Return to Transcripts main page

Rick's List

White House Apologizes to Former USDA Employee; Interview With Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Controversy Surrounding Shirley Sherrod Examined

Aired July 21, 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: And hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez and here we go once again.

Well, you saw it here with Shirley Sherrod and Ali Velshi just moments ago. The White House has officially apologized to Shirley Sherrod. There seemed to have been a consensus in the White House on the Sherrod speech and it's pretty much the same consensus as most Americans have around the country.

Some of our correspondents started getting in touch with us about three or four hours ago, saying, you know what, there's something going on at the White House, and they have been talking about this. And it looks like there may be a -- there might be a change of minds here.

After reviewing Mrs. Sherrod's comments about the white farmer, comments that ultimately led to her losing her job and after watching the full speech and not just the version that was edited in a curious way, the consensus inside the White House is that Mrs. Sherrod's remarks were grossly taken out of context.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has acknowledged now that the case merits a complete review. And as for the president, aides say that he was briefed about the full tape.

Rog, come back to me. I'm not big on just shots of people talking. Thank you.

The White House has contacted the USDA and pushed for Vilsack to reopen Mrs. Sherrod's case. Now, I want to tell you what we're about to do here on RICK'S LIST. We're going to do something a little bit different.

We're going to do something a little different than what the White House did, for example. We're going to let you watch this full speech, OK? We will be the only broadcast network to bring you the speech in its entirety. You will see it all, not just the edited portions. You will be able to make a determination as to what was taken out and possibly why and most importantly you will be able to see it for yourself. Make your own decision after viewing the speech here, only on CNN.

Now, if you have your own TiVo, hit record, as they say, because we are going to have that for you coming up in just a little bit. But, first, White House aides are now saying that there was a good deal of debate Tuesday among White House staffers over whether Sherrod should actually resign.

Let me take you back to the briefing once again, because we understand they're back on this subject. Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: ...

about this, and my answer doesn't change. Why do you do stories on all three of them?

QUESTION: Well, they will be included in the stories tomorrow, I'm sure.

GIBBS: Why?

QUESTION: You do not -- you do not see any connection between...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... and between Shirley Sherrod's assertion -- she was told that Glenn Beck was going to have her on the TV that night.

GIBBS: Again, I -- you want to answer my question about why you do those stories, too?

QUESTION: I'm not sure what that question is. Why would I do that...

GIBBS: You'll check on that and get back to me?

QUESTION: Robert, has the press office or anyone here at the White House put the freeze on the agriculture department, in terms of taking questions from reporters?

It's been our experience in the past 24 hours or so...

GIBBS: None that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: ... that they -- they are not being responsive.

GIBBS: None that I'm aware of, no. That certainly wouldn't be a directive that came from here, no.

QUESTION: Ms. Sherrod obviously did not enjoy, if you will, due process, to say the least, through this whole thing. How do you think this whole episode is going to affect the way the future sensitive personnel decisions are going to be handled by this administration?

GIBBS: Well, I hope they -- I hope, in just the way I discussed earlier, I hope that everybody involved takes the time to learn what happened, that we make decisions based on a full set of facts, not on a partial set of facts. QUESTION: On a financial rewrite, what's the White House going to do to fend off lobbying to soften or change the impact of the -- the regulations...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Look, obviously, there's -- there will be an extensive rule-making procedure in order to fulfill the legislative intent. And I think that, again, I think we're clear at what provisions mean and what they're trying to prevent and how -- how and what activities should and should not be allowed.

Obviously, the implementation of this, the additional offices and bureaus that the legislation calls for will be important appointments for the president to consider.

QUESTION: Following up on Ed's question, Ms. Sherrod seems very convinced that the White House did play some role in this and is willing to say so publicly.

GIBBS: Again, I would direct you to the...

QUESTION: Are you saying that she's -- she has a misimpression that she somehow got information incorrectly?

GIBBS: Major, I would direct you to what the secretary said yesterday and the answer that I gave Ben.

QUESTION: Right, but the secretary talked about what he did, and she's asserting that others indicated to her that the White House...

GIBBS: I think you're parsing the way that...

QUESTION: No, I'm just trying to separate what is publicly available. The secretary said he didn't, which I'm not challenging, but others at the Agriculture Department might have. She's under the impression and is saying publicly she believes the White House did play a role in this.

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: And as I said to Ed, that's not anything based on my knowledge.

QUESTION: So you're absolutely convinced that that did not happen?

GIBBS: I can only answer your question three times.

QUESTION: You're actually only answering it once.

GIBBS: Well, I gave you the same answer three times.

QUESTION: Fine.

(LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Is there going to be any effort put forward by the administration to let us talk to Cheryl Cook about what she did or did not say to Ms. Sherrod?

GIBBS: I don't -- I would direct you to USDA about speaking...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)

GIBBS: Again, I would direct you to -- you ask the same question, I give you the same answer.

QUESTION: OK. On -- no, I have got a couple of others.

Ben Bernanke today said that he believes the economy -- the economic outlook remains unusually uncertain. Would you agree, generally speaking, with...

GIBBS: I'm not going to get into parsing or interpreting what the Fed chairman says. I think it is safe to say that we have, if you look, Major, at where we were...

SANCHEZ: There, you heard the culmination of the conversation regarding Shirley Sherrod. And they were issuing some of the questions about whether or not Shirley Sherrod was actually removed from her position as a result of conversations in the White House involving the fact that there would be a report by a right-wing commentator on FOX News that night, because that's what Shirley Sherrod says was told to her.

But you have just moments ago heard Robert Gibbs deny that. He said that Cheryl Cook, the assistant secretary under Tom Vilsack, as far as he knows, did not say that, and they are denying any knowledge of any conversations that were discussed at the White House as to motivation for asking Shirley Sherrod to step down, because they were concerned about this report that was to appear that night.

Shirley Sherrod, in fact, mentioned commentator Glenn Beck when she was asked what she was told by Mrs. Cook. As it stands right now -- and that's why we wanted you to hear that moments ago -- as it stands right now, the White House is denying or seems to be, appears to be denying that that conversation took place.

We will obviously stay on top of this story.

And, once again, let me bring to your attention what we're going to do. We are going to cover some of the big stories in just a moment, including the situation in the Gulf with oil. We're going to be joined by Charlie Crist and Chad Myers.

But, aside from that, we are going to be spending the great majority of the next hour and 30 minutes letting you understand this story comprehensively. We're going to do that by doing something we think no one has done yet to this point. And that is, we're going to let you hear for yourself -- not we're going to listen to it and then select a sound bite here and a sound bite there. No. We're going to let you hear for yourself in its entirety Shirley Sherrod's speech, the speech in question, so you can decide if something was taken out, if something was left out of context, how, in fact, it was edited, because you have already heard the original release, right?

Now you're going to be able to hear the entire thing. It's about 35 minutes long.

Before we do that, let's go back now to Robert Gibbs.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

GIBBS: ... contacted the Department of Agriculture, and a review was agreed upon.

QUESTION: Who made that call?

GIBBS: I'm not going to get into who talked directly with him.

QUESTION: But, first, does this not do anything to alter the president's judgment of Secretary Vilsack's ability to run this department and his judgment and his -- especially given this department's history on the...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Well, look, again, I think -- I think the secretary rightly has the zero tolerance policy for discrimination. I think that the secretary made a decision based on the information that he had and is in the process of trying to reach Ms. Sherrod to apologize for having made that decision on that incomplete information.

QUESTION: And nobody asked for the tape of the full speech or for anything like that?

GIBBS: Again, we are -- based on fuller information that we have, that these decisions are being reconsidered.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)

GIBBS: Maybe he's talking to you. I don't know. I don't know.

QUESTION: If you could walk us through a little bit President Obama's role in this. When was he told...

GIBBS: Well, as I said earlier, he was told about this I believe sometime, like -- I forget the time, probably likely late morning yesterday.

QUESTION: So (INAUDIBLE) to what he heard and how was he...

(CROSSTALK) GIBBS: Based on -- based on what -- again, I don't have the exact time with me. But, again, I think, as I -- as we had said yesterday, that based on incomplete information and based on a decision that was made on incomplete information, the White House was supportive of that decision.

Obviously, new information came to light, and that's why the review is being undertaken.

QUESTION: I understand that, but who was it that first told Mr. Obama about this? How did he first learn of this?

GIBBS: I -- a group of staff -- again, I don't remember what time.

QUESTION: Do you remember when he found out about the additional information -- that she actually -- that...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: At some point yesterday -- at some point yesterday, but I don't know the exact...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: And you weren't involved in -- you don't know...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: I was involved in the first discussion with him. I don't know who -- I don't know how he was briefed last -- yesterday afternoon and early evening.

QUESTION: And I understand in responses to some of the questions about why you think this has gone to viral so quickly. You say a lot of this is because of the frenzy -- people react really quickly without getting the facts. But why do you -- I mean, a lot of this -- part of the reason why people reacted so quickly I think at the end of the day is because this is about race. Why do you think this issue of race remains so inflammatory? And what does the president say about how to handle it? I mean, does he express frustration when this sort of thing happens? Does he -- how has he been?

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: You -- you know this, I know this, I think everybody knows this. This was -- race has been a topic of discussion for a long, long time in this country. We -- a war was fought about it. A movement to gain equal and civil rights was had to rectify injustice. And it continues to be something that we will discuss for quite some time.

Again, I think -- I think this is -- this just continues many of those discussions.

QUESTION: Three real quick ones on three other subjects. Jobless benefits -- are you ready to -- what are you hearing about the timing of it? And are you ready to...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Well, I will say this. I think many of you saw the statement that we released. Despite the fact that...

SANCHEZ: All right, there you go.

As we continue here this ongoing story, with all its ups and downs, I want to bring meteorologist Chad Myers in quickly to bring you up to date on a developing story. There is a possibility of a system becoming a tropical depression or a storm near the Gulf of Mexico.

So, we immediately want to let our viewers know where this is and what threat it poses right now to the Gulf.

CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: North of Haiti, so in warm water, but in a little bit of shear, which means there's wind around above it. It doesn't like that, so it didn't grow overnight. But it is making flooding rainfall for Haiti. So, that's bad for them because they're living in blue tarps.

SANCHEZ: Right.

MYERS: They're not -- they don't have their roofs covered in blue tarps. They're living in them, literally.

SANCHEZ: This is their first hit since the earthquake.

MYERS: This is the first biggie, right.

And it is going to -- this storm will develop into something much stronger. Does it get a name? Probably. Will it be Bonnie? Yes, because it will be the B storm. But it appears that it approaches the East Coast of Florida, maybe around Melbourne. It could be left or right, but I'm just saying that. And then it gets into the Gulf of Mexico as it goes over.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Hold on just a moment.

We have got the governor of Florida standing by, Governor Charlie Crist, who's with us now.

Go ahead and tell us so the governor can hear and so the rest of Americans can hear what this storm -- what impact it might have on the present situation in the Gulf regarding the oil.

MYERS: Well, if it does go over let's say Panama City, that would be great, as a 40-mile-per-hour rainmaker. Hey, go ahead, because that would make 40-mile-per-hour winds blowing offshore and taking the oil back into the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, where we want it to die. The sun will hit it. It will break up. It will turn into tar balls. It won't be a live oil mayonnaise mess. (CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But the obvious question is, if I'm in Tampa right now or Saint Pete or even as far into the Panhandle as places like Pensacola, Destin, is there a possibility that the turning of the tide, so to speak, the moving of the turbidity of the water as a result of this storm, if it eventually gets there, could bring oil onto our beaches that we haven't seen yet?

MYERS: You know why yes? Because if it goes not go to Panama City, if it goes to Galveston from Fort Myers, that's a long drive in a very warm body of water, which is the Gulf of Mexico. It will get much stronger than if it only cuts the corner and only goes from, say, Tarpon Springs right on over to Panama City. That's a short distance. It won't get big in that little short distance.

SANCHEZ: So, it's a possibility.

MYERS: Absolutely it is.

SANCHEZ: All right. Hold on. Let's go back to the White House. We have got Charlie -- Governor Charlie Crist standing by. We're going to go to him in just a moment. But there's something going on again at the White House. Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

QUESTION: ... that the first black rural director in Georgia was fired by the first black president. Does that have some resonance?

GIBBS: Yes, I would -- the decisions on personnel at USDA were made by USDA. Those decisions were made based on an incomplete set of facts, and they're being reviewed based on a more complete set of facts.

I will say this. The situation is -- regardless of who is involved and regardless of their race, the decisions were wrong.

QUESTION: Robert, today the president signed yet another big, consequential piece of legislation, and this one is very popular with the public.

I'm wondering if all of these accomplishments, legislative successes, don't seem to be changing the public's opinion on the president's job performance, and even though I know he says he doesn't do them because...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: ... three hours...

QUESTION: I know, I know, but this has been around for a while.

GIBBS: I don't know what instant polling has been done in the interim...

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Well, yes, but it's not -- the fact that we're getting financial reform isn't brand-new. And he says he doesn't do these things because they're popular but because they're right. But I'm wondering what you think it's going to take before all of these accomplishments...

GIBBS: We need a half million jobs to come back.

QUESTION: And that's -- that's it, pure and simple?

GIBBS: I think -- I think people have, rightly so, a continued frustration about the economic situation in this country. I think the rules that we had in place that led to the financial collapse two years ago contributed mightily to the 8. 5 million jobs that were lost.

That is not something that was going to be easy to replace. If you look at -- if you look at the last six months of 2008 and the last six months that we've had in 2010, you find a difference of losing 3 million job and gain more than half a million jobs.

GIBBS: So we're moving in the right direction, but we've got a big hole to fill. And I think -- look, the president is frustrated. I think -- what was the story that he said? If you -- if you had -- if your neighbor lost your -- lost their house, if your other neighbor didn't -- had lost their life savings to send their kid to college, and if you'd lost your job, and a pollster called you and said, "How do you feel about the country?" I don't think -- or "How do you feel about the president?" -- I don't think that it's a wild-eyed stretch to believe that you would think things still need to get better in this country.

QUESTION: What's happening tomorrow?

GIBBS: We are signing I believe the bill on improper payments that was passed recently. And we'll have more information on that. Improper payments by government.

QUESTION: China has expressed concern that the U.S. and South Korean naval exercises (INAUDIBLE) will further destabilize the region. Would you accept -- does the White House accept those concerns? And what is the political message that you're trying to send to China?

GIBBS: Wait a minute. Are you (INAUDIBLE) the world on that?

(LAUGHTER)

GIBBS: We need a -- we need a -- we need a smaller filter for the -- for the four cylinder...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

GIBBS: The make-up person is next, I presume. Sorry. I...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

GIBBS: All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: A whole different set of naval exercises.

Yes, China has said that it's concerned that the U. S. -South Korea naval exercises will destabilize the region even further. Does the White House accept those concerns? And what political message are you trying to send to North Korea?

GIBBS: Well, look, I think that it's important to understand that these are exercises that are defensive in nature. And defense sends a clear signal of deterrence to the aggression of North Korea and in support of the defense of South Korea.

I think you've heard the condemnation of those in the administration and in the international community for the events undertaken by North Korea. And certainly we're strongly supportive of exercises that demonstrate South Korea's defending itself.

SANCHEZ: We're continuing to monitor the situation in the White House.

And, as you can see, from time to time, the conversation goes back to the Shirley Sherrod situation. We have been following this story. And we are also following the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, and the reason being, there's reason to believe that there may be a tropical storm of some sort or what could form into a tropical storm.

So, we're going to be watching this very carefully. When we come back, we will begin the process of letting you hear for yourself Shirley Sherrod's actual speech. We will have that for you right here.

Also this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER USDA OFFICIAL: He took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I knew what he was doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: So, what now that not only the NAACP, but the White House, has come out and apologized? You will see as the story unfolds in this special report.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ (voice-over): This is another RICK'S LIST special report.

SHERROD: And I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only. God helped me to see that it's not just about black people. It's about poor people.

SANCHEZ: Shirley Sherrod unedited, so you can decide with your own eyes and ears whether she really made a racist comment.

ANDREW BREITBART, PUBLISHER, BREITBART.COM: This was not about Shirley Sherrod.

SANCHEZ: Did this right-wing blogger and FOX News, as alleged, deliberately try to snooker Americans?

SHERROD: We have to get to the point where race exists, but it doesn't matter.

SANCHEZ: The only place you will see the entire unedited speech, right here on RICK'S LIST, as we drill down on what happened. Did the Obama administration throw her under the bus? Why is the NAACP asking they reconsider? And what now for Shirley Sherrod?

A RICK'S LIST special report, "Race in America: Shirley's Story."

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: OK. Here we go.

It's a firestorm that's igniting a fierce debate across the country. You heard the latest right here live on CNN, with Shirley Sherrod sitting right there. She was sitting there as the spokesperson for the president of the United States says, we apologize to you, Shirley Sherrod.

This started as a debate that's led to a sudden about-face from the Obama administration, and at the center of it all, a woman who lost her job.

We have got every single angle covered on this story. And we are going to be brining them all to you over the next 90 minutes.

First, here are the facts that you need to know as we get started. The White House is apologizing now to Shirley Sherrod and her boss, will acknowledge that mistakes were made in the way that this was handled.

The former government worker resigned from her job Monday after video of a speech that she made began making the rounds on blogs. It appears that she tells an audience at the NAACP meeting that she did not do everything she could to help a white farmer keep his property. That's how it appeared at the time.

Now, here's the cut-down video that led critics -- this is the original video now -- the one that led critics to call Shirley Sherrod a racist.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERROD: The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me that he was superior to me. I knew what he was doing, but he had come to me for help.

What he didn't know is, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

(LAUGHTER)

SHERROD: I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white a person save their land.

So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Didn't give him the full force of what she could do. Those were the words, the buzz words, if you will. The NAACP quickly condemned those remarks -- the NAACP.

Mrs. Sherrod said the White House pressured her, harassed her into quitting. She told me yesterday for the first time that she was attacked without recourse, that if we had heard the rest of her speech, she said, nobody would have called her a racist.

Well, today, you will hear the entire speech, every single minute of it. Again, the most important question I wanted answered yesterday was this. And I asked her. I said, Mrs. Sherrod, would people have a different opinion of you if we watched the entire speech, not just the edited part?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERROD: You would have seen what great lengths I went to, to try to help save his farm, because I talk about it.

SANCHEZ: So -- so...

(CROSSTALK)

SHERROD: I talk about how the first lawyer didn't do anything, and how I had to frantically look for a lawyer to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, because -- because what had been done to him by the county supervisor made it where he couldn't file a Chapter 12. I had to look for someone at the last minute who could file that and stop the sale at the courthouse steps. And we did that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: So then we wanted to confirm the story with the players, the people that she was talking to. So, we even spoke to the farmer that she's referring to right there.

I want you to listen now, so you can understand how Roger and Eloise Spooner responded to the allegations that Shirley Sherrod is a racist. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROGER SPOONER, FARMER HELPED BY SHIRLEY SHERROD: I would say they don't know what they're talking about.

She -- I will tell you what. I never was treated no better, no nicer and looked after than Shirley. She done -- she done a magnificent job.

SANCHEZ: Eloise?

SPOONER: I just...

SANCHEZ: Eloise, what...

SPOONER: I don't have words -- I don't have words to explain it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Right in the middle of our newscast yesterday, you heard me talk to those two.

We heard from the NAACP as well, which seemingly, as if they were watching the newscast, suddenly, and to our surprise, did a complete about-face on the story, admitting it had not watched the entire tape.

When they did watch it, the NAACP finally came out and said, we were, quote, '"snookered," is the word they used, snookered by FOX News and tea party movement activists/conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart into, quote, "believing that she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias." That's the NAACP saying they were snookered.

Then this -- early this morning, Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced his agency may do an about-face. After suggesting the case was closed yesterday during this newscast, he, Vilsack, as we said a few moments ago, is now saying he will review the case.

The Congressional Black Caucus said "Secretary Vilsack did not have all the facts available to him and he overreacted." That's a direct quote. The White House says Shirley Sherrod is now owed an apology. The White House said this just a half hour ago. And they talked about what should happen now moving forward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Secretary Vilsack has tried and is trying to reach Ms. Sherrod. When the secretary reaches her, he will apologize for the events of the last few days. And they will talk about their next steps.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: So here's the story of a woman, Shirley's story, who doesn't take it sitting down. She's willing to come forward and say, no, I've been wronged, and I'm not going to stop saying this until somebody listens to me. And now it seems that even the White House has listened to her.

We'll continue with this story. We're going to play the entire video of the speech. Again, the keyword here is unedited. We're going to take a look at the people who released the video in the very first place.

We're going to ask the question -- did the government and the NAACP get, quote, "snookered"? And what's next for Shirley Sherrod? If the administration offers to give her job back, would she even consider taking it back?

You'll hear the actual speech unedited when we come back here on this special edition, "Race in America, Shirley's Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez. This is a special edition of RICK'S LIST, "Race in America, Shirley's Story."

Over the course of our special coverage now what we want to do is let you watch the entire speech for yourself, something you have not been given a chance to do.

Since there are so many questions about whether this was taken out or that was edited in or that was edited out, we're at the point now where the only way we can get let you hear the story is allow you to see it in its entirety. You can see it then and judge it for yourself.

SANCHEZ: Let me set this up for you. This goes about eight, nine, ten minutes or so. This is the first part of the speech. To give you a little background on Ms. Sherrod, she is at this time touching on the biggest event that shaped her young life. It involves her father. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER GEORGIA DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, USDA: I want to say to you, I am very proud to be working with the Obama administration to help build America again.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to do all I can to help rural communities such as yours to be a place where we can have a quality life and a comfortable life for our families and our friends.

But before I give you -- even before I go into what I have here. I want to second something that Olivia said. I grew up on the farm, and I didn't want to have anything to do with agriculture. But she was right. There are jobs at USDA. And many times, there are no people of color to fill those jobs because we shy away from agriculture. We hear the word agriculture and think only of working in the fields. You've heard of a lot offs. Have you ever heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say.

(LAUGHTER)

And I might say a little bit more to the young people. It's good to have you all here. I want to share something with you this evening, something that's always heavy on my heart each day but especially at this time of the year.

It was 45 years ago today that my father's funeral was held. I was a young girl at the age of 17 when my father was murdered by a white man in Baker County. In Baker County, the murder of black people occurred periodically, and in every case, the white men who murdered them were never punished. It was no different in my father's case.

There were three witnesses to his murder, but the grand jury refused to indict the white man who murdered him.

I should tell you a little about Baker County. In case you don't know where it is, it's located less than 20 miles southwest of Albany. Now there were two sheriffs from Baker County whose names you probably never heard. But I know in the case of one, the thing he did many, many years ago still affect us today. And that sheriff was Claude Screws.

He lynched a black man in the beginning of the '40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder, but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights.

Now, Bobby Hall -- I'm sorry, Claude Screws appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the conviction was overturned.

And the justice who wrote the opinion said that the appropriate charge was murder. But y'all know that a white man wouldn't be convicted of murdering a black man during those days. So they charged him with depriving Bobby Hall of his civil rights.

So with the opinion -- when the justice wrote this opinion and justifying overturning the conviction, he said you had to prove that as the sheriff was murdering Bobby Hall, he was thinking of depriving him of his civil rights.

That's where the whole issue of proving intent came from. And you've heard it a lot -- it was used a lot during the civil rights movement. But you also heard it a lot when Rodney King was beaten out in California. Y'all might remember that. They kept saying they had to prove intent, and that came from Screws versus the U.S. government.

I'm told that that case is studied by every law student. And usually when we have people coming in to southwest Georgia and wanting to take some tourism of things where some events happened during the civil rights movement, I usually take them to the courthouse in Newton to show where bobby hall's body was displayed.

During my years of growing up, the sheriff was l. Warren Johnson. He wanted to be called "The Gator," and that's how people referred to him because he had a holler that would make you want to tremble. He also killed a lot of black people.

And Gator Johnson was the law in Baker County. And when I say that, I mean that. No one, black or white, could ride through the county with an out-of-county tag. That means you could have a tag from anywhere else in Georgia but you couldn't ride through Baker County without being stopped.

And the "Atlanta Constitution" reported at one point that his take on the road was at least $150,000 a year. And that was during the '60s.

My father was a farmer. And growing up on the farm, my dream was to get as far away from the farm and Baker County as I could get. And picking cotton, picking cucumbers, shaking peanuts for a little while before they -- you know, when you had to shake them and take them over to the pole, you know?

Doing all that work on the form, it will make you get an education more than anything else.

(LAUGHTER)

But I didn't want to just get an education. I wanted to leave the farm and Baker County. It was -- life was -- the older folk know what I'm talking about. The segregation and the discrimination and the racist acts that we had to endure during those years made you just want to leave.

And we used to have people who would leave and go north. They come back talking and they come back looking -- I learned later some of those cars they drove home are rented.

(LAUGHTER)

But it made you just want to go north, because you thought they were free up there. You thought everybody was free in the north. So my goal was not to even go to college in the south because, you know, I was always told you find your husband at college. So I didn't want to find one living in the south. (LAUGHTER)

I wanted to go to college in the north so I could get me a husband from the north and never have to come back down here and live again.

But you can never say what you'll never do. And it was during March, my senior year in high school -- my father was just everything to us. I had four sisters, I'm the oldest. My mother was there, six of us, but my father wanted a son so bad. We were all girls. We all had boys' nicknames. I was Bill.

(LAUGHTER)

Now, he loved his girls but he wanted a son so bad. When my sister -- my youngest sister was eight, he convinced my mother to try one more time for this boy.

So, to my surprise, my senior year of high school, I thought my mother was just sick. I didn't know what was wrong with her. One day at school, my best friend said, how is your momma doing? I said, she just doesn't seem to be getting any better. She said, girl, your dad was up at the store yesterday giving out cigars. Your momma's going to have a baby.

(LAUGHTER)

He told everyone that that baby was the son. And he was, in fact, having a new home built -- he was the first person to get a loan to build a house. He wanted a brick house so bad. But they told him a black man could not borrow the money to build a brick house. They had to choose blocks.

So in this new house that was being built with five daughters, there was this one room that was the boy's room, his son's room. He told everybody it was a boy.

And, in fact, it was painted blue and he and my mother came and picked me up from school one day earlier to go to Albany to pick out the furniture for this boy's room. He didn't live to see him. My brother was born two months after he died in June of '65.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: That's the first chunk, as we're referring to it, of Shirley Sherrod's story. She describes there her life's story at the beginning when she was going through some of her hardships.

You will then hear her in just a moment bring up the story of Roger and Eloise we had on this newscast yesterday. You will hear that.

And as we continue, we're also going to be talking to officials who will help us analyze, who is Breitbart, and what is the Breitbart blog? Did they carefully and selectively choose and edit a piece of sound from Shirley's speech where they didn't let you hear that because they wanted to, quote -- these are the words of the NAACP -- "snooker" you?

Did FOX News then pick that up and do the same as charged once again by the NAACP? We will be looking into this, looking at both sides.

We're also going to be checking on what happens now. Brooke Baldwin's joining us and she's going to take us through this in the next block. The question is, what happens to Shirley? She was here just a moment ago and she was listening to the spokesperson for the president of the United States say, we owe her an apology and will do just that.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: But is that enough?

SANCHEZ: You ask her. We'll have that when we come back.

Stay right there. This is a Special Report, "Shirley's Story, Race in America."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.

We just played for you moments ago a full ten minutes of the speech that Shirley Sherrod delivered in March, her full speech in full context, no edits. Brooke Baldwin talked to Shirley today, asked her about specific points in that speech and she's joining us now. What did she say to you?

BALDWIN: A whole lot of stuff. I talked to her because we wanted to be smart because we wanted to be smart about this because we knew we'd be playing all 35 minutes. So I basically analyzed bits and pieces of the speech with her. She talked about being one of five girls, finally getting that brother, and her father murdered two months prior.

She talked about also the fact that she wanted to leave the south after that, and then she had this massive epiphany and decided to stay. She decided to help the black community with economic projects. We'll play snippets of that interview.

But I want to get to the biggest news right now. We heard from Robert Gibbs with the White House a little while ago, and he was basically apologizing on behalf of the administration to Shirley Sherrod for this whole thing, I think his word was "bungled," the administration has bungled this whole thing.

I asked Shirley Sherrod. She said, yes, her phone has been ringing off the hook, but has the president called her yet? No. Is that Robert Gibbs apology enough? Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: White house aides are telling CNN that they do not expect the president to call you or explain things at the White House briefing. As one of them put it -- no more beer summits here. SHERROD: Is that right? I guess they haven't changed, huh? And they won't, I guess. I really, I think I said early on I didn't expect him to call. It would be a great thing if he did, but, hey, he's the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: One other question I asked her and this is what Robert Gibbs mentioned in this briefing talking about the Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and the fact that he should be calling her as well to apologize.

So I asked her today if Mr. Vilsack actually does call her up, apologizes, and even offers eventually to give her job back, she said to me, quote, "I'm going to have to think about it."

SANCHEZ: Now let's talk about another part of the story. This is interesting, because now that we've gotten through the initial phase we heard about this story but we didn't report it. Many of you are tweeting me now and saying, why did you guys in the media go with the story without checking on it?

We didn't go with the story. We were very careful here at CNN. We had the story yesterday before noon -- pardon me, not yesterday, but Monday before noon, and we decided not to go with the story because we didn't have a chance to verify it because we hadn't seen the speech ourselves, because we weren't sure if part of the speech had been edited, because we hadn't had a chance to reach out to Shirley Sherrod.

So because we didn't have those things, we did not here at CNN do this story. But others did. You saw it on the Breitbart blog that night, and then it continued on. And FOX News had it as well.

Since then even the NAACP said they didn't get all the facts before they commented on a sound bite that was essentially, now we know, completely taken out of context. In fact, here's what NAACP President Ben Jealous had to say about this.

"We have come to the conclusion we were snookered by FOX News and tea party activist Andrew Breitbart into believing that she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias." So they did an about face when they finally were able to see the entire speech.

Race is a very sensitive subject in our country and that's why we're bringing you Sherrod's speech in its entirety so that you're able to judge this for yourself. FOX News Channel apparently did not do that. I want you to take a look now at how they covered this story when it first broke Monday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Shirley Sherrod was caught on tape saying something very disturbing.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: An Obama administration official resigned just a short time ago after she was caught on tape appearing to tell an audience that she had used her position to racially discriminate against white farmers.

BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, that is simply unacceptable, and Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately. The federal government cannot have skin color deciding any assistance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The video adds fuel to a growing controversy after the NAACP approved a resolution condemning the tea party movement for not denouncing racist members.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: That is what Ben Jealous from the NAACP is referring to when he says or suggests that he was snookered. Most news organizations do have rules and standards about stuff like this. Eric Boehlert is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. He is joining us now on the phone.

Earlier today, Eric, I understand that you said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that if Breitbart, quote, "had any decency he would apologize to Shirley Sherrod." Would you care to amplify that thought process for us?

ERIC BOEHLERT, SENIOR FELLOW AT MEDIA MATTERS: Well, yes, now that we've seen the White House offering an apology it's becoming increasingly clear that Breitbart should apologize or post a retraction or post a correction or do something honorable. He hasn't done a single honorable thing all week in terms of this story.

SANCHEZ: What did they do wrong?

BOEHLERT: It was character assassination -- it was by design to be wrong. It was by design not to have context. It was by design to try to get her fired. It was by design to try to embarrass the NAACP and the Obama administration.

SANCHEZ: Is that a fair thing to say, though, given the fact that anybody -- look, in this thing we call journalism we're all imperfect. Any one of us can at times make a mistake or make a wrong decision. How do you know it wasn't that?

BOEHLERT: He's not a journalist. Andrew Breitbart is a propagandist. He has a long, long, long history. This did not pop out of a vacuum. It's not like he has a great track record and, my gosh, he took his eye off the ball and stumbled and came up with this.

This is part and parcel, this is what he does, this is what the right wing media does with FOX with the right wing blogosphere. They create these false stories in order to injure people connected to the Obama administration.

SANCHEZ: What do you say when you hear folks at FOX News for example say that what you and your organization do is no different from what Andrew Breitbart does except you do it from a left ideology as opposed to a right ideology? What's the difference? BOEHLERT: We're not in the business of manufacturing news and stories. We respond to what other people do. We monitor the media. We have never launched any story and we've never launched a fake story. So there is no comparison between the two.

SANCHEZ: What makes you think that Andrew Breitbart has as you seem to suggest a reputation for doing this type of thing?

BOEHLERT: You know, his supposed claim to fame was the ACORN video investigation, and as we know now that was essentially a hoax. because that whole ACORN video escapade, we were supposed to believe these young, undercover videographers went into these ACORN offices dressed as a pimp. And oh, my gosh these foolish ACORN workers couldn't even pick up on the ruse.

Well, he wasn't dressed as a pimp. That was to mislead the public. That was to increase the outrage. And only after months and months did Andrew Breitbart concede he didn't even know what were on the ACORN tapes.

SANCHEZ: Let's move beyond Breitbart now, because it's not about some blogger somewhere. If we here at CNN or on "RICK'S LIST" were to just do stories on what is on any given blog on any given day we'd probably get ourselves in a lot of trouble as well.

BOEHLERT: That's right.

SANCHEZ: So he is a guy who has a blog, a point of view, he tends to be more of a very conservative ideologically speaking blogger. But the story didn't really catch fire until it got picked up by FOX News. What is your comment about that?

BOEHLERT: Well, it's all part and parcel. This wasn't some surprise that FOX News picked it up. It's all -- you know, I don't mean to sound too conspiratorial, but it's an echo chamber and they're all in on it.

I mean, every time one of these fake attacks is launched on the internet all the same people link to it, all the same people on FOX News talk about it, and all these stories sort of fall by the wayside. This just happens to be a particularly spectacular failure, which is why we're talking about it.

SANCHEZ: But, Eric, I didn't get a chance to monitor what FOX News did that night. Do you know?

BOEHLERT: It went straight online at FOX News, absolutely.

SANCHEZ: But did they report it as this is -- did they attribute it to Breitbart and say this is what someone is saying and we haven't yet had a chance to confirm it, but --

BOEHLERT: No.

SANCHEZ: -- it's out there, which sometimes journalists will do? BOEHLERT: No, no, just straight cut and paste, the same hysterical type of headlines that Breitbart was pushing. They all mirror each other, they all hit the same buttons, so when they launch an attack everyone jumps onboard.

Except what is very interesting, I should say, in this case we're seeing some -- hearing some conservative voices, media voices telling Breitbart, you went too far. This was shameful. You ought to apologize, and we're not sure we're going to get behind you next time, which is a first in terms of this media landscape.

SANCHEZ: So you're saying from your reading of this you think this will have an effect on Mr. Breitbart's blog and the response that he gets?

BOEHLERT: It'll be interesting to see how long it is before he is invited on FOX News. Let me put it that way.

SANCHEZ: Really?

BOEHLERT: I think so.

SANCHEZ: You think it's apt to cause a rift?

Well, what does FOX News have to do in a situation like this? Like all news organizations -- again, news organizations from time to time make mistakes, from the "New York Times" on down, and usually they go on and they have an opportunity to say, this is where we made a mistake and now we're going to make it right. Do they need to do that in this case?

BOEHLERT: They need to address it. Bill O'Reilly needs to address it. Sean Hannity needs to address it. Sean Hannity let Breitbart go on for however long he wanted trying to spin this story the other day.

This story no longer exists as it was first presented. There is nothing to support it. So they ought to address it and explain why they were pushing a patently false story.

SANCHEZ: You follow this beat. Do you have any indication or do you know whether FOX News will, in fact, retract this story or apologize to Mrs. Sherrod?

BOEHLERT: I would be shocked, but it was interesting, Shep Smith on FOX News today who is always in a different orbit than the night time folks, he said I didn't report that story because Breitbart's site can't be trusted. So there is some sort of voices of sanity at FOX News who realize this stuff cannot be trusted and you ought to stay away from it.