Return to Transcripts main page


Peep Show for Police?; Controversial New Cholesterol Guidelines Could Double Americans Taking Statin Drugs

Aired November 12, 2013 - 19:00:00   ET


JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HOST: Tonight, sheer outrage as women come out of the woodwork saying, "They did it to me, too." Look at these photos we just obtained just moments ago of this shocking case.

About a dozen people, mostly young women, claiming cops videotaped them as they got undressed with at least one woman showing complete frontal nudity, another her buttock, and those charges in this lawsuit tonight, that said cops even videotaped them going to the bathroom in jail. The women told "20/20" cops left them feeling violated and degraded.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The anger of knowing that somebody has these videos...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s just shocking to me. That`s all. I don`t know what to say. I`m appalled.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think even worse than the lack of freedom is the lack of privacy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was on display for them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This practice appears to be a peep show.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: In just a second, I will talk to one of the women suing the city of Puyallup, Washington, and its police chief. This lawsuit charges the camera was deliberately positioned to view them taking their clothes off and recorded women lowering their pants to go to the bathroom and cleaning themselves up afterward.

The lawsuit claims the women felt humiliated and degraded, but the cops tell "20/20" they did absolutely nothing wrong.

What do you think? Would you feel violated? Call me: 1-877-JVM-SAYS, 1-877-586-7297. Has anything like this ever happened to you?

Straight out to our straight Lion`s Den debate battle. And we start with James Egan, the attorney representing at least 11 women and one man. Now, this lawsuit is honestly shocking. There are parts I can probably not read on television.

One woman claimed she was ridiculed as a squatter because she had to go to the bathroom with a camera trained on her, allegedly. Others say male officers touched their breasts and their crotch. So walk us through the pattern you`re alleging in this lawsuit and why he believed it happened as you said.

JAMES EGAN, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS: Well, thank you, Jane. Thank you for having me on your show. This is a peep show. This is a peep show that happened to be set up in a jail facility, where people were actually just being. These are women processed for DUI. These were not inmates. They would be arrested for DUI, taken to the Puyallup City jail in Washington and would be directed and diverted into holding cells. The people that were directed were women, tend to be in my experience in watching things, younger women.

I actually feel dirty watching these videos. After I found out about this, I had a series of them come in and look at their videos while I walked out of the room. And I came back and they`d used all the tissues in the tissue box. This is awful. It was a violation of their self-dignity and personal respect, and they were robbed of that. They are entitled to have their privacy and not have that jeopardized by some officers.

And the irony here, interestingly, is that they were suspected of gross misdemeanors, only to be taken to a place where felonies were occurring, the felony of voyeurism against them. So this is very shocking. It`s very shocking. And this seems to be the only place it`s going on.

ASHLEIGH MERCHANT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What bothers me about it most is the fact that they were still investigating these crimes at that point. They were only in the investigatory stages. So these people, they hadn`t even determined that they were guilty or they even should be charged. They were just there to get their BAC level taken, and so they weren`t even charged yet.

JON LEIBERMAN, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, look. I agree with Ashleigh. I mean the issue isn`t the existence of the cameras, because every jail and holding area in this country has cameras. The issue is that it appears that the cameras were trained directly on these suspects while they`re going to the bathroom and that, in many of these cases, these women weren`t told that there`s actually a privacy curtain where they could go change clothes.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, no, no, no, no, no.

LEIBERMAN: Furthermore, Jane...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Hold on one second. This is -- listen. In this lawsuit, one of the women says she begged officers to let her out of the cell, where the camera was trained right on the toilet, and they wouldn`t listen to her allegedly. And so she ultimately had to go to the bathroom, so she went on the toilet that had no coverage.

Now, I recently went through the process of being arrested in order to give viewers an idea of what happens and it was just for show, but I definitely felt -- I was made to feel very uncomfortable by the lack of privacy. Look at this.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: This is more privacy than almost anybody gets in jail. Look. You can lock this because it`s a holding cell.

You talk about the lack of freedom, but I think even worse than the lack of freedom is the lack of privacy.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, I`ve just got to go back to James Egan, the attorney, before we get to one of the plaintiffs who`s standing by on the phone.

You saw how in the bathroom where I did the demonstration, there was a metal barricade where I. If I had wanted to, I could have gone to the bathroom behind that metal barricade. In the situations you`re talking about, you`re alleged there was no metal barricade. You had the choice of going right there where you`re being observed, period.

EGAN: That`s correct. Gerald (ph) has it all backwards. The key problem here is having two cameras pointed directly at toilets. And these are hidden enough such that many women who are present didn`t see them.

Another issue is that the women were directed into these holding cells where men were typically allowed to change behind curtains. This is based on a rather limited statistical sample that I took, but I found that 20 percent of the requests that I made through the Public Records Act revealed that these women were being directed into these holding cells. And it sure seems suspicion that that occurred.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, let me -- I want go to one of your clients, plaintiff No. 5.

EGAN: Sure.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`re not identifying her. She is on the phone.

Thank you for joining us. I appreciate you having the courage to talk, because from reading this lawsuit, it seems that a lot of the women, perhaps including yourself, felt extremely humiliated and degraded by this experience.

So did you feel humiliated and degraded? And what was your experience in a nutshell, I mean, after you were arrested, as I understand it for DUI? And then what happened once you got into this cell area?

PLAINTIFF NO. 5: Honestly, I was more than humiliated and violated. I -- once I got into the jail, you know, I`m fine in there. And then I was, you know, told go and change my clothes into the cell where I felt very, very violated where why do I have to go into the cell? Why can`t I go over to the curtain? I argued the concept that I don`t need to change off my clothes or take off my clothes because I am going home. And I was still told that it was protocol and that`s what I had to do.

And then from there, I was held in the cell for long enough that I shouldn`t have had to stay there or change my clothes. There was no reason for it. I don`t understand why.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you have to use -- did you have to use the bathroom in the cell?

PLAINTIFF NO. 5: And then -- and then once I was in there for long enough, I didn`t have to use the bathroom. I tried to -- tried to get their attention saying, you know, I have to use the bathroom. And then I already noticed the camera and I still was in the holding cell. So then I used the bathroom there.

Then years later, here comes pictures of me using the bathroom which is public record. How is that OK?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let me ask you a question. According to this lawsuit -- and we`re going to give you the police department`s side in a second. But according to this lawsuit, they said the station house was a sexually charged environment, that some of the women were ridiculed, allegedly, and that one -- and this is disturbing. I`m reading it to you because it`s part of the lawsuit. And it disturbs me to say this, but I have to just get some of the allegations out there. That one officer said something to the effect of "You have a nice body. You don`t look your age. I love redheads."

And then one officer added, "Are you red down there, too?"

So that`s pretty shocking, if true. Did you get any sense of a sexual vibe at the station house, plaintiff No. 5?

PLAINTIFF NO. 5: Yes. Once I -- once I -- once I used the bathroom and I came out of the cell, I heard the words of "a squatter," and then I didn`t think anything of it. You know, just went on to taking my picture and then going back in the cell and changing my clothes once again. Now, once I received the picture, it all makes sense why that...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You say that they called you a squatter?

PLAINTIFF NO. 5: Correct.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In other words, you had to use the bathroom and that was a reference to that?

PLAINTIFF NO. 5: Right. Because I don`t -- I don`t sit on just random toilet seats.


PLAINTIFF NO. 5: Yes. And they -- it makes complete sense now why that was said.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I want to go out to the phone lines. Hannah, New York, what do you have to say? Hannah, New York.

CALLER: It`s happening everywhere. I was just bailed out of jail today, and while I was in there I was made to take a shower with the curtain open after pleading for them to shut the curtain. And an officer who had been demoted for some sexual stuff with inmates was making extremely sexual comments toward me while in there. So this is very, very uncalled for. It`s very disgusting.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. And how did you feel, Hannah?

CALLER: I felt completely intimidated, degraded. I felt as though my pride was taken away from me.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow. And that, of course, is a totally different jurisdiction. We`re talking about something, a lawsuit filed against a police station in Washington state. This lady`s causing from New York. So I want to go back to Jon Leiberman. Are we scratching the tip of the iceberg here?

LEIBERMAN: Well, that`s the thing. I mean, things like this sully the reputation of good law-enforcement officers everywhere, and the issue in this case, in Washington state, is somebody`s not telling the truth.

Police claim that nobody was monitoring these video cameras anyway, and so there`s not really an issue here. That could be a problem in and of itself, because what`s the purpose of having the cameras if nobody`s monitoring them?

But if, indeed, the plaintiffs are to be believed in the lawsuit, then clearly they were being monitored, because of the alleged comments that law enforcement was making that they`d only know if they were watching those feeds of the video.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, yes. You`re going to hear what the police department has to say on the other side. And does it jive with the idea that nobody`s watching the cameras if they`re doing it for safety reasons? Stay right there. This is a shocking story, and we cover the war on women on this show. We`ve got to expose and shine the light on what`s going on. Stay right there.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I`m going to the bathroom, I don`t want the cops -- why are they videotaping me for? It`s not a porno show.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have you change into jail clothing because it`s very common for offenders to hide items in places on their body or within their clothing. We don`t believe there`s any merit to the allegations that our corrections officers did anything wrong whatsoever.

We do not have officers sitting there monitoring the cameras when that type of activity is going on. And in fact, in all of these there are cases no officers viewing the video or the monitor at any time through any of the allegations.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And that from ABC News. There is police saying that this is absolutely A-OK. That they need the cameras for their safety, but nobody`s looking at the cameras. That doesn`t make a lot of since to me anyway.

This lawsuit says that the stationhouse is a sexually-charged environment and that the officers not only had cameras trained on women going to the bathroom, but here`s a quote from the lawsuit. "I didn`t think I was supposed to be searched by a male, but they went all the way up the legs, all the way up to my crotch and my legs were spread as they told me -- These three guys and another were just creepy. They made me feel uncomfortable. It was a sexually-charged environment like a bad sit-com. They were laughing and talking about my body after I changed."

Now, back to James Egan, the DUI defense attorney who is the attorney representing these anonymous women, 11 women and one man apparently suing. You say in your lawsuit you believe that they were doing this to get aroused. Well, what`s your response to the officer who says, "We didn`t look at the videos"?

EGAN: You know, it doesn`t make a lot of sense. As one of your commentators said, well, if they`re not watching the videos, what do they have them there for?

Now, the city has said, "Well, we have them there for security reasons." I requested all of the lawsuits or claims against the jail that have occurred in the past ten years, and there`s only one. It`s for somebody who apparently left his purse on the counter, and it has nothing to do with what occurred inside those holding cells, where there`s usually just one person there. It`s a person changing.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: By the way, this is the video we`re just getting in right now. And there you see it. We just got it in right now. We were -- we were showing you still images of the video, and now the video has just come in. And obviously, it`s degrading. Nobody wants to be videotaped on the toilet, OK?

EGAN: No, no, they shouldn`t be filmed. They have a reasonable expectation to privacy.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, but they claim they don`t, which is -- you`re saying that they have -- that people have a constitutional right to a certain level of privacy. Remember, these are people arrested on suspicion of DUI.

EGAN: That`s correct.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Do you think that the DUI had something to do with it? Like that -- do you believe the officers may have felt like, "Well, they`re kind of out of it. Therefore, they won`t know the difference"?

EGAN: No. No, that`s a good question, but none of these were suspected drug-suspected DUIs. For them to have done what -- this is actually a strip search under state laws -- for them do that, they would have had to articulate reasonable suspicion to believe that each of these people was carrying something on their person. They never did that. There`s no evidence of that. There`s no evidence that there were a series of injuries that occurred at this jail that somehow don`t occur in other places. And when asked around the area what other places are doing this, they won`t come up with anything. Although...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ashleigh Merchant, defense attorney, let me ask you. What should happen? What do you think should happen here?

MERCHANT: I mean I`m glad that they`re bringing this lawsuit, because one of the things that you bring in a 1983, which is the type of lawsuit this is, is called injunctive relief. And that is relief where you`re actually trying to change the system. And we actually bring a lot of these lawsuits, my law firm does, to change things that are going wrong like this. And they`re in a great jurisdiction. They`re in Washington state. This is probably going to go to the federal court, because it...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: What should happen to the police chief?

MERCHANT: The police chief...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s happening on his watch.

MERCHANT: And he knew about it. And he had a system in place to do this. He should be fired. He should be held accountable. He knew this was happening, and he allowed this to happen. There were alternatives. I understand you have to have safety.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let me say this. What you said was an allegation. The police chief is invited on our show any time. We`d love to hear his side of the story.

Let`s go to a caller. Anonymous caller from Washington state. What do you have to say, anonymous caller?

CALLER: Hi. I was arrested and charged with obstructing an officer, and they brought me into the hold area. And they made me strip my clothes off. And two male officers and a jailer and a female jailer. And I was stripped, and it took my dignity.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m so sorry. I`m so sorry. Thank you for having the courage to speak about this as we cover the war on women. Go ahead, anonymous.

EGAN: Call my office.

CALLER: And they -- It was just dehumanizing.


CALLER: I had no criminal history, and I -- I just -- I mean it just felt wrong. It`s like my brain left my body. It was disgusting.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you feel violated? Did you feel violated?

CALLER: Absolutely. As weak as a woman, as a human being, to put me in a holding cell like an animal. It`s just wrong. Wrong on so many levels. And women should haven`t to be treated like that. Nobody should have to be treated like that. It made me feel so dirty.

I`m apparently going through the court system. I`m so grateful for the videotaping that was done prior to the arrest. And I`m so sorry that this is happening to other women. And I think we should all stand up and fight this.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, this is why it`s important for us to cover the war on women, because together we can change this.

Again, I invite the police chief or the mayor of the city on any time. I have some questions that I want to ask them.

Anonymous, we`re going to give you the information for James Egan, the DUI attorney, if you want to contact him. He`s handling cases like this. He offered. He said, "Call me."

So whoever`s on the phone back there, please put anonymous in touch, OK? Will you do that, producers?

Yes. Wow.

Next, millions more Americans could be popping many more pills, and I`m going to tell you why it`s got my blood boiling. And it`s a story that everybody`s covering, but nobody`s covering it the way we`re going to cover it, on the other side, to save your life.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The new guidelines greatly expand the number of Americans that would be eligible to receive statin drugs.




WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Surprising new medical guidelines on cholesterol levels.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: This is a huge shift sort of in the way we think about cholesterol and probably heart disease overall.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: New reports that recommend statins for millions more Americans to cut their cholesterol.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From about 36 million previously to as many as 72 million now.

GUPTA: The best way to control cholesterol is to really watch what you eat.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Unleash me, because I`m outraged, and here`s why. Brand-new warnings about cholesterol that could double the number of Americans on cholesterol-lowering medication. Up to 70 million Americans could end up on these drugs. That`s the big headline. That makes my head want to explode.

This is the new American way. More pills. More pills. And while you`re at it, how about some more pills on top of that? Gee, how about eating better and exercising more so you don`t develop high cholesterol in the first place? Why isn`t that the No. 1 mandate you`re being given? It`s not.

Why do so-called experts discuss this crisis endlessly without ever mentioning the elephant in the room?


VELEZ-MITCHELL: The elephant in the room is this: our wildly unhealthy fat-laden diet. Listen to the experts talk and tell me what`s wrong with this picture.


TAPPER: Some experts have said that these new recommendations could double the number of Americans taking statins. Is that safe? What are the side effects?

GUPTA: You could have muscle aches, which may sound like a small thing, but they can be profound. People may not exercise or be as active anymore. It can cause liver problems, and people may have to have their liver evaluated from time to time if they`re on these medications.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh. And did we mention the side effect of memory loss, too?

Here`s an inconvenient truth for all you so-called experts out there hell-bent on getting Americans to buy more pills. Foods that contain animal fat contain cholesterol. Animals produce cholesterol. Cholesterol is an essential component of animal cell membranes.

Major sources of cholesterol in food include cheese, egg yolks, food from the bodies of cows, pigs, chickens, fish, and shrimp. There is precious little cholesterol in plants, period. End of story.

So the first thing you should do, if you want to lower your cholesterol, stay away from foods that are high in cholesterol like meat and dairy products. Eat more vegetables and fruits. High-fiber foods like oatmeal and beans. Great cholesterol fighters. So are nuts.

Why doesn`t anybody in authority talk about this obvious fact? Ask yourself that question. Why do these so-called experts sit around talking ad nauseam about statins, pills, without mentioning the natural way you can reduce your cholesterol levels without buying any pills?

Of course, there`s a small segment of the population who have a genetic predisposition. Yes, there are obviously cases where drugs are necessary. But to put millions and millions and millions of Americans on drugs with terrible side effects when they could just change their unhealthy lifestyles? That would make way too much sense.

Straight out to Dr. Neal Barnard, best-selling author of many books on food, including "Eat Right, Live Longer."

Dr. Neal Barnard, do you share my frustration with the mainstream establishment coming up with a pill when there`s a natural alternative?

DR. NEAL BARNARD, AUTHOR: What people seem to miss is that statins have side effects that can be serious, that can affect their liver, that can affect the muscles, but they can also increase the risk of diabetes. They can increase the risk of cataracts. And as you mentioned, there have been hundreds of cases of people with severe memory problems that were attributable to the statin drug.

But the kicker is 90 percent of people on statins do not need them. That is, they wouldn`t need them if they weren`t eating the foods that are high in the saturated fat and cholesterol that increase the cholesterol in your blood.

And the way to figure it out is you get the meat and the dairy products out of the diet. About eight weeks later, check your cholesterol. Ninety percent of the people, it comes right down. For maybe one in ten people, it stays high. That one in ten, for them, there`s a legitimate reason to think about a statin for those people.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So why is it that the powers that be -- the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology -- they release these guidelines, but they don`t stress, get the meat and dairy out of your diet, eat fruits and vegetables, eat nuts and grains? They`d rather sell you a pill.

BARNARD: They`ve really got to change. This -- 20 years ago it was shown that when people get the animal products out of their diet, not only do their cholesterol levels drop like a stone, but narrowed arteries open up again. I`m talking about people who have had severe heart disease. The arteries open right up again in 82 percent of cases. This is the work of Dr. Dean Ornish two decades ago. It`s now not even controversial.

But instead, this sort of pill-happy philosophy has said, no, don`t encourage people to change their diets too much. Just give them a statin drug. That`s a mistake.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we have to become free thinkers. I am telling our viewers, because I care about you. The experts, if they were so sharp, we wouldn`t be in the health crisis we`re in in this country.

There`s a huge connection between industry and the so-called experts out there. And you`ve got to consider the motives and why they won`t tell you the answer is totally at your fingertips. When you go shopping, get the fruits and the vegetables, the nuts and the grains, and you can reduce your cholesterol naturally without taking a pill that has a horrible side effect.

It`s irresponsible that the medical community is sidestepping this issue and is afraid to speak the truth. Shame on you -- medical community.

Up next, a celebrity custody scandal unlike any other -- why Child Protective Services reportedly had to step in to help Charlie Sheen`s twin boys.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If it`s affecting himself it`s ok because he`s the only one who`s in trouble. But if it`s affecting other people like his children, that`s pretty bad.




UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sheen is in a war with his ex-wife Brooke Mueller over the care of their young twins, Bob and Mac.

CHARLIE SHEEN, ACTOR: Yes, I`m high on a drug. It`s called Charlie Sheen.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Going on -- Charlie Sheen in an interview with TMZ Live.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s Jekyll & Hyde behavior that is a direct result from the visits at Brooke`s house. She`s one of the most incompetent losers I`ve ever encountered ever.

SHEEN: She doesn`t have words.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight the buzz is breaking news. It seems like things have gone from bad to worse for Charlie Sheen`s twin boys -- just four years old. We`ve learned their mom, Charlie`s ex-wife, Brooke Mueller has finally given the ok to test these four-year-old twins for -- are you sitting down -- fetal alcohol syndrome.

Now published reports claim that she entered rehab twice for drugs on top of drinking during her pregnancy with the boys. We can`t independently confirm that. You can see the boys on this video from RadarOnline. This whole thing started when Child Services was alerted to the boys` dangerous and disturbing behavior. Reports that they were trying strangle dogs. They were hitting their little sister. They were acting totally out of control. They`re four-year-olds.

The boys were in the temporary custody of Charlie`s other ex-wife, actress, Denise Richards for the past several months. They were given to her because their biological mom Brooke was placed on an involuntary hold following an alleged overdose.

But now the mom, Denise says she can`t take care of the twins anymore because she`s afraid of their behavior. That`s the ex-wife. Charlie says all this stems from the boys` visits with their biological mother Brooke.

It`s confusing, right? There`s Brooke and there`s Denise. Brooke is the biological mother and the ex-wife -- Denise is the ex-wife with her own set of girls.

Now Brooke told TMZ nothing. Charlie told TMZ it`s all a house of horrors over there at Brooke`s house.


SHEEN: It`s a horror show. It`s a horror show. It`s the kids being around drugs, being around paraphernalia, being around drug dealers, very nefarious-type people that come and go. It`s -- it`s a house filled with creeps and cretins that have no business being around children, Brooke included.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Straight out to the "Lion`s Den" and RadarOnline`s Jen Heger. Jen, what is the latest on this mess?

JEN HEGER, RADARONLINE: So the latest is all the parties are at the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, the child dependency court where the judge is expected to sign off on Brooke Mueller`s younger brother Scott becoming the temporary guardian of the boys.

This is after exclusively obtained a letter from Denise Richards that she wrote to Child Protective Services outlining the disturbing behavior that you referenced. They were having issues with the bathroom. There were feces that they were throwing at the walls -- just very, very disturbing behavior.

Denise Richards has three children of her own. She felt that she could no longer ensure the safety of her daughters, two of which are the biological father is Charlie Sheen. So she said she needed to get the boys out of the house as soon as possible.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look. These boys are only four years old, and if they`ve learned terrible violent behavior, oh, well maybe they could have learned it from dad, Charlie Sheen, who allegedly attacked Brooke with a knife? Remember this?


MUELLER: My husband had me with a knife and I`m scared for my life and he threatened me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ok. Are you guys separated right now?

MUELLER: Yes. Right now. We have people that who are separating us. I have to file the report --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are there other people there? Does he still have the knife?

MUELLER: Yes, he still does.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What`s your name?

MUELLER: Brooke.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And what`s your husband`s name?

MUELLER: It`s Charlie Sheen.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Alan Duke, CNN digital reporter, do you think that this whole fetal alcohol syndrome test might be a distraction? In other words, maybe the problems are what both of these parents are into today? I mean the idea that Charlie Sheen is pointing the finger at somebody else`s behavior blows my mind.

ALAN DUKE, CNN DIGITAL REPORTER: I think it`s all a distraction. What the judge or the Child Protective Services officers will take into account, they will decide. It`s just bizarre to see the Twitter postings by Charlie Sheen, the interviews that he`s giving. It is very distracting.

And the question will be how will these officials react? Will they put all the celebrity and all the tweets and everything behind them and make a decision that`s in the best interest of these twins?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen. Anna David, CEO and you`re in recovery and so am I -- I see really dysfunctional people using their children as a pawn no matter what the mother`s doing. And she obviously has drug issues because she`s been in rehab allegedly what -- something almost 20 times? Certainly around a dozen times. So she`s obviously an addict. I hope she`s in recovery.

But the idea of these two using these kids as pawns, isn`t that very addict behavior?

ANNA DAVID, CEO AFTERPARTYCHAT.COM: Yes, Jane, it is addict behavior and it is disturbing. I think that Charlie Sheen is a provocateur and what he does is he uses the media. As you were just talking about, he uses Twitter and he uses whatever he can to pummel whatever woman he`s angry at, at the time.

And then Brooke, my heart goes out to Brooke. I`m not saying that she hasn`t -- you know, that she`s entirely innocent here but to be an addict suffering and trying -- and trying to --

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know what? My heart does not go out to her necessarily. I think these two parents need to get their acts together ASAP. They`ve got serious problems both of them, and unfortunately the sins of the father being visited on the sons right now. My heart goes out to these the kids.

Think smoking crack would get you fired from your job? Not if you`re mayor of Toronto. Rob Ford is -- you`ve just got to see it for yourself. On the other side -- more bizarre behavior -- can you say bobbleheads?


ROB FORD, MAYOR OF TORONTO: Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine, but no -- do I? Have I? Am I an addict? No. Have I tried it? Probably in one of my drunken stupors -- probably, approximately about a year ago.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Crazy Video of the day. Check out scary moment during a Harlem Globetrotters` game. One of the players nearly crushed by the backboard, shattered glass flew all over the floor. Believe it or not we`re happy to say, that guy, basically just cuts to the face, otherwise a- ok. But whoa -- look at that.



FORD: Because I`m going to kill that (EXPLETIVE DELETED) guy. I`m telling you it`s first-degree murder.


FORD: But I`ll fight him. I`ll (inaudible) --

Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But police say so far the mayor isn`t charged with anything.

FORD: I`m admitting my mistake was the right thing to do and I feel like a thousand pounds have been lifted off my shoulders.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Tonight, Toronto mayor Rob Ford not backing down despite this mind-blowing scandal, public outrage. He`s not hanging his head in shame, oh, no. Let`s recap with you. He`s admitted to using crack cocaine. Listen.


FORD: Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine.


FORD: But, no -- do I? Am I an addict? No. Have I tried it? Probably in one of my drunken stupors -- probably, approximately about a year ago.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And he`s also admitted threatening to kill someone in a rage, and he admitted it because he was caught on tape doing it. Check it out.


FORD: I will (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I need (EXPLETIVE DELETED) ten minutes to make sure he`s dead.

I`ll be over in five minutes, brother. If I`m done in ten minutes.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: He said he was inebriated. On what, I ask. So what does this scandal-ridden mayor decide to do in the wake of this huge, huge mushrooming scandal? He`ll sign bobblehead versions of himself for his fans. This is a big joke, right -- ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Guess what, Mayor Ford -- it`s not funny.

It`s the epitome of what`s wrong with politics today. It`s the epitome of what`s wrong with our entire culture and I say Canada and the United States. The city of Toronto, how can it have the moral authority to prosecute anybody on drug charges or on violence charges when you the mayor have done the same thing and you`re in office? You`re running the city.

Tonight you have a job, but the question is how long will you have it? There have been so many calls for you to step down. Judgment day, mister, could be coming tomorrow night. That`s when there`s going to be a big debate about it as part of the city council. And you say, hey, let`s get it on. You`re ready to rumble, aren`t you? What a jerk.

All right. Anna David, CEO Obviously this guy has serious substance abuse problems. We`ve caught him on tape drunk. He`s admitted to using crack. And isn`t this just the picture of the addict? In my opinion he`s an addict. I can`t diagnose him, but that`s my opinion. Isn`t that the defiance, the arrogance, the sense of entitlement, the lack of being able to see yourself objectively, the minimizing?

DAVID: Absolutely. I mean yes, we cannot diagnose somebody, but Rob Ford does have the characteristics of an addict. However, it almost seems like addiction is the least of his issues.

You know we`re used to sort politicians being corrupt, but this is corruption on crack. Like his numerous, you know, stumbles, his numerous deals with different people, his -- his homophobic, racist, sexist remarks, his threats to kill people. This almost feels like an onion story. This doesn`t even feel like it could be real, that somebody could do this many egregious things and still be in office and sell bobbleheads.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. The money goes to United Way. So what? United Way, you shouldn`t be taking this guy`s money or any money that`s associated with this man at all. And Toronto cops, you say you have a video of him smoking crack. Release it. Release it now.

This is my rant. You know, he refuses to step down. His relatives are saying, oh, he doesn`t have to step down. Look at this behavior. Ok? So we`ve seen him out of control. Now for the coup de grace, release the video of him smoking crack. We want to see it. America wants to see it. Canada wants to see it.

Don`t let this man embarrass the good city of Toronto any longer. Release the video of this guy smoking crack. We want to see it.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Time for "Pet of the Day", send your pet pics to

Ace -- you`re ace in the hole. I love your (inaudible). Puffy and Ashley -- I think you belong on the cover a magazine. You`re so cool. And Duke -- you`re a royal, you`re regal. And Justin and Riley -- we`re just buddies, good buddies. We`re BFFs.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, it was just crumbling.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Our friends of dead.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everything`s wiped out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get international help to come here now. Not tomorrow -- now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The staircase behind me is now basically a waterfall.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Abandoned and ferocious.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is really, really like bad. Bad -- worse than hell. Worse than hell.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Think this can`t happen to you? Think again. You`re looking at the killer super typhoon that ripped through the Philippines leaving a catastrophic scene -- 800,000 homeless, thousands dead.

And it could happen here, say experts. The sea levels are rising. It`s a fact. A new climate change conference just came out with huge predictions. Are you sitting down? Experts warn along Florida`s coastal town, sea levels will rise up to six feet in the next 100 years. That`s three feet in 50 years, a foot and a half in 25 years.

Florida has $150 billion worth of property -- 300,000 homes less than three feet above sea level. Each inch of rising water is catastrophic.

George Clooney slams climate change skeptics calling them ridiculous.


GEORGE CLOONEY, ACTOR, ACTIVIST: Well, it`s just a stupid argument. If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you, you are sick and one percent that says you`re fine. You probably want to hang -- check it up for the 99. You know what I mean?

The idea that we ignore, that we`re in some way involved in climate change, it`s ridiculous. What`s the worst that can happen? We clean up the earth a little bit? I find this to be the most ridiculous argument ever.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: And, let`s not underestimate Mother Nature. Look at the super-imposed satellite image of the Philippines typhoon. Imagine the impact it would have if it hit the United States.

Straight out to Bob Deans from the Natural Resources Defense Council - - how can we wake people up that it can happen here?

BOB DEANS, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: Jane, we have to agree with George Clooney on this one but I want to start by saying our hearts and our prayers certainly go out with the victims of that terrible disaster in the Philippines. We hope these people get the help that they need in the next couple of days here. It`s critical.

We can`t connect climate change to that specific storm but what we know are three things. Number one -- warmer oceans and that`s what we have. They mean more energy for these storms so that when they do hit they pack an extra wallop. Number two -- warmer air holds more moisture. So when these storms come they bring a deluge. And three -- the sea level globally is rising. That makes coastal areas whether it`s Miami, New York, New Orleans or the Philippines more vulnerable to storm surge and these kinds of devastating disasters.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, you summarized it brilliantly and the thing is that, we`ve got to do something. Bob Deans, Natural Resources Defense Council, thank you so much.

DEANS: Thank you, Jane.


VELEZ-MITCHELL: Something to think about.

Nancy`s next.