Return to Transcripts main page


The Buck Stops Where?; "Massive And Unprecedented Intrusion"; Angelina Jolie's Breast Cancer Shocker; Interview with Congressman Adam Schiff of California

Aired May 14, 2013 - 19:00   ET


ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next, breaking news, CNN has obtained a copy of a report that confirms that the IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups. We're going to tell how the White House responded to that.

Plus, the latest on the investigation in Cleveland, CNN's exclusive details about missed clues that could have save those women sooner.

And a major decision by Angelina Jolie. The dramatic surgery she may or may not have needed. Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, we begin with the breaking news, CNN tonight has obtained an IRS internal report that shows the agency deliberately targeted some conservative groups. The report from the agency's inspector general reads, I just want to quote it here.

"The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions. The report also said the agency delayed processing those groups' applications and requested unnecessary information.

Earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation in to the matter, but this scandal is just one of many plaguing the White House tonight. Jim Acosta reports from Washington.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Over at the White House, there isn't much talk of Harry Truman these days and the buck stops here. On the political targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service, the White House has said it's awaiting an inspector general's investigation.

On who changed the talking points on Benghazi, the Obama administration says that was the CIA. As for the historic move to secretly obtain phone records from the Associated Press, White House officials say, talk to the Justice Department. Instead of Truman, Republicans are making a different comparison.

SENATOR ORIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I've never seen anything quite like this except in the past during the Nixon years.

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can tell you that the people that make the comparisons need to check their history.

ACOSTA: So it was worth noting that at the same time, both White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Attorney General Eric Holder were holding separate news conferences, Carney said while he was waiting for all the facts to come in on the IRS, he knew enough to say no White House officials were involved.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What gives you that confidence?

ACOSTA: Then he walked that back when a reporter called him out.

CARNEY: I have no reason to believe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you're doing it on good faith or assumption?

CARNEY: Because I can tell you that I am not aware of anyone here knowing about it.

ACOSTA: Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher said Carney was doing all he could, tap dance.

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Sometimes the press secretary cannot answer questions and this means that the press secretary's job is to duck, dance, dodge and defer, the four "Ds."

ACOSTA: While Holder took himself out of the investigation that led the Justice Department to cease AP reporter phone records in the hunt for national security leaks--

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I recuse myself from this matter.

ACOSTA: The attorney general seemed to defend the decision.

HOLDER: This is among if not the most serious. It is one of the top two or three most serious leaks that I've ever seen. Put the American people at risk.

ACOSTA: Even a fellow Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wasn't buying it.

SENATOR HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER: I don't know who did it or why it was done, but it's inexcusable and there's no way to justify this.


ACOSTA: Eric Holder said the Justice Department is now investigating the IRS to see if any laws were broken, but add the IRS scandal to the controversy over the AP's phone records and GOP leaders see an Obama administration effort to silence its critics. Time and again White House officials said that's not so, but it's never a good day when the spokesman has to respect defend the president's respect for the first amendment -- Erin.

BURNETT: That is for sure. Thank you very much, Jim Acosta. OUTFRONT tonight, the woman who run the organization at the center of the one of the scandals Jim is reporting, the executive editor of the Associated Press, Kathleen Carroll. Good to have you with us. So the Justice Department says we didn't do anything improper. They are trying to stand by that.

They say, look, we can legally get your records. After all, you made the phone call. Phone companies have them. That means we have the right to get them. Do you think something illegal was done?

KATHLEEN CARROLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATED PRESSS: I have no way of knowing if something illegal was done because we really don't know anything except that they have ceased secretly the phone records for two months of AP phones, 20 different phone lines and, you know, I have no way to know whether that's illegal or not.

BURNETT: Attorney General Eric Holder said that and the deputy attorney general wrote you a letter to you at the AP and the deputy attorney general wrote this, we are required to negotiate with the media organizations in advance of issuing subpoenas unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.

Now they say they were looking in to they say to try to find the person that leaked the information to you about the CIA operation in Yemen that could have resulted in an airliner to the United States being bombed, right. They said they need to find the person that did that and prosecute that person.

He is saying that telling that they were going after your phone records would have posed a, quote/unquote, "substantial threat." Would it have?

CARROLL: So I'm a journalist and I ask questions. What kind of threat would that have posed? What could we have done that would have posed a threat to them if they came to us and said, we are trying to investigate this and we want to see some records. We want to see some phone records.

Instead we have a very broad net across AP's news gathering operations including fax machines, switchboards, bureaus that have as far as I know no particular connection to the story that they seem to be investigating.

BURNETT: You know, what I find amazing about this is this is significant for people at home. Sources to journalist could be compromised. You know, you have conversations with people. Your reporters do and they trust you and the American people trust that relationship and that's how we could trust the media, and the Justice Department just snooping in?

CARROLL: Well, it isn't just potential confidential sources. We have those conversations. These numbers in bureaus where about 100 journalists work and in the course of two months, they are making lots of different phone calls and talking to people, ordinary people in the normal course of news gathering.


CARROLL: Now those records are with the Justice Department.

BURNETT: They know more they're looking for?

CARROLL: I would assume so.

BURNETT: Now you also initially delayed this story about this bomb threat at the request of government officials saying it would jeopardize national security. Media organizations sometimes do that. You did so. After you knew that there they were going to put it out, you put it out yourself. Do you feel intimidated by what they are doing right now? That they went behind your back without a subpoena to try to get the information?

CARROLL: I don't think we feel intimidated, but we're certainly shocked by the scope of it and our lawyers who have been doing this a long time, our CEOs in doing this a long time. I have been doing this a long time. We have never seen anything along the size and scope of this particular investigation. So it's not intimidating, but it does beg the question, what are they looking for? Why do they need so many phone records?

BURNETT: But when you say size and scope, Bush administration did this or whatever. You're saying this one in terms of what it's tried to get from you is unprecedented?

CARROLL: Without notice, without conversation. Secretly seizing the records of 20 different phone lines that cover about 100 different journalists doing two months of news gathering, that's a lot of phone exchanges.

BURNETT: All right, well, Kathleen Carroll, thank you very much.

CARROLL: Thank you.

BURNETT: This is a significant story for the first time in this country.

Still to come, a U.S. diplomat talks out of Russia. The Russians say he's a CIA spy. Why?

Plus, Angelina Jolie's dramatic decision, you heard it today. She is going to undergo a double mastectomy without having had cancer. Now is this the right decision for every woman facing her circumstances.

Tougher drunk driving laws could be on the way. How many drinks are too many? The new number may actually shock you.

And the latest instalment of our OUTFRONT investigation into Gitmo. We are live in Gitmo tonight with exclusive interviews of guards at the prison. We hear their dramatic stories coming up exclusively OUTFRONT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BURNETT: Angelina Jolie is one of the biggest stars in the world. Her films have generated more than a billion dollars worldwide and pretty much everyone knows who she is. She's a global superstar, which brings me to tonight's number one. Angelina Jolie was Google's number one trending topic today and she's been one of the worldwide trends on Twitter.

The reason why is our second story "OUTFRONT," Angelina Jolie's big news, the Academy-award winner and mother of six broke the news double mastectomy in an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" today, which I woke up at 4:30 and it was one of the first things I saw.

She writes, quote, "I carry a faulty gene, BRAC-1, which sharply increases my risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be pro-active and to minimize the risk as much as I could."

OUTFRONT tonight is Nancy Brinker, breast cancer survivor and CEO of Susan G. Komen for The Cure, Dr. Lisa Masterson, host, of "The Doctors" and Anna Gorman, an "L.A. Times" writer who made the difficult choice as Jolie's.

So Ann, let me start with you. You have a long family history of cancer. I know. You shared your father's BRAC-1 gene mutation and you elected to have your uterus, ovaries and a double mastectomy all done in the name of prevention. That must have been an unbearably difficult choice.

ANNA GORMAN, WRITER, "L.A. Times": It was, indeed, a really hard choice to make. Those are what defines us as women in many ways, our breasts and our ovaries. But for me, it was absolutely the right choice to make. My risks of getting cancer were up to 87 percent chance of getting breast cancer and up to 60 percent of getting ovarian cancer.

And I just didn't want to live with that fear or burden hanging over my shoulders so I made those choices to have the surgeries and I've never turned back and I have two young girls and I'm able to tell them that mommy's going to be around for a very long time.

BURNETT: Which is, I know, something that Miss Jolie was also talking about. Her mother died very young of this. And Dr. Lisa, though, when you read Angelina Jolie's op-ed, it says more people should be tested and more insurance companies should pay for it.

She said it cost up to $3,000 for a test for the gene, but then in a situation like Anna or Angelina and your chances are 87 percent, the choice might be -- I don't want to say simple because it's not simple matter on how you look at it, but it might be more clear, but what about for a woman who gets the choice back and it's 30 percent or 40 percent? All of a sudden it's a lot more difficult.

DR. LISA MASTERSON, HOST, "THE DOCTORS": Well, we all have risk factors and some of us have higher risk factors than others especially with a first-degree relative or you had abnormal biopsies, but it's an individual choice for women. The whole idea is to identify who's at risk so they can decide if they want to be monitored more frequently with more breast exams, mammograms, MRIs or if they want to do chemo prevention.

So there are options for women and a key factor is you don't want to do something out of fear. You want to do something to help you for the rest of your life. And if that's to have a double mastectomy, that's great. That takes a lot of courage. You should also have your ovaries removed as well because of the estrogen potential.

And that, you know, the choice is different for every woman. So it really is important that women discuss these factors with their doctor and then choose what's right for them. My mother died of breast cancer and it was very hard to watch her. But I'm an individual who probably would not choose a double mastectomy for prophylaxis. So it is every woman's individual choice. We have to respect that.

BURNETT: And Nancy, you're a breast cancer survivor. You had a double mastectomy. You have been through this.


BURNETT: And you counsel so many women around the country. When's the impact of Angelina's announcement? I mean, certainly you're going to have a whole lot more people that want this test. There's good, but is there also some bad?

BRINKER: The bad is that there are so many choices to make. The good part is that she was so brave to speak out the way she did. And also, to destigmatize the speaking out itself, to destigmatize the issues. People really need to know they're complex issues and they're individual decisions. And thank heavens she had and I had and the doctor had the very best care. But for women who don't have that care, she also talked about that. I thought it was a beautifully written op- ed piece and really underscored the choices sometimes one has to make.

BURNETT: Dr. Lisa, is this a test that every woman should get? I mean, there's going to be more and more availability. If you're a man watching, you can get tested for prostate cancer and all these things early on in your life as technology gets better and better. But when it comes back with an odds of this versus that, it can create an incredible amount of stress in your life and a very difficult decision on what to do. I mean, it doesn't seem as clear cut and simple to me when I think about it.

MASTERSON: No. Absolutely it is not. The key again is to identify who is at risk. And ACOG has put out guidelines for us as physicians to determine who's a risk factor, who's at 20 percent increased risk factor and then offer this genetic testing to them.

And again, women deciding to have the testing, they have to determine what steps are they going to take after that as far as prevention. Is it going to be heightened surveillance? Is it going to be a prophylactic double mastectomy? Is it going to be chemo prevention? Is it going to be scanning more often? Before they actually take the test and know the indications. And remember, if you don't test positive for a BRAC gene, that doesn't mean you're not still at risk. BURNETT: Right.


BURNETT: Yes, there could be that false sense of security, right?

BRINKER: That's right.

BURNETT: Will insurance pay for it?

BRINKER: Well, it pays for it in some cases and that's why the test is a varying amount of money. But remember all of the people in America who are not yet covered by the Affordable Health Care Act fortunately -- hopefully that will take care of many people. But we don't really know that for sure.

And this is a test that ought to be widely available. And accessible to people no matter what they have or where they live. A woman's life shouldn't be determined by that. So we really, really want to make sure that the test becomes more accessible to people. And all of the decisions that we're talking about are those that people fortunate enough to have great care can make.

BURNETT: All right. Thanks very much to all three of you. We appreciate it. A crucial topic for all those watching. Children with mothers, mothers, and fathers and husbands. Men, too.

Still to come, CNN can now confirm that the IRS was targeting conservative groups in this country in part by the name. Patriot, Tea Party, that means you could get checked. A man that thinks that the IRS did absolutely nothing wrong and is willing to stand up to take our ire is OUTFRONT tonight.

Plus, is America headed toward a zero-tolerance law when it comes to drunk driving? The feds want to change that limit dramatically.

And we just received a 911 call from what could be the 12-year-old boy that is accused of killing his younger sister. That just came in a few moments ago. And there are some very strange things about this. - We'll turn this for you, play it for you on the other side of the break.


BURNETT: Breaking news. CNN has just obtained the 911call from what appears to be the mother of Leila Fowler, who was stabbed to death in her northern California home. Now, Leila's brother is 12 years old. He has been arrested in this case. The Calabaras County sheriff's department has just released the call, and I want you to get a chance to listen yourself closely to what she says but also to what she does not say in this call.


911 OPERATOR: Hi, 911. How can I help you? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: My children are home alone and a man just ran out of the house. My older son was in the bathroom and my daughter started screaming. He came out, there was a man inside of the house and we need an officer there --

911 OPERATOR: Where is the house? The man is gone, though?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes. They say he ran out, but they're really scared. I'm trying to --

911 OPERATOR: OK, of course. How old are your kids?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Twevle and nine.

911 OPERATOR: Okay. Sounds like you had a break-in?


911 OPERATOR: Okay. Did they see the man? Were they able to --

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: They see him. My daughter is freaking out right now.

911 OPERATOR: OK. What is your house phone number? OK, all right. We'll get somebody out there. I want to go ahead and call the house. Okay?


911 OPERATOR: OK. Bye-bye.


BURNETT: You heard her talk about how her daughter was freaking out right now. Obviously, on that call, it doesn't appear there's a mention that her daughter had been stabbed multiple times, injured. We'll stay on the story and bring you developments as they happen.

Still to come, a U.S. diplomat booted out of Russia. Russians say he's a CIA spy. So do CIA spies in real life wear bad blond wigs?

Plus, the latest on just how one man allegedly kept three women prisoners in a house for a decade. We have found the one huge red flag that Ariel Castro's neighbors missed. We have a special investigation from Cleveland tonight.

And the feds want to lower the legal limit on drinking and driving. So, this is the question: how many drinks is too many? That number has changed.

Plus tonight's shout out. Prince Harry meets Governor Christie. Today, Chris Christie took Prince Harry to see Side Heights (ph), one of the areas hardest hit by that super storm Sandy. The two talked with residents, walked along a rebuilt boardwalk, and had lunch at the governor's seaside retreat with the Christie family. Christie even presented Harry with a gift. He got his own blue fleece. Now the governor was wearing a lovely mint shirt today, but the blue fleece is very similar to the one he was seen wearing day in and day out during the days after Sandy struck. So you know it was a gift that mattered a lot to him.

We'll be right back.


BURNETT: Our third story OUTFRONT: an exclusive look inside Gitmo. We have going inside Gitmo all week on this program as the hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay nears its 100th day. Our Pentagon reporter, Chris Lawrence, has a firsthand and exclusive look at what's going on inside that prison. He has been given exclusive access to the grounds in an OUTFRONT investigation. We do want to warn you, though, some of what you are about to see and hear is graphic.


CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): CNN got exclusive access to camps five and six, where most of the detainees are being held. We saw individual cells, media rooms with leg shackles bolted to the ground, and communal areas that used to be filled with detainees.

(on camera): Right now, the camp six detainees are being held in individual cells like these.

(voice-over): Patrolling those cells, young guards the age of college students. For the first time, we're seeing the faces of those who guard the detainees.

CAMP FIVE GUARD: They use extremely vulgar language towards females. And I have had a lot of experience with that, unfortunately. So especially Caucasian females they don't like us at all.

LAWRENCE: She is 21 years old, and down in the cell blocks, she's called every name in the book.

CAMP FIVE GUARD: Most common is (EXPLETIVE DELETED). They'll say things like I'll piss all over your face. They'll say, oh, you have had (EXPLETIVE DELETED) thrown on you. You've been disrespected. Nobody wants you. You're trash now.

LAWRENCE: The situation inside Guantanamo is dire. A hunger strike has gone from a half-dozen detainees to more than 100. Of those, about 30 refuse to take the liquid nutritional drinks and have to be fed through a tube. But officials admit that the clock is ticking on this option.

CAPT. ROBERT DURAND, JOINT TASK FORCE GITMO SPOKEMAN: If anybody's had a can of Ensure or muscle milk or whatever, it says right on it, it is not designed to be a long-term sole source of nutrition. So there are long-term consequences of getting all of your meals through a liquid supplement.

LAWRENCE (voice-over): All of this tension is leading to more conflict, including so-called splashing where detainees squirt guards with a mixed of water, urine and feces.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's a biggest way to act out, is the throwing of feces at guards, and it's been happening consistently actually for the past month and a half. Every single day, there's a splashing.

LAWRENCE (on camera): In fact, you can see the result of some splashing on the ceiling, pieces of feces that are still stuck to the top of the ceiling.

(voice-over): One guard says she's been splashed several times.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you can go to the hospital. They draw your blood. Let you know that the detainee has any diseases. And then go right back to work.


LAWRENCE: In fact, she told me sometimes it is all she can do to sort of bottle it up and walk away. That prison guard was also a guard at Fort Leavenworth. But she says it doesn't compare to the experience of working right here. That is the side of the story that we have not heard before, but it doesn't mean we have forgotten about the detainees or the cost of keeping this prison open. All areas we're going to get deeper in to over the next couple of days, Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Chris Lawrence, thank you very much.

As Chris said, there's investigation in those parts of the story. We'll continue through the week.

But what you just saw there, incredible reporting as difficult as it was to watch.

And now, I want to get to some other stories we're focusing with reporting from the front lines. An OUTFRONT update on the rise of drones.

The Navy today completed its first-ever carrier based launch of its X- 47B unmanned aircraft. Navy says the flight showed the drone capable of navigating in air space on its own. And one commander called it watershed in naval aviation.

Winslow Wheeler (ph) on the Project on Government though says the launch is actually the easiest thing the drone will do. Faced with an enemy air force is a very different thing and drones have proven helpless to real defenses and much more expensive than many seem to assume.

Well, tougher drunk driving limits may be around the corner. The National Transportation Safety Board recommending today all states lower the blood alcohol content level from 0.08 to 0.05. Now, the current law is 10 years old. A 180-pound male will likely hits .08 after four drinks in an hour. In the new recommendation, it goes to two, maybe three.

The beverage lobby is crying foul, questioning whether the science has changed over the past decade.

NTSB says it hasn't but that when other countries lowered their levels, the entire population drinks a little bit less. I think it's fair to say that after four drinks in an hour, you probably shouldn't be driving.

It has been 649 days since the U.S. lost its top credit rating. What are we doing to get it back?

Well, the International Energy Agency says rising oil production in this country will transform the world market over the next five years. Supply from this country is going to grows by so much, American oil is going to account for 50 percent of the growth in oil output on this planet. That's big oil.

And now, our fourth story OUTFRONT: the Benghazi dilemma. How the administration handled the aftermath of the deadly attacks of U.S. consulate in Libya is dominating the headlines and Beltway politics.


REPORTER: Obama's being compared to President Nixon. How does he feel about that?

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I can tell you that people who make those kind of comparisons need to check their history because, you know, what we have here with one issue in Benghazi is so clearly as we're learning more and more, a political sideshow, a deliberate effort to politicize a tragedy.


BURNETT: Political sideshow or an Obama administration cover-up?

OUTFRONT tonight, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California on the House Intelligence Committee.

And thank you very much, Congressman. Always great to talk to you.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: A pleasure to talk to you.

BURNETT: So, when we talk about this -- the talking points did include in their early stage when the CIA handed them for edits, a fairly detailed description with the mention of involvement of al Qaeda, that said that there had been warnings of a possible terror attack in Benghazi. All of these were taken out. It is still unclear at this point by whom, whether in the State Department or in the White House or somewhere else.

How can you defend the administration for such substantial edits to those talking points?

SCHIFF: Well, the key thing on the talking points is most fundamental error in them actually stayed in throughout the editing process, and that was the error that said that this began as a protest. And that error was solely an error of the intelligence agencies. They thought it began as a protest and they got that wrong. There's never been any indication that the State Department or White House was responsible for that error.

There were other changes made basically that watered down the talking points. I think there were a number of motivations there, some to protect classified sources; others, you know, in an effort to fight over turf between State and CIA.

But none of that indicates that there was some crime that's been covered up here. To compare it to Watergate I think is just preposterous.

BURNETT: In one of the e-mail exchanges about the talking points, that the State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland talks about some of these edits, and one of them in particular that she refers to in this email was the fact that the repeated warnings about terror attacks in Benghazi were removed. And she justifies that by saying that they should be removed because, quote, "that fact could be accused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we feed that, either?"

Congressman, obviously, there are people, Democrats, who are saying the Republicans are on a witch hunt because of this. But when you read a sentence like that, that sure as heck sounds like the Democratic administration was playing politics with this last fall.

SCHIFF: I think what was happening here is that, you know, you had two facilities, one that was a State Department diplomatic facility, one that was an agency facility. And so, State Department I think felt why is CIA trying to set it up like they were warning, they were doing everything right when, in fact, the CIA facility was just as vulnerable as the diplomatic one.

And so, that's kind of an early effort to say, let's not jump to conclusion about who is more at fault, or whose facilities were more at risk. Yes, when you take it out of context like that, it certainly doesn't reflect positively on the State Department.

But, you know, putting some gloss on these talking points hardly earth shattering, hardly the stuff of Watergate or major scandal. Part of what happens every day in the interagency process.


SCHIFF: I do think that, you know, the talking points ultimately got watered down to a point they weren't very useful, but, again, hardly the stuff of great scandal.

BURNETT: But there is one point, though, that people who are frustrated me that I want to ask you about. That is, just talk about the basic thing. Removing al Qaeda from this, which, of course, we now know and we knew fairly soon afterwards that the CIA was aware of that, in the immediate aftermath, and that was in the original talking points as we now know.

This administration and this president was running for re-election on a platform that included repeated references of al Qaeda being on the run and Osama bin Laden being killed. A narrative that all of a sudden you have an attack and an American ambassador dead because of al Qaeda really does go against that, and it does seem that the removal could lead some people to feel that that really was political. It goes against our narrative, so we're going to take it out.

What do you think about that?

SCHIFF: You know, I understand that theory and, you know, I guess you can follow it logically. At the same time, you know, the president talked about this being a terrorist attack. Even, you know, the ambassador talked about extremists attacking the diplomatic facilities.

So there wasn't any hiding the fact that we were attacked. We had our people killed. And those facts and in terms of al Qaeda's potential involvement and Ansar al-Sharia's potential involvement, came out very quickly. So it's hard to claim I think that this was part of a political campaign orchestrated spin.

I will say this, too. You know, the fact that we were attacked in part by al Qaeda on 9/11, I don't know that in the context of the campaign when the country tends to rally around the commander in chief, that the theory really makes much sense that somehow it was better for the administration to make it sound like a spontaneous protest against the U.S. After all, the administration was also saying it made an outreach in the Muslim world and the other side could easily claim that, well, their outreach obviously wasn't working because we were a subject of this, y know, uprising and this attack.

So I'm not sure, although the narrative is coherent one, it really makes a lot of sense here.

BURNETT: All right. Congressman, thank you very much. We appreciate your taking your time, giving his side of the story.

And now to the breaking news in Cleveland. We have obtained tonight a new and exclusive photo of Michelle Knight. Now, this photo is from a 1997, 1998. Her school year.

You will see if she looks different. Hair back in the ponytail in this picture. Something about the face, though, does make your heart fall when you think about what happened to her afterwards.

Knight was the first to be missing in 2002. This is from the first images we have seen of her. In fact, we have kept looking at only one. So, this is a new picture.

We have new and exclusive details of missed clues that nightmare that Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus endured more than a decade, allegedly at the hands of Ariel Castro.

Those who were close to Castro said he would often seem to consume large amounts of food especially for a single guy. He always seems to be struggling to get more. The way he kept the shelves stocked did raise suspicion, but not in the way you might think. CNN's Martin Savidge is OUTFRONT tonight from Castro's neighborhood.

And, Marty, what more can you tell us about these missed clues that right now when we see that we missed them is -- it's just so agonizing.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. And to so many people, you are right, Erin. They are now going, oh my gosh, it makes perfect sense but it didn't then.

And the latest of talking to people who know Ariel Castro is the fact that he seemed to have this insatiable appetite for food, especially for a guy, as you say, he was supposedly living alone here on Seymour Avenue. And then on top of that, not only collect so much food, such as instant food and canned meats, well, they thought that he was actually preparing for the end of the world.


SAVIDGE (voice-over): In my exclusive interview with the brothers of Ariel Castro, it was Onil who talked about his brother's garden.

ONIL CASTRO, ARIEL CASTRO'S BROTHER: He was in the vegetables. He loved his vegetables. Don't eat the greasy food. Eat the veggies. Now, he's starting his little garden. I said, that's great. You know, you're doing great. He was always such a health fanatic, you know, like to keep himself, eating good stuff.

SAVIDGE: Only now does his healthy eating habits reveal another potentially sinister purpose -- to help provide food for the three women and a young child he allegedly was holding prisoner inside his home. Also, those close to Castro said he often frequented church and community food banks, stocking up on nonperishable food items, like soups and canned meats, so much so he was thought to be a survivalist -- someone getting ready for disaster.

He also allegedly fraudulently obtained additional food stamps to buy more groceries.

Pedro Castro was a more frequent visitor to his brother's home, but always had to follow one strict rule.

PEDRO CASTRO, ARIEL CASTRO'S BROTHER: I used to go there more than he did, to work on cars. Clean the yard. You know? Help him out and stuff. But never go beyond the kitchen.

SAVIDGE: But Ariel Castro's backyard may have its own story to tell, as these pictures obtained by CNN seem to show -- a spool of barbed wire, another of chains, and tarps that appeared to be for blocking anyone from looking in. There was also this mirror at his back door for an early visual warning of anyone in his driveway.

Most haunting of all, this photo showing a child's bicycle. Castro was seen several times with a small child believed to be the daughter of one of the captive women, Amanda Berry.

P. CASTRO: I asked him, who's that? And he said, this is a girlfriend's (ph) of mine.

SAVIDGE: The daughter belonged to a girlfriend of his?


SAVIDGE: Meanwhile, authorities say Castro kept the women in lockdown with the victims telling police they were allowed out twice in 10 years.

DEPUTY CHIEF ED TOMBA, CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT: When you see where the house is situated and the garage is situated, we were told they left the house and went in to the garage in disguise. So those are the two times there were mentioned or that they can recall.

SAVIDGE: Just more clues that people in this neighborhood can't believe were missed by so many who lived so near or visited this now infamous home on Seymour Avenue.

For OUTFRONT, Martin Savidge, Cleveland.


BURNETT: And still to come, CNN can now confirm that the IRS was targeting certain groups. So why does our legal expert is willing to come on television in front of you, many of whom are angry, and defend it? Well, he's going to do it.

Plus, love your smartphones and your tablets? Well, a new tax could be on its way. That's next.

And a U.S. diplomat expelled from Russia. The Russians say the man in a strange blond wig was a CIA spy.


BURNETT: And we're back with tonight's outer circle where we reach out to our sources around the world.

So tonight, I want to go to Russia because a U.S. diplomat has been ordered out of the country. Now, this is a pretty fascinating story because Russia's counter intelligence agency accused the man of being a CIA spy.

Phil Black is in Moscow and I asked him what evidence the Russians have against this rather unusual American.


PHIL BLACK, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Erin, Russia's lead spy agency, the FSB, says it caught Ryan Fogle red-handed as he was trying to recruit a member of one of their own special services, and they videotaped the whole thing. The pictures show a very unhappy man in an unconvincing blond wig. They say he was carrying a spy kit which included another wig, sunglasses, flashlight, some knives, a compass, but also a big pile of cash and a typed letter which they say were instructions to the man he was trying to recruit. Ryan Fogle was returned to the U.S. embassy but is now being ordered to leave Russia.

This bungled case of espionage could extend further than one just embarrassed spy because the Russians say this was just a latest case of CIA trying to turn a Russian agent and the Russians say they've been monitoring, tracking them as they do it -- Erin.


BURNETT: Hmm, pretty fascinating. Thanks, Phil.

And now, our fifth story OUTFRONT: Profiling at the IRS. Now you think it happens everywhere and you don't like it -- well, it's happening now.

A new and damning report from the Treasury inspector general has found the IRS deliberately targeted some conservative groups, including those with Tea Party in their name. Now, the news is actually great news in one regard, everybody, because Republicans and Democrats are finally agreeing about something.


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it and we'll make sure that we find out exactly what happened.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I've never seen anything quite like this except in the past during the Nixon years.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: That the IRS did, of course, is inexcusable.

REP. KEVIN YODER (R), KANSAS: Many Americans are just tremendously troubled. Democrats and Republicans that the IRS would engage in targeting political opponents.

ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The FBI is coordinating with the Justice Department to see if any laws were broken.


BURNETT: Orrin Hatch and Eric Holder on the same side. You see what I mean?

All right. OUTFRONT tonight, senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Amy Kremer. She's chairwoman of the Tea Party Express. Yes, Tea Party is in the name, and also worked with some of the Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS.

All right. Jeff, let me start with you. I told viewers that you're willing to take their ire, because you're going to do something that many will find indefensible.

But, go ahead and do it. Defend the IRS. Explain.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, remember, what this is about, this is about groups applying for a special privilege, to be a 504(c)(4) organization. That means that they are social welfare organizations, not political operations. So they don't have to pay taxes and they don't have to disclose their members.

BURNETT: Pretty incredible benefits.


TOOBIN: So what the IRS is supposed to do is investigate. What do these groups do? Are they really social welfare organizations or are they trying to get the advantage but actually political operations.

That's an investigation. That's what the IRS is supposed to do and that's what they did, it seems.

BURNETT: All right. That's an interesting point.

Now, to follow on that, last year, 2,800 organizations applied for 501(c)(4) status, right, where they get no tax benefit.

TOOBIN: Right.

BURNETT: Only eight were rejected.

TOOBIN: Right.

BURNETT: Now, one could look at those stats and say, look, there should be more scrutiny because if I knew I didn't have to pay taxes, there's a lot of shady people who'd be going out and applying for whatever status that needed to take.

TOOBIN: I think that's quite right. I mean, if you look at the 2012 campaign, you had groups like Americans for Prosperity, Karl Rove's organization, obviously designed to help Mitt Romney get elected president. That was the only reason it existed. That was a 501(c)(4) organization.

It seems like the problem here is there hasn't been enough scrutiny, not that there was too much. Let me just add, it is important, it is important that the IRS do this in an even-handed way, investigate liberal groups and conservative groups under the same rules.

But they should investigate both of them and that's what it seems to me they were doing.

BURNETT: All right. When this was happening over the past couple years, Amy, the groups that were forming the most quickly was Tea Party groups, because that was on the rise. So when you take that into account with what Jeff's saying, do you see any merit to it?

AMY KREMER, CHAIRWOMAN OF TEA PARTY EXPRESS: Well, I read your piece and he writes that the scandal is the political activity of these groups but, Jeff, I mean, it goes both ways. It happens on the left, too.

Is or Organizing for Action, or Media Matters -- Media Matters goes out and targets FOX News and, you know, has put forth an effort to tear down talk radio where conservatives dominate. I mean, are they under the same scrutiny? You said it --

TOOBIN: They should be.

KREMER: But they're not and we know that. The IRS, she admitted on Friday that this was not acceptable. She apologized for it. If they had done nothing wrong she wouldn't have admitted that.

But one thing you said, and you said it yourself, is that part of being a 501(c)(4), these nonprofit social welfare organizations, you don't have to disclose your donors. If you look at what these groups were asked, they were asked for their donors, their membership lists. They wanted to know members of Congress who supported these specific groups.

BURNETT: Right. Well, maybe they were trying to determine whether they were political in nature. Now, by the way, I don't think anyone will disagree with you even if they think they should be looking at them that they shouldn't be looking at groups on the left, too. It should be even-handed, of course.

KREMER: This is not -- this is not about Republican versus Democrat or IRS versus Tea Party or Tea Party versus Barack Obama. This is about our First Amendment rights as Americans. Every American should be concerned right now because it doesn't matter what side of the aisle you stand on, the shoe could be on the other foot next cycle. You could have a Republican president using --

TOOBIN: Is your Tea Party organization a social welfare organization?

KREMER: Our Tea Party organization is a federal PAC so everything is disclosed. We're a federal PAC. But --

TOOBIN: You think most Tea Party organizations are about social welfare or they're about politics?

KREMER: I think they're about the issues we're facing that concern Americans.

TOOBIN: They're not about electing Republicans?

KREMER: No. Actually we have Democrats and independents --

TOOBIN: I'm sure you do, as members. But come on, isn't the Tea Party to elect Republicans? That's what they do, no?

KREMER: No, that's the misconception. Everybody thinks we're an arm of the Republican Party. If we were an arm of the Republican Party, we wouldn't go out and primary some of these Republicans.

We want fiscal conservatives. That's all we're concerned about. If you can put -- we actually endorsed a Democrat in the 2010 election cycle. If you can put forth a fiscal conservative that's a Democrat, I mean --

BURNETT: How can you argue any political groups are about social welfare? I mean, maybe you could. But isn't that the hurdle for the left and the right?

KREMER: I mean, look -- right. We're focused on the issues. I mean, the debt ceiling, the amount of debt, sending aid to foreign countries.

TOOBIN: Your agenda is 100 percent that of the Republican Party which is fine.

KREMER: I disagree with you completely. I disagree with you.

TOOBIN: Which is your right as an American to do but don't pretend that you're a social welfare organization.

KREMER: We are not -- we are not here to prop up the Republican Party. As a matter of fact, we won big in 2010 when we focused only on the fiscal issues. In 2012, when the Republican Party drove the messaging we lost.

We're not here to support them. We want conservatives. I don't care where you stand on the social issues. If you're a Democrat, and you align yourself with the Democratic Party but you're a fiscal conservative, we will support you.

BURNETT: You just haven't run into one since 2010. You went through an entire election.

KREMER: Looking at candidates right now.

BURNETT: But I think you both have given everybody a lot to think about. I bet you walked in having a strong opinion on this and maybe something that either Jeff or Amy said has made you question it.

Up next, how much do you love your smartphone? So talking about the IRS, how about this -- an extra tax on your phone.


BURNETT: Every night, we take a look outside the day's top stories for something we call the OUTFRONT "Outtake". And tonight, it's about France.

France's culture police are at it again. There really is a group there called the French language police. I'm not joking around here. This time they're targeting electronics.

The French government is planning a 1 percent tax on any and all devices that can access the Internet. With the money raised subsidizing the country's arts programs. In the first year, this tax will bring in more than 100 million bucks.

But the truth is actually not about money. It's about culture because this is France. In France, people like here, people like turning to their devices to be entertained and with the web pumping in content from around the world, French citizens now have a choice between French and foreign programming.

It turns out that a lot of them prefer the foreign stuff. Since the 1980s, French broadcasters have been forced to produce a certain percent of French programming, but Amazon, Google and Netflix -- well, they're not held to the same standard.

So to level the playing field and protect people from suspect American influence, the government plans to have its people pay more for devices to subsidize the shows that they're not watching on those devices.

That is an interesting idea, France. How about this? Instead of a tax on foreign made smartphones, why not develop your own phone? Charge less for it to make it attractive, push French content that way. A French app (ph). Who knows? Maybe innovation will work. Where legislation and taxation might never work.

Thanks as always for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow night.

"A.C. 360" starts right now.