conflict of interest. this is where it gets complicated. o'mara became zimmerman's attorney after being recommended by mark nejame who cnn hired as a legal analyst. he's an orlando lawyer. he's also the law partner of the judge. the judge's husband. they referred him no mark o'mara who filed the recusal file today. he joins me now. thanks for joining me. earlier this afternoon you filed the motion to recuse the judge. are you confident it is going to be granted? >> yes, i do. the way their rule is set up is once the presentation is made by verified motion, the court should grant it. she could have an inquiry if she wanted to. i don't think she will. i think she will grant it and move it on to another judge. >> are you surprised she didn't recuse herself? we begin tonight with breaking news. >> certainly, could be. >> cnn along with a number of other organizations petitioned the court to reverse an order sealing court records, in an order you requested last week. why do you feel the records should be sealed? >> well, my initial concern is that i knew there was going to be information flowing into the court file that included witnesses' names, telephone numbers, addresses, information about trayvon martin in there as well. my concern is with the publicity this case has gotten so far and with the interest with all sorts of people that there may be concern for some safety to some of those people should addresses be given out. >> if personal information about witnesses or individuals attached to the case were redacted from the records and the records were released in that form, would that be acceptable to you? or is this part of wanting to -- because when i talked to you a couple days ago, you said you wanted to dial down the pressure or the focus on this. is that part of this? >> yes, it is. i mean, it's an overall philosophy of trying to keep the information flow concentrated within the system. it's much better handled there. again information like this even a police report with names on it gets out, then my concern is they're going to be spoken to. they're going to be questioned. there's going to be four, five different statements from this one witness, let's say. then we have to sift through all of that to try to get to the truth. >> how often are you in communication now with george zimmerman and how is he doing? >> daily basis. at least a couple times a day. and again he's doing well physically. he wants out. he is certainly frightened as to what's going on. he's very concerned with the process. but i think he understands it. >> you said he's frightened about what's going on? >> well, he's -- >> i'm sorry. is that the word you used? >> yes. frightened. >> okay. in terms of the actual meetings, are they face to face or over the telephone? >> face to face and over the telephone. i saw him earlier this afternoon, spoke to him again on the phone. i try to get to see him every couple days, particularly during the time he's in. hopefully he'll be out soon. >> you have a bond hearing coming up this friday. what do you think the likelihood is he could get out? >> well, a bond scheduler says it's a no bond status until the judge reviews it. when the judge reviews it, he does or she does, what we call an author inquiry. basically, with a case where you're going to try to keep somebody in pretrial, which i would consider pretrial punishment, because they've not been convicted of anything yet, then the court has to look at it. in a case like this decide the proof is evident and the presumption great. proof of course evidence. evidence, look at webster's for a good definition of what evidence is. evidence would seem to be corroborated, unopposed, undeniable. then the presumption of guilt has to be great. our case law has interpreted that standard, the standard to apply in an author inquiry to be greater than beyond a reasonable doubt. so if the judge follows the law, the judge would have to make a determination that the proof of guilt is evident -- i'm sorry, yeah the proof is evident and the presumption is great. i'm hoping that the judge is not going to decide that. and we'll get him out on friday. of course, maybe for the last day or two i'm going to be able to argue ignorance because i haven't seen the discovery yet. i hope to see it before friday so i can be properly prepared for the hearing and know what the state is going to present and rebut it. >> if he did get out, are you concerned about his safety? >> very concerned about his safety. the concern, of course is once we get him out, and i believe he deserves to be out. and i need him out for our defense purposes. we need to keep him safe. again, there's been a lot of emotions that have come forward in this case. and some of those emotions are showing themselves in bad ways. and i'm just hopeful that we can get him out, keep him safe, and then give me the time to do my job. >> mark o'mara, appreciate your time. thank you. let's talk about what today's legal filings mean. for the trial ahead. joining me mark geragos and analyst and sunny hostin. given the possible conflict of interest, do you believe the judge should have recused herself from the case? >> well, i don't know if she should have. she obviously had to disclose it. i think now the paperwork's been filed, i think she will recuse herself. she's in a no-win situation. if she rules for him, somebody's going to say well, you know, there's a connection because the husband referred the case over. if she rules against him, they're going to say well the husband's firm turned him down. why be second guessed? the easier thing is to take her out of the mix. >> sunny, you said there's another reason o'mara might want her out. >> well, bottom line is, this is a very new judge. she hasn't presided over a homicide case. she's only been on the bench a year. mark doesn't know her. he would know the other three judges. this is sort of a win/win. she just got assigned for the case randomly. now he gets the chance to probably be in front of judges he's be in front of before. that's a good place for an attorney to be. >> the sealed court records, does that help one side, the prosecution or defense, more than the other? >> i always think, frankly, that sealed court records help the defense. because generally what you're sealing is the prosecution's records. the defense records are generally in the defense lawyer's file. you don't necessarily, until you file a motion, put in things like your theory and other kinds of witness statements, things like that. so what you're trying to prevent from getting out there is prosecution evidence. and a lot of times the evidence put in by the prosecution into police reports, probable cause, statements, things like that, are stuff that may never reach a courtroom. and in a case like this, 245 is super sized, you don't want it out there. you don't want everyone discussing it. you don't want the witnesses -- and we mentioned this last week when you were interviewing the witnesses. you start to get witness statements out there and people start talking about it and things of that nature. that never helps the defense. >> do you think they'll reverse that order to seal the records? >> i think so. florida with the sunshine laws is really transparent especially the court system. i think your questions to o'mara was so good i wonder if you don't have a law degree. >> stop trying to butter me up. >> i was going to say the same thing, but i didn't want to suck up to you. >> okay. all right. >> the bottom line is they can redact witness names. they can redact the information that is of great concern. so i would imagine that in looking at the standard, there's no doubt that a lot of this information will be made public but in a redacted form. >> mark, explain to people who -- you know, having no legal background i'm surprised by when a lawyer says i haven't asked my client at this point about what happened that night. mark o'mara says he's waiting for whatever evidence the prosecution has for him to look at before he talks to his client about that. explain why that would be. i mean, my instinct would be tell me what happened. why is that not a good idea? >> tell me everything. >> yeah. >> i tell that to clients when they come in. i say look before i start questioning you, before i grind you, i want to see what the prosecution has. it's simple. it's based on the fact that the prosecution has the burden of proof. it's not a civil case where you're fighting over money and each side's got to tell their story. this is a criminal case. the prosecution's got the burden of proof. i want to know what they have. before i grill the client, i want to see what the prosecution has, and i'm going to know their case and know it as well as they do, and then i'm going to go to my client and basically start to cross examine him on what he knows and what he doesn't know. >> is there a danger for a defense attorney to hear too much from his client or her client? >> absolutely. let me give you a perfect example. if i start asking questions before i know the discovery, my client then has told me something. i'm locked into that. at a certain point, i cannot ethically put that client on the stand if the client is going to -- his memory's going to evolve. he's going to remember something he didn't know before. if i suspect that he's not telling the truth, i'm in betwixed and between -- and i'm conflicted. so yes, there's a problem with that. >> by not asking your client at this stage in the game you are protecting yourself as well as your client, really. >> well, i'm protecting the client more than anything else. protecting myself is the last of my worries. what i want to make sure is i understand the prosecution's case, that i hold them to their duty which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. and that i'm not making it easier for them. >> do you think, sunny, he will get bond? do you think he'll get out? >> i think so. >> on friday? this soon? >> if it's on friday, yeah. if you look at the standard, it's clear that the judge -- that the state has to prove that he should be held. and the judge could still release him if he isn't a flight risk. he isn't because he turned himself in. if he is a danger to the community is a tougher question. if he has ties to the community. i suspect there will be some sort of bond situation here. depends whether or not he can meet the requirements, because they should be pretty stringent. >> mark, do you agree with that? >> i agree. if you look at the law, he should get bail. whether he gets out is a completely different question. because i don't think, frankly, he's got the wherewithal or the means to post any significant bail. i mean, pretty much -- we face this situation all the time in the courts. somebody gives you bail but you don't have the wherewithal to bail out. >> mark geragos, sunny hostin thanks. let us know what you think, follow us -- we're on facebook, google plus, follow me on twitter tonight tonight, @andersoncooper. i'll be tweet iing during the hr ahead. the people who are supposed to protect the president in colombia, they're charged with dealing with prostitutes. new developments tonight ahead. s while balancing the company's bottom line, their very first word was... [ to the tune of "lullaby and good night" ] ♪ af-lac ♪ aflac [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ...forbusiness.com. [ yawning sound ] the sleep number bed. the magic of this bed is that you're sleeping on something that conforms to your individual shape. wow! that feels really good. you can adjust it to whatever your needs are. so whatever you feel like, the sleep number bed's going to provide it for you. now, sleep number redefines memory foam, combining coolfit gel foam with sleep number adjustability. during the final days of our white sale, receive $400 in free bedding. only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699. raw politics now. new developments in the secret service prostitution scandal. telling john king it involves 11 secret service employees and ten department defense personnel. all of whom were to protect president obama in colombia. they're all under investigation accused of bringing prostitutes back to a hotel secured for members of the american delegation. again, that's 11 secret service employees and ten from the defense department. today an embarrassed chairman of the joint chiefs had this to say. >> we let the boss down. because nobody's talking about what went on in colombia other than this incident. so to that extent, we let him down. >> joining us now with more details, chief white house correspondent, jessica yellin. what is the latest you're hearing about this? >> the details are sorted for these guys. it happened two days before the president arrived. according to multiple government officials, the people involved range from relative newcomers to nearly 20 year veterans. we're told they went out in separate groups on wednesday night. then one secret service agent let a prostitute stay overnight in his room. then there was a dispute over payment. the hotel called local police. police filed a report. that report went to the american embassy. you can see where this goes. the embassy alerted secret service headquarters and it all unravelled from there. >> how big -- it's obviously embarrassing for the secret service, for the summit in colombia. how big a deal is this for compromising presidential security? >> you know, the service maintains the president's security was never compromised because these guys routinely lock up documents and the president wasn't in the country yet. but the real question is what if? i've spoken to many former agents in the last few days. they say one thing they're taught specifically is to avoid prostitutes for fear of possible blackmail even years down the line, when an agent could be promoted into the president's protecttive detail. and having personally traveled with the president, i'm most surprised they bring these women back to a staff hotel where white house officials would be staying in a few days. >> i want to bring in a journalist ronald kessler. author of "in the president's secret service." you say this is the biggest scandal to hit the secret service. how did this happen? >> well, since i broke the story, of course it's the biggest. but it is a symptom of the lax attitude of secret service management. we saw that come out in the fact that the salahis were able to crash the white house state dinner. in my book "in the president's secret service," i reveal dozens of corner cutting by management. allowing people into events without screening for example. it's just like letting people into an airplane without screening. that alone is shocking. >> you put the responsibility on mark sullivan, you're a critic of his? >> yeah. obviously these people engaged in egregious behavior and there they're reminded they could be blackmailed. but i think that when people on the grounds see that the boss really doesn't care, is sort of winking and nodding, is lax and is over working them and is showing favoritism, one example they don't even insist of regular physical fitness testing or regular firearms requalification testing. sometimes they will ask agents to fill out their own test scores on these things which is just dishonest. they are also not keeping up to date with the latest firearms. one example of what goes on is that when dick cheney's daughter mary was under protection, she would try to get her agents to take her friends to restaurants. they're not taxi drivers. they refused as they should have. but she threw a fit. because of this she was able to get her detail leader removed by secret service management. so what does that tell the agents on the ground? it tells them if we do our job, we might be removed. and that's what happened with the salahis. you had secret service uniformed officers who knew that they were not on the guest list and a third also not on the list, carlos allen, a story which i also revealed. and yet they ignored that. why? because they were afraid that gee, if they turned them away, and they were supposed to be on the list, that management would not back them up. all this culture filters down and i think led to this really scandalous situation. >> jessica, the president has indicated he'd be angry if these allegations were confirmed. do you expect he's going to personally have more to say on this? or is the white house eager to move on? >> eager to move on definitely. they'd rather focus on policy agenda. and the body language at the white house is for now at least this can be handled by the secret service. let's be honest, this is an election year. the president has to demonstrate leadership. this is the same head of the secret service who was in charge when the salahi scandal happened. he's been there since 2006. the service has to handle this quickly to insulate the white house from any political fallout here if they don't want the president to intervene. >> ronald kessler, appreciate you being on. jessica yellin, thanks. discuss don't, this is what the cease-fire in syria looks like. the latest in the assad regime's broken promises. we'll talk to ambassador susan rice who has no problem called assad basically a liar. what's the u.s. going to do about it? that's next. >> announcer: with nothing but hicomputer, an ident keeping them honest. one of america's top diplomats using blunt language tonight about syria's regime. confirming what we've been reporting night after night. thousands of syrian murder victims won't be forgotten. and their killer won't get away with it. tonight i spoke with u.s. ambassador susan rice. she said the regime there has lied about slaughtering victims. the biggest is bashar al assad. here he is on the left, in homs,ed day he promised to pull out tanks and troops, to stop the shelling, stop the killing. there on the right, that very day, video of his forces pounding other parts of that same city. that day march 27th, 57 syrians died mostly in homs. according to opposition figures. the regime then killed hundreds more between then and april 12th when the ceasefire went into effect. keeping them honest. today four days into the cease fire as u.n. monitors arrived in syria, the opposition is reporting 55 people killed. that's homs today. bombardment continues. u.n. commissioner reporting it's seriously concerned, unquote. about reports of forces using heavy weaponry against the population. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> the video claiming to be from yesterday in homs. you can hear large explosion of incoming heavy artillery. you can hear and see it's a bombardment of explosions coming just seconds apart. today's u.n. statement acknowledges violations as well on the part of opposition forces. in this video, there appears to be an exchange of gunfire going on between sides. however, opposition fighters don't have much more than ak-47s and rpgs, rocket propelled grenades. the syrian army has been pounding suburbs. the syrian army that still has tanks like this one in homs. assad, remember, promised to pull tanks and troops out. as always, we can't independently verify what you're seeing, when the video was taken, or where. but by now, no one seriously doubts it. what you're seeing is the ugly truth and has been for a long time. quote, the commission also hopes that the ceasefire will contribute to putting an end to the gross human rights violations that has been reporting on over the past six months. that we've been documenting for more than a year now. however, in all that time, the assad regime has yet to keep really a single promise. i spoke about all the broken promises tonight with america's ambassador to the u.n., susan rice. a plan to halt the violence, they kept on killing. march 27th of this year assad agreed to