. But in terms of personal freedom, daily, life, this is an unbelievable change that's taken place over the last generation. And I think that it's important for people to understand that because we can get very heated rhetoric but it's not going to clarify the real understanding of the situation.
PARKER: One of the big issues undergrading (ph) all these conversations as you've written, Nina, is a differing view between China and the U.S. in terms of what global responsibility is? Can we reconcile that?
HACHIGIAN: You know I hope overtime we can --
PARKER: Quickly.
HACHIGIAN: Yes, I hope that over time that we can because I think China is not going to stop hearing requests from us and everyone else around the world to curb their emissions, to rebalance their economy.
SACHS: But we're not doing that either.
HACHIGIAN: I agree.
SACHS: When it comes to helping the poor (ph) area that I've been concerned about, they're doing a lot more than we're doing.
PARKER: I hate to stop you all because this is so interesting, but we've got to go. Jeff and Nina, thank you for being with us.
Good night from New York.
SPITZER: Stay right here. "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
