building. the media, in large part, were camped out at another location, believing that was going to be the place he would be staying. they camped out into the evening. he wanted to stay here, uptown, at his wife's apartment on the upper east side, but the apartment building said no, not wanting a 24-7 media circus, as you can imagine. dsk is facing sex crime charges, seven counts in connection with the alleged attempted raich of a hotel raid. he allegedly phoned the front desk and invited the receptionist up for a drink shortly after he checked into the hotel. she declined. in a moment, we'll talk with mark geragos and new york's top law enforcement officer eliot spitzer. but first, all we know so far from the beginning. here's suzanne candiotti. >> reporter: it was just last friday when dominique strauss-kahn checked into the hotel, a luxury hotel in midtown manhattan. according to a law enforcement source, the head of the international monetary fund was looking for company. within minutes of checking into suite 2806, he called the front desk and invited the female receptionist to join him for a drink. she declined. fast forward to the next day, at around noon. a source tells cnn a maid entered the room. minutes later, a 32-year-old african maid entered the room to clean. the attendant then left, following hotel policy, the maid left the door open. inside, 62-year-old strauss-khan allegedly was naked in the bedroom and grabbed at the maid, chasing her throughout the suite. as she tried to escape, he shut the door and forced himself on her, sexually assaulting her. >> he forced her to perform oral sex on him. >> reporter: just 25 minutes later at 12:28 p.m., strauss-khan checked out of the sofitel hotel. prosecutors contend he was rushing to get to the airport. the defense says he was rushing to have lunch with his daughter before heading to the airport for a previously booked flight. >> he was scheduled to leave jfk at a flight for paris on that day, and i also have the documentation from air france which shows that the ticket was bought on may the 11th. >> reporter: soon after the alleged attack, the maid was reporting the incident to hotel staff. around 1:30 p.m., the police were called. no one knew of strauss-khan's whereabouts until he called from the airport, inquiring about his lost cell phone. a move the defense says proves he's innocent and was not fleeing the country. but according to a law enforcement source, when police boarded the air france flight to take him into custody, something stood out. the suspect never asked why he was being arrested. on monday morning, a disheveled strauss-khan appeared in court, where he was charged with an array of offenses that could put him behind bars up to 25 years. denied bail, strauss-khan was sent to rikers. meantime, investigators were interviewing witnesses and combing through the crime scene looking for evidence. according to abc news, they cut up a small piece of the floor after the victim said she spat after performing oral sex. wednesday, strauss-khan resigned as chief of the imf. in a brief letter to the board, he proclaimed his innocence saying "to all i want to say that i deny with the greatest possible firmness all of the allegations that have been made against me." in court on thursday, supported by his wife and daughter, a clean cut strauss-khan was granted some freedom. >> i have decided i will grant a bail under the following conditions. >> reporter: in addition to posting $1 million in cash, and a $5 million bond, strauss-khan was ordered to submit to home detention with an ankle bracelet and 24-hour armed security. today, just hours before straus strauss-khan's release, the apartment building revoked on the deal. but this afternoon, he left rikers to somewhere that will likely be his home until his next court appearance june 6th. >> reporter: eliot spitzer is new york's former attorney general. mark geragos is a noted defense attorney. i spoke to both member earlier. mark, we've learned new details now that the maid followed protocol. when she went into the room, she left the door open, her cart in the door. there had been a room service attendant who witnessed her coming in. that apparently strauss-khan made a pass at a receptionist when he checked in, invited her up to the room. do any of these developments, certainly they don't speak well for strauss-khan or they're not in his favor. >> well, first of all, when these things come dripping out, you have to take them with a grain of salt. usually it's the prosecution team, and by that not necessarily the prosecutors but the police who are doing the leaking. and a lot of times that's done specifically to create bad facts that may not in fact be as bad as they sound. start to parse that a little bit. if there was a room attendant there. if the cart was blocking the door, then you have to say to yourself, how in the heck, what did this guy to, he threw the cart into the hallway, shut the door, tackled her, and i know this is a family show, but he forced her to have oral sex and she wasn't able to stop herself from doing that? a lot of these things don't make a lot of sense to me. >> do they make sense to you? >> i'm with mark to only one extent. it's hard to understand the fact pattern until you get the entire picture. 23 members of the grand jury heard her testimony and the other evidence the prosecution gave, presumably videos of the defendant entering the hotel, in the hallway and that grand jury said we indict him. clearly whatever inconsistent sis one might see were not sufficient for them. so this is a very powerful indictment. >> the prosecution is saying hardened detectives question this woman, sometimes under tough questioning and they believe her story is consistent and point to the fact that she immediately went to her supervisor at the hotel and reported this. >> well, look, hardened detectives, i've yet to meet a detective, once he was invested in the case, didn't think it was the greatest case in the world. in terms of the grand jury, you can count on one hand the number of grand juries that have been rejected indictments on a regular basis. it just doesn't happen. anything the prosecution puts up there, the grand jury is nothing more than a rubber stamp. this is not, and i tend to agree with mr. rothman the lawyer, when ben said this is a defensible case, on the face it looks defensible to me, and i would not be so sure, and i agree with eliot, until you see all of the facts and what we're getting, i don't for a second believe are all the facts, until we see that, we're speculating. a lot of this stuff is released by people who have an agenda. >> let me disagree with a couple things. first, the detectives in this unit in particular are very hesitant to proceed with a case they do not believe they can really prove, especially a high profile defendant, especially one where they know the complainant is going to be outcome determinative. they are going to grill her and see is this somebody who has brought 20 allegations -- >> i would agree, but don't you think there may have been just a little bit of -- we got to hurry up and do this because they thought he was leaving the country. two words, roman polanski comes to everybody's mind, so they figure we have to do something here, because if we lose him, we'll never get him back. >> that is a fair presumption. that forensic evidence will either be consistent with consent or not. that's going to be the evidence that will be dispositive here. let's say there's his skin under her fingernails, which would suggest a fight. >> if the defense is going to argue consensual defense, forensic evidence doesn't matter much, does it? >> you took the next comment out of my head there. it's going to be, is it consensual, and that also is not necessarily determinative. because these other kinds of surrounding facts, in terms of okay, she says she put a cart in the door. she says there was another attendant there. how much time elapsed between the time the other attendant was there and when she made the call? how much time elapsed between the time she made the call or somebody else made the call? there's going to be quite a few questions here, and i don't think that forensic evidence becomes so key, if it determines or the defense determines they're going to admit there was sex. >> much of what you're saying is correct in a theoretical way, but here is the alternative argument. if you have evidence of bruising, if you have his blood samples under her fingernails, suggesting she was scraping at him, pushing him back, if you have body fluids in places, if it was consensual, all sorts of things could be there, and we are speculating and all sorts of forensic evidence could be highly suggestive and therefore corroborate the story of a victim, who is otherwise credible. >> mark, i've heard you say you could raise doubts about the fact that she did talk to supervisors so quickly. >> sure. if you've got a situation where if this was consensual and she decides it's going to be a shakedown or setup, if there was a situation where she said i'm going to target this guy and believe it or not that happens, then the quick response and a story that sticks to a script, that becomes problematic for the prosecution. if she tells this story and it's almost script ready three or four times, that generally is not consistent with somebody who is in shock and has had a traumatic experience. >> were your surprised by the bail? >> no, i was not. bail is not supposed for correlated to the severity of the crime but answer one question, will this defendant come back. the conditions of bail were not only the money and bond, but the fact he's wearing an ankle bracelet. he cannot go anywhere right now without being seen or recognized. he will be there at trial. the only time you have remand until trial is in a heinous murder case with somebody with no connection to the commune'2". >> mark geragos, thanks so much. eliot spitzer, thank you. up next, the murders in syria continue. dozens dead today. we just got a new video that's shocking even by the sickening standards of the syrian regime. >> we'll show you more of that video. people risking their own living. we'll talk to the brave woman on the run tonight, her life in danger. but still brave enough to speak out. later, a report that completely changed the way i use my cell phone. you need to hear what dr. sanjay gupta is reporting tonight. you'll hear from other doctors about cell phone radiation. >> i think that we have an obligation to inform the public that we cannot say with any degree of certainty that cell phone use is safe. your music, and your playlists. and you don't have itunes on your phone, the world's number one music store, with genius, that recommends new music based on the songs you already have. yup. if you don't have an iphone, well, you don't have an iphone. ttd# 1-800-345-2550 ttd# 1-800-345-2550 ttd# 1-800-345-2550 and talk to chuck about ttd# 1-800-345-2550 rolling over that old 401k. so he chose a university where the faculty average over 14 years of experience in their fields to help him turn a thesis into a business plan and accelerate the path between ideas... and actions. my name is myron sullivan, i'm developing a robotic system to clean oil spills, and i am a phoenix. [ male announcer ] learn more about the school of business at phoenix.edu. despite the most blatant acts of murder by the regime in syria, the protests continued today. at least 34 people were killed in syria today. protesters took to the streets across the country after weekly friday prayers and syrian security forces opened fire on them. night after night on this program, we've witnessed the bravery of syrians, who have given their lives calling for change. it's easy to turn away and go frustrated that nothing has changed. we think we owe it to those dying in the streets to bear witness to their struggle and to their deaths. we want to show you video of what happened to one man today, we want you to see the efforts of others brave enough to rescue others with bullets buzzing around him. >> cnn can't independently verify the specifics of the video and we don't know if the man died or not. despite the crackdown, protesters refused to back down. yesterday, president obama praised the syrian people for demanding a transition to democracy and issued a message to the syrian leader. >> president assad now has a choice. he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. the syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. they must release political prizers. >> earlier, i spoke to a syrian human rights activist, a lawyer whose husband has been arrested by security forces. she's on the run tonight, and remember, as you listen to her, she's risking her life just by talking to us. more violence across syria today. do you know how many people have been killed? >> today we have confirmed 34 names of people who got killed across the country. but what's happened in the last few hours is eyewitnesss say it's about 50 people got killed but we haven't any confirmation yet. >> is this because it's friday and after prayers, people are gathered and they start protesting and the security forces crack down, why so many deaths today? >> today the security used gunfire in all areas, which witnessed protests. usually they use in some areas they use shooting, in other areas they use beatings and arresting. today they used gunfire everywhere. that's why the people who got killed are from different cities. >> and we're seeing video where what looks like uniformed military personnel or police are just firing. at one point even fires right at the person taking the video. is there any rational for who they're shooting or are they just trying to shoot anyone they can get? >> it's just an order to end the protest in any way. according to how big the protest is. >> yesterday, president obama called on assad's regime to stop shooting demonstrators, to stop unjust arrests and allow peaceful protests but stopped short saying assad lost all legitimacy and should step down. were you disappointed in what he said? >> people felt that the great country of the united states feels about them and calls for freedom and doesn't believe any of the lies or claims of the regime. >> i'm watching video of a protester who has been shot, on the back of a motorcycle and looks in very bad shape and is being driven away. what happens to someone when they've been shot? is there still fear about going to the hospitals? >> it's a problem all the time, because every time they take people who got shot or injured to the hospital, they got kidnapped by the security. today, a person got killed in the suburb of damascus. the security forces tried to kidnap him from the hospital. but the people surrounded the hospital and prevented the security to take him. so it happens all the time. >> you're in hiding. stay safe, please. thank you. >> thank you. >> remarkable woman. now to libya and the "raw politics." the u.s. military involvement. under the war powers act of 1973, the president has to get congressional authorization for military action within 60 days or the mission has to stop within the next 30 days. that's the law, whether you agree with it or not, that's the law. it was passed under richard nixon to be a hedge on executive power. president obama notified congress about the action in libya march 21st but did not seek approval. today is the 60-day limit. late today, we learned that president obama sent a letter to congressional leaders expressing his support for senate resolution that would approve the mission in libya but the 60-day deadlin has passed. i spoke with senator paul earlier. senator paul, is the president of the united states about to start breaking the law here? >> i think he's been in violation of the war powers act for some time now. now he's getting ready to be in violation of the 60-day requirement that he report to congress and get authorization within 60 days. >> are you talking about this because in part you're opposed to the u.s. involvement in libya or would you be talking about this if it was any military action? >> i do have questions about whether libya has anything to do with our national security. but the thing is what's most important is not the specifics of the war but the specifics of the constitution, because what i fear is an unlimited presidency and some day we have a president who starts world war iii without permission of congress. he had time to go to the u.n. and arab league, so some say, oh, he has permission from the u.n., so it's okay. boy, if that's what we're living under, we are completely ignoring our own constitution. we never wanted one person to decide to take us to war. which always wanted the debate between a president and congress so we didn't go to war willy nilly or without careful consideration. >> some argue that maybe the war powers act is unconstitutional. >> we rule on the constitution all the time. once a law is passed and signed by the president, it is the law. i believe in the rule of law that we restrain and control the powers and don't give unlimited power. it's a very dangerous precedent if we let this go forward. >> there's a quote here who said -- >> that doesn't really mean anything. >> yeah. >> staying consistent with it and not following it, i don't understand what that means. >> that's kind of government gobbledygook. i would say he's in violation. the war powers act says there's only three reasons the president can go to war. declaration by congress, authorization by congress or imminent danger. the president, under extraordinary times, if we're attacked or a nuclear attack, the president can take action. but if the president were a real leader, here's what would have happened. when libya escalated and we were out of session and he declared war while we were out of session, he would have called us back within 24 hours. he should have come to congress, spoken to a joint session of congress and said, i need the power to go to war. this is why. and explain to the people. >> didn't ronald reagan send marines in lebanon in 1982 and it took a year before congress acted? >> yeah. we haven't always followed the law. i'm not saying we have always obeyed the law correctly. if i had been there, i would have insisted on voting also. there is no reason why this shouldn't be debated. we go week after week in the senate and do nothing. i feel like sometimes i should return my check. >> do you feel like that? you feel like you're not doing anything? >> absolutely. we go up week to week, and there's no debate in congress. no debate in the senate. we sit idly by. some weeks we vote on two or three noncontroversial judges and go home. >> why is that? >> i'm trying to get a vote on libya. they say they don't have time. i was told when i wanted to bring up my resolution on libya, which i did force them to -- >> it got tabled like 90-10. >> yeah, and they weren't too happy with me, because i used some parliamentary procedures to gain access to the floor and they came running down to the floor. the thing is, we should be having these debates on the floor. they don't want to have any debate. i'm asking right now to vote on libya. i have a resolution saying we're in violation of the war powers act. it's hard to get the floor unless i sneak on when no one is looking to get a vote. why would we not want to debate great constitutional questions? when i ran for office, i thought there will go great debates on the floor. we don't have any. >> senator rand paul, thank you. >> thank you. up next, "360" investigation. i really think you want to watch, particularly if like me your press your cell phone against your ear when you talk or carry it next to your body in a pocket. we've uncovered serious questions about t