|
 |
CNN CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT
Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional in Court; Martha Stewart to Face Possible Obstruction Charges
Aired June 26, 2002 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Connie Chung. Tonight, the Pledge of Allegiance expelled from school. I'll ask the man who started it why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED CROWD: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Is the Pledge of Allegiance history? Tonight, exclusive, the man who says that God has no place in the classroom.
The tempest brewing in a designer tea cup. First, insider trading allegations. Now possible obstruction of justice charges. Martha Stewart, an empire on the chopping block?
A nightmare on campus, 10 co-eds attacked in the middle of the night. Tonight, the man they accused who claims he was simply sleepwalking.
Enron workers who lost it all. Now, some bare it all in "Playboy." The women of Enron, the naked truth of a corporate meltdown.
This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT. Live from the CNN broadcast center in New York, Connie Chung.
CHUNG: Good evening.
To say that people all across the nation are outraged is an understatement. A California appeals court ruled that the pledge is unconstitutional because it endorses religion. The ruling applies only to nine western states.
But opponents of the ruling span the country. Politicians from the president down blasted the ruling. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution condemning it. The case itself stems from a suit filed by Michael Newdow, an atheist whose daughter goes to school in California. The court agreed with him, that keeping the pledge in schools sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders. The court said that Congress added the phrase "under God" to the pledge in 1954 in an attempt to combat atheistic communism. About 1 million Americans are atheists. Tonight, we have an exclusive interview with one of the most famous of them all, Michael Newdow, the man who started it all.
Mr. Newdow, I must ask you the very simple question, why?
MICHAEL NEWDOW, SACRAMENTO, CA: Well, I didn't want to feel like an outsider, just like you mentioned. The Supreme Court has on a number occasions stated that nobody should be made to feel like an outsider on the account of their religious views.
CHUNG: But we're talking about school. We're talking about school. You're not in school anymore. It is your daughter who's in school, right?
NEWDOW: That's only part of the case. I brought the case also as an individual, being as a citizen who when I recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm required to countenance God, which I don't wish to do.
CHUNG: I see. Are you proud to be an American?
NEWDOW: Absolutely. Proud to uphold the Constitution.
CHUNG: Well, you know, there are probably a lot of people out there, our viewers in particular, who think that what you're doing is blatantly anti-American.
NEWDOW: Those people don't understand the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which means that, and as the Supreme Court says and as you stated earlier, nobody should be made to feel like an outsider.
And I would only ask every one of those people to ask themselves if they had to say every morning or when they wanted the Pledge of Allegiance to their flag, that we were one nation under the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or one nation under David Koresh or one nation under Jesus, one nation under Mohammed, how they would feel?
I have the right as an American to hold my religious beliefs without government thrusting whatever religious dogma it wishes down my throat.
CHUNG: Well, you may remember Madalyn Murray O'Hair (ph). She was the atheist who successfully got prayers out of public schools. And she was called the most hated woman in America. Are you prepared for that kind of identity, that tag, the most hated man in America?
NEWDOW: I'm glad you just didn't say most hated woman. Yes, I mean, I understand that there are people in this country who don't understand the Constitution. And, you know, I'm not asking for anything except to have my rights upheld. And I'm not asking anyone to give up their rights.
CHUNG: No, but I think that what many people would say is this has to do with patriotism, because the Pledge of Allegiance means...
NEWDOW: And it's patriotism is to uphold the Constitution.
CHUNG: Yes, but patriotism, that -- the whole Pledge of Allegiance has to do with being patriotic and supporting America and supporting the flag.
NEWDOW: I never said anything about having a Pledge of Allegiance. I'm all for a Pledge of Allegiance. What I'm against is a Pledge of Allegiance to an ideal that's completely antithetical to what we have in the Constitution. For 62 years, the Pledge of Allegiance did perfectly well without God. Suddenly, Congress decided in the middle of the '50s during McCarthyism that we need God involved. I challenge that idea.
CHUNG: Tell me, Mr. Newdow, is it your intention to go after "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America?"
NEWDOW: I'd love that. I think that's, you know, that somebody -- can you imagine the Christians in this nation every time they paid for something had to say in Mohammed we trusted? You know.
CHUNG: Oh, so you're suggesting...
NEWDOW: You need to put yourselves in the other person's shoes.
CHUNG: You're suggesting that we change everything on all of our bills that say "In God We Trust," as you well know, on the other side? Is that what you're suggesting?
NEWDOW: I'm suggesting that we adhere to the Constitution that says we shouldn't throw religious dogma in the middle of our government's actions. And putting God in the middle of this -- go ahead.
CHUNG: I'm sorry. So you would support taking out "In God We Trust?" Is that what you're saying?
NEWDOW: Actually, this case began in -- I initially began this case trying to get "In God We Trust" off the coins. I switched on to God because it's a stronger case.
CHUNG: And what about "God Bless America?"
NEWDOW: I would like...
CHUNG: Are you saying that we should change...
NEWDOW: "God Bless America isn't -- it's not anything in the government. I mean, "God Bless America" is a song. I think people who believe in God, who wish to voice that opinion certainly should be able to. And I'm not stopping them in any way. The government should not. And we need to separate the two.
CHUNG: Tell me, Mr. Newdow, what effect is this having on your daughter? NEWDOW: Hopefully not much. So I'm trying to keep her sheltered from this. This is not so much her issue. This is my issue to have my ability as a parent to send a child to school without the government thrusting its religious dogma down her throat. And that's what I'm fighting for.
CHUNG: But aren't you concerned that what you're doing now is far more damaging to her than having her considered, as you call it, an outsider in her classroom?
NEWDOW: Hopefully, hopefully, hopefully this won't affect her. And I think doing -- showing my daughter how you can uphold the Constitution is not a bad thing in any way. So I would not agree with how you characterized it.
CHUNG: All right. Thank you, Mr. Newdow. Michael Newdow.
NEWDOW: Thank you.
CHUNG: Jeffrey Toobin, what happens then? Jeffrey Toobin is our legal correspondent. Tell me, what happens now? This was a federal appeals court.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Correct.
CHUNG: And now what?
TOOBIN: The Justice Department has two choices. They can go to the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, more than just the three judges who decided this two votes to one, and ask for that court to reverse it or they could go directly to the United States Supreme Court and ask for a reversal there.
CHUNG: All right. So, any likelihood of either?
TOOBIN: I think they'll probably go to the 9th Circuit first. But Michael Newdow, it's really a remarkable story. He did this all by himself. He's a non-lawyer. He represented himself in court. He won this tremendous victory.
But I think he better enjoy it now because I think it is extremely likely that this will be reversed. As you pointed out, we've had "In God We Trust" on our money for years and years. The United States Supreme Court begins all of its sessions with the marshal saying, "God save this honorable court."
God is not a prohibited word in the United States government. Courts have recognized that there are certain neutral mentions of God, like "In God We Trust" on the money and like we all thought before "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that is permissible. And I think, ultimately, that will be the ruling again.
CHUNG: You know what, Jeffrey, I was reading in my research, and forgive me if I'm wrong, and we can both check on this. But I think he actually is a lawyer. He is a doctor and a lawyer, unless I mistakenly looked through it. TOOBIN: Well, the opinion says pro se, which means he represented himself, which is remarkable. I mean, you know, out of all the lawyers in the country, no one even thought to bring this.
CHUNG: Right.
TOOBIN: But he did it himself. And it's really -- it's an incredible story.
CHUNG: I think he did go to the University of Michigan law school and UCLA medical school. Now, tell me this -- now, I have forgotten the question of where we were leading to.
(CROSSTALK)
What ultimately you're saying that it will be struck down?
TOOBIN: I do. But it's an important point to remember here. A famous Supreme Court decision in 1943 during World War II held that no student, no one can be compelled to stay the Pledge of Allegiance because the Jehovah's Witnesses, who brought that case, said it was against their religion. So his daughter doesn't have to say it.
But the courts have always believed that it can be said by those who want to. So this isn't a question of government forcing people to say something. That's why I think, ultimately, the courts will say that the Pledge of Allegiance, even with "under God," will be allowed to stay on.
CHUNG: All right. Thank you, Jeffrey Toobin.
Coming up, Martha's mess gets, well, messier.
ANNOUNCER: Up next, attacks on campus. The accused says he was sleepwalking and the judge agreed. What he really remembered when he was asleep. We'll tell you when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: Insider trading was nothing new when Ivan Boesky came along. But Boesky took white collar theft to a new level, inspiring the Gordon Gekko character in the movie "Wall Street."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "WALL STREET")
MICHAEL DOUGLAS, ACTOR: Greed is good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Before his downfall, Boesky was making hundreds of millions of dollars on Wall Street. His success led a CNN interviewer to ask him whether he would ever use inside information.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IVAN BOESKY: You would be very remiss if we were to act on such information. And professionals, I think, would be very unwilling to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Apparently not totally unwilling, however. Boesky was convicted of paying millions of dollars for insider information that turned out to be worth tens of millions.
What happened to the man who cost average American investors millions of dollars? The answer when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: Wall Street Ivan Boesky was convicted of using insider trading to fuel his career, and put millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains in his pocket.
The man who made hundreds of millions while ripping off investors had to return $50 million of it and pay another $50 million, as well as spend two years in prison, less than the average car thief.
He now lives in a multimillion dollar home in California, banned from trading securities.
CHUNG: Tonight, more signs of a growing rift in America, the expanding gap between Main Street and Wall Street.
President Bush today ripped into the telecom giant WorldCom for its disclosure that it disguised $3.8 billion in expenses and made them look like profits. And the "Wall Street Journal" reported that the ongoing investigation into Martha Stewart has gotten broader. She was already under investigation for possible insider trading, allegedly selling ImClone stock before the public learned of a negative FDA ruling.
Now the "Journal" reports investigators are focusing on finding out whether Stewart lied about the sale, a possible case of obstruction of justice.
Charles Gasparino is the reporter who broke the story.
Congratulations on your story.
CHARLES GASPARINO, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Thank you.
CHUNG: Now tell us, can you explain what triggered the obstruction of justice investigation?
GASPARINO: Well, basically, they got a new witness. He's the sales assistant for her broker, who basically said that the whole notion that she had a prearranged agreement with her broker to sell the stock was not true. At least he didn't know it was true.
And he actually changed his story. He initially said it was true. So he flipped, and now the government thinks it has a great witness.
CHUNG: Is he likely to know whether or not she had an agreement with her broker?
GASPARINO: That's a great question.
The people at Merrill say he is. Apparently he worked close enough with the broker, Mr. Bacanovic, that he should know.
But the big thing is, is that he changed his story. And I think that's what has piqued the curiosity of the prosecutors in this.
CHUNG: So that means that there are three different versions of what happened: Martha Stewart's version, the broker's version, and then the broker's assistant's version.
GASPARINO: Absolutely. They've been casting doubt on the whole notion that there was a stop-loss agreement from the beginning because, as you know, Martha had one version of whether there was. I think she said it was in November.
CHUNG: November, right.
GASPARINO: And then the broker said, no, it was December.
CHUNG: And nothing was found on paper, in the computer or anything like that, is that correct?
GASPARINO: Nothing was found in the computer. He didn't put it on the computer. That's the big problem.
And if he did put it on the computer, he would have had, like, an alibi. But he didn't.
CHUNG: All right. So if there are charges of insider trading or obstruction of justice...
GASPARINO: Right.
CHUNG: Isn't there a higher threshold of proof for insider trading than obstruction of justice?
GASPARINO: Absolutely. That's a great question.
Let's just get this out of the way. She says she's innocent. You know, and I don't want to...
(CROSSTALK)
GASPARINO: And insider trading is a notoriously difficult charge to prove. But when you have someone who is there at the time who says -- and who said one thing and now changes his story, and is casting doubt on the whole issue, I think the government is starting to put together a pretty good case.
CHUNG: Well, I mean, this is so typical. It's like Watergate, you know. The actual crime...
GASPARINO: Right. CHUNG: ... might not be able to be proven, but it's the cover- up.
GASPARINO: Right. It happens -- it's, like, cliche.
I was talking to some lawyers yesterday, and they said this is the biggest cliche in the book. But it keeps happening.
And what's interesting here is that if -- you know, you wonder why they went to this length for this much money. I mean, I don't think she actually saved that much money or made that much money from this trade.
But, you know, I've been in bars where investment bankers who make a lot of money leave $5 tips. So anything is possible.
CHUNG: But it's true; she makes an enormous amount of money. And this, to her, we would assume, is a pittance.
GASPARINO: Right. That's what everybody -- people can't believe this is going on.
But every day, it's like Chinese water torture. You get another revelation, another revelation, another revelation. At first no one really thought she was that deeply involved, but now I think people do.
CHUNG: Now, are there other people who are, you know, involved other than -- I mean, is attention just being focused on Martha Stewart unfairly?
GASPARINO: Well, yes, she's got the name. But also, in a way you use her as a vehicle to get other people. When you find out -- establish a fact pattern of what she did, what she knew, then you can find out other people that may have been involved in this thing.
CHUNG: Can you explain to us that fine line? I mean, brokers get tips all the time.
GASPARINO: Right.
CHUNG: And there are rumors, and what have you. It's entirely possible that her broker, you know, heard that there was something going on with ImClone and went ahead and said, hey, you ought to sell.
GASPARINO: Right. Well, you know, that would have been a great question for Jeffrey Toobin. I mean, it's something called cienter (ph); it's intent.
If you -- if Martha Stewart took information knowingly, intentionally taking this information, knowing it was material and nonpublic, that's called -- and trading on that information -- that's called insider trading. She can have a problem there.
CHUNG: All right, thank you so much for being with us.
GASPARINO: Thank you.
CHUNG: And what do you have in tomorrow?
GASPARINO: Oh, I don't know if I can tell you. My boss would kill me. More on this.
CHUNG: Thank you. All right, Charles Gasparino, thank you so much for being with us.
We're now joined by Representative Jim Greenwood from our Washington bureau. His subcommittee has been leading the investigation into ImClone.
And what we want to know is that you'll be getting documents, sir, from Merrill Lynch, correct, tomorrow?
REP. JIM GREENWOOD (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Yes. We started to get some today.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Have you been able to look at what you've gotten today?
GREENWOOD: Our investigators are just beginning to look at that.
Connie, this started out as our investigation into how the FDA handled the product called Erbitux, which ImClone has been pioneering to try to reduce tumor size in cancer. Everyone had hoped that this was a great, life-saving drug.
It turns out that the FDA just dismissed the drug and said that the data wasn't even good enough to review.
That led us to the insider trading issues involving Sam Waksal, the CEO...
CHUNG: Right.
GREENWOOD: ... and investigating Sam Waksal, we came across the Martha Stewart issue, and so forth.
What we want to do now is find out what Mr. Bacanovic, who was the family broker for the Waksals...
CHUNG: And also Martha Stewart.
GREENWOOD: ... as well as for Martha Stewart, right.
CHUNG: Yes.
GREENWOOD: What did he know about the bad news that was about to befall the ImClone company? When did he learn it? With whom did he share it? And were transactions made as a result of that?
That's inside information. And the reason that that's wrong and a crime is because the little guy sitting out there with his 401(k) or his personal retirement plan, he doesn't get the inside information. And he loses out while the elite insiders get to get a parachute out of the crashing plane.
CHUNG: Now, do you expect to get that information confirmed through these Merrill Lynch documents?
GREENWOOD: Well, what we really want to do is we want to interview Mr. Bacanovic and his assistant, to whom you were just referring, Mr. Faneuil...
CHUNG: Well, they keep -- the stock broker, Mr. Bacanovic, was going to testify. Now will you need to subpoena him? Because he's been arrested.
GREENWOOD: Well, we -- I don't know that Mr. Bacanovic has been arrested.
CHUNG: Forgive me. No, you're absolutely right. He's been charged.
GREENWOOD: What happened is he was put on leave, administrative leave by Merrill Lynch. He and Mr. Faneuil were put on administrative leave with pay.
CHUNG: Yes. Absolutely. Forgive me.
GREENWOOD: That's OK. They -- Merrill Lynch informed me last Friday of this fact. Those two gentlemen have retained new attorneys. Our attorneys are talking to their attorneys about when we can schedule them to come back in. They also know that they're going to have dates before the U.S. Attorney's Office.
So we're working on bringing them in. We have the power of subpoena, if we need to, to bring them in to answer our questions. We want to understand this issue not simply for the personalities involved, Martha Stewart, et cetera, but we need to understand how this applies to the Food and Drug Administration, and how it applies to this whole unfolding series of corporate scandals.
CHUNG: Do you intend to ask Martha Stewart to come and testify?
GREENWOOD: Well, we have no such plans at this point. We think -- we try to do our work professionally and methodically. So we think the sequence is to review carefully the documents from Merrill Lynch first. Secondly, interview Bacanovic and Faneuil, and see where that leads us. We're also looking into other members of the board of directors of ImClone corporation to see whether they in fact traded on insider information.
CHUNG: Sir, a recent CNN poll taken shows Americans are using losing confidence in big business and Wall Street. We have a graphic up here. You can see 28 percent had a lot of confidence in big business last year. Only 20 percent this year. How do you think the controversy surrounding Martha Stewart does play into this? Does it play into it? GREENWOOD: Well, of course, it's been a series -- it began with Enron, then there was Global Crossing, and there's been Tyco, and there's been ImClone, and today, of course, the biggest of them all, WorldCom.
Of course investors are skittish because of all of this, as well as they should be. If you don't believe that you're getting honest information from these companies about their financial situation, why would you want to take a risk on them?
I think that's why the United States Congress needs to act, needs to act soon, needs to act firmly to reregulate, not overregulate, but bring the marketplace, the financial markets of this country, into this century in ways that restore investor confidence so that the stock market can climb, all of our pension plans and IRAs can get...
CHUNG: Congressman...
GREENWOOD: ...restored value, and the country will be better for it.
CHUNG: Thank you. Thank you so much for being with us tonight.
GREENWOOD: Thanks for having me, Connie.
CHUNG: All right. When we come back, a man was charged with sexual assault. He answered with an unusual defense, a sleepwalking defense, and won.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Still ahead, full disclosure? Former Enron employees shed, not shred, in a revealing pink slip pictorial. Connie Chung tonight is coming right back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
We'll get to "Playboy's" "Women of Enron" in just a minute, but first, a man who is not a playboy, Anderson Cooper in New York, for a quick of tonight's developing stories -- Anderson.
(INTERRUPTED FOR NEWS ALERT)
Thanks, Anderson.
When we come back, we'll go to Beijing, China, to meet one tall order, America's newest basketball star.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: Have you ever heard a verdict of not guilty by reason of sleepwalking? Well, judging by a jury verdict Monday, it might not be too far off. A Massachusetts jury decided that a man who said he suffered from sleepwalking disorder was not guilty of sexual assault. Nineteen- year-old Alex Kieczykowski had been accused of entering the rooms of 10 women at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and assaulting them. He said all along he didn't do it.
But now some people are wondering whether he got away with it by suggesting that he was just sleepwalking. Alex Kieczykowski is here with us tonight along with his lawyer, Raipher Pellegrino and Dr. Daniel Wagner from the Sleep/Wake Disorder Center at the New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College. Thank you so much for being with us.
Adam, you claim that you suffer from a hereditary form of sleepwalking and that you did not assault these 10 women at University of Massachusetts. What did they tell you you did?
ALEX KIECZYKOWSKI, ACQUITTED OF ASSAULT CHARGES: Well, basically, it was actually really only, what, like two women that were actually assaulted. And I was told that basically people -- in some cases, it was actually more than one person. In other cases, it was one person came in, did various things.
CHUNG: You mean, the attacker.
KIECZYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHUNG: There was more than one person according to one of the girls?
KIECZYKOWSKI: Well, in some of the cases, in some of the girl's rooms, there was more than one person. And in others, there was just one person. Basically did things ranging from just pulling the covers off to actually cutting one of the girl's shirts.
CHUNG: All right. One of the girls said that she woke up with someone with a pair of scissors cutting her shirt.
KIECZYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHUNG: And what else?
KIECZYKOWSKI: And, I believe, that was the gist of it. Just that...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: I think another girl had charged that the person who came in was pulling off her pants, something of that...
RAIPHER PELLEGRINO, KIECZYKOWSKI'S ATTORNEY: There were a variety of allegations which vary from room to room. Some were obviously more severe involving physical contact. Others weren't. But all of the acts were bizarre in nature. And that's one of the characteristics of somnambulism which is sleepwalking. And what it essentially says, an individual will do something which is out of their character. And the character witnesses testified on behalf of Adam explained that he is an individual who is essentially somewhat shy, very well-mannered and polite.
CHUNG: But the reality is, Adam, you had come up to the University of Massachusetts. You didn't go there. But you went there and you were drinking and you went for a spring fling, is it called?
KIECZYKOWSKI: Yes. It was a large outdoor party, on that day.
CHUNG: Right. OK. So you did drink a lot, right?
KIECZYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHUNG: Couldn't this have been you in a sort of a drunken stupor going through all these things?
KIECZYKOWSKI: No, because I actually, I mean, I remember going back. I remember certain things. I have a specific memory of going to sleep. And after that, I remember nothing until the morning.
CHUNG: You know how fantastic this sounds? I mean, it sounds absolutely -- there are people out there, viewers who are saying this is ridiculous. I've never heard of anything in my life.
KIECZYKOWSKI: The other thing you got to remember is also people that actually were assaulted, they didn't actually identify me. The only people that said they saw me, I was basically doing things like walking down the hall in a confused state, you know, maybe uttering a few words.
CHUNG: That's right. And I think a couple of the jurors...
KIECZYKOWSKI: Nobody actually...
CHUNG: A couple of the jurors said the reason why they didn't find you guilty was because some of the victims couldn't identify you and the prosecution didn't determine criminal intent.
KIECZYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHUNG: So do you think that perhaps, in fact, that was the reason and not that they believed you were sleepwalking?
PELLEGRINO: think that there are two responses to that. With some cases, clearly, identification was an issue and that may be the grounds. With other cases, it was clear that he was in a somnambulistic episode or sleepwalking state. And in Massachusetts, that goes to the specific intent. You have to possess the intent to commit the crime to be held criminally responsible.
CHUNG: I see. Let me just ask Dr. Wagner, is this really possible or is this just, you know, a good defense in...
DR. DANIEL WAGNER, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, SLEEP/WAKE DISORDER CENTER: No, it is absolutely possible. Sleepwalkers are literally...
CHUNG: I know that you were not a witness in this particular case.
WAGNER: No.
CHUNG: But you're familiar, you have studied his case?
WAGNER: That's right, and probably 300 others in my 20-plus years of practicing sleep medicine. In sleepwalking, the person is literally awake and asleep at the very same time. And large parts of the cortex, which is what's awake when we're awake, are still asleep. The cortex directs the actions of lower parts of the brain when we're walking...
CHUNG: You may be getting a little too technical for us.
WAGNER: OK.
CHUNG: And, unfortunately, I'm going to have to wrap you up. The answer is, you're saying yes, it can happen.
WAGNER: Absolutely. I've had sleepwalkers drive cars, bake cakes, do all sorts of things.
CHUNG: All right. Dr. Wagner, thank you. Mr. Pellegrino, thank you. And Adam Kieczykowski. Is that correct?
KIECZYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHUNG: All right. Thank you so much for being with us.
Still ahead, the Enron employees who lost their shirts, literally.
ANNOUNCER: Coming up, he's a 7'5" great wall from China. Will he become one of the great wonders of the basketball world, when CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: The NBA had one tall order today: Get us Yao Ming. Just a short while ago as the NBA began drafting its new crop of players, the Chinese basketball star was the number one pick.
Here's a look at how he stands on the scoreboard -- and standing is something he does very well. He is 7'5", impressive even for the NBA. Yao was made available today after extensive wrangling between his old team, the Shanghai Sharks, the NBA, along with his new American team, the Houston Rockets.
So here's a look at how the draft unfolded just minutes ago. Yao Ming watched from CNN's Beijing bureau.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID STERN, COMMISSIONER, NBA: With the first pick in the 2002 NBA draft, the Houston Rockets select Yao Ming, from Shanghai, China and the Shanghai Sharks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHUNG: So who is this towering wonder? And does he have what it takes to play in the U.S.? Bob Fiscella of CNN sports has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BOB FISCELLA, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Yao Ming is big, making him one of the great wonders of the basketball world. The 7'6" 21-year-old Chinese basketball sensation has been on the NBA's radar screen since he was a teenager. As he readies himself for the big time, the only thing bigger than the man may be the expectations laid at his size 19 feet.
KIKI VANDEWEGHE, NUGGETS GM: I think he's got a chance of being real good. You know, obviously it depends on, like all the other players, how hard he works, and things like that. But, that's the old saying, you can't teach 7'6".
CARROLL DAWSON, ROCKETS GM: The guy averaged almost 33 points a game this year. He shot 53 percent from the field. I mean, he can actually shoot the basketball. And there's a lot of issues that, you know, just like everybody else, he's not ready to dominate the league. He's got to get stronger and he's got to learn the league just like everybody else has.
FISCELLA: The NBA has seen its share of 7-foot novelty acts, and skeptics wonder whether the lean Yao will be able to handle himself against the physical centers of the league, something he did not do well during the 2000 summer Olympics in Sydney, when he managed just five points against the Miami Heat's Alonzo Mourning.
Still, most NBA insiders insist Yao is worth the risk.
P.J. CARLESIMO, FORMER NBA COACH: I would much rather try and teach him, put him in a weight room, and let him get used to playing against NBA guys, because he's already got the most difficult things to teach, basketball skills and basketball understanding.
FISCELLA: Yao will join countrymen Wang Zhizhi and Wang Beteer (ph) in the NBA, meaning all three pieces of China's walking Great Wall have reached the world's most competitive basketball league. Wand and Beteer (ph) have experienced mild success in the United States, but the Houston Rockets will expect much more from Yao. They hope Ming will build them a dynasty. I'm Bob Fiscella.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Once upon a time Yao would have been an aberration. But these days, the NBA is beginning to look more like the UN. Joining me now from Beijing is our CNN bureau chief, Jaime FlorCruz, who watched Yao as he watched the draft from Beijing. Jaime, tell me what happened.
JAIME FLORCRUZ, CNN BEIJING BUREAU CHIEF: Connie, Yao was a very shy man, but he was also a very happy man this morning. He speaks a smattering of English. And he said, "I'm happy to join the Houston Rockets," he said in English. And he says, "Hi, Houston, I'm coming."
Yao also knows that he needs to cope with a lot of problems, including the intensity in the NBA, and also cultural shocks. He said he's already starting to learn how to drive, and he plans to buy a car. I asked him what kind of car he wants. He says he doesn't know, but he wants a big one -- Connie.
CHUNG: Thank you, Jaime.
Now all over this story and the bigger story of NBA globalization is "Sports Illustrated's" Alex Wolff. Thank you for coming.
ALEX WOLFF, "SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": My pleasure.
CHUNG: Alex, tell me how extensive were these negotiations between the United States and China over allowing him to come?
WOLFF: They were extensive, and they involved a number of different parties. Not only did the NBA deal with the Chinese Basketball Association, which runs the sport there. They had to deal with the Shanghai Sharks, Yao's club team, and they had to deal with the city fathers of Shanghai, who regard Yao as their personal project.
CHUNG: So how long did it take, and how did they reach a conclusion -- oh, my goodness! That's a fire alarm. Does anyone see a fire here? No. All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: We are back after being so rudely interrupted by a fire alarm. We think everything's all right. We don't see any smoke or anything. Back with "Sports Illustrated's" Alex Wolff on today's top draft pick, China's Yao Ming.
Alex, you were explaining to me the negotiations between the United States and China. What was the result?
WOLFF: The result was that the Chinese government, the basketball association and Shanghai Sharks will take about half of Yao's salary for three years in the NBA. He will get a little over $9 million.
CHUNG: What?
WOLFF: $9.6 million for three years.
CHUNG: Oh, my goodness!
WOLFF: But half of that he will never see because of this arrangement. But that's still a great deal more than Yao's parents ever got. They both played for the Chinese national teams, the men and women, during the cultural revolution.
CHUNG: Oh, is that right? They played basketball?
WOLFF: One is 6'8" and his mom is 6'3".
CHUNG: Oh, exactly. My heavens. Absolutely. Oh, dear, can you hear this? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CHUNG: We focused earlier on WorldCom and ImClone, but the mother of all recent business scandals is, as you know, Enron. Enron executives cashed out their shares while thousands of staffers watched their savings and retirement plans just shrivel up to nothing.
But three of the Enron employees who lost their jobs have really lost their shirts -- the shirts right off their backs. And they couldn't be more thrilled about it.
Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): When Enron collapsed in December, 4,500 employees lost their jobs. Among them, Christine Nielsen, Carey Lorenzo and Cynthia Coghlan.
Then in March, "Playboy" put out a press release saying it was searching for former Enron employees to take the Enron story from the from pages into the pages of "Playboy" magazine. "Playboy" claimed this was an opportunity for women who were out of work to make some extra money, not to mention sell some magazines.
They asked women to send in head shots and pictures in bikinis. Three hundred responded and volunteered to appear nude or semi-nude. Ten were selected for the Women of Enron pictorial.
The women were all paid the same amount, but "Playboy" declined to say how much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHUNG: Now, joining me now are Carey Lorenzo, Christine Nielsen and Cynthia Coghlan. Their turn-ons include walks on the beach.
Did I say that?
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Pet peeves include insider trading and accounting irregularities. That's it, right?
CHRISTINE NIELSEN, "WOMEN OF ENRON" COVER MODEL: That's it, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's it. CHUNG: OK, thank you so much for coming here tonight.
NIELSEN: Thank you.
CHUNG: Were you the ones that caused that fire alarm to go off?
NIELSEN: Yes.
CAREY LORENZO, WORKED FOR ENRON: I think so.
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: Now Christine, you're working on your second college degree, right?
NIELSEN: Correct.
CHUNG: I mean, you were doing very well. What the heck were you doing when you agreed to do this?
NIELSEN: Oh, I don't know. I just thought -- I don't want to look back when I'm 90 and say, I should have. Or I didn't want to look in -- when the magazine releases on the first of July and say, oh maybe I could have gotten selected.
And I just thought, you know, apply. That's all you have to do. I never expected this in a million years that they would actually want me. And they called and said, we've selected you.
And I was just like, hold on a second -- could you say that again?
It was great.
CHUNG: You ended up on the cover.
NIELSEN: Yes, and then three days later they called and said, would you like to come to L.A. and stay at the mansion and shoot for the cover? And I was like, no I'd rather stay at a Motel 6.
Of course not.
Of course, I'm like, yes, of course I want to go.
CHUNG: Did you meet Hef?
NIELSEN: Oh, yes. We went out, and he's lovely. He really is. And he's very gracious. And he just said, welcome to my home. While you're here, it's your home as well, and just make yourself comfortable.
CHUNG: Great.
Do you know how you got to be on the cover?
NIELSEN: I have no idea. I really don't. I was just thankful. (ALARM)
CHUNG: Uh-oh, there it goes again. Let's listen to it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've received an alarm. The alarm...
CHUNG: There you go, so we're fine.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... that we may have caused. Everything is OK.
NIELSEN: I promise I didn't pull it.
CHUNG: Carey, did you pull the alarm?
LORENZO: It was me. Sorry.
CHUNG: There you go.
So Carey, I think you want to become a teacher?
LORENZO: Yes. Actually, this experience has given me some time to be able to take a little bit of time off. And it's something that I've wanted to do for quite some time. So I plan on taking the rest of the summer off.
And I'm going to go into it. I'm a little bit nervous. So I was just afraid maybe I wouldn't have the patience for it, it wasn't enough money. But obviously, monetary reasons or not shouldn't be why you're working, because obviously Enron was making a lot of money, but it didn't help me, so...
CHUNG: But, you know, all I can think of is, are you really going to get hired as a teacher now that you've done this?
LORENZO: Well, I would imagine -- I mean, first of all, a school, it would be violating my First Amendment. But if they found out, I don't think -- it's New York City. I would like to think, you know, that it's not going to be a detriment to my career.
But, you know, if it is, I don't want to work for them anyway. So I wouldn't want to be around people that thought that way.
CHUNG: OK, what grade were you thinking?
LORENZO: Elementary school.
CHUNG: Oh, OK; OK Carey, if you say so.
Now, Cynthia, did they give you a choice? I mean, did you have choices of what you could be -- I mean, what pose, and would it be nude or semi-nude, all of that?
CYNTHIA COGHLAN, WORKED FOR ENRON: Actually, I have to give the crew a lot of credit. They did give us a lot of choice. And they gave us a lot of coaching. They were dealing with 10 women that -- most of us have never done any modeling or anything of that kind. So constantly throughout the shoot they were reminding me to breathe, and teaching me how to pose, and coaching me on, you know, how to make it all happen.
So I owe them a lot of credit. They were really wonderful and encouraging.
CHUNG: And you weren't hesitant, embarrassed, anything?
COGHLAN: No.
CHUNG: Come on -- really?
COGHLAN: Honestly, they made you feel right at home and totally comfortable...
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: ... these are people you've never, ever met before...
NIELSEN: You could do it, Connie.
CHUNG: Oh, please. Christine! What? Get out. No, I don't have your body.
(CROSSTALK)
NIELSEN: ... every day. I mean, it's really not that big of a deal.
CHUNG: Get out.
NIELSEN: OK, I lied. It was.
(CROSSTALK)
NIELSEN: Yes, you had to be there.
(CROSSTALK)
COGHLAN: I had a small group. Only six people were with me, and two people were coming and going, so...
NIELSEN: I had 12.
CHUNG: You mean 12 of your...
NIELSEN: Twelve people that I had never seen before in my entire life. And they said, drop the robe and I said, you got it.
And it was very awkward at first. And then when the shoot actually started I asked the photographer to ask them, some of them to leave just so I could get a little rhythm of my own and feel a little bit comfortable. And then, you know, after a roll of film everyone was back and it was really fun. By the end of the shoot, I didn't even realize I was nude. I was just walking around. I'm like...
CHUNG: No?
(CROSSTALK)
CHUNG: All right, you know I have to ask you about Enron, though. I mean, you worked there for what, two years?
NIELSEN: Two years.
CHUNG: Did you lose money? Were you angry at the executives?
NIELSEN: I did lose money. But, you know, it's on paper. You can't count -- you know, when you have stock and things like that, you can't count on that for your future. I mean, it's a risky business, basically.
So, I mean, I lost, but I'm not really upset so much about that. It's just that the people that worked at Enron were very dedicated. And they worked long hours. They were away from their families. They did -- you know, they were asked to do things of three people, and one person did it because they wanted to make something of the company.
And it would have been nice if the people who were running the company actually would have been, you know, been honest about it.
But, you know, buyer beware.
CHUNG: Yes. Were you worry about getting another job, and did you think that this would help you get a job in the future?
LORENZO: For myself, it wasn't very difficult. I had gotten a job rather quickly, although I am in sales. And if you're, you know, a decent, hardworking saleswoman, you can get a job in New York. That's not that difficult.
But I think that also people have been very sympathetic to the fact that I was with Enron. They were like, wow, that's a tough break.
CHUNG: Good. All right. Christine, Carey, Cynthia, thank you so much for coming. Great to see you.
NIELSEN: Thank you Connie.
CHUNG: It's great to see you.
LORENZO: My pleasure.
COGHLAN: Great to talk to you.
CHUNG: Thank you.
All right, that's it for us tonight. No more fire alarms, promise.
Tomorrow night, this is what you've got to see: We'll take to you the mountains of North Carolina. We'll meet a modern-day Daniel Boone. And we'll ask the question: Could you survive alone in the wild?
And also tomorrow: She was only a junior in high school, but that didn't stop her from taking her cause all the way to the Supreme Court, fighting mandatory drug testing in schools. We'll meet that teenager.
And coming up right after us, LARRY KING LIVE, with John Walsh from "America's Most Wanted." Do watch.
Good night everybody.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Martha Stewart to Face Possible Obstruction Charges>
|
|
|
|
|
