Return to Transcripts main page


Gabrielle Giffords Discharged From Hospital; Showdown Over Libya

Aired June 15, 2011 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: A lot of important news tonight linked to Pakistan and Libya. We will get to all of that in a moment.

But we begin with a breaking story, good news, incredibly welcome news about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She was discharged today from the Houston hospital where she's been undergoing rehab. These pictures are the most recent ones we have of her taken just before she had surgery to replace part of her skull that surgeons removed in January after she was shot in the head at point-blank range.

Now, the only other image we have seen of her since that mass shooting is this grainy video taken from far away showing her boarding a plane on her to see the shuttle's launch back in April. Her husband obviously commanded that mission.

Now, they are both home tonight. We're told Giffords is expected to start outpatient treatment some time soon, a major milestone for her. I talked just a few moments ago with CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.


COOPER: Sanjay, the fact that she's been released from the hospital and is going to begin outpatient treatment soon, what does that tell you about the progress of her recovery?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's definitely a good sign.

There's no definitive milestone, Anderson, to say, look, absolutely now go from inpatient rehab to outpatient rehab. Practically speaking from a medical standpoint, it probably means she doesn't need acute medical care, the kind of care that a hospital provides anymore. She doesn't need 24-hour nursing supervision anymore. So, that's from a practical standpoint.

But it's also this idea that someone is ready to graduate, to move on to things that are more easily done in the home, things that are focused on the behavior that is associated with increasingly independent living. So it's not a definitive milestone, but all indicators are that it's a pretty good thing.

COOPER: I want to put up if we can the new picture that was taken of her a couple of days ago that was released. The indentation you see on the left side of her face, what is that?

GUPTA: Well, this is the area, Anderson, where you're talking about where part of the skull, part of bone there was in fact removed. The picture that you're looking at was taken before her most recent operation was performed to put some of that bone substitute back in.

So that concavity, that's where the bone is missing. So, you're looking at skin. And beneath that skin are going to be the outer layers of the brain. There's nothing in between. So it would feel quite soft there. Again, this was done before the most recent operation. But that was done at the time, Anderson. And this is something that was sort of perfected on the battlefields. That was done at the time to relieve pressure on the brain, to give the brain a place to swell.


COOPER: So they actually just cover it back up with skin, even though the bone is not there, the skull is not there?


GUPTA: That's right. They just cover it back up with skin. And it would feel soft. And part of -- one thing it's important to point out is that, going to outpatient rehab, not having that skull there, it would be soft there. She might have to wear a helmet.

It's a little bit more risky. Now that she has that bone substitute back there, it makes it safer for her to transport every day.

COOPER: As far as her cognitive skills are concerned, her motor skills, do we have any idea how she is doing? Because we saw a video of her when she went to see her husband at the shuttle launch. We saw her walking up the steps to a plane.

GUPTA: Yes. What's interesting, Anderson, there's been a lot of differing -- you hear differing things on how she's doing cognitively. Part of that might be that she is changing. Her skills are improving.

And part of it might be interpretation. Best we can tell from hearing from her staff is that she has always been able to receive communication, understand what people are saying. It's more the ability to express herself that's been affected by this. And that's something that's typically affected with a left-sided brain injury, so, speaking in no more than on- or two-word sentences. More complicated sentences would be difficult.

And then you also mentioned as far as walking up the stairs, you know, the right side of her body, left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, it would be weaker. Her movements might be in addition to being weak be less fluid, so it would be more difficult for her. So, those are things they're going to continue to work on as well.

COOPER: And you may not know this because we -- I'm not sure the information has been released by her doctors yet, but does that mean -- if she can't put -- find words for things, does she think of the words, but she just can't enunciate them? Or is it not just a speech issue?

GUPTA: No, that's a very good question. In fact, probably she is able -- the words are there. She's not able to actually put them into more complicated sentences or not able to recall the exact word that she wants to use.

COOPER: That's got to be so frustrating.

GUPTA: That's right. And that's what people typically sense, and what they convey either through gestures or just acts of frustration. They -- it's there. They just can't absolutely convey it.

And also more -- adding to the frustration is the fact that her ability to understand, her reception, so to speak, it seems like it's always been intact. You will remember, Anderson, immediately after the shooting, she was following commands, holding up fingers as instructed. So she was always able to understand. This expressive part has been the difficulty.

COOPER: It's fascinating. Good news she's going home at least. Sanjay Gupta, thanks.

GUPTA: You got it, Anderson. Thank you.


COOPER: Well, there's more breaking news tonight: the White House just a short time ago answering lawmakers who have been demanding President Obama justify his decision to take military action in Libya. Now, some say he's failing to consult them. Some are flat- out accusing him of breaking the law, violating the War Powers Resolution, which gives the president a 60-day window to make war without congressional authorization. After that he's supposed to get congressional authorization.

Well, today, a bipartisan group of legislators, a bipartisan group actually filed a lawsuit challenging his actions. Dennis Kucinich, a fellow Democrat, saying that if President Obama has an explanation, he can tell it to the judge. Tonight, the White House sent Congress a 32-page outline of the operation and justification of why it believes it is within the law.

Quoting from this, the report says: "The president is of the view that current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of hostilities contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision."

In other words, they're saying it doesn't fall under the War Powers Resolution because American participation in the NATO airstrikes on Libya don't really amount to a war. Dan Lothian is at the White House with details. We also wanted to talk, of course, with two legal experts. So also joining us is Laura Donohue, acting director of Georgetown University's Center on National Security and Law, and on the phone joining us, senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

So, Dan, what does the White House defense boil down to here?

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it really boils down to one word and that is hostilities.

The White House argument is that action by U.S. troops in Libya is not part of any sustained fighting. There's not exchange of any gunfire with hostile forces. There are no troops on the ground, that there are no casualties and no chance of this really escalating into anything broader than that, and also the argument that U.S. is really in a supporting role here as part of the overall NATO mission. And so the bottom line for the White House, they believe, is that, since U.S. troops do not have boots on the ground, therefore, they are on pretty solid legal ground.

COOPER: And, Dan, there's this bipartisan suit filed today to the courts to basically take the administration to court. There's some direct claims made in that suit that are refuted tonight by the White House.

LOTHIAN: Well, that's right. There's been a lot of criticism from up on Capitol Hill that the White House has not really kept them sort of up to speed, informed along the way as to the mission, the goal, how much this will cost, when the U.S. will no longer be involved in Libya.

And the White House went out of its way in that document to show that there has been extensive information passed along to members of Congress, some of their staffers as well, over six pages in those 32 pages of that memo or that report that was sent to Congress detailing the phone calls, the conference calls, the briefings, dozen of briefings and also status e-mails that were sent to congressional staffers.

COOPER: Jeff, from a legal standpoint, I mean, who's right here? Because you would think on the face of it, it's pretty clear. You have 60 days to inform Congress if the U.S. is involved in hostilities involved in a war. But as Dan is saying now, they're saying the definition of hostilities is what it all hinges on.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think the answer to that question is, the courts will not answer it.

In other words, the courts, when dealing with these sorts of confrontations between the executive branch and the legislative branch, they tend to say, look, you two work it out. We're not going to resolve it. Congress has the ability to take away the funds to support the Libya operation. They have the ability to impeach and remove the president if they want. The judicial branch is not going to get in the business of ordering troops in or out of Libya. So, I think the answer is, we will not know definitively, from the courts at least, which side is right here.

COOPER: Laura, what do you make of this?

LAURA DONOHUE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, I think Jeff's right that the courts aren't going to get involved. Certainly, precedent was decided on grounds of rightness in standing in Dellums v. Bush and then later in Campbell vs. Clinton.

The real question here...


COOPER: Sorry. The Clinton case, people had sued during the fighting in Kosovo, suing the Clinton administration. And essentially that was thrown out because it was viewed as they did not having standing.

DONOHUE: Yes, they disputed standing in that case.

And I think the real message is exactly what he's getting at, which is the courts don't want to be involved in this fight, nor should they be. The real question is, under the War Powers Resolution, whether hostilities, the definition of hostilities is Section 4A-1 actually is met by what we're doing in Libya currently.

And the administration offered a position both in the April 1 OLC memo and now most recently in this document that they released today where they narrow it down to a few set of criteria, as, if you would allow, the animating principles behind the War Powers Resolution, which is to ensure that when troops are under sustained fire and there's not intermittent, but sustained fighting, that the president will require then some sort of acknowledgement from Congress that Congress will allow this action to continue, although this memo really narrows what previous administrations have said.

COOPER: So the Obama administration is essentially saying, well, look, in Libya, you don't have U.S. boots on the ground. There's not ground troops. You don't -- the Libyan forces, Gadhafi's forces don't have the ability to really fire back and put any U.S. pilots who may be involved in harm's way. And, therefore, because the U.S. role was so limited, this is not a war that needs to be approved.

DONOHUE: Well, they're actually saying three things.

They're saying not just is there no chance of sustained fire ongoing hostilities, almost the quagmire that became Vietnam and Korea. They're also saying that the casualties will not be there. And then the third is that this is a humanitarian effort and they're not seeking regime change.

And while they're right to identify these as animating factors in terms of the War Powers Resolution generally, they certainly weren't the only factors that Congress was considering at the time. And they are debatable under the circumstance.

COOPER: Right.

DONOHUE: If you think about the quagmire argument, if our goal is Middle East stability, which this document also says, and if in fact we're calling for a regime change, which we are, the fact that we are doing the regime change through political, military and freezing of financial assets of the regime, while at the same time applying military pressure, this is a distinction without a difference in many ways.


DONOHUE: And in fact, what is happening is they're trying to create regime change in the country.

COOPER: And, Jeff, certainly, to those critics of the Obama administration on this issue who feel they do need congressional approval, they would make the argument that this operation has already gone on longer, perhaps, than anticipated. It's far more costly than anticipated, and that really there's no end in sight.

TOOBIN: That's right. And they will say, this is why we have a War Powers Act, because when American military is involved overseas, we want to have some role for the Congress. We don't want an involvement to go months, to go years without Congress getting an up- or-down vote on it.

Now, the courts, I presume, will say, well, you have -- the Congress does have options. They can limit financing. And in an extreme case, they can impeach him. But the usual way we resolve these disputes about laws is a court decides what the word hostility means.

But because this is a matter of separation of powers, the courts will never resolve with precision what the word hostility means.

COOPER: Right.

TOOBIN: So these debates will continue and they will be resolved in the political sphere, not in the legal one.

COOPER: And, so, Dan, tonight, really, the ball is in the court of folks in Congress, whether Congress really wants to push this any further.

LOTHIAN: That's right. And it's unclear.

I mean, the White House believes that they have a good case here and that it will sell up on Capitol Hill. But it's unclear whether or not that will be the case. I mean, there are still questions beyond just some of those legal questions about, how long did the U.S. plan to be involved in this operation in Libya? What is the overall mission? Why are we there?

Those are still questions that some Congress folks are still wanting answers to and don't believe they have gotten that from the president.

COOPER: Dan Lothian, appreciate the reporting, Jeff Toobin as well.

And, Professor Donohue, thanks so much for being on the program.


COOPER: Let us know what you think. We're on Facebook. You can follow me on Twitter @AndersonCooper. I will try to tweet some tonight.

Up next, we get bin Laden, and Pakistan arrests some of the people might have helped us do it? You have probably heard about this. Some of the informants the CIA used to rent the safe house, to get information, look at the license plates coming and going from the compound, they have been arrested. Is that any way for an ally to act? "We're Keeping Them Honest"

Later, the prosecution rests in the Casey Anthony murder trial. The prosecution has rested. The defense tomorrow starts to make their case. They made a bold move to get the case tossed out today. We will tell you what happened about that, also about the new witness, the unexpected witness they have now said that they're going to call. Nancy Grace joins us for a wrap-up of the prosecution's case and what we expect from the defense in the days ahead.

First, let's check in with Isha Sesay -- Isha.

ISHA SESAY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, you already know what former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards looks like on the campaign trail and in the tabloids. Tonight, though, you're going to see what he looks like in a mug shot. And it might just surprise you -- that and more when 360 continues.


COOPER: "Keeping Them Honest" tonight, what do you call a country that despite raking in billions of dollars in U.S. aid cuts peace deals with terrorist armies, likely helps plan terrorist attacks that killed Americans, knowingly or negligently harbors Osama bin Laden, and just now has arrested some of the very informants who helped the CIA find bin Laden?


COLIN POWELL, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Pakistan is a friendly country. We have had friendly relations with Pakistan for many, many years.

DONALD RUMSFELD, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Pakistan is an important friend and ally for the United States.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The United States does indeed consider Pakistan a strategic partner and a good friend. ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Clearly, Pakistan is clearly a very strong ally of the United States in this.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We're also helping because Pakistan is our partner.


COOPER: Well, Pakistan has received $13 billion in military aid since the 9/11 attacks. But despite those diplomatic words, over the years, the relationship has always been tense.

It got worse after U.S. Navy SEALs tracked down bin Laden and tonight threatens to worsen even more. The news broke late last night, "The New York Times" recording that Pakistani authorities rounded up five CIA informants, people who reportedly helped the CIA by writing down the license plates of cars coming and going from bin Laden's compound, which, by the way, was just down the road from Pakistan's military academy.

We have since learned they are low-level sources -- the people who have been arrested, the informants, are very low-level sources and there's little the U.S. government can do to help them. But their arrest is telling.

Instead of hunting down anyone who might have helped him live there comfortably, hunted down the people who helped bin Laden for years, Pakistan seems to be, at least in this case, hunting down the people who helped America find him.

And as far as taking a hard look at whether bin Laden had a Pakistani support network, the Pakistani government was denying it almost from day one, before doing any serious inquiry at all.


REZA SAYAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In your investigation, have you found any evidence that bin Laden had a support network here in Pakistan?

REHMAN MALIK, PAKISTANI INTERIOR MINISTER: There is no such thing at all, even not an iota of doubt in the mind --


SAYAH: So you categorically deny --

MALIK: Categorically deny --

SAYAH: -- that he had a support network here?

MALIK: No support network.


COOPER: Well, again, bin Laden may have been living in the heart of Pakistan since 2005. In addition, Pakistan cut deals with members of the Pakistani Taliban who operate on the border with Afghanistan. The country is reportedly harboring other Afghan Taliban members in Quetta.

And then there are the Mumbai attacks three years ago which claimed six American lives. Recent testimony from one of the plotters, a Pakistani-American, implicated the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service, in that attack, which was carried out by a terrorist group with close ties to, guess who, the Pakistani intelligence service.

More recently, American officials have twice given Islamabad intelligence about terrorist bomb factories in Pakistan. Twice, the bad guys were apparently tipped off. The raids yielded empty factories and no bombmakers.

Back home, American lawmakers are losing patience.


SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: How long do we support governments that lie to us? When do we say, enough is enough? Secretary Gates, I will start with you.

GATES: Well, first of all, I would say, based 27 years in the CIA and four-and-a-half years in this job, most governments lie to each other. That's the way business gets done.



LEAHY: Do they also arrest the people that help us?

GATES: Sometimes.

LEAHY: When they say they're allies?

GATES: Sometimes.

LEAHY: Not often.

GATES: And, sometimes, they send people to spy on us. And they're our close allies.

LEAHY: And we give aid to them?

GATES: So, that's the real world that we deal with.


COOPER: Well, for more on that seemingly upside-down world, I spoke earlier with Mark Mazzetti, who broke the story for "The New York Times," also Reza Sayah in Pakistan, who you saw in that clip a moment ago with the interior minister, and by phone national security analyst Fran Townsend, former Bush homeland security adviser and currently a member of the Department of Homeland Security and CIA External Advisory Committee.


COOPER: So, Fran, as we said before, CNN has confirmed that these are low-level operatives who weren't necessarily spying on Pakistan, but were only providing information on bin Laden. And it seems like the U.S. can't do much about this. Is this how this kind of thing normally plays out?

FRANCES TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Anderson, now that it's -- now that this has become public, as we have seen from "The New York Times" and the reporting that we have got, assuming they have got people in custody, this becomes a very difficult thing when it breaks publicly.

We saw how difficult it was with Ray Davis. And he was an American. Presumably, these are Pakistani citizens who are now in Pakistani custody. And the U.S. will have precious little influence over how the Pakistani government deals with their own citizens.

COOPER: Mark, you broke the story late last night. Pakistan's intelligence service since then has called the report -- quote -- "false and totally baseless" and denied that an army major had been arrested. Your response.

MARK MAZZETTI, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": It was a very carefully- worded statement. We're very confident in our report. We're going to have sort of further details in tomorrow's paper that this major was in the medical corps, he was a doctor. So it is certainly a dicey issue right now for the Pakistani military as it deals with all these other issues since the bin Laden raid.

COOPER: And, Mark, based on your reporting, what was this army major doing for the United States?

MAZZETTI: It's our understanding that he was helping provide surveillance on the bin Laden compound, specifically taking down some license plates of cars going in and out of the compound.

And it's still unclear whether all of these informants were working out of a safe house or working separately. But they were working in the weeks and months up to the raid that happened in early May.

COOPER: Reza, what do you know about the identity of these informants and how did the Pakistanis know that these Pakistanis were even working with the CIA? Do we know this?

SAYAH: Well, Pakistani security officials are not revealing a lot of information about these arrests. And that's not so unusual. Obviously, the ISI is a spy agency. Much of their work is done in secret. But when you talk to security officials, you get the sense that they don't feel badly at all that they have made these arrests.

You get the sense that they're asserting themselves, kind of taking a stand against the U.S. It's no secret that Pakistan's security establishment is still seething over the bin Laden raid last month. And that's why this is being viewed, these arrests are being viewed as Pakistan's taking a stand, hitting back against the U.S., even if it means it's undermining its relationship with Washington.

COOPER: So, Mark, was this roundup Pakistan's way of retaliating for the bin Laden raid?

MAZZETTI: We're still trying to get more details about the motives. But certainly one would think that it's partial retaliation, certainly. Arresting people who are suspected of working with the CIA would be one way for the military and the ISI to sort of grab the reins and try to take greater control.

COOPER: Fran, based on my understanding of U.S. intelligence, the CIA routinely will employ a country's nationals in order to work on an operation, whether they do it through case officers or whether they do it through non-official cover officers. I don't understand, though, why the U.S. wouldn't have tried for protect these Pakistanis by maybe getting them out of the country. Were they just not high- level enough?

TOWNSEND: Well, that may be, Anderson. And, certainly, if they believed -- if the CIA had believed that these people were at risk, they may very well have exfiltrated them out of Pakistan either in advance or at the time of the operation.

But, remember, this thing got off to a -- we had a problem with the helicopter. There was a lot going on. So it's unclear to me whether or not the CIA had the time to get these people out.

And, Mark, these arrests were made a while ago. They were made right immediately after the raid. Is that correct?

MAZZETTI: Yes, that's right.

These were several weeks ago. And then there's -- I believe there's been this sort of hidden negotiation about getting these people out for several weeks. My guess is, is that there will be some, as there always is, some resolution to this, and the relationship will muddle through. But it's hard to see how it gets any worse than this.

COOPER: Yes, Reza, I'm fascinated to know, in Pakistan, are these informants -- I don't know how big This story has played in the last 24 hours in Pakistan, but are these informants seen as enemies of Pakistan for helping to bring down Osama bin Laden? Are they seen as traitors for collaborating with the U.S.? How are they viewed?

SAYAH: Well, we asked this very question to our sources, the Pakistani security officials that we talked to. And they declined comment.

But what's certain is what Mark was referring to, that this relationship right now -- and you get the sense talking to security officials -- is at an all-time low. There's some rhetoric publicly, officially, that things are going to improve. But certainly what you see on the ground doesn't square with that rhetoric.

COOPER: But, in terms of publicly, Reza, has this story been played in the media in Pakistan in the last 24 hours or so?

SAYAH: It has, and it's relatively been a big story. But it's interesting. I think there's been a loss of trust even with the public here. So oftentimes they watch the news, and they don't know who to believe. They don't know what's happening with these arrests. They don't know the motivation behind these arrests of the ISI.

And it drives home the fact that even domestically here there's mistrust for an institution. The Pakistani military, the powerful institution, there's mistrust for that. And that's been unprecedented.

COOPER: Fran, though, just from an operational standpoint, it doesn't send a good message to those in the future who might be thinking about working with U.S. intelligence in a country to hear that somebody who rented an apartment for CIA operatives or who was taking down license plates for folks going in and out of bin Laden's compound can be arrested and nothing be done to help them.

TOWNSEND: Well, that's right, Anderson, if it is true that nothing can be done to help them.

I mean, let's be honest. The thing that makes this the most difficult now is not only that these are Pakistani citizens, but it is the fact that it's now public. This is the sort of issue that is best handled out of the public eye. And so what you hope for is, they're able to speak behind the scenes, if there are people who have cooperated and helped the U.S. government, to get them out of harm's way, so that that very bad message you're talking about, Anderson, isn't the one that's left, that, in the end, the thing that people realize is that we were able to get these people out.

COOPER: Fran Townsend, I appreciate you talking tonight.

Mark Mazzetti, who broke the story from "The New York Times," Mark, thanks so much.

And, Reza Sayah, as well, thanks so much.


COOPER: Well, there's been more fallout in Pakistan from the bin Laden raid just now coming to light, "The New York Times" in tomorrow's paper reporting that Pakistan's top general is fighting to save his job, the paper reporting he is facing seething anger from other top commanders, as well as junior officers, since the raid, central to the complaints, according to "The Times," the general's perceived cozy relationship with the United States.

Still ahead: After more than three weeks of testimony, the prosecution rests its case in the Casey Anthony trial. Tomorrow, the defense begins their turn. Will they put Casey Anthony on the stand? Do they have to do that in order to explain their defense, which is that she was lying for so long and hiding Caylee's death because of sexual abuse she alleges her father and brother did to her? What will it take for them to win the capital murder case? Former prosecutor Nancy Grace joins me ahead.

And one of the women Congressman Anthony Weiner exchanged e-mails with speaking out -- in a press conference, no less -- she says he asked her to lie to protect him. That's next.


COOPER: A couple of other stories for us tonight with the "360 News & Business Bulletin" -- Isha.

ISHA SESAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, New York state assembly tonight approved a same-sex marriage bill. The vote was 80-63. A much tougher battle is expected in the state senate, which has rejected a same-sex marriage bill back in 2009.

Congressman Anthony Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, has returned from an overseas work trip with her boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Weiner has taken a temporary leave from office to seek treatment after admitting he sent nude e-mails and photos to women online and then lied about it. He's under growing pressure to resign, but has said he won't make a decision until he can talk face-to-face with his wife.

Meantime, Ginger Lee, a former porn star who Weiner exchanged e- mails with, said today the congressman asked her to lie about the communication.


GINGER LEE, FORMER PORN STAR: He asked me to lie about our communication. I put out a three-sentence communication that he told me to say.

I didn't want to say anything further. I refused to lie, so I went silent and went into hiding.


SESAY: Former senator John Edwards is smiling, his hair properly coiffed in the mug shot released today by U.S. marshals, but he could face years in prison if convicted of violating campaign finance laws in an effort to cover up an affair and the child he fathered with his mistress. Edwards has pleaded not guilty to six federal felony counts.

And U.S. stocks plunged today, as sell-offs sparked by gloomy manufacturing data and renewed fears about Greece's debt problems. The Dow fell 179 points, Anderson. Wall Street's rocky ride continues.

COOPER: Yes. So if you had a mug shot -- and I'm not saying you do, but if you had a mug, would you smile in said mug shot? I'm not sure if I would or not. SESAY: Yes, I'm not sure that's the moment.

COOPER: I think it's actually a good idea that he smiled, because it doesn't actually look like a mug shot. It looks like he's just taking a picture.

SESAY: Will he attach that to his resume?

COOPER: I guess if he was glum and looked, you know, like -- who was it, Nick Nolte? Like Nick Nolte, then...

SESAY: Nick Nolte didn't look glum. He looked slightly otherworldly.

COOPER: Otherworldly. Yes. Not quite there.

SESAY: Not quite there.

COOPER: All right. I don't know if you've seen tonight's "Shot," Isha. I enjoyed it quite a bit today. It's a YouTube video. It's gone viral, of course. Starring roles are a baby and a lioness. Take a look.

Baby's name is Trent. He's 14 years [SIC] old. He's having quite a fun time with the lioness, whose name is Angie. They both have different ideas in mind, I think, here. Trent just sees somebody to play with. Angie, the lioness, I think sees dinner. I'm not entirely sure.

It was shot at Cheyenne Mountain View in Colorado Springs, Colorado.


COOPER: I think the lion is opening its mouth, like trying to slide -- oh. Yes.

SESAY: Yes. Kind of lost in translation there.

COOPER: That is a very cute baby.

SESAY: Very cute.

COOPER: Yes. All right. Isha, we'll check in with you a little bit later on.

Up next, something a lot more serious, "Crime & Punishment," the prosecution resting in the Casey Anthony murder trial. The defense claims the state didn't do enough to prove that Casey killed her 2- year-old daughter, Caylee, and asked the judge for an acquittal. We'll tell you the judge's response ahead and now what's coming up next for the defense.

We'll also talk with Nancy Grace about whether or not she thinks Casey Anthony will actually have to take the stand. And hear why she says Casey's dad will likely be targeted by the defense, coming up. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: "Crime & Punishment" tonight, the prosecution rests in the Casey Anthony trial. Tomorrow, the defense begins making its case.

Three years ago today this video was shot of 2-year-old Caylee, the last home video of her. She's flipping through a kid's book while visiting her great grandfather at a nursing home.

The defense claims one day later, after that video was recorded, Caylee accidentally drowned in the family's swimming pool. That's the defense argument. They say that George Anthony, Casey's father, helped cover up Caylee's death. Mr. Anthony, already who's been on the stand, denies that. He's sure to be a target of the defense in the days to come. We'll have more on that angle with Nancy Grace in just a moment.

The prosecution says that Casey killed her daughter, stored her body in the trunk of her car, then dumped her body in the woods near the family's home and didn't report her missing for weeks. Today, the defense turned to the judge for help, saying the state didn't do a good job proving its case.

Gary Tuchman is at the courthouse with the latest developments.


GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Prosecutors have finished their case against Casey Anthony.

LINDA DRANE-BURDICK, PROSECUTOR: At this point, the state of Florida would rest.

TUCHMAN: When that happened, defense attorneys began the process of throwing a legal hail Mary. They asked the judge to acquit Casey Anthony even before they called their witnesses, saying prosecutors didn't come close to proving their case.

CHENEY MASON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There is no evidence whatsoever, none, that is the causation of this child's death.

TUCHMAN: But over 19 court days, prosecutors say there is plenty of evidence, some of it coming from the local medical examiner, who had these questions. Why did Casey Anthony not reported her daughter missing promptly? And why was the little girl's body thrown away?

DR. JAN GARAVAGLIA, MEDICAL EXAMINER: The fact that it's tossed in a field to rot in bags is a clear indication that the body was trying to be hidden. Those are -- even it being put in a bag is a very big red flag for homicide and never seen in an accidental death of a child. And the fact that there's duct tape anywhere attached to that child's face is to me indication of a homicide.

TUCHMAN: The defense soldiered on, though.

MASON: There has been in this case no evidence of premeditation.

TUCHMAN: The prosecution again strongly disagrees, putting on the stand a software expert who examined the hard drive on Casey Anthony's computer.

DRANE-BURDICK: Is that a Google search?



BRADLEY: The words "neck breaking" with a space in between. And in a visit to ending in inhalation, head underscore injury, ruptured spleen, test trauma, hand-to-hand combat.

The search term of internal bleeding.

TUCHMAN (on camera): The defense has said the terms found on the computer were research for self-defense and self-protection. Whether the jury ultimately believes that or not, what was found on the computer is still evidence. The defense might not like it, but it's evidence.

(voice-over) So the judge's decision on the motion for acquittal was not what Casey Anthony wanted to hear.

BELVIN PERRY, JUDGE: The defense's motion for judgment of an acquittal as to counts one through seven are hereby denied. These are strictly questions for the jury to decide.

TUCHMAN: This case could go to the jury as early as next week.


COOPER: Gary, I understand you actually kind of ran into George and Cindy Anthony, Casey's parents today.

TUCHMAN: Right. George Anthony's been accused of all sorts of things by Casey Anthony's attorneys. There's no proof, Anderson, whatsoever any of these things. They support their daughter still, so they looked so sad when they came out of the court today.

And I said to them -- they were standing together. And I said to them, "I'm so sorry for what you're going through. Just can't imagine what you're going through."

And Cindy Anthony looked at me and said, "Thank you very much."

And then I went on the elevator with them. When we went in the elevator they hugged each other. She put her head in his chest. And they both started crying. And they cried for the entire 23-floor ride down.

COOPER: Goodness. Yes. It's hard to imagine. Gary, appreciate it. Let's get a more inside look at what could happen tomorrow when the defense gets its turn in this case. But first I want to warn you, you might find some of this discussion very graphic. If your kids are in the room, you might not want them to hear this. Earlier I spoke with Nancy Grace of HLN.


COOPER: So Nancy, after three weeks of testimony, the prosecution has rested their case. What do you think has been their strongest, most compelling evidence?

NANCY GRACE, HLN ANCHOR: Well, you know what, Anderson? I think it's going to be just like the 12 jurors. It depends -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Anderson.

I think that very, very persuasive evidence was put forth at the very beginning with the so-called behavioral evidence of Tot Mom, the way she partied into the night, went out using somebody else's checks, and bought booze and push-up bras, never mentioned Caylee, slung up at her boyfriend's house. The whole day after Caylee goes missing never leaving the bedroom? That behavioral evidence made a very strong first impression.

But, I as the former prosecutor, find the most persuasive evidence to be the forensic evidence. The evidence that there was chloroform in that trunk. That the air samples showed human decomposition. Very, very powerful.

And heart-breaking evidence at the crime scene itself of the Winnie the Pooh paraphernalia that Cindy Anthony had bought her granddaughter, now soiled and ruined, her little clothes in tatters. And the condition of her body. There's no other way to put it, Anderson. Her bones were gnawed on and strewn by wild animals. The way that they were placed there initially suggests that someone within that home did the deed.

COOPER: The defense, though -- and they said this in court today. I want to read this -- they said, "There has been in this case no evidence of premeditation. There's a stacking of inferences, a stacking of speculation but no evidence." That essentially there's all -- there's circumstantial evidence, but they don't have a motive, they don't have an actual cause of death, and they don't have definitive proof.

GRADE: You know what, Anderson? If I had a dime -- no, a nickel -- for every time I heard that argument at the end of the state's case, I would be a multi-multimillionaire right now.

This is a circumstantial case. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Most cases are circumstantial. Direct evidence is really based on eyewitness testimony, typically. And we don't have that. Usually murderers and child molestations and rapes and other felonies don't happen with an audience. You very often don't have an eyewitness to the crime. Hence, circumstantial evidence. And the judge will instruct this jury, Anderson, that circumstantial evidence is to be deemed of equal weight as direct evidence. This was a typical move, standard operating procedure. The defense has to make a motion for directed verdict, a motion for acquittal at the end of the state's case. That's what they did. It was denied. Next.

COOPER: Well, they've also now put in basically a surprise witness. What do we know about him? Because it does seem to suggest that they are building a case, basically, or suggesting a case against George Anthony.

GRACE: Well, Anderson, maybe you should have been a lawyer in another life. That's exactly what they're doing.

The surprise witness, in fact, it is a surprise. They've just added him, as you said. He is a convicted felon. He's had quite a few tours of the inside of the correctional institute for a host of hard-core crimes. And they are saying that on George Anthony's cell phone that there are repeated, four to five phone call, to this convicted felon.

Now, I've personally spoken to George Anthony's lawyer, Mark Lippman, who says George does not remember making these calls. We don't know who he is or what it's about.

But you're right. This is an effort to frame George Anthony. They're going to bring on what I believe to be the following. A so- called other woman that once claimed she had an affair with George, says he told her Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed.

They're going to bring on the protestor out in George Anthony's front yard, pushed her back off of his yard, to say he's got a hair trigger temper.

They're going to bring evidence of his alleged suicide attempt when he was distraught over Caylee's death.

And they're going to bring on this convicted felon. What's he going to say? Anybody's guess. Maybe "he wanted me to hide the body. He wanted me to do the deed." We don't know what this felon is going to say. But I would not give it a lot of weight.

COOPER: Do they have to come up with some sort of evidence to build their case that there was sexual abuse by George Anthony? I mean, these are the allegations, that Casey was the victim of sexual abuse for years from her father.

GRACE: You see, that's the problem, Anderson. Because in our country under our jurisprudence model, the defendant, Casey Anthony, Tot Mom, has no burden whatsoever. She even at this moment is innocent, is presumed innocent. It's the state's burden to prove she's guilty.

But in their opening statement, the defense took on the burden by these wild allegations that George, father George, and brother Lee, both sexually molested her, that caused her behavior following Caylee's death.

Now, they've taken on a practical burden, not a legal burden, a practical burden to prove that to the jury. The only way I can think of for them to prove that, if they still want to, is by putting Tot Mom on the stand, Anderson.

COOPER: Putting her on the stand, though, I mean, that just seems like, given the clear trail of lies she has told, all of that will come back up.

GRACE: Anderson, you're right. They've painted themselves into a corner. It's crazy. It flies in the face of conventional legal wisdom to place your client on the stand, especially an admitted liar who -- I heard it myself -- she said, "OMG, I'm such a great liar." That came out in front of the jury. They've seen reams of videotapes of her lying like no other liar I've ever seen. So how will they believe her? But that's the only way they can deliver on promises they made in opening statements.

COOPER: Nancy Grace, thank you very much. Appreciate it, Nancy.


COOPER: Well, still ahead tonight, breaking news, a major milestone, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords's recovery. We'll talk to 360 M.D. Sanjay Gupta about that.

And next, 85 million reasons why the new owner of the mega mansion is on tonight's "RidicuList."


COOPER: Time now for the "RidicuList." And tonight we're adding a British woman named Petra Ecclestone. Now, I don't know her; I'm sure she's perfectly nice. But she's on "The RidicuList" tonight because she's 22 years old and reportedly just plunked down $85 million for a house. Eighty-five million dollars. Take that, Pippa Middleton.

The house is this Los Angeles mansion owned by Candy Spelling, widow of legendary television producer Aaron Spelling, the man responsible for such hits as "Charlie's Angels "and "Beverly Hills 90210," the later of which thankfully introduced America to his daughter, Tori.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donna, you're drunk. Do you have any idea what this means?

TORI SPELLING, ACTRESS: Yes. That I've had too much to drink.


COOPER: Oh, Donna. Anyway, it's the end of an era at the Spelling estate. And to be fair, Ms. Ecclestone actually got a bargain, considering the home was listed for $150 million. I know we're talking Ryan Seacrest money there, people. And from what I read, it's actually her second home. She already has a big house in London, Ms. Ecclestone does.

I guess my question tonight is, why does a 22-year-old need a $56,000 square foot mansion complete with about 100 rooms including one used just for gift wrapping? Sure, Wolf Blitzer's house has a room just filled with beard trimmers, and trust me, you do not want him to get you cornered in that room. But Wolf isn't 22. He's earned it.

Twenty-two years old you should be struggling to figure out what you want to achieve in your life. You should be living in a starter apartment eating ramen noodles, working hard, making a name for yourself. Miss Ecclestone is heiress to a multibillion Formula One fortune so clearly she can buy what she wants to. But why buy a house already steeped in someone else's Hollywood legend? I'm talking about real legend, not the whole "who's doing what underneath the hot tub bubbles" "Jersey Shore" legend.

I mean, does Ms. Ecclestone appreciate just where her new dwelling is and the history that comes with it? Aaron Spelling, after all, came up with some of the greatest dramas of our time.




COOPER: Crystal. Not to mention the guest stars he booked on shows like "Melrose Place" and "Love Boat." I mean, big stars. People I can't even get to return my calls.



GRAPHIC: Gloria Vanderbilt.


COOPER: Yes. My mom was on "Love Boat." I know. You think it's embarrassing for me now? Imagine how it felt when I was 12 years old. Called in sick for a week.

Anyway, you can imagine my concern when I read that the Spelling home with its koi pond and barbershop -- because you know, koi love a good shave -- wasn't even Miss Ecclestone's first choice. She reportedly only bought it after her bid for another mansion down the street fell through. I'm sorry. But how insulting is it that if -- that -- that the Spelling estate was her second choice? If only Luke Perry's sideburns -- Luke Perry's sideburns would never have stood for this. You know, that would have been funny if I hadn't blown that line.

Anyway, all I can say is I hope you enjoy your new mansion, Miss Ecclestone. Eighty-five million dollars buys you one heck of a property with an adjacent lot on "The RidicuList." We'll be right back.