Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Health Supreme Court Takes Up Health Care; Open Mic Catches Obama; Pope Heads To Cuba; This Was Not a Racial Incident; Cheney Had A Heart Transplant; Supreme Court Debates Health Care; Senator Johnny Isakson is Interviewed; Trayvon Martin Was Suspended from School

Aired March 26, 2012 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And it is the top of the hour. I'm Ashleigh Banfield in for Suzanne Malveaux. Let's get you up to speed.

The Supreme Court wraps up day one of a case that affects the future of your medical care and possibly the presidential election in the fall. The justices heard more than 90 minutes of the debate over the health care reform law championed by President Obama. It's the first of three days of arguments, two hours a day. Rallies for and against the law are adding to all the drama surrounding this case. It's a circus around SCOTUS. We'll have a live report and analysis from the high court in just a few moments from now.

And today also marks one month since unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was gunned down in Sanford, Florida. Public outcry just keeps growing because the shooter, George Zimmerman, has not yet been charged in this case. A CNN ORC poll that is just out shows that is 73 percent of Americans say police should arrest him, 11 percent say they should not arrest him, and 16 percent don't know what the police should do at this point.

Trayvon Martin's parents are taking part in a town hall meeting. They're going to will follow it up with a news conference a little later on this hour, and we have all the angles covered for you live.

Also, President Obama in South Korea right now, live, for a global summit on how to secure the world's nuclear material and also deal with the threat of nuclear terrorism. An open mic caught President Obama asking for space on the planned missile defense system in Europe. He was speaking with outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is my last election and after my election I have more flexibility.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV, PRESIDENT, RUSSIA: I understand you. I transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BANFIELD: Medvedev saying I stand with you. Also in the news, Pope Benedict XVI arriving in Cuba today for a three-day tour of the once officially atheist state. The Pope will arrive in Santiago to Cuba. He's going to fly to Havana the following day and celebrate mass in Revolution Plaza on Wednesday.

It has all the markings of a landmark case. The U.S. Supreme Court deciding the fate of the sweeping health care reform law, one of the signature accomplishments of President Obama's administration. The justices wrapped up the first day of three days of hearings just a short time ago and our Congressional Correspondent Kate Bolduan as well as our Senior Legal -- Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin were not only in court, but they got to hear the whole thing, got it out on the steps. They're with us now, live.

Jeff, let me start with you. You have had a chance to sort of think through some of those 90 minutes of arguments. The basic legal issue today wasn't necessarily that mandate itself but the actual jurisdiction, whether this should even be in court today.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Correct. This was really like the appetizer for tomorrow. Tomorrow, they're going to hear arguments on whether the law is constitutional. Today, the issue was is this case appropriately before the course -- before the court now.

Because as many people know, the affordable care -- the Affordable Care Act does not go fully into effect until 2014. One argument that some of the courts have made is that this case is simply premature, that the court should not even pass on the issue until the law is fully in effect. All nine justices today seemed very skeptical of that argument. All nine seemed very inclined to take this case, decide it on the merits, whichever way it goes, so I think today's argument only just raises the stakes for what we're going to hear tomorrow.

BANFIELD: So the appetizer, with the indication that the appetizer will, in fact, be eaten, did they say anything? And it really does take a keen ear like yours to be able to discern or extrapolate from the questions that the justices asked those attorneys, those shakingly nervous attorneys. Did you get anything out of their questions that might indicate where we may be headed tomorrow and the next day?

TOOBIN: You know, obviously, we were all listening for that and trying to hear it. There were bits and pieces, but I think they were pretty cagey. They know the stakes in this case. They know how carefully everyone is parsing and listening to every word they say.

So, I wouldn't venture a guess on the merits of the case based on what I heard today, except to say that I do think the court will decide the merits of the case based on what I heard today, and they're not going to simply kick the can down the road for a couple years, which is what they would do if they accepted the arguments heard today.

BANFIELD: Oh that's interesting. I want to switch over to Kate Bolduan for a minute. It's funny, Kate, you know, I'm watching you listening to Jeffrey Toobin and you're smiling and laughing. It's like you're the most adorable geek I know, but I do want to ask you about the political -- that's a compliment, the political significance of this, because all is quiet over where our colleague is, Dan Lothian, at the White House. And yet, there's a virtual cacophony going on behind you. This is, make no mistake, hugely political going on behind you.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's hugely political and the political stakes are huge as well. There are very important constitutional questions that are being asked as well as policy questions, as well as social questions and political questions. There is so much at stake here.

Not -- it cannot be ignored that this case was taken up by the justices in the middle of an election season and will be ruled upon where they will hand down their opinion smack dab in the middle of an election season. And this being, you know, the signature piece of legislation for President Obama in his -- in his first service in his presidency, as well as a signature issue on the campaign trail for all the Republican candidates.

Rick Santorum was just here. That indicates just how important this case is to the Republican candidates. They are running on this as well as President Obama running on it saying this is what I've done for the American people. He think it's important. The Obama administration is the one defending it in this courtroom. The Republicans, they have a lot at stake here, too. This is the big argument that they're making on the campaign trail.

So, the political stakes are huge. They can't -- just as I have been saying, and we've been saying, the stakes in general -- the legal stakes cannot be overstated. The implications cannot be overstated because the law affects every American. The ruling will affect every American. The political stakes can't be overstated as well. Though they can be probably argued that no matter how this opinion comes down in the end, both sides will be able to spin it to their favor.

TOOBIN: They'll cry.

BOLDUAN: Losing could be winning.

TOOBIN: You know what? They can try to spin losing but losing is losing. If Obama loses this case, it's going to be bad for him and they can spin all they want. This is a big, big deal.

BOLDUAN: First thing's first, we have to get to the main event which is tomorrow.

BANFIELD: Right. And Jeffrey, if Obama loses this case, then you and I are going to have a whole host of other conversations about how they may be able to rework this legislation, maybe bringing back that health care exchange and public option. But that's for a whole other month.

TOOBIN: Oh, boy.

BANFIELD: No, I won't even go there until after June.

TOOBIN: Try to get this through Congress again? I don't see that happening, but we'll see.

BANFIELD: Hey, by the way, you should get your voter registration right there on those steps, because you're staying there until June, Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: There you go.

BANFIELD: Thanks very much, guys. OK. Great work today on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States.

And now onto our other big story today, the nationwide uproar over the killing of an unarmed teenager named Trayvon Martin. It's been one month since his death, since a gunman, George Zimmerman, shot him but wasn't charged because he said it was self-defense. CNN's George Howell joins us live from Sanford, Florida, and that's the city where Trayvon Martin was killed. It's also the city which is really ground zero for all of the protests. George, you have had a chance to talk to people on both sides of the case. Obviously, it is heated no matter how you look at it, and they are taking to the streets, aren't they?

GEORGE HOWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Ashleigh, indeed, we're seeing a lot of people starting to show up. We are expecting, I should say, a big rally here in Sanford, but we are hearing more, Ashleigh, about George Zimmerman.

First of all, from his attorney who says that he will use the stand your ground law here in Florida to defend his client if George Zimmerman is arrested. Again, you will remember that, originally, he had planned to just argue self-defense in that case but says after reviewing that law, he will use the stand your ground law.

We are also hearing from one of George Zimmerman's very close friends who staunchly defends him. Take a listen to what Joe Oliver said to me this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWELL: Is he concerned about his safety?

JOE OLIVER, FRIEND OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: He's in hiding. He's changed his numbers. His mother-in-law has no idea or any way to get in touch with her own daughter. So yes, they're all concerned. They're all in fear. This was not a racial incident. This was an incident where someone who was just trying to do the right thing ended up in a very, very bad position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOWELL: We also saw this exclusive video of Joe Oliver talking to the Reverend Jessie Jackson about this case. Obviously, Reverend Jackson has a different take on it. He told me he sees George Zimmerman as a vigil ante -- acting as a vigil ante in this case and says that race is an issue when it comes to the Sanford police department. He says that there are issues, problems -- he says a long history of problems between the police department and -- between the police department, I should say, and the black community. So at this point, he says that needs to be looked into -- Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: All right. Well, just quickly, George, you know, bits of information seem to come out on a regular basis in this story, and I think it is critical to hear the side of the story of Zimmerman as well as Trayvon's parents who have been having these town hall meetings and been out in the public. And to that end, George Zimmerman's attorney came out saying that his client had his nose broken and that the back of his head was cut and bruised.

There was also a fact detail that was outlined that he had blood and grass stains on the back of his shirt. To that end, are we hearing anything about the facts of the altercation which is really what this all comes down to on the legal front, the facts of the altercation as the state attorney sees it.

HOWELL: At this point, we can only look at those facts that we find in the police reports indicating, as you mentioned, that some sort of a struggle took place, but exactly how that happened is still unclear, and even the state attorney said she is still gathering all the facts there, so many facts to gather to look at before making a determination on exactly what happened.

BANFIELD: All right. George Howell for us live in Sanford, Florida. Thanks very much for that. Keep an eye on things there, George, and we'll come back to you if developments warrant.

Here is rundown on what's coming up on the program. First, what could the health care ruling mean for you and your family? Right down to the wire, we're going to break it down for you.

Also, Dick Cheney has a brand new ticker today. We're going to tell you how the former vice president is doing after a heart transplant this weekend.

And then the cheating scandal going national. It wasn't the kids, it was the schools. Did it happen to your school? Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: I've got something very special for you, and I don't mince words when I say this. The Supreme Court doesn't let cameras inside to record the arguments, that's unfortunate. We work to try to change that every day, but sometimes they do release audio recordings. They make us wait, usually, quite some time, but today not so much. They've actually just released some of the audio recordings of the arguments that were being made in court just within the last couple of hours.

I am giddy about this, folks. Can you tell? I want to play for you what Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a justice on the panel, was talking about while she was questioning the attorneys in this case. And when you hear what she has to say, put it in this context. Twenty-six states are suing the federal government over this health care law. They don't like the individual mandate, because they say you shouldn't be forcing an American to buy a product, even if it's health care. And if you do, it ain't fair it we get a tax or a penalty if we don't buy it. Here is how justice Ginsburg was asking the question about that mandate. Have a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

RUTH BADER GINSBURG, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT: All this talk about tax penalties, all beside the point because this suit is not challenging the penalty. This is a suit that is challenging the must buy provision, and the argument is made that if, indeed, must buy is constitutional, then these complainants will not resist the penalty.

So what they're seeing is a determination that the "must buy" requirement stated separately from the penalty, that that "must buy" is unconstitutional and, if that's so, that's the end of the case. If it's not so, they're not resisting the penalty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So read what you will into that. But it's always fascinating to be able to hear those arguments just moments after they actually take place in the nation's highest court.

Now, if you don't have health insurance, President Obama's reform law is supposed to make it easier for you to get it. But if you don't want it, you might have to pay anyway, which is what Justice Ginsburg was talking about.

Senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen joins me now.

And, Elizabeth, this is still really tricky for a lot of people. It's tricky for people who understand Supreme Court cases, so it's got to be really tricky for the average joe out there who's just trying to figure out if he's going to have to spend more money or end up getting a penalty.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. Exactly, Ashleigh. This is so confusing, and thankfully Ruth Bader Ginsburg just gave you and me the perfect lead-in to discuss this, because at the heart of this issue is, should everyone have to buy insurance or not? Because health care reform says you've got to have it even if you don't want it. So if your employer doesn't give it to you, guess what, you have to go out and buy it or face a penalty.

So, Ashleigh, I'm going to introduce you to some imaginary friends of mine. No, I'm not crazy. We invented them because they can help explain this confusing question.

So take a look at Eddie The Entrepreneur. All right. He does not have an employer. He needs to buy insurance on his own. Obama says, you've got to buy it. He earns $80,000. He would have to pay $4,500 for his insurance. And if he decides not to, he doesn't go to jail. You know, there's no crime here. But he would have to pay a penalty of $2,000. So the big question is, what's Eddy going to do? Is he just going to say, $2,000, that's less. So I'm going to pay the lower amount. Well, if he does that, he doesn't get insurance. If he pays $4,500, he would get insurance.

Now let's take a look at his friend Maria The Musician. Maria also doesn't have an employer. She's sort of a freelancer out on her own. She earns $25,000. She'd have to pay $1,726 for her insurance or else face a $695 penalty. It will be interesting to see what the Marias of this world choose to do. Again, she can pay the penalty, but -- because it is less, but then again she doesn't get insurance out of it.

And by the way, if you're wondering why Maria's insurance is so much cheaper than Eddy's, it's not because she's cuter, but she is, it's because she earns so little money that the government will step in and give her a subsidy to help her afford it.

And if you want to know, Ashleigh, if you have friends who don't get insurance through their employer, they want to know what it's going to cost them, they can go to cnn.com/empoweredpatient and we have a link to a calculator. Put in your income and other information. You can find out how much you would have to pay for insurance versus a penalty.

BANFIELD: But you know what, Elizabeth, those are really high figures. I mean, for Maria, you know, at $25,000 a year income, it was $1,700 to buy.

COHEN: Yes.

BANFIELD: I mean that's huge. Can people wait and sort of like play chicken with the government or at least play chicken with their health and say, you know, I'm not going to do this until I get sick, because apparently under the law, they still have to cover me. No pre-existing conditions can stop me from getting the insurance.

COHEN: Well, they have to cover you if you have insurance. So if, you know, Maria or Eddy decide to pay the fine instead of getting insurance, I mean, they don't have insurance. So if they go to a doctor's office, that doctor likely is going to say, go away. You don't have insurance.

Now, they can always go to an emergency room, just as they can now, and get emergency care if it's, you know, of a dire situation. But if you don't have insurance, you know, if you don't pay, you can't play the game so to speak.

BANFIELD: Oh, I just wonder, though, how it works when someone's truly sick. They don't get kicked out of a hospital. So, in the end, we all pay anyway.

COHEN: Exactly. So they show up at an emergency room deathly ill because they chose not to get insurance, and then you and I pay for them. That's exactly right. BANFIELD: All right, Elizabeth, well your avatars help out a lot for those of us who are wondering what it would cost. So thanks so much for that. And it's always nice to see you.

COHEN: Thanks. Good to see you.

BANFIELD: Thanks, Elizabeth.

All right, so this wasn't a case of a kid copying off the kid next to him. No. This was a case of the school cheating everybody. And it rocked Atlanta. And it may have just gone national. It's the teachers who are in hot water, folks. Find out why in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: A senator and a teacher's union leader say it is time to investigate a possible nationwide school cheating scandal. "The Atlanta Journal Constitution" looked at public school test scores in all 50 states. And the paper found suspicious results and red flags in 196 of the nation's largest school districts. Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson calls the report, quote, "troubling." But he can quote himself because he joins me now live by phone.

Senator, thanks very much for being with me.

This is distressing because when you hear about school cheating, you think it's the kids. But not this time. It's the schools. Do you have a handle on how big this problem is, sir?

SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R), GEORGIA (via telephone): Well, "The Atlanta Journal Constitution" article certainly indicates that it could be pervasive and nationwide. The only thing we know for sure is they did this study in Atlanta. They saw indications of patterns of cheating. Our governor fortunately put together an investigative team and found out it was rampant in the Atlanta Public School system. The superintendent was replaced. A number of teachers were replaced. And the situation was cleaned up.

So they then applied the same algorithm to school systems across the country and found a number of them had very similar anomalies in the test scores that just did not seem possible. So I think those systems should do what Georgia did. They should call a panel, investigate them. If they found out they're cheating, they should stop the cheating and correct the problem.

BANFIELD: So if the extrapolation is correct and this is a nationwide problem and it is a nationwide crisis, a lot of the opponents are saying that it's because of the No Child Left Behind program. And I know you were one of the authors of that program and spent 10 years trying to implement it. What do you think about that?

ISAKSON: Well, I believe that testing is absolutely critical to being able to benchmark the progress of any student. People who are blaming cheating on testing are overlooking the fact that cheat is a failure of morality, it's not a failure of a test. You've got to benchmark your progress on your students or you'll never know which direction you're going in.

The problem is, either individually or collectively or through some pattern of practice, teachers began changing scores to make scores look better than they were. And that's just not right. But that's a moral failing. It's not a failure of the system or the law.

BANFIELD: But do you still think that No Child Left Behind was a good idea?

ISAKSON: Yes, ma'am. In fact, the problem with No Child Left Behind is the last four years we failed to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is No Child Left Behind. We knew when we wrote it 10 years ago that because of the adequate yearly progress requirements and the needs improvements requirements, the better systems did, the harder it would be for them to continue to meet -- reach the benchmark. So we knew it had a life span. Unfortunately, without being reauthorized, that's caused part of this crisis.

BANFIELD: Well, far be it for me to know your legislation backwards and forwards, but what the opponents say is that when you set a benchmark, teachers panic. And if they don't meet that benchmark, they lose money and everybody loses. So there is huge incentive to cheat. But if you take that incentive away, there's more incentive to teach. Is that so wrong of an argument?

ISAKSON: Well, I have great respect for America's teachers. Unfortunately, there obviously were some in Atlanta who cheated and tried to cheat the system. I hope it's not as pervasive as "The Journal Constitution" study saw, but I do not think teachers rank and file are bad people or have a failure of morality. I think we'll find out there was some organization to this, but it wasn't pervasive in terms of every teacher.

BANFIELD: What if they're cheating out of altruistic goals, though, senator? What if the cheating was not so that they could fluff their feathers, but instead so that they could keep teaching these kids, fearing they'd lose the money they needed to do their jobs?

ISAKSON: Well, once again, I think the answer states, it's a moral failing of the character of that teacher. That's the problem.

BANFIELD: All right. Well, I do appreciate you coming on to talk with us today. And I assume there's going to be a whole lot more of this certainly if the rest of the states decide to do these kinds of investigations that "The Atlanta Journal Constitution" did.

ISAKSON: There should be. It should be investigated by each state thoroughly.

BANFIELD: Amen. All right, well, thank you, Senator Johnny Isakson. Appreciate your time.

From the streets to the schools to the pews of churches, hoodie sweatshirts have become the sign of mourning for Trayvon Martin. And there are going to be a whole lot more hoodies out at a rally today and tonight in Florida. We'll talk about it in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Got some breaking news to bring you. Our field producer, who is on the trail in Sanford, Florida, has been speaking with the family of Trayvon Martin. Has been able to confirm for us a development in this case that has to do with Trayvon Martin being suspended from school for 10 days just before he came to visit his father in Sanford.

And then, of course, this horrifying incident in which he was shot dead transpired. We can also tell you that that suspension was as a result of drug residue being found in Trayvon's book bag. Apparently, there was an empty baggy in his book bag that tested positive for marijuana. The family of Trayvon Martin says they do plan to address this in one of the press conferences that is coming up.

They have been at a press conference with CNN contributor, Roland Martin, at a town hall, but they say they will address this news. This is breaking news as we get it, that a family spokesperson does confirm to one of our CNN producers, Vivian Kuo, in field, that Trayvon Martin had been suspended from school for 10 days prior to his visit to his father in Sanford, Florida. He lives in Miami. He goes to school in Miami. And he was down in Sanford, Florida, visiting his father and his father's fiancee who lived in this complex where he ended up shot dead.

Of course, George Zimmerman is the shooter, self-acclaimed neighborhood watch patrol, who has not been arrested in this case. The continuing investigation ongoing. The state attorney saying there are several options in this case, an arrest, no arrest or a grand jury. Those are the options we're waiting on.

Our CNN legal analyst, Sunny Hostin, joins us now by phone.

Sunny, I want get to the state attorney's office in a moment but, first, I want to talk to you about this news we just broke. Does this play into the case at all, that this young man was suspended from school and that there was drug residue found in his book bag?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): Well, it only plays into this case if, in fact, he may have been under the influence of drugs when this incident occurred. And let me say this, I have spoken, of course, to the Martin family and also to the Martin family attorneys, and I spoke to them in particular about any possibility of Trayvon Martin being under the influence of drugs. And what I was told by the family was that, of course, a toxicology report is being done. We don't have the results of that. And they wanted the toxicology report to be done to prove not only to the attorneys investigating this case and the investigators, but also to the world that they believe that Trayvon Martin was not under the influence of drugs. So, again, it's too soon to tell whether or not this will have any impact on this investigation. The only way that I see that it could have an impact is if, in fact, toxicology reports come back positive for any drug use. And we have no indication that that would be the case.

BANFIELD: So that's all that matters here, Sunny, is that there may or may not have been drug use that night, not that there was a suspension, not that there's proof that, at one point, he had a baggie that had marijuana in it in his book bag. None of those facts, from a prior time, play into the moment he came in contact with George Zimmerman?

HOSTIN: That's right. That's certainly my view in looking at this from the perspective of a former prosecutor, someone that prosecuted cases. It's very clear that when you have an incident like this, you have to look at what happened that day. You have to look at the circumstances surrounding what happened on that day.

BANFIELD: So I always found it fascinating from the moment I heard about this case that toxicology tests were done on Trayvon Martin's body but toxicology tests were not ordered for George Zimmerman in this case because they didn't suspect him of anything. Does it seem old though that there wouldn't be that inclination?

HOSTIN: I think that it's unusual. Again, coming from the perspective of having prosecuted cases, it is -- when you're investigating a shooting death, you want to make sure that you investigate all potential angles, and certainly one important piece of evidence would be whether or not George Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

After speaking to the family attorneys, my understanding is that those tests were not conducted, that George Zimmerman was also allowed to leave the police station with the very clothes that he had on during this altercation. That is very odd to me. That just doesn't sound, in my view, in my experience, as a thorough investigation.

BANFIELD: So let me throw a few more facts at you that are starting to come out in this case with regard to Zimmerman. There's been a lot that's been said about Trayvon, that he had ice tea and Skittles, he was just out in the middle of a basketball game to take a break to the 7-Eleven and home, and he'd been on the phone with his girlfriend.

When it comes to Zimmerman, his lawyer is now starting to throw some facts out there, too, that he had a broken nose, a cut and a bruise on the back of his head, that he had blood and grass stains on his back. And then one of the friends of Zimmerman has said that when he hears that 911 call and can hear the screams for help in the background, he swears it's his friend George Zimmerman's voice screaming out for help, whereas, we know that Trayvon's parents have both said they think it's their son, Trayvon, screaming out for help. Those are really critical facts, aren't they?

HOSTIN: They absolutely are very critical facts. And I think that's why it underscores the need for a thorough investigation. Those are facts that I think are in the realm and the best place for a jury to determine what really happened that night.

What is unfortunate in this case, and something that Trayvon Martin's family has brought up over and over and over again, that the police department in Sanford, Florida, indicated that they were prohibited from making an arrest in this case because there was evidence of self-defense. Well, now we know, as the investigation has continued, quite frankly, as the Martin family has investigated the case themselves, we're learning of two sides of the story, and so perhaps it was Trayvon Martin's pleas for help on that night.

Perhaps it was George Zimmerman's pleas for help on that night. But that does not mean that this is a case that should never be charged. That does not mean that this is a case that should not go before a jury. What it tells me is that there are questions of fact, and questions of fact should be decided by a jury, not by the Sanford police department.

BANFIELD: Yes. And not by us, in the public either. There should be no rush to judgment. There shouldn't have been rush to judgment that night, and there shouldn't be rush to judgment now either. I'm with you on this one. It's all about the law, and the law deals with facts.

Sunny Hostin, thank you.

HOSTIN: That's right.

BANFIELD: Appreciate it.

So when is a gaffe more than just a gaffe? From President Obama's latest hot mic moment to Rick Santorum losing his cool and using the B.S. word, we're going it take a look at what it all could mean for the election, if anything.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: So some people call them gaffes, some others call them slips of the tongue, stepping in it, whatever you want to call it. The candidates have been wandering off the trail into some troubled waters lately, actually, a lot lately. But when is a gaffe more than just a gaffe?

Here to talk about it, political comedian and founder of the blog the Deansreport.com, Dean Obeidallah; and Republican strategist, Lenny McAllister.

I have been reading your stuff, giggling away, Dean.

Lenny, I always think political with you, but you're going to have to step it up a notch if you're going to be beside this guy.

(LAUGHTER)

LENNY MCALLISTER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I know. I know.

BANFIELD: I want to start with the whole B.S. part of the day. Let's start with Rick Santorum. He had some pretty fiery rhetoric when it comes to his rival Mitt Romney. Have a listen to the first part of what he had to say about mitt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICK SANTORUM, (R), FORMER PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR & PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Why would we put someone up who is uniquely -- pick any other Republican in the country, he is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama. Why would Wisconsin want to vote for someone like that?

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama. He was asked about that comment, and actually it was quoted verbatim by a "New York Times" reporter, but Santorum lost his cool. He dropped the B.S. word. Have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER: You think he's the worst Republican to run on those issues?

SANTORUM: To run against Barack Obama on the issue of health care because he fashioned the blueprint. I have been saying it in every speech. Quit distorting my words. If I see it, it's bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Come on, man. What are you doing?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Come on, man. Cameras are rolling. Santorum was sticking by those words today, guys. Yes, he said any Republican worth his salt shouldn't be afraid to take on a "New York Times" reporter. But, guys, taking on a "New York Times" reporter who was actually quoting him verbatim, is this going to be troublesome?

Dean, start with you?

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, POLITICAL COMEDIAN AND BLOGGER: That's not even a gaffe. That's called desperate. Looked like a scene from "Jersey Shore."

(LAUGHTER)

That was unbelievable. Can you believe the guy is running for president? This is my point though. There's a difference between gaffes -- remember President Obama said, I ran in 57 states. President Bush was amazing, saying things like al Qaeda, turning it from a Middle East terror group to a Mexican restaurant. Those are gaffes. Those are mistakes. These are rare insights, glimpses into the character of the candidate and a view of their view of the issues. With today's world of focus group and everything being sanitized, you don't ever see this. So we should savor this, people in the media and American voters. Say this is what the candidates are all about. Let's take a look at the politician through a picture, a portrait painted by their gaffes.

BANFIELD: So, Lenny, I'm going to see Dean's situation, and I'm going to raise you a Snooki. What do you think about this one? "Jersey Shore" or what?

LENNY MCALLISTER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's a little bit of "Jersey Shore," but you are seeing a little bit into what Rick Santorum is all about. He also talked about bowling a turkey. He's looking to possibly being the bowler-in-chief at least in Wisconsin. He wants to connect with people. Senator Santorum is the anti- establishment candidate. In that regard, he's doing a little bit of rage against the machine.

(LAUGHTER)

A little of the common man saying, listen, I'm going against the elitist "New York Times." The establishment is against us. FOX News is against us. The Republican establishment is against us. I'm for the common people.

We had Governor Sununu sit there and say that everybody that's significant is going for Mitt Romney. What does Senator Santorum do? He's already spun that into, well, I guess the insignificant voters of America see it a little differently in states including Louisiana. It gives a glimpse in what Rick Santorum is saying, being the anti- establishment candidate. Should he have said the B.S. word? No.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: I love that you used rage against the machine when describing a guy in a sweater vest.

(LAUGHTER)

Let me move on. Let me move on. Got another really hot mic moment. It's really fun when you watch it play out in real time. President Obama this morning was speaking with Russia's outgoing president, Dmitri -- I'm going to do my best Russian accent -- Dmitri Medvedev. This is what they were talking about as reporters were filtering into the room but the mics were still hot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.

DMITRI MEDVEDEV, OUTGOING PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA: I understand you. I transmit this to Vladimir, and I stand with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Whoosh. After the election I have more flexibility. The truth of the matter is, isn't this the kind of conversation that happens all the time, Dean?

OBEIDALLAH: It probably does, and we don't hear it. But I can tell you this. The Republican candidate who runs against him will use these words, after the election, I'll have more flexibility, to inspire his base to say, look, if we didn't like what he did for first four years, wait until he has more flexibility in the second term. I think it will be used in a campaign ad against him. It really is -- this one really is a blunder by President Obama. And it does show a little insight in what he's thinking. It's real politics on parade for all of us. A man saying I'd like to do more in the missile defense but I can't do it until after the election. That will come back to haunt him.

BANFIELD: What do you think, Lenny? Is that a major league A- hole moment or is it a lot less than that?

(LAUGHTER)

MCALLISTER: I think initially, for a Canadian American, that was pretty good Russian accent on your behalf, Ashleigh. In regards --

BANFIELD: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE).

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

(LAUGHTER)

MCALLISTER: You're going in a place I'm not going to be able to go.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

MCALLISTER: Exactly. When it goes to President Obama with this situation, this is something that's very, very bad for him. Yes, it's everyday politics, but it fits back into what people have said about President Obama, which is basically this. He is also somebody that's much like Governor Romney, maybe inclined to say something and do something in order to get elected.

This is kind of what also angered the progressives about President Obama. He said he was going to do certain things in 2008. He got into office and compromised with Republicans on the tax cuts in a lame-duck session in 2010. He didn't move fast enough when it comes to the issue of gay marriage or Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There were other issues that progressives think that he hasn't moved fast enough on. And, then, of course, the conservatives aren't happy with this president. By being able to have this type of hot mic moment, it shows he's going to be wishy washy and you don't know what you're going to get in a second term of President Obama.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: Lenny?

(CROSSTALK)

OBEIDALLAH: That's a lot, Lenny.

(CROSSTALK)

MCALLISTER: I have to try, right?

BANFIELD: Where was the funny stuff?

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: You were supposed to be funny. Bring it, bring it next time.

Guys, thanks a lot. Good to see you.

MCALLISTER: Thanks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Look forward to the next one.

(CROSSTALK)

OBEIDALLAH: Thanks, Ashleigh. God bless.

BANFIELD: God bless you, too.

If it wasn't crazy enough for you, how about some March Madness? Is your bracket all busted up? It is down to the final four. Going to tell you which CNN anchor is still in the running and, here's a hint, it isn't me.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Some big claims on the campaign trail lately. So what's for real and what's hogwash? We're going to find out in our political fact check.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: With all the political rhetoric flinging back and forth, it's tough sometimes to determine fact from fiction so we're putting some of those political claims to the test.

We have Bill Adair, the Washington bureau chief for the "Tampa Bay Times," and he's also the editor of the Pulitzer Prize-winning politifact.com.

Thanks for doing this. I know it's a lot of work so let's get right to it, shall we, Bill?

Let's start this from the chairman of the National Republican Committee, talking about health care reform. He said, according to the Congressional Budget Office, quote, "As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-based health insurance thanks to," and they use the term -- "Obama-care." Is that true or is that false?

BILL ADAIR, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, TAMPA BAY TIMES & EDITOR, POLITIFACT.COM: We gave that a half true on our Truth-O-Meter. And the reasoning was, he is correct that that's something the Congressional Budget Office said, but he is cherry picking the highest possible number and leaving out an important detail. The important detail is there are a lot of additional people who would get health care coverage from their employers because of the Democratic health care law that the Republicans call Obama-care. So overall, some truth to this one, but some facts left out. We gave it a half truth.

BANFIELD: And that other word for it that we almost never hear anymore is the Affordable Health Care Act, not quite as ringy as Obama-care.

(LAUGHTER)

ADAIR: Even some Democrats are now calling it Obama-care.

BANFIELD: I know, I saw that. I thought, really? Did you get that memo?

Let's move on to the next one. This one from President Obama. He says in the campaign video, the auto companies, quote, "repaid their loans from the bailout." True or not true?

ADAIR: This one was also a half true on our Truth-O-Meter. Again here we've got some important facts left out. Yes, the new Chrysler, the new General Motors have repaid their loans. But the old General Motors, the old Chrysler, the companies that went through bankruptcy did not fully repay their loans. So this one is very carefully worded. We're going to hear this one a lot in the campaign, but it earns a half true because of some important things that are left out.

BANFIELD: OK. Well, let's move on to Mitt Romney. In a campaign memo, he says that President Obama is, quote, ending Medicare as we know it. So how truthy is that on your Truth-O-Meter.

ADAIR: That one gets our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

(LAUGHTER)

If this one sounds familiar, it's because you've heard it actually from a lot of Democrats. What Romney is doing is using a line that Democrats have been using against Republicans, saying, by supporting Paul Ryan's budget plan, they would end Medicare. Sometimes they add "as we know it." In the case of Romney, he's even more way off because Obama's plan is not nearly as dramatic as Ryan's. And when you look at the things that Romney cites to back this up, they just don't add up. Some of them are contradictory. Some of them are really flimsy. So Obama's plan to change Medicare is to make some cuts here, to even add benefits in the case of closing the gap for prescription drug coverage, but it is not ending Medicare. So Pants on Fire for Romney on this one.

BANFIELD: Will see what SCOTUS have to say about Medicare and what the federal government can and can't do about that.

Bill Adair, nice to see you. ADAIR: Thanks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Thanks for being with us.

Folks, how is your bracket? Down to the final four. March Madness coming to a crescendo. We're going to take a look at which CNN reporter, anchor is in the lead. Hint, the initials are Z.S. More in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: March Madness started with 68 teams and now it's down to the final four. No Cinderella teams will be headed to the final four.

Reynolds Wolf joins me from Atlanta.

What does that mean for all our CNN brackets? I think my got busted up the first day.

REYNOLDS WOLF, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Fair to partly cloudy on yours but it's not bad. At least you have one of the four. You have Kentucky in the final four. That's not bad. You mentioned there aren't any Cinderella stories, I disagree with you. Take a look at this. Your partner in crime, Zoraida Sombolin, she's number one. Brooke Baldwin is second. We've got Randi Kaye, my partner in crime on the weekend. She's also tied for third. We find, Ashleigh, you're number 14. You're smiling in that picture, but I know deep down you're probably feeling more like this, because of your picks. If you don't have any experience, you're not doing well.

BANFIELD: I threw a dart at a dart board. Ask me about hockey.

WOLF: Those were sharp darts. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out over the weekend. Should be a lot of fun.

BANFIELD: I just can't believe Zoraida is beating Wolf Blitzer. How did that happen?

WOLF: It's amazing. I don't know. It's an amazing thing to see and I wonder how it's going to last through the weekend, but we'll watch carefully.

BANFIELD: You're a rock star, Reynolds Wolf. I love you, man.

WOLF: Back at you.

BANFIELD: Thanks, buddy. See you.

All right, CNN NEWSROOM continues with my friend and colleague Alina Cho.

ALINA CHO, CNN ANCHOR: Hey there, Ashleigh. I will see you tomorrow in New York.