Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Tracking Tropical Storm Alex; Kagan Hearing; Alleged Spy Ring Busted
Aired June 28, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELENA KAGAN, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: --representatives.
What I most took away from those experiences was simple admiration for the democratic process. That process is often messy and frustrating. But the people of this country have great wisdom. And their representatives work hard to protect their interests.
The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.
I am grateful -- I am grateful beyond measure for the time I spent in public service. But the joy of my life has been to teach thousands of students about the law and to have had the sense to realize that they had much to teach me.
I have led a school whose faculty and students examine and discuss and debate every aspect of our law and legal system. And what I have learned most is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom.
I have learned that we make progress by listening to each other across every apparent political or ideological divide. I have learned that we come closest to getting things right when we approach every person and every issue with an open mind.
And I have learned the value of a habit Justice Stevens wrote about more than 50 years ago of understanding before disagreeing.
I will make no pledges this week, other than this one, that, if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons. I will listen hard to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law.
That is what I owe to the legacy I share with so many Americans. My grandparents came to this country in search of a freer and better life for themselves and their families.
They wanted to escape bigotry and oppression, to worship as they pleased, and work as hard as they were able. They found in this country and they passed on to their children and their children's children the blessings of liberty. Those blessings are rooted in this country's Constitution and its historic commitment to the rule of law. I know that to sit on our nation's highest court is to be a trustee of that inheritance. And if I have the honor to be confirmed, I will do all I can to help preserve it for future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Solicitor general Kagan.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: There you have, Elena Kagan.
Elena Kagan, very deliberate, very soft-spoken, very well- prepared statement, did not address any of the criticisms that have been leveled against her, except for maybe one indirectly.
She said -- quote -- "The time I spent in the other branches of government reminded me" -- as if to say there was some value in being in the other branches of government, and not necessarily coming in here as another judge.
Aside from that, she talked about equality. She talked about the guarantees that our Constitution affords us, very few specifics.
Let's go to our panel now who has been watching carefully.
Did anybody else -- John, start us off. Did you hear anything else there that is newsworthy, noteworthy or surprising?
JOHN KING, HOST, "JOHN KING, USA": What I heard was a very carefully crafted, smart political statement from somebody saying hello to this committee and hello to the American people.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: She did, though, Rick, late in the statement reach out to the critics, the skeptics, if you will, who have said this is a liberal partisan who will go on the court to help President Obama carry out his agenda.
She said the lesson of her work as the dean of the Harvard Law School is that no one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom. "I have learned that we make progress by listening to one another, across every apparent political or ideological divide."
So, that was her attempt to say, yes, I may have my views. Yes, of course I'm nominated by a Democratic president. Yes, of course my pedigree is in Democratic politics in Democratic administrations here in Washington, but I listen and I understand and I cherish the rule of law.
So, look, the conservatives on this committee know where she comes from. The key is, will she cross a line? In that statement, she was trying to say, I am open-minded. I will listen to you. I will respect everybody's views if you give me this great honor. SANCHEZ: What about when she starts getting hit with specifics, like the fact she may be in favor of late-term abortions, the fact that she may be against gun rights, the fact that she's possibly anti- military, because she -- quote -- "blocked" military recruiters as -- as Sessions of Alabama had alluded to earlier.
You know, I'm just -- I'm just wondering, Candy, is this something that we will see come out and address, or will it be more like glossed over, as we watch her being hugged here and sharing salutations with those there in attendance?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I -- I'm going to go more with glossed over.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
CROWLEY: Just because, let's face it, there is a fairly simple way of getting around all of this.
And this has been -- and Jeffrey will correct me if I'm wrong -- ever since Judge Bork came to testify and answer questions, Supreme Court nominees have made an art out of not answering questions, and the way they do it is to say, you know, I really can't answer that because I may have to rule on something dealing with this particular subject.
They don't want to prejudice their ability to make a decision on a certain subject. So, I suspect we will hear -- that's mostly what we will hear...
SANCHEZ: But...
CROWLEY: ... because that's what's worked, certainly, every time since -- you know, the past couple decades.
SANCHEZ: But then it's the very thing...
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Look...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Go ahead. Go ahead. I was just going to say, but then it's the very thing...
TOOBIN: Well, no, just one other...
SANCHEZ: ... that she says it is, when she criticizes it as a charade.
So, are we left...
CROWLEY: She was right.
TOOBIN: You know... (LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: You know, Senator Arlen Specter, who has sat through more of these hearings than just about anybody, likes to say that a Supreme Court nominee will say as little as possible in order to get confirmed.
And that's what they have all done since Bork. They have all recognized that the costs of taking stands outweigh the benefits of being candid. She did say one thing that I think actually was a bit of a shot across the bow at the conservative majority.
SANCHEZ: OK.
TOOBIN: She talked about, it's a modest role for the court, that the court should defer to the branches of governments that are responsive to the people, the elected branches of government.
That modesty is -- that word modesty is a code word for, stop overruling statutes, you conservatives. Stop overruling McCain- Feingold. Stop overruling...
(CROSSTALK)
VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: ... but we have got to stop here.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Really?
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: Well, apparently, we're stopping...
(CROSSTALK)
TOENSING: We have to stop here because there is a case. It's going to come before the court. And that is Proposition 8 from California, where the people voted against gay marriage. And she's going to have to be properly deferential? I don't know. I think she might want to eat those words. Otherwise, her whole speech was appropriate, because it was pure legal vanilla.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, the other thing she did was sort of take issue with the argument, Rick, that she has no experience here.
She did say that -- talked about her tenure as solicitor general, and she talked about arguing cases. And she said, and I do mean arguing cases on everything from campaign finance to criminal law to national security.
So, for those who would say that she has no experience at the bench, she would say, you know what, yes, I have. I have argued cases that are important to the future of this country, and I have been tested that way.
SANCHEZ: Have we heard from everyone?
Ed Rollins, are you there, or is Erick Erickson there? Have we heard from everybody there?
(CROSSTALK)
BORGER: And Donna is here.
SANCHEZ: Erick, are you there?
(CROSSTALK)
ED ROLLINS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I'm here.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Ed Rollins, I want...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: I want...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: I want...
(CROSSTALK)
DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: We have -- we have a handsome Republican here.
SANCHEZ: I want to hear from Ed Rollins, by golly.
(CROSSTALK)
ROLLINS: I'm the old version. In 40 years, you will look like me.
(LAUGHTER)
ROLLINS: You know, the bottom line is -- is, she's going -- she's going to navigate as carefully as she can. If she does, she will be nominated here and confirmed.
You know, at the end of the day, Republicans, with Senator Sessions, laid out the concerns they have. And she will not probably answer many of those questions. If she does, and if she does it in a controversial way, each time she does, she will lose a few votes.
My sense is that she, today, is positioned to be confirmed by Democrats and some Republicans. Republicans are going to be very careful and listen very carefully, because, obviously, we're in a different environment with Tea Party groups and what have you who are going to hold Republicans as accountable as Democrats are going to be held by their own side.
So, my sense is that she will walk a thin line. If she walks the thin line, she will be -- be confirmed here.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting -- it's...
BRAZILE: I think her -- her opening statement, Rick, was very good.
She laid out essentially her -- her own background. She talked a little bit about clerking for Justice Thurgood Marshall...
SANCHEZ: Uh-huh.
BRAZILE: ... who, in my judgment, really was a champion, a hero of those who really believe in those words etched, as she said in her statement, on the wall of the Supreme Court itself, equal justice under the law.
So, I think she's going to prove to be someone that is in the moderate, in the center of judicial temperament and experience. And she will not fail at answering these questions. The conservatives may not like her responses, but this is someone who I think is a pragmatist.
SANCHEZ: Well, I'll tell you, I have got 130,000 people here on Twitter who really think you guys are the smartest and best panel that we possibly could have assembled.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: And I concur.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: It's interesting how Victoria Toensing looks at the speech -- or the prepared statement -- and says vanilla, and Jeffrey Toobin looks at it and says, by golly, there was a shot across the bow there when she used the word modesty.
My thanks to all of you, as a matter of fact. This is good stuff. I appreciate it.
And we're going to continue here in just a little bit. By the way, I was just told by my E.P. in my ear here while I was having that conversation that we have got some breaking news coming in about the potential arrest of Russian spies.
What's that all about? I'm going to find out, and then I will share it with you. Stay right there. We will be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Here we go.
As promised, I told you moments ago that we have just been given some information about Russian spies in the United States. I will read to you from the Department of Justice memo that I have just received.
It's literally still hot from the printer, sent by the good folks in our control room, who told me to share this with you. It's a multiyear FBI investigation uncovering a network in the United States tasked with recruiting sources and collecting information for Russia.
This reads like something we would have read about in the 1950s or '60s. Ten alleged secret agents have been arrested in the United States.
Do you see that, Robert? I mean, that's the word they're using. See that there? Ten alleged secret agents arrested in the United States. Eight individuals were arrested Sunday for allegedly carrying out long-term deep-cover -- deep-cover -- Remember the movie? -- assignments in the United States on behalf of the Russian Federation. The Justice Department announced that two additional defendants were also, which brings to 10 -- two additional defendants were also arrested Sunday for allegedly participating in the same Russian intelligence program.
So, in total, 11 defendants, including the 10 arrested, are charged in two separate criminal complaints with conspiring to act as unlawful agents of the Russian Federation within the United States.
And as we get more details and read on, it has some of the names here, defendants known as Richard Murphy, Cynthia Murphy arrested yesterday by the FBI, Vicky Pelaez, and the defendant known as Juan Lazaro. Here's another one, Michael Zottoli, Patricia Mills.
Again, these are names being -- these are all being named in this indictment, more information forthcoming. These charges filed in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York.
So, these are all files -- charges coming out of New York. This is fascinating information.
All right, we're going to taking you through this. We have got a correspondent who is working this story, by the way, and we understand that she's going to be able to join us in just a little bit, and she will be able to share some more information.
As -- as more information comes in on this, I will share it to you right -- share it with you right away.
Here's some of the other stories that I'm following for you on this day. Here's my roundup list.
Follow along with me. Number one: President Obama today called him, as many have, as you heard even during the nomination hearing for Elena Kagan, a venerable institution, a voice of inspiration. They're referring to West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, died this morning at age 92, nine terms in the Senate, before that, six years in the House, the longest anyone has ever served in the United States Congress.
No word yet on where or when he will be buried. We will cover it for you. What a picture that is.
Number two: optimism from team Dick Cheney today. We just got word less than an hour ago that the former vice president is officially out of the hospital, after some touch and go there. He spent the weekend being treated for an ailment related to his longtime and recurring heart problems. Mr. Cheney's most recent heart attack was in February, and the latest word, again, is that he has been released from the hospital.
Number three: Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, today talking border security with a White House delegation. She's asked the president for details and specific guidance on his plan to boost the National Guard presence along Arizona's border with Mexico. And she's also dealing with some pretty loud backlash after her comment alleging that the majority of illegal immigrants are, in her words, drug mules, the majority, drug mules.
The union that represents Border Patrol agents says that is not the case.
Number four: In South Carolina politics, many are still asking where Alvin Greene got the 10 grand to run. The unknown and unemployed man won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. He still says Army money, Army money -- that's in direct quotes -- when asked how he paid the $10,000 filing fee for the primary. That answer? Not good enough for state law enforcement, which is now officially investigating the matter.
As you can tell, it's a very busy news day that we're going to be following for you. We go back to Capitol Hill for more reaction to the Elena Kagan hearing, and the latest on the Russian spy arrests as well, brand-new information coming in, highlights of the Elena Kagan swearing-in as well.
In case you missed it, we have got it on tape, as you might expect.
This is your national conversation, "RICK'S LIST".
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: In case you missed it -- welcome back, everyone. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Here is the -- the magic moment, the historic moment that you will probably see over and over again, Elena Kagan being sworn in.
Take it, Rog.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAHY: Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
KAGAN: I do.
LEAHY: Thank you. Please be seated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And, with that, she gave an opening statement which one of our analysts called vanilla. Another one of our analysts...
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: ... Jeffrey Toobin, said, well, no, there was a shot across the bow there. When she used the word modesty, she was referring to a very activist, conservative court. She talked as well about the fact that she's worked in different branches of government, kind of trying to take a -- what some perceive as a negative and turn it into a positive, which is an interesting tack.
I will tell you who has been following this so carefully and doing a great job of it over the last several days, is Dana Bash. And she's joining us once again on Capitol Hill.
I loved your interview this morning. I woke up this morning. When I turned on "AMERICAN MORNING," I was watching the piece that you had filed on your interview with -- with Jeff Sessions. Well done.
What -- what are you hearing from the folks there on Capitol Hill now? They like? Thumbs up? Thumbs down? Will she be -- will -- will she, in fact, pass this test?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Let me see. I will turn around here.
If you talk to the people on this side of the dais, thumbs down.
(LAUGHTER)
BASH: If you talk to the people on this side of the dais, thumbs up.
(LAUGHTER)
BASH: You know, back to you kind of thing.
SANCHEZ: Well, it's a numbers game, isn't it?
BASH: I mean, that's basically...
(LAUGHTER)
BASH: That's basically the -- well, it's -- it's a numbers game. It's a politics game. I know you're shocked -- shocked -- that it's all politics here...
(LAUGHTER) BASH: ... particularly 4.5 months before -- before an election, Rick.
But, look, I mean, I think that was the most striking thing that we saw from the perspective of the senators today, especially the Democrats, on how Elena Kagan was almost besides the point...
(LAUGHTER)
BASH: ... in many of their opening statements. It was almost as if, in some cases, John Roberts, the chief -- the chief justice, was actually the guy sitting there, because Democrat after Democrat tried to turn the Republicans' argument about judicial activism on its head by saying, excuse me, look at the court right now, and painting the court right now under Chief Justice Roberts as an activist court, particularly to protect corporate interests.
And the reason why I'm leading back to politics here is because, you know, that is the -- the Democratic argument over and over again on the campaign trail, that that is why you need to keep Republicans out of the majority, because that's what is going on, and they're trying to warn, well, look, if you -- you know, you have got to be careful -- in general, that's what you will get from the court.
SANCHEZ: Hmm.
BASH: But from the perspective of the Republicans, you -- you -- you heard that, and they're not going to let up on that, going through Kagan's memos that she wrote, so many of them during the Clinton years, and even when she was a clerk for Thurgood Marshall.
SANCHEZ: What was her comportment? You were close enough to see her. Any signs of -- I mean, the human stuff. Any signs of nervousness? Any signs that she felt a little out of place? Was she comfortable? Take us through some of that.
BASH: No. I mean, not -- she did not look uncomfortable at all. She looked incredibly comfortable. Now, ask me that question this time tomorrow, after she's been...
(LAUGHTER)
BASH: ... through several rounds of questioning from these senators.
But for at least right now, she looks comfortable. And you have to remember a couple things. Number one, she has been through before this committee before because she is currently this solicitor general of the United States.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
BASH: And it was this committee that confirmed. So, she's -- it's obviously a very different role, but she -- she knows -- she knows this rodeo, so to speak. And, secondly, she -- a long time, but still, she had -- was a staffer for the Judiciary Committee to try to help Democrats, then Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden, go through the motions of the confirmation process for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Of course, she now infamously talked afterwards about how it was a vapid charade, but, still, she knows the process intimately. So, you see I think just even in her comportment, as you said, at least right now, a comfort with the process that perhaps many of her predecessors who have been in that hot seat didn't have.
SANCHEZ: Hey, Dana Bash, thanks so much. Great reporting on this. Look forward to continuing, as you say, when the heat really starts up and some of the tough questions start getting asked. Appreciate it.
Meanwhile, take...
BASH: Thanks, Rick.
SANCHEZ: ... a look at this.
Tropical Storm Alex looks like it's going to soon be a hurricane. The question is, what will it do to the oil? Will it move it back in the right direction or the wrong direction? Maybe the right question is, is there a right or a wrong direction?
This is the guy who is going to tell us. Remember, hurricanes go counterclockwise.
CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Correct.
SANCHEZ: That's important.
MYERS: In the Northern Hemisphere.
SANCHEZ: In the Northern...
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Exactly. Down around Argentina, it's a little different. We're going to talk about this in a moment. And it's important, because this thing looks like it's going to be a hurricane.
MYERS: Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Now to the top of our follow-up list.
Welcome back, everyone, to "RICK'S LIST". I'm Rick Sanchez.
The Gulf Coast disaster. You remember oil hitting Mississippi's islands just a couple of weeks ago. Well, now, it's hitting the shores of Mississippi's mainland, tar balls and what some are calling more like mousse patties have washed ashore in at least four locations.
Meanwhile, now let -- let -- let's get to the brunt of things here. There is this storm out there that seems to have just passed through, you know, that area of Cancun, not -- not -- not a big storm, but big enough that, when it gets into really warm waters, it will do what hurricanes -- what -- what storms do. They intensify...
MYERS: Of course.
SANCHEZ: ... possibly become a hurricane.
MYERS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: The question for you that our viewers want to know, especially those following this, is, what's this thing going to do to that mess in the Gulf?
MYERS: It is going to push the oil, slowly, 25 miles per hour -- that's faster than we need -- but...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: ... back into the marshes back in Mississippi, back into the Chandeleur Islands, back in Mississippi, back into Alabama, but miss Florida.
The winds will be actually from Tampa, right toward Louisiana. And so that's the problem. It is not going to be a 100-mile-per-hour storm when it gets there. It will be a 100-mile-per-hour storm in here in the Bay of Campeche. Let me draw this for you.
Here's Belize right there.
SANCHEZ: Mm-hmm.
MYERS: You can -- sometimes, you can go there on a cruise ship. Back up here to the Yucatan Peninsula, Cancun and Cozumel, and then back down into the Bay of Campeche.
And if you remember, Rick...
SANCHEZ: Mm-hmm.
MYERS: ... this was the location of the greatest oil disaster in North American history.
SANCHEZ: Yes, 1979.
MYERS: Remember that Ixtoc? Absolutely...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: ... right here.
(LAUGHTER)
MYERS: This is where the oil was back in, what, 30 years ago, 40 years ago. So, this is the big story.
It will -- this storm will eventually get into this area, continue to move to the south of Brownsville. So, does that matter? Well, it does a little bit, not as much as if this storm was going to do something like this and go right across the oil slick.
That is not going to happen. I don't see it. There's a 2 percent chance of that happening. It could make its way all the way toward Corpus Christi. That's still a possibility.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
MYERS: And it could go right -- right here down toward -- it would be Monterey, Mexico, would be the town that it could affect right there.
So, let's get rid of all of this. What does that say? Winds of 100 miles per hour at the approach. That's Wednesday morning. Here's Thursday morning coming onshore.
Now, again, the cone goes all the way here. Not to Galveston, but certainly to Corpus Christi, and maybe a little bit farther to the north of that. And then possibly just almost to Tampico, Mexico.
What happens then? If the storm is here -- and we expect that it is -- the winds will be in this direction for hours and hours and hours, maybe 48 hours. That will take the slick, and it will push it right on shore from Mobile, right on back to Grand Isle. So, this entire oil slick that's out there, at even a 25-mile-per-hour sustained wind -- you get that sustained over two days -- that oil is going to be back on shore en masse -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: I imagine it would be much worse for it to go -- and thank goodness it doesn't look -- it's outside the cone of possibilities or impossibilities, or whatever you want to call it. If it was going to Houston, we would be very worried.
MYERS: Yes, no question, because then you would have 100-mile-per- hour wind going this way and pushing it all into the marshes and into the land. A better scenario could have been Tampa, or somewhere that way --
SANCHEZ: Tampa, yes.
MYERS: -- at a 45-mile-per-hour rainmaker, and then the wind blows this way for hours and hours and hours, and gets it away from land. But that's way out of the realm of possibility.
SANCHEZ: And all this is because these suckers go counterclockwise.
MYERS: Correct, in the Northern Hemisphere. They go this way.
SANCHEZ: Right.
MYERS: In the Southern Hemisphere, they go the other way.
SANCHEZ: As usual, Chad --
MYERS: More to come.
SANCHEZ: -- you're so good at making these things --
MYERS: I have you fooled.
SANCHEZ: Even I understand it when you explain it.
Will Elena Kagan make the cut? We've got some of the latest from the hearings for you once again. Interesting what's going on today. It will be even more interesting what's going to happen tomorrow.
And then Prince Harry falls on his royal hindness. That's next on THE LIST.
The guys in the control room, they still don't get it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: If it weren't for political gaffes, we would be missing some of our most memorable moments in the news.
I say that because it's time to do "Fotos."
Oh, the vice president has been known in the past for saying things that have gotten him in trouble. He's a smart guy.
Remember the "big (blank) deal" comment that he made on health care reform?
Yes, it is, Mr. President.
Then on Saturday, the vice president gave us another gem for the annals of Biden moments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What do you --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lower our taxes, we'll call it even.
BIDEN: Well, say something nice instead of being a smart ass all the time.
Say something nice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: It was at a frozen custard store in Milwaukee, and Mr. Biden may be getting the cold shoulder next time he pays them a visit. Who knows? Also, it was Governors Island, but the guest of honor was a prince. Harry fell on his royal hindness -- yes, the joke works twice -- yesterday.
The third in line to the British thrown was catapulted from his horse during a charity polo event, but Harry made a regal recovery right afterward. He is helping raise money for a charity that he co-founded for kids in the AIDS-ravaged African nation. He's been doing this in honor of his mom.
Formula 1 driver Mark Webber survived a horrific crash at the European Grand Prix Sunday in Valencia, Spain. Everyone's been talking about this. In fact, look at it again. It is amazing.
The driver became, well, a pilot of sorts. Wow!
The car goes airborne, lands upside down. Amazingly, stepped out right on the side afterward. There he goes. Let's wait and see this.
Not a scratch on him, if you can believe this. Not a scratch on him.
You can see all of our "Fotos del Dia" on my blog. That's CNN.com/ricksanchez.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The American people want and deserve a process that is more than what you characterized as "vapid and hollow charade" and which so frustrated you just 15 years ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The president's nominee to become the next Supreme Court justice says this process is a charade. Remember when she said that?
Now, will she buy into the charade or will she change the charade? This is interesting. You know, when you make promises -- you know.
Erick Erickson joins me live in just a little bit to take on Ms. Kagan.
We'll be right back. This is "RICK'S LIST", your national conversation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: You want lists? We've got lists.
I'm Rick Sanchez. This is "RICK'S LIST".
Elena Kagan is a step away from joining our highest panel of legal minds.
Erick Erickson is going to help with this one. He is the editor-in- chief of RedState.com and a CNN contributor, with a list -- here we go, with a list thing -- a list of reasons why she shouldn't be. You know what I've noticed, Erick? There's a theme today while listening to the opening statements. I've heard over and over again that Kagan has never been a judge.
Former justice Sandra day O'Connor says, look, it's fine that she hasn't been. Justice Scalia says that he's happy to see that Kagan is not a federal judge. And then, speaking of lists, you've got William Rehnquist, Earl Warren, two of the past four chief justices. They've never been justices -- or judges.
The question to you, then, the fact that she wasn't a judge, why should that be a factor?
ERICK ERICKSON, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, REDSTATE.COM: Well, maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, given what else she's done. I mean, for example, William Rehnquist was a high-powered lawyer in the government, a lawyer in private practice, as well. Sandra Day O'Connor, I believe, was on the Arizona Supreme Court. It's what else?
And that, I think, is probably one of the ultimate issues here. Elena Kagan, let's just put it out there, was right. This is a charade we're going through, and the White House bought into this with this marketing aspect of her as to some woman of the people, so to speak.
No, she's not. She's from the upper west side, she's worked all her life in academia or government. That's not a person of the people.
SANCHEZ: Do you like her or not? You don't like her?
ERICKSON: But is she qualified? She's the solicitor general.
SANCHEZ: You don't like her?
ERICKSON: You know, of course not. She's a liberal. But she's probably going to get confirmed. That's the ridiculousness of this whole thing.
SANCHEZ: She's a liberal.
ERICKSON: I mean, the Democrats will vote for her, the Republicans won't. She'll get elected, or get on to court. I mean, this whole thing that we're doing is just an elaborate kabuki dance.
SANCHEZ: By the way, ,this kabuki dance, this is not a right thing or a left thing, is it? This is just the way things have developed where we get somebody ask, you know, as Victoria Toensing said a little while ago -- she said this is all vanilla. I mean, they ask vanilla questions, and they give vanilla answers, and we all walk away scratching our heads.
ERICKSON: Look, you know, I don't think the Republicans have it in them to do what Elena Kagan what happened to Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas or even Robert Bork. It's not going to happen.
And there may be no "there" there for them to go after anyway. So, we're going to go through this. Republicans will pound their chest, the NRA will send out a statement and say she's not good on guns.
Patrick Leahy will find some cover to keep his NRA rating and vote for her. And she'll get on the court. I mean, it seems like we're making a mountain out of a molehill.
SANCHEZ: Well, what about the accusations that she's anti-military because she didn't let some of the recruiters there at Harvard come up? When in actuality -- we checked into this today -- it sounds to me like she wasn't creating policy there, she was following the strategy or the policy that was already set at Harvard, wasn't she?
ERICKSON: No, that's not exactly right, and I realize some groups on the left like Media Matters have been trying to spin it that way. But, in fact, what happened was, when the Supreme Court issued one of the lawsuits -- I forget the exact details -- but Elena Kagan jumped on this.
She went further than what the policy had been the moment she got in a position to do it. So, yes, she kept the policy in place, but she took it a step further the moment she got in position to do it.
That's given some of the people in the military real pause. But the big issue here is, I think, probably the First Amendment.
Some of the things she's written in the past are downright spooky. People in the media, bloggers like myself, should be a little concerned that if the government just wants to doing something because it's making people feel upset if they don't, all of a sudden the First Amendment has no meaning.
SANCHEZ: Well, but hold on a minute. You know, part of this is that I think most Americans would like to see a court that's balanced, just like they kind of want to see a government that's balanced.
I think most Americans don't want everything to be too far to the right or too far to the left. Having a person like her on this particular court is kind of keeping the balance there, although some on the left would argue it's still more to the right.
But do you think -- as a guy from the right, do you think that's important? Let me ask you that.
ERICKSON: No, because the court shouldn't have balance. The court should read the Constitution and say, ah, this is or is not constitutional. The left and the right, together, should not be putting their own personal policy preferences into the Constitution.
SANCHEZ: But, no, Eric. The problem with that is that there is room for interpretation when you look at the Constitution. If it was just a computer, if it was a computer program, we wouldn't need these people, man.
ERICKSON: There is room for interpretation, but how far do you go to interpret is the question?
I mean, for example, can you read the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and find a right to privacy? Probably so. But can you read the Fourth and Fifth Amendment to then find, all of a sudden, a right to abortion, or should that be a state issue that is not inside the Constitution?
We are letting justices put themselves in a position where you and I cannot read the Constitution anymore and understand the government or our rights. We have to hire a lawyer and depend on a guy or woman in a black robe. We shouldn't have to do that.
SANCHEZ: I always enjoy my conversations with you.
Erick Erickson, RedState.org (sic).
Appreciate it, man.
ERICKSON: Thanks very much.
SANCHEZ: Did I get that right? RedState.com.
ERICKSON: Yes, indeed.
SANCHEZ: Sorry about that.
ERICKSON: Either one works.
SANCHEZ: Erick, I appreciate it. We'll see you again.
All right. When we come back, we're going to show you some more of the clips in case you're just now getting home from work and you missed it. Elena Kagan today had her shot to describe in a very well- prepared statement why she deserves to be the next Supreme Court justice of the United States.
We'll have that for you. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We have this breaking news in the form of a complaint from the Justice Department. This thing reads like a -- well, like a spy novel.
Ten alleged "secret agents" arrested in the United States. They describe this as a multiyear FBI investigation uncovering a network that was operating inside this country tasked with recruiting sources and collecting information for Russia. Eight individuals were arrested Sunday, and then they go on to say that two individual defendants were also arrested Sunday for allegedly participating in this Russian intelligence program within the United States.
What is this all about?
Deb Feyerick has been looking into it.
Wow. And they name names in here.
Deb, what are you finding out? What's going on here? DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they are naming names, and what's so interesting, that apparently this was an alleged spy ring operating here in the Northeast, places like Boston; Arlington; Virginia; Yonkers, New York; and Montclair, New Jersey. Eleven people charged with gathering information for Russia.
Ten of them were arrested. One of them remains at large.
They were using names like "Murphy" and "Heathfield" "Foley" and "Lazaro" Nine of them have also been accused of money laundering.
And apparently, the way this reads is that, according to the complaint, all of these people were engaged in a long-term, deep-cover assignment. The goal was to become very Americanized, to sort of fit in, blend in wherever they were living, and then gather information about the United States. The goal was to either recruit people who either were in the government or who had access to some form of policymaking.
Now, according to the complaint, the two people that they named prominently, one woman by the name of Anna Chapman (ph), another by the name of Mikhail Samencho (ph). And they say that the woman, the alleged female spy, apparently what they would do is they would exchange information via computers that were set up to talk to one another. And the woman would go into either a Greenwich Village coffee shop, a bookstore, or Times Square coffee shop, then another van would drive by and they would sort of exchange information electronically, all of this coded, all of this necessitating sort of secret encryption data so they could figure out what was being said. This other man was accused of passing information in Washington, D.C., meeting up in a park.
Now, apparently, the woman kind of got wise to what was going on because an undercover agent met with her, they spoke. He said to her, "Are you ready? We need you to do something person to person. We need you to do exchange a passport."
She said she was ready for the assignment. Then what happened is, after the two separated, she sort of took a very circuitous route going into a drugstore, then a Verizon store, going back into a drugstore, back into the phone store, and agents discovered that she had bought a cell phone and an international calling card.
Well, no surprise there, Rick. She never showed up to sort of exchange the passport.
So, all of this is alleged in the complaint. A number of them were in court here in Manhattan to face the charges against them, but, again, it really looks sort of like an old-time spy ring.
SANCHEZ: But you know what I don't get? What I don't get is, as I read this, OK, so, fine, you're living in the United States and you're finding out what it's like to live in the United States. Frankly, that can be pretty boring, for the most part.
What agency did they interlock or did they infiltrate? Where were they getting this really juicy, important information that somehow the Russians can use against us? At least, from what I've read so far, I haven't found that.
Do we know, or is that yet to be released?
FEYERICK: No, it's not in the complaint. They don't say what kind of information was being exchanged. They just say that it was information that was being exchanged electronically through these sort of coded laptops.
But they do say -- one thing that was kind of interesting is that the key person that these alleged spies were in contact with were people who were operating out of the Russian mission, the United Nations mission here in the United States. So that was the link that made them realize that perhaps there was more going on. These weren't just regular people, but they, in fact, were meeting with people known to be part of the Russian federation.
SANCHEZ: I can't wait to find out more. It sounds like there is a part two here, a second chapter that has to be read in this spy novel still.
Deb Feyerick, I appreciate it. Good stuff. Thanks for hustling on this.
FEYERICK: Of course.
SANCHEZ: We'll continue to get more information on this story.
And we'll also bring you more on the big, historic day today in Washington with Elena Kagan raising her right hand and giving her first statement as a potential Supreme Court justice of the United States.
We'll be right back with more of "RICK'S LIST".
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Hey. Welcome back.
And it's nice to see that our guests are in the house. There they are, good looking group that they are, as they wave.
We've got a USC Trojan back there, and we have got somebody who went to the Atlanta Braves' store. He's got the little tomahawk bag back there.
That's nice. Good to see you.
The Braves are hot. You know, they're going up against this kid today who is supposed to be the best pitcher ever, as a youngster, anyway, in the history of baseball. That will be fun to watch.
Anyway -- but I don't have tickets for it -- here's a list. You guys want to see a good list? I know you watch the show because it's called LIST, right? Well, here we go. Does Elena Kagan have what it takes to be a Supreme Court justice?
Well, Dems are giving her a thumbs up. Republicans point out that she has a lack of experience because she's never held a judicial job before. But controversy comes with this territory.
What are some of the other -- here we go. Ready? What are some of the other high-profile nomination battles?
We've got the list, we've prepared it for you, and here we go.
No. 3: Harriet Miers. You remember her? Lots of late-night comics had a good time with her, you might say. George W. Bush's 2005 nominee.
The catch? She was his personal lawyer when he was a Texas governor. That didn't sit well with a lot of folks. Needless to say, she did not make it to the bench.
No. 2: Remember Clarence Thomas? Who can forget.
He was nominated by Bush Senior. His confirmation was supposed to be smooth sailing until Anita Hill came along accusing him of sexual harassment. Yes, that's how you say the word. You learn that in broadcasting school.
He made it, and to this day is one of the most conservative justices on the bench. But, boy, that was some nomination.
No: 1 on the list of Supreme Court nomination battles, you know what it is, Robert Bork, from where the term "getting Borked" came from.
Nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987. His extremely conservative views on the big issues made Senate Dems uneasy. So much so, their vocal opposition helped coin the phrase, as I said before, all together now, "Borked." Exactly. Still used to block nominees' appointments and, as some Republicans say, vilifying them.
By the way, before we go, here's one more piece of sound I want to share with you. This is Kagan today in her first opportunity to talk to Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAGAN: The Supreme Court of course has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And there you have it. It was, in fact, a historic day. Glad we were able to bring it to you.
Glad we've got some folks on tap visiting with us on this day. Glad to see you guys visiting Atlanta and that you took the opportunity to come by and see our famous newscast. Those are my words, not yours.
Suzanne Malveaux standing in for Wolf today. This is "THE SITUATION ROOM."
Suzanne, take it away.
