Crime and Cover-Up; Canada Does Not Trust The U.S. Over Trade
DOBBS: Senate Republicans tonight voicing new concerns about the Harriet Miers nomination. They say they found a new example of Miers contradicting herself on the issue of abortion. In a 1993 speech, Miers said a woman's right to an abortion was, in her words, "a matter of self-determination." Senate Republicans say this speech contradicts comment Miers made in the 1980s, when she said she supported an amendment that would ban most abortions. Meanwhile, conservatives opposed to this nomination are opening up a new line of attack against this troubled nominee. A group called Citizens for Better Justice, led by former Bush speechwriter David Frum, are running ads sharply critical of Miers. These ads call upon the president to withdraw her nomination.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even the best leaders make mistakes. Conservatives support President Bush, but not Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Judge Robert Bork says, I don't think she's qualified, and calls Miers' nomination a disaster on every level. And Rush Limbaugh says, I am totally behind the president</s>DOBBS: This is the first television ad campaign to target Miers. And, it is a strong one. And we want to remind to you tonight to vote in our poll -- has the leadership of both houses of Congress and senior officials at the White House ever been under investigation simultaneously before? Yes or no, cast your vote. And we'll have the results later in the broadcast. And, of course, with the answer. Joining me for what all is going on in Washington, and it is a great deal. John Fund, he's the highly-respected columnist at The Wall Street Journal. Jeffrey Toobin, equally highly-respected, and our senior legal analyst, David Gergen, former adviser to four presidents and well, we respect the heck out of you, too, Dave. Let's start with you, there was a great gnashing of teeth today in Washington because indictments were not handed down. What are we to make of this?</s>DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: You talking to me?</s>DOBBS: Yes, David.</s>GERGEN: All right, what do we make of it? Isn't it wonderful when all of Washington can't predict with accuracy, five days in advance, three days in advance, what's going to happen? I think it's good, it makes all of us a little more cautious.</s>DOBBS: And John, are you surprised that Washington is on tent or hooks here because of this?</s>JOHN FUND, COLUMNIST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think we're going to get an indictment. We're probably not going to get many indictments. In fact, Mr. Fitzgerald may have to extend the grand jury. I think that since there is no underlying crime here, we're talking about obstruction of justice, or lying to a federal investigator --</s>DOBBS: It's an indicator?</s>FUND: That is an important crime. But, it makes it more difficult for the prosecutor to make the decision to go for the charges.</s>JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, but wait a second -- we don't know that there is no underlying crime here.</s>DOBBS: Well, John Fund does.</s>TOOBIN: Well, John Fund thinks.</s>FUND: No one in the Justice Department who thinks the crime applies here. Find someone at Justice Department who thinks the crime applies here. It doesn't.</s>TOOBIN: This is why we have grand juries -- grand juries investigate these matters and then make their decision. But the only people with access to the grand jury are the Fitzgerald prosecutors, not spectators at the Justice Department.</s>FUND: Our computer follows Justice Department guidelines. I don't think any reasonable prosecutor would pursue this case. Now, obstruction of justice maybe. But, it's just like Martha Stewart. It's not what she did; it's what might have been done to cover it up.</s>DOBBS: Well, obviously what was done here is whether illegal or not, you know, I think we have to start with unseemly and sees what lies behind it, irrespective of the feelings at the Justice Department. Let me turn quickly to David Gergen. John is suggesting that there's no crime here. I can hear a wailing.</s>GERGEN: Underlying crime.</s>DOBBS: Well, underlying crime. To your point -- what's your sense of it, David?</s>GERGEN: I don't know whether there's an underlying crime. I've never thought that Karl Rove, based on what we heard so far, was guilty of an underlying crime. I don't know what Scooter Libby is engaged in. Regardless of what we know, I think it's wrong to minimize the importance of perjury or obstruction of justice if those charges come down.</s>DOBBS: You didn't mean to imply that, John, did you?</s>FUND: Of course not. What I did mean to imply thought is this administration is, I think, going to be hoisted by its own petard because they went after Joe Wilson who did not tell the truth about what happened in Niger and I think they went too far. The irony is that there are no heroes in this case. Nobody acquitted themselves well.</s>GERGEN: But, there is not an equivalence between what Joe Wilson did and obstruction of justice. There just isn't. And John, with all due respect, I appreciate the fact that there may be no underlying crime. It was only a few years ago that people went out and hung Bill Clinton when there was no underlying crime. But, he got impeached for not telling the truth. To dismiss this is being, well, they'll have a hard time deciding what to bring the case or not. Let's wait and see.</s>FUND: No, perjury is perjury. I'm simply saying the prosecutor is going to have to be extra careful in deciding to file the charges because there is no underlying crime. It is going to make it a little more difficult because he's dealing with classified documents to prove his case, to bring the case.</s>TOOBIN: I think John is revealing that the Republicans are having a hard time with a party line on this investigation, because they've tried out, well, perjury doesn't matter. Like Kay Bailey Hutchison said on "Meet the Press."</s>TOOBIN: But you know, Joe Wilson is a bad guy. Well, so what, if he's a bad guy. That's irrelevant. And they've tried attacking Pat Fitzgerald in certain circles. He's a very apolitical guy. It's going to be difficult to shift discussion, if there are indictments.</s>DOBBS: I've got two concerns. First, if you will, the tactical level. The fact that we've got FBI agents out talking with the neighbors of the Plame/Wilson's. At this stage, two years in this investigation, to find out whether she was presumably known or not known. That is going to the issue of the underlying crime to me strikes me as a little late. I don't know how these things normally go.</s>TOOBIN: You might be cleaning up the last details of an investigation right before an indictment.</s>DOBBS: But, the other part is, and David Gergen, you spoke to the issue. I mean, this country went through a Whitewater investigation, we went through the sex crimes investigation, if you will, from Kenneth Starr, a special counsel. We are now two weeks, two months, two years into an investigation and we still have no sense whether there is an underlying crime. We still don't know that. We are spending inordinate amounts time creating great public distractions when this country is faced with some of the most profound issues in its history right now. Every man, woman and child in this country has far, far more important things for its chief officials to be focused on, it seems to me, David.</s>GERGEN: That, I totally agree with. And these investigations go on and on and on, as you know in the Cisneros case, he's still under investigation five years after he left -- after Bill Clinton left office.</s>DOBBS: You hang that one up for the Democratic party. Good job Democrats, good job Republicans. Both parties are working in partisan interests, not in the national interest.</s>GERGEN: I think that part of it is absolutely right. We've been engaged in too many days now with speculating about whether somebody's going to be indicted or not. It's gone on and on and on. These cases almost have the Dicken-sian quality, and people die before they're over. And I do think we get awfully distracted from questions about jobs and competition and some of the deeper issues, and that is a major -- I think that's been a major, major problem with a lot of these investigations. We are criminalizing way too much in my judgment.</s>DOBBS: Jeffrey Toobin.</s>TOOBIN: I'm going to dissent a little bit from that. This was an investigation that was called for by George Tenet, the head of the</s>CIA. DOBBS: Who some reports suggest is the one who told the vice president the identity of --</s>TOOBIN: That wasn't criminal for him to do.</s>DOBBS: No, there is nothing wrong with that. But I'm looking at the irony of the process.</s>TOOBIN: And if there is perjury that was committed or obstruction of justice, good. It should be investigated.</s>FUND: I trust Patrick Fitzgerald. I think he's one of the finest prosecutors. One of the reasons why we're in this mess is, I think he realizes how difficult bringing prosecutions in this case will be. That's how good a prosecutor he is. I think one administration official is going to be indicted. But, I don't think we want to blow this out of proportion. Somebody did something wrong. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy.</s>GERGEN: We don't know what he's going to charge yet. I think we should wait and see.</s>DOBBS: And I'm struggling, I don't know about you, Jeffrey, with the concept that, if individual crimes were committed, to what extent it matters if there were a conspiracy?</s>FUND: I think the administration got into a whole lot of trouble on this. I don't think there was a coordinated conspiracy to discredit and destroy people.</s>TOOBIN: We shall see.</s>DOBBS: On those words. Words to etch in stone.</s>TOOBIN: Keep me wrong if you say that.</s>DOBBS: David Gergen, thank you for being here. John Fund, thank you for being here. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you for being here and uttering words that will be memorialized for some time to come.</s>TOOBIN: Way out on the limb on that one.</s>DOBBS: We'll see. All right, thank you very much. The United States today ordered China to prove it's taking steps to crack down on counterfeiting and piracy, all in of that, by the way, costs this country about $250 billion a year. The United States was joined by Japan and Switzerland in calling for a review under the rules of the World Trade Organization. The group wants detailed information about the number of prosecutions and convictions related to intellectual property theft. U.S. software companies alone say they lost $3.5 billion last year because of Chinese piracy. Intellectual theft costs, as I said, this country about a quarter of a trillion dollars. And it's good that we have the WTO to fall back upon, since the U.S. government apparently seems to lack the resources to deal with a national interest. The United States tonight is also locked in a bitter trade dispute with Canada. A dispute that is raising new questions about Canada's reliability as an American ally. This dispute, and we're not making light of it, is over the lumber trade. And it follows Canada's threat to divert oil away from the United States to China. It also comes after disagreements over the war in Iraq, border security and missile defense. Kitty Pilgrim has the story.</s>KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Protesters in Canada call Condoleezza Rice a war criminal. She was also under fire on the issue of trade. Canadians said the U.S. can't be trusted.</s>REPORTER: How are other countries around the world going to be able to trust the word of the United States on anything?</s>PILGRIM: She called for a little perspective.</s>CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the word of the United States has been as good as gold in it's international dealings and it's agreements. I think it's extremely important not to speak in apocalyptical language about this issue.</s>PILGRIM: U.S.-Canada relations have deteriorated so badly that President Bush on his last trip to Canada quipped he was surprised Canadians were waving in a civilized way when his motorcade passed.</s>GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave, with all five fingers, for their hospitality.</s>PILGRIM: Lumber is only four percent of trade. But meanwhile, the United States supports Canada's industries: 85 percent of Canadian exports are bought by U.S. customers; some $250 billion worth from machinery, furniture, building materials and farm products. The United States is also Canada's biggest customer for oil, but Canadian officials recently gloated about the possibility of selling oil to China, clearly to aggravate the United States. Prime Minister Martin in a New York speech earlier this month said the United States has to pay back the $4 billion in duties it collected on Canadian lumber.</s>PAUL MARTIN, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: This is nonsense. More than that, it is a breach of faith. Countries must live up to their agreements. The duties must be refunded. Free trade must be fair trade.</s>PILGRIM: It is fair -- the World Trade Organization ruled in favor of the United States.</s>PILGRIM: Now, the Canadian prime minister is grandstanding for the public. He has said the U.S. is out to humiliate Canada, while Canadian elections are expected early next year, and with the Canadian voters it serves political purpose to push back on the United States about trade, so the climate will likely stay tense for a little while longer -- Lou?</s>DOBBS: I am shocked and dismayed to learn that our neighbors to the north have government officials who play politics just like ours do down here in the barbarian south.</s>PILGRIM: And the thing they don't point out is that the lumber trade is subsidized, but they don't mention that.</s>DOBBS: It is -- I think that was pointed out pretty well at the WTO. But I think it's humorous that Paul Martin and company would get so excited over what is three percent of a trade deal and one in which the Canadians are doing very well, thank you. We're good pals, good neighbors. We'll have politics in both countries, see how it all works out. I'm sure it will work out well for all. Kitty Pilgrim, thank you. Still ahead here, Able Danger -- it's a controversy that is only beginning to take shape. 9/11 Commission member, former senator Slade Gorton says Able Danger did not prove its case that 9/11 could have been prevented. My guest tonight says that is nonsense. And Paul Hackett, veteran of the Iraq war, almost won a seat in the House of Representatives, now running for the Senate. And he's outraged by President Bush's war strategy. He's our guest here next. Stay with us.