Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Obama Announces Housing Rescue Plan; Roland Burris Under Fire
Aired February 18, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Here we go. This is what the president of the United States is aiming to do today, his new initiative, to solve the problem of foreclosures in the United States. I know, difficult task.
Two parts that he wants to attack it from. First, he wants to help people who are upside-down on their mortgages. And, two, he wants to help people who are stuck with subprime loans.
Let's listen to how the president explains this today, about two hours ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): Here is what is making news right now.
Nationalizing U.S. banks, who would suggest that? Republican Lindsey Graham and former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. That's who.
Televangelist Pat Robertson slams Rush Limbaugh for slamming the president.
Dick Cheney angry at George Bush for not pardoning Scooter.
And, uh-oh. The heat is now really on Roland Burris.
SEN. ROLAND BURRIS (D), ILLINOIS: I have nothing to hide.
SNOW: The call from far and near: Resign. You're embarrassing yourself and the state of Illinois.
The state high school playoffs in Alabama sends players and fans to jail. We will show you what happened,and this question: Will the economy cause scenes like these worldwide?
Riots, wars, allies becoming enemies, that is what the national intelligence director is telling Congress is now issue number one for the U.S. -- what you need to know from this CIA spy.
And what you tell us -- your daily national conversation begins right here, right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: So yesterday was about attacking the stimulus problem. Now it is about attacking the foreclosure problem. There is one foreclosure in the United States, according to Realty Tracker, one every 13 seconds. So, here is what the president of the United States said today in Arizona.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First, we will make it possible for an estimated 4 million to 5 million currently ineligible homeowners who received their mortgages through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to refinance their mortgages at a lower rate.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Second thing we're going to do under this plan is we will create new incentives so that lenders work with borrowers to modify the terms of subprime loans at risk of default and foreclosure.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Subprime loans, loans with high rates and complex terms that often conceal their costs make up only 12 percent of all mortgages but account for roughly half of all foreclosures.
Right now, when families with these mortgages seek to modify a loan to avoid this fate, they often find themselves navigating a maze of rules and regulations, but they rarely find answers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right. Here's the president talking about two things, people who are upside-down on their mortgages and people who are stuck with some of these subprime loans that they just can't seem to be able to get rid of.
I want to bring an expert in. Shawn Tully is the editor of "Fortune" magazine, so he can take us through this, so that maybe, maybe we can at least understand what the president aims to do and whether it is the thing to do at this time.
First part, people who are upside-down, in other words, the value of their house in many of these situations is actually less than the loan that they have on their home, is this a priority? How many are there there? And is the president's plan doable?
SHAWN TULLY, EDITOR AT LARGE, "FORTUNE": There are a lot of Americans in that position.
Approximately 15 million homeowners are in that position. And if you're underwater, the evidence is a little bit confusing, because most people who are underwater end up paying their mortgages, fully paying their mortgages. The people who don't pay are people who have life events. They get cancer, or they lose their jobs, they get divorced. They have a substantial financial hit in their lives. They have to leave their house. There's no way they can support the payments, and they inevitably go to foreclosure.
SANCHEZ: So, what is the president going to do for those people? And where is the money going to come from?
TULLY: Well, what he wants to do is he wants to essentially cut the mortgage payments down to a fixed percentage of the people's income, so it's easily affordable, below 30 percent range, like 31 percent of income, cut the interest rates however much is necessary to bring the payments down to that percentage.
The problem is that when you offer that type of a deal, you get a lot of people who would pay anyway in normal conditions who flock to get aid, and you're essentially wasting taxpayers' money. There's something called the moral hazard problem. This is precisely why the Bush administration shied away from doing this.
SANCHEZ: Well, he's got another issue, and that's people who are stuck with these subprime loans. Are they different than the case that we just talked about?
TULLY: Well, the subprime loans are definitely leading to much higher levels of foreclosures than we have seen in any previous crisis. Usually, the rates of foreclosure on people who are underwater are around 6 percent, 7 percent. Literally, 94 percent of the people underwater on their mortgages pay.
Because of the subprime problem, and because of the very high loan to value, actually, most of the subprime borrowers were not indigent people or people who had bankruptcy problems or credit problems in the past. They were people who just wanted to borrow 100 percent or 90 percent of the value of a house. And, actually...
SANCHEZ: And, in some cases, they were stupid. In other cases, they were swindled, depending on how you look at it. But, nonetheless, they're there. Is the government the right authority to come in and try and help these people out? And, if so, how? How is the president going to do this?
TULLY: Again, the problem is, people are going to lose their jobs. OK? Then you don't really have a moral hazard problem, because they're not going to lose their jobs to get mortgage relief, OK?
But, unfortunately, I think going beyond helping people who are losing their jobs risks having millions and millions of delinquent loans that you would not have otherwise.
SANCHEZ: Let me ask you something else.
This is interesting, because what we see is, the president of the United States under these conditions asking the people, with their tax money, or the government, to get into areas that the United States hasn't gotten into in the past, I mean, running banks.
There are even two people, two very powerful people -- Lindsey Graham is one of them -- talking about, if we're going to do this, let's just go all the way and nationalize the banks. This is what I want you to first listen to. This is Lindsey Graham, Republican senator, South Carolina. Let's take it up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THIS WEEK")
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I'm very much afraid that any program to salvage the bank is going to require
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC ANCHOR: So, what would you do...
(CROSSTALK)
GRAHAM: I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Nationalizing the banks. And he's not alone. Listen to Alan Greenspan. We have got a graphic we can put up.
These are people who have tended to lean more with the Republicans or have been associated with the Republicans talking about something that they in the past have called communism or socialism.
Let me read this one to you. "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring. I understand that, once in 100 years, this is what you do."
Are you shocked by hearing something like this from these guys?
TULLY: Well, I'm not so shocked now. I would have been shocked a year ago.
The problem is that the market has voted. The banks have no equity left. Their stock prices, especially of Bank of America and Citigroup, have essentially gone to almost zero. And they're below the book value that the banks are claiming they're actually worth.
So, in a case like that, the lender of last resort and the creditor of last resort is the government. We have already seen major bailouts of those two banks. Most of their capital now is in the form of preferred stock provided by the government, on which they're paying very, very high preferred dividends that aren't even tax-deductible.
So...
SANCHEZ: So, in other words, I think what I hear you saying is, if I give this pen as an entity 90 percent or 100 percent of its value by putting money into it, I pretty much own it and control it -- or control it. I might as well just run it, right? I might as well own it.
TULLY: Well, it's interesting.
If you look at Geithner's proposal, which has become much more specific in the last few days, what he's saying is that we're going to stress-test the banks. If they're underwater, like a mortgagee would be underwater...
SANCHEZ: Right.
TULLY: ... if the bank is worth less than the debt on the bank, in effect, we're going to boost your capital through a capital injection. And you can then transform that capital from preferred stock into common stock.
Well, what that does, it's really a nationalization via the back door. The banks get a lot more capital, but the main shareholder ends up being the government. These banks will immediately transfer these capital injections into common stock. That common stock will be owned by the U.S. taxpayer. They will be majority-owned by the U.S. taxpayer.
SANCHEZ: So, it sounds like -- it almost sounds like what you're saying, it doesn't matter what you call it. In the end, the government is going to have control one way or the another, given how much they're pointing into it.
You know what? Interesting conversation.
Shawn Tully, editor of "Fortune" magazine, thanks so much for being with us.
TULLY: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: We really, really appreciate it.
You're not going to believe Roland Burris' latest news conference. We were watching it and were stunned at one point. His response to being asked to resign is extraordinary. You're going to hear his response, by the way, to a very direct question. That's next.
Also, televangelist Pat Robertson tells Rush Limbaugh that he's out of line. Are some Republicans willing to call out Limbaugh these days?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH CRAIG FERGUSON")
CRAIG FERGUSON, HOST, "THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH CRAIG FERGUSON": I saw an articles last week that says, is Obama's presidency already a failure?
(LAUGHTER)
FERGUSON: I'm like, how long has he been doing it?
(LAUGHTER)
FERGUSON: I mean, the guy was worshipped as -- he was like the messiah like two months ago. And then he's taken office. And they're like, oh.
(LAUGHTER)
FERGUSON: I think, everybody, just calm down. Give Obama four years. See what he can do. Then, if he's a miserable failure, we will do what we did with Bush. We will elect him to a second term.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We welcome you back.
By the way, your comments are certainly welcomed, and we're already getting a bevy of them.
Let's go to MySpace, if we can, over here. We're getting this comment that says: "I'm scared of what the effects of a worldwide recession will be. Mr. President, we are hoping the stimulus will save us. Our life is on the line."
Well, there you go, people obviously trying to hold the president accountable. We are going to be watching what he says and does in the next couple of days as well.
I want to bring you up to date on a story that's taking place in Chicago. This is about Roland Burris. Roland Burris has for the most part given several different accounts of whether or not he and Governor Rod Blagojevich had some kind of quid pro quo deal or whether he accepted an offer from the governor or whether he actually, Roland Burris, Senator Roland Burris, offered something in return to the governor.
As we can tell, there are about five different stories that he's given so far, three of them, by the way, under oath.
I'm going to take them through you -- take you through them right now. Let's do this. Ready?
Story number one, take you back to January 5. He says, there was no contact with Blagojevich's representatives about a Senate seat, not before December.
Then he comes back with story number two. This is sworn testimony, January 8. Did in fact, he says, speak about the seat with a former chief of staff to Blagojevich. So, you notice the story has changed.
Story number three, February 4 now, telling "The Sun-Times," or revealed by the "Sun-Times" newspaper that he spoke with not one, but five Governor Blagojevich advisers. Remember, at the beginning, he hadn't spoken with anyone.
Story number four, this is at a news conference this last Sunday, one of the biggest shockers. The governor's brother, he says, Rob Blagojevich, requested fund-raising help all the way back in October. So, he was, after all, approached by Blagojevich, though he had denied it. Story number five, an impromptu news conference -- this is Monday -- now he admits making calls about setting up a fund-raiser. Yes, he was now willing to make -- to set up a fund-raiser for Governor Rod Blagojevich.
When you go through all of this, many would argue there is a quid pro quo.
Let's bring in Rick Pearson with "The Chicago Tribune," who has been following all of this.
And then the coup de grace happened just about 45 minutes ago. We're watching this really bizarre news conference that he held where he started talking about everything but his present situation. And then he's asked this very direct question by someone in the audience.
I want you, Rick, and the folks at home to listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Was it wrong of you to solicit funds for Rod Blagojevich at the same time he was considering you for the Senate?
BURRIS: I was never considered for the Senate. I was never considered by the Senate.
QUESTION: No.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BURRIS: No, no, no. Well, as I said, in my statement, we will not make any responses to those type questions. I said it in my statement. And we're not making any responses to that question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: There's some obfuscation there, Rick. At least I thought so, with his original response.
"I was never considered by the Senate." What?
RICK PEARSON, POLITICAL REPORTER, "THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Well, this is a very interesting kind of parsing that Roland Burris has been trying to do.
He's trying to say, according to him, that there's a difference between when there was a real discussion about his appointment vs. previous discussions when he was interested in being a senator. And he says you should be able to tell the difference between the two.
SANCHEZ: Let me ask you a question. This guy suddenly is coming forward with all these explanations of something that is still very difficult to wrap our arms around.
Is there a possibility that he is doing this because he was wiretapped, like so many others apparently in this investigation, and that either he tells us or we will learn through a wiretap later?
PEARSON: Well, I think it's highly doubtful that he was, because when you look at the timing of the federal investigation involving Rod Blagojevich, the wiretaps basically ended right up in late December, even kind of before we got to this whole issue of Roland Burris being considered a serious candidate.
Burris himself had talked about everybody whose zip code started with six here in Illinois about wanting to be senator, but he was never really considered to be necessarily a serious candidate in the Blagojevich administration until really after his arrest.
SANCHEZ: It does sound, though, like the governor came to him, not once -- or not the governor, but the governor's brother came to him three -- on three different occasions.
You know, if you come to me with something, and I give you a cold shoulder, chances are you're not going to come back two other times. So, the fact that they spoke three times seems to be telling, at least in some measure. And now we add to that the fact that he's saying that he was willing or did tell him that he was willing to raise funds for them? That sounds like a quid pro quo.
PEARSON: Yes.
And, really, this is, I think, where the real problem lies, is that in the stories that Burris has been telling, he's been saying, yes, Rob Blagojevich, the governor -- the ex-governor's brother, came to me. He's the head of Blagojevich's fund-raising arm. He came to me three separate times and wanted to raise money. But Burris would add, but I told him it would be inappropriate while I was being considered for the United States Senate seat.
Only do we learn this week that in fact Burris did try to reach out to friends to try to raise money. And it was only until his last conversation in mid-November that Burris said, you know, it's not appropriate to talk about this kind of thing.
SANCHEZ: And that's exactly what he was asked before he took the position and was given the job of U.S. senator.
Mark Preston is joining us now as well. He's in Washington.
This doesn't look good, Mark, for the U.S. Senate, and especially those who ended up embracing this guy, begrudgingly. Harry Reid, for example, is probably asking himself, man, I wonder if I should have pushed back harder.
MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: Well, I don't think Harry Reid had much choice but to accept, you know, the senator from Illinois. He ended up with the correct paperwork, Rick.
There was only two things that Senate Democratic leaders wanted from Roland Burris when he was sent to Washington, one, have the correct paperwork, and, two, when you go to Springfield, be honest with everything that you know. And, right now, they're feeling a sense of betrayal. At least that's what I'm hearing privately on the Hill. They're frustrated. They're angry, Rick. They can't believe his story. And, publicly, Rick, we're not seeing any statements of support for Roland Burris.
SANCHEZ: Is it -- but can this end up being more than betrayal? Can they end up being these senators finding a way to get rid of this guy, saying, look, we don't want you to be part of our club anymore, given what we now know about you?
PRESTON: Well, there's two things. One, there's a local prosecutor who is said to be investigating this back in Illinois. And the Senate Ethics Committee right now, Rick, has opened an investigation into Mr. Burris.
And they can do one of three things. Let me just tick through them very quickly. They could expel him...
SANCHEZ: Right.
PRESTON: ... which would be the death penalty. They could censure him, which would be the second most severe thing. Or they could reprimand him. He's very unlikely to get expelled. Only 15 senators, Rick, have been expelled, 14 of them during the Civil War.
So, that won't happen. Censure would require a two-thirds majority -- or, excuse me -- a simple majority of the Senate to censure him. And then the Ethics Committee could just reprimand him. And that's what we saw happen with Larry Craig.
I doubt it will even get to that. He will probably have stepped down before any of that could happen.
SANCHEZ: Unbelievable story, as told by two great reporters.
Mark Preston, Rick Pearson, we thank you for your time, both.
This is unbelievable, arrests at a state high school tournament. How can this get so out of hand? And it continues for a long period of time. How did it start, though? And what's being done to make sure it doesn't happen in the future?
Also, guess what? Terrorism is not the number-one security threat that is facing our country. The national intelligence director stands before Congress and tells them it's something else. We will tell you what it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE LATE LATE SHOW WITH CRAIG FERGUSON")
FERGUSON: It's a great day for America, everybody.
(LAUGHTER)
FERGUSON: I'm very excited, because I will tell you why. The "High School Musical 3" is out on DVD today. Yes! If you haven't seen the high school musicals, they're movies about a mythical high school, where teenage boys can break into song without getting the crap beat out of them.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. Lots of news going on and lots of responses from you so far. I'm Rick Sanchez here in the world headquarters of CNN.
Rush Limbaugh getting called out by Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Dick Cheney reportedly calling out former President George Bush. Why and why? We will tell you. That's next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")
JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO": President Obama gives great speeches. You know what I'm saying? Like, today, instead of just saying, oh, from North to South, he said from the windy plains of the Dakotas to the sunny skies of Arizona.
I mean, you get that tingle, you know? It sounds so much better than from the sleazeball criminal element of Wall Street to the broke- ass beaches of California.
(LAUGHTER)
LENO: You know what I'm saying? You know, it just sounds...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: There seems to be a consensus building in social media, at least those of us watching -- or those that are watching this newscast today, about Roland Burris.
Let me share just one of those with you. It's the one right there in the middle, Robert. "Burris needs to sit his 'blank' down and resign. He is ridiculous."
Another story I want to tell you about now is one that we have been following up on this newscast, because it seems to reveal some inappropriate behavior by a police officer. At least that's what's being alleged.
We want you to watch this report. It's about a driver who gets to his own home and is pulled over by police officers because they think he's in a stolen car. It's his car. It's his driveway. It's his home. Why, then, was he arrested? Why, then, did he end up getting shot by police? Here's Ed Lavandera.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The way Robbie Tolan's family describes it, he and his cousin were just walking up to their home after a late night meal. So why is Tolan now hospitalized, a police officer's bullet lodged in his liver? It's a question sparking allegations of racism in this mostly white Houston suburb of Bellaire.
QUANELL X, ACTIVIST: He was a victim of the worst case and the worst kind of racial profiling.
LAVANDERA: Tolan is the son of former Major League Baseball player Bobby Tolan. The 23-year-old spent the year playing with the Washington Nationals minor league team and recently played with the Bay Area Toros. Tolan's cousin said they had no idea the two men approaching them that night were cops.
ANTHONY COOPER, TOLAN'S COUSIN: We did not know it was a police officer. We just thought, you know, who was this guy with this gun and his flashlight?
LAVANDERA: According to police, the officers thought the SUV the pair had just gotten out of was stolen. Relatives say Tolan's parents heard the commotion and came outside. Police acknowledged an altercation took place. Relatives say it involved his mother.
MIKE MORRIS, TOLAN'S UNCLE: The cop just pushed her against the wall and her son was on his back at the time, and he raised up, and asked, what are you doing to my mom, and the officer shot him, while he was on the ground.
LAVANDERA: The car belongs to the Tolans. It wasn't stolen. Police say Robbie Tolan and his cousin were unarmed. As for the officer who shot him, he is white, a 10-year veteran with an excellent record. Police say they're looking into what happened, but deny any kind of racial profiling.
ASST. CHIEF BYRON HOLLOWAY, BELLAIRE, TEXAS POLICE: Any time someone is injured, we take it very seriously, and -- but as far as any allegation of racial profiling, I probably said that's not really going to float.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Robbie Tolan is joining us now.
Mr. Tolan, thanks so much for being with us.
ROBBIE TOLAN, POLICE SHOOTING VICTIM: Thank you. Thank you joining -- thank you for having me.
SANCHEZ: We're glad to see you're out of the hospital.
You're African-American. The police officer who pulled you over was white. And this is what it's making a lot of people think.
Let's go to the Twitter board, if we possibly can. It says, "It is sad that black people are still treated like targets by the police."
Is that what you believe happened in your case?
TOLAN: Absolutely.
I feel like, if this were -- if this had been two white kids, it wouldn't have happened like this. And the fact that I was shot in front of my own home, where I lived for 15 years, is -- it's pretty sad. It's a pretty sad situation.
SANCHEZ: Driving your own car, probably, right?
TOLAN: Yes, driving my own car.
SANCHEZ: Do you recall anything -- let's try and give this police officer the benefit of the doubt. Let's be fair. Is there anything that you may have done, you maybe became aggressive, you did something, said something, that would have caused him to treat you in the way that he did?
TOLAN: The only thing I said that was aggressive was, "Get your hands off my mother."
But, you know, I don't know that that would constitute me being shot in the chest.
SANCHEZ: Well, so, let's explain to viewers what happened. It wasn't until your parents came out of the house, shocked at what was going on, that then the police officers, as described in one incident, or -- accosted her, or how would you describe that? She was put up against, what, the garage door?
TOLAN: Yes. She was trying to explain to the police officers to kind of defuse the situation, but they were uninterested in anything we were saying. And they grabbed her pretty forcefully, and threw her up against the garage door.
SANCHEZ: Now when these police officers pulled you over, you had originally said that they put a flashlight in your face. So you weren't even quite sure if they were police officers, right? You thought maybe they might be bad guys?
TOLAN: Right. Correct. They...
SANCHEZ: Did you explain that to them?
TOLAN: Did I -- I'm sorry?
SANCHEZ: Did you explain that to them? Did you say, sorry, Officer, I didn't even know who you were, but, you know, I'm cool, this is my house? Did you say that to him? TOLAN: Well, when they -- when the first officer, Officer Edwards (ph), approached us, I looked past him and I saw that there was a police car. So I knew that it was the police. But he never announced himself. He never turned the police lights on or sirens or anything. Just flashlight and gun pointed at us.
SANCHEZ: What do you want to come out of this? What's your goal?
TOLAN: I want -- my goal is to change the way police departments, first of all, hire their employees, and to change the way that -- to change the -- you know, something in the way policing is done. I think, you know, for them to have done this, and, you know, be covering it up, is sad and it has to stop, because it happens too often.
SANCHEZ: And I think a lot of people would agree with you. We thank you, Mr. Tolan, for taking the time to take us through this. And obviously we will continue to follow up on this story and get both sides as well as the...
TOLAN: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: ... police there in Bellaire. My thanks to you.
TOLAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
SANCHEZ: Why is Dick Cheney reportedly angry at former President Bush? We will tell you next.
Oh, and let me show you this fight at a high school basketball game. I will tell you what happened, how it started, and why. Go ahead, Otis, let them hear it.
(VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Let's go to the Twitter board. Beth who watches our show every single day is commenting on the interview I did just did moments ago with Mr. Tolan. And Beth is saying: "That young man should be compensated generously for his pain and suffering."
And Pamela is watching as well and she says: "There is no excuse for the Bellaire police shooting a man in the back for driving his own car into his own driveway." Like we said, we'll continue to follow up.
Let me bring you up-to-date on a couple of other stories. We told you about Roland Burris and what's going on in Chicago. He's not the only politician who seems to be at least having to make some explanations these days.
Let's go down to Eric Cantor. He is the whip for the Republican Party. He did, as you may know, lead the opposition to the president's stimulus package. However, he voted for the bailout. And now it turns out that his wife works for a company that got $267 million of that bailout money.
Given the fact that he was one of the persons who voted for something that his wife's company ended up getting part of, should he have disclosed that? That's the question we're bringing to Amy Holmes, our CNN contributor, who is joining us now live.
Should he have dealt with this a little bit differently, Amy?
AMY HOLMES, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think he should have. The very fact that we're talking about it means that it's a political, you know, black eye for him, a little bit. But who is not taking TARP money these days? Which banks can say that they don't have their fingers in the pie?
Unfortunately we've even hearing -- I talked with a very successful and well-known business person just last week who said he chatted with bankers who said the government's making them take the TARP money.
I think he should have disclosed this. But if anything, his vote against this latest stimulus package shows that he was standing on principle.
SANCHEZ: It's perhaps a temporary taint but not a long-lasting one then, right?
HOLMES: No. No, no. I mean, we have Charlie Rangel now, who is, you know, the chairman of the House Means and Ways (sic) Committee who has his own tax issues. So -- and that's ongoing.
SANCHEZ: Let me show you another one. This is interesting, this tiff, for lack of a better word, that seems to be taking place between the Reverend Pat Robertson of the "700 Club" and Rush Limbaugh. Now, Rush Limbaugh, as we all recall, had said that he wanted Obama to fail. He went on to explain it's because he wanted liberalism to fail. But nonetheless he stood by that characterization.
This is what Pat Robertson told USA Today. He said: "That was a terrible thing to say," talking about Rush's comment. "I mean, he's president of all the country. If he succeeds, the country succeeds. If he doesn't, it hurts us all."
Let me ask you the question this way. Is Robertson pointing out that if the GOP follows Rush Limbaugh's lead, they're almost betting against America? And is that a valid criticism?
HOLMES: I think that it is a valid criticism. But I also see Rush Limbaugh's point, which is, he doesn't want the president to pursue policies that he thinks are harmful for our country.
But you know, Rick, I think that this points up that conservatives and Republicans are not monolithic. There's debate, there's dispute, there's disagreement. And Pat Robertson, you know, he ran for president. This is someone who has been a voice and a face for the religious end of the -- right-wing end of the spectrum. And he had a different view than Rush Limbaugh. SANCHEZ: Here's something else that's going on that's really interesting. The liberal blogs are going crazy with this tiff, to use the word once again, apparently between the former vice president and the former president of the United States.
And it all has to do with on the very last day in office, Dick Cheney wanted George Bush to pardon Scooter Libby. Because, after all, he worked for Dick Cheney, among other things. And now listen to what Maureen Dowd is writing.
This is interesting. I want you to hear this, and I want you to hear this at home. This is Maureen Dowd in The New York Times today, she writes: "One of the great mysteries of the Bush presidency is whether W. ever had an epiphany when he realized that he had been manipulated by Dick Cheney, whether it ever hit him that he had trusted the wrong father figure."
Now, anybody who reads Maureen Dowd recognizes some of the terminology there. It's very typical Maureen Dowd language.
HOLMES: Right.
SANCHEZ: But, you know, it's a serious -- it's a question to be taken seriously. Will history show that Bush -- President Bush may have given in more to Dick Cheney than he needed to, that it may have hurt him? And is there any sign as far as you can tell that he may have made that realization toward the end of his administration?
HOLMES: Well, Rick, you're sort of presuming that President Bush was Dick Cheney's puppet, or something like that.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
HOLMES: Which I don't think...
SANCHEZ: Well, that -- you know, that's what the liberal blogs write over and over again.
HOLMES: Sure, yes, of course. And I think this episode shows that that wasn't true. That President Bush was very much his own man. Of course, in very close consultation with Vice President Cheney about what he wanted to pursue, in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, all of these different things.
But I think that it demonstrates that President Bush wasn't being controlled and manipulated by Dick Cheney. And Scooter Libby was Dick Cheney's chief of staff. They're very close. And President Bush said, you know what, a jury found him guilty. He commuted the sentence but he didn't pardon him.
SANCHEZ: So that means there is something to the tiff reports, though, right?
HOLMES: Possibly. You know, the same report as Senator Simpson, who is no longer senator, he said in The New York Times piece that Dick Cheney's not a guy who's embittered. He's not actually someone who is actually in a fight with his boss, the former president of the United States, leader of the free world.
But it was a serious difference between the two of them. And, you know, Dick Cheney wished that President Bush would had decided differently.
SANCHEZ: And it may have been the one they went out on, which is interesting.
HOLMES: Well, isn't it interesting, we're talking about the pardons that President Bush didn't make instead of the ones, say, that Clinton did?
SANCHEZ: Point well-made, Amy Holmes.
HOLMES: Thank you, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Touche. Thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it.
HOLMES: Thank you.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SANDRA HEROLD, CHIMP'S OWNER: Send the police! Send the police!
911 OPERATOR: What's the problem there?
HEROLD: The chimp killed my friend!
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The chimp killed my -- I mean, a woman calling police to tell them her chimpanzee just killed her friend? There's a call that police don't get every day.
And it's not Osama bin Laden. It's not Kim Jong-il. So who or what is the number one threat to our national security? What do you think? That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I want to share something else with you now. Ladies downstairs at the CNN Diner, where we all go to get our lunches during the day, are livid about this story that I'm about to tell you. So I thought I would share it with you. Who in the world lets a wild animal loose in their neighborhood, they asked me today, as I was getting my lunch.
This was Travis (ph), who starred in a few TV commercials. There he is. But Monday Travis just went off. His 70-year-old owner says that he wasn't himself. Duh. She tried tranquilizing him and called a friend familiar with the chimp for help.
And when the friend arrived, Travis viciously attacked the friend, sending said friend to the hospital. Here, in fact, is the 911 call where the owner actually thinks that her chimp has killed her friend.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
HEROLD: He's trying to attack me! Please, please hurry!
911 OPERATOR: OK. I need you to calm down a little bit. They're on the way.
HEROLD: They've got to shoot him, please! Please hurry, hurry!
911 OPERATOR: If the monkey moves away from your friend, let me know, OK, so we can try to help your friend.
HEROLD: No, I can't! She's dead! She's dead!
911 OPERATOR: Why are you saying that she's dead?
HEROLD: She's dead! He ripped her apart! I can't hold on much longer! I can't hold on, I can't! Please have them shoot him!
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Police shot and killed Travis. The mauling victim remains in serious condition, did not die. Police in Connecticut say they're still trying to figure out if any laws were broken. Well, here's some advice from the ladies down in the CNN Diner. Residential neighborhoods are for people. Wild animals are for the wild. What you think as well on cnn.com/rick sanchez.
Because of this, the state playoffs in Alabama may now end up in a different type of court, a court of law for 11 of these people you see there. That's ahead.
And also, worldwide, the biggest threat to the United States, the economy, that's the latest from Washington and our Congress.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. As we get going, let's do this, let's go right to Facebook. Simone and Justice are watching our show. Both ladies have this to say. First Simone says: "The number one threat for national security, well, I don't know right. I'm still stuck between the chimp, the cartoonist, and the angry teenagers. Oh uh (sic). What are we going to do? Laugh out loud"
And then Justice says: "Who in their right mind has a 200-pound chimp with a history of wild animal behavior as a pet?" That's what the ladies in the diner were asking here at CNN as well.
All right. I want to bring in Mike Brooks and Ashleigh Banfield now. Both of them -- oh, I'm sorry. We're going to go to Robert Baer. Hi, Mike Brooks, can we save you for the next...
MIKE BROOKS, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: I'll be here. SANCHEZ: Great. Let's go, Robert Baer joining us now. He is going to talk about a couple of issues that we have been discussing for quite some time. And the first one, of course, being some interesting points that were made moments ago about national intelligence.
This is the national intelligence director. He's telling Congress that issue number one for the United States is now the economy. That if the situation around the world -- the economic situation around the world gets serious enough, Mr. Baer, we could have riots, wars, allies could become enemies, enemies could become allies, that the whole thing is going to be turned upside down.
What does he mean? From -- as a person who has been a spy, who has worked these cases in other places and has written several books about this, what does he mean?
ROBERT BAER, FORMER CIA OPERATIVE: What he means is that we're going to see some countries collapse. We're going to see Western European countries on the brink of a total collapse, economic collapse.
We're going to see countries in Eastern Europe collapse socially. We're going to see riots in China and through South Asia.
SANCHEZ: And what's...
BAER: ... go anywhere.
SANCHEZ: How does that go -- OK, we understand the situation, people having a tough time economically. How does that go to danger? How does that reach the danger threshold for us?
BAER: Electricity starts to go off. Parts of countries break off. Let's take Pakistan, it's on the brink.
SANCHEZ: All right.
BAER: Parts of the army are going to break off from the main force. They've got nuclear weapons. They could go to war with India. We could have a nuclear confrontation. We're not that far away between India and Pakistan.
SANCHEZ: And you think if the world economy isn't somehow settled or controlled -- on a scale of one to 10, how likely are they to happen?
BAER: I think they're pretty good. I think we should talk about civil insurrection and how we're going to deal with it, and how we're going to deal with loose nukes. Russia itself is on the brink as well.
SANCHEZ: Let me ask you about Iran. I read something you wrote recently about Iran, and you're seeming to suggest that we -- that this president should do with Iran what President Nixon did with China, that it's about time we do that or else. Make a case. BAER: I have no doubt the leadership in Tehran is more rational than it has been ever in the last 30 years since the revolution. Iran is effectively cooperating in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. It's a stable country so far.
It has got 70 million people. It ahs restrained itself from a confrontation in the Gulf. I think there's a dialogue that can be open. You know, some people are calling this appeasement. I don't call it appeasement. We didn't appease China in 1974. We simply dealt with reality. Iran is the strongest country in the Middle East and we need their help and they need us as well.
SANCHEZ: That big and that important, huh?
BAER: Oh, it is. The only country that lives within its borders. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and we go right through the list, they're all artificial borders, which could fall apart at any time.
SANCHEZ: Bob Baer, I read all of his book, latest being "The Devil We Know." We thank you, sir, for your time.
BAER: Thanks.
(VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Here's the fight, the story is next. That's why Mike Brooks is sitting next to me. And that's why Ashley Banfield is going to be joining us as well. Who is in trouble and who is to blame? We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Here's what Wild (ph) is saying about -- here's what Wild is saying about this: "Oh, my God, that riot during that basketball game, what are people thinking? Throw them all in jail."
We have watched this video again and again. And the thing about it is the fury in their faces, the anger. This began on the court with one player fouling another. OK. You get a foul called on you and the other guy takes two shots. You don't start hitting them. It doesn't turn into a fight in the stands. They don't end up ending the game. And they don't end up having to arrest 11 or 12 people.
Joining us now, Mike Brooks and Ashleigh Banfield. Yet that is exactly what we have here, Mike.
BROOKS: Absolutely. I mean -- and there's no beer involved. And we're not talking about the Detroit Pistons. You know, this is a high school basketball game in Alabama. I mean, the game was out of reach. It was Valley versus Carver. Carver was leading 52-37.
So probably a lot of high emotions here. But this was a school activity. You're supposed to behave at these games like you do at school. Now the question is, was there any outsiders that started the problems in the stands?
You know, a little pushing and shoving on the court, that happens, but not to turn into an all-out brawl.
SANCHEZ: You wonder about security as well. Ashley Banfield, more and more of these incidents happen not just at high school games, but apparently all over the world. Soccer matches, football games, is there a rule about security that we've seen that needs to be established? And shouldn't these officials at this game or this high school be held accountable as well?
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HOST, "IN SESSION": Well, I'll tell you something, I can't really speak for other countries, but in this country, in a number of jurisdictions, there's something called a riot charge.
Yes, you can be charged with rioting, as well as all of those other charges that are so difficult to defend, assault, aggravated assault, resisting arrest, obstruction, all of those kinds of things.
And by the way, it's a good thing this was on videotape, nice up close pictures of people's faces, which will play well for jurors, I'm sure.
SANCHEZ: You mean there will be -- police will take this tape, just like we did today, looking at it from...
BANFIELD: Oh yes.
SANCHEZ: And they will say, that guy right there, that was an assault, that one there, he was using self-defense. And they can parse who is guilty and who is not.
BANFIED: It will be huge, huge in the investigation, and huge in terms of a piece of evidence if there are charges that are filed in this case against some of the perpetrators.
BROOKS: And you can have both -- in this case, too, you're going to have both juveniles and adults, probably. You know, this is a school activity, school rules apply. The principal said, they're going to take a look at it also about this one.
But when it comes down to charges, you know, criminal charges, you know you're going to be dealing both with juveniles and adults. So you could -- just like Ashleigh said, you could have agg assaults, simple assault, there are all kinds of -- assault with a shod foot, that kind of thing.
SANCHEZ: Twenty seconds left, but you know, in school basketball games, especially of this magnitude, the state playoffs, you should have local police, you should have more than a couple of guys, right?
BROOKS: Well, they're there. They're there. You know, they're -- we saw them there in the crowd. You know, how many do you have? Was there any intelligence that said, OK, there was any gang activity that was going to instigate this? No, there was not.
SANCHEZ: I get it. All right. Ashleigh Banfield, Mike Brooks, as usual, you guys are the best. Brooks and Banfield, we call them. More of what you had to say about today's show. I'm looking over at some of the Twitter comments now. Oh, my God, we'll have them for you. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Let me bring you some comments now from you, you're watching our newscast. Some of you have very important things to say. Others, just kind of funny. Let's start with MySpace, this is a comment that we're getting from one our viewers.
She says: "I love Mike Brooks, to not have hair, he's cute." Let's go over to the Twitter board, if we can now. Flip that around, if you can, Robert, here we go. From the top. "If a cop that shot an unarmed man in his home does not go to jail, how can anyone be expected to respect the law?"
Other one: "We need laws to protect us from the people at that basketball game, instead of from a chimp, seems to be more of them."
Freaky Fran says: "Think back, bin Laden's number two said that they could not win over USA military, but they could bankrupt us, and this is what is happening."
And finally, we get one that says: "We just need to become more independent from the Middle East and develop our own energy as soon as possible. That is cheaper than gas."
Let's take you now to Washington, "THE SITUATION ROOM." And here now is our own Wolf Blitzer.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Rick.
