Skip to main content
CNN.com /transcript


CNN TV
EDITIONS

CNN TALKBACK LIVE

Searching for Chandra: Condit's Conduct Questioned

Aired July 20, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are looking for anything that looks out of the ordinary up here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Clues, leads, evidence, suspects: Are police in the dark about missing intern Chandra Levy? Also, what did Congressman Condit dump in the trash just before police searched his apartment?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey mister, you know what? You shut up, white boy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Whoa, if you thought "N" word was bad, wait until you hear the "M" word they want to ban in San Diego.

How will you spend your tax relief check?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any extra we can get as far as home improvement items, linens, things like that it. It will come in handy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think I would try to save it for my kids education.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Get ready to ride. It is "Free-For-All" Friday.

Good afternoon everyone. It's "Free-For-All" Friday. We will start with the Chandra Levy missing person's case. A missing person who police now say might never be found. A couple of new developments today regarding Congressman Gary Condit: Police say they have evidence that the Modesto minister who claimed his daughter had an affair with Condit years ago apparently lied, and investigators tell CNN that just four hours before inspectors searched Condit's apartment last week, he was seen dumping something into a trash can in a Virginia suburb of Alexandria.

Among the items police recovered was a watch case they traced to a woman in California. She apparently gave it to Congressman as a gift.

Let's meet today's talk show hosts. From KABC in Los Angeles, Gloria Allred joins us. Gloria's a lawyer and appears on the show "Power Of Attorney." Gloria, good to see you .

GLORIA ALLRED, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thank you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Lynn Harper is with us. She is a talk show host on KOGO and KSDO in San Diego. Lynn, nice to see you again.

LYNN HARPER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thanks, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Clifford Kelley hosts WVON's "The Cliff Kelley Show" in Chicago. Cliff, thank you for joining us.

CLIFF KELLEY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: My pleasure, thank you.

BATTISTA: Martha Zoller is a host on WDUN right here in Atlanta. Martha, nice to have you with us as well.

MARTHA ZOLLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Let's start with this admission a couple of hours ago. This minister in Modesto apparently was lying about his daughter's affair with the congressman. Gloria, it's hard to believe he would have been lying about this, about his daughter, for heaven's sakes.

Do you think that is the case or is there a chance here that maybe he is telling the truth but there's been so much pressure on the daughter that he just folded the whole thing?

ALLRED: Well, there's no way of knowing right now, Bobbie. What we do know is apparently the daughter denied it from the get-go. Whether or not in fact there was an affair, I don't know. Is the minister now in fear given what he said? Is that the reason he's retracting, or was it never true from the beginning? We don't know that but I think bears looking into.

On the other hand, it really is a sideshow. In a way, it really is irrelevant to the issue if where is Chandra Levy because it really doesn't bear on where she has disappeared to or where she may be today.

BATTISTA: Well, you are right. It's another example, Martha, of so many little well, we all engage in it, speculations and innuendoes and stories that come up and they have nothing to do with anything and they just cause everyone to be confused and to hate the media on top of it.

ZOLLER: And it just muddies the waters. And what we have to do is focus on what the important part of this case is. Really the D.C. police have done a terrible job right from the beginning. The things like looking in the trash, and checking the dumpsters. Let's forget about Congressman Condit and set him aside for a moment, I know that's difficult to do, but from the beginning with her being missing, the first thing you do look is look in the dumpsters around where the victim lived.

The first thing you do is check her trash. We all have a paper trail, an electronic trail and that kind of thing that many of us don't realize and they didn't start there. And every minute you lose in a missing person's case is a minute more before that person will never be found.

BATTISTA: Cliff, you know Chief Gainer. He came from your city, long-time police officer there.

KELLEY: Yeah, I know both of them. I know Chief Ramsey also, Bobbie, and he was wonderful while he was here. He was the deputy police chief. In fact, many people thought he was going to become the police chief here. He was one of the three finalists for superintendent of the Chicago Police Department. And as soon as the mayor selected the incumbent Chief Ramsey was immediately hired at Washington, D.C. But he's the one who started the community policing program here in Chicago.

BATTISTA: You think he's doing everything he can to find Chandra Levy, or has he had to play this dance between, you know, Congress, who pays him, and trying to conduct this investigation?

KELLEY: Well, I agree with the two previous panelists here. I hope that they are doing more than we know. I think the press has done the investigation a great disservice. As Ramsey said at one time, the Washington police are not the sex police.

This situation that you just mentioned, so what if he had an affair with this woman or the stewardess or whatever? That's totally a different issue. The thing we want to do is to find out what happened to Miss Levy, and that's the only thing we should be concerned about.

ALLRED: But the question is did the chief treat Gary Condit differently from the beginning because he is a member of Congress? Did he tread lightly for fear that perhaps Congress might be upset if in fact he didn't give the white glove treatment to a congressman? Did they ask him at the beginning whether he had had a sexual relationship with Chandra Levy?

Why didn't it come out until the third interview? Was it asked, and then not answered? Or was it not asked at all? Because that would bear on how the chief was treating a congressman.

KELLEY: I know what you what he was saying, Gloria. He simply said, we want your DNA, but you are not a suspect. We want to search your house but you are not a suspect. We want you to take a polygraph test but you are not a suspect. They will be putting him on the gurney rolling him to the gas chambers saying you are not a suspect. What we do know I think the congressman has been treated differently than anyone else, only because we know everything that's going on.

I think the press has been totally incorrect in pushing all of his adulterous affairs, if they are in fact factual, and not just leaning on the issue as to what happened to Chandra Levy.

BATTISTA: Let me get Lynn in here. All along, Lynn, the Washington police have said the congressman is not a suspect yet they are still going through his trash.

HARPER: They are treating him like a suspect now. And you can't help but draw a parallel between Monica Lewinsky and poor Chandra Levy. They were both interns, young girls, impressionable, having something to do with much a older lawmaker. I'm very concerned about Condit's lies in the first place.

You can't help sitting around saying, I wonder what happened to her. And both Monica and Chandra were very head-strong girls. I know that you know Monica gave an ultimatum to Bill. I can almost see, and this is my opinion, so please, understand this is simply my opinion, I see her marching into Condit, giving him an ultimatum of some kind, maybe something physical ensued, something he did not intend to happen, he quickly tried to hide all of that, lied, and then this is all coming down.

My heart goes out to the family, but I suspect Condit. That's just me talking.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience to get some reaction over here --to Bill.

BILL: Again, just what your guest said. What we were saying was he opted to cover it up when he was given the chance to fess up. And I think a lot -- that's what the American people probably get distrusted on, as a politician.

BATTISTA: Gloria, as a lawyer had he been your client would you have advised the congressman to have acted the way he did, because we have to assume to some degree he was acting under the advice of his attorney.

ALLRED: Well, I would have needed to know, and still would need to know, all of the facts, and unlike one of our guests, I don't believe we know all of the facts. So I really wouldn't be in a position to give him advice right now. Having said that if in fact he had nothing to do with her disappearance, if fact he had an airtight alibi for that last day, then, yes, I would have advised him to be forthcoming with the police because one thing we don't want to do ever is to obfuscate or mislead the police.

And we all know dangers of cover-up. We saw that with President Clinton. We've seen it before, and it is not wise. Of course Gary Condit is not just a client, he is also a member of Congress. So he has to deal with the legal implications as well as the political implications. But obviously to me he is thinking of himself first. I wish he had put Chandra Levy first.

ZOLLER: The biggest problem you are going to see with the parallels between Clinton and Condit is not only some of the things, she being an intern, but the other part of it is, is this hiding thing, this feeling that he's not telling everything. That's why the media keeps going after him. He could answer these questions.

You don't have to go into a lot of gory details. You can say, no, I had nothing to do with the disappearance of this woman instead of being silent. That is what makes people go after him, that feeling of hiding things.

HARPER: He also could have said, because we know that a 24-year- old girl, and a 54-year-old man, he's not going to be seeing her for intellectual ability, unless I'm wrong, I didn't know Chandra, he could have said, look, obviously you can draw your own conclusions. Whether there's sex there or not, I don't intend to say one way or the other but I will help you if I can. End of problem.

BATTISTA: We'll continue with the topic. Clifford, I will let you start the next segment when we come back. We are going to continue with this topic. I have to take a quick break here. A little bit later we'll talk about what you're going do with your tax relief check, if you're getting one. Tell us your plans. And take the "TALKBACK LIVE Online Viewer Vote"at CNN.com/TALKBACK, AOL keyword CNN. While there, check out my note and send us an e-mail.

In a moment, congressional ethics: Does the congressman's conduct warrant an investigation? We will be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: We are back. It's "Free-For-All Friday." Cliff, I'm sorry I interrupted you right as we were going to break. Go ahead.

KELLEY: Yes, thank you, Bobbie. I was just going to say it was mentioned that probably the congressman did not want to be associated with Miss Levy based on some is a cerebral power. But she's 24 years old, she's not a kid. And what did she want him for? She was probably attracted by the fact that he has power and status. It wasn't a situation where he was her superior. He had nothing to do with her job. She worked for the Bureau of Prisons, he's a congressman. We have seen this happen before where interns go after congressmen. Some of them have even left their wives.

ALLRED: This idea the woman's fault...

KELLEY: Let me finish...

ALLRED: This is a man...

KELLEY: Gloria, I was talking...

ALLRED: I know, I would like to respond... (CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: ... master's degree, that's her...

BATTISTA: I think we can agree they were both willing adults and consenting partners.

KELLEY: Exactly, they were both willing adults. The other thing I want to mention...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Let me let Gloria address that point and then we will go back to Cliff.

ALLRED: I'd like to make it a point that she was also a federal employee, being at intern with the Bureau of Prisons. And I would like to say to all members of Congress, will you please keep your hands off the young interns that are sent to Washington to learn about government.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right on, Gloria.

ALLRED: They are not supposed to be there to be your sexual playthings. They are somebody's son, somebody's daughter, and they are there to learn, and they are not supposed to be learning about sex, they're supposed to be learning about government.

(APPLAUSE)

KELLEY: And if we believe what we have read, Gloria, her mother and her aunt new about the relationship, and as far as we know that's not much moral guidance, they may have been pushing her on.

The other thing I wanted to mention that I think is so bizarre, is when the FBI came out with this computerized image of Miss Levy, if she's in fact in disguise. They evidently have some reason the think that she is around in the area in disguise or somewhere.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: They may me just covering their rear ends on all aspects.

(CROSSTALK)

HARPER: I don't think Chandra Levy would do that to her parents. Her parents are bleeding right in front of her eyes. She would never do that to her parents.

KELLEY: I agree with you, so why would the FBI think that?

HARPER: Gary Condit has a number of sexual partners. We found that out, like who cares, really. We are trying to find Chandra Levy. And she wouldn't be hiding and doing this to her parents.

KELLEY: And that's why I wonder why the FBI is doing that.

BATTISTA: Let me go to John.

JOHN: I put the challenge out to this panel and all the other panels on the talk shows that you have honed down that her residence was left pretty much undisturbed and they don't have that as a lead, so you've got to develop what is the motive? And none of you have come up with what a motive is in this case.

HARPER: The motive depends upon who the perpetrator ends up being and if...

JOHN: What is Condit's motive?

HARPER: Condit's motive, if he turns out to be involved in this could be a number of things. He could have been going to be found out. There's a whole lot of things that people could be talking about. But I think the more important thing is really looking at Congressman Condit and his role in Congress right now.

I mean, he is on the intelligence committee. I mean, is a man who is a serial adulterer, who has snuck around, who has lied to everybody he knows, should he be on the Intelligence Committee in the United States Congress? Maybe he shouldn't resign but he shouldn't be on that committee.

HARPER: Talking about a motive, I just said earlier that it's very possible that this was a terrible accident, in which case the motive would be to cover up later, not to kill somebody in front.

ALLRED: It is important that a person not only have a motive, but the question is also, does he have the opportunity to commit a criminal act, and did he have the intent to commit a criminal act, and is there evidence that he did commit a criminal act? We're missing several important elements right now.

BATTISTA: Yes, we don't have any of that. Let me go to Bob in the audience here.

BOB: I think the problem is, like every high-profile case, we're dealing with only partial knowledge. The police are not going to release everything they know, so we're making decisions in media and in our own minds about this case, and yet we only know small pieces of the pie.

BATTISTA: Let me go back to something...

(APPLAUSE)

BATTISTA: Go ahead, Cliff.

KELLEY: Thank you. I think the audience members make very good points, Bobbie, both of them. And one of the things that I'd like to see -- for instance, they've said that she only left the house with her keys, and therefore, they thought she was with the congressman. She might have gone out jogging.

I mean, I don't know what kind of life the young lady led, but it would be nice if they could just have someone who would be able to identify what shoes are missing -- if there were jogging shoes that were gone. Just because she left with nothing would certainly suggest either somebody came in and took her out of her apartment, or she left of her own free will of odd circumstances. I think that would help a bit.

(CROSSTALK)

ZOLLER: Three weeks later, they rented her apartment to another tenet. So, to be able -- yes, her things are packed up and moved out, but they really, they turned that around and there may be evidence that can never be found.

ALLRED: But they did search her apartment. By the way, apparently Gary Condit has also ridden motorcycles. Is it possibly he came by on a motorcycle, on a Harley that's why she didn't take anything with her?

BATTISTA: I'm just wondering why the congressman was cleaning out his apartment several hours before he knew the police were going to be there.

ALLRED: Well, that looks very suspicious. And it may be that he was taking out the trash, but since he had voluntarily consented to a search of his apartment, certainly, it would have been, out of an abundance of caution, wise not remove anything, not to take out anything. Because there is then the appearance of perhaps destroying evidence, even if in fact he didn't destroy any evidence.

HARPER: But look at all the time he had to clean it out. That's the problem, the time between...

KELLEY: Ladies, I clean my apartment before the housekeeper comes.

ALLRED: Yes, but that's different than when the police are about to come in four hours.

BATTISTA: That's different than the police. All right, I have to take another break here. When we come back we'll continue, and we'll talk a little bit more about the politics of this, Martha brought it up a few moments ago, about the House ethics committee. Stay with us.

The Congress on Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine will move from Washington to Hilton Head next year, partially in protest of the D.C. police handling of the Chandra Levy case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Rush Limbaugh's new contract, I love that. I can't believe that was the second topic of conversation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Of course, you know, we all do that, though.

BATTISTA: Let me go to -- some audience reaction here. Quickly, Mike, go ahead.

MIKE: Yes, I would like to see our congressmen and women held to the same standards that they hold our servicemen and women to. In the military if you have an adultery affair, you can be held accountable for that. So they want to be able to do this and not be held accountable. So that's my main problem with this whole deal.

(APPLAUSE)

BATTISTA: And let me take up Clinton on the phone in Ohio. Clinton, go ahead.

CALLER: I just have a few comments on the news media on how they've handled this case. I think they've put too much emphasis on the congressman and not enough on trying to find this young lady. And it seems that other medias, not yours, has been more concerned about sex scandals and the lie detector test that he'd taken, that they wanted questions like: "How many times did you have sex with her this week?" "Where did you have sex with her?"

This makes news, and this is what's going on in other news media, not just yours, but other ones, and I feel it's unfair. Until they find something to convict this man, they should leave him alone.

BATTISTA: What do you guys think about media coverage of this? Has it been, as we sit here discussing it yet again, over the top?

KELLEY: I think, Bobbie, I think it has created a problem for the congressman. I think that since it was mentioned that he had an affair with this woman, everybody was saying well, they're going to treat him nicely because he's a congressman. And just the reverse has happened. There are thousands and thousands of missing people, but none of the news media goes after anyone who is a suspect, although they say he's not a suspect, the way they have treated the congressman.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: A congressman has rights, too.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: Just let me finish this. One second.

HARPER: Do you remember when Chandra Levy first was missing and nothing much was happening, and the parents went into the media and they started telling their story, and all of a sudden the media grabbed hold of it? If it weren't for those parents, I have a feeling she would have been one of those anonymous people that you're talking about now. And then Condit, of course, fanned the flames.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: I don't think that at all.

ALLRED: There is no way to compel law enforcement to conduct an investigation. And the only way to really light a fire under them if they don't want to do it or aren't doing it in a full and complete and thorough way, is to go to the press and voice those concerns. Then the law enforcement is going to want to be more careful and more thorough, because they'll have to be accountable not only to the parents, but also to the press...

(CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: I don't have any objection to that. What I'm thinking that the caller said though, Gloria, is the fact that it has impeded the investigation of other suspects. There are other people, according to the news -- and we don't know what's true and what isn't -- that may have been involved with her and in fact may have done something.

BATTISTA: But we don't know who they are.

ZOLLER: The person who has the control over who is following Gary Condit is Gary Condit. If Gary Condit would make a public statement, a lot of this would go away. And I'd like to address the point the person in the audience made about the standard, holding Congress to the standard. Tom Daschle, the leader of the Senate, the other day said Gary Condit only broke a vow. He didn't break a law.

Well, in my book a vow is much higher than a law, and he should be held to that standard.

(APPLAUSE)

ALLRED: I think he is going to be held accountable at the next election. That's what politics are all about. The poll just came out yesterday that showed that in his district with his own constituency, people are very critical of his personal conduct, are happy with his performance in office. They don't like the recent scandal and they don't like his personal conduct, and they're saying they won't reelect him,

Whether or not that is exactly what will happen in the next election is open to question. They don't want him to resign now. And as to why he won't give a news conference now, I don't think he wants to open the door. He doesn't want to answer one question. Then he's going to have to answer question two or three. I think he should open up, but I don't think he's going to in the near future.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: Let me say this. The question I would ask, then, is where do we stop? One of the persons that was attacking Bill Clinton more than anybody was Congressman Burton. As he was attacking Clinton, he forgot to say that he had had an adulterous affair and even had a child as a result. He said, oh, yeah, well, I didn't say -- that's not...

ZOLLER: Gary Condit was also a great criticizer of the president at that time.

KELLEY: That's right. And so was Congressman Hyde, who mentioned that he had an adulterous affair in his youth, which was in his late 40s...

(LAUGHTER)

KELLEY: So if you're going to start on this, we'll probably have two or three congressmen left.

BATTISTA: Well, let me ask you -- assuming that...

ALLRED: Hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is always a big issue.

BATTISTA: Well, assuming that we have some congressmen left to hold a quorum, here, Bob Barr, as you know, formally petitioned the House Ethics Committee today to conduct an investigation into the congressman's conduct. They deferred that investigation, so that won't be happening any time soon. Do you think that it should or will eventually happen? Lynn, what do you think?

ALLRED: That's an interesting issue. I was the one who filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Packwood, and as a result of my complaint they did open an investigation. We know that ultimately Senator Packwood resigned. But that was a different issue. That was an issue where the senator had been the subject of numerous complaints by his own employees, by staffers who allege that he committed acts of sexual misconduct against them. And it's certainly warranted an ethics investigation.

Here, it may or may not warrant an ethics investigation, but the Ethics Committee, apparently is going to defer that because they want to see what the police are going to do first, and what they are going to uncover. So, we'll have to see whether or not it's warranted in the future.

HARPER: Yeah, but the guy who doesn't have the sexual problems in Congress today is the rare one, male or female, so I don't know about all of this, because we are looking at a missing woman...

BATTISTA: Sorry about that, that's the bell.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: There's a reason for that bell. We've got to move on.

(CROSSTALK)

ZOLLER: ... we are holding people to such a low standard, we are saying everybody does it, we are saying that...

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Thank you, guys. I got to take a break.

(CROSSTALK) BATTISTA: I got to take a break. We got to move on. Let me do a couple of quick e-mails. Jose in Puerto Rico says: "If we put the blame of every missing person in this country on a Washington politician, maybe we will see less faces on milk cartons. It's amazing the man hours and resources allotted to this search."

And Eileen in Florida says: "I only want to hear more about the updates of the disappearance of Chandra Levy if there are new developments. No more scandals on Gary Condit. Stalking Gary Condit with cameras does not bring Chandra back."

OK. We are moving on. Yesterday -- if you were with us -- we talked about Jennifer Lopez using the "n" word in her new song. What a show we had yesterday, got pretty raucous. Well, now a new word is being banned in San Diego. It starts with M. See if you can guess what it is. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Welcome back to "free-for-all" Friday. All right.

The "m" word that we told you about earlier is probably not at all what you think. The San Diego city council has voted to stop using the term "minorities" to describe ethnic group. The council says it's negative, outdated and implies inferiority. Clifford, let me start with you first. How do you feel about that?

KELLEY: Well, I can understand that. I think it's a minor situation. I presume the reason for doing it, Bobbie, is the fact that we've gotten to a point where everyone is a minority, so why discuss it -- just identify each group. The latest census certainly suggests that.

Here in Chicago, for instance, where Caucasians are no longer a majority, when you consider African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, still if you are going to get a contract with the city of Chicago, the county of Cook, or the state of Illinois, there are MBE regulations, meaning minority business enterprise, so I can imagine why as the person who is not in the minority have to apply for a minority business enterprise, when other people who are in the minority don't have to.

So I think it's a confusion -- confusing issue, and probably they have a right idea. Just do away with, treat everybody alike, because the country is certainly leaning toward that. There is going to be -- we are going to be a country of minorities.

BATTISTA: Lynn, what kind of reaction has there been in San Diego?

(CROSSTALK)

HARPER: Well, you know, it started here in San Diego with one of our councilmen, and as a new minority myself, I have to tell you that minority means two things: it's either not in the majority, or else it was used as a negative to call people names, or a positive if you are a minority and you get something that the majority doesn't.

So, naturally, the minorities who are minorities say I want to be a minority so I can keep on getting those things coming at me. So, you see, there are a lot of political ramifications too. Bobbie, it's more important than -- than one would make it out to be. It really is.

ALLRED: Yeah. I think that word should still be used, and the reason is that minorities have -- have been historically, and in many ways still are, discriminated against. Discriminated against in employment, often discriminated...

BATTISTA: Gloria, I think we are losing our line there from Los Angeles. We will try to get that back up real quickly.

ZOLLER: You know, Bobbie, as far as minorities go though, I do think that it's important that the playing field be leveled and be fair, but I do agree with what people are saying. We are seeing it in the Atlanta area, we are seeing it around the country, well, what does it mean to be a minority? There is not a person or a group that is so far outnumbering the other, so what I think you have to look at there is opportunity, and that's where you have to create opportunity and make sure that the playing field is leveled.

HARPER: Well, if it's going to toward leveling the playing field to get rid of what minority means for some people, I am all for it, there is no doubt about it. Level the playing field, that's fair.

KELLEY: The other...

BATTISTA: Gloria -- let me get Gloria back. We lost her for a moment there -- I don't know, a sun flair or something going on, but she's back. OK, go ahead.

ALLRED: Yes, and I was going to say, you know, to say that we're not going to use the word minority is then perhaps to lead us down the path of suggesting that somehow minorities don't suffer discrimination anymore. So that we won't discuss it, because it will be considered there is no problem.

There is still a problem. I can tell you, I am filing racial discrimination cases and cases involving ethnic discrimination, as well as gender, all of the time. And so, I think we can't just close our eyes and hope there is no problem, and therefore not discuss it. We have to recognize that there still is and there still need to be remedies, and there still needs to be justice for minorities.

BATTISTA: Mickey in the audience, let me get a comment from you.

MICKEY: Yes, my feeling is that a minority, it's a descriptive word. It's something we need to use, and being a minority is not a bad thing. And we need to remember that. It's not negative. It's just a thing. It's descriptive.

BATTISTA: Why did we -- I wasn't aware that we had given it a negative connotation. Or any of you -- or well, it's certainly not derogatory or inferior.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: ... derogatory if people -- if people consider it to be the same as affirmative action. You know, when affirmative action came on the scene, yeah -- when affirmative action came on, that was supposed to be a sort of a reparation for people who have been mistreated in the past, but then they kept expanding it, and I think that's probably why the folks are saying we don't need the minority status.

For instance, in the affirmative action or minority business enterprises here in Chicago, white women are included in that. I don't think that white women -- yeah, women in general have certainly been discriminated against, there is no doubt about that, but when you are talking about age-old discrimination, the kind that Gloria is talking about -- and I agree with her, it still exists -- but whether white women are involved in that category, I question that.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: How many white women are heads of Fortune 500 companies? How many white women are corporate presidents? How many white women are allowed to advance to the top? We still have a problem of discrimination against white women, also against minority women, who suffer a double burden of discrimination, both race and gender.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLEY: ... exactly, that's my point.

HARPER: Women have problems, but it's not because they are minorities.

KELLEY: That's my point. They are not a minority.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: ... negative when you start saying my minority are worse than your minority. Let me take...

(CROSSTALK)

ZOLLER: The key here is opportunity. If the opportunities are equal -- if the opportunities are there and the law supports the opportunity, then we don't have these feelings. What creates these feelings behind these words are the fact there is injustice out there. If there's not injustice and the laws are there -- and you've got to fight for it. You've got to be out there and fight for it.

No one's going to walk to your door, knock on your door and say, here's your opportunity, you've got to go out there and get it.

(APPLAUSE)

HARPER: But once you lose the word minority, there's going to be another word that replaces it. That's going to be the problem. Once you say minority is not PC anymore, watch the new word that replaces it. I don't know what it is, but it'll be there.

BATTISTA: Let me go to Brian on the phone in Nevada. Brian, go ahead.

Brad, sorry.

BRAD: Yes, ma'am, it's Brad. I'm sorry.

BATTISTA: Brad, I'm sorry.

BRAD: It's Brad. Yeah, OK.

No, I want to ask a question: Somebody's always going to have to be in the minority, right? I mean, so you're going to have to label somebody something. If it's the whites that are in the minority, then they're going to have to be -- you're going to have to know who's the minority for such programs as affirmative action or whatever, because what I understand, it's the minority that gets these benefits, you know, other than color. So if the whites are the minority in Chicago or whatever that is, they will be the ones that get the benefits, won't they?

ALLRED: Not necessarily.

BRAD: And can I ask you...

ALLRED: Not necessarily...

BRAD: Can I ask this...

ALLRED: ... because it's about minorities who have been historically discriminated against and denied opportunities solely on the basis of their race or their ethnic origin. And affirmative action is not about reparations. Affirmative action is about opening up doors of equal employment opportunity so that people who are otherwise qualified will be able to walk through and get those jobs and not be denied those jobs based on a factor over which they have no control, like their race or their ethnic origin.

BATTISTA: Let me go to Franco in the audience.

FRANCO: I think the problem here is about labeling in itself. If you label anyone, whether minority, gender or any kind of ethnic group, it puts in a positive or negative point of view. I just -- just say get rid of labeling in general and call ourselves people. I mean, we're all people.

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

ZOLLER: ... over 100 years ago said a hyphenated American is only going to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) American. And that was over 100 years ago. We've been having this discussion about where to classify people since the beginning of time. This is not a new discussion, but it's something we've got to work toward.

ALLRED: We're all people, but we don't all enjoy equal protection under the law yet. And until we do enjoy equal protection under the law and have our rights enforced, we have to talk about those groups who still have a long, long way to go and how we can help them to get there.

BATTISTA: All right. A couple of...

ZOLLER: The law has to be enforced.

BATTISTA: All right. A couple of e-mails. Christine in Indiana: "If we don't use the word minority, then we will just use another word. People will get offended at that word and we'll have to find another. What we're aiming at is equality, and it doesn't matter what word we use to achieve that goal."

Ann in Virginia says: "Good news, San Diego. Face it: this country is becoming more and more multicultural. Now if the word 'handicapped' would go away."

We've got to take a break. Your check's in the mail, they're telling us. How will you spend your tax relief check? We'll be back in a minute.

The latest census showed that non-Hispanic whites make up 47 percent of the population of California. That is the first time whites did not make up the majority of the population.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Washington has been fond of telling taxpayers to send it in. As of today, Washington is getting some needed experience in sending it back.

(APPLAUSE)

This marks a long-awaited change and a very important promise, and we will stand by it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: OK, tax relief checks are going out today. Most will be between 300 and $600. The Bush administration says it'll be good for the economy if you spend it. So we're asking the audience if they're going to do their part.

Portia, what are you going to do with your money?

PORTIA: Do all my Christmas shopping.

BATTISTA: Christmas shopping: planning ahead.

Bill, what are you going to do? BILL: Fill up my gas tank.

BATTISTA: What have you got? A 747 or...

Larry, what are you going to do?

LARRY: I'm going to get my break fixed, but also, I make a suggestion for the people who don't like President Bush, to send the check back to him.

BATTISTA: Oh! And up to the top row here, Dolores, what are you going to do?

DOLORES: I'm going to redo my bathroom.

BATTISTA: Wow, OK. So it sounds like, you guys, that most of the audience is going to take their money and rush right out and spend it. Do you think that is going to help the economy?

Lynn...

(CROSSTALK)

HARPER: Well, you know, actually, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Bobbie, what I think is it's our money. Don't take it from us in the first place.

(APPLAUSE)

HARPER: Yes!

ALLRED: You know, Bobbie, I'm concerned that this is just a giant shell game and that the American people are going to end up being the losers, because, you know, these forecasts that somehow there will be a giant surplus and we wouldn't have to worry about it if the money were returned I think already are proving not to have been true.

For one thing, I am concerned that they're going to try to raid the Social Security trust fund, that they're going to try to raid Medicare to make up for this loss. And I don't think that's what the American people want.

Also, even the treasury secretary is reluctant to say, go out there and spend it. And the reason he's reluctant to say that is because, first of all, he doesn't think that even if they do spend it, it really is going to make a big difference in the economy.

ZOLLER: Well, Alan -- Alan Greenspan said last week...

ALLRED: And I don't think it is, and I think this is just an effort to score political points, frankly, for President-selected Bush. And I think in the long run it's going boomerang against him if he has -- if he tries to get his hands in the lockbox of Social Security.

ZOLLER: Well, I'll tell what you what, though: Alan Greenspan did say this week that toward the end of this year and the first part of next year that part of what will help is this Bush tax cut. And let me tell you something, too: This rebate was a Democratic idea. It was part of the compromise, it was part of President Bush saying, I'll compromise with you on this. It doesn't have to be across the board.

Senator Joe Lieberman introduced this initially, and he -- this is part of the compromise. The money will help this economy, and it's -- and you know what? I think it's elitist of many of us to talk about how 300 or $600 is not very much money. To most people in America, 300 to $600 is a lot of money.

(APPLAUSE)

ALLRED: It is a lot of money, and if they're going to end up -- that's true. It is a lot of money, but it's going to be a lot more money if the government has to tax more to make up for what they were...

ZOLLER: Then cut spending.

ALLRED: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at this point.

ZOLLER: Cut spending then. Cut spending.

KELLEY: You know, the interesting....

ZOLLER: You don't have to cut Social Security and Medicare, but you can cut discretionary spending...

KELLEY: There was never...

ZOLLER: My budget is not going up 8 percent this year. Why should the federal government's budget go up 8 percent?

(APPLAUSE)

BATTISTA: Let me get Clifford in here.

CLIFFORD: There was never -- yeah, thank you. Thank you. The ladies. There was never a surplus to begin with. Gloria is right. I think in this situation that we're going to end up with the deficit spending again, just the same thing that happened during the Reagan years. We've got to end up spending money.

The second thing on the appropriations bills, the money we pay for debt service. To pretend that we have a surplus is like saying I made a little bit money this year, I made more than I spent, so I'll pretend I don't have a mortgage.

ZOLLER: But again, you know...

KELLEY: If we would have paid down -- if we would have paid down on the debt, that would have been better off and then lower tax rates for next year.

ZOLLER: It certainly would have been better off. It would have been better off...

KELLEY: We'd had been a lot better off.

ZOLLER: ... and Alan...

KELLEY: That's right.

ZOLLER: ... Alan Greenspan said we should have paid off the debt.

KELLEY: There is no surplus.

ZOLLER: But you know what he also said, and I'm going to paraphrase here...

KELLEY: And plus -- let me just say this, too. Let me just say this...

ZOLLER: ... you can't keep your hands off the money, so you should give it back to the people who paid it.

ALLRED: You know, with all due respect to Alan Greenspan...

KELLEY: But, but...

(APPLAUSE)

ALLRED: ... he has -- he has been with the Federal Reserve Board making -- had six cuts now in interest rates, still hasn't jump started the economy, so maybe he's not the all-wise/all-knowing guru that you would like to give him credit for.

ZOLLER: He's been right.

ALLRED: You know, I am concerned about the future...

KELLEY: And the other interesting thing here...

ALLRED: Americans have to live within their budget...

KELLEY: The other...

ALLRED: ... and so should government.

ZOLLER: That's right.

BATTISTA: I've got -- let...

ZOLLER: The federal government should live within its budget. It is not doing that.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience here quickly. Bob and Jane are from Illinois. You guys, what are you going to do with the money?

JANE: We're going to pay our real estate taxes in September with it. BATTISTA: And I know what they're talking about. My sister lives in Chicago. She's complaining about the same thing. So it's in one way and out the other.

KELLEY: My I just say this, Bobbie, I'd like to say that the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that I thought was interesting was during the election itself, the polling showed that this was way down on the list of priorities for the electorate. They didn't care about a tax break, a tax cut. They weren't concerned about it. As long as the money was being spent wisely. And now we're going to have some problems with education, social services, Medicare. I think it's going to come back around and hurt us.

BATTISTA: Let me take...

HARPER: That's probably because we did not believe that were going to give us -- I didn't believe it until I got mine. I got mine Monday, and I did not believe it. In and out.

BATTISTA: Let me take Betty on the phone in Michigan. Betty, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: Hi.

CALLER: I just got the notice of the money I'm getting. I'm a retiree, 73 years old on pension and Social Security and I work part- time. I got $123 back. My son is a single father and his notification was $51. So, if everybody thinks they're going to get the 300, 500, 600, I think they're really mistaken. And I about decided that I'm going to send some of mine to the Democratic Party so they'll give me some prescription drug coverage that I don't have.

BATTISTA: All right. Bless your heart, Betty. You know what I think is really odd, is sending out -- one way they could certainly have saved money is why are they sending out all these letters telling you that you're getting a check? Just send the check.

HARPER: Oh, I agree with that. That was a waste of money.

BATTISTA: Total waste. It's a PR thing, don't you think?

HARPER: We had something like that in California, with our car licenses. Our illustrious governor decides that he's going to make us pay the whole thing and then he's going to send us a rebate. Cost: $22 million to the Californians. Giant PR game, shell game. Gloria, you're right.

ZOLLER: One final comment though about the budget and about things that are spent. You know, I understand that health care and those kinds of things go up higher than the rate of inflation, and that happens and that has to be taken care of. But the rest of the budget does not go up higher than the rate of the inflation, and it shouldn't. And we've had 1, 2 percent -- at most, 3 percent inflation for the last seven or eight years, and we have added 6, 7, 8 -- sometimes 10 percent on top of the federal budget. It was fiscally irresponsible. Both Republicans and Democrats have been irresponsible in spending and money. And we have to say, enough is enough. And it comes not only from tax cuts, but from tax reform. This system does not work.

(CROSSTALK)

(APPLAUSE)

ALLRED: The tax reform means giving significantly more to the rich, and just giving crumbs to the poor, that's not...

KELLEY: You need tax reform, because that's extremely important.

ZOLLER: I'm talking real reform.

BATTISTA: Real reform. All right. Katie, what's going on? What's going on in the chat room, Katie?

KATIE: We have college books, home improvement and the stock market.

(LAUGHTER)

BATTISTA: OK. Well, Alan Greenspan will be glad to hear that. Keith in Indiana: "Most people will be getting back very little or nothing at all. I am one of those poor folk who won't be getting anything, and I need it more than people who make big salaries who are getting money back."

Let's let that just be the last thing.

(BELL RINGING)

BATTISTA: There it is. I knew that I was close. We'll check the on-line viewer vote right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Let's check the online viewer vote. The question was: What will do you with your tax relief check? And 32 percent are saying they're going to blow it, 61 percent are saying they're going to bank it and 7 percent are saying leave it in Greenspan's hands.

Chris in Waldorf, Maryland says: "I'm sending in my tax refund to the campaign against AIDS in Africa.

And Maggie in Maine says: "Does anyone know if the tax rebate is going to be taken into account on this year's filing?"

You mean as income. Is it possible we will end up giving it back come April 14, 2002? Good point, though. Is it considered income, and it's going to get taxed again? ZOLLER: No.

BATTISTA: No? It isn't.

ZOLLER: It's not.

BATTISTA: OK.

KELLEY: You know, one thing that was in the journal the other day is the fact that if you call the Internal Revenue Service you will get as many different answers to a question as people you call.

ZOLLER: That's true.

KELLEY: And that's very unfortunate. And of course, as the ladies mentioned, and I totally agree, when you've got thousands of pages of a tax code all of that -- no one understands it, including some of the CPAs and the tax attorneys that are given jobs as a result. We need to reform the tax code.

HARPER: That's been happening for years and years.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLRED: ... on state income taxes.

HARPER: You'll never get the same answer twice, never. And that's the biggest problem. Rather than talking about a rebate, why in the world can't we get the IRS to get their act together? Five different guys, five different answers. We tried that many times.

KELLEY: Yep.

BATTISTA: We are all in agreement on that.

HARPER: And they have an impact on the state, because if people have deducted what they paid to the federal government, they're getting it back...

ZOLLER: Gloria's right. There are nine states where it's potentially taxable. Georgia's not one of them.

BATTISTA: All right, you guys, we're out of time. Thank you all so much. Gloria Allred, Lynn Harper, Cliff Kelley and Martha Zoller, thank you very much. We will see you again on Monday. We thank our studio audience and our Internet guests and all of you for joining us. We'll be back at 3:00 p.m. Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE. See you then. Have a good weekend.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   




MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 














Back to the top