Wanted as well. And this from carolyn, totally out of touch and not listening to the cares and concerns of american citizens. Their thinking is crazy and skewed. Im carol costello. Thank you for joining me today. Cnn newsroom continues with ashleigh banfield. Actually one month after president obama vowed to use whatever power his office holds to prevent more tragedies like newtown he is about to say exactly what that means. In a little less than an hour hell take the wraps off a series of proposals that go beyond gun control. Hes expected to push for a new ban on assault weapons and highcapacity ammo clips. He wants to close the socalled gun show loophole, that involving the background checks. But hes also expected to talk about other things Like Mental Health car health care and boosting school security. He will be joined by his Vice President , joe biden who compiled these ideas after talks with various stakeholders. And for good measure they invited along some of the children who wrote them after the massacre at sandy hook. Cnns special live coverage begins at 45 minutes past the hour. While we wait for the president to address us on these issues, i wanted to bring in our white house correspondent, dan lothian. Dan, is it all about the timing . Is it now or never . Is it capitalizing on the emotion of this country or is there Something Else afoot . No i do think it is now or never. The white house sees a sense of urgency here in pushing something forward. When you look back over the past several years, when you had these massive shootings, whether its in connecticut, whether its in colorado or elsewhere, theres talk in washington about coming up with guidelines to prevent Something Like that from happening again. Then usually it gets lost in the noise of washington there are other pressing issues that come up. In fact we probably would have been talking about fiscal issues had that shooting not happened. They see this as an opportunity to seize the moment. They believe the president is putting forward a comprehensive plan, but its controversial. A lot of pushback, not only from gun Rights Groups but some lawmakers up on capitol hill. If you wouldnt mind we minding viewers. There was a lot of talk about the 19 potential executive actions the president would have at his disposal. Remind us what the president can do and what congress can do instead. Okay. Lets first of all start with some things that the president wants congress to do and to act. He wants to push for an assault weapons ban. Thats something that lawmakers have been talking about shortly after the shootings and the president had expressed support for. He wants to push for a ban on those magazines with more than ten rounds, thereby slowing down a gunman. Would not be able to set off as many rounds in a short period of time. He wants to push for universal background checks. That means anyone buying a weapon, whether at a gun show or private transaction would have to get checked out for Mental Illness or for their criminal record. Wants to request funds be made available for Mental Health issues and for schools to be able to protect themselves. Those are some things that the president will be urging congress to do. Also the president does plan to do some things on his own, much of it perhaps will be focused only some laws that are already on the books, enforcing those laws. We expect the president to push for data gathering, information on weapons that have been used in crimes. Those are some things that the president will push through in executive order. All right. Again lothian standing by for us on the north lawn of the white house, keeping an eye on the president s movements as well. Were on the countdown to seeing the president live. We should also mention to you that new york is one step ahead of the president it looks like one step ahead of the nation in this particular movement. The governor, andrew cuomo, signed into law a sweeping gun control law. It is the first such law enacted in response to the newtown shooting massacre. That law expands the states existing assault weapons ban it also limits the size of gun magazines to seven rounds, just seven rounds. Thats smaller than some of the actual capacities of guns. This law also includes measures to better keep firearms away from mentally ill people and it imposes tougher penalties on those who use guns while carrying out crimes. As to be expected, gun rights advocates denounced this law in new york. With all the heated rhetoric over guns, it might be easy to consider throwing in the town and saying the effect of National Laws to reduce gun violence are virtually impossible to achieve. But former congressman dan glickman of kansas does not agree with that. Rather than denouncing gun owners, he says there is a need to understand the nations deeply rooted gun culture. No matter how you feel about it. In an article in politico he writes we need to recognize that large numbers of americans view gun ownership as almost tantamount to their citizenship and their views have strong cultural foundations. We should not demonize the gun owner and recognize that the overwhelming majority are decent lawabiding people. Dan glickman now joins us from washington. I should mention you fought for the assault weapons ban in congress and suffered dearly in your opinion for it back in 94. You lost your seat. You feel that was the reason why. Characterize for me what it was like going door to door in your campaign after having supported that kind of gun control . Clearly that 94 campaign, i thought i was in good shape. I worked on legislation that protected thousands of jobs in the aviation industry, which saved thousands of jobs in my town, after going door to door, i could see from talking to folks on the street, in many cases their guns, gun ownership and pride of ownership was more important to them than jobs were. Thats why this is so difficult. The intensity to gun opposition puts these people almost to one issue voting. Most of these people have in issues theyre interested in. For a congressman out there who comes from a tough district, if theyre hearing this from the standpoint of those who will say they will vote against you if you vote for this, rather than those on the other side who say there are many issues theyre interested in, it is a tough political battle for them. Let me ask you this, im curious about how tough a political battle it could be given that there are many who say this culture has changed so rapidly. The exponential factor brought on by newtown, but notwithstanding all the other horrific gun incidents that we have been forced to report on and the country has been forced to digest. Its a different climate in the 90s. We barely had School Shootings back then. Is it so tough now for a congressman or congresswoman to go out and campaign now that the polls are shifting . I think the polls are shifting and the environment may be better, but the intensity of this issue, how strongly do people feel about it, is still on the side of the gun owner. So, what you have to do, the president and other also have legislation and regulations, we have to build a climate a Political Climate in this country where its safer for politicians to support this legislation. And that is not an easy thing to do. But i think its important to try. And i just want to outline some of the recent polls. They fascinated me. I dont know if im naive to this they seem to have significantly shifted on a number of different levels. When it comes to sat s ts t s s with gun laws, a usa today gallup poll suggested that 30 of those were dissatisfied and wanted stricter gun control. 43 were satisfied. 5 wanted less strict guns. When you break it down into specifics, thats what the president is doing today, the nationwide ban on semiautomatic handguns, 51 support that. And a nationwide ban on high capacity ammunition clips, that number is even higher. Its 65 now of those asked. When it comes to assault weapons, 58 of those asked now support a nationwide ban on assault weapons. Look when it gets to nationwide background checks, that number goes to 70 . I think those numbers are very different than when you were campaigning in 94, arent they . I think the numbers are different now but i go back to the point, the intensity is what is important. How strongly do people feel when theyre in their respective categories theyre in. This is going to be a political battle. Some things like background checks are probably going to be easier to get done than banning assault weapons. The president is showing leadership by proposing these ideas. Now congress will have to deal with it. Ultimately the American People will influence their congressmen. They have to let their voices be heard and let their voices be heard in the context of how important this is for them. Former congressman dan glickman, good of you to join us. I appreciate your perspective as it spans the decades. Thank you very much. Thank you. As mentioned, president obama is due to unveil his gun control plan a little later on this hour. We are on the countdown, about 35 minutes from now. Our special coverage beginning at 11 45 eastern time. [ loud party sounds ] hi, im ensure clear. Clear, huh . Im not juice or fancy water. Ive got nine grams of protein. Thats three times more than me [ female announcer ] ensure clear. Nine grams protein. Zero fat. In blueberry pomegranate and peach. Nine grams protein. Zero fat. Officeyour business needs. K. At prices that keep you. Out of the red. This week get a bonus 15 itunes gift card with any qualifying 75 ink purchase. Find thousands of big deals now. At officemax. Your doctor will say get smart about your weight. Thats why theres glucerna hunger smart shakes. They have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. A smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. Were still waiting to hear if Lance Armstrong apologizes to his accusers in a huge interview he did with oprah winfrey. One thing isfinally admitting hes used performanceenhancing drugs, and it nothing short of remarkable. Were stiick and tired of the allegations. Its untrue. I said it for seven years. I said it longer for seven years. Ive never doped. Ill do it again. How can it have taken place when i have never taken performanceenhancing drugs. Back to 1995, one of your former teammates was riding with you, he has told espn on the record and on camera that back in 95 when the team was struggling, you announced to the team you were going to begin doping and you would encourage other team banks to do the same what do you make of that . Complete nonsense. I cant be clearer than ive never taken drugs. Incidents like that could never happen. Why would i enter into a sport, dope up and risk my life again. I would never do that. No way. My case, i came out of a lifethreatening disease. I was on my death bed. You think i would go to a doctor, give me everything, i want to go fast. No way . Way, you did you, youre te people that now. There are people he has wronged over the years, not just little, a lot. Former friends who were cast out as vindictive and liars as they challenged him on doping. Here are a few of those. Frankie andreu and tyler hamilton, former teammates, his former personal assistant, emma oreilly, and british journalist david walsh. Not everyone who has come up against Lance Armstrong is so ready to forgive and forget. Dallas attorney Jeff Tillison is waiting patiently to hear what armstrong has to say. His clients paid armstrong millions and millions of dollars for his wins there were bonuses for racking up the Yellow Jerseys, now i can only assume you want your money back. My first question is this, are you about to file paperwork to sue Lance Armstrong because now it looks like hes going to admit he lied . He lied in depositions that you were part of . He lied in a cast that cost you millions . Yes, my client has made demand for the return of the prize money they paid him. Absent getting a satisfactory response to that demand, theyll have no choice but to pursue legal action against mr. Armstrong for the return of that money. That is not new. I know you made that request, very politely, i may add, but you have not asserted it in a civil court of law. Are you going to do that . Were waiting to see like everyone else exactly what mr. Armstrong says in his interview with oprah winfrey. I can assure you of my clients resolve, if this matter is not resolved, they will sue mr. Armstrong. And that demand has been communicated to mr. Armstrongs camp very clearly and forcefully. Which brings me to the critical nature of the wording. I want to know from a legal standpoint exactly what you are listening for that perhaps the layperson may not identify as critical to your mission. The words that Lance Armstrong uses that could expose him to the liability youre suggesting. Its not just admitting that he doped, but that he doped in connection with the Tour De France races, that hes been doping for a long period during his career, and hopefully an acknowledgment that he was untruthful in our legal proceeding. I think we all know, as your viewers do, that the answers to those questions are yes. And that he was untruthful. But wed like to see what he says to ms. Winfrey to finalize our legal strategy. And in the way he words it, because ms. Winfrey has couched significantly what mr. Armstrong said to her, and brilliantly so, because we all need to see this interview to know what were up against here, but he has said to the livestrong campaign that he regrets what they have had to endure since all of this transpired. Regret is not i am sorry for. Theres a big difference between saying you regret and a big difference between saying im sorry and i did this. So, what wording do you need to hear that gets you to the courthouse to file your case . Well, i think no matter what he says tomorrow night, based on the evidence we have, we have a compelling legal case for the return of the money we paid him. But were specifically looking to see which of the doping allegations that we raised and developed in our case hes going to acknowledge as true. That said, you played a clip from my deposition where he said unequivocally under oath i never doped. I think tomorrow night he will actually confirm that that was an untrue Statement Given under oath. This is getting into the weeds a little, but the effect is no less critical. I know the statue of limitations on perjury is three years in texas. Did you ever take a deposition over a Video Conference or a telephone call from another state which could possibly expose Lance Armstrong to perjury charges in another state that perhaps has seven years statute of limitations or more . Its possible. Depositions were taken in california in our case. We deposed emma riley, the masseuse, that was taken overseas, depositions of mr. Greg lemond were taken in minnesota. But im curious to see if Lance Armstrong may have lied in other state over the transmission wires which could expose him to federal issues and could also expose him to the statute of limitations that could be longer in another state . Ill leave that to the appropriate authorities. He was deposed in austin, texas, when i took his deposition. For our purposes and our civil case were focused on texas and texas law. I will tap you for your legal mind, not necessarily for your case. I listed out a whole lot of people who have been wronged by Lance Armstrong. Many of his former cycling mates, teammates, people who worked for him whose careers were ostensibly destroyed. Im curious if you think those people i just got a few of them listed up on the screen right now, have a strong libel case, a Defamation Case against Lance Armstrong because they suffered financially because of what he said. I think thats certainly a possibility. The list is much longer than you gave. Betsy andrew is someone who comes to mind who was vilified by the armstrong camp and put through grief for testimony she gave that turns out now to be entirely truthful. The same with greg lemond and others. Depending on what he said about them publically and some of the things he said in my lawsuit, those individuals may have valid complains. We were one of the biggest targets of mr. Armstrongs venom and were called all sorts of names and liars throughout the course of our case. And i should let our viewers know, in those bonus payments that your who you represent is the Insurance Company that paid out those bonuses for the Yellow Jersey wins, you did not sue him. He sued you. He sued you to get the money. Its even more just strident in his behavior. We questioned in light of his sixth win, we questioned whether or not some of the allegations being thrown about him were true or not. And instead of getting answers we got a lawsuit against us. As it turns out, the information we gathered in connection with that investigation which was mostly put together by david walsh, the british journalist, all turned out to be true and formed the bull work of the usada recent decision that was listed last fall. We feel bad about it. I hope that you will come back on this program, either friday or monday and talk about your reaction to what he says, and whether that means youre on your way to the courthouse with some very expensive paperwork for him. I look forward to it. Thank you. Jeffrey tilloson joining us from dallas, texas. I mentioned the livestrong moment where he said he regretted what the folks have gone through. I want to read some more about what that foundation released today. We expect lance to be completely truthful and forthcoming in his interview and with all of us in the cancer community. So clearly theyre still waiting for word as well. For more on Lance Armstrongs story, dont miss or the world according to lance special its airing this saturday night at 10 00 eastern. And then treats day after day. Block the acid with prilosec otc and dont get heartburn in the first place [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. Zero heartburn. [ male announcer ] dont just reject convention. Drown it out. Introducing the allnew 2013 lexus ls f sport. An entirely new pursuit. Introducing the allnew 2013 lexus ls f sport. E