Return to Transcripts main page
ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT
Supreme Court Upholds Key Arizona Provision; Former ESPN Anchor Reveals Sexual Abuse; Interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Aired June 25, 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 ANCHOR: OUTFRONT next, the Supreme Court upholds and rejects parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law. A man synonymous with that law, the man you've been waiting to hear from today, Sheriff Joe Arpaio OUTFRONT tonight.
And the streets of Chicago looking and sounding like a battlefield. The numbers staggering, more than 200 have died so far this year, more than the American soldiers dead in Afghanistan. What is being done about it? And why it doesn't add up?
And breaking news, the growing threat of extremists within the United States military. We have brand new and alarming numbers tonight from the FBI.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
Well, good evening, everyone. I'm Erin Burnett, and OUTFRONT tonight, show me your papers. Show them to me. Four simple words, that mean a lot tonight in Arizona and around the world. Depending on how you look at it or whose spin you believe, the Supreme Court's ruling today on the controversial Arizona immigration law gave both sides reason to declare victory.
The president came out and said he's, quote, "pleased with the ruling," because after all the justices said the federal government, not individual states, has the sole power to enforce laws against illegal immigration. The court struck down three provisions of Arizona's law. Arresting someone without a warrant, requiring people to carry I.D., and criminalizing the work of undocumented workers.
But here's the rub. The justices upheld something crucial. Requiring police to determine immigration status during a lawful stop. In other words, well, show me your papers. And if you're saying that sort of contradicts not carrying an I.D., I'm with you on that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: The heart of Senate Bill 1070 has been proven to be constitutional. Arizona's and every other state's inherent authority to protect and defend its people has been upheld.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right. If there's -- reasonable suspicion to stop someone, say, for traffic violation or for something else, you can now legally still ask that person to prove their immigration status.
Now you may say the definition for reasonable suspicion sounds a little bit vague, and it is. And Arizona is not the only state that would allow police to ask for proof of status when making things like traffic stops. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah have put similar laws in place.
Now there are a lot of questions tonight over why the justices chose to uphold the show-me-your-papers provision. And whether that provision could lead to racial profiling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER: If you're in Arizona, and you speak with a little bit of an accent or your skin color is brown, you better have your papers with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Bottom line, the Supreme Court did not end the debate today over immigration laws. They started a new one.
OUTFRONT tonight, a big proponent of the Arizona law, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County.
Good to see you, sir, and I really appreciate your taking the time. How do you see this?
SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: It's all right.
BURNETT: Supreme Court striking down three of the four provisions of the Arizona law, but keeping the crucial, show-me-your- papers provision. Do you see this as a victory or a setback?
ARPAIO: Well, you know, we've been doing this anyway the last four years. I do support the 1070, but we've been asking people, doing our operations on human smuggling, crime suppression, and raiding workplaces. My office has done over 51,000 on the streets, in the jails. So this is nothing that we have not been doing. But it's good to send a message that we are doing the right thing.
I'm a little concerned at the allegations of racial profiling. The Justice Department last month, very convenient time, has taken me to court, accusing me after 3 1/2 years of racial profiling, and now, I believe, that the administration is even talking about racial profiling because now cops have the authority to ask when they come across illegals during the course of their duties and making arrest. So it's convoluted --
BURNETT: Well, let's get straight -- yes, let's get straight to the racial profiling. Because that does seem to be the heart of where this is heading now. The Justice Department -- in the suit, what the DOJ has said is that Latino drivers are between four and nine times more likely to be pulled over by your officers. But only about 30 percent of the population of Maricopa County is Latino. So when it looked at that way, it seems clear that there's racial profiling going on.
ARPAIO: Well, that's their opinion. Now we're going to be in court and we'll be able to put the true facts out on the table. That is their opinion which, by the way, last month they had their big press conference saying they're taking me to court which is very convenient. We're in an election year, they knew the 1070 was coming out, the president announced his new program last week on the kids. So what is this? All politics? The timing is very -- very interesting when you talk about illegal immigration. That's sad.
BURNETT: Well, what do you say the numbers are?
ARPAIO: On what?
BURNETT: In terms of racial profiling. Or how you're saying that the numbers do not support racial profiling.
ARPAIO: No, it does not. We arrest anybody that violates the law. We don't care where they're from. It just happens we're close to the border and a lot of the people coming in come from Mexico and they're here illegally. That's not my problem. So we're just enforcing all the laws and we're going to continue to do it regardless of the new policy that I hear over the air waves, which I predicted early this morning that they're not going to pick up those that we arrest, law enforcement arrests unless they're serious criminals.
So I guess there's another issue of amnesty right now without going to Congress and getting the laws changed.
BURNETT: Do you think -- and I know this is a dicey question, but it's an important one on this racial profiling issue. Is it possible that more -- from what you've seen that more criminal activity in your county comes from Latinos than their share of the population? In other words they're only 30 percent of the population, but they do commit a higher number of crimes. Hence you would be able to defend your point of view without racial profiling.
ARPAIO: I'll tell you one thing, out of 8,000 people in my jails including the tent city, which they don't like, they demonstrated against me on Saturday night. But about 18 percent were in jail for other crimes, murder's on the way down, it's gone down to about 14 percent now. So evidently something's working and crime has gone down 29 percent in Maricopa County.
I'm not blaming it all on illegal aliens, but you can see that the number of people in our jails are here illegally.
BURNETT: One final question. The show-me-your-papers provision which was upheld today based on police stopping people due to, quote, "reasonable suspicion," what is reasonable suspicion? Is it just traffic stops? How else do you define it?
ARPAIO: No, the traffic stop is not reasonable suspicion. A stop that's made -- on a crime or a traffic violation of the law. And then you determine if the person here with suspicion is here illegally and then you talk to ICE about that problem and ICE, I presume, will pick them up. But now I predict they're not going to pick them up. So what do we do? We dump them on the streets even though they're here illegally? That's something I will face. I have a couple ideas and I'll face that issue when it comes up.
BURNETT: What -- what are you going to do? What is one of your ideas?
ARPAIO: That's a secret. No, I don't know. I don't know, I've been through this before. We've worked very closely with ICE. They accept all our detainments and on illegal immigration, but they just cut off all ties with this 287-G program, cut off all ties with local and state authorities so they're picking on Arizona again. And that's arrogance and I don't think it's right.
BURNETT: And no sense of telling us a little bit the direction you're going to go, though, now that you have to be creative and improvise?
ARPAIO: I'm telling you the direction I'm going at is the same direction I've been going at. I'm following that route. And I'm not going to violate any constitutional rights. I have dedicated deputies who know what they're doing. They've been trained. We're the most trained law enforcement agency in the -- in the country, when the immigration that put my people, 200, through their training, five weeks of intensive training, nobody else can make that statement. And yet they're going after me saying that we're racial profiler.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you very much, Sheriff Arpaio, we appreciate you taking the time tonight.
And Jeffrey Toobin was inside the Supreme Court for the ruling, John Avlon also with us.
Jeff Toobin, very passionate and intense rebuttal from Sheriff Arpaio. What's going to be the legal challenge here? And actually interesting that he's saying tonight that he's going to be going ahead with some other methods.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the challenge here is Justice Kennedy's opinion said, OK, you can go forward with show us your papers. But be aware that we are going to be monitoring what you're doing to see if there is any sort of illegal discrimination involved. Kennedy was very aware that this is a controversial and potentially problematic law.
And his opinion said, look, we are approving it on paper but we want to see how it's applied in the real world.
BURNETT: So, Jeff, am I -- OK, I'll read between the lines and say they're waiting for this to get challenged again. One guy have to come forward, most likely it will be a guy, from Maricopa County, who says, look, I wasn't doing anything wrong, I got pulled aside, asked for my papers, so I'm now going to become the test case of racial profiling to go to the Supreme Court.
TOOBIN: Well, you know, it's a long way from the Supreme Court. I mean they would have to go to the district court.
TOOBIN: And the Court of Appeals first. But it's not so much one guy. The question is, when you asked the question, what is reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant. I don't know, frankly. I don't know what -- how you define that in a way that is legally permissible or even meaningful to police officers.
I have a lot of sympathy for the officers who have to actually apply these standards in the real world. I think seeing what procedures are in place to define reasonable suspicion in a way that's legitimate and not discriminatory.
TOOBIN: That's going to be the real challenge for law enforcement in Arizona.
BURNETT: And then they're outside of the legal -- John, there's the political. Three quarters of the American people support a lot of parts of this bill. So it is politically popular. The president, obviously, made the statement today what this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. Mitt Romney said, "Today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy."
Both of them passing the buck to Congress.
JOHN AVLON, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: Yes. Yes. And it is an extraordinary moment to this extent. I mean, look, President Obama and Harry Reid bear some responsibility for not advancing (INAUDIBLE) of immigration reform when Democrats had unified control of Congress. But of course, Mitt Romney calling for bipartisan immigration reform. Well, that's precisely what he opposed in 2007 when the McCain/Kennedy bill was up, backed by President Bush, Mitt Romney, who's running for president the first time, and he strongly opposed that bill, called it amnesty.
So -- so, you know, it's a little bit of a tough position for both of them, frankly. You've got to -- you've got to square your actions with your past statements and principles, as well.
BURNETT: Yes. I'm still a little vague on both. Well, thanks very much to both of you.
And still OUTFRONT, just days after Jerry Sandusky's conviction, a former ESPN reporter OUTFRONT with a secret she has kept for decades.
And you have a brand new e-mail address and you probably don't even know it, but we do.
And George Zimmerman wants out of jail and he has a plan to do it. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BURNETT: Our second story OUTFRONT, Jerry Sandusky tonight alone in a prison cell still insisting he is not guilty. He was, of course, convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse late Friday night.
But now his case is inspiring others to come forward with their stories. Dana Jacobson was just 6 years old when her male babysitter sexually abused her. She was an anchor at ESPN and she's OUTFRONT tonight.
Dana, thank you so much for coming and telling your story.
DANA JACOBSON, TELEVISION BROADCASTER: Thanks for having me.
BURNETT: You chose to tell it, obviously, in the aftermath of the Jerry Sandusky story. Did that case really inspire you, motivate you to say, you know what, I'm not -- I'm going to keep this secret anymore?
JACOBSON: It did. You know I'd thought about it before, but not telling it publicly. And I told people before, but not publicly. And when this happened in November, I just didn't have that opportunity. So when I was watching on Friday night and even just hearing about it as the trial was going on, I kept thinking I need -- this is my time. I need to share my story and I heard one interview where somebody said it was time to find his voice, one of the victims.
I felt the exact same way. It was time to find my voice and actually stop being silent about it.
BURNETT: And I wanted to play one of the victims -- one of Jerry Sandusky's victims did speak out on NBC about sort of the guilt that he still feels.
BURNETT: And here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRAVIS WEAVER, ALLEGED VICTIM OF JERRY SANDUSKY: If I would have said something, that would've stopped him from being around other kids.
KATE SNOW, NBC's "ROCK CENTER": That's a big burden to carry.
WEAVER: I know it's not my fault, but I can't help but feel that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And is that a feeling you --
JACOBSON: I was watching that, and that was exactly how -- you feel that if you'd said something earlier, and I've thought this every time. I mean I came to terms with this in my 20s. And we're past my 20s now.
JACOBSON: I'm in my 30s now. So it just -- it became a -- if I'd said something, if I'd said something at the time would somebody not have been hurt? Did he hurt somebody else? Did he do this to somebody else? And while that's not realistic to expect that of a child or even somebody who's just coming to terms with it.
JACOBSON: That was certainly how I felt.
BURNETT: So when you see -- one of the images of Jerry Sandusky that stood out the most to me was the one where he was taken in, wearing the yellow sort of -- a prison garb.
BURNETT: One of his button-downed shirt, and it's just kind of looking in those -- the moment after he was formally convicted saying what is this person? Who is this person? How does a person do this? I mean what went through your mind as you're seeing those moments of Jerry Sandusky?
JACOBSON: I think more than anything, and maybe this will surprise people, he's sick. Anybody who does this, obviously, is sick. I wish in some ways maybe that I had been able to confront my accuser by doing something legally, which I can't, the statute of limitations has expired in my case. I can't imagine what that would be like and the courage that that would take. But I think if I'd had that opportunity, that maybe I would have felt differently.
Maybe there would be even more closure for me and knowing that I was able to legally do something to put somebody behind bars. So looking at him, I think I was wishing that more victims had that opportunity to really take action. And that's the problem, they don't.
BURNETT: Right. And your case was when you were 6, your abuser was 10 years older -- a babysitter.
JACOBSON: He was a babysitter.
BURNETT: Your authority figure.
JACOBSON: He was a teenager in high school and I was -- I was a kid in elementary school. And by the time I came to terms with it, the statute of limitations is 10 years or 21, I believe, in Michigan. I was passed that. I was 24 when I first was able to admit that. And to think that somebody doesn't get punished because it took you the time it should to be able to come to terms with it. That doesn't make sense. BURNETT: So do you think -- yes, extending the statute of limitations is a good thing? I mean I've heard arguments, great arguments for that, and some people who are concerned that that might lead in some cases to false accusations. I'm sure you've thought a lot about that balance.
JACOBSON: Yes. But I don't -- you have still to prove the case.
JACOBSON: I mean you could come up with a false accusation, you still have to prove the case. It seems crazy to me that somebody can get away with a crime like this with molesting a child because 15 years went by instead of 10. Because I was 24 when I came to terms with it and I was into my 30s before I really wanted to talk about it more. So it's OK what he did. Don't worry about it.
JACOBSON: That's not OK. I'd rather take the chance that you have to prove your case and that somebody, I would hope, wouldn't be wrongly convicted, but I'd rather take that chance.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you so much, Dana, appreciate it.
JACOBSON: Thank you.
BURNETT: And ahead OUTFRONT, an article that has sent shock waves across the Internet. The author who started it all by saying women can't have it all. You know what that adds up. That's OUTFRONT tonight.
And did you know you have a new e-mail address tonight? Facebook changed it for you without asking.
BURNETT: And we're back. With tonight's "Number."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You've got mail.
BURNETT: Remember that? Remember that? Yes, even if you are way too young to remember that, you remember that. The famous AOL sound.
Well, tonight you have a new e-mail address and there's probably some mail in it because Facebook has unilaterally given all users a Facebook e-mail. So mine would be firstname.lastname@example.org. It isn't. It isn't because I don't have a Facebook account, but that's the format. The 900 million people with Facebook accounts all have Facebook.com e-mail addresses tonight.
So if you go and check your contact information, you're now going to see your e-mail address shows up as facebook.com. Now the company announced back in the middle of April they were going to update people's addresses over the next few weeks, so those few weeks have passed and here we are.
Now they say, look, you're not required to keep or use your Facebook e-mail address, you can go in and change your setting to an e-mail address that you prefer, maybe the one you had in there before.
So you're going to say why is Facebook doing this? Well, for starters, because Facebook hasn't gotten traction on e-mail over the past two years. So by forcing it to be an opt out, they're thinking more people will try it out, more people will stay longer on the site, more people will use it and they can make more money. Because after all, Facebook is not a public utility even though many users may feel that way.
It's a company that has to make money. And the stock is down nearly 16 percent from its IPO price of $38. Look, we all know Facebook isn't making money from ads the way it hoped to, so it's throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Over the weekend, it tested a function called find friends nearby, which is supposed to tell you when other people, your friends, are close to you. The company said it was an unofficial release and it pulled it after 24 hours.
Now, before you say Facebook is messing up too much, throwing too much spaghetti that is dribbling off the wall, consider this, Google is testing everything from driverless cars to special glasses, to wind, to undersea cables. I mean, you can say, wait a minute, it's supposed to be an Internet company. Yes. A lot of those ideas have already failed or will fail. But Google gets brilliant people to work for it because of its mission to save the world.
And its stock has been on fire. Even with all that spaghetti throwing. And that's the "Number" tonight. $560.70, which is where Google shares closed today, Google IPO'ed at $85 a share. So maybe Facebook is hitting some bumps in the road, but what do you think? Maybe they'll throw enough spaghetti at the wall to get into Google stock price territory.
Let us know your view. Go to our Facebook page.
And still OUTFRONT, will George Zimmerman make bail? He's got a plan, we have it. And then a plague of violence in Chicago and Roland Martin is taking the president of the United States to task over it, OUTFRONT next.
BURNETT: All right. Welcome back to the second half of OUTFRONT, we start with stories we care about where we focus on our own reporting from the front lines.
First, lawyers for George Zimmerman asked a Florida court today to release their client on a, quote-unquote, "reasonable bond." The judge will consider the new bond motion on Friday. Zimmerman is charged with the murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. He claims it happened in self-defense. OUTFRONT read today's motion which says that Zimmerman is not a threat to the community nor a flight risk. Zimmerman's first bond was revoked earlier this month and he was sent back to jail. Well, he had been asked how much money he had and was not honest about that. It also turned out he had a second passport. His attorney said Zimmerman accepts full responsibility for misleading the court.
And a lawyer for Jerry Sandusky tells OUTFRONT his client wants the world to know he's not guilty. His attorney, Karl Rominger, visited Sandusky today in jail. Sandusky will be sentenced in about 90 days and he faces 450 years in prison. His lawyers say they're going to appeal. They say they didn't have enough time to prepare their defense.
And today, the judge ordered Sandusky undergo a psychological evaluation to see if he has is a sexually violent predator, psychologically speaking. If they find him to be so, Rominger says it could place Sandusky in a prison with a program to treat sex offenders.
And some good news tonight about Amy Copeland, she's the 24-year- old from Georgia who had flesh-eating bacteria. Her doctors tell us they've upgraded her conditions from serious to good. And her father says for the first time in 49 days, he was able to take her outside in a wheelchair.
Andy Copeland says when he asked his daughter how she felt about her ordeal. Everyone, this is just amazing. This is what she said. "I am blessed to share my experience with others and have a chance to improve the quality of life of others. I am blessed to be different."
It is an unbelievably incredible thing to say. She underwent multiple amputations before the infection could be controlled.
And tonight, Italy is abuzz with speculation that disgraced Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is planning a comeback. This weekend, he told a crowd of Italians, "I'm working on solutions. I'm still here. Give me 51 percent of the vote." And they chanted, "Silvio, Silvio."
As a reminder, this is the same Silvio Berlusconi who was ridiculed for holding bunga-bunga parties and allegedly paying for a 17-year-old for sex, and allegedly engaging in -- well, apparently some of those prostitutes were dressed as nuns.
Italy, though, is not due for an election until May 2013, but the current government is so unpopular, a snap vote could bring new elections as soon as October and in defense of Berlusconi, everyone, he did got that country in a place where it's running a surplus. That's impressive.
Wish we could be there, because it's been 326 days since the United States lost its top credit rating. What are we doing to get it back?
Some new good news today. New home sales at a two-year high. Economists we spoke to say the data is consistent with other good news in housing over the past few weeks. They look at inventory of new homes at its lowest level since late 2005.
And now our third story OUTFRONT: the numbers say it all. At least 31 people shot, four fatally wounded in three days. No, this isn't Afghanistan. This is a weekend in Chicago.
Since January, there have been more people murdered on the streets of Chicago than American soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Gang violence is blamed for many of the 244 killed in Chicago so far this year.
And as our Ted Rowlands found out tragically, many of the victims aren't even old enough to join the Army.
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Devante Lonoy's (ph) family wants you to take a good look at something you may need to brace yourself for. Devante's body in an open casket. This, they say, is what violence on the streets of Chicago really looks like.
The 20-year-old had recently returned to Chicago from college in Georgia. He was gunned down in what police are calling a gang shooting.
MELVIN NUTE, GRANDFATHER: He's a handsome young man too. Very handsome young man. And he got killed, you know, probably over nonsense.
ROWLANDS: Devante's funeral was Friday, a few hours before the start of another violent weekend in Chicago.
MAURICE GILCHRIST, 16-YEAR-OLD: I won't probably see 18, is what I'm saying, because -- I'm a gang banger, I ain't going to lie. I'm going to keep it real with you.
ROWLANDS: Silas Ratcliff and Maurice Gilchrist are both 16, both are associated with a gang and say they wouldn't be surprised if they were shot today.
SILAS RATLIFF, 16-YEAR-OLD: Just walking down the street, you never know. It just be your time to go.
GILCHRIST: You always got to look behind, turn your back.
RATLIFF: Bullets ain't got no name.
GILCHRIST: They might want to kill me and they end up killing you, you, and you, and not killing me.
ROWLANDS: The kids are matter of fact about the things they do and what they've seen.
GILCHRIST: I've seen people get shot, killed, robbed, stabbed, I've done all that. It's just crazy.
ROWLANDS: According to Chicago police, the murder rate here is up 35 percent compared to last year. People living here say the gangs have taken over. Some say they'd like to see the National Guard come in.
FREDDIE WOODSON, DEACON, ST. ANDREW: We need help. You know, you need help. That's all -- that's the only way I can put it.
ROWLANDS: Maurice and Silas say there are no jobs and people have no idea how hard it is to survive.
RATLIFF: Have they ever had to wear the same clothes --
RATLIFF: Wash their underwear out in the sink and hang it up and hope your school clothes are ready. Not knowing your next meal is going to come.
ROWLANDS: But they'd like to finish high school and get a good job, the dropout rate in Chicago schools is a staggering 40 percent, and Maurice and Silas they know it's very possible they'll end up in prison or in a casket, like Devante Lonoy.
BURNETT: And, Ted, what are you finding out as to why the murder rate is up so dramatically? Thirty-five percent just seems shocking.
ROWLANDS: Well, police say that it's -- there's a number of reasons, Erin.
They say one thing is that gangs have sort of splintered over the years where now you have literally two lock areas that are being defended by different groups of people. That is promoting more violence.
They say the amount of guns on the street is just astronomical. Last week, they had a buyback program, 5,500 guns are brought back and purchased by the city. They said that didn't even make a dent.
They also, believe it or not, say weather is part of this because of the mild winter. More people who were outside earlier this year. And that skewed the numbers as well. But obviously, people want answers and people want something done here.
BURNETT: That gun buyback statistic is just incredible. The deacon in the piece that you talked to was saying you wanted to have the National Guard brought in.
I mean, are the police even able to handle this? Is it completely overwhelming battle they can't even fight?
ROWLANDS: Well, one thing they have done in recent weeks, they've opened up the purse strings and they're allowing officers now to work overtime. For a long time, there was a moratorium on any overtime. That has changed. Officers are working weekends, they are working overtime. They're hoping that will make a difference. But residents say that clearly won't be enough. They do want some dramatic action.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thanks very much to Ted Rowlands, reporting from Chicago. The numbers there are truly stunning. And the thing is, is that even as the violence in Chicago is making headlines around the country and providing statistics like more people killed in gang war in Chicago this year than soldiers in Afghanistan, it's failed to gain the attention of the city's most notable resident. That would be President Barack Obama, who returned to his hometown two weekends ago to attend a wedding for the daughter of his senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.
While he was there, six people were killed. The president did not talk about it.
A loyal voter spoke up writing to the president in the "Chicago Sun Times," asking for help saying, "I am personally asking you to care enough to come back to Chicago and speak out. Who knows, coming from the president's mouth may just deter criminal activity or touch the soul of a person contemplating killing someone."
Roland Martin has been following the situation from Chicago for months and he's OUTFRONT.
Roland, good to see you.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: My pleasure.
BURNETT: So, let me just ask you, what the bottom line here -- are you surprised the president has chosen to remain silent on this issue?
MARTIN: Well, it's been interesting how this has really come down. As you say it, he was in Chicago a couple of weeks ago. And you had funerals taking place while he was at a wedding.
Now, a lot of folks and I put this out on Facebook and Twitter. And it stirred lots of people up and they said, well, he should say something, some say he shouldn't.
I believe he should speak out. But I think, though, it should be for a different reason. I don't think it should be just about Chicago. I believe the president should return to his roots as a community organizer and call on the very people living in neighborhoods, call on the people who actually stay there -- the preachers, the pastors, the people of community centers and say, you have to be able to take charge of your own community.
Also, I reach out to the White House today, Erin, they sent an e- mail today, the Department of Justice, awarding $111 million to cities across the country to be able to hire more police officers -- $3 million is going to the city of Chicago to put more cops on the street. It's also something interesting, I was actually at Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church in March 2006 when then Senator Obama spoke at a community rally after two young girls were killed by stray bullets.
And he said this, quote, "When the marches stop and the signs come down and the politicians go home and the cameras are turned away, what will we be doing tomorrow?" He then said this, which is why I think he should speak to the nation because this is a national epidemic. He said, "If we don't change how we raise our children, then it doesn't matter how many more programs come in here, it doesn't matter how much more money comes in here, it doesn't matter how many politicians make speeches. The reason they shot each other because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is because we're not loving them. We've got work to do, people."
I think by going to the South Side of Chicago, go to the House of Hope, Reverend James Meeks' church, it seats 10,000 people and literally call on the city of Chicago to say rise up and take control of the situation, the president can have a more authority to do it.
BURNETT: Why isn't he doing it? I mean, it almost seems there's got to be a political reason. Does he not want to be too associated with this sort of issue which is what perceived to be gang violence or black-on-black violence? I mean, why -- this is obviously something historically he's been passionate about?
MARTIN: I can't say why he hasn't done it. I simply believe that he should do it.
And again, this is not his fault. This is not the mayor's fault. But I do believe you can use the bully pulpit to be able to galvanize the country. I mean, just imagine if he walked -- if he's in this church and literally you have these huge billboards showing the faces of all of these kids being killed and you literally say, as a nation, we should not be silent about this, whether you're black or white, Hispanic, Asian, native-American, doesn't matter.
But also, Erin, this cuts to the prison industrial complex because the folks doing the killing, guess what? They're going right into prison, they're becoming felons, they're not being taxpayers, so it's a revolving door.
I just say for President Obama, use that bully pulpit to use Chicago as the backdrop and say America, we can do better. Not just politicians, but you at home.
BURNETT: All right. We'll see if he does that. Certainly pretty loud silence there from the president. Thanks to Roland.
And OUTFRONT next, breaking news report, enemies infiltrating the U.S. military. There's a shocking number of breaking news headline. Extremists in the U.S. military, and the article that has turned the world on its head. Our guest says women can't have it all. Does it add up? Next.
BURNETT: Our fourth story OUTFRONT: breaking news, the FBI has been conducting investigations into suspected extremists in the U.S. military. NPR reports tonight that there have been at least 100 investigations, a dozen of them considered serious.
Dina Temple-Raston is NPR's counterterrorism correspondent. She broke the news, saw this headline and said we've got to talk to you. And here you are.
So how serious is this problem?
DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, NPR COUNTERTERRORISM CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is Islamic extremists, that they actually separated out from other extremists that they're basically tracking in the military. And what they found was that there were something in the neighborhood of 100 cases of Islamic extremists within the military community. So, that's not just active duty, but that's reservists, that's contractors, that's family members, and those people have some sort of connection to radical Islam.
BURNETT: And this could be whether it's through a cleric in Yemen. Or I mean -- how do they determine these links?
TEMPLE-RASTON: Well, it doesn't have to be necessarily all the way to cleric in Yemen. They could be that they are on web sites that are problematic, or that they're in the chat rooms that they find problematic and some of the things that they're saying in the chat rooms seem threatening. I mean, there were 100 that are basically preliminary investigations. They're looking into tips, that sort of thing.
But the more worrisome thing are these dozen cases that seem serious. So, a formal investigation has been opened and they're looking into these cases as serious threats against the military community.
BURNETT: Now, people like Major Hasan who is still going and waiting for his trial, who killed people in Ft. Hood. Does someone like that have shown up early in the screening process? I mean, how serious are these very worrisome cases?
TEMPLE-RASTON: No, of course, he hasn't gone to trial yet, so he's still alleged to have killed these 13 people.
TEMPLE-RASTON: But what they're worried about is people like Nidal Hasan might slip through the system. So after Ft. Hood in 2009, November of 2009, they started a whole new reporting system to get the FBI and the Department of Defense to talk to each other more, to be able to tip each other off if they are seeing things that might be problematic.
BURNETT: Right. TEMPLE-RASTON: The problem with the Hasan case was that they weren't talking to each other. So there was some indications that the FBI had, some indications that DOD had, and those indications never came together.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Dina, thank you very much. Dina Temple-Raston, as we said, our reporting that exclusive story tonight that the FBI is tracking 100 extremists in the U.S. military.
Now, let's check in with Soledad O'Brien. She's in for Anderson, with a look at what's coming up on "A.C. 360."
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Erin.
Keeping them honest on "360" ahead tonight: the Supreme Court ruled today on immigration law. Tonight, how the candidates for the presidency reacted and how their positions have changed over time. For one candidate, it's about a promise made but not kept. For the other, just not answering the question at all no matter how many times it's asked.
Also ahead tonight, Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced former assistant football coach found guilty on 45 of 48 charges of sexual abuse.
Tonight, we talk to two jurors who heard the evidence and the arguments and sent him to jail.
Plus, fire and rain each wreaking their own havoc in different parts of the country. We'll tell you if residents of Colorado or the Gulf Coast can expect any relief any time soon.
It's all starting at the top of the hour -- Erin.
BURNETT: All right, Soledad, see you in a few moments.
And now our fifth story tonight OUTFRONT -- one article by a former State Department official has the entire country talking. I mean, this is pretty incredible. Since "The Atlantic" magazine published the cover story, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All" late last week. It's been read by more than 777,000 people as of this morning. She's shaking her head sort of in awe.
It's been liked by more than 126,000 people on Facebook. Another record for "The Atlantic."
The author Anna-Marie Slaughter is OUTFRONT tonight.
I mean, are you -- are you in awe about this, that this would have such an impact?
ANNA-MARIE SLAUGHTER, FMR. SR. ADVISER TO SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: I knew it would strike a chord, but not a symphony overnight. I mean, I really -- I knew from young people, from young women I talked to and I teach, that they were not buying the straight, you can have it all story, that they were looking at, you know, how am I going to make these choices and tradeoffs?
But I had no idea it was going to take the country by storm.
BURNETT: Well, I feel like a lot of people. Actually, I heard about it from one of my sisters and one of my colleagues. It struck the chord that maybe you're saying -- I mean, I won't say this to insult you but compliment you. You're saying the obvious what people know they don't feel OK accepting about themselves.
BURNETT: It's sort of what it was. Like OK, great, she said it, now I'm not a loser for thinking about it.
But, you know, I read your article, an aunt of seven. I'm one of the women you write about, though I don't have children yet. And sometimes I talk about this with my friends and I wonder if there really is a solution. I mean, as long as biologically women have children, people will take a hit professionally they choose to take, but they'll take it, right?
SLAUGHTER: I think they -- if they have to take the hit, they will choose to take it. But I think there are all sorts of things we can do where they don't have to choose to take the hit. So, let me just give you one example.
SLAUGHTER: Young woman, she's an MBA, she's a star, she works in the general counsel's office of a foundation. They want to make her general counsel. She's 33. She has one child. She is about to have a second.
She says, I can take the job, but I have to work from home one day a week.
SLAUGHTER: Nope, can't do it -- she doesn't get the job.
There are countless stories like that, where if you loosen things up, give people more flexibility. Let them use more technology. Lots of women can do much more with both career and kids than we're letting them do now.
BURNETT: Right. Lots of women.
But what about when you talk about getting to the very top? Because a lot of women will hear that and say, OK, that's great. But what about the women who don't have kids? Or what about the men? Or what about the women who do have kids and choose to put that time in and say, look, if I'm going to work harder, I should be the one to get the job, not someone who wants to work four days a week? SLAUGHTER: OK. So, the first thing to say, is the people who choose not to have children who are going to put all their time in, yes, they will ascend the ladder faster.
But, you know, there are a lot of parents in this country. There are a lot of women who have going to have kids. They can have a longer arc of a successful career.
It may take them longer. They're going to get something back. They're going to invest in their families.
That's hugely important. We should cherish that. We should think that's a smart and wise decision. So, it will take a little longer, but it doesn't mean they can't get there.
And that was my experience, you know? It may --
BURNETT: So you're not trying to say -- you should -- you have a kid and you don't work as many days and therefore you should descend at the same right as someone else, that's not what you're saying?
SLAUGHTER: No, if you choose to work less -- now, many women can work just as hard, right. I've done it all. I worked like crazy. But I schedule my own time.
So that's the other piece, right? If you can do it when you want to do it, then you may not have to make any tradeoffs at all.
BURNETT: One thing you wrote about in the article I wanted to sort of tell everybody. If you haven't read it, and a lot of you probably have by the way, you're right about Richard Holbrooke, the diplomat. He died. Memorial service -- one of his sons talked about his father and said, I'm quoting you, "His father wasn't around to teach him to throw a ball or to watch his games but as he grew older, he realized Holbrooke's absence was the presence of saving people around the world, a price worth paying."
I think your point was, as a woman I read that and said, gosh, if the roles were reversed, I think the feeling -- the perception would be: she was a bad mother, she was selfish, she was a failure, even though she was out saving the world.
Now, how do we change that? Because that seems to be society and how we raise boys and girls to think about parenting.
SLAUGHTER: Yes. And there I think you partly many, many more men, as are happening, are making the same choices, to spend more time, so that you think about this as a work/life balance for men and women. But there are still lots of stereotypes we have to change. Why do we talk about working mothers and not working fathers?
BURNETT: Right, that's a good point.
SLAUGHTER: That's a pretty basic point right there. If you started to talk about, well, he's a working father, meaning he's got kids at home. So, he's going to have to spend more time. She's a working mother. Working mother right now says mothers stay home. Working mothers aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. If something's wrong with their kids, it's their fault.
SLAUGHTER: That's not -- that's part of our language and our mind-set.
BURNETT: I mean, you have boys so this is something --
SLAUGHTER: I do.
BURNETT: Someone was telling me -- again, everyone's talking about this. I was talking about this with someone who's a mother and was talking about how she had to work here at CNN. And her husband went and looked at summer camps for the kids. And he was a hero when everyone said, my gosh, this father. He's such a hero for going to a summer camp, you know, meeting.
And somehow she is, what, a bad mother for not? I mean, it's sort of absurd when you think about it. But a lot of people watching will say, well, who do you think you are, and that's just the way it is. Men and women are different.
SLAUGHTER: No, I mean -- look, part of what I acknowledge is I think women do feel when a child is really in trouble and needs you, I do think, in my experience, women are more likely to say, I got to be there, for whatever those reasons are.
SLAUGHTER: But, again, there's an awful lot we can change. The teachers by my kids' schools thought my husband was absolutely a hero for showing up, treated me like a war criminal when I showed up.
SLAUGHTER: Like, why aren't you here?
Those things we can change. But we still need to allow for the fact that many women are going to want to be home. We're going to want to invest in their children.
BURNETT: They are.
SLAUGHTER: We don't just have them, we want to be with them. We need to accommodate that, too.
BURNETT: Absolutely. Absolutely do.
All right. Anne-Marie, thank you very much, a real pleasure to speak with you.
SLAUGHTER: Thank you.
BURNETT: And OUTFRONT next, humanity did everything it could and it failed. A death and a tale of man versus nature.
BURNETT: So in this show, we try to recognize individuals and ideas that are one of a kind. The subject of tonight's OUTFRONT honors, while an unusual choice, is definitely that. And it is -- he, as an individual, turtle.
Lonesome George is a 100-year-old tortoise. He was living in Ecuador's Galapagos National Park. Look at him. He died yesterday.
And it was sad and even more so because in addition to Lonesome George dying -- and a lot of people really loved this turtle -- it also was the end of his species.
That's right. Often called the rarest animal in the world, Lonesome George is believed to be the last of the Pinta Island tortoises, a sub species of the giant Galapagos tortoises which inspired Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The Pinta is believed to have numbers in the thousands in the 16th century. So, over- hunting and the introduction of other animals to the islands by people -- aw -- reduced the number of Pinta to just one: George.
In the past few decades, we have desperately worked to reverse the near extinction that we've caused. And while we've been successful with a number of other species, it appears that people have failed when it came to the Pinta. Or did we?
Because, apparently, there's a chance that Lonesome George wasn't as lonesome as we thought. According to tortoise expert Peter Pritcher (ph), Tony the tortoise, who lives in the Prague zoo, of all places, far from the Galapagos, has a shell very similar to Lonesome George's. Genetic tests are currently being done to see if Tony is really another Pinta.
They say if he is, they're going to try to find a female tortoise from another species and hopefully save the Pinta -- or so they say. Because you know what? That theory does not add up to me.
I'm pretty sure that it takes two Pintas to make another Pinta. You can't take a Pinta and put it with a part-Pinta and have a Pinta, even though some of the Pinta's genetic material would continue to exist.
It seems to me we're just trying to make ourselves feel better about what we've done to this poor species. So, tonight, OUTFRONT honors Lonesome George.
"ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now.