george zimmerman call and what word he really used. let's go outfront. i'm erin burnett. countdown to nuclear showdown. the rhetoric rising ahead of a make or break moment for iran and the rest of the world. a week from tonight, negotiators will be arriving to talk with iran about the disputed nuclear program. the debate over where iran will talk to the united states, britain, france, germany, china and russia may not just be rhetoric. this could derail talks and send the world down a path towards military strike. now, iran suggested it might move the venue from istanbul to beijing. here's what william cohen told me. >> the iranians are not interested in reaching an agreement, thane are not interested in producing a nuclear pow e. they're interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. >> now iran says it's for peaceful purposes but it isn't just the united states that's frustrated. turkey's prime minister stepped said today that iran's off tore move the venue was this. >> the offer going around at the moment, damascus or baghdad is a waste of time. it means it won't happen. because of the lack of honesty they're continually losing their international prestige. this is not the language of diplomacy. >> he continued off camera, the name of this is something else, and i won't say it here and it was not a diplomatic slap toward iran. and the pentagon weighed in as well. spokesman george little telling reporters this afternoon that quote, our assessment of the program remains the same. we are very concerned about where they iran might be headed and iran with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. this is a crucial moment for the world. phil mudd is the author of the ayatollah's democracy. you have followed for many years and the kind of diplomacy, secrecy, lies that goes on with these kinds of negotiations. are we going to have talks next week? >> i think we are, yes. i think both the iranians want it and the u.s. and the rest of the p-5 want it as well. i doubt very much they're not going to happen. this is a little bit of posturing for sure. but they want to punish them for their position on the missile shield. they don't want to reward turkey with a breakthrough negotiation so the turks can say oh, we were the ones that brought it together. at this point in time. geopolitically. >> phil, it's interesting when you think of the talks with the world so focused on this issue. is there any way to come out of this that doesn't head towards some sort of military action, if iran doesn't give full access to all the nuclear sites. promise to renounce all sorts of things? is there any in between here? >> i don't think that's much in between. look, we'll focus on diplomacy because the military is not a very good option, but the iranians have gone down a path here and we're deluding ourselves if we think that path is going to be detoured by diplomatic talks. i think this is inevitable. >> what's inevitable? >> i mean, i think that the iranians development of a nuclear program that has military intent is inevitable. we can hope that diplomatic talks can derail this, but that's not a plan. >> you mentioned the other day that iran would need to put certain conditions on the table to have a break through. what are those conditions? before you say whether or not they're going to do them, what are they them? >> i think it's expected that iran would stop their 20% enrichment which is higher than the 3.5% that they were doing which is for the nuclear reactor in tehran. i think that's an expect eight. i don't think it's helpful that the french say you have to do that before they start negotiations but i think iran is prepared. >> you think they're prepared? >> yeah, ahmadinejad said that. >> and to allow inspectors there? >> well, the inspectors are there and allowing them unfettered access which is what iran did during ka thatmy's rule. they're not going to do it -- >> like what? >> well, i think they want an easing of the sanctions at least or some kind of plan, road map for how the sanctions are going to be lifted over time. something that the russians talked about almost a year ago. they'll need something in return. if they don't get it, of course they're not going to do it. >> doesn't that involve -- i want you to get you to weigh in on this, but doesn't that involve the leadership in iran losing face which is really hard to do diplomatically? when you say you're not going to do something and then put it on the table. he doesn't want to look weak. >> he already said if you give us fuel rods we don't need to, if you sell us fuel rods we don't need to enrich the 20% which concerns the rest of the world. there has to be something. he's already said that. >> this sounds reasonable, sounds like it makes sense. yet if this were to happen, it would be a whole lot of talk that iran was obfuscating or iran is not being honest. >> i don't buy it. look, iran watched us accept a nuclear program in korea and they have had a missile program for decades. the taught that they'd step back now and say, hey, everybody else has it, i think it's minimal. i think it's continue. >> you think there's parallels in how the united states is treating iran with how they treated pakistan which of course has nuclear weapons. >> i think that's true. i mean, i think we wring our hands when these countries go down this path. in the 21st century with the spread of technology and proliferation the prospects that hand wringing and diplomacy can bring the countries around when they can acquire these from russia, china and north korea and when they see threats from us and others around the arabian gulf, i think they'll engauge in talks because they want to detour us. but we're not able to shove the program aside. >> but it seems at this point that there's a time line, that there's never been before. israel is so vocal. they can't back down, and iran is vocal. they can't back down. if this not clearly resolved the end game seems pretty clear. i mean, how severe. there might be a military strike, it seems clear. >> unfortunately it seems like -- i disagree with paul that the iranians want to build a bomb or do that imminently. i think it's pretty clear that once you have the technology that they have already and they continue to develop it that they could make that decision to build a bomb which is good enough. >> so the lead time becomes -- you can get one within months or weeks as opposed to years? >> that's true. i would agree with him that if iran decides to do that that's nothing anything can do to stop them including military action. so the best solution really is find a way to deincentivize the government from taking that step. >> the united states, bottom line, have to back down and it doesn't seem like they want to go into an all-out conflict? >> i think the answer is yes. look, iran has one of the most advanced engineering and scientific communities around. they watched what happened in iraq and they said let's bury and disburse our program. if we think we can eliminate this with military strikes this is wrong. i think the continue will continue to step forward. >> the horse is out of the barn. thanks to both of you. still outfront, did the president step down or was he misunderstood? and a shocking sentence, a woman comes "outfront." and how to be healthy and happier. muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge! ♪ lord, you got no reason ♪ you got no right ♪ ♪ i find myself at the wrong place ♪ [ male announcer ] the ram 1500 express. ♪ it says a lot about you. ♪ in a deep, hemi-rumble sort of way. guts. glory. ram. [ male announcer ] how could switchgrass in argentina, change engineering in dubai, aluminum production in south africa, and the aerospace industry in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. mine was earned off vietnam in 1968. over the south pacific in 1943. i got mine in iraq, 2003. usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection, and because usaa's commitment to serve the military, veterans and their families is without equal. begin your legacy, get an auto insurance quote. usaa. we know what it means to serve. i'm here to unleash my inner cowboy. instead i got heartburn. [ horse neighs ] hold up partner. prilosec isn't for fast relief. try alka-seltzer. it kills heartburn fast. yeehaw! so another embarrassment tonight for the government. we're talking about the gsa, general services administration. that's the agency actually charged with minimizing costs for the government. so the head of the gsa resigned this week, you may recall, because of some details which came to light about a lavish conference held in las vegas that featured a clown, some mind readers, some trust games. now a web video has surfaced which shows another gsa employee joking about excessive government spending. dana bash has been covering this for us, and what's in this video? >> you have to see it to believe it, erin. it is absolutely stunning. it turns out in that conference which cost taxpayers $822,000, it isn't just the clown and the mind reader thats bes the administration. the gsa held a talent show, and an employee for a regional office in hawaii won. take a look at his video and listen to him making fun of excess spending and saying he would never be under investigation. ♪ you can't touch the gsa, i get the reward ♪ ♪ i'm on vacation, i'll never be under investigation ♪ >> now, the other thing you heard in that rap was him saying every gs-5 would get a top hat award. a gs-5 is an entry level government employee, and the top hat award, we've learned today, is something the gsa gave out to employees. it was an award worth $200,000 and it was taxpayer-funded ipods and electronics and gift cards. the gsa, they actually held an awards ceremony at that conference for the video, and what you're about to see is the deputy commissioner of public building service, a federal employee, a top one, giving out the award. and listen to the way he mocks oversight, or appears to, of the gsa. >> now, there are just a couple small matters. the hotel would like to talk to you about paying for the party that was held in the commissioner's suite last night. you need to take care of that, and eleanor holmes morton, our chairwoman on the oversight committee, called. she has a couple questions about pay increases for executives. something about going against the obama administration discussion about executive pay and incentive. >> we got this video from capitol hill today, and i'm told that the house oversight chairman darrell issa's office got this on a disk as part of the criminal investigation of all this excess spending. i also just obtained, erin, a letter that issa sent to the director that says it turns out they were briefed on this last may. that's right, 11 months ago, and they sat on it. >> wow. i mean, at least the kid doing the rap looks like he could be successful in another industry. everybody else seems a little -- well, thank you very much. okay, the department of justice has responded to a highly unusual demand from a federal judge in texas. this is pretty neat. acknowledged in writing, the court's power to overturn laws are unconstitutional. why would they have to do this? because president obama weighed in on the supreme court ruling over his health care law on monday and said this. >> i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. >> that's when you say, gosh, i wish i stuck with the prompter. some critics interpreted that statement as a challenge to the authority of the court system but asked today if the president misspoke. the white house press secretary said president obama was only misunderstood because as a law professor, he was speaking in shorthand. >> the premise of your question suggests that the president of the united states, in the comments he made monday, did not believe that the supreme court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous presence. >> our political panel joins me now. john avlon, former speechwriter with me in new york, leslie sanchez in washington. michael, as you said, these are moments we live for in our industry. the choice was poor. >> i think he was talking in shorthand, but what he was saying broadly was that it's very unusual, really extraordinary, for an economic measure like this to be struck down by the supreme court. believe it or not, there is actually a famous footnote -- i said i would get this footnote on national television that says, we want the judges to be really vigilant about protecting economic rights, but when it comes to something like regulating health care, we want them to defer to congress to the give and take of the political process. i think that's what the president was saying. it's a big issue and i'm actually glad he did it. >> the context you provided there makes it seem a lot less than what he actually said. the footnote. >> absolutely. >> i think in washington it matters where you stand as well as where you sit. normally, they're saying that the court should have excessive deference and in favor of a strong executive when they're in the white house and now the roles are rol roles are reversed. it shows how much is political and situational ethics. >> michael, maybe he shouldn't have said anything at all. it's his law, but he's the executive branch. >> on the one hand, it's a big issue and the next president may appoint a bunch of these justices. it is rich to hear the conservative politicians bemoaning this when for decades they have been attacking the supreme court, attacking roe vs. wade, worrying about judicial -- >> they have been saying activism -- activist is in the eye of the beholder. leslie, i want to ask you about something that came out of this. department justice submitted this letter to the texas court. they requested three page, single space. do kids even know what that is anymore? we all know. by noon. that made reference to what the administration thought. could courts overrule laws, and they got it. and they got it in time and here's a quote from the letter. the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute. and then referencing the president's comments you heard. they were fully consistent with the principles described here in. this is an unusual thing to request a letter like this. is it out of line? >> i don't think so. if t if the department of justice felt it was out of line, they would have asked for relief from a higher court but clearly it didn't. they felt it deserved merit and sfond -- responded. they did not write it 100 times on the chalkboards. very much -- i have to make a point and disagree with the two intelligent colleagues that you have with you. >> he's about to slam you guys. >> no. but what i'm saying is that this -- the president clearly misspoke. with all due respect to where the debate is laid out, it's become a very dangerous debate in the sense that it's trying to intimidate, it sounds as if the president was trying to intimidate the supreme court. we can look at a long line through history of presidents that tried to politicize a very revered institution. we have coequal government and branches of the government and i think there's a dangerous precedence being set there. and the supreme court has overturned cases 363 times and that's not unusual to to do so. there's a political battle brewing here, not a judicial one. >> but it's very unusual for them to take a signature, regulatory economic law of a president and strike it down if they do it. because they basically don't like it. so actually for that reason i actually think they will uphold it. it's up to the opponents of the law to prove it's unconstitutional. this is the same supreme court that gave us citizens united which he believes and i believe was a very, very intrusive decision, struck down decades of laws and gave us the rise of the super pacs and a lot of other things. and you really have almost a structural conflict between the kind of conservative justices on the court and for the first time in decades they're facing a more liberal -- at least for a time more liberally elected branches. there's always going to be these fights. >> but the president is expecting a defeat on his landmark piece of legislation being obamacare. he's playing a -- laying a political groundwork, putting the court very much in the position of being the bad guy and this type of tactic for a fall campaign that's the part that people are most concerned. >> bottom line, it's going to be a general election issue. for the first time people will take the power of the president to appoint a supreme court justice. >> that might be a good thing too. people realizing how important this court is. >> absolutely is. >> his comments, president obama's comments were nothing compared to the threats like fdr trying to pack the court. this is relatively mild. >> court packing. >> there's a serious judicial -- it was serious constitutional implications. >> thank you all three. well, a surprising sentence for some shocking crimes involving terrorism. late today a federal judge gave the merchant of death 25 years behind bars. that was the minimum. all right, he could have gotten life. victor boot is the man i'm talking about. he made a name for himself as one of the world's most notorious arms dealer, fuelling violent conflicts around the world. selling ten million rounds of am kn -- ammunition. he was the inspiration for "lord of war." he was convicted of conspiracy to kill americans and providing aid to a terrorist organization. kathy lynn austin has spent 15 years alone tracking boot. she was in the court for the sentencing. we had a chance to talk as you were getting ready for this case. what do you think about this sentence, 25 years, the minimum? >> erin, i'm both shocked and disappointed. i cannot believe the verdict. i think the prosecution went into this case thinking it was a slam dunk. there are a number of us investigators who wanted to bring forth evidence of his past crimes and the judge said, look, you just didn't present to me enough facts to show that this was a violent individual, that he had a lot of bloodshed on his hands, so she gave the minimum sentence. >> i'm curious to your thought on the money here. prosecution asked the judge to sign an order to force boot to forfeit $20 million. that may sound like a lot of money to everybody watching but an parentally he has $6 billion in assets in net worth because of the arms deals he's done over the years. what's going to happen to that money? >> well, first of all, the judge decided she would only fine him $400, and then the forfeiture would only be $15 million. so again, the prosecution failed to make a strong case where at the minimum $20 million would be forfeited. the biggest concern here now is as you're mentioning that money goes right into the u.s. government coffers. none of that money as far as we know right now will be repatriated back to any of the victims of the crimes for which victor boot is responsib