Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Jerry Sandusky Found Guilty; Health Care Decision Looming; Fighting For Right To Swim Topless; Obama Administration Asserts Executive Privilege in 'Fast and Furious' Investigation

Aired June 23, 2012 - 06:00   ET

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

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: From CNN Center in Atlanta, this is EARLY START WEEKEND.

The verdict is in, guilty on 45 counts of sexual abuse. This morning, reaction to the dramatic finale in the Jerry Sandusky trial.

Also ahead this morning, the big wait (ph), and for some, the big worry. What will the Supreme Court decide about Obamacare? We're looking at all the angles ahead of next week's pivotal ruling.

It is Saturday, June 23rd. Good morning, everyone. I'm Randi Kaye. Glad you're with us.

We begin with that late night conviction of Jerry Sandusky. The jury came back with a guilty verdict after 21 hours of deliberations. Guilty on 45 of 48 counts related to the sexual abuse of 10 young boys. The former Penn State coach was immediately handcuffed and led away as you see here. Now, here's some of the reaction to the verdict, starting with the attorney for two of the victims in the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTINE ANDRONICI, ATTORNEY FOR VICTIM #3 AND #7: The very first calls I made this evening were to the -- to clients that I represent that did testify in the trial. And they were greatly relieved. Almost in disbelief, I think. One of them said, thank God he's in jail. And the other ones expressed sentiments that it was a long time coming. And both of them feel very, very good tonight.

JOE AMENDOLA, JERRY SANDUSKY'S ATTORNEY: Jerry Sandusky never considered a plea agreement. He always maintained his innocence. And that's something that's important. That's something that's important for everyone to understand. For better or for worse, none of us were there when any of these things happened. But he always maintained that he was innocent.

TOM KLINE, ATTORNEY FOR VICTIM #5: Joe Amendola was on the courthouse steps retrying his case. His case was largely that this was a conspiracy among the prosecutors, the police, the trial lawyers and the media, all of whom conspired to get this man. That's not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that this man was guilty. The record, from what I see, is clean. And I would expect that he now spends the rest of his life in jail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: And joining me now is CNN national correspondent Susan Candiotti.

Susan, good morning to you.

What was the reaction in court as that verdict was read?

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Randi, one big thing changed. They are alleged victims no more, they are victims in this case. As the verdict was read, Jerry Sandusky, the defendant in this case, stared straight ahead. He said nothing to his lawyer. His lawyer said only that he looked distressed. His wife, Dottie, kept blinking. And as far as the jurors go, one of them, at least one of them, was seen crying.

Now, alleged victim number six, he looked relieved. His attorneys all saying they feel vindicated. And the mother of alleged victim number six in this case told us this. She said, "I thought I would be happy. But there's no joy. We all lost."

Outside the courthouse, filled with people out here on this very lawn, there was a brief cheer that went up and there was triumph and resignation. Triumph on the part of the attorney general's office who prosecuted this case and resignation from the defense attorney. First, Pennsylvania's attorney general.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDA KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: The legal part of this is easy to grasp. More importantly, there's a moral and ethical imperative to do so. Concealing or attempting to minimize this type of crime is unacceptable, as well as unconscionable, and should not and cannot be tolerated.

JOE AMENDOLA, JERRY SANDUSKY'S ATTORNEY: We always felt that Jerry's fairer shake would come from a center county jury. And we still believe that. The jury obviously believed the commonwealth's evidence, believed the commonwealth's witnesses. That's clear from their verdict. I've been asked already inside, is that a surprise? And, no, actually it was the expected outcome because of the overwhelming amount of evidence against Jerry Sandusky.

KELLY: One of the recurrent themes of the witnesses testimony, which came from the voices of the victim's themselves in this case was, who would believe a kid? And the answer to that question is, we here in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, would believe a kid.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: A lot of emotion all around and relief, quite frankly, in this community, in which Penn State is such a big part.

Back to you, Randi.

KAYE: And, Susan, the judge ordered him locked up immediately. But when is he actually going to be sentenced?

CANDIOTTI: Well, it won't happen until probably September. There's a lot of work to be done in the meantime. His defense attorney says he will already start working on an appeal. Here is one thing we want to show you. Jerry Sandusky, the first mug shot taken of him now that he is a convicted man and will very likely be spending the rest of his life in jail. We saw him coming into the courthouse each day with a smile on his face. In this mug shot, that smile is gone.

KAYE: Yes, certainly. And certainly will likely spend the rest of his life in jail at 68 years old.

Now, he was -- he was acquitted, though, Susan, on three counts.

CANDIOTTI: That's right.

KAYE: So, what does that tell us, do you think, about how the jury might have reviewed this case?

CANDIOTTI: Well, so far we haven't heard from any of the jurors, but it seems to indicate the one felony count that they dropped involved that case involving, as a witness, Mike McQueary, that assistant grad student at the time. And that was the incident in which he saw, he said, a boy being assaulted in the shower. The jury believed that an assault took place, but they acquitted him on the most serious charge in that case. So it shows, I think, along with dropping a couple misdemeanors involving other victims, that they looked at this charge and these counts, each one, very carefully before they made their final decision, even though it only took them about 21 hours over the course of two days, Randi.

KAYE: Yes. And they were going to deliberate even this weekend. So, certainly pretty quick there.

CANDIOTTI: That's right.

KAYE: Susan Candiotti, thank you very much.

We'll have much more on the verdict throughout the morning here. Coming up in just a few minutes, we'll take a closer look at the jurors themselves. But first, some other stories that we are keeping an eye on this morning for you.

A tense standoff is underway in Egypt. Thousands of protesters have packed Tahrir Square in Cairo. They are demanding the country's military rulers give up power as promised and they want the results of last weekend's presidential runoff released. The military is warning it will deal firmly with any unrest.

And back here in the U.S., we are watching a weather system churning in the Gulf of Mexico. It's not a named storm yet, but people along the coast are getting ready just in case. The National Weather Service says it's likely to get a lot stronger over the next 48 hours. We'll keep an eye on that and keep you updated as well.

In Colorado, they could use some rain. That's because a massive wildfire there is now causing nearly 1,000 more homes to be evacuated. The High Park Fire has already burned more than 190 homes. Now embers from that fire have jumped a nearby rivers, starting a new fire that's already burned 400 acres. This fire is already the most destructive in Colorado history and is still less than 50 percent contained.

Now, to Duluth, Minnesota, where floodwaters are finally receding this morning. People are getting a look at the true scope of the damage. "The New York Times" reports the worst flooding in the city's history has caused more than $100 million in damage there. It left sidewalks buckled and roads washed out. You can see all the sandbagging being done there. Amazingly no one was killed, though, in this flooding.

And here's a rundown of some of the other stories that we're working on.

Health care reform in focus. Within days, the Supreme Court could strike down President Obama's signature piece of legislation. What that could mean for you, next.

And Operation Fast and Furious was meant to catch Mexico's most dangerous criminals. So why is the U.S. attorney general in hot water with Congress over it.

Plus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, we'll take you to the world's ugliest dog contest where ugly is the new pretty.

And as we said, it took jurors just two days to convict Jerry Sandusky for sexually abusing young boys. Just ahead, a closer look at the men and woman who made up the jury.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Welcome back.

A painful chapter for victims and the Penn State community is over. After weeks of horrific testimony and more than 20 hours of deliberation, former football coach Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty on 45 of 48 counts of sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period. Nick Valencia has been watching this along with us. He joins us now here in studio.

So let's talk about this jury, seven women, five men.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right.

KAYE: And a lot of them had ties to Penn State, right?

VALENCIA: Well, as you can imagine, in rural Pennsylvania, Centre County, it's just impossible to avoid these types of connections. We were able to put together a snapshot of some of the jurors, Randi. Very interesting information developed from courtroom reporter pool notes.

We can start with juror number three, who worked at the same medical group as the father of Mike McQueary, who, of course, was brought up there in that Susan Candiotti reporting. He testified that in 2002 he had allegedly seen Sandusky molest a young boy in the showers at Penn State. There was a belief that the council for Sandusky would use their first preemptory challenge. Sandusky believed that the juror would be fair and that was -- the case was gone forward.

Juror number seven was a student at Penn State, saturated with the outrage on campus, as you can imagine. Also had part-time ties to the athletic department and had a cousin that played under Joe Paterno. He said that he had very strong feelings about Paterno's dismissal and, in fact, said that there was a lot of people at fault here in this and Joe Pa did a few things that he shouldn't have.

KAYE: And he was still seated on the jury? Incredible.

VALENCIA: He was still seated on the jury. If you can imagine, he showed up to jury questioning wearing a Penn State archery t-shirt and he was still kept on -- kept as among the jurors.

And, lastly, juror number 11, who was a middle-aged 30 year old woman who currently worked as a media specialist, had a six-year-old son. So you can only imagine what she might have been thinking during this testimony. And she had had conversations with her husband about the case.

KAYE: There was so much reaction. I mean, obviously, this came out very late last night. What is Penn State -- what's the university saying this morning?

VALENCIA: Well, they released a statement, Randi, and they were very clear from the beginning about how they felt about the case. They said, "the board of trustees and current administration maintain a steadfast commitment to pursuing the truth regarding Mr. Sandusky's actions. While we cannot change what happened, we can and do accept the responsibility to take action on the societal issue of child sexual abuse both in our community and beyond.

KAYE: Yes, I guess they're going to work with the victims in the case as well, legally, to try and get them some type of compensation. What are the victims saying? Had they released any type of statement?

VALENCIA: Well, we haven't heard from the victims per say, but we have heard from those representing two of the victims. We had some sound earlier today at the start of the show. What they said is, "we believe the case represents a turning point on the issue of childhood sexual abuse in this community and in the nation." This resonated far and beyond Centre County, of course, as you know. And "because of these brave men," they continue, "the public now knows much more about the horrors of child sexual abuse, better understands the challenges survivors face and more fully appreciates the importance of holding child sexual abuse offenders and all of those who protect them accountable."

Randi.

KAYE: Now that is a strong statement because, really, as one of the attorneys had said, nobody wins here.

VALENCIA: Nobody wins in this case.

KAYE: I mean Jerry Sandusky is now in prison for the rest of his life, very likely. The victim's certainly didn't win. And even his charity is closing its doors. So it's a really sad story.

Nick Valencia, thank you very much for that.

VALENCIA: Thank you.

KAYE: All right, let's switch gears here. Coming up next, health care reform in focus. The Supreme Court is expected to rule within the next few days. So what changes have already taken place in health care and what happens if the court strikes it down. We'll explain.

But first, good morning, Atlanta. Glad you're with us watching EARLY START WEEKEND this morning. It's going to be a beautiful day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: The Supreme Court is on the verge of a landmark decision on health care in America. Within the next week, the justices will rule on Obamacare. That's the health care reform law also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The court will either let the law stand, let parts of it stand or strike it down all together. We're focusing on health care this morning. The myths, the truths and the effects of the law. What you may or may not know is that many provisions of the law are already in effect. CNN's senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen explains.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: What Obama came up with is a rule that says everyone has to have insurance. And you can get it through your employer, you can get it through the private market, you can get it in a variety of ways, but everyone has to have insurance.

When people don't have insurance, they're really in a terrible pickle when they get sick. I mean imagine you don't have insurance and God forbid you get hit by a car or you get cancer, how are you going pay for it? Not only are you in trouble, but the rest of us are in trouble. Because if you don't have insurance and you get hit by a car, the rest of us are paying for you to get care. It comes out of our tax money, it comes out of our insurance premiums. We all end up taking care of the uninsured.

The health care plan was passed two years ago and it's implemented in a series of stages. Some things happen very quickly and other parts of it don't happen for a couple of years. Health care reform has already made it illegal for insurance companies to say no to a child with a pre-existing condition. Before health care reform, insurance companies would often tell children with pre-existing conditions, no, sorry, we don't want to insure you because it's expensive to insure someone who already has a serious condition.

Insurance companies have already been told no more lifetime limits on benefits. What used to happen is that insurance companies would say you have, let's say, $5 million of benefits. And that's it. And when you hit that $5 million cap, you can't have any more care. Health care reform law said you can't do that anymore. There are no more lifetime limits. Now, most people never even meet this cap. But if you've got a serious illness, you can actually meet a $5 million cap relatively easy.

Health care reform also allows children to stay on their parent's insurance until they're 26.

One of the things that will happen in the future because of health care reform is insurance companies will have to accept adults with pre-existing conditions. They can't say no to you just because let's say you have asthma, or you have cancer or heart disease.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: No restrictions for pre-existing conditions. Young people on their parent's policies until they're 26. Individual mandates. Fines for lack of insurance. All important parts of the law. So, what do you think? We talked to some people here in Atlanta to get their take on the law, good or bad?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like people should be able to have health care. And, you know, there's a big argument, like should people be forced to get it. And I don't really know too much like about the whole thing. I mean, I know about it, but I'm -- I would say people shouldn't be forced to get it, but there should be more ways that people can obtain it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The main issue for me is that, you know, I don't believe that it's constitutional for the government to be stepping in.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are some savings that are planned. But, once again, the more people who are insured, the less our total health care program costs. We have so many uninsured people who are being paid for either by the insured or by our tax systems that support public hospitals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's going to cost taxpayers a lot more money. And it's just another mandated government oversight. And I think that, you know, the government's here to serve and protect and this doesn't really fit in either category.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: One of the things we heard a lot from people was about the individual mandate. And many weren't quite sure how it works or what the penalties are for lack of insurance. Coming up in our 8:00 Eastern hour, we'll take a closer look at the myths and the facts of the Affordable Care Act.

A Seattle woman thought her battle was over when she beat breast cancer, but her fight is just beginning. Find out why she's taking on Seattle's ban against women swimming topples in public pools.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: A breast cancer survivor is waging a new battle. One she never expected to fight, for the right to swim topless. And now she wants other women, like her, to have the same right. Lindsay Cohen of affiliate KOMO tells us more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LINDSAY COHEN, KOMO REPORTER (voice-over): In a city as progressive and Seattle is --

JODI JAECKS, BREAST CANCER SURVIVOR: And my head's reeling a little bit.

COHEN: Jody Jaecks never thought her desire to go swimming would make such a splash.

JAECKS: It's not my style, you know, to make big waves. But this is much bigger.

COHEN: It would be one thing if it was a style choice for her to want to swim in public topless. It's a whole nother thing when you realize it's because of this.

JAECKS: I found it on a self-breast exam.

COHEN: Jaecks survived breast cancer last year and chose to have a double mastectomy. Both breasts removed over the fear the cancer could come back. Being active was always a part of life. Remaining active was crucial to recovery. Then someone suggested a public pool in the central district as a way for her to heal. But for Jaecks, a full bathing suit would bring intense pain as her body recovered. She told the park staff she would like to swim topples. She no longer had breasts. Nothing to shield. Their response, she would still have to dress accordingly and cover up.

JAECKS: If I called myself a man and walked into that pool, they would have no problem with my body. But if I am a woman who's had breast cancer with the exact same body and I go in there, then it was offensive or inappropriate.

COHEN: A photo of her post cancer body appeared in "The Stranger," which broke the story. A story that now has the city reversing its course, saying she'll be able to swim topless if she wants to, but all others will be on a case by case basis.

JAECKS: The city, it's a bureaucracy, but I don't think it's in keeping with what most people think of the progressive politics of Seattle.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: That was Lindsay Cohen with CNN affiliate KOMO reporting for us. And now we'd like to know what you think. Do you agree with the city's decision to allow Jodi Jaecks, a breast cancer survivor, to swim topless? You can tweet me @RandiKayeCNN and we'll share some of your thoughts on air later this hour.

Jerry Sandusky, guilty. His attorney now promising an appeal. But on what grounds? We'll break it down.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Welcome back. It is 30 minutes past the hour. I'm Randi Kaye. Glad you are with us this morning.

Back to our top story now, Jerry Sandusky found guilty. Jerry came back with a verdict late last night, finding him guilty on 45 of 48 charges related to the sexual abuse of young boys. Our Jason Carroll was in that courtroom when the verdict was read. And here is how he described it to Anderson Cooper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: As the guilty verdicts started to be read one after another, Anderson, Jerry Sandusky looked straight ahead. He remained absolutely without emotion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: And after the verdict, the judge revoked his bail and ordered his arrest. Joining me now is attorney Holly Hughes to talk about this. Good morning to you.

HOLLY HUGHES, ATTORNEY: Good morning.

KAYE: So, any surprises here? I mean it took them what, about 21 hours.

HUGHES: Right. If you break it down, Randi, it's about half an hour each charge. Because he was looking at 48 counts. 21 hours, break it down that way. And bear in mind, too, that they acquitted him on three charges. So you know they spent more time arguing about those three. This was a very fast verdict.

KAYE: An awfully quick trial. It is -- what does that tell us, though, about them? I mean and about really the case that the prosecution put on?

HUGHES: Well, the prosecution had one wonderful thing going for it. And that was the amount of witnesses, survivors who were going to take the stand and say this happened to me. They couldn't -- the defense couldn't then turn around and paint it as, well, this is one or two people looking to make a buck. You know, if they can criminally find him responsible, then civilly, they can sue him. We saw a lot of those kinds of accusations of defenses in some other high profile cases, Michael Jackson, for instance.

And what the prosecution had, even though it was a very late outcry, we are talking ten to 15 years ago, so there is no physical evidence, there is no forensics, none of those things that the American public is spoiled now because of shows like "CSI." So they backed all that.

What they had, was they had ten young men who came forward and told similar stories about a pervert --

KAYE: Horrific stories, too.

HUGHES: About a monster who did these horrible things to them. And that was the strength of the case. And it all comes down to when you clear away physical evidence, what did the jury have to consider? One thing and one thing only. And that was the credibility of those survivors.

So, all they had to say was do you believe victim number one? And they were called victim at the time of trial. They are now survivors. Because they triumph.

KAYE: Sandusky's attorney certainly saying he'll appeal, but how do you appeal on 45 counts?

HUGHES: Well, you appeal errors of law. People think, oh, you know, you just appeal because you don't like the verdict. No, you have to find something very specific that the judge did wrong. During the course of the trial, he admitted improper evidence. Jury selection was done improperly, based on ruling he made.

And when it comes down to an appeal, you have to have something to hang your hat on. Because there isn't any physical evidence, there isn't scientific evidence. So, they cannot raise that saying you admitted improper evidence. It's all about witness credibility. And so in appeals court will not disturb the ruling of a jury in those instances.

KAYE: Right.

HUGHES: So I don't see an appellate issue here. I really don't.

KAYE: Jerry Sandusky, there was some talking, was going to take the stand, even his attorney said he wanted to --

HUGHES: Yes.

KAYE: But then eventually changed his mind. But his wife did, Dottie.

HUGHES: Right.

KAYE: Did she help him or hurt him? I mean how could she not have known what was going on in that house? Or did she turn a blind eye?

HUGHES: Precisely. Well, my opinion, because, of course, we don't know factually. We weren't there. But my opinion is she knew. Of course she knew. She spent how many years married to this man.

And that can only hurt him because the jury is sitting there, and they are watching his reaction to these boys and they are watching interviews. You know, their mind is playing some of those interviews over that he gave earlier wherever he talks about young boys and children, Randi, he talks about them adoringly and oh, I love children. Isn't that sweet?

And then his wife takes the stand and there's no affection. And there's no smiling at him and there is no eye contact. And the strain of that relationship and the lack of intimacy, which he demonstrates when he is talking about children, young little boys isn't there when the wife is on the stand. So I think it hurts him terribly. And I also think, you know, the jury is sitting there going, yeah, the whole family is a little sick.

KAYE: Yeah.

HUGHES: Because you had to know what was going on in your own home. You had to.

KAYE: It is a terribly disturbing story. But on a much lighter note, Holly, I know it's your birthday today. And we did it. I appreciate you waking up early with us.

HUGHES: Absolutely. Well, thank you very much.

KAYE: In fact, we are so happy to spend your big day with you we are going to have you back later this morning.

HUGHES: Wonderful. And you actually almost hit right on the nose, I was born at 6:25. So you really --

KAYE: Oh

HUGHES: You timed it well. Randi Kaye.

KAYE: All right.

HUGHES: Thank you.

KAYE: Nice to see you.

HUGHES: You, too.

KAYE: Attorney General Eric Holder in the hot seat as Republicans in Congress get ready to drop the hammer over "Fast and Furious." But Holder has protection, we'll tell you where the controversy goes from here. And just look at this face. We cannot resist the world's ugliest doggies. Which one got the ugliest mug of all and won the prize for it? Find out next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Attorney General Eric Holder is in the middle of the battle with Congress over the "Fast and Furious" program. You'll remember that "Fast and Furious" was the program run out of the Department of Justice. It allowed hundreds of guns to be intentionally trafficked across the border into Mexico. The plan was to trace the guns to Mexican drug cartels. But instead, they disappear at least until they turned up with the murder weapon in drug killings.

Eric Holder has testified about the failed program several times in front of congressional committees. But there are some documents that he's not turning over. And now he faces being held in contempt of Congress in a vote next week.

Joining me now to discuss this, is Alan Morrison, associate dean for public interest and public service of George Washington University's Law School.

Good morning, Alan.

So, we hear about this contempt of Congress. Just briefly, in simple terms, what does that really mean and what kind of penalty could the attorney general be hit with here?

PROF. ALAN MORRISON, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, Randi, there are two kinds of contempt. One, criminal contempt, which I understand is what the House is considering imposing. It's a punishment. If you or I went up to a congressional hearing and we tried to disrupt the hearing or we refused to show up when we were properly subpoenaed without any basis at all, we would be punished, put in jail, penalized for 30 days or whatever just like a criminal case. That's criminal contempt.

The other kind of contempt is civil contempt, in which, in essence, the person who is being held in contempt has the keys to get out of contempt. And that's usually used when the question is whether the documents should be properly turned over or not. In this case, if the House really wanted to get the documents, they would do what the House did with the Bush debate about the U.S. Attorney's firings. They would go to court and they would ask the federal judge to order Eric Holder to turn over the documents. And then we would have a neutral federal judge deciding whether Eric Holder was properly invoking executive privilege or not.

KAYE: So, what could happen to him here, though, in this case?

MORRISON: Well, the principal problem for the House if they vote him in criminal contempt is how are they going to enforce it. The federal statutes give the job of enforcing the criminal laws to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the case of criminal contempt. And since the U.S. attorney works for Eric Holder, it's pretty unlikely he's going to bring a charge against his boss.

KAYE: Yeah.

MORRISON: And for that matter, nobody else has the legal authority to do it. Under a doctrine of separation of powers, Congress cannot appoint prosecutors and go to court. And so, criminal contempt looks to me, like a show, unless, of course, they want to send the sergeant in arms at the House out to try to arrest Attorney General Holder and I think that's probably more escalation than anybody thinks is warranted.

KAYE: Now, Holder has said, and certainly, the president has supported him in this by claiming that these documents fall under executive privilege and they shouldn't be turned over. How does that work exactly?

MORRISON: Well, under our system of laws, only the president of the United States can claim executive privilege. His claim is not limited to documents which he or his closest associates have actually seen. It's a broader document that's intended to protect the entire executive branch, including the attorney general. But because of the seriousness of withholding from Congress, the law requires that the president himself say that these documents should be withheld. That doesn't mean that every document that's being withheld is being properly withheld. The government has a tendency to over withhold. And the question is how to get the proper allocation of withholding before a neutral person. It could go to a federal judge or, for that matter, the Congress and the attorney general could agree upon a, for example, prior attorney general who would be seen as a neutral person or a retired federal judge who would come in and agree to mediate this dispute. There are a lot of documents there. At one point, the House bandied around the number of 80,000 documents that have gone to the Inspector General. That's probably an overstatement, but there're surely enough documents that would take somebody a while to go through. And there are different reasons for withholding different documents. Some of them may be grand jury materials, others may be immune for other reasons protected by statute, national security.

KAYE: Right.

MORRISON: All of those reasons. And so I think there's probably a fair debate about at least some of the documents as to whether they were properly claimed as privileged.

KAYE: Alan Morrison, I appreciate you making some sense of that for us. Helping us out there. Thank you very much.

MORRISON: You are quite welcome, Randi.

KAYE: HBO's newest drama is all about working in cable TV news. It is Aaron Sorkin's latest creation. Remember, he was behind the "West Wing" and the "Newsroom" is bringing back some pretty fond memories.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Welcome back. We here at CNN, well, we are just fascinated seeing how a fictional TV show will portray the cable news industry. HBO's newest show, it's called "The Newsroom," it premiers tomorrow night, Sunday night. It is the latest brainchild of Aaron Sorkin, who also created the hit series of "West Wing." We are expecting some similarities like those long winded intellectual monologues. And that's what got our staff is talking about our favorite "West Wing" moments.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Single favorite episode is the Thanksgiving episode. It made the best hour of TV I ever did. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They sent me two turkeys. The more photo-friendly of the two gets a presidential pardon and a full life at a children zoo. The runner-up gets eaten.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the Oscars were like that, I'd watch.

DAN LOTHIAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It was fascinating, because of the time, that was the closest that, you know, most Americans could get to the White House. And certainly it was the closest that I'd gotten to the White House at that point. And it was, you know, you would sit there and watch it, you know what, that would be really cool to someday work in the White House, cover the White House. At least that's what I wanted to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are for freedom of speech everywhere. We are for freedom to worship everywhere. We are for freedom to learn for everybody.

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Any scenes that involved Rob Lowe's character, Sam Seaborn, but I think my very favorite was from -- I think it's the first episode, when he told the schoolteacher he was having a really bad day and he admitted that he had slept with somebody who turned out to be a call girl.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A good friend of mine is about to get fired for going on television and making sense. And it turns out that I slept with a prostitute last night. Now, would you please in the name of compassion tell me which one of those kids is my boss' daughter?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That would be me.

JOHN DEDAKIS, CNN SENIOR COPY EDITOR: If anything, it shows that presidents are human, and that they are buffeted in all kinds of different directions. And you have to have a sort of a steel spine. But at the same point, you are human.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: J'accuse!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, brother.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: J'accuse mon petit fromage --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You speak four languages. How come none of them is French?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing's wrong with my French.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You just called me your little cheese.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.

STEVE BRUSK, CNN POLITICAL UNIT COVERAGE MANAGER: It represented everything that West Wing did. A little bit policy, a little bit of seriousness, and some personalities that really made you feel like you were in that room.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: Now, we are going to be tuning in for the "Newsroom." All right, take a look at this face. W e cannot resist sharing with you the world's ugliest dogs. But which one got the ugliest mug of all? Find out next.

But first, this week CNN hero was living the American dream with a college degree and a down payment for a home. But when Jackson's Kaguri returned to his roots in Uganda, he saw how HIV/AIDS had wiped out entire generation of parents and so he decided to help. It's a story of tremendous sacrifice and joy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JACKSON KAGURI: In Uganda, it's how the AIDS came, striking like a machete in a cornfield. Killing men and women, leaving 1.2 million children orphaned. The grandmothers stepped in and closed that gap. Some of them have up to 14 children to raise. I was born and raised in Nyaka village. I moved to America. I went to Columbia University. I came to visit. I've looked in these eyes of women who carried me as a child and said, now is the time to also give back. I am Twesigye Jackson Kaguri of the Nyaka AIDS Orphans Project.

Who is happy this morning?

We've started with $5,000 that my wife and I saved for a house. We provide free education to children who are orphaned by HIV/AIDS. We provide them uniforms, health care, the library. Clean water, and we started giving them meals. We teach the grandmothers skills so they can support themselves. 11 years later, this project has produced close to 600 students and helps about 7,000 grandmothers. I feel humbled looking in the faces of the children smiling, focused on what their dreams are going to be.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Checking stories across country now. In Washington State, a 30- year-old cold case has been solved with the help of the made for TV "Lifetime" movie. A 20-year-old Sandra Major went missing in 1982. But now we know that she was killed by the notorious Green River serial killer, Gary Ridgway. Police had the bones, but they never knew who they belonged to. And when her family saw the movie, profiling the case, they sent DNA samples to the police.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DET. TOM JENSEN, KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE: You can't investigate a case if you don't know who the victim is. It's huge for the families, and I think it's huge for the investigators to spend a lot of time over the years trying to figure out who these girls were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Ridgway pleaded guilty to killing 49 women. He's serving a life sentence. Three victims have still not been identified. And in Petaluma, California, the world's ugliest dog has been crowned. Mowgly, a Chinese crested won 1,000 bucks and a year's worth of doggie treats. He came all the way from Britain and he beat 28 other dogs to win the contest. Judges say they critique dogs based on their natural ugliness. I think they are pretty cute, not ugly at all.

What if everyone in the world stepped on one scale? A new study estimates just what that number would be. And its findings are truly staggering, that's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Well, if you are thinking about heading to the gym this morning, this next story might just be the incentive that we all need. A new study says the global population is nearly 17 million tons overweight. And the worst offenders, yes, you guessed it, Americans. Let's talk to Nadia Bilchik about this. So. All right, so this is being called the weight of the world study.

NADIA BILCHIK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

KAYE: What did they find?

BILCHIK: Well, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Health came up with the fact that the entire mass of the world, so, if they weighed all the people in the world it would come to 633 billion pounds, which is about 360 million tons. But they say 16.5 tons of that is due to overweight.

KAYE: And we pointed out Americans because we've said, I mean, that we know obesity is a growing problem here in the country. But apparently, the study says that the U.S. is responsible for nearly one-third of the world's excess weight?

BILCHIK: And isn't that extraordinary? Because North America is only six percent of the world's population, but about 35 percent of the world's weight. So, an average person is around 137 pounds, supposedly. But In America, the average is 178 pounds.

KAYE: Wow. So, it's a lot more.

BILCHIK: So, it is quite a bit more. And the ramifications, long term, they are saying people that are overweight use more energy. So, it's not only the effect that overweight people have on their own organs and their own body, the study is the effect it has on the environment and the earth.

KAYE: And how so? I mean literally using more energy?

BILCHIK: Literally using more energy? Not only in terms of nutrition, but the study says, even at resting weight. People who are excessively overweight use more resources. And around 2050, they say there's going to be about 2.3 billion people in the world. So they are saying we shouldn't only look at population growth, we should look at body mass growth. So, interesting study. The weight of the world. KAYE: Wow, that is interesting. Certainly an eye opener. And if that doesn't give you some incentive, to maybe get out and just take a walk today. That's probably a good idea.

BILCHIK: And use less energy. So never mind going green in your home in terms of utility.

KAYE: Go green in your body.

BILCHIK: Go -- I like that, Randi. Which you do so well.

KAYE: I try. I try. It gives me energy to do this show. All right, Nadia, thank you very much.

Thank you so much for starting your morning with us. We have got much more ahead on CNN SATURDAY MORNING, which starts right now.