Return to Transcripts main page
ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT
Dow Takes a Dive; Mitt Romney Addresses Latino Leaders; George Zimmerman Describes the Night Trayvon Died; Interview with Rand Paul
Aired June 21, 2012 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: "OUTFRONT" next, the Dow takes an unexpected dive. Yet Congress is arguing instead of solving it. Tonight, we offer some solutions up from one of its members.
And Mitt Romney going before a skeptical crowd of Latino leaders and giving his pitch, but did it add up?
And George Zimmerman in his own words describing the night Trayvon Martin died. The police videotapes "OUTFRONT" tonight.
"OUTFRONT" tonight, the plunge. The Dow slid 251 point, today. There's only one other day this year that it has been worse.
People are afraid. They're afraid of the blood gushing out of Europe's veins. They're afraid of the blood draining out of jobs here in the United States. And ultimately, they're most afraid that Congress is too cold-blooded to do anything about it. To make a deal that could instill confidence again in the greatest economy on earth.
Yes, that is, still, by leap, bounds, everything, everybody, the United States of America. Instead, by the end of the day, the credit rating agency Moody's downgraded America's five biggest banks, specifically blaming fear about stability in the global financial system. That means it's going to cost those banks more to operate. That means they have less money to lend to all the borrowers in this country.
About the only person feeling good today, billionaire Larry Ellison. It's good when you got $36 billion and buying an entire island in Hawaii is pocket change. Maybe he's planning to hole up there if the world really falls apart. You know, build his own little bike stand in paradise. But, for the rest of us, we need Congress to act.
Just a few moments ago, I spoke with Senator Rand Paul, tea party darling. And as you will hear, well, -- all right, just listen and see if you notice one exchange in this interview really stood out to me.
I began by asking senator Paul if he feels guilty for the economic pain Congress' inaction has cost.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Well, not mine, I just got here. But I've been one of the few that's been willing to propose changes. You know, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit. And I have a plan that would fix Social Security for 75 years and a plan that reforms Medicare. I just can't get anybody on the other side to talk to me about it.
BURNETT: You and I were talking recently. You said, look, I'm willing to close loopholes that make the wealthy pay more. Are you willing to keep some loopholes that help the poor? The child credit, earned income tax credit, Social Security benefit and taxation, some of the things that really help the poorest of the country, would you keep those in place?
PAUL: Yes, if it meant getting to a final overall revenue neutral tax deal. We had to keep earned income tax credit? Yes, there are a lot of things we could do.
Overall, I want less deductions, more simplicity, lower rates to encourage economic growth.
The reason we don't have as much revenue as we used to as a percentage of GDP, is because the economy is slow. If the economy were growing again, much of our deficit problem will go would become much smaller.
But we also have a spending problem up here. We're spending nearly 25 percent of GDP, its 24-some-odd percent of GDP. For us historically, we were close to 20 percent. We do have to go back to historic norm or we'll bankrupt the country.
BURNETT: Its interest senator Paul, sometimes I talk to you, I feel like I'm talking to a Democrat. I come out ready to fight and you say, look, Erin, you know what, the deficit, if the economy were growing again, the problem would go away. There are a lot people in your party who won't even acknowledge that. They're so obsessed with cutting spending.
But, when you come on the show, you don't sound like you share that same kind of line in the sand obsession.
PAUL: Erin, be careful about making me sound too reasonable. You might hurt my credentials a little bit, so. No, but I am willing to talk to the other side. I am willing to figure out how we fix things.
And you know, I'm a physician. I want to diagnose the problem and fix the problem. I really am not a partisan because I'm willing to criticize my own party when I think they're wrong too. So I think if we talked more about the issues and less about the parties, we probably would do better.
BURNETT: Here's the thing, if we got rid of all the loopholes, and obviously, I know you would keep some of them as would pretty much everybody. Some of these really do help the very poor. But, just for argument's sake, congressional service says you get rid of all of the mortgage interests, earned income tax, credit all of these things. You gain $1.1 trillion just in 2014, add it to what you say as our tax revenue, 2.2 trillion. I'm at $3.3 trillion. I have a lot more money.
Now, I know you'd like to give some tax credits. But would you be willing, for some of that additional revenue go, to say infrastructure?
PAUL: If we're talking about revenue neutral, yes. For example, I proposed a bill that would allow corporations to bring their money back from overseas, tax it at five percent instead of 35 percent. That brings in $30 billion a year. And I would designate that all for infrastructure.
I told the president that when I rode with him on Air Force One. I said, I'll help you build bridges. But you got to pass something we can both agree to.
BURNETT: But I still don't understand. Revenue neutral. People have babies. People move to this country. So you get more people. But you're not allowed to raise more revenue. I mean, I don't -- you don't have to be a mathematician --
PAUL: We do get more revenue. We get more revenue. Let's say for example, the tax rate is 35 percent, and your economy grows, it brings in more revenue. So, having a constant rate doesn't mean that more revenue doesn't come in. Right now we have less revenue, even though it really has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts actually. The Bush tax cuts kept the same revenue for four or five years until we hit the recession.
BURNETT: It's not revenue neutral, its rate neutral. There's a big difference.
PAUL: That's kind of -- you're right. You get into the weeds on these things. There is some discussion on revenue neutral/rate neutral. That's why a lot of us would support getting rid of deductions as long as you're able to spur growth through a better tax code which might mean lower rates overall for everyone.
BURNETT: Right. All right. Well, I mean, I think that -- that's a really important philosophical distinction.
I want to ask you about something else that I know is very important to you. The last time you were on the show, we were talking about Pakistan. The Pakistani lawyer who was instrumental in U.S. S.E.A.L.s and the CIA capturing and killing Osama bin Laden. You wanted to end U.S. aid to Pakistan because Pakistanis caught this guy and sentenced him to 33 years in jail. His lawyer today says he's trying to get an appeal. The hearing was delayed.
Do you have the support of the administration, the Obama administration, in this? PAUL: Well, I was blocked by Harry Reid. And he runs the Senate and the agenda. And I was blocked by him. But I've got a message for Harry Reid and the Democrats. I have enough signatures to force a vote now. So at any point in time, I can bring this down and force a vote.
My plan is, I'm going to meet with the ambassador from Pakistan next week. I've asked to meet with the state department, President Obama's state department. And I have the ability to force this vote.
My plan is to have the vote after the appeal. The appeal is set right now to be July 19th. I would like to encourage that they reconsider keeping him as a political prisoner. And if they do so, maybe the vote doesn't happen. But the vote is scheduled to happen or is going to be scheduled to happen after his next trial and after his next appeal.
BURNETT: All right. One quick update. The tax revenue number I cited to senator Paul actually understated tax revenues. Tax revenues were $2.5 trillion, 2012. That's a projected number. But if you close all the loopholes, your total revenue would go to $3.6 trillion.
Again, the headline is senator Paul wouldn't close the loopholes that help the poorest Americans. That's something important. Also revenue neutral and rate neutral not the same thing. That's going to be interesting, Mr. Norquist.
Still out front, Mr. Romney making a pitch to Latino leaders and then he pulled a Mitt Romney.
And then, Iran under attack. Where the secret infiltration of its computer system come from? This is a major attack just today.
And a bombshell revelation in the Jerry Sandusky.
BURNETT: Our second story "OUTFRONT."
Mitt Romney facing a skeptical crowd today with a chance to really move the needle. Why? Well, was speaking to Latino elect leaders on the heels of President Obama's new immigration policy announcement. Now, of course, the president has set that he will let illegal immigrants under the age of 30 stay in this country if they don't have criminal records they have high school diplomas.
Now, did Mitt Romney say he agreed with the president or not? Quadrillion dollar question.
John Avlon, Reihan Salam, and Victoria Soto, our fellow at the university of Texas who as at the leaders' conference in Florida joins us.
So, I guess let's start with that key question, John Avlon. Did Mitt Romney say whether he supports the president's move to let these immigrants without criminal records, who have GEDs or high school diplomas, stay in the country?
JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, he did not. He tried to answer but if you look closely in the statement, it said absolutely nothing. He said that I would have a long-term solution that would supersede the president's temporary plan. But there are no specifics. And it was sort of theme of the speech. It was well-written speech. It was very inclusive in tone. But it was completely inconclusive in terms of content.
BURNETT: Are you speechless, Reihan? Reihan's mouth is wide open and no noise is coming out.
REIHAN SALAM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I just thought it was a very well- crafted solution that addresses a lot concerns about higher-skilled immigration that also tries to address the concerns about temporary work visas, among other things. I think I thought it actually addressed a lot of parties that Silicon valley and around the country had for a long time that haven't been addressed for like a period of time.
And with regard to the executive order, the basic story is this. You had a president who I think some believe, on congress believe that he short circuited a political process and put in place a version of what is called the dream act for a narrow number of undocumented immigrants.
Now, the thing is that what Romney has said is that I'm going to work from day one on comprehensive legislation and so I am not -- so the idea is that he's not going to address that immediately.
BURNETT: Will the legislation allow --
SALAM: -- overturn the executive order immediately --
BURNETT: No, no, no. Fundamentally, would it allow people without criminal records that contribute to the country, to stay in the country?
SALAM: He talked about a much narrow category of folks. He was talking about people who served in the military. And I think one of the reasons that is very sensible is this, Erin. A lot of people talk about people who are college educated, et cetera. I don't see why those people are somehow better or --
BURNETT: -- apply to college educated, it just said high school diploma or GED.
SALAM: Actually, there is a lot more to the - different from a lot of people to understand. For example if you're in prison for less than 90 days --
AVLON: Saying he backs a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. When he opposed the McCain-Kennedy legislation back by president Bush in 2007, that's strange credibility. SALAM: And there's also opposed by a large number of Democrats, as well as Republicans.
AVLON: Mostly Republicans.
BURNETT: Vicky, you're at a disadvantage because you're far away but you're the one who is there. So, how was Mitt Romney received?
VICTORIA SOTO, FELLOW, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Well, first of all, he showed up. And that in and of itself, speaks volumes. And also what we did see was that he didn't duck the question of immigration. Because many of us thought, is he just going to focus on the economy. Is he going to look at immigration? What did he do?
And he did, he took it head on. The other thing I noticed was that he softened his tone on immigration. There was no talk of self- deportation. And he even highlighted his connection to Mexico. Highlighting how his father was born in Mexico.
So, yes, he was very broad in his comments. He did start to get into the weeds. But, Erin, my frustration was he didn't deal with the millions of folks who are here. He said what he would do for high- tech folks. He said what he would do for folks who joined the military. But, what about for the folks who are here? What do you do with that? Enforcement only doesn't address that.
BURNETT: Right. And Reihan, , that's sort of what I'm getting.
SALAM: It's absolutely not enforcement only. He's talking - first of all, the high-skilled immigration piece of this is not a trivial matter, Erin.
BURNETT: In terms of raw numbers of people -- true, but in terms of raw numbers of people --
SALAM: Actually, no, Erin. Because when you are talking about the number -- first of all, we're focused on the unauthorized immigration question. There's like a huge number of legal immigrants including legal permanent residents. He addressed their concerns about family unification among other issues. He talked about actually streamlining the immigration policy for these people who get forgotten.
BURNETT: Sure, but it's not mutually exclusive --
SALAM: And I think that's actually a huge problem in terms of what matters for our economic future, Erin.
SOTO: But, it's not mutually exclusive, you're right. We do need to address the question of legal immigrants. And he did do a good job of laying that out. But at the same time, you can't just focus on that. Immigration is a beast that is very large. You need to attack it in terms of --
AVLON: Look, part -- look, Marco Rubio spoke about how the Republican party needs to be the party of immigration and there's a difference between being pro immigrant and pro illegal immigrant. You need to deal with the border.
We have been through this before. The problem is so many of the policy specifics that Mitt Romney put forward are things that actually President Obama already backs. And so, the question is, what -- we can have all the narrative bumper sticker policy disagreements we want.
AVLON: But it is about actually implementing specifics. That was a great speech in terms of tones, an outreach. Yes, he's pivoting to the general election from the primary play he made. But the question is, is that sufficient and where's the substance?
SALAM: Well, actually --
SOTO: You know what --
AVLON: Please, continue.
SOTO: One thing I wanted to point out was that he attacked the president head on. And I think that was one of the most notable aspects of his speech. He said, hey, I'm not going to break my promise. Because the president promised comprehensive immigration reform which he did in Solyndra. So, I thought that was quite interesting to see a hit gutsiness of Romney today.
SALAM: I just want to point out one thing. Actually, when you look at, for example, the 2009 fiscal stimulus law which the president as we all know backed, there was an explicit provision saying firms that received, you know, firm said T.A.R.P. funds, many of our major financial institutions, cannot actually enjoy h1b visas, you know, kind of to draw in some of these high-skilled immigrants.
So, in term of kind of him endorsing high skilled immigration, it certainly looks as though he's actually been dragging his feet this entire time to start off this. A number of other measures that are actually critical to technology firms and financial institutions and many other kinds acknowledge in term of service companies in this country. There's been no progress on those issues. So I think the idea that he agrees completely on this is belied by his actual practices in office.
AVLON: Well, it's also about what's gotten through congress. We all know, there are powerful groups that don't want to increase h1b visas. I think it should be done. But, this is something that's been discussed for a long time.
The point is, is that too much, we have bumper sticker policy debates that's where narrative outweighs facts. One of the things he did in his speech today, he repeated a stamp speech line he uses saying that not a single free trade agreement has been passed by the president. Apparently forgetting about two countries called Colombia and Panama, one of the few bipartisan things we have seen done.
SALAM: This was an extremely specific speech talking about the --
AVLON: Those specifics were wrong.
SOTO: It was not a specific speech. It was many things but it was not specific. You know, he did have some specific points --
SOTO: It was very broad brush strokes. I'm going to be curious how he elaborates that on the future. You know, going into the summer, going into the conventions. Will he further tease it out? And the Latino community is going to be open to that.
SALAM: It was about as specific as a state of the union address would be about various policy and issues. It was a policy address to a wide audience.
BURNETT: One final question to Vicky. I want actually quickly before we go. You said he brought up his father being born in Mexico. What's the response to that? Does that help him? Does that endure him to Latinos or is that just kind of a nonstarter?
SOTO: Well, I think what it does at the beginning is it starts to soften his tone. He was so hard in his rhetoric during the primary. So he's saying, hey, let's talk, let me show you a little bit of a personal connection. So, he's got maybe a small toe in the door.
BURNETT: All right. Thanks very much to all of you. We really appreciate it. Remember that night we did, meet the Mexican?
AVLON: Indeed, indeed.
BURNETT: All right. "OUTFRONT" next, we'll show you a re- enactment of the night Trayvon Martin was killed. And this re- enactment was actually conducted by George Zimmerman.
And for more than an hour today, it was online Armageddon, a little bluebird was -- I don't know, it must have flown into a wall and hit the ground but it got back up again.
BURNETT: So, Ramzan Kadyrov is now on twitter. You will say, who is that? Well, I say, he was pretty big because he is the leader of Chechnya. And also, is apparently, a warlord of dubious distinction. There he is. He looks like a guy you wouldn't want to run into in a fight. The Russian news wire RIA reports that he created his twitter account after hanging out with none other than Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, apparently is a buddy of his and also tweets.
Now, this is an interesting association, because Kadyrov is not really known as a nice guy. He's been called a medieval tyrant and accused of corruption and human rights abuses including kidnapping and murder.
In its recent report, the U.S. state department says Kadyrov's government continued to violate fundamental freedoms engage in collective retribution against families of suspected militants, and foster an overall atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Basically, our government and the international media don't think he's very social. But apparently he is. Apparently it's not strange he has turned to social media.
So far, he's only tweeted seven times. That's pretty good for day one. He answered questions about things like road blocks and whether he's going to the Olympics. Of course, he might have had more questions if twitter hadn't crashed, which brings me to the number tonight, 120 minutes.
According to Ping Dom, that's how many minutes twitter was down today. Down, black, absolutely out of response.
Now, according to twitter, the problem was called by a, quote, "cascaded bug." Now, I don't know what that means. But everybody noticed. Because as soon as twitter was back online it kind of went up and down, up and down. It's like a power outage. A lot of you went on twitter to tweet about how much you missed twitter.
Now, take a look at all the messages. #while twitter was down. Still trending now. I think the takeaway may be that people need something else to do.
But, the only other question some people have, was whether there was a link between the Chechen warlord joining twitter and twitter's blackout. Of course you can tweet us, @OUTFRONTCNN.
"OUTFRONT" next, Iran claims the computer for this nuclear facilities are under attack. This is a new attack, could be hugely significant. And America could be behind it.
And another alleged victim of Jerry Sandusky comes forward. This one, a member of his own family.
BURNETT: All right. We start the second half of our show with stories we care about where we focus on our own reporting from the front lines.
Number one. Commerce secretary John Bryson has resigned citing health concerns. You may recall that Bryson was under investigation for a felony hit and run after allegedly causing two car accidents. The commerce department has said Bryson suffered a seizure when the accidents occurred. This was just about two weeks ago. He was cited for the wrecks and authorities are still deciding whether to formally file charges. In a statement obtained by OUTFRONT, the president thanked Bryson for his service, saying he brought in valuable experience and expertise to the administration.
Well, the Senate has passed its version of the farm bill, in a 64-35 vote. The bill is estimated to cut the deficit by $24 billion. This is kind of sketchy, though, because most of the savings come from ending direct payments to farmers. They're just going to get taxpayer subsidized insurance that's going to help them. An additional $4.5 billion comes from cuts to the food stamp program.
One of the things that stayed in the bill, the sugar subsidy. According to Mark Perry of the University of Michigan, sugar tariffs cost Americans, this is you when you go to the store and you buy a candy bar, nearly $3.9 billion a year. The bill still needs to be considered by the house. It's unclear whether that will happen. One of the biggest beneficiaries of those sugar subsidies are the Fanjul family in Miami.
Well, good news for Lana Kuykendall, the mother of twins from South Carolina who has been battling flesh-eating bacteria for more than a month now. OUTFRONT has learned that Lana has been upgraded to good condition at a Greenville Hospital and is continuing to recuperate. Lana has undergone close to 20 surgical procedures in an effort to fight the bacteria. Her husband says she's enjoying spending time with her newborn twins and has been un -- able to hold them unassisted for the first time.
Well, it's about 322 days since America lost its top credit rating. What are we doing to get it back? Well, on the downside, our five biggest banks were downgraded by credit rating agency Moody's today.
On the marginal upside, for the first time in 224 days, Greece has a government. We'll see if they actually get something done.
Now, our third story OUTFRONT: Iran under attack. Iran's intelligence minister tells state television in the country Iran is a victim of a massive news cyber attack. And it's accusing the United States and Israel of once again trying to take down its nuclear sites.
Bob Baer is a former CIA operative who worked in the Middle East for decades.
Good to see you tonight, Bob.
What do you know about this new virus? This is pretty interesting that after the ones we talk about, the Flame, the Stuxnet, which were successful, that they're saying this is another huge one that has been successful in targeting their systems.
ROBERT BAER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you want to send successive ones in against their nuclear facilities, because as they protect against them, you have to redesign them to keep on going after the system. The Iranian nuclear facilities are not completely immune. This is a kind of covert action. You want to keep going after again and again in new forms.
BURNETT: So, I guess the question is, is this succeeding in slowing down the nuclear program? We've been showing viewers recently that one of the key sites Iran has refused access to, Parchin, they're still refusing access. It looks like they're cleaning it up. You know all kinds of things are going on right now. They have not been moving in terms of bowing to U.S. interests on the negotiation front.
So, is this kind of a thing going to work?
BAER: Well, I don't -- you know, eventually they can protect their system and they could if they wanted to build a bomb at some point. They will protect themselves to the degree, isolate their computer system, get enough material, if they want to. There's no evidence they're actually building a bomb right now.
But on the other hand, look at the administration's point of view. They're telling Israel we're not in a position to attack Iran. It would be a catastrophe. Give us a chance on these viruses. Give us a chance on sanctions. We might be able to stop this, but don't go to war now.
It's actually quite intelligence policy on the part of the White House.
BURNETT: Right. I mean, when you put it that way, it sounds that way. But tell me, what's the logic? Why does the Iranian government admit and come out publicly and say they're being attacked and that it's causing problems? Why would you do that?
BAER: Well, this is Ahmadinejad, the president. It's not -- Iran is not a unified government. You have different parts of it acting in different ways. You have some Iranians would like to have a nuclear bomb. Most wouldn't.
They're using this as a card with the West in -- who's to say whether they'll eventually back down.
BAER: I think that, you know, this kind of a tack really can't be hidden. The White House has all but admitted that it created those viruses --
BAER: --- and sent them into the Iranian nuclear system.
BURNETT: Bottom line, Bob, you spent a lot of time in the region in places like Syria as a CIA operative. I was talking to a senior government official today who's involved with the negotiations, who said, look, we really don't know what they're doing right now. The American visibility into what Iran is really doing is very low. Do you think that's true? Do you think there are CIA operatives right now in that country who really are able to tell us exactly what the Iranian government's doing?
BAER: No, think he's absolutely right. It's pretty much black hole. Iran, we don't know what they're doing. And, yes, they could produce a bomb and explode it before we knew it.
There are no CIA operatives in Iran. It's impossible to move around. It's a very opaque country. And nothing would surprise me from Iran.
BURNETT: All right, well, thanks very much, Bob. We really appreciate it. Pretty amazing they could get a bomb and test it before we even knew it. That's a pretty shocking comment.
Now, our fourth story OUTFRONT: Just hours ago, a revelation in the Jerry Sandusky case. His own son now claiming he was abused by his father. Sara Ganim broke the story and has been following it from the very beginning. And our legal contributor Paul Callan joins us as well.
So, Sara, tell me what you know. After closing arguments coming out from his son, Matt Sandusky, who's now 33 years old -- what have you found out?
SARA GANIM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, basically, just a few hours after jurors went in to deliberate, we heard from Matt Sandusky's attorney that he is now saying he was a victim of his adopted father. He was abused by him some time during his childhood.
Now, we don't know exactly when. We really don't know the details. All we know is that he is saying this for the first time, which is interesting, because just 10 days ago, when his trial started, he sat in the section of supporters for Jerry Sandusky in the courtroom. And Joe Amendola, who is the attorney for Jerry Sandusky, even told the jurors in his opening statements that they might hear from Matt Sandusky as a supporter of Jerry Sandusky.
And then today, just a few hours after the case goes to the jury, that all really changed.
BURNETT: And so, Sara, do you have any information on what Matt Sandusky is saying as to when this happened, what type of abuse it might have been, any sense of the scope and scale?
GANIM: The best sense I can give you, Erin, is what his mother has told me, his biological mother has told me. That Matt Sandusky went into foster care after he got into a little trouble with the law in 1996. He went to foster care at Sandusky's request at Sandusky's home.
She says she witnessed some stalking behavior by Sandusky. She witnessed a drastic change in her son's behavior. And her notes from that time period, from her court proceedings in this courthouse right behind me where this trial took place indicate that she had serious concerns about their relationship, but no one listened to her and Matt Sandusky continued to be in foster placement with Jerry Sandusky until he was 18.
At that point, Matt Sandusky agreed to be adopted by Jerry and Dottie and he changed his last name to Sandusky.
BURNETT: At that point. Paul Callan, the jury was already sequestered when this came out. Will they find out about this?
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: No, they won't find out about it. Frankly, if they did, this is such a devastating accusation it would almost certainly result in a mistrial.
The reason they have been sequestered is to shield and protect them from any outside information relating to the case. They can only consider evidence that was developed in the courtroom and hopefully if the court officers are doing their job properly, they'll never hear about this new accusation.
BURNETT: Sara, the closing arguments were today. One thing -- and I just want to point out, everyone, that's Matt Sandusky you're look at, at the screen, the man on the right. So, you can see him there, who we're just referring to.
Sara, closing arguments. I know the prosecutor had the last word. He was standing behind Jerry Sandusky.
I want to quote what he said. He said, quote, "He knows he did it and you know he did it. Find him guilty of everything."
Was that the most powerful thing that was said? What did the defense say?
GANIM: It was pretty powerful, Erin. You know, the defense had a pretty compelling closing argument, too. I thought the attorney did a very good job of breaking it down. This is a big case of a lot of allegations, and a lot different accusers. Witnesses who say they saw abuse.
I thought he did a very good job of breaking it down in a way that was digestible to the jury and breaking down the defense, so it was digestible. It was something they could understand and potentially even see. But like you said, the prosecution gets to go last. And that was the last thing they heard before they went into deliberations, was that very powerful moment.
Something else I thought was compelling in court was the way Jerry Sandusky responded to the prosecutor's closing statements. He was smiling a lot, especially at key moments when they were talking about evidence. One point in particular when they called him a serial predatory pedophile, and he had a grin on his face. He was facing the jurors.
So, I'm not sure if they were looking at him but it was pretty compelling for the rest of us. BURNETT: Paul Callan, does that surprise you he was smiling? I've got to say, as an observer, when Sara says that, I think of all the times we've seen some of these video times we've seen, some of these video loops when Jerry Sandusky's getting in and out of the car during all this and he does seem to be smiling a lot.
CALLAN: It really shocks me that he would do that, because it's so totally inappropriate. And, you know, here, he's being accused of pretty much the worst crime a man can be accused, pedophilia. And to be smiling at the accusation, it just -- that's not going to help his case. That's for sure. And I think it's shocking behavior.
But I agree with Sara. You know, I read the accounts of Amendola's closing argument, very strong closing arguments to the jury. You know, he's been very criticized a lot through the trial. But he --
BURNETT: The defense attorney.
CALLAN: -- he did a very, very good job marshaling his case. Yes, the defense attorney. He did.
He gave the jury a lot of things to think about in their deliberations.
BURNETT: Thanks very much, Sara and Paul.
And OUTFRONT next, what did George Zimmerman show police the day after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin? He reenacted it, spent about 15 minutes. We have the video.
And the French president is caught in the middle of a love triangle that may have actually decided whether France is going to go the way of austerity or spending a whole lot more money.
BURNETT: We're back with tonight's "Outer Circle" where we reach out to our sources around the world and we start tonight in Canada.
Luca Magnotta, the porn actor accused of killing and dismembering a Chinese university student, made his first appearance in person in a Montreal court today.
Paula Newton is following the trial and I asked her what happened today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Erin, two surprises in the courtroom today. First up, he actually appeared in court. He was wearing a plaid shirt and blue jeans. He was supposed to be by video link. Instead, he sat impassively while his lawyer did not ask for a psychiatric evaluation. That was the second of the surprises.
We will have preliminary hearings in the New Year. And in the meantime, the investigation continues. His defense lawyer bringing up the specter of what his mental health is and talking about medications in court and whether his client would get those medications.
At the same time, the victim, Jun Lin's family, apparently briefed by both prosecutors and police about where the justice system goes from here. But for now, we may not see Magnotta in court again until next year -- Erin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Now, let's check in with Anderson for a look at what's coming up on "A.C. 360".
ANDERSON COOPER, "A.C. 360" HOST: Hey, Erin.
You know, we're covering breaking news tonight, a lot to cover tonight. The jury, as you know, in the case of Jerry Sandusky, has -- it's gone to the jury. The bombshell, though, that the jurors will not hear, Matt Sandusky, the adopted son of the former Penn State assistant football coach, telling prosecutors that he was molested by Sandusky. We're going to go to our reporters. We'll also speak with our legal panel, Mark Geragos, Sunny Hostin, about why prosecutors chose not to have Matt Sandusky take the stand. He was apparently willing to testify about this.
Also, that disturbing video with a surprise ending. The disturbing, really incredible verbal abuse heaped upon this woman, a 68-year-old bus monitor, Karen Klein, by a group of middle schoolchildren. We'll show you parts of the video. It's so disturbing, had a hard time watching the entire 10 minutes of it.
There's been an outpouring of support, including donations towards her, more than $300,000. Several of the kids have actually written letters of apology released through the police. We're going to read them to Karen, get her reaction. We also have a big surprise to her.
Those stories and tonight's "Ridiculist" and a lot more coming up at the top of the hour, Erin.
BURNETT: All right. Anderson, really looking forward to that one.
And now, our fifth story OUTFRONT: we've got the newly released video tonight of Trayvon Martin case and really -- I mean, just to be honest with you, this really is the most compelling evidence released so far.
For the first time, we're actually seeing and hearing George Zimmerman telling the Sanford police what happened on the night of February 26th when he killed Trayvon Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: And then when I got to right about here, he yelled from behind me, to the side of me. He said, yo, you got a problem? I turned around and I said, no, I don't have a problem, man.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where was -- where was he at?
ZIMMERMAN: He was about there but he was walking towards me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right. The video was taken actually the day after the shooting. Zimmerman's bandages are clearly visible on the back of his head. What he did is walk investigator, through his version of events.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZIMMERMAN: He was about where you are.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
ZIMMERMAN: And I said, no, I don't have a problem. I went to go grab my cell phone. But -- I left it in a different pocket. I looked down at my pant pocket. And he said, you got a problem now. And then he was here and he punched me in the face.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Zimmerman says after he was punched in the face, he then fell to the ground and Martin began slamming his head on the sidewalk.
Now, according to Zimmerman, as struggle to get free, he says that Trayvon Martin saw his gun.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZIMMERMAN: That's when my jacket moved up and I had my firearm on my right side hip. My jacket moved up and he saw it. I feel like he saw it. He looked at it. He said, you're going to die tonight, (EXPLETIVE DELETED) and he reached for it but he reached -- like I felt his arm going down to my side. And I grabbed it. And I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Natalie Jackson is an attorney for Trayvon Martin's family. Mark NeJame is a CNN legal analyst. They're both OUTFRONT tonight.
Natalie, let's start with you. What I found so fascinating watching this re-enactment was, you know, the only other time we've seen George Zimmerman, when he was sitting in that courtroom, just sitting there with the shackles. This was actually a sense of the person and him telling his story before he had a lawyer, before he knew this was going to blow up. So what's your reaction when you see that sort of I would say unfiltered George Zimmerman?
NATALIE JACKSON, ATTORNEY FOR TRAYVON MARTIN FAMILY: I think that it shows George Zimmerman he, you know, has a motive and he's going with his story, he's going to stick to it. If you -- there's a beginning to that tape though, the videotape.
And it talks -- it shows George Zimmerman explaining why he got out of the car. He explained that he got out of the car because dispatch needed the address of a -- on a sign.
JACKSON: And I think -- I think that all of that, when you look at it together, you'll see the many inconsistencies with George Zimmerman.
BURNETT: Mark, what's your take, though, when you watch this? I mean, just from a perspective of a person's behavior? Is this a person that looks like he's covering something up? A person that's lying? A person who thinks that he might have done something wrong or not?
MARK NEJAME, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the first thing that strikes me is that the investigation was more extensive than I thought it was from the police department. I didn't think they had gone to these measures. From what I read and heard, think a lot of people didn't think so.
NEJAME: The next thing that strikes me in this matter is that you have a man who seems relatively cool, calm and collected.
I will tell you in light of his bond hearing, I'm very suspect of anything he says because of the lack of forthrightness that came out of his bond hearing. However, with that said, think this case is going to boil down to the independent witnesses and it's going to boil down to the forensics, and whether the independent witnesses and the forensics match up to his story.
Both sides are going to looking for -- to line up his statements with any of the forensics and of the witness statements. The defense looking for consistencies, the state looking for inconsistencies. I mean, that's where we're going to land on this.
BURNETT: Right. Now, I want to ask about one of the inconsistencies you raised. But, first, I mean, the bottom line, do you still think the most powerful thing you have right now is the fact that George Zimmerman and his wife lied about the money that they had and his second passport?
JACKSON: I think that --
NEJAME: Well, there's two matters -- BURNETT: Hold on, I wanted to ask Natalie first, Mark.
JACKSON: Oh, I think that credibility is an issue in this case because you're going to have -- there's clearly a homicide that has been committed. Trayvon was shot by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is bringing forth a self-defense argument. His self-defense argument is that he was defending himself and the only person that is saying that and backing that up is George Zimmerman. So his credibility comes into play here.
I think that, you know, it's going to be something that is overall -- an overall theme in the entire case.
BURNETT: Now I want to go in this area of inconsistencies. I'm going to play here, Natalie what George Zimmerman said about this crucial issue that so many of you following this case care a lot about. Why did George Zimmerman get out of the car, was he pursuing Trayvon Martin? Crucial, the whole defense, the whole self-defense stand your ground line of defense.
Here is George Zimmerman, the re-enactment, answering why he got out of the car.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
DISPATCHER: OK. You said it's on the left hand side from the clubhouse?
ZIMMERMAN: No, you go in straight through the entrance. And then you'd make a left. You go straight in. Don't turn and make a left. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) he's running.
DISPATCHER: He's running? Which way is he running?
ZIMMERMAN: Down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood.
DISPATCHER: OK. Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
ZIMMERMAN: The back entrance.
DISPATCHER: Are you following him?
DISPATCHER: OK, we don't need you to do that.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right. That obviously was the 911 call. And here's the statement of what George Zimmerman said, he said the dispatcher, once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. I can see how you're going to say that is inconsistent, saying I got out to look for a street sign, with what we just heard on that 911 call he was told to stay in the car, right?
JACKSON: Yes, that's true. And you're going to see more inconsistencies like that. That's not a small inconsistency. That's a huge one, because our whole position has been that this case s not a stand your ground case, because George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin. And the fact that that is not what he wrote in his statement, that he pursued and run after him, when we know by his words that what happened, you know, what else can we believe in the statement if from the very beginning there's a lie?
BURNETT: Mark, final question to you. George Zimmerman never tried to hide the fact he got out of the car and went after Trayvon martin first, never tried to hide that?
NEJAME: Yes, and I think that's a significant issue. You know, I saw a guy that looked relatively calm and re-enacted everything. I think that Natalie is right as it relates to the credibility is going to be everything in this case.
NEJAME: I will point out -- he's got a lot of questions about his credibility. I will point out the fact is we're going to have to line up the evidence and the forensics with his statements and see where it lands. There are some big questions. But we need to se if -- the evidence is going to unfold over the period of time. I think that's everything.
BURNETT: All right, thanks very much to both of you, Mark and Natalie.
And OUTFRONT, in America, when an ex-lover and a current lover fight over a man -- that would be fun to see. But in France, that happens. And they do it at the very highest, the top, the number one spot in government.
BURNETT: So Twitter was down today but there was one tweet battle heard around the world. A tweet about a love triangle in Paris. We've been telling you about the most important election around the world. It was Europe, where French President Francois Hollande's socialist party won a huge majority in France's election. They got 33 more seats than they needed to force the nation's government.
As we've been saying, that means he controls the French equivalent of the House, the Senate and the presidency. This is great news for Hollande and the socialists. Yet, Hollande was not celebrating, because of one seat that his favorite candidate lost.
Segolene Royal, his former common law wife and the mother of his four children was one of the candidates running. She was a former presidential candidate herself and considered a lock for the seat. But she lost narrowly to another socialist.
Now, there's no way to know the full reason why she lost. She has a theory. She blames this woman, Valerie Trierweiler, a journalist and the current common law partner of Francois Hollande.
Right after Hollande spoke out supporting his former partner for the seat, Valerie took to Twitter, tweeting her support for Royal's opponent. Hollande publicly said he was upset by this. Valerie finally called it a mistake, but the tweet's still up there. The press has taken to calling her the Rottweiler. (INAUDIBLE) is rather involved. Valerie carried out a two-year secret affair with Hollande while she was reporting on his campaign and he was still with Royal, pretty clear conflict of interest.
We do love the French, though. "A.C. 360" starts now.