something unique about the way a case turns out, sometimes i'm surprised by the outcome, so, no, i'm not bored. >> larry: you're one of our favorite people. >> thank you, and you are one of mine. >> larry: want to interview me right here? you can. enter the be the king contest and win. go to cnn.com/larryking for details. the "dancing with the stars" semi finalists are all here tomorrow night and michael moore returns on friday. right now, anderson cooper and some incredible stories tonight, "ac 360" is next. larry, thanks very much, and thanks very much for watching. tonight, why in the world is amazon.com selling a guide book for pedophiles? the book tells pedophiles what they can get away with, what kind of touching and fondling of kids is lael, even advises them when they don't have to use condoms with children. the book is disgusting, no doubt about it. so how come amazon is standing behind it, profiting from it?

also keeping the white house honest, someone in the white house edited a government report making it look like scientific experts backed this summer's ban on deep water drilling but they didn't. was it intentional manipulation or is a new interior department investigation alleges just a mistake? james carville and congressman steve scalise joins us. and elizabeth smart's nine months in hell, kidnapped when she was only 14 years old. she wrapped up testimony today. john wall much are "america's most wanted" talked to her about her testimony today and joins us in tonight's crime and punishment. we begin tonight as always, keeping them honest with a story that may stun you. amazon.com, the biggest online retailer in the world, is selling a guide for pedophiles. right now on their website, they are selling an e-book for kindle in essence profiting from ped

feel pedophila. all they have to do is read the title. it's called "the pedophile's guide to love and pleasure" by phillip grieves and he admits he has feelings for children though he insists he's never acted on them. that's him. it went for sale october 28th. again, amazon cannot claim they don't know about this book because here's how mr. grieves describes the book. this is my attempt, he says, to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow. i hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals with hope they're doing so will result in less hatred and lighter sentences, he spelled lighter wrong. one of the pieces of advice he gives pedophiles in this book is that if they were disease-free they don't have to use condoms. let's remember now, he's talking

about using condoms with children. he even tells pedophiles what sort of touching and kissing and fondling of children is legal. how far they can go without getting arrested. grieves writes in his he-book, quote, pedophiles, we must remember, care for and befriend their young lovers. their concern for the well being and pleasure of their little friends. a number of people have posed comments on amazon and now a facebook page has been created calling for a boycott of amazon. "this is absolutely horrible. of a mother of a small child i'm appalled by the fact that amazon allows something like this. boycott amazon. i will not buy a book from them until all trash like this is taken off." grieves says he's hoping to change the public's perception of pedophiles. >> every time you see them on television they're murders, rapists or kidnappers. that's not an accurate repres t representation of that

sexuality. >> he told abc, quote, to a certain extent i wanted that kind of notoriety to effect the book. i wanted to effect sales. we reached out to amazon for a statement and they didn't give us one. they did release one to business insider, quote, amazon believes it is censorship to not sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. we support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions. but keeping them honest here, they didn't respond to us and several media outlets say they contacted amazon for a statement but heard nothing about it. so if amazon really stands by this statement that you just heard, why aren't they responding to journalists' calls for comment? and about the one statement they did issue, amazon does not support the right of every individual -- they said amazon support rpz the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions but they don't. they sensor books all the time. they have a blanket ban on porn. if they don't believe in

censorship, why ban porn? it involves consenting adults. and an open forum to report any porn that happens to make it on to their site. in a moment we'll talk to jeffrey toobin, but first dr. phil mcgraw. i spoke to him earlier. dr. phil, does it make any sense to you at all that amazon would be selling a guide for pedophiles? >> well, it doesn't make any sense other than the fact that, i guess under the first amendment people can write whatever they want to write. but i would think with a private business you have the opportunity to make a decision as to what you want to do. and this is a despicable crime. and for someone to write a book that says i want to tell you how to do this in a way that if and when you get caught you won't get such harsh sentences, i mean, that's offensive to the sensibilities of even the most casual observer. this does not even make common sense. >> and also, amazon, they don't

put out porn on their site, they won't sell pornography, so they do make choices about what books they want to sell. i don't quite get why they would want to sell this book. >> i don't either, because they're not imposing a consistent standard. as you say, they won't sell porn. and their defense is, we sell a lot of other despicable books. we sell books about people that deny the holocaust. we sell books of people that take way other than the mainstream position on things. but, look. what we're talking about here, andersons, our children. and as you know, i've done a number of shows with pedophiles over the years. i've been to the prison where these people are held, the prison hospitals. i've had candid conversations with them. and they will tell you themselves that the urges don't go away. they will tell you that they're likely to reoffend. the statistics say that as many as 30% to 40% of these people that are caught are caught

reoffending. so what that tells you, this book will empower these people to say, okay, here's something that's telling me how to do this and get away with it. >> it's also, the author on the amazon site -- again, i haven't read the book -- nor do i frankly want to, but the author seems to be saying that this is a guide both for the children involved with an older person as well as the older person to sort of establish rules of behavior, which just -- the whole idea of it is really sickening. >> look, it's either a crime or it's not. it is a crime against humanity, it is a moral crime, it is a legal crime, and what i understand them saying, and correct me if i'm wrong here, he's saying, i want to establish rules of conduct for you fellow pedophiles so you don't do things that are too egregious to these children that you're

victimizing. that way when you get caught, maybe you won't get in so much trouble. so i guess in the delusional mind of this author it's like, there is an okay way to commit this crime and violate these innocent children, or a less egregious way to do it. come on. are you kidding me? when you put your hand on a child in that way, that's wrong, there's no way to make that right. >> and amazon, look, will say, we don't want to be involved in censorship, even though they don't put on porn which you could say is censorship. you don't want a company to be in the business of deciding what books are okay and not okay for people to read, but this one seems to cross a line. >> it does seem to cross a line. even under the first amendment, the idea is that you cannot write and say things that incite people to do bad things and to break the law. and my thought is that if a

pedophile saw this book, got ahold of it, read it and said, oh, okay, there are some standards, i'm following the rules, this gives me an excuse. this makes it okay for me to get back into this kind of interaction. is that inciting someone to break the law or commit a crime? i think there's an argument to be made for that. now, i don't know this author, i don't know if he's a pedophile. i don't know what his position on this is, but this is a bizarre, bizarre book. and i can tell you if i owned a bookstore it would not be in my window. >> dr. phil, appreciate it. during the interview i hadn't read the book, i actually have subsequently read the book so i want to talk about it with jeffrey toobin. amazon released a statement, quote, amazon believes it's censorship to sell or not sell just because we believe what is written is objectionable. you've read parts of the book, it's a glorified pamphlet, really. >> right. >> it is clearly disgusting.

it's advising pedophiles, you don't have to use a condom if you and the child are disease free, it advises them about what sort of touching and fondling even kissing is legal for a pedophile to do with a child. is it illegal, though? is this book illegal? >> i don't think there is a court in america that would find this book -- prosecuting people who use foet photographs, children, being abused. this book is all text and it is a work of advocacy and there's a lot of fiction in it, a story being told in it. that is clearly protected by the first amendment. i don't think there is any -- you know, there's an argument that some works of advocacy are incitement, but courts have been very, very narrow in interpreting that as a crime. but i think this one is well safe on the first -- unltd tder

protection of the first amendment. >> the other question is, does this company have to sell it? they censor porn. the standard does not seem to be evenly applied. >> no. amazon is not being consistent here. there are many legal products. pornography is a multi billion dollar business, it's legal, it's all over the internet and many other places. they choose not to sell it. that's amazon's right. but -- >> and clearly -- sorry. >> go ahead. >> their stated position is that anything protected by the first amendment we sell, and clearly that's not the case. >> and they're saying, they're not selling porn i suppose because they don't want to offend a large number of their customers. you would think if they were applying that standard, selling a guide to ped feophilia is goi to offend a large majority of their customers. >> as you pointed out, you don't want them reading every book and deciding what's acceptable to their readership or not.

the problem is, when you get something like this one which is so obviously offensive, which is so obviously -- >> it's not like this is a novel with questionable elements in it, this is a -- the headline, all you need to do is see the headline of this book and you get the gist. >> there is objectionable political -- you can buy "mein kompf" on amazon and we all agree it's important that "mein kompf" as an historical document be available. but they don't have a blanket policy, if they said, we'll sell porn, we'll sell everything, then maybe they'd sell this book. but they don't, they have a judgment on what they sell and won't sell. >> and customers have the right to shop where they want. >> that's the real risk for amazon here. this is not a law enforcement issue. nobody is going to prosecute amazon, but they have a business problem because people are angry

as you've pointed out. there's already talk about a boycott, some people are -- they've got a facebook page, this is a business problem for amazon and it's a real one, but -- and frankly the first amendment doesn't have much to do with this. >> when i first saw this, i thought maybe this was a mistake on this. but when you go to the website, you see the description, it's on their site, and they are profiting. they get a share of the profits from this book. >> that's how -- that's how they -- that's how amazon makes money and it's a great business. again, if -- they have every right not to sell it. they have every right not to sell porn. but there are business consequences to their decisions of what they decide to sell and not sell. >> i can't believe they haven't even in a public statement said we're going to take the meager profit wez make from this pathetic pamphlet and put it, you know, send it to group that's work with kids or something. >> my sense is there are people at amazon who are rethinking this policy as we speak. >> but this has been on for days

now and a lot of news organizations have contacted them -- >> yeah. >> we'll see. we'll see. jeff, stick around. let us know what you think at home. you can join the live chat right now underway at ac360.com. keeping them honest, a government report on oil drilling safety making it look like the ban was approved on drilling, was it a mistake or intentional? plus big breaking news on the don't ask don't tell policy, "the washington post" saying a study group has said how risky it would be to lift the ban. how smart is the new ford edge? well, it can show you the most fuel-efficient route to where you're going. it can find the best price on gas.

show fuel prices. and now its v6 gets the best highway fuel economy in its class. say hello to the new ford edge. quite possibly the world's smartest crossover.

one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it. and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this." but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach.

got breaking news on the pentagon's controversial don't ask, don't tell policy. "the washington post" is now reporting tonight that a pentagon study group has determined that lifting the ban will not adversely affect troop morale or the nation's current war efforts. the study concludes that lifting the ban will result in only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts. quoting two people familiar with the report due to the president on december 1st. the study group surveyed 400,000 active duty and reserve personnel over the summer. more than 70% said that getting rid of the policy would have a,

quote, positive, mixed or nonexinonex s nonexist ant effect on the military. admiral mike mullen and others have called for the end of the policy but some in congress want to keep it, including senator john mccain. this news will only intensify the debate. let's get to the raw politics. joining me again, jeff toobin, paul begala, and erick erickson. paul, what you make of this? >> it's a remarkable leak, first off, i think we can guess it came from the pentagon which as you said the secretary of defense supports lifting the ban. >> the commandant says he does not support it while the war is going on. >> but the most important, the commander in chief, who frankly has been far too timid on this issue. there are a lot of military experts who work for him who think our military is stronger if we include gays and lesbians, he says we have to have a

durable solution. he's right, but he's the commander in chief. he can issue a stop loss order. he can order his military to stop discharging his troops who are gays and lesbians and he should do that today. >> erick, what happens now? obviously there's a lot of opposition by republican who's will be coming into congress in january. is this thing dead in the water? >> i'm not sure. i'd like to see the report. it's interesting, "the washington post" says the person leaking it is leaking it before the people who are opposed to it can get their spin out. so what exactly is the 70% in favor of or mixed? is it 15% positive, 35% mixed and 35% no opinion? in which case it would be a 50/50 for and against which means it's divided. i would like to see the actual report. i'm just very curious about what that paragraph was supposed to mean in the report. >> assuming it is as they're saying it, that -- they conclude, this report concludes

it's not going to have a major impact, what kind of impact do you think that is going to have on the congress? >> it's going to be very hard i think for the republicans, if you have an overwhelming majority of active duty soldiers in the field saying they don't have a problem with it, it's going to be very difficult for republicans to stand in the way. you'll have some arguments there and they may be able to block it. but i'd still like to see what the report actually says as opposed to what the initial spin is. >> and you're right, the two people quoted said they want to get basically their spin out before the opponents of it were able to spin it in a way they felt was not the accurate way. jeff, i mean, there is this lame-duck session of congress. the house has already passed this measure. the senate has not. >> and there's also the lawsuit in california, so there are 50 moving parts here, you don't know which will be resolved first. i think don't ask don't tell is not -- i think the president's going to lose in the senate. i think the senate is, you know,

against him after the midterm elections, the republican party is a more conservative institution today than it was two weeks ago before the election. all these moderate republican senators, to the extent any still exist, are afraid of primaries from inside their own party. so i just don't see any way he's going to get the republican votes he needs, and i think that's it. now, whether the courts force his hand, i doubt. i don't see how this ruling survives. i think the united states supreme court is a conservative institution, it is deferential to the military. they're not going to order the military to admit gays and lesbians, i think this has to be done through the senate and i don't think it's going to be done. >> to add to jeff's point there, you've got jim webb from virginia, you now have joe manchin from west virginia, you have very conservative senate democrats there as well, none of whom are very happy with the white house right now, all of whom are very promilitary. if they read the report and they think that the spin is otherwise, based on the polling of the military, then you are

going to have a very hard time for the democrats on this. >> paul, assuming that the president doesn't suddenly -- >> exercise his constitutional authority? put his principles into action? >> do you think anyone in this lame duck session -- >> it gives ammunition to those who want equality, particularly harry reid, senate majority leader, just re-elected by 6% in a terrible year for democrats, he has strongly supported equality in the military. he controls the senate's agenda. he can put it on the agenda and i think he will. it's kind of hard to say now when the top uniform military officer, admiral mullen, is for equality in the military. when bob gates, a republican by the way, and a career national security expert, wants equality in the military, and the commander in chief in chief himself does, and now if this survey is correct, the rank and file troops do, it's kind of hard to say somehow this is going to hurt the military. >> i really do disagree with you, palm, about this idea that

president obama can simply decide. i mean, don't ask don't tell is a law. >> right, but he can issue a stop loss order. >> well, he can work around the edges and limit the impact of -- >> he can enforce the court ruling instead of appealing. >> bottom line, though, you think it's dead in the water. >> i think don't ask, don't tell will survive into the next year. >> you still think there's a possibility? >> i think one way or the other it's gone over time. it may not be before new year's but it cannot sustain. discrimination doesn't last forever in america. it doesn't. >> erick, want to put you on the spot. >> you know, i think long-term in this country we're headed towards more open tolerance in the military of gays in the military but i don't think it's going to come any time soon. i certainly don't think now it's going to happen. >> appreciate you all being on. up next, keeping the white house honest, a staffer edited a government report making it seem scientific experts supported the moratorium on deep water drilling. they didn't. they weren't even weighing in on it. you can decide if it was a mistake or intentional.

and elizabeth smart taking the stand one last time today. we have new details on what she calls her nine months in hell. i spoke to the man who helped crack the case, john walsh of "america's most wanted." ♪ [ female announcer ] yoplait's real fruit and the goodness of dairy gives you a little slice of happy. and happiness comes in 25 delicious flavors. yoplait. it is so good.

[ commearlier, she hady vonn! an all-over achy cold.... what's her advantage? it's speedy alka-seltzer!

[ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus rushes relief for all-over achy colds. the official cold medicine of the u.s. ski team. alka-seltzer plus.

another keeping them honest report now, this time the subject is the white house, and the question is did they intentionally manipulate or edit a report to make it appear like

the moratorium on deep water drilling this summer had widespread scientific support. we know it was altered, what's not clear is who did it in the administration and their motivation, whether it was an innocent mistake or trying to sway public opinion. we'll talk to james carville and louisiana congressman about the results in a moment. but first i want to explain what the allegations center on. this is the report issued today. at issue is another report from may 27th that was put together at president obama's request. it's a report on oil and gas drilling safety, and it was done in the wake of the bp oil spill. now, after the deepwater horizon rig exploded in the gulf of mexico in april killing 11 men, they investigated and wanted to try to find out how to prevent this from happening again. 15 experts are tapped by the interior department to review the safety recommendations in the report. and they did review the safety

recommendations. then in the middle of the night, just hours before this report was released, the staff white house energy visor carol browner made misleading tweets, first, the secretary recommends a six-month moratorium on permits for wells being drilled, then the secretary furder reck men's an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 per militaried wells. then right after that sentence was inserted another sentence and the sentence said, quote, the recommendations contained in this report have been peer reviewed by seven experts identified by the national academy of engineering. those experts who volunteer their time and expertise are identified in appendix one. by moving that line up to right underneath those paragraphs about the moratorium, someone reading the report would have thought the experts agreed with the six-month drilling moratorium, that they'd signed off on it, but think hadn't. today the inspector general said the white house edit of the

original draft, executive summary, led to the implication that the moratorium recommendations had been peer reviewed by the experts. co it hadn't been peer reviewed. eight of the 15 experts publicly blasted the department of interior for using their names and faxed a letter to the delegation of louisiana, reached out to the department of interior. june 3rd the interior department apologized in writing to the experts saying in part, we did not mean to imply that you also agreed with the decision to impose a moratorium on all new deep water drilling. we acknowledge you were not asked to review or comment on the propose the more tore rum. ken salazar apologized, telling them it was an editing mistake. the experts said they accepted mr. salazar's explanation. we reached out to the white house and they tell us, quote, following the review that included interviews, the peer review experts, the inspector general found no intentional

misrepresentation of their views. to the extent there was any misunderstanding, the interior acted quickly to correct it. the decision to implement a six-month moratorium on deep water drilling in the gulf of mexico was correctly based on the need for adequate spill response, well contamement and safety measures and we stand behind that. we have no way of know whag the motivation was for making that edit. was it just an innocent mistake? that's entirely possible. it's also possible that whoever made the edit wanted people to believe that scientists backed the moratorium. this isn't the first time the white house has been accused of over selling the position on the spill, and changing facts n august, carol browner was discussing a government report on the spill and claimed the majority of the oil was gone. >> we launched the largest response in the history of our country. we had nearly 7,000 vessels, more than 40,000 people working to clean this up, to capture it, to skim it, to burn it and that's why the vast majority of

the oil is gone. in terms of what's left, it will continue to weather in the ocean, if it comes ashore, obviously it can be cleaned up, the tar balls, the sheens, but certainly we're seeing far less oil than we were seeing and that is a testament to the response that the government launched. >> she's saying a vast majority of the oil is gone but that's not what the report said back then t said it still could be in the gulf and 12 days after that report came out a group of independent scientists said as much as 79% of the oil may remain in the gulf of mexico. 79%. so is the white house answering all the questions they need to about this edited report? i talked about it earlier with democratic strategist james carville and congressman steve scalise. congressman, you were among the people who initially asked for this investigation. the obama administration is saying this is an example of sloppy editing in the middle of the night that neither the white house or anyone at the interior department meant to actually mislead the american people about the moratorium and the scientist support for it. do you buy that? >> well, no, and in fact the

inspector general's report confirms that the decision to impose this drilling moratorium was based on manipulated data by the administration. so if they're going to say it was either incompetence or manipulation, neither of those are acceptable answers for a decision that has cost over 12,000 people to lose their jobs in this industry. >> where do you see that it says manipulation? >> ultimately they did change the report, the inspector general's report doesn't even get into the details of whether or not secretary salazar manipulated it himself when he presented the report to the president because they didn't include that report that was given to the president. so either they manipulated it or it was just incompetence, but either of those are unacceptable. >> james, do you think it was just a mistake or do you think there's more to it? >> i don't know. and i read the article in politico and i'm a little bit confused, but i take these things seriously. the ig report in 2007 about the corruption in the minerals management service and they didn't pay any attention to it

and i think that's a big result of what happened in the gulf of mexico. so i'm not one that should -- thinks we should take these things lightly. whether it was manipulated, probably is a strong word to use right now. but there certainly is some sort of conflict as to what they had. maybe it was hastily done, i don't know. but i didn't ever like the moratorium from the get go and i'm a believer in sound science and it should be used very, very carefully. >> you're using that word manipulation, i want to ask you about that. because basically what happened it seems, the sentence which said that, you know, the scientists had approved of all the things in this report, it was moved to be right after the sentence that talked about there should be a moratorium and it seemed to anybody who was reading it, it was implying that these scientists had agreed that there should be a moratorium when in fact it was basically just saying that scientists agreed with other facts in the thing, nothing about the

moratorium. are you saying that you believe it was intentionally put there? is that what you think is the manipulation? >> that's at the heart of the question. because when the 30-day report came out by the president's scientific experts, the report's final conclusion led people to believe it was the scientists themselves who recommended the moratorium and it was the scientists who came out later that day and said, wait a minute, we don't recommend the moratorium. we think it reduces safety in the gulf, and don't atrib ooh the moratorium to us because we disagree with it. it wasn't then until the administration backed off. but if the scientists wouldn't have come out and said this wasn't their conclusion in the first place, would the administration have come clean and in fact that's one of the big questions we have. >> a number of scientists interviewed in the wake of all this have said they don't believe that was intentional, that salazar apologized to them, made a public statement, salazar has met with a number of them individually, and that they are convinced that it was not intentional. >> well, and i appreciate that

they're going to take the administration at their word, but it's not our job to take the administration at their word when there are real documents out there they haven't released yet. there was a memorandum that went from secretary salazar to the president when he was trying to get the president to conclude that there should be a moratorium. now, did that recommendation from the secretary include or attribute this request for a moratorium to the scientists? or was it just something they made based on a political calculation? we don't know that yet. >> and, james, we may never know that because of executive privilege. >> we may not, you know, i think they'll invoke the cheney doctrine here. but again, i think questions are fair inform a fair to ask here. it was a decision that had severe impact on the people in my state. whether or not this needs to rise to the level of some humongous investigation or not is an open question at this juncture and you've got to be very cautious about that.

but it's certainly very fair to ask questions of this. this is a very big policy decision and the basis it was made is legitimate. >> congressman, do you want to see hearings on this? >> i want to see the administration come clean. the administration has acknowledged over 12,000 people have lost their jobs due to this moratorium. if the moratorium's decision was based either on a competence or manipulation, that's not acceptable to those families that now don't have the opportunities they once had. they don't want a bp check or unemployment check, they want a paycheck, and clearly the data was manipulated that led to that decision. >> appreciate it. >> thanks, anderson. still ahead, elizabeth smart on the stand for a third day. testifying, this is the final day of her testimony, in what she calls her nine months in hell and her captor who she says is an unholy hypocrite. and reaction from john walsh who spoke to elizabeth today.

also ahead tonight, did the pentagon finally solve the mysteriny sky over california? you've all seen the images by now. [ advisor 1 ] what do you see yourself doing one week,

one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it. and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this." but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach.

when you consider when elizabeth smart has gone through, what she calls her nine months in hell, it's remarkable how composed she's been on the witness stand. today was her third and final day of gruelling testimony in the trial of the man accused of kidnapping her more than eight years ago. she's now 23, living in paris where she's a mormon missionary. she came home to testify. she kribed her captor has an unholy hypocrite who used religious to justify her kidnapping and assault. john walsh joins us in a moment. but first randi kaye brings us back to the night smart was kidnapped and the details of a young girl's life that was ripped apart. here's tonight's crime and punishment report. >> reporter: as elizabeth smart and her family slept, a determined kidnapper entered their home through a kitchen window by cutting the screen. within minutes police say he was upstairs in the bedroom, elizabeth, then 14, shared with her younger sister. it was june 5th, 2002, around 2:00 a.m. in court this week, elizabeth,

now 23, testified against the man who she says snatched her. she said he told her, i have a knife to your neck. don't make a sound. get out of bed or i will kill you and your family. on that awful night, elizabeth's little sister, mary katherine, was just nine at the time. she lay petrified in her bed, pretending to be asleep. at 4:00 a.m., mary catherine woke her parents and told them what happened. her father, ed smart, called 911, triggering a maszive search. >> elizabeth, if you're out there, we're doing everything we possibly can to help you. we love you. we want you to come home safely to us. >> reporter: turns out elizabeth's kidnapper had forced her to hike up a long, rugged trail behind their home where he set up camp with his wife, wanda barzee. elizabeth testified she asked the man if he was going to, quote, rape and kill her. if so, she asked him to do it,

quote, closer to the trail head so someone could find my remains. hundreds of flyers went up, police offered a $250,000 reward. elizabeth testified her kidnapper quickly made her his second wife. her testimony, hard to hear. elizabeth said she pleaded with her kidnapper. she told the court, i told him that i was jftd a little girl and that i hadn't even started my period yet. he yelled out to his wife and asked if that was still okay and she said it was and then he continued. she testified her abductor raped her while her ankle was tied to a pole so she couldn't escape. she was raped she said at least once a day. the big break in the case three months after blitelizabeth disappeared. out of nowhere her younger sister told her father she thought she knew who the kidnapper was. his name, she said, was emanuel. he was a homeless man the family hired to do work on their house

about a year before the kidnapping. the police were skeptical of the little girl's sudden memory. frustrated, the smarts contacted john walsh from "america's most wanted." in february 2003, the program showed composite sketches of the man who called himself emanuel. guess who was watching? the sister of the man who called himself emanuel. she gave pictures to "america's most wanted" his real name she said was brian david mitchell. what nobody knew was that elizabeth had recognized her kidnapper within hours of being taken. she knew him as emanuel, too. the same man her sister had remembered. in march 2003, the trio surfaced in sandy, utah, about 25 miles south of salt lake city. not far from elizabeth's home. police received two 911 calls from witnesses claiming they'd spotted mitchell. >> he's walking towards town so he's walking north. and he's with two ladies.

>> reporter: an officer on the scene questioned the girl with mitchell. she insisted she was not elizabeth smart. but when investigators showed her a missing person poster with her face on it, she teared up and confirmed her identity. it was march 12th, 2003. nine months had passed since she was kidnapped. nine months of terror. >> when they opened the door and she was there, i just -- i couldn't believe it. i just couldn't believe it. and she was just sitting there and i just went up and grabbed her and just was so happy. >> reporter: brian david mitchell and wanda barzee face charges including aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary and aggravated sexual assault. mitchell pleaded not guilty. last year mitchell's wife wanda barzee was sentenced to 15 years in prison for her role. now a jury must decide if brian david mitchell, a drifter the smarts tried to help, should

also go to jail for snatching their daughter more than nine years ago. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> unbelievable what she went through. john walsh was int meastrumenta the case. i talked to him this afternoon. how is elizabeth doing? >> she's doing great. i have such admiration for this young woman. i was there the day after she was recovered. it was probably the highlight of 23 years of doing "america's most wanted." her father and mother never gave up. they believed she was alive, even when police tried to convince them that richard reesy, the handy man that died in prison, had murdered her and she was in the desert somewhere. i talked to her today and i said, elizabeth, i've known you since the day after you were were recovered. i love and work with your parents. you walk the halls of congress

to get the adam walsh act passed with me and my wife, but i have such huge admiration. you -- this girl has unbelievable courage to recount all these horrible events. i said, elizabeth, you are a role model for female victims all over the world. >> it's been important for her to testify. >> she wanted her day in court. she says this criminal justice system has revictimized me. it's the criminal injustice system. this man is feining his insan y insanity. he planned how to kidnap me, he got caught by police and talked his way out of it. he's not insane, he's a narcissistic pedophile. he need to be in jail forever. she wanted that justice and her day in court. this man did nothing but exploit -- he exploited his stepdaughter before elizabeth. he's done nothing but hurt young women his whole life. he needs to be in prison for the

rest of his life. and elizabeth is a role model of someone that has been brutalized, kidnapped as a teenage girl, as a young little girl, and she stands on that witness stand with poise, with dignity, answers those questions. she's in that courtroom. she's not a victim, she's a survivor. she's a role model and i have so much admiration for her family and for her. >> i remember talking to her father over the years and saying that they wanted to give her time to just, you know, let her -- when she returned, to just let her tell her story in her own time to them, if she wanted to and not pressuring her. clearly to hear it all coming out on the stand is, i mean, it's got to be -- >> she's doing it her way on her time. i think the media's brutal to victim. the best things the smarts did, the night that i was asked to come to their house, the day after she was recovered, because we had so much to do with getting her back alive and i said, the smarts said, we're going to make sure she gets therapy, we're putting her in the loving arms and safety net

of this family and we're going to resist everybody in the media. i think the public perceives this -- it's not about the get. it's not about anderson cooper gets somebody on air. it's not about getting the victim, taking a picture of them. let them try to heal. they'll tell their story. i think the smartest thing the smarts did was to keep elizabeth away from the media. she's telling her story on her own terms and she's telling it like the strong, smart young woman she is. she says i'm asking for justice. and it's incredible what this family has done with her and what she's been able to achieve over the years. but i say to all those people in the media, i'm prime time, you're a media guy, it's not about the get. it's not about getting the inside. it's about treating victims with dignity. >> john walsh, thank you so much. >> thank you for covering these cases. you give victims hope. new details about the bomb found in england, it could have been much worse than investigators originally thought. what scotland yard has to say.

and the demolition of a smoke stack goes wrong. wrong move! you. you can save up to half off that sale when you name your own price on priceline. but this one's a deal...trust me. it's only pretending to be a deal. here, bid $79. got it. wow! you win this time good twin! there's no disguising the real deal. exchange traded funds. some firms offer them "commission free." problem is they limit the choice of etfs to what makes financial sense to them. td ameritrade doesn't limit you to one brand of etfs... they offer more than 100... each selected by investment experts at morningstar associates. only at the etf market center at td ameritrade. before investing, carefully consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. contact td ameritrade for a prospectus containing this and other information. read it carefully before investing.

(voice 2) how bad is it? (voice 1) traffic's off the chart... (voice 2) they're pinging more targets... (voice 3) isolate... prevent damage... (voice 2) got 'em. (voice 3) great exercise guys. let's run it again.

[ male announcer ] an everyday moment can turn romantic anytime. and when it does, men with erectile dysfunction can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose tablet you take every day, so you can be ready anytime the moment's right. ♪ tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications, and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. [ man ] don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache, or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if cialis for daily use is right for you. for a 30-tablet free trial offer, go to cialis.com.

the new healthcare law gives us powerful new tools to fight it.... to investigate it... prosecute it... and stop criminals. our senior medicare patrol volunteers... are teaching seniors across the country... ...to stop, spot, and report fraud. you can help. guard your medicare card. don't give out your card number over the phone. call to report any suspected fraud. we're cracking down on medicare fraud. let's make medicare stronger for all of us. aspercreme breaks the grip, with maximum-strength medicine and no embarrassing odor. break the grip of pain with aspercreme. following a number of other stories, joe johns joins us.

joe? >> it's already thursday, november 11th, and south korea and president obama marked veteran's day by visiting u.s. troops, paying tribute to soldiers who fought on the korean peninsula and those serving today. scotland yard believes the cargo bomb discovered at a british airport two weeks ago could have exploded over the eastern seaboard of the u.s. had it not been found. forensic evidence indicates it was set to detonate six hours after it was discovered. that crippled cruise liner is expected to be towed into san diego sometime tomorrow afternoon. a fire in the engine room monday caused the ship to lose power, stranding more than 4,000 passengers and the crew off the coast of mexico. the navy has air dropped supplies on the ship. big news for general motors, it earned nearly $2 billion in the third quarter of this year,

the best quarterly earnings in more than a decade. gm is on track to make a profit this year for the first time since 2004. and more on that mysterious plume in the southern california sky monday night. today the pentagon said there's no question it's anything other than the condensation trail from an airplane, and there's no evidence to suggest it was anything else. so end of story, i hope, on that one. >> i hope so. joe, time for tonight's shot. i don't know if you've seen this video, from springfield, ohio. it's a smoke stack demolition gone way, way wrong. take a look. >> oh, no. i never saw this shot of it. oh, no. >> local newspaper reported the screams came from two dozen onlookers when they realized it was falling the wrong way. 4,000 people lost power for a couple of hours. nine traffic lights were knocked down.

>> you want to laugh at that, but it's -- that's dangerous. >> yeah. to say the least. >> thousands of people without power. my hat's off to them. that's a tough job. >> joe, thanks very much tonight. serious stuff at the top of the hour, amazon selling a guide book for pedophiles on their website. disgusting, but is it illegal? is it right? is it right? keeping them honest next. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com i don't always let the worry my pipes might leak compromise what i like to do. i take care with vesicare, because i have better places to visit than just the bathroom. ( announcer ) once-daily vesicare can help control your bladder muscle, and is proven to treat overactive bladder with symptoms of frequent urges and leaks, day and night. if you have certain stomach or glaucoma problems, or trouble emptying your bladder, do not take vesicare. vesicare may cause allergic reactions that may be serious. if you experience swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, stop taking vesicare and get emergency help.

tell your doctor right away if you have severe abdominal pain or become constipated for three or more days. vesicare may cause blurred vision, so use caution while driving or doing unsafe tasks. common side effects are dry mouth, constipation, and indigestion. ( woman ) you have better things to join than always a line for the bathroom. so, pipe up and ask your doctor today about taking care with vesicare.

thanks for watching. incredible, you're right. tonight, why in the world is amazon.com selling a guide book for pedophiles? the book tells pedophiles what they can get away with, what kind of touching and fondling of kids is legal, even advises them when they don't have to use condoms with children. the book is disgusting, no doubt about it. so how come amazon is standing behind it, profiting from it?

we're keeping them honest and dr. phil joins us as well. also keeping the white house honest, someone in the white house edited a government report making it look like scientific experts backed this summer's ban on deep water drilling but they didn't. was it intentional manipulation or is a new interior department investigation alleges just a mistake? james carville and congressman steve scalise joins us. and elizabeth smart's nine months in hell, kidnapped when she was only 14 years old. she wrapped up testimony today. three days of testimony against the man accused of abducting her. john walsh helped crack the case, tracked down elizabeth. he talked with her about her testimony today and joins us in tonight's crime and punishment. we begin tonight as always, keeping them honest with a story that may stun you. amazon.com, the biggest online retailer in the world, is selling a guide for pedophiles. right now on their website, they are selling an e-book for kindle in essence profiting from pedophilia.

at first i thought maybe they just don't know about it, but all they have to do is read the title of the book. it's a self-published e-book, it's called "the pedophile's guide to love and pleasure" by phillip grieves and he admits he has feelings for children though he insists he's never acted on them. that's him. it went for sale october 28th. again, amazon cannot claim they don't know about this book because here's how mr. grieves describes the book on amazon itself. this is my attempt, he says, to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow. i hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals with hope they're doing so will result in less hatred and lighter sentences should they ever be caught. he spelled lighter wrong. one of the pieces of advice he

gives pedophiles in this book is that if they were disease-free they don't have to use condoms. let's remember now, he's talking about using condoms with children. he even tells pedophiles what sort of touching and kissing and fondling of children is legal. how far they can go without getting arrested. grieves writes in his e-book, quote, pedophiles, we must remember, care for and befriend their young lovers. their concern for the well being and pleasure of their little friends. a number of people have posted comments on amazon and now a facebook page has been created calling for a boycott of amazon. "this is absolutely horrible. as a mother of a small child, i'm appalled by the fact that amazon allows something like this on their website. boycott amazon, she says. i will not buy a book from them until all trash like this is taken off." grieves says he's hoping to change the public's perception of pedophiles. >> every time you see them on television they're murders, rapists or kidnappers. that's not an accurate presentation of that particular sexuality.

>> he seems happy to court controversy so he can sell more books. he told abc, quote, to a certain extent i wanted that kind of notoriety to effect the book. i wanted to effect sales. we reached out to amazon for a statement and they didn't give us one. they did release one to business insider, quote, amazon believes it is censorship to not sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. we support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions. but keeping them honest here, they didn't respond to us and several media outlets say they contacted amazon for a statement but heard nothing about it. so if amazon really stands by this statement that you just heard, why aren't they responding to journalists' calls for comment? and about the one statement they did issue, amazon does not support the right of every individual -- they said amazon supports the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions but they don't. they censor books all the time.

they have a blanket ban on porn. if they don't believe in censorship, why ban porn? it's legal, it's popular and involves consenting adults. and an open forum to report any porn that happens to make it on to their site. in a moment we'll talk to jeffrey toobin, but first dr. phil mcgraw. i spoke to him earlier. dr. phil, does it make any sense to you at all that amazon would be selling a guide for pedophiles? >> well, it doesn't make any sense other than the fact that, i guess under the first amendment people can write whatever they want to write. but i would think with a private business you have the opportunity to make a decision as to what you want to do. and this is a despicable crime. and for someone to write a book that says i want to tell you how to do this in a way that if and when you get caught you won't get such harsh sentences, i mean, that's offensive to the sensibilities of even the most casual observer. i mean, come on. this does not even make common sense.

>> and also, amazon, they don't put out porn on their site, they won't sell pornography, so they do make choices about what books they want to sell. i don't quite get why they would want to sell this book. >> i don't either, because they're not imposing a consistent standard. as you say, they won't sell porn. and their defense is, we sell a lot of other despicable books. we sell books about people that deny the holocaust. we sell books of people that take way other than the mainstream position on things. but, look. what we're talking about here, anderson, is our children. and as you know, i've done a number of shows with pedophiles over the years. i've been to the prison where these people are held, the prison hospitals. i've had candid conversations with them. and they will tell you themselves that the urges don't go away. they will tell you that they're likely to reoffend. the statistics say that as many as 30% to 40% of these people

that are caught are caught reoffending. so what that tells you, this book will empower these people to say, okay, here's something that's telling me how to do this and get away with it. >> it's also, the author on the amazon site -- again, i haven't read the book -- nor do i frankly want to, but the author seems to be saying that this is a guide both for the children involved with an older person as well as the older person to sort of establish rules of behavior, which just -- the whole idea of it is really sickening. >> look, it's either a crime or it's not. it is a crime against humanity, it is a moral crime, it is a legal crime, and what i understand him saying, and correct me if i'm wrong here, he's saying, i want to establish rules of conduct for you fellow pedophiles so you don't do things that are too egregious to

these children that you're victimizing. that way when you get caught, maybe you won't get in so much trouble. so i guess in the delusional mind of this author it's like, there is an okay way to commit this crime and violate these innocent children, or a less egregious way to do it. come on. are you kidding me? when you put your hand on a child in that way, that's wrong, there's no way to make that right. >> and amazon, look, will say, we don't want to be involved in censorship, even though they don't put on porn which you could say is censorship. they have a point, that, you don't want a company to be in the business of deciding what books are okay and not okay for people to read, but this one seems to cross a line. >> it does seem to cross a line. even under the first amendment, the idea is that you cannot write and say things that incite people to do bad things and to break the law.

and my thought is that if a pedophile saw this book, got ahold of it, read it and said, oh, okay, there are some standards, i'm following the rules, this gives me an excuse. this makes it okay for me to get back into this kind of interaction. is that inciting someone to break the law or commit a crime? i think there's an argument to be made for that. now, i don't know this author, i don't know if he's a pedophile. i don't know what his position on this is, but this is a bizarre, bizarre book. and i can tell you if i owned a bookstore it would not be in my window. >> dr. phil, appreciate it. during the interview i hadn't read the book, i actually have subsequently read the book so i want to talk about it with jeffrey toobin. amazon released a statement, quote, amazon believes it's censorship to sell or not sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. you've read parts of the book, it's a glorified pamphlet, really. >> right.

>> it is clearly disgusting. it's advising pedophiles, you don't have to use a condom if you and the child are disease free, it advises them about what sort of touching and fondling even kissing is legal for a pedophile to do with a child. is it illegal, though? is this book illegal? >> i don't think there is a court in america that would find this book illegal. child pornography is illegal and the justice department is very aggressive in prosecuting people who use foet graphs, individuals yo, of children being abused. this book is all text and it is essentially a work of advocacy and there's a lot of fiction in it, a story being told in it. that is clearly protected by the first amendment. i don't think there is any -- you know, there's an argument that some works of advocacy are incitement, but courts have been very, very narrow in interpreting that as a crime. but i think this one is well

safe on the first -- under the protection of the first amendment. >> the other question is, does this company have to sell it? they're saying we don't want to do censorship, but they krecens porn. the standard does not seem to be evenly applied. >> no. amazon is not being consistent here. there are many legal products. pornography is a multi billion dollar business, it's legal, it's all over the internet and many other places. they choose not to sell it. that's amazon's right. but -- >> and clearly -- sorry. >> their stated position is that anything protected by the first amendment we sell, and clearly that's not the case. >> and they're saying, they're not selling porn i suppose because they don't want to offend a large number of their customers. you would think if they were applying that standard, selling a guide to pedophilia is going to offend the vast majority of their customers. >> as you pointed out, you don't want them reading every book and deciding what's acceptable to

their readership or not. the problem is, when you get something like this one which is so obviously offensive, which is so obviously -- >> it's not like this is a novel with questionable elements in it, this is a -- the headline, all you need to do is see the headline of this book and you get the gist. >> it is true there is also really objectionable political advocacy for sale on amazon. you can buy "mein kompf" on amazon, and i think we probably all agree that it is important that "mein kompf," as an historical document, be available. but they don't have a blanket policy, if they said, we'll sell porn, we'll sell everything, then maybe they'd sell this book. but they don't have that policy, they have a policy that they make judgments on what they sell and don't sell and that's appropriate as a business. >> and customers have the right to shop where they want. >> that's the real risk for amazon here. this is not a law enforcement issue. nobody is going to prosecute amazon, but they have a business

problem because people are angry as you've pointed out. there's already talk about a boycott, some people are -- they've got a facebook page, this is a business problem for amazon and it's a real one, but -- and frankly the first amendment doesn't have much to do with this. >> when i first saw this, i thought maybe this was a mistake on this. but when you go to the website, you see the description, it's on their site, and they are profiting. they get a share of the profits from this book. >> that's how -- that's how they -- that's how amazon makes money and it's a great business. again, if -- they have every right not to sell it. they have every right not to sell porn. but there are business consequences to their decisions of what they decide to sell and not sell. >> i can't believe they haven't even in a public statement said we're going to take the meager profits we make from this pathetic pamphlet and put it, you know, send it to group that work with kids or something.

>> my sense is there are people at amazon who are rethinking this policy as we speak. >> but this has been on for days now and a lot of news organizations have contacted them -- >> yeah. >> we'll see. we'll see. jeff, stick around. let us know what you think at home. you can join the live chat right now underway at ac360.com. someone in the white house edited a report on oil drilling safety, made it look like scientific experts approved the ban on deep water drilling, that was wrong. was it a mistake or intentional? plus big breaking news on the don't ask don't tell policy, "the washington post" just now reporting that a pentagon study group has reached a conclusion on how risky it would be to lift a ban on gays serving openly in the military. [ male announcer ] how can rice production in india

affect wheat output in the u.s., the shipping industry in norway, and the rubber industry in south america? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex global economy. it's just one reason os beat their10-year lipp. t. rowe price.invest . request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment objectives, risks, fees, expenses, and other information to read and consider carefully before investing. ♪ where'd you learn to do that so well. ♪

♪ where'd you learn to do that so well. ♪ the new cadillac srx. the cadillac of crossovers. cadillac. the new standard of the world.

aspercreme breaks the grip, with maximum-strength medicine and no embarrassing odor. break the grip of pain with aspercreme. got breaking news on the pentagon's controversial don't ask, don't tell policy. "the washington post" is now reporting tonight that a pentagon study group has determined that lifting the ban will not adversely affect troop morale or the nation's current war efforts. the study concludes that lifting the ban will result in only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts. quoting two people familiar with draft of the study group's report, which is due to the president on december 1st. the study group surveyed 400,000 active duty and reserve personnel over the summer. more than 70% said that getting rid of the policy would have a, quote, positive, mixed or nonexistant effect on the military. admiral mike mullen and others have called for the end of the

policy but some in congress want to keep it, including senators like john mccain. this news will only intensify the debate. let's get to the raw politics. joining me again, jeff toobin, paul begala, and erick erickson. paul, what you make of this? >> it's a remarkable leak, first off, i think we can guess it came from the pentagon which as you said the secretary of defense supports lifting the ban. >> the commandant says he does not support it while the war is going on. >> but the most important, the commander in chief, who frankly has been far too timid on this issue. there are a lot of military experts who work for him who think our military is stronger if we include gays and lesbians, because they're servie ining honorably and ably. he says we have to have a durable solution. he's right, but he's the commander in chief. he can issue a stop loss order. he can order his military to stop discharging his troops who are gays and lesbians and he

should do that today. >> erick, what happens now? obviously there's a lot of opposition by republicans who will be coming into congress in january. is this thing dead in the water? >> i'm not sure. i'd like to see the report. it's interesting, "the washington post" says the person leaking it is leaking it before the people who are opposed to it can get their spin out. so what exactly is the 70% in favor of or mixed? is it 15% positive, 35% mixed and 35% no opinion? in which case it would be a 50/50 for and against which means it's divided. i would like to see the actual report. i'm just very curious about what that paragraph was supposed to mean in the report. >> assuming it is as they're saying it, that -- they conclude, this report concludes it's not going to have a major impact, what kind of impact do you think that is going to have on the congress? >> it's going to be very hard i think for the republicans, if you have an overwhelming majority of active duty soldiers

in the field saying they don't have a problem with it, it's going to be very difficult for republicans to stand in the way. you'll have some arguments there and they may be able to block it. but i'd still like to see what the report actually says as opposed to what the initial spin is. >> the two people quoted said they wanted to get their spin out before the opponents of it were able to spin in a way they felt was not the accurate way. jeff, i mean, there is this lame-duck session of congress. the house has already passed this measure. the senate has not. >> and there's also the lawsuit in california, so there are 50 moving parts here, you don't know which will be resolved first. i think don't ask don't tell is not -- i think the president's going to lose in the senate. i think the senate is, you know, against him after the midterm elections, the republican party is a more conservative institution today than it was two weeks ago before the election. all these moderate republican senators, to the extent any

still exist, are afraid of primaries from inside their own party. so i just don't see any way he's going to get the republican votes he needs, and i think that's it. now, whether the courts force his hand, i doubt. i don't see how this ruling survives. i think the united states supreme court is a conservative institution, it is deferential to the military. they're not going to order the military to admit gays and lesbians, i think this has to be done through the senate and i don't think it's going to be done. >> to add to jeff's point there, you've got jim webb from virginia, you now have joe manchin from west virginia, you have very conservative senate democrats there as well, none of whom are very happy with the white house right now, all of whom are very promilitary. if they read the report and they think that the spin is otherwise, based on the polling of the military, then you are going to have a very hard time for the democrats on this. keeping the white house

honest, a staffer making it seem scientistic experts supported the moratorium on deep water drilling. you can decide if it was a mistake or intentional. and elizabeth smart taking the stand one last time today. new details on what she calls her nine months in hell. i spoke to the man who helped crack the case and who talked to elizabeth today, john walsh of "america's most wanted." oped the that can simulate head injuries and helps make people safer. then they shared this technology with researchers at wake forest to help reduce head injuries on the football field. so, you know, i can feel a bit better about my son playing football. [ male announcer ] how would you use toyota technology to make a better world? learn how to share your ideas at toyota.com/ideasforgood.

one way i can take care of my engine? take care of your engine learn and it'll go far. ideas one a day men's -- a complete multivitamin for my overall health. plus now it supports my heart health and helps maintain healthy blood pressure. [ engine revs ] whoa. kinda makes your heart race, huh? in a space this small until now. introducing the craftsman compact right angle impact driver. delivering powerful torque, and greater control in the tightest spaces more innovation. more great values.

craftsman. trust. in your hands. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] at&t covers 97% of all americans. rethink possible.

another keeping them honest report now, this time the subject is the white house, and

the question is did they intentionally manipulate or edit a report to make it appear like the moratorium on deep water drilling this summer had widespread scientific support. we know it was altered, edited, what's not clear is who did it in the administration and their motivation, whether it was ab innocent mistake or trying to sway public opinion. we'll talk to james carville and louisiana congressman about the results in a moment. but first i want to explain what the allegations center on. this is the report issued today. at issue is another report from may 27th that was put together at president obama's request. it's a report on oil and gas drilling safety, and it was done in the wake of the bp oil spill. now, after the deepwater horizon rig exploded in the gulf of mexico in april killing 11 men, they investigated and wanted to try to find out how to prevent this from happening again. 15 experts are tapped by the interior department to review

the safety recommendations in the report. and they did review the safety recommendations. then in the middle of the night, just hours before this report was released, the staff white house energy visor carol browner made misleading tweaks to the executive summary, first, the secretary recommends a six-month moratorium on permits for wells being drilled, then the secretary further recommends an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells. then right after that sentence was inserted another sentence and the sentence said, quote, the recommendations contained in this report have been peer reviewed by seven experts identified by the national academy of engineering. those experts who volunteer their time and expertise are identified in appendix one. by moving that line up to right underneath those paragraphs about the moratorium, someone reading the report would have thought the experts agreed with the six-month drilling moratorium, that they'd signed

off on it but they hadn't. today the inspector general said the white house edit of the original draft, executive summary, led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed by the experts. it hadn't been peer reviewed. days after the report, eight of the 15 experts publicly blasted the department of interior for using their names and faxed a letter to the delegation of louisiana, reached out to the department of interior. june 3rd the interior department apologized in writing to the experts saying in part, we did not mean to imply that you also agreed with the decision to impose a moratorium on all new deep water drilling. we acknowledge you were not asked to review or comment on the proposed moratorium. ken salazar apologized, telling them it was an editing mistake. the inspector general's report, the experts said they accepted mr. salazar's explanation. we reached out to the white house and they tell us, quote, following the review that included interviews, the peer review experts, the inspector

general found no intentional misrepresentation of their views. to the extent there was any misunderstanding, the interior acted quickly to correct it. the decision to implement a six-month moratorium on deep water drilling in the gulf of mexico was correctly based on the need for adequate spill response, well containment and safety measures and we stand behind that decision. but we really still don't know if president obama was led to believe these experts approved the drilling moratorium. we have no way of knowing what the motivation was for making that edit. was it just an innocent mistake? that's entirely possible. it's also possible that whoever made the edit wanted people to believe that scientists backed the moratorium. this isn't the first time the white house has been accused of over selling the position on the spill, changing the facts for their benefit. in august, carol browner was discussing a government report on the spill and claimed the majority of the oil was gone. >> we launched the largest response in the history of our country. we had nearly 7,000 vessels, more than 40,000 people working

to clean this up, to capture it, to skim it, to burn it and that's why the vast majority of the oil is gone. in terms of what's left, it will continue to weather in the ocean, if it comes ashore, obviously it can be cleaned up, the tar balls, the sheens, but certainly we're seeing far less oil than we were seeing and that is a testament to the response that the government launched. >> she's saying a vast majority of the oil is gone but that's not what the report said back then. it said it still could be in the gulf. and 12 days after that report came out, a group of independent sky tests said as much as 79% of the oil may remain in the gulf of mexico. 79%. so is the white house answering all the questions they need to about this edited report? i talked about it earlier with democratic strategist james carville and congressman steve scalise. congressman, you were among the people who initially asked for this investigation. the obama administration is saying this is an example of sloppy editing in the middle of the night that neither the white house or anyone at the interior department meant to actually

mislead the american people about the moratorium and the scientist support for it. do you buy that? >> well, no, and in fact the inspector general's report confirms that the decision to impose this drilling moratorium was based on manipulated data by the administration. so if they're going to say it was either incompetence or manipulation, neither of those are acceptable answers for a decision that has cost over 12,000 people to lose their jobs in this industry. >> where do you see that it says manipulation? >> ultimately they did change the report, the inspector general's report doesn't even get into the details of whether or not secretary salazar manipulated it himself when he presented the report to the president because they didn't include that report that was given to the president. so either they manipulated it or it was just incompetence, but either of those are unacceptable. >> james, do you think it was just a mistake or do you think there's more to it? >> i don't know. and i read the article in politico and i'm a little bit confused, but i take these things seriously. the ig report in 2007 about the

corruption in the minerals management service and they didn't pay any attention to it and i think that's a big result of what happened in the gulf of mexico. so i'm not one that should -- thinks we should take these things lightly. whether it was manipulated, probably is a strong word to use right now. but there certainly is some sort of conflict as to what they had. maybe it was hastily done, i don't know. but i didn't ever like the moratorium from the get go and i'm a believer in sound science and it should be used very, very carefully. >> you're using that word manipulation, i want to ask you about that. because basically what happened it seems, the sentence which said that, you know, the scientists had approved of all the things in this report, it was moved to be right after the sentence that talked about there should be a moratorium and it seemed to anybody who was reading it, it was implying that these scientists had agreed that there should be a moratorium when in fact it was basically

just saying that scientists agreed with other facts in the thing, nothing about the moratorium. are you saying that you believe it was intentionally put there? is that what you think is the manipulation? >> that's at the heart of the question. because when the 30-day report came out by the president's scientific experts, the report's final conclusion led people to believe it was the scientists themselves who recommended the moratorium and it was the scientists who came out later that day and said, wait a minute, we don't recommend the moratorium. we think it reduces safety in the gulf, and don't attribute the moratorium to us because we disagree with it. it wasn't then until the administration backed off. but if the scientists wouldn't have come out and said this wasn't their conclusion in the first place, would the administration have come clean and in fact that's one of the big questions we have. >> a number of scientists interviewed in the wake of all this have said they don't believe that was intentional, that salazar apologized to them, made a public statement, salazar has met with a number of them individually, and that they are convinced that it was not

intentional. >> well, and i appreciate that they're going to take the administration at their word, but it's not our job to take the administration at their word when there are real documents out there they haven't released yet. there was a memorandum that went from secretary salazar to the president when he was trying to get the president to conclude that there should be a moratorium. now, did that recommendation from the secretary include or attribute this request for a moratorium to the scientists? or was it just something they made based on a political calculation? we don't know that yet. >> and, james, we may never know that because of executive privilege. >> we may not, you know, i think they'll invoke the cheney doctrine here. but again, i think questions are fair to ask here. it was a decision that had severe impact on the people in my state. i think congress is right to ask questions. whether or not this needs to rise to the level of some humongous investigation or not

is an open question at this juncture and you've got to be very cautious about that. but it's certainly very fair to ask questions of this. this is a very big policy decision and the basis it was made is legitimate. >> congressman, do you want to see hearings on this? >> i want to see the administration come clean. the administration themselves have acknowledged over 12,000 people have lost their jobs due to this moratorium. if the moratorium's decision was based either on a competence or manipulation, that's not acceptable to those families that now don't have the opportunities they once had. they don't want a bp check or unemployment check, they want a paycheck, and clearly the data was manipulated that led to that decision. >> appreciate it. >> thanks, anderson. still ahead, elizabeth smart on the stand for a third day. testifying, this is the final day of her testimony, in what she calls her nine months in hell and her captor who she says is an unholy hypocrite.

we have some of the testimony today, and reaction from john walsh who spoke to elizabeth today. also ahead tonight, did the pentagon finally solve the mystery in the sky over california? you've all seen the images by hear how they're explaining the images two days after they were first seen. has come down to this... the next generation of macbooks.

was complicated, with a series of stepped altitude changes.

[ air traffic controller ] okay, 245, proceed to your next cleared altitude. [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] today, truecourse flight management systems from ge allow for fuel savings, lower emissions and less noise... ♪ ...making the old way of doing things... [ air traffic controller ] 245, you are cleared to land. [ male announcer ] ...seem less than graceful. ♪

when you consider when elizabeth smart has gone through, what she calls her nine months in hell, it's remarkable how composed she's been on the witness stand in the salt lake city courtroom.

today was her third and final day of gruelling testimony in the trial of the man accused of kidnapping her more than eight years ago. she's now 23, living in paris where she's a mormon missionary. she came home to testify. she described her captor has an unholy hypocrite who used religion to justify her kidnapping and assault. john walsh helped crack the case and joins us in a moment. but first randi kaye brings us back to the night smart was kidnapped and the details of a young girl's life that was ripped apart. here's tonight's crime and punishment report. >> reporter: as elizabeth smart and her family slept, a determined kidnapper entered their home through a kitchen window by cutting the screen. within minutes police say he was upstairs in the bedroom, elizabeth, then 14, shared with her younger sister. it was june 5th, 2002, around 2:00 a.m. in court this week, elizabeth, now 23, testified against the man who she says snatched her. she said he told her, i have a knife to your neck. don't make a sound.

get out of bed or i will kill you and your family. on that awful night, elizabeth's little sister, mary catherine, was just 9 at the time. she lay petrified in her bed, pretending to be asleep. at 4:00 a.m., mary catherine woke her parents and told them what happened. her father, ed smart, called 911, triggering a massive search. >> elizabeth, if you're out there, we're doing everything we possibly can to help you. we love you. we want you to come home safely to us. >> reporter: turns out elizabeth's kidnapper had forced her to hike up a long, rugged trail behind their home where he set up camp with his wife, wanda barzee. elizabeth testified she asked the man if he was going to, quote, rape and kill her. if so, she asked him to do it, quote, closer to the trail head so someone could find my remains. hundreds of flyers went up, police offered a $250,000 reward. elizabeth testified her

kidnapper quickly made her his second wife. her testimony, hard to hear. elizabeth said she pleaded with her kidnapper. she told the court, i told him that i was just a little girl and that i hadn't even started my period yet. he yelled out to his wife and asked if that was still okay and she said it was and then he continued. she testified her abductor raped her while her ankle was tied to a pole so she couldn't escape. she was raped she said at least once a day. the big break in the case came three months after elizabeth disappeared in october of 2002. out of nowhere her younger sister told her father she thought she knew who the kidnapper was. his name, she said, was emanuel. he was a homeless man the family hired to do work on their house about a year before the kidnapping. the police were skeptical of the little girl's sudden memory. frustrated, the smarts contacted john walsh from "america's most wanted."

in february 2003, the program showed composite sketches of the man who called himself emanuel. guess who was watching? the sister of the man who called himself emanuel. she gave pictures to "america's most wanted" his real name she said was brian david mitchell. what nobody knew was that elizabeth had recognized her kidnapper within hours of being taken. she knew him as emanuel, too. the same man her sister had remembered. in march 2003, the trio surfaced in sandy, utah, about 25 miles south of salt lake city. not far from elizabeth's home. police received two 911 calls from witnesses claiming they'd spotted mitchell. >> he's walking towards town so he's walking north. and he's with two ladies. >> reporter: an officer on the scene questioned the girl with mitchell. she insisted she was not elizabeth smart. but when investigators showed her a missing person poster with her face on it, she teared up

and confirmed her identity. it was march 12th, 2003. nine months had passed since she was kidnapped. nine months of terror. >> when they opened the door and she was there, i just -- i couldn't believe it. i just couldn't believe it. and she was just sitting there and i just went up and grabbed her and just was so happy. >> reporter: brian david mitchell and wanda barzee face charges including aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary and aggravated sexual assault. mitchell pleaded not guilty. last year mitchell's wife wanda barzee was sentenced to 15 years in prison for her role. now a jury must decide if brian david mitchell, a drifter the smarts tried to help, should also go to jail for snatching their daughter more than nine years ago. randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> unbelievable what she went

through. john walsh was instrumental in helping the smart family crack the case, ultimately tracked down elizabeth. i talked to him this afternoon. you've talked to her. how is she doing? >> she's doing great. i have such admiration for this young woman. i was there the day after she was recovered. it was probably the highlight of 23 years of doing "america's most wanted." her father and mother never gave up. they believed she was alive, even when police tried to convince them that richard reesy, the handy man that died prison had probably murdered her and she was in the desert somewhere. i talked to her today and i said, elizabeth, i've known you since the day after you were were recovered. i love and work with your parents. you walk the halls of congress to get the adam walsh act passed with me and my wife, but i have such huge admiration. you -- this girl has

unbelievable courage to recant all these horrible events. i said, elizabeth, you are a role model for female victims all over the world. >> it's been important for her to testify. >> she wanted her day in court. she says this criminal justice system has revictimized me. it's the criminal injustice system. this man is feigning his insanity. he's manipulating the courtroom. he planned how to kidnap me, he planned how he would keep me at large for eight months. he got caught by police and talked his way out of it. he's not insane, he's a narcissistic pedophile. he needs to be in jail forever. she wanted that justice and her day in court. i am praying this girl gets it. this man did nothing but exploit -- he exploited his stepdaughter before elizabeth. he's done nothing but hurt young women his whole life. he needs to be in prison for the rest of his life. and elizabeth is a role model of someone that has been brutalized, kidnapped as a teenage girl, as a young little girl, and she stands on that witness stand with poise, with

dignity, answers those questions. she's in that courtroom. she's not a victim, she's a survivor. she's a role model and i have so much admiration for her family and for her. >> i remember talking to her father over the years and saying that they wanted to give her time to just, you know, let her -- when she returned, to just let her tell her story in her own time to them, if she wanted to and not pressuring her. clearly to hear it all coming out on the stand is, i mean, it's got to be -- >> she's doing it her way on her time. i think the media's brutal to victims. the best thing the smarts did, the night that i was asked to come to their house, the day after she was recovered, because we had so much to do with getting her back alive and i said, the smarts said, we're going to make sure she gets therapy, we're putting her in the loving arms and safety net of this family and we're going to resist everybody in the media. i think the public perceives this -- it's not about the get. it's not about anderson cooper gets somebody on air.

it's not about getting the victim, taking a picture of them. let them try to heal. they'll tell their story. i think the smartest thing the smarts did was to keep elizabeth away from the media. she's telling her story on her own terms and she's telling it like the strong, smart young woman she is. she says i'm asking for justice. and it's incredible what this family has done with her and what she's been able to achieve over the years. but i say to all those people in the media, i'm prime time, you're a media guy, it's not about the get. it's not about getting the inside. it's about treating victims with dignity. >> john walsh, thank you so much. >> thank you for covering these cases. you give victims hope. coming up next, new details about the cargo bomb found in england a couple weeks ago, bound for the u.s. it could have been much worse tan investigators originally thought. what scotland yard has to say. and the demolition of a smoke stack goes very badly wrong. "you just beat the widow-maker." i was put on an aspirin, and it's part of my regimen now.

[ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go see your doctor now. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ another day ♪ another dollar ♪ daylight comes [ dogs barking ] ♪ i'm on my way ♪ another day ♪ another dollar ♪ working my whole life away ♪ another day ♪ another dollar old legs. p.a.d., the doctor said. p-a-d... p.a.d. isn't just poor circulation in your legs causing you pain. it more than doubles your risk of a heart attack or stroke. i was going to tell you. if you have p.a.d., plavix can help protect you from a heart attack or stroke. plavix helps keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming clots, the cause of most heart attacks and strokes.

call the doctor about plavix -- please? i will. [ male announcer ] certain genetic factors and some medicines such as prilosec reduce the effect of plavix leaving you at greater risk for heart attack and stroke. your doctor may use genetic tests to determine treatment. don't stop taking plavix without talking to your doctor as your risk of heart attack or stroke may increase. people with stomach ulcers or conditions that cause bleeding should not use plavix. taking plavix alone or with some other medicines including aspirin may increase bleeding risk, so tell your doctor when planning surgery. tell your doctor all medicines you take including aspirin especially if you've had a stroke. if fever, unexplained weakness or confusion develops, tell your doctor promptly. these may be signs of ttp, a rare but potentially life-threatening condition, reported sometimes less than two weeks after starting plavix. other rare but serious side effects may occur. [ female announcer ] talk to your doctor about plavix.

following a number of other stories, joe johns joins us. joe? >> it's already thursday, november 11th, and south korea and president obama marked veteran's day by visiting u.s. troops, paying tribute to soldiers who fought on the korean peninsula 60 years ago and those who are serving today. scotland yard believes the cargo bomb discovered at a british airport two weeks ago could have exploded over the eastern seaboard of the u.s. had it not been found. forensic examination of the device indicates it was set to detonate six hours after it was discovered. that crippled cruise liner is expected to be towed into san diego sometime tomorrow afternoon.

a fire in the engine room monday caused the ship to lose power, stranding more than 4,000 passengers and the crew off the coast of mexico. the navy has air dropped supplies on the ship. big news for general motors, it earned nearly $2 billion in the third quarter of this year, the best quarterly earnings in more than a decade. gm is on track to make a profit this year for the first time since 2004. and more on that mysterious plume in the southern california sky monday night. today the pentagon said there's no question it's anything other than the condensation trail from an airplane, and there's no evidence to suggest it was anything else. so end of story, i hope, on that one. >> i hope so. joe, time for tonight's shot. i don't know if you've seen this video, from springfield, ohio. it's a smoke stack demolition gone way, way wrong. take a look. >> oh, no. i never saw this shot of it.

oh, no. >> local newspaper reported the screams came from two dozen onlookers when they realized it was falling the wrong way. no one, thankfully, was hurt. 4,000 people lost power for a couple of hours. nine traffic lights were knocked down. and -- yeah. >> you want to laugh at that, but it's -- that's dangerous. >> yeah. to say the least. >> thousands of people without power. my hat's off to them. that's a tough job. >> joe, thanks very much tonight. we'll be right back. [ woman ] you know, as a mom,

i worry about my son playing football. which is why i'm really excited. because toyota developed this software that can simulate head injuries and helps make people safer. then they shared this technology with researchers at wake forest to help reduce head injuries on the football field. so, you know, i can feel a bit better about my son playing football. [ male announcer ] how would you use toyota technology to make a better world? learn how to share your ideas at toyota.com/ideasforgood.