Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Coast Guard Searches For Missing NFL Players; Rush Limbaugh, Republican Party Leader?

Aired March 02, 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. There's probably no more intriguing story going on right now than the one about these four boaters who's out at sea. Apparently, we're going to be getting some new information on that story. I don't know if you've seen the video, but one of them has been recovered. He's doing OK. But where are the other three? We are expecting to get some new information on this mystery any moment now. Some of the information may surprise you, so just stand by. We're trying to nail it down as we speak.

Here's what else we've got coming your way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We cannot afford to have AIG fail.

SANCHEZ (voice-over): One of the biggest insurers in the world gets billions more. They must survive for all our sakes. We talk to them. Will they survive? How much more might they need?

Is Rush Limbaugh bigfooting all other Republican voices?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His big, huge, kind of bellowing, bellicose, ugly rhetoric is still, for most people, the face of the Republican Party.

SANCHEZ: We will analyze this video of a sheriff's deputy beating a 15-year-old girl. Question: Why are so many children being jailed in America? Could it be for money? That's right, money. You will be amazed with our story about two judges, jails, children and profit.

And there's news on the beat-down that made international headlines. Rihanna's response after allegedly getting beaten by Chris Brown may surprise, even shock you.

Neither wind nor snow stops this national conversation, where America joins in, in real time, right here, right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: All right, let's switch everything we have going for you now and change our newscast, because we now have somebody on the phone who is going to be able to answer some of our questions. And we are getting a lot of interesting information on this story. First, let me set it up for you. It's four guys, two of them very famous, by the way, NFL superstars, who go out from Clearwater, Florida, boating. Suddenly, they are nowhere to be seen. Now, remember, this is Saturday, when they were last seen. Friends and family decided they hadn't seen them, so they are wondering if possibly they're out at sea.

The Coast Guard gets called, and now this. One of them has been recovered. Apparently, we have got some pictures coming in now of him. We will be able to share those with you. And you will see that he doesn't seem to be in real bad situation, but we don't know where the other three guys are, including two NFL stars.

Let's do this. Let's get to Petty Officer Robert Simpson. He's joining us now with the U.S. Coast Guard to try and fill in some of the blanks here.

Now, as we understand it, the boat was hit by a wave, and only one of them was able to survive. Where are the other three?

PETTY OFFICER ROBERT SIMPSON, U.S. COAST GUARD: Right now, we still have some officers going to be able to talk to him at the hospital to find out some more information in regards to possibly where their boat was at the time when they were at anchor and when it had -- when it had capsized.

SANCHEZ: We're looking now at what I think is one of the very first visuals of this vessel. I understand it's about a 21-footer. They were out pretty far for a 21-footer, weren't they?

SIMPSON: They were out about 50 miles in a 21-foot center console fishing boat from Clearwater. And we're told from Nick Schuyler that possibly that it had been Saturday evening when they were at anchor and they were hit by a wave that caused the boat to overturn.

SANCHEZ: Why would one be able to hold on to the top of that boat -- or the bottom of the boat, I should say, as we're looking at it, and the other three would not be able to do so? We're talking about a span of probably less than 48 hours that they would have had to be hanging on to it, right?

SIMPSON: Right.

That's one of the things that we're trying to get in touch with him about and actually talk to him some more, in regards to possibly what had happened, where they were, and how long it had been since the vessel had overturned.

SANCHEZ: Now, as I understand it -- and I heard you say this earlier on one of our broadcasts -- he was actually saying to you that the other three at first were either clinging to the boat or near the boat, right, that he didn't lose contact with them after the wave flipped the boat?

SIMPSON: Well, they were all on the boat at the same time when the vessel had capsized. We're trying to verify a lot of the information...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: No, I mean -- maybe you misunderstood me. I mean after that. After the wave hits, he still says that the other three guys were there as well, some of them clinging to the boat.

Or is that erroneous?

SIMPSON: I'm not sure. We have -- our officers are trying to verify a lot of the statements and find out for sure anything and everything that he may know about it, so we can be able to kind of pinpoint our searches to a smaller area.

SANCHEZ: So, yes, that's kind of what we're trying to nail down. We all get it, that four people are on a boat. A boat suddenly gets flipped over.

And there we see Schuyler again being taken in by Coast Guard officials.

What's his condition right now, by the way?

SIMPSON: I'm not sure what his condition is now. He was awake and talkative when we did pull him on to our vessel. Hypothermia is definitely a major concern with the amount of time that he was out in the elements. He was wearing a life jacket when he was clinging to the hull.

SANCHEZ: He looks pretty good, actually, for being out there that long, doesn't he?

SIMPSON: From what I have heard, with him being able to be as awake as he was is a great sign, knowing what the water temperatures and the air temperatures and the general weather conditions were.

SANCHEZ: Now, under normal conditions, unless they're right near the Gulf Stream or something that would pull them away from the boat, you get flipped by a wave, you're able to swim back to the boat, and then just hold on for dear life. What would make them not be able to do that?

SIMPSON: Well, the weather conditions had taken a severe turn. They had degraded greatly from earlier in the day, with the storm front that had come through, increasing the waves to between six and 10 feet at the time, wind conditions about 15 to 20 knots. So, it's -- make it very, very difficult to swim very controllably and to be able to stay in one position.

SANCHEZ: All right, hold on. Hey, Officer Simpson, I think we get it. It's very difficult to look over those waves. And we have got a news conference coming on right now from the Coast Guard.

Let's go to it live.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS) CAPTAIN TIM CLOSE, U.S. COAST GUARD: ... of the Tornado and take him to Tampa General.

We sent two of my folks out to Tampa General to try and get more information from him. We're waiting on their return yet. They are looking for more information, so we could refine the search further.

We still have an active search for the other three missing gentlemen. The search area now is a lot smaller, based on where we found the boat. It was obviously within one of our search patterns. That's why one of our cutters found it.

Some of the early information we got out of him was that the boat was anchored Saturday early evening and, at some point, it flipped. At some point, the other three gentlemen became separated from the boat. I don't have a whole lot of details on that. That's why we sent folks to the hospital to debrief him to try and get more information to continue to refine our search.

QUESTION: Captain, can you talk about some of the sophisticated, or not, technology you're using now that the search field has been narrowed, some of the equipment you're using to try to find these other three guys?

CLOSE: Yes.

Obviously, besides several good sets of eyeballs on Coast Guard folks there on board, there's a surface search radar, both aircraft- mounted and ship-mounted. Some of the aircraft have forward-looking infrared radar on board.

For nighttime searches, we have night-vision goggles that we have used extensively. In terms of the command center, the search patterns, we are working with the command center out of Miami, at the district, as well as our own. They run some sophisticated search planning based on information that we got initially early Sunday morning when they were first reported as being overdue, based on where they left from, the size of the boat, where we thought they were going to be based on the float plan they had filed with the family and when they were expected back.

We did some detailed search planning. And that formed the basis of the initial searches that we did. Then, over time, we continued to estimate where that boat would have drifted to based on prevailing currents, winds and wave, weather conditions.

Most of you know the weather Saturday night and all day Sunday was fairly rough offshore, approximately 14-foot seas. And that stayed about that same way all through the last evening.

Early this morning, weather got a little more favorable for search conditions. Right from the start, we took this obviously as a very serious case . We had numerous Coast Guard assets involved in it, Coast Guard rotary-wing aircraft, as well as fixed-wing aircraft from Air Station Clearwater. We had Coast Guard aircraft involved that flew up from Miami and also Coast Guard aircraft from Mobile, Alabama. We got some assistance from the U.S. Air Force, a couple of helicopters that were flying last night, as well as one of their C-130 fixed-wing aircraft that we had today, several Coast Guard patrol boats and some small boats as well, a 47-foot motor lifeboat out of Station Sand Key.

QUESTION: Captain, the infrared heat-seeking radar you're speaking of, will it be able to pick up or detect a human being in the water? It's that good?

CLOSE: It depends with that. And a lot of it depends on the weather conditions. Obviously, you have to be able to see the object that you're looking for to see the boat, to see the people, and the worse the weather is, the more difficult that becomes.

QUESTION: How many aircraft and how many vessels do you have in right now?

CLOSE: I don't have an exact number right now.

Earlier today, we had four fixed-wing aircraft, two rotary-wing aircraft, as well as a 110-foot patrol boat, the Nantucket, out of St. Petersburg, and a 179-foot patrol boat, the Tornado, plus the 47-foot motor lifeboat out of Sand Key.

Right now, some of those aircraft are back refueling, getting additional crews. The patrol boats are still out on scene. We are continuing to hit it hard.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) describe the condition of the boat and Nick Schuyler for us, please, when you found him?

CLOSE: The boat was overturned. And he was on top of the boat.

I don't have detailed information about his medical condition, other than that the C.O. of the Tornado, after asking just a very few questions, asked for medical evacuation for him. And so we flew him off fairly quickly.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... boat be anchored in those seas at that time, do you think, knowing that the seas were that high?

CLOSE: I can't speculate too much.

All I have is the initial report that said that, at some point on Saturday, during the day, the boat was anchored. I have no idea what time the boat began drifting again.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Was there a debris field there? When your people picked up Schuyler, and saw the boat, was there a debris field around it? CLOSE: I don't believe there was.

QUESTION: Do you know how long Schuyler was with the other boaters before they did drift away?

CLOSE: No, ma'am. That's why we sent folks to the hospital to debrief him.

QUESTION: Was it a spotter on the Tornado that found him?

CLOSE: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Do you know how exactly he was able to keep himself on top of the boat (OFF-MIKE)

CLOSE: I think he was just clinging on to the boat, ma'am.

QUESTION: Was he on top of it, though, at that point, or was he (OFF-MIKE)

CLOSE: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

CLOSE: I don't have any detailed pictures. The Tornado on scene has some. I think our public affairs folks are trying to get copies of those. They will make them available. He was on the boat somewhere.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: What do your charts say as far as survival in this temperature, the amount of time you can survive in that?

(CROSSTALK)

CLOSE: There are a lot of factors. I am not going to speculate on any survivability at this point.

QUESTION: You say the search area has narrowed. How big is it right now?

CLOSE: Yes. I don't have a square mile number for you. But it's got substantially smaller. We now know we are looking for persons in the water, not the boat. So they're doing search-and- rescue planning.

And we started hitting that area very hard. As soon as we saw that -- found the boat with somebody on it, we immediately sent two helicopters to the area to do some pretty detailed searching. One of those ultimately was vectored off to take Mr. Schuyler to the hospital.

QUESTION: You say you don't know how or when they got separated. Isn't that some of the most pertinent information...

(CROSSTALK)

CLOSE: That's why -- Yes, sir. That's why we sent someone to the hospital to get as much information as we can out of Mr. Schuyler.

QUESTION: There was no debris or effects or anything. Would that indicate there were no unused life jackets floating in the water around the boat?

CLOSE: I can't speculate on that.

QUESTION: You talked about earlier about how your search had changed once you realized that there was someone there, about the way the currents ran or something. Could you describe that a little bit more?

CLOSE: Just briefly, there are a couple unknowns in this case.

We don't know exactly where they were when the boat overturned. We know what their plan was, but don't exactly know where they were in terms of going fishing.

So, we made some assumptions based on that. And then we calculated where the vessel might have drifted to from any point along the track line out there where we think they might have been, plus some other information that the family provided with their GPS coordinates and then track line back.

So, the big unknowns in a case like this are where they might have been when the boat actually started drifting.

QUESTION: This case is getting a lot of attention obviously because some of the individuals and the high-profile status of the individuals involved, but how frequent is this for you folks? Is this a weekly thing? Does this happen every weekend? Does it happen every month?

CLOSE: I hope to never do this again.

QUESTION: Sure.

CLOSE: We have search-and-rescue cases, oftentimes several a day, most of them not of this magnitude. Most of them get resolved fairly quickly, because, you know, if someone on the vessel itself calls and says that they need assistance, then, generally, we do less searching and more rescuing part to it.

But this is not an unheard-of search, in terms of the order of magnitude. We are going to put all the appropriate search assets on in the case, given the circumstances, given the weather conditions, given the drift patterns and the models and where they think they might be.

QUESTION: Captain, will the search continue at this level and this intensity as it is right now into the night, around the clock?

CLOSE: The search is ongoing. We're looking for some more information out of Mr. Schuyler to help us refine that search.

QUESTION: Do you scale back when it gets dark?

CLOSE: We normally do not scale back. What we do is, we put the most effective resources out there as we can.

QUESTION: Marquis family really seems to think that these men were together for some time. Do you have any information to suggest that's true?

No, ma'am. I don't. I don't. Part of that is why we sent our folks to the hospital to try and get information from Mr. Schuyler.

QUESTION: Are there civilians involved in this search? What I mean is other boaters who might be out there at this time. I know some of the news helicopters have tried to help.

CLOSE: No, sir. We haven't actively involved any other civilians in the search planning. We have a lot of Coast Guard assets. We have some additional Air Force assets that we have used. Plus, for more close-to-shore assets, Board of Fish and Wildlife and the Pinellas County Sheriff has assisted with some shoreline searches in the near-coastal area as well.

QUESTION: What would you tell people who might be watching right now who might want to say, I got a boat, I will get out there, I will help?

CLOSE: Well, what I would say is, be very cognizant of the weather conditions and the temperature conditions. No one wants to make anything worse for us as we continue to conduct our search-and- rescue case. Don't become another casualty out there that will distract us from the case that we're running right now.

QUESTION: Captain, Mr. Schuyler, is his health condition at the moment adequate to allow a conversation with your investigators?

CLOSE: I'm waiting for them to return. I spoke to them very briefly on the phone just to get that information. And, yes, they spoke with Mr. Schuyler.

OK? If you will excuse me, we will schedule something else when we have any other information to pass. At this point...

SANCHEZ: All right, let's just watch and see if he does indeed walk away. Sometimes, they take another question. Let's listen in.

All right. They're checking that off.

Let's go back to Robert Simpson, if we can.

What we seem to have -- and you I were discussing this moments ago. And I think sometimes it's hard for people at home to understand this, unless they have been out in the ocean. If you're in 15-foot waves and one of those waves hits the boat and the boat flips, if you're not near the boat and you end up any way away from it, between the current taking you away from the boat and the waves being so high -- Mr. Simpson, you there with me?

SIMPSON: Yes.

SANCHEZ: If the wave is high, it's almost like looking over a building that is 15 feet high.

In other words, you may be looking for the boat. You may be panicking and swimming in what you think is the direction of the boat, but because you can't see it, you can tire and end up drowning, right?

SIMPSON: Well, it's difficult if anybody's ever caught in a situation like that, and a lot of it can go back to the experience that person may have from being out in the open ocean and any kind of a sea-time expert that they have had on it.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I guess the point I'm trying to make, and I'm trying to make sure our viewers can try and get a sense of this, because I know it's hard to do it if you have been landlocked most of your life and have never been in this situation or have only been in lakes, it's hard to see when you're in the water. In other words, anything at eye level, you have a wave that's 15-feet high, you can't see where the boat might be, so you can't swim to it.

SIMPSON: Well, the combination of the waves moving up and down, in between those with the wind and the oncoming onset of darkness, things would have been very difficult for anybody to really keep their bearings.

SANCHEZ: And what time do we believe this happened, or do we know at this point?

SIMPSON: We don't know the exact time or anything. It was some time yesterday evening.

SANCHEZ: Yesterday evening. So, it could very well have...

(CROSSTALK)

SIMPSON: Saturday evening.

SANCHEZ: It could very well have been dark?

SIMPSON: Right. Saturday evening. It could have been just before the onset of dark. It could have been after dark.

SANCHEZ: Stay with us, Mr. Simpson, Petty officer Robert Simpson with us.

Chad Myers is following this situation for us.

Chad, draw us a picture, if you can, of what the -- given what we know, what it would have been like out there, condition wise, and weather wise. CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Well, it depends if they had two anchors out. If they had a bow anchor and a stern anchor out, then they could have actually positioned themselves in a way that the wave, the rogue wave or whatever wave it might have been, could have hit the wave -- the boat broadside. That would be worst-case scenario.

Or maybe a sea anchor. A sea anchor is a big parachute that you throw off the front or back, usually the front, to throw it off the bow and it actually just kind of slows the boat's progression. This boat was in a squall line, a large squall line of thunderstorms running down through, and if the waves were 14 feet, in a 21-foot boat, that's a big wave.

But it's survivable. That boat is made to float forever. And, in fact, it's filled with foam on the inside and on the outside. That boat will stay there, even upside-down.

(CROSSTALK)

MYERS: ... a great boat.

SANCHEZ: Survivable if you are hanging on to the boat without a life vest or away from the boat, wearing a life vest.

MYERS: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But if you don't have a life vest and you're not near the boat -- you and I have both done this a lot in our lives. We are both familiar with those waters off of South Florida. It's actually not very survivable.

MYERS: Yes, not very.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MYERS: Not at 62 degrees, too. That water will get you into hypothermia faster than you know. And so a life jacket is the first thing. If you do a mayday or a pan-pan to the Coast Guard, the first thing they are going to say is, does everybody on that boat have a life jacket on?

And that's what you need to do if you're in weather like that, period, no matter what you are. Now, people are saying, is this boat far out there? Yes, 50 miles is far out there. But unlike going to the reef in South Florida, like you're used to, Rick, you need to go 40 miles, 30 miles, to get away from all of this sand. This is just a sandbar. You can ping for fish all day long out here and find nothing until you find the little reefs that are out here far to the west of Clearwater and to the west of Tampa.

So, that's what they were doing. They were out here in this deeper water, fairly deeper water. But there are reefs out there. There are king mackerels out there. There are probably maybe some...

(CROSSTALK)

MYERS: ... around.

SANCHEZ: Oh, yes, yes.

MYERS: They don't want -- they weren't looking for the little fish, the redbones or the bonefish, that you could -- great fishing in here in the bay. They were going out for the deeper fish, the more ocean-like fish.

SANCHEZ: Well, let me just -- let me bring Robert Simpson back in here, Chad. I want to just ask him some quick -- some questions maybe we can just nail and get down.

Do we know if they were wearing life vests?

SIMPSON: We know that Mr. Schuyler was wearing a life vest. And we -- -- through the interviews that we hope to do with him at the hospital, we will find out if the other men on board were wearing them as well.

SANCHEZ: Do we know if they knew how to swim?

SIMPSON: No. We don't know if -- anything -- if they knew how to swim or not.

SANCHEZ: Boy, I'll tell you, it's a rough situation if the answers to those are in fact negative.

Robert Simpson, petty officer, U.S. Coast Guard, thanks so much for being with us. We appreciate it.

By the way, just I want to take you through real quick...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: It's now, it's not change, and it's not hope.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Rush Limbaugh, the de facto leader of the Republican Party? Not if GOP chairman Michael Steele has anything to do with it. It's Limbaugh vs. Steele, round two.

Also, I want you to watch a video of a 15-year-old girl getting beaten by a deputy. Why would he do something like this? I mean, come on. A 15-year-old girl, and he's pulling her by the hair. That video, by the way, comes in as we learn this. Two judges are being paid big bucks by firms for sending them, teenagers, to put in their private detention centers. In other words, they were taking bribes.

Oh, and before we go to break, there's something else I want to share with you. The Dow is, in fact, not exactly holding steady right now. AIG has gotten another $30 billion, on top of the $150 billion that it got, and many are surmising that, if AIG doesn't pull through, it's going to be difficult for the economy, that means all of us, period, to pull through. This is probably the most important thing that we need to talk about and we are going to do so on the other side of this break.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: All right, obviously, if we get any developments on the story we're telling you moments ago, and this is the story referencing that Nick Schuyler, football player, he's found at sea with three other guys -- they're looking for them right now and they still haven't found them. And two of them are superstars in the NFL.

Corey Smith played for the Detroit Lions. Is that right? Detroit Lions. And Marquis Cooper, he played for the Oakland Raiders, so, two guys very well known, big-time NFL football players. And a third, William Bleakley, he played for the University of South Florida. All four of these football players went out on a fishing trip. Only one has been found.

The other three, they are still looking for them. If there's any information on that, we will bring it to you right away.

The big story that we're following now has to do with your money, your economy, because the economy of the United States, many argue, cannot recover unless somehow AIG recovers. Just, that's how big the American Insurance Group actually is.

And AIG, folks, and I will use this in language that your kids probably shouldn't repeat, ain't recovering. AIG ain't recovering at this point.

Let me show you something. This is a graphic I want to share with you. These are fourth-quarter losses for some of the biggest companies in the United States. I want to take you through them. First, Citi, 8.3 they're saying they lost in billions, right?

And then there's Merrill Lynch. That's a lot of money, $15.4 billion. But it's nothing compared to the next one. Put it up. Look at AIG, down $62 billion. And that's after they got $150 billion. So, now it's getting more money. It's getting another $30 billion, so says the presidency and administration of Barack Obama. Is that going to be enough?

Joining us now Robert Lenzner. He is the editor of "Forbes" magazine. Also with us here is Patricia Murphy, CitizenJanePolitics.com, because this story has some political implications as well.

Bob, let me begin with you.

ROBERT LENZNER, NATIONAL EDITOR, "FORBES": Yes.

SANCHEZ: Why isn't AIG recovering after getting $150 billion?

LENZNER: Because its insurance business worldwide is deteriorating. Because all of its competitors are stealing business from it. Because its huge portfolio of mortgages is declining -- continuing to decline in value, and because we are in a worldwide, massive slowdown.

SANCHEZ: Let me let you hear something.

This is what Mr. Liddy said. He's the CEO, Ed Liddy. His explanation essentially says, look, we have righted the ship. We have plugged the holes. We're not sinking anymore, but the waters around us are so choppy that we can't go in one line. Let's hear him say it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARD LIDDY, CEO, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP: When the markets collapsed, the particular businesses we were in and the language we used to require the posting of collateral really caused us some difficulty.

Now, that was a September issue, which was very much a liquidity issue. As hard as it may be for some of your viewers to understand, that issue is behind us. We no longer have a liquidity issue. Now what's happening is asset values around the globe are in full retreat. They are going down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: So, everything else is so messed up that they can't recover now, even with $150 billion. Is he right?

LENZNER: Yes, he's right. He's right.

SANCHEZ: Well, what do you do?

LENZNER: They are facing, as they are with all the major banks, continuing to give them transfusions of capital. And who knows how far it's going to go. But it hasn't stopped yet. It's going to be larger amounts of money before we're through.

And this is a tsunami, not choppy waters. He's saying it's choppy waters, but it's something a great deal more serious than that.

SANCHEZ: How much -- you know, as a taxpayer, how much -- I'm hearing you say there's going to be a lot more.

LENZNER: Not only for...

SANCHEZ: How much more?

LENZNER: Who knows. I would be a fool to try to estimate that.

SANCHEZ: Another $30 billion on top of the $30 billion they gave them today?

(CROSSTALK)

LENZNER: Oh, you mean just for them alone?

SANCHEZ: Just for AIG.

LENZNER: I think we have no idea.

What if mortgages continue to decline another 20 percent? Let's say real estate goes down another 20 percent. Let's say that their business in Japan is down 57 percent. Their life insurance sales are down 50 percent. In order to keep the thing operating, they may have to pour more money into it.

And don't forget, the government actually is taking two of the insurance operations in exchange for lending them the additional $30 billion.

SANCHEZ: Wow.

LENZNER: So, the government's going to be stuck with those two operations, which are declining in value themselves.

SANCHEZ: Let's talk about the political side to this. How many times can Barack Obama go to the well on this? How many times can Barack Obama keep saying to the American people, I need another $30 billion, I need another $40 billion, I need to help AIG again, before he runs out of political capital?

PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: Yes, that's the thing. He's got two kinds of capital, real cash and political capital.

And that requires that people have confidence that he's able to fix this economy. There is already information that shows that people have bailout fatigue -- 54 percent of Americans say, I'm tired of bailing out the banks. Where is my bailout?

So, he cannot go back again and again and again, especially with this kind of communication. This just happened over the weekend. There's no person associated with this fix. When we read it in the papers, it's the government. It's the Treasury. It's not Barack Obama. So, I -- he doesn't have endless reserves of political capital.

And it could hurt his entire reform agenda. He can't keep going back to the Congress and the American people saying, I need more money for this, I need more money for that.

SANCHEZ: Yes. It's the old question of how many times can you actually go to the well?

And, meanwhile, we are looking at the numbers now -- and pardon me for pointing and pointing you there. But it's what, Murph? Your eyes are better than mine -- 268.33 now. That's not a good day on Wall Street, after the $30 billion. So, you're putting money down and you don't seem to be getting results. And after awhile, that gets tiring.

MURPHY: It gets tiring and you lose people's confidence.

SANCHEZ: That maybe we're in too much of a hurry. That's what at least folks in the Obama administration will be saying.

Bob, thanks so much for being with us, as usual. We certainly appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK)

LENZNER: Not at all. Glad to be here.

SANCHEZ: My thanks to you as well. You are going to join us in just a little bit, too.

MURPHY: I am.

SANCHEZ: All right.

And this: the very latest on this video that we have been looking at throughout the day. It's a little 15-year-old. She's essentially getting beat up by a police officer. And we're wondering why the officer did this. We're also wondering why so many children are being jailed in our country. And now we're learning the reason may have something to do with profit, as horrible as that might sound even to say.

And this: Did she really take him back after the beating allegation? Outrage online over the Rihanna-Chris Brown situation from many women.

And what would you tell your daughter to do when faced with a situation like Rihanna's? We're wondering. Let us know.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back.

I'm Rick Sanchez here in the World Headquarters of CNN.

Let's do this a little differently. Before I show you the video, let me show you one of the responses. Because this is not a story that we're just showing you for the first time. It's been on today.

Let's go to MySpace, if we can.

Listen to what some of the folks who are watching this newscast now are saying: "What reason could these officers possibly have for doing this to this girl? If we did this to our teenagers, we'd be put in the slammer."

She's right.

"They'd better be fired." All right, that's one opinion. Now, let's get to the story. It's something that we're taking note of. It's something that's actually easier to talk about than to actually watch. I'm about to show you a piece of video -- and it's going to probably get you a little upset as you see it, but you probably should see it. And I'm going to tell you why in just a moment.

This is a jailhouse surveillance video that shows a Washington State sheriff's deputy beating up a teenaged girl. You heard me right. He's kicking and he's beating and he's pulling her hair. And this is all inside a holding cell.

All right, roll the video, if you can, Dan. Here it is. Let's take you back. It's November. She's 15 years old. She's accused -- allegedly -- of stealing a car. She tosses her shoes off in the direction of the officer. We don't know what they're actually saying to each other, but the deputy suddenly attacks the girl -- punching, kicking, throwing her to the floor, holding her by her hair and then punching some more.

It's not fair to just show the silent video and make a decision about it, obviously -- although it's tough to not come up with any kind of conclusion. We don't know exactly what happened before the incident, as well. There she's taking her shoes. She's not really throwing them, but she's tossing them. But, obviously, that set him off.

We know what we can see. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anything that that girl could have said or done that made that officer's response appropriate. The deputy is on trial, by the way, now in Seattle. He's pleaded not guilty to fourth degree assault.

The judge allowed this video to be released. And in many ways, we're glad he did. We need to probably see that injustice -- and sometimes not just talk about it, but see it with our own eyes.

This next one is a little bit more hard to picture, though. And yet it's worse -- far worse. A couple of judges in Pennsylvania are going to prison for many years. They've tried to get rich by sending teenagers to jail. That's right. They were being paid to send teenagers to jail. This is an unbelievable and outrageous story. It's one you must see. We'll have it for you, right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Regarding that video we showed you just moments ago -- welcome back, by the way.

I'm Rick Sanchez here in the World Headquarters of CNN.

We've got somebody on Facebook who's responding to that right now. Faith is watching and she says: "I can only imagine what the parents of that young girl felt when they saw that video. It seems nowadays the way to be a criminal and get away with it is to become an officer." Well, that may be a little bit of a reach, but nonetheless, we appreciate the comment. Robert, flip that, if you can. Let's go over to Twitter. I want that one right there in the middle. Yes: "Thanks for covering the juvie story. Getting the word out is most of the battle. And, of course, it's about the money."

Really, you think?

Well, let's do this story, then. Because in this one, it is, in fact, about the money.

Show me the video, if you can, Dan. These are two elected officials in Pennsylvania. They're pleading guilty -- get this -- to taking kickbacks in exchange for throwing teenagers in jail.

How's it work?

Well, meet Judge Mark Ciavarella and Judge Michael Conahan. They pocketed $2.6 million from private youth detention centers who had to keep a very high head count in order to keep their government contract. And that's why the judges were sending kids to their jails who may not necessarily have needed to be in jail.

This is unbelievable.

Marcia Levick is joining us now.

She's the legal director of Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia.

Marsha, thanks so much for being with us.

MARSHA LEVICK, LEGAL DIRECTOR, JUVENILE LAW CENTER: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: I don't even know what to ask.

I mean what could these kids have done?

LEVICK: Well, many of them did very minor things like shoplifting, like conspiracy to shoplift. I think that, you know, your reader is reacted to -- and your viewers are reacting to the prior video. This is a really shockingly outrageous story of personal greed by public officials that is really unprecedented, I think, in our history.

SANCHEZ: Well, yes, I understand one of the girls apparently had mocked a school official on MySpace or on Facebook and that's one of the reasons that she was originally put on probation, which then led her to end up in jail. And I mean we could go on and on about the cases. But there's something bigger in this case. This judge, as we understand it, back in 2002, shut down a public detention center -- shut down the public detention center in lieu of a private detention center.

LEVICK: That's correct.

R. SANCHEZ: It sounds like he knew where this was going -- jailing people for profit.

LEVICK: Well, I think that certainly the federal investigation does make it look like he knew exactly what he was doing, that he was able to negotiate with private individuals and private providers to line his own pockets at the expense of children.

SANCHEZ: There is a big problem in this country, isn't there, when it comes to our jails?

And, you know, a quarter of the people who are in prison in the United States, according to recent studies -- pardon me. A quarter of the people that are in prisons in the entire world are here in the United States. I mean that's an enormous number.

LEVICK: That's...

Just quickly and look at this trend. I want to get your reaction to this. See if we've got this full screen that we can put up.

Let's go back to 1982. In 1982, 2.2 million people are behind bars in the United States. Now, today, 7.3 million people behind bars in the United States. That means it's more than tripled. And during this trend, by the way, we've seen an increase in prisons and jails being run by private corporations.

If you put -- if you make something private, if you put a profit behind something, aren't you almost automatically going to see an increase in that whatever it is that you just put a profit behind?

LEVICK: Well, of course we increase the likelihood. You know, there are some private providers, though, who are not-for-profit. They're actually non-profit. And I don't think that we should paint the entire world of private providers as a negative one.

But this case, you know, obviously illustrates the harm that comes from allowing people to make money by jailing people.

SANCHEZ: Well, what's the difference between a private provider and one that's not-for-profit?

I'm not quite sure I understand the difference. Teach me.

LEVICK: Well, the individuals -- the corporations in this case were literally making money. They were making money by taking children in, the judges were making money in exchange for placing children there. There are private providers, as well as public providers, who are not making a profit at doing this. They are, many of them, legitimately trying to provide a service for these children.

SANCHEZ: We have increased money in prisons in this country over the last two decades and most of the people who are being imprisoned are not necessarily hard offenders.

I mean they're what?

Take me through it. LEVICK: Well, the children that we're talking about in this particular story in Luzerne County were not hard offenders at all. These were kids who, whether it was a MySpace page or the shoplifting or a simple slap, these were kids who were charged with very, very minor infractions and really had their lives dramatically changed by what happened here.

SANCHEZ: Marsha, we're going to stay in touch with your organization. We're going to continue to look into this, because this is really a travesty. And to hear that a judge, for the sake of money, would ruin the lives of teenagers -- in this case, teenagers -- I mean I can't even begin to wrap my head around it. That's a horrible thing.

Thanks so much for being with us.

We appreciate it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIMBAUGH: President Obama, your agenda is not new. It's not change and it's not hope.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

R. SANCHEZ: Rush Limbaugh lobbing some verbal grenades at his favorite target.

But is everyone in his own party willing to follow suit?

And just who is steering the Republican Party these days?

Well, we've asked Michael Steele and he seems to be one Republican who is not agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. That story -- that Limbaugh versus Steele story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: So much going on

Welcome back.

I'm Rick Sanchez.

Something else to take note of. The rush is on to find that perfect leader -- the one who will take the Republican Party into the future. This is a search that has thrust itself into the news cycle this weekend in no small way. It came in the form of a huge media personality speaking at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, and remaining unapologetic about wanting President Obama to fail. By appearance, to many, right now the Republican Party is -- is Rush Limbaugh. It's not about Republican senators or Congressmen or governors. In fact, some of those senators and Congressmen and governors literally have been calling Limbaugh on the air to apologize for disagreeing with him at times. What are the advantages and potential pitfalls for a Republican Party dominated by Rush Limbaugh, we ask?

Well, that is what many Republicans, and also Democrats, are asking -- who wins?

Well, when we come back, we're going to let you hear from Michael Steele. He is the official leader of the Republican Party, who is disagreeing on the record with Rush Limbaugh. And Rush Limbaugh, who, just about an hour ago, shot back at Michael Steele. This gets interesting.

We'll have three guests to discuss this on the other side of this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Oh, boy, this is getting interesting.

Let me just take you through it.

First, you heard Rush Limbaugh spoke at CPAC, right?

And then we got this sound which, by the way, happened before CPAC. This is Michael Steele, the official leader of the Republican Party, saying this about Rush Limbaugh to D.L. Hughley.

Let's put that up, if we can.

Ready?

The graphic -- it goes something like this: "I'm the leader of the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly. But, again, I'm the leader of the Republican Party."

That's probably the most interesting part of that.

Now, just about an hour ago, Rush Limbaugh responds to Michael Steele.

It's good.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, COURTESY RUSHLIMBAUGH.COM)

LIMBAUGH: It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system.

But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.

Now, Mr. Steele, if it is your position, as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, that you want a left-wing Democrat president and a left-wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda, if it's your position that you want President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid to succeed with their massive spending and taxing and nationalization plans, I think you have some explaining to do.

Why are you running the Republican Party?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Oh, my goodness.

Let's go. We've got a couple of guests here. Let's go.

Eric Boehlert. He's a senior writer for Salon.com. Leslie Sanchez, Republican strategist and CNN contributor, is joining us by phone. And, of course, we've got Patricia Murphy, who is right here next to me.

Leslie Sanchez, let me begin with you.

I'm interested in hearing what your reaction is. This is a -- this is like a cat fight that's going on between these two guys.

LESLIE SANCHEZ, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: To some extent. But I mean it's not unexpected. I think what's fascinating about it is perception, you have to remember, Rick, is 90 percent of politics.

R. SANCHEZ: Uh-huh.

L. SANCHEZ: OK. So let's look at the fact that with Rush Limbaugh, he is out there basically pointing out that the government is lurching into, you know, owning a larger percentage and controlling a larger percentage of our GNP.

R. SANCHEZ: Yes.

L. SANCHEZ: He's talking about it. He's getting people aware of it. And he's taking on the Obama administration on that point.

R. SANCHEZ: But is he splitting the party while doing it?

That's the question.

L. SANCHEZ: They have two competing goals. I mean, the chairman of the party -- yes, he -- for all intents and purposes, he's the head of the party. But he's about winning elections -- expanding the base of our party.

Limbaugh is talking about a philosophical difference in how we see the role of government.

L. SANCHEZ: But what's good for Limbaugh doesn't necessarily seem to be -- or let me put this in the form of a question.

Let me bring Eric Boehlert in here. What's good for Rush Limbaugh, which is to be on CNN daily -- to be the big pooh bah at the CPAC convention. All these things are great for Limbaugh. They may not be good for the Republican Party.

Or am I wrong?

ERIC BOEHLERT, SENIOR FELLOW, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: No, that's the irony, because, I mean, for decades, Republicans have cheered on Rush Limbaugh in what we -- at Media Matters, we call the Republican noise machine. They loved it when he called Tom Daschle a traitor last decade, when he talked about what's good for Al Qaeda is good for Democrats. Republicans love that kind of hate speech.

But now it's all coming back to haunt them. This is like 12 months ago, when he announced that John McCain could not be, you know, the Republican nominee for president.

And what do Republican voters do?

They promptly ignored him and gave McCain an easy victory.

R. SANCHEZ: If...

BOEHLERT: Of Republicans are now coming to have to grasp what they've created. And they've created sort of this hate machine.

R. SANCHEZ: Well, what do you think, Murph?

I mean, if Rush Limbaugh takes the middle out of the Republican Party and -- like he set many Hispanics against the Republican Party with the immigration debate -- is that a problem?

And if so, how large?

MURPHY: Right. Well, listen, there's a big difference between the Republican Party and conservatism. He is the leader right now of the conservative movement. Michael Steele is technically the leader of the Republican Party (INAUDIBLE) but...

R. SANCHEZ: So it leaves no room for Charlie Crist, for example.

MURPHY: Well, there's nobody is in charge. And I know you are, but what am I is not a message that any moderate American is drawn to right now.

This is a cage match. This is a struggle for power. The Republicans need to grow the number of people who support them. It's going to be this kind of struggle until somebody emerges -- some big personality comes forward.

R. SANCHEZ: But Limbaugh would say no, no. We need to do what is right and this is what is right and those that don't understand that be damned. I mean...

MURPHY: For conservatives, not for Republicans. He doesn't care about Republicans. He cares about conservatives. There's a big difference in his mind.

L. SANCHEZ: But let's just take...

R. SANCHEZ: That's an interesting statement.

L. SANCHEZ: Let's just take...

R. SANCHEZ: Leslie, we're down to 13 -- can you close us out with 20 seconds?

L. SANCHEZ: Yes, really, quick. Look, the Democrats have chosen to make him the straw man in this -- have decided to take that on, because they learned in the 1980 elections when they lost the Senate, they learned it in 1994, if they don't respond to criticism, it spells defeat for them. Rush Limbaugh is calling them out on some serious things. And they've picked their fight.

R. SANCHEZ: That's good, Leslie Sanchez.

You know what?

We need to spend more time on this conversation. We're running out of time. We'll do this again tomorrow. We'll pick it up again, because I'm sure there will probably be more comments to make.

MURPHY: I hop[e so.

R. SANCHEZ: Murph, thanks to you.

Leslie Sanchez, always a pleasure.

And Eric Boehlert, we'll get you back, as well.

Cool?

BOEHLERT: Sure thing.

R. SANCHEZ: All right.

Chris Brown was arrested for allegedly beating up Rihanna. We saw the pictures. Chris Brown said his was sorry.

Well, was that enough?

Are they really dating again?

A lot of people are asking why?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

R. SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer is standing by with what's coming up in the next hour -- Wolf, what you got?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Rick.

Just ahead, don't ask/don't tell -- possibly -- possibly at the beginning of the end. There's a fresh push against the policy regarding against gays in the military. With President Obama in office, opponents may just get their wish.

More on that fishing trip that's now a nightmare -- two NFL players missing, the boat they were -- the boat they were in found overturned.

What does a man found clinging for his life know?

And imagine you desperately needed a job but only had about a 7 percent chance of getting one. Wait until you see what thousands of people did in one place with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

All that, Rick, and a lot more coming up in right here in "THE SITUATION ROOM".

R. SANCHEZ: All right. Thanks so much, Wolf.

Brooke Anderson joining us now to bring us up to date on what's going on with the situation with Chris Brown and Rihanna.

Why would she go back to him if that's true, as being reported?

BROOKE ANDERSON, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rick, you know, it's not uncommon for a victim -- or an alleged victim -- to reconcile with her abuser. And I do want to say that Rihanna has not commented on this reported reconciliation. Her representative just referred us to her statement last week, saying that she's doing well, she's strong and appreciating the support that she been given.

We also reached out to Chris Brown. And nobody is confirming nor denying. Basically the phrase of the day is no comment.

R. SANCHEZ: All right. Thanks so much, Brooke.

Let us know what happens with this.

We've got to get away for just a moment, because we've got the closing bell and the market is down 288. That means it could be 300 -- I'll tell you what, when we come back, we'll watch and see how this closes. Stay with us. This could get very dramatic.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

R. SANCHEZ: I guess -- you know, you ask the question, does the market -- Patricia Murphy is going to be joining us again.

Stephanie Elam is joining us now, as well, on Wall Street.

Does the market dictate the economy?

And that's kind of -- the Obama administration has to tussle with, on a day like this, you can't help but wonder if it does -- Stephanie, as we count down to the close of today's market, I mean it doesn't look good.

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No, it doesn't look good. I mean, it shows you here that people are still nervous, Rick. They don't know what's going on. The fact that AIG is getting more money another already getting $150 billion, getting another $30 billion, shows that things have not settled down here. AIG is still on shaky ground. That makes investors nervous.

And so that's what we're seeing play out here today, even though AIG shares are ending up about 7 percent. But that's the only stock I can look at right now that's showing some higher ground ahead of it.

Overall, though, a rough day. For the year so far...

R. SANCHEZ: Yes, we don't...

ELAM: ...get this, the Dow is off 20 percent for this -- so far. And it's already the first trading day of March.

R. SANCHEZ: When was the last time it was down this low, what seven...

ELAM: We were looking at like April 1997, the last time we saw numbers like this. So a long time ago.

R. SANCHEZ: 1997. And it -- we're down to 15 seconds, but this can't be -- this is not a good indicator.

MURPHY: It's a terrible indicator. And the Obama administration is not answering the crucial question -- what is AIG and what happens if it goes under, if we don't give them $30 billion of your money?

R. SANCHEZ: That's true. Sometimes clarity is part of the answer.

Stephanie, Patricia, thanks so much.

Wolf Blitzer is standing by now with "THE SITUATION ROOM" -- Wolf, take it away.

BLITZER: Rick, thanks very much.

Happening now, breaking news -- a new level of misery for everyone with stock investments. The Dow sinking to an 11-year low while more of your tax dollars are going to bail out an insurance giant.