Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Defense Secretary Robert Gates Holds Press Conference; Giant Controversy; Interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Aired December 02, 2008 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Coming at you now: the war on terror, a new strategy? We are moments away from Defense Secretary Gates, live.
A superstar with a gun at a nightclub, and the gun goes off.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (I), MAYOR OF NEW YORK: I think it would be an outrage if we didn't prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
SANCHEZ: And, today, a new detail: allegations the hospital may have tried to cover it up.
BLOOMBERG: The district attorney should certainly go after the management of this hospital.
SANCHEZ: Watch the terrorist gunfire as it happened inside a train station restaurant.
And Sheriff Joe Arpaio challenges our report on his jails.
JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SHERIFF: I decide what the policies are.
SANCHEZ: And he will join us live to do so.
Your questions, your newscast, lunchtime in Tacoma, 3:00 p.m. in Tampa. It begins right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Yes, it does begin. I'm Rick Sanchez. Hi, everybody. Here we go.
First of all, the Defense Secretary Robert Gates is going to be talking any moment now, and we're going to be taking you to that.
As a matter of fact, we have got a live picture set up. This is at the Pentagon.
We had a lot of response from you yesterday on our conversation about what the United States' new strategy should be on the war in terror. We suspect we might even be getting some answers. There is the secretary of state sitting down now to talk to some of the reporters. We're going to be dipping in and listening to what he has to say.
In fact, lets's do that, as we speak.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: ... First, I want to thank President Bush for giving me the opportunity to serve as secretary of defense. As I said yesterday in Chicago, serving in this position has been the most gratifying experience of my life and he made it possible. I also thank him for his support in the difficult decisions that I have had to make. It has been an honor and a pleasure to work for and with him, and I will have more to say about this at an appropriate time.
Second, this is quite literally a unique situation. Since the creation of the position of secretary of defense some 60 years ago, no secretary has been asked to continue in office under a newly-elected president even when the new president has come from the same party. So I thank President-elect Obama for his confidence in me and look forward to working for and with him.
Third, every new president traditionally fills civilian positions at the Department of Defense. It will be no different now. Virtually every political appointee in the Department of Defense before yesterday assumed he or she would be replaced on January 20th or soon thereafter. That assumption remains as valid today as it was before. Some incumbents will likely be asked to serve until a successor is confirmed, and I am hopeful that we can reach those decisions soon.
I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every civilian appointee for their service to this department and to our country.
Fourth and finally, I suppose it should go without saying that I have no intention of being a caretaker secretary. Our challenges from the budget to acquisition and procurement reform, war strategy, care of wounded warriors, meeting the needs of war fighters, decisions on important modernization and capitalization projects and more all demand the personal attention of the secretary of defense, and they will get it. Not to mention the multitude of challenges around the world where this department will continue to play a significant role in supporting U.S. policy.
I'm told by my staff that although there have been numerous opportunities for press questions while I have been on the road or appearing with foreign visitors, I have not had one of these press availabilities in some time, and so I will stop here and leave ample time for questions.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I was wondering if you could clear up a couple of small things and then sort of a broader question.
But are you a registered Republican, Democrat, or what? I would just toss that out first.
GATES: I felt when I was at CIA that as a professional intelligence officer, like a military officer, I should be apolitical. And so I didn't register with a party. I consider myself a Republican. Until yesterday, all of my senior appointments have been under Republican presidents.
QUESTION: How long did you -- those of us who have traveled with you might have seen your countdown clock. And I'm wondering if you are resetting it? Is your time here going to be open-ended or do you expect even generally to have sort of a timeframe for your stay?
And then secondarily, what changed your mind? We've all quoted you numerous times on your thinking that it might be inconceivable that you would stay on. What are the types of things that you thought about when you knew this was coming?
GATES: Well, first of all, I have thrown away the clock because it was absolutely useless at the end of the day. The president-elect and I agreed that this would be open-ended. And so there is no time frame.
With respect to my comments over the last six months, I guess I would say that I was engaged in my own form of strategic deterrence. It was my hope that if I made enough noise about how much I did not want to stay here and how much I wanted to go back to the northwest, that I wouldn't have to worry about the question ever being asked because I also knew myself well enough to know that if the question was asked what the answer would be.
And it was the same as with President Bush two years ago. With the country fighting two wars and our men and women in uniform at risk, if a president asked me to help, there's no way I can say no. So I spent a long time hoping the question would never be popped. I then hoped he'd change his mind. And yesterday it became a reality.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, yesterday, you said that when President- elect Obama asked you to stay on as secretary of defense you considered it your duty to say yes. But there must have been more involved in that calculation than that.
Just how comfortable are you with President-elect Obama's positions on withdrawal of troops from Iraq? On Afghanistan? On Iran? On Guantanamo Bay, for example?
GATES: Well, I think the president-elect has made it pretty clear that he wanted a team of people around him who would tell him what they thought and give him their best advice. I think he has assemble that team.
There will, no doubt, be differences among the team. And it will be up to the president to make the decisions.
We did meet, but I would tell you that there were no negotiations or anything like that. The discussion really was focused on how will it work. How do we make this kind of an appointment that, as an indicated, really has no precedent work in practice?
So it was more focused on that and relationships than it was on substantive issues.
QUESTION: Specifically, then, do you consider yourself at odds with President-elect Obama on a possible timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq?
GATES: I think that I would subscribe to what the president- elect said yesterday in Chicago. He repeated his desire to try and get our combat forces out within 16 months. But he also said that he wanted to have a responsible drawdown. And he also said that he was prepared to listen to his commanders.
So I think that that's exactly the position the president-elect should be in.
QUESTION: But he also said in the right timeframe, 16 months. Do you think that's the right timeframe?
GATES: Well, I think -- I would -- I would take you back to what I just said in terms of what all he said. And it's within that framework that I think that's agreeable.
QUESTION: Sixteen months again. What might be your concerns at this point about a 16-month timetable?
GATES: Well, first of all, the situation has changed, I think, in significant ways since the campaign. And most of all, in terms of the signing of the SOFA, we are going to be out of all populated areas of Iraq by the end of June 2009.
By the end of June 2009, we are obligated under the SOFA or we will see that provisional Iraqi control has extended to the entire country, to all 18 provinces.
So we will confront or have a different kind of situation in Iraq at the end of June 2009 than we would have thought, perhaps, in June of 2008. And I think that the commanders are already looking at what the implications of that are in terms of the potential for accelerating the drawdown and -- and in terms of how we meet our obligations to the Iraqis.
So, again, I go back to the president-elect's comments yesterday. He did talk about the 16 months in terms of combat forces, but he also talked about a responsible drawdown and that he was willing to listen to the commanders.
QUESTION: So you're not as concerned about that timetable than you were before the election?
GATES: I'm less concerned about that timetable. First of all, we have a definite timetable now in the SOFA. It's a longer one, but it's a definite timetable. So that bridge has been crossed. And so the question is how do we do this in a responsible way. And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved with so much sacrifice on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis at this point.
And so I think that the president-elect framed it just right yesterday.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, President-elect Obama also said that he thinks the main threat on the American people comes from terrorist safe havens in South Asia. He said, presumably you're referring to Pakistan. Is there more that the department can do under this administration or the next to address that problem?
GATES: Well, I think that we all believe now that we basically have our foot on the neck of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That the safe havens in the FATA and that area are of great concern and do pose, probably, the greatest threat to the homeland from Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations.
My view is that the solution there is involved in partnering with the Pakistanis in power and the Afghan's efforts to work it from the Afghan side of the border and the Pakistanis working it from their side of the border. They have -- they confront violent extremists there as well. And they have, over the last several months, been moving fairly aggressively in taking on some of those -- some of those groups in Bajaur and Sawat and elsewhere.
And so I think that we just need to continue looking at ways in which we can strengthen our partnership with Pakistan and do what we can to enable them to deal with the problem on their side of the border.
QUESTION: Is this more of a long-term project? Or is it something that can be addressed relatively quickly with a policy change or a tactics change?
GATES: Well, I think that we are prepared to move as quickly as the Pakistanis are. I know they're uneasy about the American footprint in Pakistan. And I think we have to be sensitive to their political concerns. At the same time, I mean, we cannot do this on our own.
QUESTION: Can you confirm that Admiral Mullen is on his way to India? Can you outline the purpose of his mission? And more broadly, can you talk about the Mumbai attacks and who you believe was responsible?
GATES: Well, I think -- you know, I don't want to get into the intelligence that we have. I would like to commend the Indians for their restraint at this point.
Admiral Mullen is in the area as is Secretary Rice, as you know. And, frankly, because the situation is fairly delicate, I don't want to say too much about it. It clearly was the act of an extremist group that apparently was targeting Americans and Britons. But the truth is most of the people who were killed were Indians. And so it's important that we find out who did it and try and prevent it from ever happening again.
QUESTION: Could you tell us, under an Obama administration, obviously, you've talked about some of the changes in personnel that we may see here at the Pentagon. But otherwise, physically, on the ground in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in here operationally within the walls of the Pentagon, what will be different under an Obama administration?
I know that besides, perhaps, this difference on the timeframe in Iraq and pulling out U.S. troops, they have also had some concerns about the U.S. tactics in Afghanistan as far as the reliance on attacking from the air, the number of civilians who are killed that way. they have taken issue with that.
What immediate changes will we see?
GATES: Well, I think that, clearly, one of the -- one of the first priorities of the administration will be to look at our strategy and approach in Afghanistan. My own view, as I have said before, is it's very important for us to do everything we can to make sure that the Afghans understand this is their fight and they have to be out front in this fight. That's why I'm such a strong supporter of accelerating the expansion of the Afghan army.
And so, you know, I can't foretell the outcome of the review that will take place in the new administration, but as the president-elect has made clear, it's a very high priority. You will have a significant number of new civilian leaders in this building. There clearly is going to be very close scrutiny, I think, as an indicated yesterday.
We need to take, I think, for me at least, a high priority given our experience of the past year or so, and actually, some would say, a lot longer. We need to take a very hard look at the way we go about acquisition and procurement.
SANCHEZ: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In my hurried attempt to try and get to his news conference, I think I may have called him at some point the secretary of state. I apologize for that error.
And I thank those of you who are Twittering for pointing that out to me on a couple of occasions.
I want to do this now. I want to bring in Pat Lang. Why? Because he is a former head of intelligence for the United States of America when it regards or when it comes to the Middle East, working for the Pentagon in that position.
As we listen to Secretary Gates, I mean, he is kind of evasive, really not saying that much. But I think that a lot of the questions that people want to know from him, and I think it was addressed from by couple of reporters like Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News is, is he comfortable with Obama's stated policies that are different than some of the Bush policies. What did you hear him saying?
PATRICK LANG, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, what I heard him say is that, in fact, no matter what the noise may have been during the campaign, that his ideas and president-elect Obama's ideas about where policy should go in the Middle East and in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not very different really. A lot was made of the fact that President Obama said he wanted to get all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months. And now there is an effective treaty between the United States and Iraq and something very similar, so I don't think there's a lot of heartburn about that on...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But, Pat, doesn't it need to be different? If you look at the policy, I know it is arguable, but you could look at the last seven years, and say we are not really that far different from where we were to begin with. After all, recruitment for al Qaeda and some of these fundamentalist groups have actually increased and now we are seeing evidence of attacks in places like Mumbai.
LANG: Yes, but I think there's a very big difference between the situation in Iraq, the country, on the one hand, in which we have accomplished most of our warrings as they were stated when we went in, in terms of the fact we confirmed there was no WMD there and we have pretty much broken down the structure of al Qaeda in Iraq on the one hand.
And now there's something approaching a stabilization within the government of Iraq. So, that's a good thing. We can start to withdraw our terror from there.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Look, I have got to interrupt you. I mean, come on. We have broken down the structure of al Qaeda? Al Qaeda was never in Iraq to begin with.
LANG: It is now. After the beginning of the war there, the jihadis flocked to the place and built up a very large structure...
SANCHEZ: You're right.
LANG: ... in response to the American occupation of the country. It was there. It was fought on the ground there and it was defeated. It's time to move on.
There is a government there. We need to start withdrawing our forces, as we have agreed to do. The business of fighting the Takfiri jihadis all over the world is a separate issue. And President Obama said he's going to press that very hard. And I don't think Gates is in disagreement with that in any way.
SANCHEZ: Well, final question to you before we get out of this. I'm interested in your perspective because you certainly have a lot more experience than most of us do on this.
Is it time to have a more coordinated approach that involves some kind of diplomacy that we maybe didn't rely on or look to in the past?
LANG: It's very clear that the Obama administration is going to diplomatize American foreign policy. There's going to be a lot more reliance on that and while at the same time going after the jihadis using commandos, intelligence resources, things like this.
SANCHEZ: Is that good or bad, though?
LANG: No, that is a good thing.
SANCHEZ: OK.
LANG: That is a good thing, because it is not necessary to invade these countries in order to go after terrorists.
In fact, when you do invade these countries without the cooperation of their inhabitants, in fact, you make these people more angry and, in fact, they're apt to join in the struggle against us, so what we are proceeding to do is a good thing.
SANCHEZ: Pat Lang, great conversation. We appreciate your expertise and taking the to come in and talk to us.
LANG: My pleasure.
SANCHEZ: By the way, we have got some new video coming in. This is some of the video that has been coming in from Mumbai. It is unbelievable video.
It actually details some of the events that took place just at the moments when the attack happened. And it makes you wonder, well, what would you do in that situation? There you see -- by the way, right there where I am circling is one of the terrorists, more on him and the entire story. Three other clips like that one I'm going to break down for you when we come back.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: After listening to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a lot of you have been Twittering us and giving us your responses.
Let's take a couple of those, if we possibly can, right now.
This is Desert Nurse watching our newscast right now, saying: "Look, Gates chose his words very carefully, hesitant to answer, it seems. No clear policy yet. It is not January yet."
Now, look at the one below that. Tina, she's also watching. She says: "Gates doesn't seem excited. I don't think he is as sold on Obama's plans as he claims."
There are a lot more coming in by the way, as well as the Plaxico Burress story that we told you about at the beginning. Interestingly enough, many of you have been sending us tweets on that.
But let me show you something now, as promised.
I am going to take you through some of the most dramatic moments that occurred in Mumbai last week. Let's start with the video, if we can, Dan, of that terrorist. He's right behind the column in the middle. You will see him coming out right there. You see him right there? Then you see the gun fire. He is obviously shooting in that same area. This is at the rail station by the way.
All right. Dan, let's get out of that one and let's go to the next one now. This is interesting, because you see, the people don't seem to know. These folks right here are starting to bend down. They are hearing something. This guy doesn't seem to be reacting to anything.
But watch now. Bang, and everyone hits the ground. Suddenly, the lights get dim and that is when the firing actually begins. Now I'm going to take you through this one. This is a worker in the same area. Look at -- look -- pay attention to what is going on up there, by the way.
Go back to that one, Dan. Yes, look what is going on right there. This is actually outside the rail station. It's at that restaurant. This is the counter where they were serving food. And out here is the exit where people were leaving, and you can actually see where all of the sudden, they all start to take off.
But, again, one of the most dramatic videos that we have received today is this last one. Let's go to that one, if we possibly can, now. There it is. Now, right here in the middle is the suspect that we have been telling you about. They are working him over pretty good as a matter of fact.
He has been actually taken by police. He is the only suspect who was taken alive. His name is Azam Kasav. He's being taken down. And that's the area where it's happening right there. We will loop this, so you can see it again. He is actually taken in. Then suddenly the authorities have him. They are working him toward this car that you see right there, until they finally get him in the car. You see him opening the door before they have taken him away.
But to be quite honest with you, as you watch this, you can kind of tell that he is being worked over pretty good before they do that. He is the only one who has talking thus far to authorities. And the little bit of information that has been coming out of the story has been coming pretty much from him.
The case of Plaxico Burress has most of New York on edge, because they are trying to find out whether not just the team is going to be affected, but what is going to happen to him. And, today, the mayor of New York stepped into this controversy with some extremely bold statements about what should happen to Plaxico. And he is not being kind to him.
We are going to take you through this controversy and a new development on the fact that the hospital may have actually tried to cover part of the story up. We are all over it. We will have that for you in just a little bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back.
A very important interview that we are about to do. Yesterday, we mentioned that Barack Obama had chosen Janet Napolitano to head Homeland Security. In that vein, we also mentioned that back in the 1990s, she may have overlooked a Justice Department investigation of the jails in Phoenix, or Maricopa County, headed, of course, by the controversial sheriff there, also quoted as the toughest sheriff in America by himself and others, in terms of the jail that he ran there at the time. We're talking, of course, about Joe Arpaio.
Well, soon after we got off of the air, we got a memo from Joe Arpaio. There you see the sheriff with us now. We got this memo from Arpaio's office.
I'm going to read it to you and we're going to put it up.
It says: "The U.S. Justice Department initiated the jail investigation in 1996. That later ended with a dismissal, and no serious violations were found. Then, U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano had no active role in the investigation. I continue to run these jails safely and effectively. I never endorsed her for any elected -- official."
Well, there you have it. That is pretty true to the statement that we received from you yesterday; is that right, Sheriff?
ARPAIO: That is 100 percent correct. The lawsuit originated from the civil division in Washington, D.C.
They did an investigation at the time of the dismissal. The -- now the governor, but the U.S. attorney at the time, did join the press conference, as a matter of courtesy, because she was the U.S. attorney, but it was Washington that initiated and dismissed that complaint.
SANCHEZ: Well -- well, let's talk about what they found. I think it would be illustrative for people to know this. George E. Sullivan was the expert on detention operations. He was hired, in fact, by the Justice Department. He found that, in fact, there were unjustified and excessive forces used in the jail, including the dangerous practice of hog tying prisoners. He detected a code of silence during the excessive use of force; noted that staff whop were observing the abuse would often look the other way; found that you used restraint chairs that are unnecessary and have been used improperly, according to him.
That's what one looks like. Two deaths, according to the report, have been caused as a result of those restraint chairs.
And that the grievance system in your jails is dysfunctional; that no complaint forms are used. And those grievances that are issued -- 21 that he stated -- were ignored. "And without grievances," he goes on to say -- this is Mr. Sullivan -- "as an outlet, the inmate is more likely to become angry, aggressive and then resort to force." And grievance reports, I guess, is where prisoners get to complain to you about something that's going on.
Those are all of the things that he found. You deny them all?
ARPAIO: Well, that's what he found. But the Justice Department didn't have any problem with it. They dismissed those allegations. Now, that -- what you're talking about is 12 years ago.
SANCHEZ: Yes, I am.
ARPAIO: Well, we things have changed. The restraint chair I did get rid of. So we run a very, very safe jail system.
SANCHEZ: But, but...
ARPAIO: (INAUDIBLE)...
SANCHEZ: But one wonders, though, if there might have been a quid pro quo of some sort, because soon after the investigation was initiated, suddenly the U.S. attorney there, in Maricopa County, in the State of Arizona -- who is Janet Napolitano -- holds a news conference with you, essentially saying, when the lawsuit was announced, that it would be dismissed.
It seems odd that you would say that she would have nothing to do with an investigation -- a federal Justice Department investigation -- when she's a member of the Justice Department based in your hometown.
ARPAIO: No, no, no. The people in the press conference came from Washington, from the Civil Rights Division. They handled this case, not Janet Napolitano. As I said, she was there as a matter of courtesy, because she was the U.S. attorney. It was the Justice Department in Washington that did the investigation and...
SANCHEZ: You're telling me that Washington is going to do an investigation on your jails and they're not going to talk or consult the U.S. attorney -- the standing U.S. attorney whose jurisdiction they're investigating?
ARPAIO: No. The Civil Rights Division usually initiate and do their own investigation from Washington, not the U.S. attorney. That's the system. And that's what occurred this time.
SANCHEZ: Well, you know, it's interesting, because you say, well, all those problems are taken care of. But, actually, we have found a report, this one filed by "The New York Times" -- and you're saying that was 12 years old. Here's a report that's dated October 24, 2008 in "The New York Times:" "Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jails have violated the U.S. Constitution by depriving jail inmates of adequate medical screening and care, feeding them unhealthy food and housing them in unsanitary conditions, a federal judge has ruled," again, sir, dated October 24, 2008.
ARPAIO: Well, I don't know if you believe what you read in "The New York Times" (INAUDIBLE)... SANCHEZ: I do, actually.
ARPAIO: Well, I don't. You've got to get the story straight.
Number two, the medical does not come under me anyway, it comes under the county.
Number three, we asked for the resolution of this 38-year-old lawsuit -- and from 100 complaints it went down to two -- about not cleaning the toilets properly or a little problem with our diet. So that was a great victory for my office.
SANCHEZ: All right. So let me ask you -- the last part of the note that you sent to us saying that you questioned what we had said in our report. You said that you never endorsed Janet Napolitano.
Do you stand by that?
ARPAIO: Of course I do. Prove that I ever endorsed her.
SANCHEZ: Well, I...
ARPAIO: I never -- I never endorsed her. When I...
SANCHEZ: All right.
ARPAIO: When I endorse presidential candidates, the whole world knows it.
SANCHEZ: Well, as a matter of fact, let me read to you, sir, from something that was put out in 2002. It's an ad, in fact, that was you talking about Janet Napolitano. Let me read it to our viewers, if I possibly can.
"This is Sheriff Joe Arpaio with an urgent message. Janet Napolitano has been attacked with the most vicious TV ad in Arizona history. The ad is outrageous and untrue. As a U.S. attorney, she's the number one prosecutor of child molesters in the nation. And as our attorney general, Janet Napolitano has stood with law enforcement to protect our families. This is Joe Arpaio. Join me in rejecting the attack on Janet Napolitano.
ARPAIO: It did...
SANCHEZ: That sounds an awful lot like an endorsement...
ARPAIO: No.
SANCHEZ: ...to me, sir.
ARPAIO: No. When I endorse people, I would have said I endorsed her. I was defending -- defending her from these vicious attacks.
When I endorse people, I say I endorse. You don't see anything in the ad saying I endorse her. I defended her. SANCHEZ: You are -- you have a commercial on television saying, "I'm Joe Arpaio and I believe in Janet Napolitano. She is the number one prosecutor in the country when it comes to law enforcement to protect our families."
And you didn't think that's going to be taken by people who hear that as an endorsement of her?
ARPAIO: No. I was defending her, again, on vicious attacks. If I endorsed her, I would have said it.
SANCHEZ: Well, soon...
ARPAIO: I would have said I endorsed her for governor.
SANCHEZ: Some would quibble with that, sir.
ARPAIO: Well, that's...
SANCHEZ: (INAUDIBLE).
ARPAIO: Well, that's how you take it. I take it my way.
SANCHEZ: You know, some people would look at this and say that you have a very cozy relationship with her.
Do you?
ARPAIO: I have cozy relationships with presidents, attorneys general. And I can go on and on. I work to get the job done. I lock up illegal very immigrants. I enforce all the laws. That's my main mission, is to put the bad guys in jail, not politics.
SANCHEZ: And you certainly have a reputation for that.
My thanks, sir, to you for taking the time, taking the heat and taking some of these tough questions.
ARPAIO: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: I appreciate it.
We're going to be right back with more on the Plaxico Burress story coming out of New York. That and a lot more.
Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right, here we go. A couple of tweets already coming in from that rather confrontational interview we did moments ago with Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County.
Here's a couple of them.
Zennie is watching -- Zennie62, that is: "Rick, Sheriff Arpaio is known for intimidating media."
Hmm, I'm not sure that's the case there.
Let me see if I can get over to this side over here. Johnny B. Good, bring one down over here. "This guy is so a politician. The ego is enough."
All right. We thank you for those comments.
Let me tell you now about what's going on in New York. The story of Plaxico Burress seems to be taking on a life of its own. And New Yorkers are captivated by this story, because today it's reached even a new level.
Here we have some of the pictures of Plaxico Burress. He's posted $100,000 bail, charged already with illegal gun possession. There could be more charges, could be more effects to this. As a matter of fact, it seems that people in the city are outraged by his behavior -- apparently going to a nightclub with a gun, possibly not having the proper permits. The gun discharges and goes off. It goes into his thigh, but there are questions about who else could have been affected by this.
Here is the mayor of New York
City, Michael Bloomberg, talking about this just today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLOOMBERG: I think it would be an outrage if we didn't prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, particularly people who live in the public domain -- make their living because of their visibility -- they are the role models for our kids. And if we don't prosecute to the fullest extent of the law them, I don't know who on earth we would.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Well, obviously, that comment has gotten a lot of reaction today in New York City -- especially coming from the mayor,, because there's an underlying message in what he's saying. And that is almost that this guy needs to be made an example of.
But then the case gets even bigger, because now it appears to involve not just Plaxico Burress, but at least two more players.
Antonio Pierce may be now facing charges himself. He's a star linebacker with the New York Giants -- arguably the best football team in the NFL -- save, perhaps, the Titans. He's facing the possibility of obstruction of justice charges for hiding the gun at the nightclub from police at the time.
Also, Ahmad Bradshaw, we learned today -- another star player with the team -- may also have been there and may be a part of the investigation, at least in terms of being subpoenaed by police.
But now this -- the hospital where he was treated apparently is being investigated, as well, for possibly trying to cover up the report that he was even there being treated -- so, perhaps, police and the media wouldn't find out.
Well, the mayor of New York has found out about this. And here's what he had to say about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLOOMBERG: I think that, also, it is just an outrage that the hospital didn't do what they are legally required to do. It's a misdemeanor. It's a chargeable offense. And I think that the district attorney should certainly go after the management of this hospital.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: By the way, we do have an update on that. We've learned that the hospital employee has been suspended. And the hospital says they're also conducting their own investigation.
But this story has so many legs to it.
Let's bring in Jeffrey Toobin, our own legal analyst.
Boy, I know -- you're in New York. This is what everybody is talking about, I'm sure, Jeffrey. It's the front page story in both the "Daily News" and "The New York Post".
How much does Plaxico Burress actually face if he's actually found guilty of these charges?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, certainly, three years in prison for use of an illegal gun, which is a crime that is taken very seriously in this city. And Mayor Bloomberg has long been on the rampage about uses of these illegal guns, understandably, because people get killed with them and cops get shot with them.
And the stupidity at work here involving virtually everyone that night is so breathtaking, that you bet it's a huge story here in New York.
SANCHEZ: What is it that makes this such a big case?
Because, you know, having a gun on you -- even if you don't have a permit -- is something that we probably wouldn't be doing a story like this on. But the fact that he was in a public place, no less a nightclub where alcohol was being served, is that what elevates this story?
TOOBIN: Well, I think what really elevates it is what kind of moron shoots themselves in the leg?
(LAUGHTER)
TOOBIN: I mean that's really the issue. I mean, yes, it is very bad to possess a handgun illegally, but to shoot it at yourself is breathtaking. SANCHEZ: Well, here's where this thing even grows more now, because apparently the mayor is after going -- also going after the hospital, Jeff. He's saying this hospital should possibly be investigated, as well, by prosecutors, because they may have withheld information about this.
TOOBIN: Well, and you can see why he's angry, because these rules about hospitals exist for precisely this situation. The reason why hospitals are obliged to report any sort of gunshot wounds is so the police can see if there was a crime committed.
SANCHEZ: Hmmm.
TOOBIN: If they don't report the gunshot wounds, then maybe the police miss the illegal use of a firearm, which is an extremely serious offense.
SANCHEZ: What...
TOOBIN: The question is, was this just a mistake?
Was Burress being treated specially because he's a celebrity?
We don't know.
SANCHEZ: How -- how...
TOOBIN: But you can see why Bloomberg is upset.
SANCHEZ: What about -- one final question. This guy Pierce, apparently Antonio Pierce, a big linebacker, was with him at the time. And there are some allegations floating around out there that he may be possibly investigated for hiding the gun.
How big a deal is that -- or how big a problem would that become for him?
TOOBIN: Again, it would be enormous. And I think what this all just underlines is that even 14 years after O.J. Simpson, celebrities get treated differently -- sometimes too harshly, sometimes too leniently.
But what you see in a case like this is celebrities mess up the system and make people react differently than they normally would, which is a big problem.
SANCHEZ: Well, I'll tell you what, this thing is getting so much attention.
Jeff Toobin, thanks so much for joining us. We a -- as usual, my friend, we appreciate your insight and expertise.
We've also got a reporter standing by with the "New York Daily News". And he's there at the Meadowlands, where I understand all three of the players involved in this have been coming and going today. He'll take us through that and bring us some of the reaction from the team when we come back.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. The "New York Daily News" is all over this story. One of their best reporters is Ralph Vacchiano. He's there at the Meadowlands, has been all day. But he's been blogging about this. I've been reading his blog.
Hey, look, is there anything about this that we're missing?
Could this thing be perfectly innocent or is this guy, no doubt, in a lot of trouble?
RALPH VACCHIANO, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": Oh, yes, I mean there's probably a lot more to this story that we didn't know. But I think one way or another, he's going to be in some kind of trouble. I know if the law doesn't come down on him, he's certainly going to be in trouble with the team and the league, because both of them have been embarrassed. And, you know, the league has a policy -- a personal conduct policy with respect to (AUDIO GAP) without a conviction, without anything, if you embarrass the league. And I'm sure that looking at him right now, thinking that he's probably going to have to have a suspension.
SANCHEZ: Doesn't this guy have like a $35 million contract?
What happens to that if he's suspended?
VACCHIANO: Well, I think the beauty of this contract, from the Giants' perspective, is that it was filled with a lot of incentives. So he had to earn the majority of it with performance on the field, with showing up for off season workouts, being on the roster at certain dates. So if he's suspended, he's going to lose at lot of that money. And, you know, there's been (INAUDIBLE) the contract is kind of complicated, but it could be up -- you know, over $20 million of that $35 million if he gets in real serious trouble with the league.
SANCHEZ: You cover these guys. And there really is something strange about a guy his age and, you know, his -- what you expect would be his maturity -- going around with a gun in a nightclub. It -- someone told me last night that among many like him in the professional ranks, having a gun is kind of a common thing. It's kind of like having jewelry, you just go out with it.
Is that true?
VACCHIANO: You know, unbelievably, it is. I've been told that -- and people estimate to me that, you know, maybe 75 percent of people in the National Football League carry guns. And I know they're just guessing at a number. But, you know, they look around and they see their friends constantly carrying them. And athletes have told me time and time again that one of the reasons why they do it is they feel like they're targets. They feel like they need to protect themselves.
The problem, of course, with that is that, you know, there's never been a story involving an athlete and a gun that ended well.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
VACCHIANO: I've never heard the story of an athlete pulling out a gun to protect himself. Usually it ends, you know, with somebody getting shot, hurt and, you know, the athlete getting in trouble.
SANCHEZ: It's an amazing story.
Ralph Vacchiano, "New York Daily News," just outside the Meadowlands, all over it, as you might expect.
Hey, thanks so much, Ralph. Let us know if anything changes out there, man.
VACCHIANO: Absolutely. Thanks for having me.
SANCHEZ: Well, I'll tell you, The Fix last night -- or tonight, that we're going to show you has to do with "The Daily Show" from last night. And if you missed it, get ready to laugh. But you may want to, at times, cover your ears, as well, if you know what I mean.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Kenneth Evans is watching us right now in Los Angeles. As a matter of fact, he just sent us this on Facebook.
Here's what Kevin says. He's not happy about this Plaxico Burress thing. "Once again, we have to baby-sit athletes and tell them what is right and wrong. It is embarrassing and ridiculous, all because they never have to apply themselves in a social setting and are brainwashed to believe that they are above the law and other social obligations."
There's Kenneth Evans telling it like it is. Thanks, Kenneth.
By the way, we want you to watch something now. This is what we call The Fix, where we collect video that you may not have been able to see.
For example, did you see "The Daily Show" last night?
An incredible moment -- funny, as well. And putting things in perspective -- things that are sad and sometimes difficult to talk about. But not for these guys.
Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": The big news of the past week were the events in Mumbai, India. Nearly 200 killed in a coordinated terror attack that appears to have been perpetrated by a radical Islamic group.
For more, John Oliver joins us from Washington.
John, thank you so much for joining us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
(APPLAUSE)
STEWART: John, this is a horrible...
(APPLAUSE)
STEWART: ...a horrible event and a horrible tragedy.
Do we have any sense of who did this yet?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, right now, John, details are sketchy. While we don't know their specific names, the one thing that is perfectly clear is that it appears to be the work of a group of unbelievable (EXPLETIVE DELETED)...
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ...working in tandem with giant (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: These groups, John, al Qaeda and (EXPLETIVE DELETED) and like them...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right. Yes.
STEWART: What is their goal?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jon, to transform the entire world into an Islamic caliphate.
STEWART: I see. I see. I see. And their means, John, of doing that is...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is to randomly kill as many innocent people as possible with no remorse, compassion or regard for human life.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: How does that help them attain this goal of a caliphate?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there it is, John. Exactly. You have pinpointed the almost imperceptible flaw in the logic of these industrial strength (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We hate and kill everything you stand for. Join us. (LAUGHTER)
STEWART: That does seem incredibly stupid.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, it is stupid. Stupid is what it is, John. In fact, stupid is among the least negative of their many character flaws.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They apparently feel that there's not a single problem that can't be addressed by inflicting mass suffering on innocent civilians.
STEWART: So that -- what is, then, their answer to what they believe is United States imperialism?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, that would be shoot up a hotel.
STEWART: And poverty?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they feel that that's best addressed by blowing up a soccer stadium.
Now, they do have a plan for eradicating worldwide diphtheria epidemics.
STEWART: Now what would that be?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Driving a bus into a circus.
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look, I'm not saying it makes sense, John. But when you're a bankrupt ideology pursuing a bankrupt strategy, the only move you've got is the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) one.
STEWART: Thank you, John.
One final question. When will these (EXPLETIVE DELETED) go away?
(LAUGHTER)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they probably won't Jon. There have always been (EXPLETIVE DELETED). There will always be (EXPLETIVE DELETED). But what we can't do is let them control our (EXPLETIVE DELETED) lives.
(APPLAUSE)
STEWART: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jon, one more thing, if I may, just quickly.
STEWART: Yes, please, John Oliver.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) these (EXPLETIVE DELETED)
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: John Oliver (EXPLETIVE DELETED). John Oliver.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Sometimes you've got to just tell it like it is.
Wolf Blitzer is standing by. He does that from time to time in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much...
SANCHEZ: But with a little bit more delicate language, though, I'm sure, though.
BLITZER: Yes. Thanks, Rick. Thank you.
Barack Obama and Sarah Palin -- they've met now for the first time in Philadelphia. The president-elect getting ready to make another key cabinet announcement. Candy Crowley is on the scene for us live with the latest.
Ford, G.M. and Chrysler -- they're trying to make up for their P.R. disaster. They won't be flying into Washington on their corporate jets this time. Their plan to win over Congress and the country -- that's coming up, as well.
And it's never been heard by the public until today -- Richard Nixon calling Joe Biden soon after Biden lost his wife and young child in a car accident. You're going to hear the audiotape and the rest of the recordings, including Nixon's feelings about getting into Vietnam.
All that, Rick, and a lot more, coming up right here in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
SANCHEZ: All right, thanks so much. We appreciate it, Wolf.
When we come back, I want you to think about the information that I gave to you yesterday when it was released that we are officially in a recession. Now -- but now, let's measure the recessions from the past and include them in the recession now to try and figure out how long this one that we're in right now is going to last.
Who's going to do the equation for us?
Ali Velshi. He joins us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Let's talk about all the other recessions that have taken place in our history. And, in fact, we've got a -- we've got a video -- or we've got a graphic I can show you. There it is.
Ali Velshi is going to talk to us. Leave that up, though, Dan, and we'll bring in Ali's voice.
Take a look at this thing, Ali, and tell, us what we glean from this, given what we're going through now.
ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: All right. Eleven of them since the Depression. You can see that only two of them -- in '73 to '75 and '81 to '82 -- lasted more than a year.
Why? Because those were global recessions. Typically, a U.S. recession lasts eight to 10 months, a global recession lasts 16 to 18 months. We're already over 12 months now in this one. It started in December, 2007, which means we don't know how long it will last. But we've never seen one more than 18 months. And the good news is we might be more than halfway there.
The bad news is, because this is stuff we haven't seen since the Depression, we're not sure how long it can last.
But hopefully -- hopefully, if you're an optimist, we're more than halfway -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: And the market is up today. That's always a good sign, right?
VELSHI: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Although, you never know if it's good enough.
Thanks so much. We appreciate it, Ali. Sorry, because I didn't hear the bell.
Ali Velshi -- I always wish we had more time for him. He's so good.
And Wolf Blitzer is standing by. He's good, as well, and he's taking you now into "THE SITUATION ROOM."
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Rick.
