Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Attorney General Nominee Faces Congress; Oakland's Rage

Aired January 15, 2009 - 15:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Making news right now: more violence in the streets of Oakland, protesters furious with police and the DA.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All of the police who are involved should be arrested, and they should be charged with murder.

SANCHEZ: The officer who set them off seen here in this grainy video now being sent back to Oakland to face justice.

Damning e-mails and a politicized attorney general's office. Even the prosecutor in charge of civil rights refused to hire non- Republicans, who he labeled commies, even said one lawyer wrote "Ebonics" and benefited from "affirmative action thing." Will the Senate confirm this man to fix things?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL DESIGNATE: I feel the full weight of this responsibility.

SANCHEZ: You will see it here live.

A story with huge international consequences. The United Nations says Israel fired on one of its buildings in Gaza. And they say they used white phosphorous. What do the Israelis say?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: People identify the success of the company with Steve Jobs.

SANCHEZ: And Steve Jobs is stepping away from apple. How sick is he? Investors say they want the truth.

Lunchtime in Seattle, 2:00 p. in Dallas, your comments on Twitter, MySpace and more, as your daily national conversation begins right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: And hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez here at the world headquarters of CNN. We have got so much to get to.

The first thing I'm going to do is, we're going to let you know that we're going to be monitoring something for you. This is the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are trying to see whether they will in fact confirm Eric Holder as the next A.G. of the United States. The attorney general's office has been even by Republican and Democratic standards in disarray, highly politicized.

We're going to get to that in just a moment. As this goes on, we will be dipping in from time to time.

But we're going to start with what's going on right now. Things continue to be extremely tense in Oakland, California. This is the scene from last night. Take a look at this. Protesters again took to the streets. First, it was peaceful. But then things started to get extremely ugly. A couple of BART train stations had to be shut down completely for the night. About a dozen people were arrested, this after protesters began breaking windows and vandalizing local businesses -- this, again, in Oakland, California.

The Bay Area transit cop accused of killing an unarmed man is now set to appear in court in a couple of hours. That's what he looks like. He's going to be charged with murder, by the way. That's supposed to happen within two hours. And we have got it covered for you.

Now, this is the cell phone video that got this whole thing started. You have seen this. You can see the officer. It's Johannes Mehserle. He pulls out his gun and shoots the man in the back. Now, prosecutors say that they used this video to prove that the shooting was, in their words, when they filed the charges, an intentional act. Those are important words.

And these are the real violent protests that followed. This is the night after the shooting, where more than 100 people were arrested. It has since been followed by a series of protests. And the situation has remained tense.

One more thing to show you. Now, this is the protest yesterday, before it got violent. For several hours, it was a peaceful protest. And then, about 8:30 last night, Oakland time, things got extremely violent again.

CNN's Dan Simon is live in our San Francisco bureau. He's been following the story throughout.

Where does this thing sit right now, Dan?

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Officer Mehserle is going to be arraigned this afternoon in the Oakland area. He will have the charges read against him.

We're told that he may enter a plea at that time and his attorney is going to ask for a bail hearing. Right now, he is being jailed on a no-bail warrant arrest. So, this is a situation, Rick, as you said, that's still quite volatile here in California. It's really an unprecedented case.

Never before in California, according to several law enforcement experts, have you had a police officer charged with murder in the course of trying to make an arrest, so, obviously, things still very tense. As you talked about, you had the situation in Oakland yesterday with all those protesters. SANCHEZ: Yes. We're going to look at the pictures as I talk to you. In fact, what we're looking at right now is the shooting. And now we're looking at some of the protests from last night.

And I can't help but ask you whether this officer was in hiding in Nevada. Why did he go there? Did his superiors know that he was there?

SIMON: I think it was probably actually wise on his part to leave his home, because he -- this is a guy who's been getting a lot of death threats. So, I think people knew where he was. Certainly, his attorneys knew where he was. They were keeping tabs on him very closely.

But, really, for his own protection, a police officer who is receiving death threats, they felt it was wise for him to get out of town. We should note that he was arrested without incident. And, thus far, we're told he's been very cooperative.

SANCHEZ: All right. I'm just going to read you something. We're starting to get a lot of comments on this, as we were yesterday. That's why we have been paying so much mind to this story.

This is on MySpace. "Oakland is in unrest, just like L.A. after the Rodney King verdict. Authority has been taking advantage of the people for so long, and the people will only take so much. And when something like this happens, it becomes a wakeup call and a rallying cry. People are teed off or P'd off, and it's reached a flash point."

Now, given what I just read to you right there, is there an expectation that this tense situation, these protests will amp up once again, as they did last night, Dan?

SIMON: It's hard to say, but I would think that the situation will die down a little bit, because you have this officer who has been arrested on murder charges. That's exactly what they wanted to see happen.

Now, say, you know, six months from now, a year from now, the officer is acquitted in court. Then I think you would see people be very angry once again. But the fact that he's been charged with murder -- that's what they have been calling for -- I can't see a situation where you would see widespread rioting.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Well, you know what? That's what is an interesting part of this story, the fact that he was arrested yesterday. It was announced. The community knows about it, and still there was some violence on the streets of Oakland yesterday.

So, what is it that they're looking for? We're going to be reaching a couple of folks to talk to. Hey, Dan, thanks so much for joining us. We certainly appreciate it.

When we come back, we're going to be talking about something else. Another transit passenger says that he had a violent confrontation with the same accused officer. And BART has been responding to our calls today. We want them on the record as well. They say, so far, no go. If that changes, we will let you know.

Stay with us -- more on this story from someone affected personally and directly, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: All right, I raised this question just a little while ago, and now I want to pick up on it once again. In fact, you're picking up on it.

Thousands of people watching this show and also following us on MySpace, Facebook and Twitter. Here's one coming in on MySpace right now. She is watching the show and she wants us to know the following.

"I don't understand the logic of destroying your neighborhood. What is that going to accomplish?" She says: "They're idiots, destroying a peaceful demonstration. Violence does not solve anything" -- that in regard to the question we were asking with Dan Simon just a little while about what's really going on here, and why if the officer has already been arrested and charged with murder, no less, are there still protests that are turning into violent demonstrations, with people breaking windows of businesses there in Oakland?

I want to introduce you to somebody now. This is Kenneth Carrethers. He's in San Francisco. He's good enough to join us. He's a transit passenger who says to have met the very same accused transit officer weeks before the fatal shooting New Year's Day, but not under the best of circumstances.

Mr. Carrethers, thanks so much for being with us.

You're saying that you know this officer because he once had a confrontation with you. Describe it for us.

KENNETH CARRETHERS, ALLEGED VICTIM OF EXCESSIVE POLICE FORCE: Well, what happened to me was pretty much the same, except for, thank God, I'm still here.

I got off the BART train. I was having a conversation with another passenger. I stated to this passenger, you see that's why, because they stand around with their hands in their pockets. I was told by one officer that I need to mind my business. The officer that I now know to be Officer Mehserle stated, yes, but you're talking about us.

I asked him why -- you know, how would you know that I'm talking about you from what I said to her? At that time, another officer came up and got in my face and said that he thinks -- I think you're drunk.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, he says -- I'm reading the police report, by the way. And what I'm reading in this police report is that they say, "Fearing that Carrethers -- that would be you -- "was going to strike officer, I grabbed his left hand in an attempt to place it into a rear wrist-lock control."

And they say the reason they did that was because you had threatened them just prior to them doing that, saying that you were going to, using profanity, essentially beat them up.

Are they lying?

CARRETHERS: Yes, sir, they are.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: So, you're saying they -- all you had done was criticize them, essentially say that they were lazy, and as a result they came after you?

CARRETHERS: Yes.

I mean, they -- police officers -- the police officers that night basically seemed to have an attitude anyway. So, yes, I was beaten up, you know, simply because I didn't agree with them not doing their job.

SANCHEZ: By the way, we just got a statement from the officer. We have been trying to reach out to him. We have got a statement now from his attorney.

Let me read this to you. It's kind of small print, but I want to be sure we get it up. I think we have got a pilot and we can put up as well.

"The allegations are ridiculous and it didn't occur," referring to what you were just telling our audience. "We question the timing and the motivation of Mr. Carrethers coming forward with it at this time."

Why are you coming forward with this information right now about this officer who seems to be involved in this shooting? He's already been charged with murder?

CARRETHERS: Well, I have been trying to get help for the longest. And I truly believe that had someone listened to me at the time when I first began trying to get help, that, you know, there just might have been a chance that Oscar Grant might still be alive.

SANCHEZ: Why do you think Officer Mehserle behaved that -- how would you describe him?

CARRETHERS: I would describe -- you know, that's really hard, you know, because...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, you had a confrontation with the man. You got a pretty good sense of -- you were able to measure him, weren't you?

CARRETHERS: Well, yes, what I got out of it was that, you know, he seemed to be the type of person that was arrogant and thought, because he had the badge on, that he couldn't be touched.

SANCHEZ: Mr. Carrethers, we thank you, sir, for taking time to talk to us today and taking us through this. It may add some information to a very important and yet tense story that we're going to be following for several days.

My thanks to you again, sir.

CARRETHERS: You're welcome.

SANCHEZ: Damning e-mails and a politicized attorney general's office. Even the prosecutor in charge of the civil rights refused to hire non-Republicans, who he labeled commies. He even said that one lawyer wrote Ebonics and benefited from an "affirmative action thing."

Here's the question. Will the Senate confirm this man, Eric Holder, to fix the mess in the United States attorney general's office?

We will be talking about that when we come back. It is a live story. And you will see it live as it happens.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: And I welcome you back. I'm Rick Sanchez here in the world headquarters of CNN.

There's something else that I want you to take note of. This is important. The federal government's own rules say that, when hiring U.S. attorneys, you're not allowed to take into account their political affiliation. What they think politically is not supposed to matter when it comes to the law., because justice, at least in our country, is supposed to be blind, not political, not politicized. That's a fact.

Is it ever totally blind in this country? Of course not. But what has happened at the Justice Department over the last eight years in this country has both Republicans and Democrats outraged, saying it was politicized.

Here's the latest smoking gun, a Justice Department report with e-mails that reveal the intentions of a former deputy U.S. attorney. And this is ugly. His name is Bradley Schlozman. He was the interim head of Civil Rights Division. It was his job to protect against discrimination. I mean, that's what makes this so galling.

Are you ready? Here we go. In the e-mails, Schlozman allegedly branded some people as -- quote -- "right-thinking Americans," as opposed to -- quote -- "mold spores, libs and commies." He bragged about gutting the Civil Rights Division of lawyers who weren't -- quote -- "real Americans" or -- quote -- "on the team.

He allegedly forced experienced attorneys with solid records out to make room for people more to his political liking. Were they more qualified? Who knows? It didn't seem to matter. And he seemed to enjoy doing it. There's one e-mail he sends out where he allegedly brags about "B-slapping," if you know what I mean, without having to use that word on television, liberal attorneys. And he also writes about one attorney who wrote in -- quote -- "Ebonics" and benefited from "that affirmative action thing."

You think you know what he's talking about? This from the deputy U.S. attorney in charge of hiring people for the Civil Rights Division, the Civil Rights Division of the United States.

By the way, we have invited Schlozman to come here, face me, join us in this program and explain those e-mails. He wouldn't come on.

But his lawyer did send this -- send us a three-paragraph statement, where he says that, no, he did not discriminate. However, that statement did not include anything about Schlozman's language in those e-mails that I just described to you.

You can read it all for yourself, by the way. Just go to CNN.com/ricksanchez. That's CNN.com/ricksanchez.

Now back to his alleged behavior. It certainly does not reflect well on the Justice Department under the current administration. But what's it going to mean for the next administration, for the Obama administration?

As we speak, Eric Holder is being considered right now -- and there's the live picture -- by the Senate Judiciary Committee as our next A.G., our next attorney general. This may be -- and that's what senators said today -- the most important job, other than president, for the next four years in this country.

But, sometimes, you can't move forward without correcting the past first, which may be his job. Consider that for a moment, as we prepare to take you live to Washington, where Patricia Murphy and Michael Isikoff, two of the best in the business, are following this hearing for you.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOLDER: ... work to restore the credibility of a department badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference.

SANCHEZ (voice-over): It is a huge job ahead for the next attorney general, inheriting a U.S. Justice Department where raw partisan politics trumped professional law enforcement, U.S. attorneys purged for failing political litmus tests, top department aides, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, accused of breaking the law by hiring political cronies, an attorney general who quit in disgrace, who even questioned a key protection under the U.S. Constitution, at home, warrantless wiretapping, abroad, torture, both condoned by legal opinions, supplied by Justice Department lawyers. Is Eric Holder the man to finally fix this mess?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: And we welcome you back.

We're joined now by Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek" magazine, as well as Patricia Murphy of CitizenJanePolitics.com. Both have been following these hearings today of Eric Holder and are good enough to join us.

Michael, let me begin with you.

How bad is the situation over at Justice?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "NEWSWEEK": Well, it's been pretty bad. And that was sort of underscored yesterday with that really amazing report from the inspector general about Bradley Schlozman and the abuses in hiring in the Civil Rights Division.

I mean, some of those e-mails that Schlozman wrote are pretty stunning -- i know you were reading from some of them -- showing sort of contempt for the career staff there, sort of viewing them all, in his words, as pinkos and lefties, and how he was going to purge the department of those people, and put in, as he called it, right- thinking Americans.

This subject got a lot of attention in the hearing today for Eric Holder. He made it quite clear he found Schlozman's conduct deplorable, and also indicated he's going to revisit the decision that was made by the current Justice Department not to prosecute him, Schlozman, for lying to Congress when he said he wasn't taking political considerations into consideration in the hiring of lawyers in that division.

SANCHEZ: Eric Holder apparently knows that there's problems there. And one of the problems is our image around the world, water- boarding, torture, for example.

He was asked a question about that. I thought this was a pretty interesting moment, because it was really a face-down, "I want to know what you think, Mr. Holder" kind of question. Watch this. This is on water-boarding there, Rog, if you can run it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Do you agree with me that water-boarding is torture and illegal?

HOLDER: If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes, we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. Water-boarding is torture.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SANCHEZ: Patricia, was that a seminal moment in the hearing today? It was a pretty blunt question. And he actually gave him a pretty blunt answer, didn't he?

PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: He did. And it was certainly designed to do that. This committee has been very frustrated by the Bush administration.

The sitting attorney general when he was up for his hearing before this committee would not define water-boarding as torture. So, that was issue number one for Patrick Leahy, who is the chairman of this committee. And they have gone through issue after issue, more than two dozen already, to see, where do you stand on this?

Water-boarding, we have heard about. We have heard about military tribunals -- he has said that those need to be revamped -- and whether torture itself is illegal. And he said that it is and the president doesn't have the authority to say that it isn't.

SANCHEZ: Speaking with water, it appears that what these senators, or at least some of them, the ones that are more emboldened, want to make sure we don't get is another attorney general that is going to carry the president's or the vice president's water.

And there's reason to believe, at least in the pardoning of Marc Rich, Eric Holder may have done that somewhat for Bill Clinton, as Gonzales was accused of doing for George Bush.

So, here's an important question. This one's raised, I believe, by Arlen Specter. Let's take a listen.

And, then, Michael, I want your reaction on the backside.

ISIKOFF: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER: The president needs to be told no when he's doing the wrong thing. Attorney general is different from any other Cabinet officer, who carries out the president's policies. The attorney general has to uphold the rule of the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: It's kind of a good question, isn't it, Michael? I mean, hey, did you kowtow to Bill Clinton, as some have said that Gonzales kowtowed to George Bush and Dick Cheney?

(CROSSTALK)

ISIKOFF: Right. Well, look, the Marc Rich pardon was the one question mark about Eric Holder. He was aware it was going to be coming out. There was concern that it could become a problem for him.

Arlen Specter asked some very tough questions in the opening round about the Marc Rich pardon. Holder deflected them pretty well, said he had acknowledged -- and I think this was an important part of his defense here -- he made mistakes. He did not handle this right. He's not proud of how he handled the Marc Rich pardon. He argued that he has learned from those mistakes.

I think the news here on this score, if there is any, is that, while there had been a lot of anticipation that Republicans were really going to hammer him hard on the Marc Rich pardon, on another pardon of Puerto Rican Terrorists belonging to the FALN terrorist group, all those came up, but not as forcefully, not as strongly as I think the Obama transition people had feared.

If anything, it was sort of, you know, pro forma questioning, in some cases, like Specter, tough. But it doesn't appear that Republicans are -- really have their heart in making a big fight to try stop Eric Holder. It looks like his confirmation is going to be a fairly smooth ride from here on in.

SANCHEZ: Well, if that's the case, let's take it to the next step. Let's suppose he becomes the new attorney general of the United States over the next four years, and then he has to go in there and fix the mess that we were just alluding to moments ago.

If people like Schlozman went in there and got rid of good career attorneys and replaced them with people that maybe are not as capable and are certainly going in one direction politically, would he be just as wrong to go in there and get rid of those people? This is kind of -- this is tough footing he's on, isn't it?

ISIKOFF: Well, this came up actually in a recent round of questioning just a few minutes ago. And Holder said, look, I don't know who these people are that Bradley Schlozman hired. I don't know just because they're conservatives, they're not good lawyers who will carry out department policies.

And I think the important thing is, number one, he said the abuses that took place in the hiring of them in the first place, how people who had other political perspectives were passed over, shot down, in order to hire these people, you know, but -- but the more important question is, he's going to set department policy.

And these lawyers, as lawyers at the Justice Department, will be obligated to pursue the policies that are set forth by the new attorney general. And, if they don't do that, then presumably there would be grounds for getting rid of them.

But, until then -- until then, there's not. They are career now -- they are now career Justice Department lawyers. They have the same rights as anybody else.

SANCHEZ: Great stuff.

Michael Isikoff, great having you, as usual.

Patricia Murphy, great having you.

Interesting discussion. And we will see you guys again. My thanks to both.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Israel now is using illegal phosphorous shells.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, they're not.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, that's not true, actually.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's why they won't let reporters inside Gaza.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The International Red Cross has said that...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Red Cross...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, the International Red Cross' main statement yesterday...

SANCHEZ: We're again arguing about the same....

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: The same arguments. I wanted to see what it would be like to take two people who aren't pundits and don't represent their governments, just two Americans, and bring the argument home. You will see what they talk about on this, the day that the U.N. is officially accusing Israel of using white phosphorous, in fact, on one of their buildings in Gaza.

We will have this for you. Stay with us, as we continue to break the news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: You can see Jim Clancy sitting next to me, which means we're going to be talking about important stuff in just a little built. I want to talk about the important stuff that you have been talking about. You know, I told you moments ago what's going on in the A.G's office, the attorney general's office. It is ugly, it is a bit of a mess and you're responding to it.

Let's start over here, this is on FaceBook. And on FaceBook we've got Marty Freeman who's saying, "Rick, I'm not shocked that someone in a position like that," I suppose referring to Schlossman, "could be a racist. They're not just in jeans and sheets anymore, they wear Hugo Boss now." Interesting comment.

Flip that camera around, let's do a little twittering if we can, while we're here. "Congrats on your obviously heartfelt report on the A.G. selection, today. Please keep the fire lit."

And stay with me, Robert, let's see if we can move this sucker down a little bit.

Hawke says, "It's time for old politics and favoritism to be done within the attorney general's office. I hope Holder cleans it up for good." Well, we'll be watching him to see that he does, if he is in fact confirmed.

Now, let's talk about another problem in "Around the World," this one having to do with Israel. The United Nations, today, said that Israel has attacked one of its buildings, one of its offices there in Gaza. And they're even going as far as to say, and this might be the more shocking part of this report, at least as far as it's being interpreted, that they may have used white phosphorous in that attack. That would obviously be something that's going to get a lot of reaction around the world.

Let's do this first as we look at these pictures, now. Pictures coming in from some of the fighting in Gaza, we understand Ben Wedeman has finally been able to get into Gaza, has been able to file some reports for us, now.

Ben, start us off, if you're there, tell us what the situation is. And please, if you have any information at all for us on this white phosphorous accusation being leveled by the U.N., tell us what you know.

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rick, I have to tell you, from the start, we spent the entire day just trying to get into Gaza. So, I haven't really been following those reports as closely as I would normally be. We got into Rafah just after dark and we're now in an empty apartment on the outskirts of town.

But, I'm hearing Israeli jets overhead as we've been hearing them for many hours, actually. And one dropped a bomb about, I'd say maybe half a kilometer from here and it, really, you could feel the pressure, the shockwave from that, it shook the building, it shook the windows. And this seems to be going on constantly, here, these over flights and the occasional bombings.

At the moment, where we are, the streets are completely deserted. All the stores are closed. There is electricity in this part of town, but I can see other parts of town are completely dark. And as you know -- yes?

SANCHEZ: Is there any sign, Ben, that they're becoming more entrenched in this assault or that they're starting conversely, perhaps, to pull back some?

WEDEMAN: There's no indication of that whatsoever, certainly not here. Now, what residents are telling me is that compared to the last few days, the bombing has been less intense. But, as we've seen those pictures coming from Gaza City, and as we were driving across the Sinai when we stopped in various places to load up with supplies, everybody was watching TV, live Jazeera pictures of intense fighting, intense bombing of Gaza City.

So, even though it does seem diplomacy is starting to actually have an effect, on the ground it seems the Israelis continue to pursue this offensive. As we heard from, Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, at the beginning of this operation, he said they would pursue it, in his words, "to the bitter end."

SANCHEZ: Wow. Ben Wedeman following that story for us, there. He's out, now, as you can here, actually in Gaza. We've been hoping that Ben was able to get in. Ben, thanks so much for being with us and try to stay safe, my friend.

WEDEMAN: All right.

SANCHEZ: Jim Clancy joining us now to bring us up to this report that we made moments ago. It's the U.N. saying one of their buildings was attacked by the Israelis, by the IDF. And they're saying or accusing Israel of using white phosphorous. How big a deal is this?

JIM CLANCY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's a big deal on one level, because here you have -- it's another U.N. installation. Israel is once again saying they fired at us first; somebody was using the compound to fire at us. They've said this in the past. The U.N. is denying that. Who's telling the truth? Impossible to tell. The actual independent observers can't get in there.

SANCHEZ: But, let's go through this. First they said that they were using white phosphorous and they denied it. Then they said -- then they were accused of using white phosphorous on people and they denied it, and now they're accused of using white phosphorous on the U.N. building. After awhile there starts to be a pattern, there. This is not helpful for Israel around the world if for no other reason, through perception.

CLANCY: Well, and you've got it right. You look at it here, and obviously they say it's an obscurant, used as an obscurant, meaning a smoke screen. That's fine. Not in a civilian area. When you...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: All Gaza is civilian -- is there anything -- is there any pastures in Gaza? Is there any place out there that's not heavily...

CLANCY: No, there's not. When you look at these, the dramatic pictures that come in, and you see all of this, what you have to realize is, as this battle is going on, the Hamas fighters are down in underground tunnels when this stuff is hitting. The people up top are the civilians. And it's going to raise serious questions here, and it's going to raise questions because General Dynamics, a U.S. company, has developed this weapon. And it is said to...

SANCHEZ: Made in America.

CLANCY: Made in America. You've got cases where people say, hey, doesn't this violate the Export Control Act that says you can't use these weapons?

SANCHEZ: Some people will question whether there's not some culpability.

CLANCY: It's a lack and respect of human life, we're seeing right now, by both sides. Not by one side, by both sides.

SANCHEZ: You know, I want you to watch something. Here's what I did yesterday, because after awhile you can only get so much from talking to pundits and experts, so I wanted to talk to two people, one's an American who has family in Israel, one's an American- Palestinian who has family in Gaza, to find out what they think of this situation, whether even they, together, living here, in the studio, could come up with some kind of truce, some understanding. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SANCHEZ: Michelle, tell Ashley why your people hate her people.

MICHELLE HANDELMAN, JEWISH-AMERICAN STUDENT: I wouldn't use the word hate necessarily. I think that's a very strong word to use. I do not hate the Palestinian people. What I do not like is Hamas. I do not like terrorism. I think there's no excuse for terrorism. There's no excuse for the acts that Hamas has committed against the Israeli people.

SANCHEZ: Not saying you, necessarily. Why do your people hate her people?

ASHLEY ABDULLATIF, PALESTINIAN-AMERICAN STUDENT: I think the disagreement came about post-1948, because it wasn't a matter of taking or giving land. There was a country called Palestine, there were Jews, Christians and Muslims that lived there and everybody lived perfectly fine together until they wanted to change that, make Israel divide it, allocate land to certain religions and certain people.

SANCHEZ: Well, you're saying after 1948, they said everybody get out, this is now only going to be a Jewish state?

ABDULLATIF: That's what happened to my grandparents.

SANCHEZ: And they were kicked out of their country. Is that what you're saying?

ABDULLATIF: They were in what is now southern Israel, their town. They basically -- people came to their town and said your town is being bombed, we're turning it into a Israeli-Jewish naval base, we suggest you go to Gaza.

HANDELMAN: They sold their land. ABDULLATIF: And that's how my mom's family ended up in Gaza. They didn't sell their lands because they didn't get any money for it. They didn't take any belongings.

SANCHEZ: You say what?

HANDELMAN: Israel sold them that land. The land was sold from the Palestinians to Israel and that was the agreement that they made and the Palestinians did not leave and that's when the fighting began.

ABDULLATIF: Why would they leave? I mean, my family's been there over 10 generations.

HANDELMAN: My family's been there for 35 years.

SANCHEZ: This is going to continue for another generation and doesn't that make you guys crazy? Killing!

ABDULLATIF: I mean, I completely agree. Right now I feel like the 13 or 14 Israeli soldiers have been killed, that is a legitimate response to the army occupying and blockading the Gaza Strip for three years. No food and aid has been able to go in unregulated except for three hours a day, currently.

HANDELMAN: Israel gave them that land.

ABDULLATIF: They cleared the settlements three years ago.

HANDELMAN: No, Hamas took over that land. Hamas has been running...

(CROSSTALK)

ABDULLATIF: Hamas was democratically elected.

HANDELMAN: Hamas is a terrorist...

SANCHEZ: They were elected. They were elected democratically.

(CROSSTALK)

One at a time.

HANDELMAN: I'm emphasizing on the terrorism because this is very important, because the media has not been saying this, that they are a extremist militant group.

SANCHEZ: But, democratically elected.

HANDELMAN: It doesn't matter.

ABDULLATIF: Israel, right now, is using illegal phosphorous...

HANDELMAN: No, that is not true.

ABDULLATIF: That's why they won't let the reporters inside of Gaza.

HANDELMAN: The National Red Cross has said that the...

ABDULLATIF: The Red Cross is in there three hours...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Is there any time in the future, do you believe, a peaceful solution for this conflict, in your lifetime?

HANDELMAN: Honestly, I don't think so.

SANCHEZ: Really? How old are you?

HANDELMAN: I'll be 23 this month.

SANCHEZ: Your lifetime?

ABDULLATIF: I'm 22, and until the government changes, I don't see it happening.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: I really thought because they were young that somehow they'd be able to come up with some kind -- and they're Americans and they're detached from it, but right now...

CLANCY: Not much hope. Not much hope and, you know, maybe Barack Obama sees something there that needs to be done. Don't wait for the last year of your term.

SANCHEZ: That the rest of us don't seem to see right now. All right, hey, my thanks to you, as usual.

CLANCY: Hey, great to be here.

SANCHEZ: All right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Folks don't really know how the company will function without him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: That's the question. The man who's put Apple together. What is his condition? Well, the people who have money invested in Apple say they want the truth. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: All right, we're coming back to you now with several of the stories that we've been following. First is this. Steve Jobs, he's probably considered by most to be an icon. And seen here in these pictures, it's scaring some people, those who are close to him, those who love him, and also today, investors, as well.

And the reason is this, he is stepping away from his company, he says, for several months to deal with a health issue. There's what he used to look like, there is what he looks like now. The question that remains for many investors is, what is actually going on with him at this point.

We're joined by a guest who's going to be able to take us through this, now, to maybe give us a better sense of exactly what's going on. Mark Fraunfelder from the tech blog BoingBoing.net. And man, is that fun to say. Also, Susan Lisovicz is joining us now from the New York Stock Exchange.

What do we really know? It almost seems like it's a mystery. Mark, what can you share with us about his condition?

MARK FRAUNFELDER, BOINGBOING.NET: Well, you know, we know what he said in the couple of e-mails he's sent in the last couple of weeks. And that's about it, really.

SANCHEZ: And but, How did he explain it? Something - a hormone condition?

FRAUNFELDER: Shortly before the Macworld keynote presentation that he backed out of, he said that there was a lot of speculation about his health and he wanted to set the record straight, and he said there was some kind of hormonal balance that was robbing his body of proteins and that they had a fix for it and that he was going to be OK and that was all he was going to say about it the matter and that was it, he wasn't going to talk anything else about it.

SANCHEZ: Mark, I'm going to just have to interrupt you here for a moment because wouldn't you know, we've got breaking news that's coming in to us, right now.

We are now able to report, and we've been following this for quite awhile, we wanted to make sure we could confirm it, that a plane has apparently gone down in the Hudson. As you know, anybody who's familiar with New York City, there are several airports that surround it, LaGuardia, of course, being the most prominent. You see the tail of the plane, right there, as you take a look at this picture, you can see some of the ferries are coming near it, now. Those are those ferries that transport people back and forth, usually, between New Jersey and the downtown section of New York City.

The plane sits in what is apparently not that much depth of water, you can see the tail, you see the cabin of the plane. In fact, the entire plane is visible at this point. We don't know if a rescue operation is underway, or has been. We're going to stay with this picture, now, and make sure that it plays out.

Michael, you were sharing with me some information, later. Is this the note you just handed me? All right, here we go, New York City firefighters, according to the "Associated Press," have officially responded to the report of an airplane down in the Hudson River, but as you look at these pictures -- all there come the authorities, now.

I can tell you from living in New York for quite awhile that what we're looking at here are not authorities, those are private am ferry boats that ferry people back and forth across New Jersey. But, now you see at the top of your picture there, now we're starting to get some of the authorities coming onto the scene and you see it right there, at the top right of your picture, that's one of the either police boats or fire rescue boats that's coming to the scene.

It does appear, it does appear that the plane is lifting. Take a look at how it looked a moment ago when I was first looking at it and look at it now. And I guess the -- what we need to examine here, as we look at this, if there is a rescue, whether they can get the people out, whether it's depressurized enough to be able to open the doors so that the people can get out of the plane. And obviously we can all say a prayer that that plane doesn't submerge with people still onboard, which is tough to tell right now as we're looking at that, whether that's actually going on. It does look a little different than when we first saw it. It does look like the back part of the plane is in fact where the tail is starting to go under.

Give me the information again, Angie, on the flight. This is Flight 1549, and I was right in my supposition that it had probably left from LaGuardia. Charlotte, it was from LaGuardia to Charlotte, heading for the Carolinas. And the FAA is now telling us that there may have been something that caused the plane to go down. You know, they oftentimes, what is the most dangerous part of the flight is the takeoff and the landing and in this case, it was apparently on takeoff. They're saying at the FAA that it may have struck something, possibly a bird, not confirmed. But preliminary reports are that it struck possibly a bird. It caused it to come down and that's why it's sitting there in the Hudson.

We can only hope that that's shallow enough water that the plane is not going to go down any further, although we're not able to make that conclusion, yet. We're hoping to be able to talk to somebody there who's perhaps in one of those ferries who can share.

Look how many of those ferries -- you know, these are all the ferries that take people across and all of them are responding to the scene now in New York City, as you can see, to try and see if they can do something to help the people onboard 1549, this -- I'm sorry, Angie, what was the airways again?

Yes, it was USAir. It was a US Airways -- thank you Michael - US Airways flight It was heading from LaGuardia to Charlotte, it's come down in water. For those of you who know anything about aviation, it's very possible that this pilot was able to make a good landing there without causing any structural damage to the plane, in fact, none that we can see at this point. And that's certainly an important part of the story.

What remains to be seen, at this point, as we look at this, is whether the plane is in a stable situation now and whether any of those passengers have gotten out, yet. Usually in a situation like this -- and you can only imagine how cold the water are, so you have to worry, you have to worry about hypothermia.

How many on board - Chris.

One hundred thirty-five people are aboard this plane from the information that we've just received. And again, it's flight 1549 USAirways from LaGuardia to Charlotte. Sometimes it's just as important to tell you what we don't know.

We don't know, at this point, whether anybody has been taken out of the plane. We don't know whether anyone has been injured. Obviously, you hear the commotion here at the CNN headquarters in Atlanta where we're continuing to get more information, where we expect to be able to get somebody on the phone shortly. This is Ben, who's joining us now, he is on the phone with us. He is, I imagine...

Are you on the New York side or on the New Jersey side - Ben.

BEN VONKLEMPERER, WITNESSED PLANE GO DOWN: I'm on the New York side. I'm at 48th Street and Broadway.

SANCHEZ: What do you see?

VONKLEMPERER: I'm in an office building on the 25th floor. A short time ago, I saw a -- what looked to be a very small commercial airplane flying south along the Hudson River, making what appeared to be a very gradual landing. I then saw the plane hit the water, it made a big slash.

The plane then went into a space where my view was obstructed, so I didn't see whether it was on the surface of the water or whether it sank or not, but I did see it hit the water at a very gradual angle.

As it came in, it appeared not to have landing gear engaged. This was definitely bigger than a puddle jumper or a sea plane or anything, it was a silver aircraft and it basically just hit the water.

SANCHEZ: Hey, Ben, old on just a minute. I'm being told -- by the way, Susan Lisovicz has just called in to us. You know, Susan Lisovicz is over there on Wall Street. In fact, we were going to be getting to her in just a little bit. And she was answering a question that I was raising about how deep this water is, because obviously that comes into play there and she says this is deep water. This is the deep water side of the Hudson.

Ben, let me get back to you, if I can. So, the landing or the crash landing or the splash landing, I guess it's called, as you would see it was a controlled landing, there were no big problems as far as you would tell?

Ben, are you still there?

VONKLEMPERER: Yes, I am here.

SANCHEZ: I'm sorry, maybe you didn't hear my question. Describe the landing to us. We're trying to get a sense of how -- whether it was a controlled splash landing, the pilots are trained to do or whether you saw anything about it that was unusual.

VONKLEMPERER: Well, I mean, I don't really know what pilots are trained to do and not do, but if -- I'll just put it this way, if someone's going to land a plane in the water, this seemed to be the best possible way to do it. The angle at which they hit the water was very, very gradual and it wasn't going, you know, particularly fast. It was a very slow contact with the water that it made.

Again, I did not see whether the plane sank or remained on the surface of the water. But, it was a very slow, calm, if you will, contact with the water that the aircraft made.

SANCHEZ: You know, I imagine they have to be extremely careful when they start opening compartments to get people out of there that the plane might not suddenly fill with water. I imagine that there's a strategy that they would employ in a situation like this.

Chad Myers is joining us, now.

Chad, for starters, and I know that you've got some experience with this kind of thing. What is the temperature of that water there off of LaGuardia on the Hudson Bay?

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Forty-three degrees, Rick. Air temperature is 21. The water is warmer than the air, but that doesn't help, 43 is hypothermia in less than minutes, here. So, there you see all the ferries and there are some rigid hull inflatables out there for those people, getting them out. The wind-chill, 35 degrees, right now and that is just -- it is so cold. That's -- just as soon as you get out of the water, you get a 21 degree air temp with another 15 degree wind, and you're wet. I mean, you are going to feel like zero in no time. This is very, very much minute-by-minute for everybody that's on that airplane.

SANCHEZ: This plane, by the way, flight 1549, was heading from LaGuardia to Charlotte when apparently it went down. FAA's preliminary report teams indicate that it may have been as a result of hitting some kind of obstruction. Preliminary reports indicated it may have been a bird.

The plane has been there on the ground surrounded by those New York ferries. We see the helicopter flying above. We also some rescue officials that arrived just moments ago, but we don't yet know nor am I able to tell from these pictures.

Chad, I don't know if you can tell or not, you know, usually by now, we would have seen one of the chutes deployed, we would have seen a door open and we would have seen people on the lifejackets. Do you see anybody bobbing in the water? Maybe it's because my monitor here's pretty small. I don't want to be saying something isn't happening if the folk at home are seeing it. Can you tell? Do you got a good plasma, back there?

MYERS: I have a good screen, there, and I am seeing little rigid -- what I consider rigid hull inflatables coming out and going back to these ferries, getting people one at a time or 10 at a time, back into these ferries and some ferries leaving, which indicates to me that they're probably leaving with people or they wouldn't be leaving because they know that they're needed there for that rescue. What really...

SANCHEZ: Well, hold on, hold on a minute, Chad. I'm just going to stop you for a moment. I want you to finish, but I just got some information from Jeanne Meserve. She just contacted the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard says they are now dropping lifejackets in the water for some of the passengers as they get off of -- so that they can drop passenger, pardon me, lifejackets in the water and that they're being dropped off from one of those ferries that you see.

There we see a different angle. And this kind of gives us a little bit of a different perspective. This is a 320, by the way, the plane is.

Can you tell, Chad, as long as we've been looking at this, and this is the thing that worries me, somewhat, and it is pretty close to shore, which is also a good thing -- but can you tell if this plane has been submerging a little bit while we've been -- while you and I have been conversing?

MYERS: It has, it's been going down a little bit. But what really amazes me is that we're still afloat, this leaves plenty of time for the people to get off. It's not going to be pleasant inside that plane, but they have plenty of time to get out of there at this point in time.

I mean, I have now been watching this for 15 minutes and even as chaos inside that airplane, we're going to be able to get more than people off than if this thing went down right away. The reason why it didn't go down right away is because of that gentle landing that that eyewitness talked about. It didn't tear the bottom of the plane apart as it hit the water, so therefore, you still had a very good, rigid hull under the bottom of it, allowing, sure, water leakage, but not just water pouring in if there were large holes in the bottom of this fuselage.

And, you know, this thing's made to be flying at 40,000 feet, and so it's a sealed part -- it's a sealed tube and it's still remains sealed and people are being save right now because that thing is still on top of the water.

SANCHEZ: Yes. No, you're right and it's extremely important for that fuselage to remain intact. I'm just wondering now, if it's possible they will try in some way or measure to maneuver the plane. Look, in that other picture, they're not that far away from the ferry landings over there. You see them over there? -- Absolutely.

See the backside of New York City? I mean, the closer they can get it to land, the less deep the water, the better the situation. For those of you joining us now, it is 57 minutes after the hour of 3:00 and as you look at this, a plane, flight 1549, has -- USAirways flight 1549, has come down in Hudson Bay after leaving LaGuardia heading for Charlotte. Preliminary indications were that they were more than 100 people onboard. We're also getting information, as well. And we're also getting information, according to the FAA, that the flight may have hit an obstacle, perhaps a bird in the air that may have caused it to go down.

We learned moments ago from Jeanne Meserve, that the Coast Guard is making sure that there are plenty of life vests in the water so that passengers, if they get off the plane, can then be -- are able to use those life vests for themselves.

Hard to tell as we look at this, to see exactly the strategy is, at this point. There's the possibility they may want to try and somehow anchor those -- the tail and the fuselage of the plane to some of the ferries to make sure it doesn't go open anymore. And there's a possibility they might try to maneuver it, as well. Both of those would mean that the people onboard can almost stay put before they'd have to come out of the water, but from this picture, Chad, it's tough to tell, isn't it?

MYERS: It is. I have on Flight Explorer and for the control room that is GR118. Fight Explorer, we do have the plane before it actually hit the water. And this is the typical approach and departure from LaGuardia airport as it comes down the Hudson, this wouldn't be going to Charlotte, maybe going the other direction if you're going to LaGuardia. But, that plane was at -- those numbers there indicate that it was 300 feet off the deck going 153 miles-per- hour and the very next ping was not on the map, and so that we know that that's when the plane actually hit the water in excess, probably, of 120 miles-per-hour. But the fact that the bottom of that plane is still intact are saving lives, right now.

SANCHEZ: Yes, you know, look, I'll tell you, Ben, are you still with us, by the way?

I don't know if Ben's still with us. We were lucky enough, or fortunate enough to have him, he's right there in Manhattan and he watched this plane go down and described it to us as the way that it should be done if in fact you're looking for a safe landing on water. These pilots are trained, seems like they know what they're doing and it seems like, in this case, he was able to bring the plane down safely.

Here's what we're going to do now as we've been watching this. I'm going to hand things over to Wolf Blitzer. He's standing by in the SITUATION ROOM, obviously, he's going stay with this story and continue to bring you all the details as they come in.

Wolf Blitzer, over to you, my friend.