Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Negotiating Soldier's Freedom; Michael Jackson's Sleepless Nights; Shorter Sentence for Enron's Skilling

Aired June 21, 2013 - 11:30   ET

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


ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: To some, it is a deal with the devil. To others, the way to get justice for an American soldier who is a prisoner of the Taliban. Bowe Bergdahl hasn't seen his family for more than four years. Taliban forces are making some pretty steep demands for his safe return. They want five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

Take a look at some the pictures. And also want you take a look at something else, his father begging for his son's safe return. I want you also to take a look at Bowe himself begging to come home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOWE BERGDAHL, U.S. SOLDIER & PRISONER OF TALIBAN: Get me, release me, please. I'm begging you, bring me home, please. Bring me home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: It is hard to look at that. It's hard to listen to it. But should this country negotiate with terrorists? What kind of precedent could this set for other troops serving in the field?

CNN military analyst, General James "Spider" Marks, and CNN national security analyst, Peter Bergen, join me now.

General Marks, should we engage with the Taliban? Should we negotiate to get Bowe home?

GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Ashleigh, I think we already are, frankly. We're moving down the path to establish negotiation with the Taliban writ large. And this should be one of the foundations of that, clearly there have to be preconditions. But the ICRC has indicated that this young man's alive, they've delivered lettered to him. Pete and I have talked about this. I think the United States has a moral obligation not to leave a fallen comrade behind. So there is an obligation to do what we can to get him home.

BANFIELD: So, Peter, it just raises so many questions. You know, from my experience in Afghanistan, from the years that we have followed the Taliban, one of their main purposes is to be legitimized through recognition. Maybe there have been secret talks, maybe there have been not so secret talks but this would be really official. Does this set a dangerous precedent for the future, and for the possibility of people being nabbed overseas regularly? PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, maybe. But on the other hand, you know, the way you end conflicts is you speak to your enemies. We have negotiated with people who have posed a much bigger threat, whether Mao's China or the Soviet Union. Somehow we managed to survive.

I think you know, we can be in a permanent state of conflict with the Taliban, should we choose to be, but the fact that they've opened this office in Doha and Qatar is a sign, I think, on their part that they realize they also have to negotiate. They're not -- they realize there's no hope that they can become, you know, the overall government of Afghanistan. That's a pipe dream. And I think they understand the battlefield reverses have forced them to behave in a slightly more responsible manner. As you say, Ashleigh, from your own experience in Afghanistan, the Taliban have a thirst for international recognition. And that's something that we hopefully can leverage.

BANFIELD: And you know, General Marks, it's not as though there isn't precedent around the world for this as well. Israelis deal with the Palestinians and do prisoner swaps all the time and, at the same time, don't want to legitimize what's go on by negotiating with the Palestinians for prisoner swaps, they do it.

MARKS: Ashleigh, we've reached that point. I would say we've reached that point over the course of the last decade and that a constant state of conflict is describing our foreign affairs. In many cases, the fight in many cases is getting closer to home. From the intelligence perspective, have we been able to get the intelligence value from the prisoners in Guantanamo that the Taliban is looking to have us release, be released, if the answer's yes, and in many cases in excess of nine years, from an intelligence perspective, I think we've wrung these guys out. Now from a legal and inspirational perspective, do you want them injected back into the constant state of conflict? That's another discussion point.

BANFIELD: Peter, the list of the five Guantanamo prisoners that they want for our one Bowe Bergdahl is not insignificant. These are very serious leaders, dangerous people that, until now, we have felt needed to be locked up without trial. Do you really foresee this happening?

BERGEN: Well, I think the devil's in details. You know, this exchange idea has been out there for some period of time. One of the ideas is that they would go to Qatar, where the Taliban office has just been opened. Qatar is a very small, prosperous and extremely well-run country, and that they would be living there under some form of, you know, not quite house arrest, I think, but at least very careful observation. If there is a deal to be made where, you know, they're not just being released willy-nilly into Afghanistan, that's the kind of deal that seems rational and appropriate.

BANFIELD: It will be fascinating to watch. Easy for us to have this conversation. A whole different kettle of fish when you're the family of Bowe Bergdahl that has to live through this for half a decade.

Peter Bergen, thank you, General Marks. Always good to see you both.

BERGEN: Thank you.

BANFIELD: How long did Michael Jackson actually go without sleeping before he died? A sleep expert's testimony at the Michael Jackson trial. You will not believe what Michael Jackson did was humanly possible.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Ever gone a few days without sleep? Actually, maybe one or two? It's really tough to do. And everything suffers. Now there's actually evidence that Michael Jackson may have gone two months straight without real sleep. And if the sleep expert who is testifying in the wrongful death trial is right, that would be an absolute record. It also would have killed him.

Our entertainment reporter, Alan Duke, is live from Los Angeles.

First of all, Alan, I thought it was a joke. I thought it was erroneous reporting when I saw that. I don't understand why that kind of a detail would not have come out in the criminal trial against the doctor, Conrad Murray. How are we just hearing about this now?

ALAN DUKE, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Because the study on lab rats was done about 2009, published 2010, that showed if you deny a rat Propofol, or REM sleep, which Propofol does, over a period of five weeks, that rat will die. Michael Jackson had it for 60 days, according to Conrad Murray's police statement. He admitted that. And we saw deterioration described in the e-mails. I'm not sure the district attorney even had that evidence. How could the district attorney bring that up in the court, perhaps resulting in more than just involuntary manslaughter charge against Murray?

BANFIELD: It's remarkable to think, you know, there's evidence that he used Propofol for 60 days straight, which deprives you of the REM sleep and that's like basically eating dust. You'll feel full but eventually you will die. That's like the analogy, isn't it in.

DUKE: Michael couldn't dance, couldn't do his classic dance moves. People say look at "This Is It" documentary. He was dancing. Adequately. But guess what happened? That happened after a couple of days after Dr. Murray stopped the regular nightly treatments. In fact, he weaned him off starting on the 22nd. Those were taped the 23rd and 24th. The doctor of Harvard Medical School, world-renowned sleep expert, testified yesterday, one to three days after you get REM sleep you recover. So we saw a recovered, somewhat recovered Michael Jackson in the "This Is It" documentary. However, show producers in e-mails talking about how he was and a basket case, how he needed serious help. One thought he was dying. That was while he was still getting those Propofol infusions, which broke his sleep cycle, and according to the expert, prevented him from getting vital REM sleep that would have eventually killed him.

BANFIELD: Alan, 10 seconds. Does this matter? Does this matter to the case at hand? DUKE: Did AEG Live know, did their executives know, did they hire or retain or supervise Dr. Murray? That's the central core issue. The jury's hearing what they should have known and that is essential.

BANFIELD: And details are difficult, but the facts remain, who employed that doctor.

Alan Duke, thank you for that.

Coming up, he was the symbol of corporate greed a decade ago. He was sentenced to prison for his role in bringing down the energy giant, Enron. If you remember, that caused employees and share holders to lose billions of dollars. Now the former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling may have his very long prison sentence reduced, shortened by a decade. Why, how, and will this really happen? Our legal team's going to weigh in next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Do you remember the names Enron and Jeffrey Skilling? How could we forget? Enron, a global energy giant, Skilling, the CEO of said giant. Money was rolling in. The employees and the investors thrilled. And then, in November of 2001, implosion. And those investors and those employees -- well, just about everything went up in smoke. Not so thrilled anymore. Skilling was convicted of fraud and conspiracy. He was sent to federal prison for more than 24 years. And he was the highest-ranking Enron executive sentenced. He's been in the can since 2006. But today, in a federal court in Houston, Skilling's sentence could be reduced by as many as 10 years. All of this part of an agreement with the Justice Department. It gets a wee bit messy, but effectively this: Skilling would waive his right to future appeals. And he's agreed, very kindly, to allow more than $40 million of his assets to be distributed to the victims of Enron's collapse. Thank you, Mr. Skilling.

HLN's legal analyst, Joey Jackson, here with his take on the case.

Why did he still have the $40 million when he went to the can if it's ill-gotten gain?

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: It's a very good question. What happens is, is that certainly, a lot of what you have acquired through ill-gotten gains are subject to as set forfeiture. What does that mean in it means? It means that the government takes your money. However, not all of it is subject to asset forfeiture and you still maintain, as a defendant, even as a convicted criminal, the right to certain assets. That's subject to litigation. There has been litigation. As you know, there has been multiple appeals. However --

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: All the way to the Supreme Court.

JACKSON: All the way. Finally, they said, listen, OK, the bottom line here is restitution for the victims. People who have been defrauded deserve their money back, so let's do this, we'll shave 10 years off of your sentence, we'll take this $40 million that we have, we'll divide it in a pot to give those who were defrauded money back. You won't appeal any further. You'll be out 10 years earlier -- remember he got 24 years and four months, right?

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Only in his 50s too. Still can have quite a life.

JACKSON: It seemed to all make sense. He gets justice in that he serves prison time. Restitution victims, they don't really get justice. They've been defrauded.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: It's a drop in the bucket. This restitution pales in comparison to the losses.

JACKSON: In comparison.

BANFIELD: Really quickly, when I said it was messy, I don't want to get into the arcane part of the honest services challenge and all of the rest. Basically, if I understand it correctly, Professor, what happened was, the conviction was a bit ill gotten in its own right in that the evidence perhaps wasn't processed as properly as it should have under these honest services. And all the way up to the Supreme Court, they decided, you know what, he was convicted appropriately, however, we really think he should have a reduction in sentence. Is that it?

JACKSON: That's exactly what happened. You have this honest services law. You have do it, a 1988 statute by Congress, and you go after people who have violated judiciary duties in the private sector or public corruption in the public sector. There were issues as to whether or not it was vague or appropriate, whether the government's theory should have held the day. Ultimately, it was decided by the Supreme Court that while there may be some things that are amiss -- this statute is constitutional. However, that would be subject to this recalculation, which it is. So I think everybody wins here. That's a stretch. But everybody gets something from this deal.

BANFIELD: Every gets something but the rest of us think these big fat cats take stuff from us and get away with it. Save our money. Save a little time. Then they're out on their yacht. Who knows if they'll be out on their yacht again?

But I knew you would explain it properly.

Joey Jackson. Thank you.

JACKSON: A pleasure as always, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: OK. Do you know much about the farm bill? It's a big old deal sponsored by House Republicans, and nobody expected what happened yesterday. I'm going to keep that until after the break and let you know what happened. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) BANFIELD: Later today, President Obama will nominate a new FBI chief, James Comey. He's a former prosecutor who served as a deputy attorney general during the Bush administration. If confirmed, Mr. Comey will replace current chief, Robert Miller. Critics of Comey are concerned about his apparent support of certain policies, including indefinite detention and waterboarding. CNN will have live coverage of the announcement starting at 2:00 p.m. today.

An overhaul of the nation's farm program by House Republicans and it goes down in defeat. In a GOP-controlled House. Some conservatives believe the bill spent too much money on food stamps and on nutrition programs. House Democrats also opposed to the cuts in food stamps program. They helped to defeat that farm bill in a vote of 195 to 234. And that did surprise a lot of people.

You can either be part of the problem or the solution. It's what I tell my little kids every day. Today's CNN's hero, Chad Pregracke, is the latter. He started cleaning up the Mississippi River on his own. He inspired thousands of volunteers to pick up millions of pieces of trash from rivers all across the United States. Take a look at his story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHAD PREGRACKE, CNN HERO: 67,000 tires, 951 refrigerators, 233 stoves. It's crazy what you find in the rivers.

Around the age of 17, I really started to focus on the problem. 18 million people get their daily drinking water from the river. I'm thinking, this should not be like this.

This stuff just collects here and goes on for blocks like this. It's a bad deal.

I said no one going to do anything about it, I will.

I'm Chad Pregracke, and with the help of over 70,000 volunteers, we have removed over seven million pounds of garbage from America's rivers.

You guys ready?

(SHOUTING)

Yeah.

Our primary focus is the Mississippi River.

You guys, you'll be amazed, in two hours, how much stuff we get.

In all, we've cleaned up 22 rivers in 18 states.

We do everything in our power to get people excited about it. You're out there picking up garbage.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you play basketball. PREGRACKE: It's yours. It's totally yours.

Little by little we're getting it.

You're having fun. We all have fun.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I knew I was going to be going to be plodding through here (ph), but I didn't think I'd be singing karaoke on a boat.

(LAUGHTER)

(SHOUTING)

PREGRACKE: People want to see change and are stepping up to make change.

That was the last bag. Come on, let's give it up. Yeah.

(SHOUTING)

PREGRACKE: This is a problem that people created but a problem that people can fix.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: Who is the hero in your neighborhood or town? Because we want to know about it? CNN wants you so go to CNNheroes.com and nominate someone who you know who is making a big difference and deserves to be recognized for it.

Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: That's all the time we have for this Friday. But have a great weekend. Thanks so much for watching.

AROUND THE WORLD is next.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: 36 hours after James Gandolfini passed way, we know the cause of death and as well as who made the call for help, how long medical personnel tried to resuscitate him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Holy (EXPLETIVE DELETED). There it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah. There it is.