Return to Transcripts main page


Herman Cain Accuser Issues Statement; Lasting Effects of Corporal Punishment?

Aired November 4, 2011 - 22:00   ET


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. It is 10:00 p.m. here on the East Coast.

We begin tonight "Keeping Them Honest" with this.


JOEL BENNETT, ATTORNEY FOR CAIN ACCUSER: Mr. Cain knows the specific incidents that were alleged. My client filed a written complaint in 1999 against him specifically, and it had very specific incidents in it. And if he chooses to not remember or not acknowledge those, that's his issue.


COOPER: That is Joel Bennett, lawyer for one of two female employees who filed sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain back when he ran the National Restaurant Association. The Association paid to settle her claim, signed a confidentiality agreement with her.

Today, Mr. Bennett said the association had agreed to waive confidentiality but that his client would not be coming forward, would not be saying anything beyond the brief statement she co-wrote with him. Here is a portion.


BENNETT: She made a complaint in good faith about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from the CEO.

Those complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement. She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now nor in discussing the matter any further publicly or privately.

In fact, it would be extremely painful to do so.


COOPER: The statement concludes -- quote -- "My client stands by the complaint she made."

As you heard, the complaint, which Bennett says was filed in July of 1999 and settled that September, alleges a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances, a series.

Herman Cain says he can only recall one incident with one woman and we don't know which woman he is talking about.


HERMAN CAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: She was in my office one day and I made a gesture saying -- and I was standing close to her -- and I made a gesture: "You are the same height as my wife," and brought my hand -- didn't touch her -- up to my chin and said, "You're the same height as my wife because my wife comes up to my chin."


COOPER: Well, that's a far cry from what Joel Bennett today described as behavior that in his opinion was sexual harassment.

That is open to debate since the matter never made it to court and according to a Restaurant Association today, the settlement included no admission of liability.

Mr. Cain maintains he never sexually harassed anyone. He has been consistent on that from the beginning. As to the details of any complaint, not so much. At first he wasn't aware of a settlement. Then a day later he was. On the surface, it looked like it took him a day to jog his memory. In fact, this evolution took place 11 days after Politico warned his campaign it was doing a story on the harassment claims.

In other words, he had 10-and-a-half days to rack his brain before the vague and hazy memory of a single settlement came back to him, emphasis on the vague and hazy.


CAIN: No, I can't recall any comment that she made, positive or negative. I don't recall by whom the charges were found baseless. I don't recall whether she left the Restaurant Association before they made the accusation.

I don't recall, Greta, I really don't. I don't remember the number. I can't recall. I don't remember her name at all. If I had a private conversation with her, I don't recall having a private conversation with her. With all of the conversations that I had it could have been, but I don't recollect.


COOPER: Just to remind you Joel Bennett today described allegations of -- quote -- "a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances."

He also made it crystal-clear he thinks Herman Cain has a credibility problem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BENNETT: There's an expression. Where there's smoke, there's fire. The fact that there are multiple complaints tells me that it's more likely than not that there was some sexual harassment activity by this man at that time.


COOPER: Again, Herman Cain, though he has offered a variety of answers about what happened and what he remembers about what happened, he's always categorically denied harassing anyone.

It is worth pointing out there are still no details from anyone, any of his accusers about what specifically they say he did. His campaign today issued a single-sentence reaction to Mr. Bennett -- quote -- "We look forward to focusing our attention on the real issues impacting this country, like fixing this broken economy and putting Americans back to work through our 999 plan as well as strengthening national security."

Clearly they want to move on.

Joining us now, chief political analyst Gloria Borger and senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

You said previously on our show that you thought Herman Cain's accuser would speak out or the story, the details would come out. Do you still think so?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think I was wrong. That's -- I just don't think -- I think this is over. I think at least as far as this woman is concerned -- understandably she doesn't want to get involved in a circus or she doesn't want to make herself a target which she would be if she got specific.

But in fairness to Herman Cain, if that's all she is going to say through her lawyer, I don't think he's obligated to respond. There are no specifics. There's no name. I just -- I think that is not a concrete enough accusation to force him to continue this story any further.

COOPER: Gloria, you agree with that, this is done?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. Well, it depends if more comes out. I think at this particular point, I think Jeffrey is right, that this statement today was so nonspecific, it doesn't even warrant a response from Herman Cain.

We don't know the results of the internal investigation at the Restaurant Association. Their statement doesn't talk about it. Herman Cain has said that they found internally that there was no basis for these charges. But we don't know that.

So unless -- and this is a big if -- there's lots of people now who may know who these women are and all that kind of stuff and more could come out. So if you have specific allegations from specific women ready to go on the record, then I think the story resurfaces. But for now I think it dies down.

COOPER: So has this been unfair to Herman Cain?

TOOBIN: I don't think so. I think the original Politico story was entirely factual. It said that they did -- that the National Restaurant Association did pay two settlements that were based on claims of sexual harassment. They also made the point that these could have been payments for nuisance value, just getting rid of the cases.

But if you are running for president of the United States and a former employer of yours has paid judgments following claims of sexual harassment that's news. And Politico was right to report it and I think we were right to follow up on it.

But I think the current state of the story is so ambiguous that I don't think it is going to have much political fallout. And according to polls, it hasn't.

COOPER: Gloria, have folks on the Republican side been concerned about the way Herman Cain handled this, I mean, surprised at kind of the various stories that were told or the time it took?

BORGER: Sure. Well, particularly people in Rick Perry's campaign who were accused by Herman Cain of leaking the story.

And, you know, at first he tried that and that was kind of diversionary. It didn't work so well. Now blaming the media, which is, of course, really popular within the Republican Party, it's helped him raise money. I mean, since the story broke he's raised $1.6 million. In the whole last quarter he raised $2.8 million. So it's helped him.

But I think if you look at the way Herman Cain has behaved in this, I think there are lots of Republicans scratching their heads. But by the way, he's done that on the issue front as well. On abortion, you know, he said -- he's had a problem for example with what is his position on abortion and that's going to cause him more trouble in Iowa right now than these sexual harassment claims.

COOPER: Early on he sort of was making a difference between a settlement and an agreement, that he said he didn't think there had been an agreement or a settlement. I can't remember which he focused on. But legally, there's no difference between a settlement and agreement.


TOOBIN: No. I think what he was saying is settlement to him meant a lawsuit that had been filed and then was settled. Agreement can happen before there is even a lawsuit. And this was an agreement, settlement, whatever you want to call it, it's just semantics, in advance of any lawsuit being filed.

I mean, his initial behavior was ridiculous, not remembering something so significant. And I find it hard to believe he doesn't remember more to this day. But especially given 10 days' advance notice, you know, if you're running for president, you should have some better answer than I don't remember this, and if you remember he confronted the Politico reporter and said, were you ever sued for sexual harassment, which is not very presidential.

COOPER: Right.

There have been some in the Cain campaign who have talked about possibly suing Politico for this story. Is there any basis there?

TOOBIN: I think that's absurd. Politico's story was entirely factual. These settlements did take place. They did follow sexual harassment claims.

I think, you know, as we have been discussing, there is good -- it's a good thing in the Republican primary to attack the press. And that's what Cain has done. They put out a video where he sort of compared himself to Clarence Thomas, unjustly accused by liberals. Same thing with the threat to Politico. But there's no grounds for a lawsuit here.

BORGER: Anderson, it occurs to me that if Herman Cain were the likely Republican nominee -- and I don't think he is the likely Republican nominee -- if he were at some point and was getting very close to being nominated, I wouldn't be surprised if this story resurfaced and women did come out on the record if they felt that strongly about Herman Cain.

But I think, you know, right now while he's doing well in the polls, we all remember when Rudy Giuliani was the front-runner in the Republican primary in 2008. So, you know, again, these things are moving, are moving targets. Right now as you see here, you know, Cain's second to Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney just sits back and watches this occur and remains the sort of most plausible candidate out there, according to lots of sort of establishment Republicans.

TOOBIN: It's been a good week for Mitt Romney, because he hasn't been in the news.

BORGER: Very good.

COOPER: Jeff Toobin, thank you, Gloria Borger as well.

Hard to know what to make of this. Herman Cain's wife, Gloria, was expected to sit down tonight for a rare interview on FOX News. That interview is not happening. Even in the best of times, Gloria Cain keeps a very low profile.

More from Martin Savidge.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On his Facebook page Republican front-runner Herman Cain says when he first met his wife, Gloria -- quote -- "She was the most beautiful woman I have ever seen." After 43 years of marriage, he says, he still feels the same way. His Facebook page shows the couple on a recent trip to Israel looking all the world like typical tourists. That's them at the site of the Sermon on the Mount, at the Sea of Galilee, at the Western Wall.

Those who know Herman and Gloria say they are a devoted couple. As her husband has rocketed to the top of the list of Republican presidential hopefuls, Gloria Cain has rarely been seen on the campaign trail. That may be about to change.

CAIN: Don't even bother.

SAVIDGE: Facing a storm of questioning over allegations of inappropriate behavior toward at least two female employees in the '90s, Cain told FOX News Gloria Cain is currently planning an exclusive interview and he hinted to HLN's Robin Meade his wife is ready to speak out against her husband's critics.

CAIN: The hardest part on my wife, quite frankly, is all of the innuendoes from all of the news reports that haven't been presenting the facts.

SAVIDGE: Cain has often said he wanted to keep his family out of the political spotlight, but there may be more to it than just privacy. His wife has had medical concerns in the past.

According to his book "This Is Herman Cain: My Journey to the White House," Gloria Cain had a pacemaker implanted in 2005 to help with a serious heart fibrillation. "Gloria continues to be a steady source of devotion and inspiration, never more so than now," the candidate wrote.

CAIN: This is my family.

SAVIDGE: According to Cain the couple met by chance in Atlanta in the mid-'60s. He was attending Morehouse College. She was at nearby Morris Brown. It took a year before Herman asked Gloria out. "It was magic from that moment on," he says in his book. "And so I didn't go out with anyone else. Neither did Gloria. And we dated and dated and dated."

And they married in June of 1968. Those who know Gloria Cain says she is a devoted Christian, active in the church and the choir. While her husband was climbing corporate ladders she stayed home to raise their two children, sometimes working as a teacher and librarian.

CAIN: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Cain dedicates the chapter to his wife in his book with a quote from the Bible, Proverbs 31:10. "Who can find a virtuous woman? For her worth is far above rubies."

If Gloria Cain does step into the spotlight and stand by her man, those words may prove prophetic.


CAIN: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Martin Savidge, CNN.


COOPER: Well, let us know what you think. We're on Facebook. Follow me on Twitter @AndersonCooper. I will be tweeting tonight.

Up next, new fears, nuclear fears about the country that sponsored Osama bin Laden, sponsors terror groups and is supposed to be our ally. We will talk to the author of a chilling report on how easy it may be for one of Pakistan's nukes to get loose.

Also, this:


HILLARY ADAMS, VIDEOTAPED BEATING BY HER FATHER: The bruises were the worst I have ever had. I had had other lashings like that, but this one produced the most bruising. And the next day it was all up and down my legs and he'd also hit my arms when he couldn't get to my legs.


COOPER: Well, she was beaten for seven-and-a-half minutes by her father, who is a Texas family court judge, when she was a teenager. Ahead on the program, what are the lasting effects of beatings like that as well as lesser forms of corporal punishment, the kind that many would never consider child abuse. Dr. Drew Pinsky and Po Bronson join us for that.

First, also, let's check in with Isha Sesay -- Isha.

ISHA SESAY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, it is going to be a tense weekend for Dr. Conrad Murray, a tense weekend for Michael Jackson's family. They're waiting for answers, waiting for the jury. We will have the latest on all of that and much more when 360 continues.


COOPER: When it comes to Pakistan, the "Atlantic" headline says it best. It reads "The Ally From Hell."

Those four words top a terrifying piece of reporting by Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, because Pakistan is a nuclear-armed ally, an ally whose officials loudly denied Osama bin Laden was in their country even though he was hiding near a major Pakistani military outpost, an ally that gets offended when American experts raise serious concerns about nuclear security.

One Pakistani official saying -- quote -- "Of all the things in the world to worry about, the issue you should worry about the least is the safety of our nuclear program."

But Goldberg and Ambinder find many reasons to wonder whether one day a warhead or nuclear material could fall into the wrong hands. Weapon components they report are sometimes moved around the country in vans like these with little or no security surrounding them. They cite an American intelligence source who says the Pakistanis aren't just toting around parts in these vans, but at times fully assembled war heads.

In a moment, former White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend and Fareed Zakaria on the larger national security implications, but first my conversation with "The Atlantic"'s Jeffrey Goldberg.


COOPER: In terms of its nuclear arsenal, how much confidence should the U.S. have that Pakistan -- that the arsenal is secure?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG, NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "THE ATLANTIC": The U.S. should have confidence that the people around the nuclear arsenal are among the best Pakistan has to offer. They have a very professional service guarding the nukes.

The problem is twofold. One, Pakistan itself is not a stable place. And what the deep American worry is, is that the state, itself, will disintegrate. A second worry is that we have seen repeatedly that the Pakistani military, Pakistani intelligence services are penetrated by people who are sympathetic or outright members of organizations like the Taliban.

And so when you're for instance moving nuclear weapons from one place to another, which is how the Pakistanis hide them from among others the Americans, when you're moving those, if you have someone inside who is going to tell you, you know, at so and so hour on so and so road there is a truck with fissile material, with material that can be used for say a dirty bomb, then you have got a real problem. And that's what people worry about.

COOPER: And you have learned information about how they are moving their nuclear arsenal.

GOLDBERG: Like any country with a nuclear arsenal they have multiple ways they can move these devices and components of these devices from place to place.

The Pakistanis have chosen when they're moving not to go with a high-profile, heavily armored sort of convoy presence on the roads. What they do is they use subterfuge essentially or camouflage. They will put a warhead or fissile material or sometimes -- this is one thing that we learned recently, that they have begun to put complete tactical nuclear warheads when they're moving together, which is very, very significant and dangerous.

They will put them in the equivalent of delivery vans and drive them on certain routes from base to base. COOPER: So they're putting a tactical nuclear warhead in essentially a delivery van?

GOLDBERG: There is no other way to say it, yes.

COOPER: Particularly in a country where there have been attacks in allegedly secure cities, in Rawalpindi. There have been attacks on Musharraf, assassination attempts that clearly seem to indicate some level of inside knowledge.

GOLDBERG: Right after the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden, there was a raid on a Pakistani naval base outside Karachi, that the Taliban figures who got into this base held it for about 18 hours.

I mean, that means they raided it and they successfully held off security for 18 hours. They are very professional. And when I spoke to people in Pakistan about this, there was an assumption that these guys in this naval base operation had inside help. How else would they have known how to secure a very complicated, very large naval base?

COOPER: You also report that the U.S. has very specific contingency plans about what to do in the event they do lose control of a device or devices, and it involves a heavy military presence on the ground.


The -- this is one of the areas that is most contentious between Pakistan and the U.S. Pakistanis believe that the U.S. wants to seize the nukes preemptively.

The U.S. would, of course, like Pakistan to be nuclear-free, but it has no plans of going in there and just taking the nukes. But the U.S. is worried about disintegration of the state, about Taliban being able to go steal a nuke or steal some nuclear material. And so there are a lot of plans on the shelves. Different components of the U.S. military have different plans to go in if necessary and go secure these nukes.

And it's obviously -- it's one of the most sensitive things that the U.S. military might be called upon to do.

COOPER: Do they know how many nukes there are?

GOLDBERG: That's one of the problems. One of the problems is the U.S. only has an approximate guess. It is believed that Pakistan has somewhere between 100 and 120 different nuclear devices. Now, of course, when the nuclear devices are kept separate, when the warhead is one place and the fissile material -- it becomes even more complicated.

And another thing -- it is believed by nuclear proliferation experts, nonproliferation experts and U.S. intelligence that the Pakistanis are trying to grow their nuclear arsenal. They're trying to build more nukes.

COOPER: It's a fascinating article. Jeffrey Goldberg, thank you.

GOLDBERG: Thank you.


COOPER: More on the implications now.

Here is my conversation with Fareed Zakaria, host of "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" and an editor at large for "TIME" magazine, and national security analyst Fran Townsend.


COOPER: Fran, the idea of lightly armed trucks driving around with nuclear weapons inside in Pakistan is pretty terrifying.

FRANCES TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: It is, Anderson, although when I was in the White House I traveled to governments around the world who took the position that they were better off in these small convoys that were lightly protected.

Now, what you hope they have are perimeter security, that is people off the van who are traveling with it, watching it, and securing it from a distance. And you also hope that they're not what they call mated weapons, that they're not completely put-together, ready-to-go weapons, that you're moving them at least in pieces or just the fissile material without the warhead.

COOPER: How possible is it that a nuclear weapon or a nuclear device in Pakistan could fall into the wrong hands?

TOWNSEND: Oh, look, we have seen attacks on convoys against our troops and coalition forces in Afghanistan. They're perfectly capable. An organization that is able to attack the naval base in Karachi and hold it for 15 to 18 hours until the Pakistani military gets control of it is certainly capable of taking control of an unarmed van. So it's a real concern.

COOPER: Fareed, you have said I think that in the past that it seems like the Pakistanis are more worried about the U.S. going after its nuclear devices than extremists.

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: That is the most worrying phenomenon here, which is that the Pakistani military seems to be moving these weapons around in insecure, unsecure ways because they don't want the Americans to get them, they don't want the Americans to see them. That is why they're not using large convoys, because those large convoys can be watched by our satellites.

And we have to remember we are paying one-third of Pakistan's military budget. So it's worrying that this is not viewed as a real partnership. COOPER: The U.S. is, as Fareed said, giving one-third of their military budget, and yet they are directly or indirectly sponsoring groups which are attacking U.S. forces.

TOWNSEND: That's right. So, Anderson, it raises two questions for me. One -- and it's never happened -- why is it that the administration hasn't considered naming Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism? You see the $2 billion in military aid every year. We need them as an ally.

But the honest answer is if you believe Admiral Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who said there is proof of this support , both financial and material support, to terrorist groups, then they ought to be considered as a state sponsor of terror.

The other issue is, let's remember when we give them this military aid, I think we often think of that as we give that in an effort to buy cooperation. What we really spend that money for is to buy the notion of a stable Pakistan that is not ruled by Islamic radicals, who then have control of weapons. And so what you're looking to really do is buy security and you hope what you get is cooperation.

ZAKARIA: It's basically a protection racket. What you're buying...

COOPER: Protection racket?

ZAKARIA: Right. What they're saying is, if you think we're bad when you give us money, watch what happens if you don't give us money.

And we saw that in the '90s. When we pulled away and we sanctioned Pakistan, they did get closer to the jihadis and we lost influence. So I'm cautious in all of this in criticizing either the Bush administration or the Obama administration, because this is a very tough problem. You're damned if do you, you're damned if you don't.

COOPER: We will leave it there.

Fran, thanks very much, Fran Townsend.

Fareed Zakaria, thanks.


COOPER: A programming note. Jeffrey Goldberg is Fareed's guest Sunday on "GPS" at 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Eastern here on CNN. And the article in "The Atlantic" really is fascinating. You should read it.

Ahead on 360: President Obama, who was a big supporter of Solyndra, the maker of those solar panels which has now gone bankrupt, is now in the middle of a battle with Congress over that company. We will explain what is going on. We will also go live to Los Angeles, where the jury in the Michael Jackson death trial has finished its first full day of deliberations. Any hints on how jurors may be leaning? We will try to find out.


COOPER: In "Crime & Punishment" tonight, jurors in the Michael Jackson trial have gone home for the day without reaching a verdict.

For everyone concerned, it is nail-biting time. Earlier today, LaToya Jackson tweeted, "I am so shaky right now, waiting for a verdict, every little noise has me jumping out of my skin."

A report today that Katherine Jackson, the family matriarch, had been asked to return to the courthouse caused a lot of speculation that a verdict might actually be near. Outside the courthouse, Michael Jackson fans held vigil as they have throughout the trial. Supporters of Dr. Conrad Murray did the same. Tensions were especially high.

For Dr. Murray, this has obviously been an excruciating time as jurors deliberate his fate.

Randi Kaye joins us now.

A lot of people were expecting a verdict today, Randi. I think you said that the other day, that you were expecting a pretty quick verdict. Who does a longer deliberation benefit?

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I was surprised, Anderson, I will say, that we didn't get a verdict today. But the lawyers that I've spoken with, they say that the longer this goes on, it will appear to benefit, actually, the defense, but there really is no hard and fast rule.

I mean, if you think back to 1995, you had the O.J. Simpson trial here, the murder trial. That was a nine-month trial, and he was acquitted in less than four hours. So high-profile cases do tend to take just a little bit longer.

But the jury, actually, was pretty quiet today. They didn't ask any questions. They did ask for some highlighters, actually. Maybe they were marking up some of the evidence. We did at one point think that maybe we might have something. Maybe there might be a verdict, because the way it works is the jury in the deliberation room will buzz the courtroom if they have something to say or if they need something. One buzz means that they're deliberating. Two buzzes mean that they have a question or they need a break. And three buzzes, Anderson, means, "This is it. We have the verdict."

We didn't get the three buzzes, but we did get a few. But I should mention that the jury is not sequestered. They won't be deliberating this weekend. They'll be back at it again Monday morning. COOPER: Have the jurors given much indication of, you know, what they've been particularly paying attention to, or do we know much about the jurors?

KAYE: Well, they did take a lot of notes. I mean, this was a pretty thorough group. They're also a pretty smart group. Many of them are fans of Michael Jackson. All of this could weigh into the verdict.

It's a diverse group. Quite a few of them are Hispanic. One is African-American. There are seven men, five women on the jury. And many of them are actually top managers in their jobs. There's a biomedical expert. There's a paralegal for more than 30 years. There's some -- an EMT on the jury. So it's a very interesting group.

But I will say one thing, Anderson, that I think will really play into the verdict is the fact that five of these jurors have been touched by addiction. In fact, some of them have lost family members to addiction. And as you know, addiction was a big part of the defense's case. They're trying to paint Michael Jackson as an addict, trying to say that he gave himself that fatal dose of Propofol, of course, not knowing that it would stop his heart and kill him. So that may very well play a big part in this verdict, Anderson.

COOPER: Randi, appreciate it in Los Angeles. Randi, thanks.

We're following a number of stories. Isha's back with the "360 News & Business Bulletin" -- Isha.

ISHA SESAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, victory tonight for the prime minister of Greece. A short time ago, George Papandreou won a vote of confidence in parliament. He urged lawmakers to keep him in power, because if he was voted out of office, he said it would jeopardize the bailout deal for his country.

The White House said today it will not obey a subpoena from a House panel to hand over internal documents relating to Solyndra. The administration approved more than half a billion in loan guarantees to the maker of solar panels, which has since gone out of business. It's unlikely that the loans will be repaid.

Jon Corzine has resigned as CEO of MF Global, a commodities trading firm that's mired in a growing scandal. MF Global filed for bankruptcy protection this week. It cannot account for more than $600 million. Corzine has hired a criminal defense attorney.

And Anderson, take a good look at, yes, that tooth.

COOPER: Really?

SESAY: Yes. It will be auctioned tomorrow in my native country, England. And it has an estimated value of nearly $16,000. That's because it was one of John Lennon's teeth. He gave it to his housekeeper, who gave it to her daughter as a souvenir, and the daughter -- yes, you guessed it -- she's now selling it.


SESAY: Isn't that just creepy and weird and nasty?

COOPER: I'm wondering what the back story is, why give it to the housekeeper?

SESAY: Well, according to some digging that I did, they were in the kitchen one day. He'd had the tooth taken out at the dentist, according to an article I read, and he said, "Hey, have a tooth. I know your daughter is a fan of the Beatles. She can have it as a souvenir."

COOPER: Interesting.

SESAY: I would have asked for a record or something.

COOPER: And now she's able to sell it. Yes. All right.

SESAY: Gross. Way more information than you need.

COOPER: Probably so. Yes.

I have not actually seen "The Shot" today, but I'm told it is downright mean. Late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel issued a challenge to his viewers. Hide your kids' Halloween candy, tell them you ate it all, and videotape the reaction. The response to the kids, I'm told, was universal. Let's take a look.





UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Me and Mommy ate it last night when you were asleep.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I ate all your Halloween candy last night.


COOPER: Aww! Their little world is just turned completely upside down.

SESAY: Yes, I mean, this is traumatic stuff.

COOPER: I'm told there's another video where two brothers were kind of ticked off but they didn't cry. Let's take a look.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I ate all your candy. No more Halloween candy left.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't you guys think you ate enough candy last night?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I only had like one bite of candy. Are you serious?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're probably going to get a bellyache. That's why you shouldn't eat so much candy. Mom, that's two.


SESAY: Two what?

COOPER: I like that kid. I like how he didn't even, like, take his hands down, like he's watching TV. He's just, like, attacking his mom.

SESAY: Like what? I can tell you that I have the candy from our office. I have hidden our candy. That's how seriously I take this.

COOPER: I took a look at that candy, though. That's not like the premium candy. All the premium candy is already gone in our office.

SESAY: Whatever, whatever. It's mine. Back off.

COOPER: Isha, well, enjoy your weekend with your candy.

SESAY: I will.

COOPER: We'll check back with you a little bit later on and we'll see if you have any, like, candy marks.

Coming up we're going to shift gears with 360 following a story that took a new turn this week. We've been following -- we had a series "Ungodly Discipline," talking about how parents discipline their kids and focusing on parents who take discipline too far. Fact check on what the science actually says about spanking.

Also ahead new violence in Syria, despite promises from the regime it should stop. And disturbing new details about what police faced when dozens of wild animals were set loose in Zanesville, Ohio.


COOPER: Tonight on 360, a follow on parents who take discipline too far. The latest example, a video that went viral this week on YouTube. It's very disturbing. We're just going to show you a short bit of it. We warn you it's hard to watch.



W. ADAMS: Bend over that bed.

H. ADAMS: Well.

W. ADAMS: Bend over the bed. Bend over the bed.

H. ADAMS: Stop. Stop. Stop.

W. ADAMS: Bend over the bed.


COOPER: The man in the video is Texas County Judge William Adams. The girl he was whipping with his belt is his daughter Hillary. She was 16 at the time and made the video in secret.

This week Judge Adams temporarily stepped down from his job. Incredibly, he presides over child abuse cases and other matters of family law. He hasn't admitted doing anything wrong, though, other than losing his temper.

Hillary Adams is now 23. She came on the program last night, describing her injuries from that beating seven years ago.


COOPER: Did you have bruises after that?

H. ADAMS: Oh, yes. The bruises were the worst I had ever had. I had had other lashings like that, but this one produced the most bruising. And the next day it was all up and down my legs, and he'd also hit my arms when he couldn't get to my legs.

COOPER: Because he was saying it's not as bad as it looked in the tape.

H. ADAMS: He -- I don't -- I think he's in serious denial, because I told him it hurt to walk the next day, and his response was one word. He said, "Good."


COOPER: Just days before Hillary posted her video, we told you about 13-year-old Hannah Williams, who died from hypothermia after being left outside in her yard. She was underweight, covered with bruises. Her parents are awaiting trial. Their charge is homicide by abuse.

Police found a copy of a controversial parenting book in their home, "To Train Up a Child," a how-to guide to disciplining kids as young as infants. It's written for fundamental Christians, and he instructs them to spank their kids with objects like plastic plumbers' supply line and belts.

The authors, Michael and Debi Pearl, deny their book had anything to do with Hannah Williams' death. They told Gary Tuchman they don't advocate abusing kids, but they do endorse spanking -- spanking is the word they use. And they're not talking about a quick swat on the bottom. Gary asked them how they would punish a 7-year-old boy who slugs his sister.


MICHAEL PEARL, AUTHOR, "TO TRAIN UP A CHILD": I would take him somewhere like into his bedroom, and I would tell him I'm going to give him 15 licks.


PEARL: Probably a belt on a kid that big, a boy. I'd probably use a belt. It would be handy. I might use a wooden spoon or a piece of, like, plumbing supply line, a quarter inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up.


COOPER: Last week Michael Pearl agreed to come on the program to talk about the death of Hannah Williams. He told us he can't be responsible for parents who misinterpret his book's teachings, which he says are based on the Bible. He also said science is on his side.


PEARL: Research has been shown that spanking creates children that are more -- higher educationally, that they're less aggressive, that they are more entrepreneurial, that they, in every way, make better citizens when young children are spanked. That's just the statistics. Just the facts.


COOPER: Well, we checked the facts. It turns out Pearl was referring to research cited in an article by author Po Bronson. I asked Po Bronson and Dr. Drew Pinsky for their takes on Pearl's claims.


COOPER: Drew, what do you think of the so-called biblical chastisement method of child rearing?

DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST, HLN'S "DR. DREW": I think it's -- I think it's dangerous. I think it's problematic. Obviously, it flies in the face of everything we know about child and brain development.

We know for sure that, when children feel terrorized by people who are their important caretakers, A, they lose the ability to trust; and, B, it shatters the upper limits of their brain's emotional regulatory system, so they lose the capacity for emotional regulation. And they exit the frame -- that is to say the interpersonal frame -- because they can't trust closeness anymore that it would allow for them to repair that problem of disregulation.

It is the inciting influence that causes or ignites addiction in, I would say, approaching 100 percent of the cases that I see. I always tell patients, "If you have serious enough addiction to need to see me, there's virtually a hundred percent probability of some sort of abandonment, abuse, terror in childhood, physical abuse being the most common."

COOPER: Po, when Michael Pearl was on this show, he cited some scientific findings in support of what he calls spankings. His assistant told us that he read about them in an article that you wrote for "Newsweek" magazine. I want to say what Michael Pearl said on the show. Take a look at this.


PEARL: Research has been shown that spanking creates children that are more -- higher educationally, that they're less aggressive, that they are more entrepreneurial, that they, in every way, make better citizens when young children are spanked. That's just the statistics, just the facts.


COOPER: So Po, is that what you wrote in your article?

PO BRONSON, AUTHOR: Well, he's misusing some words. The study from "Portraits of American Life," 20 years of demographic data, waves of it that are coming in, Marjorie Genot (ph) found that children who have been spanked occasionally, not abused by any means, weren't necessarily turning out terrible. They weren't turning out worse than kids who had never been spanked.

But in no possible way, Anderson, can that be flipped around. Marjorie Genot (ph) and every other social scientist and scientist who studies corporal punishment in children, advocates other alternatives than spanking. That parents have choices, and they should be doing something else.

What they must be paying attention to is consistency and not losing your cool, as Dr. Drew said. It's the losing your cool. It's losing your temper and rejecting your child, making them feel they are not a member of our society because of what they have done, that really causes psychological trouble for them.

COOPER: So Po, where do you draw the line between -- I mean, is there appropriate corporal punishment ever and child -- child abuse?

BRONSON: Michael Pearl makes the parallel between raising an infant and raising a young child, and raising a pet. And listen, nowhere in there do I know pet owners who say you should be hitting your pet with plumbing pipe, denying your pet food, punishing your pet by leaving him out overnight. And these things don't fly, Anderson, at all. COOPER: So bottom line, there's no -- there's no place for any kind of hitting?

BRONSON: The science is not as clear on this as people want to be clear, as people want it to be. When you're hitting with an object, when you're losing your cool when spanking your child.

You know, a lot of parents even want to -- they want to -- they show what's called sham anger. They're actually not truly furious, but they show fury to their kids, because they want their kid to know just how wrong it was what their kid did. And even the sham anger is the wrong approach to take.

Continue to reason with your child. Set right from wrong. Explain your reasons. And be patient. They will develop very well.

COOPER: Dr. Drew, it's interesting. One of the things Pearl recommends is having a length of rubber tubing, plumbing supply line is what he's talking about, and that you have it in various, you know, multiple pieces of it in various rooms and in your car and not just, you know, as a threat to your child but as something you can handily get.

To me, that speaks to somebody wanting to, in the fit of anger, grab this thing and use it on the kid in the car or elsewhere.

PINSKY: Yes, it's unbelievable. It's like whipping an animal. It's something that, as we just mentioned, you would never do. You wouldn't be surprised if a dog that you constantly whip with rubber hosing suddenly began growling, became angry and bit. You would expect that.

In the state of California -- I know it's different in some states -- but the state of California, that parent will go to jail, flat out. And there's a reason. Not because we have some sort of intrinsic bias against people that strike. It's because it's harmful to kids categorically, and that's just simply the way it is. We see it, and it's not defensible. Therefore, we are going to protect the children against this unconscionable, inappropriate, and profoundly damaging approach.

COOPER: Dr. Drew, Po Bronson, appreciate you joining us. Thanks.


COOPER: Up next, evidence Syria's government has broken its promise to stop its violent crackdown.

Plus, new details about the exotic animal escape in Ohio and new reports that lions and bears charged the deputies and crashed through fences before they were shot and killed.

And an amazing animal rescue in South Africa.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SESAY: Anderson is back in a moment. First, the "360 Bulletin."

The Syrian opposition says 21 people were killed today in clashes with security forces. A doctor at home (ph) reporting 126 bodies were taken to his hospital in the past three days alone. The State Department saying Syrian is breaking its pledge to end its deadly crackdown.

New details on the danger that police faced in Ohio after dozens of wild animals were set free by their owner. Some were recaptured. Most were not. Two deputies shot a pair of lions along a highway fence. One charged a deputy before going down.

In South Africa, a rhino lift. Nineteen of them elevated to a bigger and safer wildlife reserve. They were sedated and blindfolded for the ride.

And in tonight's "Connection," shoes that give people with Alzheimer's a leg up. They're fitted with GPS tracking systems that help locate patients who go wandering.

Anderson is back with "The RidicuList" right after this.


COOPER: Time for "The RidicuList," and tonight, we're adding a fellow we're calling Car Pool Guy, and hell hath no fury like Car Pool Guy.

Here's what happened. KRON 4, CNN affiliate in San Francisco, has a series called "People Behaving Badly." Their reporter, Stanley Roberts, was out with a police officer who was pulling over people who were using the car pool lane while driving solo, which is, you know, clearly not allowed.

That's when they came across Car Pool Guy, and well, he was not too happy to see the camera.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... in my car I can break it.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So put it in my car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not in your car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly. I bet you won't put it in my car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not going to do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You won't put it in my car, like I said. So since you're so smart, put it in my car.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put it in my car. I get the ticket. Put it in my car.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, fat ass.


COOPER: Ouch, Car Pool Guy. Heading right into the gutter.

By the way, did you happen to notice what Car Pool Guy was wearing? I think I speak for all of us when I say nothing underscores the seriousness with which you should consider the complaints of an irate driver quite like an Elmo T-shirt.

Now, I don't know why Car Pool Guy got so nasty. Maybe his Elmo T-shirt was itchy or maybe he was running late to pick up his Cookie Monster T-shirt from the dry cleaners. Whatever the reason, things only got worse.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is for KRON 4 News? Stanley E. Roberts?

STANLEY E. ROBERTS, REPORTER, KRON: This is for "People Behaving Badly" on Channel 4.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about people overeating on Channel 4, fat ass, how about that?


COOPER: Oh, zing. No wonder Car Pool Guy was illegally using the car pool lane. He was late to his shift at the Chuckle Hut.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have a good day, chubby guy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have a good day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You, too, fat ass.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, sir.



COOPER: See, it's not really a 1-800 number; it's an insult. Oh, that Car Pool Guy. But he seems a little hung up on the weight thing. If only he had more comebacks, which I'm sure not at all reflections of his own insecurities. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the way, the ticket is $500.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man, I can pay it. What you driving? What you drive? I bet you don't drive nothing nice.


COOPER: Duh. Obviously. I mean, if television reporters had real money, they'd all be strutting around in those fancy Elmo T- shirts like you've heard so much about. What? Oh, this just in. I'm being told in my ear Car Pool Guy has now combined his money complex with his weight complex.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I bet you it's a Ford, if you got one, fat ass. If you can afford a Ford with your fat, lazy ass. That's why you're out here videotaping. You don't even have a real job.


COOPER: All right, Car Pool Guy. I think you'd agree we put up with a lot from you so far but you're about one outburst away from losing your Elmo T-shirt endorsement deal.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don't they have you down there filming what's going on in Oakland, all the riots and (EXPLETIVE DELETED)? They've got your fat, lazy, non-relevant, non-factor ass out here filming highway patrol. That tells you how much you're worth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have a good day, sir.





COOPER: Good grief. He's awful.

Car Pool Guy, good luck with your issues, the least of which is the ticket you got. I hope you don't have to pawn your Elmo T-shirt before you park your rage on "The RidicuList."

Hey, that's it for us. Have a great weekend. Thanks for watching. "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.