Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Will Markets Keep Going Down?; Has Corporate Corruption Stained Bush White House?; Pilots Get Political Support for Guns in Cockpit
Aired July 11, 2002 - 15:00 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Are you afraid of bears? Anybody here afraid of bears? Especially the ones roaming on Wall Street. I tell you what they are roaming and we may all need to get some bear repellent. We're going to find out where the market is going today, and we'll talk to some experts about what's happening to our 401(k) plans, our investments and retirement accounts -- important stuff. Right, Wanda (ph)?
I know. OK. Is it time to dump, time to buy, or should we all just hold on to our flaming portfolios and hope for the best? Tell me what you're doing as well. Give me a call me at 1-800-310-4CNN or e- mail talkback@cnn.com. Now take a look at what we have on the show for you today.
The bears rumble through Wall Street as the market spiraled and it's anyone's guess if they can be tamed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is possible you could see the Dow go down to 6,000, 7,000.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: So what do you do to protect your nest egg?
Also, has corporate corruption stained the Bush administration?
Pilots get political support for keeping guns in the cockpit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Once those terrorists come through that cockpit door, there's going to be a fight, a life and death struggle in that cockpit. The pilots have to win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: And did an airline go overboard when it dumped a passenger joking about drunken pilots?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When it comes to other people's right maybe being infringed upon, you know the safety of other passengers, she should probably have hushed up and not said anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Exactly how did a joke pose a security risk?
OK, how bad is the Wall Street slide and how can we hold onto what we have left? Here to answer our questions are Allen Westler, a financial commentator and managing editor of CNNmoney.com. Hey, how are you, Allen? All right.
ALLEN WESTLER, CNNMONEY.COM: Doing fine, Arthel. How are you doing?
NEVILLE: Looking good over there. And Marian Asnes, senior editor of "Money" Magazine. Did I say your last name right?
MARIAN ASNES, EDITOR, MONEY MAGAZINE: Yes, you did. Thank you.
NEVILLE: All right, well, I want to welcome both of you to the show. And Allen, I'm going to give the first question to you. OK? Have we hit rock bottom or can we expect the market to go down even further?
WESTLER: You know, I have seen every talking head on the financial news network of CNN say, oh, this must be it right now, and every time it seems to go down lower and lower and lower. The trick is it can't go down forever and this is looking a little bit -- you're getting that sort of sell-off, that has the psychological tinge of, OK, maybe this is it.
But right now, you're sort of seeing a death spiral go on because people are getting so much bad news. We've had a trifecta of the binge of the previous year, war, the war on terrorism, and now all these, you know, basically lies coming out of corporate America. It's making people get a little bit jittery, so they're pulling money out of their mutual funds. That's sort of what we're seeing this week, is a lot of redemptions going on, a lot of money coming out of mutual funds ...
NEVILLE: And hang on for me, Allen, because we've got some breaking news now. I want to go to Kyra Phillips who's standing by in the newsroom -- Kyra.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: All right, I'm getting word right now, Arthel, I'm kind of winging it here. We're going to take you live to Philadelphia where the news conference is happening right now with District Attorney Lynne Abraham. We understand that charges are -- or rather basketball star Allen Iverson will be charged for allegedly entering an apartment by force armed with a gun. Let's listen in.
LYNNE ABRAHAM, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ... violations of the Uniformed Firearms Act 6106, which is a felony of the third degree, 6108, which is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and possession of an instrument of crime, a misdemeanor of the first degree. Those last three charges are in connection with the weapon that Mr. Iverson is alleged to have displayed while allegedly in the apartment.
Gregory Iverson, who I'm given to understand is Allen Iverson's uncle, is being charged with two counts of criminal trespass, felony of the second degree, two counts of simple assault, misdemeanors the second-degree, terroristic threats, misdemeanor of the first degree, two counts, unlawful restraint and misdemeanor of the first degree, two counts, false imprisonment, misdemeanor of the second degree, two counts, and criminal conspiracy, a felony of the second degree.
QUESTION: One ...
ABRAHAM: Well, conspiracy is only one count. There's only -- when there's one criminal conspiracy for each person, it's not two counts. It's just one allegation of criminal conspiracy. And I'm going to ask Commissioner Johnson if he cares to say anything. I'll be happy to take some questions after that -- commissioner.
SYLVESTER JOHNSON, PHILADELPHIA POLICE COMMISSIONER: The only thing I'm going to say that we had a complaint, matter of fact we had two complaints that we felt that was credible. We took our time. The detectives did a thorough, complete and I think a very professional investigation. After doing that investigation, talked to everyone involved in it, we submitted our affidavit to the district attorney's office and we are satisfied with the results.
ABRAHAM: OK. Now are there any questions -- now remember ...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: ... now just -- may I just add one thing? Since many of you, some of you I recognize, but welcome to the rest of you, I've never seen before. As a prosecutor, I am limited to what I can say by Commonwealth versus Peter (ph). So we can't -- I can't get into any of the details. The commissioner is similarly limited because I am charged with everything that he says.
So now that Mr. Iverson is not -- is going to be charged, he's not an ordinary civilian. He's a civilian with a -- two warrants, going to be -- or several warrants are going to be issued for him and for his uncle, charging one warrant each for several counts. We're very much limited to what we can say, but I'll be happy to answer whatever ...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: ... able to answer.
QUESTION: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) district attorney?
ABRAHAM: Yes.
QUESTION: What was the main fact that built this case against -- is the evidence with the statements or is all that (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
ABRAHAM: I think that the police commissioner really just answered that question, that based on the totality of the circumstances we agreed with the police findings that there was credible reason to believe that these crimes had allegedly occurred and that's the basis that we issue or agreed to issue charges.
QUESTION: That he had a gun?
ABRAHAM: One of the allegations is that he had in his waist band, he -- remember I didn't say pulled, I said displayed.
QUESTION: Did he have a permit?
QUESTION: Did you find the gun? Did you find the gun?
ABRAHAM: I don't know. I'm not a police officer. I don't know the results of any ...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: ... search.
QUESTION: Lynne, when and where will they turn themselves in?
ABRAHAM: I think the police commissioner will be prepared to answer that because that does not have anything to me. That's the police ...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: Hold on. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) just a moment. So excitable.
JOHNSON: I've (UNINTELLIGIBLE) been in touch with Iverson's lawyer for the last week, and what I will do I will call him after I leave here, and we will make arraignments for Mr. Iverson to turn himself in -- that was between the attorney and myself.
QUESTION: For Greg Iverson too? You'll be calling his attorney? Are they sharing the same attorney?
JOHNSON: Well I'm not sure, but I will give him the same courtesy as I've given Allen Iverson.
QUESTION: Any idea when that might occur?
JOHNSON: No, sir. I said I will make arraignments after talking to his attorney.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Do you expect maybe tomorrow, though, because ...
JOHNSON: I will make arraignments talking to his attorney, when I talk to his attorney later on today. QUESTION: Was there a ...
QUESTION: Commissioner (UNINTELLIGIBLE) executed warrants in Greg Iverson's apartment this morning and Allen Iverson (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Was -- were guns found or guns used in this alleged (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Do you have that as evidence?
JOHNSON: No I don't -- personally I don't have that information. I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't have that information. I believe that the warrant and serving of the warrant just got done approximately maybe a half-hour, 45 minutes ago. I'm not aware of that at this point. And what we're going to do -- the things we're doing right now like talking to the attorney (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is nothing unusual.
We do this all the time with other attorneys. This is not the first time this has ever been done, and it probably won't be the last time it's been done. We show professional courtesy to the attorneys and to people who are -- have no idea that we feel is going to be skipping, going anywhere. So I will make those arraignments with him as soon as I finish talking to the news basically.
QUESTION: Did he have a permit for the weapon?
JOHNSON: Not that we could find.
QUESTION: Commissioner, some people are making an issue out of the fact that the victims waited about I guess 10 1/2 to 12 hours before calling police. Would you like to address why you think they waited?
JOHNSON: No. No. I have no idea why they waited, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I don't know that to be a fact. I heard 10 hours. I know that's not a fact. There was a time limit, but I think there's reason for that, and we have to -- when he comes to the court, all these things will be discussed.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... can you discuss what changed from yesterday to today? What was new (UNINTELLIGIBLE) press charges (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: No. What's the difference between yesterday and today (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
ABRAHAM: As I saw the news last night, as lieutenant, I think it's Lieutenant Chitwood said -- I don't want to give him too much or too little rank, that he needed to do a few extra things for the investigation to at least be in a status where we felt that the charges were appropriate.
As all of you know, I was in Hershey yesterday at the Pennsylvania District Attorney's Association meeting, and I couldn't be here, and I also want to stress that I hope the sports fans of America don't think this is invidious, but this case is just another case for me, but because of the extreme interest in the media I wanted to be filled in, and we didn't know the results of the additional investigation until I got back from Harrisburg a few moments ago, less than an hour I think. So those are the two reasons.
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: Well, I mean ...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: ... here's what we don't do. We don't discuss what police officials and our office asked to be done, but we wanted to make sure that whatever needed to be done that was not yet complete was taken care of. And so that we would be able to go forward today without any further delay, and that's -- that was the reason why we held off.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... jump to the conclusion that because he denies the search warrants before you met with (UNINTELLIGIBLE) yesterday for three hours and then went for search warrants after he met with you that it was the searches that you asked to get done?
ABRAHAM: Marge (ph), with all due respect ...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: First of all, nobody met -- I just want to make clear, nobody met with me yesterday. I was on the ...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAHAM: ... phone a lot, but nobody met with me. Where's Charles (ph)? (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Charlie (ph)? Mr. Erlick (ph) and others in the office met -- Mr. Erlick (ph) is the chief of our municipal court unit who will be handling this case. The police officers met with him and discussed things that had to be tended to, and I think Mr. Chitwood said that on television last night. So I saw it up in Hershey ...
PHILLIPS: You're watching breaking news out of Philadelphia. District Attorney Lynne Abraham there announcing that warrants have now been issued for basketball star Allen Iverson and his uncle Greg Iverson. You'll remember Iverson allegedly entered an apartment by force, armed with a gun, looking for his wife. The DA announcing that the charges -- a number of charges being brought against Iverson -- criminal trespassing, civil assault, terroristic threats, unlawful restraint, conspiracy, carrying a gun without a license, and carrying a gun on a public place. If this basketball great is convicted of these charges, he could spend up to 61 years in jail.
We're going to go back to TALKBACK LIVE and Arthel Neville.
NEVILLE: Thanks, Kyra. I've been reading the wire story on that information in Iverson. I think there's a lot more to this story, and of course we'll follow it for you here on CNN.
In the meantime, you know, we have been talking about what's going on, on Wall Street. We all want to know, so we're going to find out more with a live report after this break. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. We're talking about Wall Street's wild ride. Is the dive continuing today? Right now we're going to get a market check from CNN senior business correspondent Rhonda Schaffler at the New York Stock Exchange.
OK, Rhonda, it has been a roller coaster day on Wall Street. How is the market looking now?
RHONDA SCHAFFLER, CNN SENIOR BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: It sure has, Arthel. At this point, we're not looking at the market losing as much as it was losing before. The Dow industrial is still off, but earlier in the day, the Dow was plunging some 200 points and of course that came on top of the huge sell-off we saw yesterday, and there's actually some bargain hunters out there today. We're seeing some of the technology stocks moving higher at the moment, so that's giving some support to the Nasdaq.
You know, when you look back at the last couple of days here, we're looking at very steep losses for all the major market averages, so a little bit of a break at the moment this afternoon. But keep in mind, some of the issues that continue to plague Wall Street haven't gone away. In fact, we've got this company today, Bristol-Myers, that one selling off on an informal investigation by the SEC. So those issues are still out there, and that's what's keeping some investors very jumpy -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Are they talking on the floor that more of these type of investigations will continue?
SCHAFFLER: Well, that's the real fear. I talked to one trader a few days ago who said how do you separate the good companies from the bad? And that's what makes people nervous because we've seen some brand named companies with problems. So people are unsettled about that. They know there is some investigations ongoing and they know stocks keep selling off, combined it's a problem.
NEVILLE: Yes. Now, Rhonda, any sector taking really big hits?
SCHAFFLER: As far as losses?
NEVILLE: Yes.
SCHAFFLER: It's interesting because some of the sectors that did better in the midst of all the selling are under some pressure, and that includes some of the defense stock, some of the consumer products names. Now people look at Wall Street in very corky ways and some say when you start seeing some of the market leaders break down, perhaps, perhaps the market's getting closer to a bottom than what we thought before. But as we know, it's pretty impossible to call the market bottom on Wall Street, and that's what the experts tell you and that's why the average investor gets so frustrated.
NEVILLE: Oh, yes. I mean, we were talking about it now. In fact, we have a bunch of people in the audience who want to ask a bunch of questions. We're going to let you go because I know you have a lot more to investigate for us on this story ...
SCHAFFLER: All right.
NEVILLE: ... and keep up with this roller coaster. Rhonda, I'm so glad to talk to you here on TALKBACK LIVE.
SCHAFFLER: Good to talk to you too.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you. And we're going to continue our discussion now with Marian Asnes and Allen Westler. Hi, guys. Welcome back.
WESTLER: How are you doing?
NEVILLE: All right, so now before we left, Allen, I was asking you if we have hit rock bottom, and I just want ...
WESTLER: Yes, you were asking me the question that Rhonda pointed out, nobody wants to call the bottom ...
NEVILLE: I know ...
WESTLER: ... because you're always proved wrong. But ...
NEVILLE: Well, but I mean based on history, based on your able -- your expertise and able to track, I mean we understand and ...
WESTLER: Yes.
NEVILLE: ... the first thing you hear from your stockbroker, nobody has a crystal ball. We all know that.
WESTLER: Right.
NEVILLE: But share me -- share with us your expertise.
WESTLER: OK, there's a little formula called the "fed valuation model," OK, and it has a pretty good historic track record of basically measuring bond returns versus stock returns and when the stock return falls below the bond, it looks like hey, the market might turn around. Right now it's saying stocks are about 20 percent undervalued, and that would be a sign of hey, things are going to pick up pretty soon. We must be near a bottom.
However, the big crisis we have right now is in the numbers. Can you believe the numbers that this formula and other formulas are based on? People are saying no. So personally I'm thinking until the corporate corruption crisis shakes out a little bit, you'll probably have a little more down draft in the market, but I think we're getting near a turnaround.
NEVILLE: I mean, we have to. I'm not an expert, but I mean, you just to start to kind of kick -- common sense starts to kick in a little bit. I don't know if that even played there, but let me get to Marian and ask you, what does the average consumer do with all of this information?
ASNES: I think the biggest challenge for the average investor is to stay calm and stay cold. And that doesn't necessarily mean hang on to the bitter end. What it really means is looking at your stuff, and saying is the portfolio that I own still really appropriate, both to my feelings and to my goals.
You know, a lot of people put their money into very risky investments with the thought that if I take a risk, I'll get a bigger return. And what they didn't realize is that you get that bigger return if you get a ...
NEVILLE: Right.
ASNES: ... return because that's what risk means.
NEVILLE: But, you know, Marian ...
ASNES: So ...
NEVILLE: ... not everybody, there are people who are conservative and they're losing money still.
ASNES: That's the scary thing. People are losing money right now across the board, and so that one of the things that you have to stay clear about is whether you can afford to hang on. Usually what that means is that you don't need your money right away. If you have money that you don't need for at least five years, you can afford to hang on and then you take a look at what you've got and then you have to do some more basic questions like do I have too much of my money in my own company's stock, which has been a problem for a lot of people in their 401(k)s. Am I diversified enough, is another important question. Do I have a good combination of stocks and bonds ...
NEVILLE: Right.
ASNES: ... and cash and are all of those different elements spread out in a way that makes me comfortable?
NEVILLE: Right and so basically -- excuse me, as you said if you have about five years to wait you can. OK.
ASNES: Right.
NEVILLE: You can ...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... you should wait it out.
(CROSSTALK)
ASNES: Yes, well, one of the things that I want to point out is that most of us have that time horizon for at least some of our money ...
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I'm sorry ...
ASNES: I'm going to use myself ...
NEVILLE: ... repeat that please. I didn't hear you.
ASNES: OK, I'm going to use myself as an example here. I'm a 45-year-old woman, so I'm not going to retire for 20 years -- please let me retire in 20 years.
NEVILLE: I would say go for 10 girl, go for 10 years.
ASNES: Well, I don't know, but between now and then, I have other goals and I don't have the same kind of time horizon in those goals. For instance, I have a child who's going to start college ...
NEVILLE: Exactly.
ASNES: ... in four years.
NEVILLE: And that's what I want to ask you. What do those people do? What if you are, you're planning to buy a house, you have a child who's going to college. What do they do?
ASNES: Well, money that you'll want to use to buy a house in the next couple of years does not belong in the stock market, and it never did, even in the boom. And that's something that a lot of us forgot when it looked like stocks could go in no direction but up. But the fact of the matter is if you need to buy a house in like six months, a year, two year, that money does not belong in the stock market.
NEVILLE: Is there a good investment out there? I mean outside of the stock market? Is it still property? Allen, maybe you can tell us that.
WESTLER: Well real estate's been fairly high right now, and bond funds haven't been doing too badly right now. So there are alternative investments. Each one carries its own certain (UNINTELLIGIBLE) risk to go in right now. But I agree with Marian, right now what you need to do if you're an investor in there is just think about it. Think I'm an investor, I'm not a trader. OK, so you're dealing with a longer time horizon, and staying the course is really the way to go.
NEVILLE: People are getting tired of hearing that. We've been hearing stay the course for the past three years and the course is still really rough.
WESTLER: Well, you know, but we're talking a three-year time horizon, OK, and when you're talking about investment, you really should be thinking ...
NEVILLE: Long term.
WESTLER: ... increments of five to 10 to 20.
NEVILLE: Right.
ASNES: Arthel, can I point something out?
NEVILLE: Of course.
ASNES: OK, one of the things to remember is that those of us who are crying the hardest are people who put our money in at the top of the markets. Say you know, it was 1999, you looked at all of your friends and said oh they're making so much money, I want to make some too, and that was a very painful time to get involved in the stock market. But if you're a long-term investor, things even out over time and they do trend up.
I mean even at the worst of the market today, say you're back where you were in 1997, now that's really bad if you started investing in like 1999. But if you started investing in 1996, it's not as bad, and one of the things that you can bear in mind is that if you keep putting money in regularly, you do a technique called "dollar cost averaging" where you put money into your investments every month like clockwork. You ride the market up and down, and over time, you're not spending as much on those investments as you thought you were, and if you can just leave them where they are, let your dividends reinvest and keep building, you'll find that you do grow.
NEVILLE: OK, well, reassuring words, audience, from Marian Asnes. I want to cling to those words. Allen Westler, to you, thank you very much to both of you. Thanks for joining us and providing us ...
ASNES: My pleasure ...
NEVILLE: ... with some vital information at this crucial time regarding everybody's money and livelihoods. OK, and we will be back with more TALKBACK LIVE in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Right now let's meet our TALKBACK LIVE panel, social commentator Temperance Lance-Council -- cute hair.
TEMPERANCE LANCE-COUNCIL, SOCIAL COMMENTATOR: Hi ...
NEVILLE: Hi.
LANCE-COUNCIL : ... this is Lance-Council. How are you, Arthel?
NEVILLE: What did I say?
LANCE-COUNCIL: Lane. NEVILLE: Oh, it's Lance, OK.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Yes.
NEVILLE: Thank you. Hey, all right, Ms. Lance-Council.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Yes.
NEVILLE: All right. And then Rich Galen. Sir, I'm waiting for you to correct me.
RICH GALEN, MULLINGS.COM: Yes, it's Galen ...
NEVILLE: All right.
GALEN: ... but I want you to say something nice about my hair too.
NEVILLE: Rich, you don't want me to comment on your hair. No, you look very dapper sir, a very handsome man ...
GALEN: It's my pleasure.
NEVILLE: Thank you. No, I'm serious. A political columnist on the Web at Mullings.com. All right, a shot of Deborah Mathis now. Deborah, nice hair today too.
DEBORAH MATHIS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Oh, thank you. It's a good hair day for everybody.
NEVILLE: That's right. And syndicated columnist and former White House correspondent for "USA Today," she is the author of "Yet A Stranger: Why Black Americans Still Don't Feel at Home," and Martin Lewis, oh yes, now that's nice hair too audience, don't you think? Yes. Yes. OK, Martin is a political commentator and columnist. He covers politics for a number of media outlets including the BBC, and I want to welcome all of you to TALKBACK LIVE.
OK, now before I get to you, we need to talk about this. Democrats are on the Hill crying hypocrisy. Here's the deal. Earlier this week in a speech to Wall Street President Bush called for an end to corporate loans to company officers. Today the White House acknowledged that Mr. Bush had taken advantage of exactly that type of loan more than 10 years ago when he was on the board of directors at Harken Energy.
Here to fill us in on this is CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux. Suzanne, fill us in on the latest, because the president is getting criticized and we want to hear the story on that.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Arthel, I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. I'm hearing a little bit of echo in my ears, but what happened was about a dozen years ago when Mr. Bush was director of Harken Energy Company, he took out two loans from the company itself in the amount of $180,000. He used that money to buy stock, 105,000 shares. He did that because it was offered as a stock option. He was a director. That was offered to many directors as an incentive to really commit to the company long term. Well he repaid that loan in 1993 by transferring his, rather his loan money, his stocks back into the company. This is common practice. This happens industry wide nationwide.
The White House today saying -- oh, hearing the echo again -- the White House again saying that it was appropriate, that it was legal, and that it was disclosed from 10 years ago, so it really wasn't an issue. What we have to ask ourselves is what is the problem? What is the issue today?
Well, just take a look at the press conference, as with Mr. Bush on Monday said that we've got to have a stop, an end to these type of corporate loans. Why is that? The White House is saying in light of these recent scandals, just take a look. This type of thing can be abused. Take a look at WorldCom. You've got a director who borrowed $400 million from the company. You see what's happened then.
They could have stocked the tank. The investors have -- rather lost millions and millions of dollars. But of course I think what the problem is here is that Democrats are looking at this and they're saying well, the president is being hypocritical, that he cannot meet his own standards, the standards that he is calling for corporate America to meet today -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Suzanne, so the Democrats are also looking at Vice President Cheney and his dealings when he was the CEO of Halliburton. What is the word on that, Suzanne?
MALVEAUX: Well, Judicial Watch is suing Vice President Cheney as well as Halliburton. This is when he was CEO between '95 and 2000, before he took public office.
They are accusing him of kind of this fuzzy accounting that really inflates the stock value and basically misleads investors, his office saying that this is a case that doesn't even have merit. But I think what the problem is, what the concern is with the White House here is that they've got questions. Did Mr. Bush, did Mr. Cheney break the law? There is no evidence that that is the case.
Did they bend the law? That is something for financial experts to determine. But did they meet standards, or can they meet the standards that they are asking corporate America to meet today? Perhaps we are looking at new and different higher standards in light of these scandals that have happened the last couple of weeks.
NEVILLE: All right, Suzanne Malveaux, thank you very much for that update.
OK, panel, I want to get back to you.
Temperance, I'll start with you. Is this all about politics?
LANCE-COUNCIL: You know, Arthel, I do believe that it is. The country really isn't in a mood to constantly delve into these things. I think the speech that Mr. Bush gave was fine. It was totally appropriate. I think it lifts the country up to a standard where the confidence is getting a lot better. And, as far as investigating Cheney and Bush, this is all old news. And we should just leave it alone.
NEVILLE: Rich, how do you see it?
GALEN: Well, clearly it is politics. I don't think there is any question about that. The Democrats, not on the air, will, of course, give you a nudge and a wink and say, "Of course."
The thing about the president's Harken Energy business that I think people have forgotten or ignored, because they do not want to remember, is that the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, resolved that case in 1993, in the fall of 1993. In the fall of 1993, Bill Clinton was president. And the sainted Arthur Levitt was -- had been -- was and had been the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission for three or four or five months. I forget now when, the exactly date.
So, when the Securities and Exchange Commission resolved that case, which was to say -- they said nobody did anything wrong -- it was not when Republicans were controlling it. It was when the Clinton administration was controlling it. And that was not an era, as many of us here in Washington remember, when there was a great deal of era of good feeling between the Clinton White House and the Bush family. So I think we need to remember that this was resolved by the SEC under a Democratic administration.
NEVILLE: OK, hang on for me, Rich, because the music is playing. That means I have to take a break.
And, Deborah and Martin, I have not heard from you, but I want to hear from you when we come back, because we're going to find out why an airline or an airplane is no place to make a joke, no, no, no.
We'll be back in a moment.
Coming up: drunk-pilot jokes, the passenger who dropped his trousers, and guns in the cockpit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we have one more incident, it will be fatal to airlines. If we have one more incident, it will be fatal to the economy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Will you feel safer knowing your pilot is armed?
Also, an airline passenger gets the boot for joking about drunken pilots.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are people. We are human. We communicate. We relate. But we are also aware. And any time we are flying, we have to be serious about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Tell us what you are thinking right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: You think that might be the case, Anne?
ANNE: I think it is pretty ridiculous when they get the lady in trouble for asking if they're drunk. That is pretty ridiculous.
NEVILLE: All right, well, welcome back.
Thank you, Anne.
Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
I have two stories about airport security I want to share with you today. One is out of Miami International, where an angry Frenchman balked at handing over his belt for screening. So, along with removing his belt, he suddenly dropped his pants and said, "Is this good enough?" Well, that eyeful set off an uproar. One can imagine the screams, the stares, etcetera. Well, the passenger didn't make his flight to Nicaragua, to say the least. And instead, he was arrested and charged with prohibited conduct.
OK, then there is the story that Anne and I were just talking about. A San Francisco woman, she asked the flight attendant on her America West flight. She says,"Have you checked your crew for sobriety?" Well, that passenger was checked off the flight, even though she pleaded, "Can't you guys even take a joke?" No one was laughing, of course.
But the president of the Air Travelers Association called the airline's reaction an abuse of authority. America West says: "The situation is under review. And if we find that we reacted hastily, we will do everything we can to make amends to the customer."
And stand up for me. How do you say your name, Shevalin (ph)? Stand up -- and where do you want us, here? All right, because you were shaking your head when I'm reading this story.
SHEVALIN: Yes.
I mean, I think that is ridiculous. I would ask, are the pilots -- since the incident that happened with the pilots, I would ask: Are they drunk? Are they able to fly? I would ask that question.
NEVILLE: And you wouldn't expect to get kicked off the plane, right?
SHEVALIN: No, I wouldn't. I would want my money back.
NEVILLE: What now?
SHEVALIN: I would want my money back.
NEVILLE: For the ticket and then plus extra, free round-trips or something, huh?
SHEVALIN: That's right.
NEVILLE: All right, thank you.
Hey, Deborah, do you think this is a case of airport security gone overboard?
MATHIS: Well, I don't think there is any doubt about it. The guy who dropped trou', I kind of like that guy.
I am wondering if maybe the reason he was arrested when he said, "Is this good enough for you?" maybe the answer was, "No." That's why he was arrested.
(LAUGHTER)
MATHIS: But, you know, that is carrying it a bit too far. But we all know about those frustrations. In terms of the woman asking the question, I heard that they said it was accusatory or something. Well, so what? And why does it have to be a joke? Why does that have to be the defense, that "I was only joking"?
NEVILLE: Exactly.
MATHIS: It is a legitimate question to ask these days, as I might say, "Are we going to be on time for a change?"
I think that we have gotten a little -- we've kind of lost sight of what really is important and what really poses any real threat or disruption.
NEVILLE: And, you know, we keep reading in the paper and seeing on the news how the airport security, how it is a little bit lax and is not as good as it needs to be. Not all screeners are incompetent, but many of them are letting people, the undercover agents -- we have read this too, Linda -- letting the undercover agents get by, like, with knives, guns, explosions, what have you.
And then maybe this guy who was at the Miami airport probably got, maybe got fed up. He was like, "Why are you checking for my belt when you are letting people with the bad stuff get through?"
LANCE-COUNCIL: You know, Arthel, I would just like to interject here, if I could.
If you think about all of the problems that we are having today, I don't think people should be joking about anything as serious as airport security. And, as far as pilots are concerned, when you get on the plane, get in your seat, sit down and relax. And when you get to your destination, get off of the plane, no dropping trousers or making funny jokes or anything like that. That is not necessary.
MATHIS: She had asked a serious question: "Are they sober?" And maybe she was joking.
But, look, Temperance, you may get on there tomorrow and say something -- if that's the case -- say something that you mean completely lightheartedly. But if it is going to be taken that way, we have
(CROSSTALK)
LANCE-COUNCIL: No, I am going to get on the plane and mind my business and do exactly...
MATHIS: Well, I suggest you continue doing that, but let other people have their freedoms.
LANCE-COUNCIL: No, I would urge other people, during this time of the terror that is going on in our country, and in lieu of the other two pilots who actually lost their license for being drunk, this is just not the appropriate atmosphere to make jokes.
MARTIN LEWIS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I certainly agree that there is a lot of terror going on in this country. I presume you're talking about Enron and all the people that are losing their jobs as a result of corporate greed.
But when you are talking about airports, I actually am fairly sympathetic about this business of the chap in Miami. As we all know, if you travel these days, you have to take two or three hours extra on your journey. And it is very boring standing in line. I think, if people start dropping their pants and generally disrobing, it can only add some entertainment value to that terrible wait.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Oh, no. I don't want to see anybody's anything. I don't look for my entertainment value from other passengers.
(CROSSTALK)
MATHIS: Temperance, this is a joke, OK? Lighten up, baby.
LANCE-COUNCIL: That is not a good joke.
MATHIS: This is a joke.
LEWIS: I have to say, I am not interested in 62-year-old French men, but they could segregate
(CROSSTALK)
LANCE-COUNCIL: But someone else may be. Maybe a 62-year-old French woman is.
(CROSSTALK) LANCE-COUNCIL: It is not a time for jokes. It really isn't. This is a serious atmosphere.
GALEN: The notion of an angry Frenchman is a redundancy, anyway, right from the beginning.
NEVILLE: What did you say, Rich? I'm sorry.
GALEN: The notion of an angry Frenchman is redundancy right from the beginning.
NEVILLE: Oh, I heard you now.
Hear, Linda, go ahead. What do you have to say?
LINDA: Well, the experts may be able to contradict this, but as I understand -- I don't know if it is an FAA regulation or what -- but any time a pilot is questioned about his sobriety, he, the pilot, will be taken off of the plane. So it is not a joke.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Absolutely. Absolutely.
MATHIS: Well, did they take him off of the plane or did they know it was a joke?
GALEN: They took them off and they tested them both.
LANCE-COUNCIL: But who is to discern whether or not he is in a joking mood that day? That should not be
(CROSSTALK)
MATHIS: No, no. We're talking about whether the woman was in a joking mood. They did not remove the pilot. Evidently, they knew it was a joke, because, according to this lady who just spoke, if they believed that it was a serious request or inquiry, they would have removed the pilot from the flight.
GALEN: I think the pilots were in fact taken off and tested.
(CROSSTALK)
LANCE-COUNCIL: It was not a joke. And we should not be joking, again, as I stated earlier, about these sort of things.
MATHIS: OK, let's don't joke.
NEVILLE: Let me let Michael get in here.
Go ahead, Michael.
MICHAEL: We flew down from Massachusetts and had absolutely no problems. And when I walked into this show, we had more security -- and "Take your belt off" and check everything else -- than I did flying on the airlines. I just think it is a fact of life. And nobody should get upset. NEVILLE: Well, what is your name again? Michael.
We don't want anybody to get me.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: OK, listen, we have to take a break right now. When we come back, we're going to talk about pilots -- more pilots -- but this time with guns.
TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Hey, everybody. Welcome back. Arthel Neville here.
The president is against it, but the country's representatives are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing pilots to carry guns in the cockpit. Now, yesterday's House vote was 310-113 in favor. The bill also makes self-defense training mandatory for flight attendants. It still has to get through an unfriendly Senate.
Now, Rich, before -- I want to start with you on the panel, but before I get to you, I want to go to some phone calls, because I know that Charlotte is standing by on the line from California.
What do you have to say, Charlotte?
CALLER: Well, Arthel, I find it utterly ridiculous that pilots would have guns. What are the guarantees that the airlines are going to have for passengers if we get caught in the crossfire? What are going to be our rights?
The government seems to protect the airlines. Unfortunately, Tom Lantos voted for it. He's my representative in California. It is utterly disgusting. And I want to know what the government will do to protect us against the airlines.
NEVILLE: All right, Charlotte, thanks for calling.
I want to get Christine in now. She's calling in from Florida.
Go ahead, Christine.
CALLER: No, actually, it's Dean calling.
NEVILLE: Oh, Dean. Excuse me. I thought I heard Christine. Pardon me, sir. Dean.
CALLER: Quite all right.
Yes, I actually -- if the pilots union and the pilots themselves actually vote to have the guns in the cockpit, then I am all for it, because actually, properly trained -- and many already are previously, with military experience -- they truly can be the last line of defense. And if we only had this on September 11, maybe things would have changed differently. So I am for it. And as long as they take care of business and are properly trained, then, yes, I am definitely for it, because we need their protection, because the security right now is just not working.
NEVILLE: OK, Dean, thanks so much for calling in to TALKBACK LIVE.
Rich, do you think it is a good idea?
GALEN: I think it is a good idea.
The first woman who called from California, I understand her concern. But when you think about all of the police officers who are walking around with guns all the time in public places, in crowded places, if you worried about getting caught in some crossfire all the time, then you would never leave your basement, I suspect.
In this case, as the last caller said, these guys -- for the most part, not all of them -- but for the most part, they are military -- veterans of some military experience, No. 1. No. 2, I suspect that, if this becomes law, that the FAA will require that there be regular training and regular qualification with whatever sidearm the pilots are carrying.
NEVILLE: OK, I have...
MATHIS: May I say this, Arthel?
I thought that we fortified the cockpits. I thought the whole idea of doing that was so that no one could get into the cockpit other than the pilots who are in there already. So, why do they need to be armed in there, protected, and safe and alone? I am quite opposed to this idea. I think it is an accident waiting to happen.
LEWIS: And, moreover, can I add something here?
I really think it is a shame. This measure is being endorsed by the NRA, our friends who think that 300 million guns currently in America is not enough. We want pilots to be trained to fly planes, not to be drunk, and not to make too many comments about the Grand Canyon that we are passing over.
A strong door that protects them from passengers coming in is all that is required. El Al, the safest airline in the world, has that. You do not give guns to pilots to add to the confusion.
NEVILLE: OK, let me let Craig jump in here.
CRAIG: After flying the first time this week in my life, I think it is good for the pilots to have protection on the plane, because they have got my life in their hands. And I think that they also need to be sober. And if someone does happen to break through the cockpit doors, I want them to be able to protect the plane and the passengers.
NEVILLE: Let me ask you this.
MATHIS: And I want them to be able to fly that sucker. That's what I'm thinking about.
NEVILLE: Now, Craig, you said you flew for the first time in your life. And I'm just wondering, because I am guessing like, years ago, had you flown, you may have just worried about if the plane was going to crash. I am wondering, what were you concerned when you got on the plane for the first time?
CRAIG: Terrorists was one of them. You hear stories about people being able to bring stuff on the plane that is not being picked up. And so that was one of my concerns. And the pilots, the two pilots that I was sitting with at the airport at Kansas City, I was checking them out. And they were, to me, I looked like -- they looked like they were confident and sober enough. And that put an ease to me.
NEVILLE: Well, I am glad you made it here safely.
CRAIG: I love Atlanta.
NEVILLE: You love Atlanta?
CRAIG: I love Atlanta. It's beautiful.
NEVILLE: All right, come back any time.
GALEN: He is not getting on another airplane. He is staying there.
NEVILLE: What was that?
GALEN: He is not getting on another airplane. He is staying there.
(LAUGHTER)
LANCE-COUNCIL: Maybe we just need to add more marshals to the planes. I think the pilots should fly the planes and be prepared in case of any sort of emergency that develops in the cockpit. And if we could add the marshals that are so desperately needed, that is the best way to go.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I have a lot of audience members here with their hands raised. We are going to get to their questions or comments when we come back. And I still want to hear from you via e- mail or a telephone call, OK?
TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE.
The House says it is OK for pilots to be armed in the cockpit. The Senate has yet to decide. The TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, says no.
And what do you say, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree. I think they should be armed. As a former police officer, I think a pilot's responsibility is to be responsible for the people that's flying in the airplane. And he should have some way to protect them.
NEVILLE: Thank you, sir.
And you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would disagree with that. I would say let pilots be pilots. Let policemen be policemen. If we need more marshals, let's take care of it in that manner. Let teachers teach. Let people do what they are trained to do. And if it is a security issue, address it with the properly trained individuals.
MATHIS: Very good point.
NEVILLE: Thank you. Thank you very much.
You want to add to that? Stand up.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And let's not worry about standing in line a little bit, preventing issues from occurring, instead of reacting with guns.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you, ma'am.
And I want to get this young lady in the front row here.
Stand up for me, Kimberly.
KIMBERLY: I just wanted to say that we are living in a state now where we are in danger no matter just about where we go. And whatever needs to be done to keep us protected, then that is what needs to be done. If the training needs to be there, let them be trained. Let them be sober while they are doing it, but let them be trained.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. Thank you very much.
OK, Deborah, Rich, Temperance, Martin, quickly, who wants to say something before we go?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: I am going to pick Deborah, quickly. Go ahead, Deborah.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Oh, OK. Sorry, Deborah.
MATHIS: I will be real quick. Temperance and actually I agree pretty much on this. I like the idea of the sky marshals program. I am not crazy about the idea of the pilots being armed. If you look on the training video that they showed us, as soon as that door opens, the co-pilot turns around and blows the guy away. Now, what if it's a stewardess? What if it somebody else? (CROSSTALK)
LANCE-COUNCIL: That's a good point. I concur, Deborah.
LEWIS: And let's put real money into federal protection. Put real money into federal protection.
NEVILLE: Temperance, Rich, Deborah, and, Martin, thank you very much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
LANCE-COUNCIL: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
OK, we are out of time. I am Arthel Neville. And we'll see you again tomorrow 3:00 Eastern for more TALKBACK LIVE. See you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
