Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
White House Briefing; Tackling Credit Card Issues; Captured Somali Pirate Will Face New York Court
Aired April 21, 2009 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Let us know. We'll take it live. Thanks, Elaine.
Billions of taxpayer dollars paid to dozens of banks that had wrecked their own finances and were dragging the economy down with them -- what could go wrong? Well, plenty, says the special general overseeing TARP, better known as the bail-out. Neil Barofsky tells CNN that he's launched 20 separate criminal investigations and a half dozen audits stemming from the government's investments in Wall Street and beyond.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner today made his first appearance before the bail-out oversight panel created by Congress. He defended the payouts to date and the measures coming up and says the recovery depends on getting it right.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, TREASURY SECRETARY: Our central objective, our obligation, is to ensure that the financial system is stable and it's able to provide the credit necessary for economic recovery. But stability itself is not enough. We need a financial system that is not deepening or lengthening the recession. And once the conditions for recovery are in place, we need a financial system that is able to provide credit on a scale that a growing economy requires.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, the TARP inspector says that his main job is shedding light on a vast, complicated, unprecedented process. But Neil Barofsky insists that he's not on a witch hunt. We're going to hear more in an interview that he did with CNN's Poppy Harlow. She's going to join us later this hour with more.
Now, the battle between the mule, the goat and the falcon, also known as the Army, Navy and Air Force academies, among the greatest rivalries in college sports. President Obama right now greeting the Navy midshipmen in the Rose Garden. He's going to present the team its sixth straight Commander-in-Chief Award for beating both Army and Air Force last season. But as far as the midshipmen of Navy and the Black Knights of the Army are concerned, there's only one rivalry that matters. It's a gridiron war that goes all the way back to the very first game in 1890.
And a surprise of sorts from Chrysler, its financial arm saying no to more government aid. A source tells us that Chrysler Financial rejected the offer after its top management refused to accept new limits on their pay. The official word from the company -- well, it has the funds needed right now to cover short-term needs. A company official also says executive pay had nothing to do with the decision. "The Washington Post" says that amount turned down was $750 million.
Credit cards are the next financial trouble spots on the government's radar. President Obama is expected to take up the issue of rate hikes and high fees on Thursday. Let's get a preview from CNN's Gerri Willis. Gerri, what do we expect to hear?
GERRI WILLIS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, President Obama is expected to press these bank CEOs to adopt practices designed to help protect consumers. He'll try to get them to loosen up credit at a time when more and more folks are getting their credit limited slashed, their interest rate hiked or to have to pay more in minimum payments.
The House and Senate last week began hearings on legislation targeting some of these controversial practices. Here's what's already in legislation. The Credit Card Bill of Rights -- this is from Representative Carolyn Maloney. It would prevent the marketing and issuing of cards to those younger than 18, ban credit card companies from charging a fee for payments over the telephone.
There's also another bill, this one from Senator Chris Dodd. It would prevent consumers under 21 from getting credit cards without a parental or guardian approval. You know college student debt is a big problem. It would also prevent retailers from charging dormancy fees on gift cards that aren't redeemed within a certain period of time.
Now, both of these bills are still working their way through Congress. The Federal Reserve rules that some consumer protections aren't set to take effect until July 2010, so it's hoped that tougher rules will be implemented on the credit card industry before that date -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: So what are credit card companies saying, Gerri?
WILLIS: Well, credit card companies have their own point of view. They're all about hedging their risk, especially in a recession. Some experts say trying to get these companies to adopt consumer protections is going to be difficult. Charge-off debt that the credit card company can't collect -- those reached a 20-year high in February, and late payments from consumers also reached a 17-year high.
Credit card companies have joined together to form a Web site to help prevent these defaults. It's called Mycredit.org -- pardon me -- Helpwithmycredit.org. This Web site promises to help you manage your debt, communicate better with your credit card company, hook you up even with accredited credit counselors.
So they do have a Web site out there. They're really going to be in the spotlight this week. I know everybody's watching to see what's going to happen with our credit cards -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Credit card crisis, credit card counselor, say that 12 times really fast, Gerri!
(LAUGHTER)
WILLIS: Easy for you to say, Kyra.
PHILLIPS: I was practicing! Thank you, my dear.
WILLIS: My pleasure.
PHILLIPS: Well, you're not the only one feeling the credit card crunch. There we go. Cash-strapped cities across America are looking for ways to stretch a buck. And for some, that means finding a cheaper alternative to the boys in blue. Susan Lisovicz joins us a little later in the hour with details on who may be protecting you.
And a 22-year-old med student with a baby face and a fiancee and no criminal record, but Boston police say this is the Craigslist killer. Philip Markoff made his first court appearance today, prosecutors revealing that a gun, ammo and zip ties were found in his home. He didn't enter a plea to murder, robbery and kidnapping charges, and the judge ordered him held without bail. Relatives of victim Julissa Brisman were there in court and left without comment.
The one Somali pirate who didn't find himself on the end of a Navy sniper bullet is beginning his journey through our legal system, and these are waters that U.S. justice just hasn't been in for at least 100 years. CNN's Deb Feyerick is out by the courthouse in New York where he's to be arraigned at 3:00 PM Eastern.
Deb, we know that there's a question about his age. Some say he's 16, others say he's 18. What bearing will this have on the case, if he is 16?
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, probably not a lot simply because federal law enforcement officials tell CNN that, in fact, he will be tried as an adult regardless of his age. We have been told by some officials say he may be 18, and so that point will be irrelevant. However, it's going to be interesting because, you know, the cargo ship's captain, Richard Phillips, is likely to provide some pretty dramatic testimony about his ordeal, his abduction, how he was brought to sea and held captive by this pirate and the three others, those three who were killed. And that clearly will have an impact on whoever hears this case vis-a-vis a jury.
Defense lawyers, however -- well, they'll probably argue otherwise. They'll say, you know, He is only a kid, and he may have been recruited and done something that he didn't want to do because he's so young. However, that argument may be a little bit more tricky since the other pirates, none of them older than 19, according to law enforcement -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Do we know who's going to represent him in court, Deb?
FEYERICK: It will likely be an attorney that's authorized to represent these types of folks in federal court. It's attorneys who are picked under the Criminal Justice Act. And they are the ones, the same kinds of attorneys, for example, who represented the U.S. embassy bombers who came from elsewhere and were on trial here. So very qualified defense attorneys.
PHILLIPS: All right, Deb Feyerick. We'll continue to follow it with you. Thanks so much.
School rules and the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case today brought by the young woman seen here in green. Six years ago, Savana Redding was a middle school student in Safford, Arizona, when administrators strip searched her for Ibuprofen. She and her lawyers claim that's a violation of her 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The school disagrees.
Savana went to Washington for this morning's high court arguments and offers this advice for students in scary situations like hers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAVANA REDDING, STRIP-SEARCHED AT SCHOOL: First of all, call the parents because I didn't have that option. You know, I'm a little kid. I don't know anything about how this should be handled, but I'm sure that my mother would. And she wasn't there to help me out, and so I had to -- I basically just did what they told me because that's how you're raised, you know, to follow your authority figures, do what they tell you to do, especially in school.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: We expect to get a ruling by the end of June.
Question for you. Should President Obama tell us what's going on with ET, open up the mysterious UFO files that have taken on a life of their own? Tell us yes or no and why. Our e-mail, CNNnewsroom@cnn.com. If you're from another planet, please include a picture.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Could Bush officials be prosecuted for torture? Robert Gibbs talking about it right now.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Without sort of getting into the specifics of who or what might comprise something like that, I wouldn't preclude any member of Congress from being part of that. I think the president said that he was fearful of the -- that we are -- this could become overly politicized. And I think that the president would see a 9/11 commission as -- to be, in all honesty, a model for how any investigation or commission might be set up because I think we can all understand that the 9/11 commission was comprised of very respected members that, despite being Democrats or Republicans, put their party identification away in order to answer some very serious questions.
So without prejudging whether a commission should be set up, I think that's what he had in mind in answering that question. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A follow-up. It sounded as though the president took somewhat different policy today than his chief of staff did on Sunday regarding possible prosecution of those who devised the policies. The president said today, regarding those who formulated these legal decisions, that that's more of a decision for the attorney general. And Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday, for those who devised policy, he, being the president, believes they should not be prosecuted. Is that a shift in position?
GIBBS: Well, let's -- instead of referring to what anybody might have said, I think it's important -- or anything that I might have said -- it's important to refer to what the president said. And what he said over the course of many months, in all honesty -- because this dates back to questions that he received, has received, in press conferences or even during the transition, and that is very much as he said, reiterated today, that -- he says as a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward.
The president has also said he does not believe that people are above the rule of law. And the president stated accurately that any determination as to whether a law was broken would rightly be made not by the president but by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it did seem like (INAUDIBLE) at least a difference in tone, if not policy, by specifically saying the attorney general would be the most likely one to look at those who devised the policy. That sounds different from what he's said in the past. What he always talked about was, Just move forward, and in fact, Rahm Emanuel was specific about it.
GIBBS: Well, again, to -- whatever confusion might exist, I think it's important, again, the president said throughout the campaign that he would leave determinations on science in his administration to science, that he would leave determinations about the law to those in the Justice Department. And I think he reiterated that today, that people aren't above the law.
I do think it's important to make a distinguishing -- to distinguish exactly what the president said last week. The president believes and was assured by the Justice Department that those that have acted in good faith on what they believed was legal won't be prosecuted. The president still believes that.
Yes, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Robert, I just want to follow up on Chuck's question because it does seem that there is issues there. If you look at what the president said today, he said -- he said, with regard to those who formulated the legal decision, he said that that was a decision for the attorney general, and he said he didn't want to prejudge that. But Rahm Emanuel on Sunday said that those who devised the policy, he believes that they should -- that they were -- should not be prosecuted, either, so...
GIBBS: Well, again, to clear up any confusion on anything that might have been said, I would point you to what the president said.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did he have a change of heart on this issue over the last few days? Because he...
GIBBS: No. I think the president -- as I said, you can dig back to the -- I think was asked, at least I recall being asked in the transition and discussed the rule of law, that nobody in the country's above that rule of law.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And just on the issue of a further accounting, as you talked about today and as Chuck also asked you about, is he actively considering a 9/11-type of panel? Is he...
GIBBS: No, I think...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seemed like he was trying to get at something like that. He said -- he said that, you know, he'd like to see something outside of the hearing process.
GIBBS: Well, I think he was asked, if something were to be set up, how would it be set up. How would...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But wouldn't he be the one to set it up?
GIBBS: Not necessarily. I'm reminded that Congress has a pretty big say in something like that, given their ability and their lawmaking power.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is he conferring with people on that?
GIBBS: I will check if it's something that's active. Again, the president's position is to look forward. If there are those that want to look back, I think the president strongly believes that anything has to be done in a way that doesn't -- as he said today, doesn't overly politicize and hamper either the ability of anybody involved to carry out the functions of their job or the functions that protect our country.
Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Robert, what changed over the last 24 hours, though? Because yesterday, you were flat in saying that, We're not going there, as Rahm was on Sunday. And in the last 24 hours, we've seen groups like Moveon.org on the left come out and write a petition to the attorney general saying they want accountability from the Bush administration. Is this an example of this White House giving in to pressure from the left?
GIBBS: I've -- I don't I have not -- I doubt the president has been on Moveon.org in the last 24 hours, so...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. But then why was Rahm so firm on Sunday? And you were firm yesterday in this very room. What changed?
GIBBS: I -- again, to clear up any of the confusion, I would simply say that the president reiterated that there is -- as he said, his general posture is to look forward, and that at the same time, nobody's above the law.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would there be any confusion, as you call it, though? I don't understand. This is a pretty straightforward topic.
GIBBS: Well, I predicated your question that posited with some confusion with acknowledgement.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did he misspeak or did Rahm misspeak?
GIBBS: I -- you know, I -- whether or not anybody was confused or misspoke, I would take what the president said as -- I am informed he got more votes than either of the two of us.
Yes, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) with Vice President Cheney yesterday weighed in on this and said he found it disturbing that the president put these memos out. And he also is charging, if you can answer, that this White House basically selectively declassified some of these torture memos and that there are other memos somewhere in the CIA that would show that the interrogation actually yielded what the former vice president would call good intelligence that prevented terror attacks. How do you answer that?
GIBBS: Well, I would suggest that you contact the CIA. I -- you might...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... turn these over to me or anyone else in the room?
GIBBS: Including me.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, if the president wanted them declassified, he could. He just declassified other (INAUDIBLE)
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is...
GIBBS: I would...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... are there other memos that you're keeping under wraps?
GIBBS: I just said I don't know. Again, that's why I would -- I know sometimes when I ask you to contact the agencies with the wherewithal to answer your questions, you think that I'm not answering your question. But as you just said, they're not going to give them to you. They're, you know, coincidentally, not going to give them to me. And I think the best place to ask about their existence is the CIA.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) Vice President Cheney says he's disturbed by all this.
GIBBS: Well, you know -- you know, we've had a -- at least two- year policy disagreement with the vice president of the United States of America. That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country. The president of the United States and this administration believes that you can. The vice president has come to, in our opinion, a different conclusion.
But again, this is a -- this has been a policy disagreement for at least the better part of two years, maybe longer than that. I'd have to go back and look. But you know, the president -- the vice president was also happy to talk about the way we're conducting our foreign policy, which has also been a several-year disagreement with the vice president.
The president of the United States, President Obama, has on his first two foreign trips changed the image of America around the world through leadership and engagement that advances our national interests, makes us safer and more secure and stronger. I think that's the main disagreement that we have with the vice president -- the former vice president.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) first 100 days. Is the president's hope of bipartisanship dead now? Or, I mean, you've had various Republicans...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... various Republicans say...
GIBBS: (INAUDIBLE) vice president that...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, various Republicans also beyond the former vice president saying the president's been weak, the photos with Chavez. Do you have any hope of moving forward and having bipartisanship in the second first 100 -- you know, the second 100 days?
GIBBS: The second first 100 days?
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
GIBBS: No, please stay. The president, as I've said, and as the president has continued to do, will reach out to those that want to work with him on the priorities in making our country not just safer but stronger economically. In terms of -- you know, again, the vice president -- the vice president had a particular way of conducting the foreign policy of this country. The election, I think, spoke to a change in the way that foreign policy is done, as I said yesterday, in order to make us more secure. Let's -- again, I'll back this up and answer to some degree what I did yesterday. Go pull the pictures of three years ago at the Summit of the Americas. Maybe the former vice president of the United States thinks we are more secure in the important region of the world of Latin America with thousands of protesters burning in effigy something that looks like leaders or an American flag. I don't think the president -- the current president of the United States doesn't believe that.
Let's break the tie. (inaudible), take the vice president, take the current president. I've been asked on occasion what did -- about Prime Minister Harper of Canada, who talked to NBC yesterday and said, Let me be a bit of a conservative defender of the president. So we'll posit him on one side of the political spectrum.
I thought President Obama did an excellent job of expressing the values and priorities of the United States of America. I thought he allowed a dialogue to take place in a good spirit to animate the room, and I thought the meetings were productive. I think it made the United States -- took the United States to a higher plane than the Venezuelans of the world. And I think it was very effective at moving the vast majority of countries, reaffirming a very centrist position and a very progressive position on the things that concern us -- democracy, human rights, open markets, trade.
I know he got some criticism, but you know, the U.S. is bigger than Venezuela in the end. The U.S. is the U.S. And I thought President Obama led in a way that was very effective at the conference. So maybe that's the best summation for the vice president's criticism of a change in our foreign policy.
Jake?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
GIBBS: Do you have 60? Jake?
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is the president of the belief or in possession of information that members of the Bush administration who formulated these interrogation policies broke the law?
GIBBS: I -- again, I think I'd point you to the comments that the president made today, that a determination of who -- of whether a law was broken or who broke a law was not a determination that would be made inside the confines of the White House. It would rightly be made inside the confines of the Justice Department.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But I would be the fourth of four that has pointed out that there's at least some rhetorical change between what the administration has said in the past on this question of prosecution and what the president said today. And I'm just wondering what changed.
GIBBS: The president was clear. And I would go with what... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He hasn't used language like that in the past. He hasn't said...
GIBBS: Well, no, no, no. I don't -- I think the president -- we'll pull it for you specifically. I mean, I...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
GIBBS: Excellent. We're ahead of the game. Never mind. I mean, I think when the president states that people are above the rule of law that he expects that the laws of the United States of America will be upheld.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess the question is, Has he learned anything since those previous comments...
GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... that has made his language change?
GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of.
Chip?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you suggesting -- are you saying there was absolutely no change in policy today?
GIBBS: I would -- again, I'd point you to what the president said. It's...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he change his policy today or...
GIBBS: I don't think so. I think, again, the president has stated on any number of occasions -- and as he stated today, in saying, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. I don't think it's altogether newsworthy that the president believes that the laws of the country should be upheld. Let's at least hope not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But didn't he leave the door open for the kind of...
GIBBS: No, no. He...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... panel we're talking about? He left the door open?
GIBBS: Well, I think the president understands that if there -- the president commented on what a panel might look like, if it were to be set up. Whether the determination is made by members of Congress to do such a thing -- and I've been asked in this room about different ideas for different panels to look into many of those instances.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He certainly didn't oppose the idea of a panel...
GIBBS: At the same time...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... and if he's willing to go along with it, he's looking backwards.
GIBBS: His general -- that's why he didn't propose it, because he's looking forward.
John?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I ask you another question?
GIBBS: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has he talked to the attorney...
GIBBS: (INAUDIBLE)
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has he talked to -- you don't have 60 votes. Has he talked to the attorney general about...
GIBBS: Don't I know!
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a possibility that the attorney general was -- and the Justice Department were blindsided by this or...
GIBBS: Blindsided by?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By his non-change in policy today, by what he said today, or did he talk to the attorney general about this ahead of time?
GIBBS: About the commission?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About what he said today in the Oval Office.
GIBBS: Not the commission?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The attorney general part.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Prosecution.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prosecution.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About prosecution.
GIBBS: See? There's confusion. There's -- I don't know when the president last spoke to the attorney general. I mean, obviously, the attorney general was involved in discussions last week about the release of OLC memos.
Chuck? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess I'm confused by the rule of law comment, which is, the president wants to make the exception for the interrogators that carried out the policy and not hold them accountable, but potentially leaves open the door for holding the lawyers that wrote the opinions about the legality of this. So he is making an exception...
GIBBS: No. No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... rather than saying -- is that not right?
GIBBS: No. You're right, you're confused. The -- the president and the attorney general in both of their statements said that you have applicators of a policy that acted in good faith on what they were told to be legally permissible and that those people should not be prosecuted. The president also said today that no one should be above the law. The president's determination -- I guess it's a little bit like...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've watched it one too many times, I guess. But you know, if you're going to start...
GIBBS: I was going to do it live, but I decided...
PHILLIPS: Robert Gibbs responding to the question, Will President Obama now leave the door open to prosecute members of the Bush administration for torture? This happened as we saw the memos being released about how CIA interrogators dealt with 9/11 suspects. But just to reiterate, the president is saying that he doesn't think it's appropriate to prosecute the CIA officials and others who actually carried out the interrogations in question, but rather, those who made the decisions to have the interrogations carried out in that manner.
He said the techniques listed in the Bush-era memos released last week reflected us losing our moral bearings. We'll follow that story.
We'll also just got reaction, Republican response to this, Mitch McConnell stepping up to the mikes, minority leader. This is what he had to say just a little bit ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MINORITY LEADER: The president made a big deal after coming to office about looking forward and not looking backward. And I wish there were as much focus in this administration on policies that will keep us safe here in the United States. I think it's important to remember, from 9/11, until the end of the Bush administration, not another single attack on the U.S. homeland. We were obviously doing something right. It wasn't just good luck. And to the extent that the president wants to alter the fundamental policies that have kept us safe for the last eight years, since 9/11, it's a matter of some concern.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: We're going to take a quick break. More from CNN NEWSROOM straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: We've been reporting on a batch of investigations in to how your bailout dollars are being used or misused. And Poppy Harlow of cnnmoney.com actually got to speak today with the special inspector general overseeing T.A.R.P., she joins us now with more now from that interview. You beat us to it, Poppy, we're proud of you.
POPPY HARLOW, CNNMONEY.COM: Thanks Kyra. I did not make the booking. I won't take the credit. One of our great producers did. What a title right, special investigator general. He's known as the T.A.R.P. cop for good reason. He is in charge of tracking the $700 billion bailout program. His name Neil Barofsky, you see his picture right here. The full interview is on our website. But he and his team issued a 250-page report this morning regarding the use of T.A.R.P. funds, also making some recommendations to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and some other officials implementing the T.A.R.P. program.
According to the report, a real headline here, Barofsky's team has opened 20 criminal investigations and six audits, one of AIG, regarding the use of T.A.R.P. funds. We asked him for details. He couldn't really divulge much because they're in the middle of these investigations. But I did ask him about his goal in this current position that he took in 2008 under the Bush administration. Take a listen to how he described it --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL BAROFSKY, TARP INSPECTOR GENERAL: Ultimately our benchmark is transparency. Being able to bring as much information to the American people, to the media, and to the administration, so they can understand and make the right policy decisions. Ultimately what we do is make recommendations. It's up to treasury to adopt and implement those recommendations and we're going to keep pushing for them to do so we can bring about that result.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: All right now Kyra, he also warned about possible fraud and collusion with what is known as PTIP, or the Public Private Investment Partnership Program, saying there are some quote, significant fraud risks involved in that when it comes to the pricing of those so-called toxic assets, Kyra, that we hear so much about.
PHILLIPS: Did he detail the risks?
HARLOW: he did. Take a listen and I'll give you an example.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAROFSKY: There's so much money going out and basically a small number of players, private players, have the potential of setting prices for these securities that it creates a host of dangers. Real, real significant fraud dangers. And our recommendations are that these be addressed.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: All right, Kyra, here's the example. He said if there's a fund manager that wants to buy some of these so-called toxic assets, goes to a hedge fund per se that's selling them and they agree privately that these assets are worth $30 but they agree to use some of that government money to buy them at $50 and then the buyer and the seller split the difference for their profit, and then the taxpayer loses out. It's not so far fetched. He said it could be a real problem. They're keeping a close eye on it. What they want is for everyone to keep a close eye on it. Log on to this website, sigtarp.com if you have any tips for them, anything that could be fraud so let them know. And he said they've gotten some really good tips so far. Kyra?
PHILLIPS: Poppy Harlow thanks so much.
Dealing with budget shortfalls, cities are looking for ways to cut costs. Will that challenge affect your security?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: President Obama tear down these walls. That's kind of what UFO believers are saying about those cryptic UFO files, you know, the ones that have inspired all kinds of questions, conspiracy theories, tall tales, hoaxes, even movies. One person who wants the truth about ET, Edgar Mitchell. He's got some serious space cred. He's been to the moon and he grew up in Roswell, New Mexico, too. Edgar, good to see you.
EDGAR MITCHELL, FORMER ASTRONAUT: Thank you, it's good to be here.
PHILLIPS: You have definitely never doubted another life form that's out there. You have studied astrophysics, you've studied the pictures of the galaxy. Tell me what supports your theory, why are you so convinced about another life?
MITCHELL: Well, in a larger sense of things it just doesn't seem reasonable to me that this is the only place in the universe that has living systems, intelligent living systems. But beyond that, of course, is our local experience, my experience, of growing up in Roswell, and the -- in the period of the so-called Roswell crash in 1947. Where I was a senior in high school at that point. And the folklore, even though there was an attempt to hush all of this up, and say it was just a weather balloon that crashed, the local lore was quite stronger than that, that, indeed, it was an alien craft that had crashed and bodies were recovered. And the researchers over the many, many years that have dug into this, very talented people, have --
PHILLIPS: How about in addition to that, though? You know, we talk so much about the Roswell findings, what's there, what wasn't there, the secrecy surrounding that, but from your studies of astrophysics, from being an astronaut, from going to the moon, from studying the pictures of the galaxy, tell me something that you've seen or that you've studied that you just feel in your gut there is something else out there.
MITCHELL: Well, you're saying it right. It's an intuitive feeling, after looking at the heavens and the modern pictures of the Hubble telescope, from the Hubble telescope, and seeing the complexities and the beauty and recognizing the universe is much more complex and magnificent than our earlier pictures, our earlier understanding would have ever let us imagine. And so that -- right. That's the intuitive aspects of it.
But the real question here that we have been addressing is have we been visited? Are we -- since we are now a space-faring civilization, having only gone to our own moon, but have our visitors, the aliens, have they come to us? And all the evidence says yes.
PHILLIPS: So, what is it that you want to see the Obama administration release? What is it specifically? What do you think is there that we need to see?
MITCHELL: Well, the other nations -- and this has been a global phenomenon -- other nations and just in recent history, the Belgium nations, the French, the Brazilians, the Mexicans, the Argentines, all of their files have been opened up, and there's no reason in the world why the U.S. files, the leading nation in the world in this period, should have been reticent in opening ours too, except special interest groups.
PHILLIPS: So Edgar, but let me ask you. For all the stories that have leaked over all the years, and there's always somebody somewhere that's going to leak something, if there was really something there, don't you think by now somebody would have said something?
MITCHELL: Oh, it has. People have been saying it all along. But the -- for example, just the explanations of the Roswell incident has changed every few years and a new story comes out. If it were really that simple, if it weren't what it really was, you wouldn't need all these various stories coming out. So, the attempt to cover this up and to disguise the issue, create misinformation and disinformation is very well recorded. And the documentation from very fine researchers like Dr. Robert Wood and his son Ryan, who have investigated all of the early documents, all point to the same story. Hey, we're not alone here. We've been visited.
PHILLIPS: Well, Edgar Mitchell, I'll tell you what, it fascinates all of us. We'll stay on it. And please let us know if you're able to dig a little deeper and bring us a scoop. Edgar Mitchell, great to see you.
MITCHELL: Thank you.
PHILLIPS: Ok, you heard from a man who's been where only a handful of earthlings have been before. Does his argument add any gravity to the issue? Tell us if you think the president should open up the mysterious UFO files and why? Our e-mail , cnnnewsroom@cnn.com. We're going to read your responses in just a bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Well, investment and credit card advice, those are the issues that CNN's Gerri Willis is tackling today at the CNN help desk. Gerri?
GERRI WILLIS, CNN PERSONAL FINANCE EDITOR: We want to get you answers to your financial questions. So, let's get straight to the help desk. Greg McBride is a senior financial analyst with Bank Rate and Donna Rosato is a senior writer for "Money." Zayeed asks, can you please tell me if annuities are better than investing in stocks these days? All right Donna, I have to tell you, whatever happened to indexed mutual funds?
DONNA ROSATO, SENIOR WRITER, MONEY: People are very frustrated because they've seen their portfolios go down a lot. People are looking for security. Annuities function much like a pension. You're going to get a regular, guaranteed monthly payment. But there's a price to be paid for that. Annuities are complex. They can be very costly.
WILLIS: They're expensive, right?
ROSATO: They can be very expensive. But they can make a lot of sense. It's not really a question whether it's stocks versus annuities, but whether annuities fit into your portfolio. It may make sense if you think about it this way, are you worried about living a long time and running out of money? And if that's the case you might devote some of your portfolio whether it's in stocks, bonds or whatever to -- put that into annuity, maybe 25 percent or 50 percent. You're going to have to put that money up front and then the payoff will be getting a regular monthly payment. It's a complex area and it can be costly to do that.
WILLIS: I say indexed mutual funds. They're cheap, they're easy. All right Dave has a question. Capital One he says is raising my interest rate next month from 5.1 percent to 13.5 percent. Ouch! My credit is excellent and they said I can keep the rate I have now if I close the account. I owe 4,000 bucks. If I don't, it will cost me more than twice as much in interest. You say that you should not close accounts, which I do, but if I don't, it will cost plenty. I have other cards with little or no balance. Greg, a lot of people are facing this very same thing, you know, lots of changes with credit cards right now. What's your advice?
GREG MCBRIDE, SR. FINANCIAL ANALYST, BANKRATE.COM: Well, this is a great example of where that standard caveat about closing out credit cards hurting your credit score doesn't apply to every instance. This is a great example. Putting dollars and cents to it, a $4,000 credit card balance with that kind of rate increase could cost an additional $1,000 in interest payments. Unless you're going to be in the market for a mortgage in the next six months, then I say opt out of the change, if they close out the card, keep that lower rate and pay off the balance. That impact on the credit score will be minimized by the fact that you're paying down the balance and you also have some other credit cards to fall back on as well. WILLIS: All right great answers very tough questions. The help desk is all about getting you answers, send me an e-mail to gerri@cnn.com or logon to cnn.com/helpdesk to see more of our financial solutions. And the help desk, well, it's everywhere. Make sure to check out the latest issue of "Money" magazine on newsstands now.
PHILLIPS: For the last two hours we've been playing career cupid trying to match job seekers with jobs. So we're going to be going back to the Atlanta career fair for another 30 second pitch live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Well, with unemployment on the rise, we want to get as many people into new jobs as possible, so we're taking our "30 second pitch" on the road today. Let's call it highway to help. CNN's Brooke Baldwin live from the Atlanta career fair with us once again. Hey, Brooke.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I like that, highway to hope. Yes, it's been fun taking this thing on the road today. But before we get to our "30 second pitch" which is great, because we're giving hope hopefully to so many people looking for work. I want to take you to the front lines of these employers, because they have seen like David Parham here, a lot of these today, resumes. I notice David's line was literally, what, 50 yards long? You were one of the hot spots, the hot employers. Briefly, tell me, what does your company do?
DAVID PARHAM, RECRUITER: Basically we're into the technology arena, the aerospace engineering and engineering field. And what the ideal candidate needs to have once they come to the table to get them in yes stack.
BALDWIN: Yes, how do I get my resume in the yes pile?
PARHAM: We will assess the individual's experience. That's key number one. The person has to have good experience that resonates with the positions that they're concerned about. Number two, that they perform well on the interview, so if they, you know, kind of choppy a little bit on the interviewing skill, that's something that they might want to take a look at so that they can when they come to the interview table that they can perform really well. Number one being the experience, number two being the interview.
BALDWIN: David thank you. You heard it, everyone at home, you have to be good on paper and you have to be good in person these days. Alex Merlot, pretty good in person hopefully here. We're about to put you on the spot and give you our "30 second pitch." Alex, just briefly, he's been working in real estate. We all know what the housing market did. So now you're looking to get out of that line of work. You have 30 seconds to pitch yourself to America and to potential employers. Hopefully we have the clock, get ready, get set, go.
ALEX MERLOT: Hi, my name is Alex Merlot. I am bilingual in English and Spanish, speak both fluently. Been in sales for 17 years, also been in radio broadcasting part time for 17 years. I'm fun to be around. I make people feel comfortable with me. I'm very knowledgeable, I'm very passionate about what I do. And I can sell myself and please hire me. I just got engaged and I want to get married this year, we're trying to have our wedding this fall, so help me out.
BALDWIN: Tell me about your background.
MERLOT: I have been in real estate for the last 7 years. I went from working 15 days a month and making more than money than I've ever made before, to interviewing for a job selling sunglasses in the mall, which I have 11 years of retail management experience and I didn't get it.
BALDWIN: All right, so Kyra, there is Alex. Good luck to you. You heard it. The guy interviewed to sell sunglasses and didn't get it. So that kind of tells the story of how tough it is out here right now. So hopefully this will help him get a job.
PHILLIPS: Yeah I love it, he's pitching to pay for the wedding. Tell him to elope. That's one piece of advice.
BALDWIN: I know! He's nodding his head.
PHILLIPS: Congratulations. All right, Brooke, thanks so much.
BALDWIN: Thank you.
PHILLIPS: Dealing with budget shortfalls, cities are looking for ways to cut costs. Will that challenge affect your security?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Cities across the country are dealing with record budget deficits, so they're coming up with creative ways to cut costs. City officials in Oakland, California, will discuss tonight whether to turn over some law enforcement duties to a private security force. Susan Lisovicz at the New York Stock Exchange with more. Now Susan, Oakland isn't the only city considering this, right?
SUSAN LISOVICZ: That's right, Kyra, they're considering private armed guards because they cost a lot less than the rank and file in the police department. Chicago city council, for instance, Kyra, has proposed expanding the responsibilities to let private armed guards write traffic tickets. New Orleans has been using private security forces for more than a decade. There are two dozen districts in the city that employ an estimated 100 private guards according to "The Wall Street Journal." Oakland is facing an $80 million shortfall, but it has a high crime rate. Just a quick cost comparison, Kyra, "The Wall Street Journal" says it spends about $250,000 annually for each police officer. Compare that to $200,000 a year to hire four private guards. So, that's why it's so tempting.
PHILLIPS: So, if it saves money, do you think we'll see more of this? LISOVICZ: Well, there's certainly no shortage of critics. For instance, the Oakland Police Department, Kyra, says that private guards lack adequate training and background checks. There's fears that it could put the city at greater risk of lawsuits, for instance, if there's a shooting. But proponents say extra eyes and ears mean more safety and some studies say that violent crime drops when there are more guards on the ground, when they're on foot. And that's something that makes sense as well. Kyra?
PHILLIPS: Well, we'll continue to track it. Interesting segment. Thanks Susan.
LISOVICZ: You're welcome.
PHILLIPS: We'll take a quick break, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: All right. Well, the end -- (INAUDIBLE) is your thing and you know what it is. Get thee to the windy city, you'll be well met. The mayor of Chicago is urging Chicagoans to talk like Shakespeare all day long on Thursday. That's the day believed to be the bard's birthday. It would be the big 445, by the way, my kingdom for some sound bites.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All the word's a stage and the --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all the men and women --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And all the men and women merely players.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Merely players.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Out damn spot, out, I say.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To sleep -- perchance to dream, aye, there's a rub.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: And of course, one Shakespeare quote from as you like, it is perfect for Chicago, blow, blow, thou winter wind.
Should the president open up those secretive UFO files? We asked, you answered. We're going to check out your thoughts right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: All right. No time to waste. We asked you if the president should open up those UFO files like former astronaut Edgar Mitchell wants and here's the response we got. Don says, "If documents prove that we're not alone then we have the right to know. I hope we're not alone in the universe. Open the files on UFOs Mr. President." Merlin writes, "The discovery of alien life will be the most important for mankind. It could lead to new technologies that could save our planet. It could be a great distraction from our poor economy."
And Michael writes, "I cannot see anyone releasing files to prove or disprove UFOs. Doing this would cause major havoc worldwide. People are not ready to accept the fact there is life in other places besides earth." And Jason writes, "Yes, we should absolutely know the information the government has about UFOs because it will keep the hope alive that we will be able to communicate with life that is more intelligent than our government officials."
Our resident alien, Rick Sanchez, picks it up from here.
