Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Kagan Confirmation Continues; Michael Vick in Hot Water
Aired June 29, 2010 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: There's so much is going on on this day. I think most importantly has been the Kagan hearings. But General Petraeus has been in a hearing himself. And, just moments ago -- and I think you heard Richard mention this -- it was announced that he has, in fact, been confirmed. I guess you could say that's news, but not big news, because there's no one in their right mind who didn't expect that he would be confirmed.
Here's what else we have got on the LIST.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: (voice-over): Here's what's making the LIST today.
Split-screen Tuesday: Kagan questioned, confronted. And McChrystal's out. Petraeus takes the Hill. What's the plan for Afghanistan, Iraq?
GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: July 2011 will mark the beginning of a process. We will need to provide assistance to Afghanistan for a long time.
SANCHEZ: Did Kagan diss (ph) the military while dean at Harvard Law School?
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: Ms. Kagan kicked the military out of the recruiting office and demeaned our soldiers.
SANCHEZ: A heated exchange. How did she handle it?
It's official: Alex becoming a hurricane and churning in the Gulf, yes, that Gulf, the one blackened by the oil spill. Will it make matters worse?
Michael Vick, say it ain't so, not again. Did he violate his probation by associating with a felon? That's what the NFL wants to know.
And will this video bench another superstar NFL quarterback?
The lists you need to know about. Who's today's most intriguing? Who's landed on the list you don't want to be on? Who's making news on Twitter? It's why I keep a list.
Pioneering tomorrow's cutting-edge news right now. (END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez.
I hope you love these next two hours as much as I do, because there is so much going on. Before we do anything else, do we have a live picture that we can go to now? Because Elena Kagan has been testifying all day long. She's taking questions from different senators throughout the course of the day.
We understand that she's going to be going through this rotunda here, Specter, Schumer, Lindsey Graham, and then Grassley. As they start questioning her, we're going to dip into it and let you listen to most, if not all, of it, depending on what is being said whether or not it's noteworthy or newsworthy, obviously.
But let me set the scene for you before we do anything else, if I possibly can. What a day it's been for Elena Kagan. There's no question that she is smart and competent. Everybody seems to say that. But does she have a bias against the U.S. military?
And, if she does, if she has a bias against the U.S. military, will she take that bias with her to the highest court in the land? The suggestion is that, when she was at Harvard, she barred military recruiters, barred them. She says, no. She says I -- she was simply enforcing the school's anti-discrimination policy.
We got that, right? Well, some Republicans are saying that she treated the military as second-class citizens, demeaned them. It really all centers on the don't ask, don't tell policy that does seem to discriminate against gays and lesbians. And that's at the heart of the matter.
All right. Are you ready? with all that in the background, here now is the classic showdown between Kagan and Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions.
Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SESSIONS: Isn't it true, isn't it a fact that Harvard had full and equal access to the recruiting office, the Office of Career Services when you became dean? And isn't it true -- well, when you became dean?
ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL AND SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Senator Sessions, the military had full access to our students at all times, both before I became dean and during...
(CROSSTALK)
SESSIONS: That's not the question. I know that...
LEAHY: Senator, let her answer the question.
SESSIONS: All right, but -- you know, you -- you -- go ahead.
KAGAN: So the history of this is Harvard did have this anti- discrimination principle and for many, many years, my predecessor, who is Bob Clark, had set up a system to ensure military access, but also to allow Harvard to comply with its anti-discrimination policy which prohibited the Office of Career Services from providing assistance to employers that could not sign the anti-discrimination pledge.
And the accommodation that Bob worked out was that the veterans' organization would instead sponsor the military recruiters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So did you hear what she just said there at the end? She essentially said that they were allowed to recruit, but from the veterans center.
In other words, they worked a deal so that they would be able to continue to recruit students at Harvard, the military would. But here's what happened then. And I know there's a lot of minutia and it gets confusing. So, let me take you through this step by step. Congress then passed a law. It was called the Solomon Amendment. It threatens schools that punish recruiters in any way, schools like Harvard, with a loss of federal funding.
So, Harvard then said, OK, let's change the plan. Let's allow the recruiters back in. But then the law was struck down by a federal court. And the recruiters were kicked back out -- not really kicked away from the school. They were allowed to go and continue recruiting at the vet center.
And who made that decision? The new law school dean, Elena Kagan. Here's where this conversation between her and Sessions gets even hotter. Let's watch it together.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SESSIONS: I'm just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks, because it's unconnected to reality.
I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard's policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds. This is what happened.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Especially because of the number of people, including the dean of West Point who has praised you and said that you were absolutely not anti- military, I will let you respond -- take time to respond to what Senator Sessions just said.
KAGAN: Well, thank you, Senator Leahy.
You know, I respect and indeed I revere the military. My father was a veteran. One of the great privileges of my time at Harvard Law School was dealing with all these wonderful students that we had who had served in the military and students who wanted to go to the military.
And I always tried to make sure that I conveyed my honor for the military. And I always tried to make sure that the military had excellent access to our students. And in the short period of time, Senator Sessions, that the military had that access through the veterans organization, military recruiting actually went up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: So she's being accused of something that she is denying. It seems like a classic argument, going back and forth. Does Elena Kagan hate the United States military?
You heard both arguments there. You're welcome to do more research, and I will let you decide for yourself. I want to move on now.
Here's what we talked about yesterday. Would Kagan turn out to be an activist judge, as her critics on the right are warning that she will be? Or will she stick to the tight view of our Constitution?
They're called originalists. They say the Constitution is black and white, people like Justice Antonin Scalia, for example. Is it really? Is the Constitution black and white? Here's Kagan's take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAGAN: Senator Kohl, I don't really think that this is an either/or choice. I think that there are some circumstances in which looking to the original intent is the determinative thing in a case and other circumstances in which it is likely not to be.
And I think, in general, judges should look to a variety of sources when they interpret the Constitution, and which take precedence in a particular case is really a kind of case-by-case thing.
The judges always should look to the text. There's no question that if the text simply commands a result -- senators, you know, 30 -- you can only be a senator if you're 30 years old -- then the inquiry has to stop. But there are many, many provisions of the Constitution, of course, in which that's not the case.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: She says circumstances dictate interpretation and that you go back to the text, but sometimes things need to be interpreted.
I don't know about you, but I think this kind of stuff is fascinating. Now, think about this for just a second, if you would. This is the type of stuff that they discuss all day inside the Supreme Court, our third branch of government. We never get to see it.
We show you Congress up and down all day long. We show you the White House, the executive branch. We show you interviews with the people who work at the White House. But, for this branch, there's no coverage. There's no cameras.
There's not even still photos allowed in that place. Do you ever wonder about that? I -- I found this fascinating. I want you to listen to this exchange now. Elena Kagan is talking here to Senator Herb Kohl.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HERBERT KOHL (D), WISCONSIN: General Kagan, how do you feel about permitting cameras in the Supreme Court for oral arguments?
KAGAN: Senator Kohl, this is actually something that I -- I spoke about when I was -- as solicitor general before I was ever nominated to this court. So I have expressed a view on this question. And I -- I recognize that some members of the court have a different view. And certainly when and if I get to the court I will talk with them about that question.
But I have said that I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom. And -- and the reason I think is as -- when you see what happens there, it's an inspiring sight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Once again, let me let you know that we do have the best political panel assembled for you, John King, Candy Crowley, Jeffrey Toobin, Victoria Toensing. Is she a pistol or what? Donna Brazile, Ed Rollins, and Gloria Borger all going to be joining us throughout the next couple of hours to take us through these hearings as they continue.
Also, this: that secret Russian spy ring operating covertly in the United States for at least 15 years. What did President Obama know about this spy ring when he took Russian President Medvedev out for hamburgers recently? I ask this question because now it's another Russian leader who's talking about this today. We will tell you what the news is.
Also, Alex could become a hurricane any time soon. I mean, it's almost like it's a done deal. It's going to become a hurricane. The question isn't so much whether it's 74, 75, 76 miles an hour. The question is, what is it going to do to that oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? The guy who is watching this intently is that guy right there.
CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: This guy.
SANCHEZ: This guy.
MYERS: I got a guy.
SANCHEZ: Chad.
(LAUGHTER) SANCHEZ: You're going to take us through it?
MYERS: Absolutely.
SANCHEZ: Nice suit, man. Man, your threads are incredible lately.
MYERS: Yes, well, I was trying to keep up with you.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Thanks.
We will be right back, you liar, you. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: It is important to let you know what's going on in the Gulf of Mexico. It's Tropical Storm Alex. Could be upgraded to a hurricane. Who knows? Chad's going to tell you probably when it's going to happen. You know, these advisories come every couple of hours.
Hurricane warnings are already up along parts of Texas and the Mexico coast. Then you get into the question of, how much of Texas and how much of Mexico?
Chad's joining us now.
Tell us where this thing is going. Tell us how big it's going to be. Tell us what it's going to do to the oil, and I will be your friend.
(LAUGHTER)
MYERS: And you will be my friend.
I wish this thing was going on the complete opposite side of the Gulf of Mexico.
SANCHEZ: Like Tampa?
MYERS: Exactly. I hate it for the people that it's going to rain in Tampa. But what we could have done with this wind is blown this oil offshore. The exact opposite thing is going on when you take it and you take this thing all the way over to Texas and you take it into Mexico.
So, here you go. Let me take you. And I'm going to show you some rainfall, Rick.
SANCHEZ: All right.
MYERS: I'm going to show you that it's raining all the way from basically North Carolina through Louisiana because of this said system already. Here's the Yucatan Peninsula right there. That would be Cancun. Here is Brownsville all the way to New Orleans and then back down into South Florida.
This thing is almost filling up the Gulf of Mexico, outer bands all the way up here across Louisiana through Houston and the orange and the purple and the red getting larger and larger and becoming more intense. That more intense in convection is going to translate to higher winds.
And certainly, later on tonight, by the time it makes landfall, and I'm thinking midnight tomorrow night, that this thing certainly will be a hurricane, very close to Brownsville, Texas, South Padre, North Padre, all the way (INAUDIBLE) bay, all the way down to the Rio Grande. That's where the hurricane warning is right now.
Right. That said, where could it go? Well, we have got a bunch of -- I have 30 different weather models. Garbage in, garbage out on a lot of them, but some say, OK, do we care about the winds at the surface, at aloft? Do we care from the jet stream is? Do we care any -- whatever. Whatever all the numbers are, you plug them all in there and you get this.
You get this randomized event here where all these models are saying, hey, where you going? Are you going from south to the north? Are you going left? Are you going right?
Well, not one model has it going over the oil slick, which is great, because if we had this thing going over the slick, it would push all of the oil right onshore miles and miles into the shore because of the storm surge.
Over here, though, you get the winds doing this, and the winds doing this. And then I could just keep drawing them as they go. Now, the winds down here are much stronger. And, clearly, we're talking about winds near the center of circulation. They could be 100 miles per hour.
Away from the circulation, here's 100. Let's say -- let's just say, per se. And then here's 70. Here's 60, 50 and 40. But even at 40 and 25 miles per hour all the way to Panama City, this will take this slick and push it into the marshes of Louisiana, back up into the bayous and up even into Mississippi, Gulfport, back toward Mobile.
Now, it will move it away -- away from Panama City and Pensacola. It will actually drag the oil away from these areas in Florida and push it into the marshes here, an ugly situation for people who have been fighting this oil for so long. But when you get wind from the same direction for 72 hours, there's no way to stop that oil from moving in that direction -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: And we will be watching to see what happens from a hurricane standpoint to the folks there around Corpus and Brownsville, et cetera, et cetera. Let's us know, Chad.
Meanwhile, take a look at this, General Petraeus in the news today. We showed you Kagan testifying. Well, General Petraeus was on Capitol Hill testifying as well today before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Did he get any tough questions? Well, of course he did. But here's the real question, all right? I think here's what you want to know watching this show right now. Here's what Americans want to know. When are we going to get out of Iraq and when are we going to get out of Afghanistan, and will we do so in a meaningful way? Well, we're going to be asking some of our own folks about that and we're going to be letting you know what it is that he had to know.
And look at this group right here, huh? These are our peeps. This is King, Crowley, Toobin, Toensing, Brazile, Rollins, Borger. Roland Martin has joined the gang. And we're going to be talking to all of them in just a -- look at him. He's already looking for attention there. That guy, I'll tell you. Did they put him next to Rollins? Oh, boy, what a pair. We will be getting to all of them as we continue to follow the two big stories today, the Kagan hearing and the Petraeus hearing.
And then of course an alleged Russian spy ring operating discretely in the United States for at least 15 years, but, folks, I got to tell you, the more I read on this, the more questions that I have about who these people really were and what they were doing. Talk about nonspecific. That's next right here on the LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Look, we're going to be drilling down a lot more on this story that I'm about to tell you about. But I just wanted you -- to give you at least a sense of what we're going to be talking about in a little bit.
Stand by, because there's a lot of new information on this story. But, yesterday, you will recall, right here, we were the first to report the arrests in the United States of 10 alleged spies. They were charged with spying for Russia on long-term missions in the United States.
Well, today, there was an 11th person added to the list. He was arrested in Cyprus in connection with this same investigation. Now, yesterday, five of them appeared in court. Four of those are being held as flight risks, with their next court appearance slated for Thursday.
They are accused of planning to recruit other people as spies, posing as married couples, and adopting false identities, including those of dead people. Diplomatically, the arrests have become a problem already, due to the timing of the announcement.
Word of these arrests came less than a week after President Obama had burgers and fries, as we saw, with the Russian President during the leader's visit to Washington.
Still in question, though, is -- and we haven't gotten any definitive or clear answers -- what were they actually spying on? What U.S. agency were they getting information from? What kind of information were they trying to get? What kind of information did they get? Who did they pass it along to? There's no definitive answers to those questions yet, which is making some folks ask their own questions, if not be frustrated.
Among those is Prime Minister Putin, who says, among other things, that he's hoping that this situation, which he obviously is not very happy with, will not damage the U.S. relations with Russia. We're going to be all over this story in just a little bit.
Now, also this: Michael Vick back in the news. Did he violate his probation? And, if so, is the NFL going to make him pay again? Is he about to be benched?
And then the most important question of all: What was he thinking? What was Michael Vick thinking last weekend? We are going to take you through that on the LIST.
Also, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in the hot seat over her time at Harvard. What else did she get grilled on? We have got the best political team in the business standing by. They're next right here on your LIST, your national conversation, RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Here we go, John King, Candy Crowley, Jeffrey Toobin, Victoria Toensing, Roland Martin, Ed Rollins, and Gloria Borger, all of them joining us, all of them generally really smart people who have been following this thing all day long.
Martin, since you're the -- since you're the last to enter the group, let me begin with you.
General question.
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Oh, great.
SANCHEZ: Well, listen, I want to know. You have been watching this thing. How has she handled herself? Any -- what's the big story here, if you see any -- if you see one?
MARTIN: Rick, I really can't comment on that question, since I will be deciding future cases. So, therefore, what's the next question?
(LAUGHTER)
MARTIN: I mean, that's pretty much what we have been seeing. And so that's what you see these days when you have these Supreme Court hearings.
SANCHEZ: Sounds like a charade.
MARTIN: No one really answers any particular questions. Of course, Jeffrey Toobin doesn't understand why they don't answer these questions, because he wants to hear them pontificate on them. But that's how they go.
Look, bottom line, it's a nice dance. Democrats control the committee. They control the Senate. She will get confirmed. And then we will just have a nice wonderful three days here and then go on to summer vacation.
SANCHEZ: John King, when did politics become more important than getting to the facts? Because that seems to be what Roland Martin is saying. And to a certain extent, the young man is right, is he not?
JOHN KING, HOST, "JOHN KING, USA": He's perhaps a tad overly cynical, Rick.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: But that's OK, just a tad, just a tad.
Look, on the issues on which the committee can hold up a document and say, you wrote this memo in the Clinton White House, and this was your opinion, or when you were the dean of the Harvard Law School, you said you opposed the don't ask, don't tell policy against homosexuals in the military, on those issues where there's a clear documented evidence, she's saying, yes, that's my opinion.
In some cases, she is saying, that's still my opinion. But, in some of them -- Roland is the right in the sense she's saying, well, that's what I said then, and that's what I believed then, or that was my client then and I was arguing my case then, but if I'm on the court, forget anything I ever said, because I will be open-minded and I will be fair and I will read all the briefs. And so everything I say, including this confirmation hearing, means nothing when I'm on the court, because then I will be fair and open-minded.
In defense of her, that doesn't make her special. That's been the last 15 years of Supreme Court nominations.
SANCHEZ: Right. Yes, so true.
Ed, would Ronald Reagan like her?
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Ed, would Ronald Reagan like her?
ED ROLLINS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Sure. Ronald Reagan liked everyone.
(LAUGHTER)
ROLLINS: He might not appoint her, but he would like her.
(LAUGHTER)
ROLLINS: He may not like Arlen Specter and the behavior we have seen for the last half-hour. I don't think he liked Arlen Specter anyways when he was a Republican.
(LAUGHTER)
ROLLINS: But I think we definitely don't like Arlen Specter today. And I think if he hadn't been defeated recently, he would be defeated again in November.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Can we just pause for a moment where there -- in an era where politicians are so careful, to see Arlen Specter as cranky and obnoxious as he is, just laying it all out there, I am not a likable person, there's something beautiful about it, I think.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Right. It's the true Arlen Specter.
TOOBIN: It is.
TOENSING: He's not up for reelection, so he can be Arlen.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, Rick, it's sort of interesting, because we complain all the time about politicians who don't answer questions, right?
SANCHEZ: Yes.
BORGER: And we like to ask them questions. We like to get direct answers.
And now it's the politicians who are complaining about Elena Kagan. And the reason that Elena Kagan is not answering their questions directly is that the last time somebody did answer their questions directly was would-be Justice Bork, who, when he answered questions directly...
SANCHEZ: Got Borked.
BORGER: ... ended up getting in a whole lot of trouble and didn't get confirmed.
So, since that time, we have had the Bork standard, which is, you go there and you tell people, no matter how long your paper trail -- and she's lucky in this sense that she does not have a huge paper trail -- that you can't talk about things that are going to come before the court or you believe in precedent and settled law, which is what you hear.
TOENSING: Yes, but, Rick, I have been saying all along that if they really wanted her to answer questions, they would ask a very short question, and they would wait for her to answer. They don't do that. They go on three, four, five minutes.
MARTIN: Well, except Specter. He will ask -- he will ask the question, and then not let her answer, then say, I will move on because I'm not getting a straight answer, when she didn't even open her mouth.
And, so, you know, I have feelings about him I can't say on television, but I will certainly that on Twitter. And so--
TOENSING: The first time I met Arlen Specter was about 30 years ago when we were on a trip overseas. Absolutely, I went down to get a cup of coffee about 6:00 in the morning. The first thing he says is, "I hear you're an expert on constitutional law. Is the exclusionary rule mandated by the constitution?"
I said, "If the Supreme Court says it is, it is." And I walked off.
MARTIN: At 6:00 a.m., gotcha.
SANCHEZ: You guys have handled this set-up as well as anybody could. It sounds like to me like this Arlen Specter-Kagan thing is interesting. As far as I can tell, she's still answering his questions. What do you say we dip in and let America hear what's going on with these two? Let's do it.
KAGAN: And I do agree with you that there do seem to be many circuit conflicts on other matters of vital national significance --
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (D) PENNSYLVANIA: The other issue I raised was much more important. There are only two minutes left for me now.
KAGAN: OK. Senator Specter, the issue about the TSP and the constitutionality of the TSP, is, I think, one of the kinds of issues I previously set out three categories where the court might grant cert, one which is the circuit conflicts, one which is the invalidation of an act of Congress, and the third is just an issue of some vital national importance.
In a case where the executive branch is determined, or is alleged, excuse me, is alleged to be violating some Congressional command is, I think, one of the kinds of cases that the court typically should take. Now, there is in this case the complexity that there's a potential jurisdictional bar. And of course the court typically decides --
SPECTER: What jurisdictional bar?
KAGAN: The question whether somebody has standing. Often, the court will decline to take a case when there's a significant jurisdictional issue because the court will think, if we take this case, we might hold that we don't have jurisdiction --
SPECTER: Nobody can take the case and say they don't have jurisdiction.
KAGAN: You're exactly right. And I'm just suggesting that that's often a reason why the court doesn't take a case. If it doesn't --
SPECTER: I don't care what's often a reason. Here we have a specific case. It's in concrete. Would you have voted the grant cert?
KAGAN: Senator Specter, I can just tell you there was this jurisdictional issue. The jurisdictional issue itself was an important one. It was an important one because how is a person going to know whether --
SPECTER: The sixth circuit decided there was no standing after they heard the case.
My time is almost up, ten seconds, and I was 13 seconds over last time. There are a couple of other cases, the holocaust survivors and the 9/11 survivors victims, which I'll come back to when I have a green light.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Senator Specter.
SANCHEZ: And as we wait for the green light, from a cranky Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham is coming up. Let's stay with this. Let's go to see what -- Lindsey Graham is making a lot of news recently not just on this case but also on the McChrystal story. Let's see what this military lawyer has to ask Kagan. Let's dip in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Graham, it's all yours.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Thank you. So far has the hearings been what you thought they would be?
KAGAN: I'm not sure I had-I'm not sure exactly pictured it.
GRAHAM: Let's try to go back in time and say you're watching these hearings and you are critical of the way the Senate conducted these hearings.
(LAUGHTER)
Are we improving or going backward? And are you doing your part?
(LAUGHTER)
KAGAN: I think that you've been exercising your constitutional responsibilities extremely well.
(LAUGHTER)
GRAHAM: So it's all those other guys that suck, not us, right?
(LAUGHTER)
KAGAN: I don't think I'm --
GRAHAM: And it's those others who were too cagey, right? Fair enough.
Now, do you know Gregg Craig?
KAGAN: I will say one thing, Senator Graham, which is it feels a lot different from here than it felt from back there.
GRAHAM: I bet it does. It feels a lot different when you're the nominee, too, doesn't it? And if it didn't, I'd really be worried about you.
Do you know Gregg Craig?
KAGAN: I do.
GRAHAM: Who is he?
KAGAN: He was previously the counselor to the president.
GRAHAM: Do you know him well? Pretty well?
KAGAN: You know, OK.
GRAHAM: He's a good guy. I'm not trying to trick you. I don't have anything on Gregg. I like him fine.
(LAUGHTER)
He said on may 16th that you are largely progressive in the mold of Obama himself. Do you agree with that?
KAGAN: Senator Graham, in terms of my political view, I've been a Democrat all my life. I've worked for two Democratic presidents, and those are -- that's what my political views are.
GRAHAM: And would you consider them, your political views, progressive?
KAGAN: My political views are generally progressive, generally --
GRAHAM: Compared to mine, for sure, right? OK, that's fine. There's no harm in that, and that makes the hearings a little more interesting. I would be shocked if President Obama did not pick someone that shared his general view of the law and life. So elections have consequences. Do you agree with that? Elections do have consequences?
KAGAN: It would be hard to disagree that elections have consequences, and should.
GRAHAM: And one of the consequences is a president gets to fill a nomination for the Supreme Court. That's a power the president has, right?
KAGAN: Yes, sir.
GRAHAM: So it would be OK, from your point of view, if a conservative president, picked someone in the mold of a conservative person?
KAGAN: I would expect that. GRAHAM: There we go. Good. We'll remember that. OK. We may have a chance to bring those words back. Do you know Miguel Estrada?
KAGAN: I do.
GRAHAM: How do you know him?
KAGAN: Miguel and I were classmates at Harvard Law School. But we were more than classmates at Harvard Law School. Harvard Law School has required seating in the first year. And Miguel and I --
GRAHAM: Trust me, I don't know, because I could have never gotten there.
KAGAN: Miguel and I were required to sit next to each other in every single class in the first year. And I can tell you, Miguel takes extraordinary notes. So it's great. Every time you missed something in class, you could just kind of look over. But that's how I know Miguel, and we've been good friends ever since.
GRAHAM: What's your general opinion of his legal abilities and his character?
KAGAN: I think he is a great lawyer and a great human being.
GRAHAM: He wrote a letter on your behalf. Have you had a chance to read it?
KAGAN: I did.
GRAHAM: Can I read part of it? "I write in support of Elena Kagan's confirmation as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I've known Elena for 27 years. We met as first-year law students at Harvard where we were assigned seats next to each other" -- so you're consistent -- for all our classes.
We were later colleagues as editors of the law review and as law clerks to different Supreme Court justices, and we have been friends since. Elena possesses a formidable intellect, an exemplary temperament, and a rare ability to disagree with other without being disagreeable. She is calm under fire and mature and deliberate in her judgments.
Elena would also bring to the court a wealth of experience at the highest levels of our government and academics, including teaching at the University of Chicago, serving as the Dean of the Harvard law school, and experience at the White House as current solicitor general of the United States.
If such a person who has demonstrated great intellect, high accomplishments and an upright life is not easily confirmable, I fear we will have reached a point where no capable person will readily accept a nomination for judicial service." What do you think about those comments?
KAGAN: Senator Graham, I think those comments reflect what an extraordinary human being Miguel Estrada is. And I was deeply touched when I read that letter, deeply grateful to him, of course. And all the nice things that he said about me, I would say back about him double.
GRAHAM: Well, I'm going to give you that chance, because Miguel Estrada as most people know was nominated by President Bush to the court and he never made it. I think it's one of the great tragedies for the country that he was never able to sit on an appellate court.
But that's the past. And I do think it reflects well of him that he would say such things about you. And, quite frankly, I think it reflects well of you that you would say such things about him. In your opinion, Ms. Kagan, is he qualified to sit as an appellate judge?
KAGAN: He is qualified to sit as an appellate judge and he is qualified to sit as a Supreme Court justice.
GRAHAM: Your stock just really went up with me.
So what I would like you to do, since you might one day be on the court yourself, is to, if you don't mind at my request, write a letter to me, short or as long as you like it about Miguel Estrada. Would you be willing to do that over the next several days?
KAGAN: I would be pleased do that, Senator Graham.
GRAHAM: Thank you. Now, let's talk about the war.
SANCHEZ: This is fascinating what just transpired. Miguel Estrada is described by many, and certainly many on the right -- this is a thorn on the side of Republicans. It was a purely partisan filibuster as described by most Republicans that kept Miguel Estrada from becoming an appeals court federal justice.
And yet now here you have Lindsey Graham almost throwing that back in Elena Kagan's face, almost as if to say, we are not going to do to you what your democratic colleagues -- you notice he first had -- he first had her establish herself as a Dem. And then he reminded her about what her Dem colleagues had done to Estrada. And then he had her say that Miguel Estrada is her friend.
And then he asked her if he'd be competent enough to be an appeals court justice, to which she trumped him and said, not only would he be a good appeals court justice, he'd be a good Supreme Court justice.
This is a fascinating exchange. To what avail? Let me bring in -- do we have our guys in Washington ready to go? I don't know who I want to ask this of, but I don't know if you were as fascinated by it as I was. Victoria Toensing, maybe to you, there was some good points there made by Lindsey Graham. What was he trying to say?
TOENSING: Well, he was being a great trial attorney. We were all sitting here anticipating where he was going. but we all knew he was going somewhere as he started out. It was the method of a trial lawyer doing cross-examination.
It is a sticking point with those of us who are conservative and thought Miguel Estrada should have been on the bench and that the Democrats went after him for -- he wasn't the right kind of Hispanic, terrible reasons. He's a brilliant man, and her stock just went up with me for that one question.
SANCHEZ: Was that purely --
TOOBIN: Rick? I'm bound to mention, I was also in that section with Miguel and Elena. I was different alphabetically so I didn't sit next to them, but I've known them both for a long time.
And the person who wasn't mentioned in that exchange was Barack Obama, because Barack Obama said during John Roberts' testimony, you are qualified clearly, but politically I just don't think you're the person I want as chief justice.
And I think it really illustrates two different models of how senators vote for Supreme Court justices. One is, is it sort of basic competence -- that's where we get the 90-0 confirmations. Or is it like today where basic competence is a given, but there's also political acceptability to each senator?
And we've simply moved. That's why it used to be 90-0 in these confirmations, and now the most anyone is ever going to get is in the 60s.
KING: It was point, set, match, Lindsey Graham. Senator Franken is new to the committee. I don't think Senator Whitehouse was around in the days of the previous confirmation hearings we're talking about.
But he was saying, we didn't start the politization. The Democrats would say it goes back before that as well. He is saying, shame on you all, here's your nominee. You're going to vote for her. She says this gentleman is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. So when some of us, Senator Graham is, when some of us vote against her, don't come yelling at her saying, she was qualified, how dare you?
MARTIN: We also have to hold on to something. The reality is Sherrill Whattley sat there for nearly two and half years. Democrats have done the same things. You have people who are placing holds on judges for no reason to score political points.
That is what is bothersome in Washington, D.C. when they play these games on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. Some great people, men, women, Hispanic, Asian, take your pick, have not been confirmed or even gotten to the hearing solely because of politics.
TOENSING: I think Lindsey Graham would agree with Roland Martin, right? I think Lindsey Graham was saying --
SANCHEZ: Point well taken. But I think the point that Lindsey Graham was making and as you read into this case and you go back to the Estrada case, it's the fact that that was a filibuster. In fact, it's described as one of the first times that we've seen a filibuster against the majority with the nomination of an appeals court justice.
TOENSING: Right.
SANCHEZ: I may be proven wrong, but that's why it stood out as it did.
TOOBIN: He wasn't nominated for the Supreme Court. He was nominated for the D.C. circuit court of appeals.
I hate to complicate matters with the facts a little bit here. But Miguel Estrada was also not helped by the Bush administration, which refused to release certain documents that the Democrats said they would give him a vote if they released the documents.
And I think it was unfair to Estrada, whose memorandum when he was working for the solicitor general's office, would have probably been very innocuous. The fact that the Bush administration didn't help him makes the story a little more complicated than it is.
TOENSING: Republicans, as you know, respect procedure, and they're not going to violate basic procedure for anything.
SANCHEZ: I had a feeling that was --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Guys. We've got to let it go. We've got to let it go and get a break in.
ROLLINS: One good thing here, you got to see a contrast between Specter, been on that committee forever, who I thought treated her with disrespect, and I think that Lindsey Graham, obviously, rose above that. I think that's a good tone to set for the future.
SANCHEZ: Well said. Good closing point.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: We'll let it go. We're out of time. And my produce is going to yell at me, not you guys. Interesting conversation. I'm so glad we had a chance to share in that.
We'll be right back. Stay there. This is your list, your national conversation, "RICK'S LIST."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: It wasn't just Elena Kagan who was on the Hill today. There was also -- you may have heard his name -- General Petraeus. He was on the Hill. The Senate Armed Services Committee in this case voted in favor of Petraeus' nomination to command the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
That hearing is at the top of the trending topics today. People are talking about it and so is Brooke Baldwin. How'd he do? BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He did pretty well. According to congressional producer, it does need to go properly on to the Senate for a full vote.
SANCHEZ: It's a slam dunk.
BALDWIN: It's a slam dunk for the guy. The question we wanted to chat about is when might we, U.S., get out, draw down --
SANCHEZ: That's what Americans want -- this is not -- neither one of these, Afghanistan or Iraq, are popular wars. And Americans want to know what the hell is Iraq is a popular war and Americans want to know when we are getting out, if we are getting out.
BALDWIN: Yes, so that topic specifically very much dominated the discourse today as part of these confirmation hearings for General David Petraeus, who again, was approved by the committee to be assume this role as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, basically oversee the war.
Regarding that date specifically, remember, the president announced in December, he said I will begin this process July of 2011. And it's funny, because we were just listening to Lindsey Graham. This is a different Lindsey Graham, very frustrated over this timetable. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: It depends on who you seem to be talking to, because a lot of liberal people in this country are being told directly and indirectly, we're getting out beginning July, 2011. How fast, I don't know, but we're beginning to leave. And somebody needs to get it straight without doubt what the hell we're going to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So this deadline has definitely been a very contentious topic between Republicans and the president. In fact John McCain said that we should not pull out until our mission in Afghanistan is a success. If we need to abandon that July, 2011 date, so be it.
Meantime, the chairman of this committee, Carl Levin, said we should stick with the timetable. It's a message of urgency, a message of commitment to President Karzai and other Afghan leaders.
Petraeus in his opening statement said he was definitely part of that process in helping formulate the president's strategy and most definitely agrees with the July, 2011 date. When would the troops begin, how many, how fast? Petraeus made it very clear that the pace of this responsible draw down will depend on the conditions on the ground. But it's still very clear that he supports the president's policy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: General, at any time during the deliberations that the military shared with the president when he went through the decision-making process, was there a recommendation from you or anyone in the military that we set a date of July, 2011?
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, COMMANDER, CENTCOM: There was not.
MCCAIN: There was not by any military person that you know of?
PETRAEUS: Not that I'm aware of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: According to a senior Pentagon official, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is ready to make a recommendation to the president on a new military commander, of course, because everyone is wondering who will replace General Petraeus as head of Cent-Com. That is expected to be announced after he's confirmed before the full Senate.
SANCHEZ: I just noticed that you used the term -- let me take this to our panel, because I -- when you were just saying that, I looked at the script that you were using to see if you had just used the word or if it was in quotation, and it was in quotations, "responsible draw down."
BALDWIN: I keep hearing that.
SANCHEZ: And I'm wondering, what does that mean? Let's go to our panel, if we can. Candy Crowley, what is a responsible drawdown?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN ANCHOR: It's kind of like, we'll know it when we see it.
(LAUGHTER)
I think you have to -- look, when we get to next July, you're going to have the military opinion and the political mandate. And the political mandate is, it's 2011. The president does not want to go into a reelection year for him having 100,000 troops sitting in Afghanistan after putting this date out there.
However, he also promised to listen to his military. I'm not kidding when I tell you that "responsible" is we'll know it when we see it. It's a deliberately fuzzy word because you're not going to get General Petraeus to say, yep, July 1, 2011. He's chose that word quite carefully.
ROLLINS: He's entitled to reassess. He hasn't been on the ground even though he's been over there during the Iraq and Afghan war. One thing that has really dropped is the December assessment. I think no one is talking about that at this point in time. It's not going to be as important as it was.
SANCHEZ: But isn't he -- hold on a minute. Isn't he saying to the left, to most of the people who put him in the office, by the way -- and I'm not talking about Petraeus. I'm talking about the commander in chief. Isn't he saying to the left, I know I made promises and told you we are going to get out of the war definitively, but now I've got to deal with this politically and watch my right flank. Isn't that what really is going on, guys?
GLORIA BORGER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You mean from Barack Obama's point of view?
SANCHEZ: Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
BORGER: No. I think Barack Obama has called us obsessive about this timeline, but I think when you listen to Barack Obama, he has been saying, absolutely, we will begin this drawdown in July, 2011.
I think when you hear the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, she call it is a "serious drawdown." What's the difference between a serious drawdown and the responsible drawdown and what the president of the United States has been saying?
He also said they would close down Gitmo by January of this year. And that didn't happen. So deadlines don't mean a lot.
MARTIN: President Obama has a huge problem. That is, if Democrats in the House -- forget what Senator Dianne Feinstein said about moving forward. If Democrats say we are not going to fund this effort, he has a greater problem.
When Petraeus is talking, he's really trying to instill some sense in Democrats so they don't go there. Look, the left did not like the expansion of war, enthusiasm is down. It will likely hurt them in November. He cannot afford Democrats saying, forget about it. We're not going to walk in here with you.
SANCHEZ: We'll let it go with that. My thanks to all of you, and Brooke Baldwin, my thanks to you as well.
We'll be right back. We've got brand-new information, believe it or not, talking about a name from the past, back in the news after doing something that my dad would say something that you should never do. Michael Vick is back in the news. Has he screwed up again? And, if so, how bad? That's up to the NFL commissioner. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I want to bring you up to date -- I mentioned a little while ago that there's something going on with the Michael Vick story.
The idea is that Michael Vick had a party for himself, his 30th birthday, last weekend. While there, he allegedly got into a scuffle with a former friend, one of the persons who was also arrested in the dog fighting/killing scandal that put Michael Vick in prison.
Now, Michael Vick, according to his own parole agreement, is not supposed to be with people who are felons. And he's not supposed to hang out with the guys who he had hung out before in the dog-fighting incident.
Well, guess what? He got into a scuffle with this guy. The guy went outside of this nightclub and apparently he was shot. That's the problem. The NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, wants to know, did Michael break his promise to the NFL by, a, hanging out at a nightclub, and, b, associating with a former felon that he was associating with before.
So Michael Vick has questions to answer. We're told we may have new information about Michael Vick. The police might now be interested in talking to him. We were told originally that the police were not investigating him in any way, shape, or form, having to do with the shooting.
The only way he was involved in this story was that he might have violated his own parole. So, I tell you, Michael Vick back in the news, our of the frying pan and into the fire, as they say.
And I'm being told now that the Dow is down, not just down, but way down, down 271 a moment ago. There you see it at 268.97, the Dow is under 9,000 as we've been following.
