now, the state says it needs about 60 days to figure out what those costs will be. well, fit needs that long that would imply the numbers could be fairly significant. and this, of course, plays into the idea that some fear that with her fame, casey anthony may gain a lot of money. well, the state now may be looking to claim some of that money. it's all going to be worked out we think at sentencing tomorrow. we'll wait to see how that happens, john. >> martin, as we wait for that to happen some dramatic new examples tonight. two of the jurors speaking out about why they decided to acquit casey anthony of killing her child. here's what juror number two told the st. petersburg times "i just swear to god i wish we had more evidence to put her away." strong stuff. what else can you tells about these jurors? >> juror number two there. then jury for number three has been speak out to abc and diane sawyer. a number of interesting quotes coming from her and we'll show them to you as i read them here. she starts off by saying "i did not say she was innocent." this is jennifer ford. she says "i just said there was not enough evidence. if you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." okay. here's what's interesting about that particular quote. it is as any legal person will say, not up to a jury to determine punishment. their job to determine innocent or guilt. so that could be a question as to did the jury really understand their role? and that could be traced back to judge belvin per hi. did he in fact inform them the right way. then number two, this is again juror number three, jennifer ford. she says "everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away. it was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. we were crying and not just the women. it was emotional and we weren't ready." okay. well then, also speaking to barbara walters at abc, jose baez, the lead of the defense team, and he was talking about what the future could be like for casey anthony. here's what was said. >> are you worried about her safety? >> i am. i am. and i'm afraid for her. and i don't think it's fair. >> how do you see casey's future? >> i think casey could have been anything she wanted in this world. and i think there are still plenty of things that casey can do in life. and i think casey can be a productive member of society. >> reporter: exactly what casey does next will be determined by what happens inside the building behind us starting at 9:00 in the morning. the time of her sentencing. john? >> breaking news from martin savage tonight. martin, thank you. a lot more to talk about including what happens next for for casey. as martin savage just says. the lawyers back in court tomorrow morning arguing about that. i'll talk to our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin, o.j. simpson prosecutor marcia clark and dr. drew pinsky. first the crumbling sexual assault case against dominique strauss-kahn. the man who still might be the next president of france. who could forget the headlines? hotel maid's lured account and of course the suspect's dramatic capture. new york authorities rushing to the airport to arrest him. but keeping them honest, did they also rush needlessly to indict him? moving too quickly, missing red flags about his accuser's credibility? today lawyers for strauss-kahn sat down with manhattan prosecutors. they called it a constructive meeting. a spokeswoman for the d.a. says says no decisions have been made about dropping the case, the case that if you believe the sound bites sounded like a slam-dunk. >> sir, you said the detectives concluded that victim was a credible victim and that her story had credibility. what is that based on? >> what is that based on? >> yeah. >> it's based on the experience of sexual victims detectives. this is all they do. they investigate these types of crimes. obviously credibility of the complainant is a factor in cases of this nature. one of the things that they're trained to look for. >> can you say what it was about her story that made is credible? >> no, i can't. >> the police commissioner ray kelly there four days after strauss-kahn was hauled off his flight and a day before the manhattan d.a. cyrus vance sought an indictment and got it. that day prosecutors were just as confident in their accuser as commissioner kelly was. >> the complainant in this case has offered a compelling and unwavering story about what occurred in the defendant's room. >> what assistant d.a. mcconnel did not say perhaps because he did not know were facts about the alleged victim's past and questions about her account. in a moment former prosecutor sonny hosten and jeffrey toobin on whether they think a rush to prosecute made this case impossible to prosecute. first, though, tom foreman lays out the facts. >> reporter: dominique strauss-kahn's new york arrest in mid may was a sensation. the head of the international monetary fund, the potential next president of france, snatched from a jet moments before takeoff, accused of attempted rape by a hotel maid. manhattan democrat cyrus vance put it simply. >> these are extremely serious charges. >> reporter: the maid told police she had gone to clean strauss-kahn's $3,000 a night suite and he had jumped her, naked, chasing, grabbing and molesting her. then, they say, he was running for the airport when she escaped. >> the detectives investigating this case found the complainant to be credible. >> reporter: in short order, other women raised accusations of past improprieties, and under fire strauss-kahn resigned from the imf. his attorneys insisted any encounter with the maid was consentual. but french pundits proclaimed his political future dead. but while all of this was happening, it now appears prosecutors here in the states were finding serious cracks in the credibility of strauss-kahn's accuser. authorities now say the woman who is from guinea deceived u.s. immigration officials so she could seek asylum, making false claim ms about suffering a gang rape. they say she lied to investigators about where she was immediately following the alleged hotel attack. and perhaps most troublesome, officials say she spoke by phone with a man in prison, and as a source close to the investigation told cnn, assured him there is money to be made because strauss-kahn is rich. authorities still say there is strong physical evidence of a sexual encounter between strauss-kahn and this woman, and her attorney says none of her past deceptions mean she is lying now. still, it could all make it harder for prosecutors to prove she is telling the truth. john? >> joining me now, two former federal prosecutors, senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin and sonny hosten of "in session "on trutv. jeff, simple question off the top. did the prosecution blow it and if so what were the mistakes? >> i think there's one very serious mistake. the arrest on may 14th was obviously the right thing to do. he was about to get on a plane. they had to stop him from getting on a plane. but they only waited 4 1/2 days until indicting him. once he's indicted, the prosecutor is completely committed to this story. they certainly could have waited. they could have held onto strauss-kahn's passport. but allowed him out on bail. and taken the time to investigate it. where was he going to go? he was not going to disappear. the rush to indict was a serious mistake, and the d.a.'s office is paying for that mistake now. >> as they pay for it, sonny, the questions about the victim, the alleged victim's credibility. yet prosecutors are saying they're not ready to drop this case. they city think they have strong enough evidence to go forward. jeff, we'll get sonny's odd crow fixed there. they say sure we have credibility issues but they're not ready to drop the case. can you prosecute without putting the accuser on the stand? >> well, you certainly cannot bring a case like this without calling the accuser at all. i mean, the case could not be brought. now, it is possible to put forth a flawed witness. a lot of the people who are witnesses to crimes are criminals themselves. they are troubled people. they have dark chapters in their past. you could go to a jury and say, look, she's not a perfect person. but look at the physical evidence. she was assaulted by this man. that is a perfectly plausible possibility. but it makes the case a lot harder if you have things like a lie about rape practically the same thing as the accusation here in her past. >> and so sonny, come in on that point. you have president sex cases in the past, sex crime cases. how hard is it when you have her credibility at risk here to have some people say, some of her story might not be true but that doesn't mean a crime didn't take place. >> that is true. but when you're a prosecutor, john, it's not what really happened, it's what you can prove. i think we've seen this all with the casey anthony case. and so with the victim's credibility decimated in a way like this, there's just no way that this case can go forward. the victim would be the star witness, especially in a case where you have sort of this he said-she said. if they don't believe her, the case goes away. so in my view, in looking at the facts of this case and looking at the brady material that was sent to the defense, there's just no way that you can prosecute this case. >> and how much would this factor in? you have the questions about the victim's credibility. you also have the chief of the sex crimes unit in the prosecutor's office, lisa friel, reportedly taken off the case very early on. then she resigns just a day before major problems in the case surface. can the defense use that as well? >> i don't think they can use it but the circumstances are curious. the d.a.'s office said her resignation has nothing to do with this case. she hasn't made formal comment. it is odd the chief of the unit would resign, be taken off this case, just a few days before it started unraveling. so i think that's something that we don't know enough about, but there must be something to it. >> and jeff, late today the alleged victim's lawyer asked the manhattan district attorney cyrus vance to recuse himself because of how his office has handled the case. any way to get that to happen? >> i don't think so. recusals happen when there is some sort of conflict of interest. i don't see any conflict of interest here. this is a troubled case. it is troubled because that the accuser didn't tell the truth. so i think it takes a certain amount of gall for her lawyer to ask the d.a. to recuse himself. maybe his client should have been more honest from the beginning. and i just think that's a red herring. i don't think it's going to lead to anything at all. >> sonny, any impact beyond this case? sex crime victims, already sometimes reluctant to come forward. with all this scrutiny on the alleged victim here, do you think there'll be a domino effect, a chilling effect? >> there very well may be. i think that is what so many people are concerned about, especially people like myself who have tried these sex crimes cases. because it is so very difficult for a victim to come forward. and because she has really been skewered in the press, her name is just all over the place now, her identity, i think it could have that chilling effect. but again, because she isn't credible does not mean that she was not sexually attacked. the prosecution may not be able to prove, this but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. and so hopefully we won't see that sort of chilling effect in prosecuting these kind of cases. >> john, i had a professor in law school who said, there's some people who think some crimes are so serious that not even innocence is a defense. you know, this is important stuff to look at the victim's background. i mean, maybe dominique strauss-kahn is innocent. so you know, sure, we don't want to discourage honest, real victims from coming forward. >> that's right. >> but it's important that prosecutors, police and the defense get to investigate these stories, because some of them simply aren't true. >> we'll keep our eye on all angles. sonny hosten, thanks to you tonight. jeff toobin, stick around. we're going to talk cray crayto talk -- casey anthony soon. jeff's back with marcia clark to talk about what comes next for casey anthony. sentencing tomorrow on the lying charges. more on tonight's breaking news. and dr. drew pinsky on what casey's many lies tell us about her future next raw politics. he's threatening to stand alone against what he calls a bad budget deal even if it lead to the government not being able to pay its bills. my conversation with senator rand paul. first let's check in with isha sesay. >> reporter: john, 110 degrees in the shade is usually enough to tell you phoenix is in the desert. but you've never seen the desert in phoenix quite like this before. incredible time-lapse photography. that and much mor there are . you may be going up, but those roots are bringing you down! no time, running to a meeting. tut, tut, tut. they can wait 10 minutes. whoa! try root touch-up by nice 'n easy. to extend the life of your color. what if it doesn't match? nuh uh uh. nice 'n easy has 50% more shades than anyone else. so you can find your seamless match. guaranteed! now go meet and greet! 'cause your roots are obsolete! more shades, seamless matches, with root touch-up by nice 'n easy. there are hints of inklings of signs of compromise in the battle over the nation's debt. very small hints very late in the day. at the end of the day august 2 if a deal isn't reached and congress doesn't raise the country's debt ceiling, america for the first time ever will not be able to pay its bills. this goes beyond a government shutdown. it would instantly ruin america's credit rating which is why no congress has ever, ever failed to raise the debt ceiling. it's why the big names on the left and the right from paul crewingman to alan greenspan to the chamber of commerce all say missing the deadline would be suicidal. yet both sides have been playing chicken on the issue for months. tonight house minority leader erik cantor against making any revenue increases as part of a debt deal said he might be willing to talk about closing some tax loopholes. he the rest of the gop leadership and their democratic counterparts on call to meet with president obama tomorrow at the white house. some breaking news there, the "washington post" just now moving a story reporting on a possible big concession the president might put on the table. the post reporting he will for the first time offer up significant savings in social security. the newspaper sourcing it to people in both parties with knowledge of the president's proposal. in any case, today mr. obama called on both sides to get moving. >> congress has a responsibility to make sure we pay our bills. we've always paid them in the past. the notion that u.s. is going to default on its debt is just irresponsible. and my expectation is that over the next week to two weeks that congress working with the white house comes up with a deal that solves our deficit, solves our debt problems, and makes sure that our full faith and credit protected. >> now, washington speak can be a bit confusing. so a quick reminder. the debt ceiling has nothing to do with new spending. it simply authorizes the treasury to pay out money congress has already authorized. but there are some in congress, including the senator about to hear from, who strongly believe that government should be forced to spend less and don't mind using the threat of a default to get there. >> joining us now from capitol hill, senator rand paul of kentucky. senator, the president today at his town hall said that it is the responsibility of congress to make sure the united states doesn't fail to pay its bills. sound like the president's trying to turn the pressure, turn the heat on congress and say, if this fails, if we do not raise the government's debt ceiling, it's your fault. >> well, we're listening. and we actually will present a plan in the morning to raise the debt ceiling, contingent upon significant cuts, statutory caps and a balanced budget amendment. and i think it's good for us to show what we're for. and they need to show us what they're for. and then maybe we can find somewhere in the middle. >> somewhere in the middle. that is the president also says he wants a balanced approach. so i think rhetorically people seem to be trying to be careful here. two weeks to go before you hit the deadline. somewhere in the middle if you cannot get a balanced budget amendment which is most people believe you cannot get because the democrats still run the united states senate. the president of the united states doesn't want a balanced budget amendment. if you can't get that part are you still willing to make a deal as long as you get some other things? or is that a deal breaker for you? >> i'd like to know why the president doesn't want to balance the budget or doesn't want a balanced budget amendment of the constitution. i want to have that full-throated debate and discussion both in the congress and in the public. 75% of the public does want a balanced budget amendment. so he's in the minority and he needs to explain to the american public why he's opposed to a balanced budget amendment. but what i perceive as coming towards the democrats is, the democrats say the rich need to bear more of the burden. that seems to be their big mantra in the last week or so. i would say, okay. the rich can bear more of the burden. why don't we have the rich pay the full cost of their medicare and have the rich take reduced social security benefits? a way the rich can absorb more of the burden. i don't want to increase taxes. even if you tax rich people or corporations, it really is taxing everyone because you'll have less jobs and it will hurt the economy. the reason tax revenue's down is that we're growing at such a slow rate. if we could grow again, if our economy could get out of the recession we'd have plenty of revenue. >> so on the tax issue then, you have no wiggle room. because the president made the case today, he said look what bill clinton did in the 1990s. he raised taxes on wealthy americans and the economy was booming. george w. bush cut them and we had a more sluggish economy. the current president makes the case that bill clinton is proof if you have modest tax increases on the rich it won't have the impact on job growth the republicans argue. >> two weeks ago most republicans vote today get rid of the ethanol credit. we've shown we're willing to get rid of some credits and deductions. even that should be a balanced approach. most of us think you would lower overall rates and get rid of deductions you would have an enormous boom. when president reagan was here and they lowered rate to 28%, he had 6% growth in one year, and he actually had more revenue. when tax rates were at 90%, you brought in about 18% of gdp in revenue. when tax rates were 28% you brought in 18%. i don't think increasing rates will bring in more revenue. you need to bring in more revenue by growing the economy. we're in this horrible recession. and that's why we don't have revenue coming in. >> and so i want to be as clear as we can be for anybody watching out there. senator rand paul says you're open to more revenues if they come from closing loopholes, but you're not going to touch anything that raises rates. >> rates can't go up. i would say that even closing loopholes needs to be done in conjunction with actually low, rates so you spur the economy. but i would say the area where i think we could compromise if the democrats are insistent that rich bear more of the burden, let's.on the benefits side, not on the tax side. and we basically can get to the same goal and find a compromise by saying, look, rich