September 18, 2002 broadcast
ETTHIS is a hurried transcript at 19: 00.
This copy may not be in final form and may be updated.
Cross fire.
On the left are James Cavill and Paul Bergala.
On the right are Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson.
In the exchange of fire tonight: President Bush asked Congress, are you against Saddam with me? (
Start Video Editing)GEORGE W.
President Bush: I don\'t think it\'s reasonable for reasonable people to understand this person. (END VIDEO CLIP)
But are Democrats willing to debate Iraq or change the subject? (
Start Video Editing)
Tom daschler (D-SD)
Majority Leader: I challenge anyone to make their record worse. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Announcer: Plus, liberals you \'ve never seen before.
Do taxpayers really need to repay some of their impeachment alumni?
Moving forward in crossfire
James Carwell and Tucker Carlson from George Washington University
James Cavill.
Host: Welcome to the scene of the exchange of fire.
Some liberals took off their clothes to vote tonight.
Also, it\'s time for some members of the Clinton administration to pay off, but Republicans don\'t want to pay.
But first of all, you have to pay attention to the best political briefing on TV, our political alert for crossfire.
\"At the first public hearing after a few months of secret meetings, the House and Senate intelligence committees basically said they were too hasty to really do a good job of investigating the failure of September 11.
Their joint committee did not find a gun for smoking, but no one put together a lot of important puzzles.
As early as 94 years ago, we knew that terrorists wanted planes to fly into the World Trade Center.
In 98, we know that Osama bin Laden is plotting plots involving aircraft, New York and Washington.
In July 2001, we knew about bin Laden\'s ambitions in the United States. S.
Flying class.
Everything seems obvious now.
Tucker Carlson
Host: I want to know more.
I will, too.
I think a thorough investigation should be conducted in the last 10 or 15 years.
It is a shame that we have to rush to do such tragic things.
We need some answers.
I\'m glad you and I agree with that.
I don\'t want to agree with you, but I do.
Voters rejected another former member of the Clinton administration.
Former Labor minister Robert Ritchie won second place in four games
Democratic primary for governor of Massachusetts
He is close to third place.
This fall, Massachusetts treasury secretary Shannon O\'Brien won the rights of the Republican nominee and former Winter Olympics master Mitt Romney.
Along with Janet Renault, Reichy has become a member of a growing number of Clinton administration alumni who have been forced to return to private life.
It took Renault a whole week to admit that she lost the Florida long Democratic primary.
Speaking of those who are doomed to fail, Gore is in Florida today.
Gore should teach Democratic voters how to mark the votes correctly.
But no, he is not;
Instead, he is preparing for another presidential defeat.
The Legend Continues, and it becomes even more sad one day.
And I know you. . . (CROSSTALK)
When it comes to the Clinton administration, what is President Clinton\'s wife doing now?
What is her job?
Carlson: I don\'t know. (CROSSTALK)
Oh, how much did she win the election? By how much?
Carlson: very profitable. (CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: . . .
Richardson will become the next New Mexico governor.
By the way, a Florida poll showed that McBride was under five. He\'s going to. . . (CROSSTALK)
Cavill: Senate Majority Leader Tom daschler reminds the United States that President Bush\'s economic record is \"awful\" in daschler\'s words \". \" In a show-and-
Speaking in the Senate, daschler pointed out that during the Bush administration, the United States lost 2 million jobs and lost $4 in stock value.
5 trillion, economic growth slowed to 1%, medical expenses and foreclosures rose, and the federal surplus almost disappeared.
Republicans are anxious to change the subject, saying Democrats should not be critical if alternatives are not offered.
My choice is to vote for the Democratic Party.
Now they are asking rhetorical questions.
What is the Democratic plan? . .
Let me tell you what it is.
Like the Clinton administration, get top-notch people in charge, remove steel and timber tariffs, restore fiscal responsibility, and get rid of the tax cuts that people earn more than $0. 4 billion. . . (CROSSTALK)
Cavill: back to investing like this. . . (CROSSTALK)
Carlson: one of the worst things about being a humiliating politician waiting for long term imprisonment is that it\'s hard to find a paid job.
On the other hand, there is always a radio.
The reasoning of this Buddy Cianci.
Cianci, Long
The mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, has recently been convicted of extortion, and he will soon report to the federal prison, where he may spend more than five years in an orange jumpsuit.
But at the same time, he will be driving-
Time host for wprom am 630 Providence.
For Cianci in his 1980 s, this is a familiar character who works at another AM station.
At that time, he was sentenced to beating his separated wife\'s boyfriend with a fireplace log and then peeing on him.
It was awkward, but it didn\'t bother the radio audience. Nothing does.
Senator Torricelli please note: radio work is waiting no matter what happens.
Why did you pick Buddy? (CROSSTALK)
Cavill: in Washington. C.
They finally finished the numbers.
In last week\'s vote in the mayoral election
Anthony Williams, the current mayor, received 91% of the vote, but the real situation could be another 9%.
Very interesting.
Among those who wrote at least one article
Mickey Mouse and singer Willie Nelson, believe it or not, and cross field\'s own Tucker Carlson.
Voters just need to write names and they don\'t need to explain what they\'re thinking.
I want you to know that James, God has the right to vote. And this is --
I don\'t want to run, but people call and you respond.
Are you saying Tucker is the same as God? . .
Carlson: I mean, because I\'m the only one who\'s qualified to run.
I will tell you your news.
You should do the same.
Carlson: the voice of the people.
Cavill: That\'s right.
Carlson: relax in terms of the world.
Congress is considering changing the rules to make your life less complicated and less prone to national scandals.
The bipartisan proposal will prohibit lawmakers from building inappropriate relationships with any interns they have direct authority over.
You will notice that the proposed rules are rather narrow.
This will not prohibit the relationship between Congressman Gary Condit and prison administration intern Chandra Levy, nor will it apply to members of the administration ---
The president and their interns, for example.
It is not important now;
White House interns have been safe for more than a year. (CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: . . .
Members of Congress have sex with orangutans?
Will this be against?
Yes, that\'s right.
But not an intern.
An agreed orangutan
Carlson: James, we now have some breaking news from Buffalo, New York, and six people accused of being members of the al-Qaida terrorist group are in court today.
The court has just closed.
CNN national reporter Susan Candiotti reports with us. -Susan.
Susan Candiotti, cnn national correspondent: The purpose of this hearing is to decide ---
Let the court decide whether to provide guarantees to the six individuals accused of providing material support to al-Qaida.
The government accused the men of traveling to Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2001, especially in al-Qaida camps.
Although no decision has yet been made today, the government has tried to prove that these people should not be released because, in the government\'s view, they are in danger of running away and also for the community.
I will, among other things, point to an evidence disclosed by the government, that is, the content of the email
One of the defendants sent back the Mail on July.
He said in part: \"The next meal will be very rich.
No one can afford it except those who have faith.
\"The judge has not yet made a decision.
The defense has the opportunity to present evidence tomorrow afternoon.
Back to You, Tucker.
Thank you, Susan.
CNN learned that the Bush administration will submit to Congress tomorrow a resolution of force that it wants Congress to pass.
It\'s hard for President Bush to convince the rest of the world that it\'s better to attack Iraq first and then worry about weapons checks.
Can he force Congress to do it his way?
First of all, in the exchange of fire, Democratic Representative Frank from Massachusetts and Republican Representative Peter King from New York. (APPLAUSE)
Carlson: member Frank, thank you for joining us.
I would like to read to you an editorial that appears in this week\'s \"New Republic\", often referred to as the conscience of the Democratic Party. . REP. BARNEY FRANK (D)
This will save me a few dollars.
Yes, it will.
You should get it.
Worth reading.
It said: \"The main Democrats in Washington have neither taken a forthright stance on the invasion of Iraq nor seriously answered the Bush administration\'s preemptive right theory, which proves this.
No one can honestly say that he or she is a Democrat, because what does the party think is the biggest threat facing the United States? S.
The Democratic Party is a bystanders party and has no position on the most important issues.
Frank: There\'s a point in this argument.
No one can say that he or she is a Democrat because of their position on Iraq unless he or she is only a Democrat for a few months.
I mean, it\'s clear that people belong to parties that deal with a wide range of issues.
There are differences between Democrats about Iraq.
Some people are critical of any invasion.
There are also people who support it.
I think the position that most Democrats take is that we want the president to accept his chances of winning without an invasion, which means that thousands of lives are in danger and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
That said, I think the president should say, look, I might be ready to announce the victory because he might say that he finally got Saddam Hussein to take a check seriously and then, the inspection will result in the confiscation of his weapons in violation of the resolution.
We don\'t know if he\'s going to do that, but I think it\'s worth a try.
Carlson: But Congressman, with all due respect, it\'s not so much a position as a criticism of the president\'s position.
But we are in a position right now.
This is one of the stupidest semantic arguments of the week and I think I will skip it.
The point is that many of us believe. . .
Carlson: I appreciate it, Congressman.
I will treat this as a compliment.
Frank: you can.
Our position is--
My position is, yes, America. N.
It is important to say that Saddam should not have weapons and should be inspected.
In support of this, I support bombing and sanctions.
In fact, now that he has said, well, I\'m ready, and I think we should take his word and not threaten him to invade him anyway, it\'s not that our job is to get rid of him, it\'s that we\'re going to push America now. N.
If he violates the resolution, then we will consider what to do next.
Cavill: I have to be honest here.
When I decided to be a Democrat, I thought I had never heard of Iraq.
I\'m pretty sure I don\'t, but I may.
Maybe not even a country by then.
Frank: Of all the things I thought I would do when I took over father driennan (ph)
It\'s not one of them to hear your confession.
You understand now.
I will stop there before we all get into trouble. (CROSSTALK)
Cavill: Congressman, I have no problem with the use of force against the United States.
I have no problem with these.
But what I want to know is what we know today makes this so important that we don\'t know about last January, or do we make it impossible to do it in next January?
What is the information we know about the situation? REP. PETER KING (R)
New York: I think this is part of the process that is going on in the war on terrorism.
In fact, this is the president\'s agenda.
Afghanistan is now under some control, an integral part of the war on terror.
There are other countries, but let\'s do this first.
Let\'s go to Iraq.
Because if we don\'t do it now, we have to do it later.
Let\'s do it now. . .
Cavill: I would jump out if we found out that he was involved in September 11, or that he was doing it, and I\'m very much in favor of it.
What evidence do we have today that he--
According to the CIA, as far as I know, it is not true to meet in Vienna or Prague.
What do we know today?
King: No, I don\'t rely on this at all.
I mean, there\'s a record.
In fact, even if nothing new has happened in the last six months, it is still the reason for entry.
Bill Clinton said four years ago that it was a real danger.
The danger today must be even worse.
It\'s been four years since he was checked.
From September 11, we should know that we are at risk of being attacked if we do not pre-empt.
We know nothing about him and terrorism.
All we know is he\'s. . . (CROSSTALK)KING: . . .
If one has weapons of mass destruction and there are terrorist organizations in the world, we have to control this.
This is basically the case.
Carlson: Senator Frank, the United Nations passed the first resolution on April 3, 1991, demanding that Iraq stop its weapons of mass destruction program.
Iraq, of course, ignored that.
Subsequently, after the resolution, after the resolution and after the resolution.
Nothing happened.
I wonder why you seem to have faith in America. N.
The ability to stop Saddam. . .
I said I think Bush underestimated his success.
I have given Colin Powell many honors.
I think he might end up afraid of being invaded.
I\'m not sure, but it\'s worth testing.
We are working hard.
We have pressure, we have economic sanctions, we have explosions, everything I support.
Now, in the face of the determination to invade Saddam, we have Saddam Hussein, and he said, well, now we will do that.
I think it will be a success.
What bothers me is that the government doesn\'t seem to want him to say yes.
I don\'t know what he meant, but before you invaded, I thought it was worth trying a lot of people getting killed and a lot of money being spent.
Then I had a problem with what Peter said.
\'If they have weapons, we have to get ahead of us, \'he said.
You won\'t stop on Iraq.
What if you use this formula, Iran?
What about North Korea?
What about the other two?
The third of George Bush\'s axis of evil?
Then there are other countries.
What about Syria?
Where do we stop?
I think we will say that we will implement these resolutions and I think the president deserves some credit.
What bothers me is that when Saddam takes the first step in the right direction, it seems to bother the government more than when he is completely provocative.
I think now Donald rensfe is more worried about Colin Powell than Saddam Hussein.
Member of Congress. . .
Carlson: I think if you think about it again, you will find that this is not a credible thing.
Cavill: if the president believed in the Russians, he said he looked into Putin\'s eyes and saw his soul, he was a good man and could trust.
If we believe him, the Russians will not go with the United States. N.
As he wished to give this opportunity to work, the Security Council had not adopted the resolution until six months.
So, without the US resolution, would you be in favor of the invasion of Iraq? N.
Security Council?
Kim: No, I\'m not necessarily against everything Barney said.
I don\'t know if the government will do that.
I think the solution we\'re going to see is to call for an examination with real teeth, invasive examination.
For me, I think what the government is saying is that they do not expect Hussein to comply.
He has never complied with it in the past.
Let\'s go and seek resolutions that call for inspection, not to play for fools, but if he defected, then combine it with military forces, and, in addition, with the armed forces, and there are troops to carry out inspections.
So I don\'t think they refuse Hussain, they just don\'t believe him.
I think when they get the resolution. .
Frank: Here\'s the problem, Peter.
So far, the president has been saying that others have been saying ---
Three things I heard from Rumsfeld and others, well, it\'s not inspection, it\'s disarmament.
I agree that this is inspection and disarmament, but it is not necessarily a regime change.
That\'s my problem, and the president seems to have been saying that what we have to do is change the regime.
Saddam is a terrible man now.
I \'d be happy if I saw him die an hour ago.
But so is Assad in Syria.
This problem still exists in Libya.
The Iranians are still run by very bad people.
So this is my problem.
Once we say we are going to set this standard and we have to change the regime, you will have problems.
If we are talking about trying to force inspections and then disarmament in the event that inspections may arise, then we will come to an agreement. (CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: . . .
May die soon and make Barney happy here.
Carlson: then we\'ll change the subject and ask all of our congressional questions about the Democratic Party.
Try to change the topic.
Later: A Liberal began his political agenda.
Of course, more eyes.
More attractive than campaign posters
Our \"Daily quote\" comes from someone who we never accused of being a fan of Saddam Hussein.
We will be back soon (
Business break)(Audio/Video gap)KING: . . .
I don\'t support this right now.
I think failure. . .
Cavill: The president is coming over and saying, am I a man of words and letters?
What I\'m saying is true. what I\'m saying is what I mean?
King: He may be very good.
The president firmly believes that. I don\'t.
Carlson: Congressman Frank, Senator daschler got up today and attacked all the government\'s mistakes in the economy.
The basic assumption is that the Bush administration is responsible for this.
You may have read this article by Joseph Stiglitz, former president of President Clinton\'s economic adviser.
\"It will be good,\" he wrote in The Atlantic . \" \"For US veterans of the Clinton administration, if we can simply blame this seemingly sudden recession on the mismanagement of President George w. Bush\'s economic team, it fits well with his administration.
But even before Bush took office, the economy was already in recession, and the corporate scandal that shook America began earlier.
\"It\'s true, isn\'t it?
FRANK: Yes.
Carlson: good.
So how can senator daschler blame a government for all his mistakes? . .
Frank: First of all, I don\'t believe Senator daschler will blame him for his financial mistakes.
But the question is, what\'s important is what you do specifically.
For example, the corporate scandal has been going on, but the Democrats are ahead of it.
In fact, Democrats in the House have proposed a bill that is very similar to the bill signed by Bush.
When we came up with the plan, it was voted down by a Republican majority.
Almost everything that ends up on the bill.
Republicans voted down World Communications.
In fact, Republicans last year passed the House tax bill on the recession, and fortunately, the Democratic Senate killed the bill, this will bring retroactive tax relief to Enron and everyone.
So the answer is, we have been working hard.
When the Republicans are gone, we are holding the company accountable.
Paul Sabans had a very good bill that was put on hold by Phil Graham and others until the roof collapsed.
This is an example of what Democrats are trying to be responsible.
Carlson: if tax cuts are part of the problem-
I know this is your position, and I think this is the position of senator daschler. -
So why did Senator daschler and the Democratic leadership not push to end them and withdraw them?
Well, you just made the mistake of what I said.
The tax cut I specifically mentioned is the Republican House proposal that will trace the tax cut by abolishing the company\'s alternative minimum tax. . . (CROSSTALK)
CARLSON: . . . Bush tax cuts.
But I did not mention that. (CROSSTALK)
Well, I\'m asking them about it now.
Frank: OK, but I want to go back to that bad question you had before, and then I will go back to your more reasonable question.
The key is. . .
Carlson: you make things more complicated than they need.
Frank: No, what I want to say is, in fact, Senator daschler canceled the tax cut.
I reacted directly.
Senator daschler and Senate Democrats have canceled this retroactive tax offer for Enron, and I\'m glad they did.
As for others, many of us have submitted legislation to remove some of the tax cuts.
By the way, I think we have serious problems with tax cuts.
When the tax cut was passed, I thought it was too big at the time. Some didn\'t.
But since it was enacted in 2001, we have committed a lot of money to fight the war in Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and are now trying to manage Afghanistan, and it may now be the invasion of Iraq.
I don\'t see how you can say that if the tax cut was appropriate a year ago, now, we are committed to spending more than half a trillion dollars, but it is still correct.
This is very irresponsible.
Cavill: Congressman, there\'s a story of an entrepreneur starting a business --
The up business is at its lowest point in the time known by Heaven, mainly due to the rise in medical costs.
What are the three things the Bush administration has done to control these medical expenses, which grow by about 14% a year?
Kim: of course, the prescription drug bill we passed in the House;
The Senate has not yet passed.
But it doesn\'t have anything to do with the cost of commercial health care, and they will go up 14%.
Kim: That\'s why you should enjoy more tax benefits for small businesses so they can compensate for what they lost in terms of medical costs. Also, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
Small businesses are encouraged to provide health care to their employees.
In fact, this is part of the whole economic problem. -
I don\'t agree with Barney. -
I do believe that tax cuts provide the needed for economic growth, that we need more tax cuts, that we need capital gains. . .
Cavill: Why did the economy take off when the Clinton administration added taxes? (CROSSTALK)
King: I will explain it to you.
They benefited from the economic growth that started last time. . . (CROSSTALK)
Kim: revenue has been growing for the year before they happened.
Unfortunately, we have no time at all.
Member Kim, member Frank, thank you very much, both of you.
Still ahead: Shameless millionaires claim you owe them millions of dollars. Want hints?
They\'re not Republicans.
They are, in fact, the Clintons.
Later: A campaign strategy that will definitely get attention, but will it get votes?
We will ask the people who do this.
Our \"Daily quote\" comes from someone who doesn\'t need to believe that Saddam Hussein is an international threat.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
Former president George w. Bush said he was wrong about certain things, his only regret.
In an interview with CNN reporter Paula Zahn, the former president said he and other leaders thought it was wrong that Saddam would disappear after the Gulf War. But Mr.
Bush also said that if he ordered the troops to go to Baghdad and get rid of Iraqi leaders, the international coalition that won the war would collapse.
The former president summed up his feelings about Saddam in our \"daily quotes. (
Start Video Editing)GEORGE H. W.
Former US President Bush: I have only hatred in his heart.
But he has many problems, but eternal life is not one of them. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Cavill: you can see the entire interview with former President Bush on tomorrow\'s CNN \"America morning with Paula Zane.
Carlson: when people send assassins to kill you, I think it\'s fair if you have hatred for them.
Don\'t you resent the hatred in his heart?
CARVILLE: No.
You know, someone added gas to all the people and everything.
I\'m like Barney.
If he dies tonight, I won\'t. -
I read the morning paper and drank an extra cup of coffee.
Carlson: Great. -
So this is the strategy of the Democratic Party, and hopefully he will succeed tonight.
I will tell you what the Democratic strategy is.
The strategy of the Democratic Party is to get first-class economic people out of this protectionism and out of the big side of tax cuts. (CROSSTALK)
Carlson: You\'re teasing me. It is amusing.
Next, in a CNN news reminder, members of President Bush\'s cabinet are in a panic about cancer.
Later: he went out of the White House, but he still wanted to pipe your wallet directly.
Expose members of the free will party.
It will be a wonderful performance. Stay tuned. (
Business break)
Welcome back to the crossfire area.
We will come to you from the misty George Washington University scene in the beautiful downtown Washington, D. C. C.
The law states that if you are the target of an independent commission investigation and are not found guilty, the government will refund your legal fees.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush received thousands of dollars after Iran/counter-investigation.
But since members of the Clinton administration want to pay off the bills that have accumulated over the years of Republican political persecution, guess what, Republicans are crying, and that\'s too unfair.
In the crossfire, former federal prosecutor, independent attorney Michael zelding and defense attorney Zach Berkman(APPLAUSE)
Carlson: Well, Michael Seldin, according to Newsweek, Bill and Hillary Clinton will make $40 million in the first two years of their retirement.
Michael ZELDIN, FMR.
Independent lawyers: good for them.
Carlson: I know. . .
Cavill: Isn\'t that how happy you are? (CROSSTALK)
Carlson: I\'m not--
He has legal rights, you know.
He raised the money in such a vulgar way.
Obviously, he also has a legitimate right to receive compensation from the federal government.
Other presidents have done it before, and the amount is much less.
But don\'t you think there\'s anything objectionable about a rich man taking $3?
3 million from taxpayers
ZELDIN: No. Not at all.
Are you a lawyer?
ZELDIN: Yes.
Okay, okay.
No, but explain why. Explain why.
ZELDIN: the independent legal counsel Ordinance provides that if you take three exams, you will be reimbursed.
They applied for the money.
When I was an independent lawyer, all of our targets applied for money.
They all have money.
Not all the amount they applied for, but they got a part that we thought would be appropriate in this case.
This will be the process to follow here.
She will be reviewed by an independent lawyer.
The Ministry of Justice will conduct a review.
The judge will decide what is appropriate.
This is the test.
This is a regulation.
No one is above or below the law.
I fully understand this.
But I think you\'re missing two points.
First, they don\'t have to take money or apply if they don\'t want. And two --
What I think is more important-
If they get the money-
It will come from the Ministry of Justice, which is now fighting terrorism in this country and abroad.
Why money that can be used to combat terrorism goes to a couple who have earned $40 million in the past two years.
Zelding: because there is no means to test in this regulation.
There is never a means to test. . . (CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: Excuse me.
When President Bush received $250,000 in compensation in Iran, President Reagan was also compensated. . . (CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: . . .
A speech costs $2 million.
Carlson: they don\'t meet the standards in the regulations. . . (CROSSTALK)
They did it.
They reimbursed.
Cavill: how many people in the Clinton administration have been found guilty at work?
Lawyer Zach Berkman: not enough.
Cavill: Just give me a number.
BURKMAN: I don\'t have a number.
I have one: one. One.
How many people are there in the Reagan administration?
I have a number. do you have one?
BURKMAN: what does this have to do with the discussion?
Cavill: How much?
Do you have a number?
I know the phone number.
Cavill: 30-one.
The Reagan administration is 31 times more corrupt than the Clinton administration.
Do you know how much money you spent investigating the Clinton administration?
How much money?
How much did Starr spend?
First, Bill Clinton. . .
Starr investigates how much Clinton spent?
Starr spent about $31 million. . .
No, $70 million.
One thing the two sides agreed to investigate was $70 million (ph)
Sex, it\'s an anger.
BURKMAN: Bill Clinton, for the sadness and difficulties your guy Bill Clinton has brought to the country, he should be ashamed of himself asking taxpayers for more money.
I will tell you something worse.
Bill Clinton said in February 27, 1999-
All the files are there. I checked my files. -
He said he would not ask taxpayers for reimbursement.
Now he\'s breaking his word again. (CROSSTALK)
Cavill: 30-
A man from the Reagan administration. .
But what do you think?
Because I think he\'s talking about Lewinsky.
You\'re right. he will ask for it on the white water.
It was nothing. . . (CROSSTALK)
BURKMAN: they are bundling their request. They\'re not --it\'s not just --
They are not isolated. -
It\'s not just an independent legal adviser, it\'s not just a congressional investigation.
In a congressional investigation, you are not entitled to compensation from a lawyer.
They know that.
But what they do is, without telling anyone, fold all the bills together very quietly.
Ironically, Clinton is ultimately a lie.
Cavill: How much did Reagan get for a speech after 31 people were convicted?
$2 million, a speech. (CROSSTALK)
ZELDIN: according to the regulations--
I\'m an independent lawyer who reviewed the application in my case. -
According to the regulations, they have to analyze all aspects of the investigation, every penny, every hotel that their lawyer spends, and we review every item and make an item --by-item, dollar-by-
Dollar assessment.
Carlson: but it\'s not really a problem. . . (CROSSTALK)()
Zeldin: No, you have to let me finish.
You said they integrated their application in a deceptive way.
This is not possible under this regulation.
The regulations require them to specify what they are applying for and they have not applied for money from Lewinsky.
As a result, they comply with the testing of regulations. . .
I trust you completely.
They have the smartest lawyers in America. I don\'t think. . . (CROSSTALK)
Carlson: Let me tell you that what they do is legal. (CROSSTALK)
I totally understand.
Okay, I agree with you.
ZELDIN: just apologize.
I want you--
Not millions of years later.
Let me ask you one thing first.
You heard Jack mention a lie Bill Clinton said. -
I think it\'s 15,926 lies.
We recorded it.
This is not only about Lewinsky\'s issue, as it happened on 1999 after the white water incident.
This is the time-president said.
Here he is \"Larry King Live. \" (
Start Video Editing)WILLIAM J.
Former US president Bill Clinton: I may have the right to do that, but my instinct is not to do that.
But I have never discussed this.
My instinct is not to do it.
I\'m lucky, you know, I have this legal defense fund.
People paid the legal fees for me. (END VIDEO CLIP)
Cavill: you even--
You don\'t even show him this question. (CROSSTALK)
I\'m worried about your health, James. Mr.
Serdin, let me ask you another question.
It\'s not a question of whether they\'re allowed. -
I was allowed to pick my nose in public, but I didn\'t because it was unattractive. (CROSSTALK)
Carlson: at that--
Hey, question. -
In this video, you can see that the president is embarrassed by the proposal to ask taxpayers to pay legal bills.
He said his instinct was not to ask.
He raised $7 million from the $11 million bill, but he didn\'t ---
He paid $11 million for his lawyer.
He wants $3. 5 million.
He has money. why not?
Because he was not required by the regulations.
BURKMAN: he has no right to do so under the regulations. . . (CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: If someone shows a clip of a person answering a question, but does not show the question that the person was asked, you would say, judge, I am against it. (CROSSTALK)
BURKMAN: this is the case. He is not --
Under the statute, Bill Clinton is not entitled to compensation because it provides that if these offences may be prosecuted ---
In other words, if the US governmentS.
A lawyer may go to you for these things. In theory, you are not entitled to reimbursement.
For any crime he will be accused of in Whitewater, the United StatesS.
A lawyer or Justice Department can go to him. (CROSSTALK)
Carlson: Although I like this topic very much, we are concerned about the health of James.
Thank you very much for joining us. (CROSSTALK)
Carlson: come up: your chance to \"fight back\" us.
One of our viewers is worrying about paying the state bill.
Then: have some coffee and have a little liberal cheesecake with us.
Yes, half.
Naked liberalsDon\'t miss it.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
Carlson: welcome back.
In the crossfire, we keep these questions in mind.
We track the political assets of candidates and discover interesting political trends.
We also use a lot of pun.
Frankly, we have also discovered sexual transactions, as have some members of the Liberal Party.
To be sure, the most striking thing is
For the North Carolina House candidate, her website is not her platform.
But Rachel Mills didn\'t stop.
She developed an open calendar for herself and 11 other lovely libertarian ladies.
Rachel Mills is joining us now from Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome.
RACHEL MILLS (L)
Candidate for libertarianism: Hi.
Rachel, this is just a little political Butler.
As a libertarian, you won\'t have any pornographic laws that are not related to child pornography, will you?
Child pornography?
You will ban child pornography, but there will be no other pornography laws, will you?
Oh, yes.
As long as you don\'t hurt anyone or take their stuff, you know, why is this a government thing?
What about marijuana?
Mills: I think it\'s as harmless as alcohol to be honest with science.
So what is--
I really think it\'s--
Tell us what I want to say is that you have 11 other Liberal women to pose. not even a two-
One swimsuit, one
Swimsuit, right?
Not exactly a swimsuit.
In fact, we pose in our bras and underpants.
In some pictures, the costume was added later.
Well, Rachel Mills, this is my problem.
I mean, I like the bra and underwear calendar but as a longtime on-and-
Liberal candidate-not candidate --voter.
People often vote for Libertarian candidates, and they always say, oops, and frankly, libertarian parties are a group of thinkers with strange personal lives.
A little edge party.
I\'m not sure about half.
The nude calendar helped me point out, no, it\'s a serious party.
Mills: No, that\'s not the case for you, Tucker, because we are individually free and economically conservative.
So you will find, Tucker, that you will agree with us on financial matters.
James, you will agree with us on personal matters. Am I right?
I certainly agree with the calendar.
I will tell you now.
We all agree with that calendar.
Rachel, I hope to be naked on your website and found this one.
Let me read to you: \"introduce the Statue of Liberty in North Carolina. Their turn-
Walking on the beach, candles-
Free dinner
Market economy.
\"I want to know which one is free --
Are you most excited about the market economy?
Did Hong Kong send you directly?
Let us know.
Mills: You know, now I like Russia, in fact, the economy is growing at a very high speed because they just passed the 13% unified tax.
You know, it\'s. . .
Carlson: is that the case for you?
Mills: that\'s it for me.
When we struggled in this dilemma, their economy grew at a rate of 5%.
Unfortunately, we are no longer leaders, but we can at least set a good example.
CARVILLE: Rachel, I\'ll tell you my admiration for you, and Tucker and Bob Novak are sitting here defending what else is worth millions of dollars for pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies and God to know, enrons contributed to the Republican Party.
However, they find it offensive for you to pose for the calendar for $20.
I think you\'re for a better administration than the entire Republican Congress they\'re in there, and I congratulate you on an interesting, harmless way to raise money for the campaign.
Thank you very much, James.
This is the real grassroots.
I don\'t think anyone can criticize me for raising 20 dollars at a time. (CROSSTALK)
Mills: No, no, you two have to play well in the sandbox, one at a time.
Carlson: James tried to organize me with the power of the calendar crackdown.
I\'m not on the calendar.
But I would like to know that if, in a sense, this does not devalue your position as a female candidate ---
I am as a long
Time, very determined feminists, here--
Devalue your status as a female candidate.
You can\'t see a lot of men on the underpants they sell calendars.
Mills: Well, I \'d be happy to make a \"son of Freedom\" calendar soon.
I support equal opportunities and freedom of speech.
Cavill: Let me say this: If I look as good as you are, I will put a calendar pose.
I don\'t think anyone wants to see someone who is almost 58 years old. year-
The old man posed for the calendar.
But I congratulate you.
I want more politicians to pose for the calendar instead of going to all these special interest groups to get campaign donations.
Okay, Rachel, are you worried about this kind of fund?
Improve, half
Would the naked one raise objections to campaign finance advocates? Will McCain-
Is Feingold allowed to do so?
Mills: I \'ve checked with the state election commission and they say this is the same photo of the president signed when sending a donation to someone.
It\'s no different. they have no problem.
I\'ll tell you Rachel, you\'re the best.
We are very happy to join you in this session and we will look forward--
We will know what every day of the crossfire is because we will have your calendar.
Thank you very much.
Carlson: on our calendar, next is our \"counter-attack\" section.
Fashion advice is provided by an audience.
This is a theme about the exchange of fire.
We will be back soon. (
Business break)
Carlson: Welcome back to the crossfire area.
It\'s time for us to \"fight back\", our little experiment with democracy.
You write to tell us what you think, as usual.
Alice O\'Hare from Tucson wrote our clip the night before about a woman handing in three people she thought were terrorists: \"pay tribute to the lady of Shoney, she did what our president and other officials told us every day: please contact the authorities if you hear or see anything strange.
She deserves a medal.
\"The president was just trying to clarify that there was no telling people to eat at Shoney\'s in case there was some confusion.
I \'d say that. I think if I saw three people-
I have to say--
The obvious Middle East bloodline is talking about blowing up these things and I will pick up the horn and call it in.
Yeah, I\'ll call someone and say, hey.
I don\'t think so.
\"Can our great country bear the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts at the same time?
Andrew Sullivan, Boston, Massachusetts.
In fact, Andrew, these clowns also want to privatize Social Insurance for $2 trillion, so they want to do more because they will destroy the economy again ---
Don\'t worry, there will be a Democrat in 2004. . .
Carlson: You know, I really want to take it private.
Unfortunately, they are too scared.
Next, Paul Arnold, from Victoria, Colombia, UK, wrote: \"As an official member of Canadian conservatives and our exchange of fire audience, I am disturbed by Tucker\'s recent comments ---that\'s me.
\"Please ignore our distinguished Prime Minister\"-Jean Chretien.
A recent poll shows that more than 75% of Canadians want him to retire.
We hope he will listen to us earlier than later.
\"Paul Arnold, having a Prime Minister who can\'t pronounce anyone is a problem.
You know, Tucker. If I was --
You hate all foreigners.
I will tell you. . . (CROSSTALK)
Do you know?
Like France is a great country, they do a good job.
I love everyone.
\"Tucker, your hair is completely out of control.
Have you considered using Trent Lott\'s hair gel?
Laura Harrison, Richmond, Virginia
Trent Lott uses super glue.
Here comes Tucker!
Look up and turn around.
This is how Trent Lott\'s hair is.
But Trent Lott used super glue.
He does not use hairspray.
Do you know?
I need a new wig.
This is the essence of it.
I need a new wig.
I don\'t need those things. you see how good I am.
Yes, you look great.
We have a problem. Yes?
My name is Sylvia (ph).
I\'m from Minneapolis, Minnesota.
I just want to know how to take women in politics seriously if they take off their clothes?
I don\'t know. I\'m not sure they\'re mutually exclusive.
I think Rachel Mills has a lot of interesting things to say.
I haven\'t seen her in a swimsuit, but it won\'t make her message less believable if she\'s attractive.
My message is: the contribution of PAC, these powerful companies and these powerful cigarette companies and everything else has done a lot more harm to the country than the women who took off their clothes, I assure you.
CARLSON: OK. Yes?
Hello, My name is Tiffany Joselyn (ph)
From Clark University at West mass.
I just came to D recently. C.
For interns, I\'m curious if you think that the policy of banning relationships with interns is really just an unnecessary attack on a ridiculous topic, or does it actually help to improve the ethics of our government?
Carlson: I think it\'s interesting.
It\'s really like, you know, you\'re not allowed to take your clothes off at a red light.
Okay, this is the law.
Cavill: I would like to have a game against members of Congress and orangutans, but I don\'t think they will pass.
I\'m James Cavill on the left.
Good night for crossfire.
Carlson: this is Tucker Carlson.
Join us again tomorrow night for another edition of the firefight.
\"Coney Bell tonight\" starts immediately after the CNN news alert.
See you tomorrow night.
To order a video of this transcript, please call 800-CNN-
News or use our secure online order at www. fdch.
Bill Clinton? ;