against the school. >> i want to help children to have the courage to tell adults if they're sexually abused. also battle for the heart and soul of the gop. newt gingrich calls for a positive campaign. is that really any way to win an election? i'll ask two men who are no strangers to the rough and tumble of the trail howard dean and tom ridge. this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening. a dramatic day in a pennsylvania courtroom. jerry sandusky, the former penn state football coach who is charged with child sexual abuse was expected to come face-to-face with his accusers. then at the last minute sandusky dramatically waived his right to a hearing leaving the packed courtroom in shock. he's under house arrest tonight and not due back in court until his trial begins sometime next year about. joining me now is jerry sandusky's defense counsel carl rominger. almost unprecedented certainly in pennsylvania. the big question everyone is asking, why did you waive jerry sandusky's rights to have this hearing today? >> unprecedented in large cases, normal in almost everyday cases, i have to point that out. but the biggest issue here was what we got in exchange for the waiver. what we got was an assurance that the bail would not be moved no matter what happens. so basically the commonwealth gave up their ability to raise the bail even if they bring new charges. we don't believe there's anything in the pike right now. but they had hinted that was a possibility. they also conceded to give us discovery early. in pennsylvania we get no discovery at the time of the preliminary hearing. other states you get extensive discovery at this stage. that was important to begin digesting it. >> the key thing about pennsylvania's process, which is seen as advantageous to a defense team is you get to see potential witnesses against you and you get to examine them, see how credible they are and perhaps use their evidence in these prehearings in the real trial to show contradiction. and eye limb nature them as witnesses. you've taken a big gamble, haven't you, in removing your client's right to have all that. >> we have. but it was a close call. and joe amendola, who is the primary attorney, made that call in conjunction with the client. and they chose it in consultation with me briefly, but they chose it between them. i don't disagree with their decision to take the certainty and give up -- because we do have extensive information that we've developed on our own. we've interviewed some of these witnesses through the defense investigator. we have already seen that mcqueary's testimony is falling apart. he's basically said by the grand jury to be an incredibly credible witness and has now turned out to be discredible. so with all that in mind, we sort of made a meeting of the mindses with the prosecutors that we wouldn't have made if they hadn't made the concessions on future bail issues. >> of course, the cynic would say that the reason you've done this is 11 people were going to take the stand today and potentially tomorrow and make a series of horrendous allegations against your client including child rape. many of those would have been people who were very young at the time they say these accusers -- and i say they are accusers, it's not been proven -- that jerry sandusky committed appalling crimes on them. two days of that, and your ability to do any kind of plea bargain down the line could well have been eliminated by furious public opinion. >> there is an argument in that case. i can tell you, however, there's been no exchange of information for a plea bargain. there is no discussion of a plea bargain. and frankly, given jerry's advanced age, i doubt that the commonwealth would offer a plea that he would find palatable. a case that's probably headed to trial anyhow. that said, i can see why people would think that, but i would say again we will get the grand jury transcripts eventually which will give us their sworn statements. so what we lost at the preliminary hearing stage, we will get their sworn statements eventually. >> i want to play you a clip from an interview that jerry sandusky did on nbc's rock center and talk to you after this. >> okay. >> are you a pedophile? >> no. >> are you sexually attracted to young boy, to underaged boys? >> am i sexually attracted to underaged boys? >> yes. >> sexually attracted, no. i enjoy young people. i love to be around them. i -- i -- but no, i'm not sexually attracted to young boys. >> i mean, that to any impartial observer was quite an extraordinary exchange. the simple answer to that question for most people is no, yet it took your client a considerable length of time to even work out whether it was yes or no. i mean, do you see to, again, an impartial observer just how awful that sounded? >> taken in a vacuum, i can't disagree with you. the problem is you have to meet jerry, sit down at his kitchen table like i did and talk to him for an hour and you'll realize that's how he answers all his question. i know that sounds trite of me to say it. but that's how the man talks. he did get to the absolute answer of no. but i think it's very important to remember that it's unfair because many guilty people who sound very convincing often convince prosecutors and jurors of their innocence. and people who are innocent but not articulate get the short end of that stick. so keep that in mind as you go forward that that's how that man communicates and how he processes information. >> but tell me this, when you hear a man of jerry sandusky's age talking about having horseplay with naked 10, 11, 12-year-old boys in showers, don't you think to yourself this is very, very strange behavior for a man of that age? >> i do think it's strange behavior for a man of that age. and by his chronological age, i agree. by his mental or emotional maturity, that's a separate question. a lot of psychologists tell me that there's a distinction between a person's chronological age and where they may be mentally. some people are stunted at a young age. i think if you met jerry, again you would see that he has a very juvenile affect, and i believe mentally and emotionally, he's much more on par with a teenager than he is a 60-year-old. >> finally, mr. rominger, it's the position of the defense that every single one of these people who's come forward and made allegations against jerry sandusky is a fantasist? >> i don't know the answer to that because is it a fantasy, is it a mistake, is it a misstatement, is it an embellishment? where that lies, i don't know because i don't know what each of those people have said. i oath have what the grand jury put down. and the grand jury found mcqueary highly credible. now we know he didn't say those things to people. does some prosecutor think these ten people will say these things? yes. will they say them in a court later? i don't know. but i know we already have some contradictsry evidence and statements from one of the accusers as well that's contradictory to what they told the grand jury. if that's, in fact, what they told the grand jury. i need to see the transcripts because the synopsis just does not adequately tell us what we have to defend nor does it line up with what mr. mcqueary has told other people. you can see chinks in the armor of presentment. there's no cross-examination in that presentment, there's no fair process. so no, are they all fantasies? i don't know what the ten people are going to say. until i know that, then i'll get back to you on that. >> okay. well, clearly part of the strategy is to put jerry sandusky out there to the media. if he wants to come on this show for the hour and talk through this and show us a side of his character that you say is unusual and more enlightening perhaps than the portrayal that we have of him, then we'd be very welcome to have him as a guest. >> i'll talk with joe because he's the chief attorney in this situation, but i would certainly encourage it. >> okay. karl rominger, thank you very much indeed. >> thank you, sir, thank you very much. how strong is the case against jerry sandusky? i want to talk to the chief of the sex crimes unit in the manhattan district attorney's office and she's the vice president at tnn protection resources where she handles sexual misconduct investigations. also mike eiglarsk, a criminal defense attorney. lisa, what did you make of that exchange with the defense counsel, because it is almost unprecedented in a case of this high profile in pennsylvania that a defense counsel team would simply renounce their right to what is usually seen as a very, very advantageous thing to do, which is to have a prehearing to get at the witnesses and see what they're made of. >> i have to say in short, i don't buy his attorney's explanation for why they decided to waive the preliminary hearing. he says that in are two reasons, one, they're going to get early discovery. keep in mind, all they're getting are things they're legally entitled to. they're just getting them a little earlier. the prosecution is going to turn around and go, judge, we want an earlier trial date because they got this discovery earlier. i don't see that as a big advantage to the defense. they talked about the bail situation. perhaps the prosecution said if you waive the preliminary hearing we won't ask for an increase in bail based on what we know, and what's in the pipeline now. but as a former prosecutor i can't believe that they bound themes to never ask for another bail increase. what if other victims come forward? what if other victims come forward with horrendous charges against him? it's impossible for me to believe that the prosecution said no matter what happens in the future we won't move to raise his bail. i don't think they got that much out of it. what did they give up? you pointed it out. they gave up significant things 37 they gave up getting to see these witnesses live and see how they testify, gave up how to cross-examine them and see how they can move them on cross-examination. and they gave up creating a whole other record that they can cross-examine them with at trial. so i think they gave up significant things. why do i think they really gave all that up? i think they realize that if they put all these victims through this, that as much as they're not mr. sandusky may be hated now by the public, if he makes all those victims testify in this preliminary hearing when he has the ability to waive it, he was really going to be hated even more. and i think the other thing, too, if you think about it is if each of these witnesses testified, all the media would have been covering the detail of their testimony again, just as they did when the grand jury report came out. now, that's kind of died down now, but if they testify in this hearing today and tomorrow, all that coverage of the details of what they say happened to them is going to be out in the media again. i think they decided that those two things were not going forward for. >> let me turn to mark eiglarsh. you've been a criminal defense attorney, you've been a former prosecuto prosecutor. from the prosecutor's point of view, what would they be thinking? put yourself in their shoes. >> well, my understanding is that they did expect it a day before. according to the defense lawyer there were meaningful discussions that took place the day before. the only reason why the victims were present in court is because sandusky could always change his mind. prosecutors wanted to have them there, which is typically done. let's understand something very clearly. the only reason why the hearing was canceled by sandusky is because sandusky believed that it benefited sandusky. so in his mind, maybe through the support of his attorneys, the thought is that a better plea bargain, one that he could live with, can be reached at some point. i disagree with defense counsel when he suggests that it's definitely not going to happen. i think in all cases generically, even ones like this where you have some victims reluctant to testify, there will always be plea bargain discussions. had they gone forward with the hearing, that would have been a declaration of war on a case that they know only david copperfield can win. >> how important, lisa, let me come back to you here -- is the testimony of mike mcqueary? because clearly to start with, it seemed absolutely vital. his grand jury testimony seemed to be very credible. but there is a point that defense counsel made there which is that slowly but surely a lot of what he's been saying is on the face of it slightly contradictory. >> it's certainly extremely important to the counts that involve that victim that he witnessed the incident occurring with the crimes occurring with. but you're right, it goes beyond that because it gives credence to what the other victims say happened, that an adult watched that happen. i've heard some of the inconsistent statements that mr. mcqueary is said to have made. they will certainly hurt him at the trial. but i still have to pose the central question that the prosecutor is going to say, what motive did mr. mcqueary have to say he saw a jerry sandusky committing this crime, that he saw it with his own eyes, what motive did he have to say that to the prosecution and the police when he said it? he was still working at penn state. he had a great job there. it's not like he's fired and he has some reason to hurt penn state or hurt jerry sandusky. i don't see any motive for him to perjure himself under oath. >> that's a very good point. let me bring mark back in there. if you were prosecuting this, given the sheer amount of allegations and the people making them, would you be confident of some form of conviction here? >> absolutely. if there was just one and you've just got mcqueary, like anybody that could be cross-examined and impeached, maybe i'd find, look, it's a tough case. when you've got this many and the volume and the detail and the fact that mcqueary doesn't really have a motive to lie, he kept it quiet, talked to the higher-ups, they didn't do anything. and he continued to golf with sandusky. it didn't look like there's any apparent motive that the defense has. so they definitely have challenges, the defense does, the prosecution feels confident about a conviction. it's up to the defense to try to convince them that this case isn't a slam dunk so maybe you want to get a certainty of him admitting his guilt by offering maybe, five, six, seven so maybe he can get out while he's still alive. >> never going to happen. >> i disagree with you. >> we will wait and see. thank you both very much indeed. >> you're welcome. >> thanks, piers. when we come back, another explosive college sports scandal. my exclusive interview with two men who say a syracuse university basketball coach abused them when they were children. and their block bust her lawsuit today against the school. welcome to idaho, where they grow america's favorite potatoes. everyone knows idaho potatoes taste great. but did you know they're good for you too? they're high in vitamins and potassium. and idaho potatoes are now certified to carry the heart checkmark from the american heart association for foods low in saturated fat and cholesterol. so they're good for my family, and for yours. heart smart idaho potatoes. always look for the grown in idaho seal. dramatic new accusations of child sexual abuse at syracuse university. two men say an assistant basketball coach sexually abused them. they're now sue iing the univery for defamation after they were accused of lying. joining me is bobby darch and michael lang and their attorney gloria allred. thank you very much indeed, all three of you, but both gentlemen for coming forward here. a courageous thing to do, not an easy thing to do. let me ask you first, bobby, why have you done this? >> i believe i'm coming forth to help children, to give them the courage to talk. you know, because i was afraid all my life to talk about this, and i need to stand up for myself and let people know that it's okay to talk about this and bring awareness to this. i just believe that we can't allow things to go the way they did. there needs to be change. i believe the way to do that is by speaking up. and we can't allow people and institutions to handle this the way they did. in regards to why -- what boeheim said, coach boeheim, it hurt very much. that's why we're filing this lawsuit because the damage he did to us and what he said and calling us liars is very hurtful. and i just believe he needs to be held accountable and the way the university handled it also needs to be held accountable. and i just believe the way boeheim went about it was totally wrong. we need to do something about it. we need to create some change. and he really -- >> let me -- bobby, let me jump in there. obviously bernie fine has denied all the allegations. we must make that clear. let me turn to you, mike. what was the nature of the abuse that you went through. in simple terms describe what he did to you or what you say he did to you? >> he touched me in the wrong way and made me feel that i was -- like i was -- i don't know. he just made me feel angry around him. and i just -- the way he kept touching me and you'd tell him not to touch you and he'd still do it again. he just wouldn't be -- you couldn't be told no. and you felt bad telling him no because he was like a god to you. >> that's a very interesting point you make there. bobby, let me turn back to you. was the real problem here, as it seems to have been at penn state as well, that these kind of coaches at college level in america are put on to this kind of god-like plinth, they're almost untouchable, and they start to believe they're untouchable? >> that is true. they are built up so much in the community, and people -- you know, they have this aura about them. and they're just pretty much think they're untouchable and think they're god-like in a sense. and that's how we look at them in a sense. and it's very hard to get away from it, very hard to tell this person no for the things that the person who he is and the things that he could do for you. and it was very hard situation to be in. and it's hard to explain how much it hurts and how much you went through. but the position they're in, they have a power and authority to be able to manipulate little kids, and that's why we're trying to talk about this to bring awareness, so they won't be able to do this any more. >> let me play you, bobby, part of a recording of a phone conversation that you had with bernie fine's wife laurie in 2002. and we'll talk about it after this. >> i said to him, you know, bobby and i talked and i know some things about you that if you keep pushing you are going to be let out. >> that's what i'm saying. >> beautiful, let him go ahead. >> he doesn't think he can be touched like -- >> he thinks he's above the law. >> there you have it from the horse's mouth, i mean, his wife basically conceding that his husband thought he was above the law and appearing to seriously implicate him in what was going on with you. when you -- why did you make that tape? let's start with that. >> well, first, i went to the police, and i had a short conversation with them. they basically told me that the statute of limitations ran out. so i then went to the local newspaper and a reporter came out and interviewed me and everything, talked to me. and i told him what happened. and he gave me the suggestion -- first i asked him do you know anybody that knows for sure. i said his wife, she seen what happened. what he was doing to me, she saw it through a basement window, him grabbing me, going down my pants and grabbing my penis. and she -- i said, she definitely knows. she told me she saw it. he goes, what about you calling her and talking to her about it? i said okay. we talked about it before and how she seen it. so it w