Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview With New York Congressman Peter King; New Developments in CIA Scandal; John McAfee Missing

Aired November 13, 2012 - 15:00   ET

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

TED ROWLANDS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, top of the hour. I'm Ted Rowlands in for Brooke Baldwin.

A senior official and close friend of General John Allen says there was no affair between the top commander in Afghanistan and Tampa Bay socialite Jill Kelley, whose inquiry triggered the David Petraeus scandal. We will explain how in just a moment, But first to General Allen's relationship with Kelley.

CNN's Nick Paton Walsh told me last hour, and follow me here, the general may have been warning Kelley about e-mails allegedly sent by Petraeus' former mistress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: One was received by General John Allen warning him about Jill Kelley. Now, of course, he knew Jill Kelley. So, he would -- according to the senior official, he wrote to her and said, look, somebody is talking badly about you in e-mail, even threatening you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROWLANDS: It is not clear what happened after that, but we do know how General Allen and retired General David Petraeus' troubles are connected.

It started with the bombshell Friday. David Petraeus resigned from his CIA post because of an affair with his biographer and fellow West Point grad Paula Broadwell. The man who co-wrote the biography says he was absolutely clueless that there was an affair.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VERNON LOEB, CO-AUTHOR, "ALL IN": I'm sure both of them look back on what is now transpiring and realized they both made the biggest mistakes of their lives. And I assume both of them regret it tremendously. But I would bet both of them sort of come roaring back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROWLANDS: The affair ended. At some point, Broadwell allegedly sent what a source describes as jealous e-mails to Kelley, perhaps perceiving Kelley as a competitor. Now, Petraeus says he was never involved with her. However, it was Kelley's involvement with General John Allen, the top military leader in Afghanistan, that may cost another commander his reputation. The Department of Defense is investigating Allen for possibly sending inappropriate e-mails to Kelley.

The president knew of Allen's troubles on Friday. This afternoon, his press secretary held a briefing.

Let's go live to White House correspondent Jessica Yellin, who was at the briefing and has more on the president's response to the investigation of his top commander in Afghanistan -- Jessica.

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Ted.

Well, first of all, the president was told about General Allen's situation in stages. First, on Friday, he was notified that there could be a possible problem with his nomination, because he's being moved on or was being moved on to NATO.

And then he was told again on Monday that this is being referred to the Department of Defense for further investigation. Now, we're told by the White House that this -- the president is shocked by all of this news. But they wouldn't comment further on the president's reaction, referring all details in this case to the Pentagon, which is investigating the case, and suggesting that, you know, as to the particulars of when the president was notified, if he's satisfied with the timing of the notification, if he's bothered by the behavior, in Petraeus' case, admitted behavior, and General Allen's, purported behavior, they won't say anything beyond that this is particular to these two gentlemen and two respected military leaders and we shouldn't extrapolate beyond that to anything about a larger culture at the military.

Obviously, Ted, this leaves a lot of questions at this point unanswered.

ROWLANDS: Yes. The president, as you said, learned of General Allen's investigation Friday. I'm going to play a part of an interview with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey about the timing. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL MUKASEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think there was a protocol in place about what who could talk to the White House, and the attorney general was definitely one of the two people who could under any circumstances and the deputy attorney general was another. The people at the White House that they could talk to were the White House counsel and the deputy White House counsel.

You don't have to wait until an investigation is over and concluded before it has implications for national security, as this one did. To have a CIA director under investigation and knowing about it is something that I think in and of itself would have made it necessary to notify the White House, i.e., the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROWLANDS: A lot of doubts, Jessica, that the White House didn't know about this. How are they reacting to sort of people thinking that this doesn't pass the smell test?

YELLIN: They simply say they were notified last week, period. That's what their facts are, they say, and that's all they can comment on is the way they're characterizing it.

I would add that I asked if they're confident that this did not have any implications for national security, and the former attorney general said it could have. Jay Carney said, look, he has to refer even that question to the Department of Justice and the Pentagon who are investigating this.

So, again, they're not answering a lot of the questions out of here because they say these investigations, they're continuing, Ted.

ROWLANDS: What about Mike Morell? Will he replace David Petraeus as CIA director or have you heard of any other names being thrown out there?

YELLIN: Right, all of this is now folding into the Cabinet reshuffling and the administration personnel game. Right now, what I am told consistently is that current Homeland Security Adviser John Brennan, for whom the president, of course, has enormous admiration and has worked with from the very beginning of the administration, that essentially if Brennan wants the job, it could be Brennan's job, but there is no clarity about whether or not Brennan would want that job and that current acting Director Mike Morell, who was elevated to that role, would be the second other likely replacement if Adviser Brennan did not want the job.

So those are the two top candidates to replace Petraeus at this point.

ROWLANDS: OK. Jessica Yellin with the latest for us from the White House. Thank you, Jessica.

Let's swing over to Capitol Hill now.

Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, he chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.

First, we have General David Petraeus resigning as head of the CIA and admitting to an affair. Now an investigation into General John Allen who had a lot of communication with the woman Petraeus' mistress may have considered a rival, I guess. Is there a discipline problem going on among the nation's top generals, sir?

REP. PETER KING (R-NY), HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I think we have to look at the overall record. The American military has done a phenomenal job.

As to what General Petraeus did or General Allen may have done, there's still no nothing definite on that. I think we have to look at against the context of their entire careers. We can go back into the Bible, the days of King David, and human nature is human nature. And we as a government are trying to keep it under control.

But, no, listen, the American military is in a class by itself. I can tell you, every profession, I have known reporters, obviously politicians who have been involved in different affairs. This does not affect on the military, other than certainly General Petraeus and possibly, and I hesitate to even say it, General Allen.

But, no, I think we should not be in any way denigrating our military. They do an outstanding job and this is really the exception.

ROWLANDS: Nothing to extrapolate this out to anyone else. What do you make of the fact that we had this socialite person in Tampa, this Jill Kelley, apparently rubbing elbows with the leaders of the U.S. military, and apparently she also runs in Washington social circles.

What is going on here? Have you heard of this woman Jill Kelley before? Have you ever met her?

KING: Yes, I met her at one or two events at the British Embassy over the years.

And other than that, I really can't say. She is one of those people who is around apparently. She is -- apparently was involved with the military in Tampa. That is really all I know about her. I met her once, twice, and then at, again, social events and then until then and until now I had not heard anything about her at all.

Obviously, all of us are learning more about her now than we ever wanted to.

ROWLANDS: Does her access concern you?

KING: No. Again, we don't know the facts. She is -- apparently she and her husband were involved in socializing or being social coordinators for the military, which in and of itself is an admirable task, but, again, what went on, what didn't go on, we have to see.

I don't want to be pre-judging anyone here. And, again, you often find there are people, public and experienced citizens who want to assist the military. If it goes beyond that, that's a different issue. But in and of itself, I know of many people in New York who try to run social events in the military, try to in fact open their doors to them. So it is something we should try to encourage. Whether it is ever abused or not, that is a different story.

ROWLANDS: Let me ask you this. Do you take the White House at its word that the president didn't know about General Petraeus in the investigation until last week after the election?

KING: It is hard to believe. And if it is true, then someone dropped the ball here.

To me, a person as key a role as General Petraeus is and was, once the FBI realized that he was within the scope of the investigation, they had the absolute obligation I believe to tell the president because General Petraeus was representing the president on so many key matters around the world, in personal talks, negotiations with leaders around the world.

And so being in such a sensitive position where he could have been compromised, no, the president should have been told. If he was told and did nothing about it, that reflects on him. If he wasn't told, then that reflects on the people who should have told him, which I believe is the FBI and the attorney general. And certainly the White House staff, if they were told about it, they certainly should have informed the president.

But until then, we have to take the president at his word.

ROWLANDS: The other side of that argument would be that there are good reasons for the Justice Department as a law enforcement agency to limit communication with the White House. And how does the attorney general decide between what to do, talking to the president or keeping the investigation pure?

KING: To me, what is most important here is that the president's main job is commander in chief.

And if one of his top lieutenants, one of his top people is subject to compromise, the president should know that. Before he sends somebody out on a mission, he should know whether or not that person has been compromised. To me, that trumps all. That would not interfere with the investigation, but it would -- especially since General Petraeus apparently was never the target of the investigation, but it was information that came out about him, and to me the chance of something going wrong with General Petraeus or anyone in his position overseas being compromised is far greater a risk than an investigation of cyber-harassments.

ROWLANDS: All right, Congressman Peter King, thank you from Capitol Hill.

Still ahead, if Petraeus had resigned for, let's say, health reasons, would he still have to testify this week on the Benghazi attack? We will talk about the chances of that and the chances that he will take the hot seat.

Plus, forget all this political bickering over the fiscal cliff. You're about to hear how going over the edge could impact you directly. We will break down the numbers coming up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROWLANDS: The Senate Intelligence Committee will gather next hour for a closed hearing. They're looking into the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

They're also very interested in what the now former CIA Director David Petraeus can tell them about the attack.

CNN's Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill joining us now.

Dana, what is the latest on whether or not Petraeus might testify in some form before this committee?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Before I answer that, I want to actually show our viewers some pictures of what just happened, where I'm standing here in this hallway, moments ago, and that is the acting director of the CIA, Michael Morell, just left after meeting as I mentioned to you last hour with the Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and the ranking Republican Saxby Chambliss.

Morell is actually making the rounds here on Capitol Hill today. We know he met with Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader earlier. We expect him to also meet with the Republican leader in the Senate later. It is kind of the new guy for lack of a better way to say it coming and talking to people who, you know, obviously are very concerned about what is going on in the CIA.

To answer the question about David Petraeus, you know, at the White House today, the White House spokesman Jay Carney said he believes that the committees here on Capitol Hill will get adequate information from Michael Morell about what happened in Benghazi, but his fellow Democrat who runs the Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, she told us that that's just not the case.

She really wants David Petraeus to come and brief members of the Intelligence Committee and she told me that she wants that to happen as soon as this Friday. And what is going to go on behind me in the next hour is there is going to be a meeting of members of the Intelligence Committee on the Senate side and they're going to discuss if that timing works and how else that they need to go forward whether or not they're going to launch a full-on investigation about why they didn't know, why they weren't briefed about this whole investigation into David Petraeus before the end of it, before effectively just minutes after David Petraeus himself resigned.

ROWLANDS: This story clearly taking over Capitol Hill today. Is this pretty much anything -- everything that people are talking about? Is this it?

BASH: Pretty close. We do have a very, very, very large economic issue going on and that's the fiscal cliff, which is going to happen in 49 days if Congress doesn't act. You can bet there is a lot of discussion in the hallways about that as well.

But there is no question that as Dianne Feinstein herself said to me, the Petraeus issue, and now Allen, is like "The National Enquirer." So, that is definitely a big issue also on Capitol Hill. In fact, listen to Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, talking about this just a short while ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: We have to find out what who knew what when and why would Congress not have known. But, again, if it doesn't involve national security, the notification requirement doesn't trigger. If it involves poor behavior, you know, it would have been nice to know before we saw it on TV. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Boy, that could not have been dripping with any more sarcasm, right?

And I should say that Nancy Pelosi is not only the Democratic leader. She was formerly the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. She knows what he's talking about when it comes to those issues.

ROWLANDS: Yes. Well, thank you, Dana. It's more and more coming out by the minute.

As Dana mentioned, the fiscal cliff, well, avoiding the fiscal cliff hinges on Washington and those lawmakers. But let's say lawmakers don't act come January. Well, the bottom line, it will cost you. Brace yourself, because you could be shelling out thousands of dollars more in taxes. Breaking down how the fiscal cliff could cost you coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROWLANDS: Well, we talk a lot about the fiscal cliff. But to a lot of people, it is just a phrase. Most folks think, oh, it will get dealt with.

But let's move beyond the rhetoric and find out what it would actually cost you and I if it isn't dealt with.

Rick Newman is the chief business correspondent for "U.S. News & World Report." He's also the author of "Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback to Success."

Rick, for the record now, the fiscal cliff, of course, is a huge package of spending cuts and tax hikes that will go into effect on January 1, 49 days from now, if Congress can't cut a deal to avoid them.

So let's assume there is no deal in Washington. End of the year comes, is everybody going to get hit by this, will everybody have to pay higher taxes?

RICK NEWMAN, CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT": Yes, just about everybody.

This is not as juicy a story as the Petraeus affair we have been talking about, but it will have a lot more direct impact on people if this actually happens. If this all goes into effect, we're talking about $600 billion or so worth of spending cuts and tax hikes. Most of that is tax hikes, Ted, so about $500 billion worth of tax hikes.

If you spread that out, that adds up to $3,400 per household. And I don't think too many families have set aside $3,400 just in case Congress botches some policy argument that they haven't even been paying much attention to all year. So the implications of this are potentially very serious. ROWLANDS: You break down the numbers going through the different tax brackets here. And pretty much everybody is going to get hit, whether you are at the lowest fifth or all the way up to the top 1 percent.

It is not something that anybody can really avoid, but let's have a little faith here and assume that Congress does reach some kind of a deal and they allow some of these tax hikes to take effect, who do you think will get hit in that scenario?

NEWMAN: Well, if you break this down, there are at least nine different taxes that are scheduled to change at the beginning of the year and in most cases go up.

So the ones everybody are talking about are the big changes in income tax rates that were cut in 2001 and 2003. Those are getting the most attention. And I think if Congress puts off part of the deal, that will probably be the part that they put off because that will affect the most people and that's a lot of money. Income tax rates in general would go up on everybody by somewhere between 3 percent and 5 percentage points.

But there are some lesser increases that seem likely to happen. Some of these date to the 2009 stimulus bill. These were temporary tax cuts most of which were extended once to last through 2012. And those seem more likely to lapse. That means taxes will go up. It will be not as nearly as big a hit as the other things. But for some taxpayers, it could be 300 bucks a year, 600 bucks a year.

And those tax cuts if they lapse actually tended to benefit lower earners more than higher earners. Those people could end up taking a little bit more of a hit.

ROWLANDS: Bottom line, what is your gut feeling here? Do you think Washington is going to step up to the plate, get together, figure this out, or do you think we're going to get at least some sort of tax hike that some people will be affected here?

NEWMAN: I think it is dangerous to take for granted that this will all just work out somehow. It does seem quite possible that they do not reach a deal before the end of the year so that some of these things technically do go into effect. And then we wait for the next Congress to get seated and then maybe there is some kind of deal that retroactively undoes that, but in the meanwhile, it could be very chaotic and at a minimum I think we will see a very jumpy stock market.

That's going to affect businesses and consumers as well.

ROWLANDS: Absolutely. All right. Rick Newman, appreciate it. Thank you.

NEWMAN: Thanks, Ted.

ROWLANDS: Well, two top generals now the center of investigations over e-mails, the common thread, this Florida woman, Jill Kelley. A whole new chapter to this drama unfolds. (FINANCIAL UPDATE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROWLANDS: The scandal around former CIA Director David Petraeus widens.

It now involves General John Allen, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. The Department of Defense is investigating him for possibly sending inappropriate messages to this woman, Jill Kelley, a Tampa bay socialite who received e-mail threats allegedly from Petraeus' former mistress, Paula Broadwell.

Kelley's inquiry led to the FBI investigation of Petraeus, who resigned from his post on Friday. A close ally of General Allen told CNN the relationship between the general and Kelley was not romantic, and he may have been actually warning Kelley about Petraeus' ex- mistress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALSH: One was received by General John Allen warning him about Jill Kelley. Now, of course, he knew Jill Kelley. So, he would -- according to the senior official, he wrote to her and said, look, somebody is talking badly about you in e-mail, even threatening you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROWLANDS: Now, Petraeus says he was never involved with Kelley, whose brother spoke in her defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID KHAWAN, JILL KELLEY'S BROTHER: I know whatever it was was probably a conspiracy at some point, which I think the news is has figured it out at this juncture.

I mean, my sister really got -- from what I understand, I'm like everybody else, you know. My sister got an anonymous e-mail because of her stature and her position, she was scared. She filed a complaint with the local authorities and that trickled down to everything that is going on right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROWLANDS: As the Department of Defense works on the Allen case, the FBI searched the home of Paula Broadwell last night.

Nearly a dozen agents seen here carrying boxes out of her North Carolina home they also were seen taking photos inside her home. Not clear what they were looking for or what they found.

The FBI saying only the search was a matter of, quote, "tying up loose ends." Broadwell hasn't been seen at her home since the story broke about her affair with Petraeus. As developments trickle in over the David Petraeus scandal about who knew what and when, I want you to listen to a former attorney general who served under George w. Bush about the flow of information in these cases. Michael Mukasey spoke with Piers Morgan. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER GEORGE BUSH: It has, as you've pointed out, elements of absurdity of it, elements that as we talked about before would be rejected if they were proffered as part of a -- forget Hollywood -- a daytime television soap opera. Those, I think, are secondary.

Those are things like how did the investigation get started and the shirtless FBI agent and all of that sort of thing. Taking it, though, a step further, a question of whether the president was informed and if not, why not, those questions I think are fundamental.

PIERS MORGAN, HOST, "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT": Right. Go back to when you were attorney general.

Would you have felt an obligation to inform the president or somebody senior at the White House if you got wind of this kind of scandal enveloping the boss of the CIA?

MUKASEY: Well, easy to say what I would have felt. I think there was a protocol in place about what -- who could talk to the White House, the attorney general was definitely one of the two people who could under any circumstances and the deputy attorney general was another.

The people at the White House that they could talk to were the White House counsel and the deputy White House counsel. You don't have to wait until an investigation is over and concluded before it has implications for national security, that is one did.

To have a CIA director under investigation and knowing about it is something that I think in and of itself would have made it necessary to notify the White House, i.e. the president.

MORGAN: Do you believe that nobody at the White House knew until a few days ago?

MUKASEY: One word answer to that? No. I don't. And part -- I'm sad to say that, because they have denied it.

Part of the reason I'm sad to say that has to do with other things that surround this, including principally Benghazi.

The fact is that the White House, for some time, was purveying a story about Benghazi that simile wasn't true.

In part, they say, they relied on some things that General Petraeus told them. It will be interesting to find out about that. I think General Petraeus eventually will testify.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ROWLANDS: Well, men in power and sex scandals, General David Petraeus is just one of many high profile leaders caught up in sex, lies or cover-ups. Some historic perspective coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROWLANDS: It is recorded in history books with the many accomplishments, men of power, scandalous accusations often centered around sex and the fall from grace.

Former CIA director David Petraeus is just the latest, but there is always that lingering question, especially in this age of nonstop news and sports, social media. Why? Why take the risk? Take a look at this from Martin Savidge.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Politics and sex scandals are nothing new in the U.S. In fact, they date back to our country's beginning.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Of course, look, if we wanted to see what our Founding Fathers' behavior was like in Philadelphia in 1776, we may not like all of the answers.

SAVIDGE: More recently, President John F. Kennedy's affairs were notorious. Lyndon Johnson was such a man with the ladies that he allegedly had a buzzer installed in his congressional office to alert him when Lady Bird Johnson was on the way.

Journalists never reported on such things back in the day, but that eventually changed.

So did technology and recently it is the digital footprint of dalliances that have led to some spectacular falls.

Remember Congressman Anthony Weiner? He tweeted a photo of his privates. When the story broke, he denied it, claiming his Twitter account had been hacked. Eventually, he fessed up and resigned.

REPRESENTATIVE ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: I apologize, first and foremost to my wife and to my family.

SAVIDGE: There was Client Number Nine, aka Eliot Spitzer, the governor of New York and former CNN anchor.

When investigators followed his money, it revealed he spent thousands as a regular client of a call girl. He, too, stepped down.

ELIOT SPITZER, FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR: I've acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and that violates my or any sense of right and wrong.

SAVIDGE: And now comes General Petraeus, done in by a simple click of the mouse. BRINKLEY: E-mail traffic is -- it is amazing that e-mail is still being used in such a careless and reckless fashion because it is just evidence against you.

SAVIDGE: Modern science can also play a role. Remember President Clinton and the DMA on a blue dress belonging to a certain White House intern, Monica Lewinsky?

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

SAVIDGE: So if technology makes hiding an affair almost impossible, why do powerful people still think they can get away with it?

BRINKLEY: It is about narcissism and the will to power and, people that strive that mightily and start believing their own press, they start feeling omnipotent.

SAVIDGE: But they aren't omnipotent. The general's fall from grace comes with collateral damage, called families.

Martin Savidge, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROWLANDS: Well, two weeks after Sandy ripped through the Northeast, a clear picture of the massive cost. In New York alone, the governor estimates $30 billion in damages, damages folks in many communities are still dealing with.

We're taking you to New York for the very latest, coming up after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROWLANDS: It's been two weeks since Superstorm Sandy hit the northeast. Today, gas rationing came to an end in New Jersey.

And although some areas are seeing power restored, in many pockets of New York City, life is anything but normal, people fed up with the cold and the dark.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is just dark and cold. That's pretty much -- that just sizes it up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think the management is unprepared for this. At the end of the day, this was just a monumental task.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is like going on and on and on. End it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You start to get aggravated. We deserve better than this.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ROWLANDS: CNN's Victor Blackwell is in Belle Harbor, New York, a Long Island neighborhood that is still in the dark. Victor, what are things looking like there today?

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ted, there is a lot happening on this block, Beach 130th in Belle Harbor.

Right over my shoulder, there is a power crew from out of town who is here to cure the power lines on this block. The power lines are out, but they've been shredded and they're hanging.

And we saw earlier today the gas company came in to cap the gas lines at each home. now, these homes already because of gas problems have burned to their foundation. At least a dozen homes on this block have been damaged.

The water was keeping people inside. The fire forced them out. And many people who weren't home at the time had to get out of the house.

One person who was not here, but learned his house was gone, was Ron Wohl. He got a message from his neighborhood, just two words, "It's gone."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: When you heard those two words, "it's gone," what did you feel?

RONALD WOHL, BELLE HARBOR RESIDENT: Oh, dread. This is my life savings. This is -- I don't have a mortgage.

This is my retirement, my kids' college. This was -- it still is. I hope to collect. It is overwhelming.

I mean, I still can't believe it, that a week ago this was -- two weeks ago, this was a house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: There is some work happening here. There is also work happening on the beach.

The boardwalk was completely washed away along Rockaway Beach and there are crews now. The bulldozers were pulling the sand out of the streets and there are sifting machines are, trying to put everything back together to try to bring the community back together.

So a lot of work happening, but still much more work to do. Ted?

ROWLANDS: All right, a long way to go indeed. Victor, thank you.

McAfee, sound familiar? John McAfee, the computer anti-virus pioneer, is now wanted for questioning about the murder of his neighbor. Standing by on the phone is the police chief in Belize.

But, first, the unemployment rate among veterans in -- from the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan is several points higher than the national average.

We caught up with one female veteran in San Diego who is putting her military training as a helicopter mechanic to use to help fight fires.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SERGEANT FRANKIE VERNER (RETIRED), U.S. MARINE CORPS: I am currently in the firefighting training with the California Conservation Corps.

Just when you're holding this and just pull.

Close it. There you go.

They offer a lot of training, so it's really good they're doing this for -- especially for veterans because it can be hard sometimes to find good jobs.

We play with the chainsaw, just kind of get associated or a little more familiar with it.

And then we practice laying hose from an engine, which we hadn't done yet with actual water.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's what influences the wildland fires, right?

VERNER: Well, since it's mostly veterans, it's just -- it's really easy for us, a lot of us, to just click and just work together. So, the teamwork thing fell into place really well.

I was an aviation hydraulics and airframes mechanic for the Hueys and Cobras. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton and we deployed to Afghanistan in 2010.

I know it was a bloody summer while we were there. We lost a couple of pilots. I saw a lot of bodies coming back.

PETTY OFFICER JAZMYNE SIMS (RETIRED), U.S. NAVY: I was in the navy, the U.S. Navy, for four years and my job title was quartermaster.

We helped out with amphibious operations. We had a lot of marines on the boats.

I was so focused on Navy at one point in time I never imagined myself being a firefighter. I never imagined myself going through training and it's been challenging for me, but the challenge is more than welcomed.

VERNER: I'm hoping that I get picked up with either some kind of fire department or I'm also trying to get into some kind of police work, just experience and hopefully a job.

SIMS: Being a veteran, it's a big thing to me. It means a lot because I have a lot of veterans in my family.

When we have veterans, they -- it's not more or less saying I did my time in service. It's saying I paved the way for people that are going to come behind me to do their time in service.

To come home and sort of celebrate a Veterans Day or, you know, to have people acknowledge the fact that, you know, I did something like this, it touches my heart. It really does.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROWLANDS: McAfee is one of the best known names in anti-virus software. You're probably using it on your computer or may have in the past.

Today, its founder and namesake, John McAfee, is being sought by authorities in Central America.

Police in Belize want to talk to him about the killing of his American neighbor whose body was found Sunday, face up, in a pool of blood.

Nobody seems to know where McAfee is.

Joining me on the phone, Raphael Martinez with the Belize Ministry of National Security.

Mr. Martinez, why, first off, do you want to talk to John McAfee?

RAPHAEL MARTINEZ, POLICE PRESS OFFICER, BELIZE MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SECURITY (via telephone): Well, we want to speak with him because we want to assure the general public that he is not the suspect in the murder of Mr. Faull, but rather, he is a person of interest.

He lives about 300 yards north of Mr. Faull in the northern area of San Pedro and, as is customary during these type of police operations, we look at associates, people who have been seen with Mr. Faull within 24 hours of his death, and associates, people worked with him, And these are the people who police are actually taking in for questioning at this time.

So, having lived in proximity of Mr. Faull and, of course, having previous discussions and so on, we believe that Mr. McAfee could help us in the solving of this latest murder in San Pedro.

ROWLANDS: You would like to talk to him and Mr. McAfee and Mr. Fall do have a bit of a history.

McAfee had a number of dogs. They were poisoned on Friday. Faull and a couple neighbors didn't like those dogs. It could have been a possible motive here.

McAfee, though, told a U.S. magazine that he is innocent and that, if he turns himself in, he is worried police there, that you people, would kill him.

What do you say to that?

MARTINEZ: My goodness. Well, as far as I'm concerned, I -- he needs to come in and sort of clear the air.

As far as the concern, we are law-abiding people here. We follow the laws to the letter and we believe that at this point he has absolutely no fear of being killed by anybody because all we need from him is to talk with him, to clarify the situation, to set the -- allay the fears of everybody that perhaps he is indeed involved in the murder of his neighbor.

So, basically, that's all we need, for him to come in as a person of interest to clear the air and let's solve this latest murder.

ROWLANDS: All right. Raphael Martinez, thank you for joining us.

I want to bring in Joey Jackson now, defense attorney.

And, Joey, you know, it is an interesting case here. He's decided to hide, basically run from police, but is -- these actions could make things much worse for John McAfee than turning himself in, could they not?

JOEY JACKSON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: They could, Ted. And, as you know, it's oftentimes when a person runs, when a person is nowhere to be found, that's used later to show consciousness of guilt.

In other words, if you didn't do anything and you have nothing to fear, why run, why hide? So, it certainly could make matters worse.

But, as you know, Ted, what he is claiming is that he really fears the police and that's based upon his history with them. They raided his home, apparently, last April. There were some guns taken from him at that time.

There was discussion as to whether he was involved in the drug trade, apparently, or was producing or distributing anti -- amphetamines and, so, you know, there's some concern on his part as to whether or not the police will treat him fairly if he does turn himself in.

ROWLANDS: Are there motivations for murder here when you look at the facts of this?

JACKSON: Well, you know, it's interesting because I don't know whether -- and I don't want to certainly question the motives of Mr. Martinez, the police chief. I don't know whether they're trying to make him feel comfortable so that he would come in.

What does a person of interest mean and, if he came in, would he, in fact, be obligated to talk? No. And, so, I don't whether it's that or whether he's really wanted for murder, Ted.

And I certainly think, based upon, as you said at the outset, you know, there's some history between him, right, McAfee and his neighbor.

There's the issue of the dogs. There's the issue of the complaint that his neighbor filed against him concerning some conduct between McAfee and himself and, so, certainly there was bad blood between them.

Would it rise to the level of murder? I think we're going to find out in short order.

ROWLANDS: What do you know about Belize. Can he get a fair trial there?

JACKSON: Well, you know, it depends who you ask. I am certain, Ted, if you ask the police chief, he would say absolutely.

There's a couple things people should know. Number one is that they have a pretty fair system, it would seem, as relates the law.

They have the right to counsel. They have the right against self- incrimination. They have the right to jury. In fact, a jury is required in capital cases, so their system pretty much mirrors the British system and pretty much is, you know,, somewhat an imprint of our own.

There, of course, is a lot of talk about the corruption issue there, whether it is perceived, whether it's real, whether it's imagined. There's some discussion about that. And, as you know, Ted, the American Bar Association also did a review of that system in Belize in 2011 and let's just say the report they produced, the ABA, American Bar Association, was wanting in terms of the system and its fairness and equities in it in several respects.

So. would it be fair? It remains to be seen. He's on the run now. That we know.

ROWLANDS: Absolutely.

All right, Joey Jackson, thank you.

Up next, news on the condition of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. Stay here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROWLANDS: Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., is no longer a patient at the Mayo Clinic. He has been absent from Congress since last summer. Earlier this year, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Today, a clinic spokesman says that Jackson is no longer being treated there.

Jackson is at the center of a federal investigation into alleged misuse of campaign funds and won re-election in his Chicago district last week. He is out of the Mayo Clinic.

Well, it is time for "THE SITUATION ROOM" and, of course, that means Wolf Blitzer. Wolf?