Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Police May Read Your Texts; Constitution Read Aloud In House; Autism Study Fraud; Oil Prices Rising, Gas Prices Up; Iran's Spy Allegation; Watching TV Like We Surf the Web; Arizona's Deadly Decision
Aired January 06, 2011 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: All right, you have the right to remain silent. I'll do the talking, for now. But if police want to look through your cell phone, well, they may no longer need any permission. This week, the Supreme Court of California, ruled that police don't have to bother getting search warrants to read the texts or e-mails or listen to the voice mails of people under arrest. And you better believe your words can be used against you.
On the other hand, cell phones, nowadays, well, they're pretty sophisticated, they can set off bombs. People could die while police are asking for warrants. Welcome to the latest issue, pitting 21st century technology against 20th century laws.
And, by the way, an 18th century constitution. Even if you never get arrested, I bet you have a cell phone, and I know you've got constitutional rights, the justices in California say crime suspects lose some ... but also to open and examine what they find." Now, that is the - now the law in California.
It is not a unanimous ruling, however, dissenting judges don't deserve, quote, police, they don't deserve carte blanche, let me just get that straight, "to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be current on a mobile phone or a handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person." Now, let me just give you a background on this.
A year ago, the Supreme Court of Ohio sided with that view as did, in 2007, a federal court in San Francisco. So, which one's right? Well, it adds up to a lot of confusion for the vast majority of Americans, and, by the way, American cops, a pretty good chance that the US Supreme Court is going weigh in. So, let's talk about it a little bit more.
Joining me, now, to shed some light on the law and law enforcement. Andy Hill, he is on the left of the screen. He's a veteran of the Phoenix police department. And via Skype from Houston, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin.
Gentlemen, thanks, very much, for joining us on this.
First of all, Jeff, let me just ask you, your overall view on this ruling. I mean it's -- I can see both sides of this. Where should the law be coming out on this?
JEFF TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via Skype): Well, it's a tough case, Ali. I think, you are right about that. It's important to remember that this ruling is only about people who have been arrested. It's not you can just randomly -- cops can't randomly stop people on the street and ask them to display their cell phones. This is only about what's called search incident to arrest.
VELSHI: Right.
TOOBIN: And the trend, certainly, in federal courts, in recent years, has been to give defendants fewer rights. To allow police greater leeway to search everything connected with people who've been arrested.
So, I don't think this ruling is especially surprising. I would expect that it would be affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, if it goes there, but, you know, it is a much greater intrusion than simply patting someone down to make sure they don't have a weapon, which is the traditional search incident to arrest.
VELSHI: We're talking to Sergeant Andy Hill. Let's talk about this in practical terms. Originally, the idea of being able to search someone was to see if they had stuff on them that pertained to the crime in question or things that could be dangerous. When you're talking about a cell phone, you're talking about a computer. You're talking about something with a lot of data on it that could lead you in all sorts of directions. How do police officers deal with this? How do they feel about it?
ANDY HILL, RETIRED SERGEANT, PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, I think these are great issues. And, I think, it's an important time to look at them, you know. Everything changed ten years ago with 9/11, because that cell phone that, traditionally, had been used simply for conversations or maybe to hold some information then became much more apparent to people that they could be used to set off on an ID or could contain information, lots of information, huge files, that could contain criminal information. So, it's a very important to address.
For police officers, the main thing is, whatever an officer does, they need to be able to articulate it, they need to write in a report or write a search warrant. So, you have to use some judgment. If they are given the leeway to be able to take that cell phone when they arrest somebody, there has to be guidelines that need to be followed, and the officers will follow those guidelines. They just need some directions, which is, probably, why this should go to the Supreme Court for some guidelines for everybody to use.
VELSHI: And one of those things, Jeff, would be the fact that you could end up discovering all sorts of other things by looking into a cell phone that don't pertain to the crime for which someone has been arrested. How does the law look at that sort of thing?
HILL: Well, in California, as a result of this decision, the police have free rein to look throughout the cell phone and follow any leads that you -- that might be there. And, you know, for most of us, our cell phones have, virtually, our entire lives stored in there. There can be pictures. There can be videos. Certainly, there are messages with the people that we are involved with, either on a personal basis or a business basis, and all of that, the police can investigate. Now, you know, to a certain extent, there is -- there is an artificiality to this, because it was clear, even before this case, that you could get -- you could -- the police could seize the cell phone.
VELSHI: Right.
HILL: The only question is, did they need to get a warrant before they looked at the contents of the cell phone? And, frankly, if someone's been arrested, chances are very good that they could get a warrant. So, the issue, here, is how quickly they can look at the contents of the cell phone. Whether they could get access to the cell phone. That's a pretty settled question. And the answer is, yes.
VELSHI: OK, guys. Thanks, very much, for shedding some light on this. Sergeant Andy Hill and our Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin. Thanks very much for that.
OK. We, the people of the United States, in order to perform a more perfect union -- that's where they began two hours ago. Members of the House of Representatives reading out the Constitution start to finish. It was historic. It took one hour and 24 minutes to read it. And it is today's Sound Effect. Not all one hours and 24 minutes, you're about to hear a section on the Bill of Rights.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. FRANK GUINTA (R), NEW HAMPSHIRE: A well-related militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be a fringed.
I, now, yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman.
REP. BRAND SHERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: The Third Amendment, no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELSHI: I guess they wanted everyone to have a piece of the action on that one. The reading came at the behest of Republicans who, now, control the House. It's a non to their Tea Party supporters. GOP lawmakers say they want to refocus the political process on the principles enshrined in the constitution.
Now, to that end, they passed a rule, yesterday, requiring all new measures introduced, to include a constitutional authority statement, kind of a footnote, specifying which section of the document empowers Congress to enact that legislation. The item was number one on Tea Party activists ten point wish list by contract from America that they had had released last year. OK. A study linking autism to child vaccines has been declared fraudulent. But the story is far from over. We'll dig into the story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: The "British Medical Journal" calls it, quote, "An elaborate fraud." They are referring to the work of one physician, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, in his 1998 study that linked autism to childhood vaccinations. BMJ has, now, come out saying, Wakefield falsified his material. Here's CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published research linking autism to the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. Parents panicked. Many decided to stop vaccinating their kids.
But, by 2004, most of Wakefield's co-authors said they no longer agreed with the study's conclusion and took their name off the study.
In 2009, a US vaccine court rules the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. Last year, the journal that published the study "The Lancet" retracted it, finding that the doctor conducted unethical research on children carrying out unnecessary and invasive procedures.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The allegations against me and against my colleagues are both unfounded and unjust.
COHEN: Seven months ago, Wakefield was barred from practicing medicine in Britain. And, Wednesday, after an exhaustive review of Wakefield's research, another leading publication "The British Medical Journal" called the whole thing an elaborate fraud.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All the way through the paper, we see Dr. Wakefield chiseling the data, falsifying medical history of children and essentially, concocting a picture, which was the picture that he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare.
COHEN: On "ANDERSON COOPER 360", Wednesday night, Dr. Wakefield disputed those claims.
DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD, CONDUCTED AUTISM STUDY: It's a ruthless, pragmatic attempt to crush any investigation into valid vaccine safety concerns. Not just my concerns. I'm here at a meeting of experts from vaccines from around the world who are very extremely concerned about the safety of vaccines and the damage that they believe, and I believe, that has been done to children.
COHEN: Elizabeth Cohen, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE) VELSHI: There are many sides to this issue. I want to bring in J.B. Hanley, he's the co-founder of Generation Rescue. It's a volunteer organization dedicated to the recovery of children with autism. His son was diagnosed with autism in 2004.
J.B., thanks for being with us.
J.B. HANLEY, CO-FOUNDER, GENERATION RESCUE: Ali, thanks for having me.
VELSHI: My pleasure. Anything about what's happened in the last 24 hours that has changed your view, and, just to be clear, you do believe that the MMR vaccine is related to instances of autism in children?
HANLEY: I do. And the only thing this has done is -- I've become disappointed in the US media. The "British Medical Journal" is only publishing allegations from a single investigative journalist named Brian Deer who was funded by a Pharma-front group to investigate Andy Wakefield.
So, they're allegations again Dr. Wakefield, they're nothing more. The fact at that "British Medical Journal" chose to give him their platform, doesn't make his allegations any more true. I think, more frustratingly, for me, Andy Wakefield's 1998 study, in the conclusion, said the following: We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in the syndrome described. And he means, autism. This has always been a made-up story.
I just read from the Atlantic (ph) study, itself, which I highly doubt many journalists have, even, read. You can find it on the Generation Rescue Web site.
VELSHI: Let me just stop you for a second because I want to discuss two issues with you. One, obviously, is this study, right? Which I've, also, got in my hand. And if you'll see on the front of it, you've got this, right? It says, retracted. And the last sentence in this study says that we have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction.
In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome as possible relation to the vaccines. So, let's just deal with two issues.
First, let's just get -- let's get this one out of the way. This study is reported to be fraudulent. All of the authors, on this study, have retracted their names from it. Wakefield's the only one who hasn't. So, regardless of the connection between MMR and autism, do you agree that this study was garbage?
HANLEY: Not remotely. I think, one of the interesting things is that the 12 parents, behind the 12 children, have all stood with Andy Wakefield. I'd take their words over the words of a single investigative journalist who has been the only spark behind the GMC investigation, this "British Medical Journal" article. He was funded by pharmaceutical groups from the get-go.
So, no, I've talked to many of the parents whose kids were in the study and I don't think it's fraudulent at all and not even - VELSHI: There were allegations that he changed it to meet the need that he need to. Let's put that aside because I think your point is larger.
HANDLEY: Talk to the parents.
VELSHI: Let's talk about what we have to do to determine whether there is or is not a link between vaccination and increased incidents or regression into autism. Tell me your thoughts on that.
HANDLEY: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for answering that question. Ali, there are 36 vaccines given to American children. Of the 36, I think parents would be surprised to find out only two have ever been studied for their relationship for autism.
That's the two MMR shots, but you don't get the MMR shots until your 13-month appointment. The first 19 shots that American children get, many of them given simultaneously six at a time have never ever been studied for their correlation to autism. There are two studies that would make all the sense in the world to do. The first would be take a group of vaccinated children, fully vaccinated and compare them to a group of unvaccinated children. This could easily be done. It would cost $10 million to $20 million.
We parents don't have that money. Those kids already exist in the United States because there are unvaccinated children about 3 percent of the U.S. population, to the religious issues whatever it might be. The other thing you could do is vaccinate a set of primates and not vaccinate another set of primates. Just keep all the other conditions stable and see if there's a difference in the outcomes.
That study is being done. We put the first phase of it on the generation rescue website. The results are damning and Dr. Wakefield is part of that original study, which is part of why we think he's being lynched right now.
VELSHI: J.B., let me ask you this. What do you think the findings will be? I think what you've - what I've read of what you said or heard you say is that you feel that if we can isolate all of these vaccines.
Because when you get -- your son was 14 months old, perfectly healthy, got a bunch of vaccinations, six vaccinations. You're saying --
HANDLEY: None with the MMR.
VELSHI: OK, so you'd like them all isolated, compared to the control groups that don't have the vaccinations?
HANDLEY: Ali, if you were trying to determine if smoking caused lung cancer, would you look at a group of smokers who smoked two packs a day and compare it to a group that smoked one? No, you'd find a group of non-smokers, but the vaccine industry has been adept of publishing studies that only contemplate vaccinated children and then try to white wash that vaccines are safe. There's nothing out there to look at anything, but MMR.
There are 34 shots American children are getting that they've never contemplated studying and vaccines are approved after being administered singularly. So that combination risk of six vaccines at once, you could spend the next year, you wouldn't find one safety study on what all of those six shots might do together.
VELSHI: Let me ask you the question, you use the word "whitewashed." You believe that these are companies that make money off of vaccines that have deliberately kept these studies from being done. Let me ask you this, would you accept if science showed that there wasn't a connection between any of these 36 vaccinations and autism?
HANDLEY: If a non vaccine-related group studied a large enough cohort of unvaccinated children and termed that unvaccinated children are suffering from autism at a rate of 1 and 100, I'd absolutely accept that. I'd welcome it.
We've been begging it for years and it's not getting done. We think there's a reason, all of the anecdotal evidence points to the fact that a larger group of kids have autism. I'd like to bring up that the U.S. gives 36 vaccines to children. The average of the first world is 18.
There are Scandinavian countries like Denmark that give 12 or 13 while we give 36. They have much lower rates of autism. Why isn't anybody looking at these foreign countries and asking the obvious questions.
If all of these diseases are so deadly, what's they're thinking is there are shots that matter and shots that don't. In the mid-80s, we give 10 shots to kids, now, we give 36. Maybe there's some common ground by scaling back and giving vaccines more safely and bringing out autism rates down to be more like some of those Scandinavian countries.
VELSHI: J.B., thanks for joining us today.
HANDLEY: Thank you for having me.
VELSHI: J.B. Handley is the co-founder of the non-profit organization "Generation Rescue" joining me from Portland, Oregon.
Hey, you've been noticing this in filling up your gas tank, gases going up. Oil heading back to $100 a barrel fast and the way - the follow up goes way beyond gas pump. Can the global economy take the shot this might provide. I'll tell you about it afterwards.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Time to talk about your money, my friend Christine Romans joins me from New York. Christine, a barrel of oil must have known we were going to talk about it today because for the first time in a very long time, the price of a barrel of oil has dropped. It's below $90 now.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: I know, it's at $88.
VELSHI: Yes, a big drop for one day.
ROMANS: Because you and I have been talking all morning via e- mail about oil prices being $100 a barrel.
VELSHI: Oil is snooping on our e-mails.
ROMANS: It is. You know, it came down a little bit. The dollar is a little bit stronger today. Oil is priced in dollars so a stronger dollar can get rid of the oil prices. But also, it's had a good run. Some people are saying maybe it's come too far, too fast.
All of that is market speak. The important thing here is that when you have oil prices at $89, $90 a barrel and people talking about global demand so robust, Brazil, Russia, India, China and other countries that you could see $10 oil, that gets you thinking about gas prices, right?
VELSHI: That's right.
ROMANS: And it makes you wonder what high energy prices could do to the global recovery and the International Energy Agency, the chief economist there warning this week about high energy prices. Quote, You got me here, "oil prices are entering a dangerous zone for the oil economy. The oil import bills are becoming a threat to the economic recovery. This is a wake-up call to the oil consuming countries and the oil producers." You just look at the chart, as the economy has sole come out of its doldrums, in this country. But it's not about us, is it?
VELSHI: It's not. The only thing you can do to save yourself is to conserve energy or work in the industry or invest in it. Do you know the spread between what the world produces on a daily basis and what the world uses on a daily basis is 200,000 barrels.
ROMANS: And the growth and demand is not from the U.S. for products over -- it's been pretty stable for a bit of time here. It's the rest of the world that's consuming more.
VELSHI: Yes.
ROMANS: That means, even though as the states -- we're complaining about high gas pricing and rising oil prices, but what can we really, really do about it.
VELSHI: Let me ask you real quick. You and I are not likely to be able to invest in this Facebook offering by Goldman Sachs -
ROMANS: You didn't get an offer from your wealth manager, Ali? VELSHI: From my Goldman Sachs wealth manager, no?
ROMANS: The fact that it's overprescribed now. Some of the people who thought they could get in over with $2 million, a $2 million investment. $2 million isn't going to be enough. That was the minimal request.
Now, it looks like they're going to have to raise that. They've received $3 billion in requests from investors over at Goldman. We're told. These are reports. Not exactly they're all setting up press releases from all of this, right? The whole point is Facebook is not a public company.
VELSHI: Right.
ROMANS: It is not a public company. This is a way for very wealthy people and hedge funds and Goldman and its own money to invest in Facebook and Facebook's future.
VELSHI: All right, we will stay on top of that and all these other stories, Christine, as always a pleasure to see you. Be sure to tune in by the way to "YOUR BOTTOM LINE" each Saturday morning at 9:30 Eastern. Christine anchors that, but I'm going to be joining her this week. "YOUR MONEY" airs Saturdays at 1 p.m. and Sundays at 3.
Let me bring you up to speed with some of the stories we're following here at CNN this hour, 25 minutes after the hour. William Daley has been tapped to be the new White House chief of staff. That's the word from two senior officials.
The former Clinton administration secretary is currently a top official at JP Morgan Chase. He'll replace Rahm Emanuel who stepped down to run for mayor of Chicago. We're expecting President Obama to make the announcement at 2:30 Eastern time. You'll see it right here on CNN.
The U.S. military plans to keep pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan by sending in more troops. An military official tells CNN more than 1,000 troops will head that way soon. They'll be in the country soon to boost the efforts in southern Afghanistan ahead of U.S. troop reductions.
And repealing health care reform could add about $230 billion to the federal deficit. That is the preliminary assessment from the nonpartisan congressional budget office.
New House Speaker John Boehner is not buying it. He plans to push ahead with repealing the legislation as Republicans promised to do during the midterm elections. Senior officials tell our own Ed Henry that William Daley is going to be the president's new White House chief of staff. We'll get back to talking about William Daley.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: OK. In just a little while, President Obama is scheduled to announce William Daley as his new White House chief of staff. Some say this is another sign of the president's increasing outrage to the business community.
We're going to talk to Ed Henry about -- there he is -- Ed Henry is our senior White House correspondent. He's been talking about this. There are a number of changes occurring that we're going to hear about and we've heard about.
Let's talk about this one. William Daley, we just moved a piece on cnnmoney.com. We're talking about a bromance between the president and the business community. Tell us about it.
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They think this say home run for them. This is somebody who's got credentials, politically, obviously, substantially from the Daley family in Chicago, all the way through the Al Ore 2008 campaign.
And you're talking about the outreach to the business community, this is somebody who has been with JPMorgan chase for years, running their Midwest operations. And this is a president who has been accused, and they sharply deny it here, but accused by the business community of not reaching out enough, stuffing them with the health care reform, which they think is too much regulation. You hear the Republicans on the Hill now, they're taking over the House, saying this is killing jobs, and they've heard all those allegations.
Bill Daley is somebody who can reach out to the business community and look no further to Thomas Donohue, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, who rarely has something nice to say about this White House, occasionally, but rarely. He put out a glowing statement saying is this a great choice.
And so, when you have an organization that is usually more friendly to Republicans standing up and saying, way to go, Mr. President, that suggests reaching across the aisle, although it may backfire a with some liberals.
VELSHI: And that's the -- the Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents a lot of big businesses in America, has really been the constant sparring partner of this president and this administration. I mean, it's really a much bigger problem than some people may understand.
HENRY: It is. I mean, on the other hand, it's a little more complicated than some of the stories make it because, on the other hand, the Chamber of Commerce helped the president pass the stimulus act right at the beginning of this administration. Helped with the auto bailouts. So there have been some policies. And then, they've gotten behind the South Korea trade agreement the president was working on at the end of last year.
But you're right, on health care reform, a whole range of other issues, taxes, they were fighting tooth and nail. And the Chamber of Commerce, let's not forget, spent millions of dollars trying to boot Democrats, largely Democrats, out of office, and they largely succeeded in the House and helped a little bit, helped the Republicans a little bit in the Senate. They did back some centrist Democrats, we have to point out as well. But I think look out more broadly beyond just the business community what Bill Daley brings. A lot folks now sending around this op-ed he wrote about a year ago from now in "The Washington Post" where he urged this president and the Democratic Party to chart a more centrist course, saying, quote, "Either we plot a more moderate centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come. All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans and based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the say, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan."
What does that mean for our viewers? Well, that tax deal we saw at the end of the December that the president pushed through, liberals were not happy, but he worked with Republicans, we may see more of that tax deal in the future.
Trade deals, they languished with Nancy Pelosi as speaker, they didn't push through any trade deals over the last two years. Now all of a sudden, the president pushing the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, he's got the Colombian Free Trade Agreement pending. And so, there may be some business on that that could mean jobs here in the United States.
So bottom line is they feel here that this is going to be a strong pick, obviously, otherwise the president wouldn't have done it. But I think, at the end of the day, when you take a step back it shows that there was a little bit of lull after the midterms. They thought, well, maybe the president isn't going to correct course, maybe he's going to mostly stay the course. Now after a couple months of reflection, they are retooling almost the entire White House staff and maybe -- maybe I stress -- the agenda as well.
VELSHI: All right, we'll see more of that at 2:30 Eastern today with that announcement. And of course, we'll hear from the president again tomorrow after those job numbers and with more jobs shakeups.
Ed, good to see you, as always.
HENRY: Good to see you.
VELSHI: Our senior White House correspondent with "The Stakeout," Ed Henry at the White House.
OK, more U.S. Marines are headed to Afghanistan. How many? What is their mission? I'll tell you about it when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Happening now, it's 36 minutes after the hour, President Obama has filled one of the vacancies on his staff. Two senior officials say former Commerce Secretary William Daley will be the new White House chief of staff. He would replace Rahm Emanuel who has returned to Chicago to run for mayor.
We're expecting President Obama to make the announcement at 2:30 Eastern time. You can see it right here on CNN.
If Republicans are successful in repealing the health care law, it could add $230 billion to the nation's debt. The analysis comes from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Meanwhile, America is already getting close to reaching its debt limit, which is currently more than $14 trillion. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says we should hit the debt ceiling sometime this spring unless Congress raises the limit.
And a 1998 study that linked childhood vaccines to autism is being called a fraud. The journalist who helped with a new investigation says the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, should face criminal charges. Wakefield is defending his research.
Fourteen hundred more U.S. Marines are headed for Afghanistan, and that is our first stop in our "Globe Trekking" this hour. Military officials say the additional combat Marines will be deployed in the Taliban strongholds of southern -- Helmand Province and Kandahar Province. Their mission is to consolidate gains that have already been made before an expected Taliban offensive in the spring.
"Wall Street Journal" reports that U.S. commanders are concerned that an increase of Taliban attacks in the spring might convince Mr. Obama that the military strategy is deeply flawed and result in a faster troop pullout, one that's set to begin in July and that might be faster than that.
As our graphic shows, there are now about 97,000 troops, American troops in Afghanistan. There's been a steady buildup, as you can see all the way over here, since the beginning of that war October 2001 all the way through. It has been fairly consistent. It remains unclear just how many of these troops are involved in actual combat.
Now I want to show you another issue, Iran, another American has been arrested on spying charges. That is according to Iranian media reports. Details are really bizarre on this one. CNN's Jill Dougherty joins me now from the State Department, let's ask her.
Jill, what do we know? Do we have any details about who this American is?
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You know, I'll tell you, Ali, this is weird, and it may not even have happened. It's very, very conflicting. In fact, we just got of a briefing with Mark Toner, who is the spokesman for the State Department, and he is saying that there are conflicting media reports swirling around and that the U.S. State Department has tried to get clarification.
They've reached out to the Iranians through the Swiss, those are our protective power for the United States, since we don't have relations. They're not getting anything directly from them yet. They've talked to the Armenians, because part of this story says the woman walked over the border from Armenia into Iran and then was arrested. But the Armenians still haven't said anything. And then there are other reports, a lot of them, that say, well, she didn't get in there in the first place because she never got a visa. I mean, there are even reports that she had a microphone in her teeth.
VELSHI: Wow.
DOUGHERTY: So this is one of the more bizarre stories. And again it may be bogus, it may be a lot of confusion. But so far, absolutely no confirmation from the State Department.
VELSHI: Jill, tell us about those two American hikers. The three that were arrested, one was released, two of them are still there.
DOUGHERTY: They're still there, and that's why this gets very sensitive because they haven't been able to get out. They were hiking along with the third person, Sarah Shourd, who was released, and apparently went over the border, except that the Iranians think that they're spies and they still hold them. So it's a serious matter.
And don't forget, you know, it seems like on a regular basis we get people who stray over the border into North Korea as well. So there's always a little tension about those borders.
But this, you know, again, no confirmation on this one.
VELSHI: All right. Jill, thanks very much. We'll stay on top of it with you.
Jill Dougherty.
Hey, listen, I don't know how you're watching me on TV right now, but Google, Apple, Netflix, they are all changing the way we watch television and the promises and challenges, well, they're out there. We'll take you to the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: It's 42 minutes after the hour. Some of our developing stories this hour.
You're looking at him, the son of a legendary Chicago mayor will replace the White House chief of staff who has resigned to run for Chicago mayor. Two senior officials say William Daley has been named Rahm Emanuel's successor. Daley is currently a top executive with JPMorgan Chase. He served with the U.S. Commerce secretary under President Clinton.
We're expecting President Obama to make a formal announcement next hour. You can see it right here on CNN.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is putting a date on what he says will be a national disaster. According to Treasury estimates, the government could break through the debt ceiling that we've been talking about as early as March 31st. You can see the debt clock right there, we're at about $13.9 trillion right now.
In other words, when the amount of money the U.S. needs to borrow exceeds the borrowing limit set by Congress, that's $4.3 trillion. Geithner is urging House leaders to bump up that ASAP or face, quote, "catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades."
Latest jobless claims numbers are out and after that notable drop in last week's report, the pendulum has swung the other way, we're back over the 400,000 mark. That means that the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits for the first time rose to 409,000 people. Economists were not surprised at that rise, per se, but it was a little bit higher than expected.
And by the way, the current issue of "Money" magazine, "The Investor's Guide 2011," is on your shelves now in your stores. Page 42, I've written an article about the best jobs, whether you're starting out or whether you're making a midcareer shift. You can pick that up wherever you buy your magazines.
OK, our "Big I" is all about the future of television. How technology is changing the way we watch TV, one of the top trends at this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. And that's where we find Jesse Hempel, she's a technology writer with "Fortune" magazine.
Jesse, thank you for joining us.
Let me ask you, we know that tablets are a big deal out there, but TV is an interesting idea. A couple years ago, it was all about getting your flat screen. Then everybody got flat screens. Then it was about HD and everybody got HD.
Bottom line now is I don't know what the future holds. Am I going to be watching TV through Google or through Apple TV or through Netflix through my PS3 or through something called Roku?
What is the future of TV look like to you as you see it at CES?
JESSE HEMPEL, "FORTUNE" MAGAZINE: It's so confusing, right? And I mean, just look around Las Vegas, there are 1,000 other players lining up to give you TV in a new way.
I mean, let's start with the idea that you watch TV on a big screen in your living room. The future of TV is on any device you want, anytime you want. I think the question right is who gets to own that. Is it going to be the Silicone Valley folks, like Apple and Google, or the folks who have done it forever? I mean, we have an $85 billion home entertainment business to disrupt before we get to the future of TV.
VELSHI: Let's talk to about not people like you and me who might be early adopters of technology, but someone who is ready to make the move into something like the next thing. How do I know that I'm not going to invest my time and energy and money in some technology that's not going to be the winner? What's the safest way to become -- to consume TV in the next generation? And I guess part of that is the ability to get video on demand and watch things again and stop them and start them like a TiVo-type of device?
HEMPEL: You know, it's funny, the safest way is to buy nothing. And I know that's probably a head scratcher given how many things there are to buy now. But all of those boxes that you can get like Google's new box by Logitech or Apple's box or the Roku box, they're all short-term fixes. All of that technology is in the next few years is going to migrate into either your set-top box or your television. So if you spend a lot of money on something this year, you're going to be disappointed in a couple of years.
But you probably want something short term, right? You want a quick fix so you can watch your, I don't know, your Netflix in your living room. For that, you know, I have to say, after thinking about it all fall, I'd buy the Roku box. It's cheap. It's really easy to use. It's like a short-term fix.
VELSHI: OK, so bottom line is don't go crazy on refitting your whole place for the new technology, because the new technology is yet to be settled.
One thing that I notice from an article you wrote on this is that none of these offer you something that you can't already get. In other words, you can do it in a less elegant fashion --
VELSHI: Right.
HEMPEL: -- but bottom line is you can plug your computer into your TV and watch whatever you're watching on your computer on your TV. The issue is, as you said, it's going to be centralized into one type of TV and probably become less expensive?
HEMPEL: That's right. And then the question will be, who gets to own that. Will you be writing your check to Apple or Google every month or will you be writing it to the cable companies?
VELSHI: Good question. Bottom line, we're going to pay somebody. Some things might become more free.
But, Jesse, good to see you, as always. Thank you.
Jesse Hempel is a technology writer with "Fortune" joining us from the Consumer Electronics Show. And we'll have more from CES a little bit later.
By the way, if you want to find out more about the article and where the future of TV lies, go to my blog CNN.com/Ali and CNN.com/Tech.
All right, why are House Republicans reading a version of the Constitution out loud in the House today? Our senior political analyst Gloria Borger will explain why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: Time now for a Political Ticker update. Before I bring in senior political analyst Gloria Borger, let me play you something.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be afringed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: OK. What you were listening to and are now look at are various House Republicans reading a version of the Constitution. This has something to do with part of a House rule that Republicans have changed.
Gloria Borger joins me now from the CNNPolitics.com Desk to explain to us why they were reading the Constitution -- Gloria.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, Ali, politics is very often about symbolism, and this is about the symbolism of Republicans saying in the House, OK, we're taking charge and what the Constitution represents to them is limiting the power of government.
In case anybody was asleep during the last election, the midterm election was all about the size of government. Republicans want to limit it, and they're reading the Constitution as a way to say everything we do in this House of Representatives has to be justified by the Constitution. And in fact, they're putting that in a rule in the House.
So it's their way of saying, you know, folks, don't do more, don't legislate more than the Constitution allows. And in case you forgot the Constitution, here it is.
VELSHI: Let's answer this, though. There is some dispute about a particular version of the Constitution being read.
BORGER: Yes. Right. Well, you know, Democrats were saying -- Democrats believe the Constitution is living, breathing, growing, if you will, and we see this played out in the Supreme Court. And the Democrats were saying, OK, if you want to read the Constitution -- and by the way, they're joining in the reading of the Constitution -- they said, read it in every way. Read about slavery, for example, before that was amended.
And the Republicans said, you know what, we're going to read the Constitution as amended as it now exists. So we don't want to talk about anybody being three-fifths of a person. So there's a little bit of a fight about that. But you know what, it's doing no harm to read the Constitution.
VELSHI: Let me ask you this. Do you think it's doing good? I mean, one of the things, after all the scandals --
BORGER: Sure.
VELSHI: -- the political -- the business scandals of 2000 and 2001, then they came up with Sarbanes-Oxley bill and one of the requirements was that a CEO had to sign to say that they'd looked at the financial statements and that they were legit. You know what, when you've got to take responsibility for it, all of a sudden, fraud starts to go down.
So I suppose if you have to write bills where you say and this is where I'm allowed to do this in the Constitution, might not be a bad thing.
BORGER: No, it might not be a bad thing. Of course, everybody is going to find a way to justify what the Constitution allows. The biggest debate we've had about this recently is over campaign finance reform, right, which the Supreme Court struck down a version of that in the famous Citizens United case, which got passed through the Congress.
So there's -- if you're going to want to justify it, you'll always be able to find some sort of justification for it in the Constitution, depending on your interpretation. And again, Republicans, more limited, narrow. Democrats, a little bit wider lens on the Constitution.
VELSHI: All right. Gloria, we'll talk to you an hour from now. Your next Political Update, just an hour away.
Hey, in a different kind of "Odds & Ends" for you when we come back, we've got the latest on those Arizona Medicaid cuts. Apparently, they've claimed the life of another transplant patient.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Time for "Odds & Ends." A lot of days, these stories are funny, a little bit kooky. Today is deadly serious, though.
A second Arizona resident who needed an organ transplant has died in the three months since the state eliminated Medicaid coverage for many types of transplants. Literally, a life or death decision based solely on budget concerns. Around the state, though, there are some folks stepping up or trying to reverse it or at least fill the funding void.
More from Barbara Grijalva of our affiliate KOLD.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NINA ROOSEVELT GIBSON, PSYCHOLOGIST: It is incredibly sad and doesn't really have to happen.
BARBARA GRIJALVA, KOLD REPORTER: Nina Roosevelt Gibson is talking about the Arizonans sentenced to death because budget cuts forced them off transplant lists.
Gibson is the granddaughter of President Franklin Roosevelt and has the family genetic mutation that leads to heart failure. Ten years ago, she got her new heart at Tucson's University Medical Center. Now she's working with the New Life Society to try to raise awareness and money for transplants.
GIBSON: The long-range plan is to work with Health and Human Services at the federal level to change the policies and procedures for Medicare organ recipients.
GRIJALVA: The New Life Society and transplant doctors in Arizona believe they can save money the state needs to save and still keep people from dying.
GIBSON: We all understand the pinch the state is in. However, there -- I believe there are other ways.
GRIJALVA: Exactly what doctors at University Medical Center and the University of Arizona believe, if legislators would only hear what Arizona experts have to say.
DR. RANIER GRUESSNER, CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA SURGERY DEPARTMENT: We are the advocates of the patient. If we don't raise our voice, who will do it for a patient with end-stage disease?
GRIJALVA: Dr. Gruessner says transplant specialists have come up with a way to cut costs and save lives, making tough decisions that are fair.
GRUESSNER: What this policy has -- has not included is a component of fairness to the patients.
GRIJALVA: Though the state never consulted Arizona doctors before making the cuts, the transplant specialists are trying to keep a dialogue open with the state.
GRUESSNER: I don't want to get into any of the politics that were involved in it, but it backfired because now suddenly it looks as if Arizona is making decisions as to life or death of patients.
GRIJALVA: Gruessner says nearly 30 people will die this year because of the state's decision to cut certain transplants.
GRUESSNER: And the most important thing, again, is to continue the dialogue so that we don't leave fellow citizens behind.
GRIJALVA: Nina Roosevelt Gibson knows exactly what that means.
GIBSON: Time is of the essence. They don't have time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELSHI: I would love to get your thoughts on this, on the ethics of the state's actions. Some possible solutions or workarounds, your personal experience with Medicaid, whatever you got. Go to my Facebook page, Facebook.com/AliVelshiCNN, you'll see that I've posted a link to the story. Give us a post, have your say. We'll try and read some of them next hour.
