Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Mexican Drug Wars Out of Control?; Karl Rove Under Fire; "False Testimony Convicted Me"; Evo Morales Orders Expulsion of Senior U.S. Diplomat; Pentagon: China's Actions Termed Aggressive
Aired March 09, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Is the Mexican drug war the new immigration debate? What's the real story? We go behind the lines.
The Vatican says a pregnant 9-year-old raped by her stepfather should not have an abortion, no choice. And now the church is punishing the girl's mother, this while America's Catholic hospitals threaten to shut down. We will tell you why.
KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: This, to my mind, is a lot of politics.
SANCHEZ: Did Karl Rove have this former Alabama governor prosecuted purely for political reasons? That's what this House committee wants to know, and it's what we will ask the man whose life was ruined by it. Former Governor Don Siegelman joins me live.
What you want me to ask, on this show, now getting even more virtual ink over the weekend in "Business to Business" magazine, our national conversation begins right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Twitter king or not, hello again, everybody.
I'm Rick Sanchez. Here we go, a conversation with you, America. And we begin with what's going on with the economy.
Can the president of the United States do what he needs to do to straighten things out? Today, it doesn't look good again. This time, it's Warren Buffett. Listen to what Warren Buffett is saying. He is saying, in fact, that the economy has -- quote -- "fallen off the cliff."
Warren Buffett is as trusted as just anybody in this country. The Nikkei today hit a 26-year lo, unemployment at a 25-year high. Polls show that Americans are still willing to give Barack Obama chance, no indications that's falling off.
But many Republicans are actually arguing at this point that Barack Obama is not treating the rich, the investor class, well enough.
In fact, listen to what Newt Gingrich had to say on this topic. Carefully monitor his words from "Meet the Press."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "MEET THE PRESS")
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: If a vice president says, put them in the brig -- that's a direct quote -- talking about CEOs, you have a senator from Missouri who describes them as -- quote -- "idiots," OK, now let's say you have money, and let's say you're successful, and you look at this administration, do you really want to risk your money? Or do you want to in fact put it in a mattress?
The number of successful investors I have talked to who have said, I'm not doing anything; I don't trust this administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: His successful investors are saying they don't trust this administration.
Let's go to Patricia Murphy, CitizenJanePolitics.com. Let's also bring in Bob Lenzner. He's the editor of Forbes.com.
To both of you, my thanks.
Bob, let me begin with you. What are your rich friends telling you these days?
ROBERT LENZNER, NATIONAL EDITOR, "FORBES": Well, I got a lot of people telling me a lot of things, but, sure, there are a lot of people that are scared about what's going on. But I think that he's exaggerating the situation and he's quoting people.
They're talking about the guys on Wall Street that did a lot of wild, crazy things that caused these institutions to go under. He's not talking about somebody that built up their fortune. I do think that people are worried. I do think that there's a battle about some of the things that are in the bill...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But is this a rich vs. poor thing? Because I have got to tell you, it's starting to sound like that when you hear that kind of rhetoric.
LENZNER: Yes, there's going to be rhetoric like that. There are going to be people that are saying that about the Obama administration.
I don't believe -- I don't agree with Gingrich that this is an anti-success, anti-business administration. I don't subscribe to that.
SANCHEZ: Well, let me share something with you. I think this is interesting. We have got a graphic that we have put together just to give this perspective about how things have changed in this country over the last let's say 30 years or so. See if you got that, Dan. Put that up -- 2006, all right, top 1 percent of earners received 23 percent of the income in this country. Let me say that again for those of you at home listening. The top 1 percent of the earners in the United States received 23 percent of the income.
That's a lot of money going to a very small amount of people. Let's look at the next one there. The top 10 percent of earners in the United States received 50 percent of the income. So, if somebody like Barack Obama comes along and says, you know what? That may not have been bad, but either way, we got to kind of like change it around a little bit, or at least maybe go a little bit in the other direction, is he wrong?
LENZNER: Right. No, he's right.
Look, we're all in agreement that the distinction between the very rich and the rest of the nation got way too crazy and way too wide. So, Obama wants to do something about that. And he's using the tax code to in a way start changing it gradually and redistributing income, and raising money from the people that have the highest incomes to pay for some of the programs that he believes we need.
So, the tax on people that are making more than $250,000, which is going to be raised, is to be used to pay for the new health program. And the rebates for other people, I don't really believe there are enough, his middle-class tax cuts, you know, aren't really that much money.
The redistribution of the wealth is not as great as some of the naysayers are saying it is.
SANCHEZ: Let me talk -- this does bring up the whole idea of socialism and socialist.
LENZNER: Of course.
SANCHEZ: And the president was asked by none other than "The New York Times." We're not talking about a tabloid here. "The New York Times" sits down this weekend to do an interview with the president of the United States and one of the questions they ask him is about whether he's a socialist.
And, interestingly enough, he kind of brushes it aside. And then 90 minutes later, the president of the United States calls back "The New York Times" and says: I have been thinking about that question. I can't believe you asked me that. ]
And he gives them this direct quote. He says -- let me put on my glasses here, so that I can find it. He says, what, "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question."
Murph, is this socialism thing starting to stick?
PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: It is starting to stick.
It is the cover of "Newsweek" magazine. The question is, are we all socialists, or are we all socialists now?
I was at a hearing a couple of weeks ago and the chairman of the Fed was asked, if we're nationalizing the banks, if we dump a bunch of money into them and then we own them, is that nationalism. And he said, I prefer to call it a public-private partnership.
They won't put the tag on it. They don't want to be seen as nationalists or socialists. And they are quick to blame the Bush administration for starting it all. Every time we hear them coming back and say look, we just inherited this; we're just going down the road that was started before us.
SANCHEZ: Well, I am going to stop you right there, because you said we just inherited this.
But I got to tell you something, we got a story today in Ohio, 7,000 people, 7,000 people showed up to apply for a job as a maintenance worker. That -- if nothing else, that's very telling about what's going on in this economy.
Is this recession thing starting to stick when it comes to Obama, whereas people are now starting to say it's his recession, rather than Bush's recession, for example?
MURPHY: Yes. It is starting to stick.
And it is his recession. And that's not a bad thing entirely. He called -- right after he was elected, he called a meeting of his economic advisers, very high-profile, and said we need quick action on the economy.
The good news for him is that Americans have confidence in him still. They still give him very high marks. They are very optimistic when asked if they think Obama will improve the situation.
But it begins to chip away at confidence when he puts his hands up, his entire staff does, and says, we inherited this mess; we're just trying to fix it. It does lower everybody's confidence and saying, well, are you serious about fixing this if you're just trying to deflect blame right now? Where -- the answer is, where are the ideas?
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Go ahead, Bob.
LENZNER: He's not doing enough. First of all, that was crazy that he didn't answer "The New York Times" right away.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Yes, I am not a socialist and I'm offended by you asking me that; is that what he should have said? LENZNER: That's incredibly upsetting, yes, absolutely.
Now, let's just take the stimulus bill. Only $200 billion of the $700 billion is going to be spent this year, '09.
I believe -- and so do some other people, that the entire $700 billion should be spent this year, in fact, as soon as possible.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
LENZNER: As early this year as possible, in order to get something going, because the longer we wait, the more momentum...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: That's -- you know, it's funny. That's what's Paul Krugman writing in "The New York Times" today.
LENZNER: Well, I agree with him.
SANCHEZ: If you're going to do it, you got to get in there and do it, because if you go bitty-ante and little by little, people are going to start saying, well, you want more? Do you want more? Go ahead and take the big bite, man, and take the pain at the beginning.
Interesting that a lot of folks are saying this. We're out of time. We're out of time, guys.
(CROSSTALK)
LENZNER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Bob, always a pleasure from the economic perspective, and, Murph, from the political perspective. Smart stuff. My thanks to both of you.
MURPHY: Thanks, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Reporters and anchors who live in dangerous places like Connecticut talk about it all the time, the drug wars in Mexico out of control. What do Mexican-Americans who grew up along the border actually say about something like this? We're taking you on a trip to Tijuana next.
Also, did Karl Rove, Karl Rove, have a Democratic governor prosecuted and sent to jail for purely political reasons? Now, that is the accusation with a question mark at the end. The governor joins me to talk about it. You decide after you hear what he has to say. That's ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART")
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": Rick Santelli is angry that these loser homeowners is going to get bailed out. He believes in personal responsibility. He believes in not rewarding the losers for missing all the warning signs. I mean, for God's sakes, the guy works at CNBC.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: They're the best of the best.
So, all you dumb homeowners out there who let your optimism and bad judgment blind you into accepting money that was offered to you from banks, educate yourselves.
(LAUGHTER)
JIM CRAMER, HOST, "MAD MONEY": Bear Stearns is fine. Bear Stearns is not in trouble.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: And we welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez here in the world headquarters of CNN. That was just a hot segment we did a little while ago. And already we got a bevy of comments coming in from all over the country from people who are watching us. Let's go over to MySpace first, if we can.
"There are cows, Rick, and there are farmers. The top 10 percent get rich. The majority of us just get milked."
I never quite heard it put in those terms.
Flip that camera. Give me Twitter, if you can.
Freakyfran watch once again. She's one of our regulars. She says: "The rich got a free ride with the Bush administration. And now there will be rules. And they don't like rules" -- two perspectives. We thank all you for sharing.
We will continue to look and see what you're saying to us during this newscast here.
Here's a question a lot of us have been talking about in this country, not so much on this newscast. We have been very careful with this story. Are the drug wars in Mexico out of control? More than 1,000 people killed this year already, and the pictures often look like a -- well, it looks like a battle in Iraq, doesn't it? I mean, not that much different.
Border towns are being turned into garrisons by the Mexican police. Is this as big a problem as the headlines we're reading stateside? Or is it a convenient American distraction for our own problems? A Mexican-American CNN producer has just returned from the border.
Nick Valencia is right here to my right. He's going to be joining us in just a little bit and we're going to be talking about this. Look forward to it.
Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
No matter where you go, you are going to see some of the headlines that have been screaming about all the problems that are going on across the border. What is going on with the drug wars in Mexico? We have not exactly been pouring ourselves into this story because it seems at this point there are as many questions as there are answers.
We have been wanting to get some of the answers directly, but there are some startling statistics. There's no doubt about it. I will read you a couple of these, as a matter of fact. The Pentagon -- this is a report -- we first told you about this one just a couple weeks ago.
They say there are two countries with the risk of rapid collapse in this world right now, Pakistan and Mexico, interestingly enough. Here's another one.
Former head of the CIA says the top security risks to the United States, Iran and Mexico, in other words, risks coming from without to the United States itself.
Deaths in Mexico last year, 7,000 as a result of drug violence. And that has doubled what it was the year before. But what's it like to actually go to one of these towns? And don't we have cities here in the United States in the past, Washington, D.C., Miami, Detroit, where you see just as dangerous a situation? So, are we being fair when we talk about this story?
Let's do that.
Nick Valencia is one of our CNN reporters.
NICK VALENCIA, CNN PRODUCER: How are you, Rick?
SANCHEZ: You just had a chance -- you went down there, right?
VALENCIA: Yes, I did. I did.
SANCHEZ: What -- what did you see -- because I'm sure you went with an open mind -- that convinced you this thing is the real deal, there's a real problem going down there, and it is -- we keep hearing this word -- out of control. Is it out of control?
VALENCIA: Tijuana is a war zone, Rick. Tijuana is a war zone.
It took me 20 minutes before I saw the first federal police officers in white unmarked cars, officers staged in the back with Kevlar helmets, masks over their face, fingers hovering loosely over their semiautomatic weapons. You can sense that potential for the threat for violence at any moment in the city.
SANCHEZ: But I grew up in Miami at a time when we had record murders, after the Mariel exodus, the Colombian drug wars. People were getting shot all over. But I never felt like it was dangerous to me. My mom and my dad, we lived in the suburbs, we were poor, but I felt like I could go to the park and play and no one was going to hurt me and no one was going to hurt my parents.
VALENCIA: Let me ask you this, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Go ahead.
VALENCIA: Did you have to step over decapitated bodies in Miami?
SANCHEZ: Not once in my life until I turned into a reporter.
VALENCIA: That's what people are going through in Tijuana. That's what people are going through in Tijuana, Mexico.
It's such a complicated place. In Starbucks, with valet parking, you find decapitated bodies. There's a thriving Bohemian scene there in Tijuana as well. Right next door, there is a drug cartel bar.
I found myself in one of those drug cartel bars. I didn't know I was in one until the waiter I was talking to, he pulled out his necklace. And on it -- I'm sure you know this -- there's a patron saint for drug traffickers, Jesus Malverde.
SANCHEZ: Right. Yes.
VALENCIA: Well, he pulled out his necklace. I never asked to see it. I saw it. And it was at that moment I realized I was in a drug cartel bar. I couldn't write this any better.
At that point, six young drug traffickers walked through the door in their early 20s dressed in skinny jeans, earrings, European haircuts, with this heavy swagger. It was like a scene out of "The Godfather."
Everybody shut up. The bartender sobered up. The bartender behind the -- other bartender started acting busy. They got a table made for them. They all sat down. And you can just feel the negative energy. You could feel the vibe in there. It was not good. It was not a good vibe.
SANCHEZ: You know what's interesting? Your parents are Mexican?
VALENCIA: Yes.
SANCHEZ: You grew up in L.A., San Diego, that area?
VALENCIA: I grew up in Los Angeles, went to school there.
SANCHEZ: As I kid, everybody does it, all my friends from California. You go the Tijuana? You go to T.J., right?
VALENCIA: I have been to Tijuana many times before.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: You might have a little cerveza. You do whatever you do.
VALENCIA: (SPEAKING SPANISH)
SANCHEZ: Exactly.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: And never considered it dangerous.
VALENCIA: No.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: And now?
VALENCIA: It always has that reputation of being lawless. Tijuana has always had that reputation. Now, though, especially after going there, I'm not going to go back, not anytime soon anyway.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Let me bring you back into this conversation now, because I would want to know, Mike Brooks, whether this is being caused by forces within or forces without. What is -- why is it like this now and it wasn't like this before?
MIKE BROOKS, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: This is narco-terrorism, Rick.
I mean, you saw violence along the Rio Grande before, but you never it this bad at vacation spots.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
BROOKS: And we had our correspondent Gary Tuchman who's just right down the road from Tijuana in Rosarito Beach, and who did the story on these decapitated bodies.
And it's unbelievable. But the State Department, as well as the Alcohol -- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, has put out a warning to kids going down there, saying, hey, this isn't the time to go down there. And let me tell you...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Is that a legitimate...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: Absolutely. SANCHEZ: ... thing, or is that -- there's a part of me that wants to say -- and I'm just asking here -- don't you guys jump on me -- I'm just asking, as a journalist, we have got big problems in this country. Wouldn't it be easy to create a distraction right across the border...
BROOKS: No, no.
SANCHEZ: ... well, as bad as things are for us, look at those guys down there. They're really out of control.
BROOKS: No, no. And they wouldn't put this travel alert out unless there was an imminent risk to U.S. citizens to go to these places.
Now, Nick and I have been talking about this.
(CROSSTALK)
VALENCIA: No, let me tell you, let me tell you why it's so dangerous now. In 2006, in December, when the president, Felipe Calderon, came into office, he publicly declared a war on the drug cartels.
Now, to show their strength, they launched back with these brazen broad-daylight attacks. And now couple that with the Arellano Felix cartels, the base cartel in Tijuana.
SANCHEZ: They're along the Arizona border and parts of California as well.
VALENCIA: As well.
Now, the last name heir to this cartel, Eduardo Arellano Felix, he was just recently arrested. His nephew is now in charge of the cartel, who has no reputation, no respect. Now, that coupled with this declaration, you now have these rogue militias vying for territory, vying for power.
SANCHEZ: So, it's as bad as it's ever been?
VALENCIA: I just got back from there, Rick. It's bad.
SANCHEZ: I mean, no, as a result -- here, you have got Calderon, who basically declares war on them, and the situation gets worse.
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: Well, and, also, Rick...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Maybe he shouldn't have declared war on them.
BROOKS: You have to laud him.
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: But then recently the chief of police of Cancun was arrested for the kidnapping and brutal murder of a retired brigadier general who was tasked with putting together anti-trafficking task force. What does that say to you? That is terrorism.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: I will tell you this. Michael, who is right over there, and myself, my producer -- you can get a shot of Michael back over here. When we were on the road, and I was the correspondent -- shake your head -- when I was a correspondent for "ANDERSON COOPER 360," we were sent there to follow a story.
I remember we went into a town and the first thing I wanted to do was get police protection to go into this town because I told -- I was told it was dangerous. You know what the police told us? Are you crazy? We don't go there. That's too dangerous.
So, there's really something going on.
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: Absolutely. I really think so, Rick. It's not just a distraction. Absolutely not.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: We will stay on top of this story, continue to follow it. My thanks to both of you for coming on sharing this information.
(CROSSTALK)
VALENCIA: My pleasure.
SANCHEZ: Don Siegelman is one of two things. He's either a politician who took a half-million dollar bribe or an opponent of the Bush administration who was railroaded by Karl Rove. I'm going to ask him and then let you decide.
Also, a 9-year-old girl raped by her stepfather, she gets pregnant with twins, and her doctors say that carrying the babies could kill her. But the Vatican says there's really only one choice here. This is tough. If you're the mother of that child, what do you do?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE")
UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Not to be critical, but you have been president almost seven weeks. Isn't it about time you fix the economy?
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Get angry.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: It's your responsibility now.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Get mad. Get mad.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: And, my friend, I'm starting to think you may not be up to it.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Mr. President, are you OK?
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Oh, my God. What happened?
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: What happened was, you made Barack Obama angry.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: And when you make Barack Obama angry, he turns into The Rock Obama.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Did Karl Rove politicize the Justice Department, actually have prosecutors doing the White House's handiwork? That is the accusation that a Judiciary Committee is going to be investigating. And this is serious stuff.
Last week, we learned that Rove will, in fact, now testify, behind closed doors, mind you, which some aren't taking well. Who is Rove accused of actually targeting in this investigation?
The answer is, at least in part, the former Alabama governor. His name is Don Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery and sent to jail. Even some Republicans are questioning this case against Siegelman, to be fair, who joins us now live.
I guess, once a governor, always a governor. So, Governor, thanks so much for being with us, sir. We appreciate it.
DON SIEGELMAN, FORMER ALABAMA GOVERNOR: Thank you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: I'm looking at a picture here now of you on the left, stately figure, leader of your state, very popular at the time, and there you are on the right not long after you had left jail.
I mean, this is a top-to-bottom rise-and-fall story for you, isn't it?
SIEGELMAN: Well, it is. But, more importantly, Rick, it's a story about how our Department of Justice was used as a political weapon to gain and retain power based on Karl Rove's desires.
SANCHEZ: Well, hold on a minute. Let me take the viewers back. Let's go through this story and give you as quick an answer -- I know you're a politician, but let's take them through the information that I put down here.
You get a check from a guy for, what, $500,000. You said you wanted the money to push for a state lottery that would fund education, because this was your one big project. So, you took that $500,000, didn't you?
SIEGELMAN: That's correct. We put it in the Education Lottery Foundation.
SANCHEZ: Did you ever take a penny of that $500,000? Tell me the truth, Governor. Did you ever pocket any of that money or use it for anything other than that?
SIEGELMAN: No.
The money was -- I was never accused of taking a single penny by the government. And the IRS looked at all of my personal records, my wife's records, my children's records, my brother's records, and they never charged me with a single penny of an IRS violation.
This was not about money that came to me. This case has two parts. One is the political part, and one is the legal part.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, but, you know, it's interesting. So, what you're saying is, you gave a job to this guy Scrushy, who was the head of -- what was ? He was the CEO of HealthSouth, right?
(CROSSTALK)
SIEGELMAN: Correct.
SANCHEZ: And you put him on a state regulatory board. So, some people are saying, well, there's a quid pro quo there. He gave you a donation, not for you, mind you, but for something that you thought was important to help education in your state -- we get that -- but, nonetheless, you did something for him in exchange for him doing something for you.
(CROSSTALK)
SIEGELMAN: Well, no, I didn't do it in exchange for. And that would be a crime. And that's why the Supreme Court, Rick, has said that...
(CROSSTALK) SANCHEZ: Hold on. Even if it was, Governor, how many presidents of the United States have not taken huge campaign funds from people and then given them ambassadorships to countries all over the world?
SIEGELMAN: Exactly.
SANCHEZ: It's kind of the same thing.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: So, I have been hitting you hard here, but, in defense to you, isn't that kind of like what you did?
SIEGELMAN: And, also, members of Congress also vote in favor of legislation or work for legislation that a contributor supports.
And so that's why the Supreme Court has said there has to be a quid pro quo. There's got to be an express agreement or some kind of explicit agreement.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
SIEGELMAN: But in this case, the only testimony that convicted me was that of -- was false testimony given by a guy that had been interviewed over 70 times and...
SANCHEZ: That's Nick Bailey. He was your aide.
SIEGELMAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: And he did, according to several reports, including those on "60 Minutes," he did change his story, didn't he?
SIEGELMAN: He did. The government, according to "60 Minutes," made him rewrite his answers until he got the story the way they wanted him to. They also withheld evidence from us, which we think would entitle us at least to a new trial -- or if not to a reversal.
SANCHEZ: Well, I also read -- I also read a report -- and tell me if this is true.
Is there a witness who was a self-proclaimed Republican operative who said that she was asked to dig up dirt on you by Karl Rove's office?
SIEGELMAN: She did. Yes. She was -- she was asked to see if she couldn't find me in a sexually compromising position. Fortunately, she said she looked for several months and couldn't find anything. But she went on to say that she was on a telephone conversation when she heard my husband's pros -- the prosecutor -- the husband of my prosecutor say that he had talked to Karl Rove and Rove was pushing my prosecution with the Department of Justice.
SANCHEZ: So but this -- by the way, just to be clear, she says on the record that it was Karl Rove's office who asked her to do that?
SIEGELMAN: She does.
SANCHEZ: And then she says she's told by someone in Karl Rove's office, we don't need you anymore, we've got another way that we're going to be able to get at him?
And I guess that other way was, according to her -- again, on the record -- and this is filed in the "60 Minutes" report, as well as several reports in your state -- that they were going to use the state -- the U.S. attorney there, right?
Who is the wife of Karl Rove's best friend and former business partner of some 25 years.
SANCHEZ: So the wife of Karl Rove's best friend of 25 years is the U.S. attorney in Alabama and she prosecutes you without recusing herself?
SIEGELMAN: She -- well, she actually -- she said she recused herself. But then we have a Department of Justice employee, one of her employees who has now come forward as a whistleblower and given sworn testimony that she never recused herself.
So even though she publicly proclaimed that she had recused herself, she never did.
SANCHEZ: All right. The key here is -- because it's not just about you. And certainly on its face, I know you've got a lot of supporters. I was reading about your case last night on the Web site. It's not just about you. It's also about whether something -- something perhaps a little more nefarious was going on at the White House itself.
SIEGELMAN: Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: We've got a response here from Karl Rove's office. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, is saying to us this comment, when asked if he wanted to comment on Don Siegelman's case. We called him directly several times here for this interview I'm doing with you.
They say, on the record: "Karl has said over and over again that he played no role in the prosecution of Don Siegelman. There is nothing else to say about the guy."
Let's stop there.
Let's go to break.
When we come back, I want you to answer what Karl Rove's lawyer has just sent to us so that I can read to the viewers. We'll let you have a crack at it.
SIEGELMAN: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: Governor, thanks for being with us, by the way.
We'll continue this interview on the other side of this break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: It's a curious case
Welcome back.
I'm Rick Sanchez.
Talking to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. He has been found guilty of bribery. And though his case has been appealed, he may very well be going back to prison in this case.
The key point here is what was Karl Rove's doings in this case?
And the reason it's brand new now, at least in terms of back in the news cycle, is because Karl Rove, as well as Harriet Miers, have now both agreed to go back and talk to the House Judiciary Committee. And they're going to be asked questions about Mr. Siegelman's case. That's why we're talking to the governor now.
Are you convinced, governor, that Karl Rove directly -- I don't mean somehow directed to his office -- that he directly had you prosecuted?
SIEGELMAN: I think Karl -- Karl Rove could not have done it by himself, obviously. But I think Karl Rove pressed this prosecution with the Department of Justice. This -- we have sworn testimony to that fact by a Republican lawyer who was -- who was part of the political machine -- the Republican political machine -- that was trying to get me out of the way.
So this is not testimony coming from a friend of mine or even from someone whom I had ever met until just recently. But...
SANCHEZ: What's the why here?
Why would Karl Rove want to do that to you?
SIEGELMAN: Well, I think there are a couple of reasons. One, I was the only viable Democrat in the State of Alabama. I had been elected secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor. And I was going to -- about to run for re-election with the thought of entering national politics in 2003, going into the 2004 elections. So there was -- and Karl Rove and I have had a number of conflicts, beginning in 1994.
And after the '92 race, Rick, Karl Rove and the husband of my prosecutor came back from Texas. They had just finished running the Bush/Quayle campaign. They came to Alabama. They both married girls in Alabama. And Karl Rove, of course, built his home on the Gulf Coast, where he lives today.
So we had a number of political run-ins beginning in 1994. But this is the flip side, if you will, the other side of the coin of the U.S. attorneys who were fired. You know that part of the investigation that's been conducted is... SANCHEZ: Yes.
SIEGELMAN: ...is to try to get to the truth about why these U.S. attorneys were fired. They were fired ostensibly and allegedly because they would not take actions -- prosecutorial actions that would benefit the Republican candidates running that year.
In my case, this is a case of a prosecutor who was supported by Karl Rove, appointed with his blessings. She is the wife of Karl Rove's best friend in Alabama. I was brought to trial one month before the Democratic primary on charges that "The New York Times" has said repeatedly has never been considered a crime in America -- and which you agreed, I presume, when you made reference to the fact that presidents appoint their contributors as ambassadors every day.
And...
SANCHEZ: Is this a case where there is so much Republican control of the State of Alabama now that it would be very difficult for any Democrat, like yourself, to be able to have political success in that state?
SIEGELMAN: Well, I was -- I was -- no. I think Democrats are making a comeback now. But I was, at the time, from about '94 to 2002, the only -- the strongest -- the strongest horse in the barn for running...
SANCHEZ: So the...
SIEGELMAN: ...for running for...
SANCHEZ: Let me just cut you off before we run out of time. The answer to your question is yes during the Bush years?
Maybe not now, but during the Bush years, would that have been true?
SIEGELMAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: I mean was there a cabal of Republican -- Republicans who were thwarting folks like yourself?
SIEGELMAN: Well...
SANCHEZ: Is that what you're saying?
SIEGELMAN: I'm saying that the Republicans took over the state with the help of Karl Rove. Rove totally annihilated Democrats on the Alabama Supreme Court and was instrumental in the election of governors and lieutenant governors and the attorney general that started my investigation.
SANCHEZ: Wow! A Congressional committee has subpoenaed Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, we should add. And an appeals panel has now, Governor, upheld your conviction and ordered a new sentencing hearing.
And we should probably add that that panel is comprised all of Republicans, right?
SIEGELMAN: That's true. And we will -- we will appeal the ruling of that three judge panel to the entire 11th Circuit.
But keep in mind, none of the political evidence that we have now, in fact, every -- Rove's involvement, the misbehavior of the prosecutor, the withheld evidence, the false testimony that was demonstrated by both "Time Magazine" and "60 Minutes" -- none of that has been presented to the court as of yet. So...
SANCHEZ: That's interesting.
SIEGELMAN: All of that will have to be presented, at some point, to the court, if we seek a new trial.
SANCHEZ: There's a lot of important information that's been shared. There's a lot of things that you have just said over the course of these last two segments.
To be fair about this, if there's anything that has been presented here or anything that you, Governor, have said that needs to be refuted by someone from Karl Rove's office -- Karl Rove's attorney or anyone who may feel there's information that we need to share, we invite them to come on this show. We will put them on as fast as we possibly can and they will be able to share those opinions, as well.
Once again, Governor, good luck to you.
And thanks so much for being with us, sir.
SIEGELMAN: Rick, thank you so much.
SANCHEZ: All right. Let's go over to Glenda Umana now.
She's following things over at CNN Espanol.
She'll bring us the very latest on what's going on in, as we say, America Latina
What have you got?
GLENDA UMANA, CNN EN ESPANOL: We go international now. And according to A.P. Rick, Evo Morales again. Bolivian President Evo Morales...
SANCHEZ: A friend of our show.
UMANA: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
UMANA: He never wanted the interview with you. But, listen, he ordered the expulsion of a senior U.S. diplomat in the country -- the secretary. He's accusing him of participating in a conspiracy against Bolivia's left government.
His name is Francisco Martinez -- the same as Hugo Chavez is doing.
SANCHEZ: The interesting thing about Hugo Chavez is, is he's a leftist. There's no question about that. But he doesn't like being called a leftist and will deny it.
Thanks to you for being with us.
UMANA: Vamos a ver que pasa.
SANCHEZ: Yes, exactly.
UMANA: Esta manana.
SANCHEZ: Let's see what Evo is up to in the future again.
UMANA: Chiao.
SANCHEZ: A mother who decided to save her daughter's life is being punished by the Vatican.
Who's right when the abortion controversy gets real tough?
We'll let you decide.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: The first show to tell you exactly what you, the viewer, is saying to as we report it.
Let's go to the Twitter board, if we possibly can, Robert. Here we go.
The second one -- the one right in the middle.
Do you see it?
D.A.76: "He says the same tricks that Democrats would pull," listen to this: "the same tricks the Democrats would pull on a successful Republican governor had the shoe been on the other foot."
Interesting comment coming in from someone after watching that interview with Governor Siegelman.
There's something else that I want you to take note of today, because as you might have seen, President Obama lifted restrictions today on federal funding for stem cell research. Now, that's an issue about which the Catholic Church has flexed its muscles many times. But this is a busy time for the Catholic Church.
How busy?
In fact, here's what else it is flexing its muscles over these days.
Let me take you to a couple of cases. Two at hand. First -- and, by the way, it's hard to do stories about religion, especially when it's one's own religion. But this next story cuts right to the core. Stay with me.
This is about a 9-year-old Brazilian girl allegedly raped by her stepdad. She became pregnant with twins. The girl's doctors said the pregnancy could kill her. So her mother went ahead and OKed an abortion. The family is Catholic.
And the Vatican says the mother's decision was wrong. It goes on to say that the rights of the unborn twins should have superseded everything else, including the 9-year-old's health and her mother's decision and the doctor. So now the mother and the doctors are being excommunicated by the Catholic Church for their decision.
What do you think?
And then there's this one. Catholic hospitals in the United States produce some of the best and some of the brightest physicians. There's no doubt. I'm betting many of you watching right now either know someone or have been treated yourself in one of these institutions all over the country, a Catholic hospital.
But several Roman Catholic bishops are threatening to close those hospitals for good, they say, if President Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act. Now this is a legislation that would make the 1973 "Roe v. Wade" decision federal law as a right for all women in the United States.
Again, we ask what you think of this decision -- this controversy.
You can check out my blog, by the way, at CNN.com/ricksanchez.
And do you need some advice -- some money advice?
Jon Stewart has some. We'll tell you what he's saying to the big guys over at CNBC when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Part of the conversation going on on how to fix the stimulus -- or how of fix economy in this country has a lot to do with the little guy versus the big guy, the rich versus the poor, the employer versus the employee. And we're going to give Jon Stewart's take on that in just a moment.
But first, a lot of stuff is coming on these conversations we had a little while ago, especially the story I just read you about that 9- year-old little girl in Brazil.
Let's see what the Twitter board. Right in the middle there, Robert.
See what it says: "Why is the life of a 9-year-old of less value than a fertilized egg to the Vatican?"
An interesting question being posed. And then across on the other side, Jamie, who's watching this show, she writes to us: "Rick, it is absolutely disgusting that the church would excommunicate a mother for protecting her child. How could anyone expect a 9-year-old rape victim to give birth, even after being told by doctors that the experience would most likely kill her? The whole thing makes me sick. The worst part is that the church probably didn't excommunicate the scumbag who assaulted the poor child."
That would be the stepfather who raped her and made her pregnant with twins.
Now, let's go back to that theme we began at the beginning of this newscast after some of the comments that were made this weekend on "Meet the Press" by Newt Gingrich -- the idea that somehow either the rich or the poor have to be helped by this president -- not something in between, but either/or.
It's a theme that Jon Stewart picked up.
Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART," COURTESY COMEDY CENTRAL)
RICK SANTELLI: This is America.
How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills, raise their hand?
JON STEWART, HOST: Rick Santelli is angry that these loser homeowners are going to get bailed out. He believes in personal responsibility. He believes in not rewarding the losers for missing all the warning signs.
I mean, for God's sakes, the guy works at CNBC.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: They're the best of the best.
So all you dumb assed homeowners out there who let your optimism and bad judgment blind you into accepting money that was offered to you from banks, educate yourselves.
(LAUGHTER)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM MARCH 11, 2008, COURTESY CNBC)
SANTELLI: Bear Stearns is fine. Bear Stearns is not in trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(ON SCREEN)
Bear Stearns went under six days later.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM JUNE 5, 2008, COURTESY CNBC)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Lehman Brothers is no Bear Stearns.
SANTELLI: Lehman Brothers is incredibly engaged and responsive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(ON SCREEN)
Lehman Brothers went under three months later.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM APRIL 17, 2008, COURTESY CNBC)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will Merrill need to raise capital?
No. No need to raise additional capital.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(ON SCREEN)
Five months later, Merrill Lynch ran out of capital. It is not owned by Bank of America.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, COURTESY CNBC)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does it mean that they're not going bankrupt?
Does it mean -- obviously they're not. They're the biggest insurance company. They're well capitalized.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(ON SCREEN)
Federal bailout money for AIG:
$85 billion in September.
$37.8 billion more in October.
$30 billion more on Monday.
STEWART: It's not rocket science, homeowners. It's apparently alchemy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right, Chinese ships surrounding a U.S. vessel -- how serious is this?
The U.S. ship responds by spraying the Chinese ships with a water hose. A confrontation at sea between two superpowers. By the way, then the Chinese ships moved even closer. It's a really odd story. And we're going to break it down for you.
Wolf Blitzer, who knows a lot about this kind of thing, is going to join us next and take us through it.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL)
SANCHEZ: It's always startling to hear that ships from two of the world's superpowers would be confronting themselves -- or at least harassing themselves -- out at sea. But that's what we're hearing now about a U.S. surveillance ship and some Chinese vessels, as well.
Let's go to Wolf Blitzer.
He's followed this type of story for years now and can give us some expert perspective on it -- Wolf, what do we know?
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": It's a very dangerous situation, even though parts of it are sort of humorous, Rick, what's going on.
The USNS Impeccable, a surveillance ship, maneuvering in the South China Sea, which the U.S. and almost everyone around the world regards as international waters. The Chinese, however, claim it's their territorial waters.
The ship is a surveillance ship. It was moving around, doing what it always does -- very routine. All of a sudden, a whole bunch of other Chinese ships got very, very close -- some of them within 25 to 50 feet.
At one point, the crew members of The Impeccable started using some water cannon to shoot some water at some of the Chinese sailors. They, in the process, they got wet and they stripped down to their underwear in the process.
So that might be a little humorous, but it could have been very provocative, very dangerous and it could have been a whole lot worse. Eventually, the USNS Impeccable got out of area.
But it's part of what the U.S. sees as harassment by the Chinese.
We're going to have a whole lot more, Rick, on this story coming up here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
We're also going to be speaking about tomorrow, the 50th anniversary of the failed uprising in Tibet. And the actor and human rights activist Richard Gere is going to be joining us here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
SANCHEZ: All right. Thanks so much, Wolf.
Nobody better than you to take us through that and we appreciate it.
We'll see you again in just a little bit.
In the meantime, what you're saying about President Obama -- socialist or not. And then some of you who are saying you want your check.
What check?
We'll take you through that in just a little bit.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: And throughout the day, we've been taking you to some of the information we've been getting out of the White House about the recovery plan and the stimulus package. A lot of conversation coming out today about whether it's a class argument of rich versus poor.
We're also getting a lot of comments on what we just reported moments ago, in fact, on China.
Here we go. Let's go to MySpace, if we can, Robert: "I guess since China figures that they own our ships thanks to G.W. Bush, they can do what they want with them."
And then over here on Twitter, they say -- right at the very top, Robert: "Hey, thanks so much for showing us the Jon Stewart clip on CNBC. That was funny."
We thought so, too.
Let's take you now to Wolf Blitzer.
He's starting "THE SITUATION ROOM" -- Wolf.
