CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

PIERS MORGAN LIVE

Ohio Slavery Case; Teen Arrested After Wearing NRA T-Shirt; NSA Leaks, Security vs. Privacy; Interview with Paris Hilton; Breaking the News

Aired June 18, 2013 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

PIERS MORGAN, CNN HOST: This is PIERS MORGAN LIVE. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world.

Tonight exclusive, three suspects in Ohio, accused of keeping a mentally disabled woman and her daughter slaves in an apartment with the snakes, dogs and the Iguanas. I'll talk to one of the suspects' mothers.

And a shirt with the trouble. You know how I feel about guns but should the boy who wore this NRA T-shirt go to jail? His father joins me exclusively.

Plus the government says the NSA snooping stopped 50 terror plots. I'll talk to Glenn Greenwald. He, of course, is the reporter who broke the NSA leak story and the man who made history when he leaked the Pentagon papers, Daniel Ellsberg.

Also a Hollywood plot so crazy it has to be true, and indeed it is. Star crossed teenagers robbing celebrities' homes. Real-life victim Paris Hilton is in "The Chair" with me tonight.

But I want to begin with a shocking story out of Ohio. A mentally disabled woman and her young daughter allegedly held captive for two years in an apartment full of dogs and snakes. Prosecutors say they were forced into manual labor, beaten and given dog food to eat while the animals got table food.

Three people, Jordie Callahan, Jessica Hunt and Daniel Brown, have been charged in the shocking case while authorities said they expect to arrest a fourth person.

Joining me now is Scott Taylor, an investigative reporter for our affiliate WOIO in Cleveland.

Scott, this is a pretty awful story. Tell me what we know.

SCOTT TAYLOR, WOIO CLEVELAND: Well, right now we know, Piers, that back in 2011 it looks like Jordie as well as Jessica who live together with their four sons invited this mother who is 28 at the time, now 30, and her daughter into the home. They quickly, according to the FBI, put them down in a basement, let them sleep on the cement floor, eventually moved them up into bedrooms, and this is eerily similar to the Ariel Castro situation, if you remember that last month.

Then they made her basically become a slave, Piers. She cooked, cleaned, actually went out in the yard and did yard work, and then eventually let her go out and shop, but they made sure they timed her, I believe, on a stopwatch to come back, never let her take her daughter, either and they watched her, Piers, in the bedrooms upstairs in a video monitor, much like a baby monitor to make sure that she wasn't trying to escape and believe it or not, and this gets even more disturbing, I am being told that Jordie and Jessica actually tied up this mother's little girl at night to make sure she didn't get out to get any food or anything to drink.

MORGAN: Absolutely appalling. The situation was only discovered in October when the woman who we only identified at the moment as S.E. was arrested for stealing a candy bar and asked to be taken to jail in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to escape captivity.

TAYLOR: Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. Investigators, the FBI believe that's exactly what happened. She eventually told police over time that somebody at the house where she was living was being mean to her. Then they continued to ask questions, and the floodgates just opened.

She said that she was threatened with guns, threatened with attacks of numerous pit bulls that were in the house. They had 130-pound python there. They had supposedly a poisonous corral snake, and they would bring those out in front of her and her daughter, try to scare her, I guess to maybe condition her to stay there, and it was truly horrendous, if you believe all of this coming from the mother.

MORGAN: And the motivation appears to be financial, is that right?

TAYLOR: Yes, I think you're right. The FBI says that Jessica Hunt had all of her government assistant cards, her PIN numbers, and Daniel Brown according to documents told the FBI that they called her their bank. In other words, kind of a street lingo saying that they could scam her out of the money, didn't give her very much of her government assistant payments and used the money for themselves.

MORGAN: Scott Taylor, thank you very much indeed for that report.

Joining me now exclusively is the mother of one of the suspects, Jordie Callahan. She's asked us not to use her last name. I'll just call her Becky and she's joining me by telephone.

Welcome to you, Becky. Can you tell me what your reaction is to this shocking story?

BECKY, MOTHER OF SUSPECT IN SLAVERY CASE: Well, I know, you know, how it was down there because I was there quite a bit. There is so many lies going on and mainly by Detective Baker here in Ashland. He's just been telling one lie after another, putting his name up in highlights, I guess, because there is never been a big case in Ashland. And he hasn't been a detective very long and --

MORGAN: So when you say lies, I mean -- when you say lies, are you disputing that your son along with the other suspects kept this woman who is, we know, mentally disabled and her child captive for two years?

BECKY: Yes, that's wrong.

MORGAN: What is -- what is

BECKY: And she's not really mentally disabled.

MORGAN: OK. What is wrong about it?

BECKY: What is -- everything is wrong about it. The girl that is supposedly a victim had went where she wanted to go wherever she wanted to go. I've seen her in stores many a times by herself, all the time. It's all lie.

MORGAN: The police have come out with a -- the police have come out with extensive and categoric details of a litany of abuse bordering on torture and captivity, and have made charges to that effect. So are you saying that absolutely none of this is true?

BECKY: Absolutely none of this is true, no. She is --

MORGAN: Why would --

BECKY: Excuse me?

MORGAN: No, after you.

BECKY: What was that?

MORGAN: No, you say what you want to say, Becky.

BECKY: Supposedly victim has been over at my house many times for birthday parties, Thanksgiving, Christmas, you know, there is -- no, none of this happened.

MORGAN: If none of this happened, why are the police taking this dramatic action of charging your son and his partner and the third person and potentially a fourth with extremely serious offenses?

BECKY: Because Jordie and Jessie heard the little girl crying a lot in the bedroom that they were at. Not basement, she had a bedroom. And so they -- and they would ask her why the little girl was crying so much and she'd make up different excuses. So they did put a monitor in there so they could see what was going on, and they used the cell phones so that they can, you know, record it off the cell phone from the monitor, and they seen her kicking the little girl in the head and they called the police and turned the cell phone over to the police so they could see what she had done to her little girl.

And then since the supposedly victim was put in jail for this, she knew she was in a lot of trouble, so she turned the whole story around making them think that Jordie and Jess had made her do all this and that wasn't true. They turned over the cell phone so they could see what she was doing. MORGAN: Who was taking her money that she was getting for her disability?

BECKY: She was giving them a couple of hundred dollars a month for staying there and she was getting her own food. They weren't being starved. She was going and buying what she wanted from the store. She was even taken to the grocery store to buy what she wanted.

MORGAN: Have you spoken to your son Jordie about this since he was charged?

BECKY: Yes.

MORGAN: And what does he say?

BECKY: He's devastated that all this is being said about them. You know, and then they are making it like OK, they have some pit bulls and snakes so they are making them out to be evil because they have that. A lot of people have them. He loves reptiles. He always has since he was a kid.

I mean, they have them in zoos and stuff, you know, what -- you know, there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean --

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: You say that you -- you have had this woman and her daughter at your house in the last two years several times, is that right?

BECKY: Yes, yes, I have.

MORGAN: And she gave no suggestion to you that she was being held captive or being abused in any way?

BECKY: No. No.

MORGAN: Did you have any way of -- did you have any way of proving that she was at your house?

BECKY: Yes, I do.

MORGAN: How would you prove it?

BECKY: I've got plenty of pictures proving it.

MORGAN: Of this woman in the last two years inside your property?

BECKY: Yes.

MORGAN: So you believe that your son and the other suspects who have been charged are being framed and that this woman herself has been guilty of abusing her child, is that your position?

BECKY: Yes.

MORGAN: Why -- I come back again just one more time but why would the police do this? It doesn't make much sense to me that the police would simply believe her word against three other people if, as you say, there has been absolutely no abuse whatsoever?

BECKY: Well, you know, this is a little town of Ashland, and they do know Jordie and they know Jess and they are just trying to make a big case out of what Shannon did. I mean, Shannon already -- the supposedly victim had already admitted to it and they already charged her for it and only gave her 150 days in jail, and let her go. And then they are trying to frame Jordie and Jess for the whole incident when they already proved and Shannon already admitted she is doing this to her daughter.

MORGAN: Well, Becky, I appreciate you calling in. It's a fascinating story. It's an extraordinary twist if what you say has any credence. We'll obviously go back to the authorities who made these charges against these men and presume that the truth will out the further this investigation goes on. Thank you for joining me.

BECKY: Thank you. Bye.

MORGAN: Extraordinary tale.

Now I want to turn to another extraordinary take which you just have to see to believe really. Take a look at this. That's 14-year-old Jared Marcum wearing an NRA T-shirt, the same shirt that he wore to Logan Middle School in Logan, West Virginia, back in April. School officials asked him to change the T-shirt. Jared refused and things escalated to the point where police were called.

Jared was charged with obstructing an officer and if convicted could face a year in jail and a $500 fine. Well, joining me exclusive is Allen Lardieri, he's Jared's father, also Jared's lawyer Ben White.

Welcome to you both, gentlemen. Let me start with you, if I may, Mr. Lardieri. This is your son, he's 14. You're both members I believe of the NRA and he has worn this T-shirt to school. Did you at any point think that this T-shirt would breech any of the school's regulations?

ALLEN LARDIERI, SON ARRESTED AFTER WEARING NRA T-SHIRT: No, because we knew that there wouldn't be an issue, you know, especially and particularly here in southern West Virginia where we're primarily -- I mean, basically we are a gun culture here. Even the kids in November, they get a two-week vacation just because of hunting season and itself. So that sort of thought really doesn't cross anybody's mind, not in this particular region. Maybe in some other places but it never really crossed our mind here.

MORGAN: So what was your reaction when he -- when he was arrested by police? We should make it clear. He wasn't arrested for wearing the T-shirt, he was arrested because of an altercation with police who -- who were brought to the school because a teacher had protested in seeing your son wearing this shirt in, I believe, his lunch break.

LARDIERI: Yes, I've come to find out, I was at work when I was informed, and I was -- like I said here, you hear these stories going on and no matter where it happens, it's always -- it's always a shame that it happens but here to have that happen was a shock. Like I said, I was at work. I got the phone call, and I made it to the station, and that's pretty much where I linked up with him and my wife.

MORGAN: Let's play a clip from an interview that your son gave. This is just a brief summary of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JARED MARCUM, 14-YEAR-OLD STUDENT: There's nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't violate the policy in any way, and things got out of hand. Educational process is not lunchtime in my opinion and if anyone disturbed it, it was definitely the educator and not me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: That was Jared there. He's 14 and wearing the shirt.

Let me go to Ben White now. You're the attorney for the family. It's a fascinating case. I mean people know my view about gun control but that doesn't extend to a blanket hatred of all things NRA. I have a problem with the NRA leadership and the rhetoric they use and I don't like the way that they're exploiting gun manufacturers.

And I know that you're both aware of my position on that but you still come on the show because my view about this is he's entitled to freedom of expression, freedom of speech. If he also wear a T-shirt supporting the fact he's a member of a perfectly legal organization, I don't really have a problem with that.

Why, Ben White, do you think the school or does the school -- it's an interesting question. Is it just a rogue teacher or does the school have a real problem? Because he went back and wore it again after his suspension ended.

BEN WHITE, LAWYER FOR TEEN ARRESTED FOR WEARING NRA T-SHIRT: Absolutely he wore the shirt again and, Piers, 100 additional students wore that same shirt throughout the entire school system, grade schools, middle schools and the various high schools in the county without incident.

I did meet with the local attorney for the school board and we went through the policy ourselves with her, and they concluded that there wasn't an issue with the policy.

The principal actually went through the policy with Jared after he was physically brought to the principal's office and she learned that there wasn't anything wrong with that shirt under the current policy. The teacher just clearly didn't understand the policy and I've advocated through the bored through the attorney the teachers that are going to enforce these rules should understand the rules at least read the rules and the regulations to understand what they're trying to enforce on these little kids. These are 5th, 6th, 7th and eighth- graders and to come as a student.

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: And I've read the -- I've read the policy quite carefully. There is one reference to not wearing anything which has imagery of violence. And you could argue a gun in itself is always an image of potential violence. I mean, you could take that position. Let me ask you --

WHITE: You could take that. I mean, my view is not. I mean, this was clearly a hunting rifle, and it was an NRA branded T-shirt. Jared is an avid hunter, so is his father.

MORGAN: Right. But I think you're missing my point. Ben, you're missing my point. I'm not disputing --

WHITE: I'm --

MORGAN: I wasn't disputing the fact it may be for hunting, but even hunting is a violent sport. A gun that goes off is a violent thing. And I suppose you could argue if you were playing devil's advocate here that the fact the school had a policy of no violent imagery could extend to a gun used for hunting.

WHITE: It could, but it doesn't. It clearly doesn't. We've gotten the input from everybody from the principal up to their attorney, and it doesn't in this case, Piers. I mean, we could argue that. We could argue a lot of things, but it clearly doesn't. And the proof in the pudding per se is when 100 other students wore the same shirt, there was no incident. In fact, my six-year-old wore the same shirt kind of as a joke, and there was no incident anywhere. Not even with the little kids, the high school kids. So, if it violated the policy or if anybody believed that would be an argument, we would have heard of that clearly by now, and we haven't.

MORGAN: Okay. Adam, final question for you. Having said that I respect the right of NRA members, including your son to wear T-shirts to support the organization that they are a legal member of -- and I do -- there is a different point, which is I guess, a more sensitive point, really. Which is in light of the fact of the massacre at Sandy Hook. Is it really judicious for any school child to go to school wearing any kind of T-shirt which has any kind of gun imagery? Would it not be best to have the debate about gun control and guns and the NRA out of school classrooms and school playgrounds?

LARDIERI: Well, you may have an argument there in certain places, Piers. But again, back in the particular area that we have, the imagery of firearms is certainly nothing that is usually perceived as being menacing. You'd also want to look in front of the school. There's a large statue that firearms are not an evil thing because it's a World War I Doe Boy (ph) with a fixed bayonet on an '03 Springfield rifle who is shown quite proudly right in front of the school. And additionally, our own state flag has two rifles on it, as well.

You know, the firearm is merely an implement. It's a tool -- how it is used, you know, perceives is it a weapon or is it an implement to feed your family? That's done on an individual basis. You've got to keep in mind, these sort of horrendous acts are done by individuals, and I just see more and more people are prone to legislation that removes the human element out of it. They want to blame an inanimate object instead of put in personal human accountability in everything.

MORGAN: Well, you make some points there. I don't agree with all of them, but I respect the fact you have come on the show knowing my position on these things. And it's an interesting argument. To you, Allan Ladieri and to Ben White, thank you both very much.

LADIERI: Thank you, sir.

WHITE: Thank you.

MORGAN: When we come back, the government says more than 50 terror plots have been foiled by surveillance. But does that mean that leaks (ph) make you less safe? I'll talk to Glenn Greenwald and the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: How damaging is this to the national security of the American people that this trust was violated?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: I think it was irreversible and significant damage to this nation.

BACHMANN: Has this helped America's enemies?

ALEXANDER: I believe it has, and I believe it will hurt us and our allies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Michele Bachmann questioning the head of the NSA earlier today. The big question, have the surveillance leaks hurt America? Joining me now is the man that broke the story, "Guardian" columnist Glenn Greenwald. And the man who changed history when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. Welcome to both of you gentlemen.

Glenn, let me start with you. Obviously the repercussions reverberate on from your reporting of this. The head of the NSA today, General Keith Alexander, said this leak will help America's enemies and hurt America. What is your reaction to that?

GLENN GREENWALD, COLUMNIST, "THE GUARDIAN": This is what the government says in every single case whenever somebody exposes what they want to hide from the people over whom they're ruling. They said that when Daniel Ellsberg, now widely considered a hero, certainly my personal political hero --leaked the Pentagon Papers. They said it when George Bush's secret black sites were exposed and when his illegal, warrantless eavesdropping was exposed. Oh, you're going to make America vulnerable to the terrorists.

It's a basic kind of political theory that people that who rule in power like to keep those over whom they rule in fear because that way people will submit or acquiesce to whatever it is they want to do. There is zero evidence, as Ron Wyden and Mark Udall and other people on the Senate Intelligence Committee have said that this program of collecting everybody's phone records as opposed to just the terrorists in any way keeps us safe or is necessary to stop terrorist plots. They're just reciting from the same handbook they always use.

MORGAN: So when they say that more than 50 plots globally have been thwarted as a direct result of all this surveillance, are they lying?

GREENWALD: No, it's not that they are lying. It's misleading. When the Bush administration got caught spying and eavesdropping on Americans without warrants in 2005, they said this program is necessary because it will enable us to stop terrorist plots. And the answer to that was, if you had been complying with the law in spying with warrants, you could have stopped the same terrorist plots.

Here, if you're collecting the telephone records of millions of Americans, the fact that that program, broadly speaking, lead to the direct disruption of plots doesn't prove that if they had just been doing it narrowly, directed at only people for whom there's evidence to believe they're engaged in terrorism, they wouldn't have stopped the same plots when in fact there is lots of reason to believe if the NSA is collecting millions and millions of phone records and telephones calls and emails as they are, it actually makes it more difficult for them to stop terrorist plots because they are collecting so much stuff that they don't even know what they have.

MORGAN: Daniel Ellsberg, I'll admit to being slightly torn about this. I think many people are in the sense that my initial reaction -- and I interviewed Glenn, I think, the day after this broke -- was one of pretty hefty shock and outrage at the scale of what was going on. At the same time, I do think any government in America has got to be doing a lot of this kind of stuff to thwart terrorism.

As a man that broke the Pentagon Papers, where is the line? Where do we draw the line going forward? Because I think the key question now is what is the line and who draws it?

DANIEL ELLSBERG, PENTAGON PAPERS LEAKER: Look, I had clearances for communications intelligence for years in the government. When I revealed the top secret Pentagon Papers, I put out no communications intelligence because I really knew of none and I've had access to it in those years. I knew of none at that time that was as abusive as what we just learned now that I felt the public need to know outweighed the need for secrecy. I believe there was and is a reason for communication intelligence, and much of it has to be kept secret.

What's clear here, as you say you were shocked and outraged, I presume not at the discovery that we did communications intercepts -- you must have known that - but the enormous scale and the fact that it was being done on such a scale against Americans. As Senator Ron Wyden and Mark Udall both have been saying now for some years, especially the last year, they felt Americans would be stunned if they learned what Wyden and Udall knew as members of the intelligence community - intelligence committees but couldn't tell them. And that was this enormous scale which on its face is blatantly unconstitutional against the Fourth Amendment.

The question is whether that kind of dragnet, indiscriminate sweeping up, hovering up of information about hundreds of millions of Americans -- actually not just millions -- is on it's face a correct violation of the Fourth Amendment, which was actually the kind of thing that was the spark that caused the American Revolution. General warrants like that to just poke around in the private affairs of then-colonists, American citizens. And that was regarded as extremely intrusive. That's why the Revolution was fought and the Fourth Amendment put in place.

So there is every -- the ACLU now is suing against what they regard as blatantly unconstitutional. Some lawyers agree, especially those working for the government, particularly. But, you know, President Obama says he welcomes a debate on whether this is necessary or how much has come out, and he should thank Edward Jay Snowden for that then, because without Snowden's release just two weeks ago or so, this debate which is happening now would not be happening.

Why this was ever so secret is really something worthy of examination. Certainly --

MORGAN: Let me ask you --

ELLSBERG: -- to the terrorists.

MORGAN: Let me ask you, Daniel Ellsberg, one of the criticisms about Edward Snowden is he fled America and went to Hong Kong. You didn't. You stayed in America, and in the end, the charges against you did not lead to a prosecution. Should he have stayed --

ELLSBERG: Yes -- Pardon me. Of course, I'm sorry, I don't know how old you are, but I have to say I did face prosecution. I was facing 12 felony --

MORGAN: You weren't -- but the charges were dropped, right?

ELLSBERG: They were dropped because the president was, among other things, conducting warrantless wiretapping on which I was overheard and lying about it, by the way. Something that figured in his impeachment hearings that led to his resignation. Also, he sent people in my doctor's office to get information with which to blackmail me into silence about more secrets about his own administration. And he'd sent people to incapacitate me totally, something that no one has really claimed the president had power to do until President Obama, actually, who does claim that power to do it again suspects --

MORGAN: So should Snowden --

ELLSBERG: -- even American citizens anywhere in the world.

MORGAN: Should Snowden - right. Should Edward Snowden have stayed in America?

ELLSBERG: No, I think - first, I think he's benefited very much -- he's benefited. He's caused this debate, as you say, and I hope some real change and some real oversight. The oversight system in both Congress and the judiciary has been shown to be, by his own revelations, totally broken. But if he had stayed in this country, he would be where Bradley Manning has been for the last three years. At last he's on trial. He spent 10-and-a-half months in solitary, some of it naked. Edward Snowden would be in that same cell or some other cell like it incommunicado.

I think he was very wise to be telling us this information from outside the country. It's a different country from when I released this 40 years ago. Then I was out on bail for two years during that trial. And I was out on a $50,000 bond. I was able to explain what I had done and what I thought were the crimes revealed in that information. Which I --

MORGAN: Okay.

ELLSBERG: As a matter of fact, the things that were done against me to keep me silent were then all illegal, which was a matter of pride as an American. Now they have been made legal, but that doesn't mean they are made constitutional. They were unconstitutional --

MORGAN: OK, let me bring --

ELLSBERG: ACLU thinks now.

MORGAN: Let me bring in Glenn. Just one point, Glenn, before -- I want to go to something else. Glenn, just one point, which I saw in the Q and A with Edward Snowden, and you were involved in that. Fascinating exchange of questions and answers.

But one of them was really it comes down to trust, doesn't it? Like with the IRS scandal, it's all very well people saying they wouldn't do that, would that? They don't have the authority to do that, because as we saw with the IRS people did do that, lower down the food chain, and they did abuse the data that they had.

And that's my issue with this, is it's all very well the government saying we don't have authority to misuse this but that doesn't mean people won't resort to human nature and abuse it and one thing that struck me in the Q&A was where you were directly asked about the ability of people who have the data from the metadata sweeping up, can they use that to actually open and read e-mails and so on? And you seem to give a clear impression to me as a reader that they could do that if they wanted to.

GLENN GREENWALD, COLUMNIST, THE GUARDIAN: Yes, Piers, I think this is the crucial point. You know, we can sit around and have abstract debates about political theory and what's constitutional but ultimately we have a very clear history in this country when we did allow the government to spy on American citizens without real oversight, without somebody looking over their shoulder who had real force. We had decades of abuse.

I mean, J. Edgar Hoover had Martin Luther King surveilled and other civil rights leader surveiled in order to try and find out indiscretions in their private life and use it to blackmail them. This is -- history of really it's about human nature. And the NSA unquestionably, "The Washington Post" three years ago reported that they are collecting and storing every day 1.7 billion e-mails and telephone calls by and among Americans.

So even though you have these legal structures in place that are very nice, that say that you can't target Americans without a warrant, the fact that any NSA analyst sitting at his or her desk can invade those conversations has the technical ability to do so and there's virtually no oversight that takes place in almost complete secrecy is a reason why this apparatus is so menacing and at the very least needs to be dragged into the sunlight.

MORGAN: OK, Glenn, I just want to switch to another topic. A very sad and tragic topic today that Michael Hastings, a reporter for BuzzFeed and many other organizations over the last few years, famed, of course, for his "Rolling Stone" interview with General McChrystal which caused McChrystal to resign.

He was tragically killed in a road accident in the early hours of this morning here in Los Angeles. I know that you knew him. What is your reaction to his tragic death?

GREENWALD: I mean, it's --

DANIEL ELLSBERG, RELEASED THE PENTAGON PAPERS: Are you speaking to me?

GREENWALD: Unspeakably horrible. I mean, it's hard to process the fact that Michael is gone. He was a friend of mine but, you know, more importantly than that, he was one of the nation's really relentless journalist who disregarded the rules of access journalism, trading favors to people in favor in exchange for favors. He was really about defying convention, about getting to the truth, about being adversarial to those in power.

It's a huge loss to those of us personally who knew and loved him but it's almost a tremendous loss to journalism. He was really one of a kind and embodied this journalistic ethos that we're really sorely lacking in this country.

(CROSSTALK)

ELLSBERG: I'm very really sorry --

MORGAN: Yes, I'm sorry.

I didn't know him personally but I was -- I say I was on this show with Larry King with Michael Hastings and had the -- remotely and had the opportunity to tell him how much I admired his brave investigative reporting. That's a real loss because there aren't that many investigative reporters and of course what the Obama administration is doing right now, I would say, is trying to shut off their sources and NSA has clearly already shown the willingness and the capability to try to do that with James Rosen of FOX News and others. Hastings was somebody who went right into the field and saw -- talked to people directly and at great risk to his own life in Afghanistan and Iraq and places like that. But when people try to use the phone now or e-mail or whatever to be sources to news men, they are being told by this very debate that the NSA not only has capability to listen to all of the newsmen sources.

MORGAN: Yes.

ELLSBERG: And all of the journalists and all congresspersons and all judges, and as you say, Tea Party people, dissenters of any kind. That is a capability that Senator Frank Church said terrified him. He said it was a bridge we must never cross to have NSA turn its capabilities not which are directed to foreigners, turn them to the American people. He said that is an abyss from which there is no return. But we have crossed the bridge --

MORGAN: Daniel, I'm going to have to -- have to jump in. We have to go to -- we have to go to a break, I'm afraid. It's been great to talk to you, and also to Glenn Greenwald. Thank you both very much indeed for joining me tonight. It's a debate that I'm sure we'll talk again. Thank you very much.

And my condolences obviously go to Michael Hastings' family. He was a regular on the show and we'll be sorely missed by us and by CNN, and indeed many news organizations. He was a terrific provocative journalist who will be really, really missed.

When we come back, the true life Hollywood story so good it just had to become a movie. The star struck teens who broke into the homes of celebrities and their real-life victim, Paris Hilton, she's in the chair. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Paris Hilton is hosting a party in Vegas tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where does she live? Do you think we could find a way in?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Come on, let's go to Paris'. I want to rob. Oh, my god.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm going to pick a new cute dress. Did you get a new dress?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Uh-huh.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: A clip from "Bling Ring," the hot new summer film directed by Sofia Coppola that tells a real-life story of a group of teenagers who stole from the homes of celebrities, among the victims, Paris Hilton, who joins me now in the chair.

Paris, how the devil are you?

PARIS HILTON, HOTEL HEIRESS: Good. Nice to see you again.

MORGAN: You're looking splendid if you don't mind me saying.

HILTON: Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you.

MORGAN: What is your reaction to the "Bling Ring"? Because this was actually a pretty serious thing in your life. There was this gang of weirdoes who wanted to be you and be other celebrities, coming into your home, stealing everything and trying to be you.

HILTON: I think it's absolutely disgusting what they did. When I was watching the movie I was just so horrified and disgusted by what they did to me. And it was just so wrong. So it just was very upsetting.

MORGAN: It's the kind of modern celebrity curse, isn't it? Because they were tracking you down through the Internet, through Twitter, Facebook, any postings you put that you may be away, and they come and do their thing. Has that to make you change the way you behave on Twitter and so on?

HILTON: Definitely, because, you know, this could not have happened, you know, five or 10 years ago. There wasn't Twitter or Facebook or any of these things, so nowadays people know exactly where you are so I've been more careful with that and also putting the most extensive security system in my house, so this could not happen again.

MORGAN: They tried to take your dog, didn't they?

HILTON: Yes, they actually tried to take my dog, which --

MORGAN: Evil people.

HILTON: -- thank God they didn't.

MORGAN: Yes, absolutely.

Now Sophia Coppola is a pretty -- a big departure for her to do this kind of movie. Everyone is raving about it. They were raving about it in Cannes. You got to know her. You went to the premiere. She described you as very warm.

HILTON: Yes.

MORGAN: How did you find her?

HILTON: I love Sofia. I have so much respect for her. She is such a talented director and there's no way I would ever been a part of this unless she was involved. That's the only reason I agreed to it.

MORGAN: Now your life has changed a bit from when I first interviewed you. You've now ditched the old paparazzi, blonde girl going to party image. You've now become this big business woman, aren't you? Seventeen product lines, motorcycles, handbags, nails, eyelashes. You're going to start a hotel chain. Not a Hilton. Your (INAUDIBLE).

HILTON: Yes.

MORGAN: This is big business.

HILTON: Yes, it's very exciting. I've worked very hard so I'm very proud of what I've created.

MORGAN: Can you horrify my viewers now and tell them how much the last fragrance 16th, Dazzle, how much it took in sales?

HILTON: All my fragrances are over $1.5 billion so far.

MORGAN: $1.5 billion. So you are absolutely stinking rich.

HILTON: I feel very proud. I've worked very hard for this, so it's just feels so exciting to have -- to hear those numbers.

MORGAN: It's huge. And you're not married yet, are you?

HILTON: No.

MORGAN: Well, you are married, actually. Let's play a clip and remind -- to remind viewers the fact that you are actually married.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you, Piers Morgan, take Paris Hilton to be your wedded wife?

MORGAN: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you, Paris Hilton, take Piers Morgan to be your lawful wedded husband?

HILTON: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the power invested in me by the laws of this state I do now pronounce you husband and wife.

Piers, you may kiss your wife.

MORGAN: Thank you.

HILTON: And remember, Piers, what happens in Vegas --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: You know, I could never get bored of watching that. We seem so right together.

HILTON: We do. It's the most romantic day of my life.

MORGAN: It really was, wasn't it? Now you've got, unfortunately, this boyfriend, he's a fashion model. He's called River. He's 21. I mean, in England we call them toy boys but here you call them boy toys. Is that right?

HILTON: I call him my man.

MORGAN: Is he a man yet?

HILTON: Yes, he's very mature.

MORGAN: Is he aware that I exist as your only husband to date?

HILTON: He's very aware of that.

MORGAN: How is he dealing of that?

HILTON: Of course, he's a little bit jealous of you.

(LAUGHTER)

MORGAN: Do you think you may see any wedding bells with River?

HILTON: You know, we just celebrated our one-year anniversary and I've never been happier. He's so loyal and sweet and has such a big heart and makes me feel so safe, and I just love him so much so we'll see what happens.

MORGAN: Did I sign a pre-nup? I can't remember.

HILTON: No, we didn't.

MORGAN: Quite fancy a bit that one, that 1.5 billion-dollar pie.

Paris, it's been great to see you again.

HILTON: You too.

MORGAN: And best of luck with all the ventures.

HILTON: Thank you.

MORGAN: And I'm looking forward to see "Bling Ring." It sounds like a cracking movie. Nice to see you.

HILTON: Yes. It's amazing.

MORGAN: Paris Hilton, a woman of many talents.

Hang on. "Bling Ring" opens nationwide in theaters this Friday, June 21st, and for all things Paris Hilton, check out ParisHiltonentertainment.com.

Coming next, from the "Bling Ring" to breaking the news where we break all the big stories behind the headlines. Tonight the president's plummeting approval ratings and the one group that may really be losing faith in it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) MORGAN: Obama's second term slum. The president's approval ratings are dropping with his lowest numbers in a year and a half, and the scandal slamming the administration aren't helping. Can he turn things around?

We're breaking the news tonight. Joining me are Van Jones, CNN contributor and co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, Abby Huntsman, host of Huff Post Live, and Krista Smith, the senior West Coast editor of "Vanity Fair" magazine.

Welcome to all of you.

Let me start with you, Van Jones. President Obama, he's taking a bit of a whack, 17 percent drop in approval of those aged under 30. What the hell is going on?

VAN JONES, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know, that's bad news for him. To give him his due he's still probably the most popular politician among young people here and around the world. But this is very, very bad news. And I don't think it's just about this NSA stuff. These young people elected this president, they reelected him, they came out in big numbers.

Where is the agenda for young people in Washington, D.C.? They've got a student debt crisis like you wouldn't belief. Where is their bill to give them -- relief on student debt? They got joblessness. Twenty-five percent of young people unemployed. Where is their jobs bill? Where is their climate bill? Where is anything to help them?

I mean you have that as the backdrop and then it turns out their hero, their president, may be spying on them, I think you now see a dramatic drop. But it's not just about the NSA. I think you've got a whole generation of young people who are saying look, we did what you told us to do, we went to college, we voted, and we are in worse shape than our parents, we're in worse shape than our older siblings --

(CROSSTALK)

MORGAN: OK.

JONES: And help is not on the way.

MORGAN: Yes. Let's go to a young person, Abby Huntsman. Welcome back. What is your view? I mean, did you trust President Obama? All this stuff recently just seems to be nibbling away at the fact that he was Mr. Transparent and now he's Mr. Sneaky?

ABBY HUNTSMAN, HUFF POST LIVE: Look, I mean, the minute that you are mentioning in the same sentence as Dick Cheney when your campaign slogan was hope and change, I think you're in a very problematic position and you mentioned the word trust, and I think that that is the one word that describes where he is right now. It's this lack of trust.

I mean, what are we looking for in a president? Especially in a time of scandal you want transparency, you want leadership and you want that very quickly. We haven't seen that here.

What's so appealing about President Obama was he represented this outside of Washington figure that he could come in and do things differently, and what we're seeing is politics as usual and the problem is the public has dictated the narrative and he's fallen behind and ultimately, you lose the people's trust and that is very problematic.

MORGAN: OK. Krista Smith, we're here in Hollywood. Has he lost Hollywood? Is he losing the people that really, really put the money up and backed him?

KRISTA SMITH, SENIOR WEST COAST EDITOR, VANITY FAIR: I don't think so. I don't think he's losing the people. I mean I think that it was interesting that he chose to go on Charlie Rose and actually take him head on and discuss a variety of subjects. And I think that was part of what Abby speaks to, it's creating some type of transparency.

What I do find interesting in this post 9/11 culture that we live in, and you talk about young people and privacy, because I think they have no privacy. How are they surprised?

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: That they're being spied on.

MORGAN: Right. But isn't this the point?

SMITH: We're not spied on but their conversations are --

MORGAN: Well, they want the right to invade their own privacy, they just don't want the government invading their privacies. Isn't that the difference?

JONES: Yes.

SMITH: I think that is a difference but I also think that you have to understand that this is happening. I mean, I think this -- the volume of it, I guess, is where the argument. But I am -- I do think that young people have to assume and we have to assume that our e-mails and our phone calls to a certain degree are fair game.

MORGAN: I think we see what's going. They just don't like it.

Let's take a break. Let's come back and talk about guns and Russell Brand, and the fact that Katy Perry says that he divorced her by text.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC'S "MORNING JOE": This is my first --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brand experience?

BRZEZINSKI: Brand. Yes. I think it's not listening to him, it's experience. It's just sort of taking it all in.

RUSSELL BRAND, ACTOR: You're talking about me as if I'm not here.

BRZEZINSKI: I'm transfixed.

BRAND: And as if I'm an extraterrestrial. You know, I'm from a country that's near to you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not -- we're just sort of admiring the whole -- you know, it's the whole thing.

BRAND: Well, thank you for your casual objectification.

BRZEZINSKI: An experience.

BRAND: I'm glad that it's positive for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Absolutely extraordinary interview, Russell Brand, on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning. But I'm back with breaking the news with Van Jones, Abby Huntsman, and Krista Smith.

Abby Huntsman, is there something about the English accent that makes you Americans all completely lose your marbles? I mean, they went as if they couldn't understand a word he was saying?

HUNTSMAN: Piers --

MORGAN: Because he was speaking English.

HUNTSMAN: Don't get ahead of yourself. Do not get ahead of yourself on the charm. But the fact that that marriage lasted 14 months, though, is the most shocking of all. It's interesting, though, we've now found out that he divorced her via text message, which I think we could all say is apparently they did that in Europe, though. Piers, maybe you should answer this question. Is that more common in Europe than it is here?

(LAUGHTER)

MORGAN: No, actually, this is a revelation that he divorced Katy Perry by text message. She's revealed this in an interview, I think, with "Vogue" magazine. Interestingly, when I interviewed Russell last week, there was a bit that we didn't air, which we can air now, which is, I met Katy Perry at a party and she described him in a very unusual way, and this is what I told Russell. Let's watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: I met Katy at a party recently.

BRAND: Yes.

MORGAN: And she's very nice but she did call you Rasputin. BRAND: Rasputin, Grigori Rasputin. The mad Russian monk whose influence over the royal family brought about the communist revolution in Russia.

MORGAN: Why would she use that analogy, do you think?

BRAND: Well, I don't know. But I mean --

MORGAN: She was laughing at the time.

BRAND: Rasputin --

MORGAN: And she said very nice things about you.

BRAND: Good. That's lovely, thank you. But Rasputin, I mean, he was a pretty powerful bloke, wasn't he? And he could manipulate folks with his eyes. I like Rasputin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Krista Smith, I mean, is he the modern day Rasputin? Would Rasputin divorce his wife by text?

SMITH: I love Russell Brand. I think he's hilarious. And watching that "Morning Joe," I mean, that's reality television. It's -- he was constantly thinking on his feet. He was very funny. It kind of reminded me long ago when Sylvester Stallone sent his long-term girlfriend a breakup via FedEx. But now we have text messaging, and that's what we do. So am I surprised? No. Who knows? Maybe they hadn't talked to each other. Who knows what the circumstances are? But it seems like everyone is doing everything via text now.

MORGAN: Van Jones, I mean, can you ever imagine being in the position where you would divorce somebody by text message?

JONES: Well, I can't imagine -- people do a lot of stuff by text messaging. They have sex-ting and everything else. I can't imagine. So, you know I will leave it to Russell Brand to figure out what he wants to do with his text message.

HUNTSMAN: I mean, Piers, there's still people like don't even know how to text today so.

MORGAN: Really?

HUNTSMAN: There -- I mean, there are -- you know, it's interesting that technological advancements have done so many great things, but I think we've lost the intimacy of having these sorts of conversations and it allows people, especially young people, to have an excuse to not talk about awkward things that can be very uncomfortable like this, like a divorce.

MORGAN: It's when my -- it's when my sons on Father's Day on Sunday were tweeting me from the seat at the next-door table. That is when I realized things are getting a little bit crazy. But most of the tweets we're getting right now, Abby, to CNN are about your new hairdo. So congratulations on that.

HUNTSMAN: Thank you, Piers.

MORGAN: And nice to have you back. Krista, Van, Abby, thank you all very much indeed.

And that's all for us tonight. John King is in for Anderson Cooper and it starts in just a few moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)