Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
More U.S. Troops Heading to Afghanistan; Daschle's Tax Troubles
Aired February 02, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Rick Sanchez. Let's cut right to the change.
President Obama lashing out at corporate CEOs. It's your money they're still wasting. Is he holding their feet to the fire?
Cut to the change two: The president will send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. Should he? Will it become his Iraq? He's meeting with Defense Secretary Gates. And we are going to tell you what you need to know about that.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): Cutting to the change.
How can Karl Rove avoid testifying before Congress? Immunity. That's how.
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not going to talk about it.
SANCHEZ: We reveal a secret immunity deal George Bush did not disclose before leaving the White House.
Then there's what Tom Daschle did not disclose: free limo rides, more than $120,000 in unpaid taxes. He says he's embarrassed. He should be. But will it cost him his Cabinet post?
MICHAEL STEELE, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: There is not one inch of ground that we are going to cede to anybody in delivering a message of opportunity.
SANCHEZ: The new head of the GOP, but who is Michael Steele? And what is his connection to Mike Tyson? We dig deep.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is normal for us.
SANCHEZ: And why did this happen? How can this happen? And what's it say about us?
You tell us on your daily national conversation. This is participatory journalism, where we cut to the change.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: And hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez. Let's cut to the change with something that is going on right now. This is a scene that is taking place in the White House. In fact, Dan, if you could, give us a shot of this meeting that is taking place right now in the White House. You will see it. This is the president of the United States. He's going to be meeting at the White House with Secretary of Defense Gates. He is also going to be meeting with the vice president.
What they're discussing is Afghanistan, as in perhaps a new strategy, as in sending more troops. But, again, it's the $60,000 question whenever we go into any kind of situation like this that citizens of the United States ask: To what end? What specifically are we trying to do there?
Barbara Starr is joining us now. She's our Pentagon correspondent.
And, Barbara, let me bring you into this. And, first, let's talk quantitatively, if we can. Apparently, there's like 30,000 troops there now. He's talking about sending maybe like 15,000 more or something around that figure. When are they going to be there?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rick, that's exactly right, about 30,000 troops right now. Basically, they are going to plus it up and double the size of the U.S. force. Some troops, a small number, already on their way.
What's on the table right now is that additional 15,000 troops. The Pentagon feeling under some pressure now to get them there as quickly as possible, within the next several months, get them ready to go, get them on the ground, get them in the fight, because the security situation, in the words of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is deteriorating every single day in Afghanistan.
SANCHEZ: Well, let's talk about that. You're absolutely right. And every single report that I have read -- and I think most Americans are reading these same reports that seem to indicate that things are bad in Afghanistan. But as we look at this, is it really a new strategy or is it just about putting a tourniquet on a wound to stop the bleeding?
STARR: Well, that is always a question for the U.S. military. How many troops can you really throw at all of this.
The U.S. military learned the hard lesson in Iraq. There was no military victory to be had. And the same thing is actually true in Afghanistan: no military victory to be had. It's going to cost billions in aid and reconstruction.
There is going to have to be political reconciliation with the warlords, with the various tribes in that country -- 60,000 troops will buy you some security, officials say, but it will not be the full answer, though.
SANCHEZ: But here's what Americans I think want to know, and especially Americans who have lived through a little bit of our own history. What Vietnam was to Richard Nixon, to LBJ, what Iraq became for George W. Bush, will this be that for Barack Obama or does it threaten to become that?
And, by that, it's the word that's often bandied about here, quagmire. Will this be Barack Obama's quagmire? And how does he stop it from being so?
STARR: Well, that's the question. And you only really know that, don't you, once the quagmire is something you're already stuck in. It's an awfully tough thing to predict.
Most experts will tell you the solution in Afghanistan actually lies across the border in Pakistan. And unless the U.S. government, the Obama administration and the U.S. military can do something about improving security in that tribal Wild West region of Pakistan and get a handle on the insurgent safe havens across that border, those people are just going to keep coming into Afghanistan, no matter how many troops you put into Afghanistan.
So, it's going to be a very tough problem. And, make no mistake, a lot of people look at that Pakistan area and, yes, they whisper those words, Cambodia. Is it that type of safe haven that Cambodia was back in the days of Vietnam, something a lot of people may not remember? It's not a perfect analogy. None of these are perfect analogies.
SANCHEZ: Right.
STARR: But what you have is the discussion about it starting to take place.
SANCHEZ: But there's a big difference between -- and you're talking about Waziristan. There's a big difference between going into Waziristan like with a pinprick maneuver, taking out somebody like bin Laden, for example, and getting out, as opposed to continually having assaults in and out of that country, which then you're talking about the situation with Laoses and Cambodias that we have seen in the past.
I'll tell you what. We will leave this. Let us know if anything changes on this. Obviously, we know that this meeting is about to conclude. If there's any new information out of that meeting, we will get back to you.
Barbara Starr doing a great job getting that information for us out of the Pentagon thus far.
And this: a man beaten to death as passersby walk by. But there's something else that we have noticed about this video that we want to show you. OK? And we want you to take note of this. We will bring it to you.
Also, Tom Daschle says that he is embarrassed after his limo rides and a tax controversy about him is suddenly revealed. Can it keep him from a Cabinet position? We have got the details on this. And we will bring it to you next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Do the American people want this president to send more troops into another country, namely Afghanistan? It's not confirmed, but we're watching this meeting that's going on right now and we're trying to bring you up to date on it.
In fact, you are already commenting on this. Let's start with Twitter, if we can, guys. We will go to the Twitter board. Then we will go over to MySpace. But let's start with Twitter.
"We're just miring ourselves in another country. Enough already. I don't want this to turn out to be an all-out Mideast war."
Let's flip around to MySpace, as we continue to get comments on this conversation. "Good grief. Why in the world is Obama sending more troops? I may be ignorant to the reason why, but I wish all the fighting would just stop."
Let's flip it back around to Twitter and get one more before we move on with Patricia Murphy.
"In Afghanistan," Meede says -- she's watching us -- she says, "NATO troops covering our butts for what we started and abandoned our responsibility because of Bush."
And let's do just one more there. Look at this. This is interesting, this one here. It says, "President Obama is finding out how bad the war is," as the details come in.
Let's bring in now Patricia Murphy from CitizenJanePolitics.com.
Murph, good to see you.
PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: Good to see you.
SANCHEZ: All right. Let's talk about something that happened today. This is Barack Obama. He's following up on the tongue-lashing he gave last week. This is the sound bite as we call it of him talking last week. He's coming down hard on business types, saying essentially they have been abusing the system.
Go ahead and pick that up for us, Dan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Even as they petitioned for taxpayer assistance, Wall Street firms shamefully paid out nearly $20 billion in bonuses for 2008.
Well, I'm committed to doing what it takes to maintain the flow of credit, the American people will not excuse or tolerate such arrogance and greed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: You know, he's right. The American people probably are, safe to say, teed off.
This is a scolding that he's giving, but is there anything he can really do about it? Can he actually cap, for example, their salaries?
MURPHY: There are some things that he can do about it. And we know Timothy Geithner is going to do something about it later this week when he announces what companies are going to have to do in order to continue to qualify for TARP funds related to their executive compensation.
Now, we know that it probably won't apply to all banks, and it probably won't apply to all bank executives, and there probably won't be a dollar amount, for example. Claire McCaskill wants to cap this for executives at the president's salary, $400,000. That's probably not going to happen.
SANCHEZ: Yes, in fact, let's pick that up.
MURPHY: OK.
SANCHEZ: I think we have that sound. Let's listen to that. We will talk about it on the way out, because this is a little more brazen now. I want folks to hear this. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, she says, you know what, the president's paid $400,000. That should be enough for you.
Some of these guys have been making $10 million. Is the president going to go along with this plan to cap these salaries at $400,000?
MURPHY: He's going to limit some salaries. He's going to limit some perks, but he really can't go back in to legally executed contracts in these banks and void them.
What he can do is say, if you are going to take the TARP funds, there will be limits to golden parachutes, for example. This will apply to some of your executives, but not all. But he can't quite put the teeth into it that Claire McCaskill wants to.
SANCHEZ: Why not?
MURPHY: Well, I'm not a lawyer, obviously, but there are contract laws that he can't go back in and unwind.
Also, some of these banks, these Wall Street banks, say they might not participate in TARP if it is too restrictive, which is incredible to hear. But Obama's goal here is to make the economy healthy, not to punish Wall Street executives this go-around.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MURPHY: He can't do both at the same time.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But some people would say, you know, the hell with them. Hey, let's face it, these are the guys who apparently spent too much money and mismanaged to begin with. Now they're coming to the government saying, hey, we're broke and we need your help. Who are they to say, you know, $400,000 isn't enough for us?
You get what you get, and shut up.
MURPHY: It's a classic space between a rock and a hard place for Barack Obama. He wants to be tough on these banks. He wants to send a message to the American people that we're on your side, not the side of the Wall Street banks.
But the fundamental health of the American economy is tied to the health of these banks. He needs them to be at the table. He needs to do a lot of things at once and he is trying to negotiate a middle path there.
SANCHEZ: This is an interesting conversation, because I think people all over the country for the first time in a long time are having some almost macroeconomic type discussions.
Listen to what some of the folks watching us right now are asking. And I will throw this at you, Murph.
This is Patrick. He writes in on Facebook: "Why is nobody talking about helping small business? Small businesses employ 50 percent of America. The stimulus should be helping create more small business."
What say you about that, Murph?
MURPHY: I totally agree. And you will start to see in the stimulus package -- another conversation -- the stimulus package will have tax breaks for small businesses. Those obviously are the generators of jobs in the American economy.
And one quick point I want to make. If somebody got a bonus based on fraudulent information, that is illegal. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in New York is launching investigations into those types of bonuses and certainly congressional hearings will be one after another dragging these Wall Street executives in front of them, and saying how do you justify these bonuses?
Even if the law's not behind them, they can certainly shame them publicly and they will do that.
SANCHEZ: One more thing I think Americans and our viewers want to know, before I let you go. Do we have any chance or any better sense of when this thing might get done, in whatever final form it ends up in?
MURPHY: There are going to be a lot of different things being done. Expect this to come in waves. The first wave will be the stimulus package. The next wave is going to be Tim Geithner's restrictions on executive compensation.
The next wave will be a larger bank bailout. We don't know exactly what that's going to look like, but that wave is coming, too. So, even though, as one thing happens, expect another and another until the economy gets out of this skid.
SANCHEZ: You know what? Patricia Murphy, thanks so much for that segment. Stay right there, though. We're going to be coming back to you.
There's something else that we are going to be talking about in just a little bit.
Everybody still talking about that very exciting end to last night's Super Bowl. But for fans in southern Arizona, that's when the game got really weird, on their screens, a very graphic and pornographic movie that suddenly came up, carried on for at least 10 seconds, maybe more. Talk about getting your signals crossed. Well, that's exactly what happened.
This is a shocker. We will bring it to you in just a little bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I want to start this segment off with one of your comments about my knee surgery. I guess you all heard or many of you heard from my blog and "The New York Post" and other places that I had knee surgery, so I was out a couple of days. Here's one of the comments coming in right now.
This guy says: "Rick, hope you're focused. I was hoping for -- no, "Rick, you seem focused. I was hoping for a bit of a loopy Monday. Your knee is no fun."
Well, my producer has been a little loopy all day, trust me. Yes, that hydrocodone does make you -- but so far so good. Keep watching, though. One never knows. And there's something else to take note of today.
Remember when a Super Bowl interruption used to mean a guy who would run on to the field that none of us were ever allowed to see? Remember, the camera would shake and they would move it to another place, so you wouldn't be able to see, see maybe just a little glimpse of him? Ah, yes. Those were the old streaker days. That's what most of us grew up watching as the new thing, right? Well, guess what? There was another new thing, another interruption last night. Did you hear about this? This was seen. It was graphic, and this was not just a glimpse, no. This went on for quite awhile. Imagine that you're watching the Super Bowl, right?
Stay with me here. The Cardinals have just scored. And suddenly it's a real game, and everybody's finally staring at the TV, instead of just talking about the commercials, because it really did become a good game there toward the end, right?
And then, suddenly, bang, a pornographic scene, as graphic as just about anything that you could ever imagine, and way too graphic for me to be able to explain to you what it was like here now on TV.
It suddenly pops up. For specifics, by the way, you can go to my blog at CNN.com/Rick Sanchez. I will give it to you there, but I don't want to do it with the kids in the room.
Comcast Cable TV customers in southern Arizona are still reeling about this. Comcast says that, somehow, the signal from the game got mixed up with the signal from some channel called Club Jenna, I'm told, a naughty channel, I'm told. Bring in the carefully worded, lawyered, and now P.R. statement from Comcast.
Bang. Here it is. Ready? Quote: "We are mortified by last evening's Super Bowl interruption. We deeply apologize to our customers for the inappropriate programming. We are aggressively investigating the situation, including the possibility of foul play."
Foul play? Maybe more like foreplay in this case, definitely. Is somebody looking for a job today? Probably.
And maybe the most pressing question of all of this is, is -- this will really show us a sign of the times. Were people more outraged because they got a glimpse of the dirty movie or because their football game was interrupted?
Tell us what you think. This is participatory journalism, after all. And you can join us at CNN.com/ricksanchez.
More with Tom Daschle's situation in just a little bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE")
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yesterday, the Republican National Committee selected Michael Steele, an African-American, as their new party chairman. You guys know it doesn't work with just any black guy, right?
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. That's from "Saturday Night Live" this weekend talking about Michael Steele, the new head of the GOP.
Patricia Murphy from CitizenJanePolitics.com joins us once again.
If Barack Obama wasn't president of the United States, would Michael Steele have been chosen?
MURPHY: He could have been chosen.
He is -- he has the chops to do this job. He is a former lieutenant governor of Maryland. He is extremely charismatic. He ran for Senate in 2006 in Maryland and had a pretty good showing. He is also somebody who delivered one of the best 2008 convention speeches for the RNC.
So, kind of to make a long story short, he has a lot of energy, very charismatic, and a new face for the Republican Party. The Republicans got about 4 percent of African-American votes in 2008, less than a third of Hispanics. The demographics are not going their way. They know they need a change. And, so Michael Steele is the change they have chosen. And I think he will do very well there.
SANCHEZ: Not just demographics, but an extreme shift in demographics, if you believe what he's -- what his wish list seems to say.
Speaking of wish lists, here's what he had to say comparing old blue eyes with the thump-thump of hip-hop. Here's what he hopes his party will attract.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEELE: I want hip-hop Republicans. I want Frank Sinatra Republicans. That's how it is out there. That's the reality that we have to face.
And my job is to do everything in my power to make sure that we not only confront that reality in an honest way, but then engage the people of this country in a way that they want to be part of what we're doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Hip-hop Republicans?
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Is this guy wishing upon a star or what? Not likely, is it?
MURPHY: Well, you know, you can always -- a guy can dream, I suppose.
(LAUGHTER)
MURPHY: But the Republican Party needs an extreme makeover. And Michael Steele is the start of that extreme makeover. He's a totally fresh face. He's extremely telegenic. He's very good at outreach. The question is, is he going to be able to raise the money that the Republicans need and can he organize them and get technologically up to speed to where they need to be? So, he's off on a really good start. He's very popular in Washington and among a lot of Republicans.
But he is going to have to really -- he has a lot of work ahead of him. But he's -- they have given him the job. And let's see if he can do it.
SANCHEZ: Yes. And he does appear to straddling that line, so to speak, a little bit more moderate than some of the extremes, part of the party, what we have seen before. And that's probably a good place to be if you're going to be successful.
I want to talk to you now about Tom Daschle. This is interesting. He's got troubles for apparently limo rides that he didn't report, $120,000 in taxes that he may not have paid. This is a problem. This is controversial.
And this is what Kerry and Schumer, Senators Kerry and Schumer, had to say about it, interestingly enough.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "MEET THE PRESS")
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: He voluntarily informed his accountant. His accountant went to work to pull the pieces together. He informed the vetting process. And I just think, you know, this is -- it's obviously a mistake, but I think it's an innocent mistake. I don't think it affects one iota his ability to do the job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FACE THE NATION")
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: This was clearly an oversight. He's made recompense. He's admitted it. And I think having him there is really important. And I believe that he will be approved by both the Finance Committee and the whole Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: These guys don't seem like watchdogs. They seem like apologists.
If this guy was a Republican, rather than a Democrat, they would be all over him, wouldn't they?
MURPHY: I really think that they would.
And that's the problem that the Democrats have here. Tom Daschle is so popular among his former Senate colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike. So even Republicans have not come out and said that his nomination is a nonstarter. But what it looks like here is that the Senate is just circling the wagons around one of its own. And that is totally contrary to Barack Obama's message of accountability and a new day in Washington. It seems like a fairly old day in Washington.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: You know what he could do? And I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, but just when I heard you say that about Barack Obama, I mean, this thing combined with the Geithner thing could taint Obama.
(CROSSTALK)
MURPHY: Well, and I think it runs the risk that it will taint Obama.
And it's starting to look like, if you have made mistakes in your tax returns, the best way to absolve yourself of those is to be appointed to the Obama Cabinet. So, it is something that is politically very, very unpopular when you get out to just regular Americans who are watching all of this go down.
In Washington, however, people see Daschle as a health care policy expert, as somebody who will run that organization very well. But it's really not in sync with the large body of Americans hanging on how it looks.
SANCHEZ: You're absolutely right. And that part of the American people has nothing to do with Republican or GOP or Dem with a capital D or a small D or anything else. They just want what's fair.
MURPHY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Murph...
MURPHY: Rick.
SANCHEZ: ... thanks. Appreciate it.
MURPHY: Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Every president issues a whole bunch of pardons, right? But here's an intriguing one. George Bush pardons Karl Rove. And he didn't tell anybody about it. But we have found out. And they're finding out more.
And we will tell you about it when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: This is a MySpace comment coming in to us now.
Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Let's read that one, if we possibly can.
This is about that story we just told you about. People in Arizona actually were watching the Super Bowl and suddenly -- I mean big time porn -- popped up.
Porn in the Super Bowl for the people of Arizona?
It must have been a Steeler fan running the game feed.
And somebody on Twitter just a moment ago -- mch, I don't know if you can find that one or not -- somebody on Twitter a moment ago said that I should play it so that they could find it -- so that they could see it and be judges for themselves.
I don't think so.
Wayne Slater joining us now from "The Dallas Morning News."
I don't think that would be appropriate.
How are you, sir?
WAYNE SLATER, "DALLAS MORNING NEWS": I am great.
How are you, Rick?
SANCHEZ: The man who wrote "Bush's Brain" good enough to be able to talking about -- talk about this segment.
Let's talk about Karl Rove. Last week on this show, I told viewers what was going on with the Judicial Committee, which is saying to Mr. Rove, look, I'm sorry, but we want you to come in and testify.
In fact, let's show a clip from that.
(AUDIO GAP)
SANCHEZ: So now, it does appear that there is a new sheriff in town, as we had heard earlier from Patricia Murphy. And the House Judiciary Committee is now saying guess what, we're going to ask you again with this new sheriff. They want Rove to testify. And this time, the president, who is different, may not be willing or able to protect him.
Ah-ha. Now, that's the report we filed last week, that the president may not be able to protect him. Little did we know that George Bush, as a former president, would claim a privilege that he's calling presidential privilege in perpetuity.
Is George Bush saying here, maybe it's the first time in history, as a former president, I can decide who can and cannot testify?
SLATER: Maybe for the first time in history. That's exactly what he's saying. He's not just saying I am going to invoke executive privilege, like Richard Nixon did while he was in the White House. What President Bush is saying Karl Rove does not have to testify before Congress now or any time in the future. He not only has executive privilege, he has absolute immunity from testimony. Extraordinary what the president has done.
SANCHEZ: Now, let me get this right. The president of -- the former president of the United States is saying even though I'm no longer the president, I retain the right to tell the present Congress who they can or cannot talk to investigate a crime or anything else that they want to investigate?
Is that what's going on?
SLATER: That's exactly what's going on. Ultimately, it has to be decided, I guess, legally, unless Rove can reach some kind of accommodation with Congress to testify in some way -- which hasn't happened yet.
If that doesn't happen, then the legal matter will decide whether the president, for now and in the future, can say people, who worked for him never, ever have to come before you, even if you're looking into potential crimes.
SANCHEZ: You've been covering these two guys as much as -- as much as anybody in the country, being that you're a Texas guy and you followed these politics.
What's going on here between Bush and Rove?
SLATER: Well, it's really interesting. You know, there are a couple of things. One, you could say that the president is establishing -- hoping to establish protections for future presidents, so they could have honest conversations inside the Oval Office with their top aides.
But ultimately, there is another thing going on. The president of the United States -- the former president, George W. Bush -- is protecting himself. He basically is wanting to make sure that people who were around him, who might be in a position to talk about things that he really doesn't want to be talked about, don't have to any time in the future. After all, President Bush is building a library at SMU in Dallas and he would like -- there's a legacy burnishing process underway. And the last thing he wants is some kind of pesky testimony dealing with potential politics or crimes in the Oval Office.
SANCHEZ: But shouldn't there be some transparency here?
As an American citizen, shouldn't my president tell me before he leaves office, while he's still my president, by the way, I've decided that I'm not going to let this guy testify and here's why. Because we're hearing this now. He's been out of office for a couple weeks.
SLATER: Interesting, the letter was written by the president's lawyer, Fred Fielding, a couple of days before the inauguration -- before Bush left office. If that is legally important, the president invoked this extraordinary extension of executive privilege to absolute immunity while he was still in the Oval Office.
But you're right, Rick, we didn't know about it until now.
SANCHEZ: So these get out of jail free cards -- which, by the way, when I'm playing my daughter at Monopoly, they're fabulous. You can store them, you know. You can keep those.
I'm wondering who else has them. I mean if tomorrow, someone else wants to bring up Donald Rumsfeld, as has been discussed on this newscast -- or maybe Dick Cheney -- to ask questions about anything have to do with Iraq or otherwise, could they suddenly pop out this card and say nope, I don't have to answer any of your questions because President Bush said so and nobody knew this?
SLATER: Yes. We already know that based on the letter and the contention from the White House, the lawyer Fred Fielding, then anyone around Bush -- basically anybody who gave him counsel -- would be covered by this. We know Harriet Miers, from the White House Counsel; Josh Bolten, the secretary -- the chief of staff; are specifically covered by this claim.
But you're right, based on the terms of this letter, it's sort of like "Frost/Nixon" -- if my guys did it, it's not illegal.
SANCHEZ: And this case with Rove, for example where is this?
Is this a stalemate right now?
Is it going to be pressed?
Is it going to be decided by a bunch of lawyers and we won't really know the result until a year from now?
SLATER: Ultimately, I think it will be decided on legal grounds. Obviously, the lawyers will argue all these points. The Justice Department -- the new Justice Department will weigh in fairly soon on an appeals case and may redefine what the current Justice Department believes is executive privilege or the terms of absolute authority.
But more importantly, Karl Rove, Bush, et al, believe that they have Barack Obama -- that he's the trump card, that he, the president, who ran on the idea of going beyond partisanship, has a weak spot. The weak spot is he wants to look ahead, not look behind. Rove and company believe that will work in their favor by Barack Obama not really wanting Congress to dredge all this up.
SANCHEZ: That's funny you should say that, because as you're saying that, our viewers are popping a question on my screen.
I'm going to go ahead and throw that question at you. This is coming from one of our viewers on MySpace. He says: "I see we just can't get rid of Bush. But even if Bush can do that, can't the present president overrule that?"
SLATER: Absolutely. The answer is the present president, under the bully pulpit of the White House, can direct his Justice Department to act in the terms that he believes would be lawful and the Justice Department could move forward. That doesn't mean that Rove's lawyers couldn't fight it. Incidentally, your viewers, who are very sophisticated in terms of matters electronic, could Twitter Karl directly. He's on Twitter.
SANCHEZ: Ha. There you go. You're absolutely right. I read about that one last week. Karl Rove-Rick Sanchez. Maybe I can do a Twitter interview with him in the coming weeks.
You know, you're the best man.
I appreciate you being on and joining us once again.
Let's do it again soon.
SLATER: Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: Wayne Slater, "Dallas Morning News," author of "Bush's Brain."
All right, when we come back, we're going to be talking about the economy and how often do you get to talk to the man who literally wrote the book on the economy?
That's right. Ali Velshi just wrote a book on the economy -- damn good one, too. Ali on the stimulus plan -- what's good, what's right, what works, what won't -- when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Almost 50,000 people now follow us every day on Twitter. One of them is commenting right now about that segment we did just moments ago with Wayne Slater.
Here's what they had to say: "Karl Rove dodging subpoenas like this shows how much he's trying to make a mockery of our system."
Obviously, there will be other opinions coming in. We'll hopefully share those with you.
By the way, I want you to take a look at this. Look at your screen right now. Dan, let's put that up.
This us a homeless man. He's being beaten on the street in plain sight. But then there's something else that happens in this video. Wait until you see not only how people react, but then I decided this morning I was going to keep looking at this video and see what changes. And something very important happens here which tells you a lot about -- about maybe us -- or certainly about the people who live in that neighborhood.
We'll take you through it. It's a series of three different videos that we're going to be explaining to you.
And when we come back -- give me a shot of the man, if we can. Ali Velshi. The book is called "Gimme My Money Back." It's a stimulus plan that everyone is talking about, right?
We've got the shot.
How about Ali and the book next to him?
There you go. It is -- he's going to talk about the stimulus plan -- what works about it, what doesn't and why and what's going on today in the Senate that may affect your life.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Welcome back.
Let's dip into the Senate, if we can, because right now the U.S. Senate is talking about a lot of things. There's Arlen Specter, of course. I don't think he specifically is talking about the stimulus package. But it's hoped that by the end of the week, these guys are going to come up with some kind of version -- their version -- of the stimulus package.
Let's bring Ali Velshi into this. A couple of things. I want to ask you about that.
But first of all, we -- I was just handed this note that says the Treasury Department says it's going to need to borrow $493 billion...
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ...$493 billion in the first three months of this year.
Is that just money we've got to write to cover the problems?
VELSHI: Right. The Treasury Department is like you -- if you have a budget that shows you're going to spend more and you need more money, you've to get that money from somewhere. Treasury has got to go get it. Treasury doesn't keep the money, which means that they've got -- and some people refer to this as printing money. But somehow they've got to be provided with that money. That's just because we are writing so many checks. We are putting so much money into this economy that the Treasury Department has to now say, OK, we can't meet our obligations, somebody has to give us money.
SANCHEZ: Help us under -- those of us who, you know, are not experts in macro or micro economics...
VELSHI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Help us understand. We hear the arguments. A lot of Republicans are saying look, we want more tax cuts...
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: And...
VELSHI: And that's what seems to be working its way through the Senate with the stimulus bill.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
VELSHI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: And that's what the Senate seems to want, as you say.
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: What exactly are they asking for here?
VELSHI: Well, this stimulus -- there's two ways to stimulate an economy. There are two ways that people can think about it. One is what you call top down. And that is that you give tax breaks to businesses or wealthy individuals who might invest that money, they might create demand by spending it. Businesses might expand their businesses and hire people.
Then there's the bottoms up way, where government invests very directly in creating jobs for people -- those infrastructure jobs, things like that -- or getting money into the hands of less wealthy people.
SANCHEZ: Well, wouldn't you want a combination of them?
VELSHI: Yes. And the current stimulus bill is probably two- thirds of that spending, bottoms up kind, and about one third top down.
Now, here's the problem with tax cuts. Ultimately, they're good. And people like tax cuts. And I'd like to pay less in taxes. But here's the problem.
When you're in a recession, the answer to getting from one end to the other -- whether you're a person or a business -- is to have cash on the other end, because you're going to be getting less income.
So while tax cuts theoretically are spent to create more business or create more jobs...
SANCHEZ: Right.
VELSHI: ...in a recession where you don't know what the other end holds, you may just hoard the money.
And isn't that what we're seeing with banks?
Isn't that what we're seeing with so many corporations?
That they've that money. They are cutting costs by laying people off and holding onto as much money as they can as tight as they can until the other end of the recession, when we know business will be good. Business will be fine one day. SANCHEZ: Right.
VELSHI: But you hold onto it. So you give tax cuts to people and individuals, there's some danger that it doesn't work the way we think it works.
SANCHEZ: Well, doesn't it depend on who gets a tax cut?
I mean if it's a tax cut that seems to be going to the upper 10 percent, for example...
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: ...you know, there's those who say oh, it's got a trickle-down effect. It's going to help us all...
VELSHI: Right. Right.
SANCHEZ: ...and those who say no, the guys who need the tax cut are my neighbor whose house is in foreclosure.
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: ...which (INAUDIBLE) problem.
VELSHI: Who is more likely to spend that.
SANCHEZ: Right.
VELSHI: Right. And that's why all the rules are thrown out the window, because we've never seen an economic crisis like this one. Now, there are some people who will argue that this one was...
SANCHEZ: Because it cuts across the board?
VELSHI: It cuts across the board. You're not insulated. Investors -- big wealthy investors are not insulated during this thing.
SANCHEZ: Right.
VELSHI: Poor people are not insulated. People who were in their homes are not insulated. People who have jobs that are not in manufacturing, where they were losing jobs -- people are losing jobs in all sorts of industries. That's the difference.
This isn't the tech bubble, where you bought some stock that you didn't know what the company did. You diversified across everything and you might be worth half as much as you were at the beginning of 2007. That's the difference.
People are fearful. And if they're fearful, they may not spend their money.
SANCHEZ: You're one of those who tends to lean on the side that we do need some kind of stimulus package, right? VELSHI: Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: And it needs to be pretty large.
VELSHI: Yes. And maybe larger than the one we've got.
SANCHEZ: Really?
Well, let's suppose we do it.
VELSHI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: And let's suppose it's the perfect. I don't I don't know what the perfect one is.
VELSHI: And I don't know what the perfect one is, either.
SANCHEZ: Right. I don't think anybody knows.
But let's suppose we get lucky and we hit the perfect plan.
VELSHI: Yes. Yes. Yes.
SANCHEZ: How long, if it was to work...
VELSHI: Yes?
SANCHEZ: ...before it works?
VELSHI: Well, the interesting thing -- the good and bad about our economy is that it's highly consumer driven -- more so than other economies, where there is more government or planned spending. In a consumer driven economy, all it needs to start this thing on the road to success is consumers thinking and feeling good.
Now, back in 1985, we started a measure of consumer confidence. And in 1985, the number that was set was whatever consumer confidence was that year. That was 100. That was the base line.
Today, we're at 37. That's the lowest it's ever, ever, ever been.
SANCHEZ: Really?
VELSHI: When consumers start to become confident, they will buy homes, they will cars, they will buy all sorts of things. Businesses will stop laying people off and they'll...
SANCHEZ: It's psychology then.
VELSHI: It's all psychology.
SANCHEZ: It's not economics.
VELSHI: It's not science. It's not...
SANCHEZ: It's amazing. VELSHI: It is psychology.
SANCHEZ: You -- speaking of psychology, Rush Limbaugh, he made some comments and I made some comments about him on the show.
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: He went after me.
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: And Obama made comments -- President Obama made comments about him. He went after him.
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: And you made comments. And...
VELSHI: I'm in a good club now.
SANCHEZ: Well, yes.
VELSHI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Yes. He went after me, then went about -- he went after the president...
VELSHI: Right.
SANCHEZ: And then he went after you.
What's going on?
VELSHI: Yes, I'm not too troubled.
SANCHEZ: You weren't mean to Rush, were you?
VELSHI: Not at all. I didn't even use his name. I'm -- if he thinks I targeted him, I didn't.
But what I said was what I told you about tax cuts. I had said this on CNN, that they may not work the way you think they're going to work. So advocates of tax cuts or people who tell you that there's one way to get out of this thing are lying because we simply don't know. And that was not targeted at him. But he decided...
SANCHEZ: Well, he took it at that, Mr. Velshi.
VELSHI: He took it as -- but, you know, unfortunately -- and fortunately for me, I dwell in the world of fact. I don't have the liberty to make things up because I feel like it. So it's OK. If he wants to come after me, because it would only enhance the debate for us to be able to talk about the facts and let Americans know.
SANCHEZ: And you're a big boy and so is he, the last time I looked. VELSHI: Good to see you, my friend.
SANCHEZ: Thanks, Ali.
We appreciate it.
VELSHI: All right.
SANCHEZ: Always good to have you.
Welcome to Atlanta.
VELSHI: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Congrats on the book.
All right. Look at this surveillance video. This is what I was talking about just a little while ago.
Again, it shows this homeless guy lying on a busy street after being beaten.
See him right there?
But there's something you'll notice, if you look at the video before and after -- something that changes, something I want you to see which may say a lot about us.
Also, I've three cuts of this thing that I'm going to be showing you.
And Mike Brooks is going to be joining me in just a little bit.
He's going to take us through it.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back with that and a whole lot more.
(COMMERCIAL)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
I'm Rick Sanchez.
As we report the news, you report to us what you think of the news.
And this one's coming in on Facebook. Let's go to it. This is Lisa. She's watching our newscast. She says: "And just think, when you're trying to build trust in a new government, you don't recommend people who have tax evasion in their profile."
Obviously, she's referring to Tom Daschle's situation.
"How is it these Congressmen seem to know it was just a mistake?" Yes, that's a good question. That's one we were asking moments ago.
Let's flip to Giorgio. He's watching us on MySpace: "Rick, maybe she should boycott paying taxes. All our leaders do."
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Good point, huh?
MIKE BROOKS, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Why not?
SANCHEZ: Touche, Mike Brooks.
Mike Brooks joining us now.
Mike, we're going to go through this video.
BROOKS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: This is Jose Sanchez, no right now, but there are.
BROOKS: Right.
SANCHEZ: And we've been paying attention to this video throughout the day. It's interesting to watch.
I'm going to take you through three videos.
Ready?
It's three segments of this video. The first one, you're going to see him getting punched literally -- really hard -- and knocked to the ground.
Then somehow he stands up. He gets punched again. This time when he gets punched, this guy, Jose Sanchez hits his head against a car -- the front bumper of a car. And then you're going to see him laying on the sidewalk.
Let's go. Let's go through this video, if we could start now, Dan.
All right, here we go. Watch. Here comes the punch.
BROOKS: They were having some words. He apparently called -- Sanchez called Umberto Escobar a homosexual.
SANCHEZ: Here it comes.
BROOKS: And that's what started it.
SANCHEZ: Bang, right there and he goes to the ground.
BROOKS: He goes to the ground.
SANCHEZ: But he's lifting his head. He seems to be OK. We're not quite sure.
Now a couple of minutes pass and the conversation moves over to behind this car over there. And now you're going to see he gets shoved again, this time by a different fellow, by the way.
BROOKS: Right.
SANCHEZ: It's not the same guy.
But you see him right there lying on the ground?
You see him right behind the fender of the car?
BROOKS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Apparently, when he goes down here, he hits his head against the car.
BROOKS: Yes. He hits it on the fender of the minivan parked right there.
SANCHEZ: And he's out.
BROOKS: Yes. Out cold.
SANCHEZ: And no one's paying attention to him.
All right. So now we've got those two shots I wanted to take you to.
Now let's go to the third shot. Now look at the body position he's in, right?
BROOKS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: His head was -- look, it's changed.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: And the car is moved.
BROOKS: And the minivan is gone.
SANCHEZ: Someone came, moved the vehicle and probably had to move his body in the process, because it was still there...
BROOKS: Right.
SANCHEZ: ...and I presume he was still alive.
He died three hours later in the hospital, we're told?
BROOKS: Yes. Well, he laid there 20 minutes -- 20 minutes before anybody did anything. You see people walking past him.
SANCHEZ: Look at this. BROOKS: You know, and this is up in the 3600 block of 14th Street Northwest, in Columbia Heights where -- I was a detective here for 26 years.
SANCHEZ: Washington, D.C. .
BROOKS: Washington, D.C. .
And finally somebody from the store -- the little grocery store -- comes out and calls 911. And units from the 4th District and the D.C. Fire Department, they arrived there, Rick.
But...
SANCHEZ: But I'm amazed but the fact that, first of all, it happened.
BROOKS: Right.
SANCHEZ: OK, fine. Two guys get in a fight. Somebody punches somebody. That could or could not be a crime.
I understand they're looking at aggravated murder now?
BROOKS: Well, now it was he -- they were originally -- they were arrested on -- this happened on Tuesday. They were arrested on Wednesday, charged with aggravated assault. But now they're going to a preliminary hearing and they both -- both men will probably be charged with homicide.
SANCHEZ: But would it have as much to do with the fact that they ignored the man's situation, that they left him there, that somebody came along and moved the car -- moved his body...
BROOKS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: ...so they could get their car out of the way without calling police?
BROOKS: Well, see, they're -- that surveillance -- there's some footage we're not seeing. So they should be able to go back and look and see if somebody moved him and the car took off.
But they just left him there.
But it's the fact that they assaulted him, that he hit his head. And as a result of that, he died of his injuries. That's why they're going to be charged with homicide.
SANCHEZ: That's an interesting case.
BROOKS: It really is.
SANCHEZ: We're glad we're following it.
Let us know if you get anything else on that. BROOKS: I will. Definitely.
SANCHEZ: I know you're always the best at making those kind of calls.
When we come back, we'll tell you what else is going on in the world of politics.
And Wolf Blitzer joining us to let us know what's going on in the world of "THE SITUATION ROOM" -- Wolf, what you got?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Rick.
Good to have you back.
We're standing by for the ceremonial swearing-in of Hillary Clinton over the at State Department. Her husband is there, her daughter is there. We're going to take you there live.
And what do Republicans in the Senate really want when it comes to President Obama's stimulus plan and can they make a deal with him?
And we're also getting some new pictures of Team Obama. Behind- the-scenes with the White House team. "Vanity Fair's" Maureen Orth will be here with the Annie Leibovitz photos.
All that, Rick And a lot more coming up right here in "THE SITUATION ROOM".
SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer.
Glad to be back.
Thanks, American.
Appreciate it.
And we'll be back with more news, your comments, when we come back.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
As we go into this newscast, there's a lot of things that you've been upset about that you have watched now. You're not happy about President Bush asking for executive privilege. You're certainly not happy about Tom Daschle's tax situation -- the fact that it may be swept under the rug by some of the Democrats in the Senate. And you're also extremely upset with that situation with that man, Jose Sanchez, being beaten up and eventually dies in Washington, D.C. .
To your comments. Let's start with the Twitter board, if we possibly can, Jer: "This homeless video is just like the Marine who had the seizure and was robbed. Society sometimes is crude."
This viewer suggests we call 911 earlier.
DarylT says: "We do not need tax cuts or stimulus. We only need to let the real economy reset. Consumer sentiment cannot be legislated." An answer to Ali Velshi's comments.
Freakyfran says: "Americans are no better than the people we are trying to stop. This is B.S. how these group of men are doing to this to man." Again, a comment about that.
Also, Ptrud says: "Would taxes have been paid if vetting had not taken place by any possible candidates?" This referring to Tom Daschle.
All right, let's flip it around, Johnny, if we can. Let's go over to MySpace: "The person that moved the van should get in trouble, as well. That is disgusting."
We agree, which is why we were showing you that particular video.
And finally: "I thought America was better than that."
Good comments made on both sides.
One more: "Whatever happened to humanity? People need to be more human and less worried about the economy."
By the way, my thanks to all of you for being with us. And my thanks for all the nice things that you said to me this weekend while I was on Hydrocodone or whatever that medication is, recovering from my knee operation.
Hopefully everything will be all right.
We'll see you again tomorrow right here at the same time.
Now Wolf Blitzer and "THE SITUATION ROOM".
BLITZER: Rick, thanks very much.
Happening now, President Obama at the helm of yet another pivotal week for his economic rescue plan. This hour, he meets with top Democrats over at the White House, as the bill faces major hurdles in the Senate and a new round of Republican demands.
