Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Investigation into Secret Service Scandal Continues; Supreme Court Examines Arizona Immigration Law; Child Abducted from Hospital

Aired April 25, 2012 - 15:00   ET

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

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: All right, this story defies understanding. A 5-year-old boy is abducted. OK, that's bad, but not so out of the ordinary. But in this case, the boy was abducted from a hospital where he was on a waiting list for a heart transplant, no less.

Police say his abductors were his dad and his grandmother. The boy has been found and he is safe. But his dad and gram have plenty to answer for right now.

I want to bring in now Nima Shaffe. He is with us the phone.

Nima, the boy is from Kansas City. He's in the hospital in Saint Louis and he's found outside Chicago. Help us understand this. Why was he in Saint Louis? And how in the world did he get grabbed from what should be a secure area?

NIMA SHAFFE, REPORTER: Good afternoon.

Those are all good questions. He was in Saint Louis because he's on a transplant list for a heart defect. The 5-year-old, Porter Stone, suffers from cardiomyopathy, which is hardening and thickening of the heart muscles.

We're told by family members that he's got a leaky valve, too. He was admitted into Barnes Hospital in Saint Louis on Friday because he had fluid in his lungs, hence his presence at Barnes Hospital. His father then visited several days later. I believe it was on Monday when he made a visit to the hospital. That is not confirmed, but it was several days after his mom and 5-year-old Porter got admitted to the hospital on Friday that his father got there.

And yesterday, his father went there to take him and go to the pharmacy to get prescriptions when his father made a call to Tiffany Stone, which is Porter's mom, and said I'm leaving with him. So a scary situation given the fact that he should have never, according to family members, been able to leave that hospital.

LEMON: So then what now? Does Porter Stone lose his place on the transplant list? Where do things stand there?

SHAFFE: That was the question I had all this morning. What I have understood from not only the family but what little I have been able to get from the hospital is that he will not be taken off that transplant list nor will he lose his place. Just found out about an hour ago that Tiffany Stone, Porter's mom, is due to fly to Chicago from Saint Louis at 7:30 this evening. She is at the Saint Louis Airport right now awaiting a flight, hoping to get an earlier flight out, potentially flying standby sooner than the 7:30 scheduled flight to hopefully be reunited with her son.

The good news here is that he has been cleared by doctors at Barnes Hospital as well as physicians here at Children's Mercy in Kansas City to fly straight home to Kansas City and make his way just north of Kansas City to his home in St. Joseph, Missouri.

LEMON: So that was my question. So Porter is doing OK now?

SHAFFE: He is. You know, I spoke with family earlier this morning and I had just spoken with his soon-to-be aunt when she had gotten off his phone with his mother earlier this morning.

His mother a bit nervous because Porter being 5 years old saw the arrest of his father at the hotel where the authorities from the Illinois State Police Department as well as police officers from the village of Alsip just southwest of the Chicago suburbs, a Chicago town, if you will, had to take him into custody. They had to break down the door of the motel.

So, 5-year-old Porter Stone seeing all this go down, he's nervous. They're sticking him with needles in the hospital. As you can imagine, no one, no family members are around, so he was telling his mom that they were abusing him. In reality, they were trying to help him out.

LEMON: Nima Shaffe, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

I have got a question for you. If the federal government fails to carry out one of its constitutional duties, can states step in? For all the emotion around the immigration debate, that's a question that is before the Supreme Court of the United States vs. Arizona.

Lots of folks gathered outside the high court as it heard the case this morning. Arizona and now a number of other states contend they have had to act on their own on illegal immigration because the feds have failed.

Here's a woman from Mississippi outside the Supreme Court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have got people that are hungry and starving that are U.S. citizens. We do nothing about it, absolutely nothing. But we allow them to come over and take our tax cuts. If they want to be here, then go through the process. Go through the process. I have no problem if they go through the process. But jumping borders, I have a problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: CNN's Kate Bolduan with us now from Washington. Kate, you heard the arguments before the high court. How did that go?

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was a very interesting day in the courtroom.

As you know, Don, but just to make sure our viewers are clear, we have this Arizona law that is meant to crack down on illegal immigration. The Obama administration is fighting that law, is challenging that. And the question of who should be enforcing illegal immigration laws, it was the big question here today before the Supreme Court.

I will tell you from being in the courtroom, it did appear the federal government faced quite a bit of an uphill battle and faced some trouble specifically from the conservative majority, as it appeared they were at least somewhat sympathetic.

I would say they seemed surprisingly sympathetic towards Arizona's argument which could indicate that they are leaning towards upholding at least part of that law. Most of the -- some of the toughest questions, Don, really focused on one of the more controversial provisions in this law, the provision that requires that law enforcement, that they check people's immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally, if they're doing so in the course of enforcing other laws, if this person had already been stopped.

So there seemed -- from some of the justices and their line of questioning, it seemed they did have some sympathy and did think the state, Arizona's argument that where the federal government has failed, they need to step in.

LEMON: Elena Kagan, Justice Kagan has recused herself from the case because as solicitor general, she took a side on it. That means you have got eight justices here, an even number. That means there could be a tie. What if there is a tie?

BOLDUAN: It is unusual. It's not unheard of, but it is unusual.

Now they're not talking nine justices hearing this case, they're talking eight justices hearing this case because as you said Elena Kagan recused herself. She was involved in the early stages of this challenge when she was at the Justice Department just before taking to the Supreme Court bench.

If there is a 4-4 split, what that means is that the lower court ruling would stand and that means practically speaking that the four controversial provisions that are in question before the court, including the one I just described earlier, they would not, would not be implemented.

But on the flip side, it also means that there wouldn't really be a precedent set here in the case, that the other states that are considering similar legislation, they could move forward with their legislation. LEMON: All right, CNN's Kate Bolduan reporting for us.

Listen, you see that man on the screen? His name is Russell Pearce. Just a little bit later on, I'm going to be speaking to one of the authors of the Arizona law, the former state Senator Russell Pearce. There he is right there.

And still ahead, new revelations today about al Qaeda's plans to attack here in America. Is turns out September 11 was only the beginning. But one terrorist says he chickened out.

Plus, a bombshell in the mystery over of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Police say new evidence reveals she might still be alive.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: The September 11 attacks were only supposed to be the beginning. Al Qaeda was planning to crash the U.S. economy with more attacks in the weeks after. This is all straight from the mouth of convicted al Qaeda operative, operative whose names is Saajid Badat.

He was testifying by video at a trial for one of the men accused of plotting to bomb the New York subway system in 2009. Badat gave new details about Osama bin Laden's schemes.

I want to bring in now Paul Cruickshank. He's our very own CNN terrorism analyst.

Paul, thank you so much for joining us.

First of all, who is this guy?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, his name is Saajid Badat.

He's a British al Qaeda terrorist operative who was convicted and weeks after 9/11, he was tasked by al Qaeda to blow up a U.S.-bound passenger jet with a shoe bomb. You will recall in December 2001 there was an attempted attack by another British al Qaeda operative, Richard Reid, on a flight from Paris to Los Angeles to blow up a passenger jet.

Well, Badat revealed in court that he was conspiring with Reid, he was conspiring with al Qaeda and al Qaeda's plan just a few weeks after 9/11 was to blow up two U.S.-bound passenger jets simultaneously. Now, Badat actually backed down away from the operation and he was subsequently arrested -- Don.

LEMON: He says to have come face to face with Osama bin Laden. What did bin Laden say to him? What does he say bin Laden said to him?

CRUICKSHANK: Well, that's right. This around October 2001 just when the U.S. was starting its bombing campaign in Afghanistan.

He met bin Laden, just the two of them in a room. And bin Laden said he wanted to launch another attack by the United States, that by attacking U.S. aviation, bringing down U.S. aviation, he believed that you could bring down the whole U.S. economy, Don.

LEMON: What does Badat's testimony tell us about al Qaeda's strategy following 9/11, Paul?

CRUICKSHANK: It shows that in the weeks after 9/11, al Qaeda was an emboldened organization, that they felt that they could launch a knockout blow against the United States. And they continued to be fixated against passenger aircraft.

And indeed Reid, the shoe bomber, came pretty close to being successful in his attack. He actually got on to the airplane. It was only when passengers saw he was trying to light a fuse that they were able to avert that strike. In the years that followed, al Qaeda continues to try and launch attacks passenger jets. There's a plot in 2006 to attack transatlantic aviation.

And the Yemeni affiliate al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the last few years has twice tried to attack U.S. aviation. They remain fixated on this.

LEMON: Were there other locations? He gave details about a number of other al Qaeda operations. Did that include more the ones that you just mentioned? Where were these attacks supposed to happen?

CRUICKSHANK: He did reveal more operations that al Qaeda was trying to put into operation, for example, an attack against airliners in Southeast Asia after 9/11, another hijacking strike there.

He actually traveled out of Afghanistan with a group of Malaysians militants and they were going to go and launch that strike. Eventually, that plot did not materialize. He also described a plot against Jewish targets in South Africa, which they were hoping to put into place after 9/11 and a plot against a U.S. NATO base in Belgium, Don.

LEMON: All right, Paul Cruickshank, thank you very much, interesting information there.

(NEWS BREAK)

LEMON: British police say they have information leading them to believe Madeleine McCann may still be alive. She is the 3-year-old girl who vanished on a family vacation in Portugal back in 2007. Today, British investigators released this photo showing what McCann might look like. Her ninth birthday is next month.

Actor Russell Brand testifies about drugs, specifically heroin at a parliamentary hearing. You have got to hear him.

Plus, a Texas couple smeared online, their business ruined. They had to leave their home of 20 years. Now justice is served to the tune of $13 million. This case impacts you and what you say online. Stay tuned. Sunny Hostin is on the case and will me live in studio next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(FINANCIAL UPDATE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: All right, listen, this is fair warning to all you haters online. You cloak of anonymity may have been just shattered by a Texas jury.

It awarded nearly $14 million to a couple suing for libel. Mark and Rhonda Lesher were acquitted in 2009 of raping a woman, but before they were cleared, anonymous Internet users painted the Texans as sexual deviants and molesters.

"The Fort Worth Star Telegram" reports the Leshers submitted 800 libelous online posts after tracking down the I.P. addresses. The Leshers won in court and "The Star Telegram" reports it turns out one of those ordered to pay is a woman who accused them of rape.

There you go. All right.

So CNN's legal analyst, Sunny Hostin, is on the case.

Sunny, this judgment should freak out all the people who think they can hide behind the Internet here. But they can't hide from their slanderous comments or may not be able to do it anymore. They're may have to end up paying off.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: That's right. They should be freaked out because I think people do things and say things, type things on the Internet that they wouldn't say to a person face to face, that they certainly wouldn't send a letter to a person.

They think they're shrouded by anonymity. We should know by now in this digital age that nothing, nothing ever sort of goes away. What happened in this case is that it didn't go away. The I.P. addresses were linked to folks that were making these statements and they were called to task on it.

Bottom line, though, is no one is ever really protected from saying things that are false and harmful. I think that's the lesson. So many people say it's freedom of speech, it's freedom of speech. That's not necessarily the case.

LEMON: Not hate speech.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: And not false statements.

LEMON: Everyone thinks it's anonymous. It is if you don't dig into it. HOSTIN: Right.

LEMON: But your I.P. address in order to get on to the Web site or make a comment, you have to give your I.P. address, right? Many times, you have to sign up. It's not anonymous.

HOSTIN: That's right. It's never really anonymous.

But let's face it, if you want to sue someone, you have got to go to court, you have got to get an attorney, you have got to subpoena those I.P. addresses. That's why people are so cavalier. But again, slander, libel, you can be held responsible for things that are not factual, things that are lies and things that certainly are harmful.

LEMON: Do you hear that? Do you hear that?

Listen, I want to move on. This one is very complicated. It's a case of a diplomat released after allegedly blowing -- it was a 0.126 on a Breathalyzer. On top of that, police in an Atlanta suburb say the vice consular of the Mexican consular general there was clocked 91 miles an hour, doing 91 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone.

But the police reports says -- here it is -- Sergeant Walters was advised that Saynez-Ruiz-Duran -- that's the last name of the diplomat -- could not be arrested, but could be issued citations. If Saynez- Ruiz-Duran -- get the name right -- did not have diplomatic immunity, he would have been arrested for DUI.

So this diplomat just got ticket for DUI speeding, Sunny. Is there a chance that this diplomat will be properly charged, because we have only heard about diplomatic immunity on shows like "Law & Order" and the crime shows. What exactly is it?

HOSTIN: That's right. It's very real, diplomatic immunity. And he won't be charged not in this country.

LEMON: Not at all?

HOSTIN: No, because he has that diplomatic immunity.

And it has been around forever. And the bottom line is a foreign diplomat cannot be charged criminally, civilly, in this country. There are some things that can be done. I have done some research on this because I have gotten so many e-mails about this particular case because people are very uncomfortable with diplomatic immunity.

Perhaps Mexico -- he's from Mexico -- can waive his diplomatic immunity and perhaps charge him in Mexico. The United States can also say -- can yank his diplomacy and say, you know what, you are the person non grata at this point. You need to be recalled by Mexico back to Mexico.

And so there are some things that can happen, but will he be charged? Will we see him in a courtroom facing a DUI charge? That's not going to happen. LEMON: This makes me think of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. We're like what happened with that? We were talking about diplomatic immunity and immunity and all of that. It didn't apply here.

HOSTIN: It didn't apply to him. Remember, he wasn't necessarily a diplomat.

LEMON: A diplomat, ah.

HOSTIN: That's right. This is very, very different. Diplomatic immunity is alive and well.

LEMON: OK. We weren't able to get a response from the diplomat or the consular general in Atlanta. I need to say that. But again, as you said, he could be charged in Mexico.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: Perhaps. Unlikely, but...

LEMON: We would have been arrested.

HOSTIN: Yes, we would have been.

LEMON: We would have been.

Thank you very much, Sunny Hostin.

HOSTIN: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: We appreciate it. Good to see you in person.

(CROSSTALK)

HOSTIN: Good to see you. I always see you through the teleprompter.

LEMON: Yes, great. See you.

OK, still ahead, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testifies on the Secret Service scandal and reveals whether the president was ever at risk.

Plus, things get heated, very heated as media giant Rupert Murdoch takes the stand in the hacking case involving his empire.

And new developments in the bribery scandal involving Wal-Mart to tell you about. And a top executive is out, but not at Wal-Mart. As the case heats up, he wants to defend himself.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: An Obama Cabinet member in the hot seat over the Secret Service scandal. A media mogul trying to distance himself from shady practices at his newspapers and the Federal Reserve is looking into its crystal ball. Time now to play "Reporter Roulette."

First up, Dana Bash, where Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified just today.

Dana, she had some explaining to do over the Secret Service prostitution scandal.

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: She did. She was very clear right out of the gate that she finds this conduct inappropriate and unacceptable. In fact, she used a combination of those words half a dozen times.

She also said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET NAPOLITANO, U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Let me be clear. We will not allow the actions of a few to tarnish the proud legacy of the Secret Service, an agency that has served numerous presidents and whose men and women execute their mission with great professionalism, honor and integrity every single day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: If I were to summarize, Don, the two key questions that these senators had, number one, was security breached during this inappropriate conduct in prostitutes in Colombia?

Her answer was as far as they know now, no, the president was never in danger. And the second question, is this cultural? Is this systemic? Her answer was, we're not sure yet, but they're investigating to see if that is the case.

LEMON: All right, thank you, Dana Bash. Appreciate it.

Next now on "Reporter Roulette," Dan Rivers in London, where Rupert Murdoch faced a grilling over the phone hacking scandal within his media empire -- Dan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAN RIVERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, for the third time in less than a year, Rupert Murdoch, arguably the world's most powerful media mogul, was back in London to be grilled about phone hacking and media ethics.

He was asked a number of questions about his influence over successive prime ministers for the past 30 years or so. He denied being the power behind the throne for Margaret Thatcher, but did admit to meeting her in secret in 1981 while he was negotiating a controversial deal to buy two more British newspapers.

He also described phone hacking as a lazy way for reporters to do their job. That's something he'll be quizzed on again tomorrow when he's back before Lord Justice Leveson, which is heading this inquiry into press ethics. He also consistently denied pushing News Corp's commercial interests in his newspaper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUPERT MURDOCH, MEDIA MOGUL: I take particularly strong pride in the fact that we've never pushed our commercial interests in our newspapers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIVERS: That was really the thrust of most of the questioning during the five-plus hours that he was seated before Lord Justice Leveson, insisting that he never swapped favorable press coverage for politicians in return for commercial benefits in the U.K., Don.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Dan Rivers, thank you very much. Next on "Reporter Roulette," Alison Kosik, there she is in New York. Alison, the Fed, the Federal Reserve, putting out a forecast now for the economy. I hope there's some optimism here.

ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: There's a little more optimism, Don. The Fed does believe the economy is improving. So at this point it's not really changing its game plan though until it really sees the economy make a decisive move one direction or another.

So the 17 members, including Fed chief Ben Bernanke, they're a little more optimistic about unemployment. They're predicting that the rate could fall between 7.8 percent and 8 percent by the end of this year.

Remember, unemployment is at 8.2 percent now. Also, the picture is a bit brighter for economic growth. The Fed expecting growth to pick up gradually with growth this year expected to come in between 2.4 percent and 2.9 percent. It would be an improvement over 1.7 percent last year.

Another thing the Fed did, they kept interest rates at historic lows near zero, but Ben Bernanke did say there is kind of a wild card that we like to call it, that is Europe and also sort of the global financial markets and what kind of impact they could have on the U.S. That is really the wild card in all of these predictions, Don.

LEMON: Can you give us an update on Eduardo Castro Wright? He's the Walmart executive accused in a bribery scandal in Mexico, resigned, Alison, but not from Walmart?

KOSIK: Right, right. So you're talking a vice chairman of Walmart who was implicated in the bribery accusations. He resigned from a board that he sits at on Met Life, not on Walmart. So he's keeping his job at Walmart for the time being, but apparently he doesn't have any day-to-day responsibilities. Also he's retiring on July 1st as planned.

So Walmart is also moving forward with its own internal investigation. Congress is also looking into it. As far as Walmart shares, ah, yes, they continue to fall. You know, investors are still not sure about what the legal and financial ramifications are for these bribery allegations.

You know, for Walmart at this point, Don, it's all about damage control after these allegations that have bribed these foreign officials for years to cut through all that red tape and make it easier to get these Walmarts built in Mexico, but you're seeing kind of in some sort of way that heads are beginning to roll.

LEMON: All right. Alison Kosik, appreciate it. Thank you very much. And that's today's "Reporter Roulette."

A dad can't understand why his autistic son is misbehaving in school -- that is, until he puts a wireless mike on the child. You won't believe what the dad hears when the child comes home. It's all recorded. We're going to play it for you -- that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: In our ongoing effort to remind ourselves that we can do better, we could all take a lesson from this New Jersey dad. His 10- year-old son has autism, a tough deal for a kid and his parents in the best of times, right? But Stuart Chaifetz says he became baffled after teachers at his son's elementary school told him the boy was lashing out, even throwing chairs.

Well, Chaifetz he said he was baffled because, while his son had anxiety from the autism, he never acted violent. And to figure out what was going on, Chaifetz put a recording device on his son.

Now I want you to listen closely, but I want you to be warned as well. The language isn't always nice in this story. And this is just a bit of what that dad heard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I didn't get (INAUDIBLE). But (INAUDIBLE). Shut up. You go to see any books in the library or you just looking at sculptures?

AKIAN CHAIFETZ, STUDENT: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, you are a bastard.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: A teacher calling a 10-year-old kid with autism that name. Once Stuart Chaifetz heard that, well, took his recordings to two very important places, 61/2 hours of audio went to school officials in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

And just to make sure that it didn't get ignored, he made a 17- minute YouTube video that he called "Teacher/Bully: How My Son Was Humiliated and Tormented by his Teacher and Aide."

This is one mad dad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STUART CHAIFETZ, FATHER OF BULLIED BOY: That's the horror of it. It was his teacher and his aide, the people who were there to protect him and they betrayed him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: The Cherry Hill school district wants you to know that the individuals heard on those recordings no longer work for the district.

A Georgia teenager was going to a party and ended up beaten to death. The injuries of 18-year-old Bobby Tillman were so bad his heart was punctured by a rib. Well, today one of the four people accused of killing Tillman cut a deal.

Duffy Dixon from our Atlanta affiliate WXIA has the details for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MONIQUE RIVARDE, BOBBY TILLMAN'S MOTHER: It just hurts.

DUFFY DIXON, WXIA CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Monique Rivarde standing just steps away from one of her son's killers, saying that even now two years later, she cannot make sense of his death.

RIVARDE: It's another day I don't want to wake up because I know it's another day I face without Bobby.

DIXON (voice-over): Emanuel Boykins pleaded guilty to the murder of Tillman, admitting that he led a group of agitated young men outside a house party in Douglasville into the street, looking for someone, anyone, to beat up. Bobby Tillman just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

EMANUEL BOYKINS, CONVICTED MURDERER: I take full responsibility for what I did that night.

DIXON (voice-over): Moments after Boykins apologized to Tillman's family and received life in prison with the possibility of parole, Tillman's mother described what she saw in this killer's eyes.

RIVARDE: I saw shame, I saw guilt, I saw remorse. But you know what is funny, a lot of people are remorseful and sorry after they commit a crime. I just wish he would have had those same feelings that night before he touched Bobby.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: That's Duffy Dixon reporting from our Atlanta affiliate, WXIA.

The showdown over Arizona's immigration law hits the highest court in the land and there are a couple of surprising moments. Up next, I'll talk with a man behind the law, Russell Pearce. He's going to argue this case and answer his critics, live on CNN. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) LEMON: Going to dig a little bit deeper now into this Arizona immigration law. As we have told you, the Supreme Court today has taken up Arizona's immigration law. CNN's Kate Bolduan told us that the justices seem sympathetic to Arizona's argument that the federal government has failed to control illegal immigration and, thus, Arizona has had to act on its own.

Among the controversial provisions struck down by a lower court are the mandate to police to check people's papers if they suspect they may be in the U.S. illegally. As we mentioned, Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case because, as solicitor general, she took a side on it.

That means you've got eight justices, an even number. So theoretically, there might be a 4-4 tie. Should that be the case, four of the law's most controversial provisions would be invalidated, because the lower court has struck them down. Joining me now from Washington is one of the authors of the Arizona law, former state senator Russell Pearce. He's in Washington.

Sir, thank you for joining us. I know you're very busy and understand right now you're in an airport. How did things go for your side before the justices today, you believe?

RUSSELL PEARCE (R), FORMER ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: (INAUDIBLE). I'm really having a hard time hearing you.

LEMON: How do you think things went today before the justices for your side?

PEARCE: Well, it was pretty clear, I thought. I mean, I mean, I'm very confident that they're going (INAUDIBLE). We wrote (ph) the bill, you know, recognize the state's constitutional police powers, Arizona's right to defend its citizens and to protect jobs, you know, and all the things you go in that. And the justices apparently agreed.

I thought they -- I thought they got accurate Department of Justice pretty hard for inventing fiction about preemption and some of the stories they told. So I thought we did really well. It was pretty clear to me. Section 2 and section 3, 5 and 6 were the sections under (INAUDIBLE) you don't hear in the media.

But 60 percent of the SB-1070 is in effect. They only enjoined four sections and those were sections today, it was pretty clear that I think all of them will be (INAUDIBLE). I think we have a 5-3 decision on all of them. But on section 2, even Sotomayor, one of the extreme liberals on the board, made it very clear. She said, move on, you're not making your case.

LEMON: Yes, yes, but we have been reporting that.

I want to ask you, though, when you were writing this, I wonder if you had this in mind, if you assumed that if it would end up before the Supreme Court, that it might end up before the Supreme Court, and any single provision of the law that you with wrote, did it feel risky for you in terms of its constitutionality?

PEARCE: Absolutely I anticipated. I mean, they accused me of prompt 200 to stop boarding fraud and welfare fraud (ph). It should on employer sanctions. We just won a 5-3 decision on that last year, another bill that I wrote (INAUDIBLE) illegal employers to protect honest employers from those could (INAUDIBLE) immorally in every (INAUDIBLE) advantage by paying under the table.

So, you know, that went all the way. We won all that battle. Same (INAUDIBLE), their arguments were about preemption and Arizona turning into the federal government's arena. And none of that is true. States have inherent authority.

If Congress wanted to preempt the states, it would have used, under their plenary powers, that has never happened. The states have never been preempted. The courts ruled on that for 40 years. So I'm very confident and I was very pleased to the justices speak out the way they did on the fact that they were -- it was clear, DOJ was reaching, really extreme reaching, to try to defend their position.

LEMON: Mr. Pearce, I understand you're optimistic, you said it over and over during this interview. But I have to ask you here, what happens if the law is struck down? Will legislators in Arizona go back to the drawing board? Are they just going to start over and say we're going to try this again?

PEARCE: Well, actually, like I say, 60 percent of it's in effect. And the truth is, you don't -- (INAUDIBLE) shouldn't be necessary. I mean, we have sanctuary policies that are illegal, 1070 (INAUDIBLE) strike down those illegal policies. Thos were made clear in the court case today.

For the justices, the Congress had established not only states are not (INAUDIBLE), but they're -- but the government is preempted from preempting the states and they -- in terms of the limiting law, (INAUDIBLE) law. So we don't really need it.

But yes, I mean, unfortunately, shouldn't need it. But unfortunately you do need it because the states continue that policies, the restrictive enforcement of these laws which is unconstitutional or illegal all by itself. So that would be a decision. I don't anticipate that, but certainly that's an option if we think we need to go back. But --

LEMON: OK. But you won't know that -- you won't --

PEARCE: (INAUDIBLE) bill as it stands.

LEMON: You won't know until June, and so you have a little bit of time, a little bit of time to sort of figure out (INAUDIBLE) to strategize, right, and just in case?

PEARCE: Right. Right. But (INAUDIBLE) need to understand, this is a states' rights issue more than anything else. Arizona's right to enforce this law, it's Arizona's right to protect its citizens, Arizona's right to protect jobs. And I think the court will uphold the law the way it's (INAUDIBLE). I'm very confident, like I said repeatedly. If something else surprises us, we'll have to deal with that. But I look forward to a win. And I think we'll have a majority 5-3 on all the parts and even greater than on section two and maybe a couple of the others.

LEMON: All right. Russell Pearce, thank you very much. I know you're having a tough time hearing us, you're traveling in an airport.

PEARCE: Oh, I'm sorry.

LEMON: That's OK. We appreciate you joining us. Thank you very much.

A bounty hunter chases bail jumpers in New Orleans and warns, if he comes after you, game over. My conversation with Tat-2 is next.

Then in British parliament, Russell Brand is invited to testify about drugs and things get awkward.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: It is a job where people at their worst do their best to avoid you. Bounty hunting, I'm talking about. You're about to meet the man. He's labeled the top all-around bounty man in the Big Easy, New Orleans. And here's a sample of what Gene Tat-2 Thacker and his crew do. You'll figure out who Tat-2 Thacker is, just watch for the arms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's going to get away.

GENE "TAT-2" THACKER, BOUNTY HUNTER: I've got him!

I'm taking him on foot.

Get down on the ground! Get down on the (INAUDIBLE) ground!

He's over there. He's running. Don't move! Get down on the ground! Don't move, dude.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Don't move, dude. Thacker told me he averages about five bail jumpers a day.

THACKER: It's definitely worse since Katrina. Basically when Katrina hit basically everybody was displaced.

When everybody was put back, the bad with the good, the good with the bad, the neighborhoods were put together and everybody was combined and so then you took the neighborhoods that had the most crime and put it in the neighborhood that had no crime and so now every neighborhood had crime even more so than it did before. LEMON: What's your -- I'm sure you've had pretty scary experiences. What's the scariest for you?

THACKER: I mean, we've been shot at. I mean, I've had my head split open. I mean, there have been several stuff, you know, several things that's happened since we've been doing this, but I leave it all in God's hands. Whatever happens, happens.

LEMON: Bounty hunters, they have to do a lot of talking, too. Sometimes I think you're almost like therapists. Let's watch -- let's watch another clip and then we'll talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THACKER: This drinking and driving he's doing is basically attempted murder. You have 18 different (INAUDIBLE).

Do you realize they can throw you under the jail right now for 18 traffic charges? I'll help you out so you don't lose your job, but you've got to promise me you're going to try, because if not, I'm going to fight everything I can to get you put into rehab.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: You're like a counselor.

THACKER: Yes. Sometimes we have to be. That clip right there was a guy that I actually went to high school with, and now he actually has two jobs and quit drinking.

LEMON: Tat-2 Thacker says he's nabbed about 10,000 fugitives in his 12 years bounty hunting. Amazing.

"THE SITUATION ROOM" with Mr. Wolf Blitzer coming up in a matter of minutes here on CNN. Wolf has a preview now, Wolf, big night for Mitt Romney and then now, Newt Gingrich, man.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Newt Gingrich about to call it quits after a tough campaign for him. We have full analysis of what's going on on the political front.

Also, I have an interview with Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state. That's coming up in our next hour. She speaks openly, really, in depth for the first time about part of her life that was hidden from her during and after World War II.

In fact, until she reached the age of 59, she was about to become secretary of state of the United States, she did not know that her parents were Jewish, that she lost Jewish relatives in the Holocaust. She's now written a new book about that, and a whole lot more. That interview coming up in the next hour.

And in our 5:00 pm Eastern hour, a story that really has shocked me. It's a stunning development.

Imagine this, Don, a country that receives billions and billions of dollars in U.S. assistance. We're talking about Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai tells the secretary of state of the United States that an American congressman is not welcome to visit that country. Dana Rohrabacher, he's here, the congressman of California, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

He was barred from going to Afghanistan by Karzai, and the U.S. at the highest levels went along with it. What's going on here? It's a pretty shocking story and we'll have details in our 5:00 pm Eastern hour.

LEMON: Wow! Can't wait to see that. Thank you, Wolf. Appreciate it. Now this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were a former heroin addict.

RUSSELL BRAND, ACTOR: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Briefly, could you tell us how you got onto drugs and then how you managed to come off it and how many years you were on hard drugs.

BRAND: I see you've incorporated the word briefly now into the question. As you already know it's my propensity for verbosity --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Well, so, that's Russell Brand. He testifies about drugs, but things got a little bit bizarre, as you'd expect. You're going to see the reactions and hear what the actor revealed. It's very entertaining. You don't want to miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Comedian Russell Brand getting serious or at least as serious as he can be. Brand testified at a Parliament committee hearing on Britain's drug laws.

The committee wasn't sure what to make of Brand, who says he beat heroin addiction and has been clean for nine years, but it made for some of the most fascinating testimony in front of Parliament since Rupert Murdoch was hit with a pie. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAND: Hello. Hello.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning, Mr. Brand.

BRAND: Good morning.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please have a seat.

Mr. Brand, thank you for giving evidence to the committee's inquiry into drugs. Mr. Russell Brand, you gave evidence, written evidence to this committee, which members of the committee have read. You were a former heroin addict?

BRAND: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Briefly, could you tell us how you got on to drugs and how you managed to come off it and how many years you were on hard drugs?

BRAND: I see you've incorporated the word briefly now into the question. As you already know it's my propensity for verbosity. I became a drug addict, I think, because of emotional difficulties, psychological difficulties and perhaps a spiritual malady.

For me, taking drugs and excessive drinking were a result of psychological, spiritual or mental condition, as -- so this was symptomatic. I was like, sad, lonely, unhappy, detached and drugs and alcohol for me seemed like a solution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You were arrested roughly 12 times --

BRAND: It was rough, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the police and the justice system. Do you think that when with you were arrested that you had the kind of support that you needed?

BRAND: There's some confusion and ignorance around addiction. I mean, it's quite understandable because a lot of drug addicts, speaking personally, are anti-social. They are estranged to society. They necessarily engage in criminal activity. They're a public nuisance in many ways.

I felt when I was arrested that the police were doing the necessary job of enforcing the laws of this country and that they did what they had to do, but it wasn't until I had access to abstinence- based recovery that I was able to change my behavior and significantly reduce, all but obliterate my criminal activity, apart from the occasional skirmish.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Is that a muscle tee in front of Parliament? Interesting clothing choice there, Russell.

That's it for me. "THE SITUATION ROOM" now begins with Wolf Blitzer.

BLITZER: Don, thanks very much.