that's all for us today. "anderson cooper 360" starts now. we begin tonight keeping them honest. with big developments on the bungled atf operation called fast and furious. it could set off a fast and furious. it could perhaps set off a constitutional battle between congress and the white house. fast and furious as you remember, let buyers purchase guns in the united states and smuggle them into new mexico. the idea was to track the guns as they made their way inside the drug cartels. instead the atf lost track of those guns, in part, because u.s. authorities never bothered to tell the mexican authorities about the scheme. they never had a way to actually track the guns. that is, not until people started dying. >> the only way you're going to find those guns in mexico is where? >> at crime scenes. at the death, at the site of somebody who's dead. at a gun battle between the

police and the bad guys in which either the bad guy was killed and his gun was left at the scene or used during the commission of a crime in which the gun was left behind. >> that makes no sense to me. >> between reasonable men within the law enforcement community, no, there is no reasonable explanation to let these guns walk. >> two of those guns made their way back north to the scene where border agent brian terry was shot dead a year and a half ago. he just finished buying christmas presents for his family. two months later, atf agent sopada was killed in mexico by a one of a batch of ten firearms as sold in a part of fast and furious. but the big headlines today were in washington, d.c. after initially cooperating with the house oversight committee, which is investigating fast and furious. attorney general eric holder refused to turn over more

internal justice department documents. in a letter today, the deputy attorney general james cole notified the committee chairman darrell issa that president obama was withholding them on the basis of executive privilege. the move came after threats from the committee to site holder for contempt and negotiates between the attorney and committee members. the move came after threats to site holder for contempt. today's decision to invoke executive privilege led republicans on the committee to say their search for accountability is being stymied. >> if congress has time to look into major league baseball, the bcs and invite stephen colbert to come to a committee hearing, surely to goodness, we have time to get answers only fundamentally flawed lethal investigation like fast and furious. >> late today the committee voted along party lines a citation against holder and democrats accused chairman issa and his republican colleagues of conducting a political witchhunt. republicans say the administration is using

executive privilege to impede accountability. keeping both sides honest, it's worth pointing out a couple of facts. this is the first time president obama has invoked executive privilege. back when democrats controlled the house and claiming executive privilege for the sixth time. the sound bites were 180 degrees opposite. back then, as democratic house members debated contempt citation against two george w. bush advisers, two republican members, including congressman darrell issa, simply got up and walked out. >> we will not stand here and watch this floor be abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national security. we will not stand for this and we will not stay for this. and i would ask my house republican colleagues and those who believe that we should be here protecting the american people not vote on this bill. let's just get up and leave. >> that's the complete opposite of their position today.

also now keeping the white house honest, president obama's views on executive privilege do seem to have changed an awful lot, now that he's chief executive. here's senator obama back in 2007 during the bush showdown. >> there's been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place. and i think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. i think the american people deserve to know what's going on there. >> here to talk about where all this might lead congressman trey gowdiç"8!=5juárqp)d from just a moment ago. congressman, thanks for being with us. you heard from president obama is, quote, he's either part of it or he's not. if he's not part of it, he has no business exerting executive privilege if he's not part of it. what do you mean by that statement? are you implying the president is part of covering something up? >> no, quite the opposite.

we've had no one that's testified before, either judiciary or oversight, that the president had any role in fast and furious at all. he said he didn't know about it and i take him at his word. my point was to point out the absurdity of asserting executive privilege for something you had no role in. executive privilege is for conversations had with the chief executive. he doesn't have to worry about his counsel being subpoenaed before members of congress. he had no conversations. >> that's not actually true, though. vice president cheney used executive privilege for discussions about energy policy. it was even used with hillary clinton in her role in the health care debate under the clinton administration. so it doesn't necessarily mean the president was sitting in meetings. >> well, what does it mean then? it's executive privilege. it has to mean something. it can't cover your entire administration or no one would

have to turn over documents. >> one of your democratic colleagues said that attorney general holder simply protecting documents that he is prohibited by law producing and in compliance by statues passed by both houses of congress, signed bit president of the united states. clearly, you voted to hold him in contempt of congress. you disagree with that? >> no, he's partially correct. the initial request was for wiretap application, which rule 6c of the federal rules of procedure does not allow anyone to give to anyone who's not part of the investigation of the trial. so to the extent that the original request for documents was overly broad and included protected material, then mr. cummings is correct. where he's not correct is after chairman issa narrowed the scope of documents to not include anything that was legally prohibited from being discovered, he's still not complied. what could possibly be protected about the drafting of a false letter to a committee of congress? >> but back in the bush

administration when cheney was talking about executive privilege because of discussions on energy policy and discussions with people from outside the white house even, republicans rallied around him and said it's legitimate. democrats, it was very much a partisan issue, just as this is now. if it was okay, though, under the bush administration, why isn't it okay now? what's the difference? >> anderson, i've never subscribed to that theory in life, which is why i may not be long for this town. i was a prosecutor back when that was going on. the notion that it's okay for me to do it because you did it has never been appealing to me. if it was wrong to do it now, it was wrong to do it then and i would hope that a court would intervene and say you're wrong to assert executive privilege. the fact that a republican does something doesn't mean i automatically agree with it. in fact, i would be happy to have everyone who's had their fingerprints on wide receiver, fast and furious, any gun walking investigation comment. i don't think you would be able

to tell much of a difference in the tone of my questions irrespective of their political persuasion. >> what happens next? i mean, this is going to go to a vote in the full house. how do you see this being brought to a resolution? do you think it's going to wind up in the courts? >> i hope not. i hope he gives us the documents. it's not a political exercise to me. i want to know how fast and furious happened. i want to know how a false letter was delivered to a committee of congress. i hope we don't get to that point because i hope the attorney general gives us the documents. if he doesn't, then yeah, we'll vote on it on the floor of the house. there's three different forms of contempt. there's the plenary powers of congress, there's criminal contempt, civil contempt. if it's criminal, it will be referred to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. if it's civil, it will go to a federal judge here in the district of columbia. >> appreciate your time today. thank you very much, sir. >> thank you. senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin joins me now to take us

through the legal ins and outs of the executive privilege. you just heard the congressman say i take him at his word. he said he would vote the same way under the bush administration as he does now. but does it only apply to national security issues or issues that the president was directly having a conversation about? >> no. the courts said it's about the internal deliberations of the executive branch. as you pointed out, there are supreme court cases involving the vice president. there are many cases involving the president's advisers. you know, sometimes executive privilege is upheld, sometimes it's not. but the president himself doesn't have to be involved and national security doesn't have to be involved. >> certainly some people are going to look at this and say look, the president obviously has something to hide by invoking this executive privilege. you say not necessary? >> not necessarily. every president in the modern era since richard nixon, including richard nixon, have cited executive privilege. sometimes -- >> explain the idea behind it, the rationale behind it. >> the idea behind it is pretty simple.

it's that the executive branch, the white house and the president and his or her advisors need space to be able to consider all sorts of policy options without the worry that they will be subpoenaed to disclose exactly everything that they considered. now, the countervailing argument or issue is the constitution says the legislative branch, the congress, has a right to investigate, to engage in oversight for the executive branch. so those two ideas are in tension. and there are legitimate good faith fights over what's covered by executive privilege. and those have come up in every recent administration. >> there are those who would say look, if there's nothing to hide, why invoke this, though? it's basically on principle? >> it is on principle. at least that's what the obama administration is asserting. and that's what the bush administration asserted the last time we had this kind of conflict.

>> the flip side of this is if you want to hide something, this is a good way to hide sufficient stuff? >> it is. and certainly the most famous case of all involving executive privilege was united states versus nixon where the supreme court 9-0 in -- held that nixon had to disclose the white house tapes. and those turned out to be extremely incriminating and led directly to his resignation. so ever since nixon, the invocation of executive privilege has had kind of a nasty taint. and it's guilt by association with the most corrupt modern president. >> so basically you think this kind of goes away in the courts? it's lost in the election hoopla? >> i absolutely do. i think this will not have a neat resolution. it's embarrassing for eric holder. i don't think he's going to be found in contempt, that he's going to be led away in handcuffs. this is just going to be another political dispute. and if people remember it at all, they'll remember 23 republicans were for it, 17 democrats were against it.

>> jeff toobin, thanks. let us know what you think, we're talking about it right now on twitter @andersoncooper. the jury in the sandusky sex abuse trial is expected to get the case tomorrow. the defense rested their case earlier today. sandusky did not take the stand after all. clearly his lawyers seem to have made the right call, at least according to a lot of experts who have been following this. jason carroll was in the courtroom throughout the trial and he will recap the key testimony and our legal panel mark geragos and marcia clark weigh in, next. [ male announcer ] what if you had thermal night-vision goggles,

like in a special ops mission? you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep, you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering, web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account.

trade commission-free for 60 days, that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled

in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you.

crime and punishment now. jerry sandusky's lawyers rested their case without calling jerry sandusky to the stand. they've told reporters to stay tuned. in the end they shut that door, which many legal experts considered it risky, obviously. he's charged with 51 counts in the child sex abuse child. eight of his accusers described the alleged assaults they endured in sandusky's homes during trips, on the penn state campus and showers. the case has torn a hole through the state college community. his revered boss, former head coach joe paterno, was ousted as a result of the scandal, died of

cancer in january. his storied career scarred by accusations that he didn't do as much as he could to try to stop the alleged abuse. now, if sandusky, who's 68 years old is convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. the trial has gone very quickly. here's the recap of what we learned. >> reporter: the prosecution launched right in on day one, calling the first of eight sandusky accusers to the stand. alleged victim number one says he was assaulted in the basement of sandusky's home. the 18-year-old brought to tears. quote, after rubbing and cracking my back and the blowing of the stomach, he put his mouth on my privates. another alleged victim, number five, said sandusky assaulted him in a penn state shower. i kept lurching forward but i didn't have anywhere to go. i felt his arm move forward and he touched my genitalia. >> here he was with this relationship with boy after boy after boy, which by any conventional evaluation of any normal adult would say, this is just so terribly odd and wrong.

>> reporter: on the second day in court, the prosecution turned to another of its key witnesses, former grad assistant mike mcqueary who said in 2001, he saw sandusky sexually assault a young boy in a penn state shower. "coach sandusky's arms wrapped around the boy's midsection, just as close as i think you could be." the prosecution went on, showing letters sandusky wrote to some young boys. one reading, love never ends opinion it bears all things. the defense countered, calling 18 character witnesses on sandusky's behalf, many former members of second mile, a charity founded by sandusky. chad rexrose told jurors, i never had a father in my life and he was a father figure. the most anticipated character witness, sandusky's wife dottie, testified she never saw inappropriate contact with her husband and young boys. she told the court, three of the accusers had actually visited

the sandusky home as adults. one of the oddest moments came from defense attorney joe amendola, comparing the trial to a soap opera. >> it's like "all my children." >> that comment went viral, critics calling him insensitive. amendola said he has revealed sensitivity, by not revealing the accusers' identities. as for those letters, a defense psychologist testified that sandusky has histrionic personality disorder, which causes people to act inappropriately when not the center of attention. then the defense laid out what one source says is their strongest move presenting jurors with a recording which they say shows investigators leading an accuser. the final witness testifying, i felt like they kept asking me to say something that wasn't true. >> jason carroll joins me now. do we know why sandusky didn't testify today? >> well, it's a good question, anderson. i can tell you this, a source

close to the case that i spoke to late yesterday afternoon and late last night tells me that, the idea of testifying or not testifying was still very much in play, still under discussion up until late last night. i'm also told that the final decision came down to two people -- joe amendola and jerry sandusky. you have to wonder if this whole idea of risk came into the equation. remember, sandusky gave two interviews to the media in the past. those interviews did not go well. and you have to wonder if attorneys were telling him or wondering what kind of risk would present itself if he were to take the stand under cross-examination. anderson? >> given that interview with costas, who knows what he would have said on the stand. it would have been incredible to listen to. what's next in terms of closing arguments tomorrow? >> i think what we can expect is look for each side to revisit some of the points they were bringing up during the trial. for the prosecution, that means presenting jerry sandusky as a serial predator.

asking jurors, to remind them to listen to the testimony the accusers gave. to look at the pictures they put up on the stand there of these accusers when they were youngsters. and from the defense's point of view, to point out these accusers are in it for the money and that many of these accusers, they say, were coaxed into making these allegations by the investigators. >> jason, thank you very much. doing a great job of covering this from the beginning. >> let's talk now to criminal defense attorney mark geragos and marcia clark, author of "guilt by degrees." and former los angeles deputy district attorney. mark, 29 witnesses. the defense rested today. were they able to cast reasonable doubt, do you think? >> i think with the right jurors, and i think they got the right jurors, that this could very well end up in a hung jury. i think the -- >> really? >> i think the character witnesses got on and off the stand. i think they got on and off unscathed in terms of the character evidence. i think dottie was exactly what they needed. i think dottie is the reason he didn't take the stand.

she was able to fill in some of the blanks they thought maybe he would have to put up there. but that was a high-risk proposition. and then i think ending with that idea that the investigators wanted to coach the witnesses, i think it was helpful to them. i think you'll end up seeing a hung jury. >> marcia, do you think reasonable doubt is possible? >> of course it's always possible, anderson. i think the defense hit every spot they had to hit. mark's right, they ended strong by putting on the witness who said i think the investigators were trying to tell me what to say, trying to get me to make a false accusation. that's a strong point for the defense when you have investigators admitting that they talked to the accusers about one another. they talked to one victim and said you're not the only one. but they denied having imparted any details of what one victim said to another. and that ultimately is extremely important. at the end of the day, anderson, the jury was the one who saw all of these witnesses testify, heard the heart wrenching testimony of these victims.

i think it's very difficult to believe after all that we've seen and heard that they're going to find reasonable doubt given what we have seen in the entirety of the trial. i think the defense did what they could. i do not think it would be enough. >> mark, how important are closing arguments, both for the defense and prosecution? can that really sway things one way or the other? >> you know what i often say and i bet marsha will agree. i think the case is won or lost in jury selection. i think what happens in closing argument is if you have a juror who's with you, what you're doing is you are arming that juror with an argument so when they go back in that deliberation room, they can articulate to the other jurors their position. you're never going to have on any case, your best jury. you're never going to have 12 jurors who are with you. you're going to have jurors who drive the discussion and what you want to do as an advocate is you want to arm the jurors with

the discussion with the arguments that will convince the others who may have not staked out a position. >> marcia, do you agree with that? >> that's right on the money, anderson. i think it's true in all cases but especially one like this. and mark is also 100% right, you want to arm the jurors that may be in your camp. there may be only two or three, but if they're strong and vocal and they're leaders in the pack, then what you've armed them with is enough to at the very least hang the jury and rise up in an acquittal. do i think it will happen in this case? i do not think it will happen in this case. but that's exactly the mentality, the strategy that you would follow. >> are you surprised at all, mark, how fast this trial went? i don't know why i expected it to go on longer. is that really based on just what kind of evidence they had both the defense and the prosecution? or does that say more about the judge? >> well, at the risk of -- i want to hide my face when i say

this. it wasn't in california. this is a judge who decided he was going to keep a tight leash on this thing. and he -- >> mark, are you giving up practicing law now in california? >> yeah. i'm moving to new york very soon, anderson. >> okay. but that's interesting. so marcia, do you want to dig a grave along with mark on this? do you think it really is a sign of where this was? >> i do. i think he's right. you know, it seems that outside of california, judges know how to tamp it down and get it done. i think the prosecution was inclined probably to do a little rebuttal. it seems to me from reading the tea leaves that the judge might have talked them out of it. probably wisely so. i'm surprised and a little bit surprised that the prosecution did not call an expert on child abuse accommodation syndrome. one of the experts that could explain the failure to report, delay in reporting, inconsistent statements and so forth. i'm surprised they didn't call a

witness like that. but they're inside the courtroom and they know what they are feeling in terms of how the case is coming out and they may have felt they didn't need to. that said, i think outside of california, yes, judges do know how to clamp it down and get it done. >> i tell you, marcia's so right. >> i appreciate it. thank you both. disturbing accounts of alleged abuse from sandusky's abusers and eyewitness testimony did not sway everyone in the courtroom. one of jerry and dottie sandusky's long-time friends was a character witness who testified on his behalf. her loyalty is unshakable. you're going to hear from her just ahead. is there any evidence that could be presented that would make you believe what these accusers are saying about jerry sandusky? >> i would have to see him do it myself with my own eyes. i think he's a wonderful person. i just can't believe these things.

[ barking ] i'm your dog, holding down the fort while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ] lucky for me, your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great. and if you got your home insurance where you got your cut rate car insurance, it might not replace all this.

[ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] mayhem is everywhere. so get an allstate agent. are you in good hands?

two patdowns, the passenger gets one and then gives one. she tells us why she did it and what authorities thought of her explanation, that's just ahead.

welcome back. quick clarification of something marcia clark said, pennsylvania is the only state in the country that bars such experts unless they've been directly involved in the case. over the last two days, a string of character witnesses did take the stand to testify on behalf of jerry sandusky, friends, former colleagues of the assistant football coach. they described him as a caring guy and to the charity that helped disadvantaged kids. the picture they painted didn't look anything like the sexual predator obviously described in court by eight of sandusky's alleged victims the week prior.

a friend says she's known sandusky for four decades. she was one of the character witnesses. last night, we played part of the interview i did with her. tonight i want to show you the rest of the interview. she's 100% convinced that sandusky is innocent. i asked her to watch an interview with bob costas. that never aired and to tell me what she heard him saying. watch. >> so it's entirely possible you could have helped young boy "a" in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy "b," "c," "d" and "e." isn't that possible? >> well, you might think that, i don't know. in terms of my relationship with so many, many young people, i would guess that there are many young people that would come forward, many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and what i had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. and i didn't go around seeking

out every young person for sexual needs that i've helped or many that i didn't have -- i hardly had any contact with who i have helped in many, many ways. >> joyce, some people hearing that find that kind of startling, particularly the last line that sandusky said where he said i didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that i helped. there are many i didn't have -- and then he pauses. there are some i hardly had any contact with and helped in many, many ways. some see that almost as an admission of sexual contact with children. how did you interpret that? >> i heard him say he didn't have sexual contact with kids that he helped. >> well, he said i didn't go out seeking every young person for sexual needs that i helped. there are many that i didn't have -- and then he stopped and said some i hardly had contact with and helped in many, many ways.

certainly open to interpretation. is there any evidence that could be presented that would make you believe what these accusers are saying about jerry sandusky? >> i would have to see him do it myself with my own eyes. i think he's a wonderful person. i just can't believe these things. sorry. >> there's nothing to be sorry about. i think you're a good friend and you're standing by your friend. his wife dottie, who's your good friend testified. how do you think she did on the stand? >> i think she did an excellent job and i think she validated that she was a light sleeper and she would have heard something going on if it was going on in her home. i mean, she was there all the time. and she's a wonderful, moral person. she would have cracked the whip if anything were going on. >> sandusky was overheard by a police officer years ago telling

the mother of one of the accuser, quote, i wish i could ask for forgiveness, but i know i won't get it from you. i wish i were dead. that was after she confronted him about taking a shower with her son. does that raise any eyebrows for you? >> no. it made me think he felt bad enough just taking a shower with a kid. >> and yet he continued to take showers with kids. >> i don't know if that was one of the first ones or one of the last ones. >> but if he did continue to take showers with kids, do you think he really felt bad about it? >> i don't know. i would say he felt bad in that one case. >> well, joyce, i appreciate you coming on and talking to us. thank you very much, joyce. >> thank you, anderson. see you later. bye. >> one of jerry sandusky's strong defenders. a lot more happening around the country and the world.

isha? anderson, no sign of progress in syria where syrian troops kept up the shelling today and dissidents say at least 42 civilians were killed. new reporting as well about just how many people have fled syria. "the new york times" citing jordanian authorities who estimate there are now more than 100,000 syrians living in jordan. egypt next, former dictator hosni mubarak tonight is off life support. that's according to his lawyer. a state news agency saying mubarak is not clinically dead but is in critical condition and in failing health. greece has a new prime minister sworn in today. after successfully forming a new government, something the economically devastated country has done without for the last 223 days. the u.s. economy not getting much of a boost from the federal reserve today. chairman ben bernanke announcing the extension of "operation

twist" which aims at keep borrowing costs low, but has only had a modest effect so far. and ever had it up to here at the airport? tired of long lines and intrusive patdowns? well, this woman was. not only did the camera catch the patdown, well, it also caught the passenger shall we say patting back? carol price, that's her name, is a retired tsa agent. she says she was only demonstrating what happened to her. the law, though, says otherwise and she's being charged with misdemeanor battery. and anderson, she's heading to court next month. >> wow. she's been charged with misdemeanor battery for that? >> yep. they're saying she did not ask before she put her hands on the supervisor and that's what she's facing. >> wow. and she's a former tsa person? that's really interesting. >> she is. and she's claiming that -- she says it's a vendetta. but yeah, i think you can say it's a bad day at the airport. >> i guess we've all had those. isha, thanks. two healthy people who donated their kidneys died after

surgeries after a device that has had warnings since 2006. the question is is the fda doing enough? we're keeping them honest, next. her bank accounts and stole her hard-earned money. now meet jack. after 40 years, he finally saved enough to enjoy retirement. angie, the waitress at jack's favorite diner, is also enjoying his retirement. with just a little information, she's opened up a credit line, draining the equity in jack's home. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. see, ordinary credit monitoring services tell you after your identity has been stolen. they may take up to 60 days to alert you-- too late for jack. lifelock has the most

comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified in time to help stop it. if jack had lifelock's 24/7 proactive protection, he could have been alerted by phone or e-mail as soon as they noticed an attack on their network, before it was too late. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free-- that's right, 60 days risk free-- use promo code "not me". order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 value, free. [click-click] [♪...]

meineke's personal pricing on brakes. i tell mike what i can spend. i do my best to make that work. we're driving safely. and sue saved money on brakes. now that's personal pricing. flash flooding turned streets into surging rivers in duluth, minnesota. details on the damage and evacuations ahead on the program. sleep train has your ticket to tempur-pedic.

experience the pressure-relieving comfort of tempur-pedic, and sleep risk-free with sleep train's 100-day money back guarantee. get 36 months interest-free financing: no down, and no interest for 3 years. plus, get free same-day delivery. sleep train's 100-day money back guarantee, interest-free financing, and free delivery? that's the ticket! sleep train's ticket to tempur-pedic is on now. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪

welcome back to the program. keeping them honest report right now. every year about 6,000 helped the americans choose to donate one of their kidneys to save a life. it's a remarkable thing to do. typically, everything goes fine. the operation is considered safe. very few donors actually die. but in just over a decade, since 2001, five donors have died. their deaths have been tied to a device that was warn to be unsafe back in 2006. so keeping them honest, did the food and drug administration, the agency that monitors the devices, did they do enough to sound the warnings and to protect these patients? and is it doing enough right now to stop more deaths in the future? here's cnn senior medical correspondent elizabeth cohen. >> reporter: when manuel developed a deadly kidney disease, his sister didn't hesitate to give him one of her

kidneys. in january, 2011, she went in for what's considered to be a very low-risk surgery. >> she was overwhelmed that she was able to save her brother's life. >> reporter: the surgery was a success. florinda was wheeled out to the recovery room where her daughter melinda williams, was waiting. but then, not even 30 minutes later, she took a mysterious turn for the worse. >> she raised up, she took a deep breath and her eyes got real huge and then she fell back down and then just started breathing really, really bad. >> reporter: surgeons at university medical center in lubbock, texas, rushed florinda back into the operating room. once inside, they realized something horrible had happened. in order to remove her kidney, doctors had to cut an artery. they put clips on it to make sure it didn't open back up, but the clips slipped off and blood gushed out. >> what was the next thing you heard? >> we couldn't save her.

sor sorry, we did everything we could possibly do but there's nothing we could do. >> reporter: the mother of four bled to death at age 41. >> it just literally -- i couldn't hold it in no more. it just felt like my world fell apart. my heart was torn in pieces. >> reporter: what melinda williams didn't know -- her mother's death wasn't just some freak accident. it was 100% preventible. >> to learn that yet another donor has died has been simply devastating. >> reporter: dr. amy friedman, a transplant surgeon in syracuse, new york, has spent the last eight years trying to persuade the food and drug administration to do more to warn that clips can kill kidney donors. and yes, dr. friedman said another donor was the fifth kidney donor to die because of these clips. and at least 12 others suffered injuries. the clips are safe to use in

many types of surgery, but not in laproscopic kidney donor surgeries. beginning in 2006, the fda worked with the manufacturer of these clips to send up to six warning letters alerting hospitals that the clips were contraindicated and unsafe for use in that procedure. but dr. friedman says the letters were hardly persuasive and easily forgotten. the letter florinda's hospital received came five years before her surgery at a time when the hospital wasn't even using the clip. it was one of dozens of letters about various devices and other safety issues the hospital gets every year. and the letter about the surgical clips never once mentioned that patients had died. >> reporter: would this letter have had more impact if they had mentioned that people actually died? >> absolutely. it's shocking that it doesn't say that even a single donor died. it's meaningless without saying that. >> reporter: by 2007, documents obtained by dr. friedman through the freedom of information act showed the fda called these

letters effective and adequate to prevent a reoccurrence of the problem. effective and adequate, even though only about half the hospitals acknowledged getting the notification, according to a 2007 audit by the fda. half the hospitals. >> right. >> reporter: is that enough? >> clearly it is not enough and clearly it still left gaps. >> reporter: florinda and at least one kidney donor died after the letters were issued. dr. friedman says she wants the fda to require a warning right on the package and doing so earlier could have saved lives. there's no warning on these clips. there's no warning in the package that the clips come in. there's no warning on the box. believe it or not, the only warning about how not to use these clips doesn't come with the clips at all. it actually comes separately with an entirely different medical device, an applicator

that's used to put the clips on. and the warning is far from obvious. it's one line in pages of instructions. if you were designing this, what would you put? >> i think it would be great to say don't use on a kidney donor. that would be terrific. >> reporter: teleflex, the manufacturer of the clips, points out that although no specific warning is on the clip packaging, it does feature a warning symbol and a referral to the applicator's instructions for use. keeping them honest, we wanted to ask the fda to justify why they said the letter writing campaign was effective, but only about half the hospitals said they got the warning. we also wanted to ask why they never required a warning label right on the packaging of the clip. but the fda wouldn't talk to us on camera. in a statement to cnn, the fda said most transplant surgeons heed the fda's warning, however, despite repeated efforts to communicate this safety information, some transplant

surgeons continue to improperly use these clips. while the fda can warn against the unsafe use of the medical device, doctors are not prohibited from using cleared or approved devices for an unapproved use within their practice of medicine. and that a contraindication is a clear and well understood and accepted concept in the medical community that says, do not use this device for this purpose. university medical center where florinda died admits its system to track warnings was insufficient and has since put corrective aks in place. no one warned her family. now, all they can hope for is that by talking about florinda they can prevent another sen senseless death. >> i just want my sister back.

i told them about my sister. they should have known better. >> that's so sad. do we know if these clips might still be in use for kidney transplants that hospitals and parents don't know, despite what the manufacturer and fda say? >> anderson, doctors tell us that it is possible. right after florinda died, the fda issued a safety notification. but those notifications aren't ongoing. as we saw, there's nothing specific on the label. doctors could miss that one sentence in the instructions. so doctors hope the transplant surgeons have gotten the message, but it's possible they haven't. >> wow. elizabeth, thanks very much. we'll keep on it. coming up next, wild weather across the country from extreme heat in the east to flash floods in tminnesota. the latest on all of it when we continue.

first a "360" bulletin. new developments in the trayvon martin saga. word tonight that police chief bill lee has been fired. the manager made the call. chief lee offer his resignation back in april but city managers voted not to accept it. in duluth, minnesota, flash flooding has destroyed roads, forced evacuations and left homes under water. the national weather service said up to nine inches of rain fell between last night and this morning. a fire has damaged a warehouse at a pier in san francisco that's supposed to host an event for the america's cup yacht race. the cause of the fire isn't known.

and big bird may soon be big on the big screen. the hollywood reporter says 20th century fox has picked up the rights to make a sesame street movie. two other sesame street movies have already hit the screen. "the adventures of elmo in grouchland" in 1999 and "follow that bird" in 1985. my own personal favorite of "sesame street" aired in 2007 when we all got to see our own anderson cooper in a trash can. now back to anderson. >> isha, thanks. coming up, should dogs be allowed to vote in elections?

time now for "the ridiculist." tonight we're adding an election year dog tail. a guy in virginia recently received a voter registration packet in the mail addressed to his dog. here is his dog. cute little guy. his name is mozart. mo for short. mo's owner said he was surprised to see his dog was asked to be taking such an active role in democracy. >> i opened it up and looked at it. i just laughed. i thought it was a joke at first. turns out it's real. >> apparently it came from a private nonprofit group trying to register more voters. not only is he a dog, he's unfortunately been dead for quite a while. >> what amazed morris is if mozart was human, he would have been eligible to vote this year.

>> he would have been 18, 19 years old this year. and he passed away two years ago and i still have no earthly idea how they got his information. >> not to get too gary larson on you now, but why shouldn't dogs be allowed to vote? for one thing, they tend to be excellent judges of character. i say let's get a canine movement started. frankly a solid dog constituency could be just what the state of virginia needs to knock out a certain candidate. >> vote hank for u.s. senate. >> like any savvy campaigner he's got an ad, stickers, signs, even a facebook page. >> he's running as an independent. so, he had to have a red and blue tie. >> see, here's the thing, if you give dog the vote and let cats run for office, they're going to have to be active citizens, as well. it's happening in massachusetts, as a matter of fact, where a few years back, a cat got a summons for jury duty. he did not get picked for the actual jury. must have been some kind of conflict of interest. maybe it was a petty larceny trial. who knows. but when it comes to how cats and dogs figure into the justice system, i think the most cogent commentary came from the guy in nt