Return to Transcripts main page
ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT
Calling The Shots In Afghanistan; Is The Tea Party Dead?; Dreamliner Nightmare
Aired January 11, 2013 - 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, when it comes to America's troops, is President Obama calling the shots or is Hamid Karzai?
Plus, losing steam and almost out of money, is the Tea Party dead?
And the man accused of murdering 12 people at a Colorado movie theatre is ordered to stand trial. His lawyers say he's mentally ill, but does it add up? Let's go OUTFRONT.
Good evening, everyone. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, who is calling the shots, President Obama or Hamid Karzai? Obama's mixed messages as to when American troops might come home from the country's longest war in Afghanistan raise more questions. Here's what President Obama said today after meeting with Karzai in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We've already reduced our presence in Afghanistan to roughly 66,000 U.S. troops. I've pledged we'll continue to bring our forces home at a steady pace and in the coming months I'll announce the next phase of our drawdown. A responsible drawdown that protects the gains our troops have made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: In the coming months, the decision on troops is months away. All right, let's rewind one month. Here's what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEON PANETTA, DEFENSE SECRETARY: The size of that enduring presence is something that the president is going to be considering over the next few weeks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Next few weeks, not months. He said that over a month ago. So how about two months ago? Speaking about the troop count decision, Secretary Panetta told reporters in November. My hope is that we will be able to complete this process in the next few weeks. So two months ago, it was weeks, four weeks after that, it was still weeks and now it's months. Roland Martin is a CNN contributor and Reihan Salam is also a contributor and writer for the "National Review." Good to see both of you.
Roland, let me start with you. And in a week where the president has been questioned for nominating Chuck Hagel for defense secretary, a man, of course, who was against the surge in Afghanistan is for more defense cuts and has written about avoiding was.
Would it have helped the president to take a stronger stance on this issue today? Either telling the country the troop count or being open of the fact that, look, we're not on the schedule to announce this and telling the public why.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, at the end of the day, you go through your evaluations. Look, I talked to a three-star general tonight who served in Afghanistan who made it perfectly clear that these are delicate situations, you're still dealing with a country where we're trying to get the security forces up to par.
You also don't just want to just make some kind of announcement without thinking it through. Also I talked to a senior administration official who said to lead 10,000 troops in Afghanistan could cost us about $30 billion a year.
The president also has to make an economic decision, as well. So, look, if Panetta who is on his way out is saying I want it done in weeks and the president is simply saying I'm going to take a few more months, I say take your time because you're dealing with the lives of American troops.
BURNETT: That's a fair point. Of course, the time -- the clock is ticking, the United States says it's going to withdraw in 2014. And Reihan, it's not just the delay on troop numbers that sort of had us asking questions today.
Today, the president gave a reason for the delay. He said, look, I haven't gotten recommendations yet from the top commander in Afghanistan General John Allen. Here's what the president said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm going to be over the coming weeks getting recommendations from General Allen and other commanders on the ground.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right, now, a month ago when I spoke with Secretary Panetta in Afghanistan, he agreed General Allen was the one responsible, but he said the options were already ready at that time a month ago. Here's Secretary Panetta.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PANETTA: General Allen having developed a campaign plan for Afghanistan is the one who really has to come forward with the recommendation as to what the enduring presence will look like. And he's prepared several options.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Prepared several options, Reihan, and of course, as you know, subsequently the "New York Times," CNN have reported that those options were indeed presented. Allen presented three levels of troop levels, the Pentagon offered three alternatives and the White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes this week actually commented on the number saying the number could possibly be zero. What more recommendations is the president waiting for?
REIHAN SALAM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, you'll notice on the full screen we saw that John Allen is talking about numbers in the range of 6,000 to about 20,000, whereas the president is talking about number in the range of 3,000 to 9,000. That's a big, big gap.
And that gap translates into a really big difference in the kind of forced posture we have in Afghanistan. If you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 to 9,000 troops then that really translates into having troops on about two different bases.
And those bases are likely to be very far away from the provinces in the eastern part of Afghanistan where the thick of the fighting happens. The whole premise of our presence in Afghanistan is that we're going to help the Afghan forces be able to stand up and do the fighting and prevent a Taliban takeover.
The problem is that if we're not embedded with those Afghan forces, we're going to see a big flare-up of civil war in that country again. Now, that might be what we have to do. Maybe it's too expensive for us to be there, but I don't think President Obama is comfortable fully acknowledging the kind of choice we face.
If we go with the small troop levels, maybe that's what we need to do. But that means we're not going to be able to have the presence that's going to prevent a real breakout of civil war.
BURNETT: Roland, is it possible the president has already indicated what his decision's going to be, at least directionally, not just as Reihan said, by looking at the troop numbers presented by the Pentagon, which you could say that could be, you know, sanctioned by the White House, but also by choosing Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary.
MARTIN: First of all, remember, the numbers that are being presented by the Pentagon are not necessarily what is coming from the White House and so we can't simply make that assumption. Because the generals they have their plan, Allen can have his, but you can have Vice President Biden others around the president simply saying, look, let's force people to go through the procedure or the process of, defend the numbers, why should we be at these levels?
Here's the other piece as it relates to Hagel. We don't know how long that confirmation process is going to take. And so, again, this might be the president simply saying let's bring him onboard because I want to see what his thoughts are, as well.
I go back to the most basic fundamental thing here. We can say decision in weeks, take time in months, but we are dealing with human beings who have families, wives, husbands and children. So the president should take as much time as possible because they might be there a while. The last thing we want is a rush decision.
SALAM: Well, there's another way to look at it, which is that when you're delaying, actually laying out a grand strategy for how are we going to handle Afghanistan that also poses dangers for our military presence and for the Afghan people. So I think that, you know, I understand where Roland is coming from, but I think that there are dangers to not actually having a very clear strategy, as well. So it's a trade-off.
BURNETT: Let me ask you about something very important here. Because when it comes to sort of the -- I don't know, obviously the clear tension between Hamid Karzai and President Obama, sort of who's in charge here?
Because today Hamid Karzai said we understand the issue of immunity is very important to the United States, it's crucial to the United States. When we weren't given immunity in Iraq, the United States withdrew completely.
Since then obviously Al Qaeda-linked groups, the violence has risen. A lot of people said, look, the U.S. should've stayed in. What's he doing when he says that? I'll go to the Afghan people and I'll put forth your immunity question to them. He's known this is crucial for a very long time.
BURNETT: Him saying that today, what's he saying to the president?
SALAM: Well, you know what he's saying is that he's being -- well, I think the perception on the American side is that he's being slippery as he so often is. The perception on the American side is that, look, Hamid Karzai's government has a tremendous amount of corruption and not a tremendous amount of legitimacy with the Afghan people.
That has made him a very weak partner for the American side. So that's part of why, you know, to present a tougher face that might lend him some greater legitimacy with the Afghans, but he's just a terrible partner for the Americans to work with and that's why a lot of Americans are saying we've got to throw up our hands. We don't have a reliable partner in Kabul.
MARTIN: Erin, real quick, it's very simple. He is still the president of that country. We may want a different type of leader, but he is the president, we have to work with what we have.
Also, administration officials said in that meeting today, there were a number of things they asked of Karzai that he actually agreed to. This whole notion of who is in charge, the bottom line is here, the president of the United States.
We can try to dictate as much as we want to, but you have a sitting president in Afghanistan who we have to deal with. And so you take the good with the bad, you take the bumps, but also the great opportunities.
BURNETT: Thanks very much to both of you. We appreciate it.
And still to come, losing support and money, is the Tea Party about to implode?
Plus, a bioterror expert says America is due for a flu pandemic and is not ready for it.
And police say one of Britain's biggest TV stars committed more than 200 sex crimes.
BURNETT: Our second story, OUTFRONT, is the Tea Party dead? It's been a rough few months, down in public opinion polls, losing a battle over the fiscal cliff, and now, one Tea Party leader admitting to "Politico," quote, "There's not enough money."
OUTFRONT tonight, Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative blog redstate.com, an influential Republican, who says the Tea Party is in disarray and Amy Kremer, chairwoman of Tea Party Express.
Amy, I know you and I have talked a lot over the past year plus coming through this election and now here we are a year later, "Politico" reporting that the Tea Party is struggling for money and asking all kinds of groups that it hasn't always considered to be a friend.
"American Majority," "Club for Growth" and the Koch brothers linked "Americans for Prosperity," asking all of them for money. Is the Tea Party going to have to compromise its principles in order to survive?
AMY KREMER, CHAIRWOMAN, TEA PARTY EXPRESS: No, Erin. I don't think we are going to have to compromise our principles. Look, if you look back to 2010 when the Tea Party Movement drove the messaging, we won. We had huge victories across the country.
When you look at 2012 and the Republican Party driving the messaging in a presidential election cycle, we lost, not only conservatives but moderates, as well. So I think we need to go back to that message of fiscal responsibility because the American people want fiscal responsibility.
They want Washington to live within their means just like small businesses that American families and organizations have to every single day. And so I think that's our message that wins, and we're still here, we're not going anywhere.
BURNETT: All right, I want to ask you about something. I have something you said to me a year ago on a plane for a moment, but first, Erick, your comment about the Tea Party being in disarray. As you're well aware, in 2010 you seemed, at least, from who you supported to feel a bit differently.
You supported quite a few Tea Party candidates, right? Joe Miller from Alaska, you said of him, I so totally have a man crush on this dude. And even when Tea Party candidates lost you cheered them saying we did exactly what we set out to do, crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.
Are you being a little bit of a fair-weather friend? I mean, it's all right if you are, but I'm just wondering.
ERICK ERICKSON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No, no, it's interesting how the media likes to portray these situations. I'm a big supporter of the Tea Party. My problem is I think given the finances and situations, there are a lot of people on the outside who it's time for them to come to the inside.
They can't stand on the outside of the GOP anymore and say, we can go third party or what have you. The biggest threat to the Tea Party is the Republican establishment not the Democrats. They need to get involved in the party and continue doing what they're doing.
But there is a lot of burnout right now, I think. There aren't any issues that are exciting the Tea Party yet, but they'll come back. It's just they need to focus on continuing to beat up Republicans. And remember that the Republicans aren't their friends any more than the Democrats are.
BURNETT: Well, you're going to make sure. You keep acting that way, you'll end up never getting another Republican in the White House again. Is your party going to be split?
ERICKSON: No, I don't think that's true at all. I think the Tea Party can rally around people and they will in some cases have to compromise to find the candidate they want, but they need to clean up the Republican Party. Look, you've got two big government parties in Washington right now. Neither party is really serious about cutting spending. The Tea Party needs to go after Republicans who say they're in favor of cutting government but actually grow government.
BURNETT: And let me ask you, Amy, back in October of 2011, when you and I first met, October 18th, we were out in Las Vegas together before one of the debates. And I asked you if the Tea Party was really just defined by spending cuts and at that time it appeared that it was. And I want to play exactly how you responded to that question. Here you are then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KREMER: If you text all the rich in this country, all of their money, it's not enough to pay for everybody. At some point, you have to cut the spending and that's what we want Washington to do. And we are absolutely driving that debate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And you know what, Amy, you were driving that debate. And a lot of the spending cuts I think I've heard Democrats and Republicans all say, look, that credit has to go to the Tea Party. But now it appears that things have changed. The fiscal cliff deal supported by Republicans was an increase in taxes. That's what it was. What happened to driving the debate?
KREMER: But the thing is, Erin, we're still driving the debate. Before the Tea Party Movement was here, no one was talking about spending cuts. Everybody, you know, was going about Washington business as usual. We have absolutely driven that debate and we're not going to give up.
In August of 2011, we had the big debt ceiling debate. We're going to have another one. At the end of the day, we have to rein in the spending. We have $16 trillion in debt. Most people cannot fathom how much even $1 million is let alone a trillion.
So when we have $16 trillion in debt and we're spending $1.4 trillion or $1.6 trillion more every single year than we're bringing in, it is a real issue that needs to be dealt with.
And the bottom line is, these people, it doesn't matter what party they're in, they're going to Washington, they're being elected by we, the people, they work for us and they're going to Washington and not doing their job.
This fiscal cliff deal, they had 3 to 6 minutes to read the bill before they actually voted on it. That is not acceptable. And again, it's not about party politics, but you know what?
I'm going to say this, Erick is right that there's a problem. The Tea Party Movement was born out of frustration with both political parties, but especially the Republican Party and I would say that we're the threat to the Republican Party and we do, you can't change it from the outside.
You have to change it from the inside and look at what just happened. Ted Cruz, a great, great true fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist who was just elected as senator from the state of Texas. He was put in as the vice chairman of the NRSC, and you know what? That is a victory for us. Because the only way we're going to change it is to change it from within, we can't change it from the outside.
BURNETT: OK, any fair point. You got Ted Cruz, but you had others who didn't win and John Boehner and the rest of the Republicans who voted for that fiscal cliff deal, Paul Ryan, those guys repudiated the Tea Party.
I mean, Erick, that's really the truth here. The Tea Party might have been able to hold that vote hostage six months ago, a year ago, they didn't this time. That was a big blow. There's no other way to put it.
ERICKSON: No, I don't necessarily would agree with your characterization. Yes, Paul Ryan and John Boehner and the leadership did, but remember the plan "B" died as a result of Tea Party-backed members of Congress. They had to get certain Tea Party-backed members to go along with them this time and some of those guys are back pedaling.
You've got Aaron Schott from Illinois having his lawyer send out letters to newspapers and TV stations saying it's a lie to claim he voted for a tax increase and don't believe the Tea Party. They'll hold him account financial for it and the debt ceiling will be the next fight.
BURNETT: Thanks very much to both of you. We shall see what happens from here.
And after a series of technical failures, the FAA announced it is investigating Boeing's biggest bet, its Dreamliner 787.
And the shooter responsible for the Aurora movie theatre massacre might plead insanity. How that could put him free back on the street?
BURNETT: Our third story, OUTFRONT, the Dreamliner nightmare. Today, the Federal Aviation Administration announced an investigation into Boeing's 787 Dreamliner. This is after a week of some really high-profile problems including a fire and fuel leak and electrical failure.
The Dreamliner is Boeing's latest jet and news of the probes and the company's stock price down sharply 2.5 percent. OUTFRONT tonight, CNN's Sandra Endo with a look at what has gone so wrong.
SANDRA ENDO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Boeing's Dreamliner was for years just that. A plane made of plastic, a fuel sipper with huge windows, big seats, the plane of the future.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was supposed to be, you know, the best thing since sliced bread.
ENDO: But a totally new plane run almost entirely by electronics didn't just push the limits and change aviation, it created a whole new learning curve for the industry. The Dreamliner was delayed and struggled from day one.
The first Dreamliner delivered to all Nippon Airways in 2011 was three years behind schedule. The 787's maiden flight was touted in 2007. But after four years of troubling delays, its first flight finally took off on an overcast day in Seattle.
At first, airlines fell in love, 57 companies ordered the Dreamliner at a cost of more than $200 million each. But the plane is struggling, just this week, a fire, a fuel leak, an electrical malfunction, and a cracked cockpit window were found on different Dreamliners. The FAA is now reviewing the plane's certification.
JOHN GOGLIA, FORMER NTSB MEMBER/ AIRCRAFT MECHANIC: There've been no common denominator between any of the incidents so it is a bit unusual that they would take such a drastic step, but I'm glad they have because the public needs to be reassured that the airplane is in fact safe.
ENDO: The Dreamliner was supposed to cement America's dominance of the skies forever.
GOGLIA: And they all have their teething pains. It just seems that this one here, they seem to be coming all at once.
ENDO: Boeing is used to winning. It's America's biggest exporter. In many ways, America's most important company, a symbol of national pride, but with a federal review of its marquee plane, the future of Boeing's signature aircraft is in jeopardy -- Erin.
BURNETT: Thanks very much to Sandra. A pretty amazing story about Boeing.
And still to come OUTFRONT, prosecutors say a TV host preyed on hundreds of victims and they were children.
And the man who allegedly massacred moviegoers in Colorado, his lawyers say he's mentally ill, that could mean one day he's walking free.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a little passionate about this because I don't want to see -- I don't want to see this guy get on the streets because my son's already dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Welcome back to the second half of OUTFRONT. We start with stories where we focus on our reporting from the front lines. We begin with the Centers for Disease Control, which says the spread of flu across the United States appears to have slowed.
According to its latest update, 24 states and New York City reported high levels of activity last week, that's down from 29 states the prior week. But, officials say they won't know for weeks if flu activity has peaked or not.
Bioterror expert, Randall Larson, tells OUTFRONT an outbreak as serious as the flu of 1918 in which 50 million people were killed worldwide is not out of the question. He also warns the United States is not prepared for that. Well, for years, King Abdullah has vowed to expand the rights of women in Saudi Arabia. It's a subject we frequently talk about here on OUTFRONT. Now while the rules remain strict for women in practice, King Abdullah for the first time has appointed 30 women to the country's council, it's the top advisory body.
Isabel Coleman of the Council on Foreign Relations tells OUTFRONT some people will dismiss Abdullah's move as window dressing, but she says if you add together some of the other steps made for women's rights in the country, incremental as they are, you'll see something more substantial for women's progress developing.
Well, another high-profile woman has left the west wing, this time Nancy Deparle who is the deputy White House chief of staff. She says she is going to leave after the inauguration to join the Brookings Institution. As you know, there's been a whole lot of talk this week about diversity in President Obama's cabinet.
We showed you this photo on Wednesday, which showed the president meeting with his staff in the Oval Office. If you look closely, you'll see DeParle, one of the three women in the photo. She's sitting on the couch to the right.
And Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal says he will propose a new piece of gun legislation for his state, focusing on mental health. Right now, the federal government operates a database. We've talked about it this week. It's called the national instant criminal background check system. It's supposed to help prevent potential gun buyers of criminal backgrounds or severe mental health illnesses from buying a gun.
The problem is, fewer than 20 states have laws that actually require them to report mental health eligibility to the database. Louisiana would become one of these states if Jindal gets his way. In a statement, Jindal says the proposal is a common sense way to protect our kids, our families and our loved ones.
It has been 526 days since the U.S. lost its top credit rating. That count is getting awfully high, people. What are we doing to get it back? One area where we've seen some big recovery is the auto industry, specifically Ford, the one who didn't need a bailout. Ford announced it's going to hire more than 2,000 salaried employees in America today.
In our fourth story OUTFRONT: the insanity defense. A Colorado judge has ruled there is enough evidence for 25-year-old James Holmes to face trial for killing 12 and wounding 58 in the July 28th massacre at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.
The question tonight: will the former neuroscience grad enter an insanity plea? The judge actually delayed today's arraignment until March and he did that to give the defense more time to consider the evidence.
OUTFRONT tonight: Tom Teves' son Alex was killed in the shooting. He jumped in front of his girl friend saving her life. He was killed. His father Tom was at the preliminary hearing in Colorado this week and right before the show, I asked him what it was like to sit in the same room as James Holmes.
TOM TEVES, FATHER OF ALEX, A SHOOTING VICTIM: He murdered my son. As long as he stays locked up, I'll be fine. If he doesn't, I don't think he has any right to ever walk the streets. That's for sure.
BURNETT: Now, the way the courtroom was divided, at least as I understand it, the press couldn't see James Holmes this week, but you could. What did he look? How did he react to things?
TEVES: He has absolutely no interest or compassion for human beings, but he really, really digs guns, he really, really digs all the bombs he made. And the one human being he really dug, he was delighted when he saw the pictures of himself on the cell phones.
The individual's evil, he's not crazy.
BURNETT: So, you're saying he did react when they showed the pictures on the cell phones, the picture of himself?
TEVES: Without question. I never took my eyes off of him. To see some of the evidence I had to stay after court and have them re- show it to me because I had no interest in the evidence. I wanted to see his reactions, and he's a very, very intelligent person. If you read through the evidence, just what he did in his apartment took months and months of planning. And you and I couldn't do it.
I mean, at one point, he created a compound that's very, very explosive by I think getting aluminum and iron rods, shaving them down, then making the iron rust and then mixing that together. And whenever he saw any of that, you could see the reaction in his face. You can sometimes -- and a couple of times when he saw himself, even his lips smile. But people's eyes smile before their lips.
TEVES: And he was very, very intent.
But the sad thing is, when the 911 calls came on, it was almost like he could've cared less because people aren't real things to him. They're -- he's just evil. He's not crazy, though, you don't take that much time planning that much of a -- of a diversion so that you don't get caught if you're crazy.
If you're crazy, you grab a gun and walk into a mall and start shooting people because you don't think it's wrong.
BURNETT: So you were sitting there with other victims' families and victims themselves. Did he make eye contact with any of you?
TEVES: No, he never -- that's part of his shtick, right? He never looked -- he looked once at his attorney, and his attorney and him get along and it's kind of sad for me, but they're laughing at the bench, the attorneys with him. But he looked at his attorney once and caught my eye and quickly turned his head and went the other way.
I sat in a spot where I could see him the whole time. I had every intention of not ever losing my gaze.
BURNETT: Now, the judge ruled today, of course, that there is enough evidence for him to stand trial. Now, the defense, of course, they could try to show that he is insane, and not mentally fit to stand trial. I clearly you don't agree with that.
TEVES: Absolutely, not. If you're insane, you don't think what you're doing is wrong, if you don't think what you're doing is wrong, then you don't have any need to create a diversion that will keep the first responders from stopping you and/or capturing you.
And also, one of the things they put in there is he had on his dating site because he had two dating sites that said, "Come visit me in jail." If you don't think it's wrong, you probably don't think you're going to jail.
BURNETT: Wow. Look, this has got to be hard for you. I know you're Catholic and I know that's important to you. So how have you come to terms with the possibility of the death penalty here?
TEVES: It is a struggle to be honest with you. But I don't want that man on the street going out and killing your child because he will do it again when he's -- when they talked about the people, he could've cared less, they were objects to him. But the guns and the explosives were living things.
BURNETT: If you had a chance --
TEVES: The only person he knows is himself. Sorry.
BURNETT: If you had a chance to -- no, no, no, that's all right. If you had a chance to talk to him, to have had a direct conversation at this point, I'm sure you thought a lot about this, what would you say to him?
TEVES: I have no interest in speaking to him. My interest is to put him either in a cell for the rest of his life or someone to exterminate him.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you very much for taking the time. And my -- you're in our thoughts for the tragedy that has happened to your life and your family.
TEVES: I appreciate it.
BURNETT: And now, I want to bring Gerald Boyle into the investigation. He argued and lost the insanity defense on behalf of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. Jerry, thanks so much for taking the time. You just heard Tom Teves there, he lost his son. What does the defense need to show, if they can successfully prove that James Holmes is insane?
GERALD BOYLE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, it's going to be very difficult to prove that. The only -- the only thing you can look at is if you have first rate doctors who come aboard and say that somebody was insane at the time of a commission of an offense, you might have a chance. They're not going to find that in this case, certainly anything credible.
And even if the defense comes up with doctors, you can be assured the state and in the state of Wisconsin where I am, the court appoints impartial doctors they call them. If they're not all onboard, a jury is not going to buy insanity.
And the poor gentleman that talked, he was very articulate, he's very, very bright, he's absolutely right. This was too much planning on this one. I think the lawyers are going to have a tough time.
But, let me make it clear, a lawyer doesn't have a vote on it. He's got to represent the person and if he thinks there's a mental illness, then he's got to go forward with it. It isn't something lawyers can turn their back on, because that's not what the law requires.
BURNETT: And, you know, at the preliminary hearing, you talk about this evidence of planning and obviously Tom Teves was talking about that too. You know, there were photos on his phone that he had taken days, some weeks before the actual killing, wires, fireworks shells, bomb-making materials. You know, he had bought tear gas grenades on the Internet.
They had shown all of this. I mean, to the layperson, it would seem that part of the definition of insanity you don't know right from wrong, that if you've gone into the planning and hidden it from other people, that you clearly did know right from wrong.
Am I oversimplifying this?
BOYLE: No, you're not oversimplifying at all, Erin. That's going to be the major hurdle the defense would have, and Dahmer the state successfully argued that he killed 15 people. He planned every one of them.
He went out and found them where different places. He brought them back to his apartment. He had the drink ready to cause them to become unconscious. He had everything figured out.
The thing with Dahmer, though, as time progressed, it was clear he was going into a psychotic state. There's no question about it, because just his conduct showed it. But this man, whatever you want to call him, in Colorado, he had -- he had no such background. He just, I think, showed that he was evil. He just had a plan to commit an evil act. And that's the thing that people don't understand. Holmes, this guy will never walk the streets again no matter what. He'll be in a hospital. They'll never certify him to be able to walk the streets again.
BURNETT: You're sure of that? If he pleads not guilty by reason of insanity and the state can't prove he's sane, he would get evaluated every six months at a mental institution. And if at one point they say he's better, he could walk. You're saying there's no way to do it?
BOYLE: I've been here doing this stuff for 50 years, both as a prosecutor and defense lawyer, I've never seen anybody who was found insane who has a right to have a hearing every six months ever get out.
BURNETT: And one final question. During the interrogation, they were saying when he was first found outside the movie theater, he was said to be making puppets with paper bags and placed over his hands. Some of the victims have said this was staged.
You've done this. You dealt with Jeffrey Dahmer. Can you fake mental illness to the extent that you could be ruled insane at a trial?
BOYLE: Many have tried it. Nobody has succeeded.
These doctors are too smart. They know when they're trying to fake it. They catch them. It's the easiest thing in the world for them to do.
Lawyers can catch them, too. I've caught them lying, trying to fake a mental illness.
But there are people that seriously are mentally ill and don't know what they're doing when they do something bizarre. And those people should be treated in a mental -- prison mental hospital. They shouldn't be -- they'll never be freed, but if we can cure them, we cure them. But nobody who has done the type of thing that this fella did is ever going to see daylight. It's not going to happen.
Because all a judge will hear is from one doctor that says that he is still a threat to others, that'll be it. And nobody is going to say this guy is not going to be a threat to others. So I don't think he'll ever see daylight again.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you very much, Gerry, for taking the time to share that with us tonight. Certainly something that victims and victims families would feel incredibly relieved to hear from him.
OUTFRONT next, police say one of Britain's biggest TV stars committed more than 200 sex crimes during his lifetime and many of his victims were young children.
And almost a year since a cruise ship ran aground off the coast of Italy, the ship remains as a ghost wreck and the safety standards haven't improved. An OUTFRONT investigation.
BURNETT: We're back with tonight's "Outer Circle", where we reach out to our sources around the world. And tonight, we follow a developing story we have been covering closely, Mali.
The Pentagon is now considering getting involved in the country's fight to push Islamic insurgents out. Today, French troops launched airstrikes. Now, the Islamists have spread terror through the country. In July, we spent time with Malian refugees who told us that the horrific violence they were fleeing from. Nearly half million Malians have fled.
And tonight, the Malian government says it has retaken a crucial town that the Islamist has just taken over.
Vlad Duthiers is covering the latest development for us. And I asked him how desperate Mali is right now for outside help.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR DUTHIERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Erin, Mali requested emergency assistance from France after the fall of the strategic northern city of Konna on Thursday. The Islamist al Qaeda-back rebels are now pushing towards the capital of Bamako and it's clear that the Malian government would not have made this plea if the country were not in dire straits.
On Friday, French President Francois Hollande responded, saying French armed forces were supporting Malian units in an effort to oust the militants. And also late Friday, French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said France conducted air strikes against rebel forces.
Now, while African-led troops have been scheduled to send 3,000 soldiers to the country in September, it now looks as if the situation requires something much more urgent -- Erin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Thanks very much to Vlad, reporting there for us from West Africa.
And tonight, detectives are calling the sex abuse scandal involving one of Britain's biggest television stars unprecedented. It is disturbing and horrible. According to a new report, Jimmy Savile, who died in 2011, committed more than 200 sex crimes. Many of his victims were children and teenagers.
Matthew Chance is in London with details of the report that has sparked outrage around the world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're all ready at (INAUDIBLE). Here we go (INAUDIBLE) right now. MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): For decades, he was the face of children's television in Britain, a tireless charity fundraiser and friend to the country's elite.
But after a 14-week investigation, the British police say it was all a veil behind which Jimmy Savile carried out decades of abuse.
CMDR. PETER SPINDLER, METROPOLITAN POLICE: He exploited his celebrity status. He traded on the currency of celebrity to get himself almost unprecedented access to our institutions, to our hospitals, to our schools, and there he took advantage of the most vulnerable in society. Adults and children although sadly primarily children, and for his own sexual gratification abused them.
CHANCE: And figures revealed by the new police reports show how prolific an offender Savile really was. Over a period spanning more than half a century, police say they received 450 complaints about Savile, 214 cases have been formally recorded as abuse, including 34 rapes.
The report says 73 percent of the victims were children at the time of the abuse. But that those abused ranged in age from just 8 years old to 47. It was with popular kids shows like "Jim'll Fix It" that Savile established himself as the leading British children's entertainer of his generation.
A number of children who appeared on the show have since complained of abuse.
What at the time may have seemed like some innocent fun on the set of top of the pops, a leading BBC music show also hosted by Savile now appears deeply disturbing.
(on camera): This whole sordid affair, according to police here at Scotland Yard, underlines the tragic consequences of when power and vulnerability collide. Police say victims were silenced for decades because of fear, shame, and the sheer celebrity of the offender, Jimmy Savile.
(voice-over): But there may have been a positive impact. So many victims have now spoken out about their ordeal at the hands of Savile, support groups say it may have fundamentally changed the way Britain deals with abuse.
PETER SAUNDERS, NAPAC: It does send out a clear signal that victims don't need to remain silent any longer. And I think that will make people who are contemplating abusing children or others think twice because no longer are we going to keep quiet about this. We're going to speak out, we're going to go to the authorities, and the authorities are telling us they are going to take firm action, because in the past, yes, you're quite right, most of us have taken this issue seriously.
And I think society generally hasn't and there hasn't been enough to prosecute offenders and bring people to bear. CHANCE: If only attitudes had been different in past decades, say police. A sex offender like Savile hidden in plain sight could have been brought to justice.
Matthew Chance, CNN, London.
BURNETT: And now our fifth story OUTFRONT. It's been nearly a year since the luxury cruise liner Costa Concordia ran aground off the Italian coast. Nearly three dozen people were killed as passengers scrambled for life boats. Now, later this month, the captain could be indicted for his role in the chaos. Nothing has happened as of yet.
And the other question is: have industry wide standards gotten better in the wake of the January 13th disaster?
Miguel Marquez is OUTFRONT with that story.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A world turned upside down. A luxury cruise liner strikes a massive rock. It shudders to a stop, begins listing heavily, then starts to sink.
DEAN ANANAIS, SURVIVOR: The fear was -- basically it was terrifying to a point because especially what really terrified us is how -- when panic started.
MARQUEZ: Dean and Georgia Ananais and their two daughters were among the 4,200-plus passengers and crew aboard the Costa Concordia. Thirty-two people died that night. The Ananais family waiting over five hours for rescue said their good-byes thinking they too would perish.
One investigation found the ship's captain, Francesco Schettino failed to order abandon ship in a timely manner.
GEORGIA ANANAIS, SURVIVOR: If they had trained their personnel to know what to do and give the word, everybody wanted to get on those life boats, I guarantee everybody would have survived.
MARQUEZ: While changes to procedures and technology have been made to the cruise line and across the industry, some say it's not enough.
Industry watcher Cruise Critic says standards of employment training and evaluation of cruise line staff at all levels can be better and be made more consistent.
Any day now, an Italian prosecutor is expected to request that nine Concordia officers and crew, including the ship's captain, face criminal charges. Today, the "Costa Concordia" is a fixture on the landscape. On Google Earth it looks like a surreal manmade island.
The cruise line hopes to raise and remove the ship this summer. (END VIDEOTAPE)
BURNETT: All right. Miguel is with me now.
I mean, Miguel, since the disaster, what sorts of things have changed for the industry, I mean, when you look at technology, anything, to make it safer.
MARQUEZ: Yes, the Costa cruise line has put in more GPS technology into their ships so they know exactly where they are. That was one problem that night. Industry-wide, there's been 10 different things that have been implemented across the board, everything from more life vests in public areas, tying down heavy objects, doing those muster drills, those emergency drills before the ship leaves port. All those sort of things are in play.
And there are more reports to come from agencies. So, we may see more changes to the industry ahead, Erin.
BURNETT: Miguel, what about the company. When you talk about that they've made some specific changes on GPS. The company that owns the Costa Concordia, I was trying to remember where I was, recently, but I saw an ad for some cruises that they were trying to launch, I think in the Middle East. How has this affected their business?
MARQUEZ: Well, Carnival -- Carnival, the massive U.S. and London-based company, owns the Costa line, the cruise line, and that company was hit very hard. The CEO said it was the worst year they had coming out of that tragedy, but they are starting to turn around. They lost a lot of money. They cut prices for cruises in that first year
The last quarter of this last year, they made $100 million. So, they came out of the red into the black finally, and it looks like they're turning things around.
But it's interesting that the prices for Carnival cruises are still lower than other cruise lines and cruises out there. So they're still feeling the effects of the Costa Concordia, but all signs are they're moving ahead of it. Their stock prices have certainly gained since the disaster as well, Erin.
BURENTT: It's pretty amazing. So many people taking cruises. They want to know some real specifics that there's been changes. Thanks very much to Miguel for that report.
And OUTFRONT next, lifeless, ghastly, rotten are just some of the frankly nasty and derogatory words being hurled at Kate Middleton. Yes, Kate Middleton. How so is that, you ask? Well, of course, we're going to tell you, next.
BURNETT: Kate Middleton is the most popular member of the royal family. Of course that does not surprise you, I'm sure. Her fans love creating tributes to her. Just take a look at these. Always with flowing, thick hair. She has beautiful hair.
For months, we've seen portraits of her pop up on galleries and buildings. That is someone's arm. Yes, that is really twisted. Sorry, people. Those teeth need a little whitening.
Anyway, that is what people have done. She's never had an official portrait until right now. Artist Paul Emsley was commissioned to create a portrait of the duchess. Today, it was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery.
All right. Let me give you a close look. There it is. What do you think? Do you like the picture?
If you do, you are in the minority, because today, the press slammed the painting, saying it makes her look lifeless, ghastly, even busted. Really, thanks, British press. Aren't you supposed to love her? Now you say nasty things.
So, how did the royal family let this happen though? Did Kate really sign off on the picture?
Well, here's the thing. Kate seems to enjoy art. She's been spotted at galleries so maybe she realizes some portraits aren't about looking perfect, you know, like the Mona Lisa.
Today, we reached out to Dennis Geronomis (ph). He's an associate professor of art history at New York University. And he told us that portrait commissions, I'm quoting him, are products of an exchange between patron and painter. And Kate and her advisors would have been familiar with and probably admired Paul Emsley's very realistic style before he was hired.
So, even though many people are panning the picture, the portrait might have been exactly what Kate had in mind. That we celebrate because after all the fact is this. Nobody looks perfect like on air brushed magazine covers. Their faces are not perfectly smooth. Their eyes have bags, and, you know, all that just gets fixed in edit, right? You got little brown spots under your skin, they just wipe it out.
Real women have lines on their faces. They have freckles. They have dark spots. And they do have dark circles under their eyes.
Kate looks great without being air brushed. She's doing us all a service by being confident in her real skin. She looks beautiful.
What do you think of her portrait? Let us know on Facebook and Twitter. And have a wonderful weekend.
Anderson is now.