Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Gary Coleman Dies; President Obama Visits Louisiana; White House Admits Sestak Was Offered a Job; House Votes to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Aired May 28, 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: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. This is your national conversation. This is RICK'S LIST.
And let's see if we can split the screen for you. I want to show you two images, all right? The one on the left that you can see right, that is the image from the bottom of the ocean, 5,000 feet below the ocean, all right? Below the Gulf, I should say.
And then the one on the right is an image that we were getting just a little while ago from above. Isn't this interesting? That's a camera 5,000 feet below the ocean on the left, or Gulf on the left, and then on the right is another shot from the air shooting the location 5,000 feet above that, where the drills and the rigs and the ships and the mud ships and all those vessels are.
And those are really the two stories that we're going to be taking you through as we follow this story in this special report.
OK. The open was going to be there. Why don't we run it now? OK. Let me start with this. We're learning more today about the fact today that top kill was killed, in fact, for 16 hours. That's actually how long they stopped pumping mud into the oil to try to get it to stop.
Now, here's the question. And this is where we talk about something that is extremely important. President Obama has come out now saying about the oil spill, "The buck stops with me. He's vowing to beef up oil cleanup efforts and hold BP responsible.
We're also learning today about the fact that top kill was killed for 16 hours. That's how long they stopped pumping mud into the oil leak to try and get it to stop, 16 hours. Now, BP did not tell us that they had stopped. Did the president know? Well, we're actually not quite sure.
How about Thad Allen, the incident commander? Did he know? It appears that he did not know. The mud pumping began Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. Around midnight, they stopped, but they didn't tell anybody. So, yesterday, when I was reporting on the air that it was going well, what I was reporting was not correct. Neither was what any other journalist who had gotten that information was reporting.
Why? Because we were still being told at that time yesterday that the operation, the top kill, the pushing down of the mud was -- quote -- "successful." In fact, even the commandant said this on our air. Listen to Admiral Allen. This was at 1:30 yesterday afternoon, sound that will make you wonder whether anybody had told him. And, if not, why didn't he know that the operation had been stopped?
Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN, U.S. COAST GUARD COMMANDANT: They're still pumping mud into the wellbore, and they're still monitoring the situation. I want to be perfectly clear here. They're pumping mud into the wellbore. And as long as the mud is going down, the hydrocarbons are not coming up. They're still in the process of doing that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The White House official told CNN that people inside the White House knew about the temporary halt, though it wasn't clear if President Obama was aware. That -- that's correct.
The president, the guy who had a news conference scheduled for that afternoon, may not have been told about the stoppage, even though he was about to face reporters live on television. The White House says that, while the president is kept abreast of what is going on, well, they don't tell him every single detail. Like the fact that the mud wasn't being pumped in anymore?
So, why was that part of the operation halted? BP says it's because too much of the mud was escaping.
Joining me now by phone is Eric Smith. He's the Tulane University. He serves as a consultant to the Tulane Energy Center. And he has known or been as instructive with this situation going on in the Gulf as anyone we have talked to since.
Would you explain as best you can to the American people who are listening now, Professor, why they stopped for those 16 hours?
ERIC SMITH, TULANE ENERGY INSTITUTE: I think they probably stopped for the 16 hours because of either wanting to get a stable pressure reading of what was going on, or they were concerned that they might be putting too much pressure on the wellbore, which would likely cause a -- you know, a rupture.
So, they were trying to go slowly and measure things as they went, as they have done, indeed, all along through this process.
SANCHEZ: Now, once again -- and you and I had a conversation about this earlier, but I want you to explain to our viewers, many of which are wondering, frankly, the same thing I was wondering. If you stop putting pressure into the -- into -- into the -- the leak, which we were told it was to sustain pressure that was going to keep it going down, why wouldn't the whole thing then just blow back out again, thereby putting us back at square one?
You say we're not as square one. Why not?
SMITH: Well, if the mud had reached sort of the critical point, where there was more pressure being exerted downward than there was being exerted by the reservoir, you wouldn't get the mud coming out. If you did not put enough mud in, and the weight wasn't sufficient to offset the reservoir pressure, then what you are describing is exactly what would happen.
It would take some time, however, to do it. Remember, this mud at the bottom of the well, I think they are using something like a 16-pound mud, which means it's 16 pounds per square inch per foot of -- of altitude. And that equates to about 15,000 pounds of pressure at the well bottom.
SANCHEZ: The...
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: And that's enough to rupture the pipes, if they are not careful.
SANCHEZ: That's the point I was just going to make. The potentially calamitous situation here is that they put too much pressure, too much mud, per se, down into that well, thereby rupturing the line even more, thereby creating a bigger leak, a bigger problem, and a more difficult one to solve.
SANCHEZ: Take us...
SMITH: That -- that's my guess.
SANCHEZ: Take -- take us through that.
SMITH: Well, what would happen is -- you remember, the original leak was thought to be a cementing issue. I think that's still the conclusion. And the cement failed, so there is passage, not up through the wellbore so much, but up the outside of the pipe.
These pipes are nested together. The largest diameter is up near the mud line and the lowest, smallest diameter is down at the bottom of the well. And there's six or seven joints along the way.
SANCHEZ: I want to...
SMITH: The...
SANCHEZ: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: The thinner pipe, the smaller pipe at the bottom can actually take more pressure than the pipe up at the top. So, my guess is, they are trying to nurse the -- the 16-inch pipe, for example, which is halfway up the wellbore, so that they don't rupture it and make things worse. If they ruptured that, then you would have mud and oil coming up the outside of the well and coming up through the soil, which would be much harder to capture than these steps they are talking about using with the BOP or the piggyback or the top hat or any of these other procedures.
SANCHEZ: So many.
Candy Crowley is joining us now. And she has been following the political side of this story.
And you and I had a conversation about this earlier, but it is -- it is difficult, Candy, for some Americans to put their -- to wrap their arms around this thing, especially in the last 24 hours, when we have received information, two examples that I cite. There may be more. Thad Allen went on the air yesterday and said they were still drilling the mud, when they weren't. And he's the commander. He's the commandant. He's the admiral.
He's the guy in charge of this. And it seemed that was a very important piece of information that BP either didn't share with him or he just didn't know, or his staff didn't tell him. Who knows.
The president of the United States yesterday holds a news conference, says he's in charge of this thing, and then we find out from him at the same time that he didn't even know the circumstances, didn't seem to be in the loop on the firing of the person in charge of MMS, Minerals Management Service, Elizabeth Birnbaum.
These are the kinds of examples that do not help this administration while they're trying to prove to the American people that they have got this thing handled.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: They are -- they are unhelpful. And I think you put it exactly right.
And taken in a vacuum, we would go, well, you know, things happen. But it didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened in almost the sixth week of this going on, and the -- you know, did you take BP at its word when you shouldn't have? Who's in charge here? What's going on?
But I think that when Americans, and particularly those in the Gulf that are deeply affected by this, take the 50,000-foot view, their view is, why isn't anyone doing anything about this? And not so much even plugging the leak, but how did that oil get into the wetlands? Everyone knew it was coming. You have had the governor down there screaming.
So, I think that is more what has captured the attention of the nation than some of the ins and outs of this. But I do agree with you that it adds to this feeling of incompetence, not -- and I'm not talking about the president, but just people look at the federal government...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
CROWLEY: ... and they just don't believe the federal government can do anything right.
SANCHEZ: Well, you know, I have got to tell you -- and in -- in fairness to this administration, this is not a common problem, by any means.
And given the workings -- and I have been told on this show -- and I'm sure on "STATE OF THE UNION," you have been told the same thing by some of the folks you have interviewed -- that this is a problem that may have been festering for quite some time. It may as much be an institutional problem in the way that we have been dealing with the oil and gas industry, not so much just BP in this one instance.
CROWLEY: Sure. And I don't -- I don't think that people look at this leak or this gusher and say, well, this is the president's fault, any more than they looked at Hurricane Katrina and thought it was President George Bush's fault.
It was the aftermath, it was in the cleaning up, it was in the "How do we help people?" phase that President Bush fell down in the polls and never got up. But I think that there is -- this is not a parallel situation here, for a couple of reasons.
I mean, obviously, they both had circumstances that had never happened before, so, so far, so good. But the fact of the matter was that George W. Bush was already beginning to trend down in the polls because people were turning against the war. So, his underpinnings were not good when Katrina happened.
And then people looked at that aftermath, at a president who seemed too distant, and he just went down. This president is not anywhere near that. He has very strong underpinnings still, lots of support out there. But, at this moment, this is a problem for him. And it is a problem for him in the polls.
SANCHEZ: You -- you -- you know what? Call me crazy, but I'm thinking back to crisis in the Gulf, different kinds of crisis in the Gulf.
Remember in -- during the Iranian hostage situation where it, too, was a story that for Jimmy Carter became incremental? You know, at first, ah, I'm sure we will deal with it. I'm sure it will be resolved. Then it got worse and then worse and then worse.
And it just -- pardon the use of the word blew up, but it just seemed to be blowing up more and more every day. It seems to me -- and, look, you have covered politics a lot longer than I have. It seems to me like this thing in this Gulf, this leak, Candy, almost has the potential of going in that direction. Like, if we are months and months into this thing and you're seeing those pictures day in and day out, I have got to tell you, the political implications of this are probably going to be pretty -- pretty -- pretty impressive.
CROWLEY: Oh, huge, because, right now, you're also just talking about the state of Louisiana. We know that a lot of this oil is going to go elsewhere -- 9/11, horrific as it was, had an ending. And then it was the follow-up. Hurricane Katrina stopped, had an ending, and then it was the follow-up.
This is still going. It's six weeks and it's still going. So, I think, while you can't compare the taking of U.S. hostages...
SANCHEZ: Right.
CROWLEY: ... you know, in terms of importance or -- but we do have people in the Gulf whose livelihoods and whose culture is at stake and is being -- they think is being ruined. But it's -- they're not parallel in weight, but they're certainly parallel in what you're saying, is that sort of day after day after day after day. That's not a good thing out there if you're president.
SANCHEZ: Absolutely. Candy, thank so much. We -- we appreciate your time.
CROWLEY: Thanks.
SANCHEZ: Take a look at this, folks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHARLIE MELANCON (D), LOUISIANA: Even though this marsh lies along coastal Louisiana, these are America's wetlands.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: This is why we send politicians to Washington, to try and plead our cases for us in the best way we can, right? That's Louisiana Congressman Charlie Melancon. He took that to heart is literally begging for help for his home, talking not like a politician, it seems, but like a Louisianian. That's ahead. He's going to join me live.
Also, "Diff'rent Strokes" star Gary Coleman, he's passed away just this afternoon. We have got the details. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back.
We are told now we have an opportunity to talk now to Republican Congressman from California Darrell Issa. He's joining us to talk about the situation with Joe Sestak.
Man, you're -- you're -- you're really -- you're really heated up about this thing, aren't you? You -- you -- you are -- last -- two weeks ago, I think it was, when I interviewed Joe Sestak, Congressman, and I was kind of aggressive with him when he didn't answer my questions, as I'm -- you know, as I tend to do, you immediately tweeted that you were watching, right?
And -- and what was your -- what was your reaction to that when I -- when I did that interview?
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, I was deeply disappointed throughout the entire 10-week period that Admiral Sestak would -- would go part of the way toward what every plebe at Annapolis is required to do, which is to tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. That's in their -- their creed as plebes. And they take that with it -- with them into the Navy that he served in for over 30 years.
One of the challenges we have now is that the statement from the White House, a page-and-a-half of denial, partial denial, is inconsistent with what he was saying before, but seems to be consistent with what he's saying now. And so...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well -- well, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on, Congressman.
I got it right here in front of me. Let me share this with the viewers.
ISSA: Of course.
SANCHEZ: As far as the fact that he may have been offered the secretary of the Navy gig, very simple. And I highlighted it right there. They're saying, this is false, not done. As far as whether he was offered a gig at all, uncompensated advisory board options were determined -- here's what it says -- quote -- "Efforts were made in June to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on the presidential or other senior executive branch board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary" -- key words, "which would avoid a divisive Senate primary."
So, essentially, they're -- they are coming clean and they're saying, the White House says, yes, look, we did offer him a job. And we were kind of hoping that he wouldn't get in the way of Arlen Specter. So -- so -- you know, but -- and then they go on to say, finally, and you know what, this kind of stuff happens all the time. I mean, these are the kind of things that happen in politics and that happen in corporate America.
Are they right or are they wrong?
ISSA: Well, they may be right that it's something that has happened in the past.
However, since it is a violation of 18 USC Code 600 to offer a position in exchange for affecting a primary or general election, then in fact they are admitting to a crime, but saying it's OK because it's been done before.
SANCHEZ: Hmm.
ISSA: That doesn't -- that doesn't pass two tests, one, the criminal test and, two, the ethical test that this president said he would hold himself to.
He made it very clear that the Karl Rove, so to speak, actions of the previous administration would lead to immediate termination. That's not what is happening here.
SANCHEZ: Well, you know...
ISSA: Rahm Emanuel is still there and still advising the president, and presumably made this offer directly on behalf of the president.
SANCHEZ: What do you think of the fact that -- well, I want to ask you about this -- this -- this duo or duet of Rahm Emanuel and former President Bill Clinton apparently being the guys who were the go- betweens.
But, before we do that, here's my interview with -- with Joe Sestak. Tell me what you think he may have done wrong here or what your take on was it.
Hit that, Rog, if you have got it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Did the White House offer you the secretary of the Navy gig?
REP. JOE SESTAK (D-PA), SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: And the answer is, I have said I was offered something. I don't have to go beyond that.
(AUDIO GAP) the three (INAUDIBLE) that we have to do. Without a question, you must have a government that reinstitutes pay as you go. And there needs to be caps on discretionary spending.
We have got to get our appetite under control. The second one which I spoke about was health care. It is the largest cost that's out there for the federal government in the next 50 years. And the way to change it is literally changing the incentives. Instead of having the patient come in like a car and fixing a flat tire, when the patient comes in, that car, you're -- you're rewarded at the end of the year for the quality of how...
SANCHEZ: Did the president of the United States, did the White House approach you and offer you the secretary of the Navy position?
SESTAK: I was asked the question about two months ago about something that happened last July.
No one ever had asked me the question, did someone offer you something to get out? I answered it honestly yes. And then I said, stop. I'm not going to get into what was a deal offer, because I'm not going to get out for a deal. I would only get out if it was something that was right to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: OK. There's Joe Sestak, who there's...
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: I apologize, Congressman. There's so much stuff moving around on this story, I'm confused. These are live pictures now of Joe Sestak. There, you saw Dana Bash walking with him. She's one of our most relentless reporters. Is he going to make a comment here? Let's see.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
SESTAK: Can I first just say thank you? I'm sorry to delay until right now. I just didn't want to do it in the middle of all the votes and go in and out and potentially miss a vote or something and -- and all.
And I'm happy to answer questions.
QUESTION: Congressman, what about in the -- bringing President Clinton into this? We hadn't heard his name mentioned before. Why didn't you say this was the person who was involved in this, if that's in fact the case, and this is what he said? Why didn't we hear that earlier?
SESTAK: Well, President Clinton had called me last summer, and I just didn't feel it was right for me to talk about that conversation.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Congressman, can you describe -- can you describe what your reaction was to him, and was it just one phone call that you got from him, or that -- and that was it?
SESTAK: Well, he's called several times...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: About this particular...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: Oh, no, no. This is the only time.
He called last summer. And during the conversation, he talked about how tough this Democratic primary might be if I got in. And he also said, you know, "You've done well in the House, and your military background could really make a mark there," and then brought up that during -- a conversation Rahm Emanuel had brought up about a presidential board of something, you know, if I were to stay in the House.
And I almost interrupted the president and said, "Mr. President, I am going to decide to get in this or not only depending upon what's good for Pennsylvania's working families, not -- not an offer."
And he said -- and he said, "I knew you (INAUDIBLE)
QUESTION: Mr. Sestak...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Was it very clear to you at the time that this was something that the White House was asking President Clinton to do?
SESTAK: I'm sorry. Say again?
QUESTION: Was it very clear to you that the White House was asking President Clinton to pressure you not to run?
SESTAK: What the president said is, he had been talking to Rahm, and Rahm had mentioned that there would be -- so, Rahm works for the White House.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Congressman...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... wrong about this...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: I mean, I will get to -- I will try to get to all the questions.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Congressman, were you aware that this could have been very much a misdemeanor, or perhaps even a felony?
SESTAK: Oh. If I ever thought anything had been wrong about this, I would have reported it.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Mr. Sestak, you have consistently said that nothing inappropriate happened. Is it your contention that what President Clinton said, offering -- you know, bringing up a job in relation to your Senate race, would you say that is not inappropriate -- that is inappropriate, or no?
SESTAK: Well, I was very conscious that the Democratic establishment didn't want me in the race. And I merely looked at this as just another effort by the Democratic establishment in Washington, D.C., not to have me in the race.
QUESTION: So, was it inappropriate or was it not...
SESTAK: No. What President Clinton -- there was nothing wrong. It was done.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Congressman, you called it a job. And, yet, it's just an uncompensated position on the advisory board...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Why did you call it a job?
SESTAK: I'm sorry. Can you hear me?
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: ... ticket here.
QUESTION: I'm wondering why you called it a job, and not just a position?
SESTAK: Well, if you remember, this happened last July. And nobody ever asked me about this. And, suddenly, I think it was in February -- I know it was in February -- someone asked me, did they -- did they offer you a job?
And I felt, for my own personal accountability, I needed to be honest, and I said yes. I mean, I didn't try to parse the word there. And then I said, after that, no comment to the follow-on questions that were asked, because it -- I talked about my role in a matter. And I thought that was important for me to do.
QUESTION: Sir, was there any other subsequent calls or communication? Any other positions...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: No, no, just that one phone call.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Did President Clinton go into any detail about what this position would be? Or did you pretty much cut it off before he was able to get into much detail? Did you have a sense...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: No, this -- this portion of the conversation probably lasted -- I mean, I'm not exactly sure of the time, but I would say 30 to 60 seconds. I mean, we were on in another conversation. And it came up during it.
And it was almost as -- as he was saying the words, I kind of almost felt like I was interrupting, not anything -- just, "Mr. President, I would never -- I would only get out of this or not get into it" at the time, because I wasn't in the primary at the time, "if I felt it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania's working families, and not for an offer."
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: And he dropped it there?
SESTAK: He chuckled and said, "Joe, I knew you were going to say that."
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: Could I -- could I just...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: I'm just trying to...
QUESTION: Since that conversation in July, and then since you -- this came up in the "LARRY KING" interview, how often have you spoken to Bill Clinton about this...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: Never. Never again.
QUESTION: Not since February?
SESTAK: No.
QUESTION: You haven't spoken to him between February and now about this?
SESTAK: No. He called to -- no, absolutely not. But he did call to congratulate us.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Congressman, have you been...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: Could I just -- something I didn't -- if you don't mind (OFF- MIKE) No. The answer is no.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
SESTAK: I got you already.
(LAUGHTER)
SESTAK: Go ahead. Can I just quickly go around one time?
QUESTION: How do you feel about being put in this position?
SESTAK: Look, I understand Washington, D.C., is often about political deals. You know, it was -- I didn't feel bad or good or indifferent. It was just -- I immediately said no and moved on to focus on what I want to focus on, which is people in Pennsylvania have been slammed, literally ripped apart, because Washington, D.C., hasn't been accountable to them.
And that's what we have run on. And that's what we will continue to focus on.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Do you think a federal prosecutor should be appointed to this?
SESTAK: No.
QUESTION: You said that this is what Washington is all about, but your...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: No.
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: I believe Washington does this type of stuff, right.
QUESTION: Your campaign is in large part against what happens in Washington. So, given that, what do you -- what do you think about the position that you were in, given the ethical questions that you have been raising...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: They asked me -- you know, I was asked the question if I was interested in this. I said no.
And, as I said, at the time, I said, I would only not get in if it were the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families, not for an offer.
QUESTION: But do you feel that you needed to disclose this to Pennsylvania voters?
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: Well, I did. When I was asked -- look, when I was asked the question, I answered it and for my role in it. And, today, the White House talked about the rest of it.
QUESTION: Do you think any of this sort of washes up on your campaign in any way, again, not that you necessarily did something wrong, but just the fact that we have been dealing with this in the past news cycle and will continue to hear about this in the coming days, that this impacts your campaign negatively?
SESTAK: No, not at all.
Look, people, come on up with me to those 67 counties. They're not worried about Joe Sestak's job. They're worried about their job. I honestly believe Washington, D.C., forgets about them.
I will never forget the farmer in Potter County. When I asked him, how's the recession last July, when I was trying to decide whether to get in or not, said, "Not too bad, I was hurting so much already."
I will tell you, I think Washington, D.C., better focus on them. And that's all we have done in our campaign is keep the focus on them.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: For clarification, why didn't you tell this clear of a story when you were on "Meet the Press" this past weekend?
SESTAK: Because I didn't feel it was right for me, after being called by a former president of the United States, to talk about the details of that conversation.
QUESTION: How often have you spoken with Rahm in the last six months to a year?
SESTAK: Not at all.
QUESTION: You've never spoken to him about anything?
SESTAK: No, no. The last time I saw Rahm was -- I think it was March a year ago. They were hauling over people there to -- about the health -- the pending health care bill. And I shook his hand and said, "Hi, Rahm."
He said, "How you doing, Joe?"
QUESTION: During this conversation with President Clinton, at any point did you feel like that the former president was crossing the line by making this offer?
SESTAK: Absolutely not.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: If it wasn't inappropriate, it's still maybe a little hard for some of us to understand why you just couldn't reveal it in the many, many times you were asked anything about the conversation, the fact that it was President Clinton you had the conversation with?
SESTAK: I honestly didn't feel that it was right for me. And I didn't feel -- I didn't feel comfortable at all talking about a former president of the United States who had called me to talk about it.
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: But I did, when I was asked about my role, answer that.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) on transparency. I mean, that's...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: Yes. And -- I'm sorry. I'm interrupting.
QUESTION: I'm sorry.
(CROSSTALK) SESTAK: No. I did interrupt. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just, such a big part of your campaign and your position is to be transparent. I just didn't understand. Can you explain that further, why you couldn't disclose that it was...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: But it was.
When I was asked a question -- and, by the way, I never put that out there. Someone asked me a question in February about something that happened eight months or seven months earlier.
And I was. I said yes about my personal accountability on some issue that mattered. And I did.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Could you clarify exactly what it was? Could you clarify?
SESTAK: Yes.
I -- at the time, I heard the words presidential board. But that's all I heard. But -- but it didn't matter what it was. I would have not -- it wasn't anything else. And I just said, "Mr. President" -- as I said to you -- I almost interrupt and said, "Mr. President, I'm not" -- you know, "No," I said.
QUESTION: So, at the time, you never really knew exactly what the job was...
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: No. I heard presidential and board. And -- you know, and that was kind of what I heard.
And, you know, it was about -- it was about, like, either intelligence or defense. You know, it was like -- but I -- I wasn't interested. And that was the bottom line.
QUESTION: How close is your relationship with Bill Clinton? Can you just talk about your admiration for him?
SESTAK: I have great respect and admiration for President Clinton. I do.
QUESTION: Can you talk just on the politics on --
SESTAK: Look, I don't want to overplay it. I mean, I was just at the (INAUDIBLE) as a -- you know, I was a Navy captain. But he calls every so often just to check in, "How's the race going?"
QUESTION: Did he give you advice?
SESTAK: I asked him for advice, yes. Actually, I think some of you may know, I was sitting in his home down in Georgetown when the issue about Arlen Specter switching parties came up, you know, asking for his final stuff just before I announced. At that time I was about to announce, when Arlen Specter was still a Republican.
But I remember when he -- you know, my daughter had a brain tumor, and I was out one day with her and he called. And she heard me talk and said, "Is that the president." And he said, "Yes, can I talk?"
He talked to her for five minutes on the phone. I have great respect and admiration for him.
QUESTION: Congressman, what about the appearance of -- the White House called your brother. And people will read things into that.
SESTAK: Yes. They called my brother to say, you know, we just want you to know about -- we're going to put out -- we're doing a review, and just want you to see if -- you know, set up when they're going to go out -- let you know when they are going to go out, and to let you just -- you know, give you a heads-up of what it's going to say, if you have comments.
QUESTION: But nothing untoward there?
SESTAK: No. My brother was just a conduit of it.
(CROSSTALK)
SESTAK: Because somebody from Washington called me? I'm hoping to go over, right over there, and work very well with people, never with a compromising principle or with a principle compromised. And I do believe that principles should triumph over politics. No, not at all. Not at all.
QUESTION: Congressman, now that the details are out about this, do you think this is going to die out or go away anytime soon, this issue?
SESTAK: Look, you're from Pennsylvania. You know people don't care about this up there.
QUESTION: Do you know that Darrell Issa has called for an FBI --
SESTAK: They do care about their jobs that they're holding on to, or the ones they've lost.
QUESTION: Darrell Issa has called for an FBI investigation. Do you think anything will come of that?
SESTAK: No.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Did you find it odd that they offered you a job on a presidential commission? Does that same seem too little to persuade someone --
SESTAK: I didn't even think about it. I just -- I've got to make a decision.
QUESTION: It's not of value at all?
SESTAK: I didn't even think about it. I didn't even know what it was exactly. I heard "presidential board," and I think it was intel.
QUESTION: Did he make clear to you that they wanted you to keep your House seat?
SESTAK: He said, you know, "Joe, if you stay in the House, Rahm had brought up being appointed to a presidential" -- and that's when, to your question, sir, I almost interrupted. I think I did a little bit. I wasn't rude, and said, "Mr. President, no."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
SESTAK: I'm sorry I kept you until this. I hope you didn't mind. I just wanted to do it once, because the next two days I promised Alex -- I mean, I'm literally just taking two days with her. And I appreciate you letting me do it here, because I promised her after this race I would take two whole days.
But on Monday I'm at parades and I'll be back out there. All right?
Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, sir.
SANCHEZ: Boy, there you go. He lays it all out on the line.
At the very end, he actually said to the reporters what I think all of them were waiting for, you know, the money line. He said what President Clinton offered him -- speaking in terms of what Rahm told the former president of the United States to ask him -- he said, "If you keep your congressional job, we can get you on the Congressional Committee." And then he said there at the end that he interrupted him and said, no, that he wasn't interested.
He did also say this -- I'm joined now by Representative Issa of California. Representative Issa doesn't like what he smells here. And he's been all over this from the very --
(CROSSTALK)
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: -- the offer is now known. Was it to get him out of the race? Yes. Is it inappropriate? At a minimum, it's inappropriate.
So, I think the important thing we have is that Joe Sestak has now clarified the truth more completely, as he promised to. And what we have is an administration that was trying to use a political appointment to -- and a former president as a conduit -- to get a member of Congress and a former admiral not to run for Senate. That's exactly --
(CROSSTALK) SANCHEZ: What did you think when he said, "The Democratic establishment" -- "I knew the Democratic establishment did not want me in the race"?
What did you think when he said that?
ISSA: Clearly, lots of people in the Democratic establishment wanted to get Sestak out of the race. But to have President Clinton, on behalf of Rahm Emanuel, offer a position, a position is what the statute says is criminal to offer to get somebody out of a political race.
So, you know, this squares perfectly with the intent of the law and the reason that it's illegal to do what President Clinton was on behalf of Rahm Emanuel asked, apparently, to do.
SANCHEZ: Help us understand who's doing what wrong here. Was it Sestak? Was it Congressman Sestak who did something wrong, or was it the conduit, or was it Rahm Emanuel, was it the president?
ISSA: We called for an FBI investigation because we would like it looked at as to who did what wrong. Obviously, if President Clinton offered it, President Clinton could not deliver on that offer. So, if he offered it on behalf of Rahm Emanuel, which is what we heard here today, then Rahm did have the ability to see that it was delivered.
Rahm is a government employee and would fall under at least the plain reading of 18USC600 and 595. And that's what we have been saying all along, is it's for either the attorney general using a special prosecutor, or the FBI to do the independent investigation, get the on-the-record testimony from people such as President Clinton now, we discover, and make a decision.
It's not for members of the House, Republican or Democrat, but it's also not for the White House to whitewash their own actions as they have done. Remember, what we got today was the president's attorney giving us his legal position on -- not binding -- on why he thinks he's outside of ethical or legal boundaries. And yet, any of you can read the U.S. code, and it looks like it reads right on the code, because the word "position" is in addition to a whole bunch of other items so that it's very clear that even a board, a commission, a position of honor all qualify, even if there is no pay attached.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with any less of an investigation into this?
ISSA: We're not going to be satisfied until the truth is known. More importantly, we now question the president's continued claim that this is going to be a more ethical administration. Because on the face of it all, even if he's cleared criminally, you've got to ask, who was thinking that this was ethical or fit a high standard? And the defense by the administration, by the White House's statement is, well, this is business as usual, other people did this.
Well, if previous Republican and Democratic administrations committed crimes, if the governor of Illinois committed a crime, what does that have to do with the campaign pledge and the repeated pledges by this president that this would be a more ethical White House? It's obvious that that is no longer available to those of us who work with the administration trying to root out waste, fraud and abuse.
SANCHEZ: Congressman, Rick Sanchez back with you. Boy, this is interesting. You and I had this thing scheduled and now all of a sudden, you're surrounded by all these cameras.
Congressman, can you still hear me?
ISSA: I can.
SANCHEZ: One quick -- one final question.
ISSA: I'm actually walking away from the rest.
Rick, you now have an exclusive again.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Sir, he did say at one point -- look, this thing was maybe a 30-second, possibly a 60-second conversation. Given the limits on the conversation, at least the way he quantifies it, does that sway you into thinking maybe it's not a big a deal? Which seems to be what he's saying, by the way.
ISSA: Well, the question is not that he dismiss it offhand, not was he dedicated -- he's with me -- not was he dedicated to this race, but was he, in fact, told by Rahm Emanuel to offer this? How long was the conversation with Rahm Emanuel?
In this case, we know the intent was from the Democratic leadership -- in this case, President Clinton -- to get this man out of the race by offering him something. That is exactly what the statute tries to prohibit.
Now, President Clinton is paid a couple hundred thousand dollars in retirement, but I don't believe it's President Clinton that had the power. It was President Obama that had the power, and Rahm Emanuel who apparently made the offer. And that needs to be investigated.
SANCHEZ: So that's your next move? You're going to see that this thing gets investigated, sir?
ISSA: We, today, sent out requests signed by all the members of the Judiciary Committee on the House side for the FBI to investigate it. The Senate saw it, Republicans. They, similarly, sent something out to the attorney general, same thing, asking that he investigate.
So we'll see what happens. The ball is now in the court of those people who are supposed to be at least somewhat independent from the president.
SANCHEZ: Congressman Issa, thanks, sir, for hustling out and doing the interview. And it was kind of interesting sharing you with the rest of the media, all of a sudden there. But thanks for hanging on with us. We appreciate it.
ISSA: No problem at all. I got to see what you were putting (ph) through my earpiece, too. So thanks a lot. Take care, Rick.
SANCHEZ: All right. Take care.
By the way, we've just gotten some brand new information. Speaking of politics, we have just learned here at CNN that the House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing for the eventual repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Once again, that they have passed something that will eventually lead to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which, as you know, bars openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service. That's brand new information.
Boy, what an interesting last 20 minutes that was. We do this segment on Joe Sestak. In the middle of that, Joe Sestak comes out and gives his speech, almost as if on cue as if he were watching our segment. In the middle of that we've got Representative Issa booked and suddenly he's surrounded by camera people while talking to me in my ear. I don't even know where we got the shot you were seeing him bumping up and down.
Thanks for sticking with us, folks. We'll take you through this as we continue here on RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Boy, the white house seems to be playing an interesting semantic game right now. They just told our Ed Henry -- let me take you back to the top on this. At the very beginning of the newscast I said something funny was going on -- that for 16 hours this operation top kill was stopped down. There was no mud being forced down into the well which was -- we were told from the very beginning top kill was. Well, now we're learning that the white house has a very different explanation of this. And Ed Henry is here to tell us what that is. Ed, take it away. What's the white house -- how are they describing this thing?
ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I got a call from a white house official Rick because they wanted to clarify what you were reporting at the top of the show. I didn't hear it myself but there is a distinction they want to make that's important. They're saying, look, you're right that for 16 hours the mud stopped pumping as part of this operation as far as top kill. That's correct. But they're saying that did not mean that the procedure ended, that it was shut down. I don't know exactly how you worded it but they want to make an important distinction here that they have been told by BP -- and obviously I wanted to clear it with our viewers that not all of BP's statements exactly added up, to say the least. We have to take that with a grain of salt. But BP has represented to the white house and to the public that this operation is not going to be constantly pumping mud. At certain points it will stop so that they can do other parts of the operation. So they can take diagnostic tests. They can do something they call bridging. They can do other parts of the operation. The operation itself, top kill, is not just pumping mud. They want to make that important distinction so that our viewers don't think that because the mud stopped pumping for 16 hours the entire operation was aborted for 16 hours.
SANCHEZ: That makes sense.
HENRY: Quite the contrary. After the 16 hours, this operation continued and is ongoing right now. Now again, that does not erase the fact that it seems somewhat curious that the mud stopped pumping not for an hour or two or three hours but for 16 hours which clearly -- I'm not an engineer, you're not an engineer, but it seems like a long time number one and number two, it did seem somewhat curious as you accurately point out as to why there was not more disclosure over those 16 hours to the public which has been craving this information almost minute by minute. What is really going on with the procedure, with this operation? Where are we? For 16 hours basically the public didn't really know that the mud had stopped pumping and top officials like Thad Allen were interviewed on our air by Wolf Blitzer yesterday afternoon, 24 hours ago from now and Thad Allen at that point did not know that the mud had stopped pumping. That certainly does seem curious. You're right to point that out. But the white house wants to make that important distinction that it doesn't mean it's shut down.
SANCHEZ: That's fair. That's fair. And by the way, the way I presented it, recalling my words at the beginning of the 3:00 newscast, I think I said operation top kill was killed for 16 hours. Obviously the presumption is that after 16 hours it started again. So they continued the thing. It is interesting though you know you've got to figure if the white house is watching and they're reacting this way, I mean this thing is getting to them, Ed. You know, they are starting to get a little defensive about what's going on with this. I guess you know they should be. In fairness, part of the problem is not theirs. It's a problem that they essentially own. They have bought it because of what BP has done and failed to do. Right?
HENRY: Correct. And you know bottom line, you're right. In fairness to the white house, I mean I'm not here to give their position. I am trying to convey you know what they are reporting to me so that our viewers have all sides of it and I appreciate you doing this now but they are trying to you know just point out in fairness to them that this is all playing out you know before our eyes. It's unprecedented. Nobody has got a magic solution here. And so when we are broadcasting this information it's obviously important to get it accurate and crystal clear and some of the information about the mud that had stopped pumping didn't get out there clearly. And so once they see something being reported, they want to make sure that it's clear. I think when we - you know to say that the whole operation had shut down, it didn't shut down. It was still going, but part of it was not moving forward. In any event, not to get lost in the semantics. The bottom line is they realize, as you say, that this is a story where the president is under immense political pressure. It's important to be precise in what we do but it's important to be precise in what they are saying ...
SANCHEZ: Yeah. HENRY: You know to the American people because the American people have heard BP say it was 5,000 barrels a day seeping out. Now the government yesterday said it's 12 to 19,000 barrels a day. A wide gulf there. Important to make sure this is all accurate.
SANCHEZ: Absolutely. The fact of the matter is when we went on the - we did - Thad Allen went on the air yesterday and said they were still pumping mud into that well when, in fact, we now know they were not pumping mud into that well. That was the main point of our story early on in this newscast. I do not believe -- and if we did, we apologize -- did we try to say that top kill in and of itself was dead, abandoned, stopped altogether. At no point did we say that. Nonetheless, we did question whether or not semantically speaking top kill was still going on. That's when I said, well, does that mean that the mud is still being pumped in or is it not being pumped in and when will we know and who's going to tell us? You know, it's a curious, difficult story. My thanks to you and my thanks to the folks at the white house for trying to clear this up for us and for our viewers and giving us an opportunity to be as transparent as we can possibly be. We're going to stay on top of this night and day. In the meantime, we're going to take a little break and we're going to be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Here's the story we jumped all over yesterday. This is part of our follow up list. Louisiana Congressman Charlie Melancon, he was begging for help to protect the gulf coast in the wake of the oil spill disaster. This kind of gets you. He's called on the federal government to deploy temporary clinics to south Louisiana. Here he is yesterday. He broke down. He couldn't finish his statement. You know, talk about a story that's tough enough to make a grown man cry. Well that was a grown man crying right there. He had to leave the room. And you know what? He's good enough to join us on the phone now from New Orleans. Congressman, thanks for being with us, sir.
REP. CHARLIE MELANCON (D), LOUISIANA: Thank you Rick. How are you today?
SANCHEZ: I'm doing fine, sir. Boy, I'll tell you, you know you had as much of an impact on the nation yesterday when you broke down as you were telling your very personal story just about as anything else that has happened with this story. Can you take us through why that was so difficult for you? What was going on in your head at the time?
MELANCON: Well as you face the people down here who have been through Katrina and Rita and Gustav and Ike and think they have been through the worst in their life that they'll ever see and they have this oil spill that may actually end life as we know it in south Louisiana. The fishermen, the marine life, the sports fishermen, the shrimpers. You can go through the whole list of people that make their living on this working coast. It's a place where I grew up, where I have hunted and fished my entire life. I teased my friends from Florida that have been kind to me that we go catching. We don't fish. We've got the seafood, the bounty that the lord gave to this area and we treasure it. And now the fear with the oil and if you talk to these shrimpers, if you talk to these oystermen, you talk to the marina people, they're scared. They don't know what the future holds now at all.
SANCHEZ: I've got to tell you, I need to bring you into this conversation about top kill because boy, I'll tell you. As a journalist covering the story, the last 24 hours to 48 hours actually have been quite frustrating. I'm not quite sure where we really are in this operation. Our Ed Henry was just reporting to us from the white house that it's still a go even though they stopped down for 16 hours and then they've picked it up again. It was really all part of one process. What do you make of the information that we're getting from both the white house and BP on this?
MELANCON: Well, having gone through Katrina and as one parish president said today, Craig Taffarp in St. Bernard Parish, having been through four or five category on one -- not emergencies, but disasters or occasions, we have gotten to where we take the information with a grain of salt because everything is a moving target on any given day. I'm not an oil engineer or oil field engineer, but all I do know is they are working at 5,000 feet. It's not a norm. If we had a normal situation, we wouldn't be having this discussion about what went wrong. So what they are trying to accomplish and I guess at some times they will say 24 to 48 hours and it gets reported 24 to 48 but everybody picks up the 24 and then assumes, well, what went wrong when it doesn't happen in 24. So I hate to sound just ambivalent. I'm not.
SANCHEZ: No. I think you sound hopeful. I think you sound -- you sound like a man who really wants this to work so much he's got both his fingers crossed and he's on his knees praying for it.
MELANCON: Let me tell you, this hole gets shut down with this shoot and the cement job there will be a vibration on the Richter scale from south Louisiana like the Saints winning the Super Bowl.
SANCHEZ: Interesting way to put it. That's a good analogy, sir. Congressman Melancon, my thanks to you sir for taking time to take us through this explanation.
MELANCON: Thank you. Good talking to you.
SANCHEZ: My best to you and your family.
Wolf Blitzer is standing by now to bring us up to date on what's going on. Wolf, what an interesting day this has been between the information coming out of the gulf, the lack of clarity down there and the dueling news conferences with Joe Sestak and Darryl Issa. Wow.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, a lot of news today. Right at the top of the hour, Rick, our viewers are going to get a complete update from BP, the managing director of BP, Robert Dudley, is going to be my guest. We're going to go right to the questions. Where top kill stands right now, what's going on. I think a lot of these questions are going to be answered right at the top of the hour here in "THE SITUATION ROOM" and we're looking forward to that.
SANCHEZ: And it is frustrating. I know you're going to be asking them about this. If they stop pushing the mud down for 16 hours, Wolf, why didn't they immediately contact the white house or Thad Allen and let him now? Why did they let him hold a news conference and tell reporters they were doing something we now know they were not doing?
BLITZER: It's a great question and it's one that I'm posing to Mr. Dudley. There has been a suspicion, as you know, they have been less than transparent throughout, BP, because of their concerns of the price of the stock of BP. It's gone down about 25 percent.
SANCHEZ: Oh.
BLITZER: And if you do it while the market is still open, all of the sudden there could be another drop. We're going to press Mr. Dudley on that specific issue. It's a very serious allegation that's been leveled. They have been less than transparent because they are worried about the stock price of BP.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting. That's interesting. Wow. Good stuff, Wolf. Look forward to that interview. Stay right there, folks. We'll be right back with our own Chad, not Thad to take us through some of the latest pictures and what's going on there. We'll be right back with RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Boy, Chad. You're following this as well. Chad Myers down in Atlanta. What a crazy story. Apparently you've got an angle on this as well. What's going on, man?
CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Rick, you know it's the weekend. I will be leaving here, but I'll tell you where I will be all weekend is CNN.com/live because you can go to Bill Nelson's website and try to watch the videos from down in the bottom of the ocean, but there aren't enough portals in there to be live. You can watch some taped stuff, but on .live, on CNN you can get it. We have been watching these pictures all day and something happened during your show. I don't know what it is. The colors changed. There were puffs of smoke and wisps that completely obscured our picture. Couldn't see anything. That hasn't happened before. I'm not sure if they stopped pumping, they started pumping, they did that junk shot because we know they already did one of them to try to plug up some of the holes, the holes that you see here where the smoke is coming out. These holes right here, that's the holes in the bent pipe. So there are cracks in that bent pipe and the stuff's coming out whether it's mud or oil or gas, I don't know yet. But they put some of that rubber stuff in there to try to get the rubber to fill in those holes, try to stop those holes.
SANCHEZ: You saw a visual change? I've got to tell you it's frustrating. I'm just being very transparent with our viewers and I'm sure it's frustrating for you as a journalist. Why don't we have someone from the company you know every half hour, every hour giving us a briefing on where we are with this thing? Why are we guessing?
MYERS: I don't know. I don't have that answer because I would love to have that as well. SANCHEZ: Yeah. I mean look at this. You say this is very different, right, from what we had yesterday.
MYERS: Absolutely. There have been times where I couldn't see anything. There was something in front of my camera completely. You know, it could be the propellers of the thing moving around, I don't know. Something happened during our show. We'll find out in 24 hours probably.
SANCHEZ: I think Wolf is about to talk to one of the BP guys. Maybe he'll be able to ask him that question. Here we go, "SITUATION ROOM" with Wolf Blitzer. Take it away Wolf.
