Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Supreme Court Rules on Campaign Finance Laws; British Government Raises Terror Threat Level
Aired January 22, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Wow. "They started it." It appears even his co-hosts were embarrassed by what Doocy said. Look how fast they seemed to cut him off. Rog, go ahead and play this again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE DOOCY, FOX NEWS: Making this a religious thing. They started it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. All right, 12 minutes after the hour.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Yes, right, right, 12 minutes after the hour. That's the TV speak for, OK, change the subject really quick now.
And, for comment, Steve Doocy find himself taking the bronze on our list that you don't want to be on. But it's not the top of the list. I am going to reel that in the next hour.
We have got some breaking news that I want to share with you right now.
First of all, let me tell you what I have just learned, this having to do with a terrorism threat level, and it's changing as we speak. This is the British government. The British government has just changed its threat level from substantial to severe. And we're being told that this might have something to do with my computer that is totally blank again.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: With a situation that developed in India.
Now, what we understand is that this threat level warning that's going on right now in Britain coincides and has happened on the same day as India has warned all of its airlines about a potential threat as well. So, they have increased their marshals on their flights. This is India we're talking about. We had learned about that earlier in the day.
And now we have a situation where in fact England -- yes, go ahead, Brett (ph). See if you can get me back online there. England has changed its threat level from substantial to severe. Again, that's a threat level alert. We have -- we have at CNN have not independently confirmed that there's any kind of specific threat which has caused this change in the security alert level to be increased at this point.
However, as you know, we have a huge staff out in London. And we're going to be able to go to the London bureau, hopefully get some information for you as soon as we possibly can.
Are we close to being able to do that, Angie, do you know? We're still working on it. It will probably -- all right, well, hang tight. We're going to get you there in just a little bit. So, just know that the story is developing, and know that, as soon as we can, we're going to be talking to our folks in the British bureau over there and get more information on that.
Meanwhile, why should Americans fear the Supreme Court's blessing of corporate influence over our elected officials and our policies? I know that's a quick change of subject, so let me bring back -- let me bring you back to what I just said, all right?
I'm talking about the Supreme Court decision that was made yesterday that basically said that, you know, corporations now have as many rights as individuals do to go in there and influence both our policies and our politicians.
The answer may be right under our noses, by the way. First of all, what do you want when it comes to this? Listening to conservative Michael Smerconish's talk show this morning, I heard him ask his audience if we should limit how much corporations are allowed to give.
He was shocked that a majority of his listeners were telling him just the opposite of what the Supreme Court ruled. Again, that's a conservative, not a liberal, show -- something like 80 percent, I think.
Then there's this. The most recent polling shows that around 54 percent of Americans wanted a public option to bring down the cost of health insurance and to help uninsured Americans get a break, but health care corporations did not want it. Guess who won with expensive ads like this one?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
NARRATOR: The beach is nice this time of year, but, while President Obama vacations, concerns mount about his health care plan. Why? Because his...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: This is a flashy commercial. It's one thing, but let's strip away the glitz and reveal who really was behind these ads.
Here for your edification is the man behind many of these ads. His name is Rick Scott. He's a corporatist, by his own definition. He's the president of Conservatives for Patients' Rights, the face behind the glitz in these TV ads.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICK SCOTT, PRESIDENT, CONSERVATIVES FOR PATIENTS' RIGHT: I clearly believe that government-run health care will be bad for you as a patient, it will be bad for you as a taxpayer, it will be bad for our country, but, most importantly, it will be bad for you as a patient.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: All right, so that's the guy with the big bucks. And that's how that interview that I did with him started. It's all about the patient, he says.
But, as things unfold, we learned a lot about profit, and not so much about quality health care. I'm going to show you this because many will argue that the Supreme Court decision is a huge win for people like Mr. Scott.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: ... $1.7 billion? That's the highest ever paid in the history of the United States that your company ended up having to pay as a result of what you did by defrauding the government?
SCOTT: The -- no one went to jail. I was never accused of anything. Now let's think about it -- $1.7 billion sounds like a lot. We had 343 -- 343 hospitals, 150 surgery centers, over 100,000 patients a day.
SANCHEZ: Your company was accused of something called "upcoding". That means they treated patients for something minor but charged the government, the taxpayers, for something expensive. That was the accusation. Is that true?
SCOTT: I have -- Rick, I have no idea. Rick, I have no idea. I was -- I never did anything with Medicare. I started a company. I bought hospitals. I bought HCA. I bought all the Humana hospitals. Let's go back to...
SANCHEZ: All right. Let me ask you this one then. Here's the other accusation, as I was reading about what some people say your company may have been involved in. Your company would go into a region. They would buy up all the hospitals, and then they would shut them all down except for one to make that one hospital very powerful. I mean, I guess that's a good business plan. But is that good for patients?
SCOTT: Absolutely. Now, first off, that didn't happen. We did buy 20 hospitals that we consolidated. It goes on every day, and -- not every day. It goes on throughout the country, all the time. It's happened since before I got into the business and afterwards.
But here's the reason why you want that to happen as a patient.
SANCHEZ: OK.
SCOTT: You want to make sure -- you want to make sure that your hospital has the best equipment. SANCHEZ: Well, I'm reading a report here, though, from "The Post and Courier" that says -- they say your hospitals had consistent dirty facilities. The doctors say the gloves they were asked to used to operate were so cheap they would break. And nurses say they had to treat so many patients they weren't able to handle the demand.
SCOTT: Well, let's look at the numbers. How could I have the lowest cost to a patient? I did. You look at the studies. I had better patient satisfaction in the industry by a long shot, and I had better outcomes. Because we measured everything.
So -- so who probably put that out? No different than what's happening today. The unions put these things out, because they want to unionize your hospitals. But if you look at the facts...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
SCOTT: ... lower prices, better outcomes and better patient satisfaction.
SANCHEZ: But you're not saying all of these things are true? I mean, you're copping to the fact that your company had to pay $1. 7 billion, which is still the most ever paid in the history of the United States, right?
SCOTT: After I left, the company paid those fines. The company did not pay those fines when I was there. When I bought -- when I bought...
SANCHEZ: But hold on. No, no, no, no. You're playing -- you're playing with the facts, sir. Let me tell you what happened.
SCOTT: No.
SANCHEZ: These charges were charged against your company while you were there, while you were the boss, and it happened over a period of ten years. Yes, they were paid after you left, but the accused -- but they accused them of happening while you were leading the company? You know that.
SCOTT: And, Rick -- and, Rick, it was covering time frames before I bought those companies, and it covered time frames afterwards.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So, Rick Scott's against health care reform because it's bad for patients. That's what he says. But what's he protecting there? Is he protecting patients or profits? Which, by the way, is the American way. It's his right to protect his profits. Terrorist's nothing wrong with that.
Let's bring the conversation full circle now. Do these guys now have more ammunition, the guys like Rick Scott, have more ammunition, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court? Think about that. That's why I showed you that clip, that interview.
Jeff Toobin joins me now. He's our senior legal analyst.
You have had a full day to consider this now.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I wish you would show that Rick Scott interview every day. I love that interview.
(LAUGHTER)
TOOBIN: Anyway, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Rick.
SANCHEZ: But it -- but is that a fair point, that there are people out there who are corporatists, like Rick Scott, and then they're entitled to do that, they're entitled to want to influence, so they can make more profits, but what -- how does that tie into this decision that the Supreme Court made yesterday? Explain it for our viewers.
TOOBIN: Well, I think everyone recognizes that corporations have to thrive for America for thrive. Everybody understands that.
SANCHEZ: Of course.
TOOBIN: You know, we -- it's a capitalist country, and there's no prosperity without corporate prosperity.
But one of the fundamental values in American government, as opposed to corporations, since 1907, Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, was -- is that people have to keep corporate influence over the political process in check. And one way the government has done that, through a series of laws, is that corporations are not allowed to get too involved in the political process.
They're not allowed to contribute money to political candidates. And they're not allowed to advertise, to buy -- to spend money on behalf of political candidates.
And what yesterday's decision held was that one of those rules is out the window, because, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion, corporations have free speech rights almost identical to people's free speech rights, and so they have the right to spend money on behalf of the candidates of their choice.
SANCHEZ: Well, wait a minute. What if a corporation has a board or 49 percent of its control coming from China or any other country out there, not being decided by Americans, but by, as they like to say sometimes for good humor, foreigners?
TOOBIN: It doesn't matter, same idea. They have the same rights under the Supreme Court opinion, as far as I can tell. I mean, this wasn't a case about a foreign-owned company.
But lots of Americans -- lots of famous American companies, like Budweiser, are actually foreign-owned. And they will be, if they choose to exercise it, major participants in our political process under this ruling. SANCHEZ: So, there's no limits? So, there's no limits? In other words, if a corporation decides that Senator Sanchez, let's say, right, is not the guy they want, they could spend half-a-billion dollars, and give it to Senator Smith, and then he will beat Senator Sanchez, right? They can choose...
TOOBIN: Not quite. Not quite. They can't give money to your opponent.
What they can do is just buy their own commercials themselves. They can say, look, we want you to vote for our bill. We are either going to spend $10 million on ads advocating your candidacy or $10 million for your opponent. How are you going to vote on that bill?
And there is no financial limit on how much they can spend. And that's why this is so dramatic, because individuals actually do have limits in how much they can give you. And it's $5,000 that you can give to a political candidate. But, under this ruling, corporations have no limits.
And that's something Congress may decide to take up...
SANCHEZ: It's Katy bar the door.
TOOBIN: ... trying to impose those limits.
SANCHEZ: Stay right there. I want to come back to you. I'm not done -- I'm not finished talking about this, because I know there's a lot of questions out there that our people, folks on Twitter have been asking all day, and I want to see if you can answer a lot of those for us, so we can better understand this.
But we understand we have got an update now on the story I just told you about, that London has increased its terror alert from substantial to severe.
Paula Newton is standing by now. She's at our London bureau.
Paula, what's going on?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, this does come as a bit of a surprise. It was just earlier this year that they had actually low -- earlier last year -- that they had lowered the threat.
What does this mean, Rick? It means that they believe that a terror attack is highly likely. Now, they say they're not acting on specific intelligence. Just to remind everyone, we have that Afghanistan conference coming up here late next week. That conference itself was cited by the Taliban in at least two separate threats. And that might have something to do with this.
But, again, authorities here saying, look, it wasn't on any specific intelligence that we have decided to do this. Rick, if that was the case, they probably would have lifted the alert to its highest level, which would have meant that a terror attack was imminent. Instead, it's one shy of that. This country has gone years at that threat level. Severe means that an attack is highly likely.
Why do they put that out there? They want people to be more vigilant. It doesn't matter if you're at a train station or at an airport or at a mall. We have had plots that, aspirationally and otherwise, have targeted all those kinds of places.
They want people, including security authorities, just to be more vigilant on top of that. Clearly, though, Rick, things have changed a lot since that attempted bombing of that flight to Detroit. And this is just reflecting it.
SANCHEZ: So, two quick questions before I let you go.
One, from what I just heard you say, just to be clear, you know of no specific reason that may have been caused this threat. And, two, so we understand, so we can put this in perspective, how often does this thing change or increase in England? Because there was a time here in the United States when many people argued it would change an awful lot. Some accused politicians of doing it for political reasons.
Give us the background there on that as well.
NEWTON: Absolutely. But just to give you the security architecture here, I mean, when London had its 7/7 bombing, you know, on the tube train, after that, for years, we were either at the highest threat alert or just one below.
They have now -- last year, in 2009, it was one of the first times they were able to actually have that level of confidence to lower it to substantial, and certainly everyone breathed a sigh of relief. Again, Rick, they have increased it to this level again. Britain has gone years certain periods of time at this level. They are saying they want to be prudent, they want to be cautious. They want to raise that threat level, make everyone understand that there are still threats against this country and go forward.
But they continue to emphasize they have done this based on no specific intelligence. And, Rick, just from what I know from covering this over the years, if they did have specific intelligence, they would have raised it right to the very top. They would have indicated to people that a terror attack was imminent. They have not done that.
SANCHEZ: All right, thanks. Good report. Excellent. We appreciate your detail on that.
By the way, often, it's said, as England goes, go we. So, we are going to check on what's going on with the United States' situation. What's the information out of places like the Pentagon? Is it a possibility that we might be increasing our terror alert levels at any moment? Don't know. Don't say we are.
But I'm going to go to Jeanne Meserve when I come back as well and ask her what the news is out of here, also finish my conversation with Jeffrey Toobin about this gigantic decision made yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'm Rick Sanchez. This is the LIST. I will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right. The British Secret Service is the MI5, as we all know.
Members of the public -- I'm reading from their notes right now. It says, members of the public should always remain alert to the danger of terrorism and report any suspicious activities to the police. Current threat level changes, as we meant -- as we suggested, from substantial to severe.
Don't know exactly what's going on, but there's something obviously that has caused this decision. We can't nail down exactly what it is.
Let me read you something else here. This is from London as well. This is the Associated Press reporting that the British government has raised the nation's terror threat level from substantial to severe. CNN reporting from India -- as you know, we have bureaus there and many correspondents in India -- India has stepped up its anti- hijacking measures -- that's an interesting choice of words -- stepped up its anti-hijacking measures, and ordered the deployment of air marshals as part of a security alert, officials are saying Friday.
That's interesting. The British home secretary spoke just moments ago. We have got some sound coming in on that. Let's play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN JOHNSON, BRITISH HOME SECRETARY: Moving to this different threat level says, yes, we have to be more alert, and it means that an attack has now moved to the level of being likely. We have absolutely no intelligence to suggest that it's imminent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Likely, but we have no intelligence to suggest that it's imminent.
Jeanne Meserve is following this for -- story us, because, you know, I made this mention a little while ago, and I suggested to our viewers, Jeanne, that, oftentimes, when something affects England, it affects us, one way or another.
But we're wondering, you, as our homeland security correspondent, what you have learned. What are our sources saying over here on this side of the pond?
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Department of Homeland Security has now issued a statement on the record, saying the U.K. is raising their measures to effectively where we are, with the airport security measures that we have taken and announced over the last few weeks. We have enhanced our security measures and communicated specific information to industry, law enforcement, and the American people. You will recall that, ever since Christmas Day, the U.S. has ramping up airport security, putting more federal air marshals on flights, doing more pat-downs, more -- more intensive screening, putting more dogs in airport, more behavior-detection officers. Those are the kinds of things they have talked about. And they have done all that within the orange threat level here in the U.S.
Britain, I'm told, had recently dropped its threat level down. What it is doing now is effectively bringing its airport security measures up to where the United States is at present. I'm told by officials that, at this point, no indication that the U.S. is going to do anything beyond the measure that they have already taken in these last several weeks.
We spoke to one counterterrorism official, who noted that, within the last couple of days, British has suspended direct flights between the United Kingdom and Yemen. It's very obvious that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has had the U.S. and the United Kingdom at the very top of its target list, but this counterterrorism official says that he's not aware of any plot about to unfold in Britain. This is simply, as they say, out of an abundance of caution and because there is so much vibration in the atmosphere right now as it relates to aviation security -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: No, I get that. And, remember, back when we were covering this, oftentimes, during the Bush administration, a little closer to the 9/11 date, we would hear that there was a buzz, that there was just a collection, nothing specific, but a collection of information that seemed to make people nervous. And, oftentimes, that's what is the cause or the reaction to something like this.
But I am struck by what I just read. I don't know what your take is on this. I just throw it out there at a time like this and see what -- what -- what you believe. But I was just reading our own wires saying that they have stepped up anti-hijacking measures and adding more marshals in India.
Can you make anything out of that?
MESERVE: Well, in the India threat, my -- what I was given to understand by officials we spoke with earlier today, that that is regarded as very much a regional sort of threat. It may not relate -- relate to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is the group that the U.S. and the U.K. have been most concerned about.
And, as to why there is more concern right now...
SANCHEZ: So, they may not even be tied. They may -- in other words...
(CROSSTALK)
MESERVE: That's right. It may be something totally independent...
SANCHEZ: OK. That's fair. MESERVE: ... that may relate to the group that did the Mumbai bombings, as opposed to any connection with the attempted Christmas Day bombing and that aircraft over Detroit.
But, you know, ever since...
SANCHEZ: How about the -- the chatter thing?
MESERVE: well, ever since Christmas Day, they have been going back and they have been looking at absolutely everything that they had on the table pre-Christmas Day and post-Christmas Day, trying to see what they might have missed, what pieces they can put together.
And it's been quite clear that there has been ongoing concern. And, according to some officials who I have talked to in the past couple of weeks, there has been increased concern, worry that there would be some kind of follow-on attack after -- after that Detroit failure.
So, yes, there's been a lot of concern. That's why you have seen them ramp up the security measures here in the United States over the last couple of weeks.
SANCHEZ: All right, the story, the British government raising its terror threat level from substantial to severe.
We have done everything we can to get you all the background and all the information, all the analysis and all the perspective that we can on this story. If there's anything else that changes, we will go back to Jeanne Meserve, we will go back to Paula Newton in London, and we will bring in whoever else you need to hear from to be up-to-the-date, up-to-the-minute on this story.
Meanwhile, my conversation with Jeffrey Toobin continues after the break on the LIST, as a story that really may have more of a long- lasting effect on all of us, as Americans and my children, than many of us would think. We will do that, the Supreme Court decision with Jeffrey Toobin -- when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: The Supreme Court made a decision yesterday that essentially says that corporate money can flow into our political process at will.
We made the comparison, then, to the fact that the health care debate was, in large measure, influenced by folks who are in the health care industry. They did it by, arguably, giving more money to influence this debate than any legislation that's ever been considered in the history of the United States.
And guess what? They won, despite the fact that polls showed that, one point, 65 percent of the people in "The New York Times," 62 percent in one survey we did, 54 percent in the last one just about a month ago said that the American people wanted the government to give some kind of public option.
The health care industry, that didn't want a public option, won, and they did it with money.
So, to Jeff Toobin, we go, talking about this very decision and whether we're going to see more cases like this in the future.
It's an interesting way for the United States to go. And it's being decided by five gentlemen. They are Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
Who are these guys? Tell us who they are and tell us possibly what kind of decisions we can expect from them in the future.
TOOBIN: Well, the Supreme Court is very polarized at the moment. There are four pretty, pretty liberal justices, the new justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens, who is 89 years old.
And then there are five conservative justices, John Roberts, the new chief justice, relatively new, And justice Kennedy, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote this pin tends to be the Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia.
And Justice Kennedy, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote this opinion, tends to be the swing vote, because he usually, but not always, sides with the conservatives. But I think the issue to keep your eye on is this one, Rick, because the one issue that the court did not decide yesterday was, may corporations give money directly to candidates? Currently, that's illegal. That's been illegal since Theodore Roosevelt was president.
SANCHEZ: When do they decision -- when might they decide that?
TOOBIN: I think it's bound to happen in the next two or three years. It takes a while for a case to work, work its way through.
But if you look at the logic of yesterday's opinion, it's hard for me to see how those five justices are going to -- going to say that it's OK to restrict corporate contributions, because free speech is free speech. And if corporations are just like people, they have the same rights.
SANCHEZ: These five judges, are these guys -- and I don't want you guys at home to read too much into my words, but I'm just trying to get a feeling as an American, because I always think -- my dad always taught me there's the rich guys and then there's the rest of us.
Would it be fair to say that these guys are going to be more interested in the rights of the rich guys than the rest of us?
TOOBIN: Well, I don't think it has anything to do with their personally being rich. I don't think they're any richer than the other justices on the court.
SANCHEZ: But their -- their ideology.
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Ideology, no question.
I mean, one of real signatures of the Roberts court, which has been since 2005, is that corporate parties, corporate defendants, especially, win virtually all the time. If you are suing a company for an environmental case...
SANCHEZ: Wow.
TOOBIN: ... the environmentalists lost every case in the Supreme Court last year. If you are -- have a personal injury case of any kind, those cases, almost invariably, they rule for the defendants.
They are very sympathetic to corporate defendants in cases across the board. And this free speech case is just one example of that.
SANCHEZ: That is very telling. And I'm glad you shared that information with us.
Jeffrey Toobin...
TOOBIN: All right, Rick.
SANCHEZ: ... my thanks to you. Let's watch this together.
TOOBIN: As always. OK.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: All right. Listen, we have some breaking news we have got to get to, the very latest on the situation that's on right now in England.
We're going to take a break. And, when we come back, I understand we have got new information to share with you, so stay where you are. You're watching the LIST on CNN. I'm Rick Sanchez.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back to THE LIST.
We are following some breaking news right now. It is 31 minutes after the hour of 4:00, Eastern Time, of course. And we have been reporting to you that we have learned from some of our own sources that there are two things going on that you need to know about.
First of all, the alert threat level is increased by the British. It's gone from substantial to severe.
Meanwhile, we're also told that the Indian government has decided to put more marshals on their plane, and they're also doing an anti- hijacking -- doing anti-hijacking measures on their plane as well. We have not learned -- and this is important to share with you -- we have not learned of any specific threats that have led to this. We've talked to our folks in London. We've also talked to our folks in the Pentagon here in the states, and we've gotten some background from them. But I want to get something else, because I understand that there's someone on the line now who might be able to give us a little more perspective on why this threat level has been increased.
It's M.J. Gohel. He's an Asia Pacific Foundation analyst who's been able to help us in this regard in the past.
M.J., are you there?
M.J. GOHEL, ANALYST, ASIA PACIFIC FOUNDATION: Yes, I am, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Hey. Would you be good enough to share with us what you might know or what information you may have gathered on this increased threat level?
GOHEL: Well, the government's Cobra emergency meeting was held. It's a small committee headed by the home secretary.
They've received some information which led them to raise the threat level from substantial to severe. Now, this means that a terror attack is highly likely, but not necessarily imminent. It does mean that they had to have received some kind of information, and so the threat level has been changed.
I should point out, it can go up or down depending on information. It had been lowered last July, and it has remained fairly low since then. But since then, we've had a number of incidents, such as the Christmas Day bomber, the Nigerian who was on a Northwest flight over Detroit. And there have been other incidents also.
And there's an important meeting taking place next week in London, a conference on Afghanistan. So it's a good time for a terrorist strike.
SANCHEZ: Tell me more about that meeting. Would there be reason for them to increase the terror threat level just based on that meeting and all the movement of important officials from one place to another?
GOHEL: Well, it is a meeting in which a number of key nations will be attending. And it is a meeting being held to decide the future strategy in Afghanistan.
And let's not forget that in Afghanistan recently, there has been a ratcheting up of violence. The forward-base Chapman, the CIA base, was attacked by a Jordanian suicide bombers, and a couple of days ago there were multiple terrorist attacks in the capital, in Kabul. So, on that basis, there is a concern here that there could possibly be some kind of symbolic attack in order to influence the proceedings at this conference.
SANCHEZ: And again -- and before I let you go -- and I so much appreciate you joining us and being able to share some of this information and perspective with us, but you don't know of any single incident or any specific threat that has led to this change, do you?
GOHEL: No. At the moment, the government is not releasing any kind of information to suggest what kind of attack it could be or when it may take place. As I said, they're saying it's highly likely, but not imminent.
SANCHEZ: And M.J., you are in London, right?
GOHEL: I am in London at the moment. And, of course, the U.K. has faced a number of major attacks and a number of failed plots since 9/11. So there is, of course, constant worry and concern here.
SANCHEZ: M.J. Gohel, we thank you for taking time to take us through this and adding your perspective to this breaking story that we're following right now here at CNN.
My thanks to you again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're having a fight right now, because I want to charge Wall Street a modest fee to repay taxpayers in full for saving their skins in a time of need. We want our money back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: President Obama puts the screws to Wall Street, fighting for Main Street. What took him so long, many would ask?
We're going to drill down on that with Wolf Blitzer in just about 20 minute.
Also more on this breaking story from London. The British government has raised its terror alert level, and we're all over it, as you can see.
We're going to stay on top of it.
I'm Rick Sanchez. This is THE LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: You know, here on RICK'S LIST we collect information from relevant, newsworthy people, and then we also follow what you're saying while you're watching our newscast, thousands of you. And I just got a tweet I have to share with the rest of you, because I think it's actually pretty interesting.
You know the SCOTUS story that we've been following for you, right? The Supreme Court decision that was made yesterday? Look at this tweet at the very top there.
It says, "SCOTUS" decision not dangerous as long as those paid-for politicians have to wear suits like NASCAR driver, showing us all who paid for them."
(LAUGHTER)
That's a good point.
All right. Most movies are made to entertain us, maybe to make us think a little bit. But some movies are made to challenge, perhaps even manipulate the system. And that brings us to our number two most interesting person of the day.
He is a volunteer firefighter, and he's also a veteran political campaign operative. He's also produced nearly a dozen documentaries, including "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny" and "Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60."
But it's a movie about one of his archenemies that put him at the center of a Supreme Court decision that will change the political landscape. Figured this one out yesterday?
We're talking about David Bossie, president of Citizens United and producer of "Hillary the Movie," which led to the Supreme Court ruling that we spent a lot of time talking about today, the one allowing corporations to spend as much as they want to try and sway voters.
"Hillary the Movie" flopped at the box office, by the way, but its impact is going to be felt in many, many elections to come, nonetheless.
And that makes David one of our "Most Intriguing Persons of the Day."
We will reveal number one on our list later this hour.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, she's the focus of the slam fest. The movie producer who made her the focus is one of our "Most Intriguing Persons," as we just said. And we'll continue to follow that.
And Rory Kennedy is going to join us ahead from Sundance with her film's debut. And, yes, she's the daughter of Bobby Kennedy. And I'm going to ask her about her uncle Ted and the fact that his seat has now been earned by Scott Brown, who is a Republican.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Last hour we saw some very interesting, even amusing clips from "The Fence." It's a new documentary showing at the Sundance Film Festival.
With us now from Park City is the woman who made the film. There is Rory Kennedy.
Rory, how are you?
RORY KENNEDY, FILMMAKER: I'm great. How are you doing, Rick?
SANCHEZ: I'll bet you're freezing. At least it looks like you are, right?
KENNEDY: Well, it's nice to see a little snow here. It's been great to be here at the Sundance Festival. SANCHEZ: It's great to have you.
I saw part of your film and it seemed like you had a point of view here. And the point of view is that one of the things that so many Americans are so concerned about is probably not that big a concern. That's that fence that we're spending so much money to build across the border with Mexico.
KENNEDY: Yes. To me it's a significant issue.
You know, we've built this 670-mile fence along the Mexican border and it costs taxpayers over $3 billion. And its purpose was to reduce immigration, reduce terrorism, reduce the number of drugs coming into the country. And based on all the research I did, it's really been ineffective on all of those fronts.
SANCHEZ: So what would you say to people who are -- and I meet them all the time. And they write me every day. Their biggest concern, the thing they're more worried about, more than, in many ways, the economy, more than the terrorism threat and the wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, is those damn illegal aliens.
What do you say to those people?
KENNEDY: Well, it's an issue. There's 500,000 people who come to this country every year who are illegal immigrants, and so I appreciate their concerns on the one hand.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that building a fence is the solution. And again, based on everything I found, really there's no reduction in the number of people coming over the border.
You know, when you watch the film, you see people climbing over the fence. They're, in fact, driving over the fence in certain pieces. They're going under the fence, and then they're also just walking around the fence, because it ends constantly, because it's only 670 miles on a 2,000-mile border.
SANCHEZ: So your point is, look, the fence doesn't work.
KENNEDY: So -- yes, there's a lot of other solutions we have to recognize that we have a complex situation here. And we can't simply build a fence and think this is going to be a solution.
And it's really a terrible fence. It's just not well built. It's inadequate, it's ill-conceived. I think it's just completely ineffective. Even people who were great advocates for the fence are now saying it really isn't working.
SANCHEZ: Rory, let me ask you about something else that you probably expected I would be asking you. You know, it's funny. I don't know what it is about you Kennedys, but it all looks like you guys were stamped with a cookie cutter. You all have that same look.
I guess I'm...
KENNEDY: I think it's our big teeth.
SANCHEZ: I'm not the first one to ask you this -- your uncle, Ted Kennedy, held a seat for some 40 years, and a lot of people thought that that seat would continue in someone like him, representing that same ideology. And yet, last week we were shocked to see, or many Americans were, that it went to a decent guy, Scott Brown, who probably worked really hard to get that position.
Nonetheless, here's a Republican taking your uncle's seat. When you first heard that news, or when you thought it might happen, how did you react? What are your thoughts on this?
KENNEDY: Well, you know, I was crestfallen. It's very disappointing, and it's, I think, sad and upsetting on so many different levels, not just for me, but for so many other people in this country. You know, and also for all the people who fought so hard for health care and what that seat symbolized on that front.
But I think it's also hopefully it's a wake-up call to the Democratic Party that we can't take any of these votes for granted, that we have to continue to work hard, that we have to listen to what people are saying what their needs are. That there's 10 percent unemployment in this country, there are some serious issues that people are facing, and we need to listen to that, pay attention to that, and campaign and vote and work hard for that trust, and for each and every vote.
My Uncle Teddy campaigned, he loved campaigning, he worked very hard. He didn't take any of those votes for granted, and I think we should all take a lesson from that.
SANCHEZ: Rory Kennedy, you're a credit to your family. Thanks so much for doing something important, and thanks for sharing some of your thoughts and your great movie, "The Fence," with us. We appreciate it.
KENNEDY: Thank you, and you're doing great work, too. Thanks, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Thanks. Appreciate it, Rory.
All right. Here we go.
You ever wish you could stick it to the boss? You just reach into his pocket, you grab his money, and you blow it on really crazy stuff? And then you're going to love this. All right?
Here's number two on our list of the "Most Intriguing Person of the Day."
With a lawyer moment and a doctor dad, no wonder he can skewer his boss with surgical precision while walking away tonight with one of the biggest golden parachutes in Hollywood history. This one's so easy, you can even tell by the picture already, just because of the hair. But we can't help but be intrigued by Conan O'Brien, who's spending his last night as host of "The Tonight Show," hitting NBC in the wallet, doing what he calls crazy, expensive new comedy bits paid for by NBC. Did you see the mouse made out of the world's most expensive car, a Bugatti, rolled out to a very expensive theme song, the master recording of the Rolling Stones' classic, "Satisfaction," price tag, $1.5 million. That's just for the song, folks.
Conan O'Brien, our "Most Intriguing Person of the Day."
Stick it to 'em, Conan.
Up next, Wolf Blitzer. He's going to help us make sense of this baffling Supreme Court decision that seems to take some power out of the hands of voters, like you and me. That's two minutes away.
And a famous or infamous international political figure with some very, shall we say, interesting thoughts on the U.S. and some odd conspiracy theories. He tops our list of what you don't want to be on.
That's ahead on RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer is going to be coming up in the next hour. I'm looking forward to it. And he's always good enough to give us some of his time.
Wolf, there's two really big decisions that are going on in this country. You know, we mentioned some of them yesterday, but it looks to me like this story is going to have legs, especially the Supreme Court decision, the idea that the corporations may be empowered by this Supreme Court.
Is this a right/left thing, or is this more like what my dad would say, a rich/not so rich thing?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's not just the corporations that are going to be able to have unlimited contributions to political candidates. Labor unions as well, and all sorts of other special interests will be able to do it.
Now, the corporations, as you know, they have a lot of money, so they'll be able to spread that around a little bit more aggressively. Now, labor unions, they have money, but not as much. Special interests, other special interests, NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, they will be able to do some of that.
I can only tell you this -- that, by and large, the Republican leadership, they liked the Supreme Court decision, because they say it expands, you know, the role of free speech. The Democrats not so much. The White House didn't like it, the Democratic leadership in Congress didn't like it, because they fear all this money coming into play is going to further disrupt what they think is a robust democracy.
So I guess you can see it like that. But one other point I want to make -- the law of unintended consequences. This is new territory that's going to be charted right now. We don't know six months from now or a year from now how it's going to completely play out.
SANCHEZ: But, you know, Toobin made an interesting point. I know you. You're always looking and you're a junkie of news like I am. You were probably listening to my discussion with Toobin a little while ago, and he said something interesting that I didn't know, frankly. He said that either -- if I heard him right, he said every decision or just about every single decision that this new Supreme Court has made has gone in favor of corporations.
What do we as journalists and what do Americans watching you and I right now make of that?
BLITZER: It shouldn't be such a surprise given the makeup of the Supreme Court. There are really five conservatives, four liberals. And as a result, until that makeup changes, until there's a dramatic change, it's probably going to continue to go in that direction.
SANCHEZ: But why do we assume -- why do we assume -- I mean, I know Republicans. I live here in Atlanta. I know a lot of Republicans who are populists. They're not necessarily for corporations. They're anti-tax, but they're not for corporations.
Why have we developed in this country this reasoning that says Republicans are for corporations and Democrats aren't? Is it that cut down the middle, or is that what the Supreme Court is saying?
BLITZER: It's not completely that cut down the middle, but I think, in part, what the Supreme Court is saying to conservatives -- and remember, it was a 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy going with the conservatives. So what they were saying basically is, keep the government out of it.
If people want to spend money to try to get candidates elected, that's fine. You don't have to intervene and stifle that process.
That's what the conservatives like to see. The liberals weren't so happy about it. And I guess that translates into what you're talking about, the corporate versus non-corporate culture.
SANCHEZ: Well, there's one thing that this Democratic president is doing that's probably going to please a lot of conservatives, and that's spanking the Wall Street bankers. He did it yesterday.
We're down to 40 seconds in the discussion, but I'd like to see what your political take is on that.
BLITZER: I think he's going to have a tough time imposing new taxes, though, on those corporate elements, including the big banks and the bonuses, because, by and large, the Republicans and a whole bunch of Democrats, at this time of economy distress, they don't want to pass legislation that increases taxes on anyone, for that matter. So the bark may be stronger than the bite right now.
SANCHEZ: That's what Jessica Yellin was reporting for us a little bit earlier as well. Interesting.
Wolf, you're a great guy. I appreciate it. Have a great weekend and have a great show today.
Thanks.
BLITZER: You too. Thanks, Rick.
SANCHEZ: A child slapper made today's list that you don't want to be on. So, who tops that dubious distinction? You're going to find out next who is number one on "The List That Nobody Wants 2 Be On."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
You've waited, and now we're ready to reveal who is at the top of our "List That U Don't Want 2 Be On."
First, let's recap for you.
Roger Stevens (ph), Atlanta, Georgia. The charge? He slapped a child at a Wal-Mart. It wasn't even his child.
His sentence, six months in jail. Moms around the country rejoiced. Somebody hitting my kid.
Moving on to number two, Steve Doocy. He's on a TV morning show talking about the bible verses on Army rifles. He said if anyone's making the war against terror a religious thing, the Taliban and extremists, "they started it."
The Army, particularly General Petraeus, disagrees with Mr. Doocy. He says, they say it's a perception thing. The Army does not want bible stuff on their guns. They fear it will get our soldiers killed.
Now to -- we're ready to reveal who's at the very top of our "List That U Don't Want 2 Be On."
The winner is President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Since that horrible earthquake hit Haiti, we have heard some loopy theories to explain what caused it. One of the most curious was Pat Robertson's pact with the devil's nonsense. Can't get into that here, but if you want more, just go ahead, look it up.
But President Chavez is quoted in a Spanish newspaper as saying this -- here's the Spanish. I'm going to try and translate it for you.
It says, "That which really ruined the Caribbean country," referring to Haiti, "was an experimental earthquake of the United States."
They attribute to him a comment where he actually accuses the United States -- that's what I just read you -- of detonating a an experimental military weapon that caused the earthquake. The weapon that was "intended by Uncle Sam to be used against Iran."
That's what Chavez says. He says the United States actually caused the earthquake in Haiti on purpose. He goes on to say the U.S. government knew what death and devastation would be caused by such an experiment, but went ahead with it anyway.
Mr. Chavez doesn't mention how he came by this knowledge. He's already on record at how convinced he is that the United States is using the tragedy to begin "occupying Haiti."
How anybody can look at the epic misery and the indescribable suffering that is taking place in Haiti and find some farfetched conspiracy theory like this is beyond our collective comprehension, but a lot of people are doing just that.
And that's "The List That U Don't Want 2 Be On."
Thanks so much for being with us this first week of RICK'S LIST. We done good together. We thank you for being with us.
Here now, "THE SITUATION ROOM" and Wolf Blitzer.
