Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Interview With Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy; Kagan Confirmation Hearing Continues
Aired June 29, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: I want to bring you up to date now.
I mentioned just a little while ago that there's something going on with the Michael Vick story. The Vick story is pretty simple, the idea that Michael Vick had a party for himself, it was his 30th birthday party, last weekend. While there, he allegedly got into a scuffle with a former friend, one of the persons who was also arrested in the dogfighting/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, according to the NFL agreement, he's not supposed to hang out with the guys who he had hung out before in the dogfighting incident.
Well, guess what? Michael Vick 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, now wants to know, what is going on with this? Did Michael Vick break his promise to the NFL by, A, hanging out at a nightclub and, B, associating with one of the past felons where he was associating with before having to do with the case in the dogfighting incident?
So, Michael Vick has questions to answer. We're told we may have new information about Michael Vick. We're told the police may now be interested in talking to him, which would be a reversal, because we were told originally that the police are not investigating Vick in any way, shape, or form having to do with the shooting.
The only way that Vick is involved in this story is that he may have violated his own parole. So, I will tell you, Michael Vick back in the news, out of the frying pan, into the fire, as they say.
And now we have another story that is developing. I'm being told now that the Dow is down, and not just down, but way down, down 271 a moment ago. There you see it at 268.97, the Dow under 9000, as we have been following. More news on this as well. We will bring you the latest.
Now, here we go, hour two of our newscast. And, as we begin this newscast, I am honored to report that we are the news of record for American Forces Network at this hour. We welcome all the troops watching overseas, especially the guys in Afghanistan and Iraq on this day, as we're talking about you.
Here now, your national conversation. (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 dis the military while dean at Harvard Law School?
SEN. JEFFREY 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?
You heard it here first; 10 people arrested allegedly spying for the Russians, but why so few details about what they were actually doing? You want to know.
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: Hour two, here we go. Boy, so much going on. Time to pick up the pace of today's list for those of you just now checking in.
Number one, no question about it, it's Elena Kagan, right, at Harvard, now before the Senate Judiciary Committee as the president's nominee for the United States Supreme Court. There's the live picture. She's still answering some of the questions from Senator Lindsey Graham.
There's Lindsey Graham, who started the questioning just a little while ago, going back to how one particular Republican nominee was in his opinion mistreated by the Dems back several years ago.
Now, I showed you the back-and-forth being Kagan and Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, right? He was grilling Kagan about banning military recruiters from an on-campus recruiting facility when she was Harvard Law dean -- Kagan -- Kagan explaining that they could recruit from a campus veterans center, but not from the school loan facility because the U.S. military discriminates against gays and lesbians and Harvard has an anti-discriminatory -- discrimination policy.
And she said, look, my hands are tied. The policy is the policy. I was just following it. But then Sessions started saying that Kagan's explanation was wrong, and we played this for you. He said it was unconnected to reality. That's what he said. He was going after her at that point.
I want to bring in our own Jessica Yellin now. She's our national correspondent, our national political correspondent, and, I might add, a Harvard grad.
Is it fair, based, Jessica, on what happened at Harvard, to charge, as Sessions seems to be saying, or alluding to or suggesting, that Elena Kagan has a bias against the military?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think that's apples and oranges, Rick, because, when I was at Harvard, a full decade before she was dean of the law school, there was already institutional opposition to don't ask, don't tell. It was alive and well.
So, beginning in 1979, when Harvard instituted this no- discrimination policy, there were people in ROTC, the Reserve Officers Training Corps, who could not train and drill on campus because, initially a holdover from Vietnam, it continued because of don't ask, don't tell. That was a decade before she was there.
Then, when General Colin Powell was invited to speak at graduation in 1993, there was massive protests over don't ask, don't tell. I can't emphasize enough how this -- it steeps the whole university. She was continuing with prevailing beliefs on campus.
And this whole debate feels very out of context for someone who was at Harvard, because to suggest it didn't predate date or saying that's a left-wing talking point is like arguing that reality is a left-wing talking point.
SANCHEZ: Isn't -- she was there in 2003. Isn't this about the same time, though, that there was a lot of questions?
YELLIN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Michael Moore had this movie that came out about that time, as I recall, where a big part of his movie was questioning whether recruiters had a right to go out there and get people to join the military and that they were maybe not being all that honest with them.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: If you put it in the context of that time frame, there were a lot of questions being raised about recruiting by the left.
YELLIN: There have been since the Vietnam era, when some of these organizations were kicked off of these elite campuses then. There are a number of colleges that have resisted allowing military recruitment.
But that's hardly unique to Elena Kagan or to Harvard. It might be -- some in the right have argued that that's the culture of elite universities that there are anti-military in some way. I don't buy that. I think that there is a tension there, but this is -- the fundamental point here is that it's in no way special to her.
And there were 24 faculties that joined in the lawsuit against this policy of requiring these military recruiters. Hers wasn't even one of them. So she wasn't even leading the charge on this.
SANCHEZ: Hey, Jeff Toobin, are you there?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, sir.
SANCHEZ: I'm wondering. I keep hearing this conversation about activist judges. And I want to come back to this. And I know that there's a lot of different sides to this, but yesterday I heard Al Franken essentially saying, yes, there are activist judges. They are essentially in the Supreme Court right now.
And he went on to name them, putting Scalia and Alito on his list. Can both sides make an argument using this activist word as their context?
TOOBIN: Absolutely.
And I think the important thing to do is define what they most people by activist judges. And there is a fairly simple definition, which is judges who use their power to overrule the will of the people as by -- expressed by the elected branches of government.
And let me give you a classic liberal activist decision, Roe vs. Wade. That is a decision that says, Texas state legislature, Texas governor, you may have decided that abortion is legal -- is illegal in your state. You may outlaw abortion, but we, the U.S. Supreme Court, know better. We are going to insist that it's up to the woman. So, we are overruling the will of the people.
That's a liberal activist decision. However, conservatives, especially in recent years at the Supreme Court, have also been engaging in activism. Example? The Citizens United case. Congress of the United States, President George W. Bush passed the McCain/Feingold law. Just this past January, the conservatives on the Supreme Court said, we know better. That law is unconstitutional in terms of corporations and labor unions supporting candidates.
That is conservative judicial activism. There's plenty to go around.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: So, hey, Victoria, you there? She's not there?
I'm just wondering, if I ask the right, Jeff, if I ask the right, well, who's in this case are -- what arguments would you make about the right and why do we keep hearing -- I lost my train of thought there for just a moment.
Here's my point. Why do we keep hearing them say that the Constitution is black and white and no one should try -- it almost sounds like they're saying, you shouldn't interpret it.
It's not black and white, is it, Jeff?
TOOBIN: Well, see, you know, David Souter -- speaking of Harvard, David Souter, the recently retired Supreme Court justice, gave a really fascinating commencement address this year at Harvard where he made the point that, whatever you think about the Constitution, is that it's not simple and it's not obvious how to interpret phrases like due process of law, reasonable search and seizure, freedom of the press.
These are terms that don't define themselves, and you need to bring other sources, whether it is later case law or the facts of modern life. You need to bring something to the interpretation. And the idea -- and it's very much associated with Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, so-called textualism, relying just on the text -- that really doesn't get you very far. You have to decide what the text means. And that's where your ideology and your politics often comes into play.
SANCHEZ: Yes. That's what she told Sessions earlier today. She said, look, circumstances change with different times and different eras. And it's those circumstances that make us go back to the text and then see how we interpret it based on whatever happens to be happening today, as opposed to 10, 20, or 100 years ago.
It's a heck of an interesting conversation.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Go ahead, Jeff.
TOOBIN: Rick, it's very important to recognize that what you just said is very controversial.
There are a lot of people, particularly conservatives, who believe that the Constitution should only mean what the framers of the Constitution thought it meant in the late 18th century. That's their view. That -- they're called originalists.
SANCHEZ: Right.
TOOBIN: The other folks, the more liberal folks, are known as advocates of the so-called living Constitution, which says that the meaning changes over time. This is a key debate in the history of the Constitution. It's why you have so many 5-4 decisions, including the one on gun control yesterday.
So, this is very hot and important stuff, even though it sounds airy and abstract.
(LAUGHTER) SANCHEZ: It doesn't. I think it's fascinating. I really do. And it's great to have you, Toobs, to take us through it.
By the way, I want to thank Jessica Yellin as well for getting us started in this segment. We will be hopefully readdressing this.
I want to let you know that -- who's next? Grassley is coming up, right? Grassley is going to be -- when Grassley starts questioning -- when Senator Grassley starts questioning Kagan, we're going to dip into it and let you listen to some of that as well.
And I think we got a chance to go to Senator Leahy, who is going to be joining us live to ask -- answer some of our questions. That's coming up in 15 minutes.
And we're going to be revisiting the situation with the Dow, down something like 271 points. Did it hit 300? We will let you know.
And, of course, the Michael Vick story continues. What did he do? More reaction on that. Stay with us. Your national conversation, your LIST, continues right here on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. This is RICK'S LIST. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Senator Patrick Leahy is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And he's good enough to take us a couple of minutes here to join us live while the session continues.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir, for taking the time to join us.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: It's good to be with you. I'm glad you're covering it.
SANCHEZ: We are. We are.
Let me start off by asking you a question that has been raised. Does Elena Kagan's view of the Constitution, as she has explained it several times, including the opening session with the Alabama Senator Sessions, does that make -- do you come away with the impression, or should the American people come away with the impression, and, if so, why not, that she is an activist judge or will be an activist judge?
LEAHY: No, I think she's somebody that comes across as somebody who certainly knows the law probably as well as any of the people I have heard. I have sat on nomination hearings of other judges, plus the Supreme Court, maybe hundreds, probably thousands of these things.
Her knowledge of the law is as good as anybody I have heard. And you can -- so, that's one thing you can make a determination. How do they feel about the Constitution? I didn't hear anything in there that seemed to be glaring that would have gone one way or the other.
I didn't hear her views of the Constitution, when you put it down, that being much different than, for example, John Roberts or others.
SANCHEZ: Mm-hmm.
LEAHY: So, no.
But you have to understand, a judge may be a lot different once they get in a lifetime position. John Paul Stevens, who's she's replacing, was confirmed in two-and-a-half weeks after he was nominated by a conservative Republican.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
LEAHY: Every single Democrat voted for him. He was considered to be a very conservative jurist. He ended up being one of the more liberal jurists.
SANCHEZ: Let me ask -- let me ask you another question about something I watched this morning. When Jeff -- when Senator Jeff Sessions was done, he finished with a very strong, biting type of summary, essentially saying that he came away with the impression that she had not been honest, that Elena Kagan had not been honest, and that she did have a tendency to be anti-military.
And then you jumped in and said, given what he just said, I feel like I need to give you a chance to respond.
Why did you do that? And did you feel that Senator Sessions was heavy-handed?
(CROSSTALK)
LEAHY: No. It was just that he had done that in the form of a question, went way over -- over time, and time had run out. I wanted her to understand that, even though time had run out, our tradition is, if you have been asked a question when the clock ends, you should be allowed and are allowed to answer the question, which she did.
Of course, in her case, we have had so many key people in the military praise her and her views on the military and say how pro- military she's been, that I thought she should be at least allowed to answer.
Now, every senator has his or her style of questioning. Like Senator Sessions, I was a former prosecutor, but you still have different ways of doing it. But I have tried to make sure that, if anybody asks a question, whether it's a Democratic or a Republican, that the witness get a chance to answer.
I think that's one of the reasons why, after the Sotomayor hearing, we had both Republicans and Democrats on the floor of the Senate saying how fair the hearing had been. I want to make sure everybody gets heard.
SANCHEZ: Are you convinced that she's not anti-military, as he seemed to suggest? LEAHY: Oh, yes. I have had -- when you have the general who is the dean of studies at West Point say how strong and pro-military he considers her, it's hard to get much stronger than that.
The captain for the Marine Corps -- and my son -- my youngest son was in the Marines, so I have a special affinity for the Marines -- when he spoke out very strongly in favor, and said how much her mentoring at Harvard meant to him and her support even after he left to go the military had meant to him, then he's -- and then, as we know, that she would invite the veterans at Harvard to come and join her for Thanksgiving dinner.
SANCHEZ: Let me ask you one final question, because, look, you're in charge of this thing. And I think most people would say that you're doing a good job handling it.
But she herself has said in the past that this thing is a bit of a charade. Some Americans would look at this and say, a lot of times when I listen to the questions and the answers, it sounds like there's more politicking than truth-telling.
Let me ask you, if could you change this process, how would you change it, or would you?
LEAHY: Well, unfortunately, the only way you could really change it would be to say, now, when this issue comes before the Supreme Court, how would you vote?
And nobody, nobody, Republican or Democrat, could ever answer that question, nor should they. But then...
SANCHEZ: Why not? Why not?
LEAHY: You have to kind of make up your mind.
SANCHEZ: Why not?
LEAHY: Because then they would -- because then they -- as John Roberts said at his own hearing, you would be precluded from being able to hear the case when it came there.
The canons of ethics are very clear on that, and you just couldn't do it. But what you have to do in asking the questions, part of it is a leap of faith, but part of it is, is this person going to be good?
I urge senators, don't listen to the single-issue groups on the far right or the far left. Make up your mind based on what you hear. I remember, when I voted for Justice Souter, I had a very liberal group picketing outside my office saying that I would never be reelected if I voted for Souter.
Well, I thought he was a good justice, and I voted for him. I -- incidentally, I got reelected.
SANCHEZ: And he ended turned out to be more swinging to the left than to the right, didn't he?
(LAUGHTER)
LEAHY: Well, yes, in fact, that same group probably wished he hadn't retired.
(LAUGHTER)
LEAHY: But the point is, you have to make up your mind.
As I said when I voted for John Paul Stevens, I thought he was going to be a very conservative justice, partly because he was nominated by a very conservative Republican president. But I also felt that he was honest, that he had a grasp, a very good grasp of the law, and that he would look at each case on its merits, and then make up his mind.
(CROSSTALK)
LEAHY: There have been some cases where I have disagreed with him. But, boy, I have been awfully happy for America that he's been on the court.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting and it's fun to watch this. And it certainly is illustrative.
Chairman...
(CROSSTALK)
LEAHY: It really is. It is -- as one who has tried a lot of cases before a lot of courts, I find it fascinating.
LEAHY: Yes.
My thanks to you, sir, Senator Pat Leahy, taking the time.
Now, you have got to get back in there, don't you?
LEAHY: Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
LEAHY: Yes, I do. I have got to go there right now. Take care.
SANCHEZ: All right. Thanks for taking the time to talk to us, Senator. We certainly appreciate it.
All right, also this: alleged Russian spies in the United States arrested? What did they find? What were they after? I have got to tell you, there's as many questions as there are answers in this case. We're drilling down on them.
Also, I told you that Alex was going to become a hurricane. What's the latest? Is it a hurricane yet? Is it about to become a hurricane? And what's it going to do to the oil? Chad joins us in just a little bit to take us through with that fancy -- with the fancy threads.
We will be right back.
(LAUGHTER)
CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: I feel like there's a -- what is that...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: All right, Alex is the name. Trouble is the game.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: It could be upgraded to a hurricane in just a little bit, probably not -- Chad is joining us now.
MYERS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: This is probably not going to be a huge -- it's not going to be a big hurricane, right? Maybe a Category 1 or 2?
MYERS: No.
(CROSSTALK)
MYERS: No, but you can get storm surge up the Rio Grande into Brownsville and do millions of dollars worth of damage even with a glancing blow with a hurricane.
SANCHEZ: The question is, will it generate enough storms?
And here what has sometimes to do with that. When I covered Andrew many, many years ago, Andrew was almost what they call a pinpoint hurricane, real small little hurricane, but powerful inside. And then there's those other hurricanes that are big, that they make huge, giant wrap-arounds.
(CROSSTALK)
MYERS: Yes.
SANCHEZ: I'm just asking. I don't know. If this thing is one of those big hurricanes with the big, huge wrap-around, so to speak, with the big arms, it will cause more problems with the oil than another -- than an Andrew-type hurricane, right?
MYERS: We know now that they have stopped the skimming, that they have stopped the in situ burning, they have stopped the booming, the new booming, because of -- the waves now are five to seven feet.
SANCHEZ: Wow.
MYERS: So, that's all stopped. Now, the pumping and the Q4000 and the top hat and all of that, that is still going on. They can still go with that until about 12-foot waves. So, we're only halfway there.
SANCHEZ: So, show us what this thing will do to the oil in the Gulf, if it goes more to the right and if it does have the big arms.
MYERS: If it goes far enough to the right, which it will never happen, it could push the oil away. But it's not.
SANCHEZ: Right, which would be good.
MYERS: It would be lovely.
SANCHEZ: Right.
MYERS: It's not going to happen. We can't get this thing to Tampa. It's just too left. It's moving to the left. It's moving toward Brownsville. And it's going to continue to move that way.
There's nothing we can do about it. Here's the Yucatan Peninsula. Here's Cancun, Cozumel, all the way back down the Bay of Campeche, back up into Brownsville, and so on, and then there's Florida. This thing moves onshore tomorrow night, probably after dark, south of Brownsville.
Now, there is a cone that could say it could do something like this, maybe into Corpus Christi, maybe all the way down toward La Cruz. Whatever. Irrelevant. There's going to be a little bit of a surge along the Mexican coast, but that's really all about it.
You said, how big are the arms?
SANCHEZ: Right.
MYERS: Look at this. Look at this. It's already raining, storming here. That's almost -- that would be San Antonio, Austin, right through Houston, back here into New Orleans. Here, that's about Columbus, Georgia, and then back even just to the south of Atlanta.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: So, this is a storm with a big range.
(CROSSTALK)
MYERS: These are the arms that are coming around. Exactly. Now, I can't show that it's raining here, here, here, and here. It just is. But the radar doesn't go that far, because the radars are here along the coast. The radars only go about 200 miles. So, we can't show you out there.
But I could show you and I did show you where that satellite was. So, what happens? It comes onshore. The winds get to 90 miles per hour. And you said it could become a hurricane any time. I believe it will become a hurricane at the 5:00 update. So, 5:00 p.m., we're probably talking about 40 minutes, maybe less, before we actually get that update that will -- this will probably say Hurricane Alex at that update. Maybe not. It could be 11:00. They could watch it. There's a plane in it right now watching. The wind is doing this, and around the center, 100 miles per hour. And this is one you talk about, the Coral Gables -- remember the Coral Gables storm for you for Andrew? And then all of a sudden you get all the way down towards Homestead. Those winds were 150, 160 down there, broke the anemometer at the Hurricane Center.
You don't even know how high the winds were there. Getting away from it, back to Miami, Fort Lauderdale, maybe 60, 70 miles per hour, and then less and less and less the farther you get in. But the problem is, it's not so much that it's less, but it's from the same direction for 72 hours.
And the oil gets pushed all the way from Pensacola through Mobile into Gulfport, the Chandeleur Islands, back all the way into New Orleans. Get rid of all that. So, you can -- all this stuff that we have known about for so long, where the oil has been very close, you get the winds blowing in one direction for that long, three days, and that water and that oil is all going to be onshore, moving it away from Florida, moving it away here from Northern Florida, but right back into these areas that we know that were hit already so hard, will continue to be hit hard with that wind direction -- Rick.
SANCHEZ: Job well done. Good explanation, as usual.
MYERS: OK.
SANCHEZ: How about General Petraeus? He sits in the hot seat today, just as Kagan did, well, maybe not quite as hot, since he's so revered.
He was before a Senate panel during the confirmation hearings to be the next commander of the war in Afghanistan, as my colleague Brooke Baldwin would put it, a slam dunk.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: How did the answer of critical question, though, troop withdrawals, are we going to stay in Afghanistan, if so, for how long, are we going to stay in Iraq, if so, for how long? These are the pivotal questions Americans want to know. And these are the pivotal questions that Brooke has been following for us today.
You ready?
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm ready.
SANCHEZ: Let's do it. We will take a quick break and we will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: It's summer and what do dads do in the summer? They bring their daughters to work with them. This is my little girl, Savannah, and she says when she grows up she wants to be just like Brooke Baldwin. Isn't that nice?
BALDWIN: You can (ph) take my job one day, Savannah. I'm ready.
SANCHEZ: That's the way it works, you know. We get somebody younger and cheaper.
BALDWIN: Oh, boy. She'll be awesome.
SANCHEZ: All right. You've been following the Petraeus hearings for us.
BALDWIN: I have.
SANCHEZ: And you know, look, the fact that he's going to be confirmed is (INAUDIBLE), so that's not really even knows. The fact of the matter is here's an opportunity for us to use this and the McChrystal episode to find out what exactly is going to happen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Are we going to be staying there and, if so, for how long? How we're going to change the plan in anyway and you found out what?
BALDWIN: I think that the answer, unfortunately, is that we don't have an answer per se. It's still very (INAUDIBLE) to win, how fast or how many? But we still have that date, this July 2011, right? I mean, that's all we really know, and I'm sorry, that's not maybe the answer that you want specifically. But, yes, Americans want to know, our allies, even our enemies. When they talk about the Taliban today, they all want to know what exactly the plan is. Now, that topic definitely dominated also the hearing today.
General David Petraeus has basically been tapped and actually now confirmed, we heard this afternoon, at least, confirmed by the Senate Armed Forces Committee. That vote has to go on to the Senate. And they talked a lot about that date, a lot about July 2011. And you could definitely hear the frustration from one of the Republican senators on this committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, about that timetable. Listen to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: 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: I'm sure a lot of other people sitting at home thinking, we want to know, too, right? And this particular deadline has most definitely been a source of contention between the president, between the Republicans. You can hear the frustration also in a ranking Republican Senator John McCain's voice. He said, look, we shouldn't be pulling out until we know for -- completely of a fact whether or not our mission there was a success. If we need to forget about this deadline, forget it. In the meantime though, the ranking Democratic, the chair of this committee, Senator Carl Levin, said that we should stick with the timetable.
SANCHEZ: You know, it's funny you got the Republicans saying, don't give away your Normandy invasion plans, don't tell them when you're getting out, and then you got the dems saying, no, we want out at a certain time.
BALDWIN: Look, it's a message they want to send to President Karzai, the sense of urgency and the sense of commitment as well, but Petraeus sort of has to walk along those lines, right? And he's making a very clear of though that the pace of this drawdown will depend -- to use his words -- the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan, but he's very clear on one thing, he is very much so in support of the president's policy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETRAEUS: It is important to note the president's reminder in recent days that July 2011 will mark the beginning of a process, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits and turns out the lights. The commitment to Afghanistan is necessarily, therefore, an enduring one and neither the Taliban nor Afghan and Pakistani partners should doubt that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: And now as General Petraeus presumably takes on this lead role in the war in Afghanistan, who then replaces him as head of CENTCOM? We don't know that yet, but according to a senior Pentagon official, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he is ready to make the recommendation to the president as soon as General Petraeus is officially confirmed. One final note, I just read, this is from our CNN White House units, specifically from Dan Lothian from Robert Gibbs, from the White House, and they are saying they're going to see if they can make it possible for General Stanley McChrystal, which is the whole reason why we're having these hearings, so he will be able to retire from the military still retaining his four stars.
SANCHEZ: The interesting -- what I take away from much of what you said is that it's still very much a plan to do something next July as far as Afghanistan is concerned, but the question is, is it a removal of troops or is it a drawdown and, if so, how incremental will it be? And it doesn't sound like, from what you're reportedly saying, like they're sure exactly what it's going to be.
BALDWIN: No, they are not. It just depends on the conditions of the ground. That's we kept hearing over and over and over. What does that mean and the pace, we don't know yet.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting. No answer, really.
BALDWIN: No.
SANCHEZ: Or no definitive answer.
BALDWIN: Not yet.
SANCHEZ: Thanks, Brooke. Good stuff.
You heard it here first, 11 alleged spies have been arrested, ten of them in the United States. How much damage could they have caused? What were they actually -- who were they spying on? We're drilling down on this because we have a lot of questions.
And then you thought you had a tough job, imagine getting stuck repairing windows on a skyscraper and you're dangling 47 stories above the ground. Hello. How it all unfolded, next on the list.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. Most of us have frightening and perilous jobs. I mean, just today, I almost used Chad Myers hairspray and I try to see I can borrow his suit and you to have it fit (ph). That was as close as it comes for me for perilous. But some equally mind blowing professions made my list the best videos of the day. This is the part that we call "Fotos."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ (voice-over): OK. Look up. Look way up. Forty-seven stories above the steamy hot streets of Atlanta. A couple of window washers sat there stuck yesterday when that creepy little motorized platform thing that they stand on suddenly failed. There they dangle for more than an hour until rescue crews hauled them back up. Wow. Nerve racking.
From window washing to wing walking. Here's an odd way to make a living and enter the history books. Ashley Battles, tough (ph) woman and wing walker, she now owns the Guinness World Record for standing on the wing of a plane in a flight longer than anyone else ever. Talk about guts. Four hours and two minutes, she did it, Saturday, nearly froze to death, seriously. She also smashed the record for catching bugs in her teeth.
OK. Last one. Your job is to catch bears when they fallout of trees, literally. This is Holyoke, Massachusetts. People who live there for decades say they have never seen a bear in the city. Well, you have now. Game officials say that the adult male was perfectly healthy, weighted in about 250, and was released after sleeping off a tranquilizer. You can see all of our photos, by the way, on my blog which is CNN.com/RickSanchez.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ (on-camera): No, it's not a new movie or a crime novel. This really is about alleged Russian spies arrested in the United States. We left it at 10 yesterday, it's up to 11 now. We're going to drill down on this with an expert because I got at least six or seven very concrete questions I want to ask -- or answered. I'll ask, he'll answer, when we come back. This is your national conversation. This is RICK'S LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: My mom and dad always gave me great advice. Here's one piece of advice I remember hearing from my mom. She said - (SPEAKING IN SPANISH)
What does it mean? Here's the translation. Tell me who you hang around with and I'll tell you who you are. I wish Michael Vick (ph) met my mom. Here's today's list you don't want to be on.
Michael Vick, as you know, has been in trouble before. He went to prison for it, as a matter of fact. Said he'd learned his lesson. And it seemed he had cleaned up his act, until last weekend, when he went to a birthday party for himself at a nightclub. Should he have been in the nightclub? That's a heck of a question. Because after being at the nightclub, he allegedly got into a scuffle with the same guy who got him in trouble during his dog days, the lack of a better description.
His probation says that he shouldn't hang out with the guy and so does the NFL, but that's what apparently happened. And now he has to answer for it. He has to answer to who? To this guy, to the commish.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROGER GOODELL, NFL COMMISSIONER: Law enforcements made it clear that Michael is not focus. But even so, we're looking at that and making sure that there was no violation of our agreement with Michael. We'll continue to gather those facts. But it's another indication, though, that you have to be careful about where you are, who you are there with, because it's going to make a lot of notoriety if you make decisions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: And just as we've thought the story could get worse, it does. Because what makes matters worse in this case is that after scuffling with Michael Vick, according to reports, the same guy was later shot outside of the nightclub. No reason to suspect, by the way, that Vick had anything in any way to do with the shooting. What he is suspected of is using some really bad judgment and possibly a violating his parole and his agreement with the NFL. Will he be benched for it? Will be suspended? We don't know. But today, we know this, Michael Vick, once again at the top of the list that you don't want to be on.
What were Russian spies accused of doing here in the United States? What damage did they cause? That's one of the big stories that we're following for you. Oh, and by the way, do you ever wonder who the top five Russian spies are? Those answers ahead on THE LIST.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Let me share something with you. I just got this note from our own Barbara Starr, who is as good as anybody covering news out of the Pentagon. President Obama is going to allow General Stanley McChrystal to retire as a four-star general. Now, you're probably asking yourself, Sanchez, he was a four-star general. Why would he not retire as a four-star general? How is President Obama doing any favors to McChrystal. I didn't know this either. But let me read you what Barbara Starr just said, "under law, a four-star general or officer would have to serve on that level on active duty for at least three years before he's qualified to retire as a four- star general."
McChrystal had served for just about one year. So, the only way that he could actually retire and get all of the benefits as a four- star general is if the commander in chief makes an exception for him and waves the requirements, which is exactly what the president of the United States has done. It appears that Barack Obama has, in fact, given the General McChrystal the right to retire and get all of the pensions and benefits thereof as a four-star general by waving the requirement and allowing him to do so.
Brand-new information we're happy to share with you. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, a heck of a lot more news, including the latest on the story we told you about first yesterday, Russian spies in the United States. But who are they and what were they really doing? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Well, we got some guests that are visiting with us today, as usual. Everyday we got some people stopping by, happy to be able to put a shot on them, put them on TV. And Savannah, you're looking the wrong way again. If you're going to get this TV thing down, you got to get it right, OK? More of them in just a little bit. By the way, we follow tweets. Look at this tweet that we just got. I want to show you this thing. I think this is interesting. As of today, according to National Wildlife, as of today, 1,065 dead birds, 51 dead mammals, 436 dead sea turtles have been recovered in the Gulf. Once again, that's according to the National Wildlife Federation.
We got a guess who I want to bring in his prospective on what's going on with these Russian spies, but the problem is -- I'm being told we're having a little bit of a problem with the technical issue of setting him up. Have we got a shot of this guy, at least? Or do we not even have the video? There he is. He probably can't hear me, but he's a professor from Indiana, a guest from Indiana, I should say, with spy experience. And we'll be able to take us through this story. Hopefully, we'll get the audio glitch fixed and we'll do just that. Stay right there. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: This news of these Russian spies is what is -- well, in many ways, captivated me and many of you. So, we started thinking, let's put a list together of the top three spies, Russian spies, who have been in the news in the United States. Are you ready? Here we go. Let's count them down. Number three, Ex-CIA counterintelligence officer, Aldrich Ames. As you know, he gave up inside information to Russians on more than 100 CIA missions. Number two, Clyde Lee Conrad, U.S. military sergeant for almost two decades until he was discovered during the cold war selling classified NATO plans and high-tech computer chips to East Bloc countries.
Number one on the list, and here we go, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. As we all know, the real life of Boris and Natasha. In the late 1940s, the communist husband and wife supplied blueprints for the construction of the atom bomb to the Russians.
I want to tell you about something else that's going on today. This got some folks frustrated. I want to tell you about help for the people in the Gulf after the disaster. Now, I'm talking about folks who are basically broke, out of work, because their jobs are linked to offshore oil drilling. But the reason that they are losing money or not working isn't because of the oil spill itself, it's because of the moratorium or the stoppage that the administration put on drilling in the gulf.
They say, if they're not drilling, then we who supply them aren't making money. Now, the man in charge of this for the White House didn't even know this was happening until Chris Lawrence brought it to his attention. I want you to watch this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): First the oil spill itself took out the fishermen and restaurant owners, but BP set up a 20 billion fund to cover their damages. President Obama's six-month ban shut down deepwater drilling and BP set aside another $100 million to pay the workers on those oil rigs. But the truckers, loaders, caterers and cleaners that supported those shut down rigs, they had nothing, except rising anger at Washington over what the ban has done to them. Take Anthony Thibodeaux.
How is the moratorium affecting you?
ANTHONY THIBODEAUX, TRUCK LOADER: I basically have no job. I'm normally checking in 8, 10, 12 trucks a day, loading up two boats to go off shore. I did none. No boats out. You know, I feel like a dead man walking. I know I'm just waiting for the ax to fall because it's got to. That company cannot survive holding on to guys like me. They can't.
LAWRENCE: Is this just affecting people who live right along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana?
THIBODEAUX: No. No. I live in Atlanta. I drive to work every week. The riggers and the crane operators come from Mississippi. There are some from Alabama.
LAWRENCE: This weekend, we took their concerns to Ken Feinberg.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, how are we supposed to feed our families, pay our bills, get to work?
KEN FEINBERG, COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION: I understand that you only want what you're entitled to as an unfortunate victim of this spill.
LAWRENCE: The man President Obama appointed to take charge of the claims process to see if their damages can be covered.
Will you be handling any claims at all for people whose businesses have been affected by the moratorium?
FEINBERG: Yes. I now have discovered -- I didn't realize this until yesterday, but the moratorium claims will fall under my jurisdiction.
LAWRENCE: That's a huge development, and we didn't know that before because --
FEINBERG: I didn't either. I just learned yesterday that the administration and BP have agreed that the moratorium claims will fall under my jurisdiction.
LAWRENCE (on-camera): Always a good idea to let the boss know exactly what he's in charge of. But this seems to be a relatively recent deal between BP and the Obama administration. It's not something BP agreed to early on. They took responsibility for the oil spill, but the moratorium was something that was imposed by the federal government. Now, this doesn't solve all the problems for these workers, but it at least gives them somewhere to go to try to get back some of what they have lost.
Chris Lawrence, CNN, New Orleans.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: All right. Let's go back now to the guess that we tried to set up for you a little while ago. Gene Coil is a former CIA field operations officer and he's good enough to join us now. Mr. Coil, thanks for being with us, sir. Sorry it took so long to get things straightened out here. Look, the news came out yesterday, we reported it. There's something like 11 people now who apparently have been arrested as potential spies for the Russians. And what I'm confused about is, we still haven't been told who they were spying for, what agencies they might have infiltrated. There's a lot of information that seems to be missing here, is there not?
GENE COIL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, INIDIAN UNIVERSITY: Well, it's in the early days of this, and this comes out -- but this is an unprecedented event. In a good year, the FBI managed to arrest one Russian intelligence officer. It was an accomplishment. To wrap up, 11 people in one fell swoop, and these weren't your average Russian spies working out in the embassy or consulate , these were very deep cover people called illegals. The Russians had invested millions of dollars in training these people, the language skills, cultural skills, getting the documentation for them so that they can pretend to be from Canada, from Uruguay.
SANCHEZ: Let me be very direct or maybe you can explain this to us.
COIL: Sure.
SANCHEZ: What would these people want to do? That would be like saying, we're going to send people into Russia and just have them hang out with the population and find out what Russians are really like. I understand when a spy infiltrates Congress or the FBI or the CIA and takes our secrets or our military, but what agency -- what was the end result for these people? I'm not sure I get it.
COIL: Well, you get two values to them. First of all, it's who they can target. As we're already seeing in the media reports, they would chat up people -- if not in the government, on the fringes of the government, people working on high-tech R&D projects and also the other side of the coin is you would have an officer handle a very sensitive asset that they didn't even want to risk having someone out of the Russian embassy handle. So, I'm waiting for the next shoot (ph) to come wherein you may see the arrest of various Americans that some of these deep-cover officers were handling.
They wouldn't go out and recruit them themselves possibly, but they just handled the passage. They served as the go-between, between the Russian embassy and a really important, sensitive American spy.
SANCHEZ: So, in other -- and we're down to 30 seconds.
COIL: Sure.
SANCHEZ: There's going to be a lot more information that we're going to be gleaming out of this soon, right?
COIL: Undoubtedly it will leak out one way or the other, and if you thought General McChrystal had a hard time, I'd hate to be the head of the SPR and having to explain to put and how he just had 11 people wrapped up in one day.
SANCHEZ: Gene Coil, my thanks to you and my thanks to you at home for being with us. Once again, the "Situation Room" coming your way right now. Hosting today, Suzanne Malveaux.
