SHOTLIST

SKY NEWS

Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance / No Access UK Mainstream broadcasters/Al Jazeera/Bloomberg. If you are a Foreign News Channel distributed in the UK and Ireland on Sky's digital satellite platform and want to use this content, please contact Anna Jones at Skycommercial@ap.org

++AUDIO QUALITY AS INCOMING++

London - 5 June 2013

1. Various of Rebekah Brooks, former chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's News International, arriving at London's Southwark Crown Court, with her husband Charlie Brooks

2. Rebekah and Charlie Brooks leaving court, walking through media throng and getting into car

SKY NEWS

Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance / No Access UK Mainstream broadcasters/Al Jazeera/Bloomberg. If you are a Foreign News Channel distributed in the UK and Ireland on Sky's digital satellite platform and want to use this content, please contact Anna Jones at Skycommercial@ap.org

FILE - London - Exact Date unknown

3. Various of former chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, in the News of the World newsroom

AP TELEVISION

FILE - Wapping, East London - 15 July 2011

4. Various exteriors of News International headquarters

UK POOL - NO ACCESS UK

FILE - London, UK -10 July 2011

5. Walking shot of Brooks with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch as they enter building followed by media

STORYLINE

Rebekah Brooks, once one of the most powerful people in the British media, on Wednesday formally denied charges of phone hacking, bribing public officials and trying to thwart a police investigation into tabloid wrongdoing.

The former chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's News International arrived at court with her husband Charlie Brooks, who along with six others, is accused of trying to pervert the course of justice by concealing documents, computers and other material from the police.

Brooks is accused of five counts of intercepting voicemail messages, conspiracy to commit misconduct involving public officials and obstructing a police investigation by withholding evidence.

She answered "not guilty" in a firm voice to all five charges during a hearing at London's Southwark Crown Court.

Charlie Brooks and former News of the World royal reporter Clive Goodman, also entered pleas of "not guilty" and also face criminal trials.

Brooks is a key figure in the phone-hacking scandal that has rattled Britain's press, police and political establishments.

The scandal erupted in 2011, after it was revealed that journalists at News International's now-shuttered News of the World tabloid routinely hacked into the voicemail messages of celebrities, members of the royal household and other people in the public eye, including crime victims and a murdered 13-year-old girl.

It led Murdoch to close down the News of The World and spawned large police investigations into phone hacking, computer hacking and the bribery of officials for information.

Allegations of wrongdoing have since spread to other papers outside the Murdoch empire, and scores of journalists, police officials, and executives have been arrested or dismissed from their jobs.

Wednesday's pre-trial hearings saw more than a dozen defendants, close to 30 lawyers and a large press contingent crammed into a London courtroom.

Several former News of the World staff, including ex-chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, former news editor James Weatherup and former managing editor Stuart Kuttner, also denied intercepting voice mails.

UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL NEWS NEWSREEL 1960. B&W.

COLOR BARS AND TONE.

01:11 OPENING LOGO.

01:24 PRESIDENT CHARLES DE GAULLE OF FRANCE, WEARING BRIGADIER

GENERAL'S UNIFORM, ARRIVES AT VICTORIA STATION IN LONDON. QUEEN

ELIZABETH, PRINCE PHILIP, QUEEN MOTHER ELIZABETH, PRIME MINISTER

HAROLD MACMILLAN AND MEMBERS OF CABINET HEAD THE WELCOMING

COMMITTEE. QUEEN AND PRESIDENT RIDE IN AN OPEN CARRIAGE TO

BUCKINGHAM PALACE, ESCORTED BY HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY IN FULL REGALIA.

THOUSANDS GATHER OUTSIDE THE PALACE AT NIGHT TO CHEER DE GAULLE

AND SEE FIREWORKS DISPLAY.

03:29 WISCONSIN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY. VS SIGNS, POSTERS

SUPPORTING DEMOCRATIC HOPEFULS HUBERT HUMPHREY (HHH) AND JOHN

F KENNEDY (JFK). VOTERS AT POLLS, SHOT OF BALLOT. AT

REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S NATIONAL CONGRESS IN WASHINGTON DC, PARTY

NOTABLES INCLUDING PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER AND VICE

PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON EAT BOX LUNCHES. IKE AND NIXON WAVE.

IKE APPROACHES THE PODIUM.

04:52 PRESIDENT ALBERTO LLERAS CAMARGO OF COLOMBIA ARRIVES

IN WASHINGTON DC. HE IS GREETED BY PRESIDENT EISENHOWER AND

RECEIVES KEYS TO THE CITY. HE ADDRESSES THE CONGRESS (VO

HERLIHY) AND RECEIVES AN OVATION.

05:42 32ND ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS, AT THE PANTAGES THEATER.

JANET LEIGH AND TONY CURTIS PRESENT AWARD FOR BEST SCREENPLAY

TO WRITERS OF "PILLOW TALK." SUSAN HAYWARD AWARDS CHARLTON

HESTON BEST ACTOR AWARD FOR "BEN HUR" ROCK HUDSON NAMES SIMONE

SIGNORET BEST ACTRESS FOR "ROOM AT THE TOP".

07:36 END LOGO.

07:51 OPENING LOGO.

08:05 AT CELEBRATION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNION OF

SOUTH AFRICA, PRIME MINISTER HENDRICK VERWOERD IS VICTIM OF

ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT. VS STRUGGLE AS WHITE FARMER FIRES 2 SHOTS

INTO HIS HEAD. VS OF WOUNDED VERWOERD. HE IS CARRIED AWAY ON A

STRETCHER.

08:58 VS RIOTS IN SOUTH KOREA FOLLOWING THE ELECTION OF SYNGMAN

RHEE TO A FOURTH TERM OF OFFICE. RIOTS STARTED AS PROTEST

AGAINST BALLOTING FRAUD, TURNED VIOLENT AFTER THE DISCOVERY

OF A DEAD STUDENT.

09:33 NUCLEAR SUBMARINE "PATRICK HENRY", ACROSS DOCK FROM

SUBMARINE "GEORGE WASHINGTON".

10:18 ITALIAN SUMMER FASHIONS.

11:31 EXT BOSTON GARDEN. NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (NBA)

CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES. BOSTON CELTICS VS ST LOUIS HAWKS IN FINAL

GAME. BOB COUSY IS FEATURED. CELTICS WIN.

12:53 24TH MASTERS CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF TOURNAMENT. KEN VENTURI,

ARNOLD PALMER. PALMER WINS BY 1 STROKE.

14:17 END LOGO.

14:30 OPENING LOGO. VOL NO 33, ISSUE NO 35.

14:43 VS PROTESTORS WHO OPPOSED ELECTION IRREGULARITIES IN

SOUTH KOREA. RIOTS AND OUTSIDE PRESSURES CAUSED PRESIDENT

SYNGMAN RHEE'S RESIGNATION. RIOT OUTSIDE HOME OF VICE

PRESIDENT ELECT LEE KI POONG. WRECKAGE AFTER HOUSE IS BURNED. VS

LEE WITH HIS WIFE AND SON, ALL OF WHOM DIED (WITH ANOTHER

SON) IN A MURDER SUICIDE PACT. VS FOREIGN MINISTER HUH CHUNG,

CHOSEN AS INTERIM PRESIDENT.

16:18 AERIAL SHOTS OF AN EARTHQUAKE STRICKEN TOWN IN SOUTHERN

IRAN. VS WRECKAGE, WOUNDED.

17:01 KING MAHENDRA AND QUEEN RATNA OF NEPAL ARE GREETED BY

PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER UPON THEIR ARRIVAL IN WASHINGTON DC.

17:44 NUCLEAR SUBMARINE "TULLIBEE" IS LAUNCHED OFF CONNECTICUT.

IT IS THE FIRST OF A NEW CLASS OF HUNTER KILLER CRAFTS DESIGNED

TO SEEK OUT AND DESTROY ENEMY U BOATS.

18:26 STEVE ALLEN AND JANE MEADOWS ARRIVE AT PHOENIX, ARIZONA

FOR A GALA HOMECOMING.

19:05 FRENCH PRESIDENT CHARLES DE GAULLE AND MRS DE GAULLE

ARRIVE IN NEW YORK AND ARE GREETED BY MAYOR ROBERT WAGNER.

TICKERTAPE PARADE. DE GAULLE AT SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT WITH

MAYOR CHRISTOPHER. ANOTHER TICKERTAPE PARADE. VS AS DE GAULLE

CRUISES AROUND SAN FRANCISCO BAY.

20:57 END LOGO.

21:12 OPENING LOGO. VOL NO 33, ISSUE NO 36.

21:28 IN SEOUL, FUNERAL PROCESSION FOR VICE PRESIDENT ELECT

LEE KI POONG OF SOUTH KOREA, FOLLOWING HIS OUSTER AND SUICIDE

AND THE RESIGNATION OF SYNGMAN RHEE. RHEE PAYS HIS RESPECTS.

22:23 MAY DAY MILITARY PARADE IN EAST BERLIN. ANOTHER PARADE IS

LED BY MAYOR WILLY BRANDT IN WEST BERLIN.

23:25 WEDDING DAY REHERSAL FOR PRINCESS MARGARET OF GREAT

BRITAIN AND HER FIANCE ANTHONY ARMSTRONG JONES. VS PREPARATIONS,

TRIAL RUN.

24:16 CHIMPANZEE IN SUIT FEEDS SEA LIONS AT A ZOO IN GERMANY.

25:20 EXT FRANKLIN FIELD IN PHILADELPHIA. PENN RELAYS TRACK

AND FIELD COMPETITION. DON BRAGG POLE VAULTS. 200 METER RUN,

RAY NORTON WINS, SETS WORLD RECORD. JOHN THOMAS BREAKS HIGH

JUMP RECORD.

26:28 GRAY LAG HANDICAP HORSERACE AT AQUEDUCT RACE TRACK.

SWORD DANCER WINS.

27:34 END LOGO.

27:47 OPENING LOGO. VOL NO 33, ISSUE NO 37.

28:00 FORT BENNING. PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER REVIEWS NEWEST

WEAPONS IN GROUND FORCES ARSENAL. VS COMBAT ROCKETS HONEST JOHN

AND PERSHING. INFANTRY DEMONSTRATION OF NEW WEAPONS INCLUDES

RED EYE MISSILE LAUNCHER. FIRING OF HONEST JOHN ROCKET,

MISSILE FIRING HELICOPTER.

29:48 UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC SHIP "CLEOPATRA" IS DOCKED IN NEW

YORK, WHERE IT HAS BEEN TIED UP FOR WEEKS DUE TO PICKETING BY

SEAFARER'S UNION. THEY ARE PROTESTING BLACKLISTING OF AMERICAN

FLAGSHIPS THAT ENTER ISRAELI PORTS. SHOT OF LONGSHOREMEN

PICKETING. VS ARAB HARBORS, WHERE LARGE SIGNS PROCLAIM BOYCOTT

OF ALL AMERICAN SHIPS IN RESPONSE TO US STRIKE.

30:55 VS MAY DAY PARADE THROUGH MOSCOW'S RED SQUARE.

KHRUSHCHEV AND OTHER OFFICIALS WAVE.

31:44 KODIAK BEAR CUBS, BABY ALLIGATOR. BABY GORILLA BEING

REARED AS A HUMAN.

32:36 1960 OLYMPIC GYMANSTICS TRIALS NATIONAL AAU CHAMPIONSHIP

AT WEST POINT.

34:11 END LOGO.

34:28 OPENING LOGO.

34:40 ROYAL WEDDING OF PRINCESS MARGARET OF GREAT BRITAIN

TO ANTHONY ARMSTRONG JONES. ROYAL FAMILY ENTERS,

INCLUDING QUEEN ELIZABETH, QUEEN MOTHER ELIZABETH, PRINCE

CHARLES. ENTRANCE OF PRINCESS. VS CEREMONY, CARRIAGE RIDE,

GREETING FROM BALCONY. LONDON BRIDGE.

38:31 SOVIET PREMIER NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV IS SHOWN AS HE TOLD THE

PROSIDIUM THAT PILOT FRANCIS GARY POWERS OF THE DOWNED AMERICAN

U2 RECONAISSANCE PLANE WAS ALIVE, AND THAT THE SOVIET UNION HAS

SEIZED PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 1400 MILES INSIDE SOVIET BORDERS.

SHOT OF US STATE DEPARTMENT. SPOKESMAN LINCOLN WHITE ADDRESSES

THE ISSUE OF "INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES."

39:29 VENETIAN WAY WINS THE 86TH KENTUCKY DERBY HORSERACE AT

CHURCHILL DOWNS.

40:53 END LOGO.

41:07 OPENING LOGO.

41:18 WRECKAGE OF PILOT FRANCIS GARY POWERS' U2 RECONNAISSANCE

PLANE ON DISPLAY IN MOSCOW. VS KHRUSHCHEV. HE ARRIVES IN PARIS

FOR SUMMIT TALKS. PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER ARRIVES, SPEAKS

AT AIRPORT.

43:30 WORLD'S LONGEST PASSENGER VESSEL, IN FRANCE. PRESIDENT

DE GAULLE SPEAKS FROM VESSEL (VO HERLIHY) MADAME DE GAULLE

CHRISTENS THE "SS FRANCE".

44:21 NEW YORK OPENING OF SOVIET FILM VERSION OF "OTHELLO".

SABRINA, LAUREN BACALL AND RODDY MCDOWELL, TOM POSTON,

JESSICA TANDY, LEE REMICK.

44:55 INTERNATIONAL FASHIONS MODELLED AGAINST A BACKDROP OF

FAMOUS EUROPEAN LANDMARKS. COLISEUM, ARC DE TRIOMPHE.

45:53 MESSENGER STAKES HARNESS RACE AT ROOSEVELT RACEWAY.

47:31 END LOGO.

47:45 OPENING LOGO.

47:57 PARIS SUMMIT. VS PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER, PRIME

MINISTER HAROLD MACMILLAN, PRESIDENT CHARLES DE GAULLE SAYING

GOODBYE. PREMIER NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE,

FLANKED BY FOREIGN MINISTER ANDREI GROMYKO AND MARSHALL

MALENOVSKI. KHRUSHCHEV SPEAKS IN ANIMATED STYLE, POINTING HIS

FINGER FOR EMPHASIS.

49:04 AFL-CIO UNION INDUSTRY SHOW. GOOD SHOT OF WELDER.

49:56 FLAMINGOS, GOATS, TIGER CUBS, LION CUBS, BABY GOATS.

LION ROARING.

50:34 HEAVYWEIGHT BOXING CHAMPION INGEMARR JOHANSSON TRAINS

FOR REMATCH WITH FLOYD PATTERSON. PATTERSON TRAINS. SHOT OF

JOE LOUIS.

51:41 25 YEARS AGO (1935). IN ITALY,

VS AS BATALLION STAGES CHEMICAL WARFARE DEMONSTRATION OUTSIDE

ROME. MUSSOLINI OBSERVES. THOUSANDS OF FARMERS GATHER OUTSIDE

THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO

ROOSEVELT'S NEW DEAL AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM.

CU FARMERS. FDR SPEAKS FROM BALCONY (VO HERLIHY). VICE

PRESIDENT CONNOR SIGNS PATMAN BONUS BILL. FDR APPEARS BEFORE

CONGRESS TO DEFEND VETO, WHICH IS LATER OVERRIDDEN. CU OF

FDR FOE LOUISIANA GOVERNOR HUEY LONG. FATHER COUGHLIN, A RADIO

PRIEST, AT A RALLY IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN. VS NRA BOARD OF

STRATEGY MEETING FOLLOWING THE SUPREME COURT VOIDING OF THE

NATIONAL RECOVERY ACT. PADLOCKING OF A POULTRY FARM FOR

VIOLATIONS, WHICH WAS LATER HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CU WILLIAM

GREEN OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR (AFL). 17 SURVIVORS

OF THE CIVIL WAR MARCH IN A DECORATION DAY PARADE. MS NEW

YORK CITY MAYOR FIORELLO LAGUARDIA. SPANISH AMERICAN WAR

VETERANS. VS OF 25TH ANNUAL INDIANAPOLIS 500 AUTO RACE.

54:47 END LOGO.

White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow James S. Brady Briefing Room.

12:40 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Welcome, everybody. I'll begin with the bupkis list from this morning; then we will get to the issues at hand.

In response to Helen's question about India's missile test, India has actually had a nuclear program -- it embarked upon a nuclear power program in 1958, and has had nuclear devices since 1974. It began testing missiles in 1983, and had the first successful launch in 1988. Whatever one may think, India has embarked upon a nuclear program.

Now, there is a significant difference and a noteworthy difference between India and North Korea. India has pursued its program in such a way as not to be a threat of provocation to its neighbors. In that regard, it informed the United States in advance, and as it has by agreement, also notified the Pakistanis. It did it in a transparent and non-threatening way.

North Korea, meanwhile, not only defied the express wishes of its neighbors and others in the neighborhood, it also fired missiles as a provocation, without warning, to others, and therefore, has created the diplomatic activity that you now see.

So those are the significant differences between the two.

Q If they had notified the U.S., would it have been okay?

MR. SNOW: No, because North Korea also had said that it would, in fact, adopt a moratorium. Keep in mind, in -- last September 19th, the North Koreans, at the six-party talks, said that they would break down their nuclear program. They would dismantle the nuclear weapons program, while retaining the right, in their words, for a peaceful civilian --

Q And we said we would supply them --

MR. SNOW: Excuse me, excuse me -- and the second thing they said is that they would have a moratorium on missile firings. They also committed to come back to the table. They have refused to do so, primarily because of a dispute about money laundering that had to do with counterfeiting U.S. currency for uses in drug and arms markets.

Let me continue on some of the other questions from the bupkis list this morning. Steve Dinan wanted to know about the point at which we we're going to cut the federal budget in half. Steve is not here -- well, I'll give it to the rest of you. That was back in February of 2004, when there was a projected $521 billion deficit, and so we're looking at the halfway point of that.

Next up, Basayev -- we still have not been able to confirm the death of Mr. Basayev. On the other hand, he was a terrorist; he laid claim to a number of high-profile terrorist attacks, including the 2004 attack on a school in Beslan. He was designated a terrorist by the United States, under Executive 13224, and by the United Nations pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267.

Let's see -- in response to the World Cup question from Victoria, the President did watch part of the World Cup and he will pass on congratulations to Prime Minister Prodi when they meet at the G8.

You probably know, a few minutes ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that the U.N. Security Council would, at least for a while, suspend consideration of a Japanese-sponsored resolution with regard to North Korea. Chinese government officials, as I've told you for several days, are dispatching a high-level delegation to speak with the North Koreans in hopes that the North Koreans will achieve the goal that everybody is committed to, which is, again, as I've mentioned, having the North Koreans dismantle their nuclear weapons program and cease missile firings, in addition, returning to the six-party talks.

Helen.

Q What did India say its reason was for firing a nuclear-capable long-range missile at a time when this is under such suspicion?

MR. SNOW: It didn't do it, but one of the things it did do, Helen -- this was not seen as a provocation by the United States or the Pakistanis. Both of them would have reason to do it. Nor has it precipitated the kind of diplomatic concern --

Q So why did they do it?

MR. SNOW: Let me continue. They are -- they keep their secrets pretty clearly, and they didn't make any public explanation to that. On the other hand, you will note that there has not been the kind of diplomatic response or the kind of concern expressed by its neighbors, as there has been to the firing in North Korea of its missiles.

Kelly.

Q No, no, wait a minute. Why did they do it?

MR. SNOW: Why don't you ask them?

Q I can't ask them, but I can certainly see our acquiescence in a very contradictory way.

MR. SNOW: You may think it's contradictory, Helen. You're wrong.

Q I'm not. (Laughter.)

Q Is China taking the kind of role that the U.S. has wanted them to take?

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, again -- I love that laugh. That was so good. (Laughter.) I completely lost my train of thought. Kelly, you're going to have to -- (laughter.) That was really good. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Q Do you view this sort of adjustment in the approach to North Korea as China stepping up in a way the U.S. wants them to?

MR. SNOW: We think it's a constructive step that the Chinese are willing to go ahead and really commit to trying to get the North Koreans to abide by the agreements they made last September 19th. So it's a -- we view, we regard it as a positive development, yes, the Chinese stepping forward.

Q Japan has also been at least floating the idea of a preemptive strike on North Korea's nuclear launch capabilities, or their -- at least their launch capabilities, even though that's in contradiction to their constitution. Since the U.S. has taken preemptive action, would the President support that idea?

MR. SNOW: I think -- let's put it in context -- I believe that Mr. Abe said that they would have to seek constitutional changes; they would not try to be extra-constitutional. But it is worth considering what a nuclear North Korea might mean in the region, because other nations may feel compelled to try to defend themselves by whatever means necessary. We're committed to the aim of having a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, and one of the reasons is that it would avoid having an arms race in the region. So I think one of the reasons why the Chinese are concerned about this, and it's a very reasonable concern, is that they also share our view about the importance of a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula.

What you're seeing here -- and we talked about this a little bit this morning -- preemption is not merely a military doctrine, it's also a diplomatic doctrine. And in this case, we are engaging in preemption at the diplomatic level by working as aggressively and assertively as we can with our allies to get the government in Pyongyang simply to abide by its past promises. It seems that that is a government that is going to do a lot better for itself and its people if it simply goes back to what it promised to do last September 19th.

So you have the Chinese involved, the Japanese involved; you have the Russians, the United States. You have all of the parties to the six-party talks but the North Koreans. And there has been talk, even, of a five-party talk at some juncture. The point here is that the United States has managed to get a coalition where everybody now is assuming responsibility for working with each other, and also pressing the North Koreans vigorously to avoid having the kind of consequences we've been talking about.

Jake.

Q What's the difference in terms of the pressure the White House feels that it's under to resolve the issues in North Korea and Iran, versus the pressure in 2002 during the State of the Union, when the President talked about the need to go to war in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's happened -- I'm not sure that you feel pressure, except in the case of Iran [sic] you had a nation that had already spurned 17 separate United Nations resolutions, the United Nations Security Council voting 15-0 on a resolution, saying to Iran [sic], cooperate or face serious consequences. You had -- I believe it was 72 votes in the United States Senate. So the point here is that --

Q Were you just talking about Iran, or Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, you were just asking about Iraq, right?

Q Yes. I thought you said, Iran. Okay.

MR. SNOW: You know, I may have screwed up. I meant Iraq. Helen has got me so befuddled today. (Laughter.) The point is that --

Q The resolutions never said, "war."

MR. SNOW: Thank you. The point is that there had been longstanding diplomatic efforts to try to get Saddam Hussein to make good on his promises. We don't want to go to war. I mean, that should be obvious to everybody. But on the other hand, it is also absolutely important for the North Koreans to stop engaging in this kind of provocative behavior, not only for their good, but for the good of their people.

What you have now is something that you haven't had before, at least for this administration, which is the unity of people in the neighborhood, working as one to try to get the North Koreans to step down. This we see as a promising development.

In 2002, the President made the axis -- made his announcement in the State of the Union speech. That was also the year in which the United States disclosed that the North Koreans had, in fact, been lying about their nuclear program. They had concealed a covert nuclear development program. At that point the United States began working diplomatically with the allies, and in 2003 you've got the six-party talks. So what you see here is the pressure of events, but also the opportunity to get people to work together.

In the case of Iran, when the Iranians started talking a little more assertively about developing a nuclear program, the United States, again, went to work. You have not only the EU3, but you've got the Permanent -- the P5 plus one, you've got the IAEA -- you have an expanding group of nations that also share an interest. This is how diplomacy ought to work, and we certainly hope diplomacy is going to succeed in both cases. That, obviously, is going to be a major topic when leaders meet next week at the G8.

Q Okay, just one quick follow-up. When you hear from your allies on Capitol Hill and elsewhere who were in favor of the preemptive doctrine, and they are critical of the administration, they think the administration is not doing enough in terms of North Korea and Iran, essentially continuing the Clinton administration policy on North Korea, for instance -- what's your response? What do you tell them?

MR. SNOW: Well, this is not the Clinton administration policy. I understand what the Clinton administration wanted to do. They wanted to talk reason to the government of Pyongyang, and they engaged in bilateral conversations. And Bill Richardson went with flowers and chocolates, and he went with light-water nuclear reactors, and he went with promises of heavy oil, and a basketball signed by Michael Jordan, and many other inducements for the "Dear Leader" to try to agree not to develop nuclear weapons, and it failed. But there was, at least, a good-faith effort on the part of some very smart people to use that as an approach.

We've learned from that mistake. One reason not to go bilateral with the North Koreans is what we're seeing right now, which is that you need to have concerted pressure, especially from those who have very close and ongoing ties with the government of North Korea so that you can get results. So this is not a continuation of the Clinton program.

Furthermore, I would point out to those who are concerned about what is going on, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, the United States and Japan -- there are eight parties right now, there are eight co-sponsors of this U.N. resolution. They haven't backed it off, they haven't taken it off the table. What they're trying to do is to allow the Chinese to go ahead and make it work so the resolution does not become necessary.

Q A couple of questions on Iraq. A weekend of violence again that's raised the specter of civil war there. Does the U.S. recognize this as a threat? And what, if anything, will they do, will the U.S. do to stop that trend?

MR. SNOW: Well, we went through this. This is a kind of a nice conventional wisdom story. But I'm -- we're still trying to figure out what the figures are over the weekend. There have been news stories that have gone from 11 to 50 in terms of the number of killings. It is obvious that there are people in Iraq who are trying to make the government fail, who do not want to see democracy succeed.

But I would also put you -- direct you to comments made today by Major General Thomas Turner who gave an interview, pointed out that in a number of other places in Iraq, especially in the north, where you had similar concerns not so long ago, suddenly people are more worried about economic development than security.

It is obvious that for many people, they believe that if you can disrupt Baghdad, you can kill democracy in Iraq. It is also obvious that it is U.S. policy and also the policy of Prime Minister Maliki that that is not going to happen; that they will bring the resources to bear to make sure that everything from roving gangs to insurgents who are determined to incite sectarian strife, that they do not succeed.

So it's a little difficult at any time to extrapolate from a single event. It is obvious, however, that there are some who are going to persist in committing acts of violence until they are stopped forcibly from doing so. And we support their forcibly being stopped so that, in fact, you can have civil society take root in Iraq, and that this government can succeed.

Q Also on Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q A follow-up on that.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Iraq's human rights minister has said that Iraq will ask the United Nations to end the immunity from local law for U.S. troops, and this is, of course, is following the charges being brought against six former and current soldiers for the rape-murder.

MR. SNOW: Right, understood. That again is a bilateral -- that is a matter of bilateral agreement or an ongoing agreement within Iraq and, obviously, that is something that people are going to be visiting in days ahead. Let me just say -- and this is an important point -- you will note that already military officials here in the United States are trying to get evidence in the case, and they are going to render indictments where they think they are appropriate, and they will go ahead and try to convict, and they will let the courts do their work. It is obvious that this is not a government that looks the other way when members of the military commit crimes.

On the other hand, the President is not in a position to speak -- you've heard me mention many times about command influence -- so we cannot speak about particular cases. We also understand Prime Minister Maliki's concerns, and we want to make sure that he is fully informed, and also that he is satisfied, regardless of what the treaty situation may be on these issues, that justice truly is being done and that he can make that demonstration to his people, as well.

Q How would the U.S. respond to any effort to lift that immunity?

MR. SNOW: You're playing the hypothetical game. Not going to go there.

Sheryl.

Q Senator Lindsey Graham has said that the commissions at Guantanamo, as the President envisioned them, need to be reined in. Does the President believe that these commissions need to be reined in, or is he simply going to ask Congress to codify what he issued by executive order?

MR. SNOW: What's going on right now, Sheryl, as you know, is a lot of people are still trying to parse what the Hamdan decision meant and didn't mean. And Senator Graham is being particularly helpful in that regard, as are a number of his colleagues. What we've always said is that we want to proceed to try to find justice for those at Guantanamo in a manner consistent with the decision in the United States Supreme Court. And depending on how you may characterize the previous commission's proposals, we are studying carefully how to make it consistent with the Supreme Court, and Senator Graham is doing the same.

Q Can I just follow up on that? Is there a plan to move these detainees or do anything else with them, other than keep them in a holding pattern while Congress is deliberating?

MR. SNOW: Where would you move them?

Q I don't know; I don't know what your plan is.

MR. SNOW: Well, the one thing -- we are not going to move them into places on American soil and to the civil justice system. These are people who were picked up off a battlefield. And many of you have been down there. You see the extraordinary measures that are taken not only to deal with their physical needs, but also their spiritual needs. And this is a facility at which there is extreme care taken to try not only to bring them to justice, but also to treat them humanely. So, no, there are no plans at this point to move them into another facility except to the extent to which we are able to repatriate those who might, in fact, be tried and cared for elsewhere.

What we do not want is what amounts to a catch-and-release program for terrorists. It is time now to make sure that terrorists no longer have the opportunity to kill innocents, and at the same time, that we proceed in a manner that's consistent with our principles. The Supreme Court decision, now, has forced everybody to try to figure out exactly what the justices had in mind and how best to carry it forward.

Q Are they in a holding pattern, then, until Congress acts?

MR. SNOW: They are in a holding pattern to the extent that those who are not being repatriated are going to be staying there; you're absolutely right.

Q What does the administration plan to do to step up enforcement of sanctions against Cuba, the economic sanctions?

MR. SNOW: Well, what you're seeing right now is -- I'm not sure that there is any attempt to step up economic sanctions. Economic sanctions have been in place against Cuba since 1961.

Q -- to that end --

MR. SNOW: You know what, I know the report came out today, and I'll get you guidance later in the day, Mike. I've been focusing more on North Korea. But I'll get you a good answer on it.

Q Tony, what do you say to the thesis advanced on the cover of Time Magazine and by some of the President's critics, that the days of "cowboy diplomacy," the President's doctrine of preemption are dead; that he heads to the G8 summit Wednesday a weakened President, now pursuing diplomacy as the strategy of last resort?

MR. SNOW: Well, it appears to me that the people at Time Magazine have just awoken to things the President has been doing for years. Welcome, Time. The diplomatic activities I've been talking about long predated -- but apparently reporters at Time weren't asking about it -- but as a matter of fact, the United States has been working a diplomatic track on Iran. It's been working a diplomatic track on North Korea. And it worked diplomatic tracks on Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think there's a misconception that preemption means war. It doesn't. Preemption means stopping somebody before they can do you harm. There are diplomatic ways to do that, and that is always preferable to using major force. And so there is no change. The idea -- was the President a cowboy when he put together the six-party talks? Was he a cowboy when he helped -- when he was supporting quietly the efforts of the EU3? Has he been a cowboy in trying to assemble the largest international coalitions ever to go after misbehavior on the part of individual actors? The answer is that this is a President who has always seen diplomacy as the first and most important step to take in trying to prevent people from behaving badly.

Q Thank you, Tony. Turning to this hemisphere, Mexico's President-elect Felipe Calderon made a startling statement last week in which he attacked the border security measure passed by the House, saying that more troops on the border or an extended fence would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. And he also indicated that he stood as -- where outgoing President Vicente Fox did on illegal immigration in the United States.

MR. SNOW: Which would mean he's against it.

Q Which would mean he's against it, but in terms of having more people come over, was in favor of it.

MR. SNOW: Well, a couple of things to note. First, in the President's conversations with President Fox -- and I will not try to prejudge anything he may say to President Calderon because he hasn't been sworn in -- he said that the United States was going to do what was necessary to maintain its security, and that included enhanced border security. So --

Q This is the President talking to Fox?

MR. SNOW: This is the President talking to Fox, and I've reported this conversation to you before. We appreciate that politicians may have things to say in their homelands, but what this President has is an obligation, a constitutional obligation, to make sure that there is security at home. So he has pursued that by dispatching National Guard forces to assist those working in the Border Patrol. This has freed up at least nearly 200 Border Patrol agents already to spend more time literally walking the borders. We have also allocated $1.9 billion to a combination of methods -- fences, technological means, and forces -- to slow the tide of people coming into the United States. As you probably know, John, immigration into the United States across the Mexican border has actually been declining since the year 2000, and is down dramatically in the last few months, so it's working.

So the President not only believes in border security, but he's also made a point that if you want borders to be secure and you want to put an end to illegal immigration, you got to set up a temporary worker program. There are a lot who come, work, go back. As a matter of fact, by Michael Chertoff's reckoning it could be 40 percent to 50 percent of all those who cross the border go back. You set up an orderly temporary worker program, you not only reduce the pressure for illegal immigration, you make it much more easy to secure your borders in a regular, enforceable and predictable manner. And that's one of the things we want.

Q All right, then what do you think -- or what does the administration say about a foreign politician denouncing domestic legislation in the United States, and particularly Calderon's denunciation of stronger border security and an extended fence?

MR. SNOW: Last time I checked, Calderon did not have any official authority over the activities of the United States government.

Q Can I follow up on that?

MR. SNOW: Yes, very quickly. Sure.

Q The call the President made to Calderon to congratulate him, that means that the U.S. government already recognized him as the President-elect of Mexico? Can you explain what --

MR. SNOW: Well, I believe the electoral commission had, in fact, declared him President. And according to the laws of Mexico, at this point, he is President. Should there be a recount, should there be another adjustment, should there be a change, then the President will acknowledge that, as well -- Mexico, obviously having the ability to decide who, as a result of transparent elections, is the President of the country.*

Q Tony, many experts now see the prospects of sanctions against North Korea to be pretty dim, and the diplomatic way forward is to have North Korea sign on to yet another moratorium on firing missiles and agree to six-party talks again. Is the President confident that, after 12 years of thumbing its nose at other agreements, that North Korea can act in good faith now?

MR. SNOW: You're assuming way too much, Brett. What you're doing is, you're sort of throwing your arms around the conventional wisdom that says that the Chinese and the Russians don't want anything to happen. Don't accept that. At this point --

Q -- think sanctions are possible?

MR. SNOW: Well, let's put it this way: There is a resolution on the table at the United Nations in the Security Council. It has been reported that a pretty sizeable majority of the Security Council supports it. It is very clear that the Chinese take seriously the need for the North Koreans to get back to what they did -- what they promised on September 19th of last year. Furthermore, they now need to show something. Their word is not -- they not only have to commit to doing it, they have to take positive actions, especially in terms of taking down the nuclear program.

So you put all that together -- I am not willing to buy the premise that diplomacy is dead. Nor am I willing to buy the premise that the Chinese and the Russians are unwilling to go forward. I think it is -- for reasons that I pointed out earlier in my answer to Kelly, there are a very strong reasons for the Chinese to want to ensure that the North Koreans do not proceed with something that could, in fact, unleash a series of probably unwelcome consequences, not only on the Korean Peninsula, but throughout the region in terms of military responses by sovereign nations.

Q I don't think anyone is saying diplomacy is dead, but they say that diplomacy hinges on North Korea agreeing to do something again, after 12 years of agreeing to do something --

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, but let's first see what happens. Keep in mind, it's not 12 years. The agreement we're referring to was September 19th of last year, by which you --

Q I'm going back to '94.

MR. SNOW: And I'm glad you did, because in 1994, that's the time when the United States tried on a unilateral -- on a bilateral basis, sitting down with North Korea. Bill Richardson went there, did his best, and he thought he had a deal, and he didn't.

And this is a time when you have to make it verifiable, but also that neighbors have to have a stake in it. This is not one where the United States can or should go it alone. You have to have the people who have the most influence to bear on the North Koreans, assuming responsibility for ensuring that the North Koreans stop behaving the way they are, in an unacceptable manner.

And nobody disagrees about the fact that it's unacceptable; and nobody disagrees that the North Koreans need to dismantle the nuclear program; and nobody disagrees that they need to stop firing the missiles. What has happened -- words alone won't be -- will not be enough, Brett. You're absolutely right about that, so it's an important point to make.

Q Just on another topic, quickly, the 45-day cooling-off period regarding the files seized by the FBI from Representative Jefferson's office is now over. What happens now?

MR. SNOW: Well, those records -- a couple of things. Talks are still ongoing between the Department of Justice and the House of Representatives, and they seem to be making considerable progress. Meanwhile, the judge in the case has maintained the same sort of standards for custody of the documents. They're still under lock and key in the custody of the Solicitor General.

So as legal deliberations move forward, both sides also -- or as the court case moves forward, both sides also are engaged in active negotiations. So we'll all hear at about the same time what they do. But the fact is there has been no change in the status of the documents. And, furthermore, it does seem that both sides are working together, trying to produce an acceptable -- result that's acceptable to both.

Q I don't know if you saw Congressman Hoekstra's comments over the weekend, but is the administration doing enough to brief Congress about secret programs?

MR. SNOW: You know, what's interesting is, Congressman Hoekstra, in the same thing, said that he's satisfied with the briefing now. I think there was a case in which the Congressman was unhappy about not being briefed. We have made it our view that they should always be briefed when appropriate, and there was a case where he thought that they should have been informed. And so, again, I think what you see -- quite often there are conflicts between Capitol Hill and the White House, as you know, and we've been working with Congressman Hoekstra, and furthermore, again, reading deeper into his answers, he seems satisfied with the steps that subsequently have been taken.

Q Why did a whistle-blower have to finally alert them, and will he be tried for treason?

MR. SNOW: That's almost a Lester question. Speaking of which --

Q Thank you, thank you. I'm honored. Tony, you were mentioned by The New York Times' Frank Rich, in yesterday's article --

MR. SNOW: Was I really? Oh, I missed it.

Q Yes, indeed, by name. It was a headline, all the news that's fit to bully. He charged that you, Tony, are, "insulting, for your official White House line, 'the Journal was merely following The Times.'" I have two questions. Do you or the President take seriously this, "insulting charge," coming from this New York Times person?

MR. SNOW: Frank should speak to his editors, and then get back to us on the characterization.

Q Do you or the President take seriously Mr. Rich's contentions of a, "Get the press lynch mob," and, "lynch mobs' efforts to single out The Times," or do you recognize this as quite obviously desperate extremism trying to ward off an indictment?

MR. SNOW: I want you to read those again. That's so delicious, I want to hear it again.

Q We'll do it. We'll do it. Do you, or the President, take seriously Mr. Rich of The Times, contention of a --

MR. SNOW: No, not the whole thing, just --

Q -- or do you recognize this as quite obviously desperate extremism trying to ward off an indictment?

MR. SNOW: No, I see Frank Rich enjoying his first amendment options, which he does in a way that many of us consider quite enjoyable. (Laughter.)

Okay, let's see, Victoria.

Q I have two. This week, as you know, the House Armed Services Committee, Senate Judiciary and Senate Armed Services Committee are holding hearings on bringing the Gitmo suspects or detainees to trial as a result of the Supreme Court hearing last week. Is there anything that the administration or the President would want to say to them on the eve of the hearings as they go into deliberation?

MR. SNOW: I think this is -- no, in a word. We've obviously been in contact with members of the Senate, and these are important hearings. What the Supreme Court has said is that Congress needs to authorize a way forward when it comes to the proper dispensations of the cases of those at Guantanamo. And therefore, Congress has an important role to play and the Senate is stepping forward and holding hearings and mulling options. You know, all help is welcome. And I think what people of goodwill need to do, and that's what we're seeing on Capitol Hill, is to find a way, consistent with national security, to bring to justice people who were plucked from the battlefield, people who were not representatives of any duly constituted army, who do not represent any nation state, and who have vowed to kill innocents -- how do you bring those properly to justice?

In some cases, it means repatriating, and in some cases, it's going to mean finding a proper way acceptable to the Supreme Court to conduct trials. So we welcome those hearings, and obviously we're going to work with Congress as it moves forward.

I think -- Victoria, I think there's a lot of head-scratching going on. And people really are trying to figure out what is it -- what exactly does the Supreme Court opinion imply about the way in which we can proceed forward. And I expect the hearings to be quite constructive.

David. Oh sorry, go ahead.

Q In the wake of the alleged atrocity at Mahmoudiya and all the others that we've been hearing about, are we taking any extraordinary measures to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world? Because the Arab media is all over this --

MR. SNOW: The Arab media --

Q -- worse than we did before.

MR. SNOW: The Arab media are all over it. I think the thing you do, number one is, you bring to justice those who are guilty of breaking laws. And certainly this is not a government that condones rape, murder, or the abuse of human rights. The second thing you do is you stay the course. And you allow the government of Prime Minister Maliki to create a functioning and successful democracy. And over time, what happens is media stories that may be negative, slowly are not -- are not going to be able to turn the tide of developments that in the long run are going to provide prospects for peace, hope and prosperity for people who in the past have not had the kinds of blessings that we take for granted. That's how you do it.

Q So we're not putting people out there?

MR. SNOW: And so we're not what?

Q So we're not specifically putting people out there, getting people out to be interviewed?

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of. That right now is more properly a Pentagon question and I'd direct it there. They may have some public diplomacy initiatives. I'm not aware of them right now. I know that, obviously, we've got General Caldwell out every day doing briefs.

David.

Q Okay, one more on Mexico and the timing of the call to Calderon. The President has had his own experience with disputed elections, and Vicente Fox is saying now that he won't meet with either candidate until things are worked out. Why not wait? I mean, why --

MR. SNOW: Because that was -- at least there was the perception that there had been an official determination that Mr. Calderon was the winner.

Q Is that still the perception?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know. We'll go back and fly-speck it for you, and I'll get you an answer.

Q Tony, there's been general condemnation, criticism of the Israeli moves into the Gaza Strip from most of the countries, except the United States. Why is the U.S. mum on --

MR. SNOW: The United States has always said the same thing. There has also been universal condemnation of the kidnaping of the Israeli soldier. And we have urged and continue to urge the Israeli government to proceed with moderation. But we have also been clear that the party that began this were those who kidnaped the soldier and those who also kidnaped a civilian and murdered him, and that that is unacceptable. And we are hoping that not only the soldier gets returned, but that we can find people of goodwill on both sides, that there can be a party on the Palestinian side to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis along the lines that we have always outlined, and we'll continue to.

Sarah.

Q Thank you. The Congress is trying to decide whether to order bilingual election ballots in as many as 31 states. In some of the states, as many as five languages are involved. What is the administration's position on having bilingual --

MR. SNOW: Sarah, what's going on, the President has said that he wants to see the Voting Rights Act renewed in its present form. In the present -- you already understand what's going on in the present form. There are bilingual ballots printed. There are a number of people in Congress who disagree, and they have -- there will be votes on those issues, and we'll see what happens in Congress.

I believe so far one has failed. But Congress does, in fact, have the opportunity to take a look at the legislation. We have an opportunity to look at what they have when they're done.

Goyal.

Q Tony, before my question, I just wanted to thank the President -- July 6th was a historic day in the East Room of the White House. And I think you will agree with me the President did have a warm welcome for the Canadian Prime Minister. And also, I'm thankful to my colleagues here in the White House in honoring Indian Americans from the U.S. and Indians in India -- the President really brought me to the global stage. And I thank him from the bottom of my heart.

The question is here that as for the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement is concerned, the Congress is debating, and two committees of the House and the Senate already last week passed a resolution. And -- speaking to Indian-American groups here in the -- region. And also, this morning, Heritage Foundation -- think tank, they also agree and supported the agreement. Do you think President is going to meet with the Prime Minister of India at the G8 in Moscow? And is he going to discuss --

MR. SNOW: I don't -- Goyal, I don't know. As you know, there's considerable speculation about bilateral meetings. You mean in St. Petersburg.

Q I'm sorry, yes.

MR. SNOW: And, frankly, I'm not -- we know, obviously, the bilateral meeting with President Putin. I'm not going to confirm or deny any others.

Q Just to follow that, do you think just missile tests by India is going affect at all on the Capitol Hill, or --

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. I don't think so. Again, the auspices under which is was conducted, making sure that everybody was notified in advance, are the sort of things that provide reassurance to people on the Hill.

Q The U.S. was notified in advance.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it was. The U.S. was notified in advance.

END 1:17 P.M. EDT

* While we understand that challenges have been filed, The President called Felipe Calderon last week to congratulate him on the announcement by Mexico's Federal Election Institute that he (Mr. Calderon) had received the largest number of votes.

ROLF HARRIS FOUND GUILTY OF INDECENT ASSAULT

A jury on Monday (30JUNE2014) found broadcaster and entertainer Rolf Harris guilty of 12 counts of indecent assault.

The 84-year-old celebrity was convicted of indecent assault on four victims aged 19 or under between 1968 and 1986.

Prosecutors said that for years he got away with brazen sexual assaults on young girls because he thought his fame made him untouchable.

Jenny Hopkins, of the Crown Prosecution Service, told reporters outside the court that Harris' victims had "suffered in silence for many years" only recently finding the "courage to come forward."

The Australian-born Harris was a prominent British broadcaster for decades and once performed with the Beatles.

Prosecutors described him as having a good and generous side, offset by a dark side that allowed him to molest young girls knowing they could not object and would not be believed if they did.

He had denied the charges and during the trial enjoyed the support of his wife and daughter, even though he was accused of repeatedly abusing one of his daughter's friends.

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org.

London, 30 June 2014

1. Long pan of broadcaster Rolf Harris arriving at Southwark Crown Court, accompanied by his wife, daughter and niece

++VIDEO AND AUDIO QUALITY AS INCOMING++

2. Various of broadcaster Rolf Harris leaving Southwark Crown Court, accompanied by his wife, daughter and niece and walking towards vehicle, surrounded by media

3. Harris getting into car

4. Top shot of car surrounded by reporters

5. Detective Chief Inspector Michael Orchard and Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Jenny Hopkins walking towards microphones

6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Michael Orchard, Detective Chief Inspector, Met Police:

"Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, Rolf Harris has habitually denied any wrongdoing, forcing his victims to recount their ordeal in public. He committed many offences in plain sight of people as he thought his celebrity status placed him above the law. I want to thank the women who came forward for their bravery. I hope that today's guilty verdict will give them closure and help them to begin to move on with their lives. Today's case and verdict once again shows that we will always listen to and investigate allegations regardless of the time frame or those involved."

AP PHOTOS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

FILE: London, 28 May 2014

7. STILL: Harris arriving at court

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

London, 30 June 2014

8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Jenny Hopkins, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor:

"Rolf Harris used his status and position as a world famous children's entertainer to sexually assault young girls over a period spanning 18 years. The victims in this case have suffered in silence for many years and have only recently found the courage to come forward."

9. Hopkins and Orchard walking away from microphones

HEADLINE: Court won't revive Clemens lawsuit against trainer

CAPTION: The Supreme Court has refused to revive Roger Clemens' lawsuit against his former personal trainer for claiming he injected the pitcher with steroids and human growth hormones. (June 28)

TRACK#1

ROGER CLEMENS SUFFERED A LEGAL SETBACK TUESDAY AS THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOT REVIVE THE FORMER STAR PITCHER'S LAWSUIT AGAINST HIS FORMER PERSONAL TRAINER FOR CLAIMING HE INJECTED CLEMENS WITH STEROIDS AND HUMAN GROWTH HORMONES.

THE HIGH COURT REFUSED TO HEAR AN APPEAL FROM THE SEVEN-TIME CY YOUNG AWARD IWNNER, WHO HAS AN UPCOMING PERJURY TRIAL IN WASHINGON.

THE 5TH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THREW OUT CLEMENS' DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST HIS LONGTIME TRAINER BRIAN MCNAMEE, SAYING A TEXAS FEDERAL COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CLEMENS' CLAIMS INVOLVING STATEMENTS MCNAMEE MADE IN NEW YORK.

CLEMENS WANTED THAT DECISION OVERTURNED, BUT THE HIGH COURT REFUSED TO TAKE UP THE CASE.

MCNAMEE SAID IN NEW YORK HE HAD INJECTED CLEMENS WITH STEROIDS AND HGH -- AND REPEATED THOSE ALLEGATIONS DURING AN INTERVIEW AT HIS NEW YORK HOME TO A WRITER FOR SI.COM.

CLEMENS HAS DENIED USING PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS, AND TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS IN FEBRUARY 2008 THAT HE NEVERED USED DRUGS IN HIS 24-YEAR CAREER.

CLEMENS' CRIMINAL TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN JULY 6.

John Klobucar, The Associated Press

RICHARD THRELKELD 1986 YEAR IN REVIEW CS.

10:00:01:11 CU of the giant neon apple falling and lighting

up a sign "1986" in Times Square in New York City. VS of New

Year's eve revelers in Times Square.

01:00:13:28 MS President Ronald Reagan expresses his New

Year's wish for the world. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev

does the same.

01:00:20:00 VS the crew of the ill fated Challenger depart

for the launch pad. VS of the shuttle exploding just after

liftoff. Reactions shots of people watching the disaster.

01:00:49:16 AERIALS of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in

the USSR in the aftermath of an accident there. VS of people

injured in the accident in a hospital.

01:01:10:11 Street scenes in the aftermath of terrorist

attacks around the world. CU of broken windows and injured

people.

01:01:14:08 B&W view from an American F111 bomber as it

attacked Libyan aircraft at a Libyan air base. Street scenes

in a Libyan city in the aftermath of the US air attack.

01:01:26:07 Cover video of the violence in South Africa. VS

of White police beating Blacks. LS of South African

President Pieter Botha attending an official ceremony.

01:01:43:16 VS of doctors treat people suffering from

Acquired Immune Dificiency Syndrome (AIDS). CU of a vial of

crack.

01:01:56:11 First Lady Nancy Reagan says "When it comes to

drugs and alcohol just say no".

01:02:02:13 Computer image of Halley's Comet. Intv w/ a

woman who saw the comet.

01:02:23:07 Highlights from the Superbowl between the New

England Patriots and the Chicago Bears. Highlights of the

New York Mets and the Boston Red Soxs in the World Series.

MS jockey Willie Shoemaker in the winner's circle at the

Kentucky Derby. WS Jack Nicklaus winning the Masters Golf

Tournament.

01:02:54:08 MS of bride Caroline Kennedy w/ her uncle

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MASS). MS of Maria Shriver posing

for photos w/ her husband Arnold Schwarzenegger on their

wedding day. MS actress Tatum O'Neal hugs her husband tennis

professional John McEnroe on their wedding day. VS Prince

Andrew and his wife Sarah Ferguson wave to a crowd on their

wedding day.

01:03:16:11 VS CU of Benny Goodman, James Cagney, Desi

Arnez, Cary Grant, basketball player Len Bias, reporter Joe

Spencer, and producer Mark McDonough.

01:03:45:13 VS of the Voyager experimental aircraft flying.

US Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist is sworn in as

the Chief Justice by departing Chief Justice Warren Burger.

MS of Austrian President Kurt Waldheim. B&W photos of

Waldheim wearing a Nazi uniform. CU Philippine President

Corazon Aquino says in a statement after taking office "The

long agony is over. We are finally free and we can be truly

proud". LS of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos

at a US Air Force base in Hawaii. INTS of Marcos' wife

Imelda's shoe closet.

01:04:40:11 Cover video of a demonstration in Haiti. NIGHT.

Haitian President Jean Claude Duvalier drives his car to the

airport to depart the country.

01:04:49:13 LS of Soviet dissident Natan Anatoly

Shcharansky on a bridge in East Germany prior to his

release.

01:04:51:08 LS captured American Eugene Hasenfus walks

through the Nicaraguan jungle escorted by Sandinistan

soldiers. Hasenfus walks through an airport terminal

following his release by Nicaragua.

01:04:58:23 LS American journalist Nicholas Daniloff

deplanes following his release by Soviet authorities. Soviet

spy Gennadi Zakharov boards a jet bound for the USSR

following his release by US officials.

01:05:18:28 MS of Reagan meeting w/ Gorbachev at the

Reykjavik summit in Iceland. Reagan campaigns on behalf of

republican senators and asks a crowd to "Win one for the

Gipper".

01:05:36:17 VS of US backed Contras at a base in Central

America. CU VS of released American hostages Lawrence Jenco

and David Jacobsen.

01:06:03:15 MS of former national security advisor Rear

Admiral John Poindexter at a congressional hearing

investigating the Iran arms sale scandal. TWO SHOT of

national security council aide Lieutenant Colonel Oliver

North and his attorney Brendan Sullivan at a congressional

hearing. MS North declines to answer questions for the

committee based on his constitutional rights.

01:06:21:22 Cover video of Hands Across America.

01:06:45:13 BEAUTY SHOTS of the Statue Of Libery 100th

anniversary fireworks display.

01:07:21:18 BLANK.

CI:

PERSONALITIES: ANDREW, PRINCE.

PERSONALITIES: AQUINO, CORAZON.

PERSONALITIES: ARNEZ, DESI.

PERSONALITIES: BIAS, LEN.

PERSONALITIES: BOTHA, PIETER.

PERSONALITIES: BURGER, WARREN.

PERSONALITIES: CAGNEY, JAMES.

PERSONALITIES: DANILOFF, NICHOLAS.

PERSONALITIES: DUVALIER, JEAN CLAUDE.

PERSONALITIES: FERGUSON, SARAH.

PERSONALITIES: GOODMAN, BENNY.

PERSONALITIES: GORBACHEV, MIKHAIL.

PERSONALITIES: GRANT, CARY.

PERSONALITIES: HASENFUS, EUGENE.

PERSONALITIES: JACOBSEN, DAVID.

PERSONALITIES: JENCO, LAWRENCE.

Personalities: Kennedy, Caroline.

Personalities: Kennedy, Edward.

Personalities: Marcos, Ferdinand.

Personalities: Marcos, Imelda (ABOUT).

Personalities: McDonough, Mark.

Personalities: McEnroe, John.

Personalities: Nicklaus, Jack.

Personalities: North, Oliver.

Personalities: O'Neal, Tatum.

Personalities: Poindexter, John.

Personalities: Reagan, Nancy.

Personalities: Reagan, Ronald.

Personalities: Rehnquist, William.

Personalities: Schwarzenegger, Arnold.

Personalities: Shcharansky, Natan Anatoly.

Personalities: Shoemaker, Willie.

Personalities: Shriver, Maria.

Personalities: Spencer, Joe.

Personalities: Sullivan, Brendan.

Personalities: Waldheim, Kurt.

Personalities: Zakharov, Gennadi.

Celebrations: New Year.

Disasters: Aftermath, Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

Accident.

Disasters: Explosions, Space Shuttle Challenger.

Government: Operations, Investigation, Iran / Contra

Scandal.

Military: Operations, US Bombing Of Libya.

Riots: South Africa.

A national UK police group looking into potential links between multiple British investigations into past child sex abuse said on Wednesday that more than 1,400 suspects have been identified.

The National Police Chiefs' Council, which coordinates separate abuse allegations across Britain, said 261 suspects were people of public prominence, including 76 politicians, 135 people from TV, film or radio, and 43 from the music industry.

Norfolk Chief Constable Simon Bailey said the referrals were increasing as victims had more confidence to report their abuse.

Britons were horrified to learn after the death of late children's entertainer and charity fundraiser Jimmy Savile in 2011 that he had been a serial predator, abusing children in places including hospitals for decades.

Other well-known figures have since been investigated for or convicted of using their positions to get away with abuse, including publicist Max Clifford and entertainer Rolf harris.

An official inquiry is underway looking into whether British public agencies had neglected or covered up abuse allegations from the 1970s.

SKY - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance

++16:9++

London - 20 May 2015

1. AERIAL of Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament) +MUTE SHOT+

SKY - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance

++16:9++

Wirral - 20 May 2015

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Graham Wilmer, Abuse victim and counsellor:

"The 1400 suspects that have been talked about today are literally the tip of the iceberg. We are working with hundreds of survivors who have yet to come forward, we are working with them helping them to come forward. So over the next months and years you will see many thousands more survivors will come forward."

POOL

FILE: Belfast - September 1973

++4:3++

3. TV personality Jimmy Savile running with young people at charity run in Belfast, Northern Ireland

POOL

FILE: London - November 1990

++4:3++

4. Savile posing for photographers after receiving knighthood at Buckingham Palace

SKY - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance

++16:9++

London - 20 May 2015

5. Sign outside Scotland Yard headquarters

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Constable Simon Bailey, Head of Child Protection at National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC):

"It means that victims more so that ever before are having the confidence to come forward and report abuse. And they can be reassured that when they come forward and report their abuse that we are now responding differently in the years gone by."

SKY NEWS - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance

++16:9++

FILE: London - 30 June 2014

7. Various of broadcaster Rolf Harris leaving Southwark Crown Court, accompanied by his wife, daughter and niece

SKY - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance

++16:9++

London - 20 May 2015

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Teresa May, British Home Secretary:

"This is a really difficult issue for us, but it's important the we uncover it, that we identify what went wrong in the past, that we learn lessons from it. Because I'm sure what everybody will want is to try to ensure that we don't see these terrible crimes being committed in the future."

SKY - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance

FILE: London - 2 May 2014

++16:9++

9. Publicist Max Clifford arriving at Southwark Crown Court

10. Clifford speaking to media

TULISA MAKES HER FIRST APPEARANCE AT CROWN COURT ACCUSED OF BROKERING A COCAINE DEAL

A court date has been set for singer and former U.K. "X Factor" judge Tulisa Contostavlos to stand trial on a charge of helping an undercover reporter obtain 13.9 grams of cocaine for �860.

The trial will take place on 14 July 2014, which is the day after the N-Dubz star celebrates her 26th birthday.

The news comes after the singer appeared at London's Southwark Crown Court on Thursday (9 JAN. 2014) for a preliminary hearing.

She appeared alongside her friend, Michael Coombs, a rapper known as Mike GLC.

Contostavlos, who came to fame with London group N-Dubz, was arrested on 4 June 2013 after the Sun tabloid ran a story claiming she had acted as a go-between in a deal to sell cocaine.

She denies being "concerned with the supply of 13.9 grams of cocaine" to the Sun on Sunday's undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood, known as the "fake sheikh," between May 20 and May 24.

She is accused of playing a "significant role" of putting the fake sheikh in touch with Coombs before the pair met at the Dorchester Hotel in central London.

Coombs denies a charge of supplying the drug on May 23.

The pair are on unconditional bail.

Contostavlos was replaced as a judge on TV talent show "The X Factor" by Sharon Osbourne before her arrest.

SKY NEWS - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance / No Access UK Mainstream broadcasters/Al Jazeera/Bloomberg. If you are a Foreign News Channel distributed in the UK and Ireland on Sky's digital satellite platform and want to use this content, please contact Anna Jones at Skycommercial@ap.org

London, 9 January 2014

1. Various Tulisa Contostavlos arrives and walks into Southwark Crown Court

2. Cutaway photographers

3. Medium shot Tulisa Contostavlos exits court

4. Cutaway photographers

5. Various Tulisa Contostavlos walks to car, drives away

Natural Sound

British rock star and actor Sting told a London court Thursday he was too busy to notice how his accountant embezzled million of pounds from bank accounts.

Keith Moore, the singer's former accountant, is accused of siphoning 6 million pounds (dlrs 9.3 million) from Sting's bank accounts over the years.

But Sting testified that he didn't notice the loss until an anonymous letter tipped him off.

The posse of photographers were lying in wait outside what's come to be known as the "celebrities court", Southwark Crown Court in south London.

Today's celebrity was one of the music world's biggest stars - Sting.

After years in the public spotlight he knew exactly what to do to gain a fairly smooth entry to the courtroom - but only after the hungry photographers were satisfied!

Sting was in court to testify against his former accountant who's accused of embezzling 6 (m) million pounds of the singer's money over a four-year period.

The court heard how Sting - referred to throughout by his real name Gordon Matthew Sumner - did not realise what was going on because he was too busy to notice since his career, and that of his band, the Police, took off.

Sting said he was not qualified to understand or control the complexity of his financial affairs and relied on his accountant - Keith Moore.

51-year-old Moore, who was Sting's accountant from 1977 until 1992, has pleaded not guilty to 15 sample counts of theft involving millions of pounds of the star's money.

Moore allegedly used the money for a series of failed business ventures, including a chain of Indian restaurants.

The cash was also allegedly twice used by Moore to avert his own bankruptcy.

Sting's bankers, Coutts, had to reimburse him for 4.8 (m) million pounds (dlrs 7.44 million) of the loss because the bank had transferred the

money to an account controlled by Moore without the required authorization.

The hearing is expected to last several days. Sting was recently ranked by a British news magazine, Business Age, as the 251st richest person in Britain with an estimated fortune of 70 (m) million pounds (nearly dlrs 110 million).

London, 21 September 1995

1.Wideshot exterior Southwark Crown Court - large group of photographers outside.

2.Close-up photographers waiting for Sting to arrive.

3.Sting's black Daimler arriving - he gets out of car and poses for press.

4.Reverse shot of Sting posing for photographs.

5.Sting walking into court.

6.Close-up sign outside Southwark Crown Court.

7.Defendant Keith Moore arriving at court.

8.Court drawing - Sting testifying at the hearing.

9.Court drawing - Moore testifying at the hearing.

10.Wideshot Sting being driven away after court hearing.

MAX CLIFFORD JAILED FOR EIGHT YEARS

Max Clifford, once one of the most powerful figures in the British entertainment world, has been jailed for eight years for a string of indecent assaults on four women.

The 71-year-old was found guilty on Monday of eight counts of the crime stemming from attacks on teenagers dating back more than 40 years.

Passing sentence, a judge at Southwark Crown Court told him: "These offences may have taken place a long time ago, when inappropriate and trivial sexual behavior was more likely to be tolerated, but your offending was not trivial, but of a very serious nature."

Clifford, who branded his accusers "fantasists," remained defiant ahead of his sentencing.

"My views on this subject I've made many, many times over the last 17 months," he told Sky News as he left his Surrey home on Friday morning. "They remain exactly the same, what I said in the past."

"I stand by everything I've said in the past," he said after arriving at court.

Clifford was known as a confidante of the stars and counted on by many celebrities to manage their careers during times of crisis.

He represented TV mogul Simon Cowell and advised countless others on public relations strategy and damage control.

Prosecutors charged in Southwark Crown Court that he lured young girls into sex by offering them acting roles, including in the hit TV soap opera "Dynasty."

In one case, Clifford was found guilty of repeatedly abusing a 15-year-old girl after he became friends with her family in Spain in 1977. She said he convinced her parents he could make her a star before taking her out in his car and sexually abusing her.

Clifford's trial followed the arrests of other high-profile show business figures accused of sex abuse dating back decades.

The investigations started when British police launched "Operation Yewtree" to investigate child sex abuse after a scandal surrounding late BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile.

SKY Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance / No Access UK Mainstream broadcasters/Al Jazeera/Bloomberg. If you are a Foreign News Channel distributed in the UK and Ireland on Sky's digital satellite platform and want to use this content, please contact Anna Jones at Skycommercial@ap.org

Sky News

Surrey, 2 May 2014

1. Continuous shot of publicist Max Clifford approaching media outside his house and then getting into car to drive to court for sentencing; UPSOUND (English):

(Reporter: "Are you planning on talking in court today?")

Clifford: "No."

(Reporter: "Do you think your victims are owed an apology for the crimes you've been convicted of? What are you expecting to happen today?")

Clifford: "Well, I'll go to court and I'll be sentenced. That's what's going to happen today."

(Reporter: "Would you like to take the opportunity now to apologize to your victims? Would you like to say anything on your behalf before you're sentenced?")

Clifford: "I've got nothing to add to all the things I haven't said in the last 17 months since this started."

(Reporter: "And how are you feeling today?")

Clifford: "Well, it's not the best day of my life, is it? But that's how it is, I'll just have to face up to it."

(Reporter: "A jury's convicted you of these crimes, what would you say to that?")

Clifford: "My views on this subject I've made many, many times over the last 17 months. They remain exactly the same, what I said in the past."

(Reporter: "And what will you be doing now? Will you be appealing?")

Clifford: "Who are you from?"

(Reporter: "Sky News")

Clifford: "You'll leave us now, won't you? You'll leave them alone."

London, 2 May 2014

2. Clifford getting out of car outside Southwark Crown Court ++MUTE++

3. Clifford speaking to media; UPSOUND (English):

(Reporter: "Max, have you got nothing to say to the women who have gone through the process of this trial?")

Clifford: "I stand by everything I've said in the past. Everything I stand by."

(Reporter: "That includes when you described them as liars and fantasists?")

4. Clifford entering court ++MUTE++

Max Clifford, once one of the most powerful figures in the British entertainment world, has been jailed for eight years for a string of indecent assaults on four women.

The 71-year-old was found guilty on Monday of eight counts of the crime stemming from attacks on teenagers dating back more than 40 years.

Passing sentence, a judge at Southwark Crown Court told him: "These offences may have taken place a long time ago, when inappropriate and trivial sexual behaviour was more likely to be tolerated, but your offending was not trivial, but of a very serious nature."

Clifford, who branded his accusers "fantasists", remained defiant ahead of his sentencing.

"My views on this subject I've made many, many times over the last 17 months," he told Sky News as he left his Surrey home on Friday morning. "They remain exactly the same, what I said in the past."

"I stand by everything I've said in the past," he said after arriving at court.

Clifford was known as a confidante of the stars and counted on by many celebrities to manage their careers during times of crisis.

He represented TV mogul Simon Cowell and advised countless others on public relations strategy and damage control.

Prosecutors charged in Southwark Crown Court that he lured young girls into sex by offering them acting roles, including in the hit TV soap opera "Dynasty".

In one case, Clifford was found guilty of repeatedly abusing a 15-year-old girl after he became friends with her family in Spain in 1977.

She said he convinced her parents he could make her a star before taking her out in his car and sexually abusing her.

Clifford's trial followed the arrests of other high-profile show business figures accused of sex abuse dating back decades.

The investigations started when British police launched "Operation Yewtree" to investigate child sex abuse after a scandal surrounding late BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile.

SKY - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance / No Access UK Mainstream broadcasters/Al Jazeera/Bloomberg. If you are a Foreign News Channel distributed in the UK and Ireland on Sky's digital satellite platform and want to use this content, please contact Anna Jones at Skycommercial@ap.org

Surrey

1. Continuous shot of publicist Max Clifford approaching media outside his house and then getting into car to drive to court for sentencing; UPSOUND (English):

Reporter: "Are you planning on talking in court today?"

Clifford: "No."

Reporter: "Do you think your victims are owed an apology for the crimes you've been convicted of? What are you expecting to happen today?"

Clifford: "Well, I'll go to court and I'll be sentenced. That's what's going to happen today."

Reporter: "Would you like to take the opportunity now to apologise to your victims? Would you like to say anything on your behalf before you're sentenced?"

Clifford: "I've got nothing to add to all the things I haven't said in the last 17 months since this started."

Reporter: "And how are you feeling today?"

Clifford: "Well, it's not the best day of my life, is it? But that's how it is, I'll just have to face up to it."

Reporter: "A jury's convicted you of these crimes, what would you say to that?"

Clifford: "My views on this subject I've made many, many times over the last 17 months. They remain exactly the same, what I said in the past."

Reporter: "And what will you be doing now? Will you be appealing?"

Clifford: "Who are you from?"

Reporter: "Sky News"

Clifford: "You'll leave us now, won't you? You'll leave them alone."

London

2. Clifford getting out of car outside Southwark Crown Court

3. Clifford speaking to media; UPSOUND (English):

Reporter: "Max, have you got nothing to say to the women who have gone through the process of this trial."

Clifford: "I stand by everything I've said in the past. Everything I stand by."

Reporter: "That includes when you described them as liars and fantasists?"

4. Clifford entering court ++MUTE++

SHOTLIST:

AP Television

Los Angeles - 4 May 2007

1. Wide exterior Los Angeles Municipal Court Metropolitan Branch

2. Close up of court sign

3. Pan up from photographers to news helicopter

4. Pan across photographers

5. Close up of photographers

6. Zoom in on Paris Hilton getting out of black Cadillac Escalade and walking up stairs into courthouse

AP Entertainment

FILE: Los Angeles - Recent

7. Paris Hilton at E3 gaming convention

8. Cutaway to photographers

VNR: Source unknown

9. File: Hilton posing for photographers at Sidekick 3 press event

ABC - No Access NAmerica/Internet

Los Angeles - 4 May 2007

10. Paris Hilton leaving courthouse

STORYLINE:

A judge sentenced Paris Hilton to 45 days in jail on Friday for violating her probation in an alcohol-related reckless driving case putting the brakes on the hotel heiress' famous high life.

Hilton, who parlayed her name and relentless partying into worldwide notoriety, must go to jail on 5 June and she will not be allowed any work release, furloughs, use of an alternative jail or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail, Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer ruled after a hearing.

Hilton told Judge Sauer that she was sorry and that from now on she would pay complete attention to everything.

She also told the judge, before he announced the sentence, that she did not do it on purpose.

She was then ordered to report to a women's jail in suburban Lynwood on the set date or face 90 days behind bars.

Hilton was among a series of witnesses who took the stand during the hearing.

She maintained she was unaware her license was suspended and thought she was allowed to drive for work purposes.

She said that when an officer who stopped her in January made her sign a document stating her license was suspended, she thought he was mistaken and did not actually look at the document.

Hilton arrived at the courthouse 10 minutes after the scheduled 1330 (2130 GMT) start time of the hearing.

The heiress arrived in the back of a black Cadillac Escalade and swept into the Metropolitan Courthouse with several men in suits, ignoring screams of photographers lining the route into a rear entrance.

Her mother Kathy and father Rick were with her.

Wearing a gray jacket and white shirt over black slacks and with a black headband on, she said nothing and appeared serious.

The celebrity case brought an unusual scene to the austere courthouse south of downtown in a commercial area.

As if at a red carpet event, dozens of photographers and reporters lined up at the rear entrance.

Yellow police tape substituted for velvet ropes.

Hilton, 26, pleaded no contest in January to reckless driving stemming from a 7 September arrest in Hollywood.

Police said she appeared intoxicated and failed a field sobriety test.

She had a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent, the level at which an adult driver is in violation of the law.

She was sentenced to 36 months probation, alcohol education and 1,500 US dollars in fines.

Two other traffic stops and failure to enrol in a mandated alcohol education program, are what landed the socialite back in court.

On 15 January Hilton was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol.

Officers informed her that she was driving on a suspended license and she signed a document acknowledging that she was not to drive, according to papers filed in Superior Court.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies stopped Hilton on 27 February and charged her with violating her probation.

Police said she was pulled over after authorities saw the car speeding with its headlights off.

Hilton's spokesman, Elliot Mintz, said at the time Hilton wasn't aware her license was suspended.

A copy of the document Hilton signed on 15 January was found in the car's glove compartment, court papers say.

Hilton was also required to enrol in an alcohol education programme by 12 February. As of 17 April, she had not enrolled, prosecutors said.

Hilton, heiress to the Hilton Hotel fortune, first gained notoriety for her hard partying as a teen.

She attracted worldwide attention when a sex tape she made with a boyfriend was released on the Internet.

She stars in the Reality TV series, "The Simple Life," now in its fifth season, with Nicole Richie, daughter of singer Lionel Richie.

She appeared in the 2005 film, "House of Wax" and recently finished filming "The Hottie and the Nottie."

She also is a handbag designer and has a namesake perfume.

Poland's justice minister on Tuesday revived an effort to have filmmaker Roman Polanski extradited to the US, where he is wanted in a nearly 40-year-old case involving sex with a minor.

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro's office said he asked Poland's Supreme Court to annul a ruling last October by a court in Krakow which found that Polish law forbids Polanski's extradition.

In November, prosecutors said they found no grounds to challenge the decision.

Ziobro took office late last year (2015), after the ruling, as part of a new conservative government.

The minister, who is also the country's chief prosecutor, argues that celebrity status is shielding Oscar-winning director Polanski in Poland, where he grew up and which he often visits.

The Krakow court's decision was at odds with a Polish-US extradition agreement, Ziobro's office argued in a statement.

"The aforementioned offence has not expired under the US legal system. Thus, Roman Polanski should be given over to United States representatives," Ewa Bialik, of the State Prosecutor's Office said on Tuesday.

The director pleaded guilty in 1977 to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl during a photo shoot in Los Angeles.

In a deal with the judge, he served 42 days in prison, but then fled the US fearing the judge would have him imprisoned again for much longer.

The US has been seeking to bring Polanski back and put him before a court.

Last year, the Krakow judge ruling on the case found that Polanski served his punishment in confinement in the US, and later for 10 months - partly under house arrest - in Switzerland in 2009-2010 when the US unsuccessfully sought his extradition there.

Poland's justice minister on Tuesday revived an effort to have filmmaker Roman Polanski extradited to the US, where he is wanted in a nearly 40-year-old case involving sex with a minor.

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro's office said he asked Poland's Supreme Court to annul a ruling last October by a court in Krakow which found that Polish law forbids Polanski's extradition.

In November, prosecutors said they found no grounds to challenge the decision.

Ziobro took office late last year (2015), after the ruling, as part of a new conservative government.

The minister, who is also the country's chief prosecutor, argues that celebrity status is shielding Oscar-winning director Polanski in Poland, where he grew up and which he often visits.

The Krakow court's decision was at odds with a Polish-US extradition agreement, Ziobro's office argued in a statement.

"The aforementioned offence has not expired under the US legal system. Thus, Roman Polanski should be given over to United States representatives," Ewa Bialik, of the State Prosecutor's Office said on Tuesday.

The director pleaded guilty in 1977 to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl during a photo shoot in Los Angeles.

In a deal with the judge, he served 42 days in prison, but then fled the US fearing the judge would have him imprisoned again for much longer.

The US has been seeking to bring Polanski back and put him before a court.

Last year, the Krakow judge ruling on the case found that Polanski served his punishment in confinement in the US, and later for 10 months - partly under house arrest - in Switzerland in 2009-2010 when the US unsuccessfully sought his extradition there.

TVN - NO ACCESS POLAND

Krakow - 31 May 2016

1. Ewa Bialik arriving for news briefing

2. SOUNDBITE (Polish) Ewa Bialik, State Prosecutor's Office:

"In the opinion of the Justice Minister and Attorney General, Krakow District Court in its verdict of 30 October 2015 denied the extradition of Roman Polanski after a one-sided and fragmented examination of the evidence. It also did not take into consideration any new circumstances that occurred with regard to this case. The court falsely assumed that Roman Polanski bore the consequences of his offence by undertaking a 42-day-long stay in an American jail and by being under the temporary house arrest in his Swiss villa. "

3. Cutaway of state prosecutor's office banner

3. SOUNDBITE (Polish) Ewa Bialik, State Prosecutor's Office:

"The court falsely assumed that Roman Polanski may not be extradited as the offence he is charged with has already expired on Polish territory. However, the aforementioned offence has not expired under the US legal system. Thus, Roman Polanski should be given over to United States representatives."

4. Bialik after news briefing

Two former assistants to celebrity chef, Nigella Lawson and her ex-husband, Charles Saatchi left a London court on Friday after being found not guilty of fraud.

The jury at Isleworth Crown Court rejected prosecution claims that Elisabetta Grillo and her sister Francesca had used credit cards loaned to them by Lawson and Saatchi for household expenses to run up unauthorised charges of 685 thousand pounds (more than 1 (m) million US dollars).

Throughout the trial the defence lawyers for the Grillos had claimed that Lawson approved their high spending in exchange for their silence about her drug use.

That argument shifted the spotlight from the sisters squarely onto Lawson and Saatchi, who divorced in July after he was photographed grabbing her neck outside a London restaurant.

Neither of the Grillos were in court when the verdict was read.

SKY - Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance / No Access UK Mainstream broadcasters/Al Jazeera/Bloomberg. If you are a Foreign News Channel distributed in the UK and Ireland on Sky's digital satellite platform and want to use this content, please contact Anna Jones at Skycommercial@ap.orgftp

1. Mid of sisters Elisabetta (first, with scarf) and Francesca Grillo (following, black coat), former assistants of celebrity cook Nigella Lawson, leaving London's Isleworth Crown Court after being acquitted of fraud

ENTERTAINER ROLF HARRIS ARRIVES IN COURT

Veteran entertainer Rolf Harris arrived at Southwark Crown Court in London on Tuesday for the continuation of his trial over a series of alleged sexual assaults.

The 84-year-old Australian celebrity and artist is charged with 12 counts of indecent assault on four victims aged 19 or under between 1968 and 1986. Harris denies the charges.

One alleged victim was said to be friends with Harris's daughter Bindi.

She has claimed that Harris first assaulted her on a family holiday in Hawaii 1978.

Harris's defence council Sonia Woodley QC however said the witness had flirted with him because she was jealous that his daughter had become closer to another friend, and "chemistry" had developed between them, leading to consensual sexual encounters.

SKY NEWS -Strictly no re-use/re-sale without clearance / No Access UK Mainstream broadcasters/Al Jazeera/Bloomberg. If you are a Foreign News Channel distributed in the UK and Ireland on Sky's digital satellite platform and want to use this content, please contact Anna Jones at Skycommercial@ap.org

1. Long continuous shot of entertainer Rolf Harris (84) walking towards Southwark Crown Court to face a string of indecent assault charges. He is is flanked by his daughter Bindi (left) and wife Alwen Hughes (right)

[ST. PETERSBURG, FLA USA]

FTG FOR COVERAGE OF THE CNN / YOUTUBE REPUBLICAN DEBATE AT THE MAHAFFEY THEATRE AT THE PROGRESS ENERGY CENTER IN ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, MODERATED BY ANDERSON COOPER

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR MIKE HUCKABEE

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CALIF)

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE REPRESENTATIVE TOM TANCREDO (R-COLO)

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TEX)

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FORMER SENATOR FRED THOMPSON (R-TENN)

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-ARIZ)

20:00:20 MR. COOPER: All right. Let's begin.

The governor introduced the candidates. He did a very good job of it. But one Republican YouTube user wanted to do that also, and he does it in a way that reminds us this is definitely a new kind of debate.

Here's Chris Nandor from Snohomish, Washington.

CHRIS NANDOR: (Singing.) The Grand Old Party's looking for somebody who can lead, someone who is electable and adheres to our creed. Some say the group is not diverse; they're white, they're men. But wait! The Dems have just one candidate. Republicans have eight!

Rudy's leading all the polls, but can he win the base? Mitt changed on abortion. History he can't erase. Ron Paul would end the FDA, and that is just a start. Fred has just begun to run but sure does look the part.

Hunter tells us what to do in foreign policy debates. Huckabee's compassionate and lost a lot of weight. Tancredo says let's build a fence across the whole Southwest. McCain is loved by many, and hated by the rest. (Laughter.)

We don't know who we're voting for. We don't know who will win. That's why use YouTube to ask our questions of these men. Time is short. We're voting soon, and I just thought I'd mention: If we don't reach consensus, then we'll decide at convention. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right.

You've got a guitar, right? Yeah.

All; right. Enough of the singing, enough of the snowmen,. Let's begin the debate. From one tough-talking New Yorker, a question to another tough-talking New Yorker.

Q This is Ernie Nardy (sp) from Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, New York, with a question for the Ex-Mayor Giuliani. Under your administration as well as others, New York City was operated as a sanctuary city, aiding and abetting illegal aliens. I would like to know, if you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?

20:10:25 MR. COOPER: All right.

You've got a guitar, right? Yeah.

All; right. Enough of the singing, enough of the snowmen,. Let's begin the debate. From one tough-talking New Yorker, a question to another tough-talking New Yorker.

Q This is Ernie Nardy (sp) from Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, New York, with a question for the Ex-Mayor Giuliani. Under your administration as well as others, New York City was operated as a sanctuary city, aiding and abetting illegal aliens. I would like to know, if you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?

20:11:05 MR. GUILIANI: Ernie, that was a very good question. And the reality is that New York City was not a sanctuary city. (Audio break) -- single illegal immigrant that New York City could find that either committed a crime or was suspected of a crime. That was in the executive order originally done by Ed Koch, continued by David Dinkins and then done by me.

And the reason for the confusion is, there were three areas in which New York City made an exception. New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn't allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week.

The only two exceptions related to care -- emergency care in the hospital and being able to report crimes. If we didn't allow illegals to report crimes, a lot of criminals would have gone free because they're the ones who had the information.

But the most important point is, we reported thousands and thousands and thousands of names of illegal immigrants who committed crimes to the immigration service.

They did not deport them. And what we did, the policies that we had were necessary because the federal policies weren't working. The federal policies weren't working, stopping people coming in to the United States.

If I were president of the United States, I could do something about that by deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence, by having a BorderStat system like my COMPSTAT system that brought down crime in New York and just stopping people from coming in, and then having a tamper-proof ID card.

20:12:36 MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?

20:12:38 MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?

MR. ROMNEY: Absolutely. Called itself a sanctuary city, and as a matter of fact, when the Welfare Reform Act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status. And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime, how about the fact that people who are here illegally are violating the law. They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally, and -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- this -- this just happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on the stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally. But the mayor said, and I quote almost verbatim, which is, if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here. That's the wrong attitude. Instead we should say, if you're illegally, you should not be here; we're not going to give you benefits other than those required by the law, like health care and education. And that's the course we're going to have to pursue.

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?

20:13:39 MR. GIULIANI: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the worst record. For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities; he did nothing about them. There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home illegal immigrants were being employed -- (laughter, cheers, applause) -- not -- not -- not being turned in to anybody or by anyone.

And then, when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never seemed to even catch the illegal immigrants who were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right. I got to allow Governor Romney just to respond, then we'll move on.

20:14:24 MR. ROMNEY: Mayor, you know better than that.

MR. GIULIANI: No, I --

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah? Okay, then let -- then listen, all right? Then listen. First of all --

20:14:31 MR. GIULIANI: You did -- you did -- you did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?

20:14:35 MR. ROMNEY: No, I did not. So let's just talk about that.

20:15:39 Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I -- I think it's really kind of offensive, actually, to suggest -- to say look, you know what, if -- if you're a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof -- if you hear someone that's working out there -- not that you've employed, but that the company has -- if you hear someone with a funny accent, you as a homeowner are supposed to go out there and say, I want to see your papers? Is that what you're suggesting?

MR. GIULIANI: What I -- what I'm suggesting is if you --

MR. ROMNEY: No, no, let's -- that's -- that's what -- (inaudible).

MR. GIULIANI: -- if you -- if you -- if -- if you are -- if you are going to -- (cheers, applause) --

MR. ROMNEY: Let me -- let me just --

MR. GIULIANI: If you -- if you are going to take --

MR. ROMNEY: Let me finish the rest of my story.

MR. GIULIANI: If you're going to take --

MR. ROMNEY: Let me finish the rest of --

MR. COOPER: No, you asked him a question, let him respond, and we got to move on.

20:16:40 MR. GIULIANI: If you're going to take this holier-than-thou attitude that your whole approach to immigration was so -- was so --

MR. ROMNEY: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier-than-thou, Mayor; it's the law.

MR. GIULIANI: You're going to take a holier-than-thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration --

MR. ROMNEY: I'm not perfect.

MR. GIULIANI: It just so happens that you have a special immigration problem that nobody else here has. (Laughter.) You were employing illegal immigrants.

MR. ROMNEY: You know, one -- one --

MR. GIULIANI: That is a pretty serious thing. (Applause.) They were under your nose. (Applause.) And --

MR. COOPER: All right, we need to --

MR. GIULIANI: -- and -- and --

MR. ROMNEY: I ask the mayor again: Are you suggesting, Mayor, that if you have a company that you hired to provide a service --

REP. HUNTER (?): Cooper, let us jump in here.

MR. ROMNEY: -- that you now are responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that -- that might look different or don't -- doesn't have an accent like yours, and ask for their papers? I don't think that's America, number one.

Number two, let me --

MR. COOPER: We got to move on.

MR. ROMNEY: -- let me tell you what I did as governor. I said no to drivers' licenses for illegals. I said, number two, we're going to make sure that those that come here don't get a tuition break in our schools, which -- I disagree with other folks on that one. (Applause.)

Number three, number three, I applied to have our state police enforce the immigration laws in May, seven months before I was out of office. It took the federal government a long time to get the approvals.

MR. COOPER: Okay --

MR. ROMNEY: And we enforced the law, and Massachusetts is not a sanctuary state. And the -- the policies of the mayor of pursuing a sanctuary nation or pursuing a sanctuary city are frankly wrong.

MR. COOPER: We've got a number --

MR. GIULIANI: It's --

MR. COOPER: -- we've got a number of questions from our viewers on this topic. So where -- we have a lot more to talk about on this. (Applause.) You will have another chance to respond.

MR. GIULIANI: And it is really hard -- it's really hard to have employer sanctions. (Booing.)

MR. COOPER: All right.

MR. GIULIANI: It's really hard to have employer sanctions. (Booing.)

20:16:46 MR. COOPER: Okay. Let's play next video from the same topic.

MICHAEL WEITZ (Franklin, New Jersey): Good evening. There are thousands of people in Canada and Mexico waiting to come to America legally. They want to become American citizens. They want to be part of the American dream. Yet there are those in the Senate that want to grant amnesty for those that come here illegally. Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally? Thank you. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Senator Thompson?

20:17:24 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I'd pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair -- (applause) -- we have -- we have thousands of people standing in line at embassies around the world to become United States American citizens, to come here, to get a green card, to come here and to assimilate and be a part of our culture.

They are part of what has made our country great, some of our better citizens. We all know them and love them. Now it's our country together, theirs and ours now together. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home. And to place somebody above them or in front of them in line is the wrong thing to do. We've got to strengthen the border, we've got to enforce the border, we've got to punish employers -- the employers who will not obey the law, and we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, if you continue this we're going to cut off federal funding for you; you're not going to do it with federal money. (Applause.)

Now, there are parts of what both of these gentlemen have just said that I would like to associate myself with. First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the (first generation ?) plan until a short time ago. Now he's taken (another ?) position, surprisingly. (Laughter.)

MR. : (Inaudible.)

MR. THOMPSON: As far as Mayor Giuliani is concerned, I am a little surprised the mayor says, you know, everybody's responsible for everybody that they hire, but we'll have to address that a little bit further later. I think we've all had people, probably, that we have hired that in retrospect probably it was a bad decision.

(Inaudible cross talk.)

20:19:16 He did have -- he did have a sanctuary city. In 1996 I helped pass the bill outlawing sanctuary cities. The mayor went to court to overturn it. So if it wasn't a sanctuary city, I'd call that a frivolous lawsuit. (Laughter.)

(Audio break.)

20:19:38 MR. GIULIANI: New York City was not a sanctuary city. New York City did three exceptions. The three exceptions were to allow children to go to school; to allow those illegal immigrants who were the victims of crimes to report the person who assaulted them, beat them up, mugged them; and third, to allow emergency care in the hospitals, which we were required to do by federal law.

We had a policy of reporting every single illegal immigrant, other than those three, who committed any kind of crime --

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. GIULIANI: -- or were suspected of crime, and we reported thousands of them to the immigration service and few of them were deported.

MR. COOPER: Senator McCain, let me bring you back to the question that was asked by the YouTube user. Would you be willing to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those who have come here illegally?

20:20:21 SEN. MCCAIN: Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty. But you know --

HECKLER: (Off mike.)

SEN. MCCAIN: -- this whole debate --

MR. COOPER: Come on. Please, let him answer.

SEN. MCCAIN: You know, this whole debate saddens me a little bit because we do have a serious situation in America. In 1986, we passed a law that said we would enforce our borders and gave amnesty to a couple million people. We gave the amnesty, now we have 12 million people and still borders that are not enforced.

I came to the Senate not to do the easy things, but to do the hard things. Mel Martinez and I knew that this was going to be a tough issue, but we thought the status quo was unacceptable -- broken borders, 12 million people here illegally, a need for a temporary worker program certainly in my state in the agricultural sector, certainly in the state of Florida. And we tried to get something done. We said we'd enforce the borders. The American people didn't believe us. They don't believe us because of our failure in Katrina, our failure in Iraq, our failures in -- reining in corruption and out- of-control spending. So we tried and we failed.

And I appreciate the president's efforts. He comes from a border state, too. And what we've learned is that the American people --

MR. COOPER: Time.

SEN. MCCAIN: -- want the borders enforced. We must enforce the -- secure the borders first.

But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. And we sit -- we need to sit down --

MR. COOPER: Okay, time.

SEN. MCCAIN: -- as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well and they need some protections under the law and they need -- (applause) -- and they -- they need some of our love and compassion.

MR. COOPER: Thank you, sir.

SEN. MCCAIN: And I want to ensure you that I'll enforce the borders first, but as president of the United States, we'll solve this immigration problem and we won't demagogue it and we won't --

MR. COOPER: Thank you.

SEN. MCCAIN: -- have sanctuary cities and we won't have all this other rhetoric that unfortunately --

MR. COOPER: Thank you.

SEN. MCCAIN: -- contributes nothing to the national dialogue. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Thank you, Senator.

20:22:23 Michael Weitz, who actually asked that question, is here in the audience. Michael, do you feel you got an answer?

MICHAEL WEITZ: Am I happy with the answer?

MR. COOPER: Yeah.

MR. WEITZ: One yes, one no and one sort of. (Laughter.)

MR. COOPER: All right. Appreciate you --

MR. WEITZ: (Inaudible.)

MR. COOPER: (Laughs.) I -- well, Congressman Tancredo?

20:22:40 REP. TANCREDO: Yeah, well, I tell you, this has been wonderful. I -- and Senator McCain may not be happy with this -- the spirit of this debate. As -- for a guy who usually stands on the bookend -- here -- side and just listens all the time, that's kind of frustrating, you know, in other debates. I have to tell you, so far it's been wonderful -- (laughter) -- because -- because all I've heard is -- is -- is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo. (Laughter.) It is great. I am so happy to hear it. (Applause.) It is a wonderful thing, and it's a good message. Yes, we want to secure the borders. And --

MR. COOPER: Our next question is actually directly to you, so let's bring it up. (Laughter.)

REP. TANCREDO: Let me go ahead and answer it. Next question.

MR. COOPER: All right.

20:23:16 JACK BROOKS (CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND): Hammered by competition with imports, our family owned business struggles each year to find seasonal groceries.

Q We've been working with a seasonal guest-worker program, the H2-B program, bringing in and sending home workers every year. With Congress failing to enact a comprehensive immigration and guest- worker bill --

Q I want to know --

Q (In Spanish.)

Q I want to know whether I'll have a job next year.

Q And what are you going to do to keep these guest workers coming to the U.S. to save our business?

MR. COOPER: Congressman Tancredo?

20:23:43 REP. TANCREDO: Okay. The gist of the question, as I understand it, is what I'm going to do to stop guest workers from coming in here?

MR. COOPER: No, no, to help.

REP. TANCREDO: To aid it?

MR. COOPER: This small business needs guest workers.

REP. TANCREDO: I'm sorry. I could not hear that. I'm sorry

20:23:55 Well, I'll tell you, I'm not going to aid any more immigration into this country, because in fact immigration -- (applause) -- massive immigration into the country -- massive immigration, both legal and illegal, does a couple of things. One of it is makes it difficult for us to assimilate. The other thing is that it does take jobs -- I reject the idea -- I reject the idea categorically that there are jobs that, quote, "no American will take." I reject it. (Applause.)

Now what they will do -- what you can say -- what you absolutely can say that is truthful is that there are no -- there are no -- there are some jobs Americans won't take for what I can get an illegal immigrant to do that job. Yeah, that's true. (Applause.) But -- but am I going to feel sorry if a business has to increase its wages in order for somebody in this country to make a good living? No, I don't feel sorry about that, and I won't apologize for it for a moment. And there are plenty of Americans who will do those jobs. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congressman Hunter?

20:24:48 REP. HUNTER: Yeah. Super -- super -- a great debate. It's nice to listen to -- to lots of statements about what the other candidates will do with respect to the borders.

I built that border fence in San Diego, and it does work. (Cheers, applause.) It's a -- (off mike).

Well, you know, we built a double fence. We had the number-one smugglers' corridor in America, with most of the illegal aliens and most of the drugs that came into the entire country coming in through that number-one corridor between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California.

We built the double border fence with a road in between, and we reduced the smuggling of people and drugs by more than 90 percent. And as a result of that, the crime rate -- (applause) -- the crime rate in the city of San Diego went down by 53 percent by FBI statistic.

And a result of that, I wrote the law that the president signed last October 26, incidentally, passed the Senate 80 to 19, that mandates 854 miles of double border fence across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Now the administration has $800 million --

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. HUNTER: -- on hand right now, cash on hand; they haven't built a linear inch of that fence in Texas. And as president of the United States, I would build the double border fence, all 854 miles, in six months.

MR. COOPER: Next question is --

REP. HUNTER: That's my commitment. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: -- on immigration as well, and it's going go for Governor Huckabee. Let's watch.

20:26:09 Q Governor Huckabee, as governor in Arkansas, you gave illegal aliens a discount for college in Arkansas by allowing them to pay lower in-state tuition rates. However, we have thousands of military members currently serving our country in Iraq with children at home. If these children chose to move to Arkansas to attend college, they would have to pay three times the tuition rate that illegal aliens pay. Would you support a federal law which would require any state to give these tuition rates to illegal aliens to give the same rate to the children of our military members?

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee, you have 90 seconds.

20:26:47 MR. HUCKABEE: Thank you very much.

Ashley, first of all, let me just express that you're a little misinformed. We never passed a bill that gave special privileges to the children of illegals to go to college.

Now, let me tell you what I did do. I supported a bill that would have allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their peers had who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms. They couldn't just move in in their senior year and go to college. It wasn't about out-of-state tuition; it was an academic meritorious scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship.

Now, let me tell you a couple of provisions of it.

And by the way, it didn't pass. It passed the House, but got in the Senate and got caught up in the same kind of controversy that this country's caught up in.

Here's what happened. This bill would have said that if you came here not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime. That's not what we typically do in this country. It said that if you'd sat in our schools from the time you're 5 or 6 years old and you had become an A-plus student, you completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student, and you also had to be drug and alcohol free, and the other provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.

It accomplished two thing that we knew we wanted to do, and that is, number one, bring people from illegal status to legal status; and the second thing, we wanted people to be taxpayers, not tax takers, and that's what that provision did.

And finally, would we give that provision to the children of veterans personally? What we've done with not just the children of veterans but, most importantly, veterans, is disgraceful in this country. And that's why I've proposed a Veterans Bill of Rights that, if anything, would give our veterans the most --

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. HUCKABEE: -- exceptional privileges of all, because they are the ones who have earned all of our freedom, every single one of them. (Cheers, applause.)

20:28:45 MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, you called -- you called Governor Huckabee a liberal on immigration.

(Applause for Mr. Huckabee continues.)

20:28:52 MR. ROMNEY: Well, you know, I like Mike, and I heard what he just said. But he basically said that he fought for giving scholarships to illegal aliens. And he had a great reason for doing so. It reminds me of what it's like talking to liberals in Massachusetts. All right? They have great reasons for taking taxpayer money and using it for things they think are the right thing to do.

Mike, that's not your money. That's the taxpayers' money. (Cheers, applause.) And the right thing here is to say to people that are here legally as citizens or legal aliens, we're going to help you.

But if you're here illegally, you ought to be able to return home or get in line with everybody else, but illegals are -- are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks that are better than our own citizens', those that come from other states or those that come here -- (inaudible).

MR. COOPER: You have 30 seconds to respond.

20:29:36 MR. HUCKABEE: Well, but they didn't get something better; they had to earn it.

And you know something, I worked my way through college. I started work when I was 14 and I had to pay my own way through, and I know how hard it was to get that degree. I'm standing here tonight on this stage because I got an education. If I hadn't had the education, I wouldn't be standing on this stage. I might be picking lettuce. I might be a person who needed government support rather than who was giving so much money in taxes I want to get rid of the tax code that we've got and make it really different.

MR. ROMNEY: I --

MR. HUCKABEE: Mitt, let me finish. No, let me finish, Mitt.

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. HUCKABEE: In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that. (Cheers, applause.)

20:30:21 MR. COOPER: We've got another question -- we've got one more question for --

MR. ROMNEY: I get -- I get a chance to just respond to that.

We're not punishing children for what their parents did. And I respect the fact that you worked your way through college and it got you to where you are. That's wonderful. A lot of people in this country do tremendous things to get their education.

But the question is, are we going to give taxpayer-funded benefits to kids that are here illegally and put them ahead of kids that are here legally? There's only so much money to go around --

MR. HUCKABEE: No -- (inaudible) -- (number of scholarships ?), Mitt.

MR. ROMNEY: -- and we decide -- there's only so much money to go around -- let me finish too.

MR. HUCKABEE: Well, let's just be factual.

MR. COOPER: You've got 30 seconds. Your time's up.

MR. ROMNEY: There's only so much money. Are we going to say that kids that are here illegally are going to get a special deal? Are they going to get a deal better than other kids? Do they get benefits by virtue of coming here illegally? And the answer is no.

MR. HUCKABEE: No, they've got to earn it. That was the difference. They had to earn it by their record.

MR. ROMNEY: They had to be here illegally.

MR. COOPER: We've got another question from a YouTube watcher. Let's watch.

20:31:08 Q Good evening, candidates. This is Seepser (ph) from Arlington, Texas, and this question's for Ron Paul.

Now, I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council on Foreign Relations and some plan to make a North American Union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico. These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory.

So my question to you is, do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?

MR. COOPER: (Off mike) -- Paul, 90 seconds.

20:31:37 REP. PAUL: Well, that all depends on what you mean by "all of this." The CFR exists. The Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.

And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was am move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up -- so we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a hold on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.

So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy. It's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move in the direction of international government, more U.N.?

You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So I'm against all that, but it's not so much it's a sinister conspiracy; it's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.

20:33:17 MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, thank you. (Cheers, applause.)

We've got a question moving onto another topic -- the economy, money.

Next question.

20:33:34 Q My name is Sarah Loderock (sp). I'm 18 years old, and I'm from Scottdale, Pennsylvania, and I'm a student at Penn State University. Often I've heard both politicians and voters express their concern with providing a better future for their children. A concern of my generation is the trillions of dollars in national debt and what kind of responsibility we will have for that in the future. My question for you all is: If elected, what measures will you take to tackle the national debt and control spending?

MR. COOPER: Senator McCain, have the Republicans forgotten how to control spending?

20:33:58 SEN. MCCAIN: Absolutely. Absolutely. When we came to power in 1994 -- (applause) -- the government -- changed government and government changed us. We let spending lurch completely out of control. We spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue. (Laughter.) We've presided over great expansion of government; the latest being in the SCHIP, which was going to be paid for supposedly with a dollar a pack increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes. So we're going to help children with their health insurance and hope that they continue to smoke.

So I have a record of fighting against wasteful spending. I have a clear record of winning. I saved the taxpayers $2 billion on a bogus Air Force Boeing tanker deal where people went to jail.

I led in the Abramoff hearings in the obscure Indian Affairs Committee, for which people are still testifying and going to jail.

As president of the United States, I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me and I'd veto every single pork-barrel bill that comes across my desk. I'd make the authors famous. And we've got to stop it, and stop it now. And I can do it, and I've done it, and I've got the record. (Applause.) And I know how Washington works, and I look forward to it.

20:35:17 MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, what would you do to control spending?

20:35:21 MR. ROMNEY: Well, the senator is absolutely right. Every bill that comes forward that's got pork in it and earmarks that are unnecessary, we've got to veto them and send them back. And that's a lesson that's going to have to be done.

But, you know, it's got to be broader than that. We're going to have to see fundamental change in the way Washington works. We're just not going to get out-of-the-box thinking with inside-the-Beltway politics. And we're going to have to fundamentally go at something like our entitlements and say, "We've got to reform those."

I took on a major issue, which was health care, found a way to get people health insurance without having to expand government, without having to raise taxes. We're going to have to go after entitlements. We're going to have to set a cap, as I have proposed, on all non-military discretionary spending at inflation less 1 percent. Anything above that, we veto it.

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?

20:36:06 MR. GIULIANI: I think you have to do across-the-board spending cuts the way Ronald Reagan did, at 5, 10 percent per civilian agency. It should be done right now, actually. President Bush should do it to strengthen the dollar.

We should commit not to rehire half of the civilian employees that will retire in the next 10 years. That's 42 percent of the federal workforce will retire in the next 10 years. Don't rehire half of them. Use technology, one person doing the job of two or three. Every business has done it. The government has to do it.

And we should look at those programs. There are -- about 3 percent of programs that OMB finds every year are failing. They should be zeroed out. Twenty-two percent are found to be not able to be evaluated. They should be looked at.

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. GIULIANI: We need that kind of approach.

20:36:47 MR. COOPER: The next question is going to go to Senator Thompson as well as Ron Paul. Let's watch it.

Q Hi. I'm Emily and I'm from Los Angeles. The Republican Party once stood for limited government, which meant reduced federal spending because we taxed less and we spent less. However, over the past decade, real discretionary federal spending has, in fact, increased 40 percent, more than half of which has been non-defense- related.

So my question is, what are the names of the top three federal programs you would reduce in size in order to decrease --

MR. COOPER: Senator Thompson.

20:37:21 MR. THOMPSON: Well, it's a target-rich environment; there's no question about it. What most of these gentlemen have said are absolutely correct. The difficulty is, most of the programs that we talk about, most of the ones that get the headlines, would not begin to solve the problem.

Mitt's right when he mentions entitlements. That's why I have laid out a program to not attack entitlements but to save Social Security. Everybody talks about wanting to do something about it. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are the ones that we're really going to have to reform if we're going to make any headway in the spending.

MR. COOPER: So the top three, you would say Social Security --

20:37:57 MR. THOMPSON: No, I didn't say that. There is -- the OMB has come out with a list of over 100 programs. I would take all 100 of them, the ones that are full of waste, fraud and duplication. I filed a report in 2001, when I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and identified billions of dollars that we should be saving.

But my point is that we're going to have to reform Social Security. We're going to have to reform Medicare. I've laid out a detailed plan that will give individual retirement accounts for people, matched by the government, and also reindex the way benefits are calculated initially when a person retires.

And together, that program has been said by the experts already to say that -- have said that it would, after 75 years, make Social Security actuarially sound. I've got the only program out there that really addresses specifically one of the programs that's going to have to be reformed.

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul, the question was three programs. Can you name three?

20:38:53 REP. PAUL: Yes. And I would like to state that the statement earlier made that we all went to Washington to change Washington and Washington changed us, I don't think that applies to me. Washington did not change me. (Cheers, applause.)

I would have liked to have changed Washington, and we could by cutting three programs such as the Department of Education -- Ronald Reagan used to talk about that; Department of Energy. Department of Homeland Security is the biggest bureaucracy we ever had. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. PAUL: And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy.

MR. COOPER: Time.

REP. PAUL: Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars. And we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee, 30 seconds -- three programs.

20:39:39 MR. HUCKABEE: Anderson, the first thing that I would get rid of would be the Internal Revenue Service. (Cheers, applause.) We'd have a complete getting rid of a $10-billion-a-year industry. (Sustained applause.) I'm not being facetious. If we enacted the Fair Tax, one of the most researched ways to revive our economic future. (Cheers, applause.) We will get rid of the IRS.

Secondly, I agree we need to revamp Homeland Security. It's a mess, and we have a real problem with the way that it's currently structured. And the third --

MR. COOPER: Thirty seconds is up.

MR. HUCKABEE: What's that?

MR. COOPER: Thirty seconds is up.

MR. HUCKABEE: Oh, okay. (Laughter.) I'd get rid of the IRS, and that would count for most of the problems. Most people in this country are more afraid of an audit than they are a mugging, and there's a reason why. (Applause.)

20:40:27 MR. COOPER: We got more questions on the (sales tax ?). This next question is for Senator McCain.

Q My name is Ronald Lanham from Mobile, Alabama. And I want you to tell me, do you support the elimination of the federal income tax in favor of a national retail sales tax, also known as the FairTax? Thank you.

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee supports it. Do you?

20:40:51 SEN. MCCAIN: I do not. And I think we should look very carefully at it and I think we should look very carefully at some of the provisions, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, would increase an individual's tax rate up into the 30s.

Obviously, we need a simpler, fairer tax code. Everybody knows that. We need to have a commission that reports out a credible proposal. And then we do what we do with the base-closing commissions. Congress can't full around; they either vote yes or no. If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.

I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talking about bringing our troops home and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.

And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed -- we allowed -- (cheers, applause, boos) --

MR. COOPER: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please. (Cheers, applause, boos.)

20:41:51 SEN. MCCAIN: We have -- we allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement. (Boos, cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Okay.

SEN. MCCAIN: I want to -- and I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is: Let us win. Let us win. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right. We will -- please. (Cheers, applause.) We will get to Iraq -- (cheers, applause) --- all right. Let me just remind -- let me just remind everyone that these people did take a lot of time to ask these questions, and so we do want direct questions to the answers (sic). We will get to Iraq later, but I do have to allow Congressman Paul 30 seconds to respond.

20:42:41 REP. PAUL: Absolutely.

The real question you have to ask is, why do I get the most money from active-duty officers -- military personnel? (Cheers, applause.)

So what John is saying is just totally distorted. He doesn't even understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationism. (Scattered boos.)

I'm not an isolationism -- an isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel, but I don't want --

MR. COOPER: Time is up, but we're going to talk about this later.

REP. PAUL: -- to send our troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here, and they're going to object to us over there. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right. We will have a lot more on Iraq coming up. It's obviously a very heated topic.

Sticking on the economy, though, a familiar face asking a very simple question.

20:43:26 Q President Bush made a commitment when he ran for president in 2000 and 2004 that he would oppose and veto any tax increase that Congress sent him. My question to each of the candidates is: Would you promise to the people watching this right now that you will oppose and veto any effort to raise taxes as long as you're president?

MR. COOPER: I doubt you can do it, but very short answers.

Congressman Tancredo.

20:43:52 REP. TANCREDO: Yes, I can. I have the highest rating, by the way, from the American Conservative Union of anybody on this stage --

MR. COOPER: Oh yeah?

REP. TANCREDO: -- and yes, to Grover because he knows I have the highest rating from the Americans For Tax Reform. (Scattered cheers.) Thank you very much, Grover. Appreciate it.

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee.

MR. HUCKABEE: I would. Anderson, in fact, I've signed a pledge to that effect and would keep that pledge.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney?

MR. ROMNEY: I've signed Grover's pledge as well. I believe I was the first person on this stage to do so.

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?

MR. GIULIANI: Yes, I would. I did it as mayor. I would do it as president. I had one of the best records in the country for lowering taxes while I was mayor. I expect to have a great record as president.

MR. COOPER: Senator Thompson.

MR. THOMPSON: Cut tax cuts for eight years when I was in the United States Senate. Never met a tax I like. I've got a tax cut bill on the table, but I don't do pledges to anybody but the American people. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Senator McCain?

20:44:39 SEN. MCCAIN: I have a 24-year record of opposing tax increases and supporting of tax reductions, and no, I -- like Fred, my pledge and my record is up to the American people, not up to any other organization.

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul?

20:44:51 REP. PAUL: I have never voted for a tax increase, never will. But the tax issue is only one half of it. You can easily pledge not to raise taxes, but you have to cut spending. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congressman Hunter?

20:45:03 REP. HUNTER: You know, I came in with Ronald Reagan in 1980 to -- to cut taxes, and I probably voted for more tax cuts than anybody here.

But you could have an emergency, a time of war, and I think it would be wrong to say absolutely I would pledge to Grover Norquist that I would never raise taxes. Could have a national emergency.

MR. COOPER: All right.

Next question.

20:45:24 Q Hi. I'm Ted Fatirous (sp) from Manhattan Beach, California. Mm. Nothing says delicious like cheap corn subsidized by the American taxpayer. For a lot of Americans, however, a bitter taste is left in their mouth when they learn about how the U.S. taxpayer bankrolls billions of dollars in farm subsidies that mostly go to large agribusiness interests. I'm curious which candidates who label themselves fiscally responsible will endorse the elimination of farm subsidies if they are elected president in 2008.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, a lot of folks in Iowa interested in this answer. (Laughter.)

MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.)

MR. COOPER: So I hear

20:46:01 MR. ROMNEY: Not to mention Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and so forth.

We don't want to find ourselves with regards to our food supply in the same kind of position we're in with regards to our energy supply. And so it's important for us to make sure that our farmers are able to stay on the -- on the farm and raise the crops that we need to have a secure source of food. And so I believe in supports that will allow us to do that.

At the same time, I recognize that we're also investing in new technologies to get ourselves energy-independent, and I happen to believe that some of the best sources for having renewable energy come from the farm. And so we're investing with subsidies in those areas to create new -- new technology that otherwise wouldn't be ready for the market yet.

So I support these programs.

And finally, I'd say this. We have in our nation about one out of three acres that are planted are for sale overseas. We send products around the world. We're competing with European and Brazilian and other farmers, and we're competing in a marketplace where they are heavily subsidized, at great disadvantage for our farmers. And so if we're going to change our support structure, we want to make sure that they change their support structure and we do this together, as opposed to unilaterally saying we're going to put our farmers in a tough position and have the farmers of the rest of the world continue to be subsidized.

So, open markets, let our goods go around the world, and secure our source of food.

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani, 30 seconds.

MR. GIULIANI: The governor is right, it isn't a level playing field. The subsidies in Europe are far higher than they are in the United States. We could reduce subsidies here if they would do it there, but we shouldn't do it on our own. And also, we have to be very aware of the fact that we have to have our own supply of food. We can't be dependent on foreign countries for our food.

So, both of those reasons would say that although simplistically it might seem like you'd want to get rid of all the subsidies, we've got to do this very carefully and you have to do it in concert with these free-trade agreements and other agreements you're making so that European countries reduce their much heavier subsidies.

MR. COOPER: Since we're on fiscal matters, I would be remiss if I didn't ask this question, since it did just break a couple hours ago. This is to Mayor Giuliani.

Politico broke a story a few hours ago questioning your accounting of taxpayer dollars as mayor. They say that as mayor -- the report says you took trips to the Hamptons and expensed the cost of your police detail to obscure city offices.

One, is that true? And if so, was it appropriate?

MR. GIULIANI: First of all, it's not true. I had 24-hour security for the eight years that I was mayor. They followed me every place I went. It was because there were, you know, threats, threats that I don't generally talk about. Some have become public recently; most of them haven't. And they took care of me, and they put it in their records, and they handled them in the way they handled them. I had nothing to do with the handling of their records. And they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately.

MR. COOPER: Great.

21:00:02 We have asked all the campaigns, we should point out, to submit 30-second or so campaign-style videos, YouTube-style videos. It was open to them to do it in any format they wanted. Our first video -- and we're going to be playing them throughout the night, some of them out of commercials, some of them during the program -- is from Congressman Tancredo.

(Begin videotaped segment.)

(Music.)

REP. TANCREDO: Because this issue of immigration is one of the most serious public policy issues we face.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): What do we do now?

REP. TANCREDO: We have got to actually begin the process of assimilating people.

SEN. CLINTON: They may not talk to you if they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.

REP. TANCREDO: No more obfuscating, with using words like, well, I am not for amnesty, but I'm for letting them stay.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I don't have enough time to tell you all the mistakes I've made. (Chuckles.)

REP. TANCREDO: The Republicans can stop this.

(End videotaped segment.) (Applause.)

MR. : That's great.

MR. COOPER: That's the first of many that we will see tonight.

All right, let's have our next question from a YouTube viewer.

LEEANN ANDERSON (PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA): Hi, my name is Leeann Anderson, and I'm from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And these are my kids, Evan (sp) and Mya (sp). Mya (sp) is from China, and we adopted her to give her a better life. We never dreamed that she'd be exposed to lead after leaving China, and now we find trains like this that are covered with lead in our home.

My question for the candidates are: What are you going to do to make sure that these kind of toys don't make their way into our homes and that we have safe toys that are made in America again and we keep jobs in America?

MR. COOPER: (Off mike) -- Tancredo, you have 90 seconds.

REP. TANCREDO: It is illegal to import that kind of thing. The problem is, of course, no one really pays a lot of attention to a lot of our laws with regard to immigration of both people and in this case, of course, items, goods and services. I voted against permanent normalized trade relations with China. This is one reason why. It wasn't -- it was never devised simply to be a place for us to sell our products. It was devised to be a place where we could get cheap labor to then import products to the United States.

So one of the things you would have to do and I certainly would intend to do was to change our trade arrangement entirely with China, by the way, in particular, but with other countries as well that violate those agreements. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congressman Hunter, you have 30 seconds.

REP. HUNTER: China is cheating on trade, and they're using that $200 billion trade deficit over the United States to buy ships, planes and missiles. They are clearly arming, and it's in the interests of the United States -- (applause) -- to stop China's cheating. My bill, incidentally, that's up right now would do that.

But what we all ought to do in this Christmas season with about a month to go before Christmas is buy American. (Cheers, applause.) That might hire the young person. That'll result in -- (interrupted by applause). You know, that just might keep your neighbor from losing his job, and it might help that young person coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan in uniform to have a job when they get back.

Let's buy American this Christmas season. (applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right. We're going to have three commercial breaks throughout this entire debate. This is the first one, and as we go to it, we go to another campaign-style video, this one from Senator Fred Thompson.

(Begin video.)

MR. ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years., that we should sustain and support it.

MR. HUCKABEE: Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax. That's acceptable. I'm fine with that. Others have suggested perhaps a sales tax. That's fine.

(End video.) (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Actually, given the nature of that video, we're not going to go to break right now. (Laughter, applause.)

MR. : (Off mike.)

MR. COOPER: I think it's something we should talk about.

Senator Thompson, what's up with that? (Laughter, applause.)

MR. THOMPSON: Just want to give my buddies here a little extra air time. (Laughter, applause.)

I mean -- I mean, what's -- what do you mean, what's up with it? These are their words.

MR. COOPER: Okay. I should allow time to respond. (Applause.)

Governor Romney?

MR. ROMNEY: I'm not sure who that young guy was at the beginning of that film, but I can tell you this, which is -- I don't know how many times I could tell it -- I was wrong. All right? (Applause.) I was effectively pro-choice when I ran for office. If -- if people in this country are looking for someone who's never made a mistake on a policy issue and is not willing to admit they're ever wrong, why, then they're going to have to find somebody else, because on abortion, I was wrong and I changed my mind.

As the governor -- this didn't just happen the last couple of weeks or the last year, this happened when I was governor -- the first time a bill came to my desk that related to life, I could not sign a bill that would take away human life. I came down on the side of life every single instance as governor of Massachusetts. I was awarded by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life with their leadership award for my record. I'm proud to be pro-life, and I'm not going to be apologizing to people for becoming pro-life. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee, a 30-seconds response.

MR. HUCKABEE: Well, I was governor nearly 11 years, and in that time I cut 90 taxes. Over that period of time, the income tax remained exactly what it was. The sales tax was one penny higher. But I did do a number of tax cuts that helped a lot of people all over the place, like eliminating the marriage penalty, doubling the child care tax credit, getting rid of capital gains on the sale of a home, cutting capital gains on other things. I have a great record on fiscal conservatism.

But one thing I've learned. You know, when you get attacked, it's not always bad. It's like my old pastor used to tell me: When they're kicking you in the rear, it's just proving you're still out front. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: I'm sure there are some -- (inaudible) -- who might want to change their videos that they've given us after seeing Senator Thompson's, but it's too late to do that.

We're going to go take a short break. We'll be right back. (Applause.)

(Announcements.)

Q Hi, I'm Jay Fox, a lifetime member of the NRA. Now I'm from a small town, and as in any small town we like our big guns. So my question to you is: What is your opinion of gun control? And don't worry, you can answer however you like. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congressman Hunter, I'll give that to you. Ninety seconds.

REP. HUNTER: Well, first, I've got to inform Jay that as a guy who got his first hunting license at the age of 10 and really believes in the right to keep and bear arms and used them in the military, as my son did in Fallujah, you should never throw a gun to a person. He should have taken that gun hand it off from his fellow hunter. So you got to be safe with guns, Jay.

But the right to keep and bear arms is an important element of community security, home security and national security, and I think it's a tradition -- (cheers, applause) -- the tradition of the American soldier from Bunker Hill to New Orleans to the rooftops of Fallujah the right to keep and bear arms and use them effectively is an important part of America's security. And I will strongly enforce the Second Amendment as president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: All right. On the same topic another question. Let's watch.

Q Hello. My name is Andrew Fink, and I have a question for Rudy Giuliani.

Mr. Giuliani, at a recent NRA convention you stated that it's every American's right to be secure. Yet on March 21st of the year 2000, the Boston Globe quoted you as saying, "Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam."

Considering the Constitution grants us the right to bear arms as a means of protection, why do you believe that citizens should be required to pass an exam in order to exercise their right to protect themselves and their families? Thank you.

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani, 90 seconds.

21:00:46 MR. GIULIANI: Andrew, what I believe is that we have to be very aggressive about enforcing the gun laws that exist. I had a city in which, when I took over, there were 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week, and I enforced the gun laws very aggressively. I enforced all laws very aggressively, and that's the reason we reduced shootings by 74 percent, we reduced homicide by 67 percent, and we went from being one of the most dangerous cities in the country to being one of the safest.

As far as that's concerned, what I believe is the Second Amendment gives people an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Government can impose reasonable regulations. Generally, those reasonable regulations would be about -- (boos) --

MR. COOPER: Let him answer.

21:01:28 MR. GIULIANI: Let me finish. Generally, those reasonable regulations would be about criminal background, a background of mental instability, basically the ones that are outlined in the opinion of -- of the judge who wrote the Parker decision, Judge Silberman. And if those -- if those regulations go beyond that, then those are unconstitutional.

I think states can have a little bit of leeway. New York can have a -- somewhat stricter rules than, let's say, Kentucky. Texas might have different rules than Ohio. But generally, you've got to comply with this rule.

Now the Supreme Court's going to decide this. The Supreme Court's going to decide this probably within the next six months. The Parker case has been taken to the Supreme Court. They're going to decide whether it's a right that pertains to the militias, which I don't believe it is, or is it a right that is a personal right. I believe that it is, and I will live by that. And people will be allowed to have guns. I'm not going to interfere with that. Generally, decisions are going to be made on a state basis, and they're going to have to comply with the Constitution.

MR. COOPER: Senator Thompson, last week you said that you don't think Mayor Giuliani's ever been a supporter of the Second Amendment. Why do you say that? Thirty seconds

21:02:33 MR. THOMPSON: No, well, the mayor has supported a wide array of gun control laws. I'm not sure there's ever one that didn't come up for consideration in terms of legislation that he didn't support; signing ceremonies with people in President Clinton's Cabinet and that sort of thing when they came up.

The Second Amendment is not a choice thing. I mean it's in the Constitution of the United States. That's a protection that the people have against -- (interrupted cheers, applause) -- (off mike).

The case that the mayor refers to is the Washington, D.C. case, and they were taking the same position basically the mayor took as far as the city of New York is concerned. They said, you know, it'll make a safer city if we have -- if we outlaw law-abiding citizens having the right to possess a firearm. It didn't make them a safer city. The D.C. Court of Appeals held that it was a violation of their Second Amendment rights, and hopefully, the Supreme Court will uphold the D.C. court.

MR. COOPER: Mayor? Thirty seconds.

21:03:26 MR. GIULIANI: I agree with the senator that it didn't make it a safer city, and some of these gun laws do not make a city a safer city. The things we did in New York indisputably made New York City a much safer city.

And the law in the District of Columbia and the law in New York are different. The law in the District of Columbia made it impossible for you to have a firearm. And if New York City went that far, it should also be declared unconstitutional. The Second Amendment clearly gives you the right to carry and to bear arms. In my reading of it, it's an individual right. And I believe the Supreme Court will declare that. And that protection comes from the Constitution, not just the president.

MR. COOPER: Staying on the topic, another question from the viewer.

21:04:05 ERIC BERNTSEN (PHOENIX, ARIZONA): Hi there. I'm Eric Berntsen from Phoenix, Arizona. Got a quick question for all you candidates.

Any of you want to tell us about your gun collection -- roughly how many you own; what your favorite make, model and caliber is; if any of them require a tax stamp?

MR. COOPER: A stamp is needed if you have a machine gun or a silencer.

Senator Thompson.

21:04:28 MR. THOMPSON: I own a couple of guns, but I'm not going to tell you what they are or where they are. (Laughter, applause, cheers.)

MR. COOPER: Senator McCain

SEN. MCCAIN: For a long time I used a lot of guns, including carrying a .45 as a pilot flying in combat over Vietnam. I know how to use guns. I don't -- I don't own one now.

MR. COOPER: Congressman Hunter.

REP. HUNTER: I've got an old 20-gauge L.C. Smith. It's just like the gun that my dad used to carry when I would walk behind him as a nine-year-old kid and pick up the shells when he was hunting quail. And I finally got a chance to buy one of those a few years ago, same gun that he'd had and given to me when I was nine or 10 years old, when I bought my first hunting license.

The right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is -- is a large part protection.

MR. COOPER: Okay.

REP. HUNTER: It's also a large part family tradition.

MR. COOPER: Is there anyone here besides Senator McCain who does not own a gun? Mayor Giuliani, you don't?

MR. ROMNEY: Let --

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney?

MR. ROMNEY: I have two guns in my home. They're owned by my son Josh.

MR. COOPER: All right. So yes.

We have another question on a similar topic.

MR. ROMNEY: He buys expensive things for me.

21:05:35 Q Hi. This is me and my son, Prentice (sp). We're from Atlanta.

Q I want to ask you guys a question. I notice you spend billions of dollars on the war in Iraq every year, but what about the war going on in your own country, black on black crime? Two hundred to 400 black men die yearly in one city alone. What are you going to do about that war? It feels like the Taliban's right outside.

MR. COOPER: Talking about black-on-black crime, crime in the inner cities. Governor Romney?

21:06:04 MR. ROMNEY: Well, first of all, Prentice (sp) is pretty fortunate, because he's got a dad standing next to him that apparently loves him, by all appearances there, and that's probably the best thing you can do for a kid, is to have a mom and a dad. (Applause.)

And it's time in this -- in this country that we go back to the kind of values that allow kids to have moms and dads. In the African- American community today, 68 percent of kids born are born out of wedlock. And so we're going to try and once again re-inculcate in this country the kind of values that have made us so strong -- family values.

Secondly --

MR. COOPER: The question's what are you going to do about the war in the inner city?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, one -- about the war in the inner city? Number one is to get more moms and dads. That's number one. And thank heavens Bill Cosby said it like it was. That's where the root of crime starts.

Number two, we've got to have better education in our schools. I think that the civil rights issue of our time is the failure of inner city schools to prepare kids in the inner city for the jobs of tomorrow.

And number three, of course, you have to do a better job with our policing. And I was very proud that I added one state police class after another. We had the largest state police in the history of our state during my term. We put in place tough laws related to drunk driving. Sex offenders. They have their pictures now posted on the Internet. We took actions to be tough on crime, and I was pleased that violent crime in my state during my term reduced by 7 percent.

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani, your campaign manager last week called Governor Romney a mediocre, one-term governor. On the issue of fighting crime, is he a crime fighter?

21:07:28 MR. GIULIANI: The governor has a mixed record in fighting crime. For example, murder went up by 7.5 percent. Burglary went up. One other category of violent crime went up. Some categories of violent crime went down. So it would be fair to say it's a mixed record. The reality is, I had a very strong record in doing precisely what the young man was asking about, and that is, reducing crime, and specifically in neighborhoods that would be regarded as poor neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that had the most crime.

For example, in Harlem we reduced crime by about 80 percent. We reduced shootings overall in the city by 74 percent. The City of New York was one of the most dangerous cities in America. And particularly in the neighborhoods this young man is worried about -- they were really dangerous -- they are not that way anymore.

And we made the changes with the COMPSTAT program, the broken windows theory and with very, very good leadership.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, I have to allow you 30 seconds to respond.

21:08:19 MR. ROMNEY: Oh, I think we all recognize that the mayor did a wonderful reducing crime in the city of New York. I'm not a mayor; I'm not running for a mayor's job. I didn't have a police commissioner. But I did take the actions that I could as a state -- as a state governor to improve our state police, to strengthen our state police, to be able to put in place the DNA laboratory. We more than tripled the size of our DNA laboratory and did the things we could to improve our crime -- our crime enforcement, and I'm proud of the fact that we were able to reduce crime during my tenure.

MR. COOPER: The next topic is abortion.

Next question.

Q Hi. My name is Journey. I'm from Texas, and this question is for all politically pro-life candidates. In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

MR. COOPER: Congressman Paul? Ninety seconds.

21:09:12 REP. PAUL: You know, it's not a federal function to determine the penalties for a crime of abortion if it's illegal in a state. It's up to the state, it's up to the juries. And it should be up to discretion because it's not an easy issue to deal with, but the first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. (Cheers, applause.)

But --

MR. COOPER: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

REP. PAUL: Pardon me?

MR. COOPER: Should the woman be charge with a crime?

REP. PAUL: I don't personally think so. I'm an OB doctor and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I, of course, never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done. But -- so I think it certainly is a crime, but I also understand the difficulties. I think when you're talking about third trimester deliberate abortion and partial-birth abortions, I mean, there has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. But I really think it's the person who commits the crime, and I think that is the abortionist.

MR. COOPER: So you're saying a doctor should be punished. What sort of punishment should they get?

21:10:18 REP. PAUL: Well, I think it's up to the states. I'm not -- in the state. I'm not in -- I'm not running for governor, and I think it's different, and I don't think it should be all 50 states the same way. So I -- I don't think that should be up to the president to decide that.

MR. COOPER: Senator Thompson

21:10:31 question is premised on if abortion becomes illegal. That presumes Roe versus Wade is overturned, which I think should be our number one focus right now. And that has to do with the kind of Supreme Court justices we put on the bench. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: But the question is --

MR. THOMPSON: We should have -- we got to -- I'm getting there. I'm getting there.

That would mean that it goes back to the states, and then the states would have to outlaw it at an earlier stage than they outlaw it now. And then the question would be, who gets penalized and what should the penalty be? I think it should be fashioned along the same lines that it is now.

Most states have abortion laws that pertain -- that -- and -- and prohibit abortion after viability. And it goes to the doctor performing the abortion, not the girl or the young girl or her parents, whomever it might be.

MR. COOPER: Time.

MR. THOMPSON: I think that same pattern needs to be followed. It could just be moved up earlier or much earlier in the process if the --

MR. COOPER: All right.

MR. THOMPSON: -- if the state so determined.

MR. COOPER: Another question.

21:11:30 Q Hello. My name is A.J., and I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would like all the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically Roe versus Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortion, and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no.

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?

21:11:52 MR. GIULIANI: If Congress passed a ban on all abortions throughout the United States --

MR. COOPER: If Roe v. Wade was returned, Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions, and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no.

21:12:03 MR. GIULIANI: I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision. (Applause.) I think that that -- I think -- look, the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the state. If Roe against Wade -- if Roe against Wade were overturned because it was poorly decided, if the justices decide that, it would then go back to the states, and it would seem to me that that would be the answer. The answer is that each state would make a different decision.

I don't believe, in the circumstance that you asked before, that it should be criminalized. I think that would be a mistake, unless we're talking about partial-birth abortion or late-term abortion.

I think you should have parental consent. I think we should have access to adoptions instead of abortion. But ultimately, I think, these decisions should be made on a state-by-state basis.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney?

21:12:48 MR. ROMNEY: I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states. I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted. I'd be --

MR. COOPER: The question is, would you sign that bill?

MR. ROMNEY: Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in the country, terrific.

21:13:20 MR. COOPER: All right. The next question is for Governor Huckabee. Let's listen.

Q Hi. This is Tyler Overman from Memphis, Tennessee, and I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty. What would Jesus do?

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee?

21:13:38 MR. HUCKABEE: You know, one of the toughest challenges that I ever faced as a governor was carrying out the death penalty. I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state. As I look on this stage, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person on this stage that's ever had to actually do it.

Let me tell you, it was the toughest decision I ever made as a human being. I read every page of every document of every case that ever came before me, because it was the one decision that came to my desk that, once I made it, was irrevocable.

Every other decision, somebody else could go back and overturn, could fix if it was a mistake. That was one that was irrevocable.

I believe there is a place for a death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible, that the only response that we as a civilized nation have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix. (Applause.)

Now, having said that, there are those who say, "How can you be pro-life and believe in a death penalty?" Because there's a real difference between the process of adjudication where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us as citizens under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist. That's the fundamental difference. (Applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor, I do have to press, though, the question, which -- the question from the viewer was, "What would Jesus do?" Would Jesus support the death penalty?

21:15:20 MR. HUCKABEE: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. (Laughter.) That's what Jesus would do. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Congressman Tancredo, 30 seconds.

21:15:34 REP. TANCREDO: The question is, what would Jesus do? Well, I'll tell you this. I would pray to him for the wisdom and the courage to do the right thing. And I believe that with prayer he would give it to me. And I believe that justice was done in the situations that the governor has explained. And as I say, I look to him for guidance in all those kinds of situations.

MR. COOPER: Time.

Similar question. Let's watch

Q I'm Joseph. I'm from Dallas, Texas. And how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? (Shows a Bible.) And I mean specifically this book that I'm holding in my hand. Do you believe this book?

MR. COOPER: I think we got his question. Mayor Giuliani?

21:16:31 MR. GIULIANI: Well, I --

MR. HUCKABEE: Do I need to help you out, Mayor, on this one? (Laughter.)

MR. GIULIANI: What was it?

MR. HUCKABEE: I said, do I need to help you out on this one here? (Laughs.)

MR. GIULIANI: Do you want me to help you out? Wait a second. You're the minister. You're going to help me out on this one.

MR. HUCKABEE: I'm trying to help you out.

21:16:45 MR. GIULIANI: Okay. The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it necessarily literally true in every single respect. I think there are parts of the Bible that are interpretive. I think there are parts of the Bible that are allegorical. I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be interpreted in a modern context.

So, yes, I believe it. I think it's the greatest book ever written. I read it frequently. I read it very frequently when I've gone through the bigger crises in my life, and I find great wisdom in it. And it does define, to a very large extent, my faith. But I don't believe every single thing in the literal sense of Jonah being in the belly of the whale. You know, there are some things in it that I think were put there as allegorical.

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney.

21:17:32 MR. ROMNEY: I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. (Applause.) And I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible.

MR. COOPER: Does that mean you believe every word?

MR. ROMNEY: You know -- yeah, I believe it's the word of God. The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.

MR. COOPER: Governor Huckabee.

21:18:07 MR. HUCKABEE: Sure, I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself. (Applause.) And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it.

But in a greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says, "Go and pluck out your eye" -- well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical.

But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation: "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Inasmuch as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me." Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.

And as the only person here probably on this stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, but I'm not supposed to, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite God, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their God is too small. (Applause.)

21:19:16 MR. COOPER: We've got a lot more coming up. We're going to take a short break. And as we go to the break, we'll watch a video, this one from the campaign of Governor Romney.

(Begin videotaped segment.)

ANNOUNCER: It's an election like no other. An enemy lurks, waiting to strike. Our Main Street economy is competing with Mainland China. Legal versus illegal doesn't seem to matter. Basic values like marriage are suddenly open to debate.

For these challenges, ordinary isn't good enough. We need the leader who gets the big stuff done -- take charge, demand results, no excuses. Mitt Romney -- the right experience, the right values, the right time.

MR. ROMNEY: I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message.

(End videotaped segment.)

(Announcements.)

(Begin videotaped segment.)

ANNOUNCER: As mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani faced unheard-of challenges: runaway taxes, out-of-control crime, and of course, the city's nemesis, King Kong. Yet Rudy prevailed: crime down by half, taxes cut and annual snowfall dramatically reduced. Time called Rudy "Person of the Year," Newsweek "the new mayor of America." And when asked, Hillary Clinton called him -- (silence) -- but she probably planted the question.

(End videotaped segment.) (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: That was the commercial by the Giuliani campaign, obviously. We are playing these commercials all throughout this two- hour debate.

Let's go to our next topic, which is foreign policy. Our first question.

YASMIN OHADI NAHEL (PH) (HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA): Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Yasmin Ohadi Nahel (ph) from Huntsville, Alabama.

My question has to do with the current crisis in Iraq, as well as the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. After living abroad personally in the Middle East for a year, I realized just how much damage the Iraq war and the perception of invasion has done to the image of America. What would you do as president to repair the image of America in the eyes of the Muslim world?

MR. COOPER: Mayor Giuliani, 90 seconds.

MR. GIULIANI: Well, the most important thing to do is to make certain we remain on offense against Islamic terrorism. (Cheers, applause.)

And -- and then make it clear that what that means is this is a small group of people -- Islamic terrorists -- who have defiled a great religion; that the vast majority of people who are Islamic, the vast majority of people who are Arab, the vast majority of people living in these countries are good people. We should be trading with them, we should have contact with them, we should expand our contacts with them.

We should have cultural exchanges with them. The night of September 11th, 2001 when we were beginning to recover -- or not really recover, but maybe just first catch our breath after the attack of September 11th, you'll see one of the first things I said was -- I said to the people of my city and then probably to the people of America that we should not engage in group blame. We shouldn't do the thing that we're being attacked for. We shouldn't blame an entire group of people for the horrible acts of a few people who have distorted a great religion, and they've turned it into an ideology of hatred and an ideology of violence. But by the same token, we can't do what the Democrats do. We can't put our head in the sand.

You had a Democratic debate and not a single one of those Democratic candidates used the word Islamic terrorism. I don't know who they think they're offending. The people they're offending are the people we want to offend, the Islamic terrorists -- (cheers, applause) -- and not -- and not decent people like Yasmin. We are intelligent enough and good enough as Americans to make this distinction. (Scattered applause.)

MR. COOPER: Senator McCain?

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, I'd do a lot of things, but the first and most important and vital element is to continue this surge, which is succeeding, and we are winning the war in Iraq. (Cheers, applause.) That's the first thing I would do. And I would make sure that we do what we can to help reconstruct the country, to help the Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible to train the police. But I'll tell you one other thing where (sic) I'm going to do, is we're going to fight back the Democrats' efforts to set a date for withdrawal, which is a date for surrender. (Applause.)

Now, my friends, I'm the only one on this stage -- I'm the only one on this stage that said that the Rumsfeld strategy was failing and was doomed to failure. I'm the only one on this stage that said we've got to have a new strategy, and that's the strategy we're employing now. And I got a lot of heat when I said when I said that that strategy was failing and it had to be changed. It's because I've had the experience and the background and the knowledge of every national security issue we've faced for the last 20 years. And I'm telling you that if we continue this strategy, we can succeed. And if we'd have done what the Democrats said to do six months ago, al Qaeda would be telling the world they beat America.

MR. COOPER: Time.

SEN. MCCAIN: This is a lot at stake here, my friends. And thank God for the young men and women who are sending the message I repeat to you again, after having been there over Thanksgiving weekend, "Let us win. Let us win." (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Thirty seconds, Congressman Hunter. The question is, how do you repair the image of America in the Muslim world?

REP. HUNTER: Cooper, very simply, to the critics of -- of America, I would say this. When you were -- were faced with disease and starvation, the Americans brought food and medicine. When you had earthquakes and tsunamis and floods, the Americans came and helped you. And when you were threatened from outside, the Americans left the safety of their own homes to come and defend you.

I will never apologize for the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Our next question -- our next question comes from Seattle, Washington.

ANDREW JONES (SEATTLE, WASHINGTON): Hello, gentlemen. I'm Andrew, and I'm a college student from Seattle, Washington.

Recently, Senator McCain has come strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation. My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, he certainly is an expert, and I -- and I certainly would want to get his counsel on a matter of this nature. But I do not believe that as a -- a presidential candidate it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.

I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form. We --

MR. COOPER: Is waterboarding torture?

MR. ROMNEY: And -- as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use. And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people. And there are people who -- who, for many, many years, get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.

And by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo. I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks in this country to be brought into our jail system and to be given legal representation in this country. I want to make sure that -- that what happened to -- (applause) -- to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists.

21:29:00 ROMNEY: He was captured. He was the so- called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy. And he turned to his captors and he said, "I'll see you in New York with my lawyers." I presume ACLU lawyers. But that's not what happened. (Laughter.) He went to Guantanamo and he met GIs and CIA interrogators, and that's just exactly how it ought to be. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: There are -- Senator McCain. There are reports Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.

21:29:23 SEN. MCCAIN: Well, Governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.

MR. ROMNEY: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.

SEN. MCCAIN: Then I am astonished that you would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are -- held captive, and anyone who could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Conventions. (Applause.) It's in violation of existing law.

And Governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years, we're not going to torture people. We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak.

And I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others. And how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds to respond, please.

FTG OF JUDGE JOHN G ROBERTS SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS TO BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

ROBERTS (IN PROGRESS): You know, the sentiments that were expressed there I think are certainly something that's worth discussing.

Perhaps my basic point was when the framers established the system of life tenure, people didn't live as long as they do now.

You know, I do think there are concerns, though, that I may be a little bit more sensitive to now than I was then, and they have to do with sort of a definite cut-off point.

I am not sure that's healthy for the institution of the judiciary, for people to know, for example, well, it's sort of like as you say, term limits; that if we wait another year, this judge will be gone or that justice will be gone.

I'm not sure today, from where I sit, that that is a good or healthy thing for the judiciary.

KOHL: So you do not support term limits anymore?

ROBERTS: I have to say I do not, because I do think that that restriction at the end, so litigants could look and shape their litigation in light of who they think the judges or justices might be, I think that's not a healthy development.

I would note that, if I'm remembering the memo correctly, I think it was a proposed constitutional amendment, which I'm not sure, but I think that obviously is a policy choice that the Constitution allows to be pursued through that process.

KOHL: All right.

Judge, as you know, confronted with a legal problem, most American families, unlike wealthy families and very large businesses, lack the resources to hire the largest and most preeminent law firms to do their bidding.

And do you agree that for our nation's working people securing civil justice is often rendered substantially much more difficult because it simply does cost too much?

Do you have suggestions for addressing this issue?

Do you worry that captivating national events, such as the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials, reinforce the view that in this country justice can be for sale and available to those who can afford it?

ROBERTS: You know, I do think that the availability of legal services is not as broad and widespread as it should be. There are so many things and areas where I think lawyers could make a valuable contribution, but it's too expensive.

There are a number of responses that I think the bar should be taking. Obviously, for those at the lowest end of the income scale, I think there's an obligation to provide pro bono legal services. I think the big firms, little firms, medium firms, everybody needs to get involved in that.

There's not enough appreciation about how you can do that. For example, everybody thinks in terms of bringing a big case, litigation.

ROBERTS: You know, lawyers who do estate work can provide extremely valuable pro bono services. Lawyers who do tax work can provide extremely valuable pro bono services. The whole range of services -- corporate work. I know lawyers in my old firm would do a lot of pro bono services helping set up nonprofit organizations, ensuring that they're complying with the law.

People need to be a little more creative in the ways in which they can help. I regard that as an obligation of the bar.

And I do think that in fact in many cases the situation you get is the people at the lowest end have access to pro bono services. People at the highest end can pay. And it's the people in the middle who are left without legal services that could be extremely valuable. And I do think the bar needs to do more. I think firms need to do more. Individual lawyers need to do more.

KOHL: Judge Roberts, as you know, over the last two decades or so, there have been several bills introduced in Congress to strip the Supreme Court and all other federal courts of their jurisdiction over many issues. These bills are generally sponsored by people who are unhappy with various court decisions, including decisions on things like school prayer, remedies for school desegregation and even a woman's right to choose.

While you served in the Justice Department and in the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan administration in the 1980s, you did state that you believed that bills stripping the court's jurisdiction were constitutionally permissible.

Do you still hold this view? Do you think it is the right way for us to go, to allow legislatures to strip your authority to review cases?

ROBERTS: I know the memos to which you are referring make the point -- answer to your second question -- I said that they were a bad idea. They were a bad policy. I had been asked earlier when I was -- back in 1981, I believe, when I was working in the attorney general's office, to present to him an affirmative case for the proposition that the proposals were constitutional.

He was getting an opinion that they were unconstitutional. He had to make that decision for the department's position. He wanted me to argue the other side. And I did. I prepared a memorandum presenting the best argument I could that these proposals were constitutional.

ROBERTS: The two memos to which you refer in the White House, where I suggested I thought they were, suggest that my memo persuaded me, if nobody else. The attorney general adopted, instead, the contrary position. And I think my views may have had something to do with the proximity to my own advocacy at the time.

As I say, I did say they were a bad policy. The reason I thought they were a bad policy is because they lead to a situation where there's arguable inconsistency and disuniformity in federal law.

If you don't have the Supreme Court with jurisdiction to address that, then you get different decisions and that was a -- that's bad policy.

If I were to look at the question today, to be honest with you, I don't know where I would come out. I think one of the questions I would have is whether these concerns I had that I labeled as policy concerns might more appropriately be considered legal arguments; in other words, not a policy dispute, but a legal argument.

That's the way the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel that the attorney general agreed with viewed it. They said these -- the fact of disuniformity and inconsistency is a legal argument against the constitutionality. It's not simply a bad policy decision.

And I'm not sure where I would regard that determination today.

KOHL: Really?

Are you saying that you're not sure where you would come out if you were faced with the decision to go along with or to fight legislative attempts to take away the court's authority?

ROBERTS: Well, I don't think -- on the question of legislative attempts, I think my view is the same now as it was 24 years ago, which is that these are -- it's a bad idea. It's bad policy.

I was talking about the other question about whether it's constitutional or not. And on that, of course, I don't think I should express a determinative view because, as you know, these proposals do come up and one may be enacted.

And if that is the case, then I'd have to address that question on the court. It could be on the court I'm on now or another court.

KOHL: So in that case -- or in this case -- your heart might tell you that it's a bad idea; your mind might tell you it's constitutional?

ROBERTS: Well, I don't know what my mind would tell me.

KOHL: I mean, theoretically...

ROBERTS: But I feel comfortable with the conclusion, as I was 24 years ago, that it's a bad idea.

KOHL: All right.

ROBERTS: They're bad policy.

KOHL: Judge, since your nomination, literally -- as you know -- tens of thousands of pages of your writings as a young White House aide have been released and looked at very carefully.

In some of these writings, you took very pointed positions, as we discussed -- some political, some constitutional and some that have raised eyebrows.

I also think about myself when I was in my 20s and then when I was at the age which you are now and who I have become today and how I have changed, matured, and hopefully grown as I have gotten older.

I'm sure when you've had a chance to review some of your old work as part of this process, that there are things that you wrote back then that make you cringe perhaps today.

Are there positions you took back then as a 20-something lawyer that you would not take today?

Can you give us a couple of examples of positions that you took then that, as you have grown and developed and as are now sitting before us to be the chief justice of the United States of America, that you are today not the person that you were back when you were at 20-something?

ROBERTS: Well, we've talked about the term limits for judges. More generally, as I look at all of these documents -- and the numbers, somebody said 80,000 pages; it's a little daunting -- I don't know that ther