Return to Transcripts main page
Campbell Brown
Arizona Immigration Battle Grows
Aired April 28, 2010 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CNN prime time begins right now.
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, everybody. Campbell Brown is off tonight. I'm John Roberts. Thanks for joining us.
And, tonight, the increasingly heated battle over immigration is now going nationwide. On a day when Congressional Democrats in Washington blasted Arizona's tough new law, one even calling Arizona the "show me your paper" state, the mayor of Phoenix says he's go to sue to block it. Meantime, the Phoenix sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has vowed to enforce the law.
So, is there a showdown brewing in Phoenix? We'll talk to the mayor coming up.
And shocking revelations from Laura Bush's new book: were the former president and first lady poisoned during a trip to Germany in 2007? We'll have that story.
Also, tonight, the uproar over Facebook. You may be telling the world your secrets without even knowing it. We're going to talk to a senator who's vowed to do something about it.
So, we got a lot to get to tonight. We begin with your cheap sheet for today's stories, our "Mash-Up."
Our number one domestic story: the Coast Guard says a controlled burn of oil in that massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico has begun. But the 2,100 square mile oil slick is dangerously close to the mouth of the Mississippi and the sensitive Mississippi River Delta, and there are fears it could hit U.S. shores by Friday morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The burning operation is part of a three- pronged attack on the surface and in the core of the spill, where the oil thickness is about 0.1 of a millimeter. We're using burning booms try and collect it and we'll have somebody see if we can set fire to it.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The flames were intentionally set. Far offshore, crews lit some of the thickest parts of the oil slick ablaze, parts surrounded by fire-resistant booms. The blaze is expected to be as hot as 1,800 degrees. The toxic cloud of smoke: several thousand feet high. The cloud is supposed to dissipate long before it reaches land. What's left will be hardened tar balls which can be scoped up with a net. But the well 5,000 feet below the surface is still spewing 42,000 gallons of new oil everyday.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The slick is 100 miles wide and just 21 miles from Louisiana's coast. We got to seat challenge up close yesterday at the leak site.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they know where that oil spill's at.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So, as we saw on the trip into the gulf, crews are furiously laying booms across much of the Louisiana's fragile coast, barrier islands, wildlife sanctuaries -- all expected to take a direct hit.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
ROBERTS: That oil slick poses a serious threat to the fishing industry along the Gulf Coast.
Our political story tonight: the Senate finally reached a deal this afternoon to begin a debate on the financial reform bill. That after Goldman Sachs bigwigs spent yesterday in the hot seat. You heard Senator Carl Levin blast the firm's executives then.
But what was all the point of questioning really all about? Did Goldman traders do anything illegal?
Listen to what Levin said when I talked to him this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Let me tell you the context is mighty clear. June 22 is the date of this e-mail. "Boy, that Timberwolf was one (EXPLETIVE DELETED) deal." How much of that (EXPLETIVE DELETED) deal did you sell to your clients after June 22, 2007?
ROBERTS: So, was it -- was it wrong, morally and ethically, or was it illegal?
LEVIN: I don't know that it's illegal under current law. I think it's clearly wrong and should be illegal if it's not now illegal, that these kinds of conflicts of interest have got to be addressed.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
ROBERTS: Still plenty of popular anger on Wall Street bankers though. You're going to hear more about that a little bit later on tonight.
Our top international story: why politics means always having to say you're sorry at some point or another. This time, it's not a Washington insider forced to serve up a mea culpa. It's British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He forgot he had a microphone on when he called a constituent, "bigoted," just seconds after talking with her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) RICHARD QUEST, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That is the most extraordinary part about it. How the prime minister in the middle of an election could be allowed to get into a car, wearing a microphone and make these comments really does beg a belief --
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: On camera, Gordon smiled. Off camera, his microphone still on, this --
GORDON BROWN, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: They should never have put me with that woman. It's ridiculous. She's just a sort of bigoted woman.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: An hour later, at Brown's next campaign stop, a radio station, the prime minister was surprised to hear his own words played back.
BROWN: She's just a bigoted woman.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Realizing his campaign was in peril, at 3:00, Brown tore up his afternoon schedule and diverted to Duffy's home to apologize.
BROWN: But, course, I apologize if I said anything that has -- that has been offensive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Gordon Brown will get the Jeanne Moos treatment later on this hour. You'll have to stick around for that. Please do.
But the story people are buzzing about tonight, finally, some good news to Sandra Bullock. The Oscar winner is a new mom. And, today, she introduced her 3-month-old adopted son to the world in a "People" magazine cover story. What a picture.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: He's from New Orleans, and Bullock, you know, she did quite a bit of work after Hurricane Katrina in that city. She said, "I always knew that I have some attraction, some connection rather to New Orleans." And, lo and behold, her son is from New Orleans.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: She tells "People" magazine that she and her husband Jesse James actually started the adoption process four years ago, brought the baby home in January but kept it secret.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG, TV HOST: Sandra tells said she's finalizing the adoption as a single parent but she hopes that the baby will experience what a good father Jesse has been to his other three children. And he's calling the baby his fourth child. And so, you know, they want to co-parent this baby.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: And Sandra Bullock also put to rest other rumors in the "People" magazine article, saying that she did file for divorce from her husband Jesse James on the 23rd of this month.
And that brings us to the punch line -- tonight, it comes courtesy of David Letterman who, believe it or not, found something funny about Arizona's new immigration law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV TALK SHOW HOST: They have that new tough immigration law. And they say now, because it's getting a lot of reaction, a lot of flak, they're saying it isn't targeted to Mexicans. The immigration law they say it's not about keeping Mexicans south of the border. As a matter of fact, they had a crew out today, government agents looking for Dutch people. So --
(LAUGHTER)
LETTERMAN: I think I heard some wooden shoes.
(LAUGHTER)
LETTERMAN: Just around and cover.
All right. Take off those wooden shoes. Step away from your shoes.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: David Letterman, ladies and gentlemen. And that is the "Mash-Up" and those are the stories that people are talking about tonight.
President Obama has just spoken out about Arizona's new immigration law. We'll have that for you.
Plus, some of the people who enforce the laws in Arizona are vowing to boycott the state's tough new policy. The mayor of Phoenix is taking his opposition one step further. And he's here tonight to talk about it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Tonight, the battle over Arizona's controversial new immigration law is growing. Some opponents are not waiting to hear from the White House or the Justice Department before they take action. The mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon, is vowing to sue in order to stop the law. And he joins me now.
Mr. Mayor, good to see you. Thanks for taking the time tonight.
MAYOR PHIL GORDON, PHOENIX, ARIZONA: Thank you for covering this.
ROBERTS: So, you were hoping to get the support of your city council to muster a joint filing here. Looks like you couldn't do that. Are you going to go ahead and file the lawsuit regardless?
GORDON: I am. According to an attorney, under our charter, I have that authority. I'm also been working with a number of other cities, including Flagstaff and a few other cities in our state to join in the suit. And then, lastly, I'm confident that the Justice Department and homeland security will be involved also. Our goal is to enjoin the lawsuit so it doesn't go into effect in 90 days.
And one other area I've started to look at is actually an initiative where we'll get some signatures, put it on the ballot and that will stall it going into effect for a couple years.
ROBERTS: All right. Well, let me ask you about that strategy to try to enjoin the law before it takes effect in 90 days. Do you think you'll have a strong argument to do that? Or would you be better to wait until the law goes into effect and get some claim of injury from the plaintiff and go to court with that?
GORDON: Well, that's why the cities and towns have standing now, as does the Justice Department, justice under constitutional preemption. Cities under the fact that we have to implement it, and because it's so vague, because of the potential risk of civil rights violations, as well as the ability to sue by anyone in the state, we need the court to either declare it unconstitutional or define how it's to be implemented, if it is.
It's just a -- besides being a hateful and just totally bad policy, it also is so vague that there's no way that anyone could follow it and not violate some type of law.
ROBERTS: Obviously, Mr. Mayor, there are a lot of emotional reactions to this bill. But let me get you to drill down a little further on the legal challenges. What's the exact legal premise that you're challenging this law under?
GORDON: Well, again, the attorney -- my attorneys are doing the research. But, certainly, on the vagueness, on equal protection under the state and the federal constitution, under the presumption, switching the presumption on a criminal charge from the individual that is innocent to now has to prove himself innocent, or she.
Lastly, also the fact that the standard for criminal violation now is reasonable suspicion. And that's a whole new degree that is an objectable or quantifiable, especially since governments aren't allowed to put standards in place.
ROBERTS: All right. So, you're going to mount a legal challenge to this. You're hoping that the law never takes effect. But if the law does take effect, Mr. Mayor, will you order your police department not to enforce it?
GORDON: Well, two things -- number one, we've got three routes. Again, the federal government will go to court, the city, and there's also that third issue which is that initiative that would prevent it from going forward. And we're already beginning to draft that and get the signatures necessary. So that, given 90 days, there's no way that this law will go effect.
If by chance it does, you know, the city will have to follow that law, but we'll be working and try to figure out how to follow it. But we'll be working at the same time to get it reversed.
ROBERTS: All right. So Mr. Mayor, you're in charge of the Phoenix Police Department. But surrounding Phoenix is greater Maricopa County. We all know about Sheriff Joe Arpaio. And we should point out there's no love lost between the two of you. But he really likes this new law and says it gives him a whole new tool for law enforcement, to enforce federal laws about immigration.
What do you say to his argument?
GORDON: Well, as you know, the sheriff is under criminal investigation now and civil rights violations despite the fact that he says he's not profiling. And despite the fact, at his own admission is he knows illegal immigrants by the way their clothes are, and that the vast, vast majority of individuals that he's arrested on non- profiling just happen to be Hispanic. So, the cases are there, citizens, veterans, legal residents, besides the undocumented immigrants.
Number two is, this is a political ploy to help him raise money to keep him in this limelight and to see who can be the one on who is the spokesman, who can be the most hateful and racist in this country. And it's just a horrible thing that this country and state is founded on. And he will be -- I'm confident in the next few weeks, we'll be hearing about the civil rights violations from the Justice Department.
ROBERTS: All right. We should -- we should point out, Mr. Mayor, that we will be speaking to Sheriff Joe Arpaio tonight on "A.C. 360," 10:00 Eastern Time.
Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon -- thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.
GORDON: Thank you very much.
ROBERTS: Now, Mayor Gordon isn't the only Arizona official fighting back. Today, a local official thumbed his nose at the governor, refusing to enforce the new law should it go into effect. Stay with us because you won't believe what he had to say.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: More now on the challenges facing Arizona's immigration crackdown. A sheriff in one of the state's biggest counties is openly defying Governor Jan Brewer's executive orders, refusing to require his officers to enforce the law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: When this case goes to the Supreme Court because I think that's where eventually it's going to line up, you're going to find that there are two major legal issues with this particular law. One of them is that the state cannot preempt the federal government in the area of immigration. And two, reasonable suspicion is constitutionally vague.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: But can any legal challenge at the state or federal level hold up?
Joining us now: CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, and conservative commentator and constitutional attorney, Mark Smith.
Good evening. Good to see you both here.
So, you heard what the mayor had to say a few minutes ago, Jeff. Do you think he's got a case here?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: I think he's got a good chance. This is a very political case. It would be folly to predict how it's going to come out at this point because judges react to political pressure in different ways. There are political differences on the Supreme Court, if it gets that far.
But I think the preemption, whether this is the federal government's business or a state's business is a very serious issue. And the issue of equal protection: does this have the effect of discriminating against Hispanics? I think that's a very serious question. There are certainly some judges who would strike this down.
ROBERTS: Mark, do you think that this is going to make it all the way to the Supreme Court? Because if you look at the last immigration, another big immigration case that went through the courts, Prop 187 in California, made it to the federal appeals court before Governor Gray Davis said, OK, end the appeals, let's stop this -- and Prop 187 went down.
MARK SMITH, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Well, you know, to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court, you need to have two sides. And what happened in the 1990s with Proposition 187 was that you had a Democratic attorney general who ultimately decided not to continue to enforce Proposition 187 and made the decision not to appeal it to the United States Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court never had the opportunity to make a decision one way or the other.
But, you know, I do agree with Jeff with respect to this particular law. I think it's going to give rise to a lot of interesting legal challenges. However, bear in mind, that going all the way back to the 1970s, even liberal, so-called liberal justices on the Supreme Court, have said that states have a role enforcing laws dealing with illegal immigration.
And as you know, it's called illegal immigration because it's a crime. It's illegal. And state law enforcement is, of course, allowed to arrest people that break federal laws.
ROBERTS: So, what I get from this is you're suggesting that this law has a chance of surviving a constitutional challenge? SMITH: That's right. And I do agree with Jeff in the since that a lot of times, it, of course, depends on who is the judge, who's going to be hearing the case. But, certainly, there's a compelling argument going both ways. But there's plenty of legal precedent on the books that says that states can step up and help enforce illegal immigration laws. And that's what really they designed the law to do. It is to protect and advance federal missions.
ROBERTS: What do you say about that, Jeff? Because that's certainly the premise that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been working under. This is local law enforcement. There are federal laws, but we are bound as local law enforcement to go after these people?
TOOBIN: That's true. But this really does change the game in a way that is beyond simply cooperation between federal and state authorities. Here, you have a situation, where for the first time in American history, as far as I'm aware, a state has said, "You can stop people if you have reasonable suspicion that they're an illegal immigrant." What does that mean? That vague nature of law makes it so difficult to enforce.
I mean, I think you really have to have a lot of sympathy for the police here because there's an unusual provision of this law that says they can be sued if they're not enforcing it properly.
ROBERTS: Yes.
TOOBIN: So they can be sued between two sides.
ROBERTS: Well, I talked with Representative Kyrsten Simena from the state of Arizona who is a guest. She says there's a real catch-22 here. The police could be sued for enforcing the law under racial profiling or sued for not enforcing the law, for not upholding federal law. But you're a little at odds with Karl Rove who thinks that there are real constitutional challenges for this law?
SMITH: Well, there are constitutional challenges to basically every law in modern America. But with that said, bear in mind that the entire law is designed to be completely consistent with federal law. And given the fact that going back decades, there's plenty of precedent that says states do have a role in dealing with illegal immigration. No one has ever said that only the federal government can deal with illegal immigration.
Certainly, there is a role for the states here. The question is: at what point do the state's ability to advance a federal interest somehow cross a line and become now they're stepping on the federal government's toes? And I think that line has never quite been drawn clearly. And this case will, these series of case, it will be more than one case, will allow for line drawing.
TOOBIN: I think Karl Rove is not a constitutional lawyer. He's a political actor. And he knows that this is danger for the Republican Party, to alienate the fast-growing minority group in America. To turn a group that Republicans have occasionally tried to make overtures to -- ROBERTS: Sure.
TOOBIN: -- to turn them against the Republican Party, that's the problem. That's not -- it's not a constitutional issue.
ROBERTS: Legal challenges with political ramifications.
TOOBIN: Yes.
ROBERTS: Jeff Toobin, Mark Smith -- great to see you.
SMITH: Thanks, John.
ROBERTS: Thanks.
Next: who would suggest that former George W. Bush was poisoned while he was in office? How about his wife? That and other surprising details from Laura Bush's new memoir when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Just days after we learned that former President George W. Bush will release his memoir in November, we are now learning details of former First Lady Laura Bush's new book set to go on sale next week. It's called "Spoken From the Heart." And in it, she talks about everything from politics to the fear that she and her husband were poisoned, to the deeply personal tragedy that she suffered as a teen.
"The New York Times" Anahad O'Connor has read the book and wrote about it in today's edition.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: One of the interesting revelations in Laura Bush's book is that she believes that the G8 summit in 2007, in Heiligendamm, Germany, that her entourage may have been poisoned. Give us the background on that and what she thinks happened.
ANAHAD O'CONNOR, NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. This is pretty fascinating. So, she says that they sat down to dinner one night. And shortly after the dinner, everyone was very sick. In particular, she said she had a headache, she was nauseous. She says that she laid in bed and she used words that she thought she would die right there in that bed. And then she says one of her, one of the members of her entourage lost hearing in one ear --
ROBERTS: Wow.
O'CONNOR: -- someone else had trouble walking and the president was bedridden.
ROBERTS: Here, she writes about it. She says, quote, "Nearly a dozen were stricken, even George, who started to feel sick during an early morning staff briefing. Exceedingly alarmed, the Secret Service went on full alert combing the resort for potential poisons. George felt so ill that he met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and didn't even stand up to greet him."
O'CONNOR: Yes.
ROBERTS: What makes you think it was poison as opposed to just, you know, bad schnitzel?
O'CONNOR: Well, she says, this happened suspiciously around some other high profile poisonings in Europe. Of course, there was the poisoning of Yushchenko in the Ukraine. There was the poisoning of the ex-KGB agent who ultimately died.
And she said, the president prided himself on being very healthy. You know, we've all seen the footage of him clearing brush and riding his mountain bike. And he was, you know, stricken in bed and couldn't get up.
ROBERTS: But there was never any hard evidence of any kind of toxin?
O'CONNOR: Yes, the doctors basically concluded that, you know, it had to have been some virus. The Secret Service never really found evidence of a poisoning. But, you know, it was all very mysterious, and she certainly seems to think there's good evidence of a poisoning.
ROBERTS: Laura Bush is a fierce defender of her husband in this book, particularly against attacks that were leveled at him by Senate Majority Leader Reid and speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. What does she say about them in the book?
O'CONNOR: Yes, she basically says that Harry Reid threw a lot of insults at her husband that were unbecoming of a political. He called him a liar, a loser. She says that these were particularly nasty, especially during wartime. She says that Pelosi said a lot of nasty things. And she said that George W. Bush tried to remain above this and never basically got down to their level. She's very harsh about them and says they were basically acting like schoolchildren.
ROBERTS: Yes. She also defends him on another point here. We all remember in 2005 that photograph taken inside Air Force One as the president was looking out over the destruction in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Air Force One swooped down low. A lot of people said, "Hey, why didn't the president stop?"
What did she say about that?
O'CONNOR: Yes, he took a lot of flak for that. I mean, people said he was basically heartless. But she says that this was actually in the best interest of the people on the ground, in the best interest of aide workers, the victims. She says that getting a president into this kind of area would have required, you know, a motorcade, a lot of security, just a lot of hassle and that it would have gotten in the way of the work that needed to be done. And she says, if you look back to 9/11, the president didn't show up to ground zero until at least a few days after everything happened because he also didn't want to be in the way.
I think a lot of people will think that's kind of a stretch.
ROBERTS: One of the things I found interesting when she talked about the hot button issue of the 2004 campaign. That was gay marriage. Here's what she wrote about it. She said, quote, "Before the election season had unfolded, I talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay," perhaps a reference to Dick Cheney, "but at the moment, I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."
There might be some conservatives out there who supported President Bush in 2004 who might be a little surprised by that?
O'CONNOR: Yes, I think a lot of people assume that this was an issue that he felt very strongly about and that he was, you know, going to get in there and tackle. Whereas, she, behind the scenes, was saying, you know, don't -- you know, don't go there. As you said, she pointed out that the vice president's daughter is gay and that this is something that he should avoid.
ROBERTS: You know, one of the things we look for in these autobiographies, does it change at all our image of the person that we came to know through, you know, the public lens? People had a certain image of Laura Bush while she was first lady at the White House. Does this book reinforce that image? Does it change it at all? What do you think?
O'CONNOR: Yes, you know, I thought about that since reading the book. And I think that she tried to be very honest and genuine in the book, and yet she was still a little bit guarded. But I think that the nation has so -- or has been so strongly divided over his administration, I think that people who are detractors of hers and of the administration will just see some things in the book that provide them further fuel for those feelings. And I think her supporters will say, you know, she's being completely honest and straightforward. She's putting everything on the line. I think it's not going to change too many people's opinions. It's just going to reinforce what people already feel.
ROBERTS: Anahad O'Connor, thanks for being with us tonight.
O'CONNOR: Thanks for having me.
ROBERTS: And coming up, new concerns about Facebook tonight. The social networking site is sharing your personal information more than ever before with other Web sites. A dangerous invasion of privacy, or just an easy way to make the web your own?
Speaking of privacy, if you want to protect it, turn your mike off. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown learned that the hard way after a testy encounter with a voter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORDON BROWN, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: That was a disaster. Should never have put me with that woman. (END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: More of Brown's embarrassing blooper still ahead tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Facebook users are buzzing today after four Democratic senators called on the site to rethink its privacy policy. The controversy stems from the social network's attempt to revolutionize your experience on Facebook in just about everywhere else on the Web while you're at it. Tom Foreman is here to walk us through the new feature that started it all.
Hey, Tom.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, John. Facebook wants to enhance the social networking experience for its 400 million users like this handsome devil up here, with instant personalization. What that means is Facebook is taking a lot of that information that you share about yourself, what you like and dislike, your movies, all of that sort of thing, your photo, your friends. And they want to share it with other Web sites. For example, this one, yelp.com. It does reviews of movies and products, shopping, restaurants, all that sort of thing. If you're a facebooker and you go to the site, it will instantly recognize you. And look over here, it will tell you, for example, that two of your friends have signed up and they're doing reviews. Why don't you read their reviews? Why don't you write one of your own? And if you do, you have to bear in mind it's going to tell them also, that you were here and what you were up to.
Now, you can opt out of this process if you want. You go into the privacy settings here under instant personalization pilot program. It's a small program right now. It's not really big yet. But then you can go through that to this page and there'll you'll see it. Here's the page. There's a little tiny box right down here, and there's a check mark right there. You can check that and say, I don't want to take part. But, John, here's the important part, that box is naturally checked, unless you go and say, you don't want to be in this, you're in, John.
ROBERTS: So it's what they call the negative option. I should point out, Tom, that I went on my Facebook page today looking for that and couldn't find it.
FOREMAN: We had a time. It was a workout to get there.
ROBERTS: All right. But this sounds like it could be, you know, sort of an easy way to connect you with more products, services and people you like. And as you said, friends of yours are doing restaurant reviews. Maybe you want to know what they like or what they don't like. What's wrong with that?
FOREMAN: Well, that's a good question that you raise, John. The issue here seems to be that you're not being given a choice. You're simply being thrust into the system whether or not you want to. That's what has the senators concerned because they're saying what if some kind of really aggressive marketers get after you, scam artists. Even Internet stalkers somehow connect you this way. What do you do about that?
Well, listen to what Minnesota Senator Al Franken had to say about that. If you look at or look at what he had to say, "This is a consumer protection issue." That's what he said. "What we would like the default position to be is that you have to opt in, not opt out." So Facebook defends the program, so lots of other Web sites share information. That's true. But in Facebook it's not just on their Web site, John.
ROBERTS: No, it certainly isn't. It's bigger than a lot of countries. Tom Foreman for us tonight. Tom, thanks so much.
Senator Mark Begich is one of four lawmakers challenging Facebook for overstepping the line. I asked why he think it's such a big deal.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. MARK BEGICH (D), ALASKA: Well, I'll tell you in Alaska we have probably the strongest right to privacy. We actually have it embedded in our state constitution, which in Alaska, we are very libertarian about this. We don't want people prying into our private lives, as well as, in this case, our Facebook page, without permission.
ROBERTS: So what is it then that you and your three other Senate colleagues are asking Facebook to do about this?
BEGICH: Well, the first thing is we're asking Facebook to reverse the way they've done this. In other words, right now, they just assume everyone's in, unless you opt out. And you go through this convoluted system on their Web site, they kind of crawl you way through it. And my staff took three of them just to figure or start to figure out how to get disconnected from that. What I'd rather see is something very simple, and as what my colleagues have said, and that is, they should ask if we want to opt in. And we make that choice. Yes or no. Not that we're already assumed to be opted in. In essence, leave the power into the consumer's hand, the individual, who has set up their Facebook page and assumed that the information would be private and contained within their page or who they have as their friend.
ROBERTS: Facebook's position on this is that they want to, quote, "enhance the experience of the Facebook user." What do you say to that?
BEGICH: Well, you know, it's interesting. I looked up their principles of Facebook. And here's one thing that I love. "Freedom to share and connect" as long as they both consent to the connection. That's the basic understanding of how Facebook is originally set up. In their own policy, they kind of violated it. To enhance maybe Facebook's corporate bottom line, which again, I don't begrudge, it's probably what they see. But from the user standpoint, I'm not sure it enhances to get more advertising from people they didn't add in as friends.
ROBERTS: Is this enhancing the Facebook user's experience? Or is this enhancing Facebook's bottom line?
BEGICH: I think it's enhancing Facebook's bottom line and at the expense of the privacy of individuals who assume their information would be private. And I think that's for Alaska's perspective, a real violation that we believe in fundamentally, and that's the right to privacy and protection of our information.
Now, if someone wants to include and have people access their information, let them make that decision. But Facebook just assumed with their 400-plus million users said, hey, we're just going to add you in, and if you find your way through our maze to opt out, then you can opt out.
ROBERTS: Yes.
BEGICH: But that's going to be very difficult for a lot of people to do.
ROBERTS: We've got a question for you on our Twitter page. This one comes from college politico who asked how in the world is it the government's business what I and Facebook agree to about what information I make public about myself?
BEGICH: Well, I think -- we don't have a problem with that as long as you agree to it. And in this situation, what's been done is Facebook just assumed that all their users will agree with this new policy which is to sell your private information to third-party vendors. And I'm not sure, people I know, who have contacted my office, have signed up for that kind of transfer of information, private information to third-party vendors. So I understand what the gentleman is saying. But the bottom line is I'm not sure that that's what people signed up to do.
ROBERTS: Well, we'll keep watching this one. Senator Mark Begich, good to talk to you today. Thanks for joining us.
BEGICH: Thank you very much.
ROBERTS: And coming up, the Florida Senate race turned upside down. Word tonight Governor Charlie Crist will bolt the Republican Party and run for the seat as an independent. Did the tea party do Crist in?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Coming up tonight, Britain's prime minister caught letting loose in an open mike. And it's sure not pretty. But more news happening right now. Tom Foreman back with us tonight for the "Download."
Hi, Tom.
FOREMAN: Hey. Just a short time ago, President Obama spoke out from aboard Air Force One on the controversial new Arizona immigration law and the federal government's failure to act on the issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I understand people's frustrations about the border. You've got hundreds of thousands of people coming in, not playing by the rules, that's a problem. And the federal government has been advocating on its responsibilities. What I think is a mistake is when we start having local law enforcement officials in power to stop people on the suspicion that they may be undocumented workers because, you know, that carries a great amount of risk that core values that we all care about are breached.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: The president says he'll need help from Republicans to get immigration reform this year, but he concedes Congress may not have the appetite to dive into yet another controversial issue right away.
An Iranian navy jet came within a mere thousand yards of the USS Eisenhower yesterday. The aircraft carrier was on duty in the Gulf of Oman when the Iranian aircraft came in flying as low as 300 feet. Iran has been flexing its muscles in the area as part of new military exercises. U.S. officials say the move was unusual but it was not provocative or threatening.
It looks like tomorrow will be Independence Day for Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Sources say Crist will announce he's bolting the Republican Party to run for the U.S. Senate as an independent. The governor was once the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination but has been steamrolled in the polls by conservative favorite Marco Rubio. Crist has been toying with the move for weeks -- John.
ROBERTS: All right. Tom Foreman for us tonight. Tom, thanks so much.
Coming up, our "M2" crew. Mary Matalin and Roland Martin face off.
Also, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suffering from a little foot-in-mouth disease. Our take on the monster gaffe that was caught by a live microphone as only our Jeanne Moos can do.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: "LARRY KING LIVE" starts in just about 11 minutes' time. Larry is with us now. What have you got for us tonight, Larry?
LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": Tonight, we are doing the Trumps. Yes, the Donald and his beautiful wife and his beautiful wife Melania. We're going to talk about Sandra Bullock's husband Jesse James and Bret Michaels. We'll talk about Goldman Sachs. By the way, both are on "Celebrity Apprentice," Michaels and James. We'll get into the economy, immigration. Melania is going to show up her jewelry, too. And, John Roberts, congratulations. John Roberts is betrothed. The best of luck, John. Congratulations.
ROBERTS: Well, thank you very much, Larry. She's a terrific woman. And I am very blessed to have her in my life.
KING: You're a lucky man.
ROBERTS: Larry, thanks so much. We'll see you in just a few minutes.
Time now for our "M2" face-off. Our Mary Matalin and Roland Martin take on the most talkable stories of the day. What have you got for us tonight, guys?
MARY MATALIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Hey, John, glad you're there. Well, Roland, I know you love these political stories. Former governor --
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Sometimes.
MATALIN: Well, this one isn't just one of those ones that's got all the political class at Twitter. Charlie Crist is going to -- surprise -- run as an independent. He's running as an independent as opposed to a Republican under the party he served as governor. It's because he was going to lose the Republican primary to Rubio who is 20 points down, is now 20 points up. So now, he's going to give the seat, which is a safe seat for Republicans to the Democrats, possibly by being a spoiler. This is why --
MARTIN: That's not necessarily true, Mary, because according to the existing poll and a three-way race, Crist is leading, Rubio second, and Congressman Kendrick Meek who is trying to establish himself statewide as a name in Florida is running third. But I understand your point. But Wait a minute, you know, Joe Lieberman, senator from Connecticut, when he lost in the Vermont Democratic primary, what did he do? He ran as an independent in the general because Republicans liked him as well. If I'm Crist, he has nothing to lose.
MATALIN: No. Everyone tries to compare this to the Connecticut situation. The reason Crist is in the situation he is is because at a time where Republicans are demanding that their candidates stand for principles that represent the philosophy of the party like fiscal conservatism, which in the analogous to that, Lieberman was always a good Democrat, Crist was with Barack Obama on the stimulus bill and that's the beginning of the end for Republicans.
MARTIN: But wait a minute, the bottom line is a moderate Republican in Florida is going to play better statewide than just setting up a hard-right conservative, versus a hard-left Democrat. So, Crist, smart move running as an independent. Because, look, there's no guarantee they were going to back him in two years. Might as well make the shot because there's no guarantees in life.
All right. Speaking of no guarantees in life in losing a job, a former major league pitcher who was a producer at a sports radio station in Dallas has lost his job because he made a comment on Twitter while watching the playoff game between the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks in reference to dirty Mexicans. Well, that ticked a lot of folks off. He said that he was drunk at a bar. He shouldn't have done it. He apologized. But the station fired him.
The problem I have with this, Mary, this is a guy, Mike Bacsik, made a personal comment on his personal account, it was not work- related. Suspend him -- fine. I don't think he should have lost his job for that racially insensitive and dumb comment.
MATALIN: You know what? Political correctness, insensitivity, rude, ugly mark remarks used to be monitored or controlled by your mother or good upbringing. My kids would get their mouths washed out with soap if they said anything like that. Now, the worst scourge that the PC police and arm of the left has wreaked in this country is getting people fired for just being rude and insensitive.
MARTIN: No, it's not just the left now. I mean, the right -- Mary, come on now. The right also, they are also upset when people make comments. I mean, look at Sarah Palin when she got ticked off, you know, with the reference to Down syndrome. And she called, like firing Rahm Emanuel for using retarded. So it's not just the left, it's the right as well.
MATALIN: And I disagree with her on that point.
MARTIN: But don't blame it on the left.
MATALIN: No, no, that was a single incident. She would never defend it.
Her kid was being attacked. OK. I'm moving on because this one will make you crazy. This is my favorite, favorite political topic of the day and of the weeks to come. And it's part of a much bigger story.
And it goes to the Alabama governor, Republican primary candidate, Tim James, who has got everyone's hair on fire with this ad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIM JAMES, ALABAMA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Tim James. Why do our politicians make us give driver's license exams in 12 languages? This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it. We're only giving that test in English if I'm governor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATALIN: That's it. All right. That's right. I am a pro- immigrant proud American. My daddy didn't speak English when he came here. He couldn't wait to learn it.
This is not about saving money, although that's where the argument is for. This is about assimilating and acculturating to this wonderful country. And if you don't know the native language, there will always be a barrier to your affectionate productivity in a country that has a native language. Thank you.
MARTIN: First of all --
MATALIN: Thank you, candidate James.
MARTIN: This is a stupid commercial by this candidate who is trying to appeal to the base level of people. Here's the reality, Mary, there are people out there who have other languages as their primary language. And you know what, I want them knowing how to drive.
MATALIN: I hope if you watch it, assimilate to this country. You should speak the language of this country. But it will take about three seconds for the PC loony left to call this a racist act.
MARTIN: No, I'm not saying he's racist. I'm saying he's ridiculous. Besides those people vote with other languages don't vote for him because clearly he doesn't like you. Likes the tax base that you contribute to but doesn't like the fact that you speak another language. All right, John.
MATALIN: We can agree. Goodbye, John.
MARTIN: Take care.
ROBERTS: Mary and Roland, thank you so much.
"LARRY KING LIVE" starts in just a few minutes' time. Coming up, politicians usually fight for the microphone. But British PM Gordon Brown found that sometimes an open mike can really hurt. What the prime minister said when he thought no one but an aide was listening.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROBERTS: Politicians are famous for trying to stay on message but now and again, they go off script. And sometimes when that happens, there are live microphones around. As Jeanne Moos reports now, this doozy of a gaffe comes to us from across the pond.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): An open mike opens a can of worms. But first, it was a little like the time then-candidate Obama crossed paths with the guy who became know as Joe the plumber.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm a plumber.
MOOS: Only in this case, the leak came from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Brown was campaigning when he came upon Gillian Duffy who gave him an earful on taxes, deficits and immigration.
GORDON BROWN, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: In six months --
GILLIAN DUFFY, BRITISH VOTER: Don't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you're -- well all of these Eastern Europeans will come in.
MOOS: Brown was all smiles as they parted. But once he got in his car, he forgot he was wearing a wireless mike.
BROWN: That was a disaster. You should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous.
AIDE: What did she say?
BROWN: Ah, everything, she's just a bigoted woman.
MOOS: Watch Gillian's eyes when she's told the prime minister called her bigoted.
DUFFY: You're joking. Very upsetting now.
MOOS (on camera): You think she's upset, watch the prime minister's body language when he has to listen to his own gaffe played back to him during a BBC interview.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone has just handed me the tape. Let's play and see if we can hear it.
BROWN: You should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?
MOOS: Is this thing on? Anyway, of course, the prime minister apologized.
BROWN: I phoned Gillian. I apologized to her.
MOOS: And apologized.
BROWN: I apologize profusely to the lady concerned.
MOOS (voice-over): The prime minister even went to her house for a face-to-face apology that lasted 40 minutes.
BROWN: I've just been talking to Gillian. I'm mortified by what's happened. I've given her my sincere apologies. I misunderstood what she said.
MOOS: There was speculation the gaffe could sink the Labour Party's campaign.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a disaster for Gordon Brown.
MOOS: Now, Brown joins other illustrious victims of the open mike. Prince Charles ranting about a reporter.
PRINCE CHARLES: These bloody people. I can't bear that man.
MOOS: To then President Bush at a summit.
GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive deleted) and it's over.
MOOS: To Jesse Jackson complaining about Barack Obama --
JESSE JACKSON, RAINBOW COALITION: Talking down to black people on this faith based. I want to cut his (expletive deleted) off.
MOOS: If you're going to cut something, cut the mike.
BROWN: Would you like (INAUDIBLE).
MOOS: Jeanne Moos --
BROWN: I was sorry.
MOOS: CNN --
BROWN: Sorry.
MOOS: New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERTS: The fingertip on the forehead sort of says it all, doesn't it? Brown currently running third in the polls, this whole ordeal not likely to help matters.
That's all for now. Thanks very much for joining us tonight. I'll see you in a few short hours on "AMERICAN MORNING." We'll be talking with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
"LARRY KING LIVE" starts right now.
