easily practical solutions. make he can just wind down the window, mr. mayor. that's all for us to tonight. we begin tonight with keeping them honest in the fast and furious story. just hours from whether to cite attorney general eric holder for contempt of congress, a heavily researched story suggests that the scandal at the center of tomorrow's vote may not have been a scandal at all, or at least not the scandal we've been led to believe it is. here's what we thought we knew about the atf operation known as fast and furious. so-called straw buyers from mexican drug cartels were allowed to buy guns in the southwest. then those guns, thousands of them, were allowed to walk or be smuggled into mexico with an eye

toward tracing their way through the cartels. instead, as we, the house oversight committee and other organizations were led to believe, the atf lost track of those weapons. some were brought back into the country. two were found at the scene were border agent brian terry was gunned down. that was the story as we and nearly everyone thought we knew. now, tonight though, after six months of reporting, "fortune" magazine reveals a very different fast and furious. the bottom line, letting guns walk was not -- i repeat, not part of the plan. she writes, five law enforcement agents directly involved in fast and furious tell fortune that the atf had no such tactic. she goes on to say, they insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. just the opposite. they say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws which stimied them at every turn.

the house oversight committee is slamming is the story. we'll get to that in just a moment. however, committee chairman darrell issa declined to come on this program to elaborate. committee member john is going to join us in just a little bit. "fortune" contributor is joining us now. the premise of your article is that there was no gun walking in fast and furious, which completely contradicts really the central argument that we've seen in the political sphere now for months. >> that's right. after six months of investigation, what became clear to me is that the things congress was holding up as center pieces of proof that guns had been walked were, in fact, misconstrued, incorrect, resulted from other motives, other reasons, that there were alternate explanations and that really this was a case of cherry picking of, you know, small phrases, sentences, without any

of the context really that you need in order to understand what actually happened in phoenix group 7. >> so why back in november 2011 would the attorney general, eric holder, say that, in fact, the tactic happened and it was unacceptable? let me play a little bit. >> instance of so-called gun walking is simply unacceptable. regrettably, this tactic was used as part of fast and furious which was launched to combat gun trafficking and violence on our southwest border. >> it's that very testimony that many people, of course, have connected to and said he's admitting gun walking in fast and furious. what he's saying there, under oath, completely contradicts what's in your article. >> right. this is where we get to a very murky place because the letter that the justice department ended up retracting was a letter which said atf always attempts

to interdict weapons. well, that wasn't the case in the john dodson investigation. >> so the "always" was the issue there? >> so they retracted the letter. you know, in my article i do say it appears that the obama administration has basically caved or laid down on the railroad tracks in order to hold it at bay. you know, let's not let it come up and get the political appointees. let's hold it down. >> republican lawmakers have been attacking the atf for not seizing enough weapons, which when you look at, as you describe the sort of weak possibility for prosecution, has tremendous irony. >> well, this really gets even stranger because i had law enforcement agents who spoke to me because they felt that issa's inquiry -- representative issa's inquiry is harming the second amendment, that he is out there bashing atf agents for not

seizing enough guns. and these are guns that were deemed to be legally possessed, legally purchased and legally transferred by prosecutors. so what is the alternative? should they be going out and illegally seizing guns? and this was a clash and a conflict that occurred repeatedly between the agents and the prosecutors. >> you end your article with a look at who really was part of fast and furious, the cartel, and mexican nationals using their money to purchase those guns ultimately were traced, you say, back to the fbi. >> right, they -- >> they were funded by the fbi, they were being paid by the fbi? >> that's right. this is under the theory that there is nothing about this case that went as planned or as expected but their top two targets did turn out to be on the fbi payroll. >> why has no one from the department of justice said, in

fast and furious, there was no gun running -- gun walking. excuse me. why has no one from the department of justice said, in fast and furious, there was no gun walking? period, end of sry. that's what your article says but they have not said that. why not? >> i don't know exactly why. one sense is that, you know, when this scandal first broke and congress made these allegations, the justice department went to all their political folks to ask what happened. they never went to dave voth, the group supervisor and said, sit us down and tell us exactly what happened. in fact, he was never questioned in any detail from the atf and to this day has not been. so there's a sense that the justice department immediately wanted to deal with the political repercussions without necessarily grappling with the substantive question of what actually happened. now, i think they would say that they have turned to the inspector general to do a

thorough investigation and they are withholding judgment pending that review. but, in fact, i think anyone watching eric holder testifying would conclude that he believes that guns were walked. >> the focus now, of course, as we look at the contempt hearings for the attorney general, the question is, well, why not turn over the documents? i mean, that has become kind of the central question. in your research, can you answer that question? >> i can't answer that question because i don't know exactly what is in those documents. but what is interesting is that those documents are not about the substance of what occurred in phoenix. those documents are about the internal deliberations within the justice department about how to respond to the congressional inquiry. so it's hard to say if those are politically damaging or what is actually in them. but, in fact, it's just yet another segment of this inquiry that doesn't have to do with

what actually happened. >> we have a statement from the oversight committee that weighed in on what they think of your article and i don't know if you've had a chance to see this. >> i think i have. >> here's what they say. "fortune's" story is a fantasy, made up from the reckless tactics that took place in operation fast and furious. it contains factual errors and multiple distortions. it also hides critical information from readers including a report in "the wall street journal" indicating its primary sources may be facing numerous charges and the magazine did not dispute this information. it did not, however, explain this material to its readers. let's walk through some of this. they say it's a fantasy, it's made up of accounts of people who were involved in the recklessness that was fast and furious.

>> you know, that's certainly their claim. they've been repeating it for a career. many of the things that they brought to my attention are things that have already been reported by others. what i was trying to do is put aside everything that has been written so far about this, claimed on television, and just say, what did actually happen? using sources whose voracity i had to weigh carefully, all of the documents that i was able to obtain, and to just take a sober look at what actually occurred. so some of the things that they brought to my attention ultimately are not in the article because we felt that they were not germain or they were not true or they were not necessarily relevant. >> and we should note that earlier this month chairman issa told fox news that the attorney general needs to either, quote,

lead or resign. so that would seem to be in error as well. thank you for joining us. it's called "the truth about the fast and furious scandal." appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> you can read katherine's entire report at cnnmoney.com. with us now from washington, d.c. is republican congressman john mika. nice to see you, sir. thank you for your time. >> good to be with you. >> i haven't had a chance to read the article. >> forgive me. >> i try not to read too much fiction or novels. >> we'll see how much fiction it is. she is standing by her story. i know you've had a chance to listen to the interview that we just did. she says that there are five people at the atf who are involved in this -- what was happening in phoenix who says there was no policy of gun walking, it did not happen. >> well, first of all, you just showed a clip of the attorney general saying that gun walking happened. quite frankly, i'm a member of the investigative committee, one of the senior members of the panel.

i don't take our investigative facts and information from a magazine or some article. all we're interested in and all we're responsible for doing is finding out who did what, getting the pertinent documents. this is an investigative arm of the house of representatives. there is no reason why we should be denied the documents to get to the truth of this. we're not -- you know, this isn't some -- we're going to make up fantasy stories or take parts of information from some writer. this is a serious investigation. >> let's go back. >> people were killed. >> let's go back to what the writer was saying. let's go back to what the writer was saying. this is not her opinion. she's saying there were five people -- >> i don't care if there are five. i don't care if there were ten or 20. >> people at the atf who say it didn't happen? you don't care what they are saying? >> if their information is pertinent, we will bring them in.

what we're asking for are the documents that are in possession of the government and in this case, the department of justice or any of its personnel that relate to this. we know there are more than 100,000 documents. we've received about 7,000 or 8,000. that's about 7% or 8%. why -- this is almost a joke to say that we should rely on some article in some magazine as opposed -- >> i don't think she considers it a joke at all, sir. >> i do. >> let me ask you this. >> because i think this is making a farce out of the investigative process under the constitution, under the laws of the united states, under our -- >> she is reporting -- >> authority -- >> she is reporting of her six month investigations. >> i don't care what she's reporting. >> let me ask you another question. >> i really don't care what she's reporting. she has nothing to do with our committee or our responsibilities under the constitution and laws. >> sir --

>> as a member of the committee -- >> can i ask a question? >> if it's not turned over tomorrow, we will hold in contempt the house of representatives, eric holder, the attorney general of the united states. that's a closed case. >> she has talked to people that have said that it did not happen. >> but you have also played a tape -- >> sir, if i may. thank you. i appreciate that. her article says that there was no gun walking. what evidence do you have that there was gun walking? >> well -- >> what's your evidence? >> maybe i was just watching a different program. i just saw eric holder on your television screen say there was gun walking. >> what evidence do you have from the atf that there was gun walking? >> well, the attorney general. i guess we couldn't believe him. but we don't know what to believe and that's the point here. this agency used taxpayer money. it's authorized by the congress of the united states. you're telling me i have to rely on some novelist or some writer

or some information -- >> i'm telling you what the writer is raising here are some very interesting things. let me read you a little bit from her article. >> we want to raise even more questions. all i want are the facts. this is like the old movie "friday". >> she says, she mentioned a guy who was on food stamps, yet had plunked down $300,000 for 476 firearms over six months. the supervisor, his name is dave voth, asked the atf if they could arrest him and he was told that they could not, he could not be arrested because under the law in the state of arizona you can buy massive numbers of guns. right? that is correct. so her argument is that there was no gun walking. that, in fact, it was prosecutors -- let me finish my sentence. it was prosecutors, it was weak laws that in fact were the reasons that those guns were able to get across the border. >> well, first of all, on february 4th, 2011, the department of justice sent us a

letter that said they didn't know anything about what was going on, there was nothing. we actually know from an e-mail in march that they knew and that they chose to cover it up for another ten months. then they finally admitted it was -- that something was going on. and just a few minutes ago you played a tape, unless you doctored the tape, that was the attorney general of the united states saying that he thought there was gun walking going on. now, you're trying to tell me that a committee of congress, charged with specific jurisdiction for investigation, over all of these agencies, including the department of justice, should just turn a blind eye when an agent is killed and others are murdered and we're using taxpayers' hard-earned money to -- >> i would certainly never say that, sir. let's talk about the date that you just mentioned. february 4th, 2011, there is a letter sent to senator grassley. grassley seems to come back with proof that the atf had in fact walked guns. but he's talking about a

different case. that there was a different case. >> how would we know? how would we know if we don't have the information? >> agent john dodson, the whistle blower in this case, is it true or not that the whistle-blower in this case did walk guns in a totally different case? is that true or not? >> again, this isn't rocket science, this is not complicated. we have an agency of the united states government -- this is the prosecutorial arm. this is the department of justice, buying weapons we believe because we don't know because we don have the facts and they won't give us the information. this is so indefensible, it's beyond comprehension. >> that's a yes or no question, sir. >> if it's not fast and furious and the guy -- you're investigating it. this reporter has been doing it for six months. >> how do we separate the facts if they don't have the information and they try to keep the evidence from you?

>> this reporter has been investigating it for six months and you would be -- >> i don't give a hill of beans about that reporter. >> and you've been investigating as well. >> investigative staff charged by law and this committee under the constitution of the united states has a responsibility. taxpayers' money, an agency which we fund from the government, they bought weapons, we believe, and we think -- i don't know who did that. >> yes, and she says done by the guy who is the whistle blower to you. >> she can say whatever she wants. she wasn't elected to congress. she was on the committee. she's not charged with investigating this under the laws and constitution of the united states. she's probably a very nice lady. but that's not her responsibility. our responsibility is to represent the citizens who are paying for this whole fiasco and seeing an agent killed. you know, i have to -- we have to respond to the terry family who came to our committee and all they asked for was justice and a thorough investigation of the death of their loved one. >> okay. let's talk about that.

it seems to me if you really wanted to keep the guns while they are going to mexican cartels, why not advocate for stronger laws? why not make it easier to prosecute someone's who buying 476 weapons who appears to be on food stamps at the same time? wouldn't that actually be a good step toward reform? >> it could raise -- that could raise a good question but the question at hand here is someone in the department of justice at whatever level that devises a scheme -- >> but that's not my question. >> -- to supply guns and one of those weapons was used in the death of a federal agent and hundreds of other -- >> and if you wanted to stop that from happening again, why not make the laws stronger? why not make the law so that one person cannot buy 476 guns over six months who, by the way, seems to be on food stamps and has no money? >> well, what we should do, first of all, is make certain that the department of justice

isn't buying those weapons and supplying them to drug dealers and murderers and those weapons are used against an agent, find out what went wrong, make certain that with an agency of the united states government, that this never happens again. and furthermore, that the people responsible for one of the most horrendous acts we've ever seen out of the department of justice, our chief prosecutorial office, those people are held accountable. we're going to do that one way or another. >> why not a database that would be able to track gun sales in realtime? because according to this article, if you had that, the atf agents wouldn't have to go by hand and track that. the nra does not support that. the nra has been working against them. so why not support a gun sales database? >> well, again, a gun sale database is just trying to get the department of justice to

keep track of the guns they're purchasing and supplying to drug dealers and murders. i mean, wow, let's get the government under control before we start to restrict the rights of innocent citizens. come on, you have so many peripheral issues you're throwing out there. >> i am not. i'm actually trying to read the article and ask you questions off of it. >> how about a database in the department of justice just to keep track of the mess you've created, the murders that have been conducted with weapons paid by taxpayer dollars across the board. now we've seen some of those weapons are in the united states, too. this is a scheme that was cooked up by some people who don't want to -- the facts to come out. in the department of justice >> you don't seem that interested in reading the article and talking to five atf agents that say it didn't happen. sir, you don't seem that interested in tracking down five atf agents who say that gun walking with didn't happen. >> i think we should track down

everyone and hold everyone accountable but that's part of our investigation. right now you have impeding that investigation, both the department of justice, now the president of the united states with his executive privilege he's invoked and also with the attorney general who came before us and his agency provided us with initial information that was not truthful. we just want to get the truth, the facts, and hold people accountable. and in a responsible society -- >> i think a lot of people would agree with you. they'd like the truth, the facts and hold people responsible as well. >> and that's all i ask. i don't ask for one thing more and i think the people of the united states that we represent deserve that. >> i'm going to agree with you on that, sir. congressman mica, thank you for talking with us. >> i'm a persistent person. >> as am i, no question about that. >> so everybody who is watching,

let us know what you think on facebook. you can certainly follow us on twitter as well @ac360. we're also on the eve of what could be an epic ruling on health care reform from the supreme court. you've probably been hearing a lot about the hype about the law and what it could mean. we're going to try to counter all of that with the facts. we're keeping them honest. that's coming up next. [ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? 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.

we are also keeping them honest tonight with the truth about health care reform and the consequences of tomorrow's supreme court decision on it. you can see people staking out their spots outside the court tonight. many have already staked positions on the law. some have stirred up a storm of hype like you've never seen before. tonight we're going to try to cut through all of the noise and get to some of the facts. because keeping them honest, you are not getting them from supporters of the law or opponents. instead, when it comes to the health care debate in america, you're getting this. ♪ >> that's a liberal's group response to republican paul

ryan's plan to reform medicare by changing it into a private voucher program. that was followed by an ad from a group called american doctors for truth. listen. >> but, mr. president, we're not just talking about my pain. we're talking about my life. no, no, the doctors, they've tried the pills and the pills just don't work. no, no, i need a pacemaker. >> make no mistake about it, president obama and the democrats who supported obamacare began throwing seniors off the cliff back on march 30th, 2010, when they voted to cut medicare's budget by $575 billion. >> seniors off the cliff. you get the idea. this is what we're dealing with here. tomorrow we're going to know whether the supreme court will uphold or strike down parts or all of the law. tonight, all of the angles starting with tom foreman.

he's been looking at the competing claims of obamacare, as it's called, that just aren't so. hi, tom. >> democrats and republicans have vigorously debated a key question from the very start. how much money will health care reform save or cost taxpayers? their comments have generally gone this way. >> that means that children with pre-existing conditions can get care, young people can stay on their parents' policy until they are 26. pregnant women, breast cancer and prostate cancer patients can no longer be thrown off their insurance. our seniors are paying less for their medical prescriptions. taken together, it will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion. >> and we are going to repeal it and we're going to do everything we can over the course of however long it takes to stop this because it will ruin the best health care system in the world, it will bankrupt our

nation and it will ruin our economy. >> these massive, huge, conflicting claims. both sides say that their numbers come from the nonpartisan congressional budget office and the cbo has said over and over again that health care will cost more than $1 trillion over this next nine years but it will be offset by savings to the government, meaning despite all of that spending, the deficit should actually get smaller under this plan. so the democrats are right. hold on. the government may save money but that does not necessarily mean that you, taxpayers, as nancy pelosi said, doesn't mean you will save money necessarily, depending on how you and your family fit into this equation. you may pay additional taxes, additional fees. and here's one last important point to consider from the cbo director. because of the size and scope of this reform, he says certainly projections of the effects of this legislation are quite uncertain. in other words, for either party to assert that they know that these numbers are going to add

up to some particular thing in 10 or 20 years is absolutely misleading. soledad? >> there is also a debate over job killer or job creator. which is it? >> that's a great question. both of them say there's this whole big job thing out there, that one of them is going to drive up the cost of -- there is going to be all this cost to small business, that they can't support jobs. other people saying that there is going to be this growth of huge amount of jobs. the democrats say that. the simple truth is that this is not a very clear thing. a lot of groups have looked at it and by and large what they have said is it seems to be a negligible change here but they leave the workforce because they hold jobs now because they want to keep the insurance and may leave later on again. the cbo director when he's asked about this whole notion, he says essentially what it comes down to is the workforce could decrease by one-half of 1%.

i think that makes claims made by both sides fall somewhere between incomplete and misleading. soledad? >> tom foreman, thank you. the patient protection and affordable care act, obamacare, has lots of moving parts. that much is undeniable, whatever else you think of the law. parts to make insurance more affordable, make sure people can't be denied coverage. and, of course, the individual mandate. making healthy people buy insurance, paying into the system and not just sick people taking money out. joining us to talk about how this all fits together and how the supreme court may take that apart, sanjay gupta and senior legal analyst, jeff toobin, who has been listening to oral arguments in the case and called them a disaster for the administration. jeff, let's start with you. not only did you say a disaster, that's a quote by the way, you said a train wreck, a plane wreck, you said the individual mandate is doomed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. has anything changed your mind since then and now? >> nope.

it's -- the only thing we know is the oral argument. the supreme court is the one leak-proof institution in washington and there have been no leaks about deliberations in this case. in my experience, this supreme court, when you hear what they say at oral argument, that is a very, very good tip as to how they will vote in the case. i thought the conservatives were very hostile, more hostile than i expected and i still believe that there will be some sort of negative outcome, whether it's just the individual mandate or the whole law. that i can't say i really have a clear view of. >> all right. so sanjay, let's say, hypothetically, that in fact the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional. what does that literally mean for patients, for insurance companies? >> i think it means two things. first of all, the basic premise is that the people who are buying into the system help offset the costs of people who are sick and require more money to pay for their health care. you get healthy people to pay in. they are actually sort of the cash, if you will, for the system. but something else, and this is

more psychological, if you're not going to be discriminated against based on a pre-existing condition, why would you buy health care insurance until you were already sick? it would be like as if buying car insurance after you're on the side of the wreck in the middle of a wreck. that sort of amplifies the problem. this exact situation happened in kentucky. they tried this at the state level where they said, we're not going to have a state mandate. we're not going to allow insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing illness. what happened was the insurance premiums for everybody across the state went up about 45%. it affected people who were insured and had nothing to do with this entire debate. >> what if the whole entire thing is thrown out? >> then we're literally back to square one. you have tens and millions of people who don't have health insurance. both sides have said they want to do something here. governor romney had a mandate in the state of massachusetts as governor. he says, look, we will continue to push for people not to be

discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions and we will open up insurance across state lines, so you can compete by buying insurance here and there and they want to incentivize and, again, these are all things that are theoretical at this point. >> jeff, let's give you the final question. even if the individual mandate or even if the entire law is thrown out, people saying that the supreme court justices themselves seem to be politically aligned. >> you know, this court, the most significant fact that you can know about this current supreme court is that there are five republicans and four democrats. everything else is just conversation. this is a politically divided institution, just as the congress is across first street. so many of the important cases come out of 5-4, citizens united

came out 5-4. if this is a 5-4 decision with the five republicans against the four democrats and it overturns some significant part of the health care law, that will contribute to a certain cynicism about the work of the supreme court but that cynicism might be justified. >> we're watching. it's going to happen tomorrow. >> yes, 10:00 a.m. >> 10:00 a.m. we'll be watching. thank you. appreciate it. tens and thousands evacuations as a wildfire threatens more neighboredhoods in and around colorado springs. we're going to talk to a woman who had to literally run from her apartment with her young son. that's coming up next. comfort of aircool memory foam layered on top of beautyrest pocketed coils to promote proper sleeping posture all night long. the revolutionary recharge sleep system... from beautyrest. it's you, fully charged.

president obama is scheduled

to go to colorado on friday to survey the damage from the devastating wildfires and thank firefighters for their hard and dangerous work. there are more evacuations today as a giant wildfire threatens more neighborhoods in and around colorado springs. take a look at these stunning pictures from "the denver post." there are more photos at thedenverpost.com. the waldo canyon fire has burned more than 15,000 acres. there are now 12 wildfires raging across that state. the fbi's denver's office is working with other agencies to try to figure out the cause of those fires. mindy levenson is one of the thousands of colorado springs residents forced to leave home because of a fire. last night she was evacuated along with her young son. i spoke to her a short while ago. so mindy, let's talk about what happened yesterday. i know you were heading back home and you were told suddenly to evacuate. what happened exactly? >> i got home, i had stopped to drop some stuff off at the high school, got home, took a shower, washed off some of the smoky smell.

and i stepped out of the shower and smoke filled the apartment and the smell was awful and choking and looked outside, i couldn't see anything else and it was time to get out of dodge. >> oh, my gosh, you must have been so afraid. >> terrified. but i had to hold it together for my son. >> so you had thought that it might come to this eventually, where you would have to grab your stuff and get out. how much time did you have to grab everything and why did you think it would come to this? >> i had my 72-hour kit prepared already in my car. looking back, i wish i would have prepared a little more. i would encourage other viewers who are in my situation to maybe pack a little more and consider what they are missing. >> really? what are you missing? what do you wish you had brought? >> a lot of pictures, just momentums of the things i've gone through in my life, things i would like to remember and have a physical remembrance of. >> any idea how your apartment is right now?

has it been overtaken by fire? >> right now i have a friend who is a firefighter on the ground which i'd like to thank very much for all his hard work. but he's kind of keeping an eye on my place as much as he can and as far as i know, no, it's not been overtaken as far as yet. the winds are, however, blowing in that direction, so i'm crossing my fingers and saying some prayers. >> gosh, we are, too, and for everybody dealing with. this the pictures are just stunning. honestly. >> heartbreaking. >> you're right, they break your heart. describe for me what it's like. we're seeing it from a distance and it looks horrific and the smoke looks like it's choking. what was it like to be in the middle of that? >> it was like armageddon, really. you couldn't see anything but dark smoke and glowing red all around you and you couldn't see where the fire was. you just knew it was close. coming down where you could see a little through the smoke, you could see all the flames advancing down the mountains, you know, just so rapidly, it

was amazing and in such a tragic way. >> tell me where you're staying now and how your son is doing now that you're out of the apartment? >> we are staying with some wonderful friends in the army that opened their doors to us. my son is in heaven right now playing xbox with a new best friend. so distraction is really great right now. >> it is. and it's certainly when you're 8 years old and i bet it is for you, too. mindy levenson, thank you for sharing your story with us. we wish you the best of luck. appreciate you joining us. >> thank you, soledad. >> to find out ways that you can help those wildfire victims, go to cnn.com/impact. coming up next, a sexual predator with many faces but no name. he's known as the tear drop rapist and los angeles police are warning parents not to let their daughters walk alone until he's caught. we've got the full story, coming up.

in crime and punishment tonight, a massive effort is under way by the los angeles police department to catch the so-called tear drop rapist. and the city is offering a $50,000 reward for information that will help put him behind bars. more now from miguel marquez who joins us with the very latest. good evening. >> reporter: good evening, soledad. the teardrop rapist has struck again. cnn has learned that 12 days ago this man attempted

to rape a young woman right in central los angeles and now police are redoubling their efforts. it is a citywide manhunt. he's called the teardrop rapist. gone for seven years but now he's back terrorizing the streets of los angeles. >> we're asking parents to ensure that their young teenage daughters are accompanied. >> reporter: since 1996 police have linked him to attacks on 35 women, seemingly young women. and then in 2005 he stopped, seemingly disappeared. >> this case was totally cold and then came back to light. >> reporter: detectives are leading a team of 20 investigators dedicated to catching one of the most notorious predators in los angeles history. his crimes committed along a ten-mile corridor running through the center of the city. >> once you open that map up, you'll find there's where that four or five-mile stretch it.

>> reporter: but then he hits up north. >> then he jumps down south where he hits very close together. >> reporter: the investigation, massive. 700 boxes closed and old cases dating back to 1996 have been ordered up. detectives comb through them looking for connected cases and mislaid files. >> we're starting from the beginning. we want to make sure that we have everything to look at. >> reporter: new clues discover, two sketches of the suspect buried in old case files. the drawings date back to 1996. some of them spot on and others that are different, even the teardrop is not consistent. sometimes on the right, sometimes on the left, sometimes two drops, others not there at all. >> some of them look alike, some of them not alike. is this typical in a case like this? >> actually, it is. you are dealing with victims that range from 14 to 41 years of age. >> when someone is involved in a

situation like this, it's very violent, there's a gun involved. >> reporter: where there is no dna the predator is tied to crimes by his very specific method. he strikes early in the morning, starts a friendly conversation, then pulls a knife or a gun and moves the women to a nearby secluded area. one thread running through many of these assaults is the women were either coming to or leaving a bus stop. in 2003, a young woman who was grabbed here and taken around the corner. he then moved her down this very long alley here and this is where the assault occurred. it is possible the rapist watches his vicks for hours or days before striking, profiling the area and them. >> why is it so hard to catch a guy like this?

>> in one way you could say he's smart. >> he blends into the community. he can walk up to somebody, spark up a conversation and the victim doesn't feel threatened until the weapon is scene. >> reporter: investigators are returning to every single crime scene, familiarizing themselves with every aspect of the case. it will be one thing where someone says this looks like this guy i used to work with and his name is joe smith. >> reporter: investigators here confident they'll get their man if they can force that one clue into the light. a clue that would put a serial rapist in prison. miguel marquez, cnn, los angeles. >> how do you stop a sexual predator who's so adept at blending in and so good at not getting caught. joining me now is mary ellen o'toole and author of "dangerous

instincts." explain to me what would make a predator go quiet for such a long time and resurface? >> well, we think he's gone quiet when in fact the crime of rape is a very underreported crime, so there is a good possibility that there are other rapes out there that simply have never been reported. at the same time, there are possibilities that he has been arrested, incarcerated, that he's relocated. another consideration that i think is very important is that we know that there are cases where the offender has had a life change, in other words, he's gotten married or he's taken on a new, for example, family responsibility so he's not free to go out and follow and assault these women. so all three of those possibilities could exist in this case. >> he has been consistent in his m.o., the location, the time of day, he's been inconsistent in

the age of the victims, anywhere from 14 to 41. what are those things telling you? >> the fact that his modus operandi, his m.o., is the same, it's worked for him in the past. it's defined as behavior the offender engages in to keep from being arrested. he goes out early morning hours, picks someone that's by themselves where there are no witnesses around, so those are behaviors that really minimize his risk of being apprehended. but his signature behaviors can involve more of the sexual -- the sexual activity that he engages in. the fact that there is a range in your victims age would suggest this is someone who picks the opportunity and doesn't stay on the corner and look for a specific-looking person of a specific age. he's opportunistic when it comes

to accessing his victims. >> mary ellen o'toole, thanks for that insight. appreciate it. >> you're very welcome. coming up next, the syrian government says a bombing at a pro-regime tv station has killed four journalists and three security guards and says the massacre will not go unpunished. that's straight ahead. her bank r hard-earned money. her bank r 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. i'm isha sesay. with a "360" news bulletin.

the syrian government says at least seven people were killed in the bombing of a pro-regime television station near damascus. 104 people were killed in other violence throughout syria today. federal investigators are looking into whether stowaways are hiding inside of a shipping container docked at newark, new jersey. a coast guard team heard sounds from inside a container during a routine security check. and the fda has approved a drug to help people that have medical problems due to their obesity. patients lost about 5% of their body weight. we'll be right back.