White House Briefs Top Lawmakers On Syria; Official: U.S. May Take Unilateral Action In Syria; Obama Administration Won't Challenge State Pot Laws
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT/ANCHOR: "OUTFRONT" next, at this moment the White House is briefing lawmakers on Capitol Hill about the latest intelligence on Syria. Is this country headed for war? And the Obama administration says it will not interfere with the state laws that legalize marijuana. Is this a step toward legalizing weed nationwide? Plus, a major development in a story we have been following. A Montana teacher sentenced to only 30 days in prison for raping his teenage student. Will there be an appeal? Let's go "OUTFRONT." I'm Jessica Yellin in for Erin Burnett. OUTFRONT tonight breaking news, a senior U.S. official tells CNN's Jim Acosta that the U.S. could go it alone in Syria after our closest ally votes against taking action. British lawmakers just voted down a proposal to strike Syria. Britain's prime minister says he will not go against parliament. Here at home right now, top lawmakers are being briefed by the White House. The president's top national security officials are making their case against the Syrian regime. Will the administration be able to win enough support? Our chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash is in Washington. Hi, Dana. I know you have been working your sources all day. It looks from here like the mood in Washington really seems to reflect the mood around the country right now on Syria, it's conflicted. So, what are you learning right now?</s>DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Hi, Jess. I should tell you that the conference call should be wrapping up right about now and I'm hoping to get a read on what these top lawmakers were told and whether their questions were answered. But, yes, you're right, the mood among members of Congress I would say is beyond ambivalence, it's really frustration. A 150-plus lawmakers are demanding that the president come to Congress for authorization before any military action. Now that's a big partisanship group, but it's a lot of anti-war and anti- interventionist members of Congress who are reluctant to engage militarily no matter what the cost or interest. The problem, Jessica, for the administration is even some lawmakers who I've spoken with who are natural allies with the Obama administration at holding Syria accountable are having trouble supporting him because they feel that the administration simply isn't making enough of a case publicly or privately for what the intelligence shows on chemical weapons and what the military objective would be.</s>YELLIN: Well, one of the administration's closest allies, Britain, just voted down military action, I'm curious what you think if Congress were to come back now and take a similar vote, do you think the same thing would happen?</s>BASH: Yes. Absolutely, I do. And it's not just my analysis, it's also top lawmakers who I've talked to and that's one of the reasons why Congress isn't coming back. They are on recess. It will be for a little short of two weeks. And, you know, you've heard some lawmakers saying we should come back, we should take an authorization vote. But do you know what, what happened in the House of Commons tonight is almost exactly what would likely happen in Congress, too. It would embarrass the president if Congress voted to authorize military force and it was defeated and it would hurt the U.S. on the world stage. And as you heard Jim Acosta and others reporting, the fact is that given what happened in Great Britain, the U.S. is likely going to have to go it alone if they do go ahead in the next few days and doing that without the backing of Congress, which means without the backing officially of the American people, would be disastrous for the president.</s>YELLIN: It's such a tough situation in Washington right now. Dana, keep up the great reporting. Thank you.</s>BASH: Thanks, Jess.</s>YELLIN: OUTFRONT tonight, a top Democrat in the House, Congressman Chris Van Hollen joins us. Congressman, thank you for being with us. I want to pick it up where Dana left off. If Congress were asked to come back and take a vote authorizing the use of military force, do you think they would vote yes?</s>REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: I'm not sure I agree with Dana on that. I think it depends on the specific resolution that's been put before the Congress. Many members of Congress who said they wanted to come back and vote on this issue have said they might support the president depending on the specific request, how narrow it was. So, I think that's an open question. But it may be --</s>YELLIN: So why doesn't the president call the members back and get that authorization for use of force? There's no reason not to if he has the votes.</s>HOLLEN: Well, as you know, Jessica, the president's position is that if the military action that is taken is very limited in scope and time, the president as commander in chief has the ability to do that. Certainly if the president was going to engage, you know, full-scale war, he needs an authorization, a vote from Congress. But there are many precedents for the administration, for the president, to be able to act in limited ways without authorization. If the Congress really wants to come back, the speaker of the House, John Boehner, can call the Congress back into session. He doesn't need the president to do that. And given the fact the president says that he's able under the constitution to take very limited military action, without congressional authorization, it would really be incumbent on the speaker to call back the Congress if he wanted to take that action.</s>YELLIN: OK, this will be an open question that will be debated for some time. I want to move on to your op-ed which you wrote for cnn.com today, you called it "on Syria learn from U.S. mistakes in Iraq." In this article you said Iraq taught us three lessons, the first lesson, these are your words, quote, "the president must present the American people and the international community with clear evidence that the Al Assad regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons." Today at the White House they were asked if the president -- if they will present more than circumstance shall evidence that Assad ordered this attack, and the White House gave the response that, quote, "we have already seen a preponderance of public evidence showing that Assad carried out these attacks." A preponderance of public evidence, are you persuaded that there is no question Assad was responsible?</s>HOLLEN: No, Jessica, and I think the administration will have to come forward with additional evidence. My understanding is that there is additional evidence and I think it's very important that they come forward and make a clear and convincing case that Assad was responsible for the U.S. of chemical weapons. I think the circumstantial evidence clearly points in that direction, but I think that they should release additional information that they've got. After all, one of the legacies of the Iraq war was that we went to war based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That turned out not to be true, so I think it's really important for our credibility in the international community and with the American public to come forward with additional evidence.</s>YELLIN: Our closest ally, Britain, seems pretty unsure today, as you know, not long ago the British parliament voted against military action. So, you've said both the American people and the international community must be convinced. Is this worth doing in your view without the backing of the international community?</s>HOLLEN: Jessica, I think the president was absolutely right to establish the red line he did. If Saddam Hussein is shown to have used chemical weapons, it's a gross violation of international conventions against the use of poison gas. The United States and the international community have an interest in deterring that activity in the future, both from Saddam Hussein and others who may contemplate that use in future conflicts. So, I think it's important that we take this action. Obviously it's better if we take the action collectively, but I think the president was right to lay down this marker.</s>YELLIN: So go it alone is OK?</s>HOLLEN: It's OK as long as -- and, again, as I mentioned in that piece, the action has to have a very limited purpose, and the purpose is to deter future use of chemical weapons. There are lots of people who have argued that they want to use this as an excuse or an opportunity to expand dramatically U.S. participation in the war in Syria, to try and change the balance of power. That's an unrealistic goal and would certainly set us up only to be dragged further and further into this conflict.</s>YELLIN: OK, Congressman, we have some breaking news. I want to get to it for a moment and we can ask you to react to it. CNN has just gotten some new details on the Obama administration's intelligence assessment of Syria. CNN's own Elise Labott joins us from Washington. Elise, what have you learned?</s>ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: Well, Jessica, as congressmen are being briefed on this intelligence assessment, some of the details are leaking out. We've already told you that the administration has intercepts between Syrian officials before and after the attack getting a little bit more detail now. We understand that we have the U.S. has an intercept of senior regime officials making preparations for a massive chemical attack in the area. One senior official telling me there's even more of a body of evidence before the attack, tying it to the regime. Immediately after some of these regime officials, top officials, we're hearing, were talking about the attack, concerned about the blowback and the massive attention it was already getting, the amount of casualties, and discussing about -- that it might be wise to lay low for a while and not use such massive attacks in the near future. And then also immediately after the attack, the U.S. says, according to officials, increased shelling in the area. We've heard about this, but apparently this intel assessment will show intelligence, increased shelling in the area as the regime tried to clean it up. Even as in Britain they're talking that the U.S. and others don't have a strong case, the U.S. says it's undeniable that the regime is involved and they have the intelligence to prove it.</s>YELLIN: Elise, great reporting. Thank you for bringing us that and continue to bring us more news as you get it. Elise Labott reporting that the administration has been sharing with senior U.S. officials more details about the chemical attacks that they say are justifying a potential action in Syria. Congressman Van Hollen, if you're still with us and able to hear that, to you does that sound like the kind of evidence that is more persuasive and is convincing that would warrant a U.S. strike on Syria?</s>HOLLEN: Yes, it does, Jessica. That's exactly the kind of additional evidence that I was talking about. Obviously I'd want to see these reports and look at the details. But if that's true, what it demonstrates is clear signals intelligence, information that directly links the use of chemical weapons here to the Assad regime. And I think it's important that if that administration -- if the administration has that information that it be made available not only to members of Congress, but to the public.</s>YELLIN: All right, well, we'll continue to ask these questions of you. Congressman Van Hollen, thank you so much for joining us.</s>HOLLEN: Thank you.</s>YELLIN: And of other members of Congress including some in the opposite party, the Republican Party and some more skeptics who are still questioning whether this course of action is the right one to pursue. Still to come, the Obama administration's policy on a different controversial issue. And on a lighter note, on marijuana, their policy there? It's getting hazy. Is their policy on Mary Jane about to be legal nationwide? Plus, some new details about how the United States tracked Osama Bin Laden leading up to the raid that took his life. And the NFL prepares to pay out millions of dollars to players suffering from head trauma.