Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Libya Assault Now Termed "Terrorist Attack"; "Fast and Furious" Before Congressional Committee; Romney Courts Hispanic Voters; Obama and Romney on Israel; Fallout from 47 Percent Comments; Emmy Awards This Weekend; Philly Death Penalty Case; Managing Work and Kids

Aired September 20, 2012 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you very much, Carol, and thanks for joining us today. It is 11:00 on the East Coast. It's 8:00 on the West Coast and we begin with this.

Major developments in the killing of our U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. A source familiar with the ambassador says that before he died, Chris Stevens believed that his name was on an al Qaeda hit list. That source also says that in the weeks and days before his death in that attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Stevens was, in fact, worried about what he described as the never-ending security threats in that city.

Also, the U.S. counterterrorism chief is now calling that assault that killed Stevens and three of his American colleagues a "terrorist attack."

And there are reports that a former detainee at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, a detainee who was released and returned to Libya, may have, in fact, been the ringleader of Benghazi attack. We want to emphasize -- CNN has not yet been able to independently confirm that latter report, but our CNN national contributor -- national security contributor, Fran Townsend, joins us live now via Skype and she's a member of the CIA external advisory committee.

She was also a personal friend of Ambassador Stevens and had visited Libya with her employer, MacAndrews & Forbes.

Fran, are your sources saying anything about this report, a series of reports, that, in fact, it may have been a former Gitmo prisoner that was released in amnesty, went back to Libya and orchestrated these murders?

FRANCES TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: So the individual that we're talking about, Qumu, is a well-known sort of al Qaeda bad guy. He was taken into custody and served time at Guantanamo. He was released to the Libyans in 2007 with the expectation that he would remain in custody.

Under Gadhafi in 2007, Libya had established this rehabilitation program which, obviously, in this guy's case failed, right? He goes back to the fight. It's not clear -- our sources have not independently confirmed that this guy is a prime suspect, but he is known to have served with -- to have worked with bin Laden in Sudan earlier in his career before he was captured and sent to Guantanamo.

He worked with a well-known Islamic charity in Afghanistan prior to his capture and so it would make sense. This is a guy who fights in Libya, who is part of an extremist network there. It would make perfect sense that he would be among those that authorities are looking at in the investigation. We've just not confirmed yet that he is a suspect in the murder.

BANFIELD: But clear this up for me, Fran, if you can. And, if I hear you correctly, the amnesty that released Mr. Ben Qumu was such that he was to have been kept in custody in Libya under Gadhafi.

Did we have any sort of plan in place to monitor that, given the fact that the Arab Spring all over, you know, everything east of the Carpathians actually may have seen all those people released into the streets?

TOWNSEND: Well, that's right, Ashleigh. Look, you know, these rehabilitation programs which Libya was not the only one with such a program, right?

Once you return somebody to their home country, you can monitor it, but you really do lose control over their custody and rehabilitation programs the world over, including in the United States, often fail.

I mean, what you hope is that you can get one or two of these guys out of a whole host of them actually not to return to the battlefield. That's something of a win, but we've recognized -- the United States has recognized in its policy of repatriating these individuals from Guantanamo that they may, in fact, return to the battlefield.

BANFIELD: And, Fran, you were just there and you were a close friend of Ambassador Stevens. Did he ever say anything to you like we're hearing in these reports, that he believed he was on an al Qaeda hit list? He was very concerned about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi?

TOWNSEND: You know, it was August 29th, that morning, Ambassador Stevens and I had breakfast together. We had a whole conversation because I expressed concern about the growing rise in militias in Tripoli. We talked about Benghazi and the growing number of extremists in Derna -- that's to the east of Benghazi -- that was growing in numbers and their arms and capability there.

He was clearly concerned about that, but, in fact, he told -- he suggested to me, at some point when I visit, to go to Benghazi to see for myself. You know, so, I think he understood very well the increasing concern about extremism, but he never did mention to me anything about his being on an al Qaeda hit list.

BANFIELD: And as far as security goes, there are so many situations that can seem so worrisome and not just in Libya, without question. Fran, thank you. Appreciate your insight this morning. Thanks so much.

And the death of Ambassador Stevens, just the beginning, in fact, politically speaking. The White House's top brass now about to brief Congress on the volatile and deadly situation that's unfolding right now.

We've had violent clashes erupting from North Africa throughout the Middle East and Southeast Asia. There's just a glimpse of the hot spots on your map in front of you. Of these explosive attacks, there have also been suicide bombings. Anti-American sentiments have been unleashed, mostly because of that anti-Islam film, if you want to call it that, movie, piece of tape, YouTube clip.

Members of the House and Senate are now about to get the briefing from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in just a couple of hours and our senior congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, is standing by, live on Capitol Hill.

Dana, does Congress feel as though they've been left in the dark about these developments? I mean, it has been extraordinarily quick, what transpired in the last few weeks. Do they feel as though they've been informed? Do they feel as though they've been misinformed?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Many of them do not feel like they've been informed properly and some actually do feel like they've been misinformed. And the person that comes to mind who's been the most vocal about that is Senator John McCain. I want you to listen to one of the things that he said to Anderson Cooper last night on this issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: The White House spokesman, Secretary of State and our ambassador to the U.N. stating categorically that it was not a terrorist attack when, obviously it had all the earmarks of a terrorist attack and so why they would want to tell the American people that in the face of the facts, I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now, what Senator McCain told myself and many others in the hallways here yesterday is that his frustration is that he believes that he is just not getting proper information, but also that he has to find his own sources in Libya to get information.

And he and other members of Congress are actually saying that they not only have to find their own sources, but they're getting more information from people like us, from our own courageous Arwa Damon, who is in the region, and others, talking about what you just reported with Fran about the concerns from the ambassador and other concerns about security in the region.

So those are the kinds of questions that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, will get today, but I should also caution that my experience, vast experience with watching these massive briefings that are classified but with the entire Congress, they don't tend to give a lot of information because these administration members know that many members tend to come out and talk to people like me and you about what happens.

I think the most interesting thing is going to be what we see with regard to this frustration being expressed inside these closed-door meetings, what we hear about that, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And that being key, that it's closed doors. So perhaps, at least, the hyperbole would be toned down. Maybe there is some fact- finding that can actually go on rather than camera posing.

But talk to me a little bit about the increasing security concerns. Hezbollah and al Qaeda have made no secret that this has been a boon to their business. So what are we doing in terms of being able to ramp up our security? How does Capitol Hill factor into that and today's meeting, in particular? And you know what? Throw in there all the money that we spend overseas in aid.

BASH: Well, I think those are going to be really some of the key questions that members of Congress are going to have for these administration officials because one of the big concerns isn't so much -- isn't just, I should say -- getting proper information or being left in the dark or maybe even, in the words of some, getting misinformation, but also that the administration and those in the region were lax in security. That is one of the biggest concerns, so you can bet those are going to be questions.

With regard to what Congress does and Congress's role here, which is -- biggest role, which is giving money, there actually happens to be a big flight on the floor of the Senate as we speak. Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky who historically does not like the idea of giving foreign aid, is using this as an opportunity to hold up the massive spending bill for government because he doesn't want to continue to give funding to Egypt, to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

So that's a fight that's going on, but he certainly had some allies in this, in the conservative movement and also, ironically, more liberal members of Congress who think that that money should be spent at home, but don't expect that money to be withheld right now.

BANFIELD: Well, and I guess we can expect that this will be part fact-finding and part lobby-effort potentially on behalf of Secretary Clinton.

BASH: Yes, exactly.

BANFIELD: Dana Bash, thank you. Appreciate that.

BASH: Thanks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: A quick note for you, as well. The House is going to actually be briefing. Dana's going to be very busy right around 2:45 this afternoon, Eastern.

The Senate gets the same treatment an hour later and Dana, along with our entire CNN political union, is staking this out and they're watching for all the details and we will bring them to you as soon as those closed doors become open doors. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: It hasn't always been fast, but the reaction on Capitol Hill to a bungled federal gun probe has always been furious and here's just the very latest on "Fast and Furious."

The House committee -- look at your screen -- grilling the Justice Department's own inspector general who just yesterday implicated 14 federal officials in what he called a significantly flawed operation, an operation that was linked to the death of a U.S. border patrol agent.

CNN's Joe Johns is live with me now with the details of this ongoing fallout and, Joe, you know, this is a very complex topic. It involved almost two years of analysis by this agency. First, set the groundwork for me. Exactly what was this gunrunning, gun-walking, however you want to phrase it -- what was it supposed to do and how did it implode?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Ashleigh, the idea was to allow firearms, mostly AK-47s, to sort of slip across the Mexican border so that they would fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, chiefly the Sinaloa cartel, in hopes that they'd be able to figure out where the guns were going and catch some of the big guys.

But it all went terribly wrong in December of 2010 when two of those firearms turned up at the murder scene of a United States federal border agent who was killed in Arizona. That was sort of the thing that brought it all to a head and that's what led us into this investigation, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So the results of the investigation, the long-awaited report coming out yesterday and now the tough questions and, without question, some of them will be politically motivated.

But essentially, I think a lot of people were expecting that maybe more heads would roll or at least some kind of heads would roll or there'd be some sort of conclusion that would satisfy some on Capitol Hill. Did we get any of that?

JOHNS: I think both sides, the Democrats and the Republicans, the people who have been fighting this viciously all year long, they're both saying, we've been vindicated by this report by Michael Horowitz. He is the inspector general of Justice Department. His report released yesterday essentially say Operation Fast and Furious revealed a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgment and management failures that permeated ATF headquarters, Phoenix field division, all the way to the Justice Department.

So he's testifying today in front of the House reform and oversight committee chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa.

Issa has been one of the leading critics of the administration in Operation Fast and Furious, been talking more than an hour now and talking about the referral of those 14 employees for possible disciplinary action. Two of those named in the report already stepped down. Issa actually kicked off the hearing, Ashleigh, suggesting what you just talked about, that more heads ought to roll. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: Since yesterday, two top individuals whose time to resign had come, 14, 16, 18, 19 months ago, resigned. We expect that all 14 would find a way to find appropriate new occupations, ones in which their poor judgment or lack of dedication or unwillingness to actually read documents they were required to read would be held -- would not be held accountable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Okay, it's not clear what's going to happen to those other employees, though, Ashleigh. That is left open and it's left up to the Justice Department to decide.

BANFIELD: So I did a quick scan over the reaction from the Justice Department and the reaction from the White House and they seem to be almost in lockstep.

This was a program that began under the previous administration. It was a field operation. That's where the problem was, not necessarily at the top ranks, but in the end, the top ranks are the ones facing the crisis and that is a contempt citation for Eric Holder. Where does it stand?

JOHNS: Well, look, first, the report essentially cleared Eric Holder who was held in contempt of Congress for failing to produce information about this.

The civil court case to compel release of the documents that Congress hasn't seen yet continues, even though the inspector general, he actually got to see some of those very same documents. He said that everything his office used in the report was relevant to the investigation. So sounds like Republicans still want to take a look at those papers, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And, for their part, they've got their answers, too.

Joe Johns in Washington, I know you're going to be busy on those monitors and watching that hearing, so thank you for that.

I do say, for his part, Eric Holder -- and I'm going to quote him here -- says this: "It is unfortunate that some were so quick to make baseless accusations before they possessed the facts."

And that's not the last that you've heard on that story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Mitt Romney trying to woo a crucial electorate and still a bit in damage control mode while doing so.

The Republican presidential nominee spoke to Latino voters last night at a Univision forum in Miami and he tried to counter some of that backlash over his comments dismissing the 47 percent of Americans as government freeloaders, essentially.

He says it was something entirely different. In fact, his campaign is committed to helping the 100 percent. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: This is a campaign about the 100 percent and, over the last several years, you've seen greater and greater divisiveness in this country. We had hoped to come back together, but instead, you've seen us pull apart and politics has driven us apart in some respects. So my campaign is about the 100 percent in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Joining us now is Rafael Romo. There were tough questions at the forum, obviously about the controversial comments on camera with regard to his immigration stance as well. So this is a tough uphill battle with this electorate. How did he do?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN SENIOR LATIN AMERICAN AFFAIRS EDITOR: Well, it's very difficult because he essentially made it a challenge for himself back in the primary season when he called for self-deportation, if you remember, Ashleigh, which essentially means that the country should make it so difficult, life so miserable for immigrants that they essentially have no other choice but to self-deport, to make the choice to leave the country.

He was specifically asked last night by Univision's anchors whether he would deport 11 million estimated undocumented immigrants and this is what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: We're not going to round up people around the country and deport them. That's not -- I said during my primary campaign, time and again, we're not going to round up 12 million people -- that includes the kids and the parents -- and have everyone deported.

Our system isn't to deport people. We need to provide a long-term solution and I've described the fact that I would be supportive of a program that said that people who served in our military could be permanent residents of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: So Ashleigh, he said what he wouldn't do, but he didn't really specify what he would do, how he would solve the immigration problem this country is facing.

BANFIELD: Yeah, listen, I just wanted to tell you about a poll that came out. This is pre-videotape and all the comments that were controversial, but it was the impreMedia/Latino Decisions weekly tracking poll with numbers saying that Obama held 68 percent of the Latino vote to 26 percent. That is a huge uphill climb and, in that light, did he do anything to sort of offset those comments that were made about it would be better if I were Latino? You know, he says it was a joke. Others say it might not have been. How did he handle it?

ROMO: Yeah, well, there was a lighter moment during the forum in which he was asked, okay, your father was born in Mexico. Does that make you a Latino? Let's take a listen at this moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIA ELENA SALINAS, UNIVISION ANCHOR: Are you sure you're not a Hispanic?

ROMNEY: I think for political purposes, that might have helped me here at the University of Miami today, but the truth is, as you know, my dad was born of American parents living in Mexico. But he came back to this country at age 5 or 6 and was helped to get on his feet and recognized this was the land of opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: Obama in 2008 won with 67 percent of the vote. Bush had 40 percent the last election, the previous to last election, so he would need to get close to those numbers, Ashleigh, if he wants to win the Latino vote and, therefore, the presidency.

BANFIELD: In just 50-odd days. Good luck with that, right? That's a tough one.

All right, Rafael Romo, thank you. Appreciate that.

And, also, the President for his part is going to address that same forum in just a few hours while Mitt Romney continues his Florida swing with a rally in Sarasota.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: If there is one thing we are certain of, it's that uncertainty is not good for the job market and Christine Romans is here right now because, finally, we actually have a quantified report of what the numbers are, according to uncertainty.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: And the San Francisco Fed has found that uncertainty has added one- to two-percentage points to the unemployment rate over the past few years.

BANFIELD: That's not small.

ROMANS: No, it's not small. That's like, what, half of the gain we've seen in the unemployment rate has been because of uncertainty and there's this old rule of thumb in markets that uncertainty is not good for markets. And now you've kind of got this idea that it's even worse for job market, because if things are uncertain, folks aren't hiring, they're not building plants, they're not investing in R&D and that's a problem. BANFIELD: In '08, just before Obama took office, this is where we were normal, right?

ROMANS: So this was January of 2008, so the storm clouds were brewing there, but you had 5 percent unemployment. That is essentially full employment. In good times, you have a 5 percent unemployment. And then look at what happened here. In the beginning of 2009, you saw the unemployment rate jump to 10 percent.

BANFIELD: What's the uncertainty feature? What are we freaking out about?

ROMANS: We freaking out about a potential great depression, another great depression. Was the credit system going to shut down? Were we going to start losing banks one after another? Were we not going to be able to use our debit card or our credit card or get money out of a cash machine?

That's what happened and the lag time of that is an unemployment rate of 10 percent.

BANFIELD: And then what about as we moved on to the concerns about the fiscal cliff, about regulation, about tax policy and all that?

ROMANS: Regulation and tax policy was still an uncertainty, as we went in through all the different things that the White House and Congress were doing to try to get us away from that great depression, from that brink. And all of that uncertainty in very scary times still added to the unemployment rate.

And, even as things started to come down a little bit, now, even these researchers at the San Francisco Fed say, you would have had an unemployment rate more like 6 percent to 7 percent, not 8 percent to 9 percent if it weren't for all of this extra uncertainty.

BANFIELD: Make no mistake, the Fed is not suggesting for a moment, though, that the President has control over all of these uncertainties.

ROMANS: Absolutely. Because look at the fiscal cliff, for example. No matter who is president, you're going to have a fiscal cliff problem. That's the beginning of the year when you've got huge tax increases and massive spending cuts that hit at exactly the same time.

That uncertainty, right now, at 8.1 percent, that uncertainty is still there and I'm hearing, anecdotally, and the San Francisco Fed is reporting, as well, that business owners are saying, wait, we're not hiring anybody until we figure out if Congress can fix this problem. Congress, by the way, going home after this week until the election.

BANFIELD: Enjoy your time off. But, just quickly, a few second left, elections coming, does uncertainty end on Election Day?

ROMANS: I'm not sure. Not with the fiscal cliff. I think that one uncertainty is taken away and that's important to know who the president will be, but I think at this stage of the game, you've got a debt problem at the beginning of next year, a fiscal cliff, and also the Fed.

A lot of people are telling me the Federal Reserve are the only ones who can step in and do something, you know, inject money into the system, et cetera. A president can try to make a decision right now, but Congress doesn't necessarily go along with them.

BANFIELD: And then there's the filter-down effect. Are you sure? Are you certain of this?

ROMANS: I'm certain. Absolutely certain.

BANFIELD: Christine Romans.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: U.S. foreign policy is a thicket of big ideals and maddening details. And the learning curve for any president, steep. But for decades now, every serious presidential hopeful has had to claim at the very least a working knowledge and a strong position on Israel, the Palestinians, and the relations between the two. And so it is in 2012 as well. And my colleague Wolf Blitzer looks at in- depth what those positions are.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, ANCHOR, "THE SITUATION ROOM" (voice-over): In addresses that largely focus on domestic concerns, one country in particular was singled out by both candidates in their convention speeches.

ROMNEY: President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our commitment to Israel's security must not waiver.

BLITZER: President Obama came to office determined to make Middle East peace a central tenet of his foreign policy. Even if it meant exerting what some of his advisers describe as tough love on Israel. He took a harder line on Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.

OBAMA: In my conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I was very clear about the need to stop settlements, to make sure that we are stopping the building of outposts.

BLITZER: That angered many Israelis, especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And early trips to Turkey and Egypt with high- profile addresses to the Arab and Muslim world without a stop in Israel further exacerbated that relationship.

The push for Middle East peace has been stuck ever since. And that rocky personal relationship with Netanyahu was further underlined during a tense Oval Office meeting in May 2011 when the prime minister seemed to be lecturing the President.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace. It cannot go back to the 1967 lines. Because these lines are indefensible.

BLITZER: Still, at least in public, they seem to have moved on.

OBAMA: As I've said to the prime minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security.

BLITZER: On some of the most sensitive issues, Obama and Romney seem to agree. At least when it comes to the big picture: Jerusalem is Israel's capital. A final peace agreement should include what's called a two-state solution, Israel living alongside Palestine. And Iran must be stopped from building a nuclear bomb.

But there are differences when it comes to specific details on how to achieve those goals. Romney charges that President Obama hasn't been a strong enough ally to Israel in opposing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

ROMNEY: Israel doesn't need public lectures about how to weigh decision of war and peace. It needs our support. If I'm President of the United States, my first trip, my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country.

BLITZER: And he underscored that during his July visit to Jerusalem.

ROMNEY: Well, the Palestinians are going to say, "We're not an independent national."

BLITZER: In a recently revealed tape from a closed fundraiser back in May, Romney said Israel didn't have a strong Palestinian partner.

ROMNEY: And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway. For political purposes. Committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel and these thorny issues, thorny issues, and I say, there's just no way.

BLITZER: But Romney declared his support for a two-state solution during an interview I did with him during his recent trip to Israel.

ROMNEY: The decision as to where the borders would be as we move to a two-state solution, which I support, that's a decision on borders that will be worked out by the Israelis and the Palestinians.

BLITZER: Romney says Obama has rebuffed Israel's security concerns. However, the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told me in July the relationship with the United States is solid.

EHUD BARAK, DEFENSE MINISTER OF ISRAEL: They should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: And Wolf is live with me now in D.C.

So, Wolf, look, this is a critical, critical issue for an American president and for American foreign policy. But how much do voters really care about this right now given what we've got going on here in our economic struggle?

BLITZER: Well, overall, in terms of national security and foreign policy, voters care a lot if there is a crisis over the last week or so since we saw what happened in Egypt and in Libya, voters are obviously returning their attention to national security and foreign policy. Who would be a better commander in chief.

But generally, you're right, it's the domestic issues. It's the economic issues, the job issues, social issues, if you, that usually are much higher on the -- on the scale unless there's a national security crisis, that the U.S. is at war, for example, the national security becomes a much bigger issue. But generally speaking, it's not.

BANFIELD: And then of course, the controversial "Mother Jones" tape that came out this week where a lot of people are describing his comments to be disparaging with regard to the immigration -- rather his Mexican heritage. Not only that but the 47 percent that he claims don't pay taxes. And then of course kicking the can. And I'm, you know, paraphrasing. Kicking the can down the road in terms of Middle East peace.

A poll has come out to specifically gauge voters' reaction to that. And it's somewhat fascinating. I want to get your take on it. Gallup asked registered voters if they'd be more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney given what they heard on those tapes. Twenty percent said more, 36 percent said less, and 43 percent didn't seem to really care.

You know, the "New York Post" had a headline yesterday saying the truth hurts. Were you surprised by these numbers?

BLITZER: You know, not necessarily surprised all that much. I know that there's a real division. What's much more interesting as opposed to those folks who've already made up their mind is to take a look at the independent voters, the still undecided voters, the 8 or -- maybe 10 percent, the switchable voters, if you will, to see how they are reacting. And there you see some numbers right there. Independent voters more likely 15 percent, less likely 29 percent. No difference, 53 percent.

So it's not necessarily having an immediate impact. Let's see what happens after the three debates, especially after the first debate. I think that's going to be way, way more important than these little, you know, issues that come up over the past few days. They're sensitive, they're important. Clearly Obama's gotten a bounce since his convention. But I think those debates are going to -- really be critical.

BANFIELD: And they can certainly get lost in the news cycle within days and certainly within weeks still to go.

One last issue with polls, Wolf, I want to ask you. I was so surprised when Paul Steinhauser, our political editor, sent me some polls yesterday, specifically Michigan and Wisconsin really stood out to me. The CNN/ORC poll in Michigan shows the likely voters' choice for president, 52 percent in favor of Obama, only 44 percent in favor of Romney, his birth state and where his father was governor. And if the Romney camp finds that troubling, they may find the Wisconsin poll also troubling because there are two -- the Marquette Law School shows that in the state of his running mate, Paul Ryan, 54 percent would favor Obama over 40 percent for Romney. Not quite as bad in terms of the Quinnipiac/CBS/"New York Times" poll, 51 percent to 45.

But that's got to -- I mean, I almost feel like there had to be a holding of breath in the -- in the Romney campaign with these numbers.

BLITZER: Yes, I think he -- Romney is in deep trouble in both Michigan and Wisconsin. We'll see if Paul Ryan can really help him in Wisconsin. Neither campaign, neither the Romney campaign nor the Obama campaign directly are spending a lot of -- they're not spending a lot of money in either state, Michigan or Wisconsin, because they both, I think, sense that Wisconsin and Michigan will probably go Democratic this time.

Some of the super PACs are spending money in Michigan and Wisconsin. The pro-Republican super PACs. But I think the Romney campaign, they're spending some money in Wisconsin, though not a whole lot. The Obama campaign a little bit.

But Michigan, given the President's ability to save the auto industry, GM, Chrysler in particular, it looks like Michigan is a pretty safe bet. But remember, four years ago, both Michigan and Wisconsin overwhelmingly went for President Obama. If President Obama can get that base out in both of those states, he should do well there.

BANFIELD: Yes. I want to be a fly on the wall to hear how the campaigns reacted to those numbers. I'm sure you're going to be talking something of these numbers and the effect at 4:00 today?

BLITZER: Certainly will be. We got "THE SITUATION ROOM" coming up as we do every day.

BANFIELD: Did I tell you it's my favorite show other than "The Daily Show" and my show?

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Thank you. Thank you. You didn't tell me that, but that's nice to hear that. Thank you very much.

BANFIELD: Wolf Blitzer, here's your plug. Be sure to watch "THE SITUATION ROOM" at 4:00 Eastern right here on CNN.

Wolf, thank you.

BLITZER: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: I'm going to lighten up the load here. It's supposed to be a real star-studded weekend in L.A. because it's the 64th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards ceremony. Red carpet. Great dresses. And also a real tight race for the best drama. "Downtown Abbey" and "Mad Men" are in big time close competition.

Kareen Wynter is live in Los Angeles to break it on down. Is this supposed to be a big, you know, weekend of upsets, a big night of tragedy and triumphs and -- you know how it goes -- drama?

KAREEN WYNTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And that's what makes it so interesting. And we have our eyes really down all the categories, Ashleigh, but one category in particular that we are watching very closely, that's a race for Outstanding Drama Series. This year, all eyes are still on "Mad Men." It could break the record and land a record fifth, fifth consecutive win for Outstanding Drama Series. And by the way, no drama has ever won more than four times in a row in that category.

And this year's best drama competition is fierce. "Homeland," it has huge buzz. It's one of the President's favorite shows. But as far as we know hey, peace on it, Emmy voter, "Breaking Bad" is beloved and it ended the first half of its fifth season just as voters were casting their ballots. The one nominee on a broadcast network PBS is "Downton Abbey," you know, could sneak in with a surprise win. It has a huge following.

We'll see but I have a feeling I know who you'll be rooting for, Ashleigh. Can we just say "Breaking Bad," and that's because you made a special cameo guest appearance on the season three premier?

BANFIELD: Yes.

WYNTER: Your cousin directs that series. So --

BANFIELD: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: It wasn't my acting acumen, it was the sheer nepotism. Go, Michelle.

WYNTER: Oh no --

BANFIELD: Yes, she's my cuz.

WYNTER: You are so talented. You wear many hats, Miss Banfield.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: You are hired, sister. Thank you. This will be fun. I'll be looking forward to this.

WYNTER: All right.

BANFIELD: We'll have your full report next week.

WYNTER: Thanks, Ashleigh. BANFIELD: Kareen, take care. Have a good weekend.

And by the way for the latest information, we've got a lot more on the Emmys, et al. Just go to CNNentertainment.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Right now a Philadelphia judge is hearing some brand new evidence that could prevent a condemned man from being marched down murderer's row to his execution. There is no doubt that Terry Williams is guilty. Let's just say that. He brutally, brutally killed two men in the 1980s. In fact, one of them he brutally beat senselessly in a cemetery. A man with a tire iron. It's awful.

He is supposed to be executed on October 3rd for one of those murders because he just turned 18 when he did that second murder, but here's the catch. What his jurors did not know when they condemned him was that Terry Williams' victims, the people he killed, had been abusing him for years.

Allegedly this had been going on, repeated rapes and it wasn't just a few. He had been abused for so long in his life. Listen to what one of the jurors have to say now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was no information at all brought out about any sexual abuse, whether he was a child or from the two victims. There was nothing at all brought out about that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now that I know about the sexual abuse and all that, it -- that's why I'm doing this video because I feel bad that this person is on death row and there was evidence or other things that we should have been told about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: There were five jurors, Joey Jackson, who actually are upset with the fact that they were never given that was suppressed evidence. Suppressed evidence means you don't get to hear it. There are lots of reasons to suppress evidence, and sometimes they're controversial.

But let me just go over some of the stuff they don't know about this condemned man and what he went through in life. He was beaten by his mother. He was raped at the age of 6 by an older boy. He was beaten by his alcoholic stepfather. He was repeatedly raped by a middle schoolteacher. He was raped by two older boys when he was in juvenile detention. All the while he had no grown-up to go to. He had no counseling. He had no help.

JOEY JACKSON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Tough stuff.

BANFIELD: Tough stuff. Why? Just explain to --

(CROSSTALK) JACKSON: Well, here's how it happens.

BANFIELD: Why would a jury not know that?

JACKSON: Sure. And very explain it. If they had someone, for example, if you were an attorney and you were there advocate, it's compelling. Why is it compelling? Because it goes to motive. What happens is -- this is the way it works, Ashleigh. You don't have to, as a prosecutor, establish motive, but it's important because jurors want to know why someone acted in the manner in which they did, and when the case was being tried, it was presented to the jury as if it were a robbery.

That's what their conclusion was. That it was a robbery and in the course of this robbery he took this tire iron and just bludgeoned this person, charred the body.

If they would have known about the past history, it goes to what we call mitigation. It doesn't excuse what happened, but it explains in large measure what happened, and I hasten to add that generally when you have such an explanation, as you've given in terms of his background, maybe a juror, right, or a jury collectively they say, you know what, maybe we mitigated from murder to manslaughter. Guess what the difference is. A life sentence, right? Significant.

BANFIELD: So let me ask you this.

JACKSON: Sure.

BANFIELD: The jury says they were never told, and this is the law in this state. They were never told they had an option of life in prison, and let me go further, without the possibility of parole. We call it LWOP.

JACKSON: Right. LWOP. Yes.

BANFIELD: Life in prison without the possibility of parole means he ain't never getting out unless it's in a box.

JACKSON: That's right.

BANFIELD: These jurors say had they known that, they would have voted for that. They were worried if they didn't give him the death penalty, he'd get out and do it again.

JACKSON: See that? It's very significant. And that's what hearings are for, to establish whether the jury, A, had all the information that they were entitled to receive, and, B, if they have that information, would it have materially impaired or materially affected the outcome of the case, and that's why it's so important in these instances that ultimately justice is done.

BANFIELD: Let me throw another wrench into this.

JACKSON: Sure. BANFIELD: And that is that for anybody out there who is watching this and says, look, if this was a robbery, doesn't matter if there was sexual abuse in the past. The motive was robbery. That evidence should have been suppressed.

And now, Joey Jackson, we hear that maybe it wasn't a robbery.

JACKSON: Exactly.

BANFIELD: That maybe there had been some coercion among prosecutors and police for his admitted accomplice to say it was a robbery.

JACKSON: Exactly. And that's a problem because, remember, the accomplice here when he was being interviewed, he was saying as he was hitting him with the tire iron, he was saying, you like boys, don't you? You like boys, don't you, and they said uh-uh, the prosecutor and police said we're not going to talk about that. Just talk about a robbery. That's --

BANFIELD: This is not over.

JACKSON: Yes -- no, not at all.

BANFIELD: This is not over.

JACKSON: That's problematic.

BANFIELD: We're going to keep an eye on this.

Joey Jackson, thank you for helping me out with this one.

JACKSON: Always a pleasure, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: We are watching this, and we're going to see what this hearing brings, and we're going to bring you the details. Again, a man's life is at stake.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Have you ever tried working from home when you have little kids in the house? Mom, I want a snack, he's hitting me -- you can't. It's so hard, and that's why co-working spaces, places you can go and rent office space for a while works so well, and now word in Austin from our producer Josh Rubin that you can bring your kids. Not kidding. Have a look at this week's "Travel Insider."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH RUBIN, CNN PRODUCER (voice-over): Do you need help with baby? Well, there's a co-working space for that called Plug and Play. Come for the people, workspace and meeting rooms. Stay for the on-site childcare.

Amy Braden came up with the idea while juggling a conference call with a 3-month-old. AMY BRADEN, PLUG & PLAY: It was an exhausting experience for both of us and I thought there has to be a different solution for parents who want to work and raise young families.

RUBIN: Don't need child care? Well, with more than 10 co-working spaces around Austin to choose from, you can probably find one more your speed. For example, Link Co-Working is upscale, quiet, and filled with every kind of professional you can imagine.

LIZ ELAM, LINK CO-WORKING: When people come in, they generally have a giant exhale because they know that they can get here, hunker down, and make things happen, but then what happens people start talking to each other. They start sharing ideas. They start hiring each other.

RUBIN: The cost of joining these spaces vary. Usually between $100 and $200 a month. For many it's worth it.

(on camera): I like to think of it as a gym membership for professional sanity. If you've ever worked from home, you know exactly what I mean.

(voice-over): You might not have a co-working space in your town yet. Austin tends to be on the cutting edge. It's why my town is the best. Don't worry. Your town may eventually catch up.

Josh Rubin, CNN, Austin.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: I hope so, Josh. Thank you for that.

Hey, stay tuned, everyone, now for NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL with my friend, Fredricka Whitfield. Thanks for watching.