Return to Transcripts main page


President Obama's Revenge; Fort Hood Shooter's Defense; Judge: Add Dying Girl to Transplant List

Aired June 5, 2013 - 19:00   ET


ERIN BURNETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "OUTFRONT" next, President Obama thumbs his nose at Republicans, elevating Susan Rice to national security adviser. It's a position that does not require congressional approval.

Plus new details from the investigation in Cleveland, tonight, Ariel Castro, was he planning the fourth abduction? The person who knows OUTFRONT.

And the U.S. government asking a car company to recall nearly 3 million vehicles, usually the answer is yes. Of course, whatever you want Uncle Same. Not this time. The carmaker says no. Let's go OUTFRONT.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight, President Obama's revenge. Sometimes revenge is so sweet. Today the president got the last word in a battle against Republicans announcing he is promoting Susan Rice to serve as his national security adviser. The reason this is the ultimate revenge for the president?

Her promotion does not require congressional approval. President Obama, of course, originally wanted to nominate Rice for something much higher. He wanted her to take over for Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But Republicans slammed Rice for her role in the administration's response to the terror attacks in Benghazi and that got kabashed.


SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I am dead set on make being sure we don't promote anybody that was an essential player in the Benghazi debacle.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: We will do whatever is necessary to block the nomination.


BURNETT: OK, you don't want her to get promoted and you'll do whatever is necessary, but guess what. It doesn't matter what you think in case. OUTFRONT tonight, one of Ambassador Rice's most vocal critics, Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz. Good to talk to you, sir. Appreciate you are taking the time. All right, Susan Rice, of course, infamously delivered the administration's talking points on every single Sunday talk show on September 16th, five days after the terrorist attacks in which the U.S. ambassador lost his life. The talking points, of course, as everyone is now aware said that the attack was spontaneous and based on a movie. Obviously that ended not being true. Do you blame Susan Rice?

REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: Yes. I think she's culpable on this. Remember the CIA talking points do not discuss a video. That's an embellishment by Susan Rice that demands answers. We still don't have clarity. She has not apologized for it. She didn't do anything to help set the record straight.

In fact if we go back and look at the September 12th e-mail within the State Department we told the Libyan government the truth, but somehow Susan Rice days later on the Sunday talk shows didn't tell the truth and never clarified the record.

BURNETT: You just brought up those e-mails and I have them here, 100 pages. I've read them. It's a pain staking process, but obviously I know you've read every word of these as well. Now these are the discussions that went on in Washington about those talking points and what was going to go on, what was going to be in them.

Now you have David Petraeus in there. You have Mike Morell. You have people from the White House. You do not have Susan Rice. There's no e-mail in here. There could be other e-mails, but from the ones what we have nothing from Susan Rice. If she wasn't involved in discussions about the talking points or advocating watering them down or changing them in any way, how can you blame her?

CHAFFETZ: Well, she did deliver them and what's concerning is you don't have all the e-mails. The American public doesn't have the e- mails. The media should be demanding those. They released e-mails 100 selected that deal with the 14th and 15th. What about the e-mail that Speaker Boehner called to have released. That Tray Gouty, the congressman from South Carolina talked about in our hearing.

What about the e-mail on September 12th where we told the Libyan ambassador that it was Ansar Al-Sharia Islamic extremist that helped -- that committed this attack? Why is it that the president of Libya got it right and the secretary or the ambassador from the United Nations, our own Susan Rice that she got it so wrong? Through that process truth was the casualty. They got it less right.

BURNETT: Is it possible what she was doing and maybe she questioned these things as many already did by that date, but she said look the president of the United States is my boss he's asked me to do this. This is clearly something that he sanctioned. I'm going to do what I'm supposed to do. I mean, isn't that what people do in Washington? Wasn't that the loyal thing to do?

CHAFFETZ: Well, clearly the president is rewarding loyalty, but there's no way she can get through a Senate confirmation. I guess I would demand and expect that judgment is a key factor in how you put or who you put next to you on the national security decisions. She had a total lack of judgment.

She said she read the daily intelligence briefs, which would lead one to believe that obviously this was a tumultuous place that terrorism was involved. I just don't understand how the State Department who she reports up through in the case of the U.N.

How they got it right on September 12th, but by the time they got to Sunday they were suddenly on the campaign talking points about how al Qaeda was on the run and that was video. The video is not part of the CIA talking points that came out of the conclusion.

BURNETT: But let me ask you this quickly before we go. What are you going to do about it? I mean, the president here has upped the ante. You can't do anything about this. He knows that you guys would never confirm her. So he's giving her a big promotion to a job you won't have a say over. So what are you going to do about it? Will you hold up his person Samantha Power who he wants to replace Susan Rice at the U.N.? What are you going to do about it?

CHAFFETZ: No. Look, the ultimate goal here is we want to have truth and justice in the case of Benghazi. The American people have -- deserve to know what the answers are. We have four dead Americans. We have terrorists that have not been caught or captured. We have a host of unanswered questions.

I want to hold her and the other people within the administration -- I want to hold them accountable so they will reveal the truth and make sure this never happens again. It's not a personal vendetta against her. The president can select whoever he wants.

BURNETT: Congressman Chaffetz, thank you very much for taking the time. I want to go to John King in Washington. Now, John, of course, Congressman Chaffetz is a Republican. He's been a critic of Rice, but he's talking here about judgment and fairly pointing out there's a lot of questions about Benghazi. But unspin the spin. Bottom line was doing this a good move for the president to promote Susan Rice, politically a good move?

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the president certainly thinks so, Erin. As you see, Republicans don't like it. A lot of Democrats are asking this tough question is this more proof that a president who is already insular by DNA is surrounding himself in the second term with a comfort zone? Nobody will stand up and say, no, Mr. President, you're wrong. Nobody say, Mr. President, why don't we think about this?

Certainly in this case nobody who has the credibility to say let's broaden our circle our relationships with the Republicans. So this is a partisan move without a doubt. It's also comfort food if you will. The president likes Susan Rice. He trusts Susan Rice. A big question being asked by Democrats is does she have the management experience?

The national security adviser has a very tough job. The Pentagon thinks one thing. State thinks something else. People in Congress are saying this. The national security adviser has to synthesize, decide what gets to the president, and decide the order of the questions, if you will. That's a big open question, does she have this.

But you make a key point about the politics, Washington is broken right now and this is not a move that's going to help fix it. It is not a move that will make the Republicans think the president is reaching out to us. In fact, you just had pretty good evidence of the contrary.

BURNETT: Yes, I mean, it seems this is sort of giving the bird to the Republicans and that's fine and good except for when you supposedly need to work together on whether it be a grand bargain or anything else, right? They will be completely ill disposed to do so after this, right?

KING: And so it's a great question because here's a foreign policy person. Number one, she has been an interventionist in the past as has Samantha Power. Will this influence the president's policy on Syria? John McCain said I don't like this, but I'll work with Susan Rice. It's going to be interesting to watch whether it's the China challenge, cyber space, Syria, things we're not even thinking about yet, the Iranian crisis.

Whether she can prove to the Republicans she has an open mind and open door, a huge challenge there. On this other questions, grand bargain, immigration reform, domestic items. Again, if the environment is so polarized, if Republicans don't want to give the president an inch and they don't he's willing to give them an inch. There's a question about whether something like Susan Rice that's unrelated to the budget and immigration does it contribute to the lousy environment in this town right now?

BURNETT: All right, John King, thank you very much.

Still to come, the suspected Fort Hood shooter, he says he was protecting the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's his defense. OK, he says that, but keep in mind that the U.S. government said that he didn't commit a terrorist attack. How does that add up?

Plus new details about the Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro, evidence he may have been planning a fourth abduction.

And then the government said that she was too young to receive a lung transplant. Her parents fought back and today won a major victory. An update on that front story.

And a legendary lost city is found. We are going to show you the images.


BURNETT: Our second story, OUTFRONT, defending the Taliban. So today a military judge told the Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan that he has until Monday to prepare for his defense. Now, in his defense, it's -- it really centers on this. He says he was protecting the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan from the U.S. military. That's his defense. Chris Lawrence reports.


CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An Army major's revelation of why he gunned down fellow soldiers and civilians, is giving his victims new evidence to label him a terrorist.

SPEC. MICH ENGNEHL (RETIRED), FORT HOOD SHOOTING VICTIM: Like he just hear, Allah Akbar is somewhere and just pow, pow, shooting everywhere.

LAWRENCE: Retired soldier, Mick Engnehl was shot in the neck, with 32 wounded in the attack at Fort Hood, 13 others died. Nidal Hasan now says he acted in defense of others and when the judge asked him who he was defending, Hasan said the Taliban.

NEAL SHER, ATTORNEY FOR VICTIMS: Anyone who knows the facts know that this was a terrorist attack.

LAWRENCE: The Obama administration has refused to call it that, but officials are pushing back at critics who accuse them of labelling it nothing more than an office shooting. The Army sent a letter to Congress saying there has been no decision to classify this shooting as workplace violence. Before the attack, Hasan exchanged up to 20 e- mails with al Qaeda cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, but the Army that's not enough to call it an act of terror instead the evidence indicates that this was the alleged criminal act of a single individual.

JEFFREY ADDICOTT, ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR: Just to say that he's a terrorist doesn't really explain what he is. Terrorism is a tactic. He used the tactic of terrorism.

LAWRENCE: Professor Jeff Addicott is a former military lawyer and terrorism expert. He says Hasan's new admission clearly shows that he's identifying himself as an enemy combatant in league with the Taliban.

ADDICOTT: What caused him to do it is he's a radical Islamic extremist self-identified with the Taliban. So that's we should refer Hasan as a Jihadist.


BURNETT: If you're saying you're defending the Taliban that defines you as an enemy combatant. As a lay person, I can't imagine how it wouldn't. But If Hasan sees himself as a Jihadist, protecting the Taliban, you know, is he going to be allowed to use that as a defense given that the government isn't calling this an act of terror?

LAWRENCE: Well, the judge basically gave him until Monday to prove to her that it's a valid defense, Erin, and military experts I spoke with said they don't give him much shot with that. They say this is a very narrow defense and that there's no way that he can sort of stand in the shoes of Taliban leaders half a world away and say I had to defend them at exactly that moment. But, even if the judge doesn't allow it to be used as an official defense, it probably will not stop Hasan from blurting it out at some point during the trial.

BURNETT: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Now to new information tonight about the accused Cleveland kidnapper. So now there are jail logs. They were released today, and they show Ariel Castro is off suicide watch. That's according to our affiliate WOIO. Now investigators are now questioning whether or not he had plans to abduct a fourth woman. Now the reason for this is police apparently have found chains and tie downs in his attic bedroom.

Castro was charged with the kidnapping and rape of Amanda Berry, Gina Dejesus and Michele Knight. The women as we all know now escaped from his home in early may. And OUTFRONT tonight, Scott Taylor the investigative reporter for WOIO in Cleveland.

Scott, I know you broke this news. You went through the jail logs page by page. What can you tell us?

SCOTT TAYLOR, REPORTER, WOIO: Well, Erin, as you mentioned, he's off suicide prevention watch. Right now, he's in another part of the jail, another cell. Inmates are in the pod, but he's all by himself. And right now he's refusing his medication. He's done that twice in the last couple of days. We're not exactly sure what his medical concern is right now.

He's also for the first time getting out of his cell. He's been out of his cell for 20 minutes at a time, able to exercise when he's in his cell. He's exercising too, just running in place, according to the jail logs. They write down every 10 minutes exactly what's going on.

Also, for the first time in the last three weeks they allowed him to bring a TV into the cell, believe it or not, on a little table. They roll it in and roll it out. It goes on and on watching TV, watching TV, watching TV. But he's only allowed to watch local programming, local news, local shows. Nothing on cable, no CNN, nothing like that.

BURNETT: Pretty amazing that he's allowed to exercise and watch TV.

Now what about this fourth victim? What are your sources telling you about whether he was about -- he was in the planning, for getting a fourth victim?

TAYLOR: Well, my sources aren't pointing to that at all. What they are telling me, though, they believe that Ariel Castro was in the planning stages, believe it or not, to get rid of these girls. Now that's their quote, "to get rid of the girls." We're not exactly sure what that means.

But my sources also tell me, Erin, that he really never wanted to keep these girls for as long as he did. Remember, Michele disappeared in 2002, then Amanda a year later, then 2004 Gina Dejesus.

BURNETT: So -- that's pretty amazing. So you're saying, not hearing about a fourth victim but that he wanted to get rid of them. Whether that meant freeing them or something much more sinister, unclear.

TAYLOR: Yes, we're unclear about that right now. And I know you mentioned that the police sources say that they found tie downs and chains. Well, those were in other places of the house as well. So, I'm not surprised someone would take that leap. But right now, my sources are saying they don't believe that's exactly what he was planning.

BURNETT: All right, well, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Of course, I know you've been breaking a lot of the news on this story.

Still to come, the National Highway Traffic Administration. That's a real government name, right? Lots and lots of words. Well, anyway, they told Chrysler that Chrysler has to recall 3 million Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty SUVs. Chrysler said no.

Plus, the TSA reverses itself on an item that you couldn't, and then you could, and then you couldn't, take on airplanes.

And then there's Michelle versus the heckler.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I need your husband --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right you guys.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, please don't leave.



BURNETT: Our third story OUTFRONT tonight, a major showdown between Uncle Sam and a huge carmaker. So the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- as I said there's a tongue twister government name. Anyway, they want Chrysler to recall about 3 million Jeep Grand Cherokees and Liberty SUVs. The regulator claims the gas tanks can spill when the vehicle is hit and that creates a fire hazard.

Now Chrysler in a stunning move said no. No recall. Just now, a source close to the situation tells our Poppy Harlow that Chrysler will take the fight to court if it has to. Poppy is OUTFRONT.


EMINEM, RAPPER; This is the Motor City. This is what we do.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A company back from near ruin.

CLINT EASTWOOD, ACTOR/DIRECTOR: Detroit showing us it can to be done.

HARLOW: Bold ads proclaiming its come back.

In another bold and rare move, Chrysler is saying no to Uncle Sam.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chrysler refuses to recall millions of Jeeps. DIANE SAYWER, ABC ANCHOR: Chrysler said no.

HARLOW: No to a recall recommendation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA involving 2.7 million Jeeps. Chrysler is defying the government that bailed it out to the tune of $10.5 billion, most of which Chrysler paid back.

This is what's under dispute: the safety of this gas tank right behind the rear axle. NTSA say there's a risk of fire if fuel spills in a rear end crash. Chrysler insists its Jeeps are safe.

So how far is Chrysler willing to take this battle? A source close to the situation tells me all the way to federal court, saying that the decision to refuse the recall went to the top, Chrysler's CEO Sergio Marcchione. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is one of Chrysler's most profitable vehicles, helping fuel the company turn around and key to its future success.


HARLOW: Bankrupt in 2009, Chrysler turned a $1.7 billion profit last year and made $166 million in the first quarter of this year.

MICHELLE KREBS, SENIOR ANALYST, EDMUNDS.COM: Most of us did not think Chrysler would even exist at this point. It just comes at a very important time for Chrysler. So my concern is that it would affect their whole reputation and image.

HARLOW: In fact an automaker hasn't fully challenged a recall recommendation since 1996, and it was Chrysler then, too. The dispute was over seat belts, and Chrysler won in federal court.

KREBS: This is a very bold move and it's highly unusual. This standing up to the government when everybody else falls into line.

HARLOW: Especially after Toyota's massive 2009 recall, which tarnished that automaker's stellar reputation. Saved by taxpayers, Chrysler is taking the heat on social media. One post: "What is more important profit or lives?" But Chrysler is standing its ground, tweeting, "We accept recalls when warranted and have done voluntary recalls without NHTSA action."


BURNETT: So, I mean, it's pretty amazing, right, that they are standing up to the government. But tell me how this works. Chrysler makes these cars and knows a lot about them. But the government is supposed to be the watchdog. Who knows better, Uncle Sam or Chrysler?

HARLOW: Depends who you ask. So, you have some that would argue, let the market decide. If people stop buying these cars, this is an indication. Others say you cannot have a company regulating itself. You have to have an overarching body.

Now, what we know now too because of this is that Chrysler and NHTSA have been looking at this, talking, negotiating since 2010. So, they had their sides delving into it.


HARLOW: And now this happened. So, what happens next is that they will formally submit a response, Chrysler will. Then a public hearing. Then this can go all the way to federal court. And as we know from my source, Chrysler will take it there, but here's the risk. One former NHTSA agent said to us then you could have victims' families testifying; that does not look good for Chrysler whether they are in the right or wrong, whatever is decided. You have that.

And you also have the fact that you got about 2.7 million cars, these cars on the road right now. There's a lot of questions that are coming up. But I think it's a very, very fascinating move, and it's one that I wasn't that surprised to see out of this CEO, Sergio Marcchione, who took over this company and led this stunning turn around. And it's very bold and going to be fascinating to watch.

BURNETT: Takes an Italian to tell the U.S. government to go to heck.

HARLOW: I guess.

BURNETT: Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Poppy Harlow, amazing story.

Still OUTFRONT, a major development in the amazing story of the little American girl we told you about. The government said she was too young for a lung transplant. A huge development tonight.

Plus, George Zimmerman's lawyers have a list of things they do not want said during his trial, and we'll tell you what's on that.

Plus an 84-year-old woman wins the lotto. She's 84 years old, all right. So here's the reality of this situation. Should she take the lump or the annual payments?


BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: We start the second half of our show with stories where we focus on our reporting from the front lines. And I want to begin with an update.

The TSA has reversed course on its plans to allow small knives on commercial flights. So, instead the TSA is going to continue to enforce the current prohibited items list, which -- yes, still technically includes liquids at less than 3.4 ounces. Well, I thought it was 4.2. OK, anyway -- so there we go. That's why I have problems.

The decision comes after a flurry of criticism from major U.S. airlines and groups representing flight attendants and pilots. Mary Schiavo, former Transportation Department inspector general, has been telling OUTFRONT for months that the idea defied logic in part because each knife would have to be measured.

Well, tonight, a suburban mother by day is in jail for what she was allegedly doing by night and I'm not talking about some of the thing you might think. No, it wasn't along those lines. This she was a farmer and growing pot.

Andrea Sanderlin of Scarsdale, New York, has been arrested on felony narcotics charges after federal authorities say they found a warehouse filled with more than 3 million bucks of marijuana. Attorney for Sanderlin tells us the 45-year-old is very concerned about her two girls age 3 and 13. If convicted of trafficking, she faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, when all she was doing was trying to pay for their college education.

Samsung may yet again be stealing Apple's thunder. So, there was a report sent to OUTFRONT by investment firm (INAUDIBLE). It indicates that Samsung's smartphones out sold Apple's iPhone in the U.S. last month. The analyst believes Samsung dominated on the strength of its Galaxy S3, S4, and Note II sales, passing Apple for the first time since the launch of the iPhone 5. It comes a day after a trade agency ruled that some older Apple products can't be sold in the United States because they violate a Samsung patent.

And the mystery is solved: 84-year-old Gloria Mackenzie of Zephyrhills, Florida, is the winner of nearly $600 million dollars. It was the second largest jackpot in American history, and she took her time. She waited 18 days to claim it. She was in rush.

Now, she's going to take the lump sum option of $370.9 million and she's 84. So, you can say that makes sense. But here's the challenge. Now, she has to figure out how to avoid the estate tax so she can give the money to somebody other than the government from whom she got it.

It has been 671 days since the U.S. lost its top credit. What are we doing to get it back?

Well, stocks fell sharply today. The Dow ending below 15,000 for the first time in nearly a month, and the big reason for that is the Federal Reserve, and concern that it will stop funneling money into the U.S. economy. Also causing a problem. There was some data out that showed this country added fewer jobs in May than anyone was expecting.

And now, our fourth story OUFRONT: a potential new shot at life. So, tonight, you may remember, we told you about this story earlier this week.

Ten-year-old Sarah Murnaghan who needs a transplant in order to survive is now a step closer to actually getting transplant. So, we told you a little bit about this story and it seemed like she might not get help.

But just hours ago, a judge ordered the government to temporarily waive a rule that prevents children below teenage of 12 from getting adult organ transplants.

Jason Carroll is OUTFRONT.

And, Jason, does this clear the way for Murnaghan to get a set of adult lungs or not?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it quite possibly could. I think that's when I spoke to Sarah Murnaghan's mother this afternoon, Erin, she was so excited. She said everyone in the hotel room was literally jumping up and down. This is a huge legal victory for Sarah and quite possibly other children like her.

Sarah Murnaghan's family now says that she definitely has a better chance of surviving. This after late this afternoon, federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled in favor of a 10-day temporary restraining order, basically telling the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, at least for now, to allow Murnaghan to be put on the adult donor list.

I'm going to read you part of what the judge said here. It says, in part, to immediately cease application of the under 12 rule as to Sarah Murnaghan so she can be considered for receipt of donated lungs from adults based on the medical severity of her condition.

So, this basically means that for the next 10 days, Sarah will compete for a donor lung based on how sick she is, not her age. As you know, Erin, Sarah has late stage cystic fibrosis and for the past 18 months, she's been on the donor list for children but not adults. Her parents say she will now likely be put at the top of the list based on her critical condition.

This all comes after the Murnaghans filed that lawsuit in an attempt to prevent Secretary Sebelius from enforcing that policy which basically prevents children under the age of 12 from being put on that adult donor list.

BURNETT: So, Jason, I know that Secretary Sebelius has been -- she's really wanted to stay out of this. And I know, you know, we got --

CARROLL: Well, she tried.

BURNETT: Yes, 75,000 people on this list once you get involved in one case every one is heart-wrenching. But what is she saying now?

CARROLL: Well, you remember that it was just yesterday, she was at that budget hearing in Washington, D.C. And then everything changed and she was actually asked about the Murnaghan case. And, you know, she's basically saying that she doesn't have the authority to change the policy.

But, obviously, she also said that her heart goes out to the Murnaghan family. She says that, you know, making these life-and-death type of decisions is always difficult. She also pointed out that there's some 40 other adults who are very sick, who are also waiting for transplants. And so, it's a very difficult situation that Sebelius is in.

We actually reached out to her to try to get more clarification in terms of where she stands. She did order a transplant policy review.

But, obviously, the Murnaghans are basically saying, we don't have time to wait for a policy review. Something needed to be done now. That's why they filed the lawsuit. And clearly, they got the legal decision that they were looking for. The question now is, can they find a donor in the next 10 days? That is their next hurdle.

BURNETT: That's obviously a very short amount of time and life at stake.

Jason Carroll, thank you very much.

And I want to bring in our legal analyst, Sunny Hostin.

Because, Sunny, to me, that thing about this, is you know, you hear her story.


BURNETT: And it's heartbreaking and we saw the little girl and you hear her talking, and you have to say -- you want her to get this transplant.

HOSTIN: Of course. I mean, I have a 10-year-old son and I take off my legal hat and I put my mommy mat on, and I think, my goodness what a wonderful ruling for this little girl. But in a way, that's the problem, right? Because I have the order and the order really specifies just for this little girl, just for Sarah. And I would imagine that there are going to be other families all around the country that are thinking, well, my little girl or little boy is sick as well, what does this mean for me?

And I think, Erin, when you look at the case, it doesn't really mean anything for the other 70,000 some-odd people that need these organs. This really is just for little Sarah.

So, while a huge victory for Sarah, I don't know what it really means, because basically in two days this, you know, the department and Sebelius can try to dissolve that temporary restraining order,

And will they do that? I wonder, because this is such a popular decision that this judge came down with.

BURNETT: Right. And you have the media attention on it. And, of course, the media attention, I mean, it's a heart-wrenching story and everyone is supporting the outcome.

But I would imagine of the 75,000 people who are waiting for transplants, every one of those stares is heart-wrenching if you were to watch a television piece about it.


BURNETT: So, all of a sudden, helping one person and not those others when there are choices that must be made because there isn't enough for everyone --

HOSTIN: I think that's right.

BURNETT: -- you realize this is not that easy.

HOSTIN: I mean, I think that's right. I mean, the thing that could come out of this, let's say the department doesn't challenge this TRO, which is an extraordinary thing. Federal judges are loathe to grant this type of injunctive relief. So, it happened here.

In about 10 days, if they don't challenge it, there will be a preliminary injunctive hearing. And then, that may mean something to all the others. I mean, if this judge finds that the status quo is going to remain the same and this little girl is going to be on this other list or eligible for these other adult lungs, then perhaps this will affect the pool. This will affect everyone else.

So, I think it's really still a stay tuned because the legal hurdles aren't really over. I'm hearing everyone say huge legal victory. Well, there are other steps involved.

BURNETT: Right. And legal victory for one person.

HOSTIN: For one little girl.

BURNETT: And that's important --

HOSTIN: Clearly, we need to change the system, though. Clearly.

BURNETT: All right. Sunny, thank you very much. The context is so crucial.

And now to demands from George Zimmerman's lawyer. So, Mark O'Mara, the attorney, you've probably now gotten used to seeing his face, there he is, he's asking a Florida judge to prevent what he calls inflammatory words and terms from being used at trial. He worries about jury prejudice.

And I'll just want to share with you what he's put on the list, of the words that he says are inflammatory and shouldn't be allowed to be used. He wants "profiled", "vigilante" to be banned, along with the phrases "wanna be cop", and "he confronted Trayvon Martin".

As you can see these are not just words these are phrases that he thinks could induce some way bias.

Zimmerman is charged, of course, with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Jury selection is set to begin next week.

OUTFRONT tonight, criminal defense attorney Mark NeJame.

Now, Mark, when you look at this list banning this list banning "wanna be cop," banning the phrase "he confronted Trayvon Martin", banning the word "profiled" -- how likely that a judge will go along with this?

MARK NEJAME, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think he may go along with some of them but definitely not all of them. What the defense is attempting to do is what the state did last week. These are called motions in limine.

And basically, they are claiming that the prejudicial value far outweighs any probative value and hence is inflammatory and it shouldn't be permitted in front of a jury because it's meant to arouse fashions of the jury rather than sticking to the facts and evidence of the case.

So, I think the judge is going to keep some out that might suggest that -- that there's more here than the evidence, that they are really going to try to inflame them by showing that he's just a vigilante or something like that. But some areas are really hard and I don't see the judge granting them at all.

BURNETT: Now, what I guess I also don't understand -- I mean, the whole country is involved in this case. Everybody who is on the jury is aware. So how does this make a difference? I mean, if you don't use the word -- I'm sorry, the phrase "he confronted Trayvon Martin". I mean, I don't get how removing that makes a difference.

NEJAME: Well, everybody who is familiar with this case, everybody watching your show is familiar with the case but not everybody is watching this case. Some just simply remain to stay ignorant as far as what's going on with the news and what's going on around them.

And so, to go ahead and color this and to make it prejudicial one way or another, and the question could be reversed. If, in fact, doesn't make a difference then why use them, why take a risk that you're going to be putting up word that are inflammatory and meant to arouse fashions rather than sticking to the facts and the evidence is what a jury is supposed to be about and what a trial is supposed to be about.

And some of these are really close as far as -- you know, they shouldn't be used but I don't think the judge will limit the prosecution because some of this is simply the theory of the prosecution's case.

BURNETT: Right. I guess you shoot for the moon and you go for a million phrases and hope they take out the two they began with. I mean, I don't know, that's the non-lawyer speaking. Anyway, thanks very much to you Mark.

And still OUTFRONT: First Lady Michele Obama goes head-to-head with a heckler. Was her reaction appropriate?

Plus, the French have declared war on Amazon. We're not talk being about the river, we're talk about the American company.

And later something no one has seen for more than a millennium.


BURNETT: And welcome back. We're back with tonight's "Outer Circle" where we reach out to our sources.

Tonight, we go to Turkey where protests continue across the nation. Some of them have turned violent, others though have turned more peaceful.

Ivan Watson is in Istanbul's Taksim Square and I asked him what's happening there tonight.


IVAN WATSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Erin, the less pressure from police and more conciliatory tone there's been from the Turkish government, the more joyous this scene has gotten here in Istanbul's Taksim Square, where we've hardly heard the crowd chanting for the prime minister of Turkey to resign, instead we've heard concert, we've seen drum circles, and dancing here. People camping out in what could almost be described as a counter-culture festival.

Now, we know there have been violent clashes in other parts of Turkey that the riot police cleaned out demonstrators with water canons in the capital Ankara, that there have been clashes in a southeastern city of Antakya. Some biggest groups of union labors have gone on a joint strike against the government, though the government has apologized and promised to ensure the rights and the lifestyle of those people who haven't voted for the Turkish prime minister -- Erin.


BURNETT: Our fifth story OUTFRONT: the first lady face to face with a heckler.

Now, the confrontation unfolded last night. It was a private fundraiser. It was an exclusive fundraiser. So, you had to pay money to be there.

Now, First Lady Michele Obama was speaking when, all of a sudden, a gay rights activist interrupted her, demanding the president sign an executive order on gay rights.

Here's how it went down.


MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: We have an obligation to stand up for those kids and I don't care what you believe in, we don't -- wait, wait.


OBAMA: One of the things I -- one of the things that I don't do well is this.


You understand one of the things -- now, now --




BURNETT: OK. So that's how it started. The first lady then left the podium, and as you will see in this exclusive video, she didn't go sit down. No. She went over and she confronted the heckler.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I need your husband --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, you guys.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, please don't leave.


BURNETT: Now, according to a poll report, which is what we call someone from the press who basically records this for everyone else in the media, the first lady threatened to leave if the heckler didn't quiet (ph).

OUTFRONT: three people who dealt with their fair share of hecklers, comedian Stephanie Miller and Dean Obeidallah and syndicated talk show radio host, Michael Medved.

All right. I think we've all dealt with that in our own way whether online or however you want to talk about it.

Dean, so, what do you think about how the first lady handled the situation? Obviously I'm looking for an appropriate word it angered her.

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, COMEDIAN: It angered here. This is not good. You're the first lady. Michele, if you're watching, I will give you free tips on how to deal with hecklers.

The first thing is, you don't leave the podium. I don't care if you're first lady or corporate executive. You don't give up your podium to a heckler, let them get their message out. You finish your speech or you engage them, like President Obama is great, hey, let me finish my point, we'll get to yours afterwards, or use comedy --

BURNETT: And he fixes them with the icy stare.

OBEIDALLAH: He does that. But don't look angry.

Or you use humor, but it's hard for someone who doesn't do comedy. I will be mean and cunning, and it's fun when everyone laughs at the person heckling you. You feel better about yourself. That's the most daring.

But you can plow through it or you can engage them. This is a small function, she's the first lady. Be above this, like get your message out. Instead, it's all about the heckler and her message. That's what the heckler wanted, to get you angry and off your game.

BURNETT: She lost her temper.

Now, Stephanie, Dean isn't the only one who think that Michelle Obama handled this the wrong way. "The New York Times" columnist Nichols Kristof, obviously a supporter of the first lady, tweeted, "I like the first lady, but her confrontation with this heckler was not her finest moment."

Stephanie, did this reflect poorly on her.

STEPHANIE MILLER, COMEDIAN: I absolutely disagree. You know what, I don't know what's happened in this country, Erin. You don't heckle the first lady of the United States, particularly at a private home. That is not how you speak to the first lady of the United States.

And, by the way, I'm gay. And I agree with what the activist said. There is a way to say things and a way in which to say them, Erin.

And this administration, the fact is, has done more on gay rights than all of the previous administrations combined.

So, is there a point that we get to where we go this is just rude? You don't yell "you lie" at the president of the United States during a State of the Union. I just feel like this administration has been shown unprecedented disrespect. This -- she's not a comedian, Dean. You don't heckle the first lady, and she's supposed to have a snappy comeback.


DEAN: She looks snippy and angry and that's what's coming out in the media and that's not what the first lady is about, frankly.


BURNETT: Go ahead, Michael.

MEDVED: I think what she did -- I think she looked human. And this is why the American people like the first lady, even better than they like the president of the United States. And they do, because she reacted like a human being would. Look, I am just grateful this wasn't some kind of right wing heckler as a conservative.

And I think what Michelle Obama did was long overdue. It was completely unacceptable. I don't care what your cause is, whether it's the Tea Party or gay rights or anything else. You do not interrupt, particularly at a private session like this, a leading politician was trying to make a point. And for the first lady to do this and basically say --

OBEIDALLAH: Stephanie Miller and Michael Medved agree on something, or anything is a sign of the apocalypse. You're both wrong.

The way she dealt with it was really beneath her. There's no need to do this. MILLER: I feel that a worm hole has just opened in the universe. Michael Medvedev and I agree.


MILLER: It's rude!

BURNETT: Hold on. Let me ask you something else, though, about the first lady -- about the first lady, because she is very disciplined but we do see unscripted moments. So, she lost her temper at the heckler and Dean may think it's inappropriate and you all may think the heckler shouldn't have done it to begin with.


BURNETT: But what the inaugural luncheon? I don't know if anyone remembers this moment. I just want to play it, when the first lady -- John Boehner was making a comment and Michelle Obama -- actually, I love this. She just rolled her eyes. There -- I mean -- now -- right. And then John Boehner -- I mean, I just find that amazing.

Again, it's a human moment. But -- was that a mistake? I mean, she doesn't realize the cameras are on her sometimes or, Michael, do you think that's just another example of well that's why people like her. She'll roll her eyes at John Boehner.

MEDVED: I think that was a mistake and I think that's also why people like her. What I'm reminded of here, there was a big incident in the Truman administration, where a music critic for "The Washington Post" named Paul Hume gave a really nasty review to Harry Truman's daughter, Margaret, because she did a singing concert. And Truman wrote him a letter which was immediately publicized, basically threatening to beat him up. And everyone said, oh, this is so terrible, it's beneath the president of the United States.

BURNETT: It's totalitarian. It's fascist.

MEDVED: And you know what? It was one of his popular moments. And sometimes, you know, you just have to react to people being jerks in a very definitive way, and I'm glad the first lady did it. I've never approved of anything she has done as much as this.

BURNETT: Wow, well, I have to say --

MILLER: Listen, Erin, I roll my eyes every time John Boehner talks. So I'm afraid you're going to get stuck in my head --

BURNETT: That's a totally separate conversation.

All right, thanks so much to all three of you. Appreciate it.

You know, every night --


BURNETT: Every night, we take a look outside the day's top stories for something we call the OUTFRONT "Outtake". Tonight, the French culture police are at it again. And you know how obsessed we are with them.

In the past few weeks, we told you how the French government declared war on smartphones and American slang. But now, they're taking aim at a new American target, Amazon. The French government has declared that the online retailer is destructive for French bookstores and France will do what it needs to do to keep them safe.

The country's culture minister, Aurelie Filippetti, a novelist herself, said she is currently investigating how to slow Amazon's growth in France so traditional stores don't get put out of business. Her ideas include limiting the company's ability to offer free shipping and banning discounts over 5 percent.

Now, as many of you know, we have fun with the French whenever they introduce one of these nanny state policies, we have a lot of fun at their expense. But this time, I proudly side with France. I miss bookstores and there is nothing like walking around in a shop looking for a book.

Someone like me reads a few books a week and I want to wander for hours picking up book after book until I find the right book for me. I honestly do not give a hoot what people who bought this book also bought.

I buy so many worthless books that way, Jeff (ph), you can do better than that. Amazon might be faster and cheaper. But you don't find the same special books there, and Amazon has killed off a lot of bookstores. Books are the raison d'etre for so many people and that's why France has it absolutely right this time.

Still to come, an amazing discovery, artifacts that have not been seen for more than 1,000 years.


BURNETT: Atlantis, Xanadu, the city of Z. Lost city's capture our imagination and they have done that for generations.

One of the most celebrated was Heracleion. Now, you may not have heard of this, but at the time of the pharaohs, this is what it looked like, the main port in Egypt. According to legend, it was an important place of knowledge, trade and religion, until it sank into the Mediterranean sometime in the eighth century, lost forever.

But then something amazing happened. It was found thousands of years later. A team of underwater archaeologists led by Frank Goddio rediscovered the city 30 feet below. Only today, though, today, are we getting the first look at what they've actually found -- colossal statues, tablets, jewelry, coins, ceramics, tens of thousands of pieces frozen in time at the bottom of the sea.

Experts estimate it could take as long as 200 years to fully reveal what they have. It's an amazing discovery, and it shows maybe there is an Atlantis out there. But there is also the reason we have to continue to travel, investigate and explore. I love visiting ruins like the city of Pompeii, and I know you don't always find things as amazing as a lost city, but if keep searching, you always find something no one else has seen before.

"A.C. 360" starts now.