well. and i know your dying to know what karl lagerfeld thinks about russia. if i was a woman in russia, i would be a lesbian as the men are very ugly. and finally, on political correctness, and i quote, be politically correct, but do we have to know your opinion? karl lagerfeld, i couldn't have said it better myself. that's it for us. thanks for watching. erin burnett "out front" next. money is flowing into political campaigns at an alarming rate, and it is going to get worse. that's the bottom line tonight. more bloody violence in syria. victims, children. and the man leading the charge against mississippi's controversy pardons talks to us, comes "outfront." let's go. good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, big, big,

and bigger money in politics. upwards of $11 million will be spent on this year's election, according to the federal election commission. that would make it the most expensive election season in american history. but here's the dirty truth about american history. money always seeps into politics, and it has been going and going and going for a long time. take president mckinley's campaign at the turn of the century. even know that guy? railroad and steel barron's gave him the then insanely kingly sums of $6 million for his 18 - 1896-1900 presidential win. that would be a lot of money even now. president nixon was given $2.5 million by one guy, an insurance executive when he ran for president in '68 and '72. just two examples of what happens every time. over the years laws on campaign financing has tightened. but yet this is the strange thing. make it harder and you say you can't give money here and then it goes there, and more money gets spent every single time.

even with the mccain bill that was passed in 2002 which required limits in two candidate, guess what, a lot of cash has found its way into campaign war chests and numbers have gone up. and it happens on both sides of the aisle. in 2002 george soros gave an enormous $23.7 million for liberal causes. some ended up helping fill john kerry's presidential campaign. on the other side, remember this? the swiss boat ads. bob perry spent over $4.5 million to attack john kerry. six years later we have super pacs. they accept unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals to support their favorite candidate. an overwhelming majority of their money as we now are painfully aware has been spent on negative ads, and all the candidates claim to hate them. >> millions of americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn't be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret

special interest advertising. >> campaign financed law has made a mockery of our -- of our political campaign season. we really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super pacs. >> well, the man at the center of it all is jim bopp. he's the one who first brought the now famous supreme court citizens united case which along with other court decisions laid the groundwork for super pacs. he's now romney's supporter, and he's out front tonight. he doesn't like you because he doesn't like super pacs, but let me ask you, sir, the big question. is this just something that you have to kind of innately accept as an american citizen, which is that every election season, more money is going to be spent on campaigns? >> i think so. the government has grown tremendously over the last few years such that they're spending $3.5 trillion. of course this election is for the president and congress, and those people are going to decide

how to spend $3.5 trillion. so i don't think spending a few billion dollars on an election is really out of bounds in terms of the result. who gets control of that federal government? >> so you don't think that getting an unlimited amount of money to a campaign, whether you are an individual, a union, or a corporation is a bad thing. >> do i think giving an unlimited amount is a bad thing? >> yes. that's the question. >> well, sometimes i do, and sometimes i don't. right now the problem is not giving an unlimited amount to a candidate, but the fact that candidates are severely limited in what they can accept. i mean i agree with governor romney. why not give money to the candidate and the candidate spend the money? the candidate is the one that is accountable to the american people.

rather than give it to super pacs or other entities like that. that would be preferable. that as long as we have a first amendment, which i support, groups are going to be able to come together and spend money on an unlimited fashion, to advocate the election or defeat of their candidate, and there's really nothing that can be done about that. >> what i'm trying to understand, though, is that -- you say, okay, they're going have responsibility over $3.5 trillion in budget, true. but the problem is, and this is the way i guess it's always worked in american history but a lot of people have a real problem with it, why should wealthy people and big companies be able to give those campaign dollars when we all know that they're doing it because they want rules that favor them in exchange? >> well, actually the vast majority of people support candidates that already agree with them on the issues. it's a really stupid strategy to try to buy a candidate. because if a candidate is up for

sale, he will go to the highest bidder, and there's no way you can make sure that you're the one that actually gets the vote in the end. so people support people that already agree with them and then hope that they get into office through their support. look. rich people have money. they're going to be able to spend their money. there's nothing that's under the first amendment that will ever allow government to stop that from happening. so then the question is how about the rest of us? are we going to be able to pool our resources in a group to spend money to participate in the election also? and that's what super pacs are for or advocacy groups or 527s. all these different political parties even. >> the problem is -- >> all these different entities. >> the problem is according to the study done on the super pacs so far, the money raised on super pacs, 93% of them came in

as donations of $10,000 or more. 38% of them were over a million given by 15 people. $10 million is a lot of money. this isn't all of us pooling our resources. this is really rich people pooling their resources. >> it is true in the case so far in the case of super pacs. it is major gifts fund-raising that is driving those contributions, but the problem has been is that the reformers want to attack groups. they want to limit super pacs, they want to limit political parties, they want to limit advocacy groups, they want to limit unions, and of course the groups are what people of average means must join in order to pool their resources to be effective. look, it's great to be rich. you can't stop rich people from spending money. but what you can do is have a system that, number one, people with average means can contribute and be effective, and that requires groups.

>> why is it they could give $250 to a campaign? a regular person isn't going to give more than the limit anyway under mccain-feingold. >> well, some will and some won't. i mean it depends on both their resources and their commitment. and if this money could go to the candidate, well, then we can decide whether we want to vote for candidate "x" or candidate "y." because of who their contributors are. when people are giving their money to a super pac, you can't vote against the super pac. the problem with the system is distorted. candidates aren't able to raise the money so that they can compete, and people are giving money to these unaccountable groups and there's nothing you can do about it. so why don't we let the candidates raise the money. >> all right. jim bopp, thank you very much. we appreciate it. let's bring in john avlon and ken vogel who is the influence reporter for politico.

there's one thing he said they think most reasonable people would agree with. maybe i'm wrong. if you're going to give money to a candidate and you like their cause, you should be able to give it to the candidate, not the roundabout groups. the reason they give it to the roundabout groups is because there are limits to giving to the candidate, and money finds a way to go look for influence. >> and he seemed to be sort of complaining about the system in part he's helped create. look. the image of the super pac sort of functioning as george bailey's building & loan where it's a bunch of middle class folks binding together to leverage their influence doesn't bear out with the reality of how the system is working routh now. we've got 200 individuals who have paid half the money given to super pacs today. we know the last cycle there was around $5 billion. fcc is estimating $11 billion. it's more money. it's going to fuel a lot of negative ads. >> ken, what's amazing to me is that when you look at this, all this is every time we try to do campaign finance reform, the money finds another way.

527s is what it was called when george soros was giving back in 2004. now here we are and it's called super pacs. same thing, different name. >> yeah, that's right, erin. first of all, interesting comparison to 2004. you cited george soros's 20 billion contribution and the peter lewis, the insurance magnate behind progressive insurance. those two guys are being relied on by democrats who come off the sidelines and give a lot to the super pacs. supporting president obama, democratic senate, and house candidates, and they're not. part of the reason is they were so disappointed by their investment in 2004, not bearing fruit. the donors gave over $200 million from the left to the outside groups, and john kerry still lost. so that's both evidence that maybe money does not always buy an election because that was a lot more spending, but it also shows kind of the conundrums democrats face as they try to re-engage in the game, and

they're not having a lot of luck doing so. >> money may not always buy you what you want and jim had an interesting point there. but, you know, when you look at rich people, rich ceos, okay, look at a bank ceo, they tend to split their money between democrats and republicans because they don't want to p.o. anybody off. so they can get what they want. thoi don't want to go all in on one, if you didn't give, they could hit you. >> right. and that indicates how much covering your bases like that becomes a form of collusion. >> exactly. >> our elections are not supposed to work this way. >> no, they are not. >> it's supposed to be one man, one vote. corporations are not supposed to be able to vote. even though they're being given muscle to act that way. some are voting with wallets. some individuals are much more influential in elections than other individuals. and that creates a problem with democracy down the road. >> very quick final word to you, ken. why are we not seeing corporations giving to the super pacs since they're now people? >> i see a lot of llcs linked to rich individuals. i'm not seeing time warner. >> that's right. it kind of goes back to bank

ceos. splitting their contribution. those are people who are invested in the system. that's smart money. they're trying to get access. allowing the money to come to super pacs is more ideological money. these are people that while they may think republicans or democrats might be better for them for the long term if they're elected into office, they're not trying to buy favor, per se. they're investing, and i have to agree with what jim bopp said, because they're already agreeing with these folks. it's not like they're trying to win something from them. >> thanks very much. as always, everyone let us know what you think. money, it will always find a leak, a hole, a way where it wants to find to get. syria under siege. in the past year, 6,000 have died. in the graphic testimony in the case of the uva lacrosse play >> and a man who compares killing people to crack cocaine. but his nose was raw and sore. achoo! [ male announcer ] and common tissue made it burn even more. ♪

puffs plus lotion is more soothing than common tissue, and it delivers our most soothing lotion for every nose issue. a nose in need deserves puffs plus lotion indeed. to give your cold a comforting scent, try puffs plus lotion with the scent of vicks. but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today.

trouble with a car insurance claim. [ dennis ] switch to allstate. their claim service is so good, now it's guaranteed. [ foreman ] so i can trust 'em. unlike randy. dollar for dollar, nobody protects you like allstate. align can help. only align has bifantis, a pantented probiotic that naturally helps maintain your digestive balance. ♪ ooh baby, (what) can i do for you today? ♪ try align today.

@ ♪ will be giving away cpassafree copiestoday? ♪ of the alcoholism & addiction cure.

to get yours, go to ssagesmalibubook.com. "outfront" tonight, slaughter in syria. today alone at least 137 have died, including 11 children, with 110 of those killed in homs, the city under siege. this, of course, comes from reports from human rights groups in the region. homs is surrounded by tanks and troops. the uprising began last march now being met with force in homs. but now in less than a year, more than 6,000 lives have been lost, according to those human rights groups. it's a stunning number. president bashir assad has the right to stop it. syria has a ground force of 320,000 people, 5,000 tanks, and fighter jets as we reported last night, at least 555 russian migs. aft the 4,000-plus surface-to-air missiles, syria

is the largest in the region and would have the ability to fight back. what happens if assad is forced out? power vacuum, instability, sichbl war, coming outfront, david ignatius. great to see you. >> great to be here, erin. thank you. >> there is obviously a lot of fear about the void that might be created if president bashir assad is forced out. what would happen in that scenario? >> well, if he was eased out with a transition that specified that there was some interim government, one thing that's been proposed is that the vice president of this syrian government would act as an interim, would appoint a transitional committee and have elections and a peaceful tranlsfer. if he's forced out with nothing, with no clear process of transition, you're going have a free-for-all. syria is one of the most divided and volatile countries i know in

the middle east, and people shouldn't underestimate the degree of bloodshed you could see there. >> what about a disorderly transition, a replacement? obviously what we've seen even in places like egypt, getting a replacement has been difficult, replacements that the rest of the world finds palatable, perhaps impossible. violence rises. unemployment rises. it's worse than it was before, it seems. >> well, the arab world is having a difficult time managing this revolution. we're seeing the toppling of an old order that was characterized by an order of government in egypt, syria, libya, across the region. it's not surprising that after a year what you see mostly is chaos. i don't think that's a reason to give up on the process. what's scary about syria, erin, is that there are so many people dying every day. if you look at the -- at the videos that are being shot by people on the ground -- >> horrific.

>> -- it is horrific. and so i think there's a fear that as this escalates and bashir assad and his regime try to hold onto power, the number getting killed could grow, the reprisal killings by resistance fighters against assad's minority sect could grow. you could have a real ethnic slaughter back and forth. people have been afraid of this for as long as i've been covering the middle east. that's 30 years. people have been worried about this kind of wholesale civil war in syria. now we seem to be slipping toward it and it scares people. >> and it's important that you're using that word slaughter. ial feel like sometimes in these situations, we tend to engage in hyperbole, the need yeah sometimes not always knowing and you covering it for 30 years, it's significant for everybody watching.

>> i want to get your reaction on what john mccain said. here he is. >> i thinking we should have a contact group, a joint coalition and also we should consider all options including arming the opposition. the blood letting has got to stop. >> if the united states got involved -- we were just going through the syrian military. it's a serious military, a well armed military. would we have to accept that we would have to have troops on the ground and american lives at stake? >> this risks being a big war. this is not the ragtag libyan army of moammar gadhafi. the syrian army is big, as you say, over 300,000. in addition, they have chemical weapons, it has big-time missiles. this is an army that's prepared to fight israel, so it could certainly fight a nato-type coalition. i understand john mccain saying the bloodshed has got to stop, and this issue of arming the opposition is out there and

senator mccain is expressing a view that you hear more and more. >> yep. >> my own feeling, for what it's worth, is this is a situation which calls for arming the opposition, for taking the next step down this slope, this very dangerous slope, need to come from the region. that the saudi government, king abdullah in saudi arabia says it is essential that we support the syrian opposition and begin arming them. that's powerful. if turkey, syria's northern neighbor, says this situation on our border is intolerable, turkey cannot live with it and we're going to take steps, those are the people that are going to act first. then the united states naturally and properly follows along. i don't think there's anything to be embarrassed about when you say following along. this is a time when the region has to make decisions and take the lead. >> david ignatius, thank you very mitch. still to come, the attorney general jim hood. he's out front. and boats and "boudicca."

[ male announcer ] we know you don't wait until the end of the quarter to think about your money... ♪ that right now, you want to know where you are, and where you'd like to be. we know you'd like to see the same information your advisor does so you can get a deeper understanding of what's going on with your portfolio. we know all this because we asked you, and what we heard helped us create pnc wealth insight, a smarter way to work with your pnc advisor, so you can make better decisions and live achievement.

a smarter way to work with your pnc advisor, for fastidious librarian emily skinner, each day was fueled by thorough preparation for events to come. well somewhere along the way, emily went right on living. but you see, with the help of her raymond james financial advisor, she had planned for every eventuality. ...which meant she continued to have the means to live on... ...even at the ripe old age of 187. life well planned. see what a raymond james advisor can do for you.

and then treats day after day... well that's like checking on your burgers after they're burnt! [ male announcer ] treat your frequent heartburn by blocking the acid with prilosec otc. and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

the pentagon announced today it's easing restrictions on women serving in combat, which will open 14,000 new jobs to women. the changes list a ban on women serving as medics, tank mechanics and radar operators in combat areas. they will still not be able to fight in battle. now, congress can review the decision and critics still question whether women have the

necessary strength and whether this could hurt unit cohesion. they clearly have never heard of "boudicca." she brings us to tonight's number. $4.7 million. that's the number britain is spending to make its submarines female friendly. they say, hey, female navy is going to be allowed to serve. they they had to add bunks and toilets for them. another cause, submariners will have to take pregnancy tests for fierce fumes could damage an unborn child. that's something "boudicca" would definitely not have tolerated. the u.s. navy also cleared the way for women on submarines but we're told our subs were big enough, no modifications is needed. in case you think this is new, here's one more number we came across today. 135, that's how many women served in civil war dressed as men. even in today's new rules that's the only way for women to actually fight on the front lines. still "outfront," the

"outfront 5." murder or accident. >> the pattern of that blood indicates it was positional asphyxiation. >> the ultimate drug. part of war is extremely exciting. you can't find anything higher than that like crack cocaine. all this "outfront" in our second half. @ ask me.

[ male announcer ] even if you think you can live with your old mattress... ask me how i've never slept better. [ male announcer ] ...why not talk to one of the 6 million people who've switched to the most highly recommended bed in america? it's not a sealy, a simmons, or a serta. ask me about my tempur-pedic. ask me how i can finally sleep all night. ask me how great my back feels every morning. [ male announcer ] did you know there's a tempur-pedic for everybody? tempur-pedic beds now come in soft, firm, and everything in between. ask me how i don't wake up anymore when he comes to bed. [ male announcer ] these are real tempur-pedic owners. ask someone you know.

check out twitter or your friends on facebook. you'll hear it all, unedited. ask me how i wish i'd done this sooner. ask me how it's the best investment i've ever made. [ male announcer ] tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. ♪ to learn more or find an authorized retailer near you, visit tempurpedic.com. tempur-pedic. the most highly recommended bed in america.

we start the second half of our show with stories we care about. we focus on our own reportings. do the work and find the

"outfront 5." first tonight, the man behind citizens united. the controversial supreme court case that along with other court rulings that laid the groundwork for super pacs. jim bopp, an adviser, may say he's the grandfather of the super pac. he came "outfront" tonight. he told me he believes individuals should be able to give to campaigns directly. >> right now the problem is not giving an unlimited amount to a candidate but the fact that candidates are severely limited in what they can accept. i mean i agree with governor romney. why not give money to the candidate, and the candidate spend the money? >> jim bopp is a romney supporter. number two, a los angeles area school at the center of two child abuse cases reopened today with an entirely new staff. the school officials told "outfront" that just 68% of the students at miramonte elementary returned after a two-day break that followed the arrest of two teachers.

we're told the attendance rate is typically 98%. mark burnedt is charged with taking pictures of students blindfolded and gags, and martin springer is accused of molesting a 5-year-old. number 5. banks reached a deal to compensate people who lost their homes because of improper foreclosure practices. $26 billion will be used to cut the principle for borrows who owe more than their home is worth or are behind in their payments. they will also allow some homeowners to refinance. russell goldman is the chairman and ceo of national bank members or the strike team and he said the settlement should accelerate the recovery of america's housing market by keeping many homes out of foreclosure and not increasing the nation's excessive inventory. you can learn more by going to our facebook page. number four, initial jobless claims fell by 50,000 to 358,000

last week. the four-week average, near a four-year low. dan greenhouse said it's a positive sign telling "outfront" with broad credit creation expanding, particularly consumer credit, many indicators are lining up to suggest that the recent pace of employment growth is set to continue. it has been 188 days since the u.s. lost its top credit rating. what are we doing to get it back. jobs will help. a big part of the deficit will go away when tax revenues go up. in greece they finally agreed to austerity measures to require the country to get money from the eu and imf. greek parliament is expected to vote this weekend. in the mississippi supreme court, uproar over former governor haley barbour's last-minute pardons of convicted felons. attorney general jim hood says most of barbour's pardons should be overturned. based on an absecure provision in the state's constitution that requires this, that a felon's

pardon request be published in the newspaper 30 days before the felon is released. here's what hood told the paper today. >> we agree that the wisdom of granting pardon is not just an issue that they're bringing a discourse. it's whether or not those pardons met the constitutional requirements. >> all but ten of the 203 people pardoned were already out of prison. of those ten, five worked in the governor's mansion. four of them were convicted of murder. attorney general jim hood is "outfront." good to see you, governor. good to see you. i wanted to start to see so i could understand and our viewers understand where you stand on the fundamental issue before we get to the technicals. for that i just want to play briefly what governor haley barbour told john king about forgiveness. >> the power of pardon in the state is to give people a second chance who have repented, been rehabilitated and redeemed

themselves. i'm comfortable that every one who were mansion inmates were rehabilitated and have redeemed themselves, and they deserve a second chance. >> do you believe in that concept, that someone who commits a horrific crime may be rehabilitated and may deserve a second chance? >> you know, i'm not contesting the wisdom of granting to whomever. our issue is whether or not the constitution was followed. you know, in our two previous constitutions since mississippi became a state, the government had full authority to grant pardons. apparently they abused that authority. so the people took it back. they put in a reservation that required that no governor shall issue a pardon until it has been published in the local newspaper where the crime occurred for a period of 30 days. and apparently all but 22 of the 203 pardons that governor barbour granted did not properly publish.

in fact, 56 of them didn't publish anything. so we're saying in the constitution prohibits the governor from granting or attempting to grant a pardon when he has not made sure that the constitution has been complied with. >> it does feel like a technicality though. you're looking at the four murderers who had worked as trustees in the governor's mansion. they were put in the paper, to my understanding of 28 days instead of 30. that's enough to have it taken away? >> well, the constitution is not a technicality. i mean the people reserve the right to have that notice so that the media -- the fourth estate would have an opportunity to discuss it. people realized in 1890, you know, that it was necessary, it was a constitutional right for citizens to have notice and an opportunity to comment on it. you know, the very foundation of our country is due process. and so we are in a -- in a position now that it appears that the governor has not complied with that constitution provision, so we believe that the pardons have been valid.

>> i hear you though. you have a constitution to respect. it makes sense. but it does feel on some level that -- it's not personal between you and the governor, at least political. >> my job as attorney general is to enforce the constitution. and the victims are concerned as these issues as well as the people. the people deserve the right to have a 30 days' notice. my job is to bring it to the court's attention, and it's up to the court. i was in the mississippi supreme court for an hour and half, just me arguing. there are some concerns about it, but, you know, the constitution is not just some technicality. it is the constitution of the state of mississippi and it must be strictly construed and followed. >> in these cases of these four individuals did you spend time looking into the four murderers that served as trustees in the governor's mansion? did you take the time to look at

the individual cases and did what you found and what you felt play into your decision to look for a technicality? >> no. i mean there again, we don't look into the wisdom or what they did. that was -- that's strictly up to the governor. the only question for the state is whether or not the constitution was followed, whether the people's right to notice was violated, and whether or not it's an invasion of the judiciary's right to have its laws carried out. >> so when do you expect a ruling? >> hopefully in, you know -- hopefully -- it could come as early as tomorrow afternoon. friday afternoons are good times oftentimes for opinions to come down, but, you know, it could very well be sometime next week. >> and what would the ideal outcome be, that they go back and serve the rest of their sentence? >> well, what would happen, that's correct. there are five that are presently being held pursuant to a lower court's temporary

restraining order, and then there are five that have been released. if the court finds that those ten are void, then certainly we would have to go track them down and -- to reincarcerate them. more than likely i think the court will decide whether it's something reviewable. it's a rather tawdry affair. it's not something that mississippi is going to be proud of. had governor barbour followed the law, we wouldn't be in this position. it probably would be remanded to the lower court, and the lower court would decide some of the factual issues that are raised. >> all right. thank you very much. appreciate you taking the time, sir. let us know what you think about that. 30 days versus 28 days, a technicality or something else, and what you think about rehabilitation. go ahead on twitter @erinburnett. >> let's check in with anderson. >> a former marine is tonight's i.d.e.a. guest. have you heard of matterhorn?

you have a, you want to watch this. and cutting off and collecting enemy ears.

are you still sleeping? just wanted to check and make sure that we were on schedule. the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers. ♪ home was an airport lounge and an ipad ♪ ♪ made sure his credit score did not go bad ♪ ♪ with a free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ app that he had ♪ downloaded it in the himalayas ♪ ♪ while meditating like a true playa ♪

♪ now when he's surfing down in chile'a ♪ ♪ he can see when his score is in danger ♪ ♪ if you're a mobile type on the go ♪ ♪ i suggest you take a tip from my bro ♪ ♪ and download the app that lets you know ♪ ♪ at free-credit-score-dot-com now let's go. ♪ vo: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com™. metamucil uses super hard working psyllium fiber, which gels to remove unsexy waste and reduce cholesterol. taking psyllium fiber won't make you a model but you should feel a little more super. metamucil. down with cholesterol.

it was an emotional day in court in the first-degree murder trial of the university of virginia lacrosse player george hughley as prosecutors showed the jury photos of his battered and bruised ex-girlfriend yeardley love, a beautiful girl. there's a gag order in the case, so none of those photos were released today. her family openly wept as first responders recounted finding the 22 uva lacrosse star on may 3rd 2010 on the floor of her room. her right eye was swollen shut. the prosecutors say huguely was furious that his ex-girlfriend was, quote, hooking up with another lacrosse player from the university of north carolina who testified he saw hughley put love in a violent choke hold three months before she was killed. hughley denied killing love. mark is a criminal defense attorney who's defended hundreds of suspects and linda. linda, let me start with you. we heard for the first time from yeardley love's university of north carolina acquaintance is the word we're using, perhaps

someone she had been dating. why is this story so crucial? >> it's crucial because it shows that george -- i don't fondly call him that, but hughley had a motive. he wanted to kill her in the past. i mean he had his arms and his hands, and they must have been large and around her neck, and it was witnessed by people. he couldn't control himself. he expressed himself. it gives a motive and a past opportunity that was interrupted that he fulfilled when he finally killed her. >> mark, does it? >> well, motive is not something that's required for a jury to find somebody guilty. i think ultimately this case is going to come down to what does the pathologist say and what does the defense pathologist say. and you're going to have a question as to whether or not -- what was the cause of death and what were the injuries and what caused those injuries. you can have all of the motive and all of the violence in the past, and that makes for great

emotion, but ultimately at the end of the day, i think it's going to come down to the science. >> and let me ask you about that science. is it possible, mark, in your view that he could possibly make a case that a jury would listen to that he did not cause all the bruises, the swollen eye that we're hearing about, the horrific pictures that frankly i'm glad we're not able to show people? >> well, yes, it is possible. i mean there are -- depending on what the medical examiner testifies to, depending on whether it's credible, and i certainly don't know because i haven't examined the evidence, but there are instances where when people are in some kind of under the influence, they can fall, they can trip. i don't know if the injuries are consistent with that. but it sounds like that's where the defense is going, that this was alcohol-induced and that the injuries themselves were not something that he caused, and that's why i say it really comes down to the science of this case. they're trying -- the prosecution is trying to set the table, so to speak, for this idea that he must have done it

and that he had the inclination, but ultimately at the end of the day, if they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that these injuries were caused by another as opposed to some other cause, then they've got a problem. >> do they have to, though -- even if they could be successful, is there any burden -- as a layperson, any burden to say, well, who else did or provide some other scenario? >> look, look. we know from the prosecution's opening she had brain stem damage. her brain was injured. now how did that get injured? he admitted he threw her against the wall, banged her against the wall, she's got her carotid artery damaged. how does that get damaged? he choked her. he admitted to choking her. clearly that's what killed her. i think whole idea that she somehow got into bed afterward and she suffocated herself is so ridiculous that the jury is going to hold it against george huguely. >> can i ask you? we touched on this last night. it's something i'm curious about, and anybody with a kid in college is curious about.

can alcohol appropriately be used as a defense? it seemed like yesterday he may be trying to say, okay, did it, i was drunk and she was drunk and so therefore that's not first degree? >> well, yes. the quick answer to that is, yes, it can be. and a lot of these things that you're hearing, the things that sound like bad facts actually may be ultimately at the end of this case in closing argument be embraced by the defense to argue if they're going to admit some kind of guilt, that they're going to argue that it's a manslaughter, that it negates the mental state for a murder case. and if that is the case and i go back having kids in college as well, i understand what the genesis of that question, but it doesn't excuse it, but it does mitigate it. >> mitigating it, linda, to the point -- and this is what we were talking about last night -- first degree is life in prison, and if they're able to use alcohol as a defense, it could be ten years. >> well, clearly the case is it

intentional murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter. history matters to show that he wanted to kill her. mark's right. you don't have to prove motive, but, boy, if you really want to find somebody guilty of first-degree murder, you'd better have motive. >> let's say that someone is abused over a period of time, for the hypothetical, it appears to be something that happened here, and eventually the person kills her. how does that play in? if he wasn't planning to kill but had a history of incredible violence? >> well, oftentimes, and i have had this in the recent past in a trial that i have done, where the prosecution will put on an expert and they'll talk about just generically, at least, how domestic violence escalates and then there's a trigger point and experts will testify to that. and that fits in with the theme that the prosecution is trying to lay out here. the defense obviously is going to say, well, that's great in a

generic sense, but that doesn't fit this particular case. and basically if there was no intent, no matter what the facts say, you still have to take a look at what was going on in his brain. >> all right. well, thanks very much to both of you. well, former marine compares killing people to crack cocaine. he is the author of the best selling "matterhorn" with a great idea to help people deal with the horror of murder. for t. never taking a bailout. helping generations achieve dreams. buy homes. put their kids through college. retire how they want to. ameriprise. the strength of america's largest financial planning company. the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you, one-to-one. together, for your future. ♪

can you get me out of it? of course. travelocity? that's amazing! but i'm still stuck. come on man, dig it! [ female announcer ] travelocity. get great deals on all kinds of beach vacations. getwill be giving away kinds passafree copies of the alcoholism & addiction cure. to get yours, go to ssagesmalibubook.com.

america lost more than 60,000 men and women in the vietnam and iraq wars. of those who came home, 150,000 lost their lives after the wars ended by their own hands. active duty soldiers are committed suicide at the highest rate in american history. tonight's i.d.e.r. kes guest is carl milante. he served in vietnam. he was awarded two purple hearts and ten air medals. he's the author of "matterhorn." one of the most profound novels to come out of vietnam. he's come out to talk about his latest work, what it's like to go to war. it's been given to every member of congress, and his idea to help soldiers overcome what he

calls the crack cocaine of all excitement highs and the lows that come later. >> everybody knows that war is hell, and that's what we talk about, that's okay. but no one wants to cop to the fact that there's a part that is terribly exciting. look at the movies we look at. nothing but filled with violence. it appeals to us. and in some ways, it's like why are we the top animal on the planet? it's not because we're nice. there's a fierce part of us. and one of the things i wanted to do in the book was say let's recognize this. you can't get control of it unless you see it. and war, part of war is extremely exciting. i mean, it's life and death. it's on the edge. you can't find anything higher than that. but like crack cocaine, the costs are enormous, and i would never want to pay the costs. again, if i don't have to. but to deny, tell a kid that drugs aren't fun, he knows

you're lying. what goes on here is that you have decent people, and we have been trained and been brought up to not kill anybody. it's thou shalt not kill, it's a judeo christian culture. suddenly you take a 19 and say now, go ahead and kill. how does a kid handle that? there's a v.a. study in 2010 quoted in the army times. 18 veterans a day are committing suicide. now, that's a horrible number. i mean, there's 24 million veterans, to put in context, it's still a very high number. we're not doing something right. we're getting it wrong. and we're getting it wrong on a civilian side because the symptoms come out after they're d discharged, long after, ten years after. >> you have an idea that could go a long way. the one way you think we could make a difference inch the tragedies that happen when soldiers come home is mandatory

counseling. what difference do you think it would make? >> the first thing is in the current military, you don't want to tell somebody that you're not all there mentally. you want to hide it. why? because your promotion is at stake, your career is at stake. and you know, showing that you might get a bit unstable, that's not going to help. >> so opting for counseling could hurt you. >> it could hurt you, and the culture is such that there are people that say it's okay, but there are people who say, i'm not sure about this. i don't want a guy seeing a culture. we haven't gotten to a point where we accept that counseling is part of healing like seeing a doctor is. that, by making it mandatory, would take it away. and a lot of people would bitch and complain, but it's the people who need the help can go there and not have the stigma of i'm the weak one, i had to get counseling. and just a little bit of training so that when the battle is over, you can gather the

people together and maybe the navy corpsman said let's remember joe and let's remember that these people that we just killed were probably drafted. and let's try and say thanks that we're still alive. but just doing that. i think would start to again bring you out of this thing that, well, they're animals, which is where you have to be. that's the only way that the nation gets its 18 year olds who are decent kids to do that. it could pull them out of it quicker and atrocities would be less likely to happen because they happen because they're still in the frame of mind that they're not humans. >> you write utin streeten niem, some of the men under you were collecting the ears of dead vietnamese, stringing them. >> they would put them in their helmet. >> you made them bury some of the people. to force that connection. >> yeah. >> and they cried, right? >> they did. it was interesting to me.

i mean, they had -- we had been fighting for days. and a lot of their friends had died. and the dead bodies were all around, just below our fighting holes. so they went down and cut off the ears and stuck them in their helmets, i said, these are 18-year-olds. by that time, it was like, i didn't get angry with them. i just felt like, we can't do this. this is childish. this is wrong. you know, the bodies are dead, they're rotting there in front of you, so as far as they're concerned, what the the big deal. i say, you can't do this. these are people, and they -- you killed their friends like they killed your friends. you can look at them, i said, take the ears and bury them with the bodies. i made them dig a grave for the bodies which was no small thing because we were getting shot at. they risked their lives. we weren't in the middle of the fight, but it could be occasional sniper fire, and they were down there, and i noticed