This is a story that makes me stop and wonder if there’s someone out there who knows more.

Since we started reporting on electrocutions occurring on U.S. bases in Baghdad, we’ve heard from people all over the country.

 Some people e-mailed us to express their anger and sadness at the senselessness of 18 servicemen being electrocuted.  Pentagon officials tell CNN those deaths are mostly attributed to faulty wiring and the improper grounding of electrical devices.

But we’ve also received e-mails from members of the military, and even from contractors who have performed electrical work in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those are the e-mails that particularly interest for me.  My producer and I have contacted many of these people.  They seem to either have information about KBR (the Houston-based contractor in charge of maintenance, logistics and services for most U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan), or they know about other incidents involving electrical shocks on U.S. bases.

As a reporter, I would love for them to share their story.  But most of the people we talk to say although they would like to help expose the problems, they cannot say more.  Many of the current military members say they fear getting in trouble for speaking up.

Why do these people feel the need to uphold some sort of unspoken code of silence?  Why not speak up and tell the world what you know, especially if it could prevent another death?  I wonder what would happen if more of our troops started talking – I guarantee people would listen.  I know I would.

“We cannot confirm or deny.”

That is the phrase reporters are used to hearing from the typically tight-lipped FBI public information officer.  Not this time.

In this case, three active FBI agents were given special clearance to speak publicly about the day in 2004 that a flash bang grenade went off while they were on assignment during a hostage stakeout. They say it could easily have killed one of them.

The three agents say they were sitting in their car, when the grenade went off without warning.  All three agents say they suffer hearing loss, and the agent closest sustained other injuries, due to the unexpected explosion.

A flash bang grenade is considered a non-lethal weapon.  When one is deployed, it emits a bright flash and a deafening bang, often used to shock and disorient the enemy.  Flash bangs are widely used in the military, as well as by FBI. agents, and local law enforcement officers.

Pyrotechnic Specialties Inc. or P.S.I, of Byron, Georgia,  is the company that manufactured the flash bangs in question.  Earlier this year, a federal indictment against PSI alleged the company knew its flash bangs were defective, and even knew how to fix the problem, which would cost the company just $3.72 per grenade. But federal investigators say the company chose not to fix problem, and instead relabeled the faulty devices, and then sold them to local law enforcement agencies and to the FBI.  One of them ended up in the hands of the three FBI agents I interviewed.

The criminal trial against the company is set for January 2009, and there are several civil cases still in the discovery phase.  P.S.I, its CEO and other defendants in this case all pleaded not guilty, saying the charges against them are vague and/or confusing.

The one thing the agents expressed to me time and again was the shock and disappointment they felt that an American company could knowingly sell a defective product to its own servicemen and women.

One agent said, “We expect risks to come from the bad guys – The people who we try to protect the American people from.  For those risks to come from an American company is just unconscionable for me.  It’s infuriating.”  Whether PSI is at fault is at the heart of each of these lawsuits.

But looking at the bigger picture, how common is it for American companies to cut corners on safety to save a few bucks? How thorough are regulations and oversight?   When you see the “made in the U.S.A.” label, what does that mean to you?

In addition, we are interested in knowing of other cases where people have been injured by a flash bang either here or abroad.

"I don't take a dime from Washington lobbyists, and special interests. They do not run my campaign. They will not run my White House - and they will not drown out the voice of The American people." 
  - President-elect Barack Obama

President-elect Barack Obama made it very clear on the campaign trail that he wanted to lessen the power and influence that some lobbyists have in Washington D.C. 

Even many lobbyists will tell you that the Jack Abramoffs of the industry need to be curtailed, and there needs to be more transparency among both lobbyists and lawmakers.

But what is so wrong with being a lobbyist?  Why have they been vilified to the point where you simply hear the word “lobbyist,” and you think about secret, backdoor dealings, between large, powerful special interests and their smarmy, money-hungry lobbyists, and your so-called trusted member of Congress?

Maybe that really is how Washington works – it’s about whom you know, and a person’s access to powerful decision-makers.  But there are other lobbyists as well, not just your stereotypical corporate lobbyist that both Sen. John McCain and President-elect Obama seemed to zero in on during many of their campaign speeches. 

I interviewed Professor Chai Feldman from Georgetown University’s law school.  She teaches a course about becoming a lobbyist.  She told me that the new administration will never push powerful lobbyists out of D.C.  In fact, she reminded me that lobbyists are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution – the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  But she does feel there will be a shift in thinking, after the inauguration on January 20, 2009.  She says corporate lobbyists will soon share the stage with other, traditionally less influential, grassroots groups.

My question to you is do you feel that President-elect Obama really can change the way Washington has worked for so long?  Do you think implementing stricter rules and more regulations on lobbyists will make any real difference?  Do you think the voice of the people will be heard?

I recently interviewed Jordan Belfort for our special report on the lifestyles of some of the fat cats on . Wall Street. Belfort  used to call himself “The Wolf of Wall Street,” just like the title of his autobiographical book published in 2007.

He says in the 1990s he was making around $1 million a week. He lived what he called “The Life,” – He had his own helicopter, a yacht, dozens of servants, and a mansion in the Hamptons. But it was all based on fraud. He spent 22 months in prison, charged with money laundering and securities fraud. Today, he still owes victims more than $100 million in restitution.

But what I found most interesting about Belfort was the way he identified with movie and television characters.

I would have never remembered the original “Wolf of Wall Street,” had Belfort not told me. Thurston Howell III from “Gilligan’s Island” was actually called the “old Wolf of Wall Street,” in the popular television series that was about a group of people who were stranded on a deserted island. Thurston Howell III was a wealthy businessman. Belfort, too, called himself by the same name, and it stuck.

Then came the movie “Wall Street,” directed by Oliver Stone in 1987. Belfort said he considered the lead character Gordon Gekko his hero. Gekko, played by Michael Douglas, was a Wall Streeter who coined the infamous phrase, “Greed is good.” Belfort couldn’t have agreed more with those three simple words, and it became the motto he lived by.

Belfort said he lives his life as if he were a character in a movie. Even in private, he said he plays the roles of characters in front of what he called “an invisible audience.”

He emulated characters like the one Richard Gere played in “Pretty Woman.” He bought the same white Testarossa that Don Johnson’s character, Sonny Crocket, tooled around in on “Miami Vice.” And now, after he lived “The Life,” and ultimately paid the price, he said he’s cast himself in a much different role. The one Tom Cruise played in the movie "Jerry McGuire"–a sports agent redeemed after a career collapse.

I think it’s interesting to think of living life in terms of pop culture. When I was talking to Belfort after the interview he asked me if I’ve modeled my life after Michelle Pfeiffer’s character in “Up Close and Personal.” Pfeiffer’s character, Tally Atwater, was a young and ambitious reporter, who had dreams of making it big. I kind of laughed and shrugged it off, but really, I remember watching that movie a long time ago, and thought, “If only I were lucky enough to do a live shot from trapped inside a maximum security prison in the middle of a riot! My career would be set!”

So, here’s my question:

During this unpredictable time, maybe we should ask ourselves what characters are we trying to portray? How does our role-playing affect our future? And in a perfect world, who should we be emulating?

What is “gotcha” journalism?

I keep hearing this term used on the campaign trail, and I wonder what people mean by it. As a journalist I believe my job is to ask tough questions. But apparently, if they are too tough, or the person just doesn’t know the answer, or the answer is the wrong answer, the person can claim a case of “gotcha” journalism. I guess once someone claims the reporter was out to “getcha” then the focus becomes the horrible, unethical, and mud-slinging reporter, and not the candidate.
The “gotcha” excuse was used recently when I asked Gov. Sarah Palin’s spokesperson, Meg Stapleton why the governor only seems to talk about the one bridge to nowhere that she killed, when there are two bridges to nowhere, and Palin supports the second bridge being built.

Here is the exchange:

Boudreau: “When Gov. Palin is talking about the bridge to nowhere, we are thinking, she killed that bridge. But everyone locally is telling us there has always been two bridges. I mean, it’s always been referred to as the two bridges to nowhere here.”

Stapleton: “I think the media coined the bridge to nowhere.”

Boudreau: “Congress coined it.”

Stapleton: “No, the media coined the whole bridge to nowhere, and the whole focus on the bridge, has been the Gravina Island Bridge.”

Before we get to the alleged “gotcha” moment, let me give you a few details about these two bridges.

One was the Gravina Island Bridge that would connect residents in Ketchikan, to their neighboring island, where the airport is located.

The other bridge, would connect Anchorage, to Point MacKenzie, population 269, an outlying community of Wasilla, the governor’s home town.

Both of these bridges were coined “bridges to nowhere” during Congressional debates after a public outcry that the bridges symbolized wasteful government spending.

Gov. Palin killed the planned Ketchikan bridge. And she has been very vocal about how she redirected the funding for that bridge, claiming she told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

But Gov. Palin seems to have left out the fact that she continues to support the other bridge. I asked Meg Stapleton why the Governor chose to leave that little detail out of her stump speech. Here is Stapleton’s response:

Stapleton: “The national media may just be learning about it, but she has said this. The national media has focused on one [bridge] because it was perhaps the easiest one to talk about.

Boudreau: “It’s the one she continues to talk about.”

Stapleton: “It’s the one that Ketchikan residents have brought up because they felt it was sorta a gotcha moment.”

Aha. The “gotcha” moment. So here’s my question: Where is the line between a tough, but fair question, and “gotcha” journalism? And, have journalists crossed the line in questioning Gov. Palin and her record?

She said, “thanks, but no thanks,” to a “Bridge to Nowhere,” so, why didn’t Gov. Sarah Palin say, “thanks, but no thanks,” to a $26 million “Road to Nowhere?”

Here’s some background: At one point, there was supposed to be a bridge that would make it easier for people who live or visit Ketchikan, Alaska to get to nearby Gravina Island, where the airport sits. The bridge was never built, after it was publicly ridiculed by Congress as being a waste of taxpayer money.But the road that was designed to connect from the bridge to the airport was built. Now, many locals coined it the “Road to Nowhere.” And guess who paid for it? You! 

But what’s really interesting is the response we received from the McCain – Palin camp about this road.  I interviewed Meg Stapleton, a spokesperson for the campaign. Here is part of that interview:

 
Boudreau: “It’s hard to imagine that the governor wouldn't think that this was a waste of money – taxpayer money.”

Stapleton: “The governor could not change that earmark. That earmark was given, was dictated to us, and it had to be spent on Gravina Road – and nothing else. So, the governor had no option.”
Boudreau: “Could she [Palin] have stopped construction?”

Stapleton: “Uh, my understanding is that, you know, I'd have to look in to that for you. I don't know.”

 
In this interview, Stapleton told me there was nothing the governor could do in this case. She went on to try to explain who would be to blame for this road that leads absolutely nowhere. Here’s what she said:

 
Stapleton:  “She had no opportunity to evaluate this. The contracts were already signed and she was told she had no option but to use this money for Gravina Road.”

Boudreau:  “Who told her that?”

Stapleton:  “The state D.O.T officials.”

Boudreau:  “Wow. I would have thought the governor could trump the D.O.T.”

Stapleton:  “Well, they're interpreting. Ultimately, it's the federal government, you’re dealing with federal earmark dollars. So, ultimately it's the federal government.”

About two hours after our on-camera interview, I received an email from Meg Stapleton that further explains Palin’s position. Here are a couple of excerpts from that email:

Gravina Road

• Unlike the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Governor could not cancel this road project. While Congress released the earmark for the bridge, the road was still earmarked by Washington, DC.
• It would have literally taken an act of Congress to redirect the funds away from the road project.   Even that extraordinary step would have come too late as a contract had already been signed by the previous Governor.

• To stop construction on the road would have meant for the State to pay back costs incurred by the Contractor as well as a portion of future profits.

• Bottom line: Under ordinary circumstances, Governor Palin would not have allowed the Gravina Road to move forward with the same timeline. Given the directed earmark and the signed contract, the Governor was left no viable alternative.

 
Here’s my question: Why is the federal earmark system set up in a way that it would prevent a governor from re-directing earmark money when the project doesn’t make any sense? And in this case, do you think Gov. Palin could have done more to stop this project from getting started?

To tell you the truth, when CNN assigned me to work on this documentary, I was a little surprised. Don't get me wrong – I looked forward to the challenge, but I am not at heart a political reporter. I do not live and breathe politics.

Of course, I am interested in the issues that affect all of us, but I am more interested in learning how a politician's personal life has shaped his or her political views. And as an investigative reporter, I am especially interested in holding elected officials accountable when they abuse their power.

During the past couple of weeks, Governor Sarah Palin seems to have stolen the media spotlight. Maybe for good reason – people want to know who she is and what makes her tick. That's why when I told a couple of people about my new assignment to cover Sen. Joe Biden, they seemed a little disappointed. They really thought the more exciting documentary would be that of Gov. Sarah Palin. But when I asked them what they knew about Biden, they really didn't know much, except that he's been around for a long time, and he's known for his foreign policy experience.

That brief conversation, made me realize how important it was to show people who Biden is – his ups, his downs, his successes and failures. He is a six-term senator. You probably recognize his face – that smile, but what else do you know about Joe Biden, the possible future vice-president of the United States of America?

This documentary will reveal Biden's dramatic life story. You'll hear him talk about, for example, his two life-threatening aneurysms and what he told he sons before surgery. I promise you will learn things you don't know about this scrappy, outspoken senator from Delaware. Of course, there is no way to cover everything there is to know about Joe Biden in one hour. So check out the political page that breaks down the accomplishments and histories of both vice presidential candidates.

I'd love to get your feedback on the documentary. Remember this is a forum for your opinions, ideas and debate.

The eeriness was chilling.

I heard rats scamper above me in this abandoned house.  A mattress on the floor.  Signs of life, but not tonight.

A dedicated homeless advocate named Mike Miller took us on a tour of some of the thousands of abandoned homes used by the homeless in New Orleans.  Early Sunday morning, Miller went from one rickety building to the next, looking for stragglers who may be riding out the storm or who don't know about the mandatory evacuation.

Inside one of the abandoned homes

Miller works for Unity of Greater New Orleans, a non-profit group that helps the homeless find housing.  When we were here in May dozens of people still lived under the freeway in tents, a stark reminder that the memories of Hurricane Katrina were still vivid.  In the darkness of the underpass, only one man remained, sprawled on the cement and seemingly oblivious to the impending hurricane.  He told us he planned to leave, but Miller says many of the homeless in this city won't heed the warnings to get out.

"I've been looking for you," Miller said to one man in a park.

He managed to take at least one man to a bus station where he would get a free ticket out of New Orleans.

It would be just a temporary escape. This is their home, Miller told us, and they will be back.

Soon it would be time for Miller, his wife and baby to leave too.  He will return another day to help the invisible people of New Orleans.

(SIU Producer Scott Zamost contributed to this report).

You can lose a lot of money in a Ponzi scheme. And the international scheme investigators and plaintiffs say was concocted by a graduate of the University of Miami is no exception.  Investigators say investors may have been bilked out of more than $30 million.

According to the FBI’s definition, a Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud where the bad guy promises high financial returns that are not available through traditional investments.  The scheme generally falls apart when there are not enough new investors to keep the money rolling in.  This type of fraud was named after Charles Ponzi of Boston, Mass., who offered his investors a guaranteed 50 percent return on their investment in postal coupons – of course, the scheme fell apart in the end, and the investors lost fortunes. 
 
Authorities say there tend to be more Ponzi schemes in a poor economy where desperate people seem to fall for pitches on easy ways to make quick cash.
 
But universities are filled with smart people.  They wouldn't fall for one of the oldest tricks in the book, would they?
 
Investigators and some of the alleged victims say that's exactly what happened:  The accused perpetrator was allegedly allowed to use a university conference room for investor meetings and UM computers to track all the money.  University employees say they chose to invest, lured by promised returns, in some cases, of 18%.

The university says it's aware of the investigation into the alleged scheme, and that "a few current or former employees" invested.

“University funds are not involved,” UM spokeswoman Margot Winick told CNN. “The university will cooperate fully with the investigation.”

When CNN found out about this alleged Ponzi, we set up an interview with a current university employee who says she lost a substantial amount of money, and who said she would tell us what she knew.
 
We actually drove to her Miami home to interview her on camera.  We showed up on time, knocked on her door, but there was no answer.  I called her to let her know we had arrived, and that’s when she told us that the university media relations spokesperson advised her not to talk to CNN.  I was surprised, considering it was her own money that was lost, not the university’s money.  So, why were they stopping her from sharing her story?  She told us she was concerned she could lose her job if she told us everything she knew, so, at the last minute, she understandably backed out.
 
It got us wondering: is there more to the story?
 
We're going to keep digging.  Meanwhile, tonight you'll get to see what we've learned so far.