Return to Transcripts main page


GOP: "No Spiking Of The Ball"; Supreme Court to Rule On Health Care; "Deliverance" Is Blessing, Curse For Town; Interview with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez

Aired June 22, 2012 - 19:00   ET


ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: "OUTFRONT" next, bailouts, summits and soccer, all aimed at saving the euro. But is it time to admit the hard truth, saving the euro might not add up?

The Republicans declare victory, but they haven't won the big battle yet. Little bit early there. Whoops.

An iconic movie made one town famous and infamous all at once. Will a section of Northern Georgia ever be delivered from evil? Let's go "OUTFRONT."

Good evening, everyone. I'm Erin Burnett. Out front tonight, a Greek collapse, literally. The Greek finance minister just hours before he was to be sworn into his new role, it's a crucial role, fainted.

It was a depressing visual for a country that is trying with a brand-new government to keep its economy from entering a black hole. The Greek leader's collapse kept him from going to the highly anticipated euro 2012 soccer match today.

Greece took a shellacking from Germany. Now to be fair, Germany was favored to win. The bookies only gave Greece 17-2 odds. So the outcome was predictable. Sort of like the break-up of the E.U.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monty warned today of the apocalypse. Saying there is only one week left to save the eurozone. That's after the leaders of Germany, France, Spain and Italy met today, to once again say we're going to do whatever it takes to strengthen our monetary union.

The problem is they talk a lot and they don't do much. They have not done that yet. No one expects them to do anything soon. It will be of magnitude enough to solve the crisis.

So the question tonight is what is the obsession with keeping Europe together? Does it add up to more trouble than it's worth?

We've been telling you OUTFRONT for weeks that the financial price tag to bail out Europe could be as much as $6 trillion. That's according to several analysts we've talked to and even the more optimistic says it's a few trillion. The $6 trillion would be about eight TARPS and does anyone actually think Greece or Spain will pay all the money they have borrowed back, ever? Heck, does anyone expect the United States to pay our debts back?

We have a debt crisis around the planet right now. So Europe, maybe it's time to grease the wheels and break up, even though it's hard to do. After all, the E.U. has only been around since 1992. They only got that currency in 2000.

It's not hard to imagine life without it. Sure, it would be horribly painful. It would be a terrible break-up. But it might add up to less pain than forcing a union that simply can't cut it.

OUTFRONT tonight, Doug Holtz-Eakin, the president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. Great to see you, Doug, as always.


BURNETT: What's the issue here, I mean, is Europe in denial?

EAKIN: I think so. You know, the real obsession with keeping the union together is a political obsession. It is a deep belief that as individual countries, European countries will not have a big influence on international affairs.

By holding the union together, they hope that they can remain a force in the future of global affairs. The trouble is, the economics don't add up and they don't have the money to make it happen.

BURNETT: Yes, I mean, I know that number, $6 trillion, is -- I mean, very smart people have put it out there. But other people say it will cost a lot less.

But even a lot less is $2 trillion, $3 trillion. I mean, this is an incredibly huge sum of money. It's pretty fair to say, right, that a lot of these countries are not going to pay it back, ever? No matter whether it's euros.

EAKIN: Yeah, no, I mean, it's quite clear that Greece will not repay all its debts. They've already told private sector lenders to get ready for a so-called haircut, which means you're not getting all your money back.

The real problem has been that early on it was clear that Greece needed a big check and -- to keep them in the union. And they were unwilling to write that check.

By kicking this can down the road for quite some time now, the check's gotten bigger. Portugal's in trouble. Spain's in trouble. Unless they take decisive action that I don't they are capable of, next week's summit is going to be a disappointment.

BURNETT: So Doug, what's going to happen? Is it inevitable? I mean, I'm sure there's going to be days when, you know, they say, look, we're going to give European deposit insurance and everyone's going to cheer and markets around the world will surge.

That would be a great day. But then a few days later, they'll do something that isn't perfect and markets will plunge, right? I mean, so is it inevitable that they lose this fight? They politically are committed to it now, but they're going to lose?

EAKIN: They have two different problems. They're related. One is their banking system, which has real serious problems with lack of capital and, now, people insecure about it and taking the money out.

So, you know, you might make the European central bank the chief regulator and allow it to provide deposit insurance and do some things to shore up the banking system.

That wouldn't solve the fundamental non-competitiveness of the Greek economy or the Portuguese economy, and the fact that their debt burdens are too high for them to ever realistically pay off.

So they can perhaps make some headway on one problem, but they're not going to solve the sovereign problem at all.

BURNETT: So, Doug what is the bottom line? I mean, you know, the other thing is of course Bill Gross has been talking about, look at France, France has problems, a lot of the -- of balance sheet. The way I like to say it is hiding loans from the rest of the world.

France has it. Germany has those kinds of loans that Greece had. I'm not saying the countries are in the same sort of spot, but I mean, there are issues everywhere.

I mean, is it going to eventually be more painful for the United States, given our tight ties to Europe, for them to stay together or to muddle along and either desperately get it together at the end or break up?

EAKIN: I'm deeply concerned about that. In addition to France, you know, Spain, it turned out, had all sets of regional dealt debts no one knew about, and when they added up the bill, got a lot of figure.

If the clock ticks and the break-up is very disorderly, we know what happens. European growth goes away. That hurt us. The European banking system becomes suspect.

Our overseas business gets hurt. If investors will wide panic, there's simply no good news. There's some real risk not just for Europe, but for the rest of the global economy.

BURNETT: Bottom line, Doug, could they say, swallow their pride, because that really seems to be what it's about, swallow their pride and come up with a set of rules to break up, an orderly break-up, is it possible?

EAKIN: The sooner they announce what they're going to do I think the better. They could have a disguised break-up where they have essentially two euro, one for the non-competitive. One for the northern economies, but the status quo is unsustainable and they need to acknowledge that.

BURNETT: All right, well, thanks very much, Doug Holtz-Eakin. See if they put politics aside and do what appears to be the right thing.

Still OUTFRONT with big cuts in America's defense coming, lawmakers are getting cold feet. Will they rise to be heroes or are they just not mature enough to make the big decisions?

That's how my mother used to say that word when she was mad at me and I hated it. That's Congress' words, not mine.

Next, John Boehner warns Republicans not to spike the football. But are they about to get a huge political win?

And then, that's a clown question, bro, but it's also potentially a big money maker.


BURNETT: Our second story OUTFRONT, a new ruling tonight on President Obama's health care reform law?


RICHARD MOURDOCK (R), NOMINEE FOR U.S. SENATE IN INDIANA: Had a brief moment of celebration because the Supreme Court ruled that Obama care is, in fact, unconstitutional. It's what many of us argued all along, but don't sit back and think the fight is over, because it isn't.


BURNETT: The problem is the Supreme Court actually didn't make a ruling yet and isn't expected to make a ruling on the president's health care bill until next week.

Now, the man you saw there was Richard Mourdock, the Indiana Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate. Getting a little bit OUTFRONT of the decision, the ad was posted on his web site temporarily yesterday.

And then removed, maybe, because House Speaker John Boehner warned Republicans not to do any touchdown dances for fear of looking inconsiderate while Americans struggled to pay for health care. In the memo, Boehner wrote, "If the court strikes down all or part of the president's health care reform law, there will be no spiking of the ball."

James Carville, Reihan Salam are with us. Reihan, there is still premature celebrating going on, on the side of people who expect that at least the individual mandate if not more of the health care bill will be struck down.

REIHAN SALAM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I think that's deeply unwise. I think that as a policy matter, I might be sympathetic to the idea that the individual mandate really stretches the constitution.

But what people have to understand is the individual mandate piece was the way that President Obama tried to win over the health insurance industry.

There are a lot of folks who believe if this goes down, an equity analyst at Barclays Capital recently said that health insurance stocks could go down by 30 percent.

This could really sent shockwaves through the system. So I think that, you know, before we get too quick about this, recognize the health insurance industry has a tremendous amount of power and influence. They're going to be disappointed if the mandate piece of it is unspooled.

BURNETT: Well, I find it hard to sympathize with the health insurance industry. Most Americans do.

SALAM: Absolutely.

BURNETT: James Carville, what do you think, though? I mean, obviously, the American public hugely divided on the health care bill, 48 percent say they're going to be unhappy if the whole law is ruled unconstitutional.

And, 51 percent say they'll be unhappy if the entire law is left in place. I mean, deeply split when you look at the American people. So if it's struck down, is this an opportunity for the president to motivate his base and say, look, he needs us now more than ever?

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's kind of a question. Why do we think that if they strike it down 5-4 that's going to be a good thing for Republicans? I don't necessarily believe that.

It may. Once this thing hits, these numbers are going to change dramatically one way or another. I've always said, look, from a strictly political standpoint, I think a 5-4 decision striking down individual mandate, which would probably mean a whole -- the whole bill would become unworkable, then the Republicans own the issue. I think it's a good bill.

Trust me, policy wise, I agree with the bill. But politically, 5-4 decision against the Democrats, I don't know why anybody would want to spike the ball if they're Republican. I'm not sure that's very good politics for them.

BURNETT: Why? Go ahead, James. Why wouldn't it be? A win's a win.

CARVILLE: Nell, no, it's not. First of all, it looks like it's a deeply partisan thing. Second, a lot of parts of that health care bill are really popular to people.

It's going to look like -- and people don't like the idea of the Supreme Court overturning an act of Congress. It may be a win. I'm just saying I'm not certain that it is. I tend to think a 5-4 against would actually help the Democrats ever so much.

BURNETT: He's got a good point, right, Reihan. In terms of it would be perceived as partisan. The Democrats certainly could make the argument.

SALAM: Look, I think that Democrats who take that view, for example, President Obama's tried to campaign against Citizens United, for example. There is a small number of progressive Democrats who pay attention to such things who might be motivated by that.

The question is will there be a larger number of independents or swing voters who are going to say wow the president devoted a big chunk of two really big critical years to passing this law. And it turns out it's unconstitutional.

When you talk to folks who were involved in the drafting of that law, what many people will say is that the House law was actually far more bulletproof in constitutional terms than the Senate law.

That after Scott Brown was elected that complicated the politics of it. They had to scramble through to get through a senate bill that was really problematic. That's what a lot of folks on the Hill will tell you.

I think that's one thing you can say. Look, he didn't think to make this bulletproof. You know, he really moved in a precipitate fashion. I do agree with James, though, this is not necessarily a slam dunk for Republicans. It really means chaos. It really means that things could move in all kinds of different directions.

BURNETT: James, is there something to be said though for Reihan's point? That some Democrats or Independents will look at the president and go, you spent two years on this and we're here and you could have spent the time on something economic? Bring that frustration back?

CARVILLE: Let make a point. Number one, the Supreme Court has held since they've been pulling. Secondly, it's a 5-4 thing. Citizens United has had a lot to do with. Look, if this thing is knocked down 7-2 that's another result.

I think it's going to be received differently. If it's 5-4, five Republican judges knock it down, I'm not sure that people are going to say it doesn't matter what Obama's going to do, they're just going to be against him no matter what.

I'm not positive that that is, but that is one result that could happen. Again, you have the Supreme Court overturning an act of Congress, which to some people that's not going to sit well.

SALAM: -- any number of outcomes, right? I mean, it could be that independents are going to think, gosh, this is yet another sign of a failed presidency. I don't think that's necessarily the outcome. You could be very right. People could focus on the Supreme Court.

CARVILLE: I'm not -- understand what I'm saying. I'm just saying, it is not given that 5-4 against hurts Democrats. It may. I'm just saying it's not a given. We shouldn't assume that that's going to be what happens here.

SALAM: I agree with you completely. It could also motivate donors. It could motivate activists in a way that winds up being very useful. That's certainly possible.

BURNETT: Thanks to both. By the way, the bottom line, America knows we have a major health care problem. An AP poll today says 77 percent of Americans if this bill is struck down wants Congress to go back the next day and start working on a new health care bill. Interesting point.

OK, still OUTFRONT, what does this make you think of? Why the impression of one Northern Georgia town doesn't add up. Then --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not answering that. That's a clown question, bro.


BURNETT: That young ball player may have hit a home run with that answer.


BURNETT: Our third story OUTFRONT, "Deliverance," the movie that made duelling banjos a household tune is turning 40. The film follows four friends on a canoeing trip that turns into a terrifying struggle to survive.

It was shot in Tallulah Gorge, Northern Georgia and sparked a tourism boon for the whole area. It also painted local residents as backward, unsophisticated and inbred.

Martin Savidge went back to Tallulah Gorge to see why the movie is still creating controversy in the town.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Every year, hundreds of thousands of people come to North Georgia, thanks, in large part, to the movie "Deliverance."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Essentially started the white water rafting industry in the southeast.

SAVIDGE: Annually, tourism brings in $42 million to the area. When the movie was made, it brought cameras and excitement to Raven County. Many locals signed up to be extras.

Only to be horrified by what emerged from Hollywood. The infamous "squeal like a pig" male rape scene was especially shocking here in the heart of the Bible belt. Forty years later, there's still anger.

STANLEY BUTCH DARNELL, CHAIRMAN, RABUN COUNTY COMMISSION: We were portrayed as ignorant backward scary deviant redneck hillbillies. That stuck with us through all these years. In fact, that was probably the furthest thing from the truth.

SAVIDGE: He's right. Raven County is actually a second home to many wealthy southerners.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This would be a dream come true.

SAVIDGE: Unlike the average house cost $2 million to $3 million, this one, nearly $10 million.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When people build houses and they come here, they need art on their walls.

SAVIDGE: The area has dozens of trendy galleries. Rather than toothless sociopaths, more than 80 percent of the county's residents are high school graduates.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My show starts --

SAVIDGE: Actor Ronnie Cox who played Drew is sympathetic to local attitudes about the movie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For are a lot of people, that became a really tough pill to swallow. I think some people missed the artistic essence of it, the value of it.

SAVIDGE: And then there's Billy Redon. You remember him. You think if anyone would be angry, it would be Billy. He's not and he can't understand, after 40 years, why others still are.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they just need to just let it go and let this be a movie. That's all it is, just a movie.


BURNETT: Pretty amazing. I know, Martin, you were saying the weird thing is, he didn't even play the banjo in real life. But Raven County is planning its first annual river festival this weekend. You've got the 40th anniversary. How are locals reacting to that, happy or angry?

SAVIDGE: You know, it depends who you talk to, Erin. I mean, there are still some people you can talk to here, that movie still brings some real pain.

In fact, when they tried to pull together the funding for the festival, they were afraid they wouldn't be able to do it because of the emotions that are running here.

But it's going ahead. In fact, tomorrow night, they're going to show the 40th anniversary version of the movie "Deliverance." We'll let you know how it goes. BURNETT: I'm looking forward to it. All right, thanks so much to Martin Savidge.

OK, this is Bryce Harper. Show you who he is. Good looking outfielder for the Washington Nationals. Earlier this month, he was in Toronto for a game against the Blue Jays when a reporter asked him if he planned to enjoy any Canadian beer while he was there.

Harper, look at this guy, I mean, come on, can't you tell he's a Mormon who doesn't drink? He responded like this.


BRYCE HARPER, RIGHT FIELDER, WASHINGTON NATIONALS: I'm not answering that. That's a clown question, bro.


BURNETT: Maybe it's just the delivery, too. It's a clown question, bro. The phrase quickly went viral. Dozens of people posted that clip on YouTube. Now more than 1 million people have looked at it. Even Senator Harry Reid used the line during a press conference.


SENATOR HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: I don't want to answer that question. That's a clown question, bro.


BURNETT: Fellow Mormon. Of course, people are trying to cash in on the line's popularity. The Nationals are in Colorado on Monday. And so this is actually pretty cool. We can exclusively unveil this.

The Denver beer company releasing a limited edition of clown question Canadian Lager. There are a ton of shirts. This is why I love America. Look at all these entrepreneurs. We got all these "clown question, bro" shirts in two days.

This is crazy. That brings me to tonight's "number," 86 -- not 876. Okay, 85651210. Got it? Really important. It's the serial number of the trademark registration for, quote, "That's a clown question, bro."

On June 13th, the day after Bryce Harper first used the phrase, his quick thinking attorney went online and paid $320 to trademark the phrase. That attorney should get a raise.

That is really impressive, which means now if you try to use the phrase on any sort of apparel without permission, Bryce Harper's lawyers will have some tough questions for you and there's nothing funny about that, bro.

All right, ahead tonight, a member of Congress says his colleagues are not mature, mature enough to solve this country's financial crisis. Another member strongly disagrees. Comes out front.

And the Jerry Sandusky case. The jury comes back over and over to ask the judge questions.


BURNETT: We start the second half of our show with stories we care about, where we focus on our own reporting from the front lines.

And tonight, there are conflicting reports about which presidential candidate has won Egypt's crucial election. Those conflicting reports sparked unrest in Cairo's Tahrir Square today. As you can see, those pictures reminiscent of when the revolution began there.

The semiofficial news site Ahram (ph) Online reported that Ahmed Shafik, the last prime minister under Hosni Mubarak, very much an insider with the military and the old guard, will be named the country's new president on Sunday.

Other reports, though, say Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, is in the lead. Many reports across the Middle East say he'll be declared the winner.

If Ahmed Shafik is declared the winner, we are hearing there could be some serious issues in Egypt in terms of the response of the electorate.

An electoral official tell us authorities are still reviewing about 400 violation reports submitted by the candidates about things they said went wrong in the elections.

And for the first time, a high-ranking official in the U.S. Catholic church has been convicted for handling sexual abuse claims. This afternoon, a jury convicted Philadelphia Monsignor William Lynn of one count of child endangerment. Prosecutors claim that Lynn, who was responsible for investigating abuse claims, they say he played down credible accusations and then reassigned known predator priests to other parishes. He's scheduled to be sentenced on August 13th and faces up to seven years in prison.

Terence McKiernan, who runs the, told us that the conviction is, what he says, is, quote, "a watershed moment" in the Catholic abuse crisis.

And three Russian warships apparently heading closer to Syria. A U.S. official has told our Barbara Starr that paperwork has been filed for the ships, declaring their intent to move from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean by next week. Over the past several days, the ships have been spotted at a port where they were being loaded up with weapons and supplies.

Russian officials have denied the ships are headed to Syria. They deny they are arming Syria. But obviously this -- it could be a watershed moment. General Motors recalling nearly 475,000 Chevrolet Cruzes in the U.S. and Canada. This includes all Cruzes made in the U.S. from September 2010 through now. The recall is to modify the engine. They say there could be oil trapped there, creating fire hazard. There haven't been injuries or fatalities reported but the National Traffic Highway Administration opened up investigations into two engine fires in Cruzes.

Keep in mind that G.M. has four mentions in the National Highway Transportation Safety Authority monthly recall report just this year so far.

Well, it's been 323 days since the U.S. lost its top credit rating. What are we doing to get it back? Well, stocks today shrugged off yesterday's sell-off. The Dow ended the day up by 67 points.

And now or fourth story OUTFRONT: House Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon says he expects Congress to, quote, "kick the can down the road," and that this election is going to be so bad, and then we're all going to come together and have a kumbaya moment on this? I don't see it. Let's get together now and say we're not mature enough to handle this, and make some decisions right away."

In other words, tell the American people they're going to delay those defense cuts because Congress isn't mature enough to do a grand bargain and deal with the broader spend and entitlement issues.

Now, McKeon has a decent bargaining position because even if you think this country is way too reliant on defense spending, the numbers don't lie. This is pretty incredible. Even before the looming sequestration cuts that are coming at the end of the year, the Pentagon had agreed to cut a lot of money, everybody. I mean, nearly $500 billion. And those cuts alone, according to the U.S. treasury, hit this country's growth, just in the first quarter of this year, we grew 1.9 percent.

All right. When you're below 2 percent, that means you're not getting jobs. That's the whole problem right now. If the defense cuts weren't in there, we would have grown 2.7 percent. That means a lot of jobs.

This really, really moves the needle for this country. So, should Congress kick the can down the road with the short-term solution?

Just before the show, I spoke with Democratic Congressman Loretta Sanchez of California. She's a member of the House Armed Services Committee. And I asked her if she's OK with McKeon's idea of kicking the can down the road.


REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, think it's wrong. We've known about sequestration now since last August when the majority of Republicans proposed that and put forward that for a vote and it is the law. We have known that the super committee was -- didn't get its work done now since before January. And so we've had plenty of time.

I've asked plenty of Republicans on the committee, the Armed Services Committee, where I sit-- sit down with us. Talk to us. Work with us to find the extra cuts we need to find.

I don't think there's another $500 billion or $600 billion to be cut from defense. But I do believe we can still find some more money.


SANCHEZ: I agree with him in the sense that we're already on a path of cutting about $480 billion even prior to that.


BURNETT: Right, where would you find the $500 billion that doesn't come from defense?

SANCHEZ: Excuse me?

BURNETT: Where would you find $500 billion to replace the defense sequestered that doesn't come from defense?

SANCHEZ: Well, what some of our proposals have been, for example, you've heard Chairman Levin, over on the Senate side, saying, I think we can find another $100 billion to cut from defense. But that means we're still talking about $400 billion.

We've told them in order to do this, you have to sit down and you have to help us find revenues -- meaning that some of those loopholes have to go away, that corporations are doing, some of the moneys that go way overseas, in the Cayman Islands and other places. We have to do away with those loopholes in order to find the revenue we need to continue to have a strong military.

But they have refused to put any revenue on the table.

BURNETT: Well, I'm a little confused by that. Mike Lee's been on this show. Senator Rand Paul's been on this show. They have been categorical they would allow loopholes to be closed.

I was looking through the top 20 biggest loopholes in this country. A lot of them would affect the wealthiest Americans. Yesterday, Rand Paul said, yes, I'd close some of those and I keep some of the loopholes that help the poorest Americans, like the earned tax credit, the child tax credit, things that help the poorest in this country.

So it sounds to me like you should be able to get a deal done.

SANCHEZ: Well, I would hope that we -- that we would. I mean, I'm willing to sit down right now. I know that we've had several of us on the committee, Democrats. We've also sat down with some of the Republicans. We've had some of them say, listen, we understand revenues need to be put on the table, but we don't know how to broach this. We don't know how to bring this to the table, if you will.

So -- I mean, we're trying to find ways in which, you know, it's not about we won or they won, it's about getting the thing done.

BURNETT: What about -- so when we looked at analysis from the Congressional Research Service about closing loopholes, if you close all the tax loopholes in this country, you get $1.1 trillion. We're only bringing in $2.5 trillion in tax revenue a year. So, I mean, it is an incredibly large sum of money.

Even if you kept the earned income tax credit, child credit, things that helped the poorest Americans, you're still going to get $800 billion, $900 billion, $1 trillion. That does mean the wealthy will pay more. That means the middle class in this country will pay more.

Is that a deal you would be willing to do?

SANCHEZ: Well, I think every loophole should be looked at and everyone should be considered. I know there is money there. As you've said, we've estimated there's over $1 trillion in loopholes.

You know, we should not be rewarding companies who are deciding, for tax reasons, because they don't want to pay taxes, that they're going to go out of the country and put up some fake, you know, jurisdiction in the Cayman Islands or some other place, so they can stop paying taxes to America. We shouldn't have the kind of things like the Facebook guy who moved to Singapore so that when he told his shares in Facebook, he would not have to pay taxes to America.


SANCHEZ: It's just the wrong way to do business.

BURNETT: It may be, but that's not where the money is. The money is the credits that employers get for health care. They take those away. It could affect health care for Americans.

It's the mortgage interest deduction. It's the deduction we all get for our state and local taxes. That affects everybody. But that's where the money is.

I mean, is there a willingness to close those loopholes?

SANCHEZ: Well, I will tell you, as an American who applies the alternative minimum tax to my taxes, I don't get credit for those, because I end up paying the alternative minimum tax. So, there are plenty of Americans who are making under $200,000 for example who are paying anyway. It's the upper Americans, it's the Americans making $1 million or more, who are actually finding ways to effectively bring down their tax rate.

So, yes, I would say let's eliminate some of those loopholes.

BURNETT: All right, well, Congresswoman Sanchez, thanks so much. Have a great weekend. SANCHEZ: Thank you so much.


BURNETT: All right. Still OUTFRONT, breaking news, a Turkish plane shot down and the country that has now admitted to it tonight could surprise you.

Plus, an unbelievable thing happened in the Jerry Sandusky trial. His defense attorney told reporters how he'd react if his client was found not guilty. It was an amazing moment. We're going to tell you about it.


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BURNETT: And we do have breaking news.

The Turkish military jet shot down by Syria. The Syrian government says it entered Syrian airspace. The navies of both countries are searching the Mediterranean coast for the missing Turkish pilots.

Ivan Watson is live tonight in Istanbul.

And, Ivan, what's the risk this could lead to further violence between Syria and Turkey? I mean, it seems a pretty serious thing, to shoot down a fighter jet.

IVAN WATSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Very serious. And these are two neighboring countries that have basically severed diplomatic relations between each other over the Syrian crackdown on the revolution there.

What's remarkable is that despite the fact they don't have ambassadors in each other's countries, they're working together right now to search for the two missing Turkish air crewmen, despite the fact that the Syrians have conceded their anti-aircraft shot down the Turkish warplane when it was about less than 1 mile, they claim, off of the Syrian shore in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Turks have confirmed that the Syrians shot down their warplane. But they, too, are saying Syrian vessels are working with Turkish choppers and naval ships to search for the two missing Turkish pilots.

It looks like both sides, despite the deadly seriousness of this incident, are trying to play this down. And if you need any evidence, just look at when they waited to release the information of the shoot- down, after midnight on a Friday night local time -- Erin.

BURNETT: Pretty amazing. Of course, Ivan is still there, though, to get the information. Thanks so much to Ivan, reporting live from Istanbul tonight.

And now, let's check in with Anderson with a look at what's coming up on "A.C. 360."

Anderson, I know you're going to have more with Ivan, right?

ANDERSON COOPER, "A.C. 360" HOST: Yes, we have more on this breaking news. It's really important news. We're going to try to figure out what the next move for NATO is and for turkey after the jet was shot down. We'll have an update from the Pentagon.

Also tonight, keeping them honest report on -- Drew Griffin has been trying to get answers from a powerful Republican congressman, Florida's Vern Buchanan. No fewer than four congressional and federal investigations are looking into his business practices as well as his campaign practices. We'll tell you what he's accused of and what it could mean for his career.

Also tonight, my conversation with the 60-year-old bus monitor relentlessly bullied by seventh graders. We have all seen the video. It is hard to watch. What she thinks now of her newfound fame, or worldwide reaction and her reaction to my interview with the father of one of the children who tormented her.

We're going to talk to that father tonight. Karen is going to react after that interview. We'll also talk to a police officer who's been investigating these kids to see what, if any, kind of punishment they may face.

Those stories and, of course, tonight's "Ridiculist". A lot more, Erin, at the top of the hour.

BURNETT: I'm really looking forward to seeing those interviews. Thanks, Anderson.

And now, our fifth story OUTFRONT: verdict watch tonight in the sex abuse case against former assistant Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.

Now, the jury is sequestered, as you're aware. And they began day two of deliberations by asking to rehear some testimony from key witnesses, including Mike McQueary. They also asked the judge to clarify a question about circumstantial evidence and a victim didn't testify.

Now, Sandusky is accused of molesting ten boys over 15 years. The charges, there are 48 counts of abuse.

CNN contributor Sara Ganim is outside the courthouse tonight. She's been reporting on this since the beginning.

And, Sara, I wanted to start off, though, with the pretty shocking news today. According to reporters, the defense attorney, Joe Amendola, gave an impromptu briefing to reporters. And said, quote, "He'd die of a heart attack if Sandusky beat all the charges and got off as innocent."

That was a pretty incredible thing, right? SARA GANIM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Erin, I've been covering Joe Amendola for almost seven years now in this courthouse behind me. I have to say I was not surprised at all. He can be very chatty, very charming. We saw this from him in his interactions in the courtroom, with witnesses, with jurors.

This is kind of just his personality, that he would say something like this off the cuff. I know it's a shocking thing. It sounds like a shocking thing to say.

But he can't resist. I think, you know, he walks into court every day. He can't resist saying something. We heard a couple days ago he compared a trial to a soap opera and mentioned the soap opera "All My Children," which is something people talked about all day long.

He says things like this. I think -- maybe he thinks it's funny, I don't know. This is kind of his personality.

BURNETT: All right. So, Sara, where do you think they are in terms of a verdict? I mean, obviously, they've ordered in. I mean, do you expect something to happen tonight?

I know you can get a little bit of a sense based on what they're asking about what victim and about what count as to how far down the charge sheet they are, right?

GANIM: Right. We know they have been going through some of the -- the two cases where there are witnesses and no alleged victims. The accusers didn't actually take the stand. The people who took the stand were witnesses. And those are two of the cases that the defense really went through and attacked and said, you know, there really isn't enough evidence here. Those are the two questions they asked, regarding those two cases.

They did just come back from an hour dinner break and the only word we got is they went back to deliberate, they're sequestered. They get to set their own schedule. Last night, we were her until almost 10:00 at night. It could be another last night. They could decide to go into the weekend. I'm just not sure. It's going to be up to them.

BURNETT: All right. Well, thanks very much to Sara. We appreciate it.

And now, let's bring in Thomas Kline. He's the attorney for victim number five who testified last week he was sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky in the showers at Penn State University. He's also in Pennsylvania waiting for the verdict.

Good to see you, sir.

Let me just start by asking you, what's your reaction to what Joe Amendola told reporters, that he would die of a heart attack if his client was found innocent. I know Sara says that's sort of the way he talks. But I have to say, as someone watching this, I was rather shocked to hear a defense attorney speak like that.


BURNETT: Yes, you are.

KLINE: I'm sorry.


KLINE: I'm sorry, what's my -- we're in a large compound as you know. My reaction --

BURNETT: Yes, your reaction to Joe Amendola.

KLINE: Go ahead.

Well, Joe Amendola has been colorful throughout this whole thing, before he was gagged. It sounded to me like a lawyer who knew something about something. He obviously knows what the jury wanted read back.

I'm questioning whether there have been questions that the jury has been asking which have been fielded in this back and forth. I don't know. But it sounds to me like Amendola knows something about something.

BURNETT: And, Thomas, what about your client, victim number five, as he is known, who had testified about being sexually assaulted by Jerry Sandusky in the showers at Penn State University? Where is he? Where is he awaiting this verdict?

KLINE: He's awaiting the verdict at home. He's had an enormously supportive family, a wonderful girlfriend, a lot of friends who have put him through this whole ordeal. This has been an ordeal for him. And I think he is an exemplar of the other young men.

He and I texted regularly. He and I text friends. The last that he and I went back and forth, he told me this has been really painful for him, really painful.

BURNETT: And has he wanted to or taken the opportunity to speak, spend time with some of the other victims who testify?

KLINE: He has not. One of the themes during this trial was that these young men somehow conspired and defense counsel for Mr. Sandusky had repeatedly tested that in the courtroom. But the fact of the matter is that my client, a terrific young man, with a terrific family, has really looked to them for support.

There has been, to my knowledge, no contact. At any time since he first heard the police knock on his door. He's looked to his family for support.

BURNETT: And, Tom, I know your client is now 23 years old, was assaulted when he was 12 or 13. There's a crucial part about that assault, which is that it happened in the Penn State showers after Mike McQueary had seen another boy assaulted, after he told Joe Paterno about it, after Penn State management was aware of it. You've been very open that you are going to pursue legal action, financial action, against Penn State, right?

KLINE: I have been. And I think that there is absolutely nothing to apologize for. Penn State themselves have already admitted, as much as a, quote, "cover-up", by at least one trustee.

We're going to wait for the police report. We've been promised it will be open and honest. We're going to evaluate it. Then we are going to pursue Penn State.

There is no doubt that Penn State was the enabler here. And there is no doubt that young men like this, victims like this, are entitled to recourse in the civil courts. There's no doubt that civil courts are exactly where we can conduct the same kind of investigation that's been done by the attorney general's office.

BURNETT: All right. Well, thanks very much --

KLINE: So I -- my pleasure. It's been nice to be here.

BURNETT: All right, thank you.

Everyone, you know what? I bet you wouldn't aware of this, but if you watch this show, you won't be surprised to learn it here. It's International Camel Day today. Let's drink a toast. I brought the wine, next.


BURNETT: June 22nd, one of the longest and, this year, apparently hottest days of the year. The day Ken Griffey Jr. broke Babe Ruth's records for most home runs back in 1994.

Most importantly, it is International Camel Day. Yes, that is right, camel lovers. I know you've been waiting for this since June 23rd, 2011.

And that brings me to Carmel Winery. Yes, just, otherwise, it would be fine, right? A vineyard I visited in Zichron Ya acov, Israel, just south of Haifa. They had a camel problem but figuring out how to solve it one pour at a time.


BURNETT (voice-over): Israel is proud of a lot of things, the Western Wall, the Dead Sea. But wine?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ooh, Israeli champagne. And it's vanilla.

BURNETT: Maybe bad wine. Not exactly your best (INAUDIBLE).

Carmel has been working hard to change that. (on camera): Wine obviously a big part of Israel's ancient history. Modern times, people don't always think of Israel and wine together but you're saying they'd be wrong.

ADAM S. MONTEFIORE, WINE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Well, the rebirth of Israel wine industry took place here. The Rothchilds built two big wineries, and rebuilt the wine industry up to 2,000 years.


MONTEFIORE: Zichron Ya acov (INAUDIBLE), Israel's biggest and most historic winery.

BURNETT (voice-over): The Rothchilds invested more in this winery than they did in their famous French Chateau Lafite.

(on camera): So, tell me about this room.

MONTEFIORE: This is one of the (INAUDIBLE) Zichron Ya acov winery, 120 years old, built by the Rothchilds to keep a cooler temperature to what is a very hot climate.

BURNETT (voice-over): Today, Carmel has to worry about more than the weather. They're concerned about camels.

(on camera): I heard a rumor in some of your vineyards you have a bit of a camel problem.

MONTEFIORE: Yes in our (INAUDIBLE) winery, based in Telerad (ph), in the northeastern Nigev (ph), the big pests there are camels.


MONTEFIORE: Well, pests. They come and eat the vines. Eat it like a salad right down to the roots. That's a problem that you get with a winery in the desert.

BURNETT (voice-over): A quandary Carmel turned into a wine.

(on camera): So how much more opportunity is there in Israel in wine? I know there's still wine in some of the fertile areas so --

MONTEFIORE: Well, Israel's a tiny country. It would fit into new jersey. But the wine is improving leaps and bounds. And 20 years ago, it was a wine desert. Now we're getting wines with scores from Robert Parker.

BURNETT (voice-over): Let's be honest, we're all still wondering, just how good is this stuff? Robert Parkerthe most influential wine critic in the world who rates wines on 100 point scale rated Carmel among the best in the industry.

(on camera): So this is a 91 parker?

MONTEFIORE: This got 91 points from Robert Parker. Three times in the last four years, it's got over 90 points. It's Carmel limited edition 2008. It's a Bordeaux blend which means it's made up of five grapes traditionally from Bordeaux, (NAUDIBLE). I hope you like it.




"ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts now.