the most nou notorious sex crimes in manhattan. plus, should the world be worried about iran's nukes? we talk about the nuclear program. >> and is this any way to win a presidential election. >> i don't care what the rest of the country feels, that's not important. i do care what the people of new hampshire think. >> is he just too honest for his own good? or perhaps he's too moderate? and can a man whose daughters do this in a campaign ad really make it to the white house? i'll ask jon huntsman and his daughters tonight, who just might be his secret weapon. this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening. we start with breaking news in it the penn state scandal. no police have any record of a report by assistant coach mike mcqueary. in an e-mail he reportedly said he talked with police about an alleged sexual assault by jerry sandusky. in the meantime, the charity that places kids with other homes now say the sandusky may have hosted six children back to the '60s. the authorities have been warned in new york and pennsylvania. a new judge has been assigned to the preliminary hearing scheduled for december 7th. the original judge had ties to the second mile charity. the question he is, how did jerry sandusky keep raising money despite all the rumors about his involvement in a sex scandal? one business donated $50,000 to sandusky's family last year is the family clothes line. tracy bell is the star coordinator. tracy bell, obviously deeply concerning course of events in the last few days. you are one of the businesses that's donated money to this charity. how do you feel? >> we were blindsided by everything that has happened past week and a half. >> what rumors had you heard prior to this week? >> we officially had heard just a little gossip around town, some community as every community has. we had heard there were allegations going on, an investigation going on. as early as it this summer. >> i think what strikes everybody as kind of incomprehensible is why, with all these rumors swirling, so many people hearing about what may have been going on, some people hearing about it for years, that nobody went to the police. why do you think that was? >> i'm not for sure the i know for a fact that my employer had confronted the second mile and asked about the allegations and the rumors that were going on. and he was told by the second mile organization that he was not under investigation, that the rumors were untrue and so he just kind of said okay and went on. and we continued to support the second mile. >> and when did that happen? >> that was this past summer, 2011, the golfme foreignmentour fund-raiser they have. >> one of your employees made a formal approach to the second mile charity and was reassured there was nothing in these rumors about jerry sandusky. is that right? >> yes. >> who was that, from the second mile charity? >> i'm not at liberty to say. >> but you know who it was. >> my employer does. >> right. do you now believe that at the time you were told there was nothing to worry about that actually they knew that the charity was well aware of what was going on? >> i believe according to the media and according to the grand ju jury, he was sat down and not loued to be in the activities with children. >> it's pretty outrageous, isn't it? you've given $50,000 to a charity which is very, very best severely tainted and may turn out to be harboring a sex monster. let's not beat about the bush here. what would you do about this, if anything? >> we are hoping to -- in the community to recover, we are hoping to find someone that will step up and be a leader and, you know, help our community. the main reason why we did donate to the second mile is because it was going to help kids in our community and in the surrounding communities. >> i mean, the terrible irony, of course, is if these allegations are are proven to be true, then far from hp hep help kids, one of the key people involved in the charity was abusing them on an industrial scale for years. >> yeah. that's -- it is heart wrenching that this has become the outcome of this. >> tracy, you live in the community, not far from penn state university. >> yes. >> you've had students come into your store. what is the mood? that uncomfortable night when joe paterno was fired, when students turned out in his support. i think that was very ill-conceived. what would you describe the current mood of the students as? >> we're look for someone in our community to step up and be a leader. right now the university doesn't have a permanent president are. we don't have a permanent a.d. we don't have a permanent football coach. so right now we're just looking at somebody to step up and be a leader. >> tracy bell, thank you very much. >> thank you, and i would like to say that we are donating $5 for every t-shirt we buy to the let go, let peace come in.org. the foundation, they are directly helping the kids that were in the recovery process, are in the recovery process for the kids that were allegedly abused by jerry sandusky. >> thank you very much indeed. the biggest question in the penn state sex abuse scandal may be, how strong is the case against jerry sandusky legally. joining me is the chief of the sex crimes unit in the district attorney's office in new york. she's handling sexual misconduct consulting now and investigations. let me ask you, lisa, everybody is kind of assuming guilty here on the part of jerry sandusky. from a legal perspective, i would imagine that's a dangerous position to be adopted right now, isn't it? >> well, i think the prosecutor's office is definitely looking at all of the evidence. i think if you look at what you have here, you have multiple victims over a long period of time, many of whom did not know each other. that makes for a stronger case. you have adult eyewitnesss to some of these acts. that makes for a very strong case. you have various corroborating evidence i've read about other adults who saw things that corroborated. some of these children's parents. so as these cases go, it's a fairly strong case for the prosecution. >> i twoowant to play you a cli from the bob costas interview with jerry sandusky from yesterday. >> are you a pedophile? >> no. >> are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys? >> am i sexually to underage boys? >> yes. >> sexually attracted? you know, i enjoy young people. i love to be around them. i -- but, fosh no i'm not sexua attracted to yuroung boys. >> it took him 17 seconds to say no to a fairly obvious question. how ill-advised was that interview, do you think? >> well, i'll say this, it's highly unusual for a defense attorney to have his client be interviewed in that fashion. for just that reason we saw. his words will be used against him or not. the prosecution is entitled to play that tape in court if he takes cross-examine him with it. i think everyone was struck by how long it took him to answer that, repeating the question back, saying again sexually attracted and then finally going on in an answer that meandered around for a while. i think in hindsight it was a -- not a great decision on his lawyer's part and i think it will hurt him at the trial. >> we're getting everyone piling in on sandusky. we had sarah palin leading a charge saying hang him from the highest tree, saying she would hold the rope and so on. is that unhelpful to the legal process, having him convicted in the court of popular opinion? >> well, i think that our system is innocent until proven. the public is entitled to judge from the evidence that they're hearing from the grand jury report and the other evidence that they hear. i don't know that it's had he ' to have people it at that level to convict him before he's had his trial. but, as we started out saying, this is a pretty strong case for the prosecution. >> it is. and it's a sickeni ining case. there are obviously other people who have been caught up in this, most famous of all joe paterno, a legendary sports coach. what is your view of had his legal position here, in terms of potentially being involved in a cover-up from all that you've seen and read and heard? >> i'm not really prepared to discuss whether i think he was involved in a cover-up. i think that remains to be seen. i think that the penn state board of trustees is clearly taking this very seriously, that they acted swiftly with some of the decisions they've already made. they've set up a committee to investigate this. and i think until all of the facts are out with who knew what and who said what to whom, i don't think it's really appropriate to start saying who should be charged and who should be guilty of a cover-up. >> it's raised the whole specter of priorities, hasn't it? and sense of, did commercial greed, did the striving for success on a football field override basic common ethics and moral decency here. >> well, that will definitely be one of the questions that the board of trustees' investigation will seek to answer, as they question everybody involved and find out who knew what and who told what to whom. and then the next question they're going to ask them is why with. why did you turn this over and not follow p up on it? why didn't you call the police yourself? why when you heard that it didn't get reported to the police you didn't do something? there are a lot of questions that remain to be answered by the board of trustees' investigation. and it remains to be seen why exactly various people didn't do what we are all looking at now and think they should have done. >> i'm already seeing as a result of the jerry sandusky interview people coming forward, we saw one on anderson's show earlier, families now coming forward using that as not an excuse but a reason now to go after him legally, because they were so outraged by what he said. so in term fzs of a back firing strategy, about as bad as is possible, i would think. >> if that's what's happening, obviously it backfired more than just his words being used against him. but anything that empowers a victim to come forward is always a good thing, so the prosecutor that i used to be for so long is happy to hear that. i hadn't heard that before. >> and from all of your experience in these kind of cases, when you heard jerry sandusky talking, what did your gut feel tell you about the kind of language that he was using and his behavioral pattern? >> well, as we mentioned before, the fact that it took hill a whi -- him a while to answer that one question, the way he meandered around some other questions, his referring toi horsing around an things like that, it didn't strike me as a very good defensive posture, let's put it that way, coming from a lawyer. and, if all the facts that we've heard boblg th in the grand jur report and we've seen in the media are true, he fits the profile of a classic pedophile, from who he chose as his victims. it's fairly classic to choose victims who have issues and the whole second mile foundation was said up to help young kids who had issues, who came from dysfunctional families. so the victim population is classic. the behavior that i'ved readed that he engaged in both in report and otherwise, the starting with innocuous kind of touching and moving from there, that's classic pedophile behavior. buying them gifts, buying them with things that they can't otherwise afford, taking them to all of these games, creating a life for them that these poor kids just could never have lived without him doing that. and then moving ahead from there to taking advantage of them, if all of that is true, that's classic pedophile behavior. >> absolutely horrific. lisa friel, thank you very much. coming up, the nuclear threat from iran, i'll ask one of the country's top politicians, are they making nuclear weapons? a big international story is that president ahmadinejad and iran's nuclear program. the israel president talked about the iran nuclear program. we have the secretary-general of iran's human rights council and top adviser to iran's supreme leader. welcome, doctor. i had shimon perfees, they hang people, arrest opposition, shoot around, spread arms, encourage every center of terror all over the world. iran is a danger. and he also said that iran is actively seeking to make a nuclear weapon that they can potentially use against israel. what is your reaction to that? >> while this kind of allegation is quite interesting from a person who is from a country that already possess nuclear weapons and is a renegade country in the eye of mpt. it is good for israel to look at the dismal record of atrocities committing to palestinian for over 60 years. iran's nuclear program is fully paced for completely and i'm sure i don't have the slightest doubt the united states and other countries, they know that ra iran's nuclear program is completely peaceful and it's a matter of pride for us. it's a great achievement for iran that we have this capability. >> if as you say it's all completely peaceful and above-bored, why don't you just let everybody come have a look and inspect them in the peace and tranquility that you talk of? >> well, the cameras of iaea are 24 hours working over there. numerous inspectors are coming from the agency to iran. there is no shortage of visiting iran. it seems that there is strong will that this circle of pressure in iran should be kept for political purposes. but in reality as the merit of the case is concerned, iran's capability is a matter of pride. it is nonmilitary. it is for peaceful use. and iran is the only country in the middle east which possess nuclear power plant and is capable of this sophisticated technology of producing fuel. and we are investing for r & d in this area to get to the edge of science and technology, and we are ready to share it under t mpt umbrella with neighboring countries for economical gains as well. >> i suppose the big problem that you have is you have a president who has gone on the record as saying he doesn't believe in the holocaust and he he would like to eradicate israel off the face of the earth. so when you couple those statements from your political leader with the fact that you are embracing nuclear power, it's hardly surprising that people are so fearful, is it? certainly in israel. >> well, if a person doesn't believe in holocaust, we cannot push him to believe it. it's up to him to believe it or not. but the idea that -- >> do you believe in it? >> holocaust is a political matter. while it is a professional issue whether it happens, how much it p happens, how long it p happha what was the depth and all this. but i think it's quite irrational that people should be punished if they have the slightest doubt about that. it's unprecedented in the modern time to hold the belief should be so much pursuit by international community. but anyhow, i think we -- iran's policy is not to eradicate any people from the earth. what we say, the millions of palestinians should not be deprived from the basic rights. it doesn't make sense that the pe people coming from manhattan, new york and other places of the world they are considered first citizen of this land, palestine, but indigenous people born over there are kicked out of that place and living in tent outside. this is the issue. so the problem is not creating such a holocaust again on that land. our view is that, why not like centuries muslims christians and jews could live together in such beautiful piece of land which is called palestine? >> do you feel threatened in iran in the sense that most world leaders now are being openly hostile towards iran, whether it's president sarkozy, president obama, president medvedev. everyone is cueing up to say you are a dangerous country. they are fearful of developing nuclear power to use as weapons. when you have all the leaders cueing you up, i would think the obvious thing would be to defend yourselves. the obvious question to me is, if you're not developing nuclear weapons, which you are saying other countries have, israel to pakistan and certainly america, many other countries have nuclear weapons, why wouldn't iran want to have a nuclear weapon to defend itself? >> well, there are two reasons. number one, there is a -- from the leader ayatollah khomeini it is -- to use masses destructive weapons. this is a very strong ban on production of that inside the country. secondly, nuclear weapon does not add to our capability. it is more liability than said. already we possess a very strok defensive muscle, which is deterrent enough for any eminent threat. this is the cornerstone of our defense. we think we are very much capable of defending ourself with the weaponry that we have. and we don't need nuclear wea n weapons. pakistan possess, they're no more secure than us. even israel is no more secure than us. iran is much more secure than the persons in the middle east. we don't have a nuclear weapon, and this is a very great achi e achievement. >> a number of the republican candidates for the presidency have stated they're prepared to go to war with iran. how do you view military action against you? >> well, i mean, before assessing these claims on the military and defense and security basis, i think this is a good distraction from the basic problems in the united states. solving the economical issue seems very difficult so going from that and shifting the attention to iran is much more easy. so in my view it is a very prudent gail me in the politica competition rather he than the merit of the issue. but we in iran consider threats seriously, but this does not mean that we should be disturbed. we're used to the language. it's not just yesterday or tomorrow which may come. so we assess the claims but we are not disturbed. we are very much confident people and we take the issue with patience. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. coming up, jon huntsman, the gop candidate with the most foreign policy experience, what does he think about what i've just been discussing? jon huntsman was president obama's ambassador to china, he's also running for president. jon huntsman, before we get stuck into the gop race, i just intervi interviewed regarding iran's nuclear program. as far as he's concerned, all very, very peaceful. nothing to worry about. what was your reaction? >> complete nonsense. he's a first-rate propagandist. whether it's the iaea reports, intelligence estimates, people who are knowledgeable and in the know have to say about iran's aspirations, but moreover when with you couple their aspirations with the kind of language and threats they have used in the region, it makes for a very dangerous and incendiary combination. so when you stop to consider that they've got thousands of centrifuges that are spinning out of which they're going to at some point have highly enriched product and then beyond that, at some point, they're going to have enough fissile material for a weapon, that's going to change the balance of power and the dynamics in the region. so we're going to have a choice in this country at some point, and that is, can you live with a nuclear iran? and if you can live with a nuclear iran, i think the proliferation implications are very dangerous. if not unsustainable in the region. that is to say that saudi arabia will likely acquire a weapon, probably turkey, maybe egypt even though we don't know who is in charge there at the moment. so the proliferation concerns are very real and i'm not sure they're sustainable in the middle east. so then you have to say, if you can't live with a nuclear iran, then you've got to keep all options on the table. and i think that's kind of where we're headed realistically. >> i mean, the only option if that is the case is surely some kind of military intervention. the question then becomes, what kind? obviously we've seen boots on the ground in iraq that is deemed by many to have been pretty unsuccessful in the w